Faculty Forum Papers
March 1983 Collective Bargaining - Establishment of Clear Structure
Kermit J. Rohde
February 24, 1983
For a number of years I was a directing member of the
Personnel Research Board. One of its major findings,
generally accepted now by all in work psychology, was
that heads of organizations who were good performed well
in initiating structure.
We studied many organizations there, and I have watched
many others since. For an organization of its size, Oregon
State is a near classic in chaos. Not only does most organization
which exists at Oregon State exist only in the minds of administrators,
but also those bits of organization change with administrative whims.
Committees are set to work, and when finished, find the action has already
been taken elsewhere. As one official said of another when explaining such
an occurrence "he forgets." Many important structures have no written
reference to which those working within them can refer. Other written
rules are meaningless (e.g., some of the materials in the Faculty
handbook never have been operative).
One effect of collective bargaining would be to force the establishment
of clear structure. Already, the mere call for an election have brought
about the identification as to which persons have faculty status and
which persons do not, a matter which the Faculty By-laws Committee
has for years tried to get the administration to clarify.
The structure which bargaining would establish may facilitate the
effectiveness of Oregon State; it may not. (It will depend on the
competence of the OSU Faculty to build one.) But as a general
organizational rule, organization is better than chaos.