University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

(USC Thesis Other)

Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

TOWARD EFFECTIVE SUCCESSION PLANNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
A FIELD STUDY

by

Paul R. Kleschick III

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Paul R Kleschick III
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to all the La Sallian and Jesuit educators who have ignited an
insatiable passion for learning, reflecting, and doing all over the world.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This has indeed been a long journey of discovery, growth, change, and endless toil. I
wouldn’t have had it any other way. To say that this is my work would, indeed, be spurious and
morally bankrupt. This work is the product of thought and action gleaned from scholars,
practitioners, and people who have mentored and guided me throughout my life. Since I shall
never again have and “Oscars” moment to thank everyone, I will do so here, in detail – page
limits be damned.
To the faculty and staff of USC – thank you for everything and fight on! For all the
educators in my life who toiled selflessly and with a genuine love of students and learning: thank
you. Particularly: Mr. Gerald Evans who taught us the natural world is both worthy of study and
appreciation. To Dr. Joseph F. D'Angelo who found the beauty and subtly of the written word a
powerful and transformative experience that brings us together. To Mr. George Hohenleitner
who exposed his students to the new and peculiar language of German, that taught us how to
think and connect with another culture in their own tongue. To Mrs. Angela Zager, you gave me
my first taste of teaching, and I’ve never looked back. Finally, to Mrs. Anna Kruse and Dr. John
DeTurk. Your lessons in the discipline of biology, how to remain committed and focused, how to
care for others, and how to view the world will never be forgotten. I’ll love you always. I’m
sorry you’re not here to see, but I did it! You were right all along.
For my family and friends, who never wavered in love or support, especially Dave
Jurkiewicz (I made it so!), Elisabeth and Dennis Ritaldato, Brian Sell, Katie Anderson, and Jim
Marshall (that’s two dissertations!). All of your support has meant the world. For Josh and Liam,
my adorable godsons – your childish wonder reminded me to enjoy all that’s good.
iv
To my committee, you have been the best as scholars, teachers, and colleagues. Dr. Cathy
Krop, thanks for your indefatigable support, encouragement, and much needed kicks in the pants.
Dr. Kimberly Ferrario, for reminding me a bad day is not the end of the world. I stayed because
you insisted. Finally, Dr. Wendy Lishen, I wouldn’t have my career or passion for higher
education without your mentorship and guidance. I’ll always be grateful for all you’ve done.
Lastly, to Michelle. Still my friend. My comfort place. My home.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.....................................................................1
Global Goal ..........................................................................................................................2
Related Literature.................................................................................................................2
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................5
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................6
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................7
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................8

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................10
Succession Planning...........................................................................................................10
Pipeline Planning as a Critical Tool for Succession Planning ...........................................17
Talent Management ...........................................................................................................19
Current Models of Talent Management .............................................................................20
Higher Education Succession Planning .............................................................................21
Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Framework ....23
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation within
the Organizational Context ................................................................................................37
Summary ............................................................................................................................40

Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................42
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................42
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation ..............................................................43
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................48
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................48
Ethics..................................................................................................................................49
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................51
Summary ............................................................................................................................51

Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................52
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................52
Findings..............................................................................................................................54
Knowledge Influences .......................................................................................................54
Motivation Influences ........................................................................................................64
vi
Organizational influences ..................................................................................................71
Summary ............................................................................................................................77

Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................79
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences on Succession Planning .....80
Implementation and Evaluation Plan for Recommendations to Practice: The New World
Kirkpatrick Model ..............................................................................................................89
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ....................................................................100
Future Research ...............................................................................................................101
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................102

References ....................................................................................................................................105
Appendix: Interview Protocol ......................................................................................................117

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Knowledge Influences, Types, and Influences Assessment .............................................28
Table 2 Motivational Influences and Assessment .........................................................................33
Table 3 Organizational Influences and Assessment ......................................................................36
Table 4 Institutions Sampled in the Study .....................................................................................47
Table 5 Characteristics of Participants ..........................................................................................53
Table 6 Results of Assumed Knowledge Influence Questions ......................................................55
Table 7 Conceptual Knowledge on Succession Planning Answers ...............................................57
Table 8 Conceptual Knowledge of Talent and Pipeline Management Responses .........................59
Table 9 Metacognitive Knowledge on Succession Planning - Responses .....................................63
Table 10 Attributions and Goal Orientation Influence and Asset or Need Finding ......................65
Table 11 Motivation Question Responses .....................................................................................67
Table 12 Succession Goals Question Responses ...........................................................................69
Table 13 Assumed Organizational Influences and Asset or Need Finding ...................................72
Table 14 Resources in Succession Planning Question Responses .................................................73
Table 15 Coordination of Activities Across Units Question Responses .......................................76
Table 16 Summary of Knowledge Needs, Assets, and Recommendations ...................................80
Table 17 Summary of Motivation Needs/Assets, Principles, and Recommendations ...................84
Table 18 Summary of Organization Needs, Principles, and Recommendations ...........................87
Table 19 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal Indicators ...............................................93
Table 20 Outcomes, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation. ............................................95
Table 21 Required Drivers for Critical Behaviors .........................................................................96
Table 22 Components of Learning for the Program ......................................................................98
Table 23 Components to Measure Reaction to the Training Program...........................................99
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ......39
Figure 2 The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). ........................90
Figure 3 Connections Among the Constituent Components of Succession Planning ...................93

ix
ABSTRACT
Succession planning in higher education has been a burgeoning problem for over a
decade. Institutions of higher learning are now exposed to new external pressures from
government, market forces, and society’s perception of value—among others—which is
challenging a leadership in higher education that is ageing rapidly with few viable successors to
enter these critical roles. The research indicates that the industry is aware of the problem but is
unsure how to proceed or how to allocate enough resources given budget constraints and cost
concerns throughout the industry. This study utilized the Clark and Estes gap analysis framework
to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may be contributing
to the lack of succession planning. Leaders in higher education were interviewed and their
responses were analyzed, coded, and gaps mapped to the information. Using The New World
Kirkpatrick Model of training and evaluation, four levels of performance training and
development, with analysis, were suggested to assist leaders’ ability to enact succession planning
at their institutions. The recommendations are intended as a potential template by which post-
secondary institutions can begin to ensure institutional stability through building pipelines of
managed talent.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
Succession planning in higher education has been a looming problem for over a decade,
particularly at the executive level of presidents and provosts (Bornstein, 2010). Succession
planning is an active process of identifying talent which can meet an organization’s needs now
and in the future such that the organization achieves its goals and remains viable and functional.
Ensuring smooth transitions with talent that can be developed internally can lead to institutional
longevity and stability, particularly in an era of increased accountability and data-based decision
making in the industry (Calareso, 2013; Drew, 2010; Hanover Research Council, 2010; Klein &
Salk, 2013). Institutions have been slow to adopt planning measures, and this remains an area of
significant study for institutions of higher learning in the United States (Bornstein, 2010;
Calareso, 2013; Melissa & Raintry, 2013).
The lack of focus on the succession of leaders is further compounded by newly emergent
internal and external forces that are exerting increased pressures on how colleges and universities
perform their essential duties of teaching and research. Since the Great Recession of 2008,
institutions have faced extreme strain due to diminishing resources, increased government
scrutiny, shifting national demographics, and declining enrollments (Bornstein, 2010; Craig,
2004; Drew, 2010; Klein & Salk, 2013; Luna, 2012). While extant leadership was adequately
prepared to address institutional challenges through the maelstrom, an internal threat has been
growing for over a decade: the lack of available leaders to assume presidential or other executive
roles. Long et al. (2013) provide some evidence that universities see a benefit to succession
planning but that it would be difficult to implement despite the predicted exodus of a number of
senior higher education leaders. In the 2017 survey of college presidents conducted by the
American Council on Education (ACE), a full 22% of presidents indicated retirement within two
2
years; within five years, 50% indicated they would retire (American Council on Education,
2017). Despite this imminent retirement surge, the same study indicates that 77% of institutions
have no succession plan in place. These urgent forces, combined with a lack of concerted action
within the field of higher education, are an important problem to research and address.
Global Goal
The global goal for the field of higher education is to create and begin executing
succession planning as part of their institutional strategic planning. This will require colleges and
universities to undertake purposeful planning activities tied to actionable goals that result in
increased pipeline and succession management planning.
Related Literature
Succession planning is an intentional process to promote and retain talent that meets the
organization’s long-term goals (Barnett & Davis, 2008; Klein & Salk, 2013; McKee & Froelich,
2016). The research on higher education succession planning reveals a consistent and pervasive
pattern: there is a 50% turnover rate among executive university and college leadership that
began in 2014 and is expected to continue through the next several years; there are also few
individuals qualified to enter the vacant roles (ACE, 2017; Betts et al., 2009; Hanover Research
Council, 2010). Additionally, few institutions are actively engaged in a thorough process of
identifying, mentoring, and selecting qualified people to fill the gaps (Gmelch, 2013; Hanover
Research Council, 2010; Klein & Salk, 2013; Luna, 2012).
Additionally, research on succession planning in higher education institutions is sparse.
Most research on the topic is found in the business literature and not schools of education, which
colleges and universities could engage to study the problem (Cavanaugh, 2017; Cluines, 2004;
Gmelch, 2013; Hanover Research Council, 2010; Klein & Salk, 2013; Long et al., 2013; Luna,
3
2012). The research that has been conducted suggests several key issues underlying the problem
of succession planning and informs a pathway forward for both further study and remediation.
These issues consistently identified in the literature point to several systemic challenges,
including an absence of attention across the higher education industry on the forthcoming
leadership vacancies, a lack of focused talent management at institutions to build leadership
pipelines, and difficulty in hiring and retaining leaders who are a fit with the institution.
With societal, regulatory, and political forces increasing their mandate of accountability
on institutional leadership (Craig, 2004; Kezar, 2018; Luna, 2012; Manning, 2018), the number
of vacancies forthcoming is concerning (Bornstein, 2010; Klein & Salk, 2013). In 2006, 43% of
college presidents were between 61 and 70 years old, and another 7% were over 71; by 2016,
those numbers had grown to 47% and 11%, respectively (ACE, 2017). As of 2017, the most
recent ACE study (2017) reveals the average age of all college presidents is 61.7. These
incremental increases over the years in the presidents’ offices are compounded by an average age
of 60 for chief academic officers, typically known as provosts or vice presidents of academic
affairs, who have historically been the ostensible successors to the presidency (Hartley & Godin,
2010). These numbers are pointing toward many vacancies throughout the institutions within the
United States: 84% of community college presidents were predicted to retire by 2016 with
independent colleges and universities expecting a rate of near 50% (Klein & Salk, 2013).
Therefore, with these retirements looming, and the complexities of leadership increasing as a
result of increased regulation and shrinking enrollments, the prevailing wisdom has been to look
toward faculty experience and expertise as a natural pool of talent from which to draw qualified
successors to the executive level (Bisbee, 2007; Luna, 2012). This pipeline, however, appears to
be emptying due to several interrelated factors among the faculty—specifically their
4
unwillingness or inability to enter senior administrative roles (ACE, 2008; Betts et al., 2009;
DeZure et al., 2014; Luna, 2012). The combination of these events presents a significant
challenge to higher education institutions and is compounded by an absence of succession
planning. For this reason, this study sought to examine ways in which current leaders entered
their roles and how to address the impending leadership gap through succession planning.
Importance of the Study
The problem of succession planning has deep-seated and multi-faceted causes as noted
earlier. The problem is important to solve due to an impending crisis facing the higher education
landscape: a lack of successful, prepared, and capable individuals to lead institutions. Several
salient issues which compound the problem are mass retirements as a function of ageing
executives (Betts et al., 2009; Bornstein, 2010; DeZure et al., 2014), unwillingness of faculty to
take on administrative burdens (Bisbee, 2007), and lack of visible pathway to executive
leadership (Betts et al., 2009). Additionally, external uncontrollable forces are mandating a
change to how institutions function and survive. As of the writing of this dissertation, the entire
planet is confronting the COVID-19 pandemic which began to spread in December 2019.
Institutions of higher education have been forced to close campuses, move instruction entirely
online, and drastically slash budgets. Fernandez and Shaw (2020) see this as an opportunity for
long-term survival, particularly for leaders “who are goal-oriented, risk takers, and strategic
long-term thinkers” (p. 41). These issues all intersect to form an unsustainable and chaotic
management infrastructure in institutions. Groves (2007) suggests that successful succession
planning should be joined with a leadership identification and development process to achieve
long-term success. Flumerfelt and Banachowski (2011) extend this concept further by indicating
this is necessarily tied to the organization’s strategic goals and plans as a function of how
5
systems operate. This notion of a system is particularly germane to leadership as it relates to
succession planning. Leaders do not function in isolation; they operate with colleagues as part of
several interlocking units, or systems, which individually and collectively grow and adapt over
time (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). While many scholars agree this is an important problem of practice,
the greater issue is where to begin in addressing the constituent problems since this problem has
not been thoroughly studied. Further research is needed in the receptiveness of institutions to
succession planning coupled with results that suggest which methods work best and at which
type of institution. Understanding the results of such studies is important to further the long-term
success and viability of institutions of higher learning.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholder groups for succession planning include senior leaders, faculty, students,
and administrative staff at institutions. Senior leaders are those who are generally in charge of
divisions composed of several departments within a college or university. These individuals
generally hold titles such as dean, provost, president, or any variation therein that also uses the
words “associate” or “assistant.” With direct oversight and responsibility for many departments
and the goals which affect both the departments and the institution, they are ultimately held
accountable for the budgets, goals, and outcomes of the units separately and in the aggregate.
Therefore, they are responsible for developing the talent within these units to ensure
effectiveness in achieving expected goals. They would also be the stakeholders who can ensure
the implementation of succession planning.
Faculty have as their principal responsibility the three functions of teaching, research, and
service. While faculty hiring, promotion, and retention is usually a function of how successful
they are in these three areas, as judged by peers, they directly benefit from succession planning
6
as strong, capable leaders ensure the financial and operational health of the institution. Further,
they play a critical role in ensuring institutional health by engaging in robust research and
ensuring students’ intellectual and personal growth. Therefore, the faculty have a role in
promoting the global goal through their efforts in discovering and teaching new and innovative
ideas. In so doing, they ensure the academic enterprise remains dynamic and challenging in an
ever-changing global landscape. Therefore, the administration relies on the faculty to ensure
academic enrichment and continuity, and the faculty relies on the administration to provide the
facilities (physical and capital) to achieve those goals.
Administrative staff is a third stakeholder who can directly benefit from succession
planning. In addition to senior administrators ensuring operational and fiscal continuity, staff
also benefits because succession planning, through the implementation of talent management,
ensures their direct contribution to the institution for the future, while achieving divisional and
institutional goals. The role of the administration in succession planning is critical, as they are
the group who is often first confronted with fiscal and regulatory challenges.
Students are the fourth stakeholder group who benefits from effective leadership. As
presidents and provosts partner with faculty to develop systems of teaching, research, and service
in which students learn their disciplines and how to apply critical skills in their chosen future
endeavors, they directly benefit from an institution that has equitably allocated resources which
support their own learning and growth.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While institutions of higher education have many stakeholders, including faculty, staff,
students, alumni, and others, such an examination of each is beyond the scope of this study.
Therefore, this research is limited to the analysis of senior leaders at institutions of higher
7
education. Specifically, professionals who hold the title president, provost, dean, or, as indicated
above, a variation with “assistant” or “associate” in their title. This group was chosen, as these
people generally hold decision making authority over their institutions, or divisions, and directly
contribute to formulating and measuring outcomes of goals.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to perform a field study to identify the causes of gaps
between effective succession planning, which includes identifying, developing and promoting
qualified individuals, and the current state of succession planning in higher education which, as
noted, is largely absent. Informed by Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, the study
sought to assess senior leaders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps affecting higher
education institutions reaching the global goal of the field of higher education creating and
executing succession planning as part of their institutional strategic planning. The analysis began
with a set of assumptions grounded in research-tested literature in this area, gathered data to
better understand the gaps that currently exist, and identified areas for improvement to help close
current gaps.
The questions which guide this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation needs related to the implementation of a
succession plan among higher education leaders?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and
stakeholder knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to these needs?
8
Methodological Framework
This study sought to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs related
to succession planning facing executive leaders across the field of higher education. Since
succession planning is not well defined in the field, and executive perceptions, motivations, and
organizational resources are important to understanding how the problem may be addressed, a
collective case-study approach was used. Maxwell (2013) suggests that case studies, in order to
be generalizable, must use purposeful sampling from among a larger population. In a collective
case study, the researcher selects multiple cases to further explore the issue at hand (Creswell &
Poth, 2018). It is important to note that, in working with individual leaders, they form individual
cases through their lived experiences. As these cases are analyzed and probed regarding how the
leaders ascribe meaning to their world, the analysis and comparison of each will be reviewed in
aggregate to inform the results. The more cases that can be analyzed, across different institution
types, the more “compelling the results will be” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 234).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are included in this study. This chapter provided the reader with the key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about succession planning. The
global goal and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis were introduced.
Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of
succession planning best practices, pipeline management, and talent management will be
addressed. Chapter Three reviews the assumed interfering knowledge, motivation, and
organizational elements introduced in Chapter Two, as well as connecting these with a
methodology for the selection of participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the
data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and
9
literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions.

10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter reviews the literature relevant to succession planning, its history, current
applications, and how these relate to the assumed influences affecting the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps in executing succession planning in higher education. The
review begins with an overview and history of succession planning in general, which explores its
development and importance in the long-term stability of an organization. This is followed by a
summary of current applications and models of succession planning throughout many industries
and sectors to highlight common approaches to addressing the need for stable leadership, as well
as continuing challenges faced. A key component to building a succession plan that is examined
is the process of managing the pipeline for prospective future leaders through the lens of talent
management and the current forms in which the process is ultimately found to have greater
success. Finally, a review of higher education succession planning explores the current literature
in this specific space. At the conclusion of the review of the general literature, the Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework is presented as a model to identify the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on a university’s ability to implement a
succession plan.
Succession Planning
Succession planning is an intentional process to promote and retain talent that meets the
organization’s long-term goals (Barnett & Davis, 2008; Klein & Salk, 2013; McKee & Froelich,
2016). Succession planning is critical to the long-term stability and survival of organizations in
the increasingly complex, global, and technological environment in which they currently operate
(Barnett & Davis, 2008; Gothard & Austin, 2013; McKee & Froelich, 2016; Santora et al., 2015;
Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Organizations which engage in an intentional approach to identify the
11
next leader through a process that is both responsive to the goals of the organization and the
growth of talent are successful in executing their core functions, stable long-term, and maintain a
competitive advantage among their peers (Behn et al., 2006; Fernández-Aráoz, 2014; LeCounte
et al., 2017; McKee & Froelich, 2016; Santora et al., 2015; Schepker et al., 2018).
Succession planning is not a process of replacing leaders by simply hiring new
employees based on the existing job description; rather, it is an active process that seeks to
identify long-term goals and create a pipeline of talent that is actively managed to promote
professionals’ growth (Barnett & Davis, 2008; McKee & Froelich, 2016). Through this growth,
the talent management process prepares future leaders to succeed those leaving the organization.
Talent management is a process that involves designing systems that “maximize organizational
capability across the full talent life-span of attracting, developing, deploying, and retaining
people to facilitate the achievement of business goals” (Rotolo et al., 2018, p.180). Organizations
that understand their talent requirements build what is known as a pipeline, or talent pipeline,
which supports employee growth through mentorship and learning (Cappelli, 2008; Church,
2014). Succession planning is therefore made up of three discrete pieces: the creation of goals for
the long-term stability of the organization, talent management, and creating a pipeline of talent
that supports employees through their learning and growth to higher positions. This tripartite
model is recent to succession planning; the history of succession planning reveals a shift from
the focus on individuals and their career growth to the more complex modern organization.
History of Succession Planning
Succession planning as a concept and process is a relatively new phenomenon in the
world of American organizations. Indeed, the meaning of succession planning has also
broadened in scope to focus on the larger, modern business organization. Henri Fayol (1841–
12
1925), considered the “Father of Management,” opined that businesses as organizations must
place emphasis on stability and longevity, and, in the absence of such focus, unqualified leaders
would assume critical roles (as cited in Klein & Salk, 2013). Additionally, succession planning
was relegated mainly to the family business, which, being privately held, had significant interest
in ensuring continuity through the progeny of the owners (Weisblat, 2018). By the 1950s,
succession planning eventually flowed to the larger business community as, concomitantly, the
field of leadership studies began to grow (Weisblat, 2018). The earliest leadership theories
focused solely on the leader as generic individual independent of the organization or its context;
further, they were substantively lacking in offering a systemic approach to succession planning
(Avolio, 2007; Northouse, 2019; Weisblat, 2018).
As leadership studies expanded to include an understanding of leader impact on larger
organizations, especially as world economies grew and competition increased, the criticality of
leadership succession also grew (Daft, 2018; Northouse, 2019). As the fields of psychology and
sociology developed and expanded in the 1960s and 1970s, they began to inform more nuanced
approaches to human behavior and interaction and leadership theorists began to incorporate
many new concepts into their studies (Avolio, 2007; Daft, 2018; Northouse, 2019; Weisblat,
2018). Principal among these concepts was the idea that skills and traits of individuals were an
important factor in determining successful leaders when considered along with effective
behaviors that moderate between task and relationships (Daft, 2018; Northouse, 2019;
Spendlove, 2007). Leaders would operate on a continuum prioritizing either the task(s) at hand,
or the relationship with their followers depending on their maturity and abilities; this duality,
however, was inflexible and assumed that every leadership choice was one between
accomplishing goals, or strengthening relationships (McCleskey, 2014; Northouse, 2019). This
13
approach viewed the leader as distinct from the operating environment, and succession models
would largely choose their next executive based on their ability to complete tasks. As
organizational studies expanded to see leaders as integral to the entire system, modern models of
succession planning began to emerge.
The modern basis of succession planning began in the early 1970s as large corporations
such as Exxon and General Electric began to focus on the criticality of sustaining certain
positions as a means to ensuring longevity and survival of the organization (Cavanaugh, 2017;
Long et al., 2013). Through the 1980s and 1990s, succession plans became tied to strategic goals
and plans of the organization and emphasized goodness of fit over simply “replacement hiring”
(Barnett & Davis, 2008; Gonzalez, 2010; Weisblat, 2018). Replacement hiring is simply filling a
vacant position with a new hire who meets the job description. This method is passive, ignores
long-term goals, and seeks stability for the organization in the short-term. From the late 1990s
through today, several factors are driving a comprehensive interest among organizations to
ensure succession: increased technological sophistication, growth of the global economy, and the
impending exit of Baby Boomers from the workforce through death, retirement, or late-life
alternate career choices (Barnett & Davis, 2008; Froelich et al., 2011; Gonzalez, 2010; Klein &
Salk, 2013; Long et al., 2013; McKee & Froelich, 2016).
As their name implies, the Boomer generation (those born between roughly 1945 and
1960), formed a large portion of the workforce as they matured and grew professionally. This
generation has stayed in the workforce longer than previous generations, but they are now
beginning to retire in large numbers (Klein & Salk, 2013; McKee & Froelich, 2016). These
retirements require new leaders to fill the vacant roles; organizations are eager to ensure smooth
transitions with minimal disruption to their missions or operations. The Boomers are also leaving
14
behind a world that is more technologically complex and intertwined with economies that reach
global consumers, and this is driving a need for leaders who are adaptive and responsive to
constant disruption (Long et al., 2013; McKee & Froelich, 2016; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).
These trends are influencing current applications of succession planning at the executive board
and executive leader levels.
Current Applications of Succession Planning
In the current era of succession planning, the principal focus is two-pronged and involves
the direction and oversight of executive boards and the chief executive leaders (CEOs) of
organizations. CEOs and boards are ultimately responsible to stakeholders for how the
organization performs, sustaining the organization well into the future while building a bench of
capable people (Cappelli, 2008; Church, 2014; Murphy, 2006). They also emphasize adaptability
in an increasingly chaotic operating landscape (Newhall, 2012; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). The
principal drivers for effective succession planning derive from two sources: the board of
executives who oversee the organization and the president/chief executive officer, both of which
shape how the organization continues to operate (Schepker, Nyberg, Ulrich, & Wright, 2018).
Executive Board Oversight
Executive boards have a principal responsibility to oversee operations and allocate
resources for the organization (Patidar et al., 2016; Tebbe et al., 2017). To sustain an
organization, boards must be prepared to engage in active reflection on succession planning and
view its implementation as a strategic necessity for future survival (LeCounte, Prieto, & Phipps,
2017). Such reflection includes analysis of current state, expectations for the organization in the
future, and intentional planning on how to transition new leaders into the CEO role (LeCounte,
Prieto, & Phipps, 2017; Newhall, 2012). Further, boards must understand that leaders will not be
15
with an organization forever; therefore, the process of succession planning is a continuous cycle
that must be revisited and revised as appropriate (Klein & Salk, 2013; Tebbe et al., 2017). In
managing this continuous cycle, it is critical that boards understand the current state of the
organization (Santora et al., 2015; Schein, 2017). As Schepker et al. (2018) note, boards rely on
the CEO as a conduit between the organization’s human capital and their fiduciary responsibility
as a board. CEOs play an important role in understanding their organization’s capabilities and
the skills and resources needed to achieve long-term goals (LeCounte et al., 2017; Schepker et
al., 2018). The CEO, therefore, performs a vital role in succession planning.
Chief Executive Involvement
As the principal individual charged with the daily operations of the organization, the
CEO is in a position to both influence board decisions about the organization’s future goals and
performance, as well as promote effective hiring and retention practices that can lead to
succession for executive roles. CEOs must take the time to learn the business in which they
operate, understand long-term strategic goals, and prioritize talent management that allows
employees to grow in greater roles of responsibility (Gothard & Austin, 2013; Johnson et al.,
2018; Newhall, 2015). Newhall (2015) suggests that a comprehensive cycle of improvement is
needed, and the CEO can engage in this by challenging the other leaders in the organization to
identify critical positions and then identify what skills, traits, and abilities are necessary for
success in those roles with a focus on succession planning. Desai et al. (2016), emphasize that
CEOs must also be aware of their own traits and abilities and promote learning between
themselves and the organization. This awareness leads to improved outcomes as CEOs
encourage feedback and development at all levels (Barnett & Davis, 2008). This feedback from
16
multiple levels allows for engagement with succession planning; however, there are challenges
with current models.
Current Challenges in Succession Planning
The principal issues facing organizations who attempt engagement in current succession
planning models are timeliness and stagnation. Typical succession plans are often viewed as
short-term models that predict which roles will succeed to higher levels of responsibility within
the organization, including the CEO (Brooks, 2014; Church, 2014; Rothwell, 2011). Murphy
(2006) also found that, in large organizations, planning was difficult to move in a timely fashion
and perpetuated existing modes of thinking as personnel was inured to traditional ways of
performing their roles and executing tasks. In organizations where timeliness is of concern,
succession planning is often viewed as a simple process of identifying incumbent personnel who
are seemingly a good fit for promotion. Kesler (2002) indicated that simply identifying
candidates as “back-ups” for executive positions was merely replacement planning, not the
focused, intentional, and strategic model of succession planning. The author also noted that this
affected an organization’s ability to engage leadership readiness in situations where adequate
management of employee skills and expectations would have prepared the new leaders to ascend
roles of increasing responsibility (Kesler, 2002).
Stagnation in planning is also a current challenge in succession planning. Cappelli (2008)
discussed that systematic ways of developing employees that were dominant from the 1970s
through the 1990s failed to address volatility in markets that have experienced decades of
downturns, layoffs, and shifting talent needs. This lack of adaptability in responding to external
forces in a timely fashion has led to stagnation in many organizations’ ability to recruit, train,
17
and retain top talent as they are combating the very forces that well-executed succession
planning would prevent. (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014).
Rothwell (2011) discussed replacement planning as an interim measure to combat
stagnation in succession planning as a response to field data, which indicated that as many as 6 in
10 companies are not prepared for the departure of a CEO and that many companies indicate
their succession initiatives could improve. While replacement planning is not an ideal method for
true succession, it can serve as an interim measure should organizations need a short-term
solution, as in the death or other such unexpected loss of a CEO. The situation in the non-profit
sector is more dire; while facing the same challenges as the government and business sectors, as
many as 77% of non-profit organizations have no succession plan in place (Santora et al., 2015).
The key to engaging the issue is a focused effort on behalf of boards and executives toward
managing and filling a pipeline of talent, that is adaptable, responsive to external forces, and
prioritizes succession over replacement
Pipeline Planning as a Critical Tool for Succession Planning
Pipeline planning is a critical component to succession planning, as it expands on
succession by being an intentional effort to develop individuals’ leadership skills and abilities
while also preparing future leaders for more advanced roles (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Griffith,
Baur, & Buckley, 2018). This functions as a critical underpinning to succession planning because
the focus shifts from merely replacing existing leaders with those who seem to have the requisite
abilities by intentionally focusing on long-term organizational goals and identifying the key
skills and abilities that will eventually be required to be successful in those roles (Davila & Pina-
Ramirez, 2014; Dytham-Ward, 2009). This process acknowledges that organizations function
18
within fluid environments that present technological, consumer demand, and regulatory changes
that require adaptation and growth for continued existence (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014).
Organizations who have succeeded in utilizing pipeline planning to bolster succession
efforts have executed processes which focus on several factors, including identifying critical
positions for organizational survival, developing people simultaneously as individuals and future
leaders, identifying organizational needs for the future, and promoting transparency around the
initiative (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Davila & Pina-Ramirez, 2014; Griffith et al., 2018). Two
examples in storied American brands come to mind as salient. The first is General Electric,
which began the process of finding a successor in 1994, seven years before Jack Welch retired
and was ultimately succeeded by Jeff Immelt (Berns & Klarner, 2017). The second example is
McDonald’s, which named a new CEO hours after the sudden death of then CEO Jim Catalupo
(Blakesley, 2011). In both instances, the new executive was available after a long, intentional,
and careful process of identifying future needs and goals while developing people to meet those
needs and goals. Therefore, identifying critical positions and developing positions for long-term
organizational survival are the two factors which support pipeline planning initiatives that
ultimately lead to effective succession planning
Critical positions are those which have responsibilities that, if they were vacated by
employee separation, would place strain on the organization’s ability to function successfully
(Griffith et al., 2018). These roles tend to be executive in nature and are difficult to fill in the
short-term with no planning in place. These positions are critical to future organizational needs
and play an impactful role in driving planning and outcome efforts. As organizations perform
long-term needs analysis for these roles, it is necessary to focus on what skills and abilities will
be needed as the organization strives to meet long-term performance goals. These skills and
19
abilities may be slightly or vastly different than those possessed by incumbents—a key factor
when identifying talent and developing them as future leaders (Griffith et al., 2018; Stadler,
2011).
Development of people as individuals serves a two-fold purpose: ensuring growth in the
role they serve today while promoting a culture of learning that allows them to grow into
advanced roles in the future. As this process is tied to organizational strategic goals, it is
important to note that this process is concomitant with organizational growth, not a distinct
process. This is how pipeline planning supports succession planning—by linking people and
organization into one functioning system. This is most effectively realized through a concerted
effort on the part of the organization in managing its talent as it would its budgets or other
operations.
Talent Management
Talent management is a relatively new phenomenon in organizations, having been first
posited in the late 1990s as a means to move from human resource management, with a focus on
benefits and workplace wellness, to engaging people as a critical component for organizational
success and sustainability (Cappelli, 2008; Dries, 2013; van Zyl et al., 2017; Whelan & Carcary,
2011). It is the means through which the pipeline plan is fulfilled and, therefore, the overarching
succession planning need. Managing talent is a dynamic process and has risen in importance to
executive leaders’ attention due to two factors present in the modern workplace: the rise of the
knowledge economy and the idea that people, with their ability to create and innovate, are a
resource that cannot be easily replicated or stolen by competitors, such as a product or operations
model (Cappelli, 2008; Dries, 2013). It is an intentional effort to combine critically needed skills
with the active development of the people who possess those skills and can grow further.
20
Further, the practice suggests several components that can help identify key people: they deliver
strong results consistently, they demonstrate mastery of new skills or expertise quickly, and they
manage themselves and their behavior (Garavan et al., 2012).
The practice of talent management has been successful when focused attention is placed
on strategic alignment of organizational goals and employee development (Ballaro & Polk, 2017;
van Zyl, Mathafena, & Ras, 2017); identification of developmental pathways (Pruis, 2011; van
Zyl et al., 2017); continuous assessment (Chaturvedi, 2016; Church et al., 2015; Garavan et al.,
2012) and remains structured and systemic (Newhall, 2015). The literature in this area reveals
the importance of focusing on each level of the talent process, especially to populate a pipeline
for succession of future leaders. Models to achieve this are varied, based on available resources
and level of commitment from the organization.
Current Models of Talent Management
Current models within industry vary based on organizational size, available resources,
and attention to the varying layers within succession planning (i.e., succession planning versus
intentional succession planning), which builds a pipeline of talent that is actively managed.
Further, a unified overall approach is lacking; therefore, organizations implement solutions at
each level depending on their needs. Whelan and Carcary (2011) note that knowledge among
employees must be cultivated and used while encouraging future growth of the individual and
the organization. Van Zyl et al. (2017) suggest that individuals need to feel a sense of value and
engagement with the organization; highly talented and knowledgeable individuals may hold back
if they don’t feel valued or have a sense of purpose. Newhall (2015) proposes that engaging
constantly with employees in their development and understanding all of their needs, personal
and professional, can create an environment where employees will remain engaged and
21
motivated. Cappelli (2008) states that this is balancing employer-employee interests while
remaining focused on long-term goals.
Talent management is therefore that which has the potential to fill the pipeline with
capable people able to succeed vacating roles of greater responsibility within the organization.
An effective model of succession planning is one that is suited to the vicissitudes of the
organizational landscape, actively plans for the future, and seeks to identify, attract, retain, and
develop people for the long-term, while considering all of their needs. These concepts can be
adapted to higher education – an industry traditionally associated with knowledge, growth, and
development.
Higher Education Succession Planning
Succession planning in higher education is a significant problem that is not being
adequately addressed. Luna (2012) suggests that a decrease in faculty positions, coupled with an
aversion to the increasing and burdensome role administrators must assume, has reduced the
desire for individuals to pursue executive career paths. Klein and Salk (2013) identified a spate
of retirements, a lack of qualified applicants from which to choose, a “pervasive bias against
promotion of internal candidates,” and poorly managed searches as other root causes underlying
an imminent crisis in finding competent, experienced leadership to address the panoply of
complex and nuanced issues facing higher education (p. ?).
Traditionally, as faculty have been promoted through the tenure track, they have often
assumed roles of leadership within their respective institutions; such positions have included
department chair, dean, or various levels of vice presidential roles in the provost or president’s
office (ACE, 2008; Betts et al., 2009; Bisbee, 2007). This pattern has slowed over the last two
decades, however, as more faculty choose to remain in the tenure track and institutions have
22
increased their employment of part-time or contingent faculty as a cost-saving measure (Luna,
2012). The natural result of these patterns is fewer junior faculty positions. According to an ACE
study (2008), even those pursuing a junior tenure-track role may not have time in their careers to
gain enough experience to advance through the pipeline. Students are entering graduate school at
later stages in their lives to gain experience and they are taking more time, on average, to
complete a doctoral degree, which is a fundamental requirement to enter the professorate (ACE,
2008). These issues alone portend a serious crisis facing higher education and are compounded
further by an active unwillingness among many faculty to assume leadership roles outside of
their traditional positions.
Faculty unwillingness to accept or pursue leadership positions is a more recent
phenomenon in the field (Betts et al., 2009; Bisbee, 2007; Luna, 2012). Several underlying
causes have been suggested for this, namely a perception of administrative burden and lack of
freedom and independence in new leadership and executive roles (Bisbee, 2007), spending more
time committed to teaching and research (Luna, 2012), and a lack of a visible career path that is
meaningful and lends purpose to the individual’s career choice (Betts et al., 2009). The most
limiting of these issues is the concern surrounding administrative burden. Faculty have entered
the academy to engage in substantive scholarship coupled with teaching and service. This
commitment to these core principles of the university stands in stark contrast to the many
operational and fiscal burdens that ensure institutional stability (Bisbee, 2007). The
administrative wing of any college or university seemingly stands across an ever-widening
chasm between academics and administration.
The increasing regulatory, enrollment, and organizational pressures placed on institutions
of higher education should serve as a clarion call to engage in an intentional process of planning
23
which ties organizational goals to the institution’s long-term stability through a succession
planning initiative that both actively engages talent and creates a stable pipeline from which
future leaders can emerge. The research available, however, demonstrates that despite
acknowledgement of the issue, few institutions are actively engaged in succession planning
processes. Hanover Research Council (2010) found that administrators take a lower priority than
faculty and students, and therefore little attention is given to their long-term growth and
development. One small survey found that 57% of respondents at lower levels of their respective
institutions were informed succession planning was not a priority (Lampton, 2011). Lastly,
Cluines (2004) suggests that the issue is cultural: succession planning as implemented in the
business arena is done so in a very different environment than how colleges operate. Despite this
inattention, institutions of higher learning will need to engage in succession planning if they are
to remain innovative, responsive to external challenges, and prepared for the future. A
framework for understanding how to remediate performance gaps within an organization has
been proposed by Clark and Estes (2008) and forms a framework for this study.
Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) have established an analytical framework that posits three foci:
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, which are often the cause of performance
failures in an organization. Specifically, deficiencies in these areas create gaps between desired
behaviors and performance in achieving goals. There are several dimensions of knowledge:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivation
is that set of processes that “gets us going, keeps us moving, and tells us how much effort to
spend on tasks” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 80). The three processes, which are interlinked, are
defined as active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Organizational influences on stakeholder
24
performance include resource availability and process alignment with stated goals nested within
the context of the various layers of culture at the system, business unit, and individual levels.
Understanding these dimensions are germane to the discussion of the extant gaps in
achieving the global goal of implementing succession planning in the higher education sector.
The knowledge influences will be examined first, followed by a discussion on motivational
influences, and conclude with an analysis of those within the organizational domain. In Chapter
Three, these will be explored in an integrated fashion as the methodology section details the
background of the study.
Knowledge and Skills
To achieve the global goal of an effective succession plan, several knowledge areas have
been identified which can assist in the objective. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
knowledge is one of three foci that is often the cause of performance gaps in an organization.
There are four dimensions of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge is knowing basic information about a
subject or task; for example, terminology in a given discipline that facilitates basic understanding
of the topic at hand. Conceptual knowledge is a level higher and involves understanding how the
basic information, such as terminology, can be cross-referenced among other forms of factual
knowledge to create classifications or models and structures. For example, understanding the
basic terms of succession planning can facilitate the knowledge surrounding the many types, or
schema, of succession planning models. Procedural knowledge is simply knowing how to do
something, such as creating and executing a succession plan; it can blend with factual and
conceptual knowledge in the form of action on the knowledge one possesses. Finally,
metacognitive knowledge is a nuanced type of awareness about one’s cognitive processes and
25
when and how to apply concepts, and schema in effective ways. It allows for understanding
context and conditions surrounding the issues at hand (Rueda, 2011). Understanding these
dimensions is germane to the global goal at hand, and three assumed knowledge influences on
senior leaderships’ ability to engage in succession planning have been identified which fall
within the factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive areas.
Knowledge Influence 1 – Conceptual knowledge of succession planning
Higher education executive leaders need to know what succession planning is and how to
create a leadership pipeline through talent management. To create viable succession plans, the
professional development of employees and their skill sets is critical to matching talent with the
organization’s strategic goals (Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2015). Further, there is a looming
shortage of chief executive officers in both the profit and non-profit sectors (Betts et al., 2009;
McKee & Froelich, 2016). This shortfall indicates the pipeline for leadership succession must be
addressed such that leaders at all levels of the organization are ready, trained, and capable of
moving into roles of increased responsibility. The literature, however, reveals a key shortcoming
in organizational succession planning that is intractable to a new paradigm: training for skills
with an inadequate focus on leadership development based on a future orientation; that is, where
the organization envisions its future (Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2015; Santora et al., 2015).
Griffith et al. (2018) propose a model that involves assessing current talent, the skills they
possess, and the gaps that can be remediated through training and retention, particularly as they
relate to interpersonal relationships and strategic goal accomplishment. These processes are
inextricably linked to the performance development of organizational members. Therefore,
decision-making executives at colleges and universities must understand the organization’s
strategic goals, identify the skills needed, and develop performance plans that are tied to
26
professional growth and the organization’s ideal future state. This manner of knowledge fits into
the conceptual knowledge domain as it requires an understanding of how the various
fundamental pieces of succession planning tie together. Leaders’ current knowledge state can be
assessed in three subcategories of this knowledge influence: (a) defining succession planning, (b)
defining performance development, and (c) discussing how performance development and
succession planning interface.
Knowledge Influence 2 – Procedural knowledge of remediating performance gaps
Executive leaders need to know how to address performance gaps as related to
performance development. This is the second knowledge influence among higher education
leaders: assessing and remediating performance gaps. This falls within the procedural domain as
leaders need to understand how to identify, document, assess, and positively remediate gaps.
Gmelch (2013) posits that the focus on job performance should be about current skill sets
(irrespective of their codification in a position’s description) and the identification of skill
potential that can be tied to programmatic development for growth. Santora et al. (2015) expand
on this concept by demonstrating that connecting the organization, its members, and even its
constituents to a strategic focus on succession planning tied to performance development allows
for all of these groups to enrich themselves with the success of the organization as it achieves its
goals. McKee and Froelich (2016), suggest that business units within an organization, and not
executive boards, should drive this type of change. In their study of 242 non-profit executives,
they found that employees were identified as candidates for promotion through the pipeline by
executives, but no effective planning tied to goals occurred in these instances (McKee &
Froelich, 2016). This suggests that without proper planning and skill gap analysis, organizations
are merely selecting candidates based on current needs with little thought for the future. The
27
leaders within higher education should embrace this concept and embark on a discovery phase
that gauges their knowledge in this area.
Knowledge Influence 3 – Metacognitive knowledge on reflection
Executive leaders need to be able to reflect on aligning the existing talent with the future
state of the institution. The third knowledge influence needed by institutional leaders is to plan
for the future of institutions by identifying hiring, promotion, improvement, and retention
practices that will strategically align the unit within the institution as whole. This lies within the
metacognitive domain, as it is a strategic process that requires leadership to be aware of not only
their own ways of thinking but also to then adapt to a new way of operating (Krathwohl, 2002).
As one gains awareness of how and when different strategies can be deployed given the current
circumstances, one learns to attempt alternate approaches (Pintrich, 2002). Lanaj and colleagues
(2019), found that leaders were more effective and engaged with their practice when they
practiced self-reflection. Further, organizations which empower leadership across departments to
engage in systemic change that incorporates reflection of all involved, see positive results in
organizational change initiatives (Jones et al., 2019). Therefore, engaging in self-reflective
practice as well as enabling others to do so around a shared goal such as succession planning can
increase both leader engagement and goal achievement.
Since the mid-1990s, succession planning has largely been static. Cappelli (2008)
identified that, through the 1950s, organizations widely developed people within. This led to
unprecedented growth in companies and promotional paths for employees. These, in turn, led to
loyalty and decades-long careers with one organization. This operational model changed
throughout the 1980s and 1990s as sharper focus on the bottom line and increased international
competition led to both the downsizing of many organizations and the “stealing” of talent. Faced
28
with shortages, organizations transitioned funding from internal development to talent
acquisition. This, however, has led to more unstable organizational structures, and the need to
balance the equation between hiring and promotion has become the focus of today’s planning
models (Cappelli, 2008). Leaders within the field of higher education will need to become
familiar with new models for appropriately identifying talent and building upon that talent’s
existing skill sets. Once familiar with the newer models, leaders need to reflect on their strengths
and weaknesses as well as those of the organization and its talent; in so doing, they can drive
succession planning goals and implementation forward to favorable outcomes.
Table 1 details the organizational mission, global goal, and the stakeholder goal for the
college. Additionally, these are tied to the knowledge influences, knowledge types, and
assessment practices that will demonstrate information on executive staff knowledge in these
areas. Conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive domains are the main foci.
Table 1
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Influences Assessment
Industry Global Goal

By June of 2021, 50% of institutions within American higher education will have succession plans in
place which are tied to strategic plans
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e., declarative
(factual or conceptual),
procedural, or metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Executive leaders need to know
what succession planning is and
how to create a leadership pipeline
through talent management.
Conceptual

Structured interviews that
assess the leaders’
knowledge in this area.
Executive leaders need to know
how to assess and remediate
performance gaps as they relate to
the organization’s succession plan.
Procedural Interviews to understand
how to tie goals to
performance and succession
planning.
Executive leaders need to be able
to reflect on aligning the existing
talent with the future state of the
institution.
Metacognitive Interview items which probe
reflective practices which
the leaders engage in.
29
Motivation
Motivation is the second focus of assisting higher education executives to achieve the
stakeholder goal. The three motivation processes are defined as active choice, persistence, and
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). Active choice is deciding to choose and work on a particular
goal, among an array of other competing goals. Persistence is continuing toward the goal despite
setbacks or distractions. Mental effort is having an appropriate level of confidence in the ability
to perform the task at hand while developing new solutions to problems. Mayer (2011), provides
five conceptions that underpin the concept of motivation: interest, beliefs, attributions, goals, and
partnership (p. 41). Interest is working toward goals one likes or has some value to self. Beliefs
are based in self-efficacy, which is when one believes one can do well. Attributions are an
individual’s understanding that success and failure are the result of their efforts. Goals are the
desire for one to master a task or outcome. Finally, partnership is the belief or perception that
those involved in learning are partners with those guiding or forming the team toward a goal or
outcome (Mayer, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) also to assert that many elements can stall or
destroy motivation and they can come from, among other sources, personal beliefs or
organizational factors such as frequently changing goals, demonstrable unfairness, or negative
feedback. As with knowledge gaps, identifying motivational issues can improve organizational
performance in the achievement of the goal.
Two motivational influences will be assessed considering motivational gaps within the
field: attributions and goal orientation. These motivation influences have theoretical
underpinnings that will be explored in the next section along with proposed diagnostic
instruments to assess the current state among executive leaders in higher education.

30
Motivation Influence 1 - Attribution
The first motivation influence pertains to attributions for organizational stability over
self-interest. Executives should desire long-term stability for the organization outside of their
own self-interest. Attribution theory has been widely studied since the 19
th
century and posits
that individuals form casual beliefs about events that occur to them in a search for understanding
the cause (Byrnes, 2008; Weiner, 1985, as cited in Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Even with
intervening objective information, a person will cling to their perceptions of causation and this,
in turn, affects their future motivation toward the same or similar task. This is because people are
products of both their environment and experiences. There are three dimensions to attributions:
locus, stability, and controllability each with a bivalent subgrouping that blends given the
situation or outcome (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Mayer, 2011). Locus is seen as internal or
external; internal locus is the degree to which one sees causes as a result of their own behavior.
External locus is the degree to which one believes the cause is outside of one’s control.
Controllability is how much one perceives they have over the control of a cause. For example,
one has high controllability over whether they run out of gasoline in their automobile, and
extremely low controllability over the weather (Mayer, 2011). That which is uncontrollable is
usually self-attributed to ability; controllable causes are usually attributed to amount of effort.
Finally, stability is the perception one has over how fixed the cause is: is it stable or does it vary
over time and varying situations and is highly dependent on locus and controllability?
Within higher education, if succession planning were not successful, as determined by the
goal dates, an individual with an internal locus who believes the outcome was uncontrollable and
unstable may opine that the failure was not of their own making and, therefore, there was nothing
they could have done to improve. This would be the held perception even if objective evidence
31
were presented indicating, for example, missed meetings or failure to meet deadlines. The
principal method to alleviate attributions is through helpful feedback that encourages
improvement and goal attainment in lieu of what may be viewed as negative coercion, such as a
manager stating that one’s performance is their own “fault.”
Anderman and Anderman (2006) suggest that the communication of feedback should
focus on effort or strategies as being more specific and helpful. Indicating that an employee was
unable to successfully schedule a meeting due to relying solely on email as a communication
method, for example, demonstrates the individual needs to try different techniques. In so doing,
the person is more motivated to learn since the feedback is not an attack on the person’s sense of
self. Since the blending of the strategic plan to performance development and organizational goal
attainment is a new and challenging enterprise, the feedback the team gives each other (and
which they receive from the provost) should focus on developing new skills and strategies rather
than remaining solely focused on distance from desired outcomes.
Motivational Influence 2 - Goal Orientation Toward Succession Planning
Executives should pursue succession planning goals as a means for the organization’s
long-term stability. Goal orientation theory holds that there are two major classes of goals:
performance and mastery and there is both an approach and avoidance state for each type
(Pintrich, 2000; Yough & Anderman, 2006). Mastery goals are internally focused and are seated
in a desire to master the material or task at hand (Rueda, 2011). In the approach state, for
example, someone wanting to learn about the topic of this paper would want to understand the
facets of succession planning to truly understand it. In an avoidance state, they would not want to
miss any information or misconstrue any of the theoretical underpinnings. Performance goals are
externally focused and place the individual in a self-imposed competition with others. Using the
32
same example, a performance goal in the approach state would be a person who wants to
demonstrate their prowess with the material to further some gain. In an avoidance state, they
would not want to appear as though they did not understand or have deep knowledge in the topic
area. While research regarding the efficacy of performance goals is mixed, more solid evidence
supports the encouragement of mastery goals and that organizations can adapt their practices to
focus on mastery goals (Pintrich, 2000).
Executives in higher education should pursue both mastery and performance goals. Since
a thorough understanding of succession planning and how it can be implemented at an institution
are critical to planning being successful, executives must first attempt to master the material.
Secondly, they must set performance goals, in concert with other executive leadership, that
creates a shared drive toward achieving a sustainable succession plan.
Clark and Estes (2008), take both personal and organizational dynamics into
consideration when discussing goals. They suggest that confidence should be increased in teams
and individuals, organizational barriers should be removed, a positive environment fostered, and
explain reasons and values for why the goals exist. In this analysis, they use performance goals
in the organizational sense, not in the goal orientation dynamic. The solutions offered tie well
with the mastery approach. By working on team confidence, barriers, the environment, and the
understanding of the goals, leadership can effectively remove all the externally situated barriers
to motivation. To assess how close the college is toward a mastery orientation, an interview
question was developed which assesses the importance the respondents place on the long-term
survival of the college over their self-interest. Chadwick and Raver (2015) found that, when
individual orientations to goals are aggregated across the organization, a collective understanding
is formed that becomes part of the organizational culture. Further, organizations can influence
33
this model and should consider how resources are allocated to support collective learning – an
important part toward influencing goals.
Table 2 summarizes the motivational indicators, influences, and assessment methods for those
influences.
Table 2
Motivational Influences and Assessment

Stakeholder Organizational Influences
Executive leaders need to know that the allocation of resources is critical to engaging in a
viable succession plan. While knowledge and motivation are critical to success, these influences
exist and support a larger organizational context. Organizational gaps, according to Clark and
Estes (2008), are born from insufficient or ineffective resources as well as deficient work
processes. Absent adequate resources and processes, highly knowledgeable and motivated
individuals will struggle to achieve performance goals. Additionally, how resources are allocated
can affect “value streams” which are how an organization’s units interact to implement work
Industry Global Goal
By June of 2021, 50% of institutions within American higher education will have succession
plans in place which are tied to strategic plans

Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Attributions: Executives should desire long-term
stability for the organization outside of their own
self-interest
Interview items which ask executive leaders
a.) How they view stability for the
organization and their role in it, and b.) are
their motivations career oriented or
organization oriented
Goal orientation: Executives should pursue
succession planning goals as a means for long-
term stability of the organization.
Interview item asking how succession
planning goals are set and if they’re tied to
promotions (replacement planning) or future
state of the organizational performance
(succession planning).
34
processes. Work processes are the ways in which people, equipment, and materials interface to
achieve desired results. Resources are those tangible items needed to support work processing;
they can include equipment, information technology, or an environment suitable for adequate
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Processes and resources, successful and not, are engaged as
a result of decision-makers who function as members of an organizational culture. Additionally,
culture is created and influenced by the environment, groups, and individuals (Schein, 2017).
Culture has many meanings dependent on discipline of analysis. In this current analytical
context, organizational culture is shared learning developed over time as a result of adaptation to
external forces that influence internal integration such that all members understand the
appropriate ways to think, feel, respond, and behave when faced with challenges (Schein, 2017).
This definition forms the backdrop for how many organizations behave, engage resources, and
define the structure of work processing. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) have further posited
that culture is comprised of two interlacing features: models and settings. With cultural models,
the authors align with Schein (2017) within the macro context of shared beliefs, values, and
outward signs of being such as artifacts. Cultural settings can be viewed as influenced by the
macro but existing within the micro context; it is the interaction of two more people who attempt
to accomplish something over time. These interlocking, individual, environmental, and group
cultures influence the organization of study in two cultural settings: inadequate resources
devoted to staff development and ineffective value chains and streams.
Organizational Influence 1 - Inadequate resources devoted to Talent Management
Organizations need to create a structure that allows executives to allocate enough
resources to a succession plan that supports the espoused goals. To achieve this, the organization
needs to be supportive of the executive leaders in making those resources available. These
35
resources should be both human, in the form of professionals who can prioritize time to the
initiative, and physical, such as performance development computer programs. Succession
planning requires leaders to allocate people resources in the form of intentional talent
management and skill set development such that organizational goals are met (Leonard, 2017;
Oppong & Oduro-Asabere, 2018). Intentional talent management is a process wherein talent
within the organization is identified and engages in an active relationship to expand skills sets
and enter roles of increasing complexity and responsibility that specifically align with
organizational goals and objectives (van Zyl et al., 2017). The people who manage these
relationships are a resource to those they are growing; companies and institutions must focus on
the allocation of time in this regard and understand it is as important as any other useable asset.
Talent in this context can be recruited and retained as an organization’s goals evolve; however,
promoting within, even as dynamics change, is more effective in stabilizing long-term succession
(Pandita & Ray, 2018). Additionally, successful integration for internal or external hires is
critical to their and the organization’s long-term survival (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014).
Organizations that fail to allocate adequate resources that identify the appropriate skill sets to
meet goals or fail to develop talent to ensure long-term stability meet with failure and decline as
a result of high turnover and inconsistent results (Collins, 2009).
Organizational Influence 2 - Value Chains and Value Streams
Executives need to ensure value chains interact with a focus on operational efficiency and
a long-term succession plan, such that members of the institution understand the succession plan
and how to implement it. Value chains and value streams within an organization refer to the way
organizational departments interact and implement processes (streams) and then use information
from those streams to determine how to implement goals (chains; Clark & Estes, 2008).
36
Resources in an organization are categorized as tangible and intangible and directly impact what
the organization can do and how well (Grant, 2010). However, without clear communication or
organizational structures that support effective processes, work efforts may not align with
allocated resources which interferes with the attainment of organizational goals. This, in turn,
can frustrate talent and lead to decreased motivation and loss of key contributors to business
units and an overall culture of defeat (Pandita & Ray, 2018). Organizations need to create
structures that support value chains and streams by analyzing where processes are not aligning
with desired outcomes and goals. Chance and Williams (2009) caution that higher education,
especially, must be adaptive with regard to managing structures and processes and not simply
implement business strategies without first considering how to adapt them to the particular needs
of an institution. Table 3 presents the organizational influences table.
Table 3
Organizational Influences and Assessment
Industry Global Goal

By June of 2021, 50% of institutions within American higher education will have succession
plans in place which are tied to strategic plans

Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Executives need to allocate enough resources to a
succession plan that supports the espoused goals.
Interview item which explores how the
leader allocates resources to succession
planning and how that allocation fits into
other priorities
The organization needs to maximize value chains
and streams such that departments are free to
interact in identifying and implementing
processes that will support the operationalization
of the succession plan
Interview item on how leaders coordinate
activities across units and how that
coordination could support a succession plan.

37
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation Within
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework (Figure 1) is a visual representation of the underlying
variables, themes, beliefs, and assumptions that not only undergird the study at hand but also
provide a map for what is allegedly occurring within the problem of practice (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, it illustrates the interrelatedness of causes and effects, since,
in a qualitative study such as this, relationships between people, resources, and the environments
in which they operate are both actors and acted upon in continual cycles. The knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences previously discussed have been presented as singular
notions for clarity of concept. In the environment of the everyday world, however, they are
linked and must be considered as components of a larger system which, like organs in the human
body, function alone and together, simultaneously.
Succession planning has found little traction in higher education with many executive
leaders unaware or unsure of how to plan for future organizational stability while facing historic
pressures (Craig, 2004; Klein & Salk, 2013). A principal reason for this is a lack of knowledge or
understanding of what succession planning is and how it can be adapted to higher education.
This understanding begins with knowledge regarding the topic and then the motivation to enact
and effect lasting change. These two influences then drive the organization to delve into the
underlying principles of succession planning and enact sound talent management principles that
attract, retain, and promote future senior leadership for the institution.
Knowledge begins with senior leaders understanding the importance of succession
planning and how it interacts with talent management. Knowledge is a powerful force and
essential to an organization’s long-term stability and success (Son et al., 2012). The transfer of
38
knowledge along conceptual, factual, and procedural domains is critical to avoiding
organizational failure and eventual decline (Durst & Wilhelm, 2012; Hills, 2009). This is
avoided by open, communicative networks where talent within the organization shares
knowledge freely regardless of role or responsibility (Whelan & Carcary, 2011). Therefore,
succession planning becomes part of the whole organization’s focus and is removed from the
provenance of only the executives.
As leaders see value in preserving the longevity and success of the institution, their
motivation will increase to continue the learning process and the achievement of the goal
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). This can translate into value on behalf of all members of the
organization and their desire to be effective. Effectiveness is a key factor in motivation in that a
natural human desire is to see oneself and achievements as being effective (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This, in turn, can drive organizational change as leaders continue to encourage and support
motivated employees to continue to grow and develop through the talent management process
(Dutton, 2018).

39
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences

Note. This figure highlights the organization, knowledge, and motivational influences as all
being encapsulated within a larger context of the environment in which succession planning is an
external force that influences the entire system of all three as actors and acted upon to achieve
the stakeholder goal.

Lastly, in the construction of the framework are the organizational components related to
adequacy of resources and support of value streams and value chains. As leaders hone
knowledge and motivational domains, the organization will experience a cultural shift as new
40
patterns of behavior develop in response to the new challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Additionally, Bolman and Deal (2013), envision this as also being an active process where
leaders alter their “script” in how they act and react to organizational adjustments. A principal
factor hypothesized in this organizational shift is the influence that learning and motivation have
had on the organizational level and in shifting the culture, and how that shift, in turn, reinforces
or alters the learning and motivation. This change of the cultural setting and context in which it
resides is a complex and difficult endeavor; it is important that leaders leave channels open and
solicit feedback to continually tweak and learn about their, and the organization’s, continued
learning. This is what Kotter (2012) frames as “sticking with the process” and “nurturing the new
culture” to support new ways.
This conceptual framework envisions knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences as working in interrelated fashion as a system nested within a larger environment of
where it operates. The interaction of the influences, and their subcomponents, forms a living
interactive system that will respond to stimuli in the form of external challenges and internal
growth through change. This will be further tested and explained in the methods section of
Chapter Three.
Summary
This chapter has provided a review of the literature in the area of succession planning as
an overarching concept bolstered by active pipeline planning through purposeful talent
management. After a brief discussion of the history of succession planning, current applications
through the activities of executive board and presidential oversight were explored followed by
the challenges these individuals face. Pipeline planning was discussed as an important sub-set of
succession planning, and how talent management is used to fill pipelines for future roles. The
41
models used in industry reflect a pastiche of techniques depending on organizational size, scope,
and resources. The gap in meaningful research in higher education succession planning, and root
causes, were presented. Lastly, the conceptual framework which guides the study was presented
utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis. This analysis focused on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impede the achievement of the global goal for
succession planning. In the next chapter, the research methodology to assess these assumed
influences on executive leadership in higher education institutions’ engagement with succession
planning, data collection and analysis, as well as credibility and ethics concerns will be presented
and discussed.
42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study was a field study performed to identify the causes of gaps between effective
succession planning, which includes identifying, developing and promoting qualified individuals,
and the current state of succession planning in higher education which, as noted, is largely
absent. Further, leaders’ motivation in understanding the value in succession planning as a
gateway to long-term organizational success was explored. Lastly, executive leaders’ ability to
assign appropriate resources for succession planning that interact with all organizational units
was assessed. This chapter will explore the design of the research study as well as how data will
be collected, stored, and analyzed.
The questions which guide this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation needs related to the implementation of a
succession plan among higher education leaders?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to these needs?
This chapter will discuss the stakeholder population and the criteria and the rationale for
the sample. The data collection and instrumentation, as well as the analysis, will follow. Finally,
the credibility, trustworthiness, ethics considerations, and limitations will close the chapter.
Participating Stakeholders
The participating stakeholders for this study were executives within five higher education
institutions. These individuals currently hold the titles of president, provost, dean, or a variation
therein using assistant or associate. The institutions were chosen from the following domains:
professional (offering medical or law degrees) and small- to medium-sized comprehensive
43
universities. The participants were chosen using network sampling, by selecting colleagues in the
researcher’s professional domain.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The research was conducted using interviews with executive leaders in the higher
education sector. Interviews allow the researcher to find information that may not be readily
observable from data sets or without speaking with affected participants (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Patton, 2002). Semi-structured interviews allowed for the probing and engagement of
higher education leaders’ thoughts on their careers and movement into senior-level positions
while guiding the conversation in a meaningful and purposeful manner. Creswell and Creswell
(2018) note that a key feature of qualitative research is in gauging the way “participants make
sense of their lives” (p. 15) and how processes or actions are occurring. This study is action-
oriented to uncover the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences in the
succession planning process throughout higher education such that senior executives can engage
in a meaningful way toward future institutional stability. Action-oriented research, according to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), is “guided by an interest in educating or enlightening practitioners
so they can act more wisely and prudently” (p. 54).
The sample for the research was chosen through the researcher’s higher education
network and reflects a representative cross-section of post-secondary institutions. Executive
leaders were chosen from private, government, and private religious institutions around the
United States. In this way, variations in institution type were explored as a potential factor that
influences KMO in addition to position or scope of responsibility.

44
Interviews
Interview Protocol
The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured format with a list of pre-defined
questions that allowed for the freedom to probe individual thoughts and responses while
attempting to understand how the interviewee ascribed meaning to the world around them. The
interview protocol is included in Appendix A. Patton (2002) identifies a “sensitizing concept,”
which allows for the structured questions to be asked while exploring a particular guiding
principle. In this instance, that principle is the power and meaning succession planning has for
senior leaders. Further, Maxwell (2013) argues that a group such as this represents a “case” or a
sample of individuals who may or may not generalize to a larger population but can be
expositive on a particular issue. To support this approach, several types of questions were
presented to the population in this study.
The questions in this process took a realist approach as defined by Maxwell (2013).
Questions in this frame are asked to explore what is often unobservable: how people ascribe
meaning to contexts, feelings, and perceptions. Since the impact of succession planning on
individuals isn’t directly quantifiable, as with instrumental questioning, the realist inquiry into
senior leaders’ experiences and thoughts is appropriate. Patton (2015) provides guidance on an
array of questioning types that aid the researcher in homing in on the information needed to
accept or reject the positions of the research questions. For this study, experience and behavior
questions, knowledge, background/demographic, and opinion and values questions were each
used to explore the KMO influences.
Experience and behavior questions explore the interviewee’s path through their career
and can reveal patterns of action that may have led to roles of increasing responsibility at an
45
institution. These questions can explore respondents’ knowledge regarding the mechanics of
their careers as well as potential organizational influences that have shaped their careers. For
example, institutions which may have excellent professional development programs and in which
respondents participated, can demonstrate an effective mechanism for succession planning.
Knowledge questions strike at the “K” in KMO, namely what is it that leaders can demonstrate
knowing about higher education institutions, the environment in which they function, and how to
achieve critical goals. Background and demographic questions assist in establishing the bounds
of the study by defining who people are and where they are from. Lastly, opinions and values
questions allow the respondent to speak to their motivations for working in higher education,
committing to an executive career, and understanding how they see themselves and their place in
a larger landscape. While the interview had pre-defined, structured questions as a guide to ensure
a uniform treatment to all participants, follow-up questions were used, when necessary, to probe
further into each participant’s responses.
Interview Procedures. Interviews with senior leaders were conducted throughout the
late winter of the 2020 calendar year. This time in higher education often lends itself to higher
availability of access because it is the middle of the academic year and time when people are
available. The respondents were contacted using the researcher’s network, initially informally, to
gauge their interest and availability. Those 10 individuals from five institutions who assented to
participate were given a full description of the dissertation research, the purpose, and the relevant
information pertaining to the institutional review board (IRB) after the approval process had
been completed. This document asked senior leaders holding the title of president, provost, or
dean, to meet with the researcher for one-hour long face-to-face interviews in an appropriate
place in the respondent’s campus or online for participants who were more than 70 miles from
46
the researcher’s residence. The request for the interview asked for a date, time, and ocation on
campus, at the respondent’s discretion, which was a place that was quiet, free from noise and
other distractions, and allowed for the conversations to proceed naturally. Ideally, the location
would have been their office, a classroom, or a conference room. The institutions and the
participants are anonymized in this study to protect the individuals and their employers. For
those electing to participate online, the request was similar, except for the online platform Zoom
being shared and a request that the respondent locate a quiet place in which to participate. In both
cases, before the interview began, the participant and researcher reviewed the protocol, the IRB
information, especially consent, and any pre-interview questions were clarified. The respondents
were asked for permission to be recorded via digital recorder in the case of face-to-face
interaction and through video for those online. The recordings were saved to facilitate accurate
transcription and coding, and participants’ confidentiality was assured. Further, all copies were
backed up to hard and secured cloud drive. Upon successful completion of the doctoral
dissertation, and no later than 30 days post-commencement, all the recordings will be destroyed.
Lastly, through each interview, handwritten notes were taken to capture the researcher’s
thoughts, follow-up or probe questions, and any other relevant information.
The five institutions vary in size and mission and are mainly located in the Northeastern
United States. Table 4 provides a summary of the institution, the leader title, and the mission
focus of each institution and the leader being interviewed. Institution A has a religious mission
with 5,500 students in undergraduate and baccalaureate programs ranging from traditional liberal
arts to pre-professional programs in nursing. The dean of the school of business and the president
were interviewed. Institution B has 3,500 students in the medical professions and awards
baccalaureate, master and doctoral degrees. The associate vice president for institutional
47
effectiveness and the chief of staff to the president were interviewed. Institution C has 8,000
students and, interestingly, recently merged with a medical and health sciences university. This
comprehensive university offers programs in engineering, architecture, interior design, as well as
medicine, pharmacy, and nursing. The associate vice president for facilities and operations as
well as the executive vice president were interviewed. Institution D has a religious affiliation
with 5,000 students and offers mostly traditional liberal arts programs. The vice president of
finance and the vice president of institutional effectiveness/chief data officer were interviewed.
The final, Institution E, is a small, private liberal arts institution with 3,000 students, primarily in
the undergraduate disciplines. The provost and the president were interviewed. All the
institutions are non-profit.
Table 4
Institutions Sampled in the Study
Institution Description Location Interviewee
Institution A Religious mission
with 4,000 FTE in

NE US Dean of Business
President
Institution B Professional
medicine; 3,000 FTE
NE US AVP for Institutional
Effectiveness
President’s Chief of
Staff

Institution C Comprehensive
undergraduate,
graduate, doctoral;
8,000 FTE

NE US Executive VP
AVP Facilities
Institution D Religious mission,
5,000 FTE traditional
liberal arts.
SE US VP for Institutional
Effectiveness
VP for Finance

Institution E Private, Liberal Arts
3,000 FTE
NE US President
Provost
Note. FTE equals full-time equivalent students.
48
Data Analysis
The audio recordings of the interviews were supplied to a third-party transcription
service. Subsequently, the researcher began a multi-phase coding and analysis process that
involved identifying patterns to individual interviews as well as across all participants from both
the transcripts and any in situ notes. These patterns were then coded according to type, frequency
of occurrence, and their relation to the research questions which have guided this study.
Additionally, key phrases and remarks were noted to demonstrate patterns as results are
presented and discussed. In a subsequent phase, the coding was revisited to determine if any gaps
exist and if the data collected can remediate these gaps.
Chapter Four will discuss findings and relevance of the data in addressing the research
questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility in this type of research is important to ensure that the researcher has checked,
or verified, the findings have meaning to those who would read or interpret the findings
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) notes that, among
scholars, there is discussion on the use of the “term” validity in lieu of credibility, as in the
quantitative paradigms; however, for the purposes of this discussion, it will be used
synonymously. At the completion of the study, credibility is enhanced through the use of three
techniques: member checking, rich data, and reflexivity.
Member checking allows for the research participants to review the researcher’s report on
the interviews to ensure the responses were correctly recorded and interpreted as they were
intended (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This enhances
credibility because participants have an opportunity to review that the findings represent what
49
they meant or felt. While Maxwell (2013) notes that the member check may be no more valid
than the initial interview, given inherent biases and perceptions could be flawed, it is still
effective because coupled together, there is evidence of integrity to the process.
Rich data is the process of preparing “rich, thick description” (Creswell & Creswell,
2018), to report the findings in great detail such that those reading the results are “transported” to
the study experience and enhance the inherent realism. This approach was bolstered with detailed
notes from the interviews that go beyond the responses or transcripts. Combined, these enhance
credibility by creating a fuller picture (Maxwell, 2013).
Finally, reflexivity, or clarification of research bias, is presented to detail the researcher’s
background and how that may affect execution of the study and interpretation of the results
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The researcher made notes when interviewing, and when building
results, to record thoughts or reactions to the research and probe the bias of the researcher when
clarifying positions or information.
Ethics
This study was field-based and involved applied action-oriented research. Action-
oriented applied research involves carefully worded, personal interviews that seek to understand
the nature of a problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Since people are giving their time and
expertise through interviews, it is imperative that the respondents understand the purpose of the
study, the questions that will be asked, the nature and purpose of the research, and that there is
no pressure to answer questions against their will (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This was
accomplished through an informed consent form that assures confidentiality of the participants as
well as the institutions for whom they work, as well as noting their ability to cease participation
50
at any time before, during, or after the interview process. Further, all data were anonymized in all
draft and final versions of the dissertation.
The persons chosen for the interviews were found through a network convenience
sampling from the researcher’s colleagues and professional network. None of the participants
were in a working relationship with the researcher, and none were relatives. The researcher has
an affiliation to Institution C as an alumnus; however, there is no active relationship with the
campus or the alumni affairs department.
The ethical treatment and safety of the respondents and researchers is also important; to
that end, all study-related information was submitted to the IRB at the University of Southern
California, for review and approval. No participants were contacted prior to board final approval.
Additionally, the study did not deviate, in any way, from the final authorization of the IRB.
Since the topic of succession planning is expansive, and respondents may have lengthy
and deep responses to the study, all were asked for permission to audio record their responses for
later transcription. This transcription was made available to the respondents for their feedback
and approval that no words had been changed or ideas misrepresented. All respondents declined
this offer, trusting that the nature of this work was truly scholarly and not for personal or
financial gain. Finally, while payment was not a part of this study, small gifts after the study
have been appreciated in similar research (Weiss, 1994). Therefore, a $50 gift card to Amazon
was presented along with a thank you note that conveyed appreciation and gratitude for the
participation. Two of the 10 participants politely declined the offer, indicating their employer
policy prohibited accepting any form of gift for their time. The remaining eight gift cards were
placed in a hand-written thank you card and mailed via USPS within one week of the conclusion
of the interview.
51
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations for a study are those factors that lie outside of the researcher’s control. For
this study, limitations include how respondents answered questions and the truthfulness of their
responses. To mitigate this risk, responses will be kept confidential and a summary based on the
interview transcript will be provided to the participant as a member check.
Delimitations are those items within the researcher’s control and which a conscious
decision must be made in order to conduct the study with the time and resources available. A
delimitation of this study is the number of participants utilized to answer the research questions,
given the scope of the global goal. Additionally, all the participants were located within one
geographic location of the United States; however, this is somewhat tempered by interviewing
different institutional types. Lastly, documents and artifacts were limited because, as previously
discussed, higher education is not actively engaged in a process of succession planning.
Summary
This chapter discussed the methodology of the study in pursuit of exploring the research
questions. The stakeholders who participated were discussed, as well as their institution types.
Next, the data collection and instrumentation were discussed followed by the interview protocol
and interview procedures. The procedure for the analysis of the data was described. The
credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics of the research, as well as treatment of participants were
reviewed. Finally, limitations and delimitations of the study were discussed. Chapter Four will
present and analyze the data.

52
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this field study was to identify the KMO influences affecting senior
higher education leaders’ ability to achieve a global goal of executing intentional succession
planning across the industry. The study utilized one-on-one interviews to provide qualitative
data. Further, a gap analysis framework was employed to frame the questions each leader was
asked; these were segmented across the KMO domains. This chapter will discuss the following
elements: participating stakeholders, interview results, and key findings. Three questions guided
this study:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation needs related to the implementation of a
succession plan among higher education leaders?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to these needs?
Questions one and two will be addressed in this chapter. A full discussion of question three will
be presented in Chapter 5.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population was composed of 10 senior leaders at five different
institutions from the Northeastern and Southern United States. Senior leaders are those with
responsibility for the entire institution, such as a president or provost, or a division of the
institution, such as a vice president or dean. The stakeholders were two presidents, one provost,
one dean, and six individuals with a variant of vice president in their title. Five participants were
women; of these, one was a woman of color, the other four are Caucasian. The five men were all
Caucasian. The participants’ backgrounds preceding their higher education leadership varied
53
across disciplines. Two participants had extensive military experience in allied health before
ascending to their roles. Two participants were practicing lawyers, one worked in government
service, one as a mechanical engineer, one as a professor, one as an accountant, one as both a
professor and biomedical researcher, and one in information technology venture capital. Two of
the participants were also immigrants to the United States. This data came from answers to the
first interview question, which asked them to provide background information on themselves.
Table 5 summarizes the participants’ institutions, backgrounds, and demographics. Ages and
institutional information have been masked to protect the identity of the participants.
Table 5
Characteristics of Participants
Participant Institution Title Background Gender
001 B
Chief of Staff to the
President
Health Sciences (Nutrition)

F

002 B
Associate Vice President
of Institutional
Effectiveness
Health Sciences (Public Health)

M

003 D Vice President of Finance Accounting

F
004 A President Law (Practice and Professor)

F

005 A Dean of Business Law (Practice and Professor) F
006 C Executive Vice President Government

M
007 E Provost Higher Education (Professor)

F
008 E President
Biomedical Research (Professor)

M
009 C Associate Vice President Mechanical Engineering

M
010 D
VP of Institutional
Effectiveness and Chief
Data Officer
Venture capital – IT industry M

54
Findings
The data are discussed and parsed according to the order of influence types: knowledge,
motivation, and organization. The types are then subdivided into each corresponding area as
presented in the conceptual framework. Influences are categorized as an asset, need, or
inconclusive. An asset finding suggests that the participant(s) demonstrate the knowledge,
motivation, or organizational competence probed in the question related to succession planning.
A need suggests the participant demonstrated a gap in that area related to succession planning. A
finding of inconclusive suggests that the response(s) could not be demonstrably categorized as
either an asset or a need. An influence is considered an asset if 70% of respondents demonstrated
the characteristics of the assumed influence. An influence is considered a need when 70% of
respondents demonstrate little or no characteristics of the influence. Need influences will be the
focus for recommendations presented in Chapter Five.
Knowledge Influences
This study explored three knowledge areas related to succession planning in higher
education. Four questions were asked to assess participants’ knowledge in the areas of
succession planning. Questions 4 and 5, regarding what succession planning is and whether
respondents had heard of talent management and pipeline management, sought to probe the
conceptual knowledge domain. Question 6, regarding how they address gaps between
performance and the goals for the person being reviewed, probed the procedural knowledge
domain. Finally, Question 7, on whether they reflect on their successes and failures, explored the
metacognitive domain. All respondents answered each question as presented for a response rate
of 100%.
55
Table 6 summarizes the knowledge influence findings. Conceptual knowledge,
procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge were all probed in Questions 4 through 7.
In the conceptual knowledge domain, leaders were found to have a need, as they understood and
could articulate the underlying concepts of succession planning but viewed them as distinct
components. They also reflected on their practice and how to try novel approaches in a changing
higher education landscape but didn’t translate that practice to succession for the institution.
Procedural knowledge was found inconclusive. The data and findings are discussed in the
sections which follow.
Table 6
Results of Assumed Knowledge Influence Questions
Assumed Knowledge Influence

Asset, Need or Inconclusive

Executive leaders need to know what
succession planning is and how to create a
leadership pipeline through talent
management.
Need: Leaders understand the underlying
concepts, but did not make connections to an
action-oriented organization-wide plan

Executive leaders need to know how to
assess and remediate performance gaps as
they relate to the organization’s succession
plan

Inconclusive: Leaders responded in a punitive
developmental sense, not making the
connection to development as a means of
employee growth toward higher positions
within the organization

Executive leaders need to be able to reflect
on aligning the existing talent with the
future state of the institution.
Need: leaders are reflective on their
performance and the impact on the institution,
but did not discuss succession planning as a
means for growth and improvement

Conceptual Knowledge of Succession Planning, Talent and Pipeline Management
Conceptual knowledge of succession planning, talent, and pipeline management, as
discussed in Chapter 2, is understanding the different schema of succession planning, and the
56
underpinning concepts of talent and pipeline management, and how the three are utilized to
create a plan for an institution of higher learning (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Having this conceptual knowledge allows leaders to formulate ways to engage in
effective long-term goal setting and planning with succession in mind. Two questions were asked
of participants to understand leaders’ conceptual knowledge of succession planning. Question 4,
which asked them to describe succession planning in their own words, sought to explore the
experienced leaders’ perceptions on the topic, particularly as it pertained to being intentional,
tied to institutional goals, and involving many stakeholders. Eight of the 10 participants
answered the question with in-depth responses that indicated awareness of succession planning
as an intentional concept involving foresight, planning, and connection to institutional goals
(Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2015; Santora et al., 2015). Several terms were used indicating this
understanding, with phrases such as “structured program,” “succession in leadership,” “critical
development of people,” and “intentional mentorship” used throughout responses.
Two participants, 005 and 007, provided answers consistent with legacy definitions of
succession planning as a method to replace current positions; this is now known as “replacement
planning” (Kesler, 2002). As discussed in Chapter Two, organizations engage in an intentional
process that identifies key people and develops them for succession to higher levels (Barnett &
Davis, 2008). Of the leaders, 80% indicated knowledge of the topic in this respect and detailed a
means to achieve such a plan. However, all the succession planning initiatives were not systemic
and were presented ad hoc; there was no formal plan tied to metrics, goals, and the future of the
institution. For example, participant 004 noted, “For me, it’s less formal. I haven’t learned a
formal way to do that.” Participant 005 commented that goals “should be more sketchy than
specific,” and that to be more formal was “tricky.” The interview population demonstrated
57
conceptual knowledge of succession planning and could articulate its key principles but did not
articulate a formal structure to engage in such planning. Table 7 lists key responses to the
interview question.
Table 7
Conceptual Knowledge on Succession Planning Answers
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
Q4. Can you tell me, in your
words, what succession
planning is?
003 “We need a structured program of ‘rising stars;’
those who are seen as leaders of the future.”
004 “Boards are saying the traditional academic
background, dean to provost, etc., worked but we
need a business skillset now. Different forces are
pushing toward non-traditional leadership in our
sector – there is no question this is the problem of
our generation.”

008

“To me, it’s important to always be thinking about
succession for leadership, starting at the top. It
helps, too, if you can develop a deep bench on
multiple levels.”

009

“Always try gauge where you are in the
development process to make decisions timely.
You really need to invest in your people so they can
step in for your or step in to do something the
university may need.”

010

“I think there’s two layers. The who, the named
individual. I think the real gap is the and where
people don’t succession plan is the responsibilities.
That’s the what.”

Conceptual knowledge of talent and pipeline management exists as components of
succession planning which informs key decision-makers how to build a pipeline of talent. In
building the pipeline, leaders attempt to remediate performance gaps while remaining responsive
to the succession needs of the organization (Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2015; Santora et al., 2015).
58
Question 5, which asked if they had heard of talent management and pipeline management,
probed the senior leaders’ knowledge of this concept as a means to ensure effective succession
planning through building a pipeline of talent that is actively managed and develops key peoples’
skills in their current positions while preparing them to assume roles of greater responsibility in
the organization. All participants touched on the ideas of organizational stability and success
relying on the development of people and building a pipeline with as many qualified people as
possible. Participant 002 noted this in commenting on the scarcity of resources organizations
often face and the need to be intentional. The participant noted, “We don’t have limitless human
capital; every smart executive is looking to grow their people.” Participant 007 honed this idea
by noting that leaders need to understand their plans as well as what individuals may want. In
having these conversations, leaders can then “support people with resources.” Participant 008
expanded on this concept by mentioning “intentional mentorship of employees” where
understanding their needs and the needs of the organization can lead to providing opportunities
that make it “easier to start a bench of talent.” The leaders all felt opportunities should be made
available throughout the institution for those who had the desire, as well as encouraging people
to move in new directions.
As previously discussed, pipeline management identifies crucial positions while
identifying future leaders to develop to fill those positions (Griffith et al., 2018). Further, talent
management exists as a means to fill the pipeline and is a dynamic process of aligning
organizational goals and people development (van Zyl et al., 2017). The participants
demonstrated conceptual knowledge of talent management and pipeline planning, but no
respondent indicated they had a formal structure in place to drive talent toward a pipeline that
ensures long-term succession for the organization. No respondent indicated how the components
59
fully interacted toward an active and managed plan that contributed to long-term institutional
succession. Table 8 lists key responses to the interview question.
Table 8
Conceptual Knowledge of Talent and Pipeline Management Responses
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
Q5. Have you heard of talent
management and pipeline
management
001 “Talent management is key to the Army – People
looked at my successes and offered me different
positions based on strengths and weakness. I
assume pipeline management is an extension of
that. I have also….called up people who I thought
would be a great fit based on this or that ability. .
.”

002

“We don’t have limitless human capital; every
smart executive is looking to grow their people;
help capitalize on their skill sets and make the
strong ones stronger and help those weaker
become stronger.”

004

“I sense it as a funnel approach: you want there to
be a broad population at the front end of
colleagues who are showing desire for skill
development. Identify them and give them
resources and investment to test that inclination.”

007

“I think it’s important that we discuss with people
– what are your plans? Have the conversations
and support people with resources.”

008

“It includes have intentional mentoring of your
direct reports, then being open and transparent, to
empower folks. The more opportunities you
provide, the easier it is to start a bench of talent.”

The purpose of Questions 4 and 5 was to explore leaders’ conceptual knowledge in
succession planning and how pipeline management and talent management support and
contribute to viable succession plans. The leaders’ responses indicated they were aware of these
concepts and had some ideas of how they may interact. While no participant had a formal
60
succession plan in place, this did not serve as an impediment to understanding and articulating
the concepts. However, in this area, leaders’ conceptual knowledge of succession planning and
talent and pipeline management is a need for the leaders and potentially their organizations since
the conceptual discussion did not include a synthesis across the three main concepts of
succession, pipeline, and talent management.
Procedural Knowledge of Performance Development to Remediate Performance Gaps
Procedural knowledge is how to do something utilizing factual and conceptual
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011) To effectively implement succession planning,
leaders need to understand how to set goals for employees such that their growth meets the
succession needs of the organization (Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2015). Question 6, on how they
address gaps between performance and the goals for the person being reviewed, was intended to
explore the leaders’ ability to close the gap between current skill sets and future role attainment.
Santora et al. (2015), discussed connecting individuals with organizations through a strategic
focus on performance development that would enrich both the organization and the individuals,
especially when considering a succession plan. All participants viewed this question as
performance development to remediate poor employee performance and did not make the
connection to succession planning; their underlying approaches also varied widely in execution.
Participant 003 felt there were resource constraints at that particular institution when
noting, “I work in a small institution where there is not a lot of excess capacity. Everyone has big
jobs and we expect a lot from people.” Participant 004 approached the issue from a high-level
perspective, noting that the vice presidents in the reporting line were all content specialists and
that the role of president “was unique in that detail.” To address performance, the participant
viewed the executive role as being “a process specialist” who “sometimes has an external view
61
on that gap before I can imagine how to fill it.” Finally, participant 005 felt this was part of the
annual performance review process: “Every June and July assessments are done. The employees
fill out their reviews with the supervisor and we’re very specific on reflection and improvement
of goals.”
While participants did touch on aspects of reflection in answers to questions 4 and 5,
particularly in the areas of creating opportunity and assisting in the development of future
leaders, this was on a conceptual level. There are two suggested reasons the responses varied
widely and did not connect to succession planning. It is possible this question was not
appropriately worded to assess the knowledge influence since it did not explicitly mention
succession planning. An alternate wording may have been “In thinking about your answers to
succession planning and talent and pipeline management, how would remediate gaps in a
person’s performance toward growing into a more significant leadership role?” This would have
made the connection for the participant clearer. Secondly, the term “performance gap” as
inherently suggestive of a deficit and deficits are often viewed negatively as something which
must be filled or closed. In lieu of using the term “performance gap,” the rewording may have
used “performance growth” or “leadership growth” as a synonymous terminology. Since the
respondents did not make the connection to succession planning in response to question six, the
data regarding procedural knowledge is inconclusive.
Metacognitive Knowledge on Succession Planning
Metacognitive knowledge is understanding how one thinks and adapting to new ways of
thinking and acting (Krathwohl, 2002). Through adapting, leaders can learn how to attempt
alternative approaches to different scenarios (Pintrich, 2002). In reflecting and acting on existing
patterns of thought and ways to adapt them in novel ways, leaders can be forward-thinking with
62
succession planning as they envision a future where not only are they no longer there, but they
leave an institution behind that is prepared to address emergent challenges. Since succession
planning has largely been static, and models of internal development switched to hiring and or
“stealing” talent (Cappelli, 2008), organizations need to find a medium between hiring and
promotion which will be grounded in leaders’ abilities to reflect on goals, the organization’s
state, and how to align the two.
Question seven, on how participants reflect on their successes and failures, coupled with
a follow-up asking is they consider the impact on the larger organization as a whole or focus
more on their own professional development, probed the respondents’ metacognition on
reflection. Executive leaders must be reflective and understand where the organization is today
and where it may be in the future and how new leaders can grow into expanding roles (LeCounte
et al., 2017). Additionally, positive outcomes for the organization are associated with self-
reflection and engagement across the organization (Jones et al., 2019; Lanaj et al., 2019). All the
leaders reported they reflected on their own performance and how that impacted the institution as
a whole; however, the reflection was short-term focused (an annual review period) and not
longer-term. The leaders used terms such as “impact,” self-critical,” and “brood on failures.”
Participants 002, 003, 006, 007 all commented that they tended to engage more when they
perceived failure. Participant 002 commented, “I tend to get on myself for not being efficient or
fast enough.” Participant 003 suggested they always sought an opportunity to learn, but “more
when things go wrong.” This is a more reactive state on what has potentially gone wrong with a
leader’s actions. Reflective practice is active and engaging on all aspects of a leader’s decisions
and actions. Metacognitive knowledge is a need for executive leaders as it relates to reflecting on
all actions and results that are realized—not just the negatives. This assumed metacognitive
63
knowledge influence will be an on-going need for leaders as they develop this skill. Table 9
summarizes key quotes on self-reflection.
Table 9
Metacognitive Knowledge on Succession Planning - Responses
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
Q7. How do you reflect on
your successes and failures?
As you reflect, do you
consider the impact on the
larger organization as a
whole, or do you focus more
on your own professional
development?
002 “I do that more when I don’t live up to
expectations. I tend to get on myself for not being
efficient, fast enough”
003 “I do try to reflect where there are learning
opportunities for me. I tend to do that more when
things go wrong.”

006

“I’m constantly introspective and thinking about
what I could’ve done.”

007

“That’s what I do. . . constantly thinking about it.
Where did this fail? How can we make it better?”

009

“I think there’s two layers. The who, the named
individual. I think the real gap is the and where
people don’t succession plan is the responsibilities.
That’s the what.”

Summary
Four questions were asked to substantiate the assumed knowledge influences affecting
the gaps in effective succession planning throughout the field of higher education. Two sought to
probe the conceptual influence, and one question each explored procedural and metacognitive
knowledge. All participants answered each question. While participants demonstrated
substantive knowledge regarding the conceptual nature of succession planning, the influence was
64
deemed a continuing need since there was no mention of an actionable, defined plan. The
procedural knowledge influence was inconclusive potentially due to poor wording of the
question or not leading the interviewee into the connection between concept and procedure.
Lastly, the metacognitive influence was deemed a continuing need since leaders need to engage
in reflection that focuses on the positive and negative aspects of their leadership practice.
Motivation Influences
Motivation, according to Clark and Estes (2008), is a driving force that enables people to
initialize, act, and exert appropriate effort on tasks and goals. Mayer (2011) suggests that
individuals will have five components that would cause them to engage and achieve goals: their
beliefs, interests, attribution, goals, and desire toward partnership. To engage in a systemic
approach toward effective succession planning, leaders will need to have the desire to do so, see
the value and believe in its efficacy, and want to partner across the organization to achieve the
goal.
Two questions explored motivation influences around the concepts of attributions and
goal orientation. Question 8 asked what motivates interviewees in their current role as it relates
to the institution’s success, and Question 9 probed whether they feel succession planning goals
could help not only the institution but their own professional growth. All respondents answered
the questions. Attributional motivation was found to be an asset; all of the leaders desired long-
term stability for their organizations over their own needs or growth. Goal orientation toward
succession planning was found to be a continuing need; leaders believed in goals for themselves
and their organizations, yet they conveyed that such goals should be divisionally or
departmentally focused. Succession planning views an organization as entire system. While
individual components should be managed, they are management should be carefully structured
65
with a focus on outcomes that affect the entire system. Table 10 shows the confirmation as an
asset or need for each motivation influence. The responses for each influence are examined in
two subsections that follow.
Table 10
Attributions and Goal Orientation Influence and Asset or Need Finding
Assumed Motivation Influence

Asset or Need

Attributions: Executives should desire long-
term stability for the organization outside of
their own self-interest
Asset – Leaders are committed to
the longevity of their
organizations over their own self-
interest.

Goal orientation: Executives should pursue
succession planning goals as a means for
long-term stability of the organization.

Need – Leaders responded that
plans should be informal or
divisionally focused. Nine of 10
responses focused on a
fragmented approach

Attributions for Organizational Stability Over Self-Interest
Executive leaders, as one of their many responsibilities, should desire long-term stability
for their organizations. Understanding that they will not always be in their role, succession
planning can be a driver of long-term stability; it ensures qualified leaders will be ready to
assume roles of increased responsibility. The three dimensions of attributions discussed in
Chapter Two: locus, stability, and controllability, can inform leaders’ motivation toward
achieving succession planning. Since succession planning can be unstable over time due to
changing environmental factors that are outside the controllability of an organization, leaders
should focus on what can be controlled and how to exert their abilities with consistent effort.
Question eight asked what motivates participants in their current role as it relates to the
institution’s success and sought to explore leaders’ desire for long-term stability for the
66
institution over their self-interest. Attributions affect motivation dependent on a person’s locus,
stability, and controllability over given stimuli or situations (Mayer, 2011). The leaders answered
this question with three identifying as internally motivated and seven identifying with external
locus. Either orientation can drive succession planning forward; attribution theory demonstrates
that individuals merely alter their approach and understanding to a problem based on the
attributions which they make about the underlying causes (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). As
part of self-reflection mentioned earlier, leaders should be aware of how they attribute causes
when acting on a given task or goals.
Participants 003, 004, 007 all identified as being intrinsically motivated using terms such
as “intrinsically motivated,” “competitive,” and “needing to achieve.” This indicates the leaders
feel causes are due to their own behaviors and that they can exert a high degree of effort toward a
desired outcome. Participants 004 and 007 noted that internal motivation was a large driving
force to their success. Participant 004 felt “motivated by the desire to improve everything. I am
somebody intrinsically motivated” indicating a strong desire to be a force for change. Participant
007 also mentioned internal motivation and indicated “having autonomy in what you’re doing” is
a strong indicator of success.
The remaining participants, 001, 002, 005, 006, 008, 009, and 010 all detailed external
foci using terms such as “facilitate people,” “desire to improve others,” and “feeling part of
something special.” All of the respondents felt they had a high degree of control and that causes
of their motivation were variable depending on the situation. Terms used to reflect this were
“solutions-oriented,” “achieve with others,” and feeling “challenged.” Participant 002 stated, “It
charges me up to facilitate people working together. I’m not nuts and bolts, I’m vision,” which
demonstrates a high degree of wanting to push vision forward through and with other people.
67
Participants 008 and 010 touched on the direct impact they could have on others which resulted
in excellence and a reduction in frustration.
The analysis of motivation is highly intricate; yet, all the leaders demonstrated a
commitment to the stability of their organization and its longevity. Irrespective of internal or
external locus, the leaders demonstrated a deep and sincere desire to impact people, goals, and
their organizations’ success. Effective succession planning assumes an intentional focus on the
development of goals, people, and operations toward the organization’s long term existence.
Thus, this assumed influence on succession planning was validated as an asset among the leaders
interviewed. The results are presented in Table 11.
Table 11
Motivation Question Responses
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
Q8. “What motivates you in
your current role as it relates
to the institution’s success”
001 “Very similar to what I just said – there are tough
days. There are some people that are difficult. But I
realize that were’ educating the next medical
leaders for the country. Whatever little part that I
can do to support that – that’s what gives me value
and motivates me.”

002 “It charges me up to facilitate people working
together – to get to yes – really gets me excited. I’m
not nuts and bolts, I’m vision. I love issues that say
where do we want to be down the road?”

004

“Look, I’m an extremely competitive person. I am
motivated by the desire to improve everything. I am
somebody intrinsically motivated, I’ve always been
that way”

007

“We sometimes forget the intrinsic motivating
factors that people have. One of them ... and the
things that could make that successful, like number
one, having autonomy in what you are doing.”
68
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment

008

“Also being motivated to try to promote excellence
throughout the institution organization and to raise
its profile amongst influencers and within our
region”

010 “I have an opportunity to impact people that were
in my roles at institutions that were frustrated and
annoyed by the spiderwebs of SISes, and the
continual challenges.”

Goal Orientation Toward Succession Planning
Goal orientation toward succession planning calls upon leaders to increase both their
mastery and performance in executing succession planning goals. Mastery involves fully
understanding the concepts and procedures needed to enact a succession plan and performance is
being able to achieve goals along with others (Rueda, 2011). To enable succession efforts, goals
should be set across units that are both individually focused on growth and collectively focused
on succession planning (Chadwick & Raver, 2015). As discussed in Chapter Two, in stimulating
the motivation of all individuals within the organization toward a larger outcome, a shared sense
of purpose is created.
Question nine, on whether participants feel succession planning goals could help not only
the institution but their own professional growth, explored goal orientation and its impact on the
individual and the organization. Goal orientation in individuals, when combined across the
organization, form a collective understanding that impacts culture and can lead to greater success
in achieving the goals (Chadwick & Raver, 2015). Motivation across the whole is amplified and,
therefore, individuals and organizations are more likely to achieve satisfactory results. The
participants’ responses indicated a personal or divisional focus with no mention of a collective
understanding of how those goals could benefit the organization or the connection to succession
69
planning. Participant responses varied with terms such as “formal,” “informal,” and “sketchy”
versus specific. Participant 004 noted that “it’s always been less formal. I have not been in
organizations that have that robust commitment to setting up programs and so on,” indicating the
ability to set goals, but not having a prior template from which to understand how to develop a
formal institution-wide goal setting plan. Participant 005 was similar in describing goal setting as
being more “sketchy than specific.” Participant 009 felt that, with goals, “we try to build that into
the people that are here in this department,” which demonstrates a desire for goal orientation
without articulating a concrete commitment. While a general sense emerged that goals would be
helpful, the respondents were divisionally focused with respect to their areas, not the
organization as a whole with respect to succession planning. Therefore, this will be a continuing
need. Table 12 summarizes key responses.
Table 12
Succession Goals Question Responses
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
Q9. “Do you feel succession
planning goals could help
not only the institution but
your own professional
growth?”
004 “For me it’s always less formal. I have not been in
orgs that have that robust commitment to setting up
programs and so on. I really haven’t learned the
formal way to do that.”

005 “Yeah. .I do. They must be more sketchy than
specific. That’s important.”

007

“Oh, absolutely. You have to ... okay, I will answer
in this way ... Doing succession plans is really
important, but I don't think you have to do it in
terms of building only the pipeline for your own
institution”

009

“Yeah. And I think we try to build that into the
people that are here in this department.”
70
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment

010

“Yes. I think succession planning has to be more
formal, both from an organizational perspective to
sustain that impact. It's great for me to have it
individually. It's great for me to take on tasks,
activities, to do that for the organization, but if I do
that in the absence of thinking about succession
planning, both the who and the what, then I have
had an impact that will be felt for the organization
but will be short-lived.”

Summary
Two questions were asked to examine the motivation influences of leaders with respect to
succession planning. Both questions were answered by all of the participants. Attributions were
the first influence questioned, the second was goal orientation. Attributions were found to be an
asset as leaders did demonstrate desire for stability for themselves and their organizations.
Succession planning is the act of ensuring there are leaders able to ascend to roles of greater
responsibility in the future; to do so, the current cadre of leaders should want to ensure the
organization’s long-term survival.
To reach the organization of the future, however, the individuals need to set personal and
organizational goals that align and are cross divisionally focused on succession (among other
goals each particular organization may have to meet its mission). Executive leaders gave varying
responses, with only one participant explaining the need for divisional as well as organizational
thought and planning. Since no one division of any organization is the raison d'être for its
entirety, each must understand the unique function it plays in making the whole successful,
making this a continuing need among leaders to effectively engage in succession planning.
71
Organizational Influences
All organizations have resources at their disposal which are a blend of human resources,
money, and time. Succession planning will require some blend of these three resources to plan
and implement. Knowledge and motivation are important to individual and organizational
success, but without resources, human capital will have little ability to exert their talents and
influence. Clark and Estes (2008) propose that organizational gaps occur due to a blend of two
issues: insufficient or ineffective resources and deficient work processes. The first gap could be
due to an organization not having enough time, money, or people to achieve goals or, if
sufficiency exists, it is simply the resources are not utilized to achieve the goals efficiently. The
second cause of gaps, deficient work processes, can create inefficiencies as value chains (goals)
and streams (processes) are created and managed. Two questions were asked to explore the
efficient allocation of resources: Question 10, on what resources would be needed to ensure
success should the institution to engage in succession planning, and Question 11, on how
respondents would coordinate or influence activities across units if a succession plan were in
place tomorrow. Table 13 lists the summation of findings on the influence and the determination
that resource allocation and efficiencies were both continuing needs for the institutions. All 10
participants answered each question and the responses to each is detailed in two subsections
below.

72
Table 13
Assumed Organizational Influences and Asset or Need Finding
Assumed Organizational Influence

Asset or Need

Executives need to allocate enough
resources to a succession plan that supports
the espoused goals.
Need – Leaders are either struggling with
resource allocation or there are other
priorities

The organization needs to maximize value
chains and streams such that departments
are free to interact in identifying and
implementing processes that will support
the operationalization of the succession plan

Need– Leaders responded current state is
working, despite contradictory answers on
allocation of resources.

Inadequate Resources Devoted to Talent Management
Question 10, on what resources would be needed to ensure success should the institution
to engage in succession planning, sought to understand the leaders’ understanding of needed
resources and the availability within their institution. Succession plans require talent, and the
talent should be managed such that their skills grow and the goals and needs of the organization
are met (Leonard, 2017; Oppong & Oduro-Asabere, 2018). Further, managing talent is an
intentional process that requires time, focus, and efficient measurement to ensure the succession
planning goals are being met (van Zyl et al., 2017). Since the talent may come from either
external or internal sources, it is also crucial that the management of talent toward a succession
plan appropriately integrates internal and external candidates toward the individual and
organizational goals (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014).
All of the respondents answered the question in varying ways. Seven of the 10
respondents felt they did not have the resources necessary or that the resources were tied up in
ways that could not be readily reallocated. Response phrases used were “we absolutely don’t
have the resources,” and “people over money” and “not sure how we would do that.” Participants
73
generally responded from the human and time allocation and not financial aspect, although this
was certainly implied. Participant 001, for example, commented that the organization needed to
“look at direction, what do you want to achieve and hire the best talent.” Participants 004 and
007 also commented that people were needed by commenting, “I see a need for a formal talent
management program where you identify high performers from across the institution,” and “if
we have enough time, we should invest time in building other people through the pipeline.” The
other three leaders felt the resources existed, but that they were not sure how to reallocate people,
finances, and time to begin a succession plan. For all respondents, they understood—and
conveyed—resources meant time, talent, and finances.
This organizational influence on succession planning is therefore a continuing need, as
none of the institutions interviewed have allocated resources to a structured succession plan and
aren’t sure how they would begin such an allocation. Table 14 summarizes key responses to the
interview question.
Table 14
Resources in Succession Planning Question Responses
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
Q10. “Were the institution to
engage in succession
planning, what resources
would be needed to ensure
its success and do those
resources currently exist?”
001 “Look at direction, what do you want to achieve
and hiring the best talent.”

003 “We have a lack of resources. I don’t have the HR
champion I need and we have to move resources
around to focus on other things like compliance
(Title IX)..”

004

“We absolutely don’t have the resources. I would
see for need would be a formal talent management
74
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
program where you identify those high performers
from across the institution then find ways to move
them through in cohorts.”

007

“What I think is more important is the time, if we
have enough time, and if we shouldn't invest more
time in building other people through the pipeline,
in taking care of others, and in mentoring, formal
and informal.”

010

“…yes, it could improve the business and we do
not have the organizational understanding to have
begun to bite that off from an HR and a talent
management perspective.”

Value Chains and Value Streams
Executives need to ensure the value chains (goals) and value streams (processes) are
efficient and flow and interact across divisions; this is true of any organizational initiative. Value
chains and streams are the mission in action of the organization: accomplishing things
throughout the many business units to realize business outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizations need to create value chains and streams that are efficient and support employee
growth as well as realization of goals (Chance & Williams, 2009; Pandita & Ray, 2018).
Question 11, regarding how they would coordinate or influence activities across units assuming a
succession plan were in place tomorrow, sought to understand leaders’ thoughts and abilities in
managing interdepartmental interaction (streams) toward collective goal achievement (chains).
Without clear communication and organizational supports for effective processes, work efforts
won’t align with allocated resources. This can frustrate talent and lead to decreased motivation
and key contributors exiting the organization (Pandita & Ray, 2018). Responses were mainly
passive with phrases such as “use existing structures,” “form committees,” and “invite people to
75
meetings as needed.” Participant 005, for example, indicated there are “processes in place to
ensure success,” without further details. Participant 003 felt there were larger communication
issues at hand that needed to be addressed before that institution could move toward efficient
models of interdepartmental collaboration. The interviewee remarked, “We have had an echo
chamber with cabinet and have hit a brick wall with middle management where information
doesn’t move. We’re working on changing that.”
While all of the leaders promoted an open and collaborative style, the evidence for
intentional promotion of influence across units wasn’t readily apparent. All of the leaders pointed
to their current organizational processes as proof of success, while simultaneously
acknowledging issues with their current processes. There was no explanation for this dichotomy;
however, there may be comfort in the way things are currently operating. Participant 004 felt that
inter-departmental work could be coordinated “the same way…working with cabinet to shape
what it would look like and how it would work.” The substantive issue at hand, however, is that
leaders demonstrated a lack of formal knowledge of succession planning with an active pipeline
of managed talent; absent this knowledge, it would be difficult to attempt a plan or goal-setting
without understanding the nuances of the succession planning issue. Table 15 summarizes these
responses.

76
Table 15
Coordination of Activities Across Units Question Responses
Interview Question Participant
ID
Comment
Q11. “Assuming a
succession plan were in
place tomorrow, how would
you coordinate or influence
activities across units?”
003 “We have had an echo chamber with cabinet and
have hit a brick wall with middle management
where information doesn’t move. We’re working
on changing that”

004

“I would probably coordinate that same way the
amount of inter departmental work we do now.
Working with cabinet to shape what it would look
like and how it would work and the context of the
program.”

005

“We have processes in place to ensure success.”

009

“But I'd say it's mostly about communication and
having a plan and understanding that broken and
bad can't exist.”

The promotion of efficient value chains and streams is therefore a continuing need –
leaders will need to combine new knowledge of structured succession planning with a focus on
promoting efficient value chains and streams to realize an actionable plan.
Summary
Two questions were asked to understand organizational influences on succession
planning. Both questions were answered by all participants. Question 10 sought to understand
leaders’ notions of resource allocation for succession planning. All of the leaders acknowledged
that time, talent, and financial components comprised the term resources. Most of the leaders felt
lacking in the ability to deploy one or more of them due to conflicting priorities that are viewed
as more important: compliance or enrollment growth, for example. The organizational influence
77
on allocating resources to a succession plan, therefore, was found to be a continuing need.
Question 11 sought to understand underlying support for value chains and value streams in the
promotion of succession planning, those areas that support efficient collaborative processes that
support organizational goals. While all of the leaders lent support to the idea of collaboration and
promoting efficiencies, they all approached the answer from a current state mindset: the way
they’re operating is acceptable to coordinate and influence activities across units. Yet, many of
the leaders discussed having silos and inadequate resources. Promotion of efficient value chains
and streams is therefore a continuing need for institutions of higher education.
Summary
This chapter presented the data collected with respect to each of the KMO influences
related to higher education succession planning. There were seven assumed influences: three for
knowledge in the conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive domains; two for motivation in the
attribution and goal orientation domains; and two for organizational in the allocation of resources
and support of value chains and value streams domain. Two of the knowledge influences,
procedural and metacognitive, were found to be continuing “needs.” In the conceptual
knowledge domain, leaders had some basic awareness of succession planning, talent
management, and pipeline management as discrete concepts. They did not, however, synthesize
the information into a larger schema; that is, understanding succession planning builds a
managed pipeline of talent. The procedural knowledge domain was deemed inconclusive due to
either poor wording of the interview question, or poor transition from one question to the next in
the flow of the interview. Irrespective of this, it is still important for leaders building talent to
understand how to remediate gaps in performance such that the employee can develop skills to
grow into roles of greater responsibility. For metacognition, leaders were reflective on their own
78
failures but did not reveal any thought towards positive metacognition or how to mentor that in
others.
For the motivation influences, attributions were assets while goal orientation was a need.
All the leaders felt a desire for stability and success of the organization over their self-interest;
however, when orienting toward goals, respondents felt they should be divisionally focused.
Since succession planning assumes a macro organizational perspective, this will be an issue
moving forward.
Finally, for organizational influences, both resource allocation and coordination of value
chains and streams were deemed continuing needs. Executives in organizations of higher
education have wide latitude with the allocation of their available resources, however,
participants were not sure how they would allocate toward succession planning. Further, since
there is a conceptual knowledge gap with respect to succession, it is not unexpected to find that
leaders would need assistance in understanding the concept and then determining how to allocate
resources. In coordinating goal setting and achievement across units (value chains and streams),
leaders acknowledged issues with some of their current processes while simultaneously
demonstrating support for them. This will be a barrier to succession planning efforts if leaders do
not address inefficient processes or collaboration efforts. The results were summarized according
to each influence. Chapter Five will discuss recommendations of practice to remediate each of
the influence gaps, as well as provide implications for future study and a conclusion to this
dissertation.

79
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Four detailed the results of the interviews with the 10 higher education senior
leaders to address the first two of three research questions that guided the field study. The
findings were discussed to identify the causes of gaps affecting the lack of succession planning
throughout the higher education industry. The first two questions which guided the study are:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation needs related to the implementation of a
succession plan among higher education leaders?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
This chapter attempts to address the third research question which guided this study:
3. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to these needs?
Knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences on higher education succession
planning were considered an asset if 70% (n = 10) of the participants modeled the assumed
knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences being probed in a question. Similarly,
influences on succession planning were considered continuing needs if participants demonstrated
some or no aspects of the probed influence. Seven influences on succession planning were
proposed in this study; knowledge influences totaled three, motivation influences totaled two,
and organizational totaled two. In sum, five influences were found to be continuing needs, one
was a current asset, and one was determined inconclusive.
This chapter proposes recommendations based on each of the KMO influences to
improve the practice around succession planning in higher education. These recommendations
are then presented within an implementation and evaluation framework called “The New World
Kirkpatrick Model” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). While the KMO influences affecting
80
succession planning were probed separately, and are presented here as such, the Kirkpatrick
framework will integrate the influences into an action plan which treats the influences as tightly
linked and manageable in a comprehensive fashion. The chapter will then discuss implications
for future research and conclude with a summary.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences on Succession Planning
Knowledge Recommendations
This section discusses recommendations for practice to remediate knowledge gaps related
to succession planning among higher education leaders. The summary of the procedural,
conceptual, and metacognitive needs and recommendations are presented in Table 16.
Table 16
Summary of Knowledge Needs, Assets, and Recommendations
Knowledge Asset or Need Principle and Citation Context Specific Recommendation

Conceptual - Need:
Executive leaders need to
know what succession
planning is and how to
create a leadership pipeline
through talent management.

Planning with a focus on
succession planning
requires professional
development of
employees and their
skills. (Mehrabani &
Mohamad, 2015).

While managers had knowledge of
succession planning, there was no
formal plan in place to manage
talent or create a pipeline. Leaders
throughout higher education should
prioritize formal pipeline and talent
management development initiatives
that focus on skill set development
and succession of emerging leaders.

Procedural - Inconclusive:
Executive leaders need to
know how to assess and
remediate performance gaps
as they relate to the
organization’s succession
plan.

Identify current skill sets
irrespective of job titles
that can be tied to growth
that supports growth,
encourages strategic
focus across the
organization on
succession planning
(Gmelch, 2013; Santora
et al., 2015).

While the data was inconclusive, the
need to remediate performance gaps
is critical to a succession plan.
Therefore, institutions of higher
education should set skill
development and gap remediation as
critical to their succession planning
efforts.
81
Knowledge Asset or Need Principle and Citation Context Specific Recommendation
Metacognitive - Need:
Executive leaders need to be
able to reflect on aligning
the existing talent with the
future state of the institution.
Reflection on practice
allows for awareness of
one’s way of perceiving
the world and being open
to adaptation to new ways
of thinking and doing
(Krathwohl, 2002;
Pintrich, 2002).
As part of formalizing succession
planning, leaders should be
encouraged and guided toward
reflective practice that assists
practitioners in self-awareness and
allows them to adapt to changing
business environments.

Identify Skill Sets and Remediate Performance Gaps
Conceptual knowledge is knowing how to actualize information based on pieces of
factual knowledge; it is creating an integrated understanding of discrete pieces of information.
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). As discussed in Chapter Two, professional development of
employees throughout the organization is necessary to address the looming shortage of senior
leaders throughout higher education (Betts et al., 2009; McKee & Froelich, 2016;). Further, the
focus on succession planning should strategically manage a plan that actively manages talent and
builds a pipeline of potential future leaders that are unified around achievable goals based on the
future potential state of the organization (Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2015; Santora et al., 2015). As
discussed in the analysis of the interview data, senior leaders were aware of succession planning,
yet did not mention active planning or a structural method to ensure goals are being met and
talent is actively managed. Griffith et al. (2018) posit a model where goals for the future state of
the organization are analyzed and then talent is actively assessed, gaps in performance and skills
are analyzed and performance development occurs to remediate those gaps to allow for growth
and the potential to assume more senior roles in the future. It is therefore recommended that
senior leaders throughout higher education include succession planning goals in their strategic
plans and then empower teams throughout the organization to assess talent and tie growth and
development to the strategic plan and succession goals. One of the goals which support the
82
succession plan should be to retain consulting to explain how formalized succession works
through active pipeline and talent management.
Grant (2010) suggests that the CEO of an organization should begin this process by
setting strategic priorities, directing plans to be developed, and then developing budgets and
performance targets (pp. 134–135). This approach is acceptable in corporate contexts but is not
readily applied in higher education. Manning (2018) notes that institutions of higher education
are not homogenous cultures due to the varying values and assumptions of higher education
constituents (p. 72). Faculty, administrators, students, alumni, and local communities, as some
examples, all hold different beliefs, values, and assumptions about an institution and how it
should function. Therefore, the president of an institution should set succession planning as a
goal and invite committees to form across the various constituencies to develop plans, budgets,
and targets to achieve that goal.
Incorporate Mentoring and Skill Growth Exercises
Procedural knowledge is simply knowing how to do something based on learning or
training (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Within the scope of this study, procedural knowledge
is closely linked to the conceptual knowledge of succession planning and how to actively
manage it with an intentional focus on talent management. Understanding how to positively
remediate gaps in performance is critical since gaps are more than the difference between a static
job description and the current behaviors the employee manifests: they are a means for growth
toward larger organizational goals (Gmelch, 2013; Santora et al., 2015). The data for this area
was inconclusive; it is posited that the question was worded poorly, or there is an assumption
that remediating performance gaps is inherently a negative process. However, since leaders had
indicated there were no formal succession plans or goals in place, and that performance
83
development is a critical component to succession planning, the recommendation for practice is
that performance gap remediation be linked to the conceptual knowledge recommendation: a
formal plan that acknowledges succession planning as a priority and incorporates positive skillset
gap remediation.
Skillset gaps should not always be viewed as negative performance issues (i.e.,
disciplining an employee who is always late or produces insufficient work). In the succession
planning context, skillset gaps are the difference between an employee’s abilities in their current
role versus the abilities needed to perform a role of greater responsibility within the organization.
Skillset gaps can be remediated through training, mentoring, or on the job exercises. As a
succession plan for an institution is developed, leaders and team leads should incorporate
mentoring and skill growth exercises as goals that support talent management, pipeline
management, and ultimately a succession plan.
Incorporate Reflective Practice
Metacognitive knowledge is awareness about one’s cognitive processes and how to apply
concepts and schema effectively and in varied ways (Rueda, 2011). As the higher education
landscape has become more volatile and pressured by change, legacy structures and processes
are no longer viable. Metacognition challenges leaders to be aware of their ways of thinking and
deploy different strategies given a current challenge (Krathwohl, 2002). Cappelli (2008) noted
that strategic thought and action around succession planning has become largely stagnant.
Leaders need to become familiar with new models that challenge their current assumptions. As
noted in the findings in Chapter Four, leaders were reflective on their own goals and activities,
but few conveyed a sense of how they challenged existing ways of thinking and doing. It is
84
therefore recommended that as a succession planning model is developed and activated, self-
reflection is added as a component as the plans come to fruition and are acted upon.
Reflective practice can be incorporated at all levels of succession planning and embedded
as a goal for each area. As one example, as mentoring and goal setting are discussed, mentors
can encourage their team to reflect on their performance and how it relates to growing toward
roles of more responsibility.
Motivation Recommendations
This section will discuss the two motivation influences on the lack of succession planning
and recommend solutions for improving practice. Table 17 presents the needs/assets, and
recommendations.
Table 17
Summary of Motivation Needs/Assets, Principles, and Recommendations
Motivation Asset or Need Principle and Citation Context Specific Recommendation

Asset - Attributions:
Executives should desire
long-term stability for the
organization outside of their
own self-interest

Communication and
feedback that focuses on
each leader’s ability to
control outcomes is
necessary. Feedback
focuses on the behavior,
not the individual,
avoiding a violation of
concept of self
(Anderman & Anderman,
2006).

Leaders must demonstrate
commitment to long-term stability of
the institution. They do this by
promoting employee growth and
retention through mentoring,
supporting collaboration, and using
objective data to guide decisions.

Need- Goal orientation:
Executives should pursue
succession planning goals as
a means for long-term
stability of the organization.

Teams and individuals
should be challenged to
understand and see the
value in succession
planning and encouraged
to contribute to the effort
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Goals surrounding succession
planning were non-specific,
informal, or simply didn’t exist. As
leaders develop strategic plans for
the organization, succession
planning should be a formalized,
actionable goal.
85
Mentoring Through Collaboration and Objective Decision Making
Attributions are assumptions or beliefs that people form to attempt to understand the
cause of a given situation (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Byrnes, 2008). In addition, as
feedback is offered to people changing directions or attempting new and different ways of doing
things, it should be specific and helpful in a way that the recipient of the feedback understands
what’s expected and that it’s not an attack on their “self” (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). The
leaders all indicated a high degree of self-reflection and indicated they were focused on the
organization’s long-term stability as well as their own professional growth. However, their self-
reflective practices did not indicate any definitive means for growth or how they used such
insights toward helping others toward the long-term stability of the institution. As succession
planning is implemented, executive leaders should mentor their teams and encourage their
reports to mentor others. Further, as goals and plans are enacted, they use their mentorship to
encourage collaboration to ensure long-term stability for the organization. Since higher education
has not previously engaged in succession planning systematically, this will be a new direction.
Leaders should encourage frequent points of reflection and offer feedback that is specific,
actionable, and promotes employee growth toward achieving new skills which bolster their long-
term ability to ascend to roles of increasing responsibility. This strengthens the institution’s long-
term stability by enculturing talent toward the future.
Mentoring is an active process; it invites both mentor and mentee into conversations
around growth that are non-threatening and engaging. By initializing mentorship throughout the
organization, leaders promote a culture of inquiry and growth. Leaders should, therefore,
understand ways to implement mentorship programs that have research-tested principles that
demonstrate success. Additionally, leaders should practice co-mentoring. Co-mentoring is the
86
practice wherein peers within a group, in the case executive leaders, work with each other to
encourage growth, discuss ways to improve practice based on experience or proven methods, and
remained engaged with each other and their development. Each person brings a unique
perspective that others can learn from (Ashburner et al., 2015; Meeks & Hult, 1998). This
supports succession by creating a sense of belonging and concern for growth of oneself as it
supports the stability of the organization.
Prioritize Succession Positions and Skill Identification
Goal orientation, specifically in the area of mastery goal orientation, is internally focused
for the person and it seeks to master the material or goal at hand (Pintrich, 2000; Yough &
Anderman, 2006). Goal orientation drives a focus on understanding a goal and working toward
mastering the skills necessary to accomplish that goal. Promoting a mastery approach involves
removing organizational barriers, discussing the value in accomplishing goals to team members,
and increasing confidence among teams (Clark & Estes, 2008). The leaders in this study felt that
succession plans should be divisionally focused or informal. Goals must be specific, time-driven,
and achievable within that time frame. Additionally, and to ensure accountability, they must be
formally documented with benchmarks and checkpoints embedded to assist employee progress.
For succession planning to be successful, a mastery orientation toward an institution-wide
program will be critical. It is the recommendation for practice that senior leaders, as part of the
other components in the knowledge domain, make succession planning concepts and principles a
priority for the institution that should be mastered. They can do this by first determining the
positions which are critical for the institution’s success, and then identifying the skills which are
necessary to succeed in those roles. Lastly, as talent is identified which can ascend into those
87
roles, unique goals should be set for each person that allows them to modify their skill sets to
grow into those positions.
Organization Recommendations
This section discusses the organization influences on succession planning and
recommended solutions for addressing continuing needs. Table 18 provides a summary of this
information.
Table 18
Summary of Organization Needs, Principles, and Recommendations
Organization Need Principle and Citation Context Specific Recommendation
Need: Resources executives
need to allocate enough
resources to a succession
plan that supports the
espoused goals.
Succession planning
leaders must allocate
enough fiscal and people
resources toward
intentional talent
management such that
goals are met (Leonard,
2017; Oppong & Oduro-
Asabere, 2018).
Leaders indicated inadequate
resources or critical need for
resources elsewhere. Since
succession planning can ensure a
stable long-term future for the
organization, leaders should
prioritize resource allocation to
succession planning as part of
annual goal and budgeting
processes.

Need: Value chains and
streams. The organization
needs to maximize value
chains and streams such that
departments are free to
interact in identifying and
implementing processes that
will support the
operationalization of the
succession plan

Value chains and streams
should be maximized to
encourage
interdepartmental
collaboration with
structures that support
learning, motivation, and
execution (Pandita &
Ray, 2018).

Leaders indicated they promoted
inter-departmental collaboration, but
that silos remain. A recommendation
for practice is that leaders enforce
policies and structures which
encourage skill development and
growth, as well as increased
communication between units to
support succession planning.

Resource Identification and Allocation for Succession Planning
Resource allocation toward intentional talent management that builds a pipeline of talent
that supports succession planning is critical for the plan’s success. Talent is identified and
actively managed with an active relationship toward skill-set expansion and achievement of
88
goals (van Zyl, Mathafena, & Ras, 2017). Further, any new hires to the organization should be
fully integrated into the plan as part of their onboarding process (Fernández-Aráoz, 2014).
Leaders in the study communicated that resources were either scarce and allocated to more
critical needs, or that resources simply did not exist. It is therefore a recommendation for practice
that senior leaders prioritize succession planning along with the necessary people and fiscal
resources as part of their annual goal setting and budget planning processes. Each institution of
higher education has different funding and budgeting models, particularly in the public and for-
profit domains; therefore, leaders should identify ways this may fit into their unique plans and
needs.
Create Cross-Divisional Teams to Support Efficiencies
Value chains and streams are the processes (streams) that affect how goals are
implemented (chains; Clark & Estes, 2008). Resources are both tangible and intangible and
affect how the organization executes its core mission (Grant, 2010). These concepts are about
minimizing inter-departmental/divisional barriers and creating a shared sense of commitment to
increasing efficiency and achieving organizational goals. The participants in the study indicated
they encourage inter-departmental collaboration, yet barriers remain. Within higher education,
divisions are often highly specialized and focus on unique practice areas, even within
professorial disciplines which all have their own specific requirements for acceptable
scholarship, teaching, and service. For example, professors in the natural science disciplines
adhere to similarly grounded philosophical principles as those in the social sciences, yet their
execution around their practice is often very different. For example, qualitative study and
research is often considered unacceptable in natural sciences as objectivity cannot be measured,
tested, or replicated. The social sciences combine both qualitative and quantitative components
89
to observe and test the phenomena in those fields. In addition, the administrative functions often
differ, with academic affairs supporting teaching and research functions through an educational
focus, and the finance division ensuring fiscal stability through generally accepted accounting
principles, a corporate industry perspective. With so many diverse voices with starkly unique
perspectives, it is often difficult to break down barriers and weaken the cylinders of excellence
that separate faculty, students, and staff. It is a recommendation for practice that senior leaders
create cross-divisional teams who learn the constraints and operations of each division and create
actionable goals that promote the reduction of barriers, the increase of communication, and
understanding of the unique responsibilities each division must necessarily execute. Succession
plans envision stability of the organization in its entirety, not merely one or two of its
organizational units. Therefore, creating shared understanding and meaning around succession is
a necessary step.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan for Recommendations to Practice: The New World
Kirkpatrick Model
The recommendations for practice identified need to be integrated into a formal
developmental plan for institutions of higher education. This study used The New World
Kirkpatrick Model to inform a comprehensive program for gap remediation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model expands upon the doctoral dissertation
work of Don Kirkpatrick, which focused on evaluating and successfully implementing training
and development programs that are relevant, tied to measurable outcomes, and work to
encourage desired behaviors. The New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is an
expansion on those original concepts and envisions four levels to training design, development,
90
and evaluation. The levels are (1) Reaction, (2) Learning, (3) Behavior, and (4) Results. The
model is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016)

Over time, as the model has been implemented and studied, the authors have come to
recommend planning these levels in reverse order from four to one and implementing in
numerical order from one to four. In so doing, organizations can begin with their desired results
in mind and work backward toward the underlying components. Each of the levels contains
subcomponents which will be discussed in detail below.
Level 4: Results
Level 4: Results is the culmination of the training and development program. The authors
recommend beginning here at the design phase to understand what the expected outcome should
be, and then to design backward with the end in mind. According to the authors, every
91
organization has one Level 4 result, and the result should be an affirmative response to the
question, “Is this what the organization exists to do, deliver, or contribute to its customers, or
society, at a high level?” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 13). Within the scope of higher
education, the result would be excellence in teaching, research, and service which strives to solve
humanity’s greatest issues. Since these results are industry-specific and mission-driven, as well
as the outcome of the work of many people executed by an institution daily, it is difficult to drive
training toward such a broad goal. For this reason, leading indicators are used to monitor goal
achievement.
Leading Indicators
Leading indicators are sub-components of the result which can demonstrate success or
areas of improvement on the result. They are the culmination of all the units’ work within an
organization. In higher education, for example, high percentages of tenured faculty or large
research funding can indicate excellence. These results need to be balanced to achieve the Level
4 outcome, however. Having a large portion of tenured faculty researching means little if the
institution runs a negative balance sheet because administrative salary expenses are too high.
Taken together, all the leading indicators for a given organization must be positive and balanced
such that the existence question proposed earlier in this section is answered affirmatively.
There are two levels of leading indicators: internal and external (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Internal indicators are items within the organization, such as financial health,
quantity of faculty publications and sections taught, and student satisfaction with facilities.
External indicators are from without, such as perception of a university’s brand identity, or its
relationship with the local government. This study primarily focused on internal indicators across
several institution types. The outcome for institutions across higher education would be
92
succession plans in place for institutions that rely on developing a managed pipeline of talent that
is prepared to assume greater roles and responsibilities within the institution, with such planning
tied to the institution’s strategic plan. This will involve several leading indicators that interrelate
but have a preferential order:
1. A strategic plan that, among other long-term institutional goals, includes succession
planning as a priority. The other institutional goals inform what skills are needed for the
succession plan to take shape.
2. Resource allocation in the form of people and financing that supports achieving the goal.
3. Strategic management of the pipeline which includes:
a. Skill and professional development
b. Demonstrated skill growth
These items will each set defined goals, with measurable targets that achieve a viable succession
plan. This process also involves invoking the Kirkpatrick four-stage model, at each level of the
institution, meaning the training and development will be unique for each level, yet it will
interrelate. While there will be many sub-goals, tasks, and outcomes at each level of the
organization, this is outside the scope of this study as institutions of higher education vary widely
in scope, mission, funding, and demographics. The outcomes and metrics here are meant to be
adaptable to any institution type. Figure 3 provides an illustration of how the discrete pieces are
connected and functions as a subset of the conceptual framework presented in Chapter One.

93
Figure 3
Connections Among the Constituent Components of Succession Planning

Table 19 presents the outcomes, metrics, and methods for the internal indicators for institutions
of higher education.
Table 19
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Internal Indicators
Outcome Metric Method
Strategic Plan includes
succession planning as
critical to organizational
goals
Succession planning is
included among the top-
level goals of the
strategic plan.
Review current strategic plan and
modify or include in final version of
the next strategic plan cycle.

Resources are allocated to
support succession planning

Adequate fiscal resources
are budgeted for any

Budget developed which supports
needed resources, including
94
Outcome Metric Method
efforts, as detailed in the
strategic plan
training, development, or
support needs.
People are allocated to
oversee and direct the
plan as part of their core
function.
consulting or professional
development on how to succession
plan.
Senior leaders have this included in
their job descriptions and annual
review goals. The appropriate
human resources department is
tasked with developing and
implementing the program.

Management of the pipeline
includes developing skills,
and performance which
supports the pipeline and is
informed by the institution’s
long-term goals

Development and skills
are articulated in
performance plans, are
achievable, and can be
measured.

Quarterly review of employee
annual goals to include mentoring
and gap remediation with goals
versus expectations.

Level 3: Behaviors
The behavior level of the model focuses on the “degree [to] which participants apply
what they learned during training when they’re back on the job” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 49). With training and learning completed at this level, an effective program should
result in behavioral changes that manifest in positive leading indicators seen on Level 4. For
success to be realized at Level 3, it is important that critical behaviors and required drivers are
defined, monitored, encouraged, rewarded, and reinforced.
Critical Behaviors
Critical behaviors are those which employees must demonstrate to be successful in their
role with meeting the new expected outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). While every
person has numerous behaviors they can exhibit in performance, only a few are necessary to
demonstrate that the learning needed to support goal achievement has worked. These behaviors
are defined by the managers of business units as being necessary to support the goals. They also
must be specific, measurable, and observable. As an example, “mentor my team,” is not as strong
95
as, “hold weekly conversations with my team to understand their needs and have conversations
around alternate strategies they can try to achieve their intended outcome.” The critical behaviors
for higher education leaders are outlined in Table 20.
Table 20
Outcomes, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation.
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Senior Leaders
communicate
importance of
succession plan
for organizational
stability
Communications
articulate specific
goals, demonstrate the
value to the institution
and are not isolated to
the initial phase
Communication plan
developed which
sends out timed pieces
which are relevant and
engaging.
Ongoing and
as each phase
of the process
initializes

Resource
allocations are
quantitatively and
qualitatively
justified.

Budgets allocations are
made to appropriate
resources.
Staff job descriptions
appropriately reflect
new expectations

Task force for the plan
evaluates consulting or
developing programs
based on goals and
financial cost. Job
descriptions and
performance
evaluation tools are
behavior based.

Ongoing and
as each phase
of the process
initializes

Employees model
new expectations
and demonstrate
skill acquisition

Each employee will
demonstrate expansion
of skills through on the
job evaluation

Expected new skills
will be evaluated by
supervisors and HR
team members

Quarterly

Required Drivers
Required drivers, as the term implies, drive employee behavior to expected results. These
drivers are divided into two categories: support, which attempts to reinforce, encourage, and
reward desired behaviors; and, accountability which attempts to monitor the behaviors
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 53). While not necessary for everyone, they form a set of
tools to use when outcomes aren’t meeting expectations. For example, an employee who has
96
excelled or taken initiative could receive a reward, such as an additional vacation day added to
time off. The required drivers for this study are listed in Table 21.
Table 21
Required Drivers for Critical Behaviors
Method Timing Critical behavior
Reinforcing
Follow-up mini development
sessions that engage
employees in discussion
Every 30 days -Effective use of resource
allocation
Expansion of skill sets
Encouraging
Mentoring/coaching sessions
with peers and managers
Brief, but weekly discussions
on challenges and how to
overcome them.
Senior leaders goal setting
resource allocation
Expansion of skill sets
Rewarding
Financial Annual allocation of
additional personal days or
bonus
Allocation of resources
Expansion of skill sets
Monitoring
Updates on performance Quarterly as part of a
structured meeting
Senior leaders reinforce
criticality
Effective use of resource
allocation
Expansion of skill sets

Level 2: Learning
Learning is the degree to which those who have been trained gain the knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment based on training participation. These components will
close gaps between knowledge and behavior and should result in desired behaviors (Level 3),
which drive Level 4 results. To evaluate the learning components, goals should be developed
which can be tested and analyzed. Within the scope of this study, the learning goals are listed
below and are informed by the substantiated influences discussed in Chapter Four:
1. Demonstrate knowledge of succession planning (Factual knowledge)
97
2. Demonstrate knowledge of remediating performance gaps through non-deficit approaches
such as mentoring, coaching, and skill development (Procedural knowledge)
3. Exercise reflection for oneself and the challenges at hand which may be impeding the
goals of succession planning (Metacognitive knowledge)
4. Develop and articulate measurable goals for succession planning that are tied to the
strategic plan and promote the skill development of future leaders (Goal motivation)
5. Plan budgets which support the initiative, including planning for allocation of human
capital, where appropriate (Resource Management)
6. Mentor teams thorough active processing of sharing knowledge which increases
efficiency and promotes collaboration (Value chains and streams)
Program
The components of learning: knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment
each form a discrete function that can achieve Level 2 results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Knowledge is demonstrating concepts: “I know it.” Skill is translating knowledge into action: “I
can do it right now.” Attitude is belief in efficacy: “I believe this will be worthwhile to do on the
job.” Confidence is belief in one’s performance ability: “I think I can do it on the job.” Finally,
commitment demonstrates willingness: “I will do it on the job.” Table 22 details the various
components and how they will be assessed in light of the current study.

98
Table 22
Components of Learning for the Program
Method or activity Timing
Knowledge: “I know it”
Knowledge checks regarding succession
planning and talent management
Group exercises such as case studies during
training

Knowledge checks regarding expectations 90 days post-training exercise
Skills: “I can do it right now.”
Using case-study data, develop goals for the
organization and identify necessary skills
Group exercises during training
Develop budget to support plan Group exercises during training
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions during training Group work during training
Brown bag workshops post-training
Mentoring sessions with manager Weekly, post-training
Climate survey items Yearly, post-training
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey Immediately post-training
90 days post-training – included with survey
under Knowledge
Group discussion Session near end of training
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Group discussion Session near end of training
Mentoring sessions Weekly with supervisor

Level 1: Reaction
Reaction is the degree to which participants in training are engaged and find the program
favorable and relevant to their work. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest measuring these
components as engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction (p. 40). For the purpose of this
study, customer satisfaction is relabeled as stakeholder satisfaction, since the higher education
model is not consumer-driven. The authors also suggest keeping this level of evaluation
“simple,” since it is both the first level and resources should be allocated to higher levels and a
well-designed structure at the other three levels will be more valuable for long-term
99
organizational outcomes. Table 23 lists the components to measure reactions to the training
program, in situ.
Table 23
Components to Measure Reaction to the Training Program
Method or activity Timing

Engagement
Trainer observation on engagement During training

Pulse check Brief check-in points during training to
gauge participation
Relevance
Debrief discussion after each training
session
During training
Post-training survey 30 days post training
Stakeholder satisfaction
Training evaluation survey One week post training
Executive leader perception of value 30, 60, and 90 days post training. Then,
as part of annual climate survey

Evaluation Tools
In Situ Training Checks
During training and development, facilitators will perform observations, pulse checks,
and discussions to facilitate engagement and relevance at Level 1. Observations during learning
will rely on the facilitator’s ability to assess learner engagement with the material, real-time, and
adjust content presentation as necessary to keep learners involved. Additionally, facilitators of
development will conduct brief discussions as each learning area or module is completed to
allow participants the opportunity to demonstrate learning and provide feedback.
Facilitators will also gauge Level 2 outcomes during training with respect to discussion
checkpoints, case-study analysis and discussion, and a final summative experience before the
training ends.
100
Post-Training Assessment
Facilitators of the training and development experience will assess relevance and provide
a post-training survey to be distributed 30 days after completion to understand participants’
thoughts on relevance and their satisfaction with the experience. Additionally, assessment will
continue at 30-, 60-, and 90-day intervals to gauge relevance and satisfaction. These items will
also contain Level 3 behavioral questions which determine participants’ ability to exhibit the
desired behaviors the reaction and learning levels attempted to deliver. Level 4 outcomes will be
assessed through annual performance reviews, climate surveys, and action plans that were
developed as part of the succession plan’s tie-in to the strategic plan.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Higher education is unique as an industry in that it supports internal data science and
research. The collection and analysis of the data should be managed by the group within each
institution that is charged with data analysis and research for the entire organization. Many
institutions use a title such as “Office of Institutional Research,” or “Institutional Research and
Effectiveness.” The analysts in this area can not only assist in the creation of assessments, they
are best qualified to report on and manage qualitative and quantitative data sets as discrete items,
or as a mixed-methods approach.
In partnership with the training and development initiatives, institutional researchers will
provide appropriate data collection protocols and instruments.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework provided a simple and direct tool to
discern causes for gaps between expectations and performance within organizations related to
succession planning. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational domains provided individual
101
and connected areas where gaps could be present, and guided potential solutions to remediate
performance. A principal weakness of this approach in higher education is the unique and
diverse nature of each school or college within an institution. Within industry, organizations
have a core competency or market. Nike, for example, produces athletic equipment, and their
entire business is built around expanding their sales in that arena through innovative design.
Higher education seeks to contribute to myriad fields in arts, sciences, medicine, engineering,
and business. Each of these disciplines approaches their structure in ways informed by the
profession; therefore, institutions should approach this model in ways that add relevance and
meaning for their diverse natures.
The Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided an in-depth approach
to analyzing training and performance that relied first on desired outcomes before building the
underlying supports in behavior, learning, and reaction, respectively. The difficulty with the
approach is the same – using the approach across several different business units that perform
their functions in unique ways. Further, there is the matter of the tenured faculty. Tenured faculty
are not subject to the same performance remediation mechanisms as those who are not in this
category. If care isn’t taken and value demonstrated, the faculty can simply refuse to participate.
Future Research
This study focused on succession planning in higher education. There are several areas
where future research could be helpful:
1. Expand the research to include more executive leaders in higher education from different
regions and different institution types. This study relied on non-profit institutions of
varying missions. For-profit, not-for-profit, and state-run institutions may have different
perspectives that could inform the succession planning approach across the industry.
102
2. Interview middle and first-level managers to gauge their thoughts on succession planning
and where they see their careers going. Succession planning requires talent to be
managed toward skills and roles of increasing complexity. Middle- and first-level
managers are also generally closer to the constituent populations the institution serves.
Their voices and input can help inform goal setting initiatives.
3. Examine the impact of succession planning on student retention and graduation rates.
Increasing retention and graduation rates is a sign the institution is doing what it is
designed to do: educate and graduate students. Succession planning lends itself to
organizational stability and therefore examining it in relation to increases in retention and
graduation is a noteworthy goal.
4. Study the impact of succession planning on external forces such as community and
government relations. Institutions do not exist outside of the communities they serve and
reside. It would be interesting to note if succession planning creates more stable relations
with external partners due to its ability to stabilize the organization.
5. Examine the impact of succession planning on internal HR training and development
practices. Succession planning looks at active talent management and goal setting impact
on individuals, teams, and the organization. Traditional HR models generally view
employee growth in the light of meeting individual annual goals that may or may not be
tied to larger institutional initiatives. If succession planning were enacted and effective,
the upstream effect on employee development would be worth further study.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to perform a field study to identify the causes of gaps
between effective succession planning, which includes identifying, developing and promoting
103
qualified individuals, and the current state of succession planning in higher education, which is
largely absent. By performing qualitative interviews informed by the conceptual framework that
incorporated the KMO influences from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, as
well as a review of the relevant literature, data were collected, and results analyzed. This analysis
resulted in a recommended training and development program informed by The New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Institutions of higher education are not
engaging in any formal succession planning that actively manages a pipeline of talent toward
larger strategic plans. This study found lack of knowledge and organizational resources to enact
such planning efforts. Outside consulting and training is, therefore, necessary as the institutions
demonstrated a lack of fundamental knowledge and ability in this area.
The principal findings of the research are that institutions are aware of succession
planning as a concept, and have implemented some pieces of the concept, but there is no
consistent approach within higher education at large, or individual institutions. Further, resource
limitations and competing priorities for those resources have been identified as a constraint on
attempting succession planning.
Institutions of higher education are facing external pressures to which they have long
been immune: government regulation, consumer demand, public perception of value, and online
learning. It is critical, among other goals such as fund-raising and alternate revenue streams, that
colleges and universities embark upon succession planning to build pipelines of talent that have
the appropriate skills to lead the institutions of today into tomorrow and beyond.
The current operating landscape which has been impacted by the novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) has demonstrated the importance of leadership succession in ensuring stability for
organizations. Campus closures, unexpected deaths, and a wave of retirements are predicted
104
from this latest crisis which faces humanity—and, certainly, it will not be the last. While
executive leaders are necessarily focused on business continuity and reopening their campuses,
succession planning serves as a framework that can be implemented concurrently with disaster
and emergency planning efforts. Ensuring the leaders of tomorrow are ready, today, ensures the
vacancies of tomorrow are fewer and less impactful. Higher education has existed for 1,000
years to learn, grow, and improve the human condition; it is therefore in humanity’s interest that
the institutions dedicated to this purpose endure.

105
REFERENCES
American Council on Education. (2008). Too many rungs on the ladder? Faculty demographics
and the future leadership of higher education.
American Council on Education. (2017). 2017 American college president study.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. http://www.education.com
Ashburner, J., Ziviani, J., Rodger, S., Hinder, E. A., Cartmill, L., White, J., & Vickerstaff, S.
(2015). Improving transfer of learning: An innovative comentoring program to enhance
workplace implementation after an occupational therapy course on autism spectrum
disorders. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 35(4), 270–
277. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000000
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. The
American Psychologist, 62(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25
Ballaro, J. M., & Polk, L. (2017). Developing an organization for future growth using succession
planning. Organization Development Journal, 35(4), 41–59.
Barnett, R., & Davis, S. (2008). Creating greater success in succession planning. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 10(5), 721–739.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308322277
Berns, K. V., & Klarner, P. (2017). A review of the CEO succession literature and a future
research program. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(2), 83–108.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0183
Betts, K., Urias, D., & Betts, K. (2009). Higher education and shifting U.S. demographics: Need
for visible administrative career paths, professional development, succession planning &
commitment to diversity. Academic Leadership Journal, 7(2), Article 6.
106
Bisbee, D. (2007). Looking for leaders: Current practices in leadership identification in higher
education. Planning and Changing, 38(1/2), 77–88.
Blakesley, E. (2011). Planning for the future: Sources to explore about succession planning.
Library Leadership & Management, 25(2), 1–4
Bornstein, R. (2010). Succession planning: The time has come. Trusteeship, 18(5).
Brooks, S. (2014). Strategic, future-proof succession planning connects Telefonica with success.
Human Resource Management International Digest, 22(2), 28–30.
https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-04-2014-0040
Byrnes, J. P. (2008). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts (3rd ed.).
Allyn and Bacon.
Calareso, J. P. (2013). Succession Planning: The key to ensuring leadership. Planning for Higher
Education Journal, 41(3), 27–33.
Cappelli, P. (2008). Talent management for the twenty-first century. Harvard Business Review,
86(3), 74.
Cavanaugh, J. C. (2017). Who will lead? The success of succession planning. Journal of
Management Policy and Practice, 18(2), 22–27.
Chadwick, I. C., & Raver, J. (2015). Motivating organizations to learn: Goal orientation and its
influence on organizational learning. Journal of Management, 41(3), 957–986.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312443558
Chance, S., & Williams, B. T. (2009). Assessing university strategic plans: A tool for
consideration. Educational Planning: The Journal of the International Society for
Educational Planning, 18(1), 38–54.
107
Chaturvedi, V. (2016). Investigating the interrelationship between succession planning and
effectual talent management for building tomorrow’s leader. Splint International Journal
of Professionals, 3(12), 71–75.
Church, A. H. (2014). Succession planning 2.0: Building a better bench through execution.
Strategic HR Review, 13(6), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2014-0045
Church, A. H., Rotolo, C. T., Ginther, N. M., & Levine, R. (2015). How are top companies
designing and managing their high-potential programs? A follow-up talent management
benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal, 67(1), 17–47.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000030
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Information Age.
Cluines, J. (2004). Benchmarking succession planning & executive development in higher
education. Academic Leadership Journal, 2(4), Article 3.
Collins, J. (2009). How the mighty fall and why some companies never give in. Harper Collins.
Conger, J. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline. Harvard Business
Review, 81(12), 76–85.
Craig, C. M. (2004). Higher education cultural and organizational change in the 21st century.
The Community College Enterprise, 10(1), 79–89.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches. SAGE.
Daft, R. L. (2018). The leadership experience. Cengage.
Davila, N., & Ramirez-Pina, W. (2014). Populate the pipeline. T+ D, 68(2), 32-37.
108
Desai, M. N., Lockett, A., & Paton, D. (2016). The effects of leader succession and prior leader
experience on postsuccession organizational performance. Human Resource
Management, 55(6), 967–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21700
DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Rojewski, J. (2014). Cultivating the next generation of academic
leaders: Implications for administrators and faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 46(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2013.842102
Drew, G. (2010). Issues and challenges in higher education leadership: Engaging for change.
Australian Educational Researcher, 37(3), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216930
Dries, N. (2013). The psychology of talent management: A review and research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 23(4), 272–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.001
Durst, S., & Wilhelm, S. (2012). Knowledge management and succession planning in SMEs.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 637–649.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211246194
Dutton, K. (2018). Professional development: Investigating the relationships between employee
motives, learning opportunities, and activities. Development and Learning in
Organizations, 32(5), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-09-2018-127
Dytham-Ward, M. (2009). Developing the leaders of tomorrow in Abbey, part of the Santander
Group. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(5), 226–231.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850910974767
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
109
Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The
Coronavirus and COVID-19. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21684
Fernández-Aráoz, C. (2014a). It’s not the how or the what but the who. Harvard Business
Review Press.
Fernández-Aráoz, C. (2014b). 21st-Century talent spotting. Harvard Business Review, 92(6), 46–
54.
Flumerfelt, S., & Banachowski, M. (2011). Understanding leadership paradigms for
improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(3), 224–247.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881111158045
Froelich, K., McKee, G., & Rathge, R. (2011). Succession planning in nonprofit organizations.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20037
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R., & Rock, A. (2012). Mapping talent development: Definition, scope
and architecture. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(1), 5–24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211192601
Gmelch, W. H. (2013). The development of campus academic leaders. International Journal of
Leadership and Change, 1(1), 25–35.
Gonzalez, C. (2010). Leadership, diversity and succession planning in academic. Center for
Studies in Higher Education.
110
Gothard, S., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Leadership succession planning: Implications for nonprofit
human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 37(3), 272–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.684741
Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis. Wiley.
Griffith, J. A., Baur, J. E., & Buckley, M. R. (2018). Creating comprehensive leadership
pipeline: Applying the real options approach to organizational leadership development.
Human Resource Management Review. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.07.001
Groves, K. S. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best practices.
Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 239–260.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710732146
Hanover Research Council. (2010). Effective practices for succession planning in higher
education.
Hartley, H. V., III, & Godin, E. E. (2010). A study of chief academic officers of independent
colleges and universities. Council of Independent Colleges.
Hills, A. (2009). Succession planning - or smart talent management? Industrial and Commercial
Training, 41(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850910927697
Johnson, R. D., Pepper, D., Adkins, J., & Emejom, A. A. (2018). Succession planning for large
and small organizations: A practical review of professional business corporations. In P.
A. Gordon & J. A. Overbey (Eds.), Succession planning: Promoting organizational
sustainability (pp. 23–40). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
72532-1_3
111
Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2019). Synthesising theory and practice:
Distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 42(5), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213510506
Kesler, G. C. (2002). Why the leadership bench never gets deeper: Ten insights about executive
talent development. People and Strategy, 25(1), 32–44.
Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change (2nd ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315121178
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Klein, M. F., & Salk, R. J. (2013). Presidential succession planning: A qualitative study in
private higher education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 335–
345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813483836
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lampton, J. A. (2011). Management educators can bring awareness to the need to plan for
succession. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 5.
Lanaj, K., Foulk, T. A., & Erez, A. (2019). Energizing leaders via self-reflection: A within-
person field experiment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000350
LeCounte, J. F., Prieto, L. C., & Phipps, S. T. (2017). CEO succession planning and
organizational performance: A human capital approach. Journal of Leadership,
Accountability and Ethics, 14(1), 46–57.
112
Leonard, H. (2017). A teachable approach to leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal, 69(4),
243–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000096
Long, J., Johnson, C., Faught, S., & Street, J. (2013). The need to practice what we teach:
Succession management in higher education. American Journal of Management, 13(2),
73–78.
Luna, G. (2012). Planning for an American Higher Education Leadership Crisis: The Succession
Issue for Administrators. International Leadership Journal, 4(1), 56–79.
Manning, K. (2018). Organizational theory in higher education. Routledge.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Pearson Education, Inc.
McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and
leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117–130.
McKee, G., & Froelich, K. (2016). Executive succession planning: Barriers and substitutes in
nonprofit organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(4), 587–601.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12129
Meeks, L., & Hult, C. (1998). A Co-Mentoring model of administration. WPA-LOGAN, 21, 9–
22.
Mehrabani, S. E., & Mohamad, N. A. (2015). New approach to leadership skills development
(developing a model and measure). Journal of Management Development, 34(7), 821–
853. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2013-0046
Melissa, F. K., & Raintry, J. S. (2013). Presidential succession planning: A qualitative study in
private higher education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 333–
345.
113
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, S. A. (2006). Executive development and succession planning: Qualitative evidence.
International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8(4), 253–265.
https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2006.8.4.253
Newhall, S. (2012). Preparing our leaders for the future. Strategic HR Review, 11(1), 5–12.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14754391211186250
Newhall, S. (2015). Aligning the talent development and succession planning processes: Don’t
allow critical leadership talent to fall by the wayside. Development and Learning in
Organizations: An International Journal, 29(5), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-
04-2015-0043
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage.
Oppong, N. Y., & Oduro-Asabere, N. (2018). Identification of individuals for directorship roles:
Evaluation of a university’s succession management. Qualitative Report, 23(1), 264–285.
Pandita, D., & Ray, S. (2018). Talent management and employee engagement: A meta-analysis
of their impact on talent retention. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50(4), 185–199.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-09-2017-0073
Patidar, N., Gupta, S., Azbik, G., & Weech-Maldonado, R. (2016). Succession planning and
financial performance: Does competition matter? Journal of Healthcare Management,
61(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-201605000-00009
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
114
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–
104. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
Pruis, E. (2011). The five key principles of talent development. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 43(4), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851111137825
Rothwell, W. J. (2011). Replacement planning: A starting point for succession planning and
talent management. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(1), 87–99.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00370.x
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. The Teacher's College
Press.
Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., Bozer, G., Esposito, M., & Bassi, A. (2015). Nonprofit executive
succession planning and organizational sustainability: A preliminary comparative study
in Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States. The Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, 20(4), 66–83.
https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.oc.00006
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. Wiley.
Schepker, D. J., Nyberg, A. J., Ulrich, M. D., & Wright, P. M. (2018). Planning for future
leadership: Procedural rationality, formalized succession processes, and CEO influence in
115
CEO succession planning. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 523–552.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0071
Son, J. H., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Role of transformational leadership in
effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees’
work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 65–101.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21120
Spendlove, M. (2007). Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. International
Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 407–417.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710760183
Stadler, K. (2011). Talent reviews: The key to effective succession management. Business
Strategy Series, 12(5), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/17515631111166906
Tebbe, D., Stewart, A. J., Hughes, M. B., & Adams, T. (2017). Executive succession: Closing
the gap between ideals and practice. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership,
7(4), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.18666/JNEL-2017-V7-I4-8640
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical
synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Institute Faculty
Publications, 18, 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
van Zyl, E. S., Mathafena, R. B., & Ras, J. (2017). The development of a talent management
framework for the private sector. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(0).
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v15i0.820
116
Weisblat, I. A. (2018). Literature review of succession planning strategies and tactics. In P. A.
Gordon & J. A. Overbey (Eds.), Succession planning: Promoting organizational stability
(p. 11). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72532-1_2
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: the art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Whelan, E., & Carcary, M. (2011). Integrating talent and knowledge management: Where are the
benefits? Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 675–687.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111152018
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. http://www.education.com/
reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/

117
APPENDIX
Interview Protocol
(Page 1)

Succession Planning in Higher Education Study
This study seeks to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs related to
succession planning facing executive leaders across the field of higher education. As part of the
research, you’re being asked to participate in an interview to understand the issues surrounding the
needs for adequate succession planning across the field. Your participation is important and is
greatly appreciated.

Informed Consent
- Your responses will be audio recorded and the researcher will take notes as memory
prompts. The recording and notes will be strictly confidential for review only by the
researcher. Your name and other identifying information will be anonymized to protect
your confidentiality. If you do not wish to be recorded, the researcher will take notes.
- All audio recordings will be destroyed once the responses have been transcribed. Within
one year of successful defense of the dissertation, all transcripts will be destroyed using a
secure shredding service and deletion from electronic media, such as a USB drive.
- You do not have to answer any question(s) with which you are not comfortable
- You may stop your participation at any time, for any reason.

The questions will seek to answer the following:

1. General Information: role, position, and career background
2. Knowledge: Questions regarding succession planning
3. Motivation: Questions regarding what motivates you as a leader
4. Organizational: Questions regarding allocation of resources and
organizational support
Name: _________________ Years in position_______________
Role: ___________________ Direct reports:_________________
Date: __________________ Method(s) __ recording ___ notes
118
Interview Protocol (Page 2)
General Questions
1. Can you tell me how you rose through your career to your current position?
2. Did anyone mentor you through your career?
3. Imagine your future where you’re no longer here because of retirement or choosing an
alternate career. What impact would you have hoped to have left here at X institution?
Knowledge
4. Can you tell me, in your words, what succession planning is?
a. Follow-up: (Give definition as related to this study, if the answer isn’t aligned so
the interviewee understands the direction for the following questions).
b. Have you worked in an institution that engaged in succession planning? What did
that look like? (If no, proceed to c.)
c. Given that definition, what are your reactions?
5. Have you heard of talent management and pipeline management?
a. What, based on your experience, do you feel they mean?
6. How do you address gaps between performance and the goals for the person being
reviewed?
7. How do you reflect on your successes and failures?
a. As you reflect, do you consider the impact on the larger organization as a whole,
or do you focus more on your own professional improvement?
Motivation
8. I’d like to talk about motivation, now. What motivates you in your current role as it
relates to the institution’s success?
9. Reflecting on your answer, do you feel succession planning goals could help not only the
institution but your own professional growth? How would you set those goals?
Organization
1. Were the institution to engage in succession planning, what resources would be
needed to ensure its success? Do those resources currently exist?
2. Every organization has its own way of managing interdepartmental collaboration and
interaction. How Financial Aid works with Faculty, for example. Assuming a succession
plan were in place tomorrow, how would you coordinate or influence activities across
units?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Succession planning in higher education has been a burgeoning problem for over a decade. Institutions of higher learning are now exposed to new external pressures from government, market forces, and society’s perception of value—among others—which is challenging a leadership in higher education that is ageing rapidly with few viable successors to enter these critical roles. The research indicates that the industry is aware of the problem but is unsure how to proceed or how to allocate enough resources given budget constraints and cost concerns throughout the industry. This study utilized the Clark and Estes gap analysis framework to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that may be contributing to the lack of succession planning. Leaders in higher education were interviewed and their responses were analyzed, coded, and gaps mapped to the information. Using The New World Kirkpatrick Model of training and evaluation, four levels of performance training and development, with analysis, were suggested to assist leaders’ ability to enact succession planning at their institutions. The recommendations are intended as a potential template by which post-secondary institutions can begin to ensure institutional stability through building pipelines of managed talent.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Effective engagement of minority alumni: an innovation study

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

PDF

Multi-platform delivery in today’s modern news organizations: challenges and successes of converging student newsrooms, an assessment study

PDF

Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods

Asset Metadata

Creator Kleschick, Paul R., III (author)

Core Title Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/14/2020

Defense Date 06/15/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag administration of higher education,Higher education,leadership succession,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,succession planning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member), Lishen, Wendy (committee member)

Creator Email pkleschick@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-330802

Unique identifier UC11663656

Identifier etd-KleschickP-8682.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-330802 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KleschickP-8682.pdf

Dmrecord 330802

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kleschick, Paul R., III

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA