Research in Higher Education

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 321–334 | Cite as

Personality-based faculty workload analysis

  • Jon S. Hesseldenz


Faculty workload analyses have been with us for many years, but no study has ever grouped faculty by personality type or by academic rank. This paper examines the results of a study in which faculty at a large state university were classified according to Holland's theory of vocational choice. Multivariate analysis of variance showed that faculty members of the five Holland types not only differed on four self-reported measures of faculty effort, instruction, research, public service, instiutional-professional activities (all measured in hours per average week) but that the findings were supportive of Holland's theory. In addition, analysis by rank showed that while total hours per week were not statistically different among the ranks, hours in instructional and institutional-professional activities varied greatly but hours in research and public service did not. The conclusion is that changes in instructional workload will not affect research or public service activities of faculty members.

Key words

faculty workload personality theory faculty differences rank differences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. J. Appl. Psychol. 67(3): 204–213.Google Scholar
  2. Blee, M.R. (1960). The use of faculty load data in interinstitutional analysis. “Faculty Workload.” Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bock, D.R. (1963). Programming univariate and multivariate analysis of variance. Technometrics 5: 95–117.Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, D.L. (1965). Measuring faculty load. Improving College and University Teaching 13: 157–158.Google Scholar
  5. Conray, D.L. (1969). An alternate approach to clustering. Research Advisory, no. 5. Lincroft, N.J.: Brookdale Community College.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, J.M. (1957). The credit hour does not provide a sound basis for measuring the teaching load. College and University Business 22: 42–43.Google Scholar
  7. Hesseldenz, J.S. (1974). Instructional workload distribution by Holland type. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  8. Holland, J.L. (1973). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Lorents, A.C. (1971). Project prims report No. 6: Faculty activity analysis and planning models in higher education. Minneapolis, Minn.: Higher Education Coordinating Commission.Google Scholar
  10. NCHEMS. (1971). Faculty activity analysis: Overview and major issues. Technical report no. 24. Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  11. Smart, J. (1973). Student perception and evaluation of faculty by personality types. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  12. Smawley, R.B. (1965). How to find out what professors are doing. College and University Business 39(5): 55–57.Google Scholar
  13. Stecklein, J.E. (1961) “How to Measure Faculty Workload.” Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  14. Stichler, H.W. (1960). Working material and bibliography on faculty load. “Faculty Workload.” Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  15. Whitney, D.R., and Holland, J.L. (1969). Clustering student personalities to facilitate learning, guidance, and educational administration. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  16. Young, W.L. (1965). Six criteria from a composite, profile chart of faculty load. College and University Business 36(4): 59–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon S. Hesseldenz
    • 1
  1. 1.Policy and Operations AnalysisUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations