Collective bargaining and faculty unionization: An administrative perspective

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to gain insight into the perspectives of experienced higher education administrators regarding faculty unionization, the collective bargaining process, and the interpersonal relationships between higher education faculty members and administrators. ^ The primary method of data collection was semi-structured face to face interviews with nine administrators from two community colleges and two universities in the south Florida area. All of the study participants worked with unionized faculty members and had direct experience participating in bargaining negotiations. ^ Upon the completion of each interview, the researcher listened to the taped audio recording of the interview several times and then transcribed all of the information from the audiotape into a Word file. Data collection and analysis for each participant were performed concurrently. Using a modified concept mapping approach, the research questions were written on large yellow sticky notes and placed in the middle of a wall in the researcher’s home with nine descriptive categorical themes written on smaller sticky notes placed around the study questions. The highlighted quotes and key phrases were cut from each transcript and placed under each of the descriptive categories. Over the course of a few months repeatedly reviewing the research questions that guided this study, the theory of symbolic interactionism, and relevant literature the categorical descriptive themes were refined and condensed into five descriptive themes. ^ Study findings indicated that the administrators: (a) must have a clear understanding of what it is that the faculty does to be an effective representative at the bargaining table, (b) experienced role ambiguity and role strain related to a lack of understanding as to their role at the bargaining table and a lack of organizational support, (c) were not offered any type of training in preparation for bargaining, (d) perceived a definite “us versus them” mentality between faculty and administration, and (e) saw faculty collective bargaining at public institutions of higher education in Florida as ineffectual. ^

Does management capacity increase organizational performance? An empirical analysis of public housing agencies

Since the 1990s, scholars have paid special attention to public management’s role in theory and research under the assumption that effective management is one of the primary means for achieving superior performance. To some extent, this was influenced by popular business writings of the 1980s as well as the reinventing literature of the 1990s. A number of case studies but limited quantitative research papers have been published showing that management matters in the performance of public organizations. ^ My study examined whether or not management capacity increased organizational performance using quantitative techniques. The specific research problem analyzed was whether significant differences existed between high and average performing public housing agencies on select criteria identified in the Government Performance Project (GPP) management capacity model, and whether this model could predict outcome performance measures in a statistically significant manner, while controlling for exogenous influences. My model included two of four GPP management subsystems (human resources and information technology), integration and alignment of subsystems, and an overall managing for results framework. It also included environmental and client control variables that were hypothesized to affect performance independent of management action. ^ Descriptive results of survey responses showed high performing agencies with better scores on most high performance dimensions of individual criteria, suggesting support for the model; however, quantitative analysis found limited statistically significant differences between high and average performers and limited predictive power of the model. My analysis led to the following major conclusions: past performance was the strongest predictor of present performance; high unionization hurt performance; and budget related criterion mattered more for high performance than other model factors. As to the specific research question, management capacity may be necessary but it is not sufficient to increase performance. ^ The research suggested managers may benefit by implementing best practices identified through the GPP model. The usefulness of the model could be improved by adding direct service delivery to the model, which may also improve its predictive power. Finally, there are abundant tested concepts and tools designed to improve system performance that are available for practitioners designed to improve management subsystem support of direct service delivery.^