ED 216 668

AUTHOR'TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

JOURNAL CIT

EDRS'PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 015 218

Ma r, Thomas W. -

Inst utional Vitality in HigheY Education.AAHE -ERIC /Higher Education Research Current {,American Agsociation for Higher Education:'Washington, D.C.; ERIC Clearinghouse on HigherEducation, Washington, D.C.National Inst. of Education (ED),.Washington, DC.Jun 826p.American Association for Higher Education, One DupontCircle, Suite 600, Washington, DC20036 ($.75).AAHE Bulletin; June 1982

,MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Administrator Attitudes; Career Ladders; *CollegeEnvironment; College Role; Evaluatioh Criteria;*Evaluation' Methods; *Faculty College Relationship;*Higher Education; *Institutional Characteristics;Institutional Evaluation; *Organizational Climate;Retrenchment;_ Self Evaluation (Groups); TeacherAttitudes; Teacher Morale*Institutional Vitality

institutional vitality in higher education andmeasures of vitality are considered. Vitality may be viewed as thecapacity of a college or university to incorporate organizationalstrategies that support the continuing investment of energy byfaculty and staff both i;n their own careers and in the realization ofthe institution's mission. Institutional vitality in the 1980s mustbe understood in relation to the organizational consequences" of bothsteady-state and decline. Organizational theories, institutionalhistories, and biographies of important academicians are cited-thatmay illuminate the issue of vitality. An important idea -iiiaaining toinstitutional vitality is Kanter's (1979) view of opportunitystructure. Kanter argues that when times are not prosperous, theinstitution must pay attention to its quality as an organization.Kahter addresses ways in which opportunity and power related to jobsand organizations are critical to motivation and leadershipeffectiveness. Peterson's (1980,) emphasis on faculty response todecline and the ability of individuals in the organizations to leadeffective professional lives leads to an emerging literature on-faculty careers, including` Rice's (1980) ,investigation of theprofessorial careers of former Danforth fellows, and Furnis's (41981)challenge to the "one life-one career" model. Indicators and scalesfor measuring vitality include: the Institutional FunctioningInventory (Peterson et al., 1970), Likert's Organizational SurveyProfile (1976), the International Communication Association'sCommunication Audit, and Scott's (1980) institutional indicators.(SW)

RESEARCH CURRENTS AAHE/ERIC/Higher education June 1982

INSTITUTIONAL VITALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

°- Theme's H. Maher

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

LOU IONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTEPERICIThs dacument has been reproduced asreceived from the person of ganaabon

ONVattOgnMinor changes hase been made to 'ovateeptodoCtOn pualitY

Poe is of aims, or omnrons stated In this docu

trans do not necessanty represent °Shoal NIE

rowan of poky

NEO D C ©OREM JUNE 1982 .

AAHE-KATO/HIGHER EDUCATION

Institutional vitality in higher educationThomas H. Maher

Institutional vitality is assumed to be an essential characteristic of asuccessful college or university. The language used in discussingvitality"good morale," "renewal," "adaptability," "innovation,""high energy," and "organizational health;:evokes positive con-notations. Althr...igh the key decisions facing American higher edu-cation in the 1980s will concern economics, it is appropriate andprobably imperative to keep the issue of institutional vitality beforeacademic decision makers.

Toward definition

The greatest challenge in reviewing studies of an ambiguous con-cept like vitality is to arrive at a working definition of the term. (We allknow what it is. but we cannot explain it.) Lewis Thomas in his Livesof a Cell (1974) provides insight into the nature of institutional vitalityas he describes the audienceleaving_the weekly Friday night lectureat the Marine Biological-t aboratory:

As the, audience flows out, there is the same jubilant descantthe.gleat sound of crowded people explaining things to each other as,

fast as their minds will work. You cannot make out individual wordsIn the mass, except that the recurrent phrase, "Buriook," keepsbobbing above the surf of language.

Not many institutions can produce this spontaneous music at will,summer after summer, year after year. It takes a special gift and the

. Marine Biological Laboratory appears to have been born with it. Thescale is very small and it is not at all clear how it works, but it makes a

..nice thought for a time when we can't seem to get anything straightor do anything right.

In order to understand the organizational factors and strategiesthat-make possible the kinds of experiences Thomas describes, it isnecessary to return to the decade of the '60s. Then, a popular workbyJohn Gardner (1964) entitled Self Renewal provided a new senseof possibility and intensified interest in the adaptije and regen-erational capacities of both individuals and organizations.

It was in this intellectual climate that the most extensive effort todate to gain the measure of institutional vitality was initiatedthe In-stitutional Vitality Project under the leadership of Earl McGrath (thenat Teachers College, Columbia) with support from the KetteringFoundation. Among the documents associated with the project is afascinating transcript of several conversations among a group ofeducational researchers including McGrath, Richard Centra. MorrisKeeton, Warren c3ryan Martin, and JB Lon Hefferlin (Peterson andLoye 1967). In this discussion, terms such as "self-critical" and"self-perpetuating" are associated with vitality. Much of their conversation seemed oriented toward defining institutional vitality as afunction of the adaptive capacity of colleges and universities.

The events, issues, and trends ofthe past 15 years do not negatethis work. Indeed, the appearance and wide acceptance of curricular

Research Currents is prepared by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education,

The George Washington University, Washington. D C The material in this publi-

cation was prepared pursuant to a contract with the National Institute of Educa-

tion. U.S Department of Education Contractors undertaking such prqects undergovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely heir ludgmentvn pro-fessional and technical matters Prior to publication. the manuscript was submit-

te fed to the American Association for Higher Education for critical review and

determination of professional competence This publication has met such sten

dards. Points cf view or opinion. however. do not necessarily represent the oM

Coat view or opinions of either AAHE or the National Institute of EducatraO

Copies of Research Currents may be ordered for 75tt each (including postage

and handling) from the AmoricanAssociation for Higher Education. One Dupont

Circle. Suite 609, Washington. D C 20036. 2021293 6440 Payment must accom-

pany all orders under SIS

innovation; faculty development, instructional improvement, andorganizational development practices in colleges and universities at-test to the strength and popularity of the ideas of adaptation and re-newel. ;

However, a host of issues have entered the arena since theMcGrath project, and they have tended to cloud rather thantlfrifyour understanding of institutional vitality New and ominous titles be-gan to appear: The New Depression- In Higher Education (Cheit 1971),Managers of Decline (Boulding 1975), and "People Planning in Post-'Secondary Education in a World of Decremental Budgets" (Bailey1974). Economic decline, collective bargaining, additional layers ofbureaucracy, less faculty mobility, and increasing reepatothecourts all add complex new dimensions tothe idea of vitality pro- rvidedbythet.McGrathprcject.

Continuing a search for a working delnition of vitality, Maher and'Ebben (1,,i 9) suggest that a vital college or university is one that:

possesses a clearly defined, sharer, and accepted mission,

has attainable proximate goals and programs which enable fulfill-

ment of the mission, andsustains a climate which empowers individuals to be participants

in the fulfillment of the mission and to have the sense of being in-

volved in a creative, productive and energizing worklife.

A later elaboration of this definition (Maher 1981) focused uponthe quality of institutional fife or the ability of the organization:

to provide its members with the proper level of security and re-

spect.to introduce, on a continuous basis. a complementary level of chal

lenge and stimulation to call forth creativity, and

to recognize those who have made significant contributions in itsbehalf.

In essence, then, the quest for vitality might be said to focus on thecapacity of a college or university to create and sustain the organiza-tional strategies that support the continuing investment of energy byfaculty and staff both in their own careers and in the realization of theinstitution's mission.

Broader avenues of inquiry

An array of discip!ines provide other insights into the concept of vi-tality. In Open Systems. Arenas for Political Action. Kanel(1968) ar-gues that organizations must provide spaces" or settings in whichtheir members can "try on" new roles and invent new possibilities.Books and articles on adult development, notablyAdaptation to Life(Valliant 1979). may provide some understanding of the response ofaging faculty to emerging issues in higher educatioA.

American higher education appears to be facing a period of level-ing off, if not decline. The consequences of this condition will, ofcourse. be felt differentially. An understanding of institutional vitalityin the 1980s will require an understanding of the organizational consequences of both steady-state and decline. Insight can be gainedfrom literature in the fields of sociology (especially human ecology),anthropology, and community psychology. Gallaher and Padfield(1980). for example, look at the factors that underlie the phenome-non of decline in towns and regions and at the consequences fortneir inhabitants.

Katz and Kahn (1978) present a systems view of organizationsthat can be helpful in thinking about the processes that are essentialto sustaining vitality. The frame of reference offered here providesan initial insight into both the systemic nature of organizational roles

The^ ,ISH Maher is director of the Conte: for Professional Development at MO.da Stale University

AAHE Bulletin, June 1911

and the way in which organizations mediate with the environment.The developmental context Iscovered in a work'by Kimberly, Miles.and Associates (f9B0) titled The Organi...donal Life Cycle.

The recent work by Ouchi (1981) and others on Japanese man-agement and Theory Z, with its emphasis on the development oftrust and the integration of effort in organizations,would seem tocorroborate the view expressed in the definitions of vitality that havebeen advanced. Maccoby, whose book The Gamesman (1976) at-tered views of managerial Style, has recently written The Leader(1981), in which he attempts to show the emergence of a new type ofleader, Interestedin creating an organizational environment in whichthe growth and development of persons is supported for its ownsake.

A number of institutional histories and biographies of importantacademicians can illuminate the issue of vitality. The biography ofKebneth Boulding (Kerman 1974) and the history of the now-extinctBlack Mountain Collegepuberman 1972) provide glimpses of vitalpeople and vital institations. Although Black Mountain always -seernecron its last legs, the excitement of its being is brought to lifeby Duberman.

A number of histories of higher education picture both stagnaryiand vital institutions of higher learning. Veysey (1965) underscoresthe tremendous vitality,of the idea of specialization and of its conse-quent manifestation in the cultural environmentof the late 19th andearly 20th centuries. This stands in marked contrast to Bledstein's

- (1977) graphic portrait of the moribund institutions of higher learningprior to the Civil War. Robert Nisbit's two works (1969. 1980) providea history of the way we think about progress, social change, and de-cay.

All this work, and much that it is not possible to mention here, isprologue to a review of research on the issue of institutional vitality.The challenge is to translate and weave together the emerging ideasInto questions and insights that may eventually serve to capture thephenomenon of institutional vitality.

Vitality in higher education

Perhaps the single most important idea that has emerged in recentyears pertaining to institutional vitality is that of opportunity structure(Kanter 1979). When times are not prosperous. Kanter argues, no in-stitution can afford not to pay attention to its quality as an organiza-tion. She is concerned about the quality of education when facultyare demoralized and auministrators feel overused and underappre-ciated. Kanter helps us think about ways in which opportunity andpower related to rbs and organizations are critical to motivation andleadership effectiveness. Opportunity, in her view,is not limited topromotion, but involves challenges and increases in influence, skill,and pay.

Kanter points out that many institutions of higherlearning are or-ganized so that access to opportunity is extremelydifficult for manymembers of the organization, In particular, she argues that promo-tional paths are fuzzy, it is difficult tocross from one to another, andthat many career ladders are extremely short, generating a class ofpersons whom she labels as "thestuck."

The problem of vitality is compounded when the academic pro-fession and its institutions are in a state of real or perceived decline.Peterson (1980) views this issue from an organizational behaviorperspective. His concern encompasses the socialorganizationalpatterns of the faculty and their relationship to the institution in a pe-riod of decline. Although Peterson contends that maintaining profes-sional and productive lives and quality education in this kind oforganizational environment is extremely difficult. hepresents a valu-able charting of institutional. governance, and faculty behaviors andtasks that provides a comprehensive view of anticipated problemsand possible responses. `,

Peterson's emphasis on faculty response to decline and the abil-ity of individuals in the organization to lead effective professionallives leads us to an emerging literlti.re on faculty careers. Rice's(1980) investigation of the professorial careers of former Danforth

fellows provides a disquieting view of the erosion of jdealism at mid-career. Many of these former academic idealists are now asking, "Isthis all there is?"

Building on the concerns aboutcareer stagnation, creeping cyni-cism, and eventual disengagement in academiccareers, Furniss(1981) challenges the "one life-onecareer" model so tightly Field byso many faculty members. He sees a narrowing of opportunities andblighted careers in the offing for many older faculty.

Furniss's admonitions to the academic profession reflect ourprevious concerns 'about the ability of facultycareers (in general) toflourish in the kinds of organizations unit', ersities have become andin a period of decline. Hinuggestions include:

move toward a certfrarvision of the academiccareer based on anintellectual ideal What intellectual qualities make the professorsuitable for work in government. business,the clergy. as well as acollege?

aim to broaden rather than narrow opportunities forusing the fac-ulty member's talents and interests ,

aim to increase the scope and depth of those talents and inter-';.encourage nonacademic-contactS and activities.encourage debate about faculty careers.

Baldwin et al. (1981) corroborates Furniss's concerns and offers'a compendium of resource that have been helpful in focusing atten-tion on the problems and opportunities associated with contempo-rary faculty careers. Bevan (1979) believes that existing reward sys-Otems restrict faculty aspirations, and he suggests program ideas tooffer faculty new avenues of endeavor and potential recognition.

Brown (1974) was one of the first practitioners to recognize theneed to enrich the options from which a faculty member could createa revitalizing task or project. He list. the role ofthe academic plan-ning officer (and other academic administrators) as fourfold:

to motivate faculty to plan for themselves.

to liberate faculty from traditional or habitual modesof thought,to be a "fountain of knowledge" concerningnew ways to extend

faculty effectiveness,

to provide structures and organizational formats that allow an insHution, or part of an institution, to revise and redirect its plans withminimum effort

In a later report. Brown (1980) writes of a project designed to pro-vide resources for-the renewal of chiefacademic administrators.Sec's (1979) has written an important paper dealing with the pros-pects for middle-level administrators in the currentorganization ofAmerican higher education. The work of Pace (1980) in the develop-ment of an instrument to measure quality of effort on the part of stu-dents could serve to,help create a new dimension in our thinkingabout institutional vitality.

Finally, a project underway at the American Association forHigher Education is aimed at synthesizing river( the elements ofinstitutional vitality into an anion prc;act. The task centers on thedevelopment of a "faculty opportunities audit." by which institutionscan assess how their policies enhance or facUlty growth andVitality, and examples of model programs in faculty career develop-.ment.

Earlier. a working definition of vitality suggested that a vital insti-tution needed to provide complementary amounts of security andchatter._ a. It could be that the evaluation system employed by the in-stitution may play a major role in creating thisprecarious organiza-tional balance. Scnven (1981) argues thata fair evaluation systemmust include both faculty and administrators and be backed byopportunities to enable faculty to improve their teaching. Collegesand universities, he argues, generally do an abysmal job of evalua:tion and must pay far greater attention to both theethical and scien-tific aspects of evaluation Suffice it to say that studies of-faculty aridstaff perceptions of evaluation and the way in which evaluative dataare used may provide a rich new way of understanding an importantcomponent of institutional vitality.

AAHE Bulletin, June 1082

Measures of vitality

The Institutional FunctiOning Inventory (IFI) (Peterson et at 1970):e-sultedffrom probably the most intensive and highly visible effort todesign a measure of institutional vitality The WI grew out of theMcGrath project at Teachers College. Columbia. and was developedby the Educational Testing Servicujt evolved in the context of con-cepts suchIs "systematicpstitutional renewal," "academic re-form." "incremental change." and educitionat "effectiveness." Theinstrument itself was designed to yield 11 scales intellectual-aes-thetic extracurriculum; fre "dom. human diversity; concern for the im-provement of society, concern forundergraduate learning, demo-cratic governance; meeting local needs; self-study and planning;concern for advancing knowledge; concern for innovation; and insti-tutional esprit.

Of all these scales, "institutional esprit" probably comes closestto addressing the issues of vitality as they are discussed here. Yet,the index does not address the question of faculty compensationand its potential for decline Legal matters do not enter the picture,and personnel policies are dealt with only in a marginal fashion

Another inventory, Likert's Organizational Survey Profile (1976).incorporates scales such as ''motivational," "'organizationalcom-munication." "technological readiness" (ability of the organizationto support initiatives from faculty and staff) and "lateral cocirdina-tion," "supervisory leadership," and "openness." The survey is ad-Ministered to work groups (e g.. departments). and its results can-suggest level of work grodp cohesiveness,, degree of ';onflict,effec-tivenesstrfoommuniCation, and other "life signs" in an institution.

Internal communication patterns are a critical element in effortsto sustairtancLenhance vitality Poor communication can underminethe best-conceived effort to create a dynamic institution. In fact.communication patterns in many institutions cr..n isolate individualsand groups, thus sowing the seeds of bitterness and eventual con-flict. Goldhaber (1978) describes the International CommunicationAssociation's Communications Audit. The audit is actuallya survey

° that enables members of an organization to indicate their percep-tions of their communication system=that is, the information theyare receiving currently and the information they need but are not re-ceiving. Among the products of this instrument are: an organiza-tional profile of of communication events, practices, andprocedure's; a map of the operational communication network for ru-mors, social messages, and job-related messages that lists all groupmembers, liaisons, and isolates and identifies potential bottlenecksand gatekeepers; and a set of general recommendations.

These surveys are useful in gaining a macro-sense of the circum-stances of vitality. Yet, they are expensive and time consuming and,in practice, are not often administered on a periodic basis.

Administrators interested in maintaining vitality might best beServed by a set of social and financial indicators that can easily bemonitored on a longitudinal basis. Scott (1980) has devised a set of65 institutional indicators that he believes to be indicators of institu-tional vitality sensitive to subtle shifts in the academicclimate. His in-dicators reflect both the academic and fiscal environment of an insti-tution. A related checklist (O'Neill and Barnett 1981) examines acollege's vital signs. This study, primarily aimed at trustees, arguesfor attention to such indicators as student attrition, over-optimisticincome estimates, and rapidly increasing short-term debt.

In another work, Maher (1982) offers a list of questions that canbe asked of faculty or administrators interested in organizationalhealth. Included in this listing are the following:

How often have you said "they" in reference to theadministration(or faculty)?

To what extent have you passedon unsubstantiated rumors or at-tributed motives to others on campus?

When was the last time you were really excited aboutsomethingthat happened in youi institution?

Is this mstitution a good place for you in the long run' Can you seeyourself here in ten years? Is whatyou see a good image?

In addition, Maher (1981) looks at the number of intensive "fac-...ay projects" in an institution as an indicator of vitality. A "project,"in this view. is a set of activities through which a faculty membermoves toward a goal in a prescribed period of time. Projects serve tcfocus interest and intensify effort and require a basic commitment oftime and effort from the faculty member. Writing a book, seeking aresearch grant, and designing a rex course are alt "projects." Aproject 'stands in marked contrast to the ongoing maintenance

performance of faculty chores such as committee work and theyteacning and re-teaching of the "same" course with no eye towBrikrebewal. Projects," in this use of the term, are foci of energy andtheir widespread existence among a faculty does attest to the pres-ence of vigor.

Further question:::

A review of this nature brings to the surface a host of questions. Thepast dacade, for example, has seen the rise of faculty militancy andsubsequent collective bargaining. Naples (1978) and others addresSthe issue and,see the possibility for erosion of vitality. However,much more needs to be learned about the survival of vitality in an in-stitution where adversarial relationships are-endemic.

Recognition appears to be an important element of vitality in col-leges and universities. Yet we seem to know very little about how it,functions. For example, it would seem possible that too much recog-nition could begin to debase its own value. 4

Short -term vitality is another interesting subject. Some collegesand universities come alive when their interfollegiate athisiic teamsare successful. Academic departments soMehmes reach nowheights of vitality on the occasion of a guest scholar or a specialsymposium. Certainly, the arrival of new leaders on the campus fuelsa burst of institutional energy. Unfortunately, many of these situa-tions do not sustain such a level of vitality. Perhaps there are factorsinvolved in the advent of thisshort-term enthusiasm that could yieldclues as to the nature of sustained vitality.

Persortal experience suggests that vitality varies from unit to unit,especially ina large university. Why is it, for example, that one de-partment can appear zestful and productive while the department inadjacent offices seems moribund or ridden with conflict?

Another potentially fruitful arena of researchis that of institu-tional personnel policies. The impact of search procedure on vitalityanct, the organizational consequences of a tenure policy would seemto influence the degree to which an institution can sustain vitality. Inthe context of this study, personpel policies could be seen either toencourage or discourage the development of new opportunities. Thework of Smith (197,8) provides good insight into these kinds of ques-tions, but more study is needed.

Perhaps one of the most important determinants of vitality is therelationship between the expectations of the faculty and the abilitiesand motivations of the students. Bogen (1978) has opened the doorto more research on this relationship, but it would seem that student-faculty fit is a critical nexus in terms of the capacity of the institutionto sustain vitality in the long run.

The relationship of instructional and program innovation to themaintenance of vitality suggests more questions. Many look to alevel of innovation as an index of vitality. Yet, in some instances, ahigh level of innovation may correlate negatively with vitality. Could itbe that a tidal wave of innovation may be overwhelming? It might behypothesized that e ach institution should attempt to sustain a levelof innovation congruent to its purpose:Too little might paralyzeresponsiveness, and too much might overwhelm tfiiCapacity tomanage it.- -.

Conclusion

It is likely that 10 researchers asked to provide a bibliography of the10 most important entries pertaining to the concept of vitality wouldproduce 10 mutually exclusive sets of references. Perhaps the bestmeasure of vitality in colleges and universities remains the question,

"Do you enjoy going to work each day?" In a quest for vitality, it maybe that we are seeking an elusive chemistry that catalyzes a rareIntegration of individual and institutional energy. commitment, andcreativity. The intellectoarbursuit of such a phenomenon is difficult,replete with dead ends anti wrong turns. For the sake of quality in.our institutions and effectiveness in our educational programs, how-ever, we had best renew the quest.

Bibliography

Docurents available through the ERIC system appear with an ED number Toor-

der, write to ERIC Document Reproduction Service. PO Box 190. Arlington. Va22210. ED numbers must be specihod All orders must be in writ,rtg and iirtucte

payment, Documents are available es indicated in microfiche (Mrj and paper

copy (PC)

Bailey, Stephen K. "People Planning in PostSecondary Education: HumanResource Development in a World of Decfemental Budgets:9n More ForLess: Academic Planning with Faculty without New Dollars. New York: So-

ciety for College and University Planning. 1974.Baldwin. Roger G.. et al. Expanding Faculty Options: Career Developmont

Projects at Colleges and Universities. Washington. D.C.: American Associ-

ation for Higher Education. 1981.Bevan. John M. "Faculty Evaluation and Institutional Planning " In Improving

Undergraduate Education In the South. Atlanta: Southern Regional Educa-

tion Board. 1979.Bledstein. Burgon Tho Culture of Professionalism Naw York: Norton, 1977.

_Bogen, Gerald K. " Performance and Vitality as Functions of Student-FacultyFit. In EvaluatingraclIty Performance and Vitslity, ed by Wayne CKirschling. New Directions for Institutional Research. No. 20. San Fran-

cisco: Jossey-Bass. 1978.Boulding:Kenne'th E. "The Management of Decline "AGB (Association of

Governing Boards)Reports 17 (September/October 1975)4-9.Brown. David G. Leadership Vitality. Washington, D.C.: American Council on

Education, 1980."The Supreme Role of the Faculty in Planning." In More for Less:

Acadomic Planning with Faculty without New Dollars. New York. Societyfor College and University Planning. 1974.

Cheit. Earl B. The New Depression in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-

1-11:1, 1971.

Duberman, Martin. Black libuntaln: An Exploration in Community New York.

. Dutton. 1972,Furniss, W. Todd. "New Opportunities for Faculty Member s." Educational

Record 62 (winter 1981): 8-15. -"Gallaher. Art, Jr.. and Padfield, Harland. Thi Dying Community Albuquerque'

University of New Mexico, 1980.Gardner, John ASelfitonowni:jhe Individual and Innovative Society. New

York: Harper and Row, 1964.Goldhaber. Gerald M. "Evaluating Internal Communication: The ICA Commu-

nication Audit." In Improving Institutional Communication. ed by GcraldGoldhaber. New Directions for Institutional Advancement. No. 2. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.1 978.Hefferlin, JB Lon. The Dynamics of Academic Reform San Francis Jossey-

Bass, 1969.Kanter, Rosebeth Moss. "Changing the Shape of Work. Reform in Aca

deme." In Perspectives on Leadership Current Issues in Higher Educa-tion, No. 1, 1979. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher

Education, 1979, ED 193 997. MF$1.11; PC-not available EDRS.Kariel, Henry S. Open Systems: Arenas for Political Action.Hasca. Pea.

cock, 1988.Katz. Daniel, and Kahn, Robert. The Social Psychology of Organizations 2nd

ed. New York: Wiley. 1978.Kerman. Cynthia ELri. CI wally° Tension. Ann Arbor University of Michigan.

1974.Kimberly, John R.; Miles, Robert H.; and Associates The Organizational Life

Cycle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1980.The Liked 04anizational Survey Profile. Ann Arbor, Mich.:Siensis Ukert As-

sOcietes. 1976.Maccoby, Michael. Tho Gamesman. The Now Corporate Leaders. New York:

---Simorrand Schuster, 1976:The Leader. New York: qimonand Schuster. 1981.

Maher, Thomas H. "Designing New Roles within Academe." In ExpandingFaculty Options: Career Development Projects In Colleges and Universi-

ties. Washington, 0.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1981.

AAHE Buitetin, June 1982

-wien

"Reflections onyitatity. In Institutional Vitality. Lip Against theEighties. ed by James Ebben and Marilyn Ebben Adrian. Mimi SienaHeights College. 1982.

Maher. Thomas H and Ebban. James "Capturing Institutional Vitality Pa-per presented at Association for Institutional Research Forum. May 1979,at San Diego. Calif. ED 174 092. MF.Si 11; PC-S3.49.

Naples. Caesar J.. and Associates. "Faculty Collective Bargaining: Implicit-bon for Academic Performance." In Eva grating Faculty Performance and

Vitality ed. by Wayne C. Kirschling. New Directions in InstitutionalRe-search. No. 20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1978.

Nisbit. Robert. Social Change and History. Nelv York. Oxford. 1969The History of :her Idea of Progress. New York. Basic. 1980.

0 Neill, Joseph. and Barnett, Samuel. "Check Your College's Vital Signs.-AGB (Association'of Governing Boards)Reports 23 (May/June 1981). 36-

41.Duchi. William G. Theory Z: How_American Business Can Meer the Japanese

Challenge. Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 1981.Pace. Robert. "Measuring the Quality of Student Effort " In Improving Teach.

ing and Institutional Duality Current Issues in Higher Education, No 1,1980. Washingtog, D.C.: American AsSociation for Higher Education,

1980. ED 194 004. MF-$1.11; PC-not available EDRS.Peterson. Marvin W. "Faculty and Academic Responsiveness in a Period of

Decline: An Organizational Perspective "Journal of the College and Uni.versify Personnel Associatiori. 31 (Spring 1980): 95.

Peterson. Richard E.. and Loye. 0 E. Conversations Toward a Definition of In.stitutionalVitality. Pnnceton: Educational Testing Service. 1967.

Peterson. Richard..et al. Institutional Functioning Inventory: Preliminary Tech.nice! Manual Princeton: Educational Testing Service. 1970.

Polanyi. Michael Personal Knowledge' Toward a Post Critical PhiiosophrChicago: University of Crvcago. 1958.

Rice, Eugene. "Dreams and Actualities: Danforth Fellows at Mid-Career."AAHE Bulletin 32 (April 1980): 3tt.

Scott. Robert A Robots or Reinsmen Job Opportunities and ProfessionalStanding for Collegiate Administrators for till! 198bs, Current Issues inHigher Education, No. 7. 1979. Washington. D.C.: American Associationfor Higher Education. 1979.

-"Indicators of Institutional Vitality. March 1980. ED 187 242. INF-

$1.11 ; PC-3.49.Scriven. Michael. "Summative Teachers Evaluation. In Handbook of

Teacher Evaluation, ed. by Jason Millman Beverly Hills. Calif.: Sage.

1981.Smith. Donald K. "Faculty Vitality and the Management of University Person-

nel Policies." In Evaluating Faculty Performance and Vitality, ed. by Wayne

C Kirschling New Directions for Institutional Research.flo. 20. San Fran.

cisco: Jossey.Bass. 1978.Thomas. Lewis. Tho Livos of a Cell. New York. Viking. 1974.

Valliant. George E.A depletion to Life. Boston: Little. Brown. 1977.Veysey. Laurence. R. Tho Emergence of the American University. Cnicago:

University of Chicago. 1965.

AAHE-ERIC Research CurrentsCopies of AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Currents areavailable for 75it each from the AAHE Publications Department (OnoDupont Circle. Suite 600, Washington, D.0 20036). Orders underS15 must be prepaid.

Institutional Vitality in Higher Education Thomas H. Maher(June 1982)

Corporate Education: Threat or Opportunity? James P. Hcnan(March 1982)

Resources.on Private Sector Grantsmanship Lynn Barnett andJames P. Honan (December 1981)

Quality Control in Off-Campus Degree Programs James P. Ho-_ flan (September 1981)

Faculty Response to Retrenchment Margot Sanders Eddy(June 1981)

Faculty Development: A Survey of Literature of the'70s Barbara Storda hi (March 1981)