THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATORS AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF C O M M U N I T Y MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS By Jon P. Howell Using a methodology developed for industry, the personality traits, abilities, and motivations of CMHC administrators are assessed. The characteristics of these administrators do not appear to be significantly related to the effectiveness of their organizations. This finding differs from those in other organizations and may be caused by the uniqueness of the CMHC.
It has been more than ten years since Congress passed the Community Mental Health Centers Act establishing communitybased mental health programs. Administratively, the development of community mental health centers (CMHCs) has not been completely smooth. Glasscote and Gudeman (1969) and reports of site visits conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) indicate that CMHCs suffer from m a n y p r o b l e m s e n d e m i c to h e a l t h administration generally and from others Jon P. Howell is president of a private corporation in California.
unique to community-based mental health services. Most CMHCs are organized via service programs (inpatient services, o u t p a t i e n t services, partial hospitalization, etc.) each with one program chief who usually reports to the center director. The directors and most program chiefs are mental health professionals (psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or psychiatric nurse). Although these individuals often have little administrative experience or training prior to assuming their positions, they regularly carry out administrative activities such as planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling.
This study was conducted as a portion of a research )roject for NIMH by the Public Policy Research 3rganization (PPRO), University of California, Irvine. The indings reported here are excerpted from the author's Ioctoral dissertation for the Graduate School of kdministration, UCI. The author is especially indebted to Uexander M. Mood, past director of PPRO, for his valuable uggestions during the statistical analysis and to Newton ,larguilies and Anthony Raia for numerous suggestions ~roughout the study.
This article presents the partial results of a study of CMHC administrators--directors and program chiefs. The data reported here relate the individual characteristics of administrators to overall CMHC effectiveness. The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' characteristics were measured by Ghiselli's (I 971) Self Description Inventory and included personality traits, abilities, and motivations. 125
To preserve confidentiality, the actual centers studied have not been identified. The field settings of the centers are described, however, as well as the overall role of the C M H C administrator. This is followed by a brief review of relevant research on administrator characteristics, the hypotheses to be tested, a description of the effectiveness measures, the analysis strategy, and the findings. The Setting The administrators studied were employed in six C M H C s throughout the country. The centers were selected according to their geographical dispersion, varying environmental contexts (urban, suburban and rural) and varying governmental auspices. None of the centers selected had previously been extensively studied. A total of 48 administrators were included--six directors and 42 program chiefs. The full-time staff of the centers ranged from 40 to 590. The catchment area populations were between 83,000 and 206,000. The director is responsible for the overall operations of the center and is accountable to a governing board. This board establishes overall center policies, evaluates performance, raises funds and conducts public relations activities. The director may be assisted by a wide v a r i e t y of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f - accountant, personnel officer, planning and proram evaluation officer, business manager, data processing officer, and so on. Some centers also have a clinical or medical director who reports to the center director. In these, program chiefs may either report to the clinical or center director. C M H C s obtain most of their funds from federal, state and local government, a significant amount from third party payments, and a relatively small percentage from patients' fees. Funds from governmental sources usually involve stipulations regarding which services should be provided, how they should be delivered, the qualifications of the recipients, 126
etc. W h i l e the N I M H p r o v i d e s b o t h construction and staffing grants to qualified applicants, center administrators must develop other funding sources to replace the federal staffing grants which gradually decline over an eight year period.
Relevant Research Research findings prior to 1940 typically yielded support for a "trait" theory of leadership. Successful and unsuccessful leaders could supposedly be differentiated on the basis o f c e r t a i n t r a i t s or d i s t i n g u i s h i n g characteristics. Around 1940, however, it became apparent that many of these findings
Successful and unsuccessful leaders couM supposedly be differentiated on the basis of certain traits or distinguishing characteristics. were illusory. In reviewing the literature, Bird (1940), Jenkins (1947), Stogdill (1948) and Gibb (1954) found that very few supposedly general traits were common to four or more studies and most of these traits distinguished leaders from non-leaders. They did not d i s t i n g u i s h effective from non-effective leaders. In 1963, Edwin Ghiselli reopened the issue by reporting correlational findings relating individual traits and management performance ratings for several organizational levels and across several organizations. He claimed to find s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between c e r t a i n traits a n d p e r f o r m a n c e ratings. Ghiselli's studies involved distinctions between effective and non-effective managers. In subsequent research involving managers in various types of industrial organizations, he identified nine traits " . . . which play a part in managerial success" (Ghiselli 1971). He also developed an instrument, the Self Description Inventory, for measuring each of these traits and provided considerable empirical evidence
supporting the validity of the instrument for each of the traits measured. In general, Ghiselli's findings indicate that there may be certain traits that distinguish effective f r o m non-effective leaders or administrators. Subsequent findings by Porter and Lawler (1968) and Slocum (1971)support Ghiselli. Most of this research was carried out in business a n d a few g o v e r n m e n t a l organizations. While the findings are worthy of careful attention, their generalizability to other types of organizations such as C M H C s has remained largely untested.
Hypotheses Based on a literature survey of leadership effectiveness, one overall hypothesis and three sub-hypotheses were suggested that relate i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with C M H C effectiveness. Hypothesis: Certain individual characteristics of administrators in C M H C s (as measured by Ghiselli's SDI) are significantly related to their organizations' effectiveness. Sub-Hypothesis l a: The supervisory ability, intelligence and initiative of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in C M H C s are positively related to their Centers' effectiveness, i.e., the higher the level of supervisory ability, intelligence and initiative of CMHC administrators, the more effective their C M H C . Sub-Hypothesis lb: The selfa s s u r a n c e and decisiveness of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in C M H C s are positively related to their centers' effectiveness, i.e., the higher the level of self-assurance and decisiveness of C M H C administrators, the more effective their CMHC. Sub-Hypothesis lc: The need for occupational achievement and selfactualization, and the lack of need for high financial reward and job security of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in C M H C s are positively related to
their centers' effectiveness, i.e., the higher the need for occupational achievement and self-actualization and the lower the need for high financial reward and job security of C M H C administrators the more effective their CMHCs. The above hypotheses mirror Ghiselli's findings of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in i n d u s t r i a l organizations (1972). Since a number of the problems and tasks of C M H C administrators are s i m i l a r to t h o s e of i n d u s t r i a l administrators, it was felt that the traits that characterize successful industrial a d m i n i s t r a t o r s would also c h a r a c t e r i z e administrators in effective CMHCs. With Ghiselli's Self Description Inventory, each administrator obtains a separate score on the variables included in the above three subhypotheses. In order to test sub-hypothesis I a, each administrator's score on supervisory ability, intelligence and i n i t i a t i v e was combined into a single number by obtaining the arithmetic mean of the three scores. This number was interpreted as an indicator of the
The lower the need for high financial reward and job security for C M H C administrators, the more effective their CMHCs. ability of that CM HC administrator. The same procedure was used to combine the variables included in sub-hypotheses l b and l c. Thus, for each administrator studied, single values were obtained for.abilities, personality traits, and motivations.
Effectiveness Measures The measures of C M H C effectiveness utilized in this study were two factor analytically derived organizational performance measures. These were derived from performance ratings by N I M H site visitors and the study team on ten separate 127
criteria of center effectiveness. Each center was rated on a six point scale by the extent to which it: 1. manages its internal operations efficiently and effectively, including relations a m o n g its affiliates if the center is a consortium; 2. e f f e c t i v e l y p r o v i d e s inpatient services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 3. effectively provides outpatient services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 4. e f f e c t i v e l y p r o v i d e s partial hospitalization services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 5. effectively provides emergency services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 6. effectively provides consultation and education services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 7. effectively assures continuity of care for its patients served, given the resources it has available; 8. effectively assures the accessibility of its services to residents of the catchment area; 9. e f f e c t i v e l y c o o r d i n a t e s its services with those of other h u m a n service agencies in the community; 10. e f f e c t i v e l y assures the responsiveness of its services to the needs of the community. For every C M H C studied, ratings were obtained on each criterion from as many site visitors as possible. These ratings were then subjected to a factor analysis that resulted in two overall performance factors (explaining 53% of the total variance of the variables underlying the analysis).*
*Other factor solutions yielded more factors, however, these contained a significant number of high cross loadings among the variables and the resulting factors were very difficult to interpret.
128
The two performance factors emerging from this analysis were labeled Indirect Services and Direct Services respectively. Indirect Services (factor l) are indicative of the center as a coordinator of mental health services in its catchment area. This factor had high positive loadings on overall m a n a g e m e n t effectiveness, consultation and education, accessibility, coordination, and responsiveness. Direct Services (factor 2) emphasized the direct care giving function of the C M H C with high p o s i t i v e l o a d i n g s on i n p a t i e n t services, outpatient services, partial hospitalization, and emergency services. Factor scores were obtained for each C M H C on each of the two factors. Thus each center was asigned one score for Indirect Services and one score for Direct Services. These factor scores comprise the measures of organizational effectiveness utilized in this study.
Analysis Strategy Pearson product m o m e n t coefficients of correlation were computed in order to test hypothesis 1 via its sub-hypotheses. The independent variables in the regressions were the values obtained for administrative abilities, personality traits and motivations as described above. The dependent variables were the factor scores measuring C M H C effectiveness. Tests of significance were performed to determine if the correlation coefficients differed significantly from zero.
Findings There were two phases to the data analysis. First, the analysis was performed for all a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in the s a m p l e (i.e., no distinction was made between directors and program chiefs). The sample was then divided into directors and program chiefs and the analysis was re-performed on each of these two sub-samples. The second phase was an attempt
administrators may be slightly positively correlated with their centers' effectiveness, whereas their p e r s o n a l i t y traits and m o t i v a t i o n s may be slightly negatively correlated with center effectiveness. The small size of the coefficients prevent us from drawing any more definitive conclusions from the data.
to determine if the center directors differed from the program chiefs according to the variables being researched. Dichotomizing the sample and reperforming the analysis should demonstrate if the same set of variables c h a r a c t e r i z e directors and program chiefs in the more effective CM HCs. If one set of variables was found to characterize directors and another set program chiefs, we would have some evidence that the two positions may require different types of people. We would not know if these differences existed before they occupied the position or afterward, but if they differ at the time of study, we have a start in isolating some possibly important variables distinguishing administrators in these two categories. Table 1 presents the findings for all administrators regarding sub-hypotheses l a, lb and lc. None of the correlation coefficients TABLE
The findings for the directors' analysis in Table 2 were slightly different than for all administrators. Sub-hypotheses 1a, b and c all yielded negative coefficients for factor I and all positive coefficients for factor 2 in the directors' analysis. None of the coefficients were statistically significant although subhypothesis l a dealing with directors' abilities yielded an r =+.40 for factor 2. Although the coefficients are nearly all small and non-significant, the pattern of findings for the directors may be indicative that individual 1
Coefficients of Correlation (r) Between Individual Characteristics and CMHC Effectiveness (For All Administrators)
Hypotheses
r for Factor I
IA. Abilities lB. Personality IC. Motivations
+.04 -.08 -.08
(t) (0.271) (-0.544) (-0.544)
were statistically significant for the analysis of all administrators. Only sub-hypothesis l a dealing with administrators' abilities yielded the predicted positive coefficients. Subhypotheses l b and l c both yielded small negative coefficients for factors 1 and 2 -- the opposite from the predicted direction. A l t h o u g h t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r all administrators are quite small, the consistency af the findings for each sub-hypothesis on both fffectiveness factors may suggest a relationship tmong the variables. The abilities of C M H C
r for Factor II +.16 -.16 -.01
(t) (1.099) (-1.099) (-0.068)
n 48 48 48
characteristics are differentially related to C M H C effectiveness in providing the two overall types of se?vice (direct and indirect). The negative coefficients for factor 1 could indicate a slight negative relationship between d i r e c t o r s ' i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and C M H C effectiveness in providing indirect services. The positive coefficients for factor 2 may indicate a slight positive relationship between directors' individual characteristics and C M H C effectiveness in providing direct services (especially for directors' abilities). 129
TABLE 2 Coefficients of Correlation (r) Between Individual Characteristics and CMHC Effectiveness (For All Directors)
Hypotheses
r for Factor I
IA. Abilities lB. Personality IC. Motivations
-.14 -.08 -.17
(t)
r for Factor II
(t)
(-0.243) (-0.161) (-0.345)
+.40 +.02 +.10
(0.873) (0.040) (0.201)
The find!ngs for the program chiefs' analysis (Table 3) were predictably almost identical to those for all administrators (Table 1). While none of the coefficients were significant, subh y p o t h e s i s l a yielded slightly positive coefficients for factors 1 and 2 and sub hypotheses l b and l c resulted in slightly negative r's for both factors 1 and 2.Here, as
n 6 6 6
when placing the findings from this study in perspective with other relevant research. First, the limited sample size precludes any generalizations from these findings beyond the organizations actually studied. The most that can be said conclusively about the findings reported here is that for the six CMHCs
TABLE 3 Coefficients of Correlation (r) Between Individual Characteristics and CMHC Effectiveness (For All Program Chiefs)
Hypotheses
r for Factor I
IA. Abilities lB. Personality IC. Motivations
+.07 -.09 -.07
(t) (0.444) (-0.572) (-0.444)
with the administrators' analysis, although the r's are quite small, the consistency of the signs of the coefficients may indicate a slight positive relationship between program chiefs' abilities and center effectiveness whereas their personality traits and motivations may be slightly negatively related to their centers' effectiveness. Discussion
Two major caveats must be kept in mind 130
r for Factor II +. 12 -.18 -.03
(t) (0.764) (-1.157) (-0.190)
n 42 42 42
studied, the results do or do not agree with findings from studies in other organizations. The second item to bear in mind is that many of the studies in the literature dealing with the variables of this study utilized criterion measures of individual performance rather than organizational performance. Ghiselli reported significant relationships between the l e v e l of i n d i v i d u a l administrator characteristics studied h e r e and
administrators' individual performance. In this study, these findings were projected by predicting significant relationships between i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and C M H C
The coefficients relating administrators' personality traits and motivations with C M H C effectiveness were nearly all in the opposite direction . . . . effectiveness. To the extent that the often presumed positive relationship exists between administrators' performance and organizational effectiveness, the findings from this study can be compared to Ghiselli's. Ghiselli (1963, 1971), Porter and Lawler (1968), and Slocum (1971) obtained findings from government and business organizations indicating that the higher the level of certain individual administrator characteristics the more effective the administrators' performance. When these characteristics were related to C M H C effectiveness in this study, these findings were not supported. Although most of the coefficients relating administrators' abilities with CMHC effectiveness were in the predicted positive direction, all were quite small and statistically not significant. The coefficients relating a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' p e r s o n a l i t y traits a n d motivations with C M H C effectiveness were nearly all in the opposite direction from that predicted - again none were statistically significant.
No definitive relationships exist between the characteristics of the administrators in the study and C M H C effectiveness. m
Based on these findings we can only conclude that for the C M H C s studied, no definitive relationships exist between the characteristics of the administrators in the study and C M H C effectiveness. Although some relationships may have been suggested
and some differences do appear to exist in the abilities most appropriate for directors and program chiefs, the results do not allow any firm conclusions. Why did the hypotheses receive such little support? One possible explanation is that the directional predictions contained in the hypotheses were erroneous. The predictions were derived from previous findings in other types of organizations - mostly industrial firms. C M H C s are unique organizations in many ways. Their objectives, sources of funding, manpower, clientele, location, and political and legal restrictions are only a few of many possible factors that influence their
Unique difficulties confront C M H C administrators in merely defining the problems to be dealt with . . . . functioning and are largely beyond their control. The common performance criterion used in business o r g a n i z a t i o n s (i.e., profitability) is not easily applied in this setting. Treatment programs for the mentally ill are undoubtedly among the most difficult of the human services to gauge in terms of effectiveness. Definitions of "mental health" and "mental illness" are widely disputed even among mental health professionals. Several types of mental illness commonly treated by C M H C personnel are virtually incurable. In these cases, center personnel are forced to settle for something less than complete cure. Considerations such as these lead one to appreciate the unique difficulties confronting C M H C administrators in merely defining the problems to be dealt with in their catchment areas. These considerations must precede plans and priorities for dealing with these problems, establishing reliable performance measures, etc. The individuals administering the C M H C s are u s u a l l y d e d i c a t e d m e n t a l h e a l t h professionals. Several recent research findings point to the problems confronting dedicated 131
It may be that the unique nature of CMHCs requires an equally unique type of administrator. professionals in adapting to administrative positions in organizations (Abrahamson 1967; Luecke 1973). It may be that the unique nature
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, Mark. The Professional in the Organization. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. Bird, Charles. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1940. Ghiselli, Edwin E. Managerial talent. American Psychologist, 18(10): 631-641,1963. Ghiselli, Edwin E. Explorations in Managerial Talent. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1971. Gibb, C. Leadership. In: Lindsey, G., ed. Handbook of Social Psychology. Menlo Park, California: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Glasscote, R. M., and Gudeman, Jon E. The Staff of the Community Mental Health Center. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Glasscote, R. M., Sanders, D., Forstenzer, H. M., and Foley, A. R. The Community Mental Health Center: An Analysis of Existing Models. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Glasscote, R. M., Kraft, A. M., Glassman, S. M., and Jepson, W. W. Partial Hospitalization for 132
of C M H C s (especially their objectives and clientele) requires an equally unique type of administrator-one who bears very little resemblance to the effective administrator in other organizations. If this is so, then the types of relationships found in other organizations (and used to support the hypotheses of this study) may simply not hold true in CMHCs.
the Mentally Ill: A Study of Programs anr~ Problems. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Glasscote, R. M., Cumming, E., Hammersley, D. W., Ozarin, L. D., and Smith, L. H. ThE Psychiatric Emergency: A Study of Patterns oj Service. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Jenkins, William O. A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Psychological Bulletin, 44:54-74, 1947. Lueke, David S. The professional as organizational leader. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(1) : 86-94, 1973. Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 64(1 ):23-51, 1965. Slocum, J. W., Jr. Motivation in managerial levels: Relationship of need satisfaction to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(4) : 312-316, 1971. Stogdill, R. M. Personal factors associated with leadership. Journal of Psychology, 25: 35-71, 1948. ADMINISTRATION IN MENTAL HEALTH
It has been more than ten years since Congress passed the Community Mental Health Centers Act establishing communitybased mental health programs. Administratively, the development of community mental health centers (CMHCs) has not been completely smooth. Glasscote and Gudeman (1969) and reports of site visits conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) indicate that CMHCs suffer from m a n y p r o b l e m s e n d e m i c to h e a l t h administration generally and from others Jon P. Howell is president of a private corporation in California.
unique to community-based mental health services. Most CMHCs are organized via service programs (inpatient services, o u t p a t i e n t services, partial hospitalization, etc.) each with one program chief who usually reports to the center director. The directors and most program chiefs are mental health professionals (psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or psychiatric nurse). Although these individuals often have little administrative experience or training prior to assuming their positions, they regularly carry out administrative activities such as planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling.
This study was conducted as a portion of a research )roject for NIMH by the Public Policy Research 3rganization (PPRO), University of California, Irvine. The indings reported here are excerpted from the author's Ioctoral dissertation for the Graduate School of kdministration, UCI. The author is especially indebted to Uexander M. Mood, past director of PPRO, for his valuable uggestions during the statistical analysis and to Newton ,larguilies and Anthony Raia for numerous suggestions ~roughout the study.
This article presents the partial results of a study of CMHC administrators--directors and program chiefs. The data reported here relate the individual characteristics of administrators to overall CMHC effectiveness. The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' characteristics were measured by Ghiselli's (I 971) Self Description Inventory and included personality traits, abilities, and motivations. 125
To preserve confidentiality, the actual centers studied have not been identified. The field settings of the centers are described, however, as well as the overall role of the C M H C administrator. This is followed by a brief review of relevant research on administrator characteristics, the hypotheses to be tested, a description of the effectiveness measures, the analysis strategy, and the findings. The Setting The administrators studied were employed in six C M H C s throughout the country. The centers were selected according to their geographical dispersion, varying environmental contexts (urban, suburban and rural) and varying governmental auspices. None of the centers selected had previously been extensively studied. A total of 48 administrators were included--six directors and 42 program chiefs. The full-time staff of the centers ranged from 40 to 590. The catchment area populations were between 83,000 and 206,000. The director is responsible for the overall operations of the center and is accountable to a governing board. This board establishes overall center policies, evaluates performance, raises funds and conducts public relations activities. The director may be assisted by a wide v a r i e t y of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f - accountant, personnel officer, planning and proram evaluation officer, business manager, data processing officer, and so on. Some centers also have a clinical or medical director who reports to the center director. In these, program chiefs may either report to the clinical or center director. C M H C s obtain most of their funds from federal, state and local government, a significant amount from third party payments, and a relatively small percentage from patients' fees. Funds from governmental sources usually involve stipulations regarding which services should be provided, how they should be delivered, the qualifications of the recipients, 126
etc. W h i l e the N I M H p r o v i d e s b o t h construction and staffing grants to qualified applicants, center administrators must develop other funding sources to replace the federal staffing grants which gradually decline over an eight year period.
Relevant Research Research findings prior to 1940 typically yielded support for a "trait" theory of leadership. Successful and unsuccessful leaders could supposedly be differentiated on the basis o f c e r t a i n t r a i t s or d i s t i n g u i s h i n g characteristics. Around 1940, however, it became apparent that many of these findings
Successful and unsuccessful leaders couM supposedly be differentiated on the basis of certain traits or distinguishing characteristics. were illusory. In reviewing the literature, Bird (1940), Jenkins (1947), Stogdill (1948) and Gibb (1954) found that very few supposedly general traits were common to four or more studies and most of these traits distinguished leaders from non-leaders. They did not d i s t i n g u i s h effective from non-effective leaders. In 1963, Edwin Ghiselli reopened the issue by reporting correlational findings relating individual traits and management performance ratings for several organizational levels and across several organizations. He claimed to find s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between c e r t a i n traits a n d p e r f o r m a n c e ratings. Ghiselli's studies involved distinctions between effective and non-effective managers. In subsequent research involving managers in various types of industrial organizations, he identified nine traits " . . . which play a part in managerial success" (Ghiselli 1971). He also developed an instrument, the Self Description Inventory, for measuring each of these traits and provided considerable empirical evidence
supporting the validity of the instrument for each of the traits measured. In general, Ghiselli's findings indicate that there may be certain traits that distinguish effective f r o m non-effective leaders or administrators. Subsequent findings by Porter and Lawler (1968) and Slocum (1971)support Ghiselli. Most of this research was carried out in business a n d a few g o v e r n m e n t a l organizations. While the findings are worthy of careful attention, their generalizability to other types of organizations such as C M H C s has remained largely untested.
Hypotheses Based on a literature survey of leadership effectiveness, one overall hypothesis and three sub-hypotheses were suggested that relate i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with C M H C effectiveness. Hypothesis: Certain individual characteristics of administrators in C M H C s (as measured by Ghiselli's SDI) are significantly related to their organizations' effectiveness. Sub-Hypothesis l a: The supervisory ability, intelligence and initiative of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in C M H C s are positively related to their Centers' effectiveness, i.e., the higher the level of supervisory ability, intelligence and initiative of CMHC administrators, the more effective their C M H C . Sub-Hypothesis lb: The selfa s s u r a n c e and decisiveness of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in C M H C s are positively related to their centers' effectiveness, i.e., the higher the level of self-assurance and decisiveness of C M H C administrators, the more effective their CMHC. Sub-Hypothesis lc: The need for occupational achievement and selfactualization, and the lack of need for high financial reward and job security of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in C M H C s are positively related to
their centers' effectiveness, i.e., the higher the need for occupational achievement and self-actualization and the lower the need for high financial reward and job security of C M H C administrators the more effective their CMHCs. The above hypotheses mirror Ghiselli's findings of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in i n d u s t r i a l organizations (1972). Since a number of the problems and tasks of C M H C administrators are s i m i l a r to t h o s e of i n d u s t r i a l administrators, it was felt that the traits that characterize successful industrial a d m i n i s t r a t o r s would also c h a r a c t e r i z e administrators in effective CMHCs. With Ghiselli's Self Description Inventory, each administrator obtains a separate score on the variables included in the above three subhypotheses. In order to test sub-hypothesis I a, each administrator's score on supervisory ability, intelligence and i n i t i a t i v e was combined into a single number by obtaining the arithmetic mean of the three scores. This number was interpreted as an indicator of the
The lower the need for high financial reward and job security for C M H C administrators, the more effective their CMHCs. ability of that CM HC administrator. The same procedure was used to combine the variables included in sub-hypotheses l b and l c. Thus, for each administrator studied, single values were obtained for.abilities, personality traits, and motivations.
Effectiveness Measures The measures of C M H C effectiveness utilized in this study were two factor analytically derived organizational performance measures. These were derived from performance ratings by N I M H site visitors and the study team on ten separate 127
criteria of center effectiveness. Each center was rated on a six point scale by the extent to which it: 1. manages its internal operations efficiently and effectively, including relations a m o n g its affiliates if the center is a consortium; 2. e f f e c t i v e l y p r o v i d e s inpatient services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 3. effectively provides outpatient services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 4. e f f e c t i v e l y p r o v i d e s partial hospitalization services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 5. effectively provides emergency services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 6. effectively provides consultation and education services to its catchment area, given the resources it has available; 7. effectively assures continuity of care for its patients served, given the resources it has available; 8. effectively assures the accessibility of its services to residents of the catchment area; 9. e f f e c t i v e l y c o o r d i n a t e s its services with those of other h u m a n service agencies in the community; 10. e f f e c t i v e l y assures the responsiveness of its services to the needs of the community. For every C M H C studied, ratings were obtained on each criterion from as many site visitors as possible. These ratings were then subjected to a factor analysis that resulted in two overall performance factors (explaining 53% of the total variance of the variables underlying the analysis).*
*Other factor solutions yielded more factors, however, these contained a significant number of high cross loadings among the variables and the resulting factors were very difficult to interpret.
128
The two performance factors emerging from this analysis were labeled Indirect Services and Direct Services respectively. Indirect Services (factor l) are indicative of the center as a coordinator of mental health services in its catchment area. This factor had high positive loadings on overall m a n a g e m e n t effectiveness, consultation and education, accessibility, coordination, and responsiveness. Direct Services (factor 2) emphasized the direct care giving function of the C M H C with high p o s i t i v e l o a d i n g s on i n p a t i e n t services, outpatient services, partial hospitalization, and emergency services. Factor scores were obtained for each C M H C on each of the two factors. Thus each center was asigned one score for Indirect Services and one score for Direct Services. These factor scores comprise the measures of organizational effectiveness utilized in this study.
Analysis Strategy Pearson product m o m e n t coefficients of correlation were computed in order to test hypothesis 1 via its sub-hypotheses. The independent variables in the regressions were the values obtained for administrative abilities, personality traits and motivations as described above. The dependent variables were the factor scores measuring C M H C effectiveness. Tests of significance were performed to determine if the correlation coefficients differed significantly from zero.
Findings There were two phases to the data analysis. First, the analysis was performed for all a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in the s a m p l e (i.e., no distinction was made between directors and program chiefs). The sample was then divided into directors and program chiefs and the analysis was re-performed on each of these two sub-samples. The second phase was an attempt
administrators may be slightly positively correlated with their centers' effectiveness, whereas their p e r s o n a l i t y traits and m o t i v a t i o n s may be slightly negatively correlated with center effectiveness. The small size of the coefficients prevent us from drawing any more definitive conclusions from the data.
to determine if the center directors differed from the program chiefs according to the variables being researched. Dichotomizing the sample and reperforming the analysis should demonstrate if the same set of variables c h a r a c t e r i z e directors and program chiefs in the more effective CM HCs. If one set of variables was found to characterize directors and another set program chiefs, we would have some evidence that the two positions may require different types of people. We would not know if these differences existed before they occupied the position or afterward, but if they differ at the time of study, we have a start in isolating some possibly important variables distinguishing administrators in these two categories. Table 1 presents the findings for all administrators regarding sub-hypotheses l a, lb and lc. None of the correlation coefficients TABLE
The findings for the directors' analysis in Table 2 were slightly different than for all administrators. Sub-hypotheses 1a, b and c all yielded negative coefficients for factor I and all positive coefficients for factor 2 in the directors' analysis. None of the coefficients were statistically significant although subhypothesis l a dealing with directors' abilities yielded an r =+.40 for factor 2. Although the coefficients are nearly all small and non-significant, the pattern of findings for the directors may be indicative that individual 1
Coefficients of Correlation (r) Between Individual Characteristics and CMHC Effectiveness (For All Administrators)
Hypotheses
r for Factor I
IA. Abilities lB. Personality IC. Motivations
+.04 -.08 -.08
(t) (0.271) (-0.544) (-0.544)
were statistically significant for the analysis of all administrators. Only sub-hypothesis l a dealing with administrators' abilities yielded the predicted positive coefficients. Subhypotheses l b and l c both yielded small negative coefficients for factors 1 and 2 -- the opposite from the predicted direction. A l t h o u g h t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r all administrators are quite small, the consistency af the findings for each sub-hypothesis on both fffectiveness factors may suggest a relationship tmong the variables. The abilities of C M H C
r for Factor II +.16 -.16 -.01
(t) (1.099) (-1.099) (-0.068)
n 48 48 48
characteristics are differentially related to C M H C effectiveness in providing the two overall types of se?vice (direct and indirect). The negative coefficients for factor 1 could indicate a slight negative relationship between d i r e c t o r s ' i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and C M H C effectiveness in providing indirect services. The positive coefficients for factor 2 may indicate a slight positive relationship between directors' individual characteristics and C M H C effectiveness in providing direct services (especially for directors' abilities). 129
TABLE 2 Coefficients of Correlation (r) Between Individual Characteristics and CMHC Effectiveness (For All Directors)
Hypotheses
r for Factor I
IA. Abilities lB. Personality IC. Motivations
-.14 -.08 -.17
(t)
r for Factor II
(t)
(-0.243) (-0.161) (-0.345)
+.40 +.02 +.10
(0.873) (0.040) (0.201)
The find!ngs for the program chiefs' analysis (Table 3) were predictably almost identical to those for all administrators (Table 1). While none of the coefficients were significant, subh y p o t h e s i s l a yielded slightly positive coefficients for factors 1 and 2 and sub hypotheses l b and l c resulted in slightly negative r's for both factors 1 and 2.Here, as
n 6 6 6
when placing the findings from this study in perspective with other relevant research. First, the limited sample size precludes any generalizations from these findings beyond the organizations actually studied. The most that can be said conclusively about the findings reported here is that for the six CMHCs
TABLE 3 Coefficients of Correlation (r) Between Individual Characteristics and CMHC Effectiveness (For All Program Chiefs)
Hypotheses
r for Factor I
IA. Abilities lB. Personality IC. Motivations
+.07 -.09 -.07
(t) (0.444) (-0.572) (-0.444)
with the administrators' analysis, although the r's are quite small, the consistency of the signs of the coefficients may indicate a slight positive relationship between program chiefs' abilities and center effectiveness whereas their personality traits and motivations may be slightly negatively related to their centers' effectiveness. Discussion
Two major caveats must be kept in mind 130
r for Factor II +. 12 -.18 -.03
(t) (0.764) (-1.157) (-0.190)
n 42 42 42
studied, the results do or do not agree with findings from studies in other organizations. The second item to bear in mind is that many of the studies in the literature dealing with the variables of this study utilized criterion measures of individual performance rather than organizational performance. Ghiselli reported significant relationships between the l e v e l of i n d i v i d u a l administrator characteristics studied h e r e and
administrators' individual performance. In this study, these findings were projected by predicting significant relationships between i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and C M H C
The coefficients relating administrators' personality traits and motivations with C M H C effectiveness were nearly all in the opposite direction . . . . effectiveness. To the extent that the often presumed positive relationship exists between administrators' performance and organizational effectiveness, the findings from this study can be compared to Ghiselli's. Ghiselli (1963, 1971), Porter and Lawler (1968), and Slocum (1971) obtained findings from government and business organizations indicating that the higher the level of certain individual administrator characteristics the more effective the administrators' performance. When these characteristics were related to C M H C effectiveness in this study, these findings were not supported. Although most of the coefficients relating administrators' abilities with CMHC effectiveness were in the predicted positive direction, all were quite small and statistically not significant. The coefficients relating a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' p e r s o n a l i t y traits a n d motivations with C M H C effectiveness were nearly all in the opposite direction from that predicted - again none were statistically significant.
No definitive relationships exist between the characteristics of the administrators in the study and C M H C effectiveness. m
Based on these findings we can only conclude that for the C M H C s studied, no definitive relationships exist between the characteristics of the administrators in the study and C M H C effectiveness. Although some relationships may have been suggested
and some differences do appear to exist in the abilities most appropriate for directors and program chiefs, the results do not allow any firm conclusions. Why did the hypotheses receive such little support? One possible explanation is that the directional predictions contained in the hypotheses were erroneous. The predictions were derived from previous findings in other types of organizations - mostly industrial firms. C M H C s are unique organizations in many ways. Their objectives, sources of funding, manpower, clientele, location, and political and legal restrictions are only a few of many possible factors that influence their
Unique difficulties confront C M H C administrators in merely defining the problems to be dealt with . . . . functioning and are largely beyond their control. The common performance criterion used in business o r g a n i z a t i o n s (i.e., profitability) is not easily applied in this setting. Treatment programs for the mentally ill are undoubtedly among the most difficult of the human services to gauge in terms of effectiveness. Definitions of "mental health" and "mental illness" are widely disputed even among mental health professionals. Several types of mental illness commonly treated by C M H C personnel are virtually incurable. In these cases, center personnel are forced to settle for something less than complete cure. Considerations such as these lead one to appreciate the unique difficulties confronting C M H C administrators in merely defining the problems to be dealt with in their catchment areas. These considerations must precede plans and priorities for dealing with these problems, establishing reliable performance measures, etc. The individuals administering the C M H C s are u s u a l l y d e d i c a t e d m e n t a l h e a l t h professionals. Several recent research findings point to the problems confronting dedicated 131
It may be that the unique nature of CMHCs requires an equally unique type of administrator. professionals in adapting to administrative positions in organizations (Abrahamson 1967; Luecke 1973). It may be that the unique nature
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, Mark. The Professional in the Organization. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. Bird, Charles. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1940. Ghiselli, Edwin E. Managerial talent. American Psychologist, 18(10): 631-641,1963. Ghiselli, Edwin E. Explorations in Managerial Talent. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1971. Gibb, C. Leadership. In: Lindsey, G., ed. Handbook of Social Psychology. Menlo Park, California: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Glasscote, R. M., and Gudeman, Jon E. The Staff of the Community Mental Health Center. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Glasscote, R. M., Sanders, D., Forstenzer, H. M., and Foley, A. R. The Community Mental Health Center: An Analysis of Existing Models. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Glasscote, R. M., Kraft, A. M., Glassman, S. M., and Jepson, W. W. Partial Hospitalization for 132
of C M H C s (especially their objectives and clientele) requires an equally unique type of administrator-one who bears very little resemblance to the effective administrator in other organizations. If this is so, then the types of relationships found in other organizations (and used to support the hypotheses of this study) may simply not hold true in CMHCs.
the Mentally Ill: A Study of Programs anr~ Problems. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Glasscote, R. M., Cumming, E., Hammersley, D. W., Ozarin, L. D., and Smith, L. H. ThE Psychiatric Emergency: A Study of Patterns oj Service. Washington, D. C.: Joint Information Service, 1969. Jenkins, William O. A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Psychological Bulletin, 44:54-74, 1947. Lueke, David S. The professional as organizational leader. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(1) : 86-94, 1973. Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 64(1 ):23-51, 1965. Slocum, J. W., Jr. Motivation in managerial levels: Relationship of need satisfaction to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(4) : 312-316, 1971. Stogdill, R. M. Personal factors associated with leadership. Journal of Psychology, 25: 35-71, 1948. ADMINISTRATION IN MENTAL HEALTH
