Collective Bargaining in Higher Education: Its Impact Upon Leadership Styles, Quality Faculty and Programs.

Autor/in	Moore, Arnold J.
Titel	Collective Bargaining in Higher Education: Its Impact Upon Leadership Styles, Quality Faculty and Programs.
Quelle	(1981), (13 Seiten)Verfügbarkeit
Beigaben	Tabellen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Tagungsbericht; Stellungnahme; Administrator Role; Collective Bargaining; College Administration; College Faculty; Contracts; Educational Quality; Evaluation Criteria; Faculty College Relationship; Faculty Evaluation; Faculty Workload; Governance; Higher Education; Leadership Styles; Negotiation Agreements; Organizational Climate; Political Influences; Power Structure; Teacher Effectiveness; Unions + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Tarifverhandlung; College administrators; Hochschulverwaltung; Fakultät; Vertrag; Quality of education; Bildungsqualität; Education; Educational policy; Financing; Steuerung; Bildung; Erziehung; Bildungspolitik; Finanzierung; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Führungsstil; Abkommen; Organisationsklima; Political influence; Politischer Einfluss; Effectiveness of teaching; Instructional effectiveness; Lehrerleistung; Unterrichtserfolg
Abstract	The effects of collective bargaining in higher education on quality faculty, leadership, and programs are assessed. It is suggested that labor contracts tend to function without much direct relation to quality, but that educational management has attempted to address quality as part of the labor contract. Much of the content of an agreement is devoted to routine and the process associated with salaries and job security, but provisions are made for committees devoted to peer review, including lists of criteria, and the required due process procedures. Implementing the labor contract leads to the establishment of a minimum acceptable performance, and anything beyond that basic expectation is a quality bonus for which there is no reward. In the academic community, scholarship is accomplished by time-defined criteria. It is suggested that time is a labor measure, not a professional quality determinant, and that attempts to define, proceduralize, and quantify the activities of higher education faculty has no empirical basis for validity. Collective bargaining tends to move an institution toward standardization in practically all aspects with the concomitant inhibition of diversity of instructional design and innovation. Typically, the collective bargaining process results in more direct control by central administration, especially in matters of the university budget. In a collective bargaining agreement, there is less administrative autonomy at the respective academic levels. Additionally, the style of leadership needed in the administration of an agreement or contract is often influenced by the milieu in existence during the negotiating process. Since an antagonistic, political environment is established, there is accompanying distrust. (SW)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2004/1/01