Personality-Based Faculty Workload Analysis

Author(s): Jon S. Hesseldenz

Source: Research in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1976), pp. 321-334
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40195045
Accessed: 16/10/2010 02:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Research in Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org
 RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Volume 5, pages 321- 334
©1976 APS Publications, Inc.

PERSONALITY-BASED FACULTY
WORKLOAD ANALYSIS
Jon S. Hesseldenz, University of Kentucky, Lexington

Faculty workload analyses have been with us for many years, but no study has ever
grouped faculty by personality type or by academic rank. This paper examines the
results of a study in which faculty at a large state university were classified
according to Holland's theory of vocational choice. Multivariate analysis of variance
showed that faculty members of the five Holland types not only differed on four
self-reported measures of faculty effort, instruction, research, public service,
institutional-professional activities (all measured in hours per average week) but
that the findings were supportive of Holland's theory. In addition, analysis by rank
showed that while total hours per week were not statistically different among the
rank8, hours in instructional and institutional-professional activities varied greatly
but hours in research and public service did not. The conclusion is that changes in
instructional workload will not affect research or public service activities of faculty
members.

Key words: faculty workload, personality theory, faculty differences, rank differences

In recent years, those concerned with higher education have become

increasingly interested in faculty workload analysis. Literallyhundreds of
articles dealing with higher education faculty as a resource have been
written by college and university administrators, federal and state
agencies, and faculty members themselves. Some, such as those by Bolton
(1965) and Blee (1960) suggest philosophical bases for studying the
problem and are geared toward defining the limits within which faculty
Address reprint requests to J. S. Hessledenz, Policy and Operations Analysis, 7
Administration Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506.

321
322 Hesseldenz

activity analysis should take place. Others like Smawley's (1965) article
outline the methods for undertaking them. Many researchers, exemplified
by Evans (1957) and Young (1965), have tried to determine the best
measures of faculty effort, with conflicting results. Most studies, however,
have been initiated by administrators for specific institutional purposes
(Stecklien, 1961), but differ greatly in the type of data gathered and in the
methods of analysis. Several detailed reviews of the literature are available
to the interested reader, notably those by Stichler (1960) and the National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems (1971). Strangely, no
researcher has dealt directly with faculty workload differences according to
academic rank, nor (perhaps not so strangely) has anyone analyzed
workload in personality-based terms.
Various topographies have been posited to differentiate effort in general
categories, such as the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences.
Biglan (1973) has suggested a three-dimensional model based on the
existence or nonexistence of an underlying body of theory subscribed to by
all members of a discipline- that is, is the discipline hard or soft- whether
the discipline deals with pure or applied research, and whether it deals
with life or nonlife systems. Physics, for example, is hard, pure, nonlife,
whereas education is soft, applied, life. Biglan's analysis suggests
remarkable differences in the output of academic departments categorized
according to this model. Lorents (1971) lists other possible groupings of
faculty and the activity data used to differentiate them in his
comprehensive compilation of workload studies. All the foregoing categor-
izations are based on demonstrated or perceived subject-matter,
discipline-related similarities.
If the superimposition of artificial groupings over existing academic
structures is not a new idea, it is neither exhausted of its possibilities.
Smart (1973) and others have applied Holland's (1973) theory of vocational
choice to studies involving college and university faculty but not to work-
load analysis. This study seeks to overlay Holland's theory with the
prevailing, classical structure of academic organization at a more or less
typical university. It is believed that valid as the studies which deal
primarily with discipline-related similarities and differences may be
analysis based on personality-dependent factors can add another
dimension to an already complicated problem- a dimension which should
not be overlooked.
Holland's theory is based on empirically derived data which suggest that
persons with similar personality characteristics tend to choose occupations
which are suitable to their temperaments and that these persons and
occupations fall into six general personality categories: realistic, investig-
ative, social, conventional, enterprising, and artistic. Fortuitously for
 Faculty Workload Analysis 323

researchers in higher education, academic departments as a whole can be

assigned to these categories.
Though not given equal emphasis, academic rank differences will also be
investigated in this paper. Specifically, the purposes of this study are to
determine whether a differentiation exists among self-reported temporal
measures of faculty efforts when they are considered according to the rank
and personality type of the faculty members and to interpret the
differences, if any.

METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted at a large state university through a central
administrative unit. An institutionally devised self-report instrument was
used to collect the following data from all full-time academic personnel: (1)
average hours spent per week per class both in and out of the classroom,
(2) average hours spent per week advising undergraduate and graduate
students, (3) average hours spent per week in research, (4) average hours
spent per week in public service activities, (5) average hours spent per
week in administrative activities, (6) average hours spent per week in pro-
fessional activities (organizations, etc.), (7) average hours spent per week
in institutional services (especially committee work).
Virtually 100% of the full-time faculty responded. The instruments were
signed and reviewed by the department chairmen and deans of the colleges
and returned to the central administrative unit. For the purpose of this
study, the data were reduced to average hours per week, per faculty
member, in the following categories: (1) instruction, including advising; (2)
research; (3) public service (4) institutional-professional, including admin-
istrative, professional, and institutional service activities. Holland types
were assigned to each department and thus to each faculty member within
the department, a department representing an occupation. (There is no
Holland occupation, professor, rather there is professor of physics,
chemistry, sociology, etc.) Only five Holland types were included, the
sample space being too small in the conventional type to yield statistically
reliable results. Assignment of departments to Holland types is shown in
Table 1.
Faculty members were also classified according to their academic rank.
Department chairmen were excluded from the analysis. The number of
persons of each rank assigned to each of the Holland types is shown in
Table 2. The method of analysis was nonorthogonal, fixed-effect multi-
variate analysis of variance with two factors and four dependent variables,
according to the techniques specified by Bock (1963).
Holland's types are embodied in model personality and environment
324 Hesseldenz

profiles,whichare presentedhere as the basis for comparisonandinter-

pretationof the resultsof this portionof the study. Theextentto whichthe
resultsconformto the characteristicsof the profilesis the degreeto which
Holland'stheoryhas been supportedby this studyandwill also serve as a

TABLE1. Assignmentsof Departmentsto HollandTypes

Realistic Investigative Social

Agriculturalengineering: Anthropology Education

Agronomy Aerospacescience Homeeconomics
Architecture Astronomy History
Animalscience Biology Physicaleducation
Civilengineering Biochemistry Libraryscience
Forestry Botany Psychology
Geography Chemicalengineering Sociology
Horticulture Computerscience Socialwork
Mechanicalengineering Electricalengineering
Entomology
Geology
Mathematics
Microbiology
Metallugicalengineering
Militaryscience
Physics
Plantpathology
Statistics
Veterinaryscience
Zoology

Conventional Enterprising Artistic

Accounting Agriculturaleconomics Art

Businessadministration Classicallanguage
Economics Communication
Law English
Politicalscience French
German
Journalism
Music
Slaviclanguages
Speech
Telecommunication
Philosophy
Theaterarts
 Faculty Workload Analysis 325

TABLE 2. Composition of the Faculty Sample (Holland Categories)

Realistic Investigative Social Enter. Artistic Total

Professor 47 61 40 25 35 208
Associate
professor 57 74 53 28 43 255
Assistant
professor 49 78 114 34 57 332
Total 153 213 207 87 135 795

measure of the generalizability of the findings. Since space does not permit
the complete listing of Holland's profiles of personality types and environ-
ments, abridged profiles of all types (excluding the conventional) follow:

Realistic persons perceive themselves as having mechanical ability and as

lacking in human relations. They value concrete things or tangible per-
sonal characteristics, such as money, power, or status. They acquire
manual, mechanical, agricultural, electrical, and technical competencies
to the deficit of social competencies. Persons in a realistic environment are
susceptible to pragmatic, masculine influences and are attracted to such
activities as using tools and machines.

Investigative persons perceive themselves to be scholarly, intellectually

self-confident, and to have mathematical and scientific ability. They
perceive themselves as lacking in persuasive or leadership ability. They
acquire scientific and mathematical competencies to the deficit of persua-
sive competencies. Persons in an investigative environment are
susceptible to abstract, theorectical, analytic influences and are attracted
to scientific values and research activities.

Social persons perceive themselves as liking to help others, understanding

others, having teaching ability, and lacking mechanical and scientific
ability. They value social and ethical activities and problems and acquire
human relations competencies, such as interpersonal and educational
competencies, to the deficit of manual and technical competencies. Per-
sons in a social environment are more susceptible to humanitarian and re-
ligious influences and are attracted to roles in which they can express
themselves in social activities.

Enterprising persons perceive themselves as aggressive, popular, self-

confident, sociable, possessing leadership and speaking abilities, and as
lacking scientific ability. They value political and economic achievement
and acquire leadership, interpersonal, and persuasive competencies to the
deficit of scientific competencies. Persons in an enterprising environment
are more susceptible to materialistic influences and are attracted to roles of
leadership, dominance, and power.
326 Hesseldenz
TABLE 3. Summary of Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance
UnivariateANOVA's
Sourceof Multivariate Pub. Inst.
variation d.f. ANOVA Inst. Hr Res. Hr Ser. Hr Prof-Hr
Hollandtype
excludingrank 16 p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .01
Rankexcluding
Hollandtype 8 p <.0001 p < .001 p < .05 N.S. p <.0001
Interactionof
rankand
Hollandtype 32 N.S. N.S. p < .05 N.S. N.S.
Residual(with- Mean
in groups) 780 Squares 191.38 118.93 15.63 89.61

Artisticpersonsperceivethemselvesas expressive,original,intuitive,
feminine,nonconforming, introspective,independent,disorderly,having
artisticandmusicalability(acting,writing,speaking).Theyvalueesthetic
qualitiesandacquireartisticcompetencies,such as language,art, music,
drama,andwriting,to the deficitof clericalor business systemcompe-
tencies. Personsin an artisticenvironmentare moresusceptibleto
personalandimaginativeinfluencesandare attractedto roles in which
theycanbe expressiveandunconventional.

RESULTS
The maineffects of personalitytype and rankwere each significantat the
0.0001alphalevel. Therewas no significantmultivariateinteraction.A
summaryof the resultsof analysisof varianceis given in Table3.
All variablescontributedsignificantlyto the effect of personalitytype,
whileall variablesexceptpublicservicehourscontributedto the rank
effect. The univariateresultsfor each individualvariablein Table3 are
shownaftera stepdownprocedure(eliminatingfromeach variablethe
variancecommonto precedingvariables)was applied.Thatis, the signifi-
canceof the resultfor eachvariableis independentof that variable's
contributionto the multivariateresults. The significanceof the interaction
betweenrankandHollandtype on the variable,researchhours,was not
enoughto producea multivariateinteraction.Meansandstandard
deviationsfor each variableat each level are shownin Table4. Combined
meansfor each level are given in Table5.
 Faculty Workload Analysis 327

TABLE 4. Observed Cell Means and Standard Deviations

Instruction Research Publicservice Inst.-prof.

Cell hours hours hours hours
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Professor
Realistic 17.42 14.02 15.55 10.87 1.66 2.67 13.58 9.63
Investigative 24.39 11.83 15.88 11.77 .91 2.28 13.41 10.28
Social 24.84 12.95 13.98 14.00 2.61 5.53 14.84 11.20
Enterprising 27.47 17.56 12.60 9.56 2.54 4.59 15.29 13.29
Artistic 35.14 13.75 8.72 6.26 .57 1.64 12.76 10.29
Assoc. professor
Realistic 20.93 12.66 16.89 12.19 1.19 4.04 8.73 7.63
Investigative 25.18 13.28 16.75 10.24 1.09 4.96 11.15 10.91
Social 31.92 14.29 11.52 11.01 2.16 4.08 14.07 9.43
Enterprising 23.87 12.94 13.48 9.25 3.14 7.28 9.61 9.43
Artistic 34.55 15.13 12.65 10.50 1.27 2.37 9.57 9.12
Assist, professor
Realistic 24.35 12.98 16.22 11.36 1.87 4.55 8.11 6.11
Investigative 26.32 12.03 19.31 11.55 .69 2.57 6.54 7.85
Social 31.64 14.08 8.99 10.87 2.36 3.76 12.07 10.14
Enterprising 29.92 15.06 15.43 10.08 2.11 6.23 5.48 5.26
Artistic 41.92 16.69 12.24 9.18 .62 1.43 7.39 9.41

TABLE 5. Means for Each Variable in Each Major Category

Instruction Research Publicserv. Inst.-prof. Total

hours hours hours hours hours

Rank
Professor 25.08 13.85 1.55 13.84 57.32
Associate prof. 27.07 14.65 1.59 10.79 54.10
Assistant prof. 30.91 13.85 1.57 8.71 55.04
Hollandtype
Realistic 20.95 16.27 1.55 10.03 48.80
Investigative 25.37 17.67 .90 10.12 54.06
Social 30.40 10.61 2.36 13.12 56.49
Enterprising 27.27 13.99 2.56 9.63 53.47
Artistic 37.82 11.46 .82 9.48 59.58
328 Hesseldenz
DISCUSSION
The value of the findings of this study does not lie in the fact that there is
a difference in the way effort is distributed among the various faculty ranks
and the Holland personality types. Probably with any group this size, if the
persons were randomly assigned to cells in numbers proportionateto those
in this study, significant differences could be found. The importance of the
findings lies in the magnitude of the differences among groups, in the
pattern of differences in the rank categories, and in the way in which the
differences among departmental groups can be interpreted in light of
Holland's theory of vocational choice. Holland has proposed six model
work environments coinciding with the personality types: realistic, in-
vestigative, social, conventional, enterprising, and artistic. The
classification of work environments depends on the predominance of the
personality types in the occupations within it. University departments lend
themselves to such environmental classification because only one easily
definable occupation resides in each, that of teacher (of physics, sociology,
etc.). Therefore, this discussion of differences among Holland types can be
applied not only to the characteristics of the persons but also to the
characteristics of work environments, namely departments. In other words,
inferences about individual departments may be made using this theory
(Holland, 1973).
Each variable will be considered in turn to determine the extent to which
the results on each conform to the personality and environment profiles of
each Holland type. Before entering into this discussion, however, it is
important to note that the purpose here is not to attempt to explain the
differences found purely in personality terms. Obviously there are
fundamental differences in the nature of the disciplines represented.
Whenever appropriate in the following narrative, alternative explanations
will be given and possible intervening variables will be noted. To differing
extents, each of the dependent variables represents a certain degree of
involuntary participation, that is, where university, college, or department
standards require a minimal participation in a type of effort. This
involuntary participation is perhaps most evident in instructional effort
where a relatively universal standard of minimum hours of contact with
students in the classroom is specified. Unpublished data indicated a
general equality of average assigned contact hours when Holland classif-
ications were superimposed over the existing structure at the institution
where the study was directed (Hesseldenz, 1974).
It is hypothesized by this author and is implicit in Holland's theory that
the Holland types are differentiated by the amount of voluntary time spent
in an area of effort. Given the inherent similarity in assigned instructional
time over all Holland types, differences in this area of effort will reflect the
 Faculty Workload Analysis 329

preference of persons to pursue instructional activities. It is not known

what effect involuntary participation has in the effort areas of research,
public service, and institutional-professional activities.
The variable "hours of instruction" is most highly represented in the
artistic and social categories. The smallest amounts of time for this variable
occur in the investigative and realistic classification. These differences are
in accordance with the theory. Social and artistic persons would encourage
activities which result in personal, expressive contact with other persons,
whereas realistic and investigative persons would tend to avoid activities
leading to such contact. The social type is made up mainly of persons in the
education disciplines. Teaching and teaching methods contribute a large
part of the subject matter in education. As an alternate explanation, it
would not be unreasonable to propose that the emphasis on instruction in
the social type is at least in part a natural outcome of those professors'
interest in the experience of teaching. English and music faculties are
represented in the artistic category. The heavy out-of-class duties inherent
in freshman composition courses and the numerous individual performance
classes in music could account for the heavy weighting of the instructional
component in the artistic category.. Similarly, the low instructional hours in
the realistic and investigative categories may have more to do with the pre-
ponderance of lab courses in the pure and applied science fields than with
personality characteristics. Lab classes are often handled by graduate
assistants or lab specialists.
Highest values for the variable "research hours" occur in the investi-
gative and realistic classifications. The lowest values for this variable are in
the social and artistic categories. This configuaration, too, is compatible
with Holland's theory. According to the theory, investigative and realistic
persons value analytical, scientific, and research activities more than social
and artistic persons do. Research and instructional hours are found in comple-
mentary proportions for these four Holland types. The concept of research
in art, music, foreign languages, and English, all of which are in the artistic
category, is not the same as that in chemistry, physics, microbiology, and
other natural sciences which are included in the investigative group.
Research in the former area is often free form, intermittent (when inspira-
tion strikes), is not often funded by outside sources, and is frequently diffi-
cult or impossible to quantify. Research in the natural sciences is more
constrained by method, is easily identified as research, usually consumes
large blocks of time, and is more often funded. It is not unlikely that these
reasons account for the greater research time for the investigative and
realistic categories.
"Public service hours" show highest values in the enterprising and
social categories, lowest in the investigative and artistic areas. Holland's
330 Hesseldenz

TABLE 6. Class Size by Rank and Holland Type

Associate Assistant All

Professor professor professor ranks

Realistic 25.40 25.84 28.08 26.01

Investigative 37.84 32.65 31.03 34.67
Social 28.10 30.56 22.46 25.49
Enterprising 33.37 51.76 34.39 40.49
Artistic 23.48 12.59 20.70 18.98
AllHollandtypes 30.18 27.96 25.45 27.77

theory indicates that enterprising persons are attracted to roles where

leadership and political visibility are manifested and that social persons
like and want to help people. Both motives are evident in public service.
Artistic and investigative persons shy away from such displays. It must be
added that the number of hours involved in this variable for any grouping
(a maximum of 3.14 hr per week) is hardly enough to warrant definitive
conclusions.
Institutional-professional hours are highly represented only in the social
category, with all other Holland categories equally lower. No satisfactory
reason can be given for the social type's ascendancy in this variable. A
detailed breakdown of the various activities that make up this variable is
needed before any definitive statement can be made. Three of the activities
that comprise this variable, committee work, administrative duties, and
supervision of graduate students, are people-oriented activities, however.
Total hours of effort differed significantly in the Holland categories with
faculty in the realistic fields averaging 48.80 hr per week while those in
artistic fields recorded 59.58 hr per week (p<0.0001). The difference lies
basically in the instruction and research areas and may be due to the
factors stated earlier, that is, that the artistic fields contain music, art, and
freshman composition, all of which make heavy instructional time demands
and in which the research is constituted differently from the classical
patterns of the scientific method. Whatever the differences are due to, they
do not seem to be a function of class size since investigative fields have
much larger class sizes (see Table 6). The largest classes occur in the
enterprising fields. There is no apparent reason why large classes should
 Faculty Workload Analysis 331

occur in this area. Huge lower-division lecture classes are not particularly
evident in the fields that make up this category. It may be a unique
situation in this university. If an attempt were made to explain this
phenomenon in personality based terms, it could be postulated that enter-
prising persons would encourage larger classes as a manifestation of their
affinity for roles of leadership and dominance.
If personality differentiation is a significant factor in workload analysis,
what are the practical uses of such differentiations, if there are any?
Recognizing that discipline-related factors probably have more to do with
the differences found in this study than do personality factors, it is never-
theless maintained that the personality characteristics of those who choose
to work in a field must be considered when effort is analyzed. That is to
say, it is the unique nature of each discipline that draws persons who feel
comfortable and fulfilled within its milieu. It is submitted that while the
superimposition of Holland's theory over an existing academic structure
does little to explain differences in effort in academic disciplines, it does
contribute to the understanding of the persons who inhabit each. Person-
ality differences do not "cause" the behavior of persons in a discipline, but
they may influence and even amplify the differences among disciplines.
The validity of other approaches does not diminish the value of person-
ality-based explanations. Holland argues that it is such differences that
draw people to their fields, that is, the different kinds of personalities
reflect field differences. Administrators should be aware that persons in an
enterprising field, for example, are motivated by different stimuli than are
persons in an investigative field. A productive approach in one field might
be counterproductive in another. Neither should personality factors be
ignored when discipline-related decisions are made. Whitney and Holland
(1969) have proposed a reorganization of curriculums in two- and four-year
colleges according to Holland types. Their belief is that this six-cluster
scheme would capitalize on the similarity between teacher and student
interests. The results of this study indicate that the cluster approach might
be feasible. But even if a university cannot reorganize by Holland types,
overlay categorization of faculty by Holland type within the traditional
academic structures could still be beneficial due to the fact that each
separate department constitutes a Holland environment. Workload assign-
ments, for example, in instruction or research might be made with consid-
eration of personality type differences between departments.
The second main effect studied, that of rank differences, likewise yielded
reasonable, interpretable results, although no theory or assumptions could
be found by the writer for comparison. Interestingly, there is no statistical
difference among the total hours put in by each rank, although large
differences occur among some of the variables. Professors spend less time
332 Hesseldenz
in instructional activities than do associate professors, who in turn spend
less time than do assistant professors. The lower number of hours in
instruction activities for the higher ranks is not complemented by more
hours in research and public service. There is no statistical difference
among the ranks in the number of hours spent in public service activities,
and very little difference occurs in the research area, although it is signif-
icant at the 0.05 level.
The differences occur in the institutional-professional activities area
where professors show a markedly higher average number of hours than do
associate professors, who show a greater number of institutional-profes-
sional hours than do assistant professors. Instructional hours and insti-
tutional-professional hours then are complementary, with research and
public service hours remaining static. An implication of this phenomenon is
that changes in instructional assignments are not reflected in research or
public service activities, but in the institutional-professional activities
which faculty members pursue. More explicitly, an increase in
instructional workload should not result in a decrease in research time,
unless the increase is of a magnitude to eliminate entirely the institutional-
professional hours buffer. Possibly faculty members undertake other
activities only to the point that they are not detrimental to the major
functions of research and public service. The writer assumes that
instructional workload is the causal agent in this phenomenon. It may be
the other way around- that is, increases in the institutional-professional
activities may force the decreases in instructional workload. A longitudinal
study where changes in instructional workload are evident is required to
find the causal agent. Since time in many activities, such as supervision
and advising of graduate students, administrative duties, committee work,
and professional activities (learned societies, etc.), make up the variable
"institutional-professional hours" it might be useful to break down the
variable into its component parts to determine which of the activities are
affected most.
To counter the possible interpretation that it is somehow inappropriate
for higher ranked faculty to spend less time in teaching and more time in
other areas of effort, the following is offered. That professors should spend
more time on discipline, profession-related activities, administrative and
supervisory duties, and committee work than their lower ranked colleagues
is entirely reasonable. Factors such as age, status, and stage of profes-
sional development cannot be measured in a study of this kind, but must
nonetheless be considered when effort by rank is concerned. Neither can a
study like this contend with individual departmental and institutional
policy that certainly structures the workload distribution among the ranks.
Let it suffice to state that this study merely documents that rank
 Faculty Workload Analysis 333

differences in work distribution do exist and should perhaps be studied

further. Since there was no significant multivariate interaction, the dif-
ferentiations between ranks within the Holland types were not deemed to
be of overriding interest at this time. No four-year or graduate institution
has set up its academic programs according to Holland's classifications,
although at least one two-year institution has done so (Conary, 1969).
When and if university faculties are organized according to this classif-
ication, these data might be useful as indicators of where to place emphasis
in workload or curriculum decisions.

CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that can be drawn from this study are as follows:
Differentiations in the four measures of faculty effort conform in general
to the differentiations suggested in Holland's personality and environment
profiles and thus provide general support to Holland's theory of vocational
choice.
Total effort, research effort, and public service effort are undifferent-
iated overall when faculty effort is analyzed by rank, but complementary
differences occur in the instructional and institutional-professional areas of
effort. That is, as instructional effort goes down for a rank, institutional-
professional effort goes up, or vice versa. The cause and effect relation-
ships are undertermined.

REFERENCES
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the
structure and output of university departments. J. Appl. Psvchol. 67(3)- 204-211
Blee, M.R. (1960). the use of faculty load data in interinstitutional analysis.
"Faculty Workload." Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Bock, D.R. (1963). Programming univariate and multivariate analysis of variance.
Technometrics 5: 95-117.
Bolton, D.L. (1965). Measuring faculty load. Improving College and University
Teaching 13: 157-158.
Conray, D.L. (1969). An alternate approach to clustering. Research Advisory, no. 5.
Lincroft, N.J.: Brookdale Community College.
Evans, J.M. (1957). The credit hour does not provide a sound basis for measuring
the teaching load. College and University Business 22: 42-43.
Hesseldenz, J.S. (1974). Instructional workload distribution by Holland type.
Unpublished paper.
Holland, J.L. (1973). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Lorents, A.C. (1971). Project prims report No. 6: Faculty activity analysis and plan-
ning models in higher education. Minneapolis, Minn.: Higher Education Coordi-
nating Commission.
334 Hesseldenz

NCHEMS. (1971). Faculty activity analysis: Overview and major issues. Technical
report no. 24. Boulder, Colorado.
Smart, J. (1973). Student perception and evaluation of faculty by personality types.
Unpublished paper.
Smawley, R.B. (1965). How to find out what professors are doing. College and
University Business 39(5): 55-57.
Stecklein, J.E. (1961) "How to Measure Faculty Workload." Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education.
Stichler, H.W. (1960). Working material and bibliography on faculty load. "Faculty
Workload." Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Whitney, D.R., and Holland, J.L. (1969). Clustering student personalities to facili-
tate learning, guidance, and educational administration. Unpublished paper.
Young, W.L. (1965). Six criteria from a composite, profile chart of faculty load.
College and University Business 36(4): 59-60.