A model for appraising non-academic administrative operations of the Autonomous University of Guadalajara : a case study

Purpose of the Study. This study was concerned with the development of a Management Appraisal Program (MAP) model for the nonacademic administrative areas of the Autonomous University of Guadalajara (UAG). The model of Griffin and Burks (1976) was utilized as a guide and adapted to the particular environment of UAG. Specifically, the study (1) developed a management appraisal instrument applicable to the non-academic service areas at the UAG, (2) ascertained from division and department heads and supervisors their perceptions of the management practices employed in each of the non-academic administrative areas, and (3) developed a management appraisal program model and a proposed plan for its implementation, evaluation, and revision. Research Questions. The research questions answered by this study were: 1. Were the elements included in the appraisal instrument acceptable to the panel of judges in accordance with the criteria of essential, desirable, or neither? 2. Does management (by levels) attribute different values of importance to various items of the categories of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling? 3. To what extent do data gathered by the questionnaire contribute information essential to modifying the administrative procedures of the units under study? 4. Which items of the questionnaire highlighted the areas of possible weaknesses in the organizational areas appraised and were thereby important to the development of the MAP? Procedures. To develop the MAP, data relating to non-academic organizational units were gathered from administrators. The instrument used to gather data was the Management Appraisal Guideline Questionnaire which solicited the perceptions of thirty administrators in the top management, middle management, and supervisory levels of selected nonacademic areas. The questionnaire was distributed to the respondents through the normal mail channel at the University. A 100 percent participation by the respondents was achieved. The procedures followed in completing the study consisted of a review of the literature, the design of the appraisal instrument, the gathering of data, and the analysis of the data. The analysis of the data was made by comparing the total line score on an item with the highest possible score. A low score of 1 on any line item would indicate an area of very grave appraisal need, and a very good score of 5, very little appraisal need. The application of the criterion of a score below 3 to scores between the stratified sample isolated the areas where administrators were deviating from the normal trend of the rest of the administrators in the non-academic areas. On the basis of the analysis and interpretation of the data and information obtained through a review of the literature, a management appraisal program model was developed. Findings. A panel of judges found 81 percent of the questionnaire items essential and 19 percent desirable. The analysis of the data revealed that there was higher perception of management effectiveness for top-level management and middle management than for the supervisory level. The analysis further established that the perception ratings, with few exceptions, were higher for those organizational areas with more than 500 staff members than for the 0 to 100 and 101 to 500 size organizational areas. The analysis established that it was possible to organize related items' into meaningful managerial sections that could form the basis for developing a management appraisal program. Also, areas of a specific substantive nature were identified for follow-up attention. Nineteen items of the questionnaire were rated by the supervisory level respondents to have a higher appraisal need than the top or middle management levels. The substantive areas of the items were decision making, institutional support service areas, and performance evaluation. The responses of the size groups were observed to be variable. The profile showed little consistency among the three groups with respect to perceptions. The graph lines were very erratic. For example, in the organizing section the plotting moved from a 4.40 rating for item 1 to 2.20 rating for item 3; both items relating to organzation. The grand average mean for the management level respondents was 3.37, however, the grand mean for the supervisory level was 3.04, the lowest for the management level. The average grand mean for the size groups indicated a close grouping with the up to 100 at 3.34, 101 to 500 at 3.35 and the over 500 group at 3.55. The average grand mean was 3.40. Conclusions. The items of the appraisal instrument were judged by members of a panel to be essential for appraisal purposes. The perceptions of the administrators provided information which could be used to modify administrative procedures, particularly in the supervisory levels of management. The items of the questionnaire that were rated below average provided a base for developing additional and more specific types of questionnaires which could be used in the development of the MAP. The profile charts for management levels revealed that an approximately equal distance of the graph lines was maintained from item to item, with the exception of the controlling section. The profile charts for the size groups was more varied indicating a greater perception for appraisal needs among the three size groups.