Legitimacy of managerial influence of marketing educators: perceptions of administrators and marketing faculty.

Beisel, John L. ; Clow, Kenneth E.

INTRODUCTION

Management scholars have for many years been concerned with the topic of managerial power, influence, and authority. Power is the ability to influence someone to do something he or she would have not otherwise have done. Influence is the process of modifying the thoughts and behavior of other people. Authority is the right to influence of others (Middlemist & Hitt, 1988). Managers employ various strategies in attempts to influence their subordinates. Certainly, one of the least effective influence strategies is to pressure employees by use of demands, threats, or persistent reminders (Yuki et al, 1993; Yuki & Tracey, 1992). There exists a zone of indifference regarding the methods of exercising influence, and when the manager steps outside that zone, legitimacy to influence behavior ceases (Hellriegel et al, 1995).

A more viable managerial approach is to utilize a legitimacy that stems from position and mutual agreement. This is closely related to authority, but in legitimacy both the manager and the employee agree that the manager has the right to influence the employee (Nelson & Quick, 1994). It makes no difference whether or not the manager believes that he or she has the right to influence. If legitimate power is to have any effectiveness, the subordinate must also believe that the manager has the legitimacy to render influence.

Up to this point, most studies of the legitimacy of managerial influence have been limited to the context of manager-employee relationships within the non-academic organization. There exists a paucity of research pertaining to managerial influence within the university setting, especially relating to business school settings. Thus, this study explores the current perceptions of business school administrators and marketing educators as to the legitimacy of the marketing department chairperson to attempt to influence the behavior of members of the marketing department. The results of statistical analyses are reported to accentuate those areas of agreement and disagreement between the two groups.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

In their seminal work, Schein & Ott (1962) developed a questionnaire comprised of fifty-five statements designed to elicit attitudes of business managers, college students, and union officers regarding the legitimacy of managerial influence. Each respondent placed the letter Y for "yes" next to those statements that he or she agreed that the manager had a legitimate right to influence subordinates, and placed the letter N for "no" next to those statements where the respondent believed the manager did not have the right to influence. If unsure, the respondent was instructed to leave the statement blank.

These researchers formulated an influence index to simplify data analysis by subtracting the number of "no's" and 0.2 times the number of blanks from the number of "yes" responses, dividing by the total number of respondents in the category, and multiplying the outcome by 100. The resulting index score ranged from +100 to -100. The higher the index score, the greater the degree of agreement with the statement on the questionnaire. Conversely, the lower the index score, the greater the degree of agreement that the issue was outside the boundaries of legitimate managerial influence. Schein & Ott concluded that there existed a high degree of agreement between the various sample groups on relative ranking of the statements, suggesting that there were well-defined areas of legitimate and non-legitimate managerial influence in our society.

Four years after this initial study, Schein & Lippitt (1966) administered the questionnaire to 504 respondents from various occupations ranging from police officers and Air Force personnel directors to supermarket managers and sales managers of manufacturing firms. Results indicated that the influence index of managers were different from non-managers, and there were even some differences between various groups of managers. Davis (1968) administered the Schein-Ott instrument to sixty U.S. Air Force personnel and compared the results with the original Schein-Ott study, finding there was agreement between the respondents of the two studies. Ashforth & Lee (1989) paralleled the Schein-Ott study by attempting to recreate a similar sample of 499 participants. The findings indicated, among other results, that: (1) perceived legitimacy had decreased since the Schein-Ott study, (2) perceived legitimacy is associated with managerial role proximity, and (3) only matters of direct relevance to the job are perceived to be legitimate areas for attempts at managerial influence.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Schein-Ott structured dichotomous instrument allowed only three possible choices for participants to indicate their attitudes regarding the legitimacy of managerial influence, i.e., "yes," "no," and the option to skip the question, indicating "no answer." Perceptions and attitudes, however, are more complex than what is provided by simple "yes-no" categories of responses. It is believed by the authors that more valid results would be achieved if the "intensity" of perceptions could be analyzed by providing a range of responses from which participants can choose. The current study, therefore, departs from the methodology utilized by Schein & Ott in that a seven-point likert-type scale was provided for recording perceptions regarding legitimacy of managerial influence, with "seven" being strongly agree, "one" being strongly disagree, and "four" indicating no opinion or undecided.

In addition, the questionnaire for this study differed markedly from the Schein-Ott instrument in that it consisted of sixty statements intended to measure the degree to which respondents perceived the legitimacy of attempts by marketing department chairpersons to influence marketing faculty (see Table I). In other words, the present instrument was specifically designed for the academic setting. Approximately twenty-four of the statements, however, were utilized in the Schein-Ott study. Responses were analyzed by applying the t-test for equality of means.

The Wiley Guide to Marketing Faculty (1995) was utilized to obtain names of 500 faculty from American four-year colleges and universities. Self-administered questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 80 business school deans, 120 marketing department chairpersons, and 300 marketing faculty members. A total of 212 questionnaires were received, of which 210 were usable for this study for an overall return rate of 42.0%.

Seventeen deans (21.3% return rate), 60 chairpersons (50% return rate), and 133 faculty members (44.3% return rate) responded to the survey. Due to the relatively small number of business school deans who returned the instrument, the responses of deans and chairpersons were collapsed into one category for analysis purposes.

RESULTS

Of the sixty statements on the instrument, on twenty-two statements the responses of administrators (deans and chairpersons) differed significantly from those of marketing faculty. In each of these twenty-two statements, the mean values of administrators were higher than those of faculty. There were a number of statements to which administrators and faculty were in agreement, as evidenced by a perusal of the mean values recorded by the two subgroups of respondents. For example, both administrators and faculty tended to strongly agree that it is legitimate for department chairpersons to influence members of the department regarding the quality of classroom teaching, attitudes toward students, the instructor's promptness to class, whether the instructor uses profane language in the classroom, and whether the instructor distributes student evaluation forms at the end of the term.

In addition, the two subgroups agreed with one another that chairpersons can legitimately influence faculty regarding the level of scholarly research, publications record, participation in academic conferences, attendance at department meetings, the number of school and departmental committees the instructor serves on, the instructor's number of scheduled office hours, and how available the instructor is to students during these scheduled office hours.

Both groups agreed that there were areas that were generally not legitimate for marketing department chairpersons to exert their influence. These included the tidiness of the instructor's office, the instructor's attitude toward smoking, where the instructor sends his or her children to college, the degree of participation in local civic activities, attitudes toward teachers' unions, professional journals subscribed to, whether the male instructor wears a beard or moustache, the willingness to play politics to get ahead, friends in the academic community, and the amount of leisure time spent with peers and superiors. None of the above areas of agreement are surprising. Both groups, however, also agreed that the instructor's attitudes toward the social responsibility of business firms was not a legitimate area of chairperson influence. This, in spite of the fact that social responsibility currently is a "buzzword" in academic circles.

As stated previously, administrators and teaching faculty disagreed significantly in twenty-two of the sixty statements on the questionnaire. It was also stated that in every one of these cases, the mean value recorded by administrators was higher than that reported by faculty, indicating that administrators owned a higher degree of perception that these were areas of legitimate managerial influence.

Discussion here is broken down on the basis of broad areas of relevance within which the statements can be categorized: discipline-related research, classroom teaching, intradepartmental relations and activities, community service, and personal. It should be remembered that some of these statements could feasibly overlap more than one area.

Generally, there were no significant differences between administrators and teaching faculty on those statements explicitly related to discipline-related research. Administrators and faculty did disagree on the legitimacy of chairpersons to influence faculty regarding the amount of time spent doing discipline-related reading. However, this area can overlap scholarly activity and teaching, since discipline-related reading improves both research and teaching.

There were six statements directly related to classroom teaching where administrators and faculty disagreed significantly: choice of textbook, class format, subject matter covered, the amount of work assigned to students, level of difficulty of exams, and method in assigning final grades. In addition, administrators and faculty did not agree on whether the instructor should bring ethical dimensions or multi-cultural aspects of marketing into the classroom, or how much leisure time the instructor spends with students. It appears that in the area of instruction, marketing faculty members are quite independent and resent efforts by department chairpersons to influence both their teaching methodology and the subject matter that is presented. Also, faculty believe that any leisure time spent with students is beyond the boundaries of the chairperson's domain. Table I depicts the resulting means and t-values for each statement.

Faculty were not as inclined as administrators to agree that the department chairperson has legitimacy of influence over such areas as the degree of political correctness or the kind of temperament faculty exhibit in the department, how the instructor divides up the working day among various activities, or how the instructor supervises graduate assistants. Again, this points to the fact that faculty often perceive the work environment within academia differently than do administrators.

There exist two aspects of community service for the academician: service within and to the university, and service to the general public at large. In only two statements relating to community service were there significant differences in the responses of administrators and marketing faculty. Service to the educational institution includes fund-raising activities such as annual fund drives (i.e., phonethons). In addition, service can include contributions to charity by the faculty member, which is often solicited through administrative channels. In both of these statements there were significant differences between the perceptions of administrators and faculty regarding the legitimacy of managerial influence. However, in spite of these differences, both subgroups did not perceive that the activities were within the boundaries of legitimate managerial influence.

The original Schein-Ott survey instrument included statements of a personal nature relating to such topics as the amount of life insurance carried, the kind of person the spouse is, political party membership, number of children, and church membership, among others. For obvious reasons, these type of questions were left out of the current questionnaire. However, the current instrument does include several statements that may be construed by some as personal, while by others as legitimate areas for managerial influence. The results of this survey indicate that there exist significant differences between administrators and faculty regarding the instructor's attitudes toward corporate profits, the capitalistic system, and sexual morality.

In addition, administrators disagreed significantly with faculty members as to the legitimacy of chairperson attempts to influence the amount of outside consulting the instructor engages in, whether the instructor has close friends with a rival university, and the instructor's attendance at university athletic events. In each of these issues, there could be pro and con arguments as to why or why not chairpersons should exert influence. It is feasible to conclude that some of these issues may influence the quality of teaching. For example, an instructor who engages in too much consulting may not be able to adequately tend to his or her university affairs, including teaching. Other areas of disagreement, such as relating to attendance at athletic events, are difficult to comprehend.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis indicates that perceptions of legitimacy of managerial influence in the university environment, particularly relating to the department of marketing, are not always clear cut. While there is a high degree of consensus between administrators and members of the marketing department on many issues, there still remain areas where chairpersons are perceived by faculty to be stepping outside the zone of indifference when attempts at influence are made.

The most sensitive area appears to be related to classroom teaching. Marketing faculty, although substantially agreeing with administrators regarding the importance of quality teaching, among others, still find issues that are "sacred ground" that chairpersons should not encroach. These issues notably include textbook choice, class format, subject matter covered, student work load, difficulty of exams, and grading.

In addition, there is disagreement between the two subgroups regarding managerial influence in bringing ethical dimensions and multi-culturalism into the classroom, both topics that are encouraged by AACSB.

Conversely, there exists little disagreement between administrators and faculty when it comes to discipline-related research. In fact, both subgroups strongly agreed that chairpersons legitimately can influence faculty members in their level of scholarly research, their publications record, and their participation in academic conferences. In addition, with a few exceptions, there is agreement between the two subgroups as to the degree of managerial influence in faculty members' participation in community service.

Thus, of the three important areas of teaching, discipline-related research, and community service, it appears that teaching is the area that marketing faculty and administrators are most likely to disagree regarding the legitimacy for chairperson influence. Certainly, discipline-related research and community service are "visible" in that performance can be documented. Classroom teaching, on the other hand, remains in the ethereal realm of individual faculty preferences and styles (i.e., academic freedom), and there exists no consensus as to which is the best way.

REFERENCES

Ashforth, B.E. & R.T. Lee (1989). The perceived legitimacy of managerial influence: a twenty-five year comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 231-242.

Davis, K. (1968). Attitudes toward the legitimacy of managerial efforts to influence employees. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 153-162.

Hasselback, J.R. (1995). Wiley guide to marketing faculty, 1995. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W., Jr., & R.W. Woodman (1995). Organizational behavior, 7th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, p. 500.

Middlemist, R.D. & M.A. Hitt (1988). Organizational behavior: managerial strategies for performance. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Nelson, D.L. & J.C. Quick (1994). Organizational behavior: foundations, realities, and challenges. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, p. 331.

Schein, E. & G.L. Lippitt (1966). Supervisory attitudes toward the legitimacy of influencing subordinates. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 2, 199-209.

Schein, E. & J.S. Ott (1962). The legitimacy of organizational influence. American Journal of Sociology, 67, 682-689.

Yuki, G., Falbe, C.M., & J.Y. Youn, 1993. Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group & Organization Management, 18, 7.

Yuki, G. & J.B. Tracey, 1992. Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 526.

John L. Beisel, Pittsburg State University Kenneth E. Clow, Pittsburg State University

Table 1
Means (On a 1-7 Scale) and t-values of Responses to Managerial
Influence Survey

 Admin. Mean
Item (n=77)

It is legitimate for a chairperson to attempt to influence department
members in terms of:

24. The quality of the instructor's
 classroom teaching 6.43
41. How available the instructor is to
 students during office hours 6.35
2. The instructor's attitude toward
 students 6.29
22. Whether the instructor hands out
 student evaluation forms 6.23
60. The instructor's attendance at
 departmental meetings 6.1
15. The instructor's promptness to
 classes 5.99
57. The instructor's number of
 scheduled office hours
54. How the instructor treats
 department secretaries 5.74
28. Whether the instructor uses profane
 language in the classroom 5.73
16. The instructor's publications record 5.6
46. The amount of scholarly research
 activity performed 5.53
5. The number of school and
 departmental committees 5.45
48. The subject matter the instructor
 covers in class 5.23
13. Whether the instructor brings
 ethical dimensions into class 5.17
18. Whether the instructor participates
 in academic meetings 4.99
21. The amount of additional education
 the instructor obtains 4.88
36. Whether the instructor brings multi-
 cultural aspects into class 4.86
1. How much importance the instructor
 attaches to getting along with
 other instructors 4.82
38. How the instructor supervises his
 or her own graduate assistants 4.79
3. How critical the instructor is of
 the university in public 4.58
45. The level of difficulty of the
 exams the instructor gives to
 students 4.52
27. How active the instructor is in
 recruiting other faculty 4.43
17. The instructor's class format 4.4
30. The amount of outside consulting
 the instructor engages in 4.36
37. The kind of temperament the
 instructor exhibits in the
 department
8. The instructor's relationships with
 local business people 4.18
7. The amount of work the instructor
 assigns to students 4.18
47. The textbooks the instructor
 chooses for his or her classes 4.09
29. The instructor's method in assigning
 final grades to students 4.08
40. Whether the instructor co-authors
 with others in the department 3.79
55. The instructor's attendance at school
 social functions 3.61
6. The degree of formality in the
 instructor's clothing 3.53
14. How the instructor divides his or
 her working day
51. The professional organization to
 which the instructor belongs 3.47
52. The amount of time the instructor
 spends in professional reading 3.47
59. How much the instructor competes
 with peers for promotion/raises 3.3
31. The degree of "political correctness"
 the instructor displays 3.25
20. The instructor's support of the
 university's top administrators 3.22
23. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with students 3.12
12. The form of address the instructor
 uses in talking to colleagues 3.08
35. The amount of office time the
 instructor spends talking to
 friends 3.04
10. The instructor's attitude toward
 social responsibility of businesses 2.99
49. The instructor's attitude toward
 sexual morality 2.91
33. The instructor's attitude toward the
 capitalistic system 2.75
56. The instructor's degree of
 participation in local civic
 activities 2.58
32. Whether the instructor is involved
 in university fund-raising 2.58
19. The instructor's willingness to play
 politics to get ahead 2.51
25. The professional journals to which the
 instructor subscribes 2.46
58. The instructor's attitudes toward
 corporate profits 2.44
9. The tidiness of the instructor's
 office 2.36
4. The amount of money the instructor
 gives to charity 1.81
39. The instructor's attitudes toward
 teachers' unions
42. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with superiors 1.75
50. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with peers 1.75
44. The instructor's attitudes toward
 smoking 1.7
11. The instructor's attendance at
 university athletic events 1.58
53. Who the instructor's friends are in
 the academic community 1.56
26. Whether the instructor has close
 friends with a rival university 1.53
43. Where the instructor sends his or
 her children to college 1.42
34. Whether a male instructor wears a
 beard or mustache 1.4

 Faculty Mean
Item (n=133)

It is legitimate for a chairperson to attempt to influence department
members in terms of:

24. The quality of the instructor's
 classroom teaching 6.26
41. How available the instructor is to
 students during office hours 6.14
2. The instructor's attitude toward
 students 6.02
22. Whether the instructor hands out
 student evaluation forms 5.92
60. The instructor's attendance at
 departmental meetings 6.1
15. The instructor's promptness to
 classes 5.8
57. The instructor's number of
 scheduled office hours 5.99 5.71
54. How the instructor treats
 department secretaries 5.47
28. Whether the instructor uses profane
 language in the classroom 5.49
16. The instructor's publications record 5.62
46. The amount of scholarly research
 activity performed 5.6
5. The number of school and
 departmental committees 5.21
48. The subject matter the instructor
 covers in class 4.26
13. Whether the instructor brings
 ethical dimensions into class 4.68
18. Whether the instructor participates
 in academic meetings 5.11
21. The amount of additional education
 the instructor obtains 4.9
36. Whether the instructor brings multi-
 cultural aspects into class 4.25
1. How much importance the instructor
 attaches to getting along with
 other instructors 4.82
38. How the instructor supervises his
 or her own graduate assistants 4.26
3. How critical the instructor is of
 the university in public 4.56
45. The level of difficulty of the
 exams the instructor gives to
 students 3.89
27. How active the instructor is in
 recruiting other faculty 4.24
17. The instructor's class format 3.29
30. The amount of outside consulting
 the instructor engages in 3.94
37. The kind of temperament the
 instructor exhibits in the
 department 4.25 3.36
8. The instructor's relationships with
 local business people 3.9
7. The amount of work the instructor
 assigns to students 3.66
47. The textbooks the instructor
 chooses for his or her classes 2.98
29. The instructor's method in assigning
 final grades to students 3.53
40. Whether the instructor co-authors
 with others in the department 3.77
55. The instructor's attendance at school
 social functions 3.33
6. The degree of formality in the
 instructor's clothing 3.53
14. How the instructor divides his or
 her working day 3.48 2.59
51. The professional organization to
 which the instructor belongs 3.33
52. The amount of time the instructor
 spends in professional reading 2.83
59. How much the instructor competes
 with peers for promotion/raises 3.32
31. The degree of "political correctness"
 the instructor displays 2.53
20. The instructor's support of the
 university's top administrators 3.16
23. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with students 2.58
12. The form of address the instructor
 uses in talking to colleagues 2.82
35. The amount of office time the
 instructor spends talking to
 friends 3.05
10. The instructor's attitude toward
 social responsibility of businesses 2.66
49. The instructor's attitude toward
 sexual morality 2.34
33. The instructor's attitude toward the
 capitalistic system 2.27
56. The instructor's degree of
 participation in local civic
 activities 2.6
32. Whether the instructor is involved
 in university fund-raising 2.13
19. The instructor's willingness to play
 politics to get ahead 2.55
25. The professional journals to which the
 instructor subscribes 2.47
58. The instructor's attitudes toward
 corporate profits 2.03
9. The tidiness of the instructor's
 office 2.06
4. The amount of money the instructor
 gives to charity 1.32
39. The instructor's attitudes toward
 teachers' unions 1.79 1.53
42. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with superiors 1.57
50. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with peers 1.47
44. The instructor's attitudes toward
 smoking 1.68
11. The instructor's attendance at
 university athletic events 1.29
53. Who the instructor's friends are in
 the academic community 1.36
26. Whether the instructor has close
 friends with a rival university 1.2
43. Where the instructor sends his or
 her children to college 1.18
34. Whether a male instructor wears a
 beard or mustache 1.32

Item t-value

It is legitimate for a chairperson to attempt to influence department
members in terms of:

24. The quality of the instructor's
 classroom teaching 1.05
41. How available the instructor is to
 students during office hours 1.21
2. The instructor's attitude toward
 students 1.53
22. Whether the instructor hands out
 student evaluation forms 1.61
60. The instructor's attendance at
 departmental meetings < 1
15. The instructor's promptness to
 classes < 1
57. The instructor's number of
 scheduled office hours 1.48
54. How the instructor treats
 department secretaries 1.43
28. Whether the instructor uses profane
 language in the classroom < 1
16. The instructor's publications record < 1
46. The amount of scholarly research
 activity performed < 1
5. The number of school and
 departmental committees 1.28
48. The subject matter the instructor
 covers in class 4.67 ***
13. Whether the instructor brings
 ethical dimensions into class 2.04 **
18. Whether the instructor participates
 in academic meetings < 1
21. The amount of additional education
 the instructor obtains < 1
36. Whether the instructor brings multi-
 cultural aspects into class 2.56 **
1. How much importance the instructor
 attaches to getting along with
 other instructors < 1
38. How the instructor supervises his
 or her own graduate assistants 2.40 **
3. How critical the instructor is of
 the university in public < 1
45. The level of difficulty of the
 exams the instructor gives to
 students 2.84 ***
27. How active the instructor is in
 recruiting other faculty < 1
17. The instructor's class format 5.03 ***
30. The amount of outside consulting
 the instructor engages in 1.69 *
37. The kind of temperament the
 instructor exhibits in the
 department 3.90 ***
8. The instructor's relationships with
 local business people 1.11
7. The amount of work the instructor
 assigns to students 2.23 **
47. The textbooks the instructor
 chooses for his or her classes 4.79 ***
29. The instructor's method in assigning
 final grades to students 2.17 **
40. Whether the instructor co-authors
 with others in the department < 1
55. The instructor's attendance at school
 social functions 1.06
6. The degree of formality in the
 instructor's clothing < 1
14. How the instructor divides his or
 her working day 3.38 ***
51. The professional organization to
 which the instructor belongs < 1
52. The amount of time the instructor
 spends in professional reading 2.54 **
59. How much the instructor competes
 with peers for promotion/raises < 1
31. The degree of "political correctness"
 the instructor displays 3.02 ***
20. The instructor's support of the
 university's top administrators < 1
23. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with students 2.06 **
12. The form of address the instructor
 uses in talking to colleagues < 1
35. The amount of office time the
 instructor spends talking to
 friends < 1
10. The instructor's attitude toward
 social responsibility of businesses 1.34
49. The instructor's attitude toward
 sexual morality 2.04 **
33. The instructor's attitude toward the
 capitalistic system 1.85 *
56. The instructor's degree of
 participation in local civic
 activities < 1
32. Whether the instructor is involved
 in university fund-raising 2.06 **
19. The instructor's willingness to play
 politics to get ahead < 1
25. The professional journals to which the
 instructor subscribes < 1
58. The instructor's attitudes toward
 corporate profits 1.69 *
9. The tidiness of the instructor's
 office 1.38
4. The amount of money the instructor
 gives to charity 2.71 ***
39. The instructor's attitudes toward
 teachers' unions 1.35
42. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with superiors 1.03
50. How much leisure time the instructor
 spends with peers 1.63
44. The instructor's attitudes toward
 smoking < 1
11. The instructor's attendance at
 university athletic events 1.76 *
53. Who the instructor's friends are in
 the academic community 1.29
26. Whether the instructor has close
 friends with a rival university 2.04 **
43. Where the instructor sends his or
 her children to college 1.51
34. Whether a male instructor wears a
 beard or mustache < 1

* p < 0.10 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01