Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality o f the material subm itted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T he sign or target for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is Missing Page(s) . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black m ark, it is an
indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials th a t should no t have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed,
a definite m ethod o f sectioning the material has been followed. It is
custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued againbeginning below the first row and continuing on
until com plete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Custom er Services D epartm ent.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
8417134
M ic h a e l, R o b e rt 0 .
University
Microfilms
International
Copyright 1984
by
M ichael, R obert O.
All Rights Reserved
Ph.D.
1984
PLEASE NOTE:
In all c a s e s this m aterial h a s been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy.
Problems encountered with this do cu m en t have b een identified here with a check mark V
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or
author.
12.
13.
14.
15.
O ther_________________________________________________________________________
University
Microfilms
International
by
ROBERT 0. MICHAEL
A DISSERTATION
Atlanta, Georgia
1984
ACCEPTANCE
This dissertation, A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH
TO THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE by ROBERT 0. MICHAEL,
was prepared under the direction of the candidate's
dissertation committee.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
:m b e r
/ 'd. /f<?l/
DATE
Copyright by
Robert 0. Michael
1984
Signature of Author
VITA
ROBERT 0. MICHAEL
Address:
Education:
B . A . , Washington University
1970
(Psychology),
1977-1978
1979-1980
1980-1984
Professional
Organizations:
Publications:
ABSTRACT
A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE
STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
by
Robert 0. Michael
Chairperson: Richard H. Barbe
Conceptual Basis
Organizational change theory and its related research
are generally focused on the evolutionary alteration of a
limited number of structure and process variables analyzed
at an individual (micro) or organizational
(macro)
level.
Such
Methodologically,
Analytically,
In addition,
tional type, change event type, and change event timing were
applied as analytic categories for examining the effects of
these dimensions on the social psychological profiles.
Individual response data were also analyzed through the
application of the Sudden Change Model.
Results
The social psychological profiles of organizational
change were generated from the individuals'
perceptions of
A broader view of
(e.g.,
Table of Contents
Page
List of T a b l e s ........................................
List of F i g u r e s ........................................
vi
ix
CHAPTER
1
CONCEPTUAL BASIS
.............................
Introduction
...............................
Research Purposes ...........................
Operational Definitions ....................
Research Sites
.............................
Data A n a l y s i s ...............................
Limitations .................................
.................................
Conclusion
1
5
6
8
8
8
9
...........
Introduction
...............................
Traditional Organizational Change
M o d e l s ....................................
Organizational Life Cycle and
Developmental Change Models ............
Revolutionary Change Models ...............
A Social Psychological Perspective
. . . .
3
METHODOLOGY
11
11
11
15
17
24
....................................
27
Introduction
...............................
Instrumentation.... ..........................
Adjective Checklist Review Panel
..........
Pilot T e s t .................................
Pilot Instrument Distribution ..............
Instrumentation and Methodological
C h a n g e s ....................................
Site S e l e c t i o n .............................
Site V i s i t s .................................
Data A n a l y s i s ...............................
Alternative Data Analysis ...................
27
28
29
34
38
iii
38
40
44
44
49
CHAPTER
4
Page
F I N D I N G S ......................................
51
...............................
Introduction
The Pilot Site--The College of Public
and Urban A f f a i r s .........................
General Background
......................
Descriptive Statistics
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
Loss and Gain I t e m s ......................
...........................
Merger Reasons
Emotional Responses ......................
University of West F l o r i d a ................
General Background
......................
Descriptive Statistics
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
Loss and Gain L i s t s ......................
Reasons for M e r g e r ......................
Emotional Responses ......................
Pensacola Junior College
..................
General Background
......................
..................
Descriptive Statistics
T - V a l u e s ..................................
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
Loss and Gain I t e m s ......................
Reasons for M e r g e r ......................
Emotional Responses ......................
Cooper Green Hospital ......................
General Background
......................
Descriptive Statistics
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
Loss and Gain I t e m s ......................
Reasons and Justifications for
Resignation of the B o a r d .............
Emotional Responses ......................
Albany Junior College ......................
General Background
......................
Descriptive Statistics
..................
T - V a l u e s ..................................
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
Loss and Gain I t e m s ......................
Merger Reasons and Justifications . . . .
Emotional Responses ......................
Alternative Analysis Formats
.............
S u m m a r y ......................................
51
iv
51
51
52
54
56
59
61
62
65
65
67
69
73
76
77
78
82
82
83
85
87
90
92
93
97
97
98
101
104
106
108
109
113
113
114
116
118
124
126
127
131
139
Page
CHAPTER
5
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES
........................
141
Introduction
...............................
141
Format 1
...................................... 142
Descriptive Statistics
..................
142
T - V a l u e s .................................... 144
Pearson, Correlation Coefficients
. . . .
147
Emotional Responses ......................
151
Implications for Instrument
A l t e r a t i o n s ................................ 155
Format 2
...................................... 157
Introduction to the Sudden Change
M o d e l ......................
157
Emotional Responses ......................
174
S u m m a r y .......................................179
C o n c l u s i o n .................................... 180
6
CONCLUSIONS
....................................
181
Introduction
...............................
181
Methodological and Conceptual Concerns
. .
182
Alternative Analysis and Applications . . .
184
C o n c l u s i o n .................................187
R E F E R E N C E S ............................................... 188
A P P E N D I C E S ............................................... 192
List of Tables
31
. . .
32
42
45
53
55
57
63
68
. . .
70
74
79
84
86
vi
. . . .
Table
15
16
17
Page
Intercorrelation Matrix--Pensacola Junior
C o l l e g e ........................................
88
94
99
18
..............
102
19
105
110
115
22
117
23
119
128
25
132
26
20
21
24
27
28
29
30
................
. .
133
134
135
136
137
vii
Table
31
Page
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain
Questionnaire Values/Total Research Site
S u b j e c t s ..................................
32
33
143
. . .
148
34
35
36
37
38
39
165
145
166
167
168
171
40
41
viii
175
List of Figures
Figure
Page
............................
ix
4
159
Chapter 1
CONCEPTUAL BASIS
Introduction
Organizational change theory, borrowing heavily from
the early agricultural innovation studies, generally focuses
on change in the structure of an organization or shifting
of groups within an organization over an extended period
of time.
(macro)
level or an individual
on either
(micro)
To accomplish this,
2
to a more comprehensive concept of organizational change.
The necessary components to be altered, at least, are the
time frame of the change event,
1979)
While
They
(Zeeman, 1976)
empirical verification.
Many studies
Other studies of
size, or p r o
responses--the
level, the
in change.
The components of time, level and variable are depicted
in the three-dimensional grid in Figure 1.
The X-axis
16
Macro
-Individual
^^Organization
Single
Event
Event
Evolution
Organiza
tional
Evolution
I
12
Social
Psycho
logical
/V individual
-Organization
/ A Single
i
Event
Event
Evolution
Organiza
tional
Evolution
Micro
Individual
-Organization
X
Single
Event
Event
Evolution
Organizational
Evolution
X Time Dimension
Y - Analytic Level
2 - Variable Types
5
including the change event as a portion of the complete
institutional history.
micro,
of the variables.
The development
could be
Methodologically,
this research
6
attempted to develop or adapt research techniques and instru
ments to assess individual perceptions of and emotional
responses to organizational change.
Once established,
these
This change
For
perceptions
In this
Research Sites
Five different organizations participated in this study,
including a public and urban affairs college within an urban
university, a senior college,
lic hospital.
In addition, the
(Michael,
1982).
Limitations
While this research attempted to contribute to areas
of research methodology and theory of the social psychology
of organizational change,
limitations:
1.
1982).
No longitudinal or repeat m e a
Furthermore,
10
positive personal value of a change event, the perceived
magnitude of a change event, and emotional response to the
change, organizational planners and decisioners have a data
set upon which to perceive, guide or allow organizational
change.
Furthermore,
Chapter 2
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE LITERATURE
Introduction
While theories and supporting research approach organi
zational change along one of the dimensions discussed as
missing in the analytical model of Chapter 1, organizational
change theory and its related research does not generally
focus on the effects of change on the social psychology of
an organization as defined by individuals'
and emotional reactions to the change.
perceptions of
Additionally,
theory
Little atten
some
and the
variables to be examined.
Traditional Organizational Change Models
Dill and Friedman (1979) analyze four organizational
change models used in higher education research in order to
develop "prototypic models fchich would) emphasize the
11
12
variables that influence change and innovation and deemphasize the events of the process itself"
{p. 425).
These
(p. 425).
Although they do
dependent
Analysis of the
1979),
is focused on
Structural
13
determined only after institutionalization occurs, an
evolutionary approach is essential in the complex organiza
tion framework.
The social and organizational conflict models developed
by Dahrendorf, Coser, Baldridge and Linquist form the basis
of the conflict framework analyzed by Dill and Friedman.
this framework,
In
Process variables
Study of organizational
(Dill &
Psychological,
structural
social structure,
While
14
organizational change research of Rogers and Shoemaker and
of Evans are representative of an emphasis on the trajectory
of one or more innovations proceeding from introduction to
complete adoption.
The planned change framework discussed by Dill and
Friedman examines the effectiveness of innovation strategies
designed to implement organizational change.
This framework
More
15
Organizational Life Cycle and Developmental Change Models
Similar to the four planned change models reviewed by
Dill and Friedman, the organizational life cycle
1980) and developmental change models
(Kimberly,
Whether
(Shrieve,
This view
According to Shrieve,
Although change
16
importance of discernible stages and patterns which reflect
long-term change prevails.
Tichy
(1978)
From a process-
Unlike the
this
17
primarily in terms of their ability to adapt and survive in
an environment which is constantly changing.
Understanding
As with
The difference
In a longitudinal
(p. 591).
Although
Furthermore,
such change
Additionally,
organizational level.
Although organizational structure and process variables
remain the focal point for Miller and Friesen, these authors
do provide direction in expanding the theory of organiza
tional change to include events or processes which are not
confined by an evolutionary perspective.
19
occurs only when the organization encounters specific pres
sures such as "shifts in power that allow (for) the emer
gence of a new organizational ideology and strategy (and)
significant performance deteriorations that provoke encom
passing remediability"
(p. 606).
The development
20
Developed by the French mathematician Rene/ Thom,
Catastrophe Theory provides mathematical and conceptual
models for depicting discontinuous changes in seemingly
continuous variables.
describe the
underlying forces of nature in terms of smooth
(geometrical) surfaces of equilibrium, and the
potential breakdown of the equilibrium--or the
abrupt departure from equilibrium--that gives
rise to a catastrophe (Zeeman, 1976, p. 65).
Thom develops seven elementary catastrophe models to
qualitatively describe these smooth surfaces and their
catastrophes, discontinuities whose changes may have either
positive or negative effects on the behavior variable.
In addition to providing models of abrupt or catas
trophic change in otherwise generally continuous variables,
Catastrophe Theory models include the dynamics of a partic
ular change process.
Furthermore,
21
spaces.
In particular, the dimension of the
catastrophe model space and the degrees of
freedom of the local system are quite arbitrary-in fact, the universe model of the process is
imbedded in an infinite-dimensional state.
(p. 6)
Organizational studies have begun to include Catastrophe
Theory models, generally emphasizing the graphic represen
tation of organizational phenomena in a state of flux.
These models have been developed to describe variables such
as employee turnover rates
bargaining behavior
(Oliva, Peters,
& Murthy,
1981),
institu
1982).
collective)
1982).
What is generally
is the direct
22
is dependent upon the interaction of the pressure for change
and the resistance to change within an organization.
The
(p. 32).
organiza
(p. 6).
The second
23
in measuring the variables used in the catastrophe models,
Scapens et al.
(p. 5).
the model
1981).
(Scapens, Fletcher,
24
Another attempt to describe abrupt organizational
change is the Sudden Change Model
{Michael, 1982).
This
In addition, the
Clarification and
25
The sources of measures upon which social psychology is
based are also troublesome to Katz and Kahn.
Further
There appears
In addition,
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Three basic topical areas guiding this research were
organizational change,
Emotional responses
27
28
selection of one or more items on the Adjective Checklist.
The remainder of this chapter provides discussion of these
instruments and the data collection and analysis procedures.
Instrumentation
The Loss and Gain Questionnaire and the Adjective
Checklist are based on instruments developed by Langston
(1977) to assess faculty reactions to organizational change.
Langston measured individual perceptions of loss through a
series of structured questions about a change which the
individuals'
Individual
These researchers
29
emotional reactions remained.
(Kubler-Ross, 1969).
In an attempt to cate
the
30
consisted of the Graduate Studies Chairperson of the Depart
ment of Psychology at Georgia State University, along with
10 other professors and 13 graduate students nominated by
the chairperson on the basis of their knowledge of the
grief process and their ability to complete the Adjective
Checklist review process.
Each reviewer received a cover letter explaining the
review process, a stamped return envelope, and a review
form (see Appendix A).
In addition,
the
reviewers were to add words not on the list but which they
believed belonged in one or more of the grief categories.
The complete tally of the review panel responses is listed
in Appendix B.
Because one student called for a clarification of
the review process,
and student not returning the review form within one week
of its mailing received a follow-up letter and a replacement
copy of the form.
(54.5%)
31
Table 1
Adjective Checklist Review Panel
Return Rates
Number
returned
Number
sent
Number
used
Professors
11
8(72.7%)
6(54.5%)
Students
13
9(69.2%)
9(69.2%)
Total
24
17(70.8%)
15(62.5%)
For example,
32
Table 2
Adjective Checklist Grief Categories
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Apathetic(9)
Cheerful(9)
Cool(ll)
Disbelieving(1A)
Fearless(10)
Indifferent(ll)
Numb(12)
Unconcemed(ll)
Depression
Acceptance
Apathetic(10)
Fearless(8)
Agitated(12)
Angry(1A)
Bitter(13)
Complaining (12)
Contrary(1A)
Cross(lA)
Fearful(8)
Furious(13)
Hostile(1A)
Jealous(9)
Ma d (13)
Mean(12)
Tense(8)
Threatened(9)
Upset(12)
Complalnlng(9)
Fearful(10)
Fearful(8)
Tense(10)
Threatened(B)
Upset(8)
Afraid(9)
Anxious(8)
Desperate(12)
Insecure(8)
Nervous(10)
Panicky(8)
Serious(B)
Uneasy(8)
Worrying(9)
Insecure(lO)
Serious(9)
Depressed(lA)
Discouraged(1A)
Frightened(8)
Gloomy(13)
Grim(13)
Guilty(10)
Helpless(lA)
Hopeless(lA)
Lonely(13)
MlserabledA)
Overwhelmed(12)
Sad(lA)
Solemn(9)
Calm(12)
Contented(11)
Easy-going(lO)
Kindly(8)
Peaceful(13)
Secure(8)
Steady(11)
Thoughtful(12)
Warm(9)
8
10.88
15
12
18
11
It - 11.80
X - 9.0
X - 11.50
X - 10.09
33
twice along the same line, once in the Denial category and
once in the Acceptance category.
At the bottom of each column in Table 2 is the number
of words nominated for that category, ranging from a low of
8 for Denial to a high of 18 for Depression.
Also listed
it was
Also,
reinforces the warning that the grief stages are not clearly
defined
(Konner,
1982; Bowlby,
1980).
Additionally,
the
34
five stages of grief does not always occur, and the dura
tion of each of these stages differs among individuals.
Thus, while the review panel provided a set of adjectives
for each of the grief categories, these categories do not
necessarily define the emotional constellation or configura
tion of each stage.
These
35
Following this page was the introduction to the Loss
and Gain Questionnaire.
The merger
for the
36
respondents the opportunity to qualify their numerical
ratings.
Furthermore,
loss and gain items, could also be compared between the two
time frames to determine if perceptions had altered since
the merger was officially enacted.
37
Also introduced by the change statement, page 6 of the
Loss and Gain Questionnaire elicited separate ratings on
perceptions of positive personal value and the size or
magnitude of the changes brought about by the merger.
These rating scale numbers ranged from 0 to 8.
of "No"
Descriptors
magnitude)
(value/
(value/magnitude)
(value/magnitude)
for
This
38
Pilot Instrument Distribution
Upon approval by the dean and the assistant dean of
the College,
A total of 48 people
(62.5%).
30 returned the
39
several comments from pilot site subjects about the speci
ficity of the demographic questions.
rent loss, gain, value and magnitude were placed after the
first Adjective Checklist eliciting responses of current
emotional reactions and before the second Adjective Check
list.
This restructuring
40
implies lower or upper limit of the scale, but the score
of 8 could then be seen as extraneous.
It could be argued
It was determined,
41
examining change at their schools.
For example,
three of
Although
this argument was similar for all three sites, one institu
tion had completed a merger begun in 1979, while the other
sites were under consideration for merger at the time of
request for participation.
Four institutions agreed to participate in the research.
These sites were Albany Junior College, Cooper Green H o s
pital, Pensacola Junior College, and the University of West
Florida.
The
(see Appendix E ) .
Each of
Table 3
Research Sites: Institutional Type and Specific
Time-Referenced Change Event
Site
Institutional
type
Past change
event
Current change
event
State Board of Regents
announcement of pos
sible merger of
Albany Junior Col
lege with Albany
State College
(February 1983)
Anticipated
change event
Junior College
Unit of Georgia
State Univer
sity
County-operated
Public Hospital
Resignation of the
Hospital Board of
Trustees (March
1983)
Uncertain possible
takeover by a
private health
care management
firm
Junior College
Withdrawal of proposal
for unification (mer
ger) with the Univer
sity of West Florida
(March 1983)
Senior College
Withdrawal of proposal
for unification (mer
ger) with Pensacola
Junior College
(March 1983)
Merger with
Pensacola Junior
College
Current status of
merged units
(April 1983)
43
person were to be interviewed separately by the researcher
in on-site interview sessions.
(see Appendix F)
In
findings for each site once the research was completed and
published in the dissertation.
Faculty members of the higher education institutions
and the medical staff and administration of the hospital
were originally designated to receive the questionnaire.
Administrative personnel at the higher education sites were
scheduled to be involved only in the interview sessions.
Because of a rapid change of events at Pensacola Junior
College and the University of West Florida between the time
of agreement to participate in the research to the time of
interviews and questionnaire distribution, participant
designation could not be followed.
44
this to be a very sensitive situation, both presidents
requested that interviews and package distribution be
limited strictly to administrative personnel.
Site Visits
The research site visits were structured the same
for each institution.
views with the site contact person and the persons selected
by the contact person were conducted.
Table 4
Change Assessment Package Return Rates
and Research Site Interviews
Site
Albany Junior
College
Number of
interviews
College of Public
and Urban Affairs
(Pilot Site)
Number of
packages sent
Number of
packages received
Number of
packages used
in data analysis
85
60 (70.6%)
45 (52.9%)
48
30 (62.5%)
22 (45.8%)
Cooper Green
Hospital
20
17 (85.0%)
16 (80.0%)
Pensacola Junior
College
16
13 (81.3%)
12 (75.0%)
University of West
Florida
17
13 (76.5%)
11 (64.7%)
24
186
133 (71.5%)
106 (57.0%)
Totals
46
justifications in the need for change.
These responses
change process.
The Adjective Checklists for each site were analyzed
in a manner similar to the other qualitative data so that
a general overview of the emotional responses could be
obtained.
In addition,
emotional
Should
These 12 variables
47
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Change Event.
6.
the Change E v e n t .
7.
Past or
8.
Past or
9.
Past or
10.
Past or
11.
The
48
determining the similarities and differences among the
four sites.
Furthermore,
type of event
As discussed above,
the
Additionally,
The
49
Alternative Data Analysis
Chapter 5 presents two different data analysis formats
used for the combined responses from the four final research
sites.
list responses.
In the first format,
Furthermore,
Because
Chapter A
FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter the findings from the pilot site and
the four research sites are presented in the order in
which they participated in this study.
The general b a c k
1982).
On July 1,
51
The change
In
The current
53
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
College of Public and Urban Affairs
(N = 22)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Past
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
1. 591
4.729
7.0(0,7)
1.727
4.303
6.0(0,6)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum,Maximum)
1.091
4.468
7.0(0,7)
1.455
5.022
6.0(0,6)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Ran g e (Min i m u m ,Max i mum)
2.318
7.465
8.0(0,8)
1.955
7.569
8.0(0,8)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
3.364
10.147
8.0(0,8)
2.364
9.004
8.0(0,8)
3.182
8.156
8.0(0,8)
2.545
6.450
7.0(0,7)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
R a n g e (Minimum,Maximum)
4.545
5.212
8.0(0,8)
4.500
5.786
8.0(0,8)
54
all four of the loss means.
the current value mean was greater than the past value
m e a n , and the current magnitude mean was greater than the
past magnitude mean.
This broad reading of the means demonstrates that as
the merger of the three units progressed over time, the
respondents on average perceived an increase in their per
sonal and professional gain and a decrease in their p e r
sonal and professional loss resulting from the change.
Furthermore,
(Because
(p = .05).
Table 6
T-Values--College of Public and Urban Affairs
N = 22
Degrees of Freedom = 21
Current
Current
VI
Fast
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
1.15
=.264
-.99
=.333
-2.07
-.051
-2.21
=.038
-5.10
=.000
-.45
=.658
.30
=.764
-.47
=.640
-.97
=.344
-1.50
=.148
-4.80
-.000
V2
--
--
-1.47
=. 156
-2.39
=.026
-2.49
=.021
-4.70
=.000
-1.81
=.085
-.82
-.422
-1.02
=.320
-1.45
-.162
-2.06
=.052
-.460
=.000
V3
-2.08
=.050
-2.12
=.046
-4.61
=.000
.81
=.428
1.08
=.292
1.40
=.176
-.10
-.925
-.50
=.691
-4.06
-.001
V4
--
--
.3B
=.710
-2.35
=.029
1.96
=.064
2.02
=.057
2.64
=.015
3.17
=.005
1.58
-.128
-1.96
=.063
V5
--
--
-3.01
=.007
1.95
=.065
2.10
=.048
3.59
=.002
1.70
-.104
1.91
-.069
-2.48
-.022
--
4.47
=.000
4.44
=.000
5.43
=.000
4.61
-.000
4.64
=.000
.15
-.883
V6
V7
--
--
--
.84
=.409
-.29
=.772
-.81
=.427
-1.26
=.222
-4.13
=.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
-.63
=.539
-1.04
=.311
-1.37
=.184
-4.31
=.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.95
=.352
-1.48
=.153
-4.81
=.000
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.42
=.676
-3.85
=.001
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-3.88
=.001
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 - Personal Gain
Vi Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 - Change Magnitude
V7 51 Personal Loss
V8 85 Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
Ln
Ln
56
The past magnitude score mean was statistically signif
icantly greater than the means of every other variable
except current professional gain and current magnitude.
The current magnitude mean was statistically significantly
greater than every other variable mean except past change
magnitude.
Similarly,
The strength of
(jj = .05).
Twenty of
Table 7
Intercorrelation Matrix--College of Public and Urban Affairs
(N = 22)
Current
Current
VI
V2
Past
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
.5472
= .008
.0310
=.891
-.0875
=.699
.1199
=.595
.2581
=.246
.7763
=.000
.5481
=.008
-.0510
=.822
-.0199
=.930
.2061
=.357
.2321
=.299
V2
--
--
-.2938
=.184
-.3871
=.075
-.2395
=.283
-.2279
=.308
.6902
=.000
.5438
=.009
-.3268
=.138
-.2757
=.214
-.0008
-.997
-.1780
=.428
V3
--
.6919
=.000
.7673
=.000
.6045
=.003
-.0008
=.997
-.1259
=.577
.9015
=.000
.6996
=.000
.6806
=.000
.5253
=.012
V4
--
--
.7252
=.000
.6721
=.001
-.0708
=.754
-.3178
=.150
.6540
=.001
.8872
=.000
.6630
=.001
.5593
=.007
V5
--
--
--
--
.6779
=.001
.0168
=.941
-.1326
=.556
.8375
=.000
.7032
-.000
.8392
=.000
.5615
-.007
V6
--
.0832
=.713
-.0415
=.855
.6182
=.002
.6787
= .001
.6525
=.001
.8151
=.000
V7
--
.7553
=.000
-.1107
=.624
-.0216
=.924
.1380
=.540
.0191
=.933
V8
--
--
--
--
--
-.1201
=.595
-.2099
=.349
-.2130
=.341
-.0177
-.938
V9
--
--
--
--
--
.7577
=.000
.7534
=.000
.5433
=.009
V10
--
--
--
--
--
.7475
=.000
.5542
=.007
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.5456
=.009
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 - Presonal Cain
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Presonal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
=J
58
the 34 statistically significantly correlated pairs were
combinations of current and past variables.
The past
The
Similarly,
Fairly
59
strong and consistent relationships between past and cur
rent value, magnitude and gain and current and past loss
variables were obtained.
the respon
Additionally,
60
dimensions.
The repetition
The
61
the close contacts,
On a professional level,
new leadership,
Professional
These reasons
As
with the loss and gain items, the current and past merger
reasons were quite similar to each other.
Mostly,
the
Emotional responses.
This emo
It
At the
16 adjectives had
Fourteen of these
63
Table 8
Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations
College of Public and Urban Affairs
(N = 22)
Current
nominations
Past
nominations
Difference
(current-past)
2
2
1
2
-1
2
3
5
0
-1
-4
3
13
9
3
3
8
6
0
5
3
-6
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool (1)
Cross(2)
Depressed(4)
8
3
1
-
1
1
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
4
8
-
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(1,4)
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
Fearless(1,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
8
1
-1
-1
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
7
9
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,4)
2
1
1
3
-
1
1
-3
-1
table continues
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Current
nominations
Past
nominations
Difference
(current-past)
4
4
5
-
1
4
1
3
-
-1
0
3
2
-
2
1
3
1
-1
0
3
-
-3
-
1
8
10
_
2
4
1
6
6
1
9
-
1
7
1
_
0
2
-1
4
1
4
1
0
0
9
2
1
4
3
-1
5
-1
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
-1
0
2
-1
65
These differences in frequency of nomination of the
adjectives seem indicative of a general movement from
the stages of Denial, Anger, Bargaining and Depression to
the stage of Acceptance.
It is currently
1982a).
(University of West
66
This merger plan was rejected by the Postsecondary
Planning Commission of Florida because of fear that the
open access philosophy and services inherent in Pensacola
Junior College would not be vigorously protected in the
institution produced from the merger.
This apprehension
This
As a compromise, the
67
The change statement used in the Change Assessment
Package for the University of West Florida reflected the
withdrawal of the unification proposal.
It was listed as
follows:
In October 1982 a formal plan for the unifica
tion of the University of West Florida and
Pensacola Junior College was co-operatively
produced by these two schools.
In early 1983
the unification proposal was withdrawn due to
lack of support.
The unification proposal withdrawal also altered the
change situation to which the respondents were to react
for the two different time periods.
responses,
future.
Descriptive statistics.
tive statistics for the 12 variables for the Loss and Gain
Questionnaire.
anticipated merger.
The variable means indicate that while the respon
dents viewed the withdrawal of the unification proposal
as a greater personal and professional gain than personal
68
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
University of West Florida
(N = 11)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Min i mum,Max imum)
.091
.091
1.0(0,1)
1.636
5.255
6. 0(0,6)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
1.091
4.891
6.0(0,6)
1.727
7.218
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
2.636
8.255
7.0(0,7)
.636
2.455
5.0(0,5)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum.Maximum)
3.091
8.291
7.0(0,7)
1.545
4.673
6.0(0,6)
2.545
8.473
8.0(0,8)
2.455
7.673
7.0(0,7)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum .Maximum)
4.909
8.891
8.0(0,8)
6.818
1.164
4.0(4,8)
69
and professional loss, just the opposite was the case for
their feelings of anticipated loss and gain.
The antic
were smaller for the current time frame than for the antic
ipated time frame.
Conversely,
they apparently
Table 10
Degrees of Freedom * 10
Current
VI
VI
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
va
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
-1.45
-3.09
=.011
-3.32
=.008
-2.98
=.014
-5.17
=.000
-2.19
=.053
-1.96
=.078
-1.11
=.294
-2.14
-.058
-2.76
-.020
-22.11
-.000
-1.17
=.268
-1.69
=.122
-1.16
=.273
-3.97
=.003
- .49
=.635
- .53
=.608
1.24
=.242
-1.05
=. 320
-2.30
=.044
-7.27
=.000
Current
d -,176
Anticipated
Anticipated
V2
--
V3
--
--
= .33
=.749
.21
=.839
-1.74
=.113
1.55
=.153
.77
=.461
1.75
=.111
.94
=.367
.14
=.888
-4.53
=.001
V4
--
--
--
.41
=.689
-1.42
=.185
1.31
=.218
1.81
=.101
2.57
=.028
1.27
=.233
.48
=.641
-3.60
=.005
V5
--
--
--
--
--
-1.90
=.087
1.18
=.264
.71
=.493
1.75
=.111
.83
=.424
.07
-.944
-4.72
=.001
V6
--
--
--
--
--
3.03
=.013
2.89
=.016
4.88
=.001
3.59
=.005
2.27
=.047
-2.01
-.072
V7
--
--
--
- .11
=.914
1.05
=.319
.09
=.928
- .66
=.522
-6.09
=.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
1.04
=.323
.15
=.887
- .50
=.629
-5.32
=.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-2.32
=.043
-2.96
=.014
-10.57
=.000
V10
--
--
--
--
-~
--
--
--
-1.99
=.074
-7.13
-.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-4.86
=.001
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 Positive Personal
V6 ^ Change Magnitude
Value
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 - Personal Gain
vj
71
magnitude variable mean was statistically significantly
greater than the mean of every other variable except cur
rent change magnitude.
72
were significantly different.
These findings,
73
From another standpoint,
This con
thus, not
Alternatively,
Table 11 presents
Table 11
Intercorrelation Matrix--University of West Florida
(N = 11)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
-.1636
-.631
.5037
-.114
-.3560
=.283
.6215
=.041
-.3236
=.332
-.0921
=.788
-.2132
=.529
-.1347
=.693
-.2371
=.483
-.1742
=.609
.3634
-272
V2
--
-.4664
=.148
-.1742
-.609
-.3036
=.364
.2743
=.414
.3479
=.294
-.3152
=.345
.8475
=.001
.7835
=.004
.7108
=.014
-.1600
-.638
V3
--
--
-.2736
=.416
.8751
=.000
-.0976
=775
.6764
=.022
-.0012
=.997
-.4100
=.210
-.1420
-.677
-.1028
=.764
.0088
=.980
V4
--
--
--
-.1497
=.660
-.0455
=.894
.0055
=.987
.5981
=.052
.0746
=.828
-.2658
=.429
-.2063
-.543
-.3805
=.248
V5
--
--
--
--
--
.0178
=.959
.5423
=.085
.0721
=.833
-.2372
=.482
-.2109
=.534
-.0958
-.779
.0984
=.773
V6
--
--
--
--
.0971
=.776
.1714
=.614
.3133
=.348
.3032
-.365
.2234
-.509
.0254
-.941
V7
--
--
--
--
.4045
=.217
-.3190
=.339
-.0771
=.882
-.3021
=.367
-.3125
=.349
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.2872
=.392
-.4367
=.179
-.5729
=.065
-.2949
=.379
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.8026
= .003
.6871
=.019
-.0430
=.900
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
.8396
=.001
-.0390
=.909
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.0030
=.993
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V4 - Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal
V6 = Change Magnitude
Value
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
75
significant
(jd = .05).
Current
76
The remaining statistically significantly correlated
variable pairs were all within the anticipated time frame.
Anticipated personal gain was positively correlated with
both anticipated professional gain and anticipated positive
personal value.
the
loss and
77
job security, commitment to the university status of the
institution, retention of current leadership, maintenance
of the status quo, reduction in stress, and the develop
ment of a working relationship with Pensacola Junior College
during the creation of the merger proposal document.
What the respondents perceived as personal and profes
sional gains vis-a-vis the withdrawal of the merger p r o
posal were generally listed as anticipated losses should
the two institutions merge.
78
institution,
In
79
Table 12
Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations
University of West Florida
(N = 11)
Anticipated
nominations
Difference
(antic.-curr,)
-2
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(4)
-2
-1
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
-1
1
Fearless(1,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
3
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,4}
3
-
table continues
Current
nominations
1
-
1
1
2
-
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(4)
Steady(5)
1
1
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcerned(1)
*1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
__
1
-
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
0
-
_
-
.2
1
-1
-1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
3
-
Rattled
Restless
Sad(4)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,4)
Warm (5)
Worrying(3)
Anticipated
nominations
2
_
3
-
4
-
1
2
1
0
1
1
_
1
2
-1
81
Twenty-two of the 33 adjectives nominated represent the
five grief stages.
The
82
Pensacola Junior College
General background.
It
(Pensacola
1982).
Thus,
analysis.
The change statement used in this Change Assessment
Package was similar to the University of West Florida
statement.
83
Descriptive statistics.
The 10
The two
For
84
Table 13
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Pensacola Junior College
(N = 12)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
1.833
3.970
5.0(0,5)
1.083
2.992
5.0(0,5)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,M a x i m u m )
2.167
4.879
6.0(0,6)
.750
2.205
5.0(0,5)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
.583
2.265
5.0(0,5)
2.667
4.424
6.0(0,6)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
.917
4.992
7.0(0,7)
2.917
3.720
6.0(0,6)
1.167
3.061
4.0(0,4)
4.500
7.727
8.0(0,8)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
3.250
7.477
7.0(0,7)
5.833
3.788
7.0(1,8)
85
As
Twenty-six of these 66
( = .05).
Table 14
T-Values--Pensacola Junior College
N - 12
Degrees of Freedom = 1 1
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
-.59
=.570
1.67
=.124
1.02
=.330
.85
=.412
-1.79
=.101
1.04
=.319
1.44
=.178
-1.60
=.137
-2.00
=.071
-2.86
=.015
-4.38
=.001
V2
--
1.97
=.074
1.29
=.224
1.20
=.256
-1.50
=.162
1.17
=.266
1.71
=.116
-.75
=.470
-1.19
=.258
-2.76
=.019
-4.63
-.001
V3
--
--
-.80
=.438
-1.13
=.281
-3.55
=.005
-1.20
=.256
-.62
=.551
-2.57
=.026
-2.95
=.013
-3.74
=.003
-9.07
-.000
V4
--
--
--
--
-.56
=.586
-2.95
=.013
-.30
=.772
.38
=.713
-1.76
=.106
-2.03
=.067
-2.86
-.015
-7.49
=.000
V5
--
--
-2.77
=.018
.15
=.884
.89
=.392
-1.70
=.118
-1.99
=.072
-3.10
-.010
-8.02
-.000
V6
--
--
--
2.29
=.042
3.04
=.011
.75
=.472
.40
=.698
-1.18
-.263
-3.26
-.008
V7
--
--
1.30
=.220
-1.74
=.109
-2.03
=067
-2.90
=.014
-5.74
-.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
-2.21
=.049
-2.55
-.027
-3.42
=.006
-7.88
-.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
-1.00
=.339
-1.98
=.074
-4.36
=.001
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-1.70
=.118
-4.10
=.002
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-1.37
=.197
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
CO
O'
87
to support the withdrawal of the proposal.
The antic
In the intercorre
( = .05).
None of
( = .014).
Furthermore,
several of
Table 15
Intercorrelation Matrix--Pensacola Junior College
<N = 12)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
V2
Anticipated
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
VB
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
--
.5646
=.056
-.0859
=.791
-.0851
=.793
-.0435
=.893
.3588
=.252
.1099
-.734
-.1076
=.739
.6146
=.033
.5402
=.070
.1149
=.722
-.2891
=.362
V2
--
-.0866
=.789
-.1443
=.655
-.0549
=.865
.5042
=.095
-.3133
=.321
-.1802
=-575
.4240
=.170
.4517
=.140
.3257
=.302
.1339
-.678
V3
--
.7727
=.003
.4086
=.187
.3590
=.252
.6082
=.036
.8035
=.002
-.1914
=.551
-.2636
-.408
-.3803
=.223
.3466
-.270
V4
--
--
.7248
=.008
.4055
=.191
.5429
=.068
.7330
=.007
-.2579
=.418
-.3393
-.281
-.4903
=.106
.4146
-.180
V5
--
--
--
--
--
.3896
=.211
.3855
=.216
.5075
=.092
-.2553
=.423
-.3727
=.233
-.3178
=.314
.4094
-.186
V6
--
--
--
--
-.0240
=.941
.1959
=.542
.3951
=.204
.2629
-.409
.1136
=.725
.3502
=.264
V7
--
--
.8583
=.000
-.3415
=.277
-.4610
=.132
-.6144
=.034
-.2115
=.509
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.3784
=.225
-.4841
=.111
-.5396
=.070
.1730
=.591
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
.9113
=.000
.1555
=.629
.2295
=.473
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.0933
=.773
.1897
=.555
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
.0168
=.959
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
00
00
89
correlated with both anticipated personal loss and antic
ipated professional loss.
Change in a perception of
90
correlated with current personal gain and with current
positive personal value.
These
91
The similarity between the personal and professional
items generally held for the loss and gain lists, possibly
indicating a difficulty in separating out loss and gain
along personal and professional dimensions.
The clearest
92
losses obtained in the proposal withdrawal were listed as
gains.
(Appendix M ) .
(espe
93
withdrawal.
variable means for both time periods were not as clear for
the emotional responses.
The great
est differences between the two time frames were found for
94
Table 16
Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations
Pensacola Junior College
(N = 12)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(1,4)
2
-
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(l)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
7
1
3
6
5
5
-1
4
2
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(A)
.
1
3
-
3
-1
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
Fearless(l,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
_
-
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,4)
1
1
-1
1
-
1
-
1
-
-1
-
-1
2
table continues
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
2
-
i
i
-
_
-
A
2
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(A)
Steady(5)
1
5
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcerned(l)
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
_
-
1
-
i
6
-3
1
1
1
1
8
-
*1.
2.
3.
A.
5.
-1
1
-
Rattled
Restless
Sad(A)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,A)
Warm(5)
Worrying(3)
_
i
-
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
-A
2
1
5
1
1
0
1
5
-
1
1
-
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
0
A
-
96
these adjectives.
For example,
Similarly,
the
Conversely,
the Acceptance
Furthermore,
the majority
While it may be
true that there was greater acceptance for the merger plan
than for its withdrawal,
was unknown.
97
quo, which for some respondents was described as a definite
loss.
this
In response
Accordingly,
several
98
costs,
99
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Cooper Green Hospital
(N = 16)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
2.313
4.496
5.0(0,5)
3.875
7.850
7.0(0,7)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum,Maximum)
3.563
6.396
7.0(0,7)
4.250
6.733
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Rang e (Min i m u m ,Max imum)
.688
1.829
4.0(0,4)
1.750
5.533
7.0(0,7)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
.750
2.333
5.0(0,5)
1.875
4.783
7.0(0,7)
1.250
5.133
8.0(0,8)
2.625
6. 783
8.0(0,8)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum,Maximum)
4.625
7.317
8.0(0,8)
6.063
2.462
5.0(3,8)
100
situation.
Similarly,
the anticipated
gain means were larger than the current gain means, possi
bly denoting a perception that despite the estimated larger
future losses,
101
the
In 11 of these 37 pairs,
mean was the larger mean.
Table 18
T-Values--Cooper Green Hospital
N = 16
Degrees of Freedom = 1 5
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
V12
VI
-1.85
=.083
3.10
=.007
2.82
=.013
1.42
=.177
-3.20
=.006
-2.09
=.054
-2.28
=.037
.88
=.392
.68
=.504
-.38
=.712
-7.44
=.000
V2
--
--
4.60
=.000
4.63
=.000
2.32
=.035
-1.48
=.158
-.38
=.707
-.92
=.371
2.08
=.055
1.93
-.073
.90
=.381
-3.60
-.003
V3
--
-.14
=.887
-1.01
=.327
.584
=.000
-3.70
=.002
-4.14
=.001
-2,35
=.033
-2.89
=.011
-3.34
=.005
-10.60
-.000
V4
--
--
--
--
-.66
=.517
-5.35
=.000
-4.10
=.001
-5.27
=.000
-1.46
=.164
-1.75
-.101
-2.37
-.031
-10.17
-.000
V5
--
--
-4.01
=.001
-2.51
=.024
-2.93
=.010
-.83
=.422
-1.00
-.333
-2.76
=.015
-6.85
=.000
V6
--
--
--
--
.85
=.409
.38
=.710
3.11
=.007
2.98
=.009
1.95
=.070
-2.30
=.036
V7
--
-.68
=.509
2.22
=.042
2.00
=.064
1.10
=.289
-3.45
=.004
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2.60
=.020
2.33
=.034
1.44
=.172
-2.75
=.015
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.42
=.684
-1.96
=.069
-7.23
=.000
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-1.73
-.104
-7.32
=.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-4.29
=.001
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
102
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
103
personal and professional loss, current change magnitude,
and all six anticipated time frame variables.
Current pro
Thus, while it
These antic
These
While the
104
as greater than the current change situation.
The differ
terms of the
explained in
the uncertainty of
the minds of
the
respondents.
Pearson correlation coefficients.
Of the 66 variable
( = .05).
More specifically,
these
Statis
Table 19
Intercorrelation Matrix Cooper Green Hospital
(N = 16)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
.3380
=.200
.3385
=.200
.2933
=.270
.0659
=.808
.3008
=.258
.2876
=.280
-.0273
-.920
.3509
=.183
.2965
=.265
.0226
=.934
.4345
=.093
V2
.2887
=.278
.3667
=.162
-.3869
=139
.4032
=.121
.2552
=.340
.3225
=.223
-.0196
=.943
-.0949
=.727
-.3100
=.243
.1417
-.601
V3
--
--
.2824
=.289
.3318
=.209
.2574
=.336
-.2925
=.272
-.4702
=.066
.6444
=.007
.6621
-.005
.4566
=.075
.0412
=.880
V4
--
--
-.2312
=.389
.1533
=.571
.1013
=.709
.2523
=.346
.0557
=.838
.0698
-.797
-.1089
=.688
.0904
=.739
V5
--
--
--
--
--
.0925
=.733
-.3518
=.181
.4196
=.106
.4503
=.080
.3700
-.158
.6722
=.004
-.0422
.877
V6
--
--
--
--
--
--
.1781
=.509
-.1187
=.661
-.0681
=.802
-.1324
=.625
-.1916
-.477
.4142
=.111
V7
--
--
--
.6648
=.005
-.0961
=.723
-.2747
=.303
-.4180
=.107
.4416
=.087
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.2075
=.441
-.4523
=.079
-.5179
-.040
.2742
=.304
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
.8617
=.000
.7454
=.001
.3115
=.240
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.7520
=.001
.2938
=.269
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.1244
=.646
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
105
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
106
was obtained for anticipated value and professional loss.
The relationship between each of these variable pairs
could be a result of such factors as the unclear future
of the hospital,
Respondents gener
income,
107
The anticipated loss items were quite similar to the
current loss items in their content and the overlap of the
personal and professional categories.
Respondents pro
Anticipated gains
salary, position,
108
Anticipated personal and professional gain categories
also overlapped.
109
demonstrate to the public that the county commission was
concerned about the future of the hospital.
Others
In addition,
Table 20
Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations
Cooper Green Hospital
(N = 16)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(1,4)
4
4
7
5
1
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,4)
Concerned
2
1
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(1)
Cross(2)
Depressed(4)
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(1)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
Fearless(1,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(4)
Furious(2)
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(4)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(4)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(l)
Insecure(3,4)
2
6
2
1
Diffei
(antic.-4
-2
-1
-3
4
3
2
2
8
2
2
2
2
-6
3
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
0
3
-1
-1
14
_
1
-
1
6
1
2
3
1
_
6
2
-1
3
-
-3
_
-1
2
-3
0
1
1
2
1
-5
0
4
1
5
1
1
-2
-5
table continues
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
.
1
1
2
1
-1
1
2
-2
2
1
-
1
-
2
-
2
-1
-
2
1
-1
2
1
1
3
6
1
2
-1
-4
1
1
1
2
7
5
-
1
4
2
-3
4
2
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcerned(1)
-2
9
4
1
3
2
-
-6
-2
-1
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,4)
Warm(5)
Worrying(3)
7
4
4
5
1
3
-3
1
1
-1
*1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
4
-
112
These Denial
113
Albany Junior College
General ba c k g r o u n d.
In April
1982).
the similarity
(p. 17).
Additionally,
instruments distributed
114
were used in data analysis.
the respondents
115
Table 21
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Albany Junior College
(N = 45)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum,Maximum)
2.644
7.416
7.0(0,7)
4.089
7.265
7.0(0,7)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum .Maximum)
3.244
9.007
7.0(0,7)
4.822
5.922
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum .Maximum)
.867
1.936
5.0(0,5)
1.422
3.931
6.0(0,6)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range (Min imum .Maximum)
.844
1.9074
4.0(0,4)
1.200
3.073
6.0(0,6)
.689
1.674
7.0(0,7)
.844
2.089
7.0(0,7)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range (Min imum, Max imum)
2.067
3.836
8.0(0,8)
5.444
7.798
8.0(0,8)
116
anticipated that the merger would precipitate approxi
mately moderate personal loss and moderate professional
loss.
gain means,
Similarly,
Table 22
T-Values Albany Junior College
N = 45
Degrees of Freedom = 44
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Anticipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
-2.08
E -043
4.57
=.000
4.16
=.000
4.38
=.000
1.38
=.174
-4.19
-.000
-.570
-.000
2.51
=.016
2.83
=.007
3.80
-.000
-5.99
-.000
V2
--
5.22
=.000
4.91
=.000
5.02
=.000
2.35
=.023
-2.07
=.044
4.31
=.000
3.26
=.002
3.46
-.001
4.52
-.000
-4.05
=.000
V3
--
--
--
.14
=.890
.85
=.400
-4.73
=.000
-7.28
=.000
-9.38
=.000
-1.84
-.073
-1.39
=.172
.11
-.910
-10.33
-.000
V4
--
--
.82
=.419
-3.97
=.000
-6.82
=.000
-8.67
-.000
-1.86
=.070
-1.63
=.110
.00
=1.000
-10.33
=.000
V5
--
--
-4.59
=.000
-7.26
=.000
-9.35
=.000
-2.40
=.021
-2.18
=.035
-1.31
=.197
-10.85
=.000
V6
--
--
-4.52
-.000
-6.44
=.000
1.83
=.074
2.62
=.012
3.89
=.000
-7.92
=.000
V7
--
--
--
-2.83
=.007
5.20
=.000
5.33
=.000
6.53
-.000
-3.16
=.003
V8
--
--
--
--
--
7.21
=.000
6.95
=.000
8.28
=.000
-1.38
=.175
V9
--
--
--
--
--
.78
=.441
1.97
=.056
-7.74
=.000
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
1.79
=.081
-8.90
E-.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
--
117
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
-10.35
-.000
118
Thirteen of these 16 pairs indicate that while all
the variable means were greater in the anticipated time
frame than in the current time frame,
the current p e r
In addition,
the variable
Current change
An t i c
though it was
Table 23
Intercorrelation Matrix Albany Junior College
(H - 43)
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
V2
V3
Anticipated
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
VI0
Vll
VI2
VI
.7756
=.000
.3351
=.024
.1179
*.440
.0195
=.899
.3156
=.035
.6361
=.000
.5115
=.000
.0663
=.665
-.1324
=.386
-.0721
=,638
.3530
=.017
V2
.1930
=.204
.0204
-.894
-.1263
=.408
.1325
=.386
.5423
=.000
.6098
-.000
-.0941
-.539
-.3422
-.021
-.1849
-.224
.2091
-.168
V3
--
--
.6986
=.000
.4562
=.002
.5287
-.000
.0517
=.736
-.0206
=.893
.3174
=.034
.4957
=.001
.5771
=.000
.1150
=.452
V4
--
--
.5447
=.000
.2728
=.070
-.1366
=.371
-.2451
=.105
.2735
=.069
.5859
-.000
.6594
-.000
.1008
=.510
V5
--
--
--
.2864
=.056
-.1353
=.376
-.1912
=.208
.2739
=.069
.4991
=.000
.8365
-.000
.1146
=.453
V6
--
--
--
.1969
=.195
.1599
-.294
.2793
=.063
.2873
=.056
.2607
=.084
.3144
=.035
V7
.7751
-.000
-.0582
=.704
-.3069
=.040
-.2239
-.139
.4506
-.002
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.0171
=.911
-.3804
=.010
-.3376
=.023
.3363
=.024
V9
--
--
--
--
--
.4787
=.001
.3724
=.012
-.0388
=.800
VI0
--
--
--
--
--
--
.6674
=.000
.0650
=.671
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.1245
=.415
V12
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
119
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
120
( = .05).
Current personal
121
It is impossi
(r = .7751; = .000).
Antic
Anticipated p r o
122
the loss
Thirteen of these
123
professional gain, but not statistically significantly
correlated with anticipated personal gain.
Additionally,
As the
What
Also,
anticipated
Finally,
124
current personal loss.
The
While it can be
it is possible
125
that this was due to the respondents' perceptions of the
merger as affecting them in very broad and intertwined
terms.
to loss of
126
positions and community and professional status.
An t i c
Appendix Q pre
Listed most
Others noted
127
desegregation problems within the state university system.
In addition, the paradox of the mandate for desegregation
and the demand for preservation of historically black
institutions could not be solved through the merger of
the two schools.
On the other hand, a few respondents noted that
economic, racial, community and similar reasons were justi
fication enough for the change to occur.
institutional leadership,
Problems such as
128
Table 2A
Adjective Checklist Frequency of Nominations
Albany Junior College
(N - A5)
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious (3)
Apathetic(2,A )
3
7
9
21
A
8
6
10
17
2
5
-1
1
-A
-2
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,A )
Concerned
A
12
1
1
35
10
11
2
A
27
6
-1
1
3
-8
1
A
1
A
3
1
6
1
11
2
1
2
1
7
1
7
15
2
7
11
15
2
5
-1
A
0
0
-2
Fearless(l,5)
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened(A)
Furious(2)
1
A
5
1
2
1
3
9
5
5
0
-1
A
A
3
Glad
Gloomy(A)
Grim(A)
Guilty(A)
Happy
2
3
7
3
6
9
1
3
2
0 .
1A
2
3
A
11
1A
6
A
3
19
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(A)
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(l)
Discouraged(A)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,A )
Helpless(A)
Hopeless(A)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,A)
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
0
A
1
-1
8
table continues
Current
nominations
Anticipated
nominations
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Difference
(antic.-curr.)
0
0
1
1
1
4
1
1
11
1
7
4
3
3
4
-4
3
Overconcemed
Overwhelmed(4)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
1
1
4
2
2
4
3
6
3
2
3
2
2
1
Rattled
Restless
Sad(4)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
2
3
6
2
1
3
6
10
1
-
1
3
4
-1
-1
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(4)
Steady(5)
7
1
4
5
3
9
6
13
8
7
2
5
9
3
4
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3)
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcemed(l)
6
1
17
8
2
6
2
17
7
1
0
1
0
-1
-1
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,4)
Warm(5)
Worrying(3)
12
8
1
6
14
15
2
7
2
7
1
1
*1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
7
4
130
In their emotional responses more frequently nominated
for the anticipated merger than for the current situation,
the respondents registered the greater differences for
words in the three grief stages of Anger, Bargaining and
Depression, with the considerably smaller differences in
the stages of Denial and Acceptance.
Anger, Bargaining
stages of Denial and Acceptance were for the terms " dis
believing" and "steady," with four each.
Although the term "concerned" received eight fewer
nominations in the anticipated than in the current time
frame, the difference of nine more nominations for "shocked"
and seven more for "upset" in the anticipated than in the
current time frame reflected the tendency to view the merger
as emotionally negative.
the respondents'
131
Alternative Analysis Formats
In addition to combining individual responses to
produce site profiles, the site data were combined in
several ways for comparing the variables along the dimen
sions of institutional type, change event type, and change
event timing or occurrence.
This trend
At Pensacola Junior
For
132
Table 25
Alternative Analysis Formats
Table 26
Format 1 Means Comparison Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Individual Sites
Albany Junior
College (N - 45)
Cooper Green
Hospital (N - 16)
Pensacola Junior
College (N - 12)
University of West
Florida (N - 11)
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.6444
4.0889
2.3125
3.8750
1.8333
1.0833
.0909
1.6364
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.2444
4.8222
3.5625
4.2500
2.1667
.7500
1.0909
1.7273
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8667
1.4222
.6875
1.7500
.5833
2.6667
2.6364
.6364
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8444
1.2000
.7500
1.8750
.9167
2.9167
3.0909
1.5455
.6889
.8444
1.2500
2.6250
1.1667
4.5000
2.5455
2.4545
2.0667
5.4444
4.6250
6.0625
3.2500
5.8333
4.9091
6.8182
Table 27
Format 2 Means Comparison--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Generic Institutional Type
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.3125
3.8750
2.0882
3.1618
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.5625
4.2500
2.7059
3.6029
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.6875
1.7500
1.1029
1.5147
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.7500
1.8750
1.2206
1.5588
1.2500
2.6250
1.0735
1.7500
Change Magnitude
Current
Anticipated
4.6250
6.0625
2.7353
5.7353
Table 28
Format 3 Means Comparison--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Specific Institutional Type
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.4737
3.4561
.0909
1.6364
2.3125
3.8750
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.0175
3.9649
1.0909
1.7273
3.5625
4.2500
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8070
1.6842
2.6364
.6364
.6875
1.7500
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8596
1.5614
3.0909
1.5455
.7500
1.8750
.7895
1.6140
2.5455
2.4545
1.2500
2.6250
Change Magnitude
Current
Anticipated
2.3158
5.5263
4.9091
6.8182
4.6250
6.0625
Table 29
Format 4 Means Comparison--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Change Type
Announced consideration
for merger (1)
(45 individuals)
Merger proposal
withdrawal (2)
(23 individuals)
Resignation of Board
of Trustees (1)
(16 individuals)
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.6444
4.0889
1.0000
1.3478
2.3125
3.8750
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.2444
4.8222
1.6522
1.2174
3.5625
4.2500
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8667
1.4222
1.5652
1.6957
.6875
1.7500
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8444
1.2000
1.9565
2.2609
.7500
1.8750
.6889
.8444
1.8261
3.5217
1.2500
2.6250
2.0667
5.4444
4.0435
6.3043
4.6250
6.0625
Table 30
Format 5 Means Comparison--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Change Event Timing
Personal Loss
Current
Anticipated
2.6444
4.0889
1.5385
2.3846
Professional Loss
Current
Anticipated
3.2444
4.8222
2.4359
2.4615
Personal Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8667
1.4222
1.2051
1.7179
Professional Gain
Current
Anticipated
.8444
1.2000
1.4615
2.1026
.6889
.8444
1.5897
3.1538
2.0667
5.4444
4.2821
6.2051
138
gain of the proposal withdrawal as greater than the antic
ipated merger.
loss variable was larger in the current time frame than the
anticipated time frame.
Collectively,
This difference
139
variable means suggests that the anticipated future of a
change event was perceived as promising larger structural
changes of greater positive personal value and encompassing
greater losses and gains on both personal and professional
levels.
depend
This
140
On a different level, the site data were compared
and combined for analysis of the effects of the dimensions
of institutional type, change event type, and change event
timing.
Their
This
Chapter 5
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES
Introduction
Chapter 4 presented the different relationships among
loss, gain, value and magnitude variables obtained through
analytic formats based on individual sites, two categories
of institutional type, type of change event, and timing
of the change event.
In addition, the
141
142
Model are formed from the interaction of value and magni
tude dimensions similar to the ones used in the Loss and
Gain Questionnaire.
and gain scores were compared using the ANOVA and Scheffe
procedures.
Furthermore,
The antic
143
Table 31
Descriptive Statistics--Loss and Gain Questionnaire Values
Total Research Site Subjects
(N = 84)
Time frame
Variable
Current
Anticipated
Personal Loss
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum.Maximum)
2.131
5.995
7.0(0,7)
3.298
7.778
7.0(0,7)
Professional Loss
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum .Maximum)
2.869
7.826
7.0(0,7)
3.726
8.033
7.0(0,7)
Personal Gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Minimum.Maximum)
1.024
3.060
7.0(0,7)
1.560
4.274
7.0(0,7)
Professional Gain
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum .Maximum)
1.131
3.681
7.0(0,7)
1.619
3.901
7.0(0,7)
1.107
3.615
8.0(0,8)
1.917
6.005
8.0(0,8)
Change Magnitude
Mean
Variance
Range (Minimum,Maximum
3.095
6.882
8.0(0,8)
5.798
5.440
8.0(0,8)
144
gain or value scores in both time periods.
Similarly,
These
This larger
( = .05).
Table 32
Degrees of Freedom = 83
Anticipated
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
-3.18
=.002
3.53
=.001
2.86
=.005
2.92
=.005
-2.61
=.011
-4.18
=.000
-4.98
=.000
1.82
=.072
1.50
=.139
.54
=.590
-11.16
-.000
V2
5.03
=.000
4.51
=.000
4.30
=.000
-.59
=.560
-1.29
=.202
-2.64
=.010
3.57
=.001
3.21
=.002
2.26
=.026
-7.85
-.000
V3
- .49
=.625
-.46
=.645
-7.10
=.000
-6.53
=.000
-7.14
=.000
-1.88
-.063
-2.32
=.023
-2.92
=.005
-16.24
=.000
V4
--
--
--
.10
=.924
-6.38
=.000
-.565
=.000
-6.94
=.000
-1.40
=.165
-1.71
=.090
-2.36
021
-15.28
-.000
V5
--
--
-6.55
=.000
-5.67
=.000
-6.42
=.000
-1.56
=.122
-1.90
=.061
-2.94
=.004
-15.53
-.000
V6
--
--
-.49
-.626
-1.45
=.150
4.61
=.000
4.63
=.000
3.43
=.001
e -.q oq
-8.59
V7
--
--
--
-2.06
=.043
4.32
-.000
3.92
-.000
2.85
=.005
-7.24
=.000
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
5.30
=.000
4.67
E=.000
3.55
=.001
-5.56
-.000
V9
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.33
=.739
-1.38
=.171
-12.63
=.000
V10
--
--
--
--
--
-1.42
=.160
-13.30
=.000
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-11.02
=.000
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 - Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
145
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
--
Additionally,
anticipated positive
The undefined
the respondents'
estimated
147
The anticipated professional gain mean was also not statis
tically significantly greater than the current counterpart
and the current value means.
Pearson correlation coefficients.
Cur
The
The lack of
Table 33
Current
Anticipated
Current
VI
Antic ipated
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Vll
VI2
VI
.6780
=.000
.0921
=.405
-.0627
=.571
-.0781
=.480
.1087
=.325
.5289
=.000
.3889
=.000
.1996
=.069
.0055
-.961
-.0986
-.372
.2072
-.059
V2
--
-.0412
-.710
-.0888
=.422
-.2510
=.021
.1478
=.180
.4019
=.000
.4422
=.000
.0691
=.532
-.0920
-.405
-.0754
=.495
.1196
-.279
V3
.4083
=.000
.5934
=.000
.3041
=.005
.0677
=.541
-.0935
=.398
.0729
=.510
.2049
-.062
.1382
-.210
.1518
-.168
V4
--
--
--
.2801
=.010
.2584
=.018
-.0871
=.460
-.0022
=.984
.0117
=.916
.1023
-.354
.0408
713
.1433
-.193
V5
--
--
--
--
.2757
=.011
-.1061
=.337
-.2158
=.049
.1072
=.332
.1875
=.088
.3510
=.001
.1571
=.154
V6
--
.0191
=.863
-.0645
=.560
.1678
=.127
.2163
-.048
.2299
-.035
.3281
=.002
V7
--
.7695
=.000
-.1337
=.225
-.3401
=.002
-.4335
=.000
.2464
=.024
V8
--
--
--
--
--
--
-.1483
=.178
-.4601
=.000
-.5602
=.000
.1373
=.213
V9
--
--
--
--
.6754
=.000
.4588
=.000
.0263
=.813
V10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.6406
=.000
.1183
=.303
Vll
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.0898
=.417
VI2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
V4 = Professional Gain
V5 = Positive Personal Value
V6 = Change Magnitude
V7 = Personal Loss
V8 = Professional Loss
V9 = Personal Gain
148
VI = Personal Loss
V2 = Professional Loss
V3 = Personal Gain
149
consistently strong and significant correlations in this
time frame, however, demonstrates that the ratings for each
of these variables were somewhat independent of each other.
Despite the fact that the loss and gain items presented in
Chapter 4 were often duplicated for both personal and p r o
fessional dimensions for both time frames, the correlation
of the combined loss and gain variables in this chapter
seem to indicate that the quantitative estimations of these
items across time and personal and professional dimensions
were somewhat independent.
Nine statistically significant coefficients were o b
tained in the pairings of the six variables within the
future time frame.
150
correlated with both anticipated professional gain and
with anticipated positive personal value.
Anticipated
scoring differences,
The remaining
151
of current magnitude with anticipated professional gain,
with anticipated positive personal value, and with antic
ipated magnitude.
The strongest relationship between the current variable
ratings and the future variable ratings was obtained most
notably with the loss variables.
the total combined sites did not fall into clear patterns
of similarities or differences.
The
Table 34
Item(*)
cu3
AHb
Dc
Item
CU
AN
Afraid(3)
Agitated(2)
Angry(2)
Anxious(3)
Apathecic(l.A)
Bitter(2)
Calm(5)
Cheerful(1)
Complaining(2,A)
Concerned
Contented(5)
Contrary(2)
Cool(l)
Cross(2)
Depressed(A)
Desperate(3)
Disbelieving(l)
Discouraged(4)
Easy-going(5)
Fearful(2,3,4)
Fearless(i,S)
Fretful
Friendly
7
13
16
26
5
6
23
A
1
55
5
1
6
A
8
1
9
22
A
10
1
7
6
8
10
16
23
A
14
21
12
6
47
9
2
10
3
13
0
14
25
A
7
1
5
16
1
-3
0
-3
-1
8
-2
8
5
-8
A
1
A
-1
5
-1
5
3
0
-3
0
-2
10
Frightened(A)
Furious(2)
Glad
Gloomy(4)
Grim(A)
Guilty(4)
Happy
Helpless(4)
Hopeless(A)
Hostile(2)
Indifferent(1)
Insecure(3,A)
Jealous(2)
Joyful
Kindly(5)
Light-hearted
Lonely(A)
Mad<2)
Mean(2)
Miserable(A)
Nervous(3)
Numb(1]
Overconcemed
A
3
7
8
9
7
20
2
6
5
18
1
4
2
0
0
8
1
1
13
1
0
6
6
13
7
11
2
3
6
-1
2
A
-6
4
2
1
11
0
0
1
2
3
1
3
6
-A
3
2
11
14
6
8
A
29
1
A
3
2
3
9
A
7
9
A
2
Item
CU
AN
Overwhelmed(A)
Panicky(3)
Peaceful(5)
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
Sad(A)
Secure(5)
Sentimental
Serious(3,5)
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn(4)
Steady(5)
Tense(2,3)
Terrified
Threatened(2,3]
Thoughtful(5)
Unconcemed(l)
Uneasy(3)
Upset(2,A)
Warm< 5)
Worrying(3)
3
1
11
A
4
11
12
12
2
13
1
8
5
9
10
1
26
19
3
19
12
1
11
A
3
11
11
5
11
17
8
3
16
6
16
13
15
9
2
21
18
1
19
22
8
12
1
2
0
7
1
0
5
-A
1
3
5
8
8
6
-1
1
-5
-1
-2
0
10
7
1
153
While several words obtained differences of five
nominations or more between the two time periods,
these
For example,
the negative
some of
154
positive, more negative and more traumatic than the current
state of affairs.
More specifically,
On balance,
these differences
155
in a change situation,
If this
then of
the inclusion
Additionally,
it doubles the
these correla
In this case,
Additionally,
156
value and magnitude.
emotional
Also,
the space provided for listing loss and gain items could
be included for the value and magnitude variables so that
respondents could elaborate upon their value and magnitude
ratings.
A positive professional value dimension to complement
the positive personal value dimension should be considered
for inclusion in the Loss and Gain Questionnaire.
This
157
not exist or is not of interest in this type of research.
While this omission can be attributed to the influence of
the positive personal value dimension of the Sudden Change
Model, no such assumptions were made.
The Adjective Checklist appears to provide a range
of emotions broad enough to cover the reactions of the
respondents in this research.
With the
(Michael,
1982).
The Sudden
158
and the perception of magnitude are reflected in the possi
ble relationships between the individual and the organiza
tion.
in the relationship.
The
The Y-axis
159
4V
[7]
Moderate
Value
Co-optation
Withdrawal
Extensive
Value
Co-optation
[A]
2V
Status Quo
No
Value
7V
Mutual
Accommodation
[5]
[9]
Co-optation
I [6]
Co-optation
[2 ]
[1 ]
X
[8 ]
Significant
Change
2C
Withdrawal
[3]
1
No
Change
Moderate
Change
Extensive
Change
7C
4C
160
Each section of the change matrix is labeled in terms
of one of five categories which describe the relationships
between the individual and the organization in a change
process.
(or p o s
educational institutions.
161
For Section 2V, the individual places moderate value
on a need for change, but this is in conflict with the no
change perception which exists.
the individual
Here the
162
In this case both the value and the perception are moder
ate, resulting in mutual accommodation between the organiza
tion and the individual.
accepted change.
Sections 4V and 4C represent the greatest difference
between the imputed value and the perceived magnitude of
change.
often with
(4C),
Or,
163
to follow the old departmental guidelines despite depart
mental adoption of a new examination policy.
case,
In either
Such a
the relationship.
In Sections 7V and 7C the situation is similar to the
one on Sections 2C and 2V.
Although similar to
164
relationship has occurred.
statistics for the loss and gain variables for each cell
in the current time frame.
(F = 8.306; = .0000).
Troublesome about
Table 35
Sudden Change Model Descriptive Statistics
Current Time Frame
Sudden Change
Model Cell (*)
Value
score
Magnitude
score
Personal
loss
Professional
loss
Personal
gain
Professional
gain
Status Quod)
N - 39
0.1.2
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
2.051
6.260
7.0(0,7)
2.538
8.308
7.0(0,7)
.333
.596
4.0(0,4)
.615
1.822
6.0(0,6)
Co-optation<2)
N - 18
0.1.2
3.4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.444
5.556
7.0(0,7)
3.778
7.007
7.0(0,7)
1.000
2.471
5.0(0,5)
.944
2.056
4.0(0,4)
Withdrawal(3)
H - 14
0.1,2
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
RangelMin. ,Max.)
2.643
7.170
7,0(0,7)
4.537
7.170
7.0(0,7)
.857
1.824
4.0(0,4)
1.429
5.802
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(4)
B -
3,4,5
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Mutual Accommodatian(5)
N 6
3,4,5
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
.333
.267
1.0(0,1)
1.333
2.267
3.0(0,3)
2.167
5.767
5.0(0,5)
2.833
10.567
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(6)
N - 3
3,4,5
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
3.667
12.333
7.0(0,7)
1.667
4.333
4.0(0,7)
3.667
12.333
7.0(0,7)
2.667
5.333
4.0(0,4)
Withdrawal(7)
N - 1
6,7,8
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
.000
.000(1,1)
.000
.000
.000
7.000
.000
.000(7,7)
.000
.000
.000
Co-optation(S)
N - 1
6,7,8
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
4.000
.000
.000(4,4)
4.000
.000
.000(4,4)
Significant Change(9)
N - 2
6,7.8
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
.000
.000
.000
4.000
2.000
2.0(3,5)
2.500
12.500
5.0(0,5)
(*)Revised
1.000
2.000
8.000
4.0(0,4)
Table 36
Sudden Change Model Descriptive Statistics
Anticipated Time Frame
Value
score
Magnitude
score
Status Quo(l)
N - 10
0.1.2
0,1,2
Co-optation(2)
H - 6
0,1.2
Withdrawal(3)
N - 42
Personal
loss
Professional
loss
Personal
gain
Professional
gain
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.500
6.500
6.0(0,6)
3.200
7.511
7.0(0,7)
1.600
4.933
6.0(0,6)
.800
1.733
4.0(0,4)
3.4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.1
1.500
1.900
4.0(0,4)
3.500
3.100
5.0(1,6)
.667
.667
2.0(0,2)
1.333
3.867
5.0(0,51
0,1,2
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
4.595
7.174
7.0(0,7)
5.167
5.801
7.0(0,7)
.905
2.820
6.0(0,6)
.762
1.844
5.0(0,5)
Co-optation(4)
N
3,4.5
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Mutual AccommodationO)
N - 7
3,4,5
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
1.857
3.143
5.0(0,5)
2.571
5.286
6.0(0,6)
1.714
4.571
4.0(0,4)
2.571
3.286
4.0(0,4)
Co-optation(6)
N - 9
3,4,5
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
3.889
6.611
7.0(0,7)
2.667
9.000
7.0(0,7)
3.111
4.361
6.0(0,6)
3.667
2.250
5.0(1,6)
Withdrawal(7)
N -
6,7,8
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Co-optation(8)
N - 1
6,7,8
3.4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Significant Changc(9)
N = 9
6,7,8
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Sudden Change
Model cell (8)
.000
.000
.000
.222
.194
1.0(0,0)
.000
.000
.000
.111
.111
1.0(0,1)
.000
.000
.000
3.667
5.250
7.0(0,7)
.000
.000
.000
4.111
4.361
6.0(1,7)
Table 37
Sudden Change
Model cell (*)
Value
score
Magnitude
score
Personal
loss
Professional
loss
Personal
gain
Professional
gain
Status Quo(l)
N - 49
0,1,2
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.143
6.208
7.0(0,7)
2.673
8.053
7.0(0,7)
.592
1.663
6.0(0,6)
.653
1.773
6.0(0,6)
Co-optation(2)
N - 24
0,1,2
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
2.208
4.694
7.0(0,7)
3.708
5.868
7.0(0,7)
.917
1.993
5.0(0,5)
1.042
2.389
5.0(0,5
Withdrawal(3)
N - 56
0,1,2
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
4.107
7.770
7.0(0,7)
4.964
6.144
7.0(0,7)
.893
2.534
6.0(0,6)
.929
2.831
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(4)
N -
3,4,5
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
Mutual Accommodation(5)
N - 13
3,4,5
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Kax.)
1.154
2.308
5.0(0,5)
2.000
4.000
6.0(0,6)
1.923
4.744
5.0(0,5)
2.692
6.064
7.0(0,7)
Co-optation(6)
N - 12
3,4,5
6,7.8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
3.833
7.061
7.0(0,7)
2.417
7.538
7.0(0,7)
3.250
5.477
7.0(0,7)
3.417
2.811
6.0(0,6)
Withdrawal(7)
5 - 1
6,7,8
0,1,2
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
1.000
.00
.000(1,1)
.000
.000
.000
7.000
.000
.000(7,7)
Co-optation(8)
N - 2
6,7,8
3,4,5
Mean
Variance
Range(Min..Max.)
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
2.000
8.000
4.0(0,4)
2.000
8.000
4.0(0,4)
Significant Change(9)
N = 11
6,7,8
6,7,8
Mean
Variance
Range(Min.,Max.)
3.727
4.418
7.0(0,7)
3.818
5.164
7.0(0,7)
.545
1.473
4.0(0,4)
.091
.091
1.0(0,1)
.000
.000
.000
Table 38
Analysis of Variance and Scheffe Procedure Summaries
for Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Single Time Frame Analysis
Sudden Change Model
Current
Variable
115
a
between
MS .
within
Personal
Loss
5.4291
14.5060
Profes
sional
Loss
Personal
Gain
Profes
sional
Gain
Anticipated
Fratio
Fprob.
6.0468
.898
7.2108
2.012
Variable
m
c
between
MS
.
within
Fratio
Fprob.
SSD cells*
.5127
Personal
Loss
35.0231
5.6548
6.194
.0000
3:9
.0644
Profes
sional
Loss
40.1943
5.5264
7.273
.0000
3:9
Personal
Gain
14.5054
3.4762
4.173
.0011
3:9
Profes
sional
Gain
23.4423
2.3786
9.855
.0000
1:6
1:9
3:6
3:9
15.7245
1.8932
8.306
.0000
7.1365
3.3632
2.122
.0511
SSD cells*
1:6
1:7
2:7
3:7
169
sizes of 3 and 1 for Cells 6 and 7, respectively, when
compared to sample sizes of 39 for Cell 1, 18 for Cell 2,
and 14 for Cell 3.
Cell 3
This
170
findings, however,
These findings
Tentatively,
this suggests
Again,
this speculation.
Because the Sudden Change Model was not structured to
delineate between the current and the anticipated time
frames within and among the nine cells,
respondents'
each of the 84
Table 39
Analysis of Variance and Scheffe Procedure Summaries
for Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Comparison Between Time Frames
Sudden Change Model
MS i
within
Fratio
Fprob.
Personal
Loss
21.8078
5.8495
3.728
.0000
Professional
Loss
26.6832
6.3631
4.193
.0000
3AC:9A
Personal
Gain
14.9398
2.6899
5.554
.0000
1C: 9A
Professional
Gain
14.3297
2.8677
4.997
.0000
1C: 9A
3A:9A
Variable
SSD cells*
172
combined current and anticipated scores on the four loss
and gain variables.
Table 40.
Each of the four variables obtained a significant
F-score ( = .000).
seven
of the cell pairs for personal gain, and seven of the cell
pairs for professional gain were statistically significantly
different.
Cells 3 and 9 obtained statistically significantly
different means across all four loss and gain variables.
The Cell 3 personal and professional loss means were
significantly greater than the Cell 9 means.
Conversely,
Table 40
Analysis of Variance and Scheffe Procedure Summaries
for Loss and Gain Questionnaire Variables
Sudden Change Model
Total Combined Responses
MS
between3
MS ,
within
Fratio
Fprob.
Personal
Loss
35.2691
5.9588
5.919
.0000
Professional
Loss
50.8044
6.1968
8.198
.0000
Personal
Gain
36.6180
2.7149
9.804
.0000
Professional
Gain
25.7540
2.8694
8.976
.0000
Variable
SSD cells*
1:3
3:5
3:9
1:3
2:9
3:5
3:9
1:6
1:7
1:9
2:6
2:9
3:6
3:9
1:5
1:6
1:9
2:6
2:9
3:6
3:9
adf = 7. b df = 160.
*Statistically significant difference determined by the Scheffe Procedure
( = .05).
174
the remaining four of the pairs obtained their differences
for both personal and professional gain variables.
Cell 3
Because
(Total responses
175
Table 41
Adjective Checklist Nominations
Sudden Change Model Cells
{20% of Respondent Nominations)
Cells
Adjective
Afraid
Agitated
Angry
Anxious
Apathetic
Bitter
Calm
Cheerful
Complaining
Concerned
Contented
Contrary
Cool
Cross
Depressed
Desperate
Disbelieving
Discouraged
Easy-going
Fearful
Fearless
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened
Furious
Glad
Gloomy
Grim
Guilty
Happy
Helpless
Hopeless
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
table continues
176
Cells
Adjective
Hostile
Indifferent
Insecure
Jealous
Joyful
Kindly
Light-Hearted
Lonely
Mad
Mean
Miserable
Nervous
Numb
Overconcerned
Overwhelmed
Panicky
Peaceful
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
Sad
Secure
Sentimental
Serious
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn
Steady
Tense
Terrified
Threatened
Thoughtful
Unconcerned
Uneasy
Upset
Warm
Worrying
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
177
In the pattern of statistically significantly different
mean scores among the nine cells, Cells 2 and 3 had signif
icantly greater loss score means than Cell 9.
Additionally,
In addition,
the
The nominations
thus,
This seems to
179
Cell 6 could also be seen as a pivotal point in terms
of its adjectives.
Furthermore,
The
to the organiza
general support for the Sudden Change Model and its applica
tion to the research data.
is
What
180
is especially important for the continued development of
the Sudden Change Model is the collection of data from
organizational members who have withdrawn, according to the
Sudden Change Model, because of alienation from the
organization.
Conclusion
The analytic formats in this chapter demonstrate the
strength and flexibility of the Loss and Gain Questionnaire
and the Adjective Checklist.
Continued development of
181
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
In this chapter the major purposes of this study are
reviewed.
(1977)
(1982)
Social psychological
182
psychology of organizational change.
is methodological,
One problem
The
is
value components,
183
predominantly white institutions, and between public
indigent health care delivery and private indigent health
care delivery systems.
The challenge,
investigation
J. Stacy Adams
Additionally, wider
184
using these variables should continue, but in such a way as
to be open to analysis in the equity theory framework.
Alternative Analysis and Applications
Perceptual and emotional response data collected in
this research have been analyzed through conventional
statistical techniques and conceptual models.
A broader,
More specifically,
the
While the
1983).
Carrying
185
developed from these time series graphs.
The resulting
(cloud, constellation)
change, development
While
Organizational
depart
concerns
For example,
seminars,
These perceptions of
186
insight into change event effects previously not considered,
ranging from concern over lost office space or parking
privileges,
new conceptual picture, while possibly not affecting decisioning to the point of altering the course of change,
could, nonetheless,
This information
187
Conclusion
Organizational change remains a fertile field for con
tinued theory and research development.
change
it would cer
It would be hoped,
then, that
References
188
References
Albany Junior College. (1982). 1982-1984 Catalogue.
Albany: Albany Junior College.
Bigelow, John. (1982). A catastrophe model of organiza
tional change. Behavioral Sci e n c e , 2 7 , 26-42.
Bigelow, John. (1978). Evolution in organizations.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 8 , 7610-A.
(University Microfilms No. 7809272)
B o w l b y , John. (1980). Loss: sadness and depression.
New York: Basic B o o k s .
Dill, David D. & Friedman, Charles P. (1979). An analysis
of frameworks for research on innovation and change.
Review of Educational R e s e a r c h , 4 9 , 411-435.
D u c k w a l l , Julia M. & Johnson, F. Craig. (1982, May). The
language of qualitative issues. Paper presented at
the twenty-second Association for Institutional
Research Forum, Denver, CO.
Guastello, Stephen J. (1982). Color matching and shift
work. Behavioral Science, 2 7 , 131-139.
Imershein, Allen W. (1977). Organizational change as a
paradigm shift. In J. Kenneth Benson (Ed.),
Organizational analysis: critique and innovation
(pp. 35-45). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Katz, Daniel & Kahn, Robert L. (1978). The social
psychology of organizations (2nd e d . ). New Y o r k :
John Wiley & Sons.
Katz, Daniel, Kahn, Robert L. & Adams, J. Stacey (Eds.).
(1982). The study of organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kimberly, John R. (1980). The life cycle analogy and the
study of organizations. In John R. Kimberly,
Robert H. Miles & Associates, The organizational
life cycle (pp. 1-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
189
190
Konner, Melvin. (1982). Grief. In The tangled wing:
biological constraints of the human spirit
(pp. *25-356). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kiibler-Ross, Elisabeth. (1969). On death and d y i n g .
New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The structure of scientific
revolutions (2nd e d . ). Chi c a g o : University of
Chicago P r e s s .
Langston, Nancy F. (1977). A study of loss and grief, as
produced by structural organizational change.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 3 7 , 6182-A.
(University Microfilms No. 77-9313)
Michael, Robert. (1982, October). The sudden change model.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern
Association for Institutional Research, Birmingham,
AL.
Michael, Robert. (1983). [Application of geographical
density mapping techniques to the Sudden Change
Model]. Unpublished raw data.
Miller, Danny & Friesen, Peter H. (1980). Momentum and
revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of
Management J o u r n a l , 2 3 , 591-614.
Mills, Theodore M. (1967). The sociology of small grou p s .
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, I n c .
Newbould, Gerald D. (1980). A catastrophe theory analysis:
city government finances. Public Finance Quarterly,
8, 307-321.
Oliva, Terence A., Peters, Michael H . , & Murthy, H.S.K.
(1981). A preliminary empirical test of a cusp
catastrophe model in the social sciences. Behavioral
S cience, 2 6 , 153-162,
Pensacola Junior College. (1982). 1982-1983 Catalog.
Pensacola: Pensacola Junior College.
Scapens, Robert W . , Ryan, Robert J., & Fletcher, Leslie.
(1981). Explaining corporate failure: a catastrophe
theory approach. Journal of Business and Finance
A c c o u n t i n g , 8, 1-26.
191
Sheive, Linda Tinelli. (1981). A test and reformulation
of three developmental models of organizational
change in an organization of relative zero growth.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 4 2 , 3832-A.
TUniversity Microfilms No. DA8204116)
Sheridan, John E. (1980, August). Cusp-catastrophe model
of employee turnover. In Richard C. Huseman (Ed.),
Proceedings of the academy of man a g e m e n t , 161-165.
Sullivan, Margaret & Michael, Robert. (1982), [The
impact of organizational change on the urban m i s s i o n ] .
Unpublished raw data.
Thom, Rene. (1975). Structural stability and morphogenesis:
an outline of a general theory of models (D. h T Fowler,
Trans .) . Reading: W. A. Ben j ainin , I n c .
Thompson, Michael. (1979). Rubbish theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
University of West Florida. (1982a). University of West
Florida, 1982-1983 Catalog. Pensacola: University of
West Florida.
University of West Florida. (1982b, October). Recommenda
tions to unite Pensacola Junior College and the
University of West F l o r i d a . (Merger Plan D r a f t ) ,
P ensacola: University of West Florida.
University System of Georgia, Board of Regents. (1983,
F ebruary). The eighties and beyond: a commitment to
excellence. Atlanta: University System of Georgia,
Board of R e g e n t s .
Zeeman, E. C. (1980). Catastrophe models in administration.
In Paul J. Staskey (Ed.), Meeting the challenges of the
eighties: redirection of resources for renewal. The
Association for Institutional Research, Annual Forum
Proceedings, ~~5~| 9-24.
Zeeman, E. C. (1976, April). Catastrophe theory. Scientific
American, 234(4), 65-70, 75-83.
Appendices
192
Appendix A
Adjective Checklist Review Panel Form
193
Bob M ichael
D o cto ra l Student
Ed ucation al A d m in is tra tio n
6e o rg la S ta te U n iv e rs ity
195
Name _
D atei~
FEELINGS CHECKLISTI REVIEWER'S FORM
Below i * a l i s t o f words which describe d if f e r e n t fc e lln d s . Please check the ap p ro priate
column o r columns f o r those words which you b e lie v e r e f le c t one o r more o f th e f i v e s ta te s in
the Loss and G r ie f model.
FEELINGS
AFRAID
AGITATED
ANGRY
ANXIOUS
APATHETIC
BITTER
CALM
CHEERFUL
COMPLAINING
CONCERNED
CONTENTED
CONTRARY
COOL
CROSS
DEPRESSED
DESPERATE
DISBELIEVING
DISCOURAGED
EASY-GOING
FEARFUL
FEARLESS
FRETFUL
FRIENDLY
FRIGHTENED
FURIOUS
GLAD
GLOOMY
GRIM
GUILTY
HAPPY
HELPLESS
HOPELESS
196
FEELINGS
HOSTILE
INDIFFERENT
INSECURE
JEALOUS
JOYFUL
KINDLY
LIGHT-HEARTED
LONELY
MAD
(CAN
MISERABLE
NERVOUS
NUMB
OVERCONCERNED
OVERWHELMED
PANICKY
PEACEFUL
PLEASANT
RATTLED
RESTLESS
SAD
SECURE
SENTIMENTAL
SERIOUS
SHAKY
SHOCKED
SOLEMN
STEADY
TENSE
TERRIFIED
THREATENED
THOUGHTFUL
unconcerned
UNEASY
UPSET
WARM
WORRYING
197
PAGE 3
FEELINGS CHECKLISTI REVIEWER'S ADDITIONS
In the column* below Please l i * t any words you b e lie v e should be added to the FEELINGS
CHECKLIST In ord er to r e f le c t fe e lin e s in the Loss and G r ie f s t a le s .
DENIAL
ANGER
BARGAINING
DEPRESSION
Thank you
ACCEPTANCE
Appendix B
Review Panel Response Tally
198
199
FEELINGS
AFRAID
AGITATED
12
ANGRY
14
ANXIOUS
APATHETIC
11
BITTER
13
CALM
12
CHEERFUL
COMPLAINING
12
CONCERNED
CONTENTED
11
CONTRARY
14
11
CROSS
14
DEPRESSED
14
DESPERATE
12
14
COOL
DISBELIEVING
DISCOURAGED
14
EASY-GOING
10
FEARFUL
10
10
FEARLESS
FRETFUL
FRIENDLY
FRIGHTENED
FURIOUS
13
GLAD
GLOOMY
13
GRIM
13
GUILTY
10
HAPPY
HELPLESS
14
14
HOPELESS
200
FEELINGS
14
11
INSECURE
JEALOUS
JOYFUL
KINDLY
LIGHT-HEARTED
LONELY
13
MAD
13
MEAN
12
MISERABLE
14
NERVOUS
10
12
OVERCONCERNED
OVERWHELMED
12
PANICKY
PEACEFUL
13
PLEASANT
RATTLED
RESTLESS
SAD
14
SECURE
SENTIMENTAL
SERIOUS
SHAKY
SHOCKED
SOLEMN
STEADY
11
TENSE
10
TERRIFIED
THREATENED
HOSTILE
INDIFFERENT
NUMB
10
12
11
UNEASY
UPSET
12
WARM
WORRYING
THOUGHTFUL
UNCONCERNED
201
DENIAL
ANBER
BARGAINING
DEPRESSION
ACCEPTANCE
Avoiding(2)
Smothered(1)
Worthy(I)
Forsaken(1)
Hopeful(1)
Forgotten(1)
Seething(l)
Marketable(1)
Sinful(1)
Realistic(1)
Soaced-out(1)
Impotent(1)
Energized(l)
Worse(l)
Sobered(l)
Distorting(1)
Energerized(l)
Hapless(1)
Open(l)
Impotent(1)
Receptive(1)
Despair{1)
Energized(l)
Resignation(1)
Appendix C
Change Assessment Package--Pilot Test
202
203
Box 1028
Georgia S tate U n iv e rs ity
March 25. 1983
Sat
Bob Michael
Demographics
GENERAL INFORHATION
1. Do you have fa c u lty rank?
Ye*---------------------------------------------- What I t your rank? (Check one)
No ( I f No* then co
to duestion A)
In tru c to r
A * * l* t a n t Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Yes
No
4 . Do you have an a d m in is tra tiv e position?
Yes-----------------------------------------------What is your t i t l e ?
How lone have you had th is p ositio n? ___ Years
No ( I f No* then co
to duestion 5 )
5 . Do you have a s t a f f position?
Yes-----------------------------------------------What is your t i t l e ? _______________________ ____
How lone have you had th is position? ___ Years
No
6 . In which u n it were you employed a t the time of the mercer on J u ly 1* 1981?
Co 11 e tc of General s tu d ie s -* " --------- For
Col I tee of Urban L if e ----------------------- ---------- ---------------------For how lone? ___ Years
I n s t it u t e of Governmental
Other
A d m in is tratio n ------------------For
howlone?
Years
Years
7 . How would you view your primary work o rie n ta tio n ? (Check only one)
Persona I/c a r e e r -r e la te d
P o s itio n -re la te d
In s t it u t io n - r e la t e d
___ D is c ip lin e -r e la te d
_ _ Col I s e e -re la te d
ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST I
DIRECTIONS
s Please read the list below and check all those words which
describe your feelings at the time that the merger became
official as outlined in the merger statement.
Overwhelmed
1. ___ A fra id
47.
2. ___ A g ita te d
2 5 . ___ Furious
4 8 . .___Panicky
3 . ___ Angry
4 9 . ___ Peaceful
2 7 . ___ Gloomy
50.
5 . ___ A p a th e tic
2 8 . ___ Grim
5 1 . ___ R a ttle d
6 . ___ B i t t e r
7 . ___ Calm
3 0 . ___ Happy
a.
___ C h eerfu l
3 1 . ___ H e lp les s
54.
9 . ___ Complaining
56.
4.
Anxious
P lea san t
Secure
S eriou s
34. ___ I n d if f e r e n t
58.
3 6 . ___ Jealo us
37. ___ J o y fu l
6 0 . ___ Steady
11.
Contented
Shocked
3 8 . ___ K in d ly
1 6 . ___ D esperate
62. ___ T e r r i f i e d
4 0 . ___ Lonely
6 3.
4 1 . ___ Mad
4 2 . ___ Mean
4 3 . ___ M is e ra b le
66.
4 4 . __ _Nervous
22.
4 5 . ___ Numb
6 8 . ___ Warm
15.
Depressed
___ F r e t f u l
2 3 . ___ F rie n d ly
46 .
Overconcemed
T hreatened
Uneasy
206
207
MERGER STATEMENTi On J u ly I t 1901i the C o lle ts of P u blic and Urban A ffa ir s was
created as a re s u lt of the m crter of the C o lla te of General
S tu d les i the C o lla te of Urban L if e . and the I n s t it u t e of
___________________ Governmental A d m in is tra tio n .__________________________________
lossi_______________________________________________________________
208
MERGER STATEMENTi
(J u ly 1 . 1981)7
209
MERGER STATEKENTi On Ju ly 1 . 1981. the C o lla te of Public and Urban A ffa ir s was
created as a r e s u lt o f the m erter of the Col I etc o f 6cncral
S tu d ie s , the C o lla te of Urban L i f e , and the I n s t it u t e of
___________________ Governmental A d m in is tra tio n .__________________________________
C urrent P rofessional
lossi___________________________________________________________
(J u ly 1 . 1981)7
lossi_______________________________________________________________
210
ICRGER STATEMENT) On Ju ly 1< 1961! th * C o lla te of P ublic and Urban A ffa ir s was
created os a r e s u lt o f the m crter of the Co I ted* o f General
S tu d ies i the C o lla te of Urban L if e i and the I n s t it u t e of
___________________ Governmental A d m in is tratio n .__________________________________
PROFESSIONAL GAIN - CURRENT
As you th in k about the cu rren t m crter s itu a tio n in your c o lla te ! do you have a
fee l i n t o f p ro fession al ta ln 7 Please ra te th is fee l i n t of c u rren t p rofessional
t a in u s ln t the scale belowi
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL GAIN
C ir c le your response (use only one whole number)
0 .................. 1 .................. 2 ...................3 ...................4 .................. 5 ..................
No
Minor
Moderate
Gain
Gain
6 a ln
What is
Considerable
Gain
Minor
Gain
Moderate
Gain
Considerable
Gain
(J u ly l i 1961)7
211
MERGER REASONS -
PAST
Please l i s t what you b elieved to b e .th e reasons fo r the mercer a t the time th a t i t
became o f f i c i a l (J u ly l i 19 61 ).
212
PAST - What p o s itiv e value f o r you did you b e lie v e th a t the mercer had a t the
the time i t became o f f i c i a l (J u ly I t 19811? Please use the sc ale to
in d ic a te your past p o s itiv e personal value ra tln C i
PAST POSITIVE PERSONAL VALUE
C ir c le your response (use only one whole number)
0 .................. 1 ....................2 .................. 3................... 4 ...................5...................6 ...................7 ...................8
No
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Value
Value
Value
Value
THE hERGER PROCESS - MAGNITUDE
CURRENT - What do you b e lie v e is the s iz e or the macnitude of the chances brouCht
about thus f a r aa a r e s u lt o f the mercer? Please use the scale below to
in d ic a te your assessment of the chance macnitudes
CURRENT CHANGE MAGNITUDE
C ir c le your response (use only one whole number)
0 . . .
Minor
Chance
No
Chance
Moderate
Chance
Extensive
Chance
PAST - What did you b e lie v e was the s ize or macnitude o f the chances broucht
about by the mercer when i t became o f f i c i a l (J u ly I t 1981)? Please use
the scale below to In d ic a te your oast assessment of the chance macnitudei
PAST CHANGE MAGNITUDE
C ir c le your response (use only one whole number)
0 . . . . .
No
Chance
Minor
Chance
Moderate
Chance
Extenalve
Chance
ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST I I
INTRODUCTION! As a change s itu a tio n progresses' people may fin d th a t t h e ir
reactio n s to the s itu a tio n also change. In the case of the
mercer o f the C o llece of General Studies* the C o llece of
Urban L lf c i and the In s t it u t e of Governmental A d m in is tratio n
your fee lin e s may today be d if fe r e n t from when the mercer
became o f f i c i a l as o u tlin e d in the merCer statement Civen
below.
MERGER
STATEMENT
DIRECTIONS
1. ___ A fra id
2.
A g itated
24.
Frightened
25.
Furious
48. ___Panicky
3. ___ Angry
4 . ___ Anxious
6. ___ B i t t e r
7. ___ Calm
8. ___ Cheerful
9. ___ Comp la in In c
32. ___Hopeless
55. ___Sentimental
10.
Concerned
33.
H o s tlle
u.
___ Contented
34.
In d iff e r e n t
58. ___Shocked
36. ___Jealous
61. ___Tense
16.
62. ___T e r r if ie d
40. ___Lone 1y
63. ___Threatened
41. ___Mad
64. ___Thoughtful
42. ___Mean
67.
69. ___Worrying
Desperate
Upset
214
COMMENT SHEET
Thank you fo r taking tha time to complete these instrum ents. Could you please
take a few more moments to answer these ev alu atio n questions?
Thank you
___ 3 0 - 4 5 minutes
___ 45 minutes or more
2 0 - 3 0 minutes
2 . How c le a r were the in s tru ctio n s? (C ir c le your response)
1 ................. . 2 ................. 3 ................... 4
Very
Unclear
C le a r
Very
Unclear
C lear
I f you rated the in s tru c tio n s as a 1 o r a 2> could you Please e x p la in what
3.
Were there any p arts of the Instruments which you had d i f f i c u l t y completing?
I f there were* could you Please t e l l me which questions were troublesome
and why you found them so?
4.
Did the form at of the m a te ria ls cause you any problems In reading o r com pleting
them? I f they dld< could you Please e x p la in the n a ture o f the problem?
5.
Appendix D
Sample Change Assessment Package--Final Form
215
216
217
218
ABJECTIVE CHECKLIST I
INTRODUCTION! A chande s itu a tio n may cause people to have any number of
responses* Please th in k about your fc e lin e s about the
withdrawal of the u n ific a tio n proposal as o u tlin e d In the
chande statem ent Clvcn below.
CHANGE
STATEMENTi
DIRECTIONS!
24.
25. ___Furious
48. ___Panicky
3. ___ Anery
49.
4. ___ Anxious
27.
G1oomy
28.
Grim
5. ___ A pathetic
Frldhtened
47. ___Overwhelmed
1. ___ A fra id
2. ___ A ditated
Peaceful
Restless
6. ___ B it t e r
52.
7. ___ Calm
30. ___Happy
53. ___Sad
a.
31.
Helpless
32.
Hopeless
Cheerful
9. ___ Comp 1a in in *
56.
34.
In d iffe r e n t
35.
Insecure
58.
J e a 1ous
13.
Coo 1
36.
14.
Cross
37. ___Joyful
Shocked
15.
16.
39.
L ld h t-h e arte d
62. ___T e r r if ie d
40.
Lane 1y
63.
Threatened
41. ___Mad
64.
Thoudhtful
42.
65.
Unconcerned
66.
Uneasy
17.
DlsbeI le v in *
IB . ___Discouraeed
19.
Eaay-dolnd
Fearless
Frien dly
Mean
43.
__Mlserab 1e
44.
Nervous
67. ___Upset
45.
Numb
68.
Warm
69.
Worryind
219
220
4
CHANGE STATEMENTt In October 1982 a formal Plan fo r th u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity o f West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C o llege was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 1963
___________________ the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
221
CHANGE STATEMENT! In October 19B2 a formal Plan f o r the u n ific a tio n o f the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C o lleg e was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 19B3
___________________ the u n ific a t io n proposal was withdrawn due to lack o f support.
222
ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST I I
INTRODUCTION!
CHANGE
STATEMENTI
DIRECTIONS!
1.
A fra id
2 4.
Frightened
47.
Overwhelmed
2.
A g itated
2 3.
Furious
48.
Panicky
3.
Angry
4 . __A n xlo us
27.
Gloomy
Grim
5.
A p ath etic
2 8.
A.
litte r
49.
Peaceful
30.
Pleasant
51.
Watt 1ed
32.
R estless
7 . ___ Calm
X .
Happy
S3.
Sad
8.
Cheerful
3 1.
Helpless
34.
Gecure
9.
Hopeless
Complaining
3 2.
35.
Sentiments 1
10.
Concerned
36.
Serious
U .
Contented
34.
In d iff e r e n t
12.
Contrary
33.
Insecure
13. ___Cool
Solemn
14. ^ _ C ro s s
60.
Steady
1 3. __Dcpresaed
38.
K indly
61.
Tense
1 6.
Desperate
39.
1 7 . ___D is b e lie v in g
4 0.
18.
Discouraged
4 1. ___ Had
19.
Easy-going
42.
Mean
20.
F e a rfu l
Lonely
62.
T e r r lf le d
63.
Threatened
64.
Thoughtful
63.
Unconcerned
Uneasy
43.
H ise ra b Is
66.
2 1 . ___ Fearless
44.
Nervous
67.
Usset
22.
68.
Wans
4 6 . ___ Overconcemed
69.
Worrying
F re tfu l
2 3 . ___ F rie n d ly
223
7
CHANGE STATEMENTi In October 1982 a format Plan f o r the u n if ic a tio n o f the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C ollege was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 1983
____________________the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack o f support.
lossi_____________________________________________ ____________
224
8
CHANGE STATEMENT! In October 1982 a formal Plan fo r the u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola Ju n io r C ollege was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 1983
___________________ the u n if ic a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
225
CHANGE STATEMENTi In October 19B2 a formal Plan fo r the u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity o f West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C ollege was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 1983
___________________ the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
UNIFICATION REASONS
Please l i s t what you b e lie v e to be the reasons fo r the u n ific a t io n of the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola Ju n io r C o lle g e .
226
10
CHANGE STATEMENT: In October 1982 a formal Plan f o r the u n ific a tio n of the
U n iv e rs ity of West F lo rid a and Pensacola J u n io r C ollege was
c o -o p e ra tiv e ly produced by these two schools. In e a rly 1983
____________________the u n ific a tio n proposal was withdrawn due to lack of support.
0 ......
No
Value
Minor
Value
Moderate
Value
Extensive
Value
0 ......
No
Change
Minor
Change
Moderate
Change
Extensive
Change
Appendix E
Sample Research Outline
(Postsecondary Institutions)
227
228
Bob Michael
Georgia S ta te U n iv e rs ity
A tla n ta * Georgia
4 0 4 -65B-3100
Research
Purposes!
Research
S ite s i
Research
S u bjects:
Instrum ents!
Procedures!
229
Privacy and
R epo rtin g!
the research er
Research Needs
from Each
In s t it u t i o n !
1 . Approval
2 . Approval
Appendix F
Interview Schedule
230
231
Interview Schedule
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Who is pro-change?
7.
Who is anti-change?
8.
9.
10.
11.
Appendix G
List of Interviewees by Site
232
233
List of Interviewees by Site
Albany Junior College
John Baxter
Dean of Students and College Registrar
Pat Edwards
Coordinator of Public Relations
David Hewett
Chair, Social Science Division
Betty Parton
Chair, Department of Allied Health
Ann Peets
Chair, Developmental Studies
Ed Tarratus
Dean of Instruction
B. R. Tilley
President
Cooper Green Hospital
Charles Breaux
President, Jefferson Clinic Professional Corporation
Vernon King
Senior Assistant Administrator
Robert Sherrill
Medical Director
Alex Smith
Comptroller
Vee Stalker
Director, Volunteer Services and Community Relations
Jon Vance
Executive Director
Diane Vandiver
Acting Director, Nursing
Appendix H
Loss and Gain Items
College of Public and Urban Affairs
235
Category
Personal
Professional
Current
Gain
236
Current
Loss
Category
Past
Loss
Personal
Professional
Efficiency(1)
Increased job responsibility and
function(1)
Increased professional standards
and organization(1)
Increased resources(1)
Independence(1)
Larger unit--more visibility(3)
New job experienced)
Opportunities enhanced for re
search, publication and con
tinuing education(4)
Represent a larger unit(l)
Respect from other colleges(1)
Salary(1)
Stimulus to add additional
courses d )
Variety of students increased(1)
237
Position(l)
Prestige in teaching area(l)
Professional contacts(5)
Public speaking skills(1)
Reorganization of division(1)
Work experience(1)
Category
Past
Gain
Personal
Departmental status(1)
Development of job(l)
Enhanced focus on the college(1)
Hope for a position(1)
Increased program visibility(1)
Leadership(3)
More contacts with wider interests(4)
More support from dea n s offi c e (1)
Office s p a c e d )
Personal autonomy(1)
Professional
(1)
Increased resources(1)
Increased visibility(1)
Job redesign(1)
New job (1)
Nicer office(1)
Organization(l)
Program expansion
Appendix I
Merger Reasons Categories
College of Public and
Urban Affairs
239
240
Merger reason
category
Current
nominations
Past
nominat ions
10
10
Efficiency
Enrollment
Leadership
Program effectiveness
Service to students
University prestige
Economic
Educational
Organizational/Operational
Political
Appendix J
Loss and Gain Items
University of West Florida
241
Category
Personal
Current
Loss
Current
Gain
Professional
242
Personal
Professional
Anticipated
Loss
Anticipated
Gain
Category
Appendix K
Merger Proposal and Withdrawal Reasons
University of West Florida
2kk
Appendix L
Loss and Gain Items
Pensacola Junior College
246
Category
Personal
Professional
Continued frustration(1)
Opportunity for experienced)
Possibility of advancement(1)
Possibility of greater financial
rewards, benefits(2)
Possibility of development of
position(2)
Current
Gain
Continued functions(1)
Continued opportunities(1)
Continued professional rank/
status(1)
Continued viable program(l)
Anticipated
Loss
Employment(1)
Freedom of involvement(1)
Position comfort(1)
Position security(l)
Flexibility(1)
Functions(1)
Security of position(1)
Staff(1)
Anticipated
Gain
Community/state involvement(1)
Higher level of postsecondary
employment(1)
Increased income(4)
Job performance satisfaction(l)
Status/prestige(3)
247
Current
Loss
Appendix M
Merger Proposal and Withdrawal Reasons
Pensacola Junior College
248
249
Merger Proposal and Withdrawal Reasons
Pensacola Junior College
Unification Reasons
Better articulation of p r o g r a m s (1)
Better community service(2)
Better opportunities for students(5)
Broadened scope of program offerings(1)
Creation of new university in northwest F l o r i d a (6)
Elimination of duplication and competition(8)
Enhanced economic growth of the a r e a (2)
Greater economic base for community college mission(l)
Improved image and performance of the University
of West Florida(l)
Increase University of West Florida enrollment(1)
Introduction of new approach to education in
F lo r i d a (1)
Prevention of enrollment decline in advanced and
professional education p r o g r a m s (1)
Promotion of technical upper division programs
at the university(1)
Proposal Withdrawal Reasons
C o s t (1)
Economic environment(2)
Ill-conceived plan(l)
Lack of community support; fear of elitism(l)
Lack of equal commitment between both institu
tions (1)
Lack of leadership by university administration(1)
Lack of legislative support(6)
Lack of understanding of area educational n e e d s (1)
Lack of understanding of how the plan would work(l)
Lobbying by the community colleges(1)
No real strategy to get plan accepted(l)
Politics(3)
Possible harm to vocational education(1)
University of West Florida fear of competition
with a large "overnight univer s i t y " (2)
Unprecedented arrangement(4)
Appendix N
Loss and Gain Items
Cooper Green Hospital
250
Category
Personal
Professional
Current
Loss
Friends(1)
Governance structure(1)
Hospital allies(2)
Job security(2)
Joint goals for the hospital(2)
M o n e y (1)
Opportunity to work with UAB
(medical school) house staff(2)
Professional quality of the
group(1)
Quality of patient care(3)
Support for indigent c a r e d )
Current
Gain
Change in employment(1)
Forced to think about personal
w a n t s (1)
Greater esprit de corps among hos
pital workers toward problem
resolution(l)
Less structure needed for final
decision(l)
Restudy of hospital would reprove
our accomplishments(1)
Category
Personal
Professional
Anticipated
Loss
Ability to function(2)
Chance for meaningful c h a n g e d )
Clinic(2)
County-clinic contract(1)
Friends(2)
H o m e (3)
Ideal of indigent c a r e d )
Identity(1)
Income and retirement contribution(5)
Initiative(1)
J o b (7)
Job security(1)
Lease of the hospital(1)
Reduction in hospital funds and
staff (2)
Anticipated
Gain
252
Appendix 0
Board of Trustees Resignation
Reasons and Justifications
Cooper Green Hospital
253
Justification
No--Board has no control over F u n d i n g (1)
Cost is c o n t r o l l e d d )
Personal and political gain(l)
Yes--Cost factors(3)
Gain control of coding p r o b l e m s , change
ma n a g e m e n t (1)
Political posturing important(2)
Appendix P
Loss and Gain Items
Albany Junior College
255
Category
Current
Loss
Personal
Administrative relationships(4)
Convenience [travel](3)
Course control and structure con
trol (2)
Flexibility(1)
Free time(l)
Grading control based on m astery(1)
Institutional p r i d e (2)
Job security(2)
Leadership stability(1)
Office(l)
Opportunity(1)
Personal accomplishments(2)
Pleasant work environment(1)
Prestige(3)
Psychological comfort(2)
Reduction in black graduates(1)
Reputation(2)
Self image(1)
Social status with fellow asso
ciates (1)
Status(2)
Professional
Academic standards(4)
Administrative competence(3)
Albany Junior College(1)
Curriculum control(4)
Demotion(2)
Department identity(1)
Department status(1)
Discipline reputation(l)
Input(1)
Job satisfaction(l)
Merit raise competition among
faculty will increased)
New administration(l)
Position(8)
P o w e r (1)
Professional environment(2)
Professional services delivery(l)
Reputation/status(4)
Salary(1)
Tenure(1)
Timed)
Category
Personal
Professional
Administrative advancement(1)
Greater research orientation(2)
Job opportunities(1)
More educational facilities(1)
More course offerings(1)
New acquaintances(2)
Opportunity to teach upper divi
sion courses(6)
Prestige of 4-year institution(1)
Speaking engagements, consultant
fe e s (1)
Anticipated
Loss
Classroom autonomy(2)
Friendships at Albany Junior
College(3)
Identification with Albany State
College [reputation](3)
Inconvenience(4)
Loss of communication(1)
Loss of the institution(1)
Network(l)
Personal community standing{4)
Personal life changes(1)
Position(9)
Pride in work/motivation(3)
Professional status(2)
Racial stereotyping(l)
Self satisfaction(l)
Work environment(3)
Work pattern(4)
Academic Independence(1)
Administrative contact(1)
Campus status(1)
Career(3)
Control of class quality(1)
Demotion(2)
Input(1)
Learning environment(1)
Loss of better students(1)
Mission shift--move from teaching
emphasis to research emphasis(1)
Position(15)
Po w e r (1)
Professional contacts(1)
Quality/standards(6)
Reputation/status/prestige(8)
Salary(1)
Student serviced)
Teach lower level classes(4)
Tenure(2)
257
Current
Gain
Category
Anticipated
Gain
Personal
Professional
Advanced position(1)
Flexibility in teaching assign
ment (1)
Increased research opportuni
ties (1)
Increased peer/professional
contacts(1)
M o n e y (1)
More money for institutional
n e e d s (1)
New acquaintances(1)
Prestige/status(3)
Retain brightest students(1)
Teach in specialty areas(1)
Teach upper level courses(5)
Widened professional horizons(1)
258
Appendix Q
Merger Reasons and Justifications
Albany Junior College
259
260
Merger Reasons and Justifications
Albany Junior College
Merger Reasons
Declining enrollment(2)
E c onomics(12)
Efficiency(2)
Eliminate plant duplication(1)
Eliminate program duplication(15)
Federal p ressures(21)
Improve organizational structure at Albany State
Co l l e g e (1)
Increase minority participation in higher education
in Albany a r e a (1)
Increase number of whites at Albany State C o l l e g e (6)
Integration(1)
J e alously(1)
Keep population from going elsewhere for a four-year
degreed)
Overcome historical stigma of a black institution(1)
Perception of what minorities want(l)
P o l i t i c a l (7)
Quality improvement at Albany State Col l e g e (8)
Quality improvement at both schools(1)
R a c i a l (2)
Racial b a l a n c e (7)
Merger Justifications
No--Albany Junior College is already desegrated(l)
Better methods should be used to achieve
desegration(1)
Both institutions serve equally the community(1)
Junior college mission different from the
four-year college m i s s i o n (8)
Maintain the historically black institution(4)
Merger would create institutional m e d i o c r i t y (2)
Merger would in effect penalize strong
p r o g r a m s (2)
Politically motivated{2)
Projected financial savings will not be
a c h ieved(2)
Racial balance will not be achieved(2)
261
Yes--Declining enrollments(1)
E conomics(8)
Efficiency(3)
Eliminate what is in effect a private institution
funded from public f u n d s (1)
Equal opportunity(2)
Improve educational strength and quality(3)
Appendix R
Adjective Nominations
Sudden Change Model
262
263
Adjective Nominations
Sudden Change Model
Cells
Adjective
Afraid
Agitated
Angry
Anxious
Apathetic
Bitter
Calm
Cheerful
Complaining
Concerned
Contented
Contrary
Cool
Cross
Depressed
Desperate
Disbelieving
Discouraged
Easy-going
Fearful
Fearless
Fretful
Friendly
Frightened
Furious
Glad
Gloomy
Grim
Guilty
Happy
Helpless
Hopeless
Hostile
Indifferent
Insecure
3
8
10
11
6
5
15
1
2
32
4
1
2
2
11
1
9
10
14
18
2
12
9
1
4
29
3
2
5
2
9
6
2
7
1
7
13
2
6
1
5
6
3
3
5
5
5
3
12
3
4
7
13
5
18
2
4
3
13
21
2
7
1
2
2
2
4
7
2
2
1
2
3
2
5
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
6
4
3
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
1
3
4
5
6
3
7
12
1
13
4
8
19
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
264
Cells
Adj ective
Jealous
Joyful
Kindly
Light-hearted
Lonely
Mad
Mean
Miserable
Nervous
Numb
Overconcerned
Overwhelmed
Panicky
Peaceful
Pleasant
Rattled
Restless
Sad
Secure
Sentimental
Serious
Shaky
Shocked
Solemn
Steady
Tense
Terrified
Threatened
Thoughtful
Unconcerned
Uneasy
Upset
Warm
Worrying
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
5
1
2
1
7
2
1
7
2
2
2
6
4
3
3
6
6
6
3
6
4
7
5
2
16
16
3
11
10
2
4
8
1
1
8
3
5
8
3
2
4
2
4
2
4
11
13
4
1
10
3
14
4
5
8
1
20
10
1
12
20
10
1
3
1
4
1
1
4
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
1
3
3
6
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
4
4
1