ACA Bulletin

153

October 1991

DIAGNOSING COMMUNICATION~ROBLEMSOF ACADEMIC CHAIRS: APPLIEDCOMMUNICATIONIN CONTEXT

Mark Hickson, IIIJames C. McCroskey

Recently there has been an attemptamong communication scholars to developan agenda for the future of applied com-munication research (Weick & Browning,1991; March, 1991; Plax, 1991). One com-monality among these essayists and oth-ers (Kreps, Frey, & O'Hair, 1991) who sup-port applied communication research, aswell as one (Ellis, 1991) who previouslytook a negative position but now takes amore positive one, is the view that suchresearch should be receiver-based (Ellis,1991, p. 118) and should "help people re-solve socially relevant problems" (Kreps,Frey & O'Hair, 1991, p. 83).

Put in perspective, audience analy-sis, or as some have put it "defining thesituation," is the proper first step in theconduct of applied inquiry. Applied re-search must be context-bound. Despitethe fact that hospitals, law firms, automo-bile assembly plants, and academic depart-ments in colleges and universities all havea concern with organizational communica-tion problems, these general types of orga-nizations differ and their problems differ.While generalizable theory is a worthy goalof applied communication research, it mustbe recognized that many generalizations,even to a context category, may need to belimited. Communication problems mostlikely vary from hospital to hospital, fromlaw firm to law firm, from assembly plant

to assembly plant, and from department todepartment as much as, if not more than,between such contexts.

It is both interesting and problematicthat little research in the communicationfield has addressed the problems (commu-nication or otherwise) of managers in high-er education. Even though most organiza-tional communication research is conduct-ed by individuals who are employed inhigher education organizations, such scho-lars seem loath to look in their own backyards! Hence, even if the administration ofan institution feels it is wise to appoint anorganizational communication scholar toan administrative position (such as depart-ment chair), he or she is apt to know muchmore about managing a unit in a profit-making organization than about managinga unit in the type of institution in which heor she is appointed. Research drawn fromthe field of communication is distinctlylimited in books dealing with managementin higher education.1

Staton-Spicer and Spicer (1987), intheir examination of the problems of aca-demic managers, found that academic de-partment chairs are among the least pre-pared of all managers. Hickson andStacks (1991) have suggested that academ-ic chairs are selected for a variety of rea-sons, none of which usually includes man-

> agerial abilities or expertise. If a persondoes somethinq else well, he/she may beselected to manage a department, regard-less whether that "something else" is relat-

8

ed to academic management or not.Hence, most department chairs enter theposition with minimal qualifications andmust develop their managerial skills pri-marily through experience, better known as"trial and error."

As a result, many universities utilizea number of in-house, on-the-job trainingprograms. In many of these programs oneor several books related to managing anacademic department are used to guidethese chairs in the process of developingtheir management skills. However, little inthese books is devoted to communicationproblems. Given the dearth of organiza-tional communication research relatingdirectly to academic administration, thisfact should not come as a surprise.

Since research in other organization-al contexts indicates that many managerialproblems in those contexts center on prob-lems of communication, it is reasonable tobelieve that a significant number of similarproblems exist in higher education as well.If so, it would appear that individuals with-in the communication field with a back-ground in organizational communicationand experience in academic administrationshould be able to assist other college anduniversity administrators to learn how toidentify and deal with the array of commu-nication problems which may arise in theirday-to-day lives as academic administra-tors.

Working from these assumptions, weestablished a series of workshops underthe aegis of a southeastern university. Theworkshops centered on communicationproblems faced by chairs of academicdepartments. While we felt we knew someof the kinds of problems which mostchairs must confront each year (both com-munication-based and not communication-based), we wanted to ensure the workshop

would cover the problem areas believed tobe most significant by people actuallyholding the position of department chair.Hence, we sought data from such individu-als (in advance of the workshops) to deter-mine what problems should be consid~red.Since the data we obtained provide infor-mation which may be of value to otherswho wish to conduct similar workshops orto conduct organizational communicationresearch in areas of significant importanceto academic administrators, we presentthose data below.

MethodoloqVFor this purpose, we developed a

Likert- type instrument in which the re-spondents were to answer whether theystrongly agreed (scored +2), agreed (+1),disagreed (-1), or strongly disagreed (-2)with a series of 29 statements about chairsin general. Each item was intended toreflect a possible problem for chairs. Eachitem was scored across respondents todetermine the strength of its positive ornegative weighting. The most positivepossible score, therefore, was the numberof respondents multiplied by 2 and themost negative possible scored was thenumber of respondents multiplied by -2.Since there were 47 respondents, the pos-sible score range for each item was -94 to+94. However, the actual range observedwas -25 to +54.

In order to obtain the data, letterswere sent to the vice presidents for aca-demic affairs of fifty universities in thesoutheast and midwest. These individualswere asked to recommend chairs for theworkshops and have those whom theyrecommended complete the questionn-aires. Thus, we did not control the actualselection of participants in the study. Theywere selected by the contact person at

9

their university. The final subject poolincluded 47 total respondents, 34 of whichwere male and 13 were female. Regardingtheir academic discipline, 15 were in thehumanities and fine arts; 7 were in the .'-

social sciences; 6 were in business; 5 werein education; 5 were in mathematics andsciences; 4 were in engineering; 2 were inlibrary science; one each was from contin-uing education, home economics, andmedicine. Fifteen of the participants werefrom the state of Alabama; 8 were fromKentucky; 5 were from Missouri; 4 eachwere from Indiana and Mississippi; 3 eachwere from Arkansas, Illinois, and NorthCarolina; and one was from South Dakota.The range of experience of the chairper-sons selected was from less than 1 to 33years. Thus, while the sample was notselected by a truly random procedure, itdid represent a very diverse group of de-partment chairs.

Results and DiscussionTable 1 reports the responses to the

29 questions asked, beginning with thosewith the strongest agreement. The tablealso reports the numbers of respondentswho chose each of the four options. Al-though it is clear the respondents as agroup believe some of the items moreclearly reflect real problems than do oth-ers, it is also that not all chairs face thesame problems or, at least, see the samesituations as problems.

The first two situations received themost agreement. Item one implies thatchairs are burdened with communicationoverload. Item two indicates that chairsfeel they have little control over their non-productive faculty. These appear to be thetwo most important problems for chairs inthis study. The first of these clearly is aproblem stemming from perceived exces-

sive communication demands. The secondis not a communication problem, per se,but many reflect the respondents' lack ofconfidence in their persuasion or leader-ship abilities. The next three problemareasall relate to communication prob-lems, two involving conflict resolution andthe other a concern with assertive commu-nication or the communication of negativeaffect.

Problem area 6 involves faculty as-sessment, and does not appear on the sur-face to be a communication problem.However, it may not really be the assess-ment or evaluation of faculty which is theproblem but actually the communication ofthose assessments to the faculty with theattendant potential for conflict. Problems 7and 8 center on the image of the depart-ment and suggest a concern with the "pub-lic relations" aspect of the chair's role.

Overall, it appears that chairs haveseveral serious communication concerns:1) conflict management, 2) persuading!motivating others, 3) public relations, and4) information management. While chairsconfront many other problems which arenot primarily rooted in communication(salary concerns, budget, and the like),many of the problems which appear to bemost difficult for chairs to manage havestrong communication components.

While communication should not betreated as the solution for all problems (thenew elixer), communication scholars mayhave information and advice which can goa long way toward helping chairs to dealwith some of the problems they face. It isimportant, however, that we direct suffi-cient applied communication research tothese problems in higher education man-agement to be certain that our theoriesbased on research in other contexts maybe validly applied in this critical context.

10

FOOTNOTE

1 An exception is the recently published book by Hickson and Stacks (1991). This bookwas written to overcome this shortcoming of earlier works. All of the chapters in thisedited book are written by people ~romthe field of communication.

REFERENCES

Ellis, D. G. (1991). Applied Intelligence, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19,116-122.

Hickson, M. IIIand Stacks, D. W. (Eds.). (1991). Effective Communication for AcademicChairs. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kreps, G. L., Frey, L. R., and O'Hair, D. (1991). Applied communication research: Scholar-ship that can make a difference, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 71-88. .

March, J. G. (1991). Organizational consultants and organizational research, Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 19, 20-31.

Plax, T. G. (1991). Understanding applied communication inquiry: Researcher as organiza-tional consultant, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 55-70.

Staton-Spicer, A. Q. and Spicer, C. H. (1987). Socialization of the academic chairperson: Atypology of communication dimensions, Educational Administration Quarterly, 23, 41-64.

VXK,K. E. & Browning, L. D. (1991). Fixing with the voice: A research agenda for appliedcommunication, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 1-19.

13

We may find that our research can actually be used, by people iust like us.

Table 1PROBLEMS CONFRONTEDBY DEPARTMENTCHAIRS-

RANKED BY DESCENDINGSEVERITY

PROBLEM (Followed by number of respondents for each option)

17. +01

Most chairs feel they are overburdened with memos and/or meet-ings. 17-Strongly Agree; 22-Agree; 2-Disagree; a-Strongly Disagree.Most chairs do not know what to do with "dead wood" faculty.16SA; 23A; 10; 1SD.Most chairs do not like being an arbiter between faculty members.10SA; 25A; 90;OSD.Most chairs do not like being an arbiter between faculty and staff.9SA; 23A; 100; OSO.It is hard for most chairs to tell a faculty member, "No." 7SA; 27A;90; 1S0.Most chairs find assessing faculty against one another quite diffi-cult. 4SA; 27A; 90; 1SO.Most chairs have difficulty getting across to others (on campus)how aood their departments are. 4SA; 27A; 110; OSO.The central administration and chairs view the role of the chair'sdepartment in quite different ways. 5SA; 23A; 160; 250.Most chairs have difficulty deciding what information to keep andwhat to throwaway. 5SA; 23A; 140; 1S0.Most chairs find it difficult being an arbiter between students andfaculty. 5SA; 24A; 160; 150.Most chairs have difficulty getting across to others how importanttheir departments are. 3SA; 26A; 150; 1S0.Chairs never seem to have time to do what they need to do person-ally and professionally. 115A; 6A; 140; OSO.Most chairs find it difficult determining what faculty want and needto know.3SA; 23A; 140; 1S0.Explaining annual reviews to faculty is very difficult. 45A; 18A; 180;1S0.It is difficultto establish and maintain leadership with faculty. 2SA;20A; 18D; 1S0.Chairs have difficulty communicating with certain "support' groupson campus, especially -. (answers to the blank: Faculty senate;affirmative action; student advisers; alumni; graduate students;tenure and promotions committees; alumni association). 2SA; 14A;150; 1S0.MQstchairs wish their faculty respected them more than they do.1SA; 19A; 180; 2S0.

11

NUMBER SCORE

1. +54

2. +52

3. +36

4. +31

5. +31

6. +26

7. +24

8. +17

9. +17

10. +16

11. +15

12. +14

13. +12

14. +06

15. +04

16. +01

Table 1 (continued)PROBLEMS CONFRONTED BY DEPARTMENT CHAIRS-

RANKED BY DESCENDING SEVERITY

NUMBER SCORE PROBLEM (Followed by number of respondents for each option)

Mostchairs need to know more about what their faculty membersdo with their time. 3SA; 18A;16D;5SD.Most chairs wish they could respond better when the dean evalu-ates their performance. 1SA; 17A; 21D; 2SD.Most chairs wish their faculties like them more than they do. 2SA;14A; 21D; 2SD.Most chairs feel that much of what they do has little to do with theirjobs. 3SA; 12A; 24D; 2SD.Most chairs feel they spend too much time repeating themselves tofaculty. 2SA; 13A;0 26D; 1SD.Chairs' superiors simply don't understand them at budget time.4SA; 9A; 26D; 1SD.Others (in my discipline) do not understand how aood my depart-ment is. 1SA; 13A; 22D; 2SD.Without more money, it is virtually impossible to motivate people.5SA; 9A; 26D; 2SD.Most chairs have trouble understanding what their upper-leveladministration wants them to do. 2SA; 12A; 24D; 24SD.Departmental faculty simply cannot understand what is meant by amerit salary increase. 3SA; 9A; 24D; 6SD.Most chairs feel they have little in common with chairs of otherdepartments. 3SA; 6A;24D;5SD.Evaluating young, new faculty is a different process. 3SA; 9A; 24D;6SD.

12

18. -02

19. -04

20. -07

21. -10

22. -10

23. -11

24. -11

25. -11

26. -16

27. -21

28. -22

29. -25