A COMPARISON OF COMMUNICATOR SOCIAL STYLE AND WORLD VIEW

BETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY MEMBERS

OF HIGHER EDUCATION

by

JOSEPH JAMES CARDOT III, B.A., M.A.

A DISSERTATION

IN

EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Approved

December, 1990

c 1990 Joseph James Cardot, III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his appreciation for the

invaluable help, guidance, and assistance to Dr. Clyde

Kelsey and Dr. Michael Mezack in the co-chairing of work

presented here. Thanks is also extended to Dr. Joe Cornett,

Dr. Robert Ewalt, and Dr. Robert Stewart for their help and

patience in the research and writing that led to this

completed project.

The deepest love and gratitude is expressed to the

author's wife, Vickie Rae, and his children. Amber Rae and

Ashleigh Nicole, for their support and encouragement through

the years needed to complete this effort. The time spent

away from them can never be replaced. It is hoped that the

time that remains can be filled with the same love and

support that resulted in the completion of this degree.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES iv

CHAPTER

I. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS 1

Introduction 1

Statement of Problem 3

Research Questions 4

Definition of Terms 5

Justification of Study 6

Limitations of Study 10

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12

Communicator Social Style 12

World View 27

Administrative/Faculty Relationships 32

Conclusions 36

III. METHODOLOGY, PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS . . . 38

Methodology 38

Subjects 40

Procedures 40

Variables and Measuring Instruments 42

iii

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Introduction

Webster defines communication as a process whereby

information is exchanged between persons through a set of

commonly shared signs, symbols, and/or behaviors. Schramm

(1955) describes this process as the encoding and decoding

of a message within an overlapping area of the fields of

experience between those engaged in interaction. Such an

overlap he labels symbolic isomorphism. It is through such

common experiences that meaningful interactions are

possible. Even learning must take place within this

overlap. New concepts, terms, ideas, etc., are explained by

vocabulary all ready understood.

During the past four decades, the majority of

communication research has centered on the verbal

development of messages. Within the last two decades,

research has indicated that most verbal messages are

interpreted in light of the accompanying non-verbal

dimensions (Mehrabian, 1971). The last decade has seen a

shift into the cognitive dimensions of interaction.

While the primary focus of research has and will

continue to shift, scholars usually emphasize the

2

significance of the context in which a message is encoded

and decoded. Such emphasis is accepted. However, the

predispositions each individual carries into an interaction

also affect the message and its interpretation.

Many predispositions and personality variables exist

(communication apprehension, dogmatism, machiavellianism,

etc.), however, two which would bridge the separation

between the cognitive and the behavioral have been examined

only independently of each other.

The purpose of the present study is to link the two

previously separated constructs of communicator social style

and world view. Through these constructs the inherently

tenuous relationship (Mowday, 1978) between university

administration and faculty members will be examined.

Several conceptual models exist for studying or

describing communication behavior in relational contexts

(Merrill and Reid, 1981). However, the four-dimensional

model of social styles which emerged from Merrill's work

with insurance companies appears to provide insight into

both attitudinal and behavioral perceptions of interactants.

It is agreed that context includes many factors and

affects the overall effectiveness of one's communication.

One factor which is receiving increasing attention is the

degree or level of fatalism which the individual feels and

reacts to. Among other names it is referred to by some as

world view. This concept is linked to the individual's

3

perceived understanding of his or her relationship to the

environment and the universe (Dodd, 1987).

The ability to correlate the above constructs with an

individual's job duty in higher education (administrative or

faculty) could help bridge the gap in the university

decision-making process. To provide the best possible

service to students, the community, and the society, each

should strive to work together toward the common mission of

the institution, whether the more general teaching-research-

service or a specialized one set forth by the college.

Statement Of Problem

As stated above attitudinal differences exists between

the administrative and teaching segments of educational

institutions. Such differences can be traced, in part, to

the communication predispositions each individual carries

into interactions with others. Thus, the specific

communicator social style should impact on such

interactions. Research indicates that peoples' perception

of the personal degree of control over their lives also

influences both policy and procedure decisions. This

dissertation focuses on the following problem statement:

Administrators and faculty members in institutions of higher

education have communicator social styles as compared with

world views that vary from each other such that personality

differences between the two groups are predictable.

4

The related questions that exist are numerous: Are

administrators more or less likely to use confrontation

interaction styles then faculty members? Are faculty-

members more or less deterministic than administrators? Are

women in administrative positions more or less assertive

than women in the faculty? Do faculty members exhibit more

or less responsiveness than administrators? Are the world

views of administrators and faculty members different enough

to result in tension?

Research Questions

To date, communicator social style has been used in

business organization analysis almost exclusively- Darling

(1985) begins the application to university administration.

There has been no attempt to apply it to university faculty

or to relate it to world view. Because of the conceptual

relationship the constructs seem to have and the lack of

actual research that exists, the following Research

Questions manifest themselves:

Ql: Is there a significant difference between the

communicator social styles of administrators and

faculty members?

Q2: Is there a significant relationship between the

social style and world view of administrators and

faculty working in the university setting?

5

Q3: Is there a significant relationship between gender

and social style?

Q4: Is there a relationship between education level

and social style?

Q5: Is there a significant relationship between gender

and world view?

Q6: Is there a significant relationship between

faculty position and world view?

Q7: Is there a relationship in the communicator social

styles by administrative level?

Q8: Is there a relationship between administrative

position and world view?

Q9: Is there a significant relationship between level

of versatility and university position?

Definition of Terms

The nature of scientific incjuiry requires that one

begin with a consistent understanding of the constructs

under investigation. Such common ground is found within the

acceptance of definitions for key terms. Unless otherwise

stated, the following definitions will be used for persons

or concepts in this study:

Communicator Social Style: This term identifies a

pervasive and enduring set of interpersonal behaviors based

on how an individual acts. It is composed of the

interpersonal behavioral dimensions of assertiveness and

6

responsiveness. Bolton and Bolton (1984) define

assertiveness as the degree to which an individual's

behaviors are seen by others as forceful or directive. They

further define responsiveness as the degree to which

behaviors are seen as emotionally expressive or emotionally

controlled.

World View: As defined by Dodd and Garmon (1987)

world view is a belief system, personal in nature, that

encompasses the control an individual enjoys and expects as

resulting from his or her perceived limits of control. Such

control, they claim, varies as the communication environment

becomes the perceptual framework for the interpretation of

one's place in the universe.

Faculty: This term refers to those individuals with an

academic position who teach a full load as identified by the

institution and who have no administrative duties in

addition to the teaching load.

Administrator: This term refers to those individuals

who have full-time responsibilities in an administrative

position and teach no more than two courses during the

academic year. This could involve the level of department

head or higher as identified by teaching load.

Justification of Study

As mentioned above, there exists attitudinal

differences within the decision-making process between

7

administrators and faculty members in institutions of higher

education (Mowday, 1978). Any feelings of frustration

should be better understood by those seeking to provide the

best possible environment for educating students.

Each individual should understand that the public trust

given to educate students can be served when the student,

the community, and the society are viewed as their reason

for existing. At the most fundamental level, without

students, no faculty would be needed; without faculty, no

administrators would be needed. With this in mind, both

groups should work toward the common mission of the

institution, whether the more general teaching-research-

service or a specialized one set forth by the institution.

The concept of managing has been applied to higher

education before (Darling, 1985), However, such application

has been made only to the up and down strategies within the

administrative function. It seems logical that if

disagreement exists between the administrative and academic

functions, that greater understanding of any differences

between the two could reduce such disagreement.

The (question of leadership is not addressed here. The

organizational distinction of line and staff functions are

assumed. A president, vice president of academic affairs,

dean, or department head holds leadership distinction over

faculty members. However, vice president of finance, or of

development, does not. But since the allocation of

8

resources can be controlled by the development officer or

the finance officer, their interaction with faculty can have

far reaching implications.

Communicator social style provides a good indication of

one's primary and secondary styles of exercising influence.

Since influence can determine the relative advantage or

disadvantage with regard to power, strategic decisions, and

responses associated with the allocation of resources, such

knowledge can take on increased significance.

To the extent that interpersonal conflict interrupts an

organizational member's ability to perform at peak

effeciency (Bell, 1974), understanding interaction styles

should be helpful to those researchers examining higher

education as organizations. The Communicator Social Style

Profile used by the Wilson Learning Corporation was designed

under the assumption that individuals "have the basic

technical or task skills necessary for their jobs, but can

benefit from assistance in developing their people or

interpersonal skills" (Lashbrook, Lashbrook, Larsen, and

Buchholz, 1978, p. 2).

Likewise, world view is understood as the degree of

control persons feel they have over their own life. The

extent one can control his or her own destiny relates

directly to the perception one has of the amount of

influence that can be exerted over others.

9

Knowledge gained from this study should provide the

student of higher education research with a clearer

perception of how institutional members view their place in

the organization. With this understanding, those seeking to

increase the service of our educational system to the

society will better know what to expect and how best to

accommodate both faculty and administrators.

Further, this study should also provide both

administrators and faculty members with an increased

understanding of each other as well as themselves. An

awareness of the perceived philosophical directions each

group operates under as well as the communication/behavioral

predispositions will give each a clearer concept of the

institutional changes or lack of changes that will affect

them.

Finally, this effort continues the cjuest of

establishing the desirability and usefulness of empirical

inquiry to help understand human interaction. While the

specific application of this study may be limited, it is

seen by this researcher to be a significant start towards

improving the higher education environment. After all, the

United States educational system seeks to improve society by

improving the individual. If the university setting can be

changed through a greater, more positive, relationship

between faculty and administration, then the chances of

being able to serve students and therefore society increase.

10

Limitations Of Study

This study, like all others, contains limitations which

are readily admitted and hopefully understood. Foremost is

the limitation of sample. While efforts were made to

randomly select both institutions and individuals, it was

necessary to limit the scope of institutions selected. The

current study includes only colleges and universities from

southeastern States—those included in the region reviewed

by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, All

conclusions will therefore be indicative of faculty and

administrators in the southeastern portion of the country

and may not be generalizable for the entire United States.

A second shortcoming could be from the communicator

social style scale. While the Wilson Learning Center

reports the reliability and validity for the Social Style

Profile as adecjuate (.89), it tends to have interrater

reliabilities of approximately ,80. While still (juite high,

the scale is used primarily in business training seminars

for managers and executives. It has not been used in

academia. Its predictive validity in such a setting is

unknown.

The final limitation cited at this point is with the

Personal Report of World View scale. While used with

several thousand college students, it has been used with

faculty and administrators only once (Garmon, 1984). The

authors have expressed concern over its predictive abilities

11

related to communication behaviors. They are currently

working on a revision but are even more unsure of its

outcome. To the extent that locus of control is established

with the scale, this researcher feels confident enough in it

to move ahead with the effort.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Communicator Social Style

Communication is seen by many (Goldhaber, 1990; Baird,

1977, Ruesch and Bateson, 1951) as the single most important

dimension of human and organizational interaction.

"Communicator Style" is broadly defined as: the way one

verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal

meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or

understood (Norton, 1978),

Social style is defined as a "pervasive and enduring

set of interpersonal behaviors" (Darling, 1985, p, 80).

Communicator Social Style is the method of assigning meaning

to the behaviors of individuals based upon their consistency

of interaction (Bolton and Bolton, 1984).

Most theories of social style arise from behavioral

psychology, the result of social science research (Merrill

and Reid, 1981). The concept of communicator social style

emerged from Merrill's work with insurance companies and

appears to provide the greatest insight into both

attitudinal and behavioral perceptions of interactants. It

is distinguished from most models by its emphasis on

behavior rather than on personality.

12

13

One of the most popular communicator style scales used

is the Norton nine-dimension construct operationally called

the Domain of Communicator Style (Norton, 1978). The scale

involves a "simplex" where communication variables are

evaluated ranging from communicative activity to inactivity.

Norton ties the construct to the individual's context,

situation, and time. "The tacit hypothesis is that these

three components to some extent substantially influence

styles of communicating" (Norton, 1978, p 110). This

researcher contends that such situationally driven variables

do not establish the underlying motivations of behavior.

Such motivations are better understood through an analysis

of what a person actually does and not what his or her

personality suggests will be done.

Bolton and Bolton (1984) compare people to icebergs,

citing that only a fraction of who the individual really is

and how they feel can be observed directly. The result

being that attitudes, values, motives, thoughts, etc., must

be inferred. Such inference occurs through behavioral

observation and is many times incorrect.

The social style model allows the observer to use the

"surface" data (behavior) rather than the motivations behind

the behavior. While this is a dramatic deviation from other

systems or styles used in monitoring either interpersonal

relationships or managing people, it provided a far more

objective method. Since the system is used mostly in

14

management training, most of its application is in the

business community. Many managers and supervisors use

behaviors to determine the attitudes and motives of workers.

However, as Peter Druker (1973) contends, it is an abuse of

power to delve into an individual's personality. An

employer, by contract, can expect performance, nothing else.

Communicator social style makes predictions based upon

the clustering of behavior. It examines an individual's

behavior, but not individual actions. In fact, it ignores

the actions one takes while alone and is concerned only with

how the individual behaves in the presence of others. As

stated above, social style deals with the consistency of

interaction or avoidance with others.

The model utilizes two dimensions perceived by

leadership and management researchers (Stogdill and Coons,

1957; Reddin, 1970; Blake and Mouton, 1978) to be critical

in understanding behavioral style. The terms cited by

others include; dominant-submissive, task or relationship

orientation, or initiating structure and consideration.

In the social style model arising out of Merrill's

work, the dimensions are labeled assertiveness and

responsiveness. A person's social style is therefore

defined as the measured perceptions of assertiveness and

responsiveness. These constructs are similar to the

internalization process expressed by Blake and Mouton (1964)

in the Managerial Grid. The Grid is consistent with and was

15

even derived from the leadership research completed at Ohio

State and Michigan. Stodgill (1950) concluded that

effective leaders have a high concern for both tasks and

personnel. Vroom (1976) found that effective leaders tend

to develop relationships that enhance worker self-esteem,

set high performance goals, and use group supervision and

decision-making. The relationship between managerial

concern for tasks and employees can be seen in the Blake and

Mouton Grid.

Assertiveness

Many definitions of assertiveness can be found. The

most useful in a general sense is the degree to which an

individual seeks to guarantee that the rights of others as

well as their own rights are not infringed upon. However,

in this communicator social style model, assertiveness is

the degree to which an individual's behaviors are perceived

by others as being forceful or directive. While workable in

this context, the reader must understand that this

definition is close to what many would refer to as

aggressive behavior.

Bolton and Bolton (1984) point out that the degree of

assertiveness is the observational reaction towards one's

behavior and may not indicate either the inner drive or

motives behind the behavior. Such observations seem to

cluster an individual's behavior into segments or quadrants

16

(see figure 1). Researchers (Bolton and Bolton, 1984)

maintain that the United States population is ecjually

divided between the segments.

Low

Assertive

A

25%

B

25%

C

25%

D

25%

Figure 1

Assertiveness Scale

High

Assertive

It is important to note that an individual's behavior

will not be limited to one segment. However, each person is

consistent enough in his or her personalities to have, over

time, most behaviors cluster in only one. As will be seen

below, most analysis is sufficient to identify in which half

a person's behavior falls. The question then becomes: Is

he or she more or less assertive? The answer will place the

individual to the left or the right of the midpoint on the

scale.

The Wilson Learning Center conducts management seminars

based upon one's social style as defined here. Their main

concern (among others) is to point out that no "correct"

segment or position exists. Success or failure is relative

and can be measured only in terms of goal realization. To

help determine which side of center one is operating on.

17

Bolton and Bolton (1984) have identified general tendencies

of behaviors that help to pinpoint clusters of interaction.

Persons who are less assertive and would fall to the left of

the midpoint tend to:

1. Move more slowly and deliberately,

2. Speak more slowly and more softly,

3. Lean backward, even when making a recjuest or

stating an opinion,

4. Be more tentative and less forceful in expressing

opinions, making requests, and giving directions.

5. Be less confrontive.

6. Let others take the interpersonal initiative,

7. Be "ask oriented,"

8. Decide less cjuickly.

9. Be less risk oriented.

10. Exert less pressure for decisions.

11. Have less intense, less consistent, and less

frecjuent eye contact.

Such information becomes useful when compared with the

behaviors most commonly associated with those who are more

assertive. These individuals would fall to the right of the

midpoint on the scale. Such persons tend to:

1. Move more rapidly-

2. Speak more cjuickly, more intensely, and even more

loudly.

18

3. Sit upright and lean forward, even when not making

a recjuest or stating an opinion.

4. Be more emphatic while expressing opinions, making

recjuests, or giving directions.

5. Be more confrontive.

6. Take the interpersonal initiative in interactions.

7. Be more "tell oriented."

8. Make decisions more quickly.

9. Be more risk oriented,

10. Exert more pressure on others for decisions,

11, Have more intense, more consistent, and more

frequent eye contact.

Responsiveness

The second dimension utilized by the model is that of

responsiveness. By definition, responsiveness is the degree

to which behaviors are perceived as either emotionally

expressive or emotionally controlled. The more responsive

people tend to react overtly to the emotions of others or to

their own emotions. The less responsive people tend to be

more reserved, controlled, or guarded in the expression of

emotion or feelings.

The population is likewise divided into four ecjual

segments of responsiveness. The cjuestion, as with

assertiveness, is: On which side of the midpoint does the

19

individual's emotional responsiveness lie? As figure 2

indicates, the model uses, graphically, a "Y" axis for such

identification.

High Responsive

D

C

B

A

25%

25%

25%

25%

Low Responsive

Figure 2

Responsiveness Scale

In terms of emotional expression, one's behavior will

tend to cluster predictably just as assertiveness will.

Again, there is no best place to be on the scale. Each has

its' own strengths and weaknesses (Merrill and Reid, 1981).

The issue becomes one of identifying whether the person is

more emotionally controlled or is more responsive to and

expressive of their own emotions as well as the emotions of

others. The following provides the tendencies or indicators

of responsiveness and has been adapted from Bolton and

Bolton (1984, p. 21). In terms of general behavior, those

persons who are less responsive and fall below the midpoint

on the scale tend to:

20

1. Limit their use of gestures in interpersonal

settings.

2. Move with less fluid gestures and actions.

3. Be less expressive facially.

4. Be more serious.

5. Appear more reserved with others.

6. Dress more formally.

7. Exhibit more control in their expression of

feelings.

8. Be more focused on facts.

9. Appear less people oriented and more task oriented.

10. Be less interested in small talk, anecdotes, and

j okes.

11. Make decisions based more on facts than on

emotions.

12. Be more disciplined in their use of time.

13. Supervise the actions of others in a more

disciplined manner.

The above tendencies are not necessarily either

positive or negative. Such an evaluation can be made only

in relation to the outcome in a specific situation. Bolton

and Bolton (1984) continue with the behaviors most likely to

be observed by those persons who are more responsive. Such

individuals would fall above the midpoint on the

responsiveness scale. In their behaviors, they would tend

to:

21

1. More frequently gesture to others.

2. Move more freely, with less rigidly.

3. Be more facially expressive.

4. Be seen as more playful.

5. Appear as more friendly by others.

6. Dress more informally.

7. Be freer and less guarded in their expression of

feelings.

8. Focus more on feelings rather than on facts.

9. Be seen by others as more people oriented and less

task oriented.

10. Be more open to small talk, anecdotes, and jokes.

11. Be more influenced in their decision making by

feelings and not just facts and figures.

12. Demonstrate less use of structure in their use of

time.

13. Supervise others with a more person oriented style.

Related Factors

The Social Style Profile measures two additional

factors that relate highly to both assertiveness and

responsiveness (Lashbrook, Lashbrook, Larsen, and Buchholz,

1978). The constructs of versatility and trust are not

independent of the two dimensions but, rather, mediate the

consecjuences of the individual's social style.

22

Versatility. The first factor is perhaps the most

significant as it relates to style. Versatility is defined

as the individual's ability to adapt behavior to meet the

needs or goals of others (Merrill and Reid, 1981). It is

similar to the concept of flexibility identified by Bolton

and Bolton (1984), Both look at the appropriateness of

behavior situationally- The Wilson Learning Corporation

(1977) concludes that a person with high versatility could

be predicted to be changeable, flexible, adaptable, etc.

Basically, the individual's behavior is unpredictable.

Since the specific social style affects one's success

or failure only to the extent it is compatible with the

style of others, versatility takes on more importance.

Managing Interpersonal Relationships (MIR) seminars are

conducted by the Wilson Learning Corporation to teach

individuals greater versatility. Such training sessions

have proven successful (Burgess, Lashbrook, Wenburg, Larsen,

and Lashbrook, 1981). Comparisons between a pre-seminar

versatility rating and a rating fourteen weeks after the

seminar found those completing the course were still

perceived higher in their flexing strategies than those who

did not attend. To the extent that a person adapts to each

situation, the tendency to have more successful

relationships is increased.

Trust. Another mediating factor, although not as

changing as versatility, is that of trust. As a construct

23

related to social style, it is defined as "...the perceived

effort a person makes to be reliable when relating with

others" (Lashbrook, Lashbrook, Larsen, and Buchholz, 1978,

p. 5) . As expected, one perceived as high in trust is also

seen as honest, dependable, unselfish, and responsible.

Such a perception will influence the effectiveness of a

person's social style in any given situation.

Trust relates to other dimensions of interpersonal

relationships. It is positively correlated with self

disclosure, liking, and self concept. It is interesting to

note that this construct is not dealt with by most

researchers in communicator social style. It seems that

most individuals will take morality or choice issues for

granted and seek to understand areas commonly believed

uncontrolled.

Social Styles

As stated above, the two behavioral dimensions of

assertiveness and responsiveness form the axes of the

communicator social style model. Scoring of the profile

measure allows a four quadrant representation. One cjuadrant

for each style exists; analytical, driver, amiable, and

expressive. Figure 3 shows the relationship of each style

with the degrees of responsiveness and assertiveness. It

should be noted that the quadrants have been rearranged by

this researcher to conform to the traditional use of the "X"

24

and "Y" axes. Conceptually, this action is justified as the

reader can now more easily see the style change when the

degree of assertiveness (X-axes) or the degree of

responsiveness (Y-axes) is increased or decreased.

High

Responsiveness

Low

Amiable

Analytical

Expressive

Driver

Low High

Assertiveness

FIGURE 3

Social Style Grid

The population is said to be evenly distributed

throughout the quadrants (Bolton and Bolton, 1984). It is

also significant to note that one style is not more

effective or important than another. Each has both

strengths and weaknesses. Impressive successes have been

achieved by individuals from each cjuadrant throughout

history. Each style is identified and explained below.

Analytical. The analytical style is a combination of

low levels of both assertiveness and responsiveness. Such a

person exhibits a high degree of emotional self control.

They tend to assimilate and evaluate large amounts of data

before acting. Analyticals are usually very well organized.

25

thorough, systematic, and precise. They are extremely

attentive to detail (Bolton and Bolton, 1984),

Driver. The driving social style combines low levels

of responsiveness with high levels of assertiveness. Like

the Analyticals, their emotions are kept under control.

However, they are highly task oriented and deal with people

and issues (juickly. Typically, they are highly competitive,

pragmatic, objective, results oriented and express

themselves succinctly (Darling, 1985). Many organizations

value their independence and willingness to take risks on

what appears to be little information.

Amiable. Combining high responsiveness with low

assertiveness, the Amiable tends to be highly sensitive and

sympathetic to the needs of others. The easygoing, trusting

style tends to bring out the best from subordinates. In an

educational setting, Amiables can encourage colleagues and

students to high levels of performance. Because of the low

assertiveness, responsiveness is perceived as empathy and

understanding which enhances interpersonal problem solving

(Bolton and Bolton, 1984).

Expressive. Using high degrees of both assertiveness

and responsiveness, Expressives tend to look at the forest

and not individual trees. Their greatest strengths lie in a

combination of the willingness to take risks and the use of

unusual or novel problem solving techniques. They are great

morale boosters through emotional expression and humor.

26

Expressives are the visionaries of the organization but are

also able to decide and act cjuickly on matters (Bolton and

Bolton, 1984).

Management seminars seek to make executives and

supervisors more aware of management style options. The

Wilson Learning Corporation (1977) contends that one's

management style should be an outgrowth of individual social

styles. Capacities are not fully utilized when the social

style conflicts with the management style.

Since no one individual possesses the strengths of all

four styles, administrative teams should strive to include

at least one of each social style. Using different terms,

management consultant Peter Druker (1973) concludes that

"top management tasks recjuire at least four different kinds

of human beings: the 'thought man' (analytical), the

'action man' (driver), the 'people man' (amiable), and the

'front man' (expressive)" (sic)(p, 616),

The above principle would argue for multiple

individuals in the problem solving process. It is not

suggested that social style be used as a screening measure

for employment or promotion. Rather, it advocates a

willingness to recognize and develop existing personnel with

each style to enable a leadership team to capitalize on the

assets of all four styles (Norton, 1983).

Studies in conflict have indicated that social style

may relate to conflict management in so far as individuals

27

are perceived to be less flexible or versatile in their

willingness to cope (Lashbrook, Lashbrook, Larsen, and

Buchholz, 1978). Stress is seen to influence the flex style

of the individual. Thus, as conflict occurs, the model may

predict not only modes of conflict management but also

discriminate between types of conflict. The lack of

versatility is not necessarily limited to those low in

responsiveness. As stress or tension increases, each style

tends to become more rigid (Lashbrook, Lashbrook, Parsley,

and Wenburg, 1977).

Such rigidity stems from a personality strength being

overemphasized and resulting in a perceptual weakness. For

example, the Analytical who is precise and systematic may

become exacting and inflexible. The Driver who is

determined and objective may become dominating and

insensitive. Overextended, the Amiable's supportive,

easygoing style may become conforming and permissive.

Finally, the enthusiastic and imaginative Expressives may

become both undisciplined and unrealistic. The result is

that administrative ineffectiveness can be the outcome of

the overextension of one's strengths.

World View

The past several years have seen researchers attempting

to isolate communication predispositions that can be used to

predict behavior. To some extent, this has been

28

accomplished with communication apprehension (McCroskey,

1982), dogmatism (Berger, 1985), and self esteem (Giles and

Street, 1985) . As seen above, social style also predicts

behavior across situations (Bolton and Bolton, 1984).

A common thread running through behavior prediction

research is the extent or degree of control the individual

perceives to exercise. Rotter (1966) developed a scale

which determines the extent to which an individual perceives

internal or external control. Such a locus of control

results from perceived reinforcement following some action.

If the reinforcement comes from the individual's personal

characteristics or ability to influence the outcome, an

internal locus of control is exhibited. However, if the

reinforcement is perceived to be the result of fate, chance,

powerful others or luck, then the locus of control is

external.

It is significant to note that Rotter's theoretical

base stems from a drive-oriented, motivated perspective.

Put simply, internal forces drive some people and external

forces direct others. The major criticisms revolve around

its one dimensional nature. While other yardsticks exist

which measure locus of control. Rotter's appears to be the

most consistent (Scarbaugh and Roe, 1984; Kluckhohn and

Strodtbeck, 1961).

It also appears, however, that while external or

internal forces can and do affect or influence actions.

29

these forces are not necessarily predispositions. It seems

that cultural presuppositions more clearly identify

predicted behaviors. Such a shift in focus takes the reader

into the construct of world view (Dodd and Garmon, 1987).

Arising from communication perspectives, the Personal Report

of World View (PRWV) is based upon assumed factors that

relate to intrapersonal and interpersonal perceptions. Such

assumptions led Dodd and Garmon (1987) to define world view

as "...a cognitive belief system concerning the limits and

expenses of personal control within one's communication

environment" (p. 8).

Dodd and Garmon's (1987) work suggests that the scale

remains internally consistent, with the reliability

coefficient of .81. Their test-retest work also indicated

reliability over time (r=.80).

Validity seems to be upheld in that the scale is

supported as a construct measure with intuitive face

validity. However, it also has criterion validity in that

it correlates with Rotter's I-E scale (r=.55).

Rotter's scale has proven an effective measure in many

studies. However, since it uses a forced choice system, the

PRWV allows a greater range of response freedom. It also

correlates highly with communication behaviors such as

communication apprehension, television exposure, and

innovativeness, making it more useful to communication

30

researchers. Finally, the PRWV is not dependent on the

concept of reinforcement of behavior. It is also, unlike

the I-E scale, not based on contingency relationships

between behavior and outcomes.

Rotter's I-E scale is perceived as a reinforcement,

drive-orientated construct (Rotter, 1966), While it seeks

to identify whether an individual is controlled internally

or externally, it does so from a motivational foundation.

The PRWV, however, operates from cultural presuppositions.

It maintains that it is the construct through which an

individual develops values based upon the perceived degree

of control maintained within his or her communication

environments (Dodd and Garmon, 1987),

The scale is used to classify individuals into three

types. These types fall along a continuum relative to the

degree of fatalism held by the individual. Type I persons

are those low in communication determinism, scoring one

standard deviation below the average. Such individuals are

high in self-esteem, innovative, confident, assertive, and

easily adaptable to new situations. Type III persons, on

the other extreme, are high in communication determinism,

scoring one standard deviation above the average. They are

best described as low in confidence, low in assertiveness,

low in innovativeness, and less able to adapt to new

situations. Type II persons will exhibit a mixture of the

31

two. They have behavior that is not as deterministically

predictable as the other two.

Scoring is significant to note in that the hypothetical

mean is an 84 (scale ranges from 28 to 140) while the actual

mean averages 70. The difference is described by Dodd

(1990) in that an apparent 14-point skew occurs due to self

report predispositions to be reluctant to admit a lack of

personal control in the culture of the United States. Such

skewing is supported by Hample (1984) and is accepted if the

degree remains consistent from sample to sample. This

appears to be the case with the PRWV (Dodd, 1990) .

With the reliability of the scale established, it can

be accepted as a valid measure of perceptions of personal

control. If the explanation by Dodd on the scoring holds

for future samples, one should expect those with a score of

60 or below to be Type I communication fatalists, those with

a score of 80 or above to be Type III communication

fatalists, and those between 61 and 79 to be Type II or

midrange communication fatalists.

The construct of a personal world view is still in its

research infancy. However, it clearly seeks to predict the

affect on one's communication behavior by the personal

perception of one's ability to control interpersonal

relationships, structured or unstructured situations, and

unforeseen events.

32

Administrative/Facultv Relationships

The literature extant examining the relationships

between faculty members and administrators of higher

education reveals very little. The topic has not been

devoid of analysis; however, this researcher would be hard

pressed to describe what exists as extensive. The content

and significance of areas of research and teaching compared

with the institutional service to the external community

appear, at times, to be contradicted or ignored by the day-

to-day operations of the university (Warburton, 1989).

Virtually all academic areas are involved with research

and are actively seeking to explain the world around them.

However, when seeking to understand the relationships or

even the philosophical outlooks between administration and

faculty, studies are cjuite limited. Most simply describe

characteristics of community and junior college members.

Few studies exist that examine four year and graduate

institutions. Sykes (1988) concluded that due to their

training, the best administrators are liberal arts scholars.

It is suggested that they understand better than others the

purpose of education and how best to produce a successful

educational organization. The fallacy of the study revolves

around the assumption that since liberal arts scholars have

traditionally become presidents and vice presidents for

academics, they are somehow better qualified. It may simply

be that non-liberal-arts scholars do not aspire to the

33

positions or that outgoing administrators influence the

choice of successor. This trend, however, is fading. The

attempts to control dwindling resources while competing for

fewer students have resulted in individuals with

administrative training being selected more often than

before (Three Thousand Futures. 1980).

Intuitively, the administrator should be adept at

balancing the needs of the individual faculty member, or

student, with the needs of the institution as a whole.

Sykes (1988) identifies the administrative art as an ability

and desire to consider contradictory propositions

comfortably within a mental framework that desires

complexity. Since the university environment is composed of

individuals who perceive their profession as vital, the

balancing requirements are usually strained toward their

limits.

Only one study exists that seeks to understand the

philosophical basis for administrative/faculty differences.

Garmon (1984) found that administrators are more

deterministic than faculty members. She concluded that the

world view of faculty is one of greater freedom of choice

over issues that affect their futures. It seems that vice

presidents are the most deterministic of administrators,

feeling that they have less ability to control their futures

than either their superiors (presidents) or subordinates

(deans and department heads).

34

Garmon (1984) also found that English faculty were the

least deterministic while there was no significant

difference between administrators and faculty members in

either education or mathematics, she concluded that the

English discipline more closely represents the liberal arts

and should therefore have the least deterministic world

view. Such would be true only to the extent that the factor

controlling world view is liberal arts training or

orientation. Or, perhaps, that one's world view determines

which discipline an individual will enter. At this point,

neither conclusion can be drawn.

Beyond Garmon's study, empirical analysis is lacking.

Warburton (1989) suggests that the major differences lie in

the perceptions of organizational climate. He concluded

that administrators must use a more macroscopic view of the

institution and are concerned with the formal structure

while faculty are not confronted with the general concerns

as frequently as administrators. Moran and Volkwein (1988)

found that faculty perceive the organizational climate more

negatively than administrators. Part of the perceptual

variance may be due to different needs and expectations of

the two groups. In an earlier study (1987) they concluded

that the role each individual fills in an institution exerts

a stable systematic influence on both climate and attitudes.

Their work was supported by the 1988 study in that

administrators' perceptions of climate were significantly

35

more positive than those of faculty. The reason may be that

administrators feel a greater responsibility for the

character of the organization. It becomes a type of self-

justification. Such could be the result of isolation from

routine problems and frustrations, a lack of daily contact

with faculty and students.

Cohen and March (1974) point out that higher education

institutions are frecjuently described as "organized

anarchies." Such organizations have a high degree of goal

ambiguity. Effective results can occur if members perceive

that they and others are devoting themselves to reasonably

clear goals to which they and the organization are

committed. Effective colleges and universities are able to

achieve goal focus despite the problems of ambiguity and

conflict by identifying an "adequacy of performance focus"

(Cameron, 1981). Such a focus must come from individual

goals that are at least congruent with stated organizational

goals if not specifically the same. If they are not, then

ineffective communication, lowered productivity, and a non

supportive or negative climate will result (Warburton,

1989) .

The size of an organization always affects the

interaction and, therefore, relationships between members

(Goldhaeber, 1990). The greater the perceptual distance

between individuals, the more likely the interaction will be

written and formal. The tendency also exists to more

36

rigorously follow the chain of command. The communication

becomes more structured and a macro versus micro perspective

of administration and faculty increases the perceptual

distance between them. The result is an ever widening gap

between the two groups (Warburton, 1989).

Conclusions

As stated above, no body of literature exists that

seeks to relate the communicator social styles and world

views of administrators and faculty. While this in and of

itself does not justify such a study, the attempt to better

understand the relationship between the two does. Since the

goal of education is to collect, interpret, organize, and

disseminate both knowledge and skill, scholars should seek

to better understand the organization in which this is

accomplished.

It has been clearly established that one's social style

directly affects our interactions with others (Bolton and

Bolton, 1984) . It has also been shown that predispositions

to communicate are affected by personal world view (Dodd and

Garmon, 1987) . And finally, it has been hinted that the

behaviors of faculty and administrators in higher education

are the result of different views of the institution. It

seems logical and justified to this researcher that an

analysis of the relationship between all three is warranted.

37

It is upon this basis that the nine research (questions

presented in chapter one have been established. The

following chapter presents the methodology of the current

effort and the procedures.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY, PROCEDURES, AND DATA ANALYSIS

Methodology

Throughout eleven southern States, the Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is charged with

educational institution accreditation. To discharge its

higher education self-policing duties, SACS has identified

accredited institutions through five categories ranging from

those granting only associate degrees to those granting only

graduate degrees. For the purpose of the current project,

only the middle three categories were considered. The

groups include institutions that grant degrees at the

bachelor's, master's, and/or doctoral level. The rationale

used for this narrowing of the population lies in the

attempt to replicate the only study that exists, to date,

which examines faculty and administrators relative to their

levels of perceived determinism (Garmon, 1984). Since the

social styles have not been examined, and no comparison has

yet been made with world view, this researcher felt

justified in reducing the number of institutions from which

subjects would be drawn. Further justification lies in the

use of a stratified sample being chosen from each

38

39

institution. Procedures sought fourteen subjects from

individual colleges or universities.

For the calendar year 1989 - 1990, SACS maintained

accreditation over 351 institutions granting bachelor's

degrees, bachelor's and master's degrees, and bachelor's,

master's and doctoral degrees. Through the use of a

computer-generated random number and a list of institutions,

a stratified random sample of ten percent of the

institutions was selected. Such a procedure generated a

total of 35 institutions.

Having identified the universities and colleges to be

used, names of the following individuals were obtained from

each institution: president; vice president for academic

affairs; dean of business; dean of liberal arts; dean of

science; dean of education; and two faculty members from

each of the four disciplines. In some cases department

heads of accounting, English, mathematics, and education

were used when the position of "dean" was either not used or

not occupied at a given institution.

As stated above, the rationale for subject choice lies

in the attempt to replicate the conceptual framework of the

Garmon study in 1984. She attempted to survey individuals

from the highest levels of administration to those teaching

levels the most removed from administrative roles.

40

Subjects

Utilizing the role categories above, subjects included

in the current effort were as follows: 21 presidents; 28

vice presidents for academic affairs; 20 deans of business;

28 deans of liberal arts; 13 deans of science; 25 deans of

education; 40 faculty of business; 46 faculty of English; 27

faculty of mathematics; and 52 faculty of education.

Demographic information also found response by gender to be

208 male and 93 female (see post hoc analysis for specific

breakdown).

Procedures

This researcher mailed a letter of introduction and

recjuest for participation with the survey packet containing

demographics, the Personal Report of World View, and the

Social Impression Scale which identifies individual

communicator social style (see Appendix) to individuals

identified above. Sampling procedures yielded contact with

the following numbers per category: 35 presidents; 35 vice

presidents for academic affairs; 35 business deans or

department heads; 35 liberal arts deans or department heads;

35 science deans or department heads; 35 education deans or

department heads; 70 business faculty; 70 English faculty;

70 mathematics faculty; and 70 education faculty. The

number of surveys mailed totaled 490.

41

Each individual selected was asked to complete and

return the survey in the enclosed addressed and stamped

envelope. The introductory letter indicated that all data

would be used in group analysis and not individual analysis.

Coding did not include any identification that would allow a

specific individual to be singled out. However, those who

wished to be excluded from the study were asked to return

the unanswered survey in the envelope provided.

Response rate analysis indicated that subjects fell

into three categories. Subjects either returned the

completed cjuestionnaire (see breakdown above) , returned the

questionnaire unanswered, or simply did not return the

cjuestionnaire. Of the 490 surveys mailed, 261 were returned

completed, and 42 were returned blank. Usable

questionnaires represented 53.3 percent, blank returns

represented 8.6 percent. The total response to the initial

mailing, 303, provided a 61.8 percent return rate.

Extending the analysis yielded 38.2 percent who did not

respond.

In an attempt to increase the response rate, this

researcher mailed an additional 187 questionnaires to those

who failed to respond to the initial recjuest. Results were

more complete than expected. Secondary mailing yielded an

additional 40 usable surveys (21.4 percent). Fifty-two

persons (27.8 percent) returned blank cjuestionnaires making

the second return rate 49.2 percent.

42

When the two mailings were combined, 301 (61.4 percent)

usable surveys resulted. An additional 94 (19.2 percent)

were returned blank. Total response cited by this effort

came to a surprisingly high 395 which represented an 80.6

percent return. Ninty-five of the initial subjects failed

to respond to either the first or second request and

resulted in a 19.4 percent nonresponse rate.

Variables and Measuring Instruments

Independent variable

The current research effort utilized only one

independent variable. The attempt to gather data useful for

the better understanding of higher education yielded

analysis of administrators and faculty members. Therefore,

subjects fell into two primary groups; those with direct

daily student contact in the classroom, and those whose

contact with students is less frequent.

As presented in Chapter I, faculty refers to those

individuals with an academic position who teach a full load

as identified by the institution and who have no

administrative duties in addition to the teaching load. The

individual may have held another position earlier, but the

current assignment must be teaching and not administrative.

Chapter I also indicated the parameters of an

administrator. While the individual could have been defined

as a faculty member in the past, he or she must now hold

43

full-time responsibilities in an administrative position and

teach no more than two courses during the academic year.

The position held by an individual was the independent

variable. Subcategories exist as seen below.

Administrators fell into three major groups; president, vice

president, and dean (department head was substituted where

necessary, but only if the low teaching load recjuirement was

met) , Faculty fell into the four groups identified by the

survey procedures; business, English, mathematics, and

education.

Dependent variables

The current effort sought to examine fundamental

differences between administrators and faculty- The attempt

was to better understand differences, if any, that could

affect either interaction and/or the personal/positional

perception of the institution of higher education. In this

attempt, two variables were examined which, as justified

above, this researcher felt would differ based upon the

individual's position.

Communicator social style. An individual's

communicator social style is defined relative to perceived

responsiveness and assertiveness. A person's perceived

responsiveness is defined as the perceived effort one makes

to control their emotions when relating to others.

Perceived assertiveness is defined as the effort one makes

44

to control or influence the actions or thoughts of others

(Wilson Learning Corporation, 1977).

The instrument designed to measure the two dimensions

of social style is the Social Style Profile (Wilson Learning

Corporation, 1975). Subscales place an individual as either

high or low on both responsiveness and assertiveness. When

viewed together, the scores place a person's predisposition

towards interaction into one of four categories; analytical,

driver, amiable, or expressive. The scale used in the

current project utilized 17 items. The assertiveness

dimension uses eight items, the responsiveness dimension

five items. The remaining four items were used to measure

the personally perceived degree of versatility- Versatility

is defined as the perceived ability one has to adapt

behavior so that it meets the needs of others, A person who

possesses high versatility would be expected to be

adaptable, changeable, flexible, and unpredictable. As a

construct, versatility mediates the consequences of social

style.

Examination of the development of the Social Style

Profile revealed a relatively high level of reliability and

validity (Lashbrook, Lashbrook, and Buchholz, 1977). Using

Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adequacy, they found at least

.89 for each factor analysis conducted. Internal

consistency measures and interrater reliabilities exceeded

45

.80 for each dimension. They also found all three

dimensions to be normally distributed.

As mentioned in the procedures section above, subjects

were asked to respond to the 17-item profile on a 7-point

low to high scale. The data provided a self report of

perceptions on responsiveness, assertiveness, and

versatility.

Individual analysis results when the scale is broken

down into its parts. The Assertiveness dimension has eight

items allowing respondents to range from a score of eight to

fifty-six. A score of 32 or less can place the person's

social style in either Amiable or Analytical. A score above

32 results in a style of either Expressive or Driver. Exact

style is determined by comparing the Assertiveness score

with the Responsiveness score. Composed of five items, the

Responsiveness score will range between five and thirty-

five. A score of 20 or less places a person in the

Analytical or Driver category while a score above 20 places

them in the Amiable or Expressive category.

As stated above, versatility mediates the consecjuences

of the style used. The scale ranges from four to twenty-

eight. The hypothetical mean of 16, places the individual

as either high or low in their perceived ability to adapt to

the needs of others.

World view. Dodd and Garmon (1987) defined world view

as a personal belief system that included the control a

46

person enjoys and expects based upon his or her perceived

limits of control. It involves an interpretation of one's

place in the universe.

The instrument designed to measure this personal belief

system is the 28 item Personal Report of World View (PRWV).

The scale has undergone several revisions and has ranged

from a high of 50 items to a low of 17 items. The scale

used, represents better wording and construct validity over

its 17-item predecessor.

Garmon (1984) found reliability of .84 for the refined

scale. Dodd and Garmon (1987) obtained a slightly lower

internal reliability of ,81, The earlier 50-item scale

yielded a Cronbach's Alpha of ,86, However, since the two

scales correlated with each other at ,96, the developers

felt the smaller scale held greater utility while still

being highly predictive.

The PRWV utilizes a Likert format which asks subjects,

to respond to each item indicating whether they strongly

agree, agree, are neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree.

An individual's world view is indicated by a total score

from a low of 28 and a high of 140. The hypothetical mean

and median is 84. Due to the wording of items 3, 12, and

18, scoring is reversed.

As noted above in Chapter II, the actual mean is

seventy representing a 14 point skewedness toward under

reporting one's level of experienced control (Dodd, 1990).

47

Past use of the scale shows that a higher score indicated a

world view that is less deterministic giving the individual

greater freedom of choice. A lower score would indicate a

more traditional perspective which suggests that many things

in one's life are not under personal control.

Literature extant shows that very little attempt has

been made to study the relationship between administration

and faculty. The need to better understand the two and how

they react and interrelate appears obvious. The current

effort seeks to provide what this researcher feels is

valuable data resulting from a carefully chosen sample of

professionals in higher education.

Data Analysis

Data collection allowed for the analysis of the

dependent and independent variables to be conducted at

various levels. A series of Chi Squares and ANOVAs provided

the majority of the statistical work. Specifically,

research cjuestion one used a four by two matrix to examine

the relationship between the four categories of communicator

social style with the two categories of classification;

administrative and faculty. Research question two required

a two-way analysis of variance comparing world view with

four categories of social style and two categories of

classification, administrative or faculty. To examine

research question three, a four by two matrix was used to

48

compare social style with gender. Both an ANOVA and a four

by four factoral design was used to compare social style and

faculty position specified by research cjuestion four. An

analysis of variance was used for both questions five and

six. Five examined world view by gender while six

investigated world view based upon one's position in the

faculty. Question seven utilized a four by three matrix to

determine the relationship between communicator social style

and administrative position. Research question eight was

analyzed by an ANOVA to compare world view with one's

administrative classification. Finally, question nine

involved an analysis of variance to determine what effect

university position has on one's versatility. Where

appropriate, t-tests were used as post hoc analysis to tease

out specific differences.

Additional data collected allowed further analysis.

Various demographic variables were compared with a subject's

social style and world view. Such analysis included; length

of service, level of position, age, gender, and versatility.

Both main effects and interactions were examined. Results

appear below in Chapter IV. A discussion of these results

and attempts to explain them appear in Chapter V.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter reports the findings of the data analysis

relative to the research questions presented in Chapter I.

These results are divided as they pertain to both the

questions and the variables studied. As stated above, most

analysis was conducted through the use of both multiple

sample chi-scjuare and analysis of variance; one-way and two-

way. The use of multiple sample contingency analysis is

justified in the data representing variables that are

categorical in nature. That is, the subjects placed

themselves into various groupings that were then analyzed.

Examination of data revealed several factoral designs

that held cells under five members. Such statistical

analysis was justified in that the evidence suggests that

the chi-scjuare test requires an expected frequency of at

least five in each cell (Emmert and Barker,1989). Stempel

and Westley (1981) state that in general,

"for a two-by-two contingency table (two rows and two columns), the total number of cases should be greater than forty, and all expected cell frecjuencies should be five or more. In a larger table (more than two rows and/or two columns), chi square may be used if fewer than 20 percent of the cells have an expected frecjuency of less than five and if no cell has an expected frecjuency of less than one. "(p. 66-67)

49

50

Tables seen below indicate that no situation existed

which included an expected cell frequency of less than one.

Stempel (1981) is supported by Hays (1973) in that sample

size may override the generally accepted recjuirement of five

per cell. Data used reveals the smallest sample size of 135

for the current research effort. Many used the complete 301

cases in the data set.

Comparison of Findings to Research Questions

The primary effort of the current research revolved

around the attempt to answer nine research cjuestions.

Analysis below indicates that statistical significance was

found relative to all nine questions. Specifically, there

seems to be a significant relationship between all dependent

and independent variables.

Ql: Will there be a significant difference between the

communicator social styles of administrators and

faculty members?

Analysis of data with a four by two factoral design reveals

a significant difference between the communicator social

styles of administrators and faculty members in general

included in this study (chi square = 31.3511, df = 3, p <

.00001, Table 1). Administrators tend to be either

Analyticals or Drivers while faculty tend to be either

Amiables or Expressives. This finding is further heightened

by the percentage of Expressive administrators being the

Table 1

Contingency Table Comparing Communicator Social Style and University Position

51

Social Style Classification

Administration Faculty

Total

Analytical

Driver

Expressive

Amiable

42

50

12

31

33

33

54

46

75

83

66

77

Total 135 166 301

Chi square = 31.3511 DF = 3 p < .00001

52

lowest while the percentage of Expressive faculty

being the highest. Analysis in the current study might

suggest that further research should consider use of an

hypothesis in an attempt to replicate the findings. Figure

4 provides a visual comparison of the types of communicator

social style by administrators and faculty.

Q2: Is there a significant relationship between the

social style and world view of administrators and

faculty working in the university setting?

A two-way analysis of variance reveals a significant

interaction effect between university classification

(administrator or faculty) with both communicator social

style and world view (F = 4.18475, df = 3, p < .0064, Table

2) . However, individually, communicator social style was

not found to be significantly related to world view when

university position was not taken into account (F = .6634,

df = 3, p < .5751). Table 2 also indicates the high

relationship (F = 53.05, df = 1, p < .00001) between

classification and world view such that faculty members

display world views significantly less deterministic than

those of administrators (faculty mean =72.4398,

administrators mean = 65.6222). This finding was in support

of the 1984 Garmon study which found administrator mean

scores to equal 64.2 and faculty scores to equal 67.0 (Table

3).

53

40 n

35-;

30-:

25-

%20

10-

5

0-

WM.--. w?3

I' ^^r

Analytical Driver Expressive Amiable

[vl] Administration

M Faculty

Table 4

Contingency Table Comparing Communicator Social Style and Gender

54

CM

Q)

XI Pi

EH

4J

-d (U

t i - i '

> TJ •O

•W

CU

H (0

•H M (0

CO

(0

CO

tw (0

U

V

a.

U-

w

Q

CO

CO

CD O

13 O

CO

LO T- -tt r o CD U5 O O

• o o o

CD lO CX3 CD q T-CD •^* -"^

lO

•* OJ

K CO

h-00

I < h -C3 CJ

CVJ 05

"^ CO CVJ

-^ T —

CD LO

CO CO CO o Oi o CVJ CO

CO CO

CD N

CO lO h>

CO CO

CD r ^ CD r ^

w CO

CD CD

CD O O

r r O) CM

Nf o N

CO •<d-• ^

CD 1 —

i n 00 r o CVJ

to *—• c CD

• o c o CL in (D

DC o 0)

E 13

X5 tr ca CO c CO CD

cn o CD' CD

CD

CD

CVJ T —

CD C35 CD

CVJ CD LO* CD 72

.

c _a) g 3 fa CO . 9 l o '55 • o < -o

c

O =3 CO TJ _

to iS _ — ^ a> o

CO O £ DC H CO 2,

O CD

ubj

CO

.. CD

55 "cO

oci

CO

CO g *-. CO c <

L .

'%^ a

CD

> 'to

pres

X 111

CD J3

mia

<

, , c

CO

'(O

las

o

c o CO ).. «

* c IjLU

•o <

>^

cul

CO U-

k_ X - >_

.. c ( D O . .

• ^ CO o CO o . ^ _ h= o CO t o CO

oci

las

Iter

C O O i

T - CD O O o o

CD O O T- O O V V V CLCLC3.

CO -I- O

q ^t CM II II II

55

Table 3

Comparison of Personal Report of World View Means of Administrators and Faculty Between

Cardot and Garmon Studies

Study Means

Administration Faculty

Cardot 65.622 72.440

Garmon 65.200 67.000

56

Q3: Will there be a significant relationship between

gender and communicator social style?

Four by two factorial analysis reveals that the communicator

social style in the university setting is highly correlated

with gender (chi scjuare = 40.3840, df = 3, p < .00001 Table

4). Data indicates that the social style of Driver is the

lowest frecjuency for females while it was the highest

frecjuency for males. The social style of Expressive is the

highest frecjuency for females and the lowest for males. In

fact, the frecjuency rank order of social styles for males is

reversed for that of females. Figure 5 concludes that males

tend to fall into the social styles of either Driver or

Analytical while females tend to be either Expressive or

Amiable.

Q4: Will there be no relationship between education

level and communicator social style?

A four by four factorial analysis was reduced to a two by

four analysis as indicated in Table 5. Data reveals that

within the sample, no individual held either a Bachelor's or

specialist's degree. All 301 respondents held either a

Master's degree or Doctorate. The current research effort

did find a significant difference between the degree held

and social style in one category; Expressive (chi square =

8.4621, df = 3, p < .0374). Holding a Master's degree is

more likely for an Expressive while the fewest Expressives

58

%

45 n

40-^

35^

30^

25-:

20

15

10^

5

0

E

f^%>.

•.•*x¥?,-S;

i:¥i-?>'.

Analytical Driver Expressive Amiable

W[ Female

H Male

Figure 5

Bar Graph Comparing Percentages of Communicator Soc ia l S t y l e by Gender

59

Table 5

Contingency Table Comparing Communicator Social Style and Highest Degree Earned

Social Style Degree

Master's

13

16

24

18

Doctorate

62

67

42

59

Tota

75

83

66

77

Analytical

Driver

Expressive

Amiable

Total 71 230 301

Chi square = 8.46216 DF = 3 p < .0374

60

hold Doctorates. One factor that could affect this finding

is the number of university personnel with only a Master's

level education. However, the current research effort is

unable to establish such a conclusion.

Q5: Is there a significant relationship between gender

and world view?

Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference

between the levels of world view for males and females in

this study (F = 5.58248, df = 1, p < ,0188, Table 6).

Females display world views that are less deterministic than

those of males (female mean = 71,0645, male mean = 68,6298).

As seen below in the discussion chapter, two factors could

account for such a difference. First is the relatively low

N size for females (93 versus 208). The second is the

relatively low number of female administrators. As

established above, administrators in general are more

deterministic than faculty members.

Q6: Will there be a significant relationship between

faculty position and world view?

Analysis of variance identifies significant differences in

world views among faculty members in the current study

according to the academic area in which they teach (F =

6.58219, df = 3, p < .0003, Table 7). Scheffe's test for

significance indicates that statistical differences exist

between business and education faculty and between

mathematics and education faculty. The most deterministic

61

VO

Q) r-{

Xi (0 EH

o S Q)

•M > T) M r-( (U M T i 0 C S tl)

U tH 0 > i

XI cu o w C -P (0 c:

•H 0) k Tl (0 c > 0

a (W V) 0 o

« Ul

•H m > i H (0 C <

V CL

u.

CO

LL Q

CO CO

CD O

O CO

00 CO

to CM CO

CO q c> CO CO

CVJ 00 CD

•r- cn O cn o CM CO

CD - ^ 1 -

°^. ^ iO O O CO 00 - ^ r^ CO o o

CM CM

Ui CL 3 o

C CD CD 5

CQ

CO CL 3 O

Oi

c Ic *-• ^

CO

o

CO

c CD

• r - f tz o CL to CD

DC

c CO CD

2

CO

a5

E 3

T3 C CO tn c CO CD

CD N

in t

z

CD TJ c CD (D

CD CO

E CD Q-

CO CJJ

00 o CM

UO CD O

O CO CD 00 CD

CO

62

rH Xi (0 B

o

• > U

(H T!

" O 0) •<

!rt -p

<W'2

a

(0

c

V C 2 .

Li.

CO

CO CO

CD

o 3 o

CO

CO o o o

CM 00 in cd

CM

co T-co

(D N

CO

Z

CJJ in

CD

CO r CO T

•"t 1 —

o q CD CM LO T —

o CO

CJ • *

CD CM

CO CL 3 O

CJ)

c tD CD

5 CQ

to Q. 3 O 1 . .

c 'sz '.-' ^

CO .*—• o

00

"c tD

TJ c o C L CO CD

DC

to CD

E 3

z TJ C CO

to c CO CD

c CO OJ

o C D N T CM

CM UO

03 O l O

C D CVJ

CD o CM - 1 -

CD OJ CD

CO CD

< o E tD

TJ CO O <

o CO to CD c

'co 3

DO

SZ .55 "5) c

LU

CO

E CD SZ •*-* CO 2

o •Jo o 3

TJ m

. 3 Zl CO 3 "^ O C CO o

CO

o 3

CO TJ O LU 3

TJ LU TJ

c CO (J) CO tD c

'to 3

QQ

c CD CD

5

TJ O c o CO o ,« o

V CL CO

E tD sz -^

| S ccp tD ' tD II

5 -CD t D

jQ jQ

'x 'x CD CD

to to . CD CD I ^ O O LO

c e o 1 1 V =5 =a f^ c c

S S^:

CO CO II to .Q I -

63

faculty in the current sample are education teachers with

mean scores of 69.0962. The world views of English

professors hold a mean of 71.2609. Significantly less

deterministic world views are held by business and

mathematics teachers with means of 75,5000 and 76.2593

respectively for respondents.

Q7: Is there a relationship in the communicator social

styles of those holding varying administrative

positions?

Analysis utilizing a three by four design reveals that a

significant difference exists between the communicator

social style and the administrative position held (chi

square = 71.7133, df = 6, p < .00001, Table 8). In

examining Table 8, the reader is reminded of the statistical

justification for the use of contingency table analysis for

samples with cells holding few or no subjects. In light of

the N size of 136, the findings become even more

significant. Of the 21 respondents holding the office of

President, all fell into the Driver category- Respondents

holding positions as Vice President for Academic Affairs

fell only into the Analytical or Driver categories. The

current study found Expressives and Amiables only in

positions of Dean or Department Head.

Q8: Is there a relationship between administrative

position and world view?

Table 8

Contingency Table Comparing Communicator Social Style and Administrative Position

64

Social Style Administrative Position Total

sident

0

21

0

0

Vice President

19

9

0

0

Dean

23

20

13

31

42

50

13

31

Analytical Driver Expressive Amiable

Total 21 28 87 136

Chi square = 71.7133 DF=6 p < .00001

65

Analysis caf variance reveals a significant relationship

between the level of determinism and the administrative

position held (F = 6.70649, df = 2, p < .0017, Table 9).

Mean scores show that for the respondents in the current

study, vice presidents express feelings of less control than

presidents or deans. Greatest differences are shown between

vice presidents (mean ecjuals 62.6071) and deans (mean ecjuals

66.8966). Mean scores for presidents fell between the other

positions and ecjual 64.8095. Analysis indicates the

relative position of the current sample supports the earlier

findings of Garmon (1984). Current data, however, was found

to be significantly different, whereas, the Garmon study

failed to establish significance.

Q9: Is there a significant relationship between level

of Versatility and university position?

Data subjected to an analysis of variance established a

highly significant difference in the level of perceived

versatility between administrators and faculty (F = 56.4664,

df = 1, p < .00001, Table 10). As stated in Chapter III,

the hypothetical mean of 16.0 determines the level of

versatility as being either high or low. Table 10 concludes

that administrators, with a mean of 17.5704, perceive

themselves as more versatile than their faculty

counterparts, with a mean of 14.1807. The literature review

in Chapter II would indicate that for those responding to

the current study, administrators should be more adaptable.

6 6

cn

0) r-H XI 10 EH

W •P C Q) T! C O 04 m Q) « tw

T> Q)

• * (0

T3

to

IH

o w 0) > 1 H (0

c

V CL

LL

CO

a

o o

LO CD O

CD

CVJ O LO LO -^ 6 O CO Cvl

CO

CO

CM CO LO CO CO

• ^ CD CO

o q q t3> i n Lf) O LO CD •<* o • *

CD N

CO T- 00 r -CM CM 00

to c CD

TJ c o CL Ui CD

DC o to CD

JZl

E 3

z TJ C CO to c CO tD

n l ro O h- h-T- O Oi q q q - ^ CvJ CD CD CD CD

CD

o 3 O

CO

to CL 3 o l-m

a> c CD CD

5 ..-• CD CQ

CO Q . 3 o CJ)

c 'sz .*-» 5

to o

I -

c o

V-* 'tn o 0. CD _>

inis

e •o <

*-• c

ide

res

Q.

4 - *

c tD TJ 'V) CD

1

ice

>

TJ CO CD X +-» c CD E n CO CL CD Q

o c CO tD Q

TJ CO CD X

CD E •c to Q . tD Q O

c CO CD Q TJ c: CO

• . - • c CD •g "to 03

»~ c b o 'S° > q O V

W CL

O ;•!=: cjj to CD

^ c CD CD $

"S X I •*-« to "x CD to CD

1 — 1

11 *-•

OCO c tD

s * •—

TJ ..-. C CO o

» • - •

T —

q V CL

CM I f ^

"E CM cn CO CO

c> II

L -

67

V

o. o o o o

Xi (0

E H

m +J d tu Ti c o m

M-l O

c > i o 4 J - H •H +J rH -rH •rH Ul +J o (0 ft w M >i > T H

> C

o tu o .. C 13 (0

•H >i )H X I (0

> 14-4 O

in •H w > 1 H (0

c

Ll_

CO

CO CO

tD o 3 o

CO

CD CD r t iD in

CO

in in CO

tD N

CO

i n CO

CD CD

in

in

LL Q

. p - CJ CD CM

O O CO

CO

Lf) in 00

CD

q CJJ CM LO •<;}•

CD

q in oo CO in

CO CL 3 o k .

O)

c= tD <D ^ "S CQ

CO CL 3 O 1 . . CJ)

c IE

1 CO

o

i2 "c CD TJ cr o CL to CD

DC o CO t . CD

JZl

E 3 Z TJ cr CO to cr to CD

C CO CD

o LO

o 00

c o it!

in o a. >> • - »

'in k .

CD > "c =D

tor

CO

*-* to "c

• 'E TJ <

•= >» 3 O CO

L I .

O o o q V C3L

o

68

changeable, flexible, and more unpredictable than faculty

members. Greater rigidity, and therefore, more predictable

behavior, in general would be expected from the faculty.

Summary

This chapter is designed to present the results of the

current study. Data analysis revealed several interesting

findings:

(1) The position held in the college or university

setting appears to be a predictor of an individual•s

communicator social style. It was found that administrators

tend to be primarily Analyticals or Drivers while faculty

tend to be primarily Expressives or Amiables.

(2) A significant interaction exists between

communicator social style and classification with world

view. Administrators appear to be significantly more

fatalistic than faculty members. While social style

fatalism is not statistically different, an interaction

effect was found with position held.

(3) Gender appears to be a predictor of coxomunicator

social style within the sample analyzed. Forty-one percent

of the females as compared to thirteen percent of the males

were found to be Expressives. Thirty-six percent of the

males were identified as Drivers, while only ten percent of

the females.

69

(4) A small but significant relationship between

communicator social style and education level was found in

the subjects of the current study. An individual who is

either a Driver or an Analytical is more likely to hold a

doctorate while an Expressive or an Amiable is more likely

to hold a master's degree. The most notable category is

that of Expressive who, by far, hold the most master's

degrees and the fewest doctorates.

(5) Gender was found to be significantly related to

level of determinism. Females indicated a statistically

lower level of fatalism as compared to males. A correlation

(negative due to coding) was obtained such that r = -0.135

and p < 0.019.

(6) Faculty position was found to be associated with

world view. Mathematics and business faculty are less

deterministic than english and education faculty. Education

personnel were found to be the most fatalistic of the

faculty who responded (r = -0.214, p < 0.0057).

(7) Administrative position appears to be highly

related to communicator social style. Data indicates that

for those who responded, only Drivers held positions of

president and only Analyticals and Drivers held positions of

vice-president. Deans appeared across the social style

categories, the most being Amiables and the least being

Expressives.

70

(8) World view appears to be a significant factor in

the position of an individual in administration. The most

fatalistic position is that of vice-president followed by

president with deans being the least fatalistic.

Correlation obtained was .212 with p < .013.

(9) Level of versatility was found to be correlated to

classification. Administrators were the most versatile with

faculty the least versatile. The correlation obtained was

-.40 with p < .00001.

The following chapter is devoted to a discussion of the

results.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Discussion

The previous chapter dealt with a description of the

results. This chapter focuses on the implications and

conclusions of the results based upon a discussion of the

research cjuestions presented in previous chapters.

Research Question 1

The first research question sought to determine the

relationship, if any, between the communicator social styles

of administrators and faculty members at colleges and

universities in the South. As the results indicate,

administrators tend to be either Analyticals or Drivers

whiles faculty members tend to be either Expressives or

Amiables. Findings should not be surprising when the

responsibilities of administrators are taken into

consideration. Analyticals are usually organized, thorough,

systematic, and precise while Drivers are typically

competitive, pragmatic, objective, and results oriented.

All characteristics are seen as necessary to coordinate the

varied activities of an organization as large as a

university.

71

72

Faculty, on the other hand, tend to be either

Expressives or Amiables. Expressives combine a high degree

of both assertiveness and responsiveness. The combination

of a willingness to take risks and a willingness to use

unusual or novel problem-solving techniques, results in an

effective personality to conduct research and to teach

students.

Amiables are seen as the easygoing and trusting members

of the organization. They are seen as highly empathetic and

can encourage colleagues and students to high levels of

performance. Again, characteristics of effective

professors.

The reader should remember that, traditionally,

administrators are chosen from within the faculty and move

upward as long as they remain with the organization. The

logical conclusion is that those individuals who are either

Analytical or Driver tend to be the most likely candidates

for positions in administration. At least the current study

suggests that such has been the trend. This is particularly

apparent within the positions of president (all were

Drivers) and vice-president (all were Drivers or

Analyticals).

This researcher would caution the reader in that the

current study marks the first attempt to determine

characteristics of administrators beyond the Garmon study of

73

1984. Conclusions reached should be viewed as preliminary

and not conclusive.

Research Question 2

The second research cjuestion sought an interaction

effect between communicator social styles and world view

with university position. The attempt was made to replicate

part of the Garmon world view study and to add the

communication predisposition of social style. It is not

surprising to find no difference in the total sample with

regard to social style and world view. Without the

separation of position, all respondents should follow Bolton

and Bolton's (1984) assertion that the population is evenly

divided among the four social styles and that their world

views would be more evenly distributed throughout both

administration and faculty by gender and age (Garmon, 1984).

It is significant to note, however, that the current

work does support and further world view research with

regard to academic setting. Administrators are, indeed,

significantly more deterministic than are faculty members.

It would seem that faculty tends to view their environment

through the perception of greater freedom of choice. They

would appear to accept that they have the ability to affect

their own future through the use of their own capabilities.

The opposite appears true with regard to academic

administrators. While attempting to coordinate the

74

activities of many diverse groups and individuals while

fulfilling the expectations and mandates of superiors,

subordinates, faculty members, students, governing agencies,

etc., administrators are more likely to view their options

as having fewer choices than would others. Such limits lead

to higher levels of fatalism and higher levels of

determinism.

It is significant to note at this point that the

current study also adds to the body of supportive literature

validating the Personal Report of World View scale. Dodd

and Garmon (1987) reported a mean score of 70.0 with a

standard deviation of 10.0. The current effort reports an

overall mean of 69.38 with a standard deviation of 8.324.

Statistically, the only difference in the current data pool

and the several thousand subjects used by Dodd and Garmon

falls at the limit of the Type II and Type III communication

fatalists. The current effort would identify the Type III

fatalist (low determinism) as beginning with a score of 78.

Dodd and Garmon would require a score of 79. All other

levels between the research remain the same.

Research Question 3

An examination of the data relative to cjuestion three

sought to identify a relationship between gender and social

styles. Such a question attempted to either validate the

Bolton and Bolton (1984) claim that gender is unimportant

75

with regard to social style (the population is evenly

distributed, period), or to establish that occupation could

be an overriding factor. Analysis would support the idea

that something, in this case working in higher education,

does indeed influence the communicator social styles of

males and females. The N size of 301 is divided into 93

females and 208 males. Analysis (chi scjuare) accounted for

the differing n-sizes and found that by category, gender

seems to make a difference. Specifically, there were 74

males and only 9 females falling into the Driver style.

Analysis by percentage reveals 3 6 percent and 10 percent,

respectively. Interestingly, the number of male and female

faculty responding to the study was even at 104 each.

Administration, as expected, was two to one favoring males

(62 versus 31).

This researcher would hesitate to suggest a model

predicting characteristics of males and females in the

university setting. Data would imply, however, that if a

female is either an Expressive or an Amiable, her chances of

employment are higher than if an Analytical of Driver. The

first two categories accounted for 71 percent of the

females. Males, on the other hand, are more likely to be

Analyticals or Drivers. These two styles accounted for 73

percent of the male subjects.

Speculation is risky as to the cause of this difference

between the total population being evenly distributed and

76

such a skewing of the sample tested. One possibility is

that females who are Drivers or Analyticals tend to feel

more satisfaction in the business community than in higher

education. This, coupled with the traditional president and

vice president positions being held by males, could account

for the skewedness. Current data analysis might support

such a conclusion based upon the inclusion of only one

female president and one vice president. In terms of

changing traditions, it is encouraging to see that 29

females were deans or department heads as compared with 58

males. Analysis of gender differences in administrative

position found that chi square equal 15.25, degrees of

freedom etjual 2, and probability ecjual 0.0005.

Research Question 4

The survey used included choices of bachelor's,

master's, specialist's, and doctorate for indications of

education level for respondents. As identified above,

subjects fell only into the categories of master's or

doctorate. The fourth cjuestion sought to relate education

to communicator social style, at least in the education

setting. The findings surprised this researcher. Analysis

which takes into account the low n-size for master's (71) as

compared to the high number of doctorates (230) concludes

that a difference does truly exist for the current sample.

Expressives appear to have more master's degrees and fewer

77

doctorates than any other category. While not statistically

significant, Amiables are the next fewest doctorate holders

as a group.

In reviewing the characteristics of each group, there

are no clear cut reasons this researcher can identify for

such a finding. The one factor that is consistent between

the two styles is that both are low in responsiveness.

General tendencies of such a group would include being more

reserved, controlled, or guarded in the expression of

emotions or feelings. It should be recalled that these

tendencies are neither positive or negative except when

viewed relative to the outcome in a specific situation. If

one were to view the outcome as completing the doctorate and

working in higher education, then the conclusion might be

that such a level of low responsiveness is negative or

undesirable. Far more research should be done before that

conclusion could be comfortably accepted.

Research Question 5

The attempt to determine the relationship, if any,

between gender and world view was carried out through

research cjuestion five. Females tested responded with a

mean score of 71.0645. Males responded with a score of

68.6298. Analysis of variance results were confirmed by

correlation such that r = -0.135. The negative resulted

from coding procedures. While the correlation level is low.

78

the probability level (.0188) is high enough to conclude

that a difference does exist within the education setting

for this sample. The reader should remember that the

analysis included all subjects and is, therefore, being

affected to some extent by the number of male administrators

that have been shown above to be more fatalistic than

faculty. The findings should not be discounted out of hand,

however, due to the number of female faculty members being

over three times as large as the number of female

administrators.

Taking the total number of subjects within both major

classifications of position into account, this researcher

feels justified in concluding that females experience

significantly less fatalism than do their male counterparts

in higher education.

Research Question 6

The desire to further the literature extant on the

world view of faculty in higher education lead to the use of

question six in the current study- Garmon's (1984) results

came close to the justification for use of an hypothesis

rather than a research cjuestion. Her work was exploratory,

however, and was not conclusive. In fact, while the current

effort supports her partially, there are major differences.

Garmon found that English faculty were the least

deterministic while education faculty were the most

79

deterministic. This researcher found that education faculty

were indeed the most fatalistic. Mathematics faculty were

found to be the least fatalistic, however, followed by

business, who were then followed by English.

Garmon's (1984) conclusion revolved around a personal

perception that English represents the most basic ideals of

a liberal arts education and therefore should employ those

experiencing the perception of being able to exert the most

control over their environments. While this might have been

true several years ago, this researcher does not accept the

same view, especially in light of the current results. The

past few years have seen a tremendous national search for

tjualified business and mathematics professors. Many have

left academia for higher paying positions in private

industry. The result may have been that those who remain in

higher education have developed the perception that they

exercise greater control over their future than do those in

other disciplines. If such is the case, the shift of world

view within the academic setting can be expected and even

predicated in the future as other disciplines begin to

experience shortages in the next few decades.

The reader is cautioned to remember that the course

work of some areas is highly controlled by forces outside

the institution. The study used accounting faculty to

represent the business area. The accrediting bodies for

accounting tend to be far more restrictive than those in

80

marketing, for example. This tendency holds for all but

approximately one third of the business schools. The same

is even more true for the curricula in education. The

current effort would suggest that the forces controlling the

student's course work do not seem to affect the faculty's

perception of personal control.

Research Question 7

The attempt to isolate specific characteristics of any

group is difficult. The thrust of the current effort was to

do just that. If differences in the communicator social

style of those occupying administrative positions does

exist, then the desire to predict potential leaders might

tend to over emphasize what could be a simplistic answer to

a complex problem. The reader is cautioned to keep this in

mind as the results are discussed.

Analysis revealed that of the thirty-five presidents

randomly selected to receive surveys, all twenty-one

respondents fell into the Driver category. The twenty-eight

vice-presidents that responded fell into either the Driver

(nine) or the Analytical (nineteen) categories. By

implication, the common factor in both styles is the low

level of responsiveness. Both groups are able to keep their

emotions well under control and appear to be best able to

function in an organizational structure that is task and

product oriented. The Driver combines low responsiveness

81

with high assertiveness. It appears that such a combination

is best suited for the presidency and well suited for the

chief academic officer position

The position of dean or department head recjuires an

individual who is capable of bridging the faculty with the

administration. Their job requires significant contact with

both. Data would indicate that while Analyticals (23) and

Drivers (20) are successful in attaining the position, the

Amiable social style profile appears to be the most

successful (31). The least successful social style in

administration would seem to be the Expressive. Expressives

are found only at the level of dean or department head, and

in low numbers (13).

Recall that Amiables are perceived to be highly

empathetic and understanding. Their greatest skill is in

relationship building. Such characteristics could account

for the high number holding the position. Expressives, on r

the other hand, may be viewed as being too willing to take

risks or too willing to employ novel or unusual problem

solving technicjues. Tendencies such as these may be

interpreted as not fitting into the expected methods of

people management by administrators who make the decisions

of who will fill the positions of dean and department head.

82

Research Question 8

The attempt to replicate previous work relating world

view to administrative position motivated the eighth

cjuestion. Garmon (1984) found no significant relationship

between the two. She did, however, find differences such

that vice-presidents were the most deterministic followed by

presidents and then deans and department heads. The lack of

significance lead her to decline to speculate on the order

that resulted.

The current effort, however, resulted in significance

statistically. The order was in support of the Garmon

study. Vice-presidents are the most fatalistic followed by

presidents and deans or department heads. The most logical

explanation seems to be that deans and department heads are

the closest to the faculty and function under the halo of

their self determination. These administrators may also be

holding their first or second position removed from the

classroom.

Presidents are the visionaries of the organization.

They must project images of success for the institution in

the public relations work they engage in. The success is,

however, tempered by the realities of the need to meet

budgets and expectations of governing boards. The

environment they function within may give them a greater

perception of freedom than others in administration, but the

need for restraint must always be on their minds and.

83

Perhaps the most difficult job in the university falls

upon the vice-president of academics. The position must

balance the demands of deans (forwarded on by faculty and

department heads) and presidents (forwarded on by governing

boards, donors, and public opinion). The task is seen,

perhaps, as having very few options for the day-to-day

challenges that confront them. The result being a tendency

to be more fatalistic.

Research Question 9

The final cjuestion utilized by the current effort

revolves around the attempt to establish a relationship

between university position and the willingness to flex into

the communicator social style of the person being interacted

with. The subscale of Versatility indicates such a

willingness.

Faculty seem to be more comfortable with their

rigidity. There appears to be more room for such a position

within the academic arm of the educational organization. In

the attempt to maintain "academic freedom" faculty members

seem to possess both feelings of personal control and

feelings of correctness. To the extent that low versatility

can be conceptually analogous to a somewhat dogmatic

attitude, faculty would appear to be less willing to

consider alternative methods of interacting with others.

84

Administrators, on the other hand, appear to be more

eager to adjust to the situation communicatively. As Table

10 indicates, the correlation is quite strong (r = -.40).

The finding should be seriously considered due to the

differences in work environments, student contact,

perceptions of organizational roles, and the general lack of

day-to-day interactions with faculty.

The high correlation resulted not from the discrepancy

between the means, but rather from the narrow range

expressed within each group. In fact, both groups cluster

quite close to the hypothetical mean of 16.0. The result

was that neither group should be considered more or less

dogmatic than the other at a functional level. The range

was shown to be narrow enough that statistical differences

exist.

Bolton and Bolton (1984) conclude that high versatility

would enable administrators to be more effective in

interacting with others. To the extent that such an

interaction study has not been conducted, no general

conclusion is possible at this time. In fact, the call for

further work cries out to be made. The ability to adjust to

the communication setting tends to facilitate one's

understanding of the intended message. If such

understanding occurs, then further communication is

possible. Without such understanding, interaction tends to

be discontinued.

1

85

Conclusions

The purpose of the present study was to link the two

previously separated constructs of communicator social style

and world view through an analysis of how they relate to

university administrators and faculty members. The attempt

was to better understand the environment of higher education

through a better understanding of the personnel responsible

for the education of the nation's adults.

The past two decades have seen a dramatic shift in the

availability of resources and students to fuel the existing

institutions. To provide the best possible service to the

society, the community, and the students, personnel should

attempt to work together better toward the common mission of

the institution.

This effort represents one of the few which seeks to

identify differences in personalities of those working in

various positions in higher education. These differences

include not only communication predispositions, but also,

basic philosophical differences. Such an attempt makes the

effort worthy of consideration.

Results of this study indicate that differences in the

assertiveness and responsiveness of administrators and

faculty members are real. They exist, in fact, to the

extent that interaction between the two can be quite

predictable. The higher one moves into administrative

positions, the more likely he or she is to be highly

86

organized, thorough, systematic, and results or task

oriented. Faculty are more likely to be the risk takers,

problem solvers, and empathetic catalysts for both

colleagues and students. It would appear, although beyond

the scope of the current work, that the differences in the

day-to-day interactions of individuals relative to their

duties, tends to retjuire such a diverse set of

characteristics, that it predisposes persons to specific

institutional positions.

An additional finding of the study that is significant

relates to the support of the Garmon (1984) work

establishing differences in the outlook on the world between

administrators and faculty. The trend in variations was

supported and even the exact position relative to

administrative position was found to be the same. Only the

rank order in academic area was found to be somewhat

different. All major findings were substantiated. Simply

knowing that faculty perceive greater control over their own

lives, work, employment, etc., than do administrators should

improve the coordination between the two groups. Individual

reactions could be better explained with such knowledge.

The final finding that warrants conclusionary remarks

involves the versatility of respondents. The specific

communicator social style is not as significant as the

willingness to flex into the style of others. Results

indicate that administrators are more willing to adapt to

87

those they are interacting with than are faculty. The

result should be greater understanding on the part of

administrators. Such a finding could mean that even though

faculty perceive a greater exercise of control, they are

less willing to tolerate disagreements and are less willing

to recognize differences in the interaction styles of

others. Such resistance would lead to frustrations due to a

lack of understanding why they are unable to successfully

interact with others.

This research effort presents no claim for identifying

the differences between administrators and faculty such that

position can be easily predicted. It is hoped that the work

can provide a significant beginning point to enable the

student of higher education with enough information to go

beyond the questioning stage and begin to hypothesize

relationships. It is only through continued searching that

a clearer understanding of the basic constructs that guide

the interactions of people will be determined.

In terms of suggestions for further study, the major

thrust should focus on both the social styles of individuals

in higher education and their levels of determinism. The

world view scale is undergoing a revision. The authors are

seeking to refine the construct as it relates to dimensions

of communication. Once the scale is perfected, its

application relative to communicator social style should be

more readily accepted.

88

The Communicator Social Style Scale needs to be applied

to the educational setting in further research efforts. Its

developers maintain that the general population is evenly

split among the four styles. This study suggests that

university position tends to mediate the styles. If true,

much could be learned from further research.

This researcher has enjoyed the efforts expressed in

this study. It is his hope that the student of education

and communication has gained from the work presented. It is

also his desire to continue this effort to ferret out true

differences between university positions. He looks forward

to individual effort as well as benefiting from the work of

others who are also interested in serving the society and

world in which he lives.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baird, J. E. (1977). The dynamics of organizational communication. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Bell, M. A. (1974). The effects of substantive and affective conflict in problem-solving groups. Speech Monographs, 41, 12-23.

Berger, C. R. (1985) . Social power and interpersonal communication. In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 439-499). New York: Sage.

Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1962). The intergroup dynamics of win-lose conflict and problem-solving collaboration in union-management relations. In M. Sherif (Ed.), Intergroup Relations and Leadership (pp. 123-148). New York: John Wiley.

Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf.

Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1978). Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bolton, R. & Bolton, D. G. (1984). Social style management style. New York: American Management Association.

Burgess, W., Lashbrook, W. B., Wenburg, J. R., Larsen, D. & Lashbrook, V- J. (1981). An experimental study of the effects of training in managing interpersonal relationships. Training and Development in Australia (pp. 14-16). Eden Prairie, Minnesota: Wilson Learning Corporation.

Cameron, K. S. (1981). Domains of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 25-47.

Cohen, M. D. & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity. New York: McGraw Hill.

Emmert, P- & Barker, L. L. (1989). Measurement of communication behavior. New York: Longman, Inc.

89

90

Darling, J. R. (1985). Managing up in academe: The role of social style. Texas Tech Journal of Education. 12.(2), 79-92.

Dodd, C. H. (1987). Dynamics of intercultural communication. (2nd ed.). Dubucjue, Iowa: William C. Brown.

Dodd, C. H. (1991). Dynamics of intercultural communication. (3rd ed.). Dubucjue, Iowa: William C. Brown.

Dodd, C. H. St Garmon, C. W. (1987a, November) . The measurement of personal report of world view as a cognitive communication variable. Paper presented to the Speech Communication Association, Boston, Massachusetts.

Druker, P. (1973). Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper and Row.

Garmon, C. W. (1984). A comparison of world views among faculty and administration in institutions of higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Graduate College, Vanderbilt University.

Giles, H. & Street, R. (1985). Communicator characteristics and behavior. In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 205-262). New York: Sage.

Goldhaber, G. M. (1990). Organizational communication. (5th ed.). Dubucjue, Iowa: William C. Brown.

Hample, D. (1984). On the use of self-reports. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20. 140-153.

Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Kluckhohn, F. & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientation. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes (pp. 287-289). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

Lashbrook, V. J., Lashbrook, W. B. & Buchholz, S.W. (1977). The statistical adeguacy of the social style profile. Eden Prairie, MN: Wilson Learning Corporation.

91

Lashbrook, V. J., Lashbrook, W. B., Larsen, D. C. & Buchholz, S. W. (1978, May). An empirical investigation of the relationship between perceived social style and interpersonal conflict in an organizational setting. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Chicago.

Lashbrook, W. B., Lashbrook, V. J., Parsley, M. L. & Wenburg, J. R. (1977). An empirical examination of versatility as a consequence of perceived social style. Paper presented to the Western Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, California.

McCroskey, J. C. (1982). Oral communication apprehension: A reconceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 247-273). Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

Merrill, D. W. & Reid, H. R. (1981). Personal styles and effective performance. Radnor, Penn.: Chilton.

Moran, E. T. & Volkwein, J. F. (1987). Organizational climate of institutions of higher education: Construct determination and relationship to organizational criteria. Paper presented to the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Diego.

Moran, E. T. & Volkwein, J. F. (1988). Examining organizational climate in institutions of higher education. Research in Higher Education. 28. 367-382.

Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 137-156.

Nie, N. C , Hull, C. H. Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. & Brent, D. H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4.(2), 99-112.

Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory. application, practice. Sage series in Interpersonal Communication. 1. Beverly Hills, California.

Reddin, W. (1970). Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

92

Robinson, J. P. and Shaver, P- R. (1961). Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal verses external locus of control of reinforcement. Psychological Monograms, 80, 1-28.

Ruesch, J. & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Scarbaugh, L. E. & Roe, R. C. (1984, November). An investigation of a taxonomic approach to intercultural communication. Paper presented to the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.

Schramm, W. (1955). The process of effects of mass communication. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Smith, M. J. (1988). Contemporary communication research methods. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Stempel, G. H. & Westley, B. H. (1981). Research methods in mass communication. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Stodgill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin. 47. 1-14.

Stogdill, R. M. & Coons, A. (1957). Leader behavior: Its descriptions and measurement. Eds. Research Monograph, 88. Ohio State University.

Sykes, C. J. (1988). Profscam: Professors and the demise of higher education. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway.

Three thousand futures: The next twenty years for higher education. (1980). Final report of the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Vroom, V. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology= (pp. 1527-1552). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Warburton, T. L. (1989, November). Can we talk?: Suggestions for clearing the way for communication between faculty and administration. Paper presented to the national convention of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, California.

93

Wilson Learning Corporation (1975). Social style profile. Eden Prairie, Minnesota: Wilson Leaning Corporation.

Wilson Learning Corporation (1977). Social styles sales strategy: Action guide. Eden Prairie, Minnesota: Wilson Learning Corporation.

APPENDIX

SURVEY PACKET

94

95

ACU Box 8065 Abilene Christian Univ. Abilene, Texas 79699 August 15, 1989

Dear Colleague:

As a part of my doctoral dissertation at Texas Tech University, l am requesting that certain faculty members and administrators at randomly selected institutions of higher education complete and return to me the enclosed cjuestionnaire. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

The cjuestionnaire contains three sections. One part asks for demographic information which will be helpful to me in analyzing responses. The second part is the Personal Report of World View (PRWV). The third part is a Social Impression scale developed by the Wilson Learning Corporation. Response to parts two and three will form the basis for comparison among randomly selected constituents at the institutions. Your responses will remain confidential. Only generalized data usage will be employed in this study, no individual responses will be reported. You will notice, however, that your cjuestionnaire and envelope are coded so that I may know which responses have been returned and need not make a second contact with someone who has already responded. Personal identification will be removed from the data set as soon as follow-up activities have been completed. If you are philosophically opposed to participation in this study, I ask you to please return the stamped, self-addressed envelope so that I will not contact you further. Your participation is voluntary, and if you choose to not participate you may do so without negative consecjuences.

I hope you will take the few minutes necessary to complete and return the questionnaire. Please do not spend a long time analyzing the cjuestions and your responses. I need your immediate reaction rather than one resulting from great reflection.

I am sure that you realize how important these responses are to my work, and I appreciate your cooperation and return of this questionnaire by September 15, 1989. Again, let me assure you that my interest lies in generalized data analysis and not in the employment of individual responses separately.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this project.

96

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Cardot

97

QUESTIONNAIRE

Demographic Information

Please check the descriptions most applicable to you.

1. Classification:

^Administrator (a person who holds full-time responsibilities in an administrative position at the level of department head or higher and who teaches no more than two courses during the academic year).

Faculty member (a person with an academic appointment who teaches a full load and who has no administrative duties in addition to the teaching load).

2. Number of years in above classification:

0 - 3 8 - 15

4 - 7 16 or more

If you are classified as an administrator, which of the following best describes your present position?

President or chief executive officer

^Vice-president or dean of academic affairs

College dean or department head

If you are classified as dean or department head, which of the following most closely describes your area of responsibility?

Business (accounting, etc.)

English

^Mathematics

Teacher education

98

If you are classified as a faculty member, which of the following most closely describes your academic area?

Business (accounting, etc.)

English

^Mathematics

Teacher education

Age;

Below 30

_30 - 35

36 - 45

46 - 55

56 and over

Gender:

Female

Highest earned degree:

Bachelor's

Master's

_Male

Specialist's

Doctorate

Personal Report of World View

Please circle the letter which most closely describes your feeling about each item. Please do not dwell on any item. Your immediate reaction is most important.

Scale: SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree N = Neutral D = Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

1. Luck plays an important role in my life.

SA A N D SD

2. In nature, spirits exist which sometimes affect my activities.

SA N D SD

99

3. People's misfortunes result from the choices they make.

SA A N D SD

4. Natural resources are not meant to be used by mankind.

SA A N D SD

5. The future is already set in motion, so some of my choices are limited.

SA A N D SD

6. In the long run, both the bad things and the good things that happen to me are beyond my control.

SA A N D SD

7. The amount of goodness in this world stays about the same; it certainly does not increase.

SA A N D SD

8. No matter what they do, some people seem born to fail while others seem born to suceed.

SA A N D SD

9. Most of the important things that happen in life are predetermined to occur that way.

SA A N D SD

10. No matter what you do or how hard you try, you really cannot regulate your happiness.

SA A N D SD

11. The spirits of a person's ancestors (deceased family members) are capable of observing people still alive.

SA A N D SD

12. My future, by its very nature, is something that usually can be planned.

SA A N D SD

13. For good or for ill, most things in life are beyond our control.

SA A N D SD

100

14. Everyone exists for some predetermined purpose.

SA A N D SD

15. A person's destiny depends on the plan of a super being.

SA A N D SD

16. Getting a job is nearly always a matter of fate—being at the right place at the right time.

SA A N D SD

17. The feelings and actions of living persons cannot please or offend the dead.

SA A N D SD

18. Achieving one's goals is largely a matter of one's own actions.

SA A N D SD

19. The future lies befor most people like a long ribbon which cannot be altered or shaped, just followed.

SA A N D SD

20. Natural forces usually work against mankind, thus preventing progress.

SA A N D SD

21. Many times I could be described as a victim of circumstances beyond my control.

SA A N D SD

22. No matter how hard you try, some people just don't like you.

SA A N D SD

23. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

SA A N D SD

101

24. Who gets to be boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first.

SA A N D SD

25. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by random events.

SA A N D SD

26. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.

SA A N D SD

27. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people; if they like you, they like you.

SA A N D SD 28. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over

the direction my life is taking.

SA A N D SD

Social Impression

Below is a set of scales that refer to certain terms frecjuently used to describe people. Please use this scale to rate yourself. Circle the response that most closely fits how you view yourself. Remember, you are always making relative judgements when responding to the scales. There are no absoluted, no right or wrong answers. Please make sure that you have responded to every scale.

LOW HIGH

1. Assertive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Desire to control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Takes charge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Tough minded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Dynamic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Aggressive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Need to compete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Risk taker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

(C)

Flexible

Versatile

Adaptable

Cope with situations

Approachable

Sociable

People oriented

Warm

Willing to relate

Wilson Learning Corporation,

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1976.

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

102

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7