Collegiality in higher education: toward an understanding of the factors involved in collegiality.

Hatfield, Robert D.

ABSTRACT

Collegiality is becoming the "fourth" criteria in tenure and other faculty evaluations at institutions of higher learning. The "three pillars" of teaching, research, and service have their own ambiguities, but the debate over the appropriateness of adding collegiality is heating up. Courts have generally upheld the right of universities to use collegiality as an evaluation factor. Yet, collegiality has been labeled a "tenure battleground" and the American Association of University Professors recently adopted a statement urging the end of the use of collegiality as an independent performance element. Proliferation set against opposition makes collegiality one of the hot issues in higher education.

If we are going to argue about the appropriateness of collegiality then we need to better understand the concept. There is a lack of agreement on the definition of the term. This conceptual paper attempts to define the nomological net surrounding the concept of "collegiality". This paper identifies three primary dimensions found in the literature. It begins the identification of concepts for convergent and discriminant validity. Further research is called for in this article and an outline for empirical study is proposed.

INTRODUCTION

The three "pillars" of performance for those teaching in higher education seem embedded into the very fabric of academic life for most. Teaching, research, and service have, for years, served as the only specified factors for tenure, promotion, and other academic reviews. However, in 1981 Mayberry v. Dees introduced a fourth factor, "collegiality," into higher education case law as a separate criterion for tenure and other reviews of performance (Connell & Savage, 2001). Mayberry stated that collegiality is "the capacity to relate well and constructively to the comparatively small bank of scholars on whom the fate of the university rests."(Mayberry v. Dees, 633 F.2d at 514). For instance, tenure and promotion candidates must self report on the elements of "teaching, research, professional activity, service, and collegiality" (College of Arts and Sciences, 2004). Courts have upheld the rights of a college or university to consider collegiality as a valid issue in tenure, promotion and termination decisions for years. There has been an increase in cases and disputes involving collegiality since Mayberry (Lewin, 2002) and there also seems to be a corresponding increase in the use of collegiality as a separate factor in departments, colleges, and universities.

Some think that the addition of a fourth pillar will cause the building of academia to fall down. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a formal statement criticizing the use of collegiality as a "distinct" criterion and characterizing it as dangerous. The AAUP sees an increasing tendency to use collegiality as a fourth factor on the part of administrations, governing boards, department chairs, and members of promotion and tenure committees (AAUP, 1999) and opposes this practice. Other detractors have referred to this fourth factor as a "fourth bucket" which must be filled (Tenure and promotion).

STATUS OR BEHAVIOR?

While some define collegiality as a sum of enumerated (or unenumerated) behaviors, others see it only as a "status" description. This latter argument is that collegiality is not an activity or set of behaviors; "it is (instead) a relationship" (Hartle, 2004). This tautological argument is worth analysis. One dictionary seems, on the surface, to follow this view. Merriam-Webster defines collegiality as "the relationship of colleagues; specifically the participation of bishops in the government of the Roman Catholic Church in collaboration with the Pope" (Merriam-Webster, 2005). First we have the "status" but this is then followed by something more. Another dictionary defines collegiality as "shared power and authority vested among colleagues" and also includes reference to the Roman Catholic Church by giving a second definition: "the doctrine that bishops collectively share collegiate power" (American Heritage Dictionary, 2004). Therefore, one definition refers to "relationship" while the other discusses "shared power".

Here is the "status" argument in a nutshell: two bishops are bishops within the Catholic Church therefore they are collegial. By extension, two professors are in the same college therefore they are collegial. If you belong to a college, you possess collegiality just as you need only to exist to possess existence (Wrighton, 1984)

However, the definitions in both dictionaries move beyond mere status to describe a behavior; that of sharing power. Merriam-Webster enumerates this behavior or activity by defining collegiality as "the participation of bishops in the government ... in collaboration...." Participation and collaboration describe something beyond merely having two people on the same list. Participating and collaborating are active behaviors.

If organizations intended to use the status definition then they would simply state that faculty are collegial a priori. There would be nothing further to state and no reason to attempt further definition. No one could do anything, other than leave the institution or profession, to be "less" collegial. Therefore, logic must take us beyond this status definition of collegiality in terms of intended organizational use.

Advancing past the status type of definition does not mean that the behavior or activity definition becomes clear. Without some explicit definition, collegiality is likely to be defined by one's individual perception rather than one's contract of employment (Bugeja, 2002). Many organizations are attempting to describe the behaviors or activities expected when one uses the term "collegial". The concept might benefit from trying to identify its factors. This paper suggests three dimensions.

THE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT DIMENSION

Dimension one deals with the conflict management of colleagues. Some of the enumerated behaviors are based on classical conflict management styles (Thomas, 1976). Cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are all used to describe collegiality (Connell & Savage, 2001). One college states "collegiality is a representative and collaborative decision making process ..." (Shared leadership model, 2003).Indeed, other conflict management styles from Thomas' model, such as accommodating, competing, and even avoiding, might correlate with the concept of collegiality. It is interesting that the central thrust of sharing power from the dictionary definitions leads to issues of conflict and conflict management styles. Since most academic decisions raise more than one possible decision possibility, resolving inherent conflicts in ideas becomes central to the description of collegiality. Work on curriculum, tenure and promotion, and other areas needs to be accomplished by the "college" (referring to the college within the word colleague). Such work cannot just continue without resolution and therefore conflict management plays an important role in this shared power situation.

It is worth noting that a lack of collegiality on this dimension results in high conflict and high stress departments, colleges, and universities. While some faculty may want to articulate an academic unit as a collection of independent contractors, the shared decision making and shared power elements make this impossible. Faculty responsibilities cannot be carried out successfully if each faculty member acts like a independent contractor and only considers his or her own personal interest (Connell, 2001). Decisions on curriculum and other complex issues demand resolution and some type of agreement. A diversity of viewpoints requires skillful collegial work which balances freedom and diversity with the need to complete academic decisions.

THE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR DIMENSION

Dimension two deals with the social dimensions of collegiality. Social behaviors can also help to describe activities which are collegial. Social constructs such as culture, congeniality, and connection present a different viewpoint on the term collegiality. For instance, talking and listening are valued as means of sharing experiences including emotional content (Nias, 1998). Faculty work outside the classroom requires an increasing amount of collaboration, including talking and listening. The social relationships among the faculty are an important aspect of collegiality and determining whether they are positive to the individuals and functional to the organization or whether they are negative and dysfunctional. Faculty members, in collaboration with their colleagues, continually negotiate and contest the workplace culture. Collegial practices are activities through which the organizational culture is developed (Jarzabkowski, 2001).

Even humor can play a positive role. Shared engagement in an intrinsically enjoyable activity creates a shared memory and affirms a sense of "groupness" which helps foster an appreciation of "one's peers as whole persons rather than as stereotypical role occupants" (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995, p. 115). Employees have sometimes found their workplace to be pleasant primarily because of the relationships they form and the expressive behavior that these relationships allow (Fine, 1998).

Culture can be defined as having elements of both content and form. The content of the faculty culture is the surface elements of what faculty say, do, and think. The form of the faculty culture consists of the patterns of relationships and forms of association between its members (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 166). Hargreaves and others assert that the form element of culture plays a powerful and important role in the life and work of faculty members. From this view, collegiality can contribute to workplace satisfaction and help to create social support. Both of these outcomes help faculty to handle stress and burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 1999).

It may be easier to see how the lack of collegiality on these aspects can drive the opposite individual outcomes of isolation, dissatisfaction, and conflict. Since these last two outcomes in turn drive organizational outcomes of turnover and conflict at universities (Rosser, 2004) the social aspects of inadequate levels of collegiality should be seen as important. An increase in policies and expectations on collegiality in higher education are being made based partially upon an implicit understanding of the dysfunctional and harmful effects of a lack of collegiality in a unit. What faculty member has not either been part of or heard of a unit where a lack of collegiality has driven bickering, insensitivity, lack of respect, harassment, inappropriateness, and isolation?

In Kelly v. Kansas City Community College (1982) two nursing faculty members refused to cooperate with colleagues, made derogatory comments about staff members, and repeatedly challenged the nursing director's authority. They refused to provide helpful and relevant information to their colleagues, including tests. There was constant sniping in staff meetings making meetings tense and uneasy for members. The two also pressured staff to align with them against others. The state board of nursing even considered closing down the program. The two were terminated and their termination was upheld by the board of trustees, the trial court, and the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court stated "their efforts consistently undermined the director ... caused a serious morale problem within the faculty ... (and) there was evidence that both teachers refused to cooperate with the administration or other teachers. (Kelly, 1982)"

THE ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP DIMENSION

Dimension three focuses upon organizational citizenship. Being a good "citizen" among colleagues and doing one's share is considered part of collegiality. Doing one's share has been called "civic virtue". One department offers the following as part of it's definition of collegiality: "pulling one's weight in the department: assuming and carrying out a reasonable and appropriate share of department's business; reliably following through on departmental assignments; taking part in departmental governance and decision making; and advising and providing support and assistance for students" (History Department Personnel Procedures, 2000).

Organ's original conceptualization of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) identified Civic Virtue, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Altruism as "extra-role" or discretionary behaviors for which the organization provides no direct or formal reinforcement (Organ 1988). In 1997 Organ recast the extra-role and discretionary element of these five behaviors because so many jobs had been empowered and enriched to the extent that these five behaviors were often considered "in-role" and part of many jobs. Organ redefined OCBs as "contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance" (Organ, 1997). Faculty members have been empowered and allowed decision making authority over many items on our campuses for many years. This is not to say that administrations and others do not make important decisions. However, there is shared power at some level among every faculty unit over specified issues.

Several of Organ's OCB dimensions can be found explicitly or implicitly as part of definitions of collegiality. As stated above, "civic virtue" has been defined as behavior on the part of individuals indicating that they are doing their share and are responsibly participating in the life of the organization. Courtesy is behavior aimed at preventing work-related problems with others. Sportsmanship is "willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining and to avoid petty grievances, railing against real or imagined slights, and making federal cases out of small potatoes" (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004). Courtesy and Sportsmanship can be seen in the new tenure and promotion policy at Drexel University College of Medicine: "... faculty members are expected to display the collegiality toward colleagues, students and staff that is essential to the harmonious conduct of the College's missions" (Tenure and promotion to tenure, 2004 ). Harmoniousness is the goal of the collegial behavior at Drexel's College of Medicine.

Respect can also be considered a subdimension within the citizenship dimension. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. Thus, the word collegiality can connote respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it (Wikipedia, 2004). An underlying respect for the other citizens within the organization is part of being a good citizen, and within this dimension of collegiality. The negative and dysfunctional aspects illustrated and discussed above often indicate a lack of respect of colleagues. An understanding of the focus and effort it takes to become and succeed as a faculty member should create a healthy respect among colleagues.

Respect is an important dimension of collegiality according to the AAUP. It should be pointed out that the AAUP is critical of collegiality based upon its opposition to collegiality becoming a separate element, a "fourth pillar". In the AAUP statement on professional ethics it says that "as colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others ... Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution" (AAUP, 1987).

It is not the purpose of this paper to suggest that collegiality should or should not become a separate factor for tenure and promotion policies in higher education. Some will think that it should while others will oppose its use. Others object to it's independence as a factor but support it as important within the traditional three pillars of research, teaching, and service. The AAUP takes the latter position when it says few "would deny that collegiality, in the sense of collaboration and constructive cooperation, identifies important aspects of a faculty member's overall performance. A faculty member may legitimately be called upon to participate in the development of curricula and standards for the evaluation of teaching, as well as in peer review of the teaching of colleagues. Much research ... is by its nature collaborative and requires teamwork as well as the ability to engage in independent investigation. And committee service ... is a logical outgrowth of the Association's view that a faculty member is an "officer" of the college or university in which he or she fulfills professional duties. Understood in this way, collegiality is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently of the traditional triumvirate ..." (AAUP, 1999).

Instead, this paper seeks to explore the definition of collegiality and discuss the construct. This paper can serve as an attempt to define the nomological net in which the construct is found. The nomological net or network was developed as part of an effort for developing standards for psychological testing and refers to defining the construct of interest and its relationship to other constructs (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Identifying convergent and discriminant validity is useful in proving the content validity of the concept being studied (Benson, 1998).

For instance, what other concepts are similar to collegiality? Several are proposed in this paper. The conflict management styles of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are identified under the first dimension. The social factors of culture, congeniality, and social connection are identified under the second dimension. Organizational citizenship and the factors of civic virtue, sportsmanship, courtesy, and respect are identified under the third dimension in this paper. These concepts should be related to each other under the theory discussed surrounding the concept of collegiality. Therefore, there should be a convergence or correspondence between these concepts.

What concepts are not related to the construct of collegiality? In the discussion of the AAUP statements on ethics and on collegiality one could argue that teaching, research, and service are related. However, since other institutions see collegiality as a fourth pillar of faculty performance, we can posit that teaching, research, and service are independent of the concept of collegiality. Therefore, we might look to see if there is discriminant validity between collegiality and these three concepts.

Further study is needed to empirically test hypotheses related to convergent and discriminant validity as discussed above. The exploratory conceptual discussion of the concept of collegiality in this paper might serve as a basis for hypotheses which could further define empirically the nomological net and establish construct validity for this important concept. This definition would be helpful to organizations which might consider adding collegiality as a fourth pillar. This could also prove helpful to those who consider collegiality as lacking independence from teaching, research, and service behaviors. Such research would also be helpful to those charged with the responsibility of discussing and writing about collegiality in faculty policies and procedures.

Other factors which should be within the nomological net need to be identified. There might additional dimensions not identified in this paper. Further, the three dimensions offered in this paper may lack sufficient independence to withstand empirical analysis. The hope is that this paper will provide a starting point for identifying the conceptual definition of collegiality. We need stronger guidance than that offered by dictionaries. We also need a standard better than the old definition of pornography once used by the Supreme Court "I know it when I see it." Vagueness and ambiguity pose weaknesses in any tenure, promotion, termination, or other faculty performance appraisal function. Mistakes in this area can harm careers and lead to misdirection of efforts.

REFERENCES

AAUP (1999). On collegiality as a criterion for faculty evaluation. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/collegia.htm.

AAUP (1987) Statement on Professional Ethics. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/Rbethics.htm.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ashforth, B. E. & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48(2), 97-125.

Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 17, 10-17.

Bugeja, M.J., (2002). Is congeniality overrated? The Chronicle of Higher Education Career Network, Retrieved February 28, 2005 from http://chronicle.com/jobs/2002/07/2002073001c.htm.

College of Arts and Sciences: Promotion and Tenure Committees: Statement of Procedures and Criteria, University of South Alabama (2004-2005) Retrieved February 18, 2005 from http://www.southalabama.edu/arts&sci/tenureandpromotionstatement0405.pdf.

Connell, M. A., & Savage, F. G. (2001). The role of collegiality in higher education tenure, promotion, and termination decisions. Journal of College and University Law, 27 833-843.

Cronbach, L. & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B. & Organ, D.W. (2004) Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), p241-254.

Fine, G. A. (1988) Letting off steam? In M. O. Jones, M. D. Moore, & R. C. Snyder (Eds.), Inside organizations: Understanding the human dimension (pp. 119-127), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.

Hartle, A. (2004) Collegiality as a criterion for tenure? Why it's not all politics. Emory Academic Exchange, 6(1), Retrieved February 25. 2005, from http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/ 2004/decjan/hartle.html.

History Department Personnel Procedures, Central Washington University: Definition of collegiality. (2000) Retrieved February 28, 2005 from http://www.cwu.edu/~history/personnelproc.html# definition.

Jarzabkowski, L. M., (December, 2001). The social dimensions of teacher collegiality. Presented to the Annual Conference of the Australian Association of Research in Education, Notre Dame University, Perth, Australia.

Kelly v. Kansas City, Kansas Community College (1982), 231 Kan. 751, 759-60, 648 P.2d 225.

Lewin, T. (2002, July 12). "Collegiality" as a tenure battleground. The New York Times on the Web. p. 12. Retrieved March 11, 2005 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html.

Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (1999). Teacher burnout. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.) Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook for international research and practice (pp. 211-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition) (2003). Portland, OR: Merriam-Webster Incorporated.

Nias, J. (1998). Why teachers need their colleagues: A developmental perspective. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.) Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook for international research and practice (pp. 1257-1271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean-Up Time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-98.

Rosser, V. (2004) A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung professionals in the academy. Higher Education, 48(3), 317-338.

Shared leadership model of Kansas Community College. (2003). Retrieved on February 28, 2005 from www.kckcc.edu/leader/index.psp.

Tenure and promotion of faculty in higher education. Retrieved on February 25, 2005, from http://www.fourthbucket.org.

Tenure and promotion to tenure policy: Drexel University College Of Medicine (2004) Retrieved on February 25, 2005 from http://inside.drexel.edu/med/facaffairs/Bylaws/pdfs/tenure.pdf.

Thomas, K.W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp 889-935). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Wikipedia: Definition of Collegiality (2004) Retrieved on February 25, 2004 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiality#Definition_of_collegiality.

Wrighton, B. (1984, August). On collegiality. The Angelus, 10.

Robert D. Hatfield, Western Kentucky University