A Study of Birnbaum’s Theory of the Relationship Between the … · 2018-12-18 · A research...

A Study of Birnbaum’s Theory of the Relationship Between the Constructs of Leadership and Organization as

Depicted in His Higher Education Models of Organizational Functioning: A Contextual Leadership Paradigm for Higher Education

By Pamela A. Douglas

B.A. in English, May 1973, The Catholic University of America M.A. in Educational Supervision and Administration, August 1978, Wayne State

University

A Dissertation Submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development

of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Education

January 31, 2013

Dissertation directed by

Phyllis Higgins Director of Academic & Student Services

The George Washington University Hampton Roads Center

ii

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of the George Washington

University certifies that Pamela A. Douglas has passed the Final Examination for the

degree of Doctor of Education as of October 18, 2012. This is the final and approved

form of the dissertation.



Pamela A. Douglas

Dissertation Research Committee

Phyllis Higgins, Director of Academic & Student Services, Dissertation Director

Sharon A. Dannels, Associate Professor of Educational Research, Committee Member Hilda M. Williamson, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, School of Nursing, Hampton University, Committee Member

iii

Dedication

This study is dedicated to my parents, Lea and Nick, who always believed in the

value of exploring, questioning, and learning, which they in turn learned from their

parents who ventured on to an unknown future through Ellis Island. Throughout their

young lives I am equally proud that my children Chris, Blake, Sean, and grandchildren

Abi, Nicky, Gwen, and Jackie have also exhibited these same values. Through their eyes

I am continually renewed and positioned to move forward. I am also indebted to my

husband Paul who has always encouraged me not to give up and to my daughter-in-law

Miranda and son Blake who contributed countless hours proof reading this document and

who also stood by and encouraged me until the very end. Ultimately, it is the love,

confidence, and support of family that made the completion of this study possible.

iv

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to Phyllis Higgins who took over as my committee chair,

during the course of the study, and who also allowed me to modify her instrument in

order to conduct my research. Her contributions of support and feedback were

invaluable. I consider Phyllis as a friend as well as an advisor. I am also deeply grateful

to Sharon Dannels who not only helped me with instrument development and served as

the principle investigator of this study, but who also had the patience to teach me to read,

speak, and think critically through the language of statistics. Her simple question

“Why?” continued to drive me on to other questions. She also never discouraged me

from my attempts to develop an instrument. As a result, Sharon taught me a lifelong

lesson of tenacity and resiliency that I hope to pass along to others. The feedback from

my other committee members Hilda, Doris, and Greg was also instrumental in the

preparation of a more scholarly work. I would also like to thank Greg Logan who

encouraged me to reapply to the program after a lengthy illness. To all of my friends and

family who were continually brave enough to ask how my study was progressing, I also

give thanks for speaking an encouraging word so that I would not let them down. Finally,

this process of inquiry began in a graduate class with Professor Beagle who encouraged

me to continue to explore how leaders operate in an “invisible world of shared

governance” and who also inspired all of his students to question assumptions.

v

Abstract of the Dissertation



This quantitative, nonexperimental study used survey research design and

nonparametric statistics to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that there is a

relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted in his five

higher education models of organizational functioning: bureaucratic, collegial, political,

anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models). Four of Birnbaum’s

models (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical) can exist alone or

simultaneously in the same organization, although their presence may vary at any given

time. The cybernetic model (an integration of two or more of the four models) represents

a loosely coupled, open system. Birnbaum’s theory of models of organizational

functioning integrates organization theory with a cognitive and systems approach to

leadership.

A research instrument was developed to gather data to test Birnbaum’s theory, as

no empirical evidence existed to confirm or reject his theory. The Models of Leadership

and Organization survey was used for the purpose of this study to gather faculty

perceptions of the model of leadership of deans and the model of organization of the

educational unit led. The conceptual framework used, as a lens to view leadership within

the context of the characteristics of the higher education organization, is the contextual

leadership paradigm, not commonly used to study college and university leadership.

vi

Study findings contribute to the body of knowledge of higher education

leadership through confirmation of the existence of Birnbaum’s cybernetic model of

leadership and organization (an integration of two or more models of leadership or

organization). Findings revealed that the majority of respondents perceived the model of

leadership of a dean as cybernetic (an integration of two or more models of leadership).

The majority of respondents also perceived the model of organization of the educational

unit led by a dean as cybernetic (an integration of two or more models of organization).

Of the total number of respondents who perceived the cybernetic model of organization,

the majority also perceived the cybernetic model of leadership when describing the

leadership behavior of a dean.

Results of the chi-square test of independence revealed a significant relationship

between cybernetic models of leadership and cybernetic models of organization. The

finding that the majority of respondents perceived the cybernetic model of leadership

when describing a dean and the cybernetic model of organization when describing the

educational unit led answers the primary research question of this study: Is there a

relationship between faculty perceptions of the model of leadership of deans and the

model of organization of the educational unit led, as theorized by Birnbaum? Findings

support Birnbaum’s conjecture that no single model of leadership or organization can

adequately describe the complexity of college and university leadership and the higher

education organization.

vii

Table of Contents Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Abstract of the Dissertation ................................................................................................ v List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter I: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2 Purpose and Research Questions .................................................................................... 4 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 5 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 10 Models of organizational functioning. .......................................................................... 11 Summary of Methodology ............................................................................................ 14 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 15 Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 16 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 16

Chapter II: Review of Literature ....................................................................................... 18 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 19 A Historical Perspective of American Higher Education Institutions .......................... 20 Characteristics of the Higher Education Organization ................................................. 23

Diversity .................................................................................................................... 24 Patterns of structure .................................................................................................. 25 The university as a cybernetic system ...................................................................... 27

Typologies of Organizations ......................................................................................... 28 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 29

Models of organizational functioning ....................................................................... 29 Tri-governance structure ........................................................................................... 33

Leadership ..................................................................................................................... 34 Governance ............................................................................................................... 35 Professional and administrative authority ................................................................. 36 Academic freedom and autonomy ............................................................................ 38

Leadership Theories ...................................................................................................... 39 Trait theories ............................................................................................................. 40 Power and influence theories .................................................................................... 41

Social power theories ............................................................................................ 41 Social exchange theories ....................................................................................... 42

Transactional and transformational theories ............................................................. 42 Behavioral theories ................................................................................................... 44 Contingency theories ................................................................................................ 44 Cultural and symbolic theories ................................................................................. 44 Cognitive theories ..................................................................................................... 45

Literature of Practice ..................................................................................................... 46 Leadership Research ..................................................................................................... 46

viii

Robert Birnbaum ....................................................................................................... 46 Estela Bensimon ........................................................................................................ 56

Organization Research .................................................................................................. 59 Phyllis Higgins .......................................................................................................... 59 Wayne Jones ............................................................................................................. 63 Hilda Williamson ...................................................................................................... 66 Martha Hall ............................................................................................................... 69

Summary of the Chapter ............................................................................................... 73

Chapter III: Methodology ................................................................................................. 74 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 74 Paradigm of Inquiry ...................................................................................................... 75 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 75 Operationalization of Theoretical Constructs ............................................................... 76 Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................ 76 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 77 Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 78 Population ..................................................................................................................... 78 Sampling Frame ............................................................................................................ 79 Sampling Strategy ......................................................................................................... 80 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 82

Instrument development ............................................................................................ 82 Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................................ 91 Data Preparation and Handling ..................................................................................... 95

Data cleaning ............................................................................................................ 95 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 96 Data Reduction .............................................................................................................. 97 Model Assignment ........................................................................................................ 99

Chapter IV: Results ......................................................................................................... 103 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 103 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 104 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 105 Results ......................................................................................................................... 109

Research Question # 2 - What is the Distribution of the Models of Leadership of Deans? ..................................................................................................................... 109 Research Question # 3 - What is the Distribution of the Models of Organization of the Educational Unit Led? ...................................................................................... 110 Research Question # 1 – Is There a Relationship Between Faculty Perceptions of the Model of Leadership of Deans and the Model of Organization of the Educational Unit Led? ................................................................................................................ 111 Demographic Data and One Open-Ended Question ............................................... 114

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 119 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 119 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 119 Conclusion and Discussion of Results ........................................................................ 120 Comparison of Results to Comparable Studies .......................................................... 121

ix

Contextual Leadership Paradigm for Higher Education ............................................. 127 Instrumentation: Political Model of Organization ...................................................... 130

Demographics ......................................................................................................... 131 Sample size and sensitivity of the instrument ......................................................... 132 Modifications made to the political model of organization items .......................... 132

Recommendations for Further Research ..................................................................... 133 Further instrument development is required ........................................................... 133 Comparison study samples are needed ................................................................... 133 Studies of the implication of formal and informal subsystems on governance structures are needed ............................................................................................... 134

Recommendations for the Application of Study Findings .......................................... 134 Cybernetic models of leadership and organization should be the focus of leadership development initiatives ........................................................................................... 134

References ....................................................................................................................... 137

Appendix A: Models of Leadership and Organization Instrument ................................. 155 Appendix B: E-Mail to invite participant ....................................................................... 162 Appendix C: Five follow-up E-Mail contacts ................................................................. 164 Appendix D: Edits to MLO section 2 ............................................................................. 169 Appendix E: Methodology Time Line ............................................................................ 171

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. A visual depiction of Birnbaum’s models of organizational functioning.. ....... 12 Figure 2. The diffused shared governance process in the higher education tri-

governance structure of constituents. ........................................................................ 13 Figure 3. Points represent percentages of student enrollment for Carnegie classified

master’s degree granting programs (S, M, and L) and the study sample. ............... 116 Figure 4. Professional status ........................................................................................... 117 Figure 5. Frequency scores. ............................................................................................ 124

xi

List of Tables

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha Scores for Pretests 1, 2, and 3 ............................................... 87 Table 2. Leadership and Organization Survey Items ........................................................ 88 Table 3. Leadership and Organization Survey Model Items ............................................ 91 Table 4. Comparison of Three Pretests with Study Cronbach’s Alpha Scores ................ 97 Table 5. Descriptive Model Group Values for Model Determination .............................. 99 Table 6. Descriptive Scores for Models of Leadership and Organization ...................... 107 Table 7. Cronbach’s Alpha Scores for Study and Pretests ............................................. 108 Table 8. Distribution of Standardized Residual Scores for Leadership Models ............. 110 Table 9. Distribution of Standardized Residual Scores for Organization Models .......... 111 Table 10. Distribution of Observations in Three Categories of Leadership and

Organization ............................................................................................................ 112 Table 11. Cross-Tabulation between Models of Leadership and Organization .............. 113 Table 12. Data Comparison for Department Assignment ............................................... 115 Table 13. Number of Years in Current Position ............................................................. 118 Table 14. Models of Organization Frequency Scores for Current and Prior Studies ..... 122 Table 15 Statistical Test Results for Five Studies .......................................................... 125

1

Chapter I

Introduction

Overview

Since the founding of the first colonial college by the Massachusetts Bay Colony

over 375 years ago, American institutions of higher education remain unique among

organizations. While early colleges and universities shared many of the same

characteristics, each institution reflected its own culture through an ever-evolving set of

norms, values, and traditions that were influenced by and reflected in the patterns of

interaction between members. Further, institutional knowledge was transmitted to

members of the academy through an established set of expectations that required

conformity to the culture of that particular institution. Ultimately, the culture and

governance structure of each institution influenced how college and university leadership

functioned. As a result, the diversity of and differentiation between higher education

institutions have established them as unique among organizations (Balderston, 1995;

Bensimon, 1990b; Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989; Berdahl, 1991; Berquist,

1992; Birnbaum, 1988, 1989a, 1989c, 1992a; Bolman & Deal, 1991, 1992, 1997; Bowen,

1977; Boyer, 1987; Brubacher, 1990; Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Chaffee, 1987; Clark,

1963; Cohen & March, 1986; Collins, 2005; Corson, 1975; Dill, 1982; Etzioni, 1964;

Gumport, 2000; Kerr & Gade, 1986; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; March & Olsen, 1979;

Masland, 1985; Millett, 1962; Peterson & Spencer, 1991; Pfeffer, 1977; Rudolph, 1990;

Schein, 1992; Solomon & Solomon, 1993; Tierney, 1985, 1991; Weick, 1976).

Over time, colleges and universities have refined or redefined their mission and

goals. The Carnegie Foundation Classification of Institutions of Higher Education™ and

2

the National Center provide demographic data for American colleges and universities for

Education Statistics. While these databases provide objective institutional profiles (e.g.,

student enrollment size or professional degrees held by faculty) a comprehensive

investigation of the higher education organization requires that the normative, contextual

characteristics (e.g., culture and shared governance) that describe these institutions are

also considered. The use of business and industry efficiency standards, based on

conventional input-output, profit-driven metrics, has limited application to a knowledge-

driven organization with a professional core (faculty) that embraces the culture implicit in

a shared, governance process.

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of organizational functioning factors into

consideration the distinguishing characteristics of higher education institutions while

describing how college and university leadership functions. His theory integrates

cultural, social cognitive and human relations theories with a structural and an open

systems approach to provide higher education scholars and practitioners with an

understanding of how college and university leadership and governance functions (Kezar

& Eckel, 2004). Kezar and Eckel (2004) conclude that Birnbaum’s open systems,

cybernetic model (an integration of two or more models) is particularly relevant to

studies of leadership within the context of complex, contemporary higher education

organizations.

Statement of the Problem

The characteristics of higher education institutions position them as unique among

organizations. As such, college and university leaders continually face challenges

associated with higher education: the need to respond at a quicker rate to societal

3

demands to better prepare students for a global workplace, newly created methodologies

and venues (technology) that will result in prioritization of limited resources to support

these initiatives, as well as increased competition from online and for-profit institutions

for an increasingly limited market share of traditional students. College and university

leaders also face challenges associated with sharing the governance of an institution with

constituents (faculty, administration, and trustees) and with addressing the concerns of

external stakeholders (e.g., alumni, donors, and community leaders). The problem facing

college and education leaders is that although the cultural context of the higher education

organization has changed, the higher education management paradigm has not (Hoffman

& Summers, 2000).

Traditional leadership literature defines a leader as one who influences followers,

articulates clearly defined goals and objectives, acts symbolically by attending to the

norms and values of an institution, transforms an organization, acts fiscally responsible,

or collaborates with coalitions and special interest groups. Traditional organizational

literature also tends to generalize descriptions of institutional structure on a continuum of

either a hierarchical, bureaucratic, closed system or a loosely coupled, anarchical, open

system. The implication in the literature of practice is that any and all leadership

behaviors can be applied to any and all organizations, at any given time. However,

Birnbaum (1988) confronts this notion and instead asserts that college and university

leadership must be examined within the context of the higher education organization.

The higher education organization is distinctive from other organizations because

it is an “‘institution’ in the sociological use of the term” (Kezar & Eckel, 2004, p. 395).

Kezar and Eckel (2004) describe the distinguishing characteristics of colleges and

4

universities as: (a) serving long-standing missions, (b) representing close ties to ongoing

societal needs, and (c) reflecting the norms and socialization processes of institutional

members. Colleges and universities have also been described by scholars as ambiguous,

loosely coupled, open systems with problematic goals and unclear mechanisms that

define how work is conducted by members who move in and out of the decision-making

process, as distinguished from a rationale, business model (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, &

Riley, 1978; Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989; Birnbaum, 1988, 1992a; Cohen &

March, 1986; Etzioni, 1964; Weick, 1976, 1979).

As such, college and university leaders are faced with challenges associated with

a shared governance process. Birnbaum (1988) identifies governance as the one concept

that distinguishes higher education institutions from other organizations. It is the

structure and processes through which “participants interact and influence each other and

communicate with the larger environment” (p. 4). This diffuse, shared governance

process, which exists in the tri-governance structure of constituents (faculty,

administration, and trustees) impacts how decisions are made and by whom.

Additionally leaders must increasingly interact with layers of external stakeholders (e.g.,

donors, and community leaders) when faced with institutional change or crisis.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that there

is a relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted in his


anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models). Birnbaum’s models

articulate the way in which institutions of higher education function (Higgins, 1997).

5

Each of his four models (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical) can exist alone.

However, Birnbaum asserts, because colleges and universities are complex organizations,

no organization represents a single model. Therefore, his fifth model (cybernetic) is a

complex representation of two or more models of leadership or organization. Birnbaum’s

theory helps leaders identify models for decision making and planning a course of action.

As no empirical evidence existed to confirm or reject Birnbaum’s (1988) theory,

an instrument was developed to investigate his theory. The data gathered were faculty


educational unit led by that dean. The three research questions follow.

The primary research question asks:

Is there a relationship between faculty perceptions of the model of

leadership of deans and the model of organization of the educational unit

led, as theorized by Birnbaum?

The two subquestions that support the primary question ask:

1. What is the distribution of models of leadership of deans?

2. What is the distribution of models of organization of the educational units

led?

The null hypothesis of this study states that models of leadership and organization are

independent. The alternative hypothesis states that there is a relationship between the

constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted by Birnbaum’s (1988) models of

organizational functioning: bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic

(an integration of two or more models).

Significance of the Study

6

The significance of this study is in its ability to lay a foundation for future studies.

First, this study presents evidence for further consideration of Birnbaum’s (1988) theory

that there is a relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization, as

depicted in his models of organizational functioning: bureaucratic, collegial, political,

anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models). Although Birnbaum’s

open systems approach to the study of the higher education organization led to the

development of his cybernetic model, no further studies investigated his model theory

(Kezar & Eckel, 2004). This current study closes the gap in the literature of research

identified by Kezar and Eckel (2004).

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of organizational functioning is particularly

relevant today because it helps higher education leaders identify which models are

important for the decision-making process and to determine the tactics necessary to

develop a course of action specific to the contextual characteristics of an organization.

Birnbaum maintains that it is the ability to perceive, use, and interpret new patterns of

multiple models (cybernetic) of leadership and organization that contributes to a leader’s

ability to be cognitively complex, which he equates with effective leadership.

According to Birnbaum (1988), college and university leaders must be able to

differentiate between the top-down hierarchical structure of the bureaucratic organization,

which requires that leaders act rationally and analytically, and the structure of a collegial

organization, which requires that leaders strive to diminish status differences by creating

opportunities for face-to-face interaction and communication with small groups of

individuals. The structure of interdependent systems of special interest groups in a

political organization requires that leaders have the ability to act as a mediator between

7

groups, often competing for scarce resources, while the loosely coupled, nonlinear

structure of an anarchical organization requires that leaders have the ability to articulate

ambiguous institutional missions and goals to members who move in and out of the

decision-making process. The structure of a cybernetic organization requires that leaders

have the ability to interact with multiple individuals and teams in subsystems, throughout

the institution, and are able to identify which models of organization are present in each

unit or department, as well as which models of leadership to implement during the

decision-making process.

Studies using a frame or model approach to describe college and university

leadership and the higher education organization were popular in the 1980’s (Bensimon,

1987a, 1987b, 1989, 1990b, 1991; Birnbaum, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c; 1992a; Cohen

& March, 1986; Bolman & Deal, 1991, 1997; Fujita, 1990; McCarty & Reyes, 1985;

Neumann, 1989; Neumann & Bensimon, 1990). However, no further studies investigated

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that there is a relationship between his models of leadership

and organization until this current study. As no empirical evidence existed to confirm

or reject his theory, an instrument was developed.

Therefore, the second reason why this study is significant is because it provides

researchers with a research instrument to conduct further studies of Birnbaum’s (1988)

theory of models of organizational functioning. The data collected by the Models of

Leadership and Organization instrument were faculty perceptions of the model of

leadership of a dean and the model of organization of the educational unit led. After

further verification of the reliability and validity of the instrument, this survey can be

used in future studies that will further close the gap in knowledge of Birnbaum’s theory.

8

For example, future studies could use the instrument to replicate this study with other

Carnegie Foundation Classification of Institutions of Higher Education™ populations

(e.g., institutions offering doctoral degrees or institutions classified by the number of

programs offered).

Third, this study also contributes to the body of knowledge through confirmation

of the existence of Birnbaum’s (1988) cybernetic model of leadership and organization

(an integration of two or more models of leadership or organization). Findings revealed

that the majority of respondents perceived the model of leadership of a dean as cybernetic

(an integration of two or more models of leadership). The majority of respondents also

perceived the model of organization of the educational unit led by a dean as cybernetic

(an integration of two or more models of organization). Of the total number of

respondents who perceived the cybernetic model of organization, the majority also

perceived the cybernetic model of leadership when describing the leadership behavior of

a dean.

Results of a chi-square test of independence revealed a significant relationship

between cybernetic models of leadership and cybernetic models of organization. The

finding that the majority of respondents perceived the cybernetic model of leadership

when describing a dean and the cybernetic model of organization when describing the

educational unit led supports Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that no single model of

leadership or organization can adequately describe the complexity of college and

university leadership and the higher education organization.

Fourth, this study is significant because it lays the foundation for future academic

and nonacademic studies to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988, 1989a, 1989c, 1992a) theory

9

that leaders perceived as effective use the cybernetic model. Scholars find that effective

or successful college and university leaders, described as cognitively complex, are

perceived as using two or more models or frames (Bensimon, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, 1990a,

1991; Bensimon et al., 1989; Birnbaum, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1992a, 1992b;

Bolman & Deal, 1991, 1992, 1997; Fujita, 1990a, 1990b; Neumann, 1989; Neumann &

Bensimon, 1990). Future studies could investigate the relationship between the

cybernetic model of leadership, an integration of two or more models of organizational

functioning, and leadership effectiveness.

Finally, the significance of this study is to provide a foundation for future studies

of governance. In their review of governance literature, Meeting Today’s Governance

Challenges: A Synthesis of the Literature and Examination of a Future Agenda for

Scholarship, Kezar and Eckel (2004) find a gap in the literature of practice on

governance. They call for future studies that apply Birnbaum’s (1988) cybernetic, open

systems approach to studies of governance.

Birnbaum (1992a) also points to a gap in scholarly leadership literature that

addresses how constituents interact in the tri-governance structure of the higher education

organization. He notes that effective leaders are perceived by constituents (faculty,

administration, and trustees) as attending to the needs and concerns of all participants.

Therefore, it is suggested that the Models of Leadership and Organization instrument

could be used to survey all three groups of constituents to investigate how a formal leader

(e.g., president or chancellor) is perceived when faced with institutional challenges (e.g.,

increased competition from nontraditional institutions offering online degrees). Leaders

10

could use findings to develop a course of action when interacting with constituents during

the decision-making process.

Although numerous questions emerged as a result of study findings, this study

provides a foundation from which others can conduct further studies of Birnbaum’s

(1988) theory that there is a relationship between the constructs of leadership and

organization, as depicted in his models of organizational functioning. Kezar and Eckel

(2004) conclude that a renewed focus on leadership development provides colleges and

universities with critical opportunities for institutional advancement and change, not

usually achieved through re-structuring attempts. The theoretical framework used to

develop the conceptual framework in this study was Birnbaum’s theory of models of

organizational functioning.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework that informs this study is the contextual leadership

paradigm, which has not been commonly used to study college and university leadership.

Traditionally applied to business and industry (e.g., corporations, childcare, and allied

health care), the contextual leadership approach views leadership as socially constructed

and embedded in the context of an organization “where patterns over time must be

considered and where history matters” (Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002, p. 1).

A keyword search using the words contextual, higher education, and leadership

revealed two studies that confirmed the importance of institutional context when

examining presidential power (Brown, 2010; Gaylor, 2003). Brown’s (2010) recent

study of presidential power in Historically Black Colleges and Universities found that

organizational context (e.g., financial constraints, governance structure, and size) “serves

11

as an extremely important factor that both promotes and constrains the presidents’

capacities to influence major institutional decisions” (p. x).

The application of a contextual leadership paradigm to the study of higher

education further contributes to the body of knowledge of college and university

leadership. As discussed in the Statement of the Problem section, institutions of higher

education are unique among organizations and therefore require individuals who are able

to apply contextual, social, and cognitive expertise to the leadership process. Applied to

the higher education organization, the contextual leadership paradigm provides higher

education scholars and practitioners with a lens through which to view: a) how college

and university leadership functions within the context of the higher education

organization, using Birnbaum’s (1988) model theory as the foundation for the

development of this paradigm, and (b) how leaders and constituents (faculty,

administration, and trustees) participate in a shared governance process within the context

of the tri-governance structure.

A contextual leadership paradigm for higher education is grounded in studies that

describe leadership as socially constructed (e.g., espoused theories that influence how a

leader is perceived) and contextual—based on the specific characteristics of the

organization (e.g., culture and governance structure). A description of Birnbaum’s

(1988) theoretical framework of models of organizational functioning used to develop the

contextual leadership paradigm that frames this study follows.

Models of organizational functioning.

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of organizational functioning: bureaucratic,

collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models)

12

provides the theoretical framework for the development of the conceptual framework.

His models of leadership and organization can be present in the form of a single model

(bureaucratic, collegial, political, or anarchical) or an integration of two or more models

(cybernetic). The presence of his models varies not only among institutions but also

within the structure of subsystems (e.g., units or departments) within an institution. The

significance of Birnbaum’s model theory to the development of the contextual leadership

paradigm is that his theory provides leaders with the analytical tools necessary to identify

model characteristics and to identify and select models important for making decisions

and charting a course of action within the context of a particular organization. Figure 1 is

a visual depiction of the Birnbaum’s five models of organizational functioning.

Figure 1. A visual depiction of Birnbaum’s models of organizational functioning. The cybernetic model is a permeable, open system (an integration of two or more models) represented by dashed-lines.

Tri-governance structure. Birnbaum (1988) articulates his model theory

through the daily interactions and activities of five presidents with participants in five

different higher education organizations. His models help us visualize the importance of

Political

Bureaucratic

Collegial

Anarchical Cybernetic

13

identifying and selecting models of leadership and organization in the shared governance

process in each particular institution. Figure 2 is a visual depiction of an invisible world

of shared governance where leaders reside with constituents in the tri-governance

structure of a higher education organization. Birnbaum describes each of the three

constituents in terms of levels of responsibility and control: faculty members are the

technical level, trustees are the institutional level, and administrators are the managerial

level.

Figure 2. The diffused shared governance process in the higher education tri-governance structure of constituents.

Birnbaum’s (1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1992a) model theory is important to the

development of the contextual leadership paradigm as he defines leadership effectiveness

as the ability to identify and use the cybernetic model of leadership, within the context of

complex, cybernetic higher education organizations. Cognitively complex leaders

understand the importance of using multiple models to “generate multiple descriptions of

situations and multiple approaches to solution in order to effectively lead increasingly

complex organizations” (Bensimon et al., 1989, p. 73).

Faculty Trustees

Leader

Administration

14

Summary of Methodology

Nonexperimental survey research design and a self-administered research

instrument, designed to collect data at a single point in time, were selected to examine

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship between the constructs of leadership and

organization, as depicted in his models of organizational functioning. As no instrument

existed to investigate Birnbaum’s theory, a research instrument was developed. The

validity and reliability of the instrument was assessed throughout the instrument

development process. Modifications were made to the instrument until the actual study

began. A multi-stage sampling procedure was used to randomly select faculty, with a

professional e-mail address, at 10% (66) of the 664 Carnegie Foundation Classified

(2005) master’s degree granting public and private colleges and universities.

Data were gathered from an online, three-section instrument—Models of

Leadership and Organization. The data gathered were faculty perceptions of the

leadership of a dean and the model of organization of the education unit led by a dean.

The Models of Leadership and Organization instrument begins with an invitation to

participate in the study and instructions for completion of the three-section questionnaire.

Section 1 (Leadership) gathers faculty perceptions of the models of leadership of deans,

and section 2 (Organization) gathers faculty perceptions of the models of organization of

the educational department or unit led. Section 3 (Demographics) consists of five

demographic questions and one open-ended question that ask respondents to describe

leadership.

A multistage procedure and nonparametric statistical analysis were used to

examine data gathered from the Models of Leadership and Organization to answer the

15

three research questions for this study: (a) Is there a relationship between faculty


educational unit led, as theorized by Birnbaum, (b) what is the distribution of the models

of leadership of deans, and (c) what is the distribution of the models of organization of

the educational unit led? Five demographic questions describe the study sample. One

open-ended question may further contribute to an understanding of academic leadership

not addressed in this current study.

Limitations

The first limitation was Birnbaum’s (1988) theoretical framework, which

determined the purpose and scope of the study, the selection of the leadership and

organization variables, the selection of the three research questions, and the null and

alternative hypotheses. The second limitation was that it was not appropriate to draw a

conclusion about a causal relationship between Birnbaum’s models of organizational

functioning, as Birnbaum does not hypothesize a cause and effect relationship.

The third limitation was that the data gathered were perceptions collected from

faculty who may have limited knowledge of the model of leadership of the dean and the

model of organization of the educational unit led due to limited experience in a particular

educational department or unit or limited contact with a dean. The fourth limitation of

this study may be due to the research instrument that affects the quality of data collected.

The instrument may not be sensitive enough to measure degrees or small increments of

models of leadership and organization. The electronic format of the instrument may also

be confusing or distracting to participants who may be more familiar with completing

hard copy surveys. The final limitation was potential nonresponse bias due to the online

16

survey venue selected for administering the instrument. Nonresponse bias was

minimized by additional electronic contacts to those who had not responded. A total of

six contacts (initial and follow-up) were made with participants over a period of 30 days

via SurveyMonkey™.

Delimitations

There are three delimitations in this study: (a) survey research design was selected

as the methodology used to gather faculty perceptions to examine Birnbaum’s (1988)

theory; (b) theoretical constructs, problem and purpose statements, variables, research

questions, and the hypothesis were determined at the outset of the study; and (c) a study

sample of faculty, with a public domain college or university e-mail address, was

randomly selected from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education™

database.

Summary

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the study by presenting the statement of the

problem, the purpose and the research questions, the significance of the study, the

conceptual framework, and a summary of the methodology that includes the limitations,

and delimitations. Chapter 2 presents a rationale for the selection of studies and research

selected, an overview of the evolution of early American colleges and universities,

theories of leadership and organization, the conceptual framework, and a presentation and

critique of studies that were the foundation of this study. Chapter 3 summarizes the

development of the research instrument, the sampling process, the methodology, and

procedures used to gather and analyze data collected. Chapter 4 presents the findings of

17

the study, and Chapter 5 presents the conclusions of the study and recommendations for

further research.

18

Chapter II

Review of Literature

Introduction

This chapter presents and critiques those studies and research that are most

applicable to the purpose of this study—to investigate the relationship between the

constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted by Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of

models of organizational functioning. The primary research question asks:







led?





(an integration of two or more models).

The indices used to conduct a search of the literature on the conceptual

framework for this study were the keywords higher education, contextual, leadership, and

organization. To further narrow the scope of the study, the keywords Birnbaum, models,

19

leadership, and organization were also used. A 25 year span was used to conduct the

literature search that also includes seminal literature from earlier years.

The topics covered in this chapter are: (a) a historical perspective of early

American colleges and universities, (b) characteristics of the higher education

organization, (b) organization and leadership theories, and (c) studies and research that

use Birnbaum’s (1988) model approach to investigate leadership within the context of the

higher education organization.

Overview

Institutions of higher education are unique among organizations therefore

traditional business management theories do not apply (Birnbaum, 1988; Collins, 2005).

Birnbaum (1988) examines leadership within the contextual characteristics of the higher

education organization to articulate the way in which colleges and universities function

(Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989; Higgins, 1997; Kezar & Eckel, 2004).

Birnbaum uses a narrative format in his text, How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of

Academic Organization and Leadership, to describe participant interactions in five

fictional colleges and universities. His typology of models of organizational functioning

provides higher education scholars and practitioners with a theoretical frame to

understand the characteristics of the higher education organization and the patterns of

interaction among leaders and constituents. Birnbaum’s model theory also provides

leaders with the tools necessary to identify and select models for decision-making and to

identify tactics to chart a course of action specific to an organization.

20

A Historical Perspective of American Higher Education Institutions

The colonization of America resulted in the creation of a nation unique to the

world (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1996). The diversity of people and reasons

for migration to the New World also contributed to the creation of higher education

institutions with a rich heritage (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1996). The diversity

of and differentiation between institutions of higher education began with the founding of

these early colleges and universities.

The roots of American colonization began with the goal of foreign nations to

increase manufacturing and trade to achieve worldwide wealth and power. A plethora of

immigrants, representing a wide array of nationalities, ethnic groups, and religious

denominations arrived in the New World through the end of the 1700s (Colonial

Williamsburg Foundation, 1996). However, those who came to America also sought

personal wealth, a livelihood, education, freedom from European prisons, or religious

freedom.

Rudolph (1990) finds that the establishment of the original colonial colleges was

not accomplished haphazardly or without forethought. He concludes that higher

education is governed “less by accident than by certain purpose, less by impulse than by

design” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 3). The role that each college played was preordained and

self-serving—to support and promote missions, norms, and values deeply rooted in

Europe.

Early colleges and universities were established in small communities and

typically reflected the mission, culture, and values of its inhabitants. For example, Puritan

gentlemen seeking intellectual and religious freedom established the first colonial

21

college, New College, in 1636. Renamed Harvard, the founders were educated at the

English universities of Cambridge and Oxford, as well as at Emmanuel, a Protestant

college. According to Rudolph (1990), the founding of Harvard was critical to the

successful development of the Puritan religion in the colony of Massachusetts.

William and Mary College was chartered by King William III and Queen Mary II

in 1693 and was established in a small community of parishes, whose cornerstone was

the second iteration of the Bruton Parish Church. The primary mission of the College

was to the provide gentlemen with the opportunity to become Anglican ministers, to

educate American Indians at the Brafferton School and enslaved children at the Bray

School, and to nurture gentry sons at The Grammar School. Gentlemen who came to the

second capitol of Virginia were educated in England and Scotland and later became

leaders of the church, the college, and the colony of Virginia (Court, 2001). A good

example is William Small, Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy professor at William and

Mary, who also emerged as a leader in Williamsburg. He chartered the Virginian Society

for the Promotion of Useful Knowledge and the Party of Five, which met for the purpose

of conducting experiments during the Age of Enlightenment (Doares, 2003).

The Collegiate School, chartered in 1701, was later renamed Yale College, for

benefactor Elihu Yale. The English Universities of Cambridge and Oxford were the

higher education models used for curriculum development at Yale (Rudolph, 1990). The

mission of Yale reflected the needs of the community—to educate sons of wealthy

merchants, farmers, and middle class tradesmen, in addition to training men to become

religious and civic leaders. The College of New Jersey, chartered by King George II in

1746, was later renamed Princeton University. Unlike the mission of the other three

22

colonial colleges, the charter stipulated that gentlemen of any religious denomination

should be admitted to the college to train to become future statesmen and clergy

(Rudolph, 1990). Brown College, another colonial college, associated the foundation of

the college to its origins. A recruitment brochure attributed its “great strength from its

rich tradition and heritage” (as cited in Thelin, 2004).

In 1779 Thomas Jefferson, a former student of Dr. Small, colonial leader, and

second governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, became a member of William and

Mary’s Board of Visitors. He collaborated with college president Reverend James

Madison to restructure the College. A series of curriculum and governance reforms, later

known as the Jeffersonian Reorganization, were drafted to: (a) eliminate the college’s

grammar and divinity schools, (b) introduce the fine arts and natural sciences curricula,

(c) establish the first law school in America, and (d) vacate the headmaster position at the

Brafferton Indian School (Dill, 1979).

Thomas Jefferson later went on to found the University of Virginia in 1819. For

the first time in the history of American higher education students were offered the

selection of eight prescribed courses of study and an elective system. As part of his

reform, Jefferson also introduced new scientific curricula—natural history, botany,

archaeology, and architecture. Jefferson’s “radical design for the University of Virginia

was, in effect, a declaration of academic independence, an attempt to transcend

intellectually and institutionally the confining protocols of the American college”

(Geiger, 2000, p. 19). Soon after the founding of the University of Virginia, a

controversy ensued between proponents of a liberal arts curriculum and advocates of an

applied or practical curriculum.

23

In 1828 proponents of a traditional liberal arts curriculum challenged a newly

emerging trend toward a more practical or applied curriculum. Two colonial colleges,

Princeton and Yale, were strategically positioned to lead the nation in the debate. The

Yale Report of 1828 attempted to combat a subversive movement toward a new applied

curriculum and the “principles of options and election” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 131) offered at

colleges such as Jefferson’s university. The Yale Report proposed that the foundation of

higher education was built on an essential liberal arts curriculum. The goal of this

document was to circumvent proponents of an applied curriculum designed to train

individuals in response to the demands for a skilled labor force.

However, proponents of the Yale Report failed to prevent the creation of a

practical education to prepare those who settled in the expanding territories west of the

Mississippi. Faculty and graduates from these newly established institutions continued to

make advancements in knowledge through research. Changes in the mission and goals of

the higher education organization were as much the result of the growth of these fledgling

institutions as they were from those who founded the original colonial colleges (McDade,

2007).

The next section examines the unique characteristics of the higher education

organization, which includes institutional diversity, patterns of structure, and properties

of organizations as cybernetic systems.

Characteristics of the Higher Education Organization

To fully understand the characteristics of the higher education organization, it is

important to examine how members interact in organizations that are described as

anarchical, ambiguous and loosely coupled, open systems, with problematic goals and

24

unclear mechanisms that define how work is conducted by members who move fluidly in

and out of the decision-making process, (Bensimon et al., 1989; Birnbaum, 1988, 1992;

Cohen & March, 1986; Etzioni, 1964; Weick, 1976, 1979). Scholars continue to debate

whether traditional organization theory can provide insight into how higher education

institutions function. The characteristics of the higher education organization that make

them unique follow.

Diversity. According to Brubacher and Rudy (1976), the absence of a unified

higher education structure contributes to the diversity of colleges and universities, which

they describe as the strength of the American higher education system. Institutional

diversity is the direct result of several pivotal historical events such as the “Dartmouth

College Case of 1819, the absence of a church, the presence of a highly competitive

denominationalism, and the deeply ingrained American suspicion of centralized power.”

(p. 406).

Birnbaum (1983) asserts in his text, Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education,

that the diversity of institutions of higher education contributes to their unique

organizational properties. In an international study of higher education policy and trends

in 11 countries, Goedegebuure et al. (1994) used Birnbaum’s diversity theory to compare

American and European institutions to each other. Study findings revealed that, unlike

their European counterparts, American institutions exhibit the characteristics of systemic,

programmatic, and structural diversity. As a result, organizational systems are created

“that are more diversified are better able to respond to a variety of needs. In this respect,

it is often claimed that the strength of the American system of higher education lies in its

diversity” (Goedegeburre et al., p. 613).

25

Goedegebuure et al. (1994) also conclude from study findings that the division of

labor of higher education institutions contributes to their diversity. Professional

knowledge and expertise contribute to a division of labor that “produces diversity and

structural disintegration, which in turn protects the equilibrium of the whole” (p. 613).

Programmatic autonomy and diversity (e.g., autonomous departments and disciplines)

also contributes to institutional diversity.

Patterns of structure. The structure of an organization is integral to the purpose

and function of an organization—the process by which the mission, goals, and objectives

are accomplished, the way in which individuals interact, and how decisions are made

(Birnbaum, 1988). The structure of an organization describes how people and tasks are

configured to accomplish the goals of an organization (Fink, Jenks, & Willits, 1983).

Structure articulates the chain of command, which in turn describes the process by which

decisions are made (Corson, 1975). Integral to the structure of an organization is the

division of labor and the coordination of tasks designed to accomplish the goals of an

organization (Galbraith, 1977).

Traditional, nonacademic organizations exhibit a top-down hierarchical pattern of

authority where subsystems share a common purpose and approach to accomplish the

work of the organization (Williamson, 2002). Etzioni’s (1964) study of professional

administrative and authority inverts the traditional structural patterns of authority, where

work conducted by those in the middle ranks of a business or industry supports those at

the top of the pyramid. In professional organizations, such as institutions of higher

education, Etzioni maintains that the administrative core supports and makes possible

activities carried out by the professional core in the middle (faculty). Professional

26

authority is a “highly individualized principle which is diametrically opposed to the very

essence of the organizational principle of control and coordination of superiors” (Etzioni,

p. 76). Blau (1968) concludes that the level of expertise of members (e.g., advanced

degrees held by faculty) also determines the organizational structure of professional

authority and power (Blau, 1968).

Within the higher education organization, complex patterns of structures coexist,

for example, the complex patterns of control and authority within which individuals exist

and interact and the process by which decisions are made and by whom (Corson, 1975;

Etzioni, 1964; Mintzberg, 1979). Corson (1975) describes the two parallel governance

structures in institutions of higher education as a dualism of control—an administrative

core at the top of an organization, and a professional core of faculty in the middle that

make decisions critical to the governance of an institution. Mintzberg (1979) concludes

that although the administrative and professional cores are independent, they do “come

together at some intermediate level, as when a university dean oversees both the

professional and secretarial staff” (p. 58).

Corson (1975) finds that another characteristic of the structure of a higher

education organization is culture—described as an open system of shared beliefs,

attitudes, and values. It is the culture of an institution that gives faculty the power to

create and disseminate knowledge, as well as to make a decision such as who is invited to

join their ranks and who is granted tenure. However, the structure of an organization also

determines the degree to which faculty enjoy professional authority and autonomy. For

example, faculty may be appointed to an ad-hoc search committee to fill a critical

27

position, but the president may also reserve the right to make the final employment

decision.

The university as a cybernetic system. Birnbaum (1988) uses general systems

theory (Morgan, 1997; Weick, 1976) to describe the higher education organization as a

nonlinear, loosely coupled, open system. Change is an evolutionary process in living

systems and viewed as a natural occurrence in organizational systems described by

Birnbaum as open. Birnbaum also maintains that in an open system no organization

purely represents a single model of organizational functioning. As a result, his cybernetic

model (an integration of two or more models) of organizational functioning represents an

open, permeable system where two or more of his four models (bureaucratic, collegial,

political, or anarchical) exist, in different configurations or patterns, at any given time.

Birnbaum (1988) asserts that his models vary not only between institutions but

also within subsystems (e.g., a unit or department) in an institution. As a consequence,

leaders of complex, cybernetic organizations exist in a fluid, permeable organizational

system of fluctuating models. Therefore, the importance of Birnbaum’s theoretical

framework is that it can be used by leaders to develop the skills necessary to identify

which models of leadership are important for making decisions and developing a course

of action based on the models of organization present in a particular organization.

Leaders of cybernetic systems must also continually strive to create open lines of

communication between themselves and teams of individuals, referred to by Birnbaum

(1988) as monitors, strategically placed in the bureaucratic structures, social, cultural, and

political systems, and symbolic areas of an institution (Bensimon et al., 1989).

According to Birnbaum the role of cybernetic leaders is to communicate with individuals

28

in subsystems to establish “self-correcting mechanisms that monitor organizational

functions and provide attention cues or negative feedback to participants when things are

not going well” (p. 179). The ability to recognize the existence of a cybernetic

organization, and how it functions, provides “a mechanism for organizations to solve

problems and correct deficiencies so that departments (an element of structure) can carry

out their functions (throughput) in order for the purpose (output) of the organization to be

achieved” (Williamson, 2000, p. 17).

The unique characteristics of the higher education organization discussed in this

section are: their origins and evolution as institutions representing the values and culture

of small communities, the diversity of institutions of higher education, patterns of

structure, and colleges and universities as a cybernetic system. A discussion of

typologies or frameworks of higher education organizations follows.

Typologies of Organizations

Theorists describe organizations in terms of theoretical frameworks that provide a

classification system by which characteristics (measurable variables) can be compared

and contrasted to help gain a better understanding of organizations (Chaffee, 1987).

Frameworks are metaphors for windows “through which one can view any organization.

Each window provides a different perspective, but the scene inside is all of a piece”

(Fink, Jenks, & Willits, 1983, p. ix). The window metaphor was also used by Bolman

and Deal (1997) to describe their frames approach to leadership.

Typologies are also analytical tools that can be useful to stimulate thinking and to

analyze the structures of organizations and in the study of other constructs such as

leadership (Jurkovich, 1974). Typologies (e.g., models or frames) are mental metaphors

29

that help researchers and practitioners better understand organizations and help them

efficiently communicate with each other through a common set of conceptual terms

(Chaffee, 1987). The contextual leadership paradigm used in this study was based on

Birnbaum’ (1988) theory of organizational functioning.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is the contextual leadership paradigm

that provides higher education scholars and practitioners with a lens through which to

view: (a) how college and university leadership functions within the context of the higher

education organization, using Birnbaum’s (1988) model theory as the foundation for the

development of this paradigm, and (b) how leaders and constituents (faculty,

administration, and trustees) interact using a shared governance process within the

context of the tri-governance structure. A description of Birnbaum’s (1988) theoretical

framework of models of organizational functioning used to develop the conceptual

framework of this study follows.

Models of organizational functioning. Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of


(an integration of two or more models) provides the theoretical framework for the

development of the contextual leadership paradigm used in this study. The contextual

leadership paradigm also reflects Birnbaum’s theory of the relationship between the

constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted through his models of


According to Birnbaum (1988), colleges and universities rarely represent a single

model of organization (bureaucratic, collegial, political, or anarchical). Therefore his

30

cybernetic model represents this complexity through the integration of two or more

models. Additionally, models vary not only between institutions of higher education but

also within subsystems (e.g., units or departments) of an institution. Due to the

complexity of the higher education organization, Birnbaum’s theory is particularly useful

because his models provide the analytical tools necessary to identify the models of

organization present in multiple, organizational systems and to identify the models of

leadership necessary to act as a participant in multiple leadership roles.

Birnbaum (1988) describes the organizational structure and the leadership

behavior of presidents in five fictional colleges and universities in his text How Colleges

Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership, each representing all

of his models as a specific cognitive frame. Figure 1, Chapter 1, presents a visual

representation of Birnbaum’s five models of organizational functioning. An overview of

each of his models of organizational functioning follows.

Birnbaum describes the bureaucratic model of organizational functioning as a

rational, formal, hierarchical system of authority and control, based on job descriptions

that clearly define employee roles and responsibilities. Bureaucratic leaders rely on

clearly articulated organizational charts to identify the division of labor, and routinely

communicate through written documents, rather than face-to-face. Bureaucratic leaders

are described as managers, who act as rational analysts, setting and achieving a clearly

defined set of goals and objectives. Birnbaum describes the collegial model of

organizational functioning as a democratic, social, community of equals, where

hierarchies of power and control are diminished. Collegial leaders communicate with

colleagues face-to-face and strive to engage others in the decision-making process,

31

ultimately to achieve consensus. These leaders are routinely brought up through the

ranks, thereby preserving the culture, norms, values, and artifacts of that institution.

Birnbaum describes the political model of organizational functioning as a

complex, interdependent system of highly specialized coalitions, with a diffuse power

structure. Political leaders provide stability when institutions are faced with change and

adversity. Leaders rely on an informal process of interaction and communication with

members and recognize that power is fluid and temporary. The role of the political leader

is to act as a mediator between coalitions—to clarify group values and promote

constituent involvement in the governance process.

The anarchical model of organizational functioning is described by Birnbaum as a

loosely coupled, nonlinear, open system that routinely faces problematic goals, an unclear

technology (how work is conducted), and fluid participation of members in the decision-

making process. The role of the anarchical leader is to make sense of the meaning of

events and the culture of the institution, as well as to provide alternative solutions to

problems.

Finally, the cybernetic model of organizational functioning is described by

Birnbaum as an open system that uses self-correcting mechanisms or thermostats to

monitor activities. Cybernetic leaders must be able to pay attention to organizational

changes by placing teams or monitors in subsystems throughout an institution, and to

establish a mechanism for communication through feedback loops. The focus of the

cybernetic model of organizational functioning is to maintain a balance in an organization

when multiple models of leadership and organization are present.

32

Birnbaum (1988) describes a direct correlation between models of leadership and

organization (e.g., bureaucratic leadership and bureaucratic organization) in each of his

five fictional colleges and universities. He also uses demographic data to describe each

institution. For example, Birnbaum states that a community college, with a student

enrollment size of 1,500, can be best described as a collegial model of organization. He

states that leaders of a collegial organization should understand the collegial model of

organization (e.g., a tightly coupled, community of scholars) and use collegial model of

leadership strategies (e.g., communicating with constituents face-to-face). However,

Birnbaum also concludes that a president may find that the models of organization in

institutional subsystems may not reflect the model of organization of the entire

institution. Therefore, it is necessary for a president to recognize when subsystems in an

institution manifest characteristics associated with alternate models of organization.

Birnbaum (1988) also describes strategies and tactics that a leader can use when

faced with averting a potential crisis. For example, when a university’s senate calls an

emergency meeting to discuss the censure of a popular professor, who submitted a

controversial editorial personally criticizing a major donor, a president is faced with a

course of action. According to Birnbaum, the first step to effective leadership is to assess

the model of organization present in an institution or subsystem. In this particular

instance, the president may perceive that the subsystem of the faculty senate reflects the

characteristics of a political model of organization that requires the ability to use

strategies associated with the political model of leadership (e.g., acting as a mediator or

negotiator). The president may also perceive that the model of organization of the faculty

senate reflects the characteristics of the anarchical model, which requires that a leader use

33

strategies associated with the anarchical model of leadership (e.g., bringing symbolism

and meaning to an event, within the context of the history of the institution). In this

example, a leader should implement strategies associated with a cybernetic model of

leadership due to the political and anarchical models of organization present in the

faculty senate subsystem.

In the higher education organization, the role of the bureaucratic leader is to

maintain rationality, the role of the collegial leader is to seek consensus, the role of the

political leader is to keep peace, the role of the anarchical leader is to make sense, and the

role of the cybernetic leader is to achieve a balance between two or more models that

exist, at any given the time, in an organization (Birnbaum, 1988).

Tri-governance structure. Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship

between the constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted by his models of

organizational functioning has not previously been depicted through the conceptual

framework of a contextual leadership paradigm. Figure 2, Chapter 1, presents a visual

representation of Birnbaum interpretation of an invisible world of shared governance,

where leaders reside in the tri-governance structure (faculty, administration, and trustees)

and participants are influenced and challenged by multiple models of organization and

leadership, as well as contextual factors such as student enrollment size or financial

resources. Birnbaum (1992a) describes the interaction of three constituents in terms of

three levels of responsibility and control: faculty members are the technical level, trustees

are the institutional level, and administrators are the managerial level.

34

Leadership

College and university leaders routinely face increasingly complex challenges

associated with the academy; however traditional leadership theories seldom examine

leadership within the context of the unique characteristics of the higher education

organization. Birnbaum (1988) describes the relationship between the constructs of

leadership and organization, as depicted by his models of organizational functioning:

bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more

models).

According to Birnbaum (1988), the top-down hierarchical structure of the

bureaucratic organization requires that leaders act rationally and analytically, and that

they are able to direct, organize, and evaluate people and activities to accomplish written

goals and objectives. In contrast, a democratic community of scholars, in a collegial

organization, requires that leaders diminish status differences by paying attention to

creating opportunities for face-to-face interaction and communication between small

groups of individuals.

The complex, interdependent system of specialized interest groups, present in a

political organization, requires that leaders have the ability to act as a mediator between

administrative and professional authorities and to work with coalitions competing for

scarce resources. The anarchical organization is composed of independent, scholarly

professionals functioning in a loosely coupled, nonlinear system. Birnbaum (1988)

describes patterns of coupling, from tight to loose, as one characteristic of his models of

organizational functioning. Patterns of coupling from tight to loose are also described by

Weick (1976) as one determinant of organizational functioning. The anarchical

35

organization requires leaders who have the ability to articulate ambiguous institutional

missions and goals to members who move in and out of the decision making process

(Birnbaum, 1988, 1992; Cohen & March, 1986).

The creation of small subsystems within the cybernetic organization requires that

leaders have the ability to: (a) put a team of monitors in place, (b) develop feedback loops

by creating a two-way communication system to send and receive information from

monitors, and (c) create a balance between two or more models of organizational

functioning existing in the same institution, at any given time.

Governance. The concept of governance distinguishes college and university

leadership from the management of nonacademic organizations (Birnbaum, 1988;

Corson, 1975; Kezar & Eckel, 2004). Governance is “the structures and processes

through which institutional participants interact with and influence each other and

communicate with the larger environment.” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 4). Unique to the

governance of American colleges and universities is a shared decision-making process

that includes faculty, administration, and trustees in a tri-governance structure.

Corson (1975) describes governance as the decision-making process—the

structure within which decisions are made, who participates in the decision-making

process, the process by which decisions are implemented, and how outcomes are

determined and assessed. He concludes that the future of higher education lies in the

governance process—the ability “to adapt and develop educational programs as

knowledge accumulates, as student bodies expand and change, and as the needs of the

society change.” (p. 284).

36

Governance is also described as the distribution of concentrated decision-making

power and authority from a traditional top-down, hierarchy of managers, to a more

democratic structure of professionals and groups representing a diversity of interests,

throughout an entire organization an organization (Mintzberg, 1979; Stewart, 1976). The

distribution of authority and control and how individuals communicate and interact also

contributes to a description the governance process (Balderston, 1995).

In an attempt to articulate the unique characteristics of higher education the Joint

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities describes governance as the

shared responsibility of members to participate in academic activities and the

decision- making process (American Association of University Professors, 1990). The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1982) also describes governance

as a diffuse decision-making process throughout an entire institution.

Balderston (1995) points to governance as the seminal, analytical theme that

should be the focus of future leadership studies. Other scholars also recommend that

future academic leadership studies focus on the governance process and the challenges

associated with that process (Kezar & Eckel, 2004). The normative characteristics of the

academic organization necessitates that studies investigate both the governance process,

as well as “the characteristics of the type of organization to which it is to apply” (Kezar

& Eckel, 2004, p. 54).

Professional and administrative authority. The distinction between

professional and administrative authority also addresses why college and university

leadership is different from leadership in other organizations. Weber (1947) describes his

theory of technical knowledge and training superiority using the basic hierarchical

37

structure of a bureaucratic organization. His study of social and economic organizations

distinguishes between authority and power and describes the relationship between rank

and knowledge. At the apex of a bureaucratic organization is an administrative authority

of individuals who are responsible for managing and directing subordinates (Weber,

1947). Simon (1951) describes authority as an organizational concept, not a legal

premise, determined by the degree to which subordinates are willing to accept decisions

made by superiors.

Etzioni’s (1964) study of administrative and professional authority inverts the

traditional top-down, hierarchical structure of authority. Etzioni states that the structure

of an organization is determined by one key factor—whether knowledge is used

systemically throughout an entire organization. The professional core (faculty) is found

in the middle ranks of an academic organization, not at the top as is the case in a

traditional business model (Weber, 1947). In professional academic organizations, the

administrative core supports and makes possible activities carried out by the professional

core, an inverse of the nonacademic institution. The expertise of members (e.g.,

advanced academic degrees) also determines the level of professional authority and

power in an organization (Blau, 1968).

Corson (1975) also describes professional authority as the functional authority

derived from “professional competence, unique understanding or experience, personal

charisma, and human relations skills possessed by the individual” (p. 78). The parallel

existence of professional and administrative organizational structures “reflects the self-

governance granted the teaching and research staffs. And the flat organization of the

academic structure…reflects the independence accorded the individual teacher and

38

researcher” (pp. 78-79). Professional and functional authority limits the exercise of

traditional top-down hierarchical structures and formal patterns of administrative

authority. In its place is a bottom-up structure that distributes authority throughout an

entire system (Corson, 1975).

Mintzberg (1979) describes the creation of a democratic administrative structure

designed to support the professional core. The autonomous professional core demands

“collective control of the administrative decisions that affect them, decisions… to hire

colleagues, to promote them, and to distribute resources” (p. 56). In the professional

organization “power resides in expertise; one has influence by virtue of one’s knowledge

and skill” (p. 57).

Collins (2005) distinguishes between executive power and legislative leadership

when describing nonacademic and academic organizations. Executive power is

concentrated at the top of a hierarchical structure. However, in academic organizations

greater emphasis is placed on the interaction of individuals through legislative

leadership—that emphasizes “persuasion, political currency, and shared interests to

create the conditions for the right decisions to be made” (p. 11). The distinction between

executive power and legislative leadership makes the application of traditional

management strategies to colleges and universities particularly cumbersome due to the

“complex governance and diffuse power structure” (p. 10) of institutions of higher

education.

Academic freedom and autonomy. Academic freedom and autonomy also

contribute to the difference between higher education leadership and the management of

nonacademic institutions. Fundamental to academic freedom is the advancement of truth,

39

the protection of the rights of the teacher to teach, and the rights of a student to learn (The

American Association of University Professors, 1990). It is the diversity of experts,

throughout a higher education institution, that creates the diffusion of authority and an

increased movement toward autonomy by members (Clark, 1963).

Corson (1975) describes the concepts of academic freedom and autonomy as one.

Institutions of higher education are bastions of intellectual and creative activity that

provide an atmosphere where scholar-teachers are assured of their ability to express their

opinion and to pursue their interests. At the same time, scholar-teachers should also have

the autonomy to be able to make their own decisions about the nature of their own work,

department resource allocations, and the selection and tenure of colleagues (Corson,

1975).

The following review of literature will present and critique research relevant to an

investigation of Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship the constructs of leadership

and organization, as depicted by models of organizational functioning: bureaucratic,

collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models).

First, a review of academic leadership theory and research will be presented. Second, a

systems approach to the study of organization and leadership will be examined. Finally,

a review of studies and empirical research will be presented and critiqued.

Leadership Theories

Traditional leadership theories concentrate on individuals as leaders who are

evaluated using a metric of company goals and objectives (e.g., predetermined

expenditures and productivity measures). The concentration of early studies focused on

the male gender due to their overwhelming dominance in the corporate world, industry,

40

military, and government, where few women or other minorities were in leadership

positions. Traditional studies also focus on the behavior of an individual leader rather

than the behaviors of those who engage in a shared decision-making process.

According to Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2002), varied studies of leadership

have resulted in a lack of consensus as to how to describe a leader:

Some leadership researchers have focused on the personality, physical traits, or

behaviors of the leader; others have studied the relationships between leaders

and followers; still others have studied how aspects of the situation affect the

ways leaders act. Some have extended the latter viewpoint so far as to suggest

that there is no such thing as leadership. (p. 6)

Leadership literature can be organized into seven categories of theories: (a) trait,

(b) power and influence, (c) transactional and transformational, (d) behavioral,

(e) contingency, (f) cultural and symbolic, and (g) cognitive (Bensimon et al., 1989).

These implicit or espoused theories form the basis of our interpretations of how we

understand and perceive good or effective leadership behavior (Argyris & Schön, 1975;

Birnbaum, 1988, 1992a). An overview of each of the seven schools of leadership thought

follows.

Trait theories. Trait theories examine leadership effectiveness in terms of the

strengths of traits in individuals (Fisher, 1984; Hughes et al., 2002). Traits (e.g., physical

characteristics, personality, and social background) also describe the characteristics that

distinguish leaders from followers. Trait theories represent studies that focus primarily

on business, industry, military, and government, where few women or minorities were

appointed to leadership positions. The catch phrase Great Man Theory characteristically

41

describes a popular theory of leadership that was influenced by studies on men and the

relationship between male traits and work performance. However, decades of studies

also indicate that trait theories do not measure of leadership success (Bensimon et al.,

1989; Birnbaum, 1988; Hughes et al., 2002).

Power and influence theories. Power and influence theories examine the ways

in which leaders use power and influence to manage (Bensimon et al., 1989; Hughes et

al., 2002; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Theories are organized into two subcategories:

(a) social power and (b) social exchange. Individuals who use a social power approach

lead, communicate, and influence followers unilaterally. In contrast, individuals who use

a social exchange approach lead and communicate through reciprocal relationships with

followers, who are also capable of influencing leaders.

Social power theories. Social power leadership theories describe how leaders

influence followers in a one-way relationship. Social power theories have been

categorized into two types of leaders: (a) informal leaders who use their personality to

influence others, and (b) formal leaders who influence others through personality and

position. Social power is also described as legitimate power, reward power, coercive

power, expert power and reverent power (Bensimon et al., 1989).

In a study of college and university presidents, Birnbaum (1989b) found that

presidents overwhelmingly perceived leaders as using the social power leadership

approach. Effective leaders were perceived by them as unilateral and directive.

Birnbaum concludes from study findings that while social power theories provide insight

into the unilateral, leader-follower relationship in the administrative core of a college

(e.g., provost or chancellor), they do little to contribute to an understanding of how

42

leadership is practiced when power and authority is vested in the professional core

(faculty) of an organization.

Social exchange theories. Social exchange theories focus on the reciprocal

relationship between leaders and followers. Leaders provide resources and support to

followers to accumulate power through their formal role, professional expertise, and

followers’ approval and expectations. According to Bensimon et al., (1989) social

exchange theories should be applied to further studies of academic leadership due to the

diffusion of power (e.g., the professional authority of faculty) throughout an institution,

which in turn limits presidential power. Social exchange theories can be used when

studying “principles of shared governance and consultation and the image of the

president as first among equals” (p. 39), two contextual characteristics of a higher


Transactional and transformational theories. Transactional and

transformational leadership theories examine the relationship between leaders, followers,

and situations. Transactional and transformational leadership theories evolve from power

and influence approaches to leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2000; Bennis & Nanus, 1985;

Burns, 1978). Avolio and Bass (2000) find that transactional and transformational

leadership exists on two separate dimensions, not on a continuum as described by Burns

(1978). Others describe the distinction between the two theories as “the difference

between fulfilling or changing expectations” (Bensimon et al., 1989, p. 10).

Transactional leadership describes the relationship between leaders and followers

that is based on transactions such as an exchange of money or praise (Burns, 1978).

Transactional leaders focus on their ability to negotiate and bargain with followers in

43

exchange for follower loyalty and performance. Hollander’s (1987) Idiosyncracy Credit

model maintains that followers will accept change, even when leadership behavior

deviates from the expectations, if leaders engage in activities that demonstrate expertise

and conformity to institutional values and norms when they first engage in activities

(Bensimon et al., 1989).

Bensimon (1987a, 1989) applied Hollander’s (1987) Idiosyncracy Credit model to

two studies of new presidents. Data gathered in both studies were faculty perceptions of

presidential performance. Her (1987a) findings revealed that new presidents (less than

five years of experience) who assumed a new position at an institution did not take the

time to understand the culture of an organization and to interact with colleagues to earn

Idiosyncrasy Credit. In contrast, Bensimon (1989) found that experienced presidents

(five or more years of experience) spent time engaging in behavior that indicated an

interest in understanding the culture of an institution, therefore earning Idiosyncrasy

Credit. Bensimon’s findings that followers accepted institutional change when leaders

initially engaged in behaviors that conformed to the culture of the organization supports

Hollander’s theory of Idiosyncrasy Credit.

In contrast, transformational leadership theories emphasize the ability of leaders

to establish a culture where followers collectively identify with a set of mutual goals and

values. Also described as charismatic, these leaders are able to influence and motivate

others to exceed performance expectations by creating a shared vision and instilling

employee confidence (Bass, 1985). Rosenbach and Saskin (2007) designed a three-part

research instrument— The Leadership Profile Survey—to investigate transactional and

transformational leadership behavior, as well as the personal characteristics necessary for

44

a leader to be effective. However, Bensimon et al., (1989) state that this directive

leadership style has limited application in colleges and universities where members view

administrative leaders as “coordinators of ongoing activities rather than architects of bold

initiatives” (p. 40).

Behavioral theories. Behavioral theorists assert that productivity is the result of

how leaders conduct work to accomplish goals. Data are gathered through the use of

grids, charts, surveys, questionnaires, journals, and interviews (Blake & Mouton, 1964).

Studies that focus solely on how work is conducted to accomplish institutional goals fail

to investigate the impact that the characteristics of the higher education organization has

on effective or ineffective leadership (Bensimon et al., 1989).

Contingency theories. Contingency theories focus on the behaviors of leaders

that are affected by situational variables such as: (a) characteristics of followers, (b) the

nature of the task to be accomplished, and (c) the characteristics of the organization or the

external environment. Kerr and Jermier (1978) theorize that situational factors and/or

follower characteristics neutralize or substitute for a leader’s actions or their relationships

with others. Kerr (1973) describes “substitutes for leadership” as situational factors (e.g.,

the structure of an organization or roles and responsibilities) that result in the inability of

leaders to influence a subordinate’s level of job satisfaction. Bensimon et al. (1989)

conclude that Kerr and Jermier’s contingency theory should be the focus of future studies

as it is particularly relevant to leadership studies in higher education organizations where

informal leaders emerge from those previously considered as followers.

Cultural and symbolic theories. Cultural and symbolic theorists (Selznick,

1957) use a psychosocial perspective to examine the contextual characteristics of

45

organizations. Bensimon et al., (1989) conclude that the primary role of an academic

leader is to “impose meaning upon an equivocal, fluid, and complex world” (Bensimon et

al., 1989, p. 21).” Normative organizations (e.g., colleges and universities) require

leaders who can understand, create, and interpret institutional norms, values, symbols,

and meaning (Birnbaum, 1988; Bensimon et al., 1989; Smircich & Morgan, 1982).

Cognitive theories. Cognitive studies find that leadership behavior is based on

past social and symbolic experiences of members, the environment of an organization,

and the behavior of the leader and others (Argyis, 1994; Borkowski, Carr, & Pressely,

1987; Flavell, 1979; 1987; Morgan, 1997; Sternberg, 1986). Those who have

metacognitive skills (e.g., the ability to reflect and act upon thoughts) are able to reflect

upon and adapt thoughts and actions to an environment. Birnbaum (1988) describes

effective leadership in terms of cognitive complexity—the cognitive ability to understand

and engage in strategies and tactics using a multiple model approach to leadership,

depicted by the cybernetic model (an integration of two or more models).

Scholars recommend that future leadership studies focus on theories that close the

gap in knowledge of how leaders “know themselves in the context of the organization”

(Argyris & Schön, 1978, p. 16). According to Kezar and Eckel (2004), Birnbaum’s

(1992) Institutional Leadership Project was the first study “to demonstrate the

importance of cybernetics, a concept that emphasizes the need to recognize the linkages

between various governance subunits” (p. 380), however his cybernetic model has not

been the subject of further studies.

46

Literature of Practice

This section provides a review and critique of studies and empirical research that

used Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of organizational functioning. This section

begins with a presentation and critique of Birnbaum’s (1992) Institutional Leadership

Project, a five-year longitudinal study of formal leaders in 32 colleges and universities,

and two leadership studies (Bensimon, 1987b; 1990) that used the same data set

generated by the Institutional Leadership Project to look at leadership behavior, through

a frame analysis and the incongruence between self- and other-perceptions of frame use.

The organization research section begins with a study conducted by Higgins (1997) to

investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that coupling (Weick, 1976) is one characteristic of

his higher education models of organization. Three subsequent studies (Hall, 2002;

Jones, 1999; Williamson, 2000) that used all or part of Higgins’ research instrument will

also be critiqued.

Leadership Research

Robert Birnbaum. The focus of this study is on Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the

relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted by his

models of organization functioning: bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, and

cybernetic (an integration of two or more models). In his text, How Colleges Work: The

Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership, Birnbaum describes the daily

activities of five fictional college and university presidents. His theory development was

the result of work conducted during phase one of a five-year (1986-1991) longitudinal

study, The Institutional Leadership Project, reported in his text How Academic

Leadership Works: Understanding Success and Failure in the College Presidency.

47

During phase one of The Institutional Leadership Project Birnbaum (1988)

adapted Bolman and Deal’s frame theory (structural, human resource, political, and

symbolic), originally published in 1984. As a result Birnbaum created four new frames:

bureaucratic, collegial, political, and symbolic to code respondent perceptions during his

five-year project. Those who were perceived by others as using two or more frames were

assigned to a fifth frame—a multiframe.

Birnbaum (1988) continued to modify Bolman and Deal’s frame theory after

completing phase one of The Institutional Leadership Project in 1987. Birnbaum

replaced Bolman and Deal’s structural frame with his bureaucratic model and their

symbolic frame with Cohen and March’s (1986) anarchical model (e.g., institutions

described as exhibiting the characteristics of ambiguous goals and fluid participation of

participants in the decision-making process). Birnbaum also replaced Bolman and Deal’s

multiframe with his own cybernetic model (an integration of two or more models). The

collegial and the political frames were retained; however the typology model replaced the

typology frame.

The purpose of Birnbaum’s (1992a) Institutional Leadership Project was to

investigate the relationship between presidential tenure and faculty support. Formal

leaders (e.g., vice presidents and deans) were asked to describe campus goals and how

the behavior of leaders affected these goals. They were also asked to identify and

describe a good formal leader in their own institution.

National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance researchers Estela

Bensimon, Barbara Lee, and Anna Neumann collaborated with Robert Birnbaum in the

Institutional Leadership Project to develop the study interview questions, the case study

48

format, and research methodology. Initial interviews were conducted during phase one

(1986-1987) and follow-up interviews were conducted during phase two (1988-1989) to

gather data—perceptions of the relationships between members identified as formal

leaders and their president. Researchers summarized interviews, coded responses, and

tracked campus change during the two-year interlude between 1987 and 1989.

A purposeful sample of 32 American higher education institutions was selected

from the population of Carnegie Foundation Classification of Institutions of Higher

Education™. According to Birnbaum (1992a), a purposeful sample was necessary to

ensure that the study sample of presidents represented a diversity of American higher

education institutions. Of the 32 colleges and universities, 8 were selected from each of

the following 4 Carnegie™ classifications of higher education institutions: research

universities, public four-year colleges, independent colleges, and community colleges.

Birnbaum maintains that he was able to further able to ensure institutional diversity by

selecting institutions within each of the subcategories of Carnegie classifications (e.g.,

degrees granted). From a total population (n = 100,) 32 presidents agreed to participate

in the study.

Faculty perceptions of levels of support and satisfaction, as well as campus

improvement (e.g., campus change and renewal) were the data gathered in this study.

Additional data gathered were self- and other-perceptions of presidential leadership

effectiveness measured in terms of how leaders established goals and articulated the

culture of the organization “to make sense of the complex and dynamic organizations in

which they work” (Birnbaum, 1992a, p. xii).

49

Two assumptions were addressed in this study. The first assumption was that

presidential leadership could be analyzed on a cultural level—through symbolic and

interpretive dimensions (Birnbaum, 1992a). The symbolic dimension addresses the

process by which decisions are made and how outcomes are achieved, while the

interpretive dimension affects how individuals behave, think, and perceive.

The second assumption of this study was that constituent support and institutional

change can be measured in relationship to seven cognitive characteristics: (a) observed

complexity, (b) strategy, (c) communication, (d) orientation, (e) self-assessment,

(f) searching, and (g) intuition. Historical and cultural perceptions were also analyzed to

examine the conditions under which leadership made a difference in institutional change

and renewal.

The primary research question asks: Under what conditions can leaders make a

difference? The hypothesis of the study was that presidential effectiveness can be

measured by: (a) levels of faculty support, (b) changes that occur over a period of time,

and (c) the length of the presidential term. Birnbaum (1992a) also investigated the

relationship between demographic data (e.g., number of degrees offered) to describe the

study sample.

Researchers analyzed campus documents and interviews conducted during phase

one (1986-1987) and phase two (1988-1989) of the five-year longitudinal study. Data

analyzed were leaders’ perceptions of campus change during the two-year interim

between phase one and two. Those respondents who were still employed at the same

institution were asked if the campus was better off two years later. Birnbaum (1992a)

admits that neither he nor the other researchers attempted to quantify what the phrase

50

better off meant. Therefore, he concluded, “no assertion is made that their rating met any

normative criterion of validity or reliability” (p. 213). However, researchers did conduct

an analysis of data that revealed that of the 21 institutions that had the same president in

phase two, 9 (43%) had improved, 6 (29%) remained unchanged, and 6 (29%) had

become worse since phase one.

The sampling frame included 50 new and 50 old or tenured presidents who were

appointed between 1984 and 1986 and between 1965 and 1981, respectively. Of the 100

participants who were invited to participate, 32 presidents agreed to be interviewed. The

32 presidential case reports were divided into two groups—new and old. New presidents

were described as in office less than five years at the time of the first campus visit while

old presidents were described as having been in office for five or more years.

Presidential effectiveness was measured in terms of the level of faculty support.

Presidents who enjoyed having high levels of faculty support were described as

exemplary, presidents with mixed levels of faculty support were described as modal, and

presidents with low levels of faculty support were described as failed. Of the 32

presidents in office in 1986-1987, a total of 16 (50%) were described as having high

faculty support, 7 (22%) were described as having mixed faculty support, and 9 (28%

were described as having low faculty support.

Researchers then divided the 32 presidents into 2 groups of 16 new and 16 old

presidents, and then into three categories of high, mixed, or low levels of faculty support,

which resulted in six distinct groups. Findings revealed that 12 (75%) of the 16 new

presidents described as exemplary had high faculty support, 2 (12%) of the new

presidents described as modal had mixed support, and 2 (12%) of the new presidents

51

described as failed had low support. Of the 16 old presidents described as exemplary, 4

(25%) enjoyed high faculty support, 5 (31%) described as modal had mixed faculty

support, and 7 (44%) described as failed had low faculty support.

Birnbaum (1992a) concluded that new and old presidents perceived as exemplary

had four characteristics in common: (a) predecessors of these new presidents lacked high

faculty support, (b) input was sought from faculty during and after the selection process,

(c) the succession process was accompanied by faculty perceptions of increased campus

well-being, and (d) presidents were viewed as action oriented.

Presidents perceived as exemplary were also perceived as having five personal

and professional characteristics: (a) having technical competence and concern for people,

(b) working within established governance structures, (c) maintaining values consistent

with the larger purpose and the mission of the institution, which transcended managerial

goals, (d) being fair, exhibiting integrity and respect for faculty, and (e) having the ability

to make difficult decisions. Birnbaum (1992a) concluded from study findings that

exemplary presidents were perceived as having the ability to emphasize the importance of

institutional values and traditions, as well as the ability to influence the institutional

process by symbolically interpreting the organization.

Due to the small sample size of presidents perceived as modal or failed, study

findings were limited. Two characteristics that modal and failed presidents had in

common were that: (a) the institution was in financial or political crisis when the new

president took office, and (b) presidents took action early in office, with little or no input

from faculty, resulting in faculty disapproval. Although a president’s actions were

52

perceived as rational, faculty reported that little or no attention was paid to “the collegial

or cultural campus patterns” (Birnbaum, 1992a, p. 77) of the organization.

Those identified as failed presidents were longtime administrators who assumed

their position through a promotion process that was reported as not including a search

process. Due to the lack of faculty participation, these appointments were perceived as

“lacking legitimacy from its inception” (Birnbaum, 1992a, p. 77). Two of the failed

presidents were also perceived as not taking focused actions, and one president perceived

as autocratic also relied on his charismatic personality when influencing others.

Of the five campuses with mixed faculty support, faculty expressed indifference

or resigned acceptance when they described their support of a president. Faculty

perceptions of the seven presidents with low support revealed that failed presidents not

only did not improve the institution, they were also perceived as having inhibited

institutional development (Birnbaum, 1992a). Faculty opinion was that these presidents

should not try to improve, but instead resign. However, an interesting finding was that

four of the seven failed presidents still maintained the support of their boards and

administrative colleagues in spite of the loss of faculty support. Of the 12 presidents with

mixed or low faculty support, 9 were criticized as being authoritarian—focusing on the

achievement of tasks with little or no concern for others.

Those presidents with mixed or low support were perceived as having seven

characteristics in common: (a) impatience with decision-making process, (b) indifference

to faculty participation in governance, (c) micro-managing specific institutional processes

or programs, (d) acting too quickly with little or no faculty consultation, (e) being aloof

or cold, (f) failing to communicate adequately, and (g) being difficult to deal with and

53

unpredictable. Faculty criticized these presidents for emphasizing management systems

and for their failure to involve faculty in the decision-making process.

Institutional Research Project researchers also analyzed findings to determine if

there was a relationship between institutional and personal characteristics. They

concluded that neither category related to the level of faculty support that a president

enjoyed. However, one variable was found to be significant—whether the president was

new or old. Of the total number (n = 32), 75% of the new presidents enjoyed a high level

of faculty support, compare to only 25% of the old presidents.

Researchers also analyzed data to determine if cognitive characteristics were

related to levels of faculty support. They found that presidents perceived as cognitively

complex (those who used two or more frames) enjoyed a higher the level of support than

presidents perceived as using one frame. Of the total number of presidents who

responded (n = 29), the majority of those who were perceived as having a high cognitive

complexity also enjoyed a high level of faculty support.

One weakness of Birnbaum’s (1992a) study was that he did not use a random

sample of Carnegie Foundation Institutions of Higher Education™ from which to select

his sampling frame of presidents. Instead Birnbaum used a multi-stage purposeful

selection process to identify institutions of higher education divided equally in 4 Carnegie

classification categories: research university, public four-year, independent, and

community colleges. The sample of institutions was further narrowed using Carnegie

classifications such as the number of programs offered. Birnbaum maintains that this

selection process ensured that the study sample of presidents represented the diversity of

American colleges and universities. As the study did not use a random sample of

54

institutions of higher education to select presidents it is impossible to generalize findings

to other higher education institutions. The second weakness was that researchers did not

quantify terms such as good when asking if a leader “is a good leader?” or better off,

when asking “is your campus better off today than it was two years ago?” As a result, the

validity and reliability of the survey can be called into question.

The strength of Birnbaum’s (1992a) the Institutional Leadership Project is that it

was the first longitudinal study to investigate the relationship between perceptions of

presidential support and variables such as tenure, cognitive complexity (e.g., the use of

two or more models or frames), structure, and culture. The data collected in this study

were formal leaders’ perceptions of campus change during the two year interim between

phase one and two. Additionally, his was the first study to use implicit or espoused

leadership theories (e.g., power and influence, behavioral or cognitive theories) to code

respondents’ perceptions of leadership behavior. These leadership theories also became

the foundation for the development of his models of organizational functioning in his text

How Colleges Work and for future studies using his model theory. The strength of

Birnbaum’s study is also his conclusion that all presidents can apply a ten point research-

based principle of good academic leadership model “without knowing the specifics of

their campuses” (p. 172). Although this statement may seem contradictory, in fact it

supports his theory that leaders can apply his typology of higher education models of

organizational functioning to every higher education organization, even when a leader is

not familiar with an institution.

Birnbaum’s (1992a) The Institutional Leadership Project has implications for this

current study on several levels. Although Birnbaum did not use his theory of models of

55

organizational functioning, developed in 1988, to analyze data gathered during study, he

did use a modified version of Bolman and Deal’s typology of frames to develop survey

questions. Implicit and espoused theories of leadership behaviors were also used to code

respondent perceptions. As the data gathered in Birnbaum’s study does reflect his theory

(1988) that there is a relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization,

as depicted in his models, it does inform this current study.

Findings revealed in Birnbaum’s (1992a) study have other implications for this

current study. Respondents’ perceptions of presidential leadership behavior were the data

gathered to investigate how formal leaders think and act as new and old or more

experienced presidents. In this current study, the data gathered were faculty perceptions

of the leadership behavior of a formal leader—a dean. Findings from Birnbaum’s study

revealed that presidents perceived as exemplary had five personal and professional

characteristics in common: (a) having technical competence and concern for others,

(b) working within established governance structure, (c) maintaining values consistent

with the larger purpose and the mission of the institutions, (d) being fair (e.g., exhibiting

integrity and respect for faculty, and (e) having the ability to make difficult decisions.

Birnbaum’s findings inform this study as perceptions of exemplary presidents focused on

many of the same model characteristics (e.g., culture, governance, decision-making) used

for item development for the instrument used to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory.

Birnbaum’s (1992a) study also informed this current study as it gathered

respondents’ perceptions of the models or frames used by formal leaders when they make

decisions. He concludes that more cognitively complex leaders—those with the ability

to “see problems through multiple perspectives” (p. 20)—enjoyed a higher level of

56

faculty support. Although Birnbaum never published a document that integrated his

model theory with study findings, Institutional Leadership Project researcher Estela

Bensimon used the same study results to investigate faculty perceptions of good

presidential leadership. A critique of her studies follows.

Estela Bensimon. Estela Bensimon, an Institutional Leadership Project

researcher, used the same sample of 32 presidents to conduct her study. The purpose of

Bensimon’s study (1987b) was to examine the cognitive complexity of college and

university presidents. The extent to which single or multiple cognitive frames are used

when describing the meaning of good leadership behavior determined the degree of

cognitive complexity. The use of frames as an interpretive tool to study of higher

education leadership was considered relatively new (Birnbaum, 1988, Bensimon, 1987b).

According to Bensimon (1987b), implicit or espoused leadership theories

influence presidential expectations, although these theories may not describe the actual

activities of presidents. Her methodology involved analyzing responses “as if they were

made up of two distinct components: leadership as the process of providing direction to a

group or an institution and the leadership tactics used to provide direction” (p. 9).

To investigate presidential use of multiple perspectives theories, Bensimon

(1987b) used Birnbaum’s (1988) four frames (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and

symbolic), a modification of Bolman and Deal’s (1984) four frames (structural, human

resource, political, and symbolic). Each president was asked to respond to the question:

How do you define good presidential leadership? Codes were assigned to each of the

four frames for data analysis. Frame analysis of responses was categorized into a

57

three-part classification of codes: presidents who used a single frame, two frames, or

multiple frames (three or four frames).

Of the 32 presidents, data analysis revealed that a total of 13 (41%) described

good presidential leadership using a single frame, 11 (34%) used two frames, 7 (22%)

used three frames, and 1 (3%) used all four frames. Bensimon (1987b) also conducted an

analysis of frames assigned in each of the three categories. Of the 13 presidents who

used a single frame to describe the meaning of good presidential leadership, 5 (38%) used

the bureaucratic frame, 4 (31%) used the collegial frame, 3 (23%) used the symbolic

frame, and 1 (8%) used the political frame. The majority 9 (69%) used the bureaucratic

and collegial frames when describing good presidential leadership.

Of the 11 presidents who used two frames to describe the meaning of good

presidential leadership, the symbolic and collegial frames were used in the following

combinations: symbolic and collegial frames, 5 (45%), symbolic and political frames, 2

(18%), collegial and political frames, 3 (27%), and bureaucratic and political frames, 1

(10%). No respondent used the bureaucratic frame in combination with the collegial or

symbolic frames. Of the 8 presidents who described a multiple frame approach, 5 (63%)

used a combination of the collegial, political, and symbolic frames, and 2 (25%) used a

combination of the bureaucratic, collegial, and political frames. Only 1 (13%) president

used all four frames when describing good presidential leadership.

Bensimon (1987b) also compared presidential length of time in service to frame

analysis results. Findings revealed patterns for new (less than five years) and old (more

than five years) presidents. Of the 16 new presidents, 8 (50%) used one frame and 8

58

(50%) used two frames. Of the 16 old presidents, 5 (31%) used one frame and 11 (69%)

used two frames to describe good presidential leadership.

As Bensimon (1987b) used the same study sample of 32 Institutional Leadership

Project presidents, her study also has some of the same research design and methodology

weaknesses that face Birnbaum’s (1992) study. Therefore, the generalizability of her

findings to other institutions may be limited. The strength of Bensimon’s study is that

she used the same implicit or espoused theories to code respondents’ perceptions of

leadership behavior as used in the Birnbaum’s study. Her study is also significant

because it presents an in-depth analysis of perceived frame usage in relationship to the

variables of leadership behavior and years in service.

Bensimon’s (1987b) study has implications for this current study as it used a

frame approach to investigate the relationship between leadership effectiveness (e.g., a

good leader) and cognitive complexity (the use of two or more frames). Her study closed

a gap in leadership research which addresses “new understandings of presidential

cognitive frames and their consequences for leadership effectiveness” (p. 29). Leaders

who use two or more frames display “the greatest frame complexity. Espousing a

multi-frame theory implies the ability to shift frames in response to situational

circumstances” (p. 18).

In a subsequent study, Bensimon (1990b) found discrepancies between self- and

other-reports of frame use by Institutional Leadership Project sample presidents.

Presidents self-reported using more frames than perceived by their colleagues. For

example, the symbolic leadership frame was self-reported by 66 % of the presidents,

however only 36% of other-reports identified the symbolic frame when describing the

59

leadership behavior of that president. Her finding was consistent with Bolman and

Deal’s (1997) finding that only half of the presidents who saw themselves as symbolic

leaders were perceived by others as using the symbolic frame.

Bensimon (1990b) also found a discrepancy between presidential self- and

other-reports of cognitive complexity. Of the total number of presidents (n = 28), 19

(68%) self-reported the use of two or more frames. However, perceptions of frame use

by others revealed that only 8 (42%) of the 19 presidents were perceived as having high

complexity, while 9 (47%) were reported by others to have low complexity (using one

frame). Of the remaining 19, 2 (11%) were perceived as using two frames, described as

intermediate complexity.

Bensimon (1990b) found that other-reports of presidential leadership perceived as

high in complexity described a president in terms of the collegial, political, or symbolic

frames. Presidents perceived as having low complexity self-reported that they led from

two frames—bureaucratic and symbolic. However, the majority of other-reports

indicated that these presidents led primarily from one frame—the bureaucratic frame.

Birnbaum (1992) concludes from Bensimon’s finding that presidents who rely

exclusively on the bureaucratic frame are less likely to be able to operate from another

model simultaneously.

Organization Research

Phyllis Higgins. The purpose of Higgins’ (1997) study was to investigate

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that coupling (Weick, 1976) is one characteristic of his higher

education models of organizational functioning: bureaucratic, collegial, political, and

anarchical. Birnbaum describes coupling patterns from tight to loose, rather than

60

degrees. Mechanisms (e.g., collaboration, connectedness, and interaction) are used by

subsystems as they “perform as a unit or as systems interact with their environments”

(Higgins, 1997, p. 31). Birnbaum’s theory of the relationship between models of

organizational functioning and the coupling characteristic was not verified empirically

prior to Higgins’ study.

A two-part research instrument Questionnaire: Continuing Education was

developed by Higgins (1997) to gather data regarding faculty perceptions of the model of

organization of an educational institution and the perceived degree of coupling within the

subsystem of continuing education offices. The study sample included members of the

National University Continuing Education Association.

Three research questions are addressed in her study: (a) What is the perceived

degree of coupling between on- and off-campus continuing education offices, (b) what is

the perceived organizational model of the educational institution, and (c) is there a

significant relationship between the perceived organizational model of the educational

institution and the perceived degree of coupling of on- and off-campus continuing

education offices? Birnbaum’s (1988) model of organization was treated as the

independent variable and the degree of coupling was treated as the dependent variable.

Higgins (1997) contacted Birnbaum, Orton, and Weick, whose studies and

theories were the basis of her study, and confirmed that no research instruments existed

to test either Birnbaum’s (1988) models of organization or Weick’s (1976) construct of

coupling. As a result, Higgins developed a questionnaire to gather data for her study. To

determine the validity of her questionnaire these scholars reviewed Higgins’ instrument.

Based on feedback, Higgins continued to make modifications to her instrument, which

61

resulted in the elimination of some items and rewriting of others for the purpose of

clarification.

Higgins (1997) also conducted a pretest with higher education administration

doctoral students involved in continuing education administration and continuing

education administrators at Langley Air Force Base Education Center. Feedback from a

focus group was also gathered. Modifications were made to both the questionnaire and

the cover letter based on the pretest and feedback from focus group participants.

Part I of Higgins’ (1997) Questionnaire: Continuing Education addresses

research question one which asks the perceived degree of coupling between on- and

off-campus continuing education offices. Part II addresses research question two which

asks the perceived organizational model of the educational institution. Research question

three asks if a relationship exists between the perceived organizational model of the

educational institution and the perceived degree of coupling of on- and off-campus

continuing education offices.

A random sample of National Universities Continuing Education Association

(NUCEA) members yielded a sample size of 492 participants. A cover letter and

questionnaire were mailed to each participant, with a self-addressed envelope enclosed.

Those who did not respond to the initial invitation to participate in the study received a

reminder invitation. A total of 102 useable questionnaires were received.

A factor analysis was conducted on each section of the questionnaire and items

were grouped according to the four model assignments—bureaucratic, collegial, political,

and anarchical. As Higgins (1997) developed her own instrument, a Cronbach’s alpha

test of reliability was conducted on data gathered. Calculations revealed an alpha score

62

of .86 for Part I—perceived degrees of coupling. Alpha scores for Part II—models of

organization were as follows: bureaucratic (.82), collegial (.88), political (.79), and

anarchical (.87).

The next step in the data analysis procedure was to determine model and coupling

assignments for each respondent. Assignment of the model of organization and the

characteristic of coupling was derived from the perceptions of the sample of members of

the National University Continuing Education Association. To standardize model scores,

the standard deviation and the mean for each model group was used to create a sorting

matrix for model assignment. Higgins assigned the cybernetic model to respondents

when two or more of the models ‟tied” at the same level on the sorting matrix.

Data analysis revealed that the largest number of respondents 33 (32.4%) were

assigned the cybernetic model of organization. The next highest 23 (22.5%) were

assigned the collegial model of organization, 19 (18.6%) were assigned the anarchical

model, 16 (15.7%) were assigned the bureaucratic model, and 11 (10.8%) were assigned

the political model. Higgins (1997) excluded the cybernetic model in her final results, as

it represents a combination of two or more of the four models. A one-way analysis of

variance calculation revealed a significant difference between the four models.

To determine which models were significantly different, the Scheffe´ test was

calculated. Findings revealed a significant difference between the perceived degree of

coupling between bureaucratic and political organizations and between bureaucratic and

anarchical organizations, respectively.

Results also indicated that bureaucratic and collegial organizations are more

tightly coupled, while political and anarchical organizations are more loosely coupled.

63

No significant differences existed between continuing education participant perceptions

of the collegial and the bureaucratic, political, or anarchical organizations, or between the

political and anarchical organizations based on the coupling characteristic.

A modified version of Higgins’ (1997) Questionnaire: Continuing Education was

used in the current study to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that there is a

relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted in his

models of organizational functioning. Further discussion of Higgins’ instrument is

presented in the instrument development section of Chapter 3.

There are no research design or methodology weaknesses in Higgins’ (1997)

study of Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that coupling is one characteristic of his models of

organizational functioning. The strength of Higgins’ study is that it was the foundation

for subsequent studies of Birnbaum’s theory. Additionally, part or all of her instrument

has been used in four subsequent studies also investigating Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of

models of organizational functioning. Permission was granted by Higgins to modify her

instrument for the purposes of this current study. Higgins’ study also has implications for

this current study. Findings revealed that the cybernetic model of organization was

assigned to the largest number of respondents, a finding also revealed in this current

study. Her study also provided this current study a theoretical foundation for the

development of a new instrument.

A critique of three studies that used Higgins’ (1997) instrument to investigate

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of higher education models of organization follows.

Wayne Jones. The purpose of Jones’ (1999) study was to determine if a

relationship exists between Birnbaum’s (1988) models of organization and the trust that

64

subordinates place in their leader. Jones combined Part II of Higgins’ (1997)

Questionnaire: Continuing Education with Butler’s (1991) Conditions of Trust Inventory.

Jones did not conduct a pretest to determine the validity and reliability of the instrument,

as he did not modify Higgins’ instrument. An online venue was used to distribute the

survey and to collect data for analysis.

The three research questions in this study are: (a) What is the distribution of

organizational models found in the sample of colleges and universities studied, (b) what

are the levels of trust that the respondents have in the leaders of the colleges and

universities used in the study, and (c) are there significantly different levels of trust in the

leaders associated with the various organizational models?

The population selected for this study was higher education administrators. The

sampling frame was administrators from institutions that were members of the American

Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). Invitations requesting

participation in the study were mailed to presidents at 425 AASCU institutions. In a non-

random sample, presidents of 98 institutions provided the names and e-mail addresses of

administrators who were directly associated with the president’s cabinet. This resulted in

a study sample of 272 usable responses, which represented a total of 92 separate higher

education institutions. Demographic data were also gathered to describe the study

sample. Jones (1999) used a methodology similar to that used by Higgins (1997) to

assign a model to each respondent.

Data gathered in Part II addressed research question one: What is the distribution

of models of organization of the sample institutions? Part II consisted of 24 items

addressing Birnbaum’s (1988) models of organization. The majority of respondents 89

65

(32.7%) were assigned the cybernetic model. The following models of organizations

were also assigned to respondents: political 52 (19.1%), anarchical 47 (17.3%),

bureaucratic 46 (16.9%), and collegial 38 (14.0%).

Data gathered in Part I of Jones’ (1999) research instrument addressed research

question two: What are the perceived levels of trust of presidents of institutions addressed

in Part II? Part I consists of 44 items addressing characteristics of Butler’s (1991) levels

of trust. This section has 11 areas or characteristics associated with trust: availability,

competence, consistency, discreetness, fairness, integrity, loyalty, openness, overall trust,

promise fulfillment, and receptivity. Mean scores were calculated and revealed that the

majority of respondents perceived the Condition of Trust characteristic of a president as

competence (18.9%).

Research question three asks: Is there is a relationship between the perceived

levels of trust of a president and the perceived higher education model of organization of

the institution? A one-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences among

models of organization and the conditions of trust. To determine which models were

significantly different the Scheffe´ test was calculated. Findings revealed a significant

difference several of Butler’s (1991) Conditions of Trust characteristics and Birnbaum’s

(1988) models of organization.

A weakness of Jones’ (1999) study is that he used a non-random sample of

presidents of 98 institutions to provide him with the names and e-mail addresses of

administrators who were directly associated with the president’s cabinet. One of the

strengths of Jones’ study is that he used Birnbaum’s (1988) cybernetic model (an

66

integration of two or more models) to analyze data gathered, which laid the foundation

for this current study.

Jones’ (1999) study has implications for this current study because he was the

first researcher to use Higgins’ (1997) questionnaire. He used Part II (organization) of

Higgins’ instrument to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of organization in

relationship to Butler’s (1991) Conditions of Trust inventory. Jones’ study also informs

this current study because he used Birnbaum’s (1988) cybernetic model to analyze data

collected. His finding that the majority 89 (33%) of respondents (n = 272) perceived a

cybernetic model supported the further investigation of Birnbaum’s theory of the

cybernetic model of leadership and organization in this current study.

Hilda Williamson. The purpose of Williamson’s (2000) study was to examine

whether Higgins’ (1997) Questionnaire: Continuing Education could be applied to a

higher education subsystem other than on- and off-campus units of continuing education.

Williamson used both sections of Higgins’ instrument to gather perceptions of academic

nursing Center (ANC) faculty and non-academic nursing Center faculty (non-ANC) to

determine the coupling characteristic of ANCs and the model of organization of their

institution. The two-part questionnaire gathered faculty perceptions to assign

respondents to Birnbaum’s (1988) models of organization (bureaucratic, collegial,

political, anarchical, and cybernetic) and the coupling characteristic to the subsystem of

ANCs.

Three research questions were addressed in this study: (a) What is the perceived

degree of coupling between the academic nursing center faculty and non-academic

67

nursing center faculty, (b) what is the perceived organizational model of the educational

institution, and (c) is there a significant relationship between the perceived organizational

model of the educational institution and the perceived degree of coupling between the

academic nursing faculty and the non-academic nursing center faculty?

The population was derived from directors of 184 nursing Centers who provided

the names of up to 10 participants. These nursing Centers were on the official lists

provided by the National League for Nursing, American Association of Colleges for

Nursing, and The Division of Nursing within the Department of Health and Human

Services. As nursing Centers are traditionally closely associated, Williamson decided to

also use a list of recognized Nursing Schools at institutions of higher education not

already on the lists provided by the aforementioned organizations. The sample (n = 103)

of ANC and non-ANC faculty was non-randomized.

Williamson (2000) did not conduct a pretest to determine the reliability and

validity of the instrument as the only modification that she made to Higgins’ (1997)

instrument was to change the name from on- and off-campus continuing education offices

to ANCs (academic nursing centers) and non-ANCs (non-academic nursing centers). The

organizational model was treated as the independent variable in Higgins’ study.

Williamson (2000) used a methodology similar to that used by Higgins (1997) to

assign model groups to respondents. A one-way analysis of variance of data gathered in

Part II revealed significance among models. To answer research question three, a

one-way analysis of variance and a Scheffe´ were calculated to determine if there is a

relationship between models of organization and the coupling characteristic. Significant

68

differences were revealed between anarchical and collegial models and between

anarchical and cybernetic models.

Part II gathered faculty perceptions of the model of organization of their

institution. Of the 103 participants, the largest number 44 (42.7%) was assigned to the

cybernetic model. The next highest number 23 (22.3%) perceived the anarchical model,

14 (13.6%) perceived the bureaucratic model, 14 (13.6%) perceived the collegial model,

and 8 (7.8%) perceived the political model. Of the 44 (42.7%) who were assigned the

cybernetic model, 9 (8.7%) perceived a combination of the anarchical and political

models, 8 (7.8%) perceived a combination of the bureaucratic and collegial models, and 7

(6.8%) perceived a combination of all four models (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and

anarchical). She concludes that the remaining results were too small to report.

A weakness of Williamson’s (2000) study is that she used a non-random sample

of ANC and non-ANC faculty to conduct her study. One of the strengths of her study is

that she tested the use of Higgins’ (1997) questionnaire in a subsystem other than on- and

off-campus units of continuing education. Another strength is that she followed Jones’

(1999) recommendation and identified the cybernetic model combinations. Williamson’s

findings also support Birnbaum’s (1988) assertion that the collegial and bureaucratic

models are more tightly coupled and the political and the anarchical models are more

loosely coupled.

The use of Higgins’ (1997) instrument with a different study sample had

implications as it supported its use in this current study. Williamson’s (2000) study also

informs this current study as it supports Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that cybernetic model

69

most adequately describes the higher education organization. The majority of 44 (42.7%)

of respondents (n = 103) in her study were assigned to the cybernetic model.

Martha Hall. The purpose of Hall’s (2002) study was to determine if there is a

significant difference in faculty perceptions of model of organization of six academic

disciplinary subsystems (Business, Engineering and Technology, Liberal Arts and

Education, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Science) and the model of organization of the

educational institution. As Hall only made minor modifications to the terminology of

items in Part II of Higgins’ (1997) instrument, to reflect the purpose of her study, she did

not conduct a pretest of the instrument.

Hall (2002) applied a methodology similar to that used in previous studies

(Higgins, 1997; Jones, 1999; Williamson, 2000) to assign respondents to the five models

(bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic). The sample was full-time

instructional faculty in six academic disciplinary areas of one institution. Four primary

research questions were addressed in this study. Part I of the questionnaire was used to

address research question one: What is the organizational model of the educational

institution as perceived by faculty? Data analysis revealed that of the total number of

respondents (n = 131), the greatest number of respondents 37 (28%) perceived the

collegial model, 33 (25%) perceived the anarchical model, 33 (25%) perceived the

institution as cybernetic, 21 (16%) perceived the political model, and 7 (6%) perceived

the bureaucratic model. Standardized residuals revealed that significantly more faculty

perceived the educational institution to be collegial (28%), anarchical (25%), and

cybernetic (25%) than would be expected, and fewer perceived it to be political (16%)

and bureaucratic (6%).

70

Part II of the questionnaire was used to address the second research question

(a) What is the organizational model of each of the six academic disciplinary areas and

the model of organization of the institution, and (b) what is the organizational model of

the educational institution within each of the six academic disciplinary areas? Hall

(2002) reported detailed findings for each of the five additional academic disciplines. For

example, faculty perceptions of 23 respondents in the School of Business revealed that

the greatest number 7 (30%) perceived the academic disciplinary as a cybernetic model

of organization, and 7 (30%) also perceived the educational institution as a cybernetic

model of organization.

Research question three asks: Do faculty members have a different perception of

the organizational model of their academic disciplinary area than they do of the

educational institution? Research question four has four subquestions to investigate

Birnbaum’s (1988) models of organization (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and

anarchical). The cybernetic model was not examined. The first subquestion asks if there

is a difference in the ratings of the different academic disciplinary areas. Significant

differences were found for three of the models—anarchical, bureaucratic, and collegial.

The second subquestion asks if there is a difference in how faculty rate the

educational institution compared to the academic area. Faculty reported the educational

institutional as higher for anarchical model of organization than they rated their academic

area, the bureaucratic model was rated higher for the educational institution than for the

academic area, the collegial model was rated lower for the educational institution than for

the academic area, and political was marginally higher for the educational institution than

the academic area.

71

The third subquestion asks if there is a significant interaction between faculty

ratings of the educational institution and the academic disciplinary area. Differences

were reported for faculty ratings of the educational institution as compared to the

academic disciplinary areas. Faculty ratings for the educational institution were higher

for the anarchical and bureaucratic models, and marginally for the political model, while

the anarchical model was higher for the academic disciplinary areas. The last

subquestion asks if there is significant interaction between faculty ratings of the

educational institution and the academic disciplinary areas. Significant differences were

found in the interaction between how faculty rated the model of organization of the

educational institution and how they rated the academic disciplinary areas, however the

interaction for the bureaucratic and the political models between the educational

institution and the academic disciplinary areas were found not significant.

Hall (2002) found that nursing was the only academic disciplinary area that

revealed a significant finding of the cybernetic model of organization. She speculates

that nursing faculty participation in Williamson’s (2000) study, using the same

instrument, may have contributed to this finding. She concludes that nursing faculty

perceptions of the institution as cybernetic supports Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that

individuals and groups perceive organizations as an integration of two or more models of

organization.

Hall’s (2002) study also revealed a significant interaction between faculty

perceptions of the institution and the academic area for anarchical and collegial models.

Hall concludes that this finding may be the result of the absence of a faculty senate which

traditionally enhances faculty involvement in the decision making process (e.g., critical

72

decisions about curriculum and academic policy). She hypothesizes that the absences of

a formal mechanism by which faculty have the opportunities for input may result in

faculty perceptions that there is no distinction between the academic area and the

institution.

Study findings revealed significant differences in how faculties rate the model of

organization of the institution in relationship to how they rate the academic area. The

institution was rated higher for anarchical, bureaucratic, and marginally for the political

model, whereas, the academic disciplinary areas were rated highest for collegial. Hall

(2002) concludes that the reason that the collegial model was rated higher for the

academic disciplinary areas may be due to small faculty size in four of the six

disciplinary. She concludes that the small number of faculty members may actually

“represent a true characteristic of the collegial model” (Hall, 2002, p. 94).

A weakness of Hall’s (2002) study was to include the nursing department in a

study that used the same instrument used by Williamson (2000). The strength of her

study was to use of Higgins’ (1997) instrument to gather perceptions in subsystems other

than continuing education, the original intent of her questionnaire.

Hall’s (2002) use of Higgins’ (1997) questionnaire to gather data from six

different academic divisions had implications for this study. The use of Higgins’

instrument for this current study to investigate Birnbaum’ (1988) theory with a random

sampling of full time faculty from a range of departments at 66 Carnegie Foundation™

institutions was supported by her study. Additionally, her findings that faculty perceived

the academic unit and the institution in terms of the same model had implications for this

current study that investigated a relationship between models.

73

This section presented a critique of four studies investigating Birnbaum’s (1988)

theory of higher education models of organization. Higgins’ (1997) Questionnaire:

Continuing Education investigated Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of organization

(bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical) and degrees of coupling (Weick, 1976).

Three subsequent studies (Hall, 2002; Jones, 1999; Williamson, 2000) used all or part of

Higgins’ questionnaire to further investigate Birnbaum’s organization model theory.

Summary of the Chapter

This chapter presented a review of leadership and organization theories and

empirical studies. Critical to the study of college and university leadership is the context

within which leadership is practiced—the higher education organization. Birnbaum’s

(1988) theory of the relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization,

as depicted in his models of organizational functioning provides scholars and higher

education practitioners—formal and informal leaders—with a contextual leadership

paradigm for higher education. Chapter three presents the methodology of this study the

research question, hypotheses, research paradigm, the development and pretest of the

instrument, the rationale and process used to select the study population, and the data

collection and data analysis procedures.

74

Chapter III

Methodology

Introduction




anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models). His models articulate

the way in which institutions of higher education function (Higgins, 1997). Birnbaum

describes the construct of leadership as one of three constructs (governance, leadership,

and organization) that distinguishes colleges and universities from other organizations.

A research instrument was developed to gather data to investigate Birnbaum’s

(1988) theory, as no empirical evidence exists to confirm or refute his theory. The

instrument, Models of Leadership and Organization (MLO), was used for the purpose of

this study to gather faculty perceptions of the model of leadership of deans and the model

of organization of the educational unit led by a dean. Research findings and conclusions

provide the basis for the development of a theoretical framework from which to study

leadership within the context of the higher education organization—referred to as a

contextual leadership paradigm.

This chapter presents the paradigm of inquiry, research design, operationalization

of theoretical constructs, research questions and hypotheses that served as the basis of

this study, the development and pretest of the instrument, the rationale and process used

to select the study population, and the data collection and analysis procedures. A

methodology timeline appears in Appendix E.

75

Paradigm of Inquiry

According to Creswell (2003), a quantitative approach is the best strategy to use

to test a theory. Reductionist philosophy was used to operationalize Birnbaum’s (1988)

theory of the relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization. This

philosophy allows researchers to reduce a theory “into a small, discrete set of ideas to

test, such as the variables that constitute hypotheses and research questions” (Creswell,

2003, p. 7).

The research paradigm of postpositivism was also used in this study.

Postpositivism challenges the traditional assumptions of the absolute truth of knowledge

about human behavior (Phillips & Burbules, 2000). The use of “numeric measures of

observation and studying the behavior of individuals become paramount for a

postpositivist” (Creswell, 2003, p. 7).

Research Design

A quantitative nonexperimental study, using survey research design, was selected

to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship between the variables of

leadership and organization, using five models of organizational functioning. The

selection of Birnbaum’s theory determined the development of the research questions and

hypotheses, problem and purpose statements, theoretical constructs, research paradigms,

and methodology prior to the start of the study (Creswell, 2003).

The intent of quantitative studies, which use survey research design, is to collect

data on “predetermined instruments that yield statistical data” (Creswell, 2003, p. 18) and

to investigate “the relationship between and among variables…central to answering

questions and hypotheses through surveys” (p. 153). Survey data collection and analysis

76

provide the researcher with the ability to generalize characteristics of a participant sample

to a total population (Babbie, 1990). Nonparametric statistical analysis was used to

answer the three research questions.

Operationalization of Theoretical Constructs

This study used survey research design to examine the theoretical constructs of

leadership and organization, as depicted in Birnbaum’s (1988) five models of

organizational functioning. Birnbaum groups leadership and organization characteristics

to form categories (models) and model labels (bureaucratic, collegial, political,

anarchical, and cybernetic). The data gathered were faculty perceptions of the model of

leadership of a dean and the model of organization of the educational unit led by that

dean.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to examine the primary question:







led?

The null hypothesis states that models of leadership and models of organization are

independent. The alternative hypothesis states that there is a relationship between models

of leadership and models of organization.

77

Limitations

This study used a survey instrument to gather faculty perceptions of the leadership

behavior of a dean and the organization of the educational unit led, at a single point in

time. Therefore, one limitation of this study was that each respondent perceived the

leadership behavior of a dean based on their own implicit cognitive perspective, not

necessarily based on the leadership behavior of that dean at the time that the survey was

taken.

Knowledge of the leadership of a dean and the educational unit led were also

limited by the amount and type of faculty interaction with a dean, the length of service in

the department or unit, and the amount and type of exposure to how the unit functions

(how decisions are made and how work is conducted).

The focus of this study was on Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship

between the constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted by his models of

organizational functioning. Therefore, problem and purpose statements, theoretical

constructs, the paradigm of inquiry, research questions, and hypotheses were all

predetermined at the outset of the study. As Birnbaum does not assert that there is a

causal relationship between leadership and organization, this study does not investigate a

cause and effect relationship between the two constructs.

The final limitation of this study was nonresponse bias, due to the online venue

selected for administering the instrument (Dillman, 2000; Sheehan, 2001). Nonresponse

bias was minimized by multiple (five) follow-up e-mail contacts, within 30 days, to

participants who did not respond to the initial e-mail invitation to participate in the study.

78

Delimitations

The first delimitation of the study was that the focus of this study was on faculty

perceptions of the leadership behavior of a dean and the organization of the educational

unit led, not a particular dean at a specific academic unit or institution. The second

delimitation was that the population was full time faculty at public and private master’s

degree granting Carnegie Foundation Institutions of Higher Education™ (2005), one of

six basic classification categories of American colleges and universities.

The third delimitation was that the sampling frame was defined as the list of

faculty with a professional e-mail address at a random sample of master’s degree granting

Carnegie™ institutions of higher education. Dillman (2000) addresses the challenges

associated with ensuring that all participants in a sample frame have the same opportunity

to participate in a study. Therefore, a random sample of faculty, listed on the sample

frame, ensured that everyone had an equal opportunity to participate in the study.

Population

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship between the constructs of leadership

and organization, as depicted by his models of organizational functioning, was developed

as a result of phase one (1986-1987) of his five-year (1986-1991) longitudinal study, the

Institutional Leadership Project. Birnbaum used the Carnegie Foundation Classification

of Institutions of Higher Education™ as his study population. Therefore, the population

from which to draw a random sample of full-time faculty for this current study was also

those colleges and universities listed on the Carnegie Foundation Institutions of Higher

Education™ electronic database. The Carnegie™ classification was developed to

support higher education research and public policy analysis.

79

Carnegie™ classified master’s degree-granting colleges and universities were the

population selected for this study (N = 664). Carnegie™ institutions are divided into

three categories according to the number of degree-granting academic programs

offered—small, medium, or large. Birnbaum (1988) does not examine program size in

relationship to his model theory; therefore, this current study does not address the number

of programs in relationship to his model theory. The population selected for this current

study was also similar to that selected by Higgins (1997), as well as those who used all or

part of Higgins’ instrument (Hall, 2002; Jones, 1999; Williamson, 2000).

Two criteria were established for the selection of an institution of higher

education. The first criterion was that an institution could not offer online degrees,

exclusively. When this was found to be the case, the institution that followed

immediately on the Carnegie™ list was selected. The rationale for excluding these

institutions was due to the determination that faculty listed on multiple campuses would

result in the duplication of individuals potentially selected for participation in the study.

The second criterion was that institutions must have a public domain Web page, listing

the professional e-mail addresses of faculty. In the event that an institution did not post

faculty e-mail addresses, the next institution that immediately followed on the list was

selected for participation in the study.

Sampling Frame

Colleges and universities are complex organizations, with formal and informal

leaders present in countless subsystems throughout an institution. Therefore, the focus of

this study was to identify one subsystem from which to draw a sample of full-time

faculty. The subsystem selected was the academic unit. An online venue was selected to

80

administer the survey and to gather data (SurveyMonkey™); therefore it was essential

that communication could be conducted electronically. Therefore, the sampling frame

was defined as the list of full-time faculty, with a professional e-mail address, at 66

(10%) of the 664 Carnegie™ (2005) master’s degree-granting colleges and universities.

The rationale used to exclude faculty without a professional e-mail address was

based on two assumptions: (a) faculty with a college e-mail address would be more

inclined to participate in a study using an online survey, due to their familiarity with the

electronic venue; and (b) faculty who are sent an invitation to participate in the study, via

conventional postal mail, may be less inclined to follow-up and log onto a Webpage to

complete the survey.

During the early stages of the Internet, the response rate to online surveys was

highest in populations (e.g., universities, business and industry, government) that may

have had a greater interest in technology (Dillman, 2000). However, since 1986 the

response rate to electronic surveys has declined (Sheehan, 2001). Therefore, to obtain the

necessary number of respondents it was decided that 10% of full-time faculty, with a

professional e-mail address, at each of the 66 randomly selected higher education

institutions would be invited to participate in the study.

Sampling Strategy

A multistage, cluster random sampling procedure (Creswell, 2003) was used to

select each of the 66 colleges and universities from which the study sample was drawn.

In the first stage, each of the 664 Carnegie Foundation™ (2005) classified master’s

degree-granting public and private institutions of higher education was assigned a

number, from 1 to 664, in sequential order from the least to the greatest number of

81

master’s degree-granting programs. A random sample of 66 (10%) of the 664 masters

degree-granting institutions were selected using an online random sampling program.

The sampling program generated 1 set of 66 unique randomly selected numbers, ranging

from 1 to 664, sorted from least to greatest. The first number, 26, was assigned to

institution number 26, the first institution selected, and so on until the last number, 663,

was assigned. Number 663 was the 66th institution selected.

In stage two of the multistage process, a random sample of 25% of faculty, with a

professional e-mail address, was identified from each of the selected institutions. A

sample size of 25% was chosen to compensate for potential nonresponse bias due to the

online venue selected to administer the MLO survey. When it was determined that a

college posted public access faculty e-mail addresses, 25% of the total number of faculty

members, with a professional e-mail address were randomly selected using the same

procedure as in stage one. For example, the first number in a randomly generated set of

numbers was assigned to the faculty member with that corresponding number from the

alphabetical list of faculty in each department. The process continued until all

participants were identified.

The electronic contact list of faculty was used exclusively for data collection.

Participant electronic contact information was deleted once the study was completed. A

total of five surveys bounced back electronically. As the IP addresses of participants

were not collected, it was not possible to determine which institution each of the five

faculty members represented. Therefore, these five e-mail contacts were deleted from the

electronic address book. A total of five follow-up contacts were made to those

individuals who did not respond to the initial e-mail invitation (e.g., if participant #10

82

failed to respond or decide to opt out after the initial e-mail invitation was sent, a second

e-mail reminder was sent, and so on until the completion of the data collection process on

the 30th day).

Instrumentation

This current study builds on Higgins’ (1997) investigation of Birnbaum’s (1988)

theory of higher education models of organization. The purpose of Higgins’ study was to

investigate Birnbaum’s theory that coupling (Weick, 1976) is one characteristic of his

higher education model of organization: bureaucratic, collegial, political, and cybernetic

(an integration of two or more models). Higgins developed an instrument,

Questionnaire: Continuing Education, as none existed to operationalize Birnbaum’s

theory. Higgins mailed her questionnaire to randomly selected National Universities of

Continuing Education Association (NUCEA) members (n = 492), resulting in a total of

102 useable surveys—a rate of return of 21%. Her study was discussed in detail in

Chapter 2. Three subsequent studies (Hall, 2002; Jones, 1999; Williamson, 2000) used

all or part of Higgins’ instrument to further investigate Birnbaum’s theory of models of

organization.

Instrument development. It was confirmed by Birnbaum (R. Birnbaum,

personal electronic communication, 2008) that no instrument was developed to test his

theory of higher education models of leadership and organization. Therefore, to

investigate his theory, it was necessary to develop a research instrument.

At the outset of the instrument development phase, it was decided that permission

would be sought to modify Part II of Higgins’ (1997) Questionnaire: Continuing

Education. Higgins granted permission to delete Part I (coupling) and insert a new

83

section (leadership), developed to gather faculty perceptions of the leadership behavior of

a dean and the organization of the department or unit led. As Part II of Higgins’

instrument included some elements of the leadership behavior considered to be part of the

organization construct, it was necessary to modify some items to only gather faculty

perceptions of the organization of the educational department or unit led.

Birnbaum (1988) articulated his theory of the relationship between the constructs

of leadership and organization in his text, How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of

Academic Organization and Leadership. The following discussion focuses on Part II

(Organization) of Higgins’ (1997) instrument, as Part I (coupling) was deleted. His text

was used for item development for a new instrument.

Section 1 of the new instrument had 140 leadership items and Section 2 had 24

organization items. Peer review by students in a Survey Research Methods course

resulted in rewording 5 of the 140 cybernetic model items in Section 1. A five-point

scale, used by Higgins (1997) in her instrument, was also used in the new instrument to

respond to each item. A third section asked respondents to answer five demographic and

one open-ended question.

To determine the validity of the instrument, a peer review by students in a Survey

Research Methods course was conducted that resulted in rewording 5 of the 140

cybernetic model items in Section 1. A draft of the new instrument was also pretested

during a breakout session held at The George Washington University’s Educational

Symposium for Research and Innovation (ESRI) conference in February 2007. Based on

feedback from ESRI respondents, modifications were made to the wording of the

84

instrument to make it more appropriate to the sample. However, due to the small sample

size, Cronbach’s alpha scores were not calculated.

In the third phase of instrument development, an expert panel was convened to

further confirm instrument validity. In addition to Higgins, Dannels agreed to participate

on the panel due to her expertise in higher education research and firsthand knowledge of

the instrument. Panel members reviewed items in the instrument, during a two year

process, to determine if each statement clearly reflected a model of leadership or

organization. The number of items in Section 1 was reduced from 140 to 40 due to the

elimination of cybernetic model items, a recommendation of Dannels as the cybernetic

model could be determined as an integration of two or more models during the data

analysis procedure. Modifications were continually made to the instrument based on

panel recommendations.

During this phase, Part I of Higgins’ (1997) questionnaire was replaced with a

new Section 1 (leadership). This section consists of 39 items, developed to gather faculty

perceptions of the leadership of a dean. Data gathered in Section 1 answer the second

research question: What is the distribution of the models of leadership of deans?

Participants were asked the extent to which each of the items describes the leadership

behavior of a dean. A five-point scale, ranging from 1 (To little or no extent) to 5 (To a

very great extent), was used to gather data.

Modifications were made to Part II (organization) of Higgins’ (1997)

questionnaire to delete any references to leadership. Additionally, the phrase “the

educational unit or department” replaced the phrase “the higher education institution.”

Section 2 of the new instrument consisted of 24 items designed to gather faculty

85

perceptions of the organization of the educational unit or department considered in

Section 1. Data gathered in this section answers the research question: What is the

distribution of the models of organization of the educational units led? Section 3

(demographic information) consists of five questions used to describe the study sample.

This section concludes with one open-ended question that asks respondents to describe a

leader. The instrument was given the title Models of Leadership and Organization

(Appendix A).

Once the overall development phase of the instrument was complete, an electronic

venue was selected to administer the survey. SurveyMonkey™ was selected as the

platform due to the features offered. Features include the ability to create new surveys

directly online, how to modify the survey once it is loaded into the system, and how to

develop and manage an electronic address book.

Because the instrument was developed to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory, it

was critical to determine the reliability of the instrument. Therefore, the next step was

the pretest phase. An “Exempt from IRB Request” form was submitted and approved by

the Office of Human Research Institutional Review Board, in January 2011. The first

pretest used a convenience sample of George Washington University graduate students

(n = 34). A Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .70 or greater was established as

the level necessary for a score to be considered acceptable (George & Mallery, 2003).

The first pretest resulted in lower than acceptable alpha scores in Section 2

(organization); therefore the following modifications were made. In Section 1

(leadership), item 39 (anarchical) was deleted. In Section 2 (organization), item 8

(anarchical) was also deleted, resulting in a total of 38 items in Section 1 and 23 items in

86

Section 2. Other minor modifications were made to language in items for clarification

purposes. A second pretest was necessary to continue to determine the reliability and

validity of the instrument.

The second pretest used a randomly selected sample of full-time faculty (n = 38)

at a Carnegie Foundation master’s degree-granting institution not already selected for

inclusion in the actual study. As a result of feedback from respondents, modifications

were made to the survey wording to reflect sampling of higher education faculty. Due to

less than acceptable political model Cronbach’s alpha scores, in Section 2 (organization),

a third pretest was conducted, using Section 2 only. A convenience sample of graduate

students (n = 44) attending classes at George Washington University was used. Table 1

summarizes the Cronbach’s alpha scores for pretests 1, 2, and 3.

87

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha Scores for Pretests 1, 2, and 3

Pretest 1 Pretest 2 Pretest 3 Construct/ Leadership Leadership Leadership Model Bureaucratic .90 .90 N/A

Collegial .93 .93 N/A

Political .87 .86 N/A

Anarchical .76 .74 N/A

Construct/ Organization Organization Organization

Model

Bureaucratic .71 .71 .79

Collegial .88 .88 .71

Political .68 .68 .63

Anarchical .86 .86 .76

Note: The sample size for each of the three pretests was (n = 34), (n = 38), and (n = 44), respectively. N/A (not applicable).

Despite repeated testing, Cronbach’s alpha scores for the political model of

organization remained consistently low. Because it was decided at the outset of the study

to modify Part II of Higgins’ (1997) questionnaire, political model of organization items

were not rewritten. The panel of experts concluded that the low political model

Cronbach’s alpha scores may be due to: (a) small sample sizes in each of the three

pretests, which could negatively impact scores; (b) the sample selected for pretests one

and three (secondary school administrators and teachers) may not be aware of the

88

political characteristics of educational departments, or (c) the instrument was not

sensitive enough to detect perceptions of the political model of organization.

It was also concluded that there may be a relationship between student enrollment

size and models of organization, as predicted by Birnbaum (1988). According to

Birnbaum, institutions described through the higher education political model of

organization have a student enrollment size greater than 10,000. All three pretests

sampled individuals employed in institutions with a student population less than 10,000.

Revisions to the Models of Leadership and Organization survey continued until final

evaluation of the instrument for reliability and validity.

The final version of the Models of Leadership and Organization instrument

consists of three sections (Appendix A). Section 1 has 38 items that represent

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of leadership. Section 2 has 23 items that represent

Birnbaum’s theory of models of organization, and Section 3 gathers demographic data

and asks respondents to describe a leader.

In Section 1 (leadership), 10 items gather faculty perceptions of the bureaucratic

model of leadership of a dean (1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 32, 36); 10 items gather faculty

perceptions of the collegial model of leadership (2, 6,10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 33, 37); 10

items gather faculty perceptions of the political model of leadership (3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23,

27, 31, 34, 38); and 8 items gather faculty perceptions of the anarchical model of

leadership (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 35).

In Section 2 (organization), 6 items gather faculty perceptions of the bureaucratic

model of organization of the educational unit or department led (2, 6, 9, 13, 17, 21); 6

items gather faculty perceptions of the collegial model of organization (1, 5, 8, 12, 16,

89

20); 6 items gather faculty perceptions of the political model of organization (3, 7, 10, 14,

18, 22); and 5 items gather faculty perceptions of the anarchical model of organization (4,

11, 15, 19, 23). Table 2 reports the survey items in each of the two sections.

90

Table 2. Leadership and Organization Survey Items

Models/ Items

BL CL PL AL BO CO PO AO

1 X X 2 X X 3 X X 4 X X 5 X X 6 X X 7 X X 8 X X 9 X X

10 X X 11 X X 12 X X 13 X X 14 X X 15 X X 16 X X 17 X X 18 X X 19 X X 20 X X 21 X X 22 X X 23 X X 24 X 25 X 26 X 27 X 28 X 29 X 30 X 31 X 32 X 33 X 34 X 35 X 36 X 37 X 38 X

Note: The letter “L” refers to leadership and the letter “O” refers to organization. An “x” indicates that an item exists for a model. Cells left blank indicate that no items exist for that model.

91

The primary research question asks: Is there a relationship between the constructs

of leadership and organization, as depicted in Birnbaum’s (1988) higher education

models of organizational functioning: bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, and

cybernetic (an integration of two or more models). Table 3 reports the model items for

each of the two variables—leadership and organization.

Table 3. Leadership and Organization Survey Model Items

Leadership

Organization

Leadership

Organization

Leadership

Organization

Leadership

Organization

Bureaucratic

Bureaucratic

Collegial

Collegial

Political

Political

Anarchical

Anarchical

1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 32, 36

2, 6, 9, 13, 17, 21

2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 33, 37

1, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20

3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 34, 38

3, 7, 10, 14, 18, 22

4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 35

4, 11, 15, 19, 23

Note: The two variables (leadership and organization) are listed with corresponding models and items for Sections 1 and 2 in the Models of Leadership and Organization instrument. Data Collection Procedure

An electronic venue was selected due to the cost associated with mailing a seven

page survey and a stamped, self-addressed envelope to 2,000 individuals. Additional

postage would have also been required as a result of five follow-up contacts made to

individuals who failed to respond to the initial invitation to participate. The population

Variable Model Survey Items

92

selected for this study was also familiar with working in the electronic environment. At a

minimum, instructors are required to communicate electronically with students or to post

a Webpage with contact information and a course syllabus. Therefore, the selection of an

electronic venue should enhance, not detract from, the response rate.

SurveyMonkey™ was the platform selected to administer the Models of

Leadership and Organization instrument due to its enhanced data collection features.

These features include the provision of five different formats to administer a survey and

to collect data to increase the response rate. The five formats for collecting data are:

(a) sending a survey via a Web link, (b) embedding a survey in a Webpage or blog,

(c) embedding a survey link in an e-mail, (d) adding a survey to a Facebook, and

(e) sharing a survey on Twitter. All five formats can be engaged simultaneously or

individually. SurveyMonkey’s™ survey distribution features addressed the need to make

a minimum of three contacts with participants to increase response rates (Molasso, 2005).

To facilitate ease in accessing the online survey, a link to the instrument was embedded

in e-mail messages to participants.

A database of 2007 randomly selected full time faculty, with the criterion of a

professional e-mail address, was created in the SurveyMonkey™ address book. This

particular electronic platform allows a researcher to use a customized messaging system

to compose and edit e-mail messages to send to study participants. The messaging

system can be set to predetermine the date when reminder messages are sent.

The data collection process began on August 20 and concluded 30 days later on

September 21, 2011. A total of 2007 e-mails were sent out to faculty inviting them to

participate in the leadership study. Although IP or individual e-mail addresses were not

93

tracked or collected, SurveyMonkey™ does provide an operation for tracking responses

for the purpose of follow-up contact to respondents, without knowing exactly who they

are.

On August 20th the first of a series of e-mail invitations was distributed via

SurveyMonkey™. The subject line of the electronic invitation read “Invitation to

participate in a higher education leadership study” (Appendix B). After the initial e-mail

invitation was distributed, SurveyMonkey™ was programmed to deliver e-mail

reminders to those who had not submitted a survey. A total of five reminders were

drafted and distributed (Appendix C). Due to turbulent weather conditions and power

outages throughout the nation, e-mail invitations were adjusted for specific geographic

locations affected; however, the overall timeline from the initial to the final e-mail

contact was a total of 30 days.

The first e-mail invitation described: (a) the purpose and importance of the study,

(b) the process by which participants were identified and selected, (c) a summary of the

informed consent disclosure process, including how to opt out of the study (an opt out

button is required by SurveyMonkey™ to distribute all surveys via their platform), (d) a

direct link connecting the recipient to the survey site, (e) contact information for the

researcher and the principal investigator, and (f) an option to request a hard copy of the

instrument. One individual requested a hard copy of the instrument that was later entered

manually into the SurveyMonkey™ database upon receipt. The hard copy was separated

from the envelope and retained until the end of the study when the database was purged.

Once participants clicked on the embedded link in the e-mail invitation, they were

brought to the SurveyMonkey™ site. The cover page of the survey reviewed all of the

94

same information provided in the initial e-mail invitation to participate in the study, and

provided an explanation of how to navigate through the survey. In the event that a

recipient was not a full-time faculty member, the e-mail invitation instructed an

individual not to forward the survey on to another faculty member. The rationale for this

decision was to control the study sample by using a random sample of the sample frame

only.

SurveyMonkey™ provides participants with the opportunity to exit a survey and

return at a later time to complete a survey. For those individuals who wanted to print a

hard copy of the survey to review or to complete, a print icon was provided to facilitate

the process. As a benefit to those who completed the survey, respondents were given the

opportunity to request an executive summary of study results. A database of those

requesting an executive summary was retained until the document was available for

distribution electronically. E-mails from participants requesting information about the

study, survey content clarification, or feedback for survey modification were responded

to in a timely fashion to facilitate the survey completion process.

Of the total of 2007 participants contacted, a total of 345 individuals opted out of

the study—319 directly through SurveyMonkey™ and 26 via e-mail. A total of five

invitations bounced back. As IP addresses were not collected, it was not possible to

determine which of the institutions faculty represented. Therefore, alternative faculty

names were not selected to participate in the study. Out of the 2007 respondents, the 482

usable surveys represent a 24% return rate.

95

Data Preparation and Handling

Data preparation and handling procedures were established prior to analysis of

data. Data were stored in the SurveyMonkey™ platform, the venue selected to create and

administer the Models of Leadership and Organization survey. SurveyMonkey™

facilitated data storage, preparation, and handling through enhanced management features

that include reviewing each individual response, as well as aggregate scores; sharing

responses and data with multiple users, through various levels of secured access; the

exportation of e-mails (respondents, opt outs, and bounced) from the data collection site;

the ability to export data to create filters by responses, and to create crosstabs and

correlations between data sets; and the ability to export data directly into custom reports,

charts and SPSS. To prepare data for analysis, each survey was reviewed for content.

The procedure used for data cleaning follows.

Data cleaning. At the outset of the data collection process, it was decided that at

least 75% of the items in each of the two sections (Leadership and Organization) had to

be completed for a survey to be included in data analysis. A total of 13 surveys were

discarded as they failed to meet this criterion. Demographic data were also reviewed to

ensure that all respondents met the demographic criterion of the sampling frame. Two

surveys were deleted because the respondents reported the position of adjunct professor.

Additionally, surveys were reviewed to determine if a response pattern was evident (e.g.,

all the same responses or a clear pattern—a,b,c,a,b,c,a,b,c…). In the event that a pattern

existed, that section of the survey was deleted. A total of eight response patterns were

found; however upon further review it was discovered that additional patterns of

responses occurred. Additionally, of the total sample (n = 482), 26 were partially

96

complete (e.g., if only one section was completed then that was the section that was

included in data analysis process).

Data from the surveys (n = 482) were downloaded directly from

SurveyMonkey™ into an Excel spreadsheet. In the event that 25% or less of item values

were missing in either of the two sections, missing values were replaced with the

respondent’s median score for that model. The median scores were determined by

calculating the midpoint of the total of all available values (e.g., if 1 of the 10

bureaucratic values was missing and the available values for the remaining 9 items were

1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5 then the median score assigned to the missing value was 3).

Approximately 75 item scores were imputed using this procedure.

The last step in the data preparation process was to transform one item score.

Item 8, Section 1, the anarchical model of leadership item, was inversely scored. The

rationale for reverse scoring was to facilitate the identification of pattern scoring when

cleansing data.

Data Analysis

The first step in the data analysis process was to calculate the Cronbach’s alpha

scores for the study sample (n = 482). To confirm the reliability of the instrument,

Cronbach’s alpha scores for each of the four composite leadership models (bureaucratic,

collegial, political, and anarchical) and for each of the four composite organizational

models (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical) were calculated and compared

to the alpha scores in all three pretests. Table 4 summarizes the alpha score results.

97

Table 4. Comparison of Three Pretests with Study Cronbach’s Alpha Scores

Model

Study

P1

P2

P3

Bureaucratic Leadership .90 .90 .90 X

Collegial Leadership .93 .93 .93 X

Political Leadership .86 .87 .86 X

Anarchical Leadership .74 .76 .74 X

Bureaucratic Organization .71 .71 .71 .79

Collegial Organization .88 .88 .88 .71

Political Organization .66 .68 .66 .63

Anarchical Organization .86 .86 .86 .76

Note: Alpha scores are listed by column for the actual study (n = 482). P1 column represents alpha scores for pretest 1 (n = 34), P2 represents alpha scores for pretest 2 (n = 38), and P3 represents alpha scores for pretest 3 (n = 44). An X indicates that no data is available as Section 1 was not used in P3. As previously discussed, members of the expert panel concluded that respondents

may have difficulty perceiving the political model of organization of the educational

department of unit led due to several factors. Low political model of organization alpha

score may be due to the fact that the instrument is not sensitive enough to measure

respondents’ perceptions or it may be due to the fact that respondents must be coached

about the characteristics of the political model of organization.

Data Reduction

Section 1 of the Models of Leadership and Organization instrument consists of 38

items that present statements reflecting Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of leadership

98

(bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical). Section 2 of the MLO consists of 23

items that present statements reflecting Birnbaum’s theory of models of organization

(bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical). In Section 1, participants were asked

to indicate the extent to which each item characterizes their perception of the leadership

behavior of a dean, and in Section 2 participants were asked their perception of the

organization of the educational unit led. On a five point interval scale, from least (1) to

greatest (5), the higher the score the more that particular leadership behavior or

organizational characteristic was perceived. One exception was item 8 (anarchical),

Section 1, which was reverse scored. In this item, a low score indicated a greater degree

to which the educational unit led was perceived as anarchical.

Data from the SurveyMonkey™ site were downloaded directly into SPSS. After

reverse scoring item 8, Section 1, the next step in the data reduction process was to

convert the interval rating scale data (1 represents the least extent to 5 that represents the

greatest extent) to a nominal score for respondent model assignment. The nominal scores

were then used to obtain four group model scores (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and

anarchical) for each of the two variables (leadership and organization). The third step

was to calculate the mean and standard deviation for each of the four leadership group

models scores and for each of the four organization group model scores. A matrix was

created that used an increment of .25 SD above the mean to determine model assignment

to respondents.

Table 5 reports descriptive scores for each of the models of leadership and

organization (Sections 1 and 2) for the purpose of model assignment to each respondent.

99

Table 5. Descriptive Model Group Values for Model Determination

Model M SD ≥ .25 SD above the M

Leadership

Bureaucratic 3.46 .84 3.67

Collegial 3.44 .95 3.67

Political 3.21 .81 3.41

Anarchical 2.98 .73 3.20

Organization

Bureaucratic 3.06 .78 3.25

Collegial 3.33 .95 3.56

Political 2.82 .76 3.01

Anarchical 2.78 1.04 3.04

Model Assignment

The procedure used for model assignment was similar to that used by Higgins

(1997) and other researchers who used all or part of her questionnaire (Hall, 2002; Jones,

1999; Williamson, 2000). The statistical package SPSS was used to create a sorting

matrix to standardize scores to assign respondents to a model category. A description of

the model assignment process follows.

A model score of ≥ .25 SD above the mean determined respondent model

assignment for each of the two variables—leadership and organization. For example, a

respondent with a collegial model score of ≥ .25 SD above the mean was assigned to the

collegial. In the event that two or more of a respondent’s four model scores tied, the

respondent was assigned to a fifth model, the cybernetic model (e.g., the bureaucratic and

100

the anarchical model scores were≥ .25 SD above the mean). In the event that a

respondent’s model score did not meet this predetermined criterion, a respondent was

assigned to a sixth category, referred to as “no assignment.” Of the total respondents

(n = 482), 194 respondents to Section 1 were placed in the “no assignment” category.

Data were prepared to answer the three research questions. A chi-square

goodness of fit test was conducted to answer the two subquestions: (a) What is the

distribution of the models of leadership of deans, and (b) what is the distribution of the

models of organization of the educational unit led? The distribution of the five model

categories of leadership (bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic) and

the five model categories of organization (bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical,

and cybernetic) were calculated. In the event that a respondent was not assigned one of

the five model categories, a sixth category (no assignment) was assigned to that

respondent. Standardized residuals and effect size were also calculated.

A chi-square test of independence was calculated to answer the primary research

question: Is there a relationship between faculty perceptions of the model of leadership

of deans and the model of organization of the educational unit led? The primary research

question tests Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that there is a relationship between the

constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted in his models of organizational

functioning. The test of independence tests the null hypothesis that models of leadership

and organization are independent.

Cramer’s v was used to determine the strength of the relationship between model

categories. Post hoc tests (e.g., standardized residuals) were calculated to identify if any

101

cells contributed disproportionally to the significance of the chi-square. The Holmes

Sequential was also run to control the possibility of a Type I error.

The following assumptions were met in this study: (a) observations were

independent, which was achieved by the random selection of participants; (b) categories

were mutually exclusive and exhaustive, which was achieved by assigning each

respondent to only one model category; and (c) sufficient sample size was achieved.

Demographic data were also gathered (Section 3) to describe the study sample

and to compare the sample to the population. An open-ended question also asks

respondents to describe a leader. The five demographic questions ask: (a) To which

department or unit are you assigned; (b) approximately how many students attend your

institution; (c) what position do you hold in your department or unit; (d) how long have

you been in your current position; and (e) what is the highest degree that you have

attained? One open-ended question asks: How would you describe a leader? An analysis

of demographic data is presented in Chapter 4.

The overarching ethical considerations addressed in this study were: (a) to

guarantee that individual responses to the survey would not be included in study findings,

(b) to ensure that any demographic data or opinions rendered would remain anonymous,

(c) to password protect all electronic format data, and (d) to delete individual responses to

the survey at the conclusions of the study. As a result of low Cronbach’s alpha scores for

the political model of organization, modifications were made to political items in Section

2 at the conclusion of the study (Appendix D). These modifications will be discussed in

detail in Chapter 5. A timeline for the entire study is presented in Appendix E.

102

This chapter presents the methodology of the study to include instrument

development, the process by which the validity and reliability of the instrument were

determined, a description of the sampling frame and the random sampling procedure, and

the process by which data were prepared for analysis to answer the three research

questions in this study.

103

Chapter IV

Results

Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis of data gathered to test Birnbaum’s (1988)

theory that there is a relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization,

as depicted in his higher education models of organizational functioning: bureaucratic,

collegial, political, anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models).

Full time faculty, at a Carnegie™ classified master’s degree granting college or

university with a college or university e-mail address was the sampling frame. Data

gathered were faculty perceptions of leadership of a dean and the organization of the

educational unit led. Data were prepared for analysis to answer three research questions.





The two sub-questions that support the primary question ask:


2. What is the distribution of models of organization of the educational unit led?



constructs of leadership and organization, as theorized by Birnbaum (1988).

104

The chapter begins with an overview of the methodology of the study, a

presentation of the descriptive and the inferential statistical tests used to analyze data, and

an analysis of the demographic data and responses to the one open-ended question.

Overview

As no instrument existed to test Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship

between the constructs of leadership and organization, a new instrument (Models of

Leadership and Organization) was developed using a modified version of Part II

(organization) of Higgins’ (1997) Continuing Education Questionnaire. Higgins’

questionnaire was selected, as it was the first instrument developed to investigate

Birnbaum’s theory of models of organization.

The Models of Leadership and Organization instrument was used to gather

faculty perceptions of the model of leadership of a dean and the model of organization of

the department or unit led. To determine the validity of the instrument, a panel of experts

was used to establish and to review the instrument, prior to the instrument being deemed

satisfactory for use. To determine the reliability of the instrument, a series of three

pretests were conducted. At the conclusion of the data collection process, final

Cronbach’s alpha scores were calculated to determine the reliability of the instrument

used for the study. An electronic format (SurveyMonkey™) was the venue selected to

administer the survey. Table 4 reports alpha scores.

The Carnegie Foundation Classification of Institution of Higher Education (2005)

electronic database was used to identify a random sample of 66 (10%) of the 664

master’s degree-granting colleges and universities. Due to the electronic venue selected

to administer the survey, the sampling frame was full-time faculty with a professional

105

e-mail address. Instructing participants not to forward the survey on to others controlled

the study sample. Of the 2007 e-mail invitations distributed, 482 useable surveys (n =

482) were received representing a 24% return rate.

Data Analysis

Data from SurveyMonkey™ was downloaded directly into SPSS for data

analysis. According to the SurveyMonkey™ summary of survey respondents, of the total

number of respondents (n = 482), 3 skipped Section 1 (Leadership) and 23 skipped

Section 2 (Organization). For example, respondents # 444, 460, and 472 did not

complete Section 2. Of the total number of usable surveys (n = 482), 96% (462)

completed both sections of the survey. A frequency analysis was conducted on each item

to determine the total number of individuals who responded to each of the five response

categories.

Prior to calculating Cronbach’s alpha scores to determine inter-item reliability,

item 8 (Section 1) was reverse scored. The number of items and associated Cronbach’s

alpha scores for each subscale follows. Section 1 of the MLO (Leadership) consists of a

total of 38 items, categorized into four model subscales. The bureaucratic leadership

model subscale consists of 10 items (α = .90), the collegial leadership model subscale

consists of 10 items (α = .93), the political leadership model subscale consists of 10 items

(α = .86), and the anarchical subscale consists of 8 items (α = .74). Section 2 of the

MLO (Organization) consists of a total of 23 items, categorized into four subscales. The

bureaucratic organization model subscale consists of 6 items (α = .71), the collegial

leadership model subscale consists of 6 items (α = .88), the political leadership model

106

subscale consists of 6 items (α = .66), and the anarchical subscale consists of 5 items

(α = .86).

Consistent with the three pretests, the actual study also produced a lower than

acceptable political organization model alpha score. As discussed in detail in the

Instrument Development section of Chapter 3, at the outset of this study it was decided to

modify, not rewrite, Part II of Higgins’ questionnaire. Therefore, political model of

organization items were not rewritten after pretest 3. Measures of central tendency

(n = 482) were calculated for each of the five models of leadership and for each of the

five models of organization on a scale of 1 to 5 from least to greatest, respectively. Table

6 reports the descriptive scores for models of leadership and organization.

107

Table 6. Descriptive Scores for Models of Leadership and Organization

Leadership Model M SD

Bureaucratic 3.46 .84

Collegial 3.44 .95

Political 3.21 .81

Anarchical 2.98 .73

Organization Model M SD

Bureaucratic 3.06 .78

Collegial 3.33 .95

Political 2.82 .76

Anarchical 2.78 1.04

A Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .70 or greater was established as the

acceptable level (George & Mallery, 2003) at the outset of the study; therefore, the

consistently strong Cronbach’s alpha scores for nine of the ten models of leadership and

organization subscales provide evidence of the stability of the scales. Alpha scores for

the study and for each of the pretests are reported in Table 7.

108

Table 7. Cronbach’s Alpha Scores for Study and Pretests

Model Study P1 P2 P3

Bureaucratic Leadership .90 .90 .90 X

Bureaucratic Organization .71 .71 .71 .79

Collegial Leadership .93 .93 .93 X

Collegial Organization .88 .88 .88 .71

Political Leadership .86 .87 .86 X

Political Organization .66 .68 .66 .63

Anarchical Leadership .74 .76 .74 X

Anarchical Organization .86 .86 .86 .76

Note: Study (n = 482). P1 represents pretest 1 (n = 34), P2 represents pretest 2 (n = 38), and P3 represents pretest 3 (N = 44). An X indicates that no data is available—Section 1 was not tested in P3. A matrix was created and respondents were assigned to the model with the

highest score. A standard deviation of ≥ .25 SD above the mean was used to determine

model assignment to respondents. In the event that two or more of the four models of

leadership or organization scores tied (e.g., a respondent’s scores for the collegial and the

anarchical models of leadership and organization were each ≥ .25 SD above the mean),

then a fifth category, cybernetic, was assigned to a respondent. If a respondent did not

score sufficiently high in any of the four model scores, the “unassigned” category was

assigned to the respondent.

109

Results

The chi-square statistic test of independence was used to answer the primary

research question: (a) Is there a relationship between faculty perceptions of the model of

leadership of deans and the model of organization of the educational unit led? The

chi-square goodness of fit test was used to answer the second and third subquestions:

(b) what is the distribution of the models of leadership of deans, and (c) what is the

distribution of the models of organization of the educational unit led? The two

subquestions, which support the primary questions, will be presented first.

Research Question # 2 - What is the Distribution of the Models of Leadership

of Deans? The chi-square goodness of fit test was statistically significant and revealed

that the six categories (the bureaucratic, collegial, political, anarchical, cybernetic

models, and unassigned category) were not equally distributed, (X² (5, n = 482) =

678.141, p ˂ .001). However, Cramer’s v = .17 (Crewson, 2006) revealed a weak

relationship. Standardized residuals were calculated to determine which model subscales

had more observations than expected, and which model subscales had fewer observations

than expected. Table 8 reports standardized residual score distributions for each of the

six leadership categories.

110

Table 8. Distribution of Standardized Residual Scores for Leadership Models

Standardized Residuals

Observed n Expected n SRs

Leadership Models

Bureaucratic 21 80.3 -6.6

Collegial 12 80.3 -7.6

Political 11 80.3 -7.7

Anarchical 10 80.3 -7.9

Cybernetic 234 80.3 17.2

No Assignment 194 80.3 12.7

Note: SRs (standardized residuals) represent the difference between the expected number (80.3) and the actual observed number of perceived leadership models (n = 482). Standardized residuals revealed that disproportionally more deans were seen as

cybernetic or unassigned, whereas fewer than expected were seen in the other four

categories—bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical.

Research Question # 3 - What is the Distribution of the Models of

Organization of the Educational Unit Led? The chi-square goodness of fit test was

statistically significant and revealed that the six categories (the bureaucratic, collegial,

political, anarchical, cybernetic models, and unassigned category) were not equally

distributed, (X² (5, n = 482) = 838.971, p ˂ .001). However, Cramer’s v = .15 (Crewson,

2006) revealed a weak relationship. Standardized residuals were calculated to determine

which model subscale had more observations than expected, and which model subscales

111

had fewer observations than expected. Table 9 reports the standardized residual score

distributions for each of the six categories.

Table 9. Distribution of Standardized Residual Scores for Organization Models

Standardized Residuals

Observed n Expected n SRs

Organization Models

Bureaucratic 8 80.3 -8.1

Collegial 50 80.3 -3.4

Political 14 80.3 -7.4

Anarchical 30 80.3 -5.6

Cybernetic 313 80.3 26.0

No Assignment 67 80.3 1.5

Note: SRs (standardized residuals) represents the difference between the expected number (80.3) and the actual observed number perceived organization models (n = 482). Standardized residuals revealed that disproportionally more deans were seen as

cybernetic, and a moderate number were seen in the unassigned category. However,

fewer than expected were seen in the other four categories—bureaucratic, collegial,

political, and anarchical.

Research Question # 1 – Is There a Relationship Between Faculty

Perceptions of the Model of Leadership of Deans and the Model of Organization of

the Educational Unit Led? Due to a violation of adequate sample size for the chi-

square test of independence for each of the four models (bureaucratic, collegial, political,

and anarchical), the individual model cells were collapsed into three categories to answer

the primary research question. Table 10 reports the total categories of organization and

112

corresponding respondent assignments (e.g., a single model of leadership and a single

model of organization or a cybernetic model of leadership and a cybernetic model of

organization).

Table 10. Distribution of Observations in Three Categories of Leadership and Organization

Of the total number (n = 482) of respondents, 234 (49%) perceived the model of

leadership as cybernetic in all three categories. Of the total number (n = 482) of

respondents, 313 (65%) perceived the model of organization led by a dean as cybernetic

in all three categories. A chi-square test of independence was run on the collapsed data

and revealed a significant relationship between the cybernetic model of leadership and

the cybernetic model of organization (X² (4, n = 482) = 73.28, p ˂ .007). This finding

resulted in the rejection of the null hypothesis. However, Cramer’s v = .12 (Crewson,

2006) revealed a weak relationship between model scores therefore no conclusions could

be drawn. Table 11 reports data as a cross-tabulation between each of the six categories

of leadership as compared with each of the six categories of organization to answer

research question one.

Variable Organization

Leadership Single Model Cybernetic Unassigned Leadership Totals

Single Model 10 37 7 54

Cybernetic 50 164 20 234

Unassigned 42 112 40 194

Organization Totals

102 313 67 482

113

Table 11. Cross-Tabulation between Models of Leadership and Organization

Variables Organization

Leadership

Bureaucratic

Collegial

Political

Anarchical

Cybernetic

No

Assignm

ent

Leadership

Totals Bureaucratic 2 0 0 1 16 2 21

Collegial 0 4 0 1 5 2 12

Political 0 1 0 0 9 1 11

Anarchical 0 0 0 1 7 2 10

Cybernetic 3 38 5 4 164 20 234

No Assignment 3 7 9 23 112 40 194

Organization

Totals

8

50

14

30

313

67

482

When data were analyzed in all six categories, the assumption of adequate sample

size was violated however an interesting pattern emerged. Respondents who perceived a

direct relationship between the same model of leadership and the same model of

organization (e.g., bureaucratic leadership model and bureaucratic organization model)

are as follows: bureaucratic (n = 2), collegial (n = 4), political (n = 0), and anarchical

(n = 1). Of the total number of respondents (n = 313) who perceived the cybernetic

model of leadership or the cybernetic model of organization, 164 (52%) who perceived a

cybernetic model of leadership also perceived a cybernetic model of organization. Of the

total number (n = 194) who were not assigned to a model of leadership, 112 (58%)

perceived the cybernetic model of organization.

114

Demographic Data and One Open-Ended Question. Demographic data were

also gathered, in Section 3, to describe the study sample and to compare the sample to the

population. The five demographic questions ask: (a) To which department or unit are

you assigned, (b) approximately how many students attend your institution, (c) what

position do you hold in your department or unit, (d) how long have you been in your

current position, and (e) what is the highest degree that you have attained? This survey

also included an open-ended question “How would you describe a leader?” Responses to

this item can be used in future research of the use of Birnbaum’s (1988) models to

describe leadership and organization.

Although this study focused specifically on the population of full time faculty at

Carnegie Foundation™ master’s degree-granting colleges and universities, the

Carnegie™ database of higher education institutions does not collect and report faculty

demographic data. Therefore, the National Center for Education Statistics’ Digest of

Education Statistics (2010) was the database selected to compare the study sample with

the population. Full-time faculties at degree-granting institutions of higher education

participating in Title IV programs are the population reported by the Digest of

Educational Statistics (DES).

Question 1, in Section 3, of the Models of Leadership and Organization

(demographic information), asks: To which department or unit are you assigned? The

Digest (Fall, 2003) reports that the total number of full-time faculty is 682,000. The 2003

edition is the most recent edition that reports full-time faculty by department (Table 266),

and was used to compare data gather from the study sample (n = 482) who responded to

question 1. Table 12 compares the study sample with Digest demographics.

115

Table 12. Data Comparison for Department Assignment

DES Study Sample

Department

Agriculture/Home Economics 3% (17,000) NA

Business 6% (43,000) 10% (49)

Communication 2% (16,000) 3% (14)

Education 8% (51,000) 27% (128)

Engineering 5% (33,000) 4% (18)

Technology NA 1% (6)

Fine Arts 6% (43,000) 6% (30)

Health Sciences 14% (94,000) 5% (23)

Humanities 13% (90,000) 15% (70)

Law 2% (10,000) 3% (12)

Natural Sciences 32% (221,000) 13% (63)

Social Sciences 10% (70,000) 4% (17)

Professional title NA 12% (59)

Professional Titles NA 2% (8)

Note: The DES population (N = 682,000) and the study sample (n = 484) were used. Education is described in the Digest of Educational Statistics as Teacher Education, (18,000), and Other, (33,000). Education is described in the study as all categories (e.g., elementary, secondary, higher education, special education). The DES lists Computer Sciences (n = 56,000) under the category of Natural Sciences, whereas this study uses the current term Technology in a separate category. Eight (2%) respondents to the study reported a professional title, not a unit or department (vice president 1, dean 1, chair 1, assistant professor 1, professor 3, and faculty 1). Question 2 asks the question: Approximately how many students attend your

institution? The 2010 Carnegie Classification™ Size and Setting and Distribution of

Institutional and Enrollment by Classification Category summary tables were used for

comparison of the study sample with the population, as the Digest does not report student

116

enrollment size. Carnegie™ classified four-year institutions, offering master’s

degree-granting programs, are classified by student enrollment size. Carnegie Very

Small institutions have a student enrollment of less than 1,000; Small institutions have a

student enrollment between 1,000 and 2,999; Medium institutions have a student

enrollment between 3,000 and 9,999; and Large have a student enrollment of greater than

10,000. Demographic data are summarized in Figure 3.

4 (37%) ○ ○ ○ Study Sample (n = 463) • (34%) ● (N = 4,663,111) ° (31%) 3 ° (26%)

2 • (16%) . 1 • ° ( ○ (6%) (8%)

(6 • (2%)

Less than 1,000 1,000 – 2,999 3,000 – 9,999 Greater than 10,000

Figure 3. Points represent percentages of student enrollment for Carnegie classified master’s degree granting programs (S, M, and L) and the study sample.

Question 3 asks: What position do you hold in your department or unit? The

Digest of Educational Statistics (2009) was used to compare the study sample

demographic data with Digest population. According to the Digest Table 255, 51%

(n = 728,977) of the total population of faculty (N = 1,619,515) are full-time. Digest

Table 260 was also used to compare the study sample with the population. Figure 4

compares the professional status of the sample with the higher education

population.

S

tude

nt E

nrol

lmen

t Per

cent

117

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Full Professor AssociateProfessor

AssistantProfessor

Other

Digest

Study Sample

Professional Status

Figure 4. The category Other is described in the study sample as chair, coordinator, dean, director, instructor, lecturer, and professor emeritus. The category Other is not defined in the Digest. (n = 439) Question 4 asks: How long have you been in your current position? Of the total

number of respondents (n = 454), 276 (61%) reported the length of time at their

institution as more than 5 years and 175 (39%) reported the number of years as 10 years

or more. Table 13 reports the number of years in current position for the study sample.

P

erce

ntag

e

118

Table 13. Number of Years in Current Position

Less than 1 year 16 (4%)

Between 1 and 5 years 166 (37%)

Between 5 and 10 years 101 (22%)

More than 10 years 175 (39%)

Note: n = 454

Question 5 asks: What is the highest degree that you have attained? The majority

396 (88%) of respondents (n = 449) reported an EdD or PhD as the highest degree

attained. These data compare favorably with Digest Table 263 for the highest degree

reported in fall, 2003. Of the population of full-time faculty (N = 682,000), the majority

407,000 (60%) reported a doctoral degree, either an EdD or PhD. Therefore the study

sample compares favorably with the population.

One open-ended question asks: How would you describe a leader? A

recommendation to use results in future studies is presented in Chapter 5.

This Chapter presents the results of the study, which investigates Birnbaum’s

(1988) theory that there is a relationship between the constructs of leadership and

organization, as depicted in his models of organizational functioning. Chapter 5 will

present study conclusions and recommendations for future studies.

119

Chapter V

Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

This chapter begins with a brief summary of the problem addressed and the main

results of study findings. Results will be discussed in terms of comparable studies and

the conceptual framework used. Conclusions will also consider study findings in light of

the literature of practice. Recommendations for action based on results and applicable

literature will also be presented.

Overview




anarchical, and cybernetic (an integration of two or more models). A research

instrument, Models of Leadership and Organization, was developed, as no empirical

evidence existed to confirm or reject his theory. The data gathered were faculty

perceptions of the leadership behavior of a dean and the organization of the educational

unit led to answer three research questions.







120


led?





(an integration two or more models).

Conclusion and Discussion of Results

Although this study did not confirm Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship

between the constructs of leadership and organization, as depicted in his models of


(an integration of two or more models), evidence of the cybernetic models of leadership

and of organization supports Birnbaum’s notion that institutions of higher education are

complex, cybernetic organizations that need complex, cybernetic leaders who are able to

perceive multiple models of organization and act with multiple models of leadership.

This study also found a significant relationship between Birnbaum’s cybernetic

model of leadership and his cybernetic model of organization. Data analysis revealed

that of the total number of respondents (n = 482) in all three categories (single model,

cybernetic, and no assignment), the majority 313 (65%) perceived the cybernetic model

of organization (an integration of two or more models) when describing the educational

unit led. Data analysis also revealed that of the total number of respondents (n = 482) in

all three categories (single model, cybernetic, and no assignment), 234 (49%) perceived

121

the cybernetic model of leadership (an integration of two or more models) when

describing a dean.

The finding that 65% of respondents perceived the cybernetic model of

organization when describing the educational unit led supports Birnbaum’s (1988) theory

that institutions of higher education can be described in terms of his cybernetic model of

organization. The finding that 49% of respondents perceived the cybernetic model of

leadership when describing the leadership behavior of a dean also supports Birnbaum’s

theory that college and university leaders can be described in terms of his cybernetic

model of leadership. Data analysis also revealed that 164 (34%) of the respondents who

perceived a cybernetic model of leadership also perceived the cybernetic model of

organization of the educational unit led, which is also significant. This finding supports

Birnbaum’s description of colleges and universities as complex, cybernetic organizations

(an integration of two or more models of organization) led by complex, cybernetic

leaders (individuals who have the ability to use an integration of two or more models of

leadership).

Comparison of Results to Comparable Studies

Higgins (1997) developed an instrument, Questionnaire: Continuing Education,

to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory that coupling is one characteristic of his higher

education models of organization. Three subsequent studies (Hall, 2002; Jones, 1999;

and Williamson, 2000) used all or part of Higgins’ instrument to investigate Birnbaum’s

theory of models of organization. This current study modified Section 2 of Higgins’

questionnaire to gather data to answer the three research questions in this study. Table 14

summarizes frequency scores for models of leadership and organization.

122

Table 14. Models of Organization Frequency Scores for Current and Prior Studies

Higgins Jones Williamson Hall Current Study

(n = 102) (n = 272) (n = 103) (n = 131) (n = 482)

Model

Bureaucratic 16 (15.7%) 46 (16.9%) 14 (13.6%) 7 (6%) 8 (2%)

Collegial 23 (22.5%) 38 (14%) 14 (13.6%) 37 (28%) 50 (10%)

Political 11 (10.8%) 52 (19.1%) 8 (7.8%) 21 (16%) 14 (3%)

Anarchical 19 (18.6%) 47 (17.3%) 23 (22.3%) 33 (25%) 30 (6%)

Cybernetic 33 (32.4%) 89 (32.7%) 44 (42.7%) 33 (25%) 313 (65%)

No Assignment NA NA NA NA 67 (14%)

Note: NA (not applicable) indicates that this category was not assigned to respondents in that particular study. Of the total number of respondents (n = 313) who were assigned the cybernetic model of organization in this current study, 112 respondents were assigned to the “no assignment” model of leadership. In addition to the five individual model assignments, Williamson (2000) took

the analysis of the cybernetic model one step further by examining model

combinations within the cybernetic model, as suggested by Jones (1999) in his

recommendations for further study. Of the total number of respondents who were

assigned the cybernetic model of organization (n = 44), the anarchical and political

model combination was assigned to 9 (20%) respondents, the bureaucratic and

collegial model combination was assigned to 8 (18%) respondents, and all four

models (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical) were assigned to 7 (16%)

respondents.

The importance of Williamson’s (2000) investigation is that it presents a further

understanding of the cybernetic model. Her finding that the bureaucratic model was

123

perceived in combination with the three other models (collegial, political, and anarchical)

contradicts prior studies (Bensimon, 1987b, 1990b) that revealed that presidents

described as low, cognitively complex leaders were perceived by others as using one

frame only—the bureaucratic frame, although these presidents self-reported using two

models (e.g., the bureaucratic and the symbolic frames). Birnbaum (1992) concluded

from Bensimon’s studies that her findings confirmed Bolman and Deal’s (1997)

conclusion that presidents who use the bureaucratic frame led only from that frame

because the bureaucratic model masks the characteristics of other models.

To further contribute to the discussion of whether the bureaucratic model masks

other models, the bureaucratic models of leadership and organization were compared to

each of the other five categories: the four models (bureaucratic, collegial, political, and

anarchical), the cybernetic model, and the category “no assignment”. Table 11 reports

model frequencies in a cross-tabulation between models of leadership and organization.

Of the total number of respondents (n = 21) who perceived the bureaucratic model of

leadership, analysis of data revealed that the bureaucratic model was perceived in

combination with the following models of organization: bureaucratic 2 (10%), anarchical

1(4%), cybernetic 16 (76%), and no assignment 2 (10%). The finding that the majority

16 (76%) of those respondents who perceived their dean as using the bureaucratic model

also perceived the educational unit led as cybernetic further contributes to this discussion.

Birnbaum (1988, 1992) does not evaluate the effectiveness his each of his models of

organizational functioning (e.g., the bureaucratic model is more or less effective than the

collegial model). Instead he concludes that effective leadership can be best described

through his cybernetic model of leadership.

124

This current study supports Williamson’s (2000) finding that the bureaucratic

model was perceived in combination with the other models, however this current study

did not find the bureaucratic model in combination in with the collegial or the political

models. Therefore, further investigation of models combination should be conducted.

Figure 5 depicts the model of organization frequency scores for each of the five

studies described in Table 14.

Figure 5. The bar chart summarizes the frequencies scores (vertical axis) for each of Birnbaum’s (1988) five models of organization (horizontal axis) for this current study and four prior studies (Hall, 2002; Higgins, 1997; Jones, 1999; Williamson, 2000). Each of the models is represented by a letter abbreviation: bureaucratic model (B), the collegial model (C), the political model (P), the anarchical model (A), and the cybernetic model (Cy). Higgins did not include the cybernetic model of organization in her statistical analysis of the relationship between models of organization and the coupling characterization; however she did report the frequency and percent of the cybernetic model assignment to respondents.

125

Three of the four prior studies used parametric statistics to analyze data. One

prior study (Hall, 2002) and this current study used nonparametric statistics to analyze

data collected. Table 15 reports differences in measurements between the four prior

studies and this current study.

Table 15 Statistical Test Results for Five Studies

Study df Sample Size F-value x² p-scale

Higgins 3 n = 102 4.555 .006

Jones 4 n = 272 6.876 .05

Williamson 4 n = 103 5.162 .001

Hall 4 n = 131 23.08 .0001

Current Study 4 n = 482 73.28 .007

Note: Statistical test results are reported as degrees of freedom (df), one-way analysis of variance (F-value), chi-square (x²), and probability (p-value) for each of the five studies.

Results from this current study and three of the four prior studies using Higgins’

(1997) revealed that a majority of respondents perceive the higher education to be

cybernetic. Although Higgins (1997) did not use the cybernetic model of organization to

answer her research questions; data analysis revealed that of the total population

(n = 102), the majority (33--32%) of respondents were assigned to the cybernetic model

of organization. Jones’ (1999) study also revealed that of the total population (n = 272),

the majority (89--33%) of respondents were assigned to the cybernetic model of

organization. Analysis of data collected in Williamson’s (2000) study also revealed that

of the total population (n = 103), the majority (44--43%) of respondents were assigned to

the cybernetic model of organization. This current study also revealed that of the total

126

population (n = 482), the majority (313--65%) of respondents were assigned to the

cybernetic model of organization. Hall’s (2002) study was the only study to reveal that

of the total population (n = 131), the majority (37--28%) were assigned to the collegial

model of organization; 33 (25%) were assigned to the cybernetic model of organization;

and 33 (25%) were assigned to the anarchical model of organization. As was discussed

in the review of literature section in Chapter 2, the nursing department had previously

been the study sample in a study that used the same research instrument. As a result, the

finding that the majority of nursing department respondents’ perceived the collegial

model of organization may not be a significant finding.

Birnbaum (1988) concludes from study findings (Bensimon, 1987b, 1990b;

Birnbaum, 1992a) that although each of his four models of organizational functioning

(bureaucratic, collegial, political, or anarchical) can be present at any given time, no

leader or organization reflects only one model. He describes his cybernetic model (an

integration of two or more models) as the one model that most accurately reflects the

unique characteristics of higher education. Birnbaum concludes that the unique

characteristics of cybernetic colleges and universities require cognitively complex,

cybernetic leaders, as supported by this current study. Cybernetic leaders have the ability

to perceive and select models to use in the decision-making process and to develop the

tactics necessary to chart a course of action. A summary of Birnbaum’s Institutional

Leadership Project follows.

Birnbaum’s (1992a) Institutional Leadership Project investigated if there is a

relationship between cognitive characteristics and faculty perceptions of levels of

presidential support. Results revealed that the 12 (75%) new presidents (n = 16)

127

perceived as cognitively complex (using two or more models) also enjoyed a higher level

of support than presidents perceived as using one frame. Bensimon’s (1987b) study used

the same study sample of Institutional Leadership Project presidents to investigate the

relationship between leadership effectiveness and cognitive complexity. Of the total

population (n = 32), the majority 19 (59%) used two or more frames to describe good

leadership. When comparing presidential tenure to frame analysis, findings revealed that

of the total population (n = 16) of old (more than five years in service) presidents 11

(69%) used two or more frames to describe good leadership. Results of this current study

also revealed that of the total number of respondents (n = 482), 234 (49%) perceived the

cybernetic model (an integration of two or more models) of leadership when describing a

dean.

Demographic data gathered in this current study revealed that the study sample

reflects the current higher education population, plus Birnbaum’s (1992) Institutional

Leadership Project sample of presidents of Carnegie Classification™ institutions of

higher education and prior higher education studies (Hall, 2002; Higgins, 1997, Jones,

1999; Williamson, 2000) investigating Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of

organizational functioning. Verification that the current study sample of Carnegie

Classification™ institutions of higher education aligns with previous studies supports this

and prior study findings that higher education organizations are complex.

Contextual Leadership Paradigm for Higher Education

Organizational context (e.g., financial constraints, governance structure, and size)

is an extremely important factor in presidential leadership as it “both promotes and

constrains the presidents’ capacities to influence major institutional decisions” (Brown,

128

2010, p. x). The problem facing college and education leaders is that although the

cultural context of the higher education organization has changed, the higher education

management paradigm has not (Hoffman & Summers, 2000). Therefore, the study of

college and university leadership must be examined within the context of the higher


College and university leaders continually face challenges associated with the

culture of the organization. Leaders must have the ability to interact with constituencies

(faculty, administration, and trustees) in a higher education tri-governance structure,

within the culture of an organization that embraces a diffuse, shared governance process

(Birnbaum, 1992a). Higher education leaders also face challenges associated with the

need to respond at an increasingly quicker rate of speed to constituents and stakeholders

(e.g., alumni and the business community), while making well-informed decisions (e.g.,

prioritizing resources to address increased demands for new technologies or programs).

Birnbaum’s (1992a) Institutional Leadership Project provides insight into the qualities of

presidents perceived as exemplary.

In Birnbaum’s (1992a) study, presidents described as exemplary were perceived

as using two or more frames of leadership simultaneously. This finding supports

Birnbaum’s cybernetic model of leadership that describes leaders as those who are

cognitively complex. He concludes that cybernetic leaders have the ability to perceive

and use multiple models at any given time, as well as to invent new model combinations.

Birnbaum’s study also found that exemplary presidents were described as working within

the established governance structures, maintaining values consistent with the mission and

goals of the institutions, exhibiting integrity and respect for faculty, and valuing the

129

importance of institutional culture. Birnbaum describes cybernetic leaders as those who

are able to attend to the structural, human, cultural, and cognitive characteristics of an

institution. Data analysis in this current study revealed that 164 (34%) of the respondents

who perceived a cybernetic model of leadership also perceived the cybernetic model of

organization of the educational unit led. This finding supports Birnbaum’s (1988, 1992)

conclusion that higher education institutions can be described cybernetic organizations

that require cognitively complex cybernetic leaders.

Birnbaum (1992a) concludes from study findings that increasingly complex,

institutions of higher education require leaders who have the ability to act with cognitive

complexity. He describes cognitive complexity in terms of the ability to view multiple

models of organization, at any given time, and to select and use multiple models of

leadership to make decisions and to develop the tactics necessary to chart a course of

action within the context of an organization. A description of Birnbaum’s (1988)

theoretical framework of models of organizational functioning used to develop the

contextual leadership paradigm that frames this study follows.

The conceptual framework selected to view college and university leadership was

a contextual leadership paradigm, commonly used to study business and industry

(Osborn, Hunt, & Jaunch 2002). The unique contextual characteristics of institutions of

higher education require individuals who are able to apply contextual, social, and

cognitive expertise to the leadership process. When applied to the higher education

organization, a contextual leadership paradigm provides higher education scholars and

practitioners with a lens through which to view: a) how college and university leadership

functions (using Birnbaum’s (1988) model theory as the foundation for the development

130

of this paradigm), and (b) how leaders and constituents (faculty, administration, and

trustees) participate in a shared governance process within the context of the tri-

governance structure.

A contextual leadership paradigm for higher education is grounded in studies that

describe leadership as socially constructed (e.g., espoused theories that influence how a

leader is perceived) and contextual—based on the specific characteristics of the

organization. Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship between the constructs of

leadership and organization, as depicted in his models of organizational functioning is the

theoretical framework used to develop the conceptual frame used in this study.

Instrumentation: Political Model of Organization

A research instrument was developed to investigate Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of

the relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization. The data gathered

were faculty perceptions of the model of leadership of a dean and the model of

organization of the educational unit led. The Models of Leadership and Organization

instrument was found to be valid and reliable for all of the models of leadership

(bureaucratic, collegial, political, and anarchical) and for three of the four models of

organization (bureaucratic, collegial, and anarchical). In spite of repeated efforts to

improve political model of organization Cronbach’s alpha scores, the alpha scores

remained below the minimum acceptable value of .70.

131

In an attempt to determine why alpha scores were consistently low, the alpha

score and p scale values for this study (α = .66, p = .001) were compared with Higgins’

(1997) political model of organization item scores (α = .79, p = .006). No conclusions

could be drawn from this comparison. Therefore, other explanations were investigated.

Demographics. In an attempt to explain why low Cronbach’s alpha scores were

repeatedly obtained for the political model of organization, study sample demographic

data were reviewed. Birnbaum (1988) maintains that the student enrollment size of a

political institution exceeds 13,000. According to Birnbaum, student enrollment size is

one characteristic of his higher education models of organization. Analysis of data

revealed that of the total number of respondents (n = 463) who completed demographic

question two, the majority 319 (69%) reported a student enrollment size of less than

9,999. Therefore, according to Birnbaum’s conjecture, the finding that the majority of

respondents are employed at institutions with a student enrollment size of less than 9,999

could partially explain why Cronbach’s alpha scores for political model of organization

were consistently low. Figure 3, Chapter 4, Comparison of Study Student Enrollment

Figures and Population, reports the study sample demographic data.

According to Birnbaum (1988), the political model of organization is

characterized by coalitions that tend to challenge formal authority structures. He predicts

that coalitions tend to form in large, loosely coupled, decentralized, political

organizations with a student enrollment size greater than 10,000. In contrast, Birnbaum

states that coalitions rarely form in tightly coupled, bureaucratic organizations with a

centralized administrative structure or in tightly coupled, collegial organizations where

faculty routinely enjoy a shared governance process through a diffused decision-making

132

process. Therefore, one could conclude that the demographics that describe the study

sample could partially contribute to low alpha scores for the political model.

Sample size and sensitivity of the instrument. Insufficient sample size could

contribute to low Cronbach’s alpha scores for the political model, as well as the inability

to confirm or reject Birnbaum’s (1988) theory; however no statistical test was available

to provide any additional information as to minimum sample size required. The lack of

the sensitivity of the political model of organization items to accurately measure the

political model of organization could also partially contribute to low alpha scores. The

political model of organization items may not be written in enough detail or with enough

clarity for a respondent to be able to perceive the distinction between the political model

of organization and Birnbaum’ (1988) other four models.

Modifications made to the political model of organization items. For future

use of the instrument and in an attempt to increase political model of organization

Cronbach’s alpha scores, modifications were made to three political model of

organization items (3, 14, and 22) in Section 2 (Appendix D) subsequent to completion of

the study. The phrases “special interest groups” and “interest groups” were deleted to

avoid introducing two different constructs (e.g. coalition and interest group). The term

“coalition” was retained. As a result of respondent feedback, the term “organization” was

deleted from all six political models of organization items (3, 7, 10, 14, 18, and 22).

Comments from 28 (6%) of the total number of respondents (n = 482) indicated that the

term “organization” was both redundant and confusing, when used with the phrase

“educational unit or department.”

133

Recommendations for Further Research

This study attempts to bridge a gap in the literature of leadership research

addressed by Kezar and Eckel (2004) by providing a foundation for future studies of

Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of models of organizational functioning. This study also

explores the application of a contextual leadership paradigm to the higher education

organization. Future research is recommended in the following areas.

Further instrument development is required. As modifications were made to

the Models of Leadership and Organization research instrument at the conclusion of the

study, any future attempts to use the instrument should begin with a determination of the

application of instrument to study research questions. If it is determined that this

instrument can be used to gather data to investigate study research questions, the next

step is to determine the reliability of the instrument through pretests with study samples

comparable to that which will be used in the actual study. Modifications should be made

to the instrument, based on pretests and feedback from an expert panel, until the study

begins.

Comparison study samples are needed. Future studies could use student

enrollment size as a variable to determine if there is a relationship between enrollment

size and models of organization, as theorized by Birnbaum (1988). A stratified, random

sample of higher education participants (e.g., formal and informal leaders) in colleges

and universities in each of the three demographic categories defined by the demographic

of student enrollment size as small, medium, or large (Carnegie Classification of

Institutions of Higher Education™) could further investigate Birnbaum’s theory that

134

demographics is one determinant of the characteristics of his higher education models of


Studies of the implication of formal and informal subsystems on governance

structures are needed. Future studies could also investigate if the presence of a formal

governing body, such as faculty senates, plays a part in the governance process and how

leaders are perceived. According to Birnbaum (1991) faculty senates rarely function but

remain as formal entities in most governance structures. A study of the function of

faculty senates would further contribute an understanding of formal systems and the

governance structures in institutions of higher education. The existence of informal

subsystems on the governance process and how leaders are perceived should also be the

focus of future studies.

Recommendations for the Application of Study Findings

This study aligns with prior studies using Birnbaum’s (1988) cybernetic model of

leadership and organization and therefore informs future leadership practice.

Cybernetic models of leadership and organization should be the focus of

leadership development initiatives. Birnbaum’s (1988, 1992a) models of

organizational functioning should be the focus of leadership development programs. This

current study supports viewing higher education organizations and leadership using

multiple models or frames (Bensimon, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, 1990a, 1990b, 1991;

Bensimon et al., 1989; Birnbaum, 1988, 1992a, b; Bolman & Deal, 1991, 1992, 1997;

Fujita, 1990a, 1990b; Neumann, 1989; Neumann & Bensimon, 1990). Therefore, an

emphasis should be placed on Birnbaum’s view of the cybernetic models of leadership

and of organization. Leadership development courses could focus on leadership

135

effectiveness, described by Birnbaum in terms of his cybernetic model of leadership—the

ability to identify multiple models of organization and to select multiple models of

leadership to make decisions and to develop the tactics necessary to chart a course of

action. A knowledge and understanding of his models of leadership and organization will

help college and university leaders understand and select models necessary in the

decision-making process and to develop the tactics to create an action plan.

Still unexplored in the study of leadership development is an investigation of the

relationship between Birnbaum’s (1988) models and how leaders and constituents

interact in a tri-governance structure. Birnbaum (1992a) concludes in his Institutional

Leadership Project that effective presidents are perceived as attending to the needs and

concerns of all constituents involved in the tri-governance structure of a higher education

organization (faculty, administration, and trustees). Leadership curriculum could be

developed to investigate how a formal leader (e.g., president or chancellor) is perceived

by constituents when faced with challenges associated with institutional crisis,

advancement, or change. The Models of Leadership and Organization instrument could

to gather all constituents’ perceptions of the behavior of a leader. Nonacademic leaders

could also benefit by using the instrument to gather data to make data-driven decisions

when faced with institutional advancement or change.

It is suggested that curriculum development include scenarios, such as those

created by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) emphasizing leadership behaviors that are more

effective in certain situations, could be created and used in conjunction with Birnbaum’s

(1988) higher education models to determine which models are most effective given the

context of the organization. Actual governance challenges facing contemporary colleges

136

and universities could also be presented as case studies for analysis by students and

practitioners in leadership development courses.

Although numerous questions emerged as a result of study findings, this study

provides a conceptual and empirical foundation from which others can conduct further

studies of Birnbaum’s (1988) models of organizational functioning. A contextual

leadership paradigm for higher education provides scholars and practitioners with the

empirical evidence and analytical tools necessary to develop the cognitive complexity

necessary to better lead colleges and universities that exist in an increasingly competitive

and rapidly changing environment. Formal and inform higher education leaders can be

the architects of their own learning process.

137

References

American Association of University Professors. (1990). 1940 statement of principles on

academic freedom and tenure. Retrieved from

http://www.aaup.org/pubres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm

Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Argyris, C. (1965). Organization and innovation. Homewood, IL: Irwin, Inc. & Dorsey

Press.

Argyris, C. (1994). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Argyris, C & Schön, D. A. (1975). Theory in practice: Increasing professional

effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Argyris, C & Schön, D. A. (1978). On organizational learning: A theory of action

perspective. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Aviolo, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (2000). Developing a full range of leadership potential:

Cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Binghamton, NY: State

University of New York.

Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Balderston, F. E. (1995). Managing today’s university: Strategies for viability, change,

and excellence (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Academic governance: Research on institutional politics and

decision making. San Francisco, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

138

Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy making and

effective leadership: A national study of academic management. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. NY: Free Press.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York,

NY: Harper & Row Publishers.

Bensimon, E. M. (1987a). The discovery stage of presidential succession. Report from

the center for higher education governance and leadership OP 87(15).

Bensimon, E. M. (1987b). The meaning of ‘good presidential leadership:’ A frame

analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study

of Higher Education (1997, November). ASHE. Baltimore, MD.

Bensimon, E. M. (1989). Five approaches to think about: Lessons learned from

experienced presidents. In American Association for Higher Education, On

assuming a college or university presidency: Lessons and advice from the field.

Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Bensimon, E. M. (Summer, 1990a). Viewing the presidency: Perceptual congruence

between presidents and leaders on their campuses. The Leadership Quarterly, 1,

71-90.

Bensimon, E. M. (1990b). The new president and understanding the campus as a culture.

In W. G. Tierney (Ed.). Assessing Academic Climates and Cultures. New

Directions for Institutional Research, 68. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bensimon, E. M. (Nov. 1991). The social processes through which faculty shape the

image of a new president. The Journal of Higher Education, 62 (6), 637-660.

139

Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative

leadership: The “l” word in higher education. (Report No. 1). Washington, D. C.:

School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington

University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EDRI-88-062014).

Berquist, W. (1992). The four cultures of the academy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berdahl, R. O. (1991). Shared academic governance and external constraints. In M. W.

Peterson, E. E. Chaffee, & T. H. White (Eds.), Organization and Academic

Governance in American Education. (pp. 167-179). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn

Press.

Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (1989a). The cybernetic university: Toward an integration of governance

theories. Review of Higher Education, 18, 239-253.

Birnbaum, R. (1989b). The implicit leadership theories of college and university

presidents. Review of Higher Education, 12, 125-136.

Birnbaum, R. (1989c). Leadership and followship: The cybernetics of university

governance. In J. H. Schuster and L. Miller (Eds.). Governing tomorrow’s

campus: Perspectives and agendas. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education/MacMillan.

140

Birnbaum, R. (1991). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why

senates do not work but will not go away. In M. W. Peterson, E.E. Chaffee, & T.

H. White (Eds.). ASHE reader on organization and academic governance in

higher education (4th ed.) (pp. 195-207). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Birnbaum, R. (1992a). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and

failure in the college presidency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (1992b, January/February). Will you love me in december as you do in

may?: Why experienced college presidents lose faculty support. Journal of

Higher Education, 3, 1-25.

Blake, R. S. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing

Co.

Blau, P. M. (1968). The hierarchy of authority in organizations. American Journal of

Sociology, 73, 453-467.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The cognitive domain. NY:

David McKay Co., Inc.

Bluman, A. G. (1997). Elementary statistics: A step by step approach. Boston, MA:

WCB/McGraw-Hill.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T.E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing

organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-

frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30 (4), 509-534.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1992). Leading and managing: Effects of context, culture,

and gender. Educational Administration Quarterly 28 (3) 317.

141

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1997) (2nd ed.). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,

and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., & Pressely, M. (1987). Spontaneous strategy use: Perspectives

from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61-75.

Boulding, K. (1978). An incomplete paradigm. Social Science Quarterly, 59 (2),

333-337.

Bowen, H. R. (1977). Goals: The intended outcomes of higher education. In J. L. Bess J.

L. (Ed.), ASHE Reader Series: Foundations of American higher education (pp.

54-69) Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. The Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New York, NY: Harper & Row

Publishers.

Brown, R. E. L. (2010). Presidential leadership in decision-making: A study of three

Historically Black Colleges and Universities. (Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard

University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (2011).

Brubacher, J. S. (1990). On the philosophy of higher education (Rev. ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brubacher, J. S. & Rudy, W. (1976). Higher education in transition: A history of

American colleges and universities, 1636-1976. New York: Harper & Row

Publishers.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper Row.

Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution

of conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management 17 (3) 643-663.

142

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1975). Sponsored research of

the Carnegie commission on higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1982). The control of the

campus: A report on the governance of higher education. Washington D.C.:

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). The Carnegie

classification national center for education statistics. Fall enrollment (2009)

Downloaded from

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/summary/basic.php

Chaffee, E. E. (1987). Organizational concepts underlying governance and

administration. In Peterson, M. W. & Mets, L. A. (Eds.), Key resources on higher

education governance, management, and leadership (pp. 21-39). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Chaffee, E. E. (1988). Strategy and effectiveness in systems of higher education. In J. C.

Smart (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 5. New York,

NY: Agathon Press.

Chaffee, E. E. & Tierney, W. G. (1988). Collegiate culture and leadership strategies.

New York, NY: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Clark, B. (1963). Faculty organization and authority. In T. Lansford (Ed.), The study of

academic administration. Boulder, CO: WICHE.

Cohen, M. D. & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college

president (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.

143

Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). Garbage can model of organizational

choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.

Collins, J. (2005). Why business thinking is not the answer: Good to great and the social

sectors. A monograph to accompany: Good to great: Why some companies make

the leap…and others don’t. London: Century Press.

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (January, 1996). Becoming Americans: Our struggle

to be both free and equal. Williamsburg, VA: Department of Interpretive Training

Corson, J. J. (1975). The governance of colleges and universities: Modernizing structure

and processes (Rev. ed.), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.

Court, F. E. (2001). The Scottish connection: The rise of English literary study in

America. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Crewson, P. (2006). Applied Statistics Handbook (Version 1.2). AcaStat Software.

Retrieved from http://www.acastat.com/Statbook

Dill, A. T. (1979). George Wythe: Teacher of liberty. Riley, E. M. (Ed.). Williamsburg,

Virginia: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission.

Dill, D. D. (1982). The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of

meaning and social integration. ASHE reader series on organization and

governance in higher education (5th ed.), (pp. 261-272). Netherland: Kluwer

Academic Publications. Reprinted from Higher Education, 11.

144

Dill, D. D. (1984). The nature of administrative behavior in higher education. ASHE

reader series on organization and governance in higher education (5th ed.),

(pp. 69-99). Sage Publications. Originally printed in Educational Administration

Quarterly, 20 (3), 92-110.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Doares, R. (2003). A field spacious and untrodden: The Virginian society for the

promotion of useful knowledge. Colonial Williamsburg Journal. Williamsburg,

VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Downey, J. (1996). Balancing corporation, collegium, and community. Reprinted from

Innovation Higher Education (pp. 305-312). New York, NY: Human Science

Press.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Princeton, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fink, S., Jenks, R., & Willits, R. (1983). Designing and managing organizations. IL:

Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Fisher, J. L. (1984). The power of the presidency. New York, NY: MacMillan.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive

development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In

F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation and

Understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

145

Flexner, A. (1930). Universities: American, English, German. In R. Hofstadter & W.

Smith (Series Eds.). American Higher Education: A Documentary History (Vol.

4). (pp. 905-921). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fujita, E. M. (1990). What is a good presidential leader: College presidents as seen

through the eyes of other campus leaders. (Doctoral Dissertation, Teachers

College, Columbia University, 1990).

Fujita, E. M. (1990). The evaluation of college presidents: Dimensions used by campus

leaders. Center for Higher Education Governance and Leadership. Report OP 90

(16).

Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis

and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Gaylor, S. S. (2003). Context matters. Understanding presidential power at three private,

regional, liberal arts colleges. Unpublished Thesis (Ed.D.), Harvard Graduate

School of Education, 2003.

Geiger, R. L. (2000) (Ed.). The American college in nineteenth century. Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University Press.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and

reference (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

146

Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., Van Vught, F., & De Weert, E.,

(1994). International perspectives on trends and issues in higher education policy.

In L. F. Goodchild, C.D. Lovell, E.R. Hines, & J.I. Gill (Eds.). (1997) ASHE

Reader Series, Public policy and higher education (pp. 612–636). San Francisco,

CA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.

Groves, R. M., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L. & Little, R. J. (Eds.). (2002). Survey

nonresponse. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gumport, P. (2000). Academic governance: New light on old issues. Washington, DC:

AGB Occasional Paper.

Hall, M. J. (2002). The organizational model of the institution and the academic

disciplinary areas: Implications for administrators in higher education. (Doctoral

dissertation, The George Washington University, 2002).

Helgesen, S (1995). The web of inclusion: A new architecture for building great

organizations. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organization: Utilizing human

resources. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Higgins, P. (1997). A study of coupling and organizational models in continuing

education. (Doctoral Dissertation, The George Washington University, 1997).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 05.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1971). Institutions in transitions. New York, NYY: McGraw-Hill

Book Company.

Hoffman, A. M. & Summers, R. W. (2000) (Eds.). Managing colleges and universities:

Issues for leadership. New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey Publishers.

147

Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Hollander, E. P. (1987, May). College and university leadership from a social

psychological perspective: A transactional view. Prepared for the Institutional

Interdisciplinary Colloquium on Leadership in Higher Education. Sponsored by

the Institutional Leadership Project, National Center for Postsecondary

Governance and Finance, Teachers College, New York, NY.

Hrebiniak, L. G. (1978). Complex organizations. New York, NY: West Publishing

Company.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2002). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons

of experience (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill & Irwin.

Hujala, E. (2004). Dimensions of leadership in the childcare context. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 48 (1), 53-71.

Jones, W. A. (1999). A study of the relationship of butler’s conditions of trust to

Birnbaum’s organizational models: Implications for leaders in higher education.

(Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, 1999).

Jurkovich, R. (1974). A core typology of organizational environments. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 19.

Kerr, C. (1982). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kerr, C., & Gade, M. L. (1986). The many lives of academic presidents: Time, place, and

character. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and

Colleges.

148

Kerr, S. & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and

measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.

Kezar, A. (2000). ERIC trends. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Education.

Retrieved from http://www.eriche.org

Kezar A. & Eckel, P. D. (July/August, 2002). The effect of institutional culture on change

strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive

concepts? The Journal of Higher Education 73 (4), 435-460. Columbus, OH: The

Ohio State University.

Kezar, A. & Eckel, P.D. (July/August, 2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A

synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The

Journal of Higher Education, 75 (4), 371-399. Columbus, OH: Ohio State

University.

Livingston, J. A. (1996). Effects of metacognitive instruction on strategy use of college

students. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An Overview.

Retrieved from http://www.ed. gov/PDFS/ED474273.pdf

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1979). Ambiguity and choice in organizations (2nd ed.).

Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1986). Organizations (2nd ed.). London, England:

Blackwell Business.

Martin, J. L. (1993). Academic deans: An analysis of effective academic leadership at

research universities. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association.

149

Masland, A. T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. Review of

Higher Education, 8 (2), 145-152.

McCarty, D. J. & Reyes, P. (1985, March). Models of institutional governance: Academic

deans’ decision-making patterns as evidenced by chairpersons. ASHE 1985

Annual Meeting Paper.

McCarty, D. J. & Reyes, P. (1986, April). Governing academic organizations: The

academic dean and the president review the current state of college governance.

ASHE 1986 Annual Meeting Paper.

McDade, S. (2007). Notes on the Miami University Video Handout. The George

Washington University.

Millett, J. D. (1962). The academic community: An essay on organization. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. New

York, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Mintzberg, H. (1990, March/April). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard

Business Review on Leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Retrieved from http://hbr.org/1990/03/the-managers-job-folklore-and-fact/ar/1

Molasso, W. R. (2005). Ten tangible and practical tips to improve student participation

in web surveys. Retrieved from:

http://studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Fall/_2005/StudentParticipationWebSurveys.ht

ml

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. London, England: Sage Publications.

150

National Center for Education Statistics (2010). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/

Neumann, A. (1989). Strategic leadership: The Changing Orientations of College

presidents. Review of Higher Education, 12, 137-151.

Neumann, A. & Bensimon, E. M. (1990). Constructing the Presidency: College

presidents’ images of their leadership roles, a comprehensive study. Journal of

Higher Education, 61, 678-701.

Ortenbald, A. (2002). A typology of the ideas of learning organization. Management

Learning, 33 (2), 213-230.

Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002, December). Toward a contextual theory

of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (6), 797-837.

Perkins, J.A. (1973) (Ed.). The university as an organization. New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Peterson, M. & Spencer, M. (1991). Understanding academic culture and climate. In M.

Peterson (Ed.), ASHE reader on organization and governance (pp. 140-155).

Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

Philllips, D. C. & Burbles, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. ASHE reader series on organization and

governance in higher education (5th ed.). Originally printed in the Academy of

Management Review, 12 (1), 205-213.

151

Pfeffer, J. (2007). What were they thinking?: Unconventional thinking about

management. How to change the world: A practical blog for impractical people.

Ten questions with Jeffery Pferrer. An interview.

Downloaded from http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/07/ten-questions.w.html

Research Randomizer (2010). Downloaded from http://www.randomizer.org/

Rosenbach, W. E. & Sashkin, M. (2007). The leadership profile: On becoming a better

leader through leadership that matters. Gettysburg, PA: Rosenbach & Associates,

Inc.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history (2nd ed.). Athens,

GA: University of Georgia Press.

Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational

decision making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19,

453-473.

Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view (2nd ed.).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New

York, NY: Harper & Row.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. J. & Corbally, J. E. (Eds.). (1984). Leadership and organizational

culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates. A review. School of Journalism and

Communication, University of Oregon.

Downloaded from http://www.jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html

152

Simon, H. A. (1951, July). A formal theory of the employment relationship.

Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society 19 (3), (pp. 293-305).

Downloaded from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1906815

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative

science quarterly, 18, 339-358.

Smircich, L. & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.

Solomon, R. & Solomon, J. (1993). Part I: The mission of the university. In Up the

university: Re-creating higher education in America (pp. 9-23). Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,

Publishers.

Stewart, D. M. (1976). The not-so-steady state of governance in higher education. New

York, NY: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.

Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York,

NY: Doubleday.

Survey Research (Spring, 2006). Introduction to survey research (session 1).

Retrieved from

http://blackboard.gwu.edu/webapps/blackbaord/content/listContent.jsp?course_id

=_80420

The Carnegie Classification National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

153

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1975). Sponsored research

of the Carnegie commission on higher education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Book Company.

The Yale Report of 1828. In L.F. Goodchild & H.S. Wechsler (eds.) (1997). ASHE

reader services: The history of higher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 191-199).

Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster Custom Publishing.

Thelin, J.R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Tichy, N. M. & Caldwell, N. (2004). The cycle of leadership: How great leaders teach

their companies to win. New York, NY: Harper Business.

Tierney, W. G. (1985). Leadership and organizational culture in public state colleges.

Unpublished paper, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Tierney, W. G. (1991). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the

essentials. In M. Peterson (Ed.), ASHE reader on organization and governance

(pp. 126-139). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Wallen, N. E. & Fraenkel, J. R. (2001). Educational research: A guide to the process.

Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Walton, M. (1986). The deming management method. New York, NY: Putnam.

Weber, M. (1947). The essential of bureaucratic organization: An ideal-type construction.

In R. K. Merton, A. P. Gray, B. Hockey, and H. Slevin (Eds.), (1952). Reader in

bureaucracy (pp. 19-27). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

154

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In M. C.

Brown (Ed.), (2000). Organization and governance (pp. 36-49). ASHE Reader

Series. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. E. (June, 1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi

Delta Kappan, 673-676.

Williamson, H. M. (2000). A study of coupling and organizational models in academic

nursing centers. (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.:

Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations.

Dunnett, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (Eds.). In Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology. Vol. 3 (2nd ed.) (pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologist Press.

155

Appendix A

Models of Leadership and Organization Instrument

163

Appendix B

E-Mail to invite participant

To: [Email]

From: "[email protected] via surveymonkey.com" <[email protected]>

Subject: Doctoral study on leadership examined within the context of institutions of higher education

Body: Dear [FirstName] [LastName]: By way of introduction I am Pam Douglas, a Graduate School of Education and Human Development doctoral candidate at The George Washington University. As a faculty member at a Carnegie Foundation higher education institution, you have been selected to participate in this study on leadership examined within the context of institutions of higher education. The purpose of this study is to examine Birnbaum’s (1988) theory of the relationship between the constructs of leadership and organization (IRB #011122). The venue selected to administer the Models of Leadership and Organization survey is SurveyMonkey. You have the option of requesting a hard copy of the instrument by emailing me at [email protected]. I realize that your schedule is very busy; however, your input is critical. The survey should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. To facilitate your participation, I have included the direct link to the online survey below: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from me, please click the link below and you will be automatically removed from my study: https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx Thank you ahead of time for your participation in this study. Pam Douglas Doctoral Candidate 8/20/11

164

Appendix C

Five follow-up E-Mail contacts

To: [Email]


Subject: Invitation to participate in a doctoral study on contextual leadership

Body: Dear [FirstName] [LastName]: On August 20th you should have received an email invitation to participate in a leadership study. I know that your schedule is extremely busy; however, as a full time faculty member, at a Carnegie Foundation master’s degree granting institution of higher education, I need your professional input to complete my research. The link to the online Models of Leadership and Organization (MLO) questionnaire is below. The actual survey should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link below and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx If you have any questions about this study, please do not hesitate to contract me at [email protected]. Once again, thank you for your help with this very important research. Pam Douglas Doctoral Student The George Washington University

165

To: [Email]


Subject: Please take a few minutes to complete my higher education leadership survey

Body: Dear [FirstName] [LastName]: As a faculty member at a Carnegie Foundation classified institution of higher education, you have been randomly selected to participate in a leadership study. I know that you have a very busy schedule; however, I still need your help to conduct my study. When completing the survey, if you or your dean are new to the current position your perceptions of the leadership of a previous dean are considered valid. The Models of Leadership and Organization (MLO) online questionnaire should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. The first page of the survey is the information sheet, which provides you with more of the details of the study. Please click on the link below to take the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from me, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx If you have any questions about my study, please contact me at [email protected]. I sincerely appreciate your help with my research. Pam Douglas Doctoral Student The George Washington University

166

To: [Email]


Subject: You have the potential to make an important contribution to higher education research and practice by participating in a leadership study

Body: Dear [FirstName] [LastName]: I realize that you are very busy; however, I still need your help to complete my study investigating Birnbaum's (1988) theory that there is a relationship between his taxonomy of models of leadership and of organization. When completing the online questionnaire, if you or your dean are new to the current position your perceptions of the leadership of a previous dean are still considered valid. The Models of Leadership and Organization (MLO) online questionnaire should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. The first page of the survey is the information sheet, which provides you with more of the details of the study. Please click on the link below to take the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from me, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx If you have any questions about my study, please contact me at [email protected]. I sincerely appreciate your help with my research. Pam Douglas Doctoral Student The George Washington University

167

To: [Email]


Subject: Contextual leadership doctoral study ending soon - your participation is requested

Body: Dear [FirstName] [LastName]: This is the last weekend to participate in a doctoral study on contextual leadership. I realize that you are very busy; however, I still need your help to investigate Birnbaum's (1988) theory that there is a relationship between his typology of models of leadership and of organization. The Models of Leadership and Organization (MLO) online questionnaire should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. The first page of the survey is the information sheet, which provides you with more of the details of the study. Please click on the link below to take the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from me, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list. https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx If you have any questions about my study, please contact me at [email protected]. I sincerely appreciate your help with my research. Pam Douglas Doctoral Student The George Washington University

168

To: [Email]


Subject: Today is the last opportunity to participate in a higher education leadership study

Body: Dear [FirstName] [LastName]: To date, there is no empirical evidence to either affirm or reject Birnbaum's (1988) theory that there is a relationship between his models of leadership and organization. Today, Tuesday, September 20th at midnight EST, is the last day to help me to investigate Birnbaum's (1988) theory and to further our knowledge of higher education leadership. Please note: If you do not wish to participate in this study, click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from my mailing list. https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx The Models of Leadership and Organization (MLO) online questionnaire should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. The first page of the survey is the information sheet, which provides you with more of the details of the study. Please click on the link below to take the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx If you have any questions about my study, please contact me at [email protected]. I sincerely appreciate your help with my research. Pam Douglas Doctoral Student The George Washington University

169

Appendix D

Edits to MLO section 2

3. Section 2: Organization You are asked your perceptions of the extent to which each of the 23 statements describes the organization of the educational unit or department led by the individual you rated in section 1. You will be using the same scale that you used in section 1. To make a selection, check the bubble that corresponds on a scale from 1. 1. "To Little or No Extent" 2. "To a Slight Extent" 3. "To a Moderate Extent" 4. "To a Considerable Extent" 5. "To a Very Great Extent" In my educational unit or department_______3. Section 2: Organizatio 1 2 3 4 5 1. the rule of thumb in decision making is to gather information from all ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ involved in an attempt to assure participation. 2. roles and responsibilities are well defined. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 3. bargaining and negotiation between coalitions are common practice ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ in my educational unit. 4. the relationship between individuals is inconsistent; sometimes they ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ work together, sometimes not. 5. mutual respect characterizes the relationship among individuals. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6. when coordinating activities, reliance is on written procedures rather ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ than person-to-person communication. 7. individuals in my educational unit form coalitions; for example, to ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ increase the likelihood of a particular program being funded. 8. norms are understood, such as communicating via prescribed ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ channels. 9. individuals are seen as separate specialists who have very little ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

170

professional interaction with those outside of their specialty. 10. intuition is more important than data and analytical reports when ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ making decisions in my educational unit or department. 11. goals are based on a loose collection of changing ideas rather than ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ a coherent educational philosophy, resulting in a lack of clarity. 12. individuals share ideas for our mutual benefit. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 13. authority is clearly defined on an organizational chart. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ In my educational unit or department_______ 1 2 3 4 5 14. commitment to a program wavers depending upon the influence of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ coalitions in my educational unit. 15. the process for decision making is inconsistent; it may be rational ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ and based upon facts, it may be quick without full justification, or it may be deliberated to no end in committees. 16. input from everyone is valued. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 17. goals are clearly defined in writing and disseminated throughout my ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ educational unit. 18. decisions made in my educational unit are influenced by those ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ by those groups with the greatest power. 19. commitments, such as providing support for professional ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ development, are consistent. 20. procedures for conducting routine activities are not well defined. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 21. decision making is very structured, requiring written documentation, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ specific personnel involved, and set procedures. 22. individuals join coalitions in my educational unit to gain ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ influence and resources. 23. communication is often disconnected resulting in problems not ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ being linked with possible solutions.

171

Appendix E

Methodology Time Line

Activity Period of Time

Determine Population

and Sampling Frame

July, 2006

Instrument Development March, 2007 - March, 2011

Pretest 1 January, 2011

Pretest 2 April, 2011

Pretest 3 July, 2011

E-mail Invitation to

Participate in Study

August, 2011

Follow-up 1 September, 2011





Competed Data Collection September, 2011

Data Analysis November, 2011 -

July, 2012

Formulate Conclusions January - August, 2012

Defend and Submit

Final Document

October, 2012

A Study of Birnbaum’s Theory of the Relationship Between the … · 2018-12-18 · A research...

Documents

Transcript of A Study of Birnbaum’s Theory of the Relationship Between the … · 2018-12-18 · A research...