A Comparison of Models of Role Orientations of Professionals in a Research- Oriented University

Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment

“…Wiener and Vardi (1980) have generated empirical support for this argument by demonstrating that differences exist in organizational, job, and career commitment within two separate samples. Some have argued that professional commitment (career salience) is antithetical to organizational commitment (Tuma & Grimes, 1981). On the other hand, some forms of work commitment necessarily appear to overlap.…”

“…The impact of situational factors on career salience has received little attention except for tangential studies on localism versus cosmopolitism. One recent study does suggest that situational factors such as the organizational context may have an impact on career commitment (Tuma & Grimes, 1981). In the absence of additional investigations, however, career salience is evaluated as minimally susceptible to situational factors.…”

Cosmopolitans or Locals: Who Will Lead the Next Generation of Community Colleges?

“…Several researchers tested and expanded Gouldner's (1957 and1958) cosmopolitan-local construct (Abrahamson, 1965;Berger & Grimes, 1973;Brumbaugh & Flango, 1973;Friedlander, 1971;Goldberg et al, 1965;Goldberg, 1976;Grimes & Berger, 1970;Rotundi, 1977;Tuma & Grimes, 1981). Several of these research studies were reviewed to explain their contributions to the latent social roles construct.…”

“…Latent social roles are developed based on the individual's background, education and experience. The two most widely recognized latent social roles are those of cosmopolitan and local (Abrahamson, 1965;Berger & Grimes, 1973;Brumbaugh & Flango, 1973;Friedlander, 1971;Goldberg, 1976;Goldberg, Baker, & Rubenstein, 1965;Gouldner, 1957Gouldner, , 1958Grimes & Berger, 1970;Merton, 1957;Rotundi, 1977;Tuma & Grimes, 1981).…”

“…These included faculty (Berger & Grimes, 1973;Flango & Brumbaugh, 1974;Goldberg, 1976;Gouldner, 1957Gouldner, , 1958Tuma & Grimes, 1981); scientists (Abrahamson, 1965;Friedlander, 1971); engineers (Goldberg et al, 1965;Rotundi, 1977); police chiefs (Pursley, 1974); military personnel (Stahl, Manley & McNicols, 1978) and business professionals and managers (Larwood, Wright, Desrochers & Dahir, 1998;Wright & Larwood, 1997). Gouldner's (1957Gouldner's ( , 1958 theory has not been applied to college administrators; perhaps because the assumption has been that they are managers who were committed to the institution and were, therefore, oriented to the organization, or were locals in latent social role orientation.…”