Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 97–123 | Cite as

Decentralization of authority in colleges and universities

  • R. Danforth Ross
Article

Abstract

Research on 115 colleges and universities is used to test hypotheses about the relationships between organizational characteristics—including size, horizontal and vertical differentiation, complexity, and the qualifications of the faculty—and decentralization of authority in four issue areas: the creation of new departments, appointment of deans, faculty salary raises, and leaves of absence for faculty members. Little support is found for the hypotheses. We suggest, however, that a general pressures/risks model of decentralization can explain many of the empirical findings and that institutional tradition and history may be a major determinant of decentralization in some areas.

Key words

decentralization authority bureaucracy higher education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Council on Education. (1968). “American Universities and Colleges.” Washington: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, B. (1963). Some problems in the sociology of the professions. Daedalus 92: 669–688.Google Scholar
  3. Blau, P. M. (1968). The hierarchy of authority in organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 73: 453–467.Google Scholar
  4. Blau, P. M. (1973). “The Organization of Academic Work.” New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Blau, P. M., Heydebrand, W. V., and Stauffer, R. E. (1966). The structure of small bureaucracies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 31: 1979–191.Google Scholar
  6. Blau, P. M. and Schoenherr, R. A. (1971). “The Structure of Organizations.” New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Plau, P. M., and Scott, W. R. (1962). “Formal Organizations.” San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Blume, S. S., and Sinclair, R. (1973). Chemists in British universities: A study of the reward system in science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 38: 126–138.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, P. (1954). Bureaucracy in a government laboratory. Soc. Forces 32: 259–268.Google Scholar
  10. Child, J. (1973). Predicting and understanding organization structure. Admin. Sci. Q. 18: 168–185.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, K. E. (1957). “America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession.” Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, S., and Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32: 377–390.Google Scholar
  13. Corson, J. J. (1960). The university—a contrast in administrative process. Pub. Admin. Rev. 20: 2–9.Google Scholar
  14. Demerath, N. J., Stephens, R. W., and Taylor, R. R. (1967). “Power, Presidents and Professors.” New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Dressel, P. L., Johnson, F. C., and Marcus, P. M. (1970). “The Confidence Crisis.” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Dykes, A. R. (1968). “Faculty Participation in Academic Decision Making.” Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  17. Gouldner, A. W. (1954). “Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, R. H., Hass, E., and Johnson, N.J. (1967). Organizational size, complexity and formalization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32: 903–912.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, R. H., and Tittle, C. R. (1966). A note on bureaucracy and its ‘correlates’. Am. J. Sociol. 81: 267–272.Google Scholar
  20. Kaufman, H. (1960). “The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior.” Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, M. W. (1968a). Expertness and the span of control. Am. Sociol. Rev. 33: 944–951.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer, M. W. (1968b). The two authority structures of bureaucratic organization. Admin. Sci. Q. 13: 211–228.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, G. A. (1967). Professionals in bureaucracy: Alienation among industrial scientists and engineers. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32: 755–768.Google Scholar
  24. Olive, B. A. (1967). The administration of higher education: A bibliographic survey. Admin. Sci. Q. 11: 659–671.Google Scholar
  25. Parsons, T. (1947). Editor's introduction, to Weber, M. “The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.” Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Parsons, T., and Platt, G. M. (1968a). Considerations on the American academic system. Minerva 6: 497–523.Google Scholar
  27. Parsons, T. and Platt, G. M. (1968b). Decision-making in the academic system: Influence and power exchange. In “The State of the University: Authority and Change” (Kruytbosch, C. E., and Messinger, S. L., eds.). Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Pelz, D. and Andrews, F. M. (1962). Organizational atmosphere, motivation and research contribution. Am. Behav. Scientist 6: 43–47.Google Scholar
  29. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32: 194–208.Google Scholar
  30. Pugh, D. S. et al. (1968). Dimensions of organizational structure. Admin. Sci. Q. 13: 65–105.Google Scholar
  31. Ross, R. D. (1972). Academic decision-making: A comparative analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Weber, M. (1947). “The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.” Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wilensky, H. L. (1956). “Intellectuals in Labor Unions: Organizational Pressures on Professional Roles.” Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wilensky, H. L. (1967). “Organizational Intelligence.” New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Woodward, J. (1958). “Management and Technology.” London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  36. Zuckerman, H. (1967). Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. Am. Sociol. Rev. 32: 391–403.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc. 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Danforth Ross
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of RochesterRochester

Personalised recommendations