Uncertain Loyalists: A Brief Look at Role Conflicts Among Collegiate Middle-Managers

21 UNCERTAIN LOYALISTS: A BRIEF LOOK AT ROLE CONFLICTS AMONG COLLEGIATE MIDDLE-MANAGERS Robert A. Scott Cornell University For several years, I have been studying the professional lives of mid­ dle-level collegiate administrators, the middle-managers of higher education. My research supported by the Exxon Education Foundation, has included an ex­ tensive review of the literature, interviews with more than two hundred mid­ dle-managers, and an intensive questionnaire survey of sixty-five of those interviewed (survey response of 72 percent). The major result to date of this work has been my ERIC monograph (Scott, 1978d). A particularly interesting problem for mid-level managers is that of role. In this paper, I will discuss the roles and relationships of colle­ giate middle-managers in terms of "loyalty." Loyalists, one may recall, were American colonists who pledged allegiance to the Crown of Britain during the War for Independence. They were on the forefront of social change— they were pioneers in a dramatic experiment--but they knew, and honored, their roots. In our example, middle-level administrators were simultaneously loyalists to an institutional identity— of which they express pride and to which they seem dedicated— and on the forefront of organizational changes which have serious consequences for their positions. But, before we explore the conflicts in role that suggest the theme "un­ certain loyalists," let us examine the development of the positions and the relationships of collegiate middle-managers to others, because these rela­ tionships contribute to a sense of belonging, socialization to role, and levels of satisfaction. There are three dimensions of relationships I want to review: salaries as gross indicators of status relationships, official in­ teractions with others, and informal interactions with others. Basically, middle-level administrative staffs fulfill three functions. They serve as liaison with external suppliers of resources, financial, material, or human; they implement procedures for internal allocation of re­ sources and control of activities, especially in matters of campus coordina­ tion and compliance with external requirements; and they work with student activities and curricular responsibilities in helping students become ori­ ented to college requirements, standards, and opportunities. Such staffs have been found in colleges and universities for many years. In England, the precursors of today's Academic Registrars and Bursars were appointed during the middle-ages (Angus, 1973, p. 19). In the U.S., before the Civil War, most colleges employed a president, a treasurer, and a parttime librarian (in addition to the faculty) to exercise responsibility in needed areas. After the War, in response to enrollment increases and demands for new services, college administration began to grow and splinter. First, a secretary of faculty was appointed, then a registrar, and then in succession a vice president, a dean, a dean of women, a chief business officer, an assistant dean, a dean of men, a director of admissions, and in time a corps of administrative assistants to the president who were in charge of anything and everything— [alumni and] public relations, church relations, civic relations, stu­ dent relations, faculty relations (Rudolph, 1962, pp. 434-435. ) After a while, these assistant-to positions became autonomous offices. The number and type of administrative positions have increased in re­ sponse to internal forces of growth and logic— and illogic— and to external demand. [The 1977 CUPA report on administration lists 52 administrative job ca(tfa^ories (Van Alstyne, et al., 1977, p. 16)]. In recent years, these forces have caused the introduction, development, and greater use of 22 positions such as ombudsmen, loan officers, sex counselors, affirmative action officers, women's counselors, pension managers, institutional research officers, salary classification specialists, veteran's counselors, government relations and sponsored program officers, and labor relations experts, to name but a few examples. These middle-level collegiate administrators are the "anonymous leaders" which Lyman Glenny described seven years ago (Glenny, 1972). In some sense, they are the unheralded heroes who in times of student demonstrations and faculty absence keep their institutions functioning. By the quality of ser­ vice and information they provide, they also help determine institutional tone and style (Scott, 1978a). But they are virtually unknown to their faculty, trustees, and general public (Glenny, op. cit. ; Scott 1975). How­ ever, they represent...