University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership capacity and pipeline in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership capacity and pipeline in higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: BUILDING LEADERSHIP CAPACITY

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

by

Debra Ann C. Ishii

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

May 2016

Copyright 2016 Debra Ann C. Ishii

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE ii

Acknowledgments

A number of individuals inspired, encouraged and supported me throughout this journey,
and I express my sincerest gratitude to each of you.
• Dr. Kathy Stowe –Your encouragement, wisdom and direction provided the light
as we navigated through each turn of the journey. You ensured we laughed and
enjoyed the experience as we learned and grew professionally and personally.
Mahalo.
• Dr. Courtney Malloy and Dr. Lawrence Picus – Your feedback as committee
members to strengthen our dissertation was critical to our success. Mahalo.
• My parents, sister, brother-in-law and two awesome nephews – You each are an
inspiration to me as I embark on every journey in life. Thank you for your
unconditional love and encouragement, and for always believing in me.
• My “sistahs”, family, friends, mentors and colleagues – You each have enriched
my life in many ways. Mahalo.
• The ladies of my thematic group and 2013-2016 Hawai‘i Cohort – A wonderful
future awaits each of you. Mahalo for the experience together.
• Heavenly Father – Thank you for everything.
This dissertation and final education degree are dedicated my wonderful parents. I
sincerely appreciate the many sacrifices you both made to ensure your two daughters had strong
family values and educational foundation. You always loved and supported us in achieving our
professional and personal goals. On to my next goal…

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE iii

Table of Contents

Page
Acknowledgments ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 11
Limitations and Delimitations 13
Definitions 15
Organization of the Study 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Succession Planning to Leadership Capacity Building 18
Historical Context 20
Transformational Leaders 21
Theoretical Framework 22
Leadership Development Programs 23
Public Sector Landscape 34
Public Higher Education Landscape 37
Willing Leaders 50
Summary 51
Chapter Three: Methodology 54
Research Questions 54
Research Design 55
Sample and Population 57
Overview of Organization 58
Conceptual Framework 59
Instrumentation 64
Ethical Considerations 67
Summary 68
Chapter Four: Results 69
Participant Profiles 70
Results Research Question One: Ways the Organization 71
Works to Build the Next Generation of Leaders
Results Research Question Two: Factors that Both Facilitate 86
and Inhibit the Development and Implementation of
Strategies Designed to Build Leadership Capacity
Summary 97

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE iv

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion and Implications 98
Purpose of the Study 98
Summary of the Findings 100
Recommendations for Practice and Policy 103
Recommendations for Future Studies 106
Conclusion 108
References 110
Appendices
Appendix A: Participation Letter 117
Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Administrators 118
Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Other Stakeholders 120
Appendix B: Observation Protocol 122

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE v

List of Tables

Page
Table 1: Participants in Study 63
Table 2: Research Questions as Instrumentation 66
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE vi

List of Figures
Page

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 61
Figure 2: Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis 66

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE vii

Abstract
This study applied Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) practices of exemplary leadership to examine
best practices in building leadership capacity in a higher education setting. The purpose of the
study was to understand the promising practices implemented in campuses or offices within a
multi-campus, public higher education institution, including ways the organization worked to
build the next generation of leaders, and the factors that both facilitated and inhibited the
development and implementation of strategies to build leadership capacity. Using Creswell’s
(2013) model for qualitative data analysis, data was collected through participant interviews,
observations, job descriptions and program agendas, and analyzed for common themes and
categories. Findings from this study indicated that while the institution does have good yet
isolated practices in place, a single, systemwide leadership program existed and was
complemented by campus efforts to build leadership capacity. As pockets of emerging,
experienced and knowledgeable leaders are developed, a unifying, institutional philosophy
coupled with intentional investment in future leaders provide success and survival tools. The
study begins to address the gaps within the institution and supports the ongoing need for
leadership development at all levels.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Leadership development in organizations is a growing priority for governing boards and
senior administrators. Human capital building and management contribute to an organization’s
achievement of goals and objectives (Maruska & Perry, 2013). Leaders can be found external to
an organization. However, planning for and sustaining leadership capacity within the
organization can also ensure the organization prevails but is not always deemed a core function
(Collins, 2001; Wallin, Cameron & Sharples, 2005). Leadership capacity is the breadth and
depth of knowledge, skills, expertise and understanding to lead and accomplish something.
Leaders provide the vision, strategic plan and goals for the organization’s units and members to
align work and succeed. As globalization occurs and competition increases, organizational
survival is dependent on both a sustainable leadership and a human capital pipeline (Northhouse,
2003). Such leadership capacity inspires and transforms an organization, including restructuring
and updating business to meet goals and ensure a prepared workforce.
In higher education, the investment in such leadership program and initiatives vary across
institutions. The building of leadership is critical as current leaders prepare for retirement and
institutions face challenges in leadership capacity planning for positions such as Presidents and
Deans (Rodriquez & Coldren, 2013). Leadership capacity within higher education is the breadth
and depth of knowledge, skills, expertise and understanding within potential leaders to lead and
achieve the institutional goals in support of the higher education mission. Leadership is
necessary at various levels within an institution and sustainable leadership ensures institutions
thrive. The building of the knowledge, skills, expertise and understanding of future leaders
through formal programs, learning experiences, and mentoring ensures individuals are prepared
and ready to lead, inspire and engage members to carry out operations and institutional mission.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 2

However, all higher education institutions are not prepared. In an AON Hewitt
consulting survey (2013) of 34 higher education institutions, 10 percent had a formal succession
planning process and majority of the institutions sought candidates externally more than 50
percent of time for senior level positions. The survey concluded that the factors of lack of
executive sponsorship, institutional structure barriers and lack of resources hinder the
institutional ability to maintain a sustainable leadership pipeline (AON Hewitt, 2013). With an
aging and changing workforce, increased national and global competition, and changing
landscape for institutions, the building of leadership capacity is important for institutions to plan
and execute.
While leadership development has been the subject of research, the knowledge and
understanding of effective practices of such leadership programs in higher education are limited.
As such, the identification of promising practices of higher education institutions would provide
existing structures and programs that can be applied to institutions without a program. A
continuous pipeline of leaders must flow and be ready when the demand calls. Continued
leadership through leadership development planning strategies ensures the education foundation
of our country is maintained and an educated workforce can contribute to our nation’s economy.
The purpose of this study was to review the promising practices of leadership
development occurring in a multi-campus, public higher education institution to build the next
generation of leaders. Such promising practices were anticipated to include formal leadership
programs, job assignments, learning experiences, and mentoring. In addition, the study
examined factors that facilitate and inhibit the development and implementation of strategies
designed to build leadership capacity and pipeline.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 3

Background of the Problem
This section discusses the landscape contributing to the need for leadership building and
succession planning in public higher education institutions. The approach in succession planning
strategies has evolved over the past 50 years as the landscape changed and transformational
leaders have been sought to advance the institutional mission. Public higher education
institutions have implemented programs to build leadership to face challenges similar to other
organizations such as changing and aging workforce and shortage of interested leaders.
However, the knowledge and understanding of such practices are limited including the
perspectives of stakeholders associated with the leadership practices.
Succession planning is a term coined in corporations where an organizational objective is
a thoughtful process to identify needed individuals with the right talent for the right positions at
the right time in a pipeline that continues to flow (Fink, 2011). In early 1950s, the focus was
succession planning for the chief executive officer, identifying the person and not necessarily the
talent or skill (Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2011). Replacement planning or just in time approach
has been a near-sighted strategy without regards to building capacity for lower administrative
levels (Groves, 2007; Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2011; Young, 2005). In the 1980s, a
transformational leadership movement began where leaders engaged with others and made a
connection which increased motivation and morality (Northhouse, 2003).
Over the decades, succession planning efforts evolved to an ongoing, systemic process to
identify a pool of individuals who are developed and later selected to serve in leadership
positions to advance an institution through environments of stableness to unpredictability.
(Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2011). Industries such as government, education, non-profit and
healthcare began to plan for succession; a formalized system was developed with specific criteria
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 4

and allocated resources (Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2011). Various approaches have since been
implemented by organizations with objective to place the right people in the right positions at the
right time including leadership development and succession planning practices such as Eli Lilly,
Dow Chemical, Bank of America and Sonoco Products (Conger & Fulmer, 2003).
In higher education, the trends were similar. Institutions replaced senior executives upon
departure due to resignation, retirement or other reasons. Institutions also sought
transformational leaders, often from external sources. Whether in private or public higher
education, a succession planning strategy builds capacity for a sustainable pipeline of
transformational leaders. Institutions have implemented formal leadership programs and
curriculum with job assignments, learning projects and mentoring experiences to complement the
formal leadership program. Emory University and University of Texas have invested in
leadership programs including mentoring networks and project-based learning experiences in
efforts to build leadership (Groves, 2007). However, an in-depth understanding of such
programs including stakeholder perspectives can be useful for institutions that lack or have
minimal leadership building initiatives.
Higher education institutions are impacted by similar challenges as other organizations
including the slower labor force growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (Toossi, 2012)
projects the U.S. labor force to grow slower resulting from an aging labor force and post-
recession repercussions. The labor force growth rate is projected at 7 percent during 2010-2020,
a decline from a growth rate of .8 percent for 2000-2010 (Toossi, 2012). The 2007-2009
economic downturn adversely impacted the labor workforce participation rate for the age group
25 to 54 year olds (Toossi, 2012), the primary source for current and future leaders. In addition,
the aging of the baby boomers born in years 1946 to 1964 will further reduce the labor workforce
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 5

and the source of potential leaders. Employment of postsecondary administrators is expected to
grow 15 percent from 2012 to 2022, faster than the 11 percent average and 7 percent for
management occupations; enrollment increases as entry level occupations require postsecondary
education (BLS, 2014). Thus, while the demand for postsecondary administrators will increase,
a smaller workforce will continue to carry out the institutional mission to educate people to see,
understand and transform communities and society. Higher education is not exempt from these
factors (Betts, Urias, Havez & Betts, 2009; Rodriguez & Coldren, 2013).
In addition, a shortage of interested leaders exists. While Fink (2011) argues that the
supply and demand for leadership exists, a smaller pool of interested leaders has evolved. The
pipeline entry consists of millennials who have been characterized to value balance between their
work and personal lives more than baby boomers. Leadership is challenged by politics and
educational philosophy resulting from increased pressures and overload on educational leaders to
innovate and lead change (Fink, 2011). For example, in K-12, the leadership position is viewed
as not desirable given the increased accountability and compliance with diminishing resources
(Pounder & Merrill, 2010). In higher education, less than a third of chief academic officers
aspired to serve as presidents or chancellors (Klein & Salk, 2013). While governments
worldwide have begun to invest time and funds to build capacity and fill a pipeline with qualified
candidates, the lack of interest has significant impact on a pipeline of the next generation of
leaders. Thus, the potential supply will not meet the increasing demand as the workforce ages
and participation decreases; the pipeline cannot flow and be sustained.
The challenges of diminishing budgets in public sector organizations also pose
limitations for public higher education institutions in balancing funds for leadership development
and maintaining core functions. While leadership development provides value for the future,
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 6

institutions face challenges of a balance between increasing tuition and fees, decreasing
legislative allocations, and seeking other self-supporting or external funds such as private and
federal funds. Such leadership building programs require dedicated funds and personnel, and
institutions face challenges in adequately providing such resources. An understanding of
practices within a public higher education institution in leadership building will increase
knowledge of ways public higher education institutions are addressing their leadership capacity
needs and challenges.
Leaders who can build upon past success, lead institutions to achieve excellence in
education, research, discovery and community service, and engage members to transform society
will thrive. Higher education leaders must strategically lead institutions to prepare students to
become engaged citizens who can navigate both national and international networks and
environments. Planning for the changing and aging workforce, reduced number of potential
leaders in the pipeline, shrinking budgets and declining interest in leadership positions are
important to address. An ill-prepared institution does not have a workforce that is prepared to
compete with other institutions and build educated citizens that can compete globally with
citizens of other countries in products, services and education. Planning for higher education
leadership positions is necessary for the institution to advance (Rodriquez & Coldren, 2013; Fink
2011).
Formalized leadership programs have been implemented by organizations including
General Electric, Emory University and University of Texas (Groves, 2007). Job assignments in
another department provided necessary experience to support the objective of succession
planning for city employees in Durham, North Carolina (Voorhees, Poston & Atkinson, 2007).
Mentoring initiatives were implemented along with executive coaching (Voorhees et al., 2007).
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 7

Organizations such as the University of Michigan, the University of California and Stanford
University also began to look internally for leadership sources (Gonzalez, 2013). In addition to a
formal leadership program, an organization’s leadership strength includes diversity initiatives
and diverse backgrounds within a supportive organizational culture including increased women
and minorities in leadership positions. Such practices provide strategies for organizations to
invest and build leadership capacity for the future.
Statement of the Problem
Leadership building within public higher education institutions must be implemented for
institutions to prevail amidst continuing challenges. Challenges faced include an aging
workforce, post-recession repercussions, lower workforce participation rate, shared governance,
and practices that do not support building leadership capacity. However, the implementation of
and investment in leadership development programs of potential internal leaders are necessary to
support the institutional mission. In response, organizations like public higher education
institutions have identified potential leaders and implemented formal programs to build and
enhance leadership and communication skills and broaden industry and organizational
knowledge. Job assignments, learning projects, and mentoring complement the leadership
development process. However, the knowledge and understanding of such approaches and the
factors that both facilitate and inhibit development in public higher education institutions through
the perspectives of stakeholders such as administrators and faculty and staff members are
unknown.
In public higher education, the identification of individuals for leadership potential early
in career is against the principle of a collegial and equalitarian environment. In addition, the
culture of higher education encourages fresh ideas and new faculty. As such, hiring external
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 8

leaders to serve as change catalysts has not been seen as adversely impacting the organizations
and institutions (Barden, 2009). However, organizations are seeking external candidates with the
acknowledgement that external recruitment comes with a price for search costs, higher salaries
and morale issues over time as seen in higher education institutions (Krell, 2015). In a banking
company study, 18% to 20% was paid more for external hires as compared to the cost of internal
promotions for comparable positions (Bidwell, 2011). Like other organizations, higher
education institutions have now focused on internal sources for leadership potential (Klein &
Salk, 2013). Trends for developing internal leaders to provide necessary institutional leadership
are surfacing.
Likewise, as the demand for education administrators is projected to increase, the
workforce is changing and the traditional trajectory in a career in public higher education is
changing (BLS, 2014). The sources for potential leaders for public higher education must be
reviewed and investments in leadership capacity building must be made. Public higher education
institutions cannot wait for faculty and staff to progress through traditional career progression
tracks in light of the labor demand and changing demographics. For example, the natural
progression of tenure-track faculty to roles such as Department Chair, Dean, Chief Academic
Officer, and President or Chancellor is expected (Barden, 2009). However, such progression is
changing with new workforce generations, later entry into professions, and lack of long-term
interest in administrator positions.
Leadership capacity building programs in public higher education institutions depend on
continuous investment. With state and local governments tending to budget shrinkage and
deficits, balancing increases in tuition and fees with operational costs, and the scrutiny of
administrative costs, a reduction in administration may occur thus leaving the pipeline of future
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 9

leaders scarce in light of more expectations and compliance (Jarrell & Pewitt, 2007;
Fredericksen, 2010). In addition, the workforce is changing as nearly 75% of the global
workforce will be comprised of millennials by 2025. A Bentley University study (2014) of
1,031 millennials between ages 18 and 34 was conducted. The study identified that at end of
2014, one of three employees will be a millennial. Of those surveyed, 13% were interested to be
a chief executive officer or company president, while 66% wanted to start a business. Of survey
participants, 80% surveyed expected to work for four or fewer companies in their career. Thus,
higher education can create an environment where millennials can succeed within their values
and desires and institutions can thrive with prepared leaders.
Organizations have implemented approaches for building leadership capacity and
pipeline; mixed approaches such as formal leadership programs, job assignments, learning
projects and mentoring are used in building leadership capacity. Knowledge of such approaches
and perspectives of stakeholders regarding the influence of such practices within a public, multi-
campus higher education institution is limited. The study researched promising practices and
examined practices that facilitate and inhibit strategies as formal programs, work experience and
mentoring within a multi-campus, public higher education institution.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine promising practices of building leadership
practices within a multi-campus, public higher education institution consisting of several two-
year, four-year and research campuses. Practices were examined through the perspectives of
stakeholders of senior administrators and faculty and staff members through interviews,
observations and artifacts. In addition, the study examined and provided an understanding of
how leadership capacity development occurred within a multi-campus, public higher education
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 10

institution governed by statutes, regents’ policies, administrative policies, collective bargaining
agreements and internal practices through review of institutional documents.
The goal of the study was to understand ways a multi-campus, public sector higher
education institution utilizes to build the next generation of leaders, and to understand the
methods and approaches used to facilitate leadership capacity development. A second goal was
to understand the factors that both facilitate and inhibit the development and implementation of
strategies designed to build leadership capacity within this higher education institution.
Research Questions
The focus of the study was to understand the promising practices implemented in
campuses or offices within a multi-campus, public higher institution through the perspectives of
key stakeholders of senior administrators and faculty and staff members. The thematic group
posed two primary questions for the examination of promising practices of leadership building.
The researcher applied the questions to an individual case study of the multi-campus, public
higher education institution:
1. In what ways does the identified organization work to build the next generation of
leaders?
2. What are the factors that both facilitate and inhibit the development and
implementation of strategies designed to build leadership capacity?
The study was guided by the theoretical framework of Kouzes and Posner’s (2012)
overarching practices in guiding the research of promising practices in the multi-campus, public
higher education institution. Specifically, the institution’s investment in the identification of
potential leaders, or talent, and the development of knowledge, skills and support practices are
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 11

important. In addition, the application of Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) specific practices of
model the way, inspire a shared vision, and enable others to act may provide practices other
public higher education institutions can implement amidst the decreasing workforce and
shrinking budgets. These three practices were selected by the thematic group as evidence would
reflect how a leader’s actions directly results in the development and action of potential leaders.
The other two practices, challenge the process and encourage the heart, are important but would
not result in the direct evidence our group researched. Through the Creswell’s (2003) model of
data analysis, the study brought attention to areas that should be strengthened or developed.
Significance of the Study
The study results provide understanding of the perspectives on the influence of promising
practices in leadership capacity building within a multi-campus, public higher education
institution. A mission of higher education is to academically prepare students to contribute as
our society’s future intellectual leaders in various fields including business, engineering, science
and technology and support future economic growth (Porterfield, 2014; U.S. Department of
Treasury, 2012). Higher education provides this educated workforce with economic mobility
which increases the competitiveness of the United States. In the 2009-10 academic year, 6,896
public and private institutions existed across the United States of which 2,015 were public
institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). As such, public higher education institutions
are an important contributor to our country’s success economically and competitively; a flowing
leadership pipeline is necessary to ensure such institutions can fulfill its educational mission.
However, higher education develops students into society’s future intellectual leaders, yet
lacks programs and efforts to build higher education leaders internally to support the future of
the organization. The expected vacancies resulting from an aging workforce nationally, and for
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 12

example, the increasing age of presidents in higher education where retirements will follow,
impacts the ability of public higher education institutions to maintain its contributions if prepared
leadership is unavailable (Cook, 2012; Rodriquez & Coldren, 2013; Fink, 2011; Lederman,
2012). The average age of higher education presidents was 52 in 1990s; the age increased to 61
in 2012 (Cook, 2012). Of current presidents in 1986, approximately 40% served as presidents in
former positions. In 2011, the percentage increased to 54% of presidents served in previous
presidential positions emphasizing experience as a desired qualification. Leadership
development can ensure an adequate pool of leaders.
In addition, in 2011, men continue to fill more than 73 percent of the campus chief
executives and in 2006, 49.3 percent were age 61 and over, compared to 14 percent in 1986
(Lederman, 2012). With a higher percentage of aging leadership with retirement in the horizon
and the desire for boards and institutions to seek experienced leaders, the development of
leadership capacity for both genders is critical at this time juncture. Whereas corporations have
been discussing succession planning for more than 50 years to ensure businesses not only survive
but prevail, public higher education institutions must adopt practices and invest in resources to
ensure the leadership reservoir is fully prepared and flowing through a sustainable pipeline
(Collins, 2001; Fink, 2011; Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2011).
This study was designed to increase the literature on promising practices in building the
capacity of next generation of future leaders and the influence of such practices through the
perspectives of senior administrators and faculty and staff members in public higher education.
The leadership of any organization is critical to its continued existence and success. More
importantly, finding the right individual for the right position on the right vehicle takes
thoughtful planning and preparation prior to determining the direction the vehicle should head
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 13

(Collins, 2001). With the right individuals in the right seats, the vehicle can head in various
directions, change route, and prepare for any terrain that leads to the best outcome for the
organization and its motivated followers.
An ill-prepared higher education institution will experience a leadership crisis. A lack of
dedicated resources within a public institution including policies, funds, time and people will
jeopardize the institutional ability to meet the mission of developing society’s future leaders.
Higher education culture previously advocated for external hires. Recent literature advocates for
internal development of future leaders (Barden, 2009; Klein & Salk, 2013; Krell, 2015; Leske,
2009). As such, the study’s examination of current practices as described by leaders within a
multi-campus, public higher education institution will contribute to existing body of knowledge
and provide further insight on existing programs to strengthen and new areas to develop
including investing in leadership capacity development program and pipeline. The leaders
resulting from formal leadership programs, job assignments, learning projects and mentoring fill
the reservoir and become a source for a flowing pipeline. Without such programs and initiatives,
the public higher education institutions will be at a disadvantage in maneuvering and prevailing
through the changing higher education landscape.
Limitations and Delimitations
Qualitative research provides an understanding of how individuals make meaning of,
describe and interpret experiences in their lives (Merriam, 2009). In qualitative research, the
researcher is the primary instrument in data collection of rich, thick descriptions through means
such as interviews and observations and in data analysis (Merriam, 2009). Intrinsic in qualitative
approaches, research limitations exist.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 14

The sampling of select units within a single, public higher education institution was a
limitation. As such, sampling of leaders amongst two-year, four-year and research campuses
along with system level offices was identified to represent the promising practices within various
environments within the multi-campus institution. The research within these campuses was
conducted to give a cross-section of perspectives for this multi-campus, public higher education
institution.
The researcher’s personal and professional knowledge and experience may have led to
unconscious views, perceptions and interpretations of what was discovered. In addition, the
participants’ perceptions and responses were limited to promising practices of leadership
development based on experiences within the institution and participant description and candor.
Participants were encouraged to respond with candor, truthfulness and details in describing
practices and experiences in leadership capacity development. Internal validity was a goal and
supported by other data obtained through observations and artifacts.
As the research setting was familiar to the researcher, the professional associations and
relationships with the participants should be recognized. Participants were willing to participate
and the researcher developed research protocols to safeguard any identified, confidential
information shared in interviews or observations, and not relevant to the study. Other supporting
data gathered through observations and artifacts triangulated the data.
The short timeframe for data collection was the last limitation as the timeframe limited
the scope of the research and sample size, and impacted demographics. While participants
reflective of administrators and faculty and staff members from each of the campuses would be
desired, time did not allow for such extensive interviews and observations. However, effort was
made to ensure best diversity of participants deemed possible during the research period.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 15

Given the sampling location and participants, the ability to generalize findings to other
units within the multi-campus, public higher education institution or to other higher education
institutions within the state or nationally was limited. The researcher identified stakeholders who
represented units perceived to have internally developed, flowing sources for leadership pipeline
and effective leadership transitions. The individuals selected for interviews and observations
were deemed as current or future leadership and organizationally situated within the two-year
and research campuses and the system level.
Definitions
A number of terms can be found across studies of succession planning and leadership
capacity development. Terms relevant to this study are defined as follows:
• Academia: An environment of scholarship and student learning engaged in higher
education and research in disciplines. Scholars and students accumulate knowledge
culminating in meeting and achieving knowledge standards.
• Chair School: A development program for department chairs to provide knowledge and
tools necessary in performing department chair duties.
• Leadership capacity: The breadth and depth of knowledge, skills, expertise and
understanding to lead and accomplish something.
• Leadership development: A broad term to represent components in succession planning
for building a sustainable leadership pipeline. Development programs or activities
include formal leadership programs, job assignments or rotations, action-learning
activities, coaching, mentoring, shadowing and other development experiences.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 16

• Leadership pipeline: A flow of leadership candidates within a system where a certain
level and quality of candidates is maintained through self-generation or an established
source.
• Shared governance: An understanding or principle of joint effort in decision-making or
consultative participation of institutional components (AAUP, 1966).
• Succession planning: A deliberate, systemic and visible process of candidate
identification, development and retention for an organization’s leadership positions.
• System: The administrative level that reports to the governing board, oversees the
campus chief executives, and develops and maintains the policies, procedures and
centralized support functions for the institution.
Organization of the Study
The study examined promising practices of building leadership capacity within a multi-
campus, public higher education institution. Such practices are critical to great institutions
prevailing against other institutions nationally and globally. Leadership succession is important
as institutions face an aging population and global competition increases requiring competent
and intelligent workforce. A major source for knowledgeable and skilled workforce is higher
education institutions.
Chapter 2 reviews literature relevant to leadership capacity development. The chapter
begins with a history of succession planning efforts, the practices uses in leadership development
programs, and the landscapes for both public sector and higher education. The landscapes
include challenges and existing practices. The chapter also describes the theoretical framework
for the study.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 17

Chapter 3 outlines the research methodology including the selection of a qualitative
research approach. The chapter also addresses the proposed sampling of units to participate, the
research questions and the various forms of data collection utilized.
Chapter 4 reviews the findings of the research including themes that emerged from the
research questions.
Chapter 5 presents the study results including the description and understanding of
promising practices of building leadership capacity and a flowing pipeline in higher education.
In addition, the implications of the study’s findings and future research areas in higher education
are identified and recommended.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 18

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the study was to examine promising practices of building leadership
capacity within a multi-campus, public higher education institution. The purpose of this chapter
is to review literature on leadership capacity building practices in organizations and specifically,
higher education. Leadership development is a process rather than a one-time event and
succeeds with an investment in learning experiences to build leadership competencies amidst the
changing public higher education landscape (Bisbee, 2007; Taylor & Taylor, 2013).
First, the chapter examines the historical context from succession planning in the 1950s
as replacement planning to current approach of building leadership capacity. Second, the
leadership development programs including formalized programs, learning experiences,
mentoring and onboarding are reviewed. Third, literature and existing practices in the context of
general public sector is discussed. Lastly, the issues of leadership development within public
higher education including barriers and challenges of organizational change, appointment
practices, conflicts with shared governance, and internal leadership candidate sources is
discussed.
Succession Planning to Leadership Capacity Building
The approaches utilized to fill leadership positions have evolved over the decades. In
response to a changing business landscape, organizations responded and built leadership to
address current and future environments both in our country and internationally. The approach
of short-term replacement planning for senior positions such as the chief executive officer has
evolved to the long-term identification of a pool of transformational leaders throughout the
organization. Succession planning evolved to concept of building leadership capacity.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 19

Succession planning has been a term used in corporate culture where individuals are
identified for the right positions at the right time. (Collins, 2001; Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2011).
The focus in the mid-1950s was replacement planning and successor determination, usually at
the chief executive officer position, without regards to capacity building at lower levels. As the
decades passed, the strategy of leadership development has evolved to the purposeful
development of identified individuals and preparation for various administrative levels including
managers and senior executives in a sustainable pipeline. The updated term of building
leadership capacity addresses challenges of increasing global competition and decreasing
workforce (Fink, 2010; Groves, 2006; Mehrabani & Mohamad, 2011).
In addition, our country’s future workforce depends on educated and skilled individuals
to support our economy. Such education prepares graduates to compete with talent in other
countries where our nation competes for products, services and emerging technology.
Countries such as Japan and Canada (Donovan, 2013) face similar issues as the United States
such as decreasing fertility rates, children rearing at older ages, and longer life expectancies and
higher number of retirees over youth. Contrary, countries in Africa, Latin America and Middle
East are facing an increasing number of youth (Donovan, 2013). With a changing workforce,
organizations must prepare future talent with the knowledge, skills and competencies to meet
national leadership needs as well as global talent competition.
An understanding of the historical context for succession planning and the evolution to
building leadership capacity provide context for understanding how organizations must adapt to
changing landscapes such as global competition, labor demands, and shrinking budgets
including higher education institutions. As such, an understanding of promising practices
already in public higher education institutions provide options for institutions who have minimal
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 20

to no leadership capacity building initiatives implemented. Practices can be adopted or modified
to the institutional needs.
Historical Context
The historical context of the evolution of succession planning to the term building
leadership capacity provides insight for public higher education institutions and requires
continued investment of resources. Mehrabani and Mohamad (2011) reviewed the history of
succession planning from 1950s to 2010. Each decade reflected organizations tailoring the
planning and management approaches to ensure the organization would prevail and thrive.
While common elements in all decades were identified, the perspectives from leadership
succession and building leadership capacity evolved over the decades. Mehrabani and Mohamad
(2011) did not provide the study details but provided themes that spanned across the six decades,
industries and leadership levels. However, the single approach of replacement planning has
continuously evolved.
One size fits all model cannot be applied to all organizations across various industries
(Rivas & Jones, 2015). An example of a public higher education institution responding to the
pending leadership drain was examined by Rivas and Jones (2015). Three models of leadership
training programs in a South Texan university were examined. The models were developed in
effort to identify talent and develop employees to embrace and seek increased challenges. The
two models of Provost Fellows and ULead are designed for faculty; the model of The Next
Generation was designed for staff. These models reflect the institution’s response to grooming
successors and facilitating the success of those successors.
Public higher education institutions face challenges such as an aging labor force,
competition and pending leadership drain. Research on strategies and tools applied on the
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 21

national and global fronts would contribute to the current body of knowledge. Transformational
leaders are needed to engage employees to perform at the highest levels so institutions may
prevail amidst the changing landscape and challenges.
Transformational Leaders
As the landscape of public higher education evolves, transformation leaders engage
employees to perform at the highest levels. Transformational leadership began to take place in
the 1980s with a performance-oriented process of engagement and connection with objectives to
increase motivation and morality for both the leader and follower (Scandura & Williams, 2012;
Northhouse, 2003). Leaders empower employees, serve as change agents, and become role
models. Leadership performance improves and followers are developed to the highest potential
through development of moral values, fulfillment of needs, and self-efficacy (Northhouse, 2003).
Transformational leaders are social architects for the organization and shape the shared meanings
of the organization and its culture. Public higher education needs to develop transformational
leadership who can strengthen an organization as the landscape evolves.
Northhouse (2003) identified four factors of transformation leadership: idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
Together the factors of transformational leadership results in higher than expected performance
for both the leader and follower. In addition, Bennis and Nanus (1985) conducted research on
transformational leaders and identified four strategies used in transforming an organization. The
strategies are providing a clear vision, shaping shared meanings of people, trusting the
organization, and creatively deploying oneself to build confidence and high expectations that
followers embrace. As public higher education leaders transform institutions to evolve with the
changing landscape, leaders must be able to execute such strategies. In examining organizations
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 22

with promising practices in building leadership capacity in public higher education, some level
of such strategies may be found in the perspectives of stakeholders.
Theoretical Framework
Public higher education would benefit from the strategies of transformational leaders
guided by leadership principles. Kouzes and Posner (2012) identified five fundamental practices
that enable leaders to get extraordinary things accomplished for an organization. The five
practices - model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and
encourage the heart - are relevant to building a sustainable leadership pipeline and guided this
study (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). The practices and strategies within each practice prescribe
practice model and behaviors that can be performed by all leaders.
The thematic group identified three practices that guided the study of promising practices
within the higher education institution – model the way, inspire a shared vision and enable others
to act. These practices focused the study on the practices likely be evident in the qualitative
study within the short time period including interviews, observations and artifacts. Within each
practice, commitments on behaviors which support leadership development are refined. In
practicing model the way, leaders clarify values by finding the leadership voice and affirming
shared values, and set the example by aligning actions with shared values (Kouzes & Posner,
2012). In practicing inspire a shared vision, leaders envision the future by imagining exciting
and ennobling possibilities, and enlist others in sharing the common vision by appealing to
shared aspirations (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). All such practices influence the foundational
pillars to identify potential leaders, develop knowledge and skills, and build support practices for
the leaders.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 23

In applying Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) practice of challenge the process, leaders search
for opportunities by seizing the initiative and looking externally for innovative ways to improve.
In addition, leaders experience and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning
from experience (Kouzes and Posner, 2012). In the practice of enable others to act, leaders
foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships, and strengthen others by
increasing self-determination and developing competence (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). In the
practice of encourage the heart, leaders recognize contributions by showing appreciation for
individual excellence, and calibrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of community
(Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Public higher education leaders can apply Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) model and
prescribed practices to build leadership capacity that can evolve and transform institutions. For
example, Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) practices of inspire a shared vision and enable others to act
reflect the approach of engaging others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations
and strengthening others to develop competencies. In examining promising practices in building
leadership capacity in a multi-campus, public higher education institution, the identification of
such practices and characteristics in the perspectives of stakeholders was anticipated. Such
practices can be a foundation for a leadership development program.
Leadership Development Programs
With the evolving approaches in building leadership capacity since 1950s, organizations
began to implement various programs and initiatives. The objective was to secure not only a
just-in-time leader, but to build leadership capacity and a sustainable flow of developed leaders.
Organizations identified potential leaders, developed formal leadership programs with
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 24

curriculum, incorporated learning experiences through job assignments or action learning
projects, and facilitated mentoring support.
Collins (2001) states that organizations must identify Level 5 leaders, or executives, and
the right management teams consisting of other Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 managers, and work to place
the right individuals in the right seats on the bus. In Collins’ (2001) case study research of
eleven companies, Level 5 leaders blended strong humility, professional will and channeled ego
into building a great company. Such leaders placed their company first, not themselves.
However, leaders at Levels 1 (highly capable individual), 2 (contributing team member), 3
(competent manager) and 4 (effective leader) are also needed in support of the mission and goals
of the organizations. With such individuals on board, the direction of the bus to achieve
greatness could then be determined (Collins, 2001). Public higher education institutions need to
identify and develop Level 5 leaders to maneuver through the changing landscape and to move
institutions from good to great. Implementation of promising practices in building leadership
capacity will enable institutions to develop potential leaders.
Identification of Potential Leaders
This section discusses the importance of identifying potential leaders. Conger and
Fulmer (2003) examined organizations with long-term vision which dissembled functional silos
and developed a process to build leadership capacity for the organization. Conger and Fulmer
(2003) identified five rules for organizations, with the first rule to focus on not only succession
planning, but on leadership development of skills necessary for senior management positions.
Rules identified by Conger and Fulmer (2003) included identifying linchpin positions, or
positions critical to the organization’s long-term health, success and excellence. In addition, four
other rules supported a leadership pipeline including supporting transparency; measuring
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 25

productivity on regular basis to ensure progress in right direction at right speed; and supporting
flexibility in continuous improvement by adjusting systems based on feedback from within and
learning from other organizations. Once identification of leaders is completed, such educational
or training systems may include job rotation, special assignments and action learning where a
team of high-potential employees study and make recommendations on a pressing matter
(Conger & Fulmer, 2003).
On a national front, Conger and Fulmer (2003) discussed organizations who implemented
such rules. For example, Dow considers an external hire as a failure in the internal development
process (Conger & Fulmer, 2003). Lilly managers assess succession management metrics such
as number and quality of managerial talent ready in the pipeline (Conger & Fulmer, 2003). The
Japanese concept of kaizen, or continuous improvement in process, supports flexibility in
modifying the leadership development process and content to achieve overall goal (Conger &
Fulmer, 2003). Such examples reflect the investment made by these companies to continuously
build leadership capacity. In public higher education institutions, such measurements,
monitoring and continuous improvement are needed to ensure the program and processes are
building the right leaders for the institution.
On an international front, Fink (2011) also examined government succession planning
efforts in three countries to not only create a pipeline of identified potential leaders, but a
reservoir source for the pipeline. Fink (2011) identified leadership development efforts through
mentoring, opportunities for real world experiences or laboratory work, and a formal academic
curriculum for leaders. Once potential leaders are identified, programs which support mentoring,
work projects, networking and knowledge discovery are beneficial for effective leadership
development program execution (Fink, 2011; Furtek, 2012).
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 26

Organizations and countries seek to identify and build leadership capacity and a flowing
pipeline within organizations. The practices in the identification of such leadership vary
depending on the organization and its needs. Public higher education must identify potential
talent as the first step in building leadership capacity.
Formalized Programs
Building leadership capacity requires a program that identifies and develops potential
leaders for a variety of leadership positions. Programs should engage in various developmental
approaches as a single approach does not fit all organizations. A formalized program that builds
leadership capacity enhances leadership and communication skills and broadens perspectives
about the industry, organization and team members (Solansky, 2010). Such programs should be
practical, allow for growth in skills and knowledge, embrace the diversity of leader potential
with variety learning styles, knowledge and experience, and facilitate the development of
professional relationships and networks (Solansky, 2010).
Groves (2007) conducted a study that provides an understanding on approaches
organizations nationally use to integrate leadership development and succession planning
systems to create best practices for building leadership capacity. Thirty chief executives officers
and human resources executives across fifteen organizations were interviewed and asked to
describe the leadership development and succession planning practices within their respective
healthcare organization. The study found that organizations integrated systems by developing a
mentor network, identifying and sorting high potential employees, developing high potential
through project learning experiences and manager-led sessions, creating venues to expose high
potential employees to various stakeholders, and cultivating a supportive organizational culture
(Groves, 2007).
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 27

As for relationships and networks, Pounder and Chow (2005) examined issues to
continue a stronger pipeline of effective school administrators including a network of support in
which school districts, professional administrator associations, principal academies and
university leadership programs collaborate to establish a career-long approach to administrative
leader development. A collaborative approach in the development of leaders to serve in various
industries ensures a program inclusive of learning experiences, mentoring and onboarding.
Wilson, Van Velsor, Chandrasekar and Criswell (2011) add that using a combination of
assignments, relationships and coursework to develop leaders is used globally across countries of
China, India, Singapore and the United States which prepares for global competition. A
common 70-20-10 ratio represents 70% of challenging assignments, 20% of developmental
relationships and 10% of coursework training (Wilson et al., 2011). As such, experiences
through assignments and relationships are critical for developing leaders from a universal, global
standpoint as seen in countries for which our nation’s competes for talent.
A foundation for building leadership capacity begins with a formal leadership program.
The components of these programs may vary by organization depending on the needs. The need
for building leadership capacity is recognized by countries for which our nation competes for
products and services. In addition, building support networks and relationships contribute to the
success of the leadership program components. In public higher education, these same
leadership program components are critical to building leadership capacity. The examination of
how these components are reflected in the promising practices of the institution provides a
starting point for other institutions.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 28

Learning Experiences
Leadership programs incorporate opportunities for identified potential leaders to apply
knowledge and skills, and learn through experience and outcomes. Barden (2009) indicates that
meaningful experiences complement formal classroom style leadership programs where
organizations can test abilities of potential leaderships in real-time situations which are beneficial
to the organization and individual. An ongoing program of continued learning experience
focuses on long-term development (Riggs, 2015) rather than short-term results. Three areas to
facilitate leadership development include professional development by identifying potential
leaders and giving real-world experiences; leadership transition by implementing protocols for
planned and urgent situations, and onboarding new leaders to ensure a positive, productive start
in a position (Barden, 2009). Two ways to provide learning experiences include job assignments
and learning projects.
Job assignments. Job assignments provide opportunities for organizations to observe the
abilities of potential leaders in real situations; thus, individuals can apply knowledge and skills
and gain leadership experience to further apply in new situations. Pounder and Chow (2005)
identify that field experiences strengthen the connection between theory and practice. While
internships are beneficial to gain an initial perspective into an organization and job, internships
are often short-term and lack in responsibilities for potential leaders to prepare and strengthen
leadership skills (Pounder and Chow, 2005). As such, a longer term internship to gain
administrative experience, such as a one year period, helps to address leadership challenges and
provide realistic, high-quality internship experiences for potential leaders (Pounder and Chow,
2005; Riggs, 2015).
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 29

Opportunity to apply knowledge and skills, learn through experiences, gain new
knowledge about the organization through the job assignment, and build new skills through
colleagues and support networks complement the learning experience. The learning experience
strengthens the success of the leadership program. Regardless, internships in public higher
education for potential leaders provides opportunity for the institution to observe potential
leaders in new roles and assess whether the leader can apply knowledge and practices in some
leadership capacity. In addition, potential leaders have opportunity to exercise developing
leadership skills in an environment that facilitates learning,
Learning projects. In addition to new job assignments, projects can also provide
learning experiences for identified potential leaders to complement other components of the
leadership program. Action-learning projects are approaches delivered through organizational
forums with opportunity for visibility and networking for the high potential leaders, and expand
knowledge of the organization and give opportunity to apply skills (Groves, 2007). Senior
executives within the organization are required to teach classes and facilitate workshops on
leadership development topics, and engage potential employees through teaching and sharing
experiences (Groves, 2007). Potential leaders were also exposed to various functional areas and
work experiences, which gave organizations an opportunity to assess performance and make
decisions regarding succession planning (Groves, 2007). Such learning projects provide
valuable learning experiences. In public higher education, collaborative projects occur on a
regular basis. As such, learning projects can be easily applied in leadership programs within
public higher education institutions.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 30

Mentoring
Another common component in a leadership program is support networks, and
specifically individuals who mentor potential leaders through the process. This mentor-mentee
relationship provides opportunity for mentors to provide advice and guidance to mentees,
access to seasoned leadership mentors to ask questions and seek insight, and complements
transformational leadership. Relationships with seasoned administrators provide additional
learning opportunities and a safe environment to further improve knowledge and skills. In public
higher education, mentoring can be provided to all levels of leadership and complements
transformational leadership.
In Groves’ (2007) study of healthcare organizations, a finding was organizations
supported both informal and formal mentoring for leadership development purposes. Such
formal mentoring programs were offered to a variety of managerial employees, did not offer
incentives for mentors, and facilitated a process of matching participants based on background
and interests, developmental needs and job level (Groves, 2007). The social exchange between
an experienced mentor and novice mentee assists the mentee to build confidence and increase
competencies, motivates mentees, and facilitates leadership development (Solansky, 2010).
In addition, the interaction and dialogue provides an assessment of the mentee on individual
strengths and weaknesses (Solansky, 2010). In Solansky’s (2010) study of school administrators
in a leadership development program, 41 mentors participated in the study. Coaching focuses on
mentee empowerment to align behaviors with organizational goals to achieve defined outcomes,
and the findings were that coaching may foster increased open communication between the
mentor and mentee, allowing the mentee to share more pertinent information about leadership
challenges, skills and experiences (Solansky, 2010). In addition, an appropriate mentor is an
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 31

individual who has qualities to emulate and can communicate and coach in an effective manner.
The proper identification of a mentor and coach is important to leadership development.
The building of transformational leaders is strengthened through the mentor-mentee
relationship and opportunities for seasoned administrators to share experience and advice. A
study of 400 employed masters of business administration students at a private southeastern U.S.
university was conducted which identified this complementary relationship (Scandura &
Williams, 2012). The principle of inspiring a shared vision and career mentoring positively
impacts job satisfaction, work attitudes, commitment and career expectations. Such correlation
supports the necessity for leadership development programs to provide experience, project
opportunities and mentoring for future transformational leaders that can execute best practices
such as Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) five practices to advance an organization. Public higher
education is challenging amidst the laws, politics and governing practices. As such, mentoring
provides valuable insight for potential leaders in maneuvering through the public higher
education landscape and understanding the factors that impact this landscape.
Onboarding
The thoughtful transition of individuals to leadership or new leadership positions is
important to the individual’s success. With the investment in potential leaders, a focus on these
individuals during the transition increases the return on investment. The concept of orientation
was typically one or few days introduction to an organization’s mission, organization structure
policies, benefits and values by human resources; this orientation period has evolved to a longer
transition period termed onboarding reflective of employee with supervisor, leader and mentor
interactive participation (Ferri-Reed, 2013; Graybill, Carpenter, Offord, Piorun & Shaffer, 2013).
The percentage of leaders who cannot successfully transition and remain in leadership roles is of
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 32

concern. Nearly 40 percent of senior leaders in new positions fail within 18 months resulting in
terminations, resignations or unsatisfactory performance reviews (Andersson, 1999; Cashman &
Smye, 2007; Riddle, 2009). Failure to learn and understand new environments results in
voluntary and involuntary departure due to lack of fit and traction, understanding of culture and
onboarding (Andersson, 1999; Riddle, 2009). Such failure may impact the success of its new
leader and the organization.
The appropriate onboarding program must also be thoughtfully developed. In a study
conducted by Cashman and Smye (2007), 70 percent of leaders were not satisfied with current
onboarding experiences. The “sink or swim” approach is no longer appropriate for ensuring a
flowing pipeline of developed leaders (Derven, 2008). Organizations must execute a longer
transition period of support, or onboarding program, which fosters relationships, provides
pertinent information, and understands the multiple roles to be performed by the identified leader
(Derven, 2008). Onboarding will support the development and success of potential leaders.
In addition, the millennial generation is the future of leadership. The 80 million
millennial generation is technologically savvy, values work-life balance, needs feedback, desires
collaborative team work, and possesses high confidence level (Ferri-Reed, 2013). As such,
acclimation to an organization or management role requires a different approach for the
millennial leaders (Cashman & Smye, 2007; Ferri-Reed, 2013). Organizations must include
modified curriculum to address millennial values, work environments, communication styles and
other information in onboarding.
A study of best onboarding practices for the Association of College and Research
Libraries was conducted where 17 institutions submitted documents relating to employee
onboarding. In reviewing the libraries, onboarding programs which included socialization
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 33

factors, policies, safety, communication, mentoring, significant program length, useful checklists
and special activities were found beneficial. Specifically, the socialization phase is critical.
During this socialization phase, the communication of work expectations, organizational history,
culture, mission and goals, values, jargon, politics and power structure, and individuals deemed
beneficial to the onboarding process were provided (Graybill et al., 2013). As relationships
within an organization are critical to an individual’s success, transition coaching for new
managers helps to navigate through situations and develops necessary management and
leadership skills (Cashman & Smye, 2007). Socialization facilitates relationship and networking
building which are important components for building leadership capacity.
Integration
The practices reflect integrated program components useful for higher education industry
including mentoring, learning activities, teaching, organizational culture, and job performance
expectations. Wilson et al.’s (2011) insights on leadership development from a global universal
perspective support that experiences with new assignments of increased scope, new job
opportunities, organizational culture changes, and new initiatives assisted with learning sources
for leadership development. Such experiences stretch individuals beyond a comfort zone to a
broader scope providing valuable learning experience.
Groves (2007) studied the best practices of a complex industry, securing comments from
30 officers and executives who were deemed to demonstrate excellence in CEO succession
planning. Although the study had a limited sample, best practices reveal consistency in key
components of a leadership development and succession planning program. While the studies
mentioned in this section of chapter two may not have included comments from program
participants at various leadership levels to provide perspective on the perceived program
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 34

effectiveness and success, the best practices revealed an increased approach on the development
of internal managers for leadership. The best practices identified by Groves (2007) are
reflective of other organizations who have implemented programs for leadership development.
Such practices strengthen the leadership development and facilitate success once talent is
identified. Together with a formalized leadership program offering learning experiences, project
opportunities, mentor-mentee discussions, and a strong onboarding program, the positive
trajectory for leadership development and progression is strengthened.
Public Sector Landscape
Succession planning is often heard in corporate America. This section discusses the
landscape for the updated concept of building leadership capacity in the public sector. First, the
need for a reservoir of potential leadership is discussed. Then a leadership program in a Texas
municipal is discussed. Lastly, challenges and barriers including changing labor force
demographics, staffing needs and diminishing budgets are discussed.
In public sector, a formal approach to leadership development has not gained high
priority status as corporate America has done. However, public sector is not immune to such
issues as aging workforce, generational differences and competition, and budgetary restrictions;
investment in a sustainable leadership pipeline and programs is critical. Government has been
forced to manage workforce supply and demand amidst shrinking budgets and restrictions.
While government has modified classification and compensation approaches, established
leadership development programs, and implemented performance systems, the building of public
sector leaders requires the same best practices of talent identification, development and retention
(Fredericksen, 2010). The execution by public sector to build the necessary leadership ensures
government long-term strategy and daily operations continue.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 35

Sustainable Reservoirs
The building of leadership capacity must be a continuous process to ensure organizations
prevail through changing landscapes. Fink (2011) addressed the impact of shortages of willing
leaders that force governments to allocate time, effort and money to develop current and future
leadership capacity to ensure a flowing pipeline. Fink (2011) used examples of school districts
in Canada, United Kingdom and U.S. to examine common practices of filling up pipelines, or as
Fink refers to as the pools and reservoirs of leadership capacity. The reference to pools and
reservoirs is an analogy to a golf course and how a course is sustained by a water supply
(reservoir). The shift is from “hire and hope”, or replacement planning, to “grow your own”
includes leadership development which is critical to identifying, recruiting and developing pools
(Fink, 2011). Fink argued that schools and districts must think beyond the pipeline and pools,
and build reservoirs.
Fink also examined three of seven principles for sustainable leadership originating from
the Change Over Time Study (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2003). The principles were length,
breadth and resourcefulness. Reservoirs were key for resourcefulness and keeping the pipeline
flowing. Specifically, Fink (2011) compared three different school systems in three different
countries: South School Board in Ontario, Canada; Eastern School District in the United States;
and Midlands Local Authority in the United Kingdom. The approach of school systems in
addressing leadership capacity and leadership succession was compared through interviews and
questionnaires (Fink, 2011). The review focused on three school districts in national context
supporting the argument that leadership succession management may be a global issue for
developed countries.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 36

In the national context, public sector leadership development must be resourceful given
workforce demographics, budget restrictions and organizational culture. Jarrell and Pewitt
(2007) reviewed a nationally recognized public sector, succession planning model in the
municipality of Plano, Texas. The city’s program targeted 30% of the city’s 2,577 workforce
(Jarrell & Pewitt, 2007). An assessment center determined employee skills and talents in
decision making, interpersonal relations competence, public speaking competence, technical
competence, and flexibility in handling problems (Jarrell & Pewitt, 2007). Approximately six
employees were identified for a one year program with in-house executive development coach,
specialized training session, and a capstone project. In examining the city’s model, Jarrell and
Pewitt (2007) identified four components for a succession planning program to support the city -
planning and development, selection and training, sustainability and evaluation.
A flowing pipeline of leaders is necessary for organizations to prevail. Organizations
have shifted to internally developing leaders to ensure the reservoir can fill and flow the pipeline.
Public sector faces a myriad of challenges. The case study of the municipal in Plano, Texas
reflects the focus of one government entity in building internal leadership capacity. For public
sector, the challenges and barriers may be tougher given budget restrictions. Public higher
education institutions face similar challenges and barriers.
Challenges and Barriers
The public sector operates in an uncertain and changing environment. Fredericksen
(2010) discussed the demographic shifts in the public workforce resulting from the impact of
legislative and public executive policies and actions. Public sector needs to build intellectual
human capital, manage succession and be cognizant of factors impacting future leadership
(Fredericksen, 2010). Factors to consider that impact the demographics of the workforce include
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 37

the aging workforce, civil service reforms, millennial workforce expectations, legislative or state
leadership policies, and necessary government services provided by government and non-
government organization (Fredericksen, 2010). Leaders must be prepared to work in a
constantly evolving, uncertain environment.
In response to the changing demographics, states have considered new approaches to
staffing. Various states have reconsidered the traditional model for public sector staffing as the
attraction to government benefits; lower salaries can no longer recruit and retain high performing
and mission-critical employees (Fredericksen, 2010). Policies have been implemented to address
issues including recruiting new workers to existing and shortage positions, reemploying mature
workers, retaining skilled workers, and strengthening the flexibility of practices that support the
workforce generations in mission-critical positions (Fredericksen, 2010). A healthy balance
between public policies supported by adequate budgets is a constant challenge for leadership.
In addition, public sector no longer provides the extent of security and benefits to be an
employer of choice. Public policies have forced public agencies to revisit traditional approaches
and implement practices to further advance the agency in light of changing labor force, reduced
budgets and new generation of leaders. Public higher education must also find practices to adopt
that respond to the same challenges and barriers; leaders provide the vision and guidance to
maneuver an organization through the changing landscape.
Public Higher Education Landscape
The evolving landscape of public higher education is an uncertain environment that
impacts building leadership capacity. Once a homogenous group in past decades, higher
education leaders are an increasingly diverse group with a decreased interest in long-term
administrator roles (Barden, 2009; Furtek, 2012). As such, effective leadership who can act
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 38

quickly, implement change and engage collaborative effort among stakeholders is necessary to
move institutions forward (Bisbee, 2007; Furtek, 2012). Identified leaders must understand the
vortex of factors impacting higher education including the changing student and workforce
demographics, curriculum needed to support the community and state, enrollment management,
student development, and appropriate web of governance at many levels in higher education
which is different from counterparts in corporate worlds (Furtek, 2012). The demand for
increased accountability and transparency in light of increasing tuition costs, responsibilities to
external stakeholders including legislators and taxpayers, and workforce diversity are the topics
of scrutiny of higher education leadership (Bisbee, 2007). Leaders must be ready to maneuver
through the changing landscape and accept accountability to a variety of stakeholders.
Like any leadership position, public higher education leaders exist amidst a web of
networks and relationships. Pounder and Chow (2005) stated support networks where school
districts, professional administrator associations, principal academies and university leadership
programs collaborate to establish a career-long approach to administrator development is
required to build a network of effective school administrators. A public sector academic
landscape becomes complex with the mountains and valleys of carefully maneuvering a collegial
and egalitarian environment, shared governance, practice of external hires, and lack of interest in
administrative work. The approach to leadership development needs to be modified for each
institution; a single model cannot be used (Rivas & Jones, 2015). Public higher education
institutions must determine the appropriate leadership approaches to implement that best meets
the needs of the institution in achieving its goals.
In addition, the natural progression to senior leadership positions has changed; the desire
for high, visible positions has decreased. Barden (2009) recognized that less than one-third of
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 39

existing chief academic officers aspire to higher, visible positions of presidencies or
chancellorships. Some barriers to succession planning and building leadership capacity in higher
education result from the egalitarian nature of colleges and universities; the negative view by
established faculty for administrative work; and the advice from established faculty to younger
faculty members to consider administrative roles as distraction (Barden, 2009). Shared
governance also conflicts the approach of identifying and developing one or more successors to
lead an institution and facilitates constituent involvement on critical decisions of leadership
selection (Barden, 2009). Lastly, higher education institutions have advocated for open national
searches for faculty and administrative positions, where external hires bring perceived new, fresh
approaches and ideas versus appointing disenchanted internal candidates.
With the vortex of factors impacting higher education, the proper approach for leadership
development depends on the institution, its culture and the ability to engage faculty and staff in
leadership roles on a long-term basis. The examination of the factors impacting public higher
education landscape can be examined to determine the best mix of approaches to adopt. The
study discusses the perspectives of stakeholders within a multi-campus, public higher education
institution which provide meaning and understanding behind the promising practices exhibited in
the institution. Such practices may be applicable to other institutions.
Existing public higher education practices
Leadership program models can provide institutions an established roadmap for
developing leadership. Rivas and Jones (2015) discussed three leadership development models
for a South Texan university that faced similar succession planning issues. Two faculty
leadership models, Provost Fellows and ULead, and one staff model, The Next Generation, were
reviewed and may be applicable in similar universities (Rivas & Jones, 2015). The goal of the
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 40

first faculty leadership model, Provost Fellows, encourages faculty to serve in administrative and
leadership capacity (Rivas & Jones, 2015). Faculty apply for two to three fellowships annually,
with goal to problem solve administrative issues such as freshman year experience program,
online course development process, or faculty resource center (Rivas & Jones, 2015). The
program provides an opportunity for fellows to gain broader perspectives and appreciation of the
institution and the administrative responsibilities.
The second faculty leadership program, ULead, is organized by a faculty group,
providing opportunity for leadership skill development, increased understanding of higher
education administration, and strong commitment to university values (Rivas & Jones, 2015). A
faculty leadership development committee selects faculty based on commitment to leadership
development for a one year term by approximately seven tenured and non-tenured faculty
members (Rivas & Jones, 2015). A specific curriculum includes organizational behavior,
leadership theory, business enterprise, strategic planning, ethics and conflict resolution (Rivas &
Jones, 2015). A formalized leadership program provides a good foundation upon which to
integrate other leadership program components.
The third staff leadership program, Next Generation, supports staff development to serve
in administrative, non-academic leadership positions often supporting central supportive services
(Rivas & Jones, 2015). This program addresses the potential lack of administrative talent in
certain geographical areas (Rivas & Jones, 2015). With a two year program of up to twelve staff
members identified by respective supervisors, participants gain knowledge from senior
leadership, faculty and community members (Rivas & Jones, 2015). A formalized leadership
program with similar curriculum topics also provides a good foundation for other higher
education institutions.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 41

The literature did not detail the costs for resources for all three programs. Such programs
require dedicated staff, financial resources and updated materials to ensure continuity and
relevant curriculum. However, the applicability of such programs to a higher education
environment is appropriate. Public higher education institutions must prepare potential leaders
for both academic and administrative positions.
Challenges and barriers
Higher education institutions face a changing landscape with increased calls from internal
and external stakeholders for accountability, transparency, and effectiveness with fewer
resources. Institutions face challenges of increasing national and international competition,
expectations to be a strong economic force, critical organizational change, appointment practices,
conflict with shared governance, and external hires. For example, Riggs (2015) cited that
community colleges function in outdated management practices, instructional delivery systems,
and approaches to student and institutional services. Instead, changes can be accompanied by a
plan, purpose and precise execution by prepared leaders through leadership program, experiences
gained in job assignments and action-learning projects, and mentoring discussions (Riggs, 2015).
Critical organizational change. Higher education institutions can take the challenge of
creating and possibly, reinventing the future through organizational change (Riggs, 2015).
Institutions must transform, but transformational leaders are necessary for a transformation
(Riggs, 2015). Long-term planning to achieve a positive trajectory of change is critical. Riggs
(2015) reviewed the complacency of community colleges where status-quo is rewarded and
bureaucracy is maintained instead of fostering risk and change. Leaders who can drive
organizational change to strengthen the institution’s academic mission and keep the
organization’s goal of knowledge transmission, innovation and transformation at heart in every
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 42

action is critical (Riggs, 2015). As such, leaders serve as change agents and institutions must
prepare leaders to lead change.
Vacancies and appointment practices. Public higher education also faces a decreased
workforce and impending vacancies from an aging workforce and the pending retirements of key
positions in higher education (Rodriquez & Coldren, 2012; Fink, 2011). Anticipating turnovers
and vacancies, and recognizing the potential of rising leaders who can institute change are
important to ensure healthy organizational survival (Riggs, 2015). Riggs (2015) adds that
institutions have made interim appointments which may provide opportunities for leaders who
lack training and preparation to make necessary decisions and take actions to advance the
institution; as such, status-quo is maintained. Institutions have leaned on candidates who
impress with credentials and interviewing skills without looking at the long-term impact and
influence needed (Riggs, 2015). Administrators take two or three years to begin to advance an
organization, building key relationships and communication so short-sighted decision making on
a leadership appointment hurts an institution (Riggs, 2015).
On the opposite end, institutions have made conservative decisions to appoint faithful
employees that lack qualifications and skills, and are adverse to transformation but committed to
stay in the organization (Riggs, 2015). Lastly, institutions have sometimes appointed individuals
whose interests is to increase retirement earnings in the last few years, changing positions or
institutions with focus on short-term strategies to survive the final years of employment instead
of long-term health and survival of the institution (Riggs, 2015). Overall, the appointment of
appropriate leaders either from internal or external sources with the necessary experience and
credentials to lead institutions is important for an institution to prevail.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 43

Conflict with shared governance. Shared governance is a term referred in higher
education. Governance in higher education is conducted through processes at many levels within
the institution and includes activities such as consultation with faculty members and faculty
leadership (Furtek, 2012). This governance approach is different than in other industries (Furtek,
2012). A lack of understanding of governance practices makes it difficult for transitioning
leaders with non-educational background. Klein and Salk (2013) examined the succession
planning practices for presidential positions in private higher education institutions in Wisconsin,
exploring how succession planning was addressed and how the institutions managed retirements,
resignations and unexpected losses of presidents. The perceptions of presidents, regents and
search firms identified themes in barriers and challenges (Klein & Salk, 2013). One theme was
shared governance and the beliefs of collaborative, collective, consultative decision making were
in conflict with the concept of successional planning (Klein & Salk, 2013). To identify and
develop one or a few successors went against the concept of egalitarian and collegial governance
(Barden, 2009; Klein & Salk, 2013).
Shared governance is a concept that institutions strive to achieve. However, the real-
world applicability of shared governance is challenging to do in light of evolving internal and
external forces on the higher education environment. Institutions hope that new hires will be
able to lead an organization to excellence and success, and maneuver through the governance
nuances and processes.
External hires. Varying opinion exists on the best candidate source, external or internal.
The strength of higher education in the United States supports openness to external thinking and
outsiders to the institution (Gonzalez, 2011). As with academic freedom where faculty members
as scholars can teach ideas without adverse action such as imprisonment or job loss, higher
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 44

education supports open recruitment with the concept that external candidates bring new ideas
that strengthen the institutional knowledge whereas internal candidates are more homogenous
idea generation, thinking and teaching (Gonzalez, 2011). However, the perception that external
candidates have more to offer is changing (Bisbee, 2007).
Corporations in the United States have supported transient leadership that move from one
organization to another, with perceptions of infusing new ideas to strengthen the organization;
however, the approach is at the cost of high salaries and perquisites with brief employment
periods (Gonzalez, 2011). Van Amburgh, Surratt, Green, Gallucci, Colbert, Zatopek and Blouin
(2010) examined the perspectives of deans of pharmacy institutions on succession planning who
felt recruitment practices within academia did not support succession planning as faculty were
limited to interim roles until an external candidate was hired. Higher education institutions are
slowing changing the reliance on external candidates which benefits external search firms and
candidates themselves; instead higher education institutions are choosing to develop and groom
internal candidates (Gonzalez, 2011; Rodriquez & Coldren, 2013). Developing internal
candidates are options to the highly paid, but short-term model of external executives that do not
support the long-term interests of the organization.
Internal sources
Public higher education has begun to seek potential internal leaders, as traditionally,
external hires appeared more appealable than internal hires (Bisbee, 2003). Bisbee (2007) and
Heuer (2003) found that both internal and external candidates learn the basics for a leadership
job and work within the culture. However, Heuer (2003) did find an external, for-profit industry
executive would find it challenging to understand the higher education culture, norms and
values. In addition, developing leaders from within the institution strengthens the understanding
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 45

of higher education finance; the teaching, research and service goals; and the continuously
building of educational effectiveness, and changes the negative view of higher educational
leadership through fostering of engaged future leaders (Furtek, 2012). Internal searches can
result in the identification and developed of qualified leaders for the leadership pipeline who
understand the institution’s culture in a shorter time frame than utilization of an external search.
Career paths. The traditional trajectory in an academic career path is changing. Betts et
al. (2009) examined higher education and the impact of the shift in national demographics,
making recommendations to higher education institutional leaders. The recommendations
included establishing visible administrative career path within and across the organization to
senior level positions, providing professional development opportunities across all administration
levels, committing to succession planning, and committing to diversity in administration that
reflect the shifting demographics and student enrollment (Betts et al., 2009). Modified
approaches must be utilized to accommodate the emergence of non-traditional career paths.
Faculty members often join academia with attraction to the autonomy and independence
in the discipline, rewarded for prestige in teaching and research (Bisbee, 2007). A career in
administration is perceived to be shadowed with scrutiny and criticism (Bisbee, 2007).
Traditionally, the path to administration begins with senior faculty who serve as department
chairs (Bisbee, 2007). The perceived path of faculty member, to department chair, to associate
dean and to dean has now evolved to a less structured path. 60% of college deans have been
department heads and 40% have been associate deans (Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002). The entry
point to leadership varies and the identification and development of future leaders have become
more challenging.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 46

Bisbee (2007) examined responses from 268 academic leaders who ranged from chairs,
associate deans and provosts. 91% of associate deans indicated the academic career began as
faculty, with 48% serving as department chair and 37% went directly from faculty to associate
dean positions (Bisbee, 2007). For deans, 33% began as chairs and associate deans (Bisbee,
2007). However, 42% of deans went direct from chair to dean positions. Nearly 50% of
provosts served as deans (Bisbee, 2007). Such data supports the institutional need for early
identification of leaders, providing experiences and tools at any level within an organization and
developing as future leaders.
Specifically, more than half of the chairs and deans were internal to the institution and
more than 76% of associate deans and provosts were internal to the institution (Bisbee, 2007). In
addition, half of the participants were leaders in the same institution in which the career path
began as faculty (Bisbee, 2007). However, an additional factor for consideration is institutions
are hiring fewer fulltime faculty members as well as hiring faculty who begin a career path later
in age (Riggs, 2015). Thus, less time exists to move through the traditional career path (Riggs,
2015). In addition, nearly half of the participants did plan to return to faculty ranks after the
current administrative position (Bisbee, 2007) reflecting a short-term commitment. In some
cases, faculty felt that leadership was a duty to perform before returning to teaching or research,
not a long-term career (Bisbee, 2007).
Qualitative data to support the quantitative data would have been helpful to assess deeper
meaning of the responses. Regardless, the career path to leadership is no longer a clearly defined
path. Institutions must incorporate experience and skill building to ensure a pipeline of
developed leaders at any entry point on a career path.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 47

Administrative competencies and skills. Leadership competencies and skills are
important to the success of a leader. A key component of leadership development programs is
leadership skills assessment (Solansky, 2010). An assessment sets a benchmark for the current
leadership strength and growth resulting from the leadership development program (Solansky,
2010). Feedback on and assessment of leadership skills on a continuum reflect the readiness of
the potential leader; however, an understanding of the relevant skills is necessary.
Miller and Pope (2003) examined the extent that faculty senate leadership experience
provided skills necessary to prepare senior leadership for positions as the institution’s president,
specifically a community college president. Miller and Pope (2003) examined perceptions of
senate faculty and sitting presidents on the critical skills necessary for individuals who hold
presidential positions. The study reviewed the responses of 78 faculty senate presidents and 123
community college presidents across 1,300 two-year colleges in all regions. Using a Likert
scale, the study’s findings were that faculty senate leaders and presidents did not perceive the
same skills and roles as critical. On one hand, for skills, faculty senate leaders perceived
educational values (83%), oral communication skills (82%), and problem analytical skills (81%)
as important and critical. On the other hand, presidents identified stress tolerance (86%),
problem analysis 984%), personal motivation (84%), and organizational ability (84%) as the top
skills with written communication (82%), educational values (81%), communication (80%) and
judgment (80%) following close behind. Also in comparison, presidents agreed with 10 of the
12 skills, with 6 skills at the agree level. While faculty leadership rated 2 of the 12 skills as
agree.
Miller and Pope (20013) also examined the roles perceived by faculty senate versus
presidents. Faculty leaders identified the roles of negotiator (95%), advocate (90%) and planner
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 48

(85%) as most significant, rating 80% or higher. For college presidents, 12 of the 13 roles were
identified as important with percentages of 82% or higher: evaluator (96%), entrepreneur (89%),
mentor (88%), visionary (88%), advocate (88%), facilitator (88%), planner (88%), conflict
resolver (87%), delegator (84%), negotiator (84%), caretaker (82%), and information
disseminator (82%). Also in comparison, presidents agreed with 11 of the 13 roles as important
where faculty senate leaders agreed with 4 of the 13 roles.
The findings highlight the differing perception of the skills and roles of presidents.
However, the findings do not provide insight on the rationale of the responses nor identify the
respondents in terms of ranks, gender or discipline. The study provides a gap in understanding
administrative skills and roles and leads to possible curriculum opportunities for formalized
leadership programs. While presidents have sometimes served in faculty senate leadership
roles, the perceived skills and roles by presidents have not filtered back to faculty senate to
increase understanding of and preparation for the most senior leadership position. This
disconnect in understanding the complexity and challenges of the presidential positon may be
indicative of a lack of formalized, grow your own leadership program whereby building a
stronger understanding for presidential positions.
In addition, Solansky (2010) reviewed the self-reported assessments against observer-
reported 360 degree assessments of participant leadership skills. The leadership skills
assessments were based on Kouzes and Poser’s (2012) five practices deemed necessary for a
leader. Solansky’s (2010) study resulted in observer scores being higher than self-scores. Thus,
the utilization of multiple data sources, to assess leadership skills, mitigates inaccurate self-
reports and provides useful data points for organizations and its identified leaders to strengthen
administrative competencies and skills.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 49

Limited existing system level practices
Existing practices of leadership development implemented at a system level was limited.
Succession and leadership development practices in private institutions or select schools and
disciplines were identified in literature. Klein and Salk (2013) examined the succession planning
practices for presidential positions in private higher education institutions in Wisconsin. The
study examined how succession planning was addressed and how private higher education
institutions in Wisconsin manage retirements, resignations and unexpected losses of presidents.
The study was limited to 20 private higher education institutions in Wisconsin and reflected that
higher education institutions are not prepared, including private and public. The approach was
mixed with board members having lack of interest in long-term succession planning, suspicion
about hires from within and external, and agreed upon qualifications for senior positions.
In addition, Van Amburgh et al. (2010) examined the perspectives of deans of institutions
belonging to the American Association of College of Pharmacy on succession planning. Van
Amburgh et al. (2010) interviewed 15 deans, identifying that while elements of succession
planning occurred such as resources for mentoring successors, a formalized program or structure
was not implemented nor an emergency plan for leadership. The study also reflected that
succession planning required a concerted effort within the academy, not isolated pockets of
informal approaches. The study supports literature that while components of a succession
planning and management program exist in various industries, including higher education
pharmacy, a lack of a formalized program must be addressed. While private sector and military
have used succession planning in various approaches, higher education must also navigate its
way through succession planning and management issues to determine the best approach to
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 50

identify, develop and retain leaders with consideration of educational culture of shared
governance, accountability and transparency.
In Bisbee’s (2007) study, 25% of participating academic leaders received a form of
leadership training, with 75% reflecting that job experiences were most valuable leadership
development. Approximately 50% of leaders felt prepared for the position and leadership role,
with a third of participants reflecting that earlier identification, opportunities for experiences, and
mentoring was necessary. Bisbee (2007) cites the lack of faculty mentoring in leadership
development in literature. Such existing practices in all studies suggest approaches for smaller
units to use. However, literature was limited on formalized programs within larger systems such
as a multi-campus institution. In addition, the costs of programs to provide experiences, projects
and mentoring were not addressed in literature.
Willing leaders
The success of building leadership capacity also depends on an organization’s ability to
plan and implement programs and activities for individuals with potential to develop skills, gain
experiences, and gain visibility with administrators and other potential leaders. However, a
factor to successful leadership capacity development is the long-term willingness of individuals
to take leadership positions. Fink (2011) highlighted that organizations must be reservoirs of
leaders and must cease actions that make leadership positions undesirable.
Less than one-third of chief academic officers aspire to higher leadership positions of
presidencies or chancellorships (Barden, 2009). Bisbee (2007) identified that few faculty are
volunteering for departmental chair positions, reflecting a perceived increase in stress, burnout
and turnover. With increasing scrutiny on accountability and performance, the desire for
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 51

administrative positions remains disenchanting. To successfully identify willing leaders, the
disdain and disenchanting perception of administrators must change.
Limited literature exists on willing leaders in higher education. Pounder and Merrill
(2010) examined job desirability of high school principalships from the perspective of
candidates. While this study examined high school principals, the applicability to higher
education has merit. The positive predictors of job desirability were the desire to influence
education, salary and benefits and work-home balance. For example, the time demands as a
principal, including the extracurricular activities and balance between work and home, was
deemed as unfavorable.
Pounder and Chow (2005) further examined the issues for a pipeline of effective school
administrators. One issue was to limit focus on the role of the principal as a position that has
increased intensity and complexity, similar to the role of higher education presidents and
challenges. Similar to Pounder and Merrill (2010), Pounder and Chow (2005) reemphasized that
candidates like altruistic job aspects and are disenchanted by amount of work and time required.
A focus on redesigning the principal role may encourage more candidates and secure longer
commitment. A change to distributed leadership versus superhero role increases the level of
self-confidence and competence needed for such leadership positions. Such role design is
applicable to senior leadership roles within higher education.
Summary
Current literature discusses the need for organizations to identify potential leaders and to
develop such talent. Literature on models and approaches used in small to mid-sized
organizations reflect formalized programs with predetermined curriculum, opportunities for new
experiences, and building relationships through networking and mentoring. However, literature
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 52

is limited in terms of programs and approaches for large, higher education institutions such as
multi-campus institution. In addition, literature is relatively silent on the financial, human and
material resources and cost for such leadership development programs, citing the critical need for
organizations to continue to invest in leadership development despite budget restrictions.
Literature is consistent in the immediate urgency in building leadership as a number of
senior level executives will retire, the last of the baby boomers will leave employment, and the
new millennial generation of workforce has different priorities and values than the baby boomer
generation. In addition, the attraction and desire to serve as administrators has reduced to a sense
of fulfilling a short-term duty, and then returning to faculty ranks so to concentrate on own
discipline with much independence and autonomy. Such faculty work is perceived as less
stressful and demanding than the constant scrutiny of higher education leaders by both internal
and external stakeholders.
The lack of literature pertaining to public sector academia reflects the ill-prepared
institutions that lack the long-term vision, concentrating on the short-term goals and
accomplishments. The changing approaches in higher education hiring practices and sources of
leaders from external to internal will help to begin the necessary steps to build leadership for a
flowing pipeline that may span across years and possibly decades. Such leadership is necessary
to support increased student learning and graduation, promote faculty engagement in institutional
initiatives and activities, and provide stability in academic, research, student and administrative
affairs (Furtek, 2012). Such leadership is necessary for an institution to excel, prosper and
compete globally.
This chapter discussed literature relevant to leadership capacity development. The
chapter reviewed the historical context, practices utilized in leadership development programs,
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 53

and the landscapes for both public and private sectors. The chapter introduced the five practices
identified in the research of Kouzes and Posner (2012) which guided this study and provided the
theoretical framework. The next chapter discusses the qualitative research methodology, the
sampling, and the data collection and analysis.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 54

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the research design for the study including the
selected participants as a purposeful sampling and an overview of the selected organization. The
chapter discusses the theoretical framework of Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) overarching practices
which guided the research of promising practices. The conceptual framework developed by the
thematic group is discussed. Data collection methods and instrumentation utilized are discussed.
Lastly, the application of Creswell’s (2003) model is discussed as the data analysis steps.
Finally, the ethical considerations are discussed including the confidentiality of respondent
identity and data security.
The purpose of the study was to examine promising practices of building leadership
capacity within a multi-campus, public higher education. Leadership development is a process
where opportunities and experiences enable individuals to learn and grow in leadership
competencies (Taylor & Taylor, 2013). Public higher education faces challenges as reduced
labor force projection, increased national and global competition, diminishing budgets, and
limited leadership development practices and perspectives in research. In addition, the study
examined and provides an understanding on factors that both facilitate and inhibit such strategies
designed to build leadership capacity amidst the evolving public sector and academia landscapes.
Research Questions
To understand the promising practices implemented on campuses or offices within a
multi-campus, public higher education institution, two primary questions were posed:
1. In what ways does the identified organization work to build the next generation of
leaders?
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 55

2. What are the factors that both facilitate and inhibit the development and
implementation of strategies designed to build leadership capacity?
Research Design
Qualitative research provides data to understand how individuals interpret their respective
experiences, make meaning from these experiences and construct their worlds (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). Rich, thick, detailed descriptions of findings in a study increase the validity of
the study and contribute to a deep, realistic understanding of the meaning of the phenomenon.
Data obtained through qualitative data can be interrogated through interpretative methods which
describe, decode and translate meaning of phenomenon in the world (Merriam, 2009). A case
study approach was used which provides a deeper examination of a phenomenon within a
bounded system (Merriam, 2009). The research questions and selection of the sample were
determined by the study goals. In a case study, the research results reflect the phenomenon in an
existing context.
The researcher is the key instrument in qualitative research and data collection is
conducted in the participant’s natural setting. Various forms of data are collected, where data
from multiple perspectives are analyzed and categorized for patterns and themes through a
deductive process. The focus is having a conversation and finding meaning in the participant
responses to questions. As such, the research process is emergent where questions and data
collection approaches may change depending on the participant responses. During the process,
the researcher must reflect and be aware of personal values, biases and experiences in shaping
the interpretation of the patterns and themes (Merriam, 2009).
For this study, various forms of data were gathered including interviews, observations
and documents. Interviews are typically the primary source of data for qualitative research
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 56

where the researcher and participant can engage in a conversation focused on the researcher’s
questions (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Interviews allow researchers to discover what is in
someone’s mind and see the individual’s perspective (Merriam, 2009). Interviews are important
to seeking data when you cannot duplicate the situation to directly observe the behavior or
interactions (Merriam, 2009). As such, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain the
data to provide perspectives on promising practices in building leadership capacity. The
questions were a mix of experience, opinion, feeling, knowledge and background questions.
Observations provide an opportunity to seek information in the environment where the
phenomenon occurs and provides a firsthand encounter with the phenomenon (Merriam, 2009).
Observations are often integrated with interviews and provide opportunity to triangulate the
findings. For this study, observations provided an opportunity to experience firsthand the
application of leadership capacity building approaches in the institution in the daily environment.
The observation sites were intended to observe selected participants as leaders in natural
environments.
Artifacts provide another source of information (Merriam, 2009). Data include public
and private documents written in the language or words of the participant or organization. For
this study, documents obtained include curriculum for the formal leadership programs for
potential leaders and chair sessions, job descriptions, and public messages to community
members.
Validity and reliability of the data are necessary to ensure the accuracy and consistency
of data in the study. Triangulation of data collected through interviews, observations and
documents where themes and patterns are found in all data strengthens the validity of data
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Triangulation mitigates associations and biases that may
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 57

occur with one method of data collection, and facilities broad theme identification. (Maxwell,
2013). Follow-up discussions with participants provided opportunity to strengthen data validity
and reliability. Lastly, the researcher’s biases in the interpretation of the meaning of responses
and the findings due to gender, background and experience was recognized.
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling was used to gain insight from a group of individuals from which
most information can be learned (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Patton (2002) articulates that
information-rich respondents must be selected to ensure relevant data to the research questions is
secured. Eight individuals within the institution were interviewed to obtain their perspectives on
the practices of building leadership capacity within the institution.
The participants were selected to provide a broad range of perspectives of building
leadership capacity within the organization. In addition, the participants reflected various levels
of individuals familiarized with the university, participation or familiarization with the formal
leadership program, various classifications of employees, and both system and campus
perspectives. The sampling included convenience sampling to ensure research would be
gathered within a timeframe and to ensure the findings and recommendations would be
developed by a specific timeframe. Consideration was given to ensure diversity in terms of
gender and ethnicity where possible.
Observations allowed for the researcher to observe participants in a natural setting and
validated the data sought in methods such as interviews (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Observations provided information and validation of the leadership approach and knowledge
described in the interview. Observations were limited to available meetings and observation
sites.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 58

Overview of Organization
The organization of study is a public higher education institution consisting of multiple
campuses including two-year and four-year campuses. The organization is a key component for
the state’s economic engine, and despite its geographic location, has been able to recruit leaders
for multiple programs. However, faced with the same retirement of baby boomer generation,
decreased labor force, and responsibility to the state in leading higher education, the public
higher education institutional effort to build leadership provides practices for other institutions to
consider. Incepted over 100 years ago, the institution serves to create, preserve and transmit
knowledge through faculty and students and advance society and improve quality of life
(Institution website, 2015). The multi-campus, public higher education institution includes two-
year, four-year and research campuses. The organization has more than 50,000 enrollment
including undergraduate and graduate students. More than 55% are women, and more than 80%
are residents of the state. The average age is 25, with nearly 60% between ages 18 to 24.
As provided on the institution’s website (2015), more than 10,000 employees support the
operations of the organization, of which 3500 are faculty across the multiple campuses.
Approximately 50% of faculty identified with Caucasian with the balance representing minority
races including Japanese, Chinese, Hawaiian/Part-Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and Filipino, Such
statistics reflect similarly with certain demographics including nearly 50% female population.
Nearly 55% are Caucasians and Asians, whereas the United States reflects nearly 78% as
Caucasian and 5% as Asian. Such demographics may influence the organizational culture,
workforce cultivation and leadership development.
Strategic institutional goals provided on the institution’s website (2015) include increased
degree attainment for the indigenous people, increased degrees and certifications earned,
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 59

increased federal aid to provide financial means for education, and increased percentage of state
high school students to state institution to support continued education. Other goals include
increased extramural support to complement legislatively appropriated funds, increased patents
and licenses to bring recognition and revenues to the faculty and institution, increased numbers
in STEM fields, increased output in shortage workforce areas, decreased deferred maintenance,
and increased revenues. More than 650 programs are offered and disciplines include arts,
humanities, science and technology and disciplines unique to the economic engine of the state.
The multi-campus, public higher education institution was identified as possessing
promising practices in a formal leadership program for identified faculty and staff. As an
economic engine for this state, continued leadership is necessary to ensure the state is able to
meet its strategic goals and the institution can support the state in graduating skilled workforce.
According to the institution’s website (2015), for the research, flagship campus, more than 65%
are white faculty, with 31.1% of faculty representing Asian/Pacific Islander population, in 2003;
94% were at rank of full professor in the same year. The average age of administrators was 54
years and the average age of faculty was 49 years. Similar to other higher education institutions,
this institution must implement promising practices for building leadership capacity.
Conceptual Framework
Building leadership capacity is a dynamic process beginning with the identification of
potential leaders. The conceptual framework for this study in Figure 1 built upon talent
identification, knowledge and skill development, and supporting practices development. In
addition, Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) leadership practices guided the research of this study:
model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act and encourage
the heart. The thematic group identified three practices as the primary practices that guided this
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 60

study and most evident in the institution’s promising practices through interviews, observations
and artifacts: model the way, inspire a shared vision and enable others to act.
Once potential leaders are identified through nomination by self or others, the
development of leadership knowledge and skills must occur and is often developed through
learning experiences, assignments and projects, and the organization’s or profession’s standards.
In further development beyond knowledge base, the promising practices include mentoring,
internships, and networking/cohort structures. In building leadership capacity, challenges exist
such as finding willing candidates, the continued funding of such leadership initiatives, and the
evolving curriculum to ensure leaders are versed in the political, socio-economic and technical
environment. Lastly, resources such as human, material and financial resources must be
supported to effectively build a succession plan for the organization.
The retention of leaders at the onset of the development program or once emerged in
various leadership building practices, also requires promising practices. With promising
practices that support hires at the beginning or during a stage of the leadership development
process, a succession plan for sustainable leadership can be achieved. Units within institutions
have implemented leadership building approaches. The study examines the perspectives of
stakeholders of senior administrators and faculty and staff members on the promising practices
within this multi-campus, public higher education institution. The institution faces similar
challenges including aging workforce, increased competition and projected decreasing workforce
as well as shrinking budgets. Such practices may be applicable in institutions that are not
prepared or have minimal programs implemented.
An organization must strategize to ensure the right leaders are in the right seat in the right
vehicle at the right time (Collins, 2001). Given the changing landscape within the institution and
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 61

higher education, the planning and development must be strategized and intentional. Promising
practices, models and tools can help to ensure leaders are prepared and able to lead within public
higher education. The conceptual framework proposed in this study guided the study and
methodologies applied.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework, Ed.D. Thematic Group, 2015.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 62

Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight respondents which included
administrators and faculty and staff members. In addition, observations of the interactions with
senior administrators and new emerging leader program participants provided additional data
source. Documents including program materials, leader messages and job descriptions were
obtained. A letter to invite participants was sent to each identified individuals (Appendix A).
The interview protocols were developed with thematic dissertation group members (Appendix B
and C). One protocol was designed for administrators (Appendix B); the other protocol was
designed for other stakeholders such as teacher or community leaders (Appendix C). The
protocol was tested with a non-participant to assess the clarity of the questions, the richness of
the responses received, and the appropriate timeframe for the interviews. Meetings with each
participant occurred; a meeting with a participant was approximately 60 minutes. A single
meeting occurred unless the meeting was shortened due to other pressing matters for the
administrator; if necessary, a follow-up meeting was scheduled.
Observations were conducted. The observation protocol was also developed with the
thematic dissertation group members (Appendix D). Artifacts including job descriptions,
leadership program curriculum, and chair session curriculum were obtained. Data from
observations and artifacts provided the necessary triangulation to validate the data provided.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 63

Table 1: Participants in Study

Name Role Has served in
Chief Officer
role (system,
campus, unit)
at Institution
Academic/
Non-academic
Background
Time in
Current
Position in
Institution
Years of
Institutional
Service
Casey Administrator Yes Non-Academic Less than 10
years
20+ years
Riley Administrator Yes Academic;
tenured
10+ years 20+ years
Jessie Administrator Yes Non-Academic Less than 10
years
10-15 years
Peyton Administrator Yes Academic;
tenured
Less than 10
years
10-15 years
Avery Faculty Yes Academic;
tenured
Less than 10
years
5-10 years
Skyler Administrator No Non-Academic Less than 10
years
5-10 years
Pat Administrator Yes Academic;
tenured
Less than 10
years
20+ years
Quinn Staff No Non-Academic Less than 10
years
20+ years

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 64

Instrumentation
The data sources were collected through recorded interviews, transcribed interview notes,
handwritten interview notes, observation notes, and post-observation reflective notes and agenda
materials. Protocols were developed and prepared in advance and provided structure and
consistency for both interviews and observations. For this research case, the letter of invitation
and interview and observation protocols were developed with the thematic group and are
included as Appendices A, B, C and D. Some of the observation protocol data were placed in
the observation notes.
Interviews provided perspectives of a variety of stakeholders responsible for supporting
the promising practices as well as those stakeholders who may have received or will receive
information or services from such practices. Semi-structured interviews were used, with
protocols guiding the direction of the interview but allowed for probing questions to gain deeper
understanding and meaning of responses about the phenomenon being studied. Such semi-
structured interviews do not allow for generalizability but allowed for rich, thick data and deep
understanding of the phenomenon through the perspectives of the participants. Appendices B
and C reflects the interview questions used for this study.
Interviews were taped with a recorder and transcribed. Questions asked were based on
the interview protocol, with probing questions to gain additional meaning of the responses.
Questions include respondents sharing perspectives on the organization’s mission and vision as
well as current role and experience as administrator. Interview questions focused on perceptions
of organization’s philosophy/belief about building leadership capacity and the concept of a
succession plan. Lastly, questions regarding the participant’s perspective of leadership
characteristics and traits and the support systems in place were discussed. Handwritten notes
taken during the interview also supplemented the data. The accuracy of the data depended on the
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 65

transcription of the recording and notes, as well as the researcher’s interpretation of the meaning
of responses.
Observational data were gathered in handwritten notes of what transpired during the
observation period. A map was drawn at the beginning of the observation to identify key
individuals being observed including the participants and associated gender and ethnicity.
Verbal and non-verbal communication were observed including focus of eyes, tone of voice,
direction of body, movements during the meeting, and choice of words. Data accuracy was
dependent on the researcher and careful listening and observation of the verbal and non-verbal
communication. Appendix D reflects the observation protocol.
Documents including curriculum and other material from the system leadership program
and campus chair program, and job descriptions were obtained. Such documents provided a base
understanding of aspired positions, comparison if the responses were similar to the
documentation sent, and review of a critical component in a formalized leadership program.
Table 2 displays the appropriate instrument to secure responses to the research questions.
Interviews were conducted with stakeholders and provided data for each research question.
Observations provided data on perceptions of stakeholders on ways the organization builds
future leaders and factors that inhibit the development and implementation of leadership capacity
building strategies. Artifacts also provided data for questions.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 66

Table 2: Research Questions as Instrumentation

Research Question Interviews Observations Artifacts
1. In what ways does the identified
organization work to build the next
generation of leaders?
X X X
2. What are the factors that both facilitate
and inhibit the development and
implementation of strategies designed
to build leadership capacity?

X X X

Data Analysis
Data was analyzed in accordance with Creswell’s (2003) model of six steps in qualitative
research.

Figure 2: Creswell’s (2003) Model for Qualitative Data Analysis
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 67

In Figure 2, Steps 1 involves organizing and preparing the data for analysis, including
transcribing interviews and observation notes. In addition, data collected should be catalogued
and sorted. Step 2 includes examining data, from a general overview and then in depth for
credibility and usefulness. Step 3 includes coding or organizing data into categories. Step 4
includes generating themes to assist with further qualitative study findings resulting in more
complex connections among data. Step 5 involves the description and representation of themes
in the narrative. Step 6 includes making interpretations based on the findings of the qualitative
research.
For this study, the data collected from interviews, observations and documents were
transcribed, where appropriate, and catalogued. Next, the data was reviewed to identify themes,
and later sorted and categorized based on association to a theme. Data was further coded and
specific, less broad, themes were identified. Such themes were then organized into the study
narrative. The final step was to fully analyze all sources of data, make meaning and
interpretation of the themes, and make recommendations based on the findings.
Ethical Considerations
Research was conducted in accordance with the University’s procedures for ethical
conduct in research. The Institutional review board (IRB) approved the thematic group and
researcher’s specific study implementation. Participants interviewed were asked to participate
and voluntarily offered participation. The participants were offered confidentiality and
pseudonyms were used for the participant names to protect the identity of participants. Data was
secured in locked location. Such measures ensure the integrity of future qualitative research.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 68

Summary
This chapter discussed the qualitative case study methodology, data collection and data
analysis used in the study. The method includes interviews, observations and
artifacts/documents. A purposeful sampling was conducted to gain rick, thick, detailed data to
derive meaning and understanding of the perspectives of the participants. The next chapter
presents the findings of the study as it relates to the research questions. The findings then
support the recommendations for future research.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 69

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This chapter reports the findings of the study. The goal of this study was to examine best
practices in building leadership capacity in a higher education setting from the views of
individuals identified as current leaders and faculty and staff members. Eight individuals were
interviewed, two observations were conducted and various artifacts were collected. This chapter
introduces details about the study participants and the results of the study are presented by
research question.
Two research questions were developed to frame the study. To understand the promising
practices implemented on campuses or offices within a multi-campus, public higher education
institution, the two primary questions posed were:
1. In what ways does the identified organization work to build the next generation of
leaders?
2. What are the factors that both facilitate and inhibit the development and
implementation of strategies designed to build leadership capacity?
Data collection occurred via interviews with participants, job descriptions, observations
and program agendas. Individuals were selected based on current institutional roles and
experience. The triangulation of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and
artifacts were used to validate the study’s findings. A brief introduction of the participants is
discussed first. Then the study’s findings for each research question follows.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 70

Participant Profiles
Eight participants were identified for this study and were organizationally located at the
system and campus levels. Four had served as chief executive officer at a system or campus
level. Two were administrators of large programs within the campuses. Three of the eight were
directly involved in managing or coordinating formalized programs. Two individuals were
former department chairs, which eventually led to other administrative positions. Three were
tenured as faculty prior to administration. The time in the current position ranged from less than
one year to more than 10 years; however, four of the eight were previously administrators in
other leadership positions. Three participants completed the president’s emerging leadership
program.
The years of institutional service for participants ranged from eight to more than 30
years, for 176 years of total institutional service. Three participants also had work experience
external to the institution which was outside the 176 years of service. Seven participants had
doctorate degrees. Two participants were male; six participants were female. Five participants
were identified as white; three participants were identified as Asian.
All participants were contacted and agreed to take part in interviews in their offices.
During the interviews, participants shared their experience and perspectives as leaders, and
shared perspectives about building leadership capacity within the institution. The two
observations were program activities, one of which also included a participant presenting on a
higher education topic. Job descriptions were obtained as public documents.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 71

Table 1: Participants in Study

Name Role Has served in
a Chief
Officer role
(system,
campus, unit)
within
Institution
Academic/
Non-
academic
Background
Time in
Current
Position in
Institution
Years of
Institutional
Service
Casey Administrator Yes Non-
academic
Less than 10
years
20+ years
Riley Administrator Yes Academic;
tenured
10+ years 20+ years
Jessie Administrator Yes Non-
Academic
Less than 10
years
10-15 years
Peyton Administrator Yes Academic;
tenured
Less than 10
years
10-15 years
Avery Faculty Yes Academic;
tenured
Less than 10
years
Less than 10
years
Skyler Administrator No Non-
Academic
Less than 10
years
Less than 10
years
Pat Administrator Yes Academic;
tenured
Less than 10
years
20+ years
Quinn Staff No Non-
Academic
Less than 10
years
20+ years

With the understanding of the participant profiles, the remainder of this chapter provides results
for each research question.
Results Research Question One:
Ways the Organization Works to Build the Next Generation of Leaders
The first research question for this study sought to identify ways the stakeholders stated
the organization works to build the next generation of leaders. While consensus was the
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 72

institution did not build leadership capacity well from a broad level and only scratched the
surface of the issue, the participants identified several current efforts that resulted in building
some level of leadership capacity and fostering the development of future leaders. These
identified formal and informal ways provided opportunities for learning and growth in roles and
capacity, including for potential leaders who may not recognize their individual leadership
qualities and capabilities. Isolated investments were made to build leadership capacity through
systemwide and campus initiatives. Stretching opportunities provided exposure, increased
responsibility and expanded the breadth and depth of experience. Support networks were
integrated through such programs and opportunities, and such relationships were fostered in this
environment where relationships were critical to success.
Isolated Investments in Building Leadership Capacity Are Made
Leaders provided direction within the institution and impacted and influenced as larger
state leaders, advancing the institution’s mission externally. Internal programs provided a
structure in which emerging and current leaders developed a knowledge-based foundation
regarding the institution and its resources, such as the economic contributions to the state,
articulation between campuses, and beneficial services to the community such as agriculture,
conflict management, and family resources. Three internal programs were cited as more formal
programs where significant investment of internal and external resources was made. The
President’s emerging leaders program was the most formalized internal program cited by all but
one participant as the program had systemwide participants. Two optional, resource programs
specific to one campus were also referenced by participants: faculty chair sessions and deans
workshops. These three programs utilized a majority of internal presenters and in-house
resources to provide a base foundation of knowledge about the organization, functional areas,
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 73

culture and unstated practices and ways, and network of people connections for participants, as
well as minimized institutional costs. Like academics, while the knowledge base or theories
provided a foundation, the application in a real world situation or the ability to work effectively
with others was critical to measured success. A knowledge foundation and network of
colleagues were ways the institution builds the next generation of leaders, in addition to
encouraging participation in external leadership programs that develop the next generation of
leaders to learn and excel beyond higher education to other business industries and community
organizations within the state.
President’s emerging leaders program. This positively referenced, 10 year program
reflected the systemwide efforts in building leadership capacity within the current organization.
The program idea grew from a discussion between the institution’s Commission on the Status of
Women and the former President with the Commission sharing thoughts about content, skills and
areas needed for individuals who were not typically encouraged to seek leadership roles, i.e.,
women. The program purpose expanded to provide emerging leaders, both male and female,
with grounding in the higher education enterprise. Pat commented on the need and the
“wonderful opportunity with which to home grow and develop our future leaders, in any
different position.”
The program sought to inspire a shared vision and enable others to act, two of Kouzes
and Posner’s (2012) practices, through a rigorous curriculum that occurred over a one year time
period. The curriculum intertwined creative leadership and higher education with fluid, organic
and dynamic agenda topics reflecting the national landscape changes. Agenda topics fostered an
understanding of institutional strategic directions, the academic and research organization, the
principles of academic governance, the goals of access and graduation, the expectations of
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 74

autonomy and accountability in public education, the structure of public budgeting and finance
and a cultural component. Skyler commented that leadership programs touch upon how
decisions are made, the required knowledge, the respective organizational process, and who to
ask for assistance, both internally and externally. Skyler added that this “bridge” fostered future
leaders to work together and to understand and appreciate each other's roles.
The first cohort began in 2007 and completed in 2008, followed by three other cohorts,
2008-2009, 2009-2010, and a currently 2015-16 cohort. A brief hiatus occurred during the years
2009 – 2014 due to the economic recession that impacted available resources. An advisory
group of senior executives, other administrators and past participants contributed to program
structure and diversity in gender and campus representation. This year, participants formally
committed in writing to program completion and were assigned an additional project and
presentation with intent to grow and stretch leadership capacity and experience.
The program structure was modified over time, with the current being four face-to-
face, full meeting days, in the beginning and one full meeting day at the conclusion. During the
year, participants attended few shorter sessions in person or remotely; however, face-to-face
sessions resulted in better participant engagement. Presenters were primarily internal
individuals, providing system and campus perspectives; a few presenters from the institutional
fundraising foundation and state legislature also participated. The initial meetings had set the
program goals and objectives, including opportunity for participants to meet one other and senior
leadership. The involvement of senior leadership at the onset contributed to the program
success, and affirmed the importance of this emerging leader group. Senior leaders described
their individual and diverse leadership paths including influencing factors, mentors and critical
decisions made including the reason to step up and take the leadership role to provide broad
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 75

perspectives. Recent presenters had private and public sector experience, reflecting the broad
application of leadership in all sectors and the necessary support networks and relationships
within both sectors.
The program was implemented, without much detailed planning, and later refined with
each cohort. Over 84 participants in three years of cohorts have participated, with over 50%
having changed titles. Program graduates have returned to their respective campuses or units,
and implemented new programs reflecting the leadership tools gain. Participants commented
that a success of this program was reflected in what graduates did upon completion, from the
very first cohort. Two examples of program graduate initiatives were the faculty chair and dean
sessions which are described in the next sections.
Faculty chair sessions. The program’s success was seen in what graduates accomplish
once leaving the program. A former graduate of the president’s emerging leader program had a
personal affinity for the department chair role and with campus leadership support, and saw the
chair as the first step to administrative roles. The optional sessions gathered new and seasoned
peers and fostered “cross fertilization” for generating solutions. Both Pat and Peyton served as
department chairs, and recognized the chair roles in working with faculty, staff and students to
mediate, facilitate, problem solve and troubleshoot matters, being sandwiched between deans and
the faculty. Participants added that life in the college or school was smoother with prepared
chairs who could manage the day to day issues and bubbling problems. Pat added,
I didn't know what I didn't know…there isn't the binder, the booklet, the website, the
something that says here's the range of duties, responsibilities or here's a calendar of
things that you might want to pencil in…
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 76

Chairs met monthly to communicate trouble shoot matters and find best practices as well
as network with one another and presenters. Peyton further commented on the chair sessions as
opportunity for department chairs to have more direct opportunities for communication with
administrators and others to facilitate better communication and gain knowledge about
institutional initiatives and directions. With approximately 15 to 30 willing and interested
attendees, informal meetings evolved from lecture auditorium to smaller, informal gatherings,
and then expanded to faculty graduate chairs on topics such as the philosophical role of chair,
tenure, promotion, hiring, legal matters, Title IX, and communication skills. These faculty chair
sessions not only communicated initiatives and information regarding the unit and institution, the
sessions also fostered building work relationships and connections.
Peyton attended as a department chair and commented on the impact of this program in
building knowledge, establishing work relationships and connections, knowing who to call for
specific questions, putting names to faces, and identifying individuals who work in a cooperative
manner. Pat described “fertile conversations” resulting from faculty from disparate areas
discussing issues, and gaining a shared experience that facilitated future discussion, collaboration
or other positive outcomes. Pat also added such relationships were important in this state in
performing the work the institution was expected to do and “building the trust, building the
foundation, feeling comfortable shooting an email or picking up the phone…you have that bond
in a way.”
Deans workshops. Deans were another critical leadership group, being sandwiched
between senior administrators and department chairs, and often leading to more senior leadership
positions. Avery stated, “Deans, they need support, they need a chancellor that will work on
their success and make sure that's the message.” The deans workshops were created by another
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 77

graduate of the president’s emerging leaders program with intention to support new deans during
the initial year through monthly, informal meetings throughout the academic year with other
deans and administrators. In the past 5 years in existence, approximately 25 deans participated.
The sessions were 1-1/2 hours, with a presenter for the first half, and questions and answers
during the remaining time. The workshops were also now open to associate deans within the
units of the participating deans to facilitate consistent knowledge base. The schedules for the
faculty chair sessions and deans workshops were in synch to foster same, consistent information
to both groups.
Quinn stated the takeaway message was, “you are not alone” and tools to succeed were
provided. Presenters provided information on who to call regarding situations; deans discussed
situations, shared experiences and equipped themselves on how to deal with various situations.
The Deans were asked to bring live scenarios, and situations typically dealt with people issues.
During the workshops, the Deans were coached on how to address the situation considering the
institutional culture and way. For example, Quinn stated, “They know that being very forceful or
aggressive is not received well, whereas in their other places, that's the only way to
survive…over here you don't do that, because that's when you're going to fail.” Such workshops
were campus-specific investments to build the next generation of senior leaders.
Individual Stretching Opportunities Are Continuously Provided
Leaders looked to individuals who build leadership capability by stretching and testing
themselves, and embracing opportunities to increase responsibility and experience, build
knowledge, and foster networks. In doing so, the individuals built pride in the institution and
contributed to the institution’s success. Skyler commented on Ronald Heifetz, founding director
for the Harvard Center for Leadership, who spoke about risk and leadership and being
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 78

comfortable with a level of risk in trying new things or testing one’s skills that was out of one’s
comfort zone. Kouzes and Posner (2012) reflected upon self-determination and competence
gained in enabling others to act. The participants reflected on the broad knowledge and
increased competency through one’s own individual stretching opportunities, the influence on
direct reports, and their supporting bosses.
Participants shared individual experiences with bosses who took a chance on the
participant, exposed participant to other learning areas, advised participant to be involved in
meetings or projects, and stretched capability. Casey’s bosses and mentors took a chance on
Casey’s potential, exposing to leadership opportunities, profession of higher education in
general, and areas impacted by teaching, learning, research and administration. Casey added,
“That was a very good exposure for me to hang out with those guys and live in that world.”
Riley, began the career at UH as a faculty, but soon engaged in non-faculty work, adding, “What
it really did was put me in touch with the different parts of the institution, and how they
interrelated and begin to learn that in a way that I wouldn't do just as a faculty member inside a
department.” Jessie described how own boss advised on what events or meetings to attend and
what to focus on, and Jessie took the same approach with direct reports. Such experiences in
early leadership roles resulted in providing similar stretching opportunities and experience with
their direct reports.
Kouzes and Posner (2012) also identified creating a climate of trust as key in enabling
others to act. Such courage and bravery to embrace new opportunities, embrace increased
responsibility, develop leadership skills, and take action were important. This institution strived
to build a level of trust for leaders to act. Pat reflected upon own personal experience stating,
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 79

I think in my weird, pragmatic way, I said you know, even if this just does not work out, I
love my department. I love teaching and research. I will just go right back there. It's all
good. I think that gives me the bravery or something to just take on anything that people
offer up to me.
Peyton shared that when accepting a leadership responsibility that would stretch beyond
any other leadership assignment, a level of hesitancy existed but a colleague reminded, "You
think anybody starts a job like that? Knowing how to do the job?" and in reality, "You'll learn as
you go." Such stretching opportunities for emerging and developing leaders provided a level of
training to make progress and build community and pride. Avery shared how individual
progress can be achieved by stating that potential leaders need training and ideas and the ability
to talk with people and put ideas on the table, without consideration of hierarchies. Avery
continued that such progress then builds a sense of pride in leadership and the institution; such
effort and trust in potential leaders was a way the institution was building leadership capacity.
Responsibility, experience and relationships. Stretching opportunities opened eyes,
broadened knowledge and fostered new perspectives, and provided an environment for
individuals to learn and grow together in supporting the institution’s initiatives, operations and
mission. Such opportunities occurred in serving on systemwide committees incorporating
various disciplines and working with other state and national organizations. Riley discussed the
need for “something that gives them a responsibility beyond their immediate job that might
benefit them…. you don't have to necessarily put them into a position where they have to do
everything at once” and that responsibility to run, for example, project based matters allowed
individuals to comfortably stay in their own position and stretch a bit more without being in a
new job. Participants themselves had stepped up or were asked to step up and lead projects;
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 80

now, participants provided individuals the freedom to pursue own projects, fostered a broadened
knowledge about institutional issues, brought awareness on what’s going on and the gaps to be
attentive to, and spoke the same strategic language as existing leaders. Emerging leaders then
related to broader, institutional strategic initiatives, business initiatives and overall industry
changes, growing into leadership positions and making achievements that were not imagined.
Avery concurred,
You have to give people authority, responsibility, and then confront issues if they come
up, and then move on because you don't spend a lot of time dwelling on things that didn't
work as well. You just figure out how to get better. It's all about getting better. Helping
an institution get better, helping the people around you get better. That is actually your
success in administration if you can accomplish that.
While Riley pointedly added that committee work by itself did not grow leaders as it was
too easy to attend committee meetings, participants did agree that committee work was often a
first step in expanding knowledge beyond the individual’s special area or discipline. Committee
work, either by volunteering or assignment, fostered cross-campus or cross-disciplinary
collaboration, negotiation with and between other committee members, and cross-fertilization of
ideas and perspectives from various groups of individuals including other faculty, staff, students
and administrators. Participants reflected that committee work helped to prepare for leadership
roles. Pat commented, “It opened my eyes to other happenings on campus, issues, initiatives”
with an expanded view of what occurred outside of the department, building an appreciation for
campus accomplishments and highlighting talented and committed faculty across the campus.
Other opportunities, such as participation in faculty senate or as senate executive committee
member, also provided opportunity for involvement in campus-wide matters and building a
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 81

broadened knowledge base. Peyton described personal experience as committee chair in gaining
experience in diffusing situations with colleagues regarding new program initiatives, and
encouraging faculty to approach working with administrators and non-faculty from a non-
adversarial approach. By increasing responsibility and authority, individuals stretched capacity
and expanded knowledge capacity.
In addition, leading projects or participating in programs such as the president’s emerging
leaders program, chairs sessions or deans workshops, provided a shared experience that fosters
relationships of colleagues to call upon in the future or as Riley described, “touch points.”
Riley pointed that situations have to be created where individuals are placed into leadership
roles, “that both helps them hone their leadership skills, but just as importantly, gives them the
contacts and relationships that they are going to need, if they move up into the job.“ The
relationships in the institution were more critical given the low turnover relative to other
institutions in other states. With the low turnover, leaders were expected to have established
relationships and since a leader cannot easily relocate, the cultivation and use of relationships
were necessary. Riley had set up situations where individuals developed relationships; Peyton
recognized the lesser degrees of separation, e.g., three degrees in this state. Increased
responsibility, expanded experience and strong work relationships were ways that the institution
builds the next generation of leaders.
Feedback and confidence. Continuous feedback was provided by participants to
potential leaders in support of building the next generation of leaders and their confidence.
Kouzes and Posner (2012) identified the practices of challenging the process, enabling others to
act and encouraging the heart that support learning through increased responsibility, confidence-
building and celebrating wins. Riley encouraged others and provided feedback by stating, “I
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 82

know you can do this" or "stay doing what you're doing and do this"; and as confidence grows,
more responsibility followed. Riley added,
If I think they've got the ability and it's just a matter, they don't have the confidence, then
it's about my ability to articulate to them, why I think they can do it, and whether they're
uncomfortable that they'll get enough support to make it happen. In some cases, there are
legitimate reasons why they just don't want to do it. Then it's probably not in my best
interest to say, "Well you can do it, I'm going to make you do it anyway.”
Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) practices also support a climate of learning for leaders and
those who are being led. Avery recognized the need for constant learning, feedback and moving
forward after mistakes and stated, “If you're constantly learning, first of all, you're never bored
and it's really a joy…sometimes you make mistakes because you haven't learned fast enough but
that's normal…people are looking for perfection in leaders, they should not. They should expect
them to explain, and if they make a mistake, say so…then move on.” Riley cautioned executives
getting involved to provide feedback or help an individual when things are not going smoothly; a
perception of protection of an individual by the executive may develop among others. A careful
balance was needed to enable individuals to act and build confidence and provide the guidance
and assistance for an outcome. Jessie also cautioned when not being asked to participate in
committees or other work, reflecting that an individual needs to have a level of self-reflection
and intuition to know “when you're not the one getting put on these things or being asked to do
these great projects, you kind of have to step back and think how come?” Feedback to potential
leaders not only reaffirmed good actions, but also provided ways to correct an undesired action.
Feedback enabled individuals to self-reflect and built confidence in a positive environment that
built experience and skills as a leader.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 83

Support Networks Are Integrated And Fostered
In all interviews, the importance of support networks contributed to the building of
leadership capacity, including support system of colleagues, supervisors and others, and
coaching and mentoring provided by a range of respected individuals. This theme supported
Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) principle of enabling others to act by increasing self-determination
and developing confidence. Peyton reflected upon a positive support network as being necessary
for any new leader, knowing which people to ask, knowing what to ask, and having honest
support network of individuals. Peyton shared, “I had great colleagues and friends….who can
tell me when I’m being a jerk.” Other support initiatives such as coaching and mentoring were
cited with participants acknowledging that potential leaders must be engaged and willing to
accept these other forms of support. These approaches provided another source of perspectives
for potential leaders to grow, learn and examine knowledge and experience gained through
formalized programs, stretching opportunities and interactions with others. First, a support
system of colleagues and others, internal or external, was critical to developing leaders;
participants identified and described support systems in this institution as emerging leaders
adjust to new roles together, to learn and complete projects as team, to call upon when there is an
unfamiliar situation or issue, and to find support when things are going right or not as desired.
Participants reflected on informal breakfast meetings with colleagues as a way for new leaders to
adjust in new roles, supervisors standing beside direct reports, and the creation of pilot programs
to build confidence and reduce fear. In addition, various other approaches are used at the
institution.
Second, Kouzes and Posner (2012) identified coaching as an approach to developing
competence and confidence in leaders. Participants described informal and formal forms of
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 84

coaching support including providing advice and guidance and serving as a sounding board to
discuss new and unfamiliar situations. Specifically, in one institution, a formalized coaching
program had been implemented for deans, to help foster success as a dean within the culture of
the institution and state in addition to the new deans workshops. The deans had to be open to
being coached, able to self-reflect, and discuss leadership strengths and needed improvements.
One campus provided opportunity for coaching by an external coach who was a trained, certified
psychologist for individuals in dean positions, with initial funding of a certain amount by the
vice chancellor and balance to be paid by the dean’s budget allocation. In addition, since July
2015, this same campus provided optional, in-house coaching available to new deans, spending
an initial two days with an internal coach followed by monthly one-on-one meetings. Initial
topics included budget, tenure and promotion, collective bargaining agreement provisions, and
other pertinent matters especially critical people and behavioral matters, followed by monthly
discussions on what was working, what was not working and what assistance was needed to
address complex issues. The coaching fostered a safe place for deans to discuss issues outside
the unit.
Third, mentoring was identified by every participant interviewed as an important support
structure to build leadership capacity. While a formal mentoring program did not exist, pockets
of informal mentoring occurred on a regular basis, beyond merely talking story, to help navigate
through situations and processes. The majority the participants were from academic
backgrounds, and therefore mentoring comments were from an academic, mentoring perspective.
Avery described mentoring as a curriculum vitae building enhancing the type of experiences by
identifying opportunities to increase experience and build relationships. Pat referenced an
existing mentoring program, cautioning that proper match-ups between mentor and mentee must
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 85

be “carefully and deftly done” to match the right person with the right personality and interests
with a level of comfort to build trust and facilitate open discussions. Avery also mentored
emerging leaders; for example, for a nervous, poor communicator, Avery offered to video-tape
and critique the individual to provide feedback on communication and presentation skills. In
some cases, Avery mentored individuals who, as Collins would state, is not in the right seat in
the bus, or as Avery stated, and is not in the right pew for their skills. Avery added, “Those are
the ones you really want to get out of there fast, because they can’t succeed. It's not that they lack
talent; it's the wrong talent for that job. You must get them into one that fits.” Participants
affirmed that mentoring within the institution provided a form of support and honest guidance to
help a potential leader to grow, be successful in new experiences, and build a curriculum vitae
that reflects progressive responsibility and accomplishments.
Discussion Research Question One
The participants recognized the president’s emerging leaders program as the one
formalized systemwide program the institution had implemented to create the next generation of
leaders. All other practices were informal and campus specific practices, such as the deans
workshops and chair sessions. Participants acknowledged that the latitude their supervisors had
given them early in their careers allowed them to grow and “stretch” themselves in developing
projects and work that involved more responsibility and exposure. Stretching assignments
involved some risk and future leaders had to be ready and comfortable with such risk. In
addition, the relationships built and contacts made, along with feedback received, continued to
help emerging leaders prepare for new opportunities with increased responsibilities and
confidence. Other practices identified included support network, coaching and mentoring with
goal to provide a “life preserver”, using internal and external resources.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 86

While the formal initiatives were limited, the institutional members including its leaders
have taken on the responsibility to prepare future leaders with existing resources. Participants
looked back at their own opportunities and used such experience to support emerging leaders in
similar or modified ways. The caution for the institution is the lack of a consistent approach may
prepare short-term and pockets of leaders. However, the inconsistency will hinder the
preparation of a long-term, leadership team that has common knowledge base and experience to
draw from in providing direction, developing goals, and making decisions in the best interest of
the institution and its constituents.
Results Research Question Two: Factors that Both Facilitate and Inhibit the Development
and Implementation of Strategies Designed to Build Leadership Capacity
Participants provided candid comments and insights on factors that both facilitated and
inhibited the development and implementation of strategies, with majority of participants
focusing on the inhibiting factors. The ability to be self-reflective supported the desire to
improve and strive for excellence. In discussing these factors with participants, commonalities
surfaced on what factors currently facilitated and inhibited strategies to build leadership capacity.
Facilitating Factors
Three factors were identified as facilitating building leadership capacity. Participants
included system and campus level leaders and affirmed the collective recognition that building
leadership capacity was needed for the institution. Current institutional programs such as the
president’s leadership program or campus deans workshops facilitated the knowledge base
necessary for supporting a multi-campus, public institution. Lastly, investment in future leaders
was occurring through cross-campus committees, interim appointments and participation in local
and national programs.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 87

Senior leadership collectively recognizes the need. Participants recognized the need to
build leadership capacity, owned the responsibility to build leadership capacity, and worked in
some manner to build such capacity. The leadership commitment to the larger institution was a
key to a successful leadership building plan and a healthy, growing organization, assessing
organizational gaps, strengths and development areas. Of the six system, campus or large unit
program leaders, only one participant had set to become a high ranked administrator as a career
but all found themselves in high level positions. Riley described it as a flowing river, stating “I
heard once in a while, there is a fork, you have to decide which one to go over….it wasn't
something organized set of, I know what I want to be when I grow up, as much as this is where it
was taking me, it was of interest to me.” Participants were then identified as up and coming
leaders and now sought individuals to be the next generation of leaders.
Casey emphasized that leaders must look at people in the organization, at all levels and
all the time to identify talent and determine how to nurture the talent, and added, “We have to be
intentional about it… paying attention to who are the up-and-comers, and how do we support
them and have one or more credible internal candidates for that position who represent the
diversity that this institution aspires.” Avery stated that leaders should always search for
replacements, and added “you need that kind of view that is not just about you. It's about we and
this institution, and you have to prepare other people to assume those responsibilities.”
In addition, current senior leadership levels reflected the non-traditional, non-department
chair paths to administration. The value of having tenure to be an administrator was changing
depending on campus type. Three of five participants currently served as senior chief officers
and began leadership paths as a department chairs; however, two participants were not tenured
faculty members or former department chairs. Participants recognized the people skills
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 88

necessary for leaders, from working with various employee groups to having the skills to
facilitate, mediate and negotiate, for example, with unions, which may be different than the
traditional model. Jessie reflected that 90% of work was people issues and some traditional, “50-
year mindsets” should change before we prevent people from doing great things and the
institution loses potentially great leaders.
As a tenured faculty, Riley was not a department chair and attributed work relationships
outside of a department as a contributing success as an administrator, stating work relationships
“put me in touch with the different parts of the institution, and how they interrelated”. Jessie was
a non-tenured, non-full faculty rank administrator, with a leadership path influenced by non-
higher education, private sector leadership experience in building humility and hard work ethics.
However, the value of full professor rank and tenure status may continue to be warranted for
certain types of positions such as the research campus. Pat specifically commented on the power
dynamics for a tenured faculty, who was not at full faculty rank, serving as the department chair
and making tough decisions that make full professors unhappy, addressing “horrible teaching”,
or managing full faculty rank members who go “rouge”. Delicacy was needed when “a
department chair conflicts with being a colleague”, or when a former department chair must go
up for promotion to full professor or tenure and the current department chair was adversely
impacted by a former decision.
Current instructional structure and programs. The institution was comprised of a
range of campus types from community colleges to baccalaureate and research institutions. As
such, opportunities to build leaders with a varied knowledge base were needed and pockets of
emerging leaders were identified at various stages of a career based on leader-specific programs.
As a single, public institution, the president’s emerging leaders program was a systemwide
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 89

program that complemented individual campus programs such as the deans workshop and
external local and national leadership programs. In addition, the leadership needs were
different for a research campus or system level, for example, in the recruitment approach and
chairs sessions. Specifically for research institutions, Avery commented that there is chaos in
every research institution and that is normal, and added that “people have to understand that
research institutions are messy” and “messy everywhere, and that's normal…that's the creativity
you want.”
Participants reflected on the leadership challenges and stated that leaders in this
institution need to want to serve. Casey added that potential leaders need to be “open-
minded…pretty relentless” where getting to “yes” is challenging in a world of “no”. Given the
interest in the president’s emerging leaders program and the number of graduates, a pool of
potential leaders with a common knowledge base was growing and learning to get to “yes”.
Participants reflected on the timing for individual development during a career, being open to
learning and networking opportunities, and ready to invest in themselves. Riley managed an
individual’s ambition, emphasizing that the individual’s mind must be focused on the
opportunity and cannot be forced.
Participants sought the right time for the right person to move to the next step and be
successful, including exposing the potential leader to new responsibilities, people and situations;
identifying those who embrace leading groups such as committees, and listening to career goals
and desired development opportunities. Riley focused on stretching and growing identified,
engaged future leaders by creating opportunities for increased responsibility while gaining the
exposure to ideas and people beyond the state. Jessie worked with new faculty leaders through
committee work, projects or student issues, and identified potential leaders who generated
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 90

resolution to issues, implemented resolutions, and worked with freedom, confidence and trust.
In discussing entry level management appointments with other leaders, Riley added they discuss,
“Is it appointment of convenience or is there something they are trying to develop? Where does
this person fit? Is it temporary thing until the right person comes along?”
Jessie added that a general maturity level comes with being a professional; Jessie seeks
such maturity coupled with “thinking out of the box”, doing something different and having
confidence, and continued, “The rest we can give people.” Pat reflected upon the timing of
developing potential faculty leaders, in addition to integrity, passion and reputation, and stated,
“When you see those folks that really express an interest beyond just the department and their
teaching and research, then I think that's the time to groom”.
Intentional investments in people are occurring. All but one of the participants
recognized the president’s emerging leaders program as an example of a practice used by the
institution and a foundation for building a stronger, systemic approach towards building and
training our next generation of leaders. Riley commented that the more the institution continues
to do to make leadership development as multi-campus, systemwide leadership development, not
campus leadership development, “ the more that people understand the different parts of the
university and how they interact, the better they're going to be as leaders down the road”; then
campus leadership development programs complemented systemwide programs.
A broader understanding of the higher education enterprise, the state and the institution
was provided through programs and stretching opportunities, assisting potential leaders to view
things on a broader level, considering and connecting different thoughts and ideas to best serve
the institution. An understanding of the organization, its people and culture; the state
infrastructure and politics; the interconnections; the changing higher education landscape; the
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 91

lesser degrees of separation; and the higher value of relationships in this community relative to
other state institutions facilitated building leaders. Skyler also added that the institutional
strength was the “responsiveness to the community”, and stated the potential for a “Leadership
for the Public Good” program.
Investments to assist future leaders to understand how the institution affected the quality
of life from education, research and financial perspectives was critical. The trust, relationships
and cultural awareness were important to accomplish goals, as education is a “different animal”
than the business environment and required time to understand and make changes within the
environment. Avery added that in other states, leaders can move to other institutions and
therefore, limited fear existed in taking risks. However, in this state, Avery added, “You have to
have people get to know you, but change is fearful for people, particularly here…there's a fear
that if something goes wrong with your job or your lives or whatever, you have to leave.”
Participants reflected for a potential leader to succeed, the individual must want to
explore leadership and embrace opportunities to gain experience and increase knowledge and
skills. Opportunities were outside job descriptions, complemented current work experience and
built new experience and confidence. Opportunities included serving on boards, working on
systemwide projects with other campus colleagues, and serving in interim leadership roles.
Coaching, mentoring and opportunities for “touch points” also reflected intentional investment.
Participants recognized honesty was necessary for individuals to be effective in their
jobs, achieving the goals set forth and being contributing members to their team. Intentional
investment through opportunities provided experience and confidence as well as guiding and
redirecting individuals to positions where success was achieved. Collins (2001) addressed
finding the right seat for the right individual on the bus. Avery added,
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 92

People are sometimes in the wrong pew for their skills. Those are the ones you really
want to get out of there fast, because they can’t succeed. It's not that they lack talent; it's
the wrong talent for that job. You must get them into one that fits. Those are the most
tragic in a lot of cases because they're always miserable… they can’t possibly succeed.
If a leader needs to change a person’s seat or move the individual to another bus, a leader
is doing the person a favor as the match will match the individual’s skills.
Inhibiting Factors
The participants expressed genuine care for the institution and its future. Several factors
were commonly identified as inhibiting building leadership capacity. A lack of a unifying
philosophy was identified foremost which would provide some purposeful or intentional
planning strategies and initiatives. The lack of resources to invest in existing leaders at all levels,
in addition to potential leaders, was lacking. In addition, the challenges in advancing an
institution amidst an evolving landscape for a sole public higher education institution required
keeping leaders inspired and focused. Lastly, the lack of value by all stakeholders of needed
leadership contributed to the challenges in securing and retaining effective administrators.
Lack of unifying philosophy. Participants quickly identified the lack of a unifying
philosophy from a systemwide perspective in building leadership capacity as an inhibiting factor,
and stated that succession planning efforts was near zero, planning was not purposeful or
intentional, and the institution was behind or not near where the institution needed to be for such
efforts. Casey bluntly stated that the institution was in terrible shape, Peyton commented on the
stress in keeping operations going, and Skyler described the current efforts as ‘haphazard,”
“scattered” and lacking a “stepping stone approach”. Participants agreed that investments in
building leadership capacity must be aligned with institutional goals and strategic leadership to
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 93

advance the institution. Stretching, mentoring and coaching opportunities coupled with honest
feedback must align with institutional goals and the lack of a consistent approach hindered the
institution’s ability to prepare for the future. Benchmarks and goals were needed to identify
what the institution will do in building leadership capacity, eliminating the current “swim or
swim” approach with no “life preserver” for new or existing leaders. In addition, Peyton
commented on the great majority of leaders remained white, older men, and the need to address
diversity in an institutional philosophy.
Lack of resources to invest in all leadership levels. Participants identified the lack of
dedicated investment in resources (time, financial, human and other support resources) occurred
at the campus and system levels including stretching, shadowing, coaching and mentoring
opportunities for all leadership levels, from entry leaders to seasoned leaders. The reliance on
internal resources with or without expertise in the areas may advance the institution to a certain
point, impact long-term stability, and result in the inability to meet strategic goals, meet
instructional and research needs, and address demands from various constituencies. Jessie
added that if we truly want to grow better, future leaders, then “we want them to be well-
prepared so they don't fail.”
Pat specifically identified a need for a “sanctioned” role assigned to purposely develop
the institutional strategy to build leadership capacity, recognize the value to the institution and
advance a central, leadership training program. The long-term planning for the institution
remained a challenge in light of legislative external demands and impact on internal resources
when budgets may be cut every year. Avery emphasized the need to keep focused on “the
knothole on the tree in the short-term” and added that leaders get distracted but must see how to
make the “institution better in 10, 15, 20 years”. Riley commented that a mix of homegrown and
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 94

external people was necessary to find good leaders and develop into successful leaders. A
continued investment in developing new and existing leaders benefitted the institution.
However, a cyclical effect occurred as potential leaders were being mentored and coached, at
best, by existing leaders who may not have such skill sets.
Evolving institutional landscape. The constantly evolving landscape and bureaucracy
of the institution, influenced and impacted by a number of internal and external factors and
groups, were challenging. The changing federal requirements and expectations for K-12, the
local government funding and external funding sources, and the power of the labor unions in the
state impacted the landscape. Such challenges must be understood and appreciated. Avery
commented that an institutional, bureaucratic danger was leaders found the little things too
difficult and focused on the knothole on the tree instead of the forest. Leaders failed to
understand that solutions differ for different places and could not always be transplanted, and
proper assessment as to what fit the institution was needed.
The institution’s high turnover for administrators compared with low turnover of faculty,
resulted in new administrators working with faculty with long memories. Participants previously
commented on the three degrees of separation in this state, and leaders must also be aware of the
internal and external political climate, relationship-based discussions and actions (“who you
know”), and various influential stakeholders as the unions, legislators, and business and
community organizations. Likewise, the impact of burning bridges was more challenging to
manage as there was no other public higher education institution in the state to move. In
addition, views on higher education related issues were limited to a single state newspaper and a
single owner for three of the five major television stations. The navigation can be different and
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 95

challenging for an unprepared leader given the culture of the institution and state without careful
navigation of external and internal factors that can hinder success in leadership.
Lesser stakeholder value of leadership and leadership changes. Participants
commented on the institution’s thin amount of leaders, relative to other institutions, and the
“bloat” perception of administration by faculty, governing board and legislature which
contributed to the challenge of building a leadership plan amidst keeping the institution running
with reduced resources. Casey added, “everybody is so busy trying to do four jobs that it's very
challenging to spend time on this.” Participants reflected that respect for administrators and the
institution is needed, and leaders must advocate for the whole, not for specific areas of personal
interest or investment, and understand the complexity and depth of issues. Pat commented that
administration is not about the individual power, salary or influence as it takes a “village” to
make something happen. Pat added that administration “is not for the faint at heart” and
participants added that leaders must have integrity, tenacity and “perspective-taking”; understand
the faculty and staff roles and constraints; manage relationships and social influence; have
presence and positive disposition to internal and external community; and make tough decisions
and do things for the “right reasons”. Avery spoke about the “switch” that may occur when
faculty realize they want to work in administration and be a “good university citizen”, cautioning
that individuals who are not ready for administration may resent the time the job takes, or need to
deal with faculty criticism when moving to administrator positions. Leaders must love what
they do.
While faculty members are valued for their discipline related credentials, such credentials
and related accomplishments may not be relevant for determining leadership potential. A good
faculty member did not equate to a good administrator. The negotiated provision in the faculty
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 96

contract limiting time the faculty member can serve as an administrator jeopardized the faculty
fallback right and fostered short-term leaders. Regardless, leaders get “beaten up” all the time
and Avery added, “The hardest thing in leadership is putting your nose on it and sticking to it” as
other priorities will arise and people will try to change a leader’s direction.
Discussion Research Question Two
Participants shared that several factors facilitated building leadership capacity. The
facilitating factors included that senior leadership collaboratively recognized the need to build
leadership, there was a single system leadership program that provided a foundation, and
opportunities existed for individuals to “stretch” themselves through cross-discipline and cross-
campus opportunities. The fruit of such endeavors will be seen over time, but immediate
investment and commitment were needed in the development of faculty and staff at the start of
employment, in leadership roles such as committee chairs and department chairs, and in higher
ranked positions.
Limiting factors also inhibited the expansion of such capacity. Leaders identified the
lack of a unifying philosophy, the limited resources including time, financial and human
resources, the challenge of an evolving public higher education landscape, and the lack of value
and respect of the administrator role and responsibility by various stakeholders. Participants
agreed a larger, formal systemic approach was needed that is guided and supported by an
overarching philosophy in senior leadership responsibility to build leadership capacity and make
institutional, intentional investment in resources. Such investment included focus on long-term
planning and institutional investment in a formal, structured approach that bridges faculty into
leadership roles. Certain skills sets such as management, communication and decision-making
could not be taught but gained through opportunities and experience. A comprehensive approach
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 97

to leadership training with components of opportunities, shadowing, mentoring, coaching and
network building could provide a well-rounded approach. A hybrid of common and customized
programs could facilitate leaders with broad understanding of institutional perspectives
complemented with campus specific agendas.
A common participant sentiment was the need for stakeholders to value administrators at
all levels within the institution; such administrators see the bigger picture and make decisions
that are best for the whole institution. In addition, the understanding and appreciation of the
evolving landscape inclusive of the culture and environment were critical, impacting individual
success or resilience to the changing landscape. The best approach was to embrace the challenge
of maneuvering through such landscape and plan strategically on how to approach.
Summary
This chapter discussed the study’s findings by research question and outlined the ways
the organization builds the next generation of leaders, and the factors that both facilitated and
inhibited the development and implementation of strategies designed to build leadership capacity
as viewed by eight individuals, six who serve as system, campus or unit administrators. The
results indicated that while the institution did have several good practices in place, only one
program was geared towards building leadership capacity systemwide across the multiple
campuses and system level offices. Therefore pockets of emerging leaders were identified and
knowledge of higher education, the state and the institution was broadened which provided a
foundation for potential leaders to grow and navigate through the challenges in the public higher
education realm.
Chapter 5 examines the implications of these results and offers suggestions for future
research to provide more insight on building leadership capacity in this institution.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 98

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The success of an organization depends on many things including its people and
leadership assets. Leaders provide the vision and strategy to transform an organization, inspiring
its community to successfully accomplish its mission and goals. Globalization and competition
continues to increase, and higher education is not immune to such influences. A shortage of
interested leaders and the lack of prepared leadership amidst retirements, declining workforce,
and evolving industry landscape necessitates higher education to intentionally invest in building
leadership capacity.
The leaders who participated in the study recognized the need to build leaders over time,
with an ongoing, systemic process to identify a pool of individuals who could transform an
organization and achieve excellence in education, research, discovery and community service. A
pool of leaders who were prepared and equipped to navigate through the changing higher
education landscape on global, national and statewide fronts, in light of shrinking budgets and
new generations of leadership values and perspectives, was critical for the institution’s growth
and success.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine promising practices of building leadership
practices within a multi-campus, public higher education institution consisting of two-year, four-
year and research campuses. The first goal of the study was to understand ways this institution
utilizes to build the next generation of leaders and to understand the methods and approaches
used to facilitate leadership capacity development. The second goal was to understand the
factors that both facilitate and inhibit the development and implementation of strategies to build
leadership capacity within the institution.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 99

Practices were examined through the perspectives of eight stakeholders representing
senior administrators and faculty and staff members through the qualitative methodology of
interviews, observations and artifacts. The theoretical framework of Kouzes and Posner’s (2012)
overarching practices in guiding the research of promising practices in this institution and the
conceptual framework developed by the thematic group guided the research. Creswell’s (2013)
model guided the data analysis steps in analyzing the rich, thick detailed descriptions primarily
obtained through semi-structured interviews and supplemented by observations and artifacts.
The summary of the research findings are organized in response to the research questions
below:
1. In what ways does the identified organization work to build the next generation of
leaders?
2. What are the factors that both facilitate and inhibit the development and
implementation of strategies designed to build leadership capacity?
Interviews were conducted in the respective participant’s office, observations of group
settings were made, and a review of job descriptions and program materials were completed.
Literature was limited in describing programs and approaches for large, higher education
institutions such as multi-campus institution and relatively silent on the financial, human and
material resources and costs for leadership development programs. In this study, participants
provided insight on how a public sector institution, already impacted by baby boomer
retirements, new millennial generation workforce, and limited resources, was prepared in
building leadership capacity. Literature also reflected public sector academic institutions that
lack long-term vision and traditional approaches in hiring practices and leadership sources. The
study provided some insight on the approaches this institution made beyond short-term goals.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 100

Summary of the Findings
The candid responses of the participants revealed much vulnerability of the institution for
future success. Participants focused on the lack in building leadership and the many limitations,
but during the interviews, were able to identify pockets of practices that have positively
contributed to developing potential leaders. All but one participant recognized the president’s
emerging leaders program as a significant institutional effort, and two campus initiatives were
described in helping to guide campus specific leaders. Individual stretching opportunities such
as participating or leading committee work in same discipline or cross-discipline provided
valuable experience, perspective and knowledge upon which to further build leadership capacity.
Participants acknowledged the importance of relationships and touch points, as providing long-
lasting relationships that develop over a career. Feedback and self-reflection opportunities in a
positively supported environment built confidence for potential leaders and more responsibility
followed. Support networks from supervisors, and colleagues, coupled with external and internal
coaching and mentoring provide added practices to build leadership capacity.
While practices were identified, pockets of leaders were developed and development for
department chairs as critical entry points were lacking. With the various practices in leadership
programs, stretching opportunities, limited coaching and mentoring, and support networks, the
knowledge, nuances and “survival tools” of higher education within this state’s environment was
broadened. The understanding of the various factors impacting the environment was critical for
success.
The institution’s senior leadership at both the system and research campus levels changed
several times over the past 14 years. Most recently, the president and six of seven vice
presidents changed in the past three years, with the majority changing in the past one and half
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 101

years. From a board governance perspective, the changing of regents especially the backgrounds
of regents, albeit staggered terms, did add another challenging level. Such a transition may be
reflected in the candid comments and perceived focus on numerous limitations. The institution
has had to address national issues such as tuition policy, sexual assault, veteran education
benefits, alignment of standards with post-secondary education agendas, performance, funding
and financial aid. In addition, the institution has also had to navigate through the state’s political
environment, reduced funding and community demands and expectations. The institution has
been under more scrutiny by its legislature, placing additional pressure on the regents and
administration to “fix” things or risk adverse impact to funding and authority, increased negative
media attention, and other legislative demands that divert resources away from high priority
areas.
With the landscaped described, the institution has been faced with maintaining operations
with lean resources and building limited leadership capacity. However, participants agreed that
building this capacity was critical. The participants expressed several common factors that
facilitated and inhibited building leadership capacity. Participants included senior leaders at
both system and campus levels that strongly recognized the need to build leadership capacity,
and while there was a unifying perspective that the institution had no approach, the participants
themselves knew building this capacity required their time and priority. In addition, the study
reflected that the current structure and programs facilitated the ability to build a broad foundation
of knowledge and experience across community college, baccalaureate and research campuses.
The president’s emerging leaders program provided opportunity for potential leaders across the
institution to build common knowledge and understanding, and provided exposure for further
opportunities. The last facilitating factor was that stretching opportunities such as cross-
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 102

discipline or cross-campus committees or interim appointments were provided by current leaders
in an effort to provide learning experiences and increase touching points.
Participants were also candid about the factors that hinder building leadership capacity.
Participants identified the lack of a unifying philosophy for the institution in its endeavor to build
leaders. The philosophy would set priority and goals for building leadership and provide a
consistent and developing knowledge and experience base for leaders at all levels. The
commitment begins higher than senior administrators; given the governance structure, the
institution must also be supported by the governing regents who must further advocate with the
legislature, a significant funding source for the public institution.
In addition, the lack of resources, including time, financial and human resources to invest
in up and coming as well as existing leaders resulted in a haphazard approach with hopeful goal
of preparing leaders for critical positions including department chairs, deans and assistant deans,
and campus and system administrators. Dedicated resources, such as the president’s emerging
leaders program, keeps the institution focused on the goal. Investment in planning and formally
integrating stretching opportunities, shadowing, networking, coaching and mentoring from a
broader, comprehensive perspective, where such opportunities and efforts complement each
other in a structured program, strengthens the pool of leaders. The placement of existing and
potential leaders in the right seat on the bus supports institutional excellence and success. In
addition, leadership development begins with junior faculty, recognizing the department chair as
the critical entry point in gaining a small perceptive into an administrative role.
The evolving landscape in public higher education in the state results in factors that
hinder building leadership capacity. The increased compliance, decreasing state support, leaner
workforce and higher expectations by all stakeholders brought challenges and frustrations for ill-
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 103

prepared leaders and even experienced leaders. The participants identified the changing
landscape, and perhaps the additional involvement or interference by external forces, depending
on one’s perspective, in the leadership or management of the institution which diverts energy and
efforts from building such leadership capacity. In this relatively small community, the degrees
of separation were reduced and higher education affairs were highly publicized and political
areas.
Lastly, a perceived negative value of an administrator did not facilitate building
leadership capacity. Even if the institution was able to identify and/or recruit willing, interested
potential leaders, the institution must be also able to retain such leaders for the long-term and
keep them engaged in a multitude of challenging agendas and issues. All but one participant did
not plan to be a senior executive; however, all accepted leadership opportunities and continued
on to higher level positions as a result of stretching opportunities and sound support network in
addition to leadership skills, experience and desire to better the whole institution.
The caring, concerned voices of these leaders in the interviews articulated the selfless
desires to see the institution grow and excel. All but one participant began their leadership
career at the institution which reflected an interesting perspective of developing “homegrown”
leadership.
Recommendations for Practice and Policy
The findings of the study have implications for practice and policy making in supporting
and building leadership capacity within this institution. Other public institutions may also find
the results of this study beneficial to supporting their own initiatives and efforts. The following
are recommendations for practices and policy and describes the implications for such
recommendations.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 104

The call for institutions to focus on building leadership capacity must begin at the highest
national and state levels. National and state influence on stretching assignments, relationships
and mentoring from a higher education industry standpoint would facilitate long-term planning
to support public higher education agenda and goals, including public investment in building its
own leaders and resources to provide some foundational level of training. A resolution in the
next state legislative session to call for a task force to have initial discussions on building
leadership capacity for all state departments can be introduced to as a starting assessment point
for future legislatively mandated and funded state programs.
Likewise, a governing regents policy must also align to the national and state agenda to
build leadership capacity and mandate intentional investment and resources for building
leadership capacity. A sanctioned office at the highest level of university administration
dedicated to building leadership capacity across the system is necessary. Policy must be
implemented through an integrated, complementary and comprehensive approach in stretching
opportunities and other support resources. A mentoring group approach, rather than one-on-one
approach, for the president’s emerging leaders mentoring program may provide longer-term
support. In addition, a systemwide online center for professional development, perhaps
supported by former emerging leader graduates, can serve as a needed resource for junior
faculty, aspiring administrators and current leaders. With campuses across the state, the online
center can reach more faculty and staff.
In the interim, an additional staff member to join the president’s emerging leaders
program team can help to begin the integration of stretching and other support resources into the
systemwide program. With the lean staffing levels, graduate students may provide fresh ideas in
building agendas, leveraging technology for development programs, and aligning projected
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 105

student population with workforce planning. In addition, partnerships with campus resources
such as faculty who specialize in different disciplines applicable to leadership development such
as management, negotiations, communication and finance would provide a starting point for
program expansion. In addition, past leaders may provide insight and perspectives on navigating
through the university and the state higher education, political and cultural climate. With these
starting initiatives, the institution can be better prepared to provide the key instructional,
research, student and administrative services.
A formalized and centralized program can maximize central and campus resources, and
provide broad exposure, campus exchanges and development opportunities for leaders across the
system and not limit to a specific campus. Without financial and human resources, managing
and maintaining the program is challenging. In the interim, past president’s emerging leadership
program graduates can foster mentoring groups as support for new leaders; likewise, senior
administrators with ten plus years of experience also can provide mentoring for current leaders
with five to ten years of experience. Mentoring can be accomplished with monthly breakfast
meetings or phone conversations. In addition, shadowing opportunities would benefit lean
leadership areas such as student affairs, providing broad and direct experience for potential
leaders that cannot be gained at the home institution.
To support leaders and ensure an environment that is focused on the whole, the students
served and the institutional goals and responsibilities, one of the participants suggested a
mandatory university citizen program. In examining the study results, this program would be
developed to expose faculty and staff on being responsible university citizens, with identified
responsibilities for understanding and respecting the university, for serving as positive mentors
for other colleagues or junior faculty and staff, and for fostering an environment that supports
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 106

respectful communication, high performance and accountability for actions; such a program
contributes to building a good environment for leaders to tend to broader, critical issues while
ensures daily operations continue in a healthy work environment. Without an environment that
supports a leader, other issues and lack of leadership at all levels can distract from focusing on
priority matters such as access and graduation. An environment where faculty and staff are
responsible and accountable for a positive and productive environment supports the success of
the leader.
Lastly, leaders must also show joy in being a leader. One particular participant
emphasized this point as leader roles can be lonely and leaders must build and have a support
mechanism that refreshes oneself by oneself, refilling the own personal “candy jar”. Such
approaches may be developed through the facilitation of fun and informal gatherings, such as
breakfast meetings and brown bag lunches with presenters on managing the leadership role and
the impact from a professional and personal perspective. Kouzes and Posner (2012) identified
making celebrations part of organizational life in the principle of encouraging the heart. Avery
shared, “You expect everybody to work hard, make progress, and have fun. You got to build
some fun into what people are doing so that they have a sense of joy about their job, not just
grind, and progress. Joy and progress. You got to have some of that.” If leaders want to find
willing and interested individuals, leaders must also display the joy and rewards of being a leader
within the institution.
Recommendations for Future Studies
The findings reflect the ways and perspectives within this multi-campus institution.
However, additional data would further research and identify additional ways and factors that
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 107

facilitate building leadership capacity. Accordingly, this section outlines recommendations for
future study.
The study examined the perspectives of eight leaders. However, a study of the different
paths to leadership and the critical impactful and influencing milestones would provide insight
on what influenced such perspectives. Such additional study will provide data on how an
institution can create an environment for similar, relevant milestones for up and coming leaders,
and what factors supported successful progression through the milestones.
In examining support systems, a future study on the impact of external versus internal
coaching, including financial and non-financial impact, may provide justification for funding
sources. If coaching results in higher level of performance through better decision making and
reduced turnover, with a positive return on investment, the value of public funds towards such
efforts outweighs any negative outcomes. The results will help administrators develop sound
measurements for the impact of coaching support.
A study of the similar and differing styles of building leadership capacity based on
gender also provides insight on ways to build diversity into leadership pools. Such study results
in ways that an institution can intentionally provide a more gender-balanced percentage of
qualified and competent leaders in the most senior positions. Women are breaking more
ceilings, but the high ceiling of roles such as chief executive officer continue to reflect the higher
number of males.
In conducting the research including the interviews, participants touched upon Kouzes
and Posner’s (2012) remaining two practices, challenge the process and encourage the heart. A
future study of these practices will provide results to complement this current study. One
participant continually returned back to building pride and confidence in an institution to attract
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 108

future leaders, by celebrating victories and wins as well as spending time on things that don’t
work. Avery captured this principle in serving as a leader, realizing that people work for
themselves and making them feel successful is important to most people.
Lastly, an examination of the effectiveness and leadership approach in public institutions
for leaders who did not take the traditional path to leadership roles provides additional insight on
ways to build a well-rounded, prepared higher education leader with ability to lead in both
academic and non-academic areas. The results may increase an understanding of the necessary
experience and knowledge to manage critical, high performing units in this new age of higher
education. As higher education institutions strive to meet national and state agendas and
compete with others in the market, leadership will contribute to this institution’s success and
survival.
Conclusion
The study examined ways this public institution builds leadership capacity within its
multi-campus institution. While participants focused on the lack of development within the
institution, the concerned voices reinforced the unified need and desire to build leadership
capacity at all levels. As the president’s emerging leader program has resulted in a pool of
leaders with a standard, foundational knowledge base, the opportunity to integrate a more
comprehensive approach to stretching assignments, as well as shadowing, coaching and
mentoring opportunities must be acted upon. From a broader perspective, the governing board
and legislature must take responsibility for building future leaders within this institution as well,
considering the impact of increasing national and global competition, baby boomer retirements,
new millennium generation of leaders, and university contribution to the state’s economy. A
broad policy and associated resources can ensure the state’s sole public institution continues to
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 109

excel and provide the state’s residents access to higher education, fulfilling its constitutional and
statutory purposes.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 110

References
American Association of University Professors, American Council on Education, and
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (1966). Statement on
Government of College and Universities. Retrieved from:
http://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities
American Council on Education (2011). Strength through global leadership and engagement:
U.S. higher education in the 21
st
century. American Council on Education. Retrieved
from: www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/2011-CIGE-BRPReport.pdf
AON Hewitt Consulting (2013). Strengthen leadership development and succession planning
practices. Retrieved from: http://chapters.cupahr.org/tn/files/2013/05/Strengthen-
Leadership-Development-and-Succession-Planning-Practices.pdf
Andersson, D. (1999). Avoid executive failure traps. Executive Excellence, 16(7), 6.
Barden, D. (2009). Your next few leaders. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from:
http://chronicle.com/article/Your-Next-Few-Leaders/44269/
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper
& Row.
Bentley University (2014). Prepared U: the millennial mind goes to work. Retrieved from:
http://www.slideshare.net/BentleyU/prepared-u-project-millennials-in-the-workplace
Bentley University (2014). Millennials in the workplace. Retrieved from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/158258672/CWB-Millennial-
Report?secret_password=2191s8a7d6j7shshcctt&_ga=1.199397418.581144930.1433200
906#
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 111

Betts, K., Urias, D., Chavez, J. & 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, 7(2), 2.
Bidwell, M. (2011). Paying more to get less: the effects of external hiring versus internal
mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56 (3), 369-407.
Bisbee, D. (2007). Looking for leaders: current practices in leadership identification in higher
education. Planning and Changing, 38 (1&2), 77-88.
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., Gosling, J. (2008). Developing collective leadership in higher education.
Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/1004415/Developing_collective_leadership_in_higher_educati
on-final_report
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014). Postsecondary Education Administrators. Occupational
outlook handbook, 2014-15 Edition. Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/postsecondary-education-administrators.htm#tab-6
Cashman, K. & Smye, M. (2007). Onboarding. Leadership Excellence , 24(4) , 5.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Conger, J. & Fulmer, R. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline. Harvard Business
Review, 81, 76-84.
Cook, B. (2012). The American College President Study: key findings and takeaways. The
American Council on Education. Retrieved from: http://www.acenet.edu/the-
presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/The-American-College-President-Study.aspx

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 112

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Derven, M. (2008). Management onboarding. T + D, 62(4), 49-52.
Donovan, K. (2013). Sustainable workforce. Leadership Excellence, 30(1), 13-14.
Emory University (2014). Excellence through leadership. Retrieved from:
http://learningservices.emory.edu/programs/excelleader/index.html
Ferri-Reed, J. (2013). Onboarding strategies to supercharge millennial employees. The Journal
for Quality and Participation, 36(2), 32-33.
Fink, D. (2011). Pipelines, pools and reservoirs: building leadership capacity for sustained
improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 670-684.
Fredericksen, E. (2010). When the music stops: succession is more than filling seats. State and
Local Government Review, 42(1), 50-60.
Furtek, D. (2012). Using Successorship to Build Leadership Capacity in Higher Education.
College and University, 88(2), 59-62.
Gonzalez, C. (2011). Colleges should cultivate leaders within their own ranks. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Should-
Cultivate/128171/
Gonzalez, C. (2013). Succession planning at Notre Dame: lessons for librarians. New Library
World, 114 (9/10), 408-415.
Graybill, J., Carpenter, M., Offord, J., Piorun, M. & Shaffer, G. (2013). Employee onboarding:
identification of best practices in ACRL libraries. Library Management, 34(3), 200-218.
Groves, K. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best practices.
Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 239-260.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 113

Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and
nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.
Heuer, J. (2003). Succession planning for key administrators at ivy-plus universities.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(3), 740.
Jarrell, K. & Pewitt, K. (2007). Succession planning in government. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 27(3), 297-309.
Klein, M. & Salk, R. (2013). Presidential succession planning: a qualitative study in private
higher education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 335-345.
Lederman, D. (2012). The (Aging) College President. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved
from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/12/college-presidents-are-older-
whiter-more-likely-come-outside-academe
Leske, L. (2009). Hiding in plain sight. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from;
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2009/06/08/leske
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: how to make extraordinary things
happen in organizations. San Francisco, CA: A Wiley Brand.
Krell, E. (2015). Look outside or seek within. HR Magazine, 60(1), 60-64.
Lederman, D. (2012). The (Aging) College President. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved
from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/12/college-presidents-are-older-
whiter-more-likely-come-outside-academe
Maruska, D. & Perry, J. (2013). Talent development for the twenty-first century. Leader to
Leader, 44-49.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 114

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage Publications.
Mehrabani, S. & Mohamad, N. (2011) Succession planning: a necessary process in today’s
organization. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-
Learning, 1(5), 371-377.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M. & Pope, M. (2003). Faculty senate leadership as a presidential pathway: clear
passage or caught in a maze? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27,
119-129.
Northhouse, P. (2003). Leadership-theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Porterfield, D. (2014). The neglected mission of U.S. higher education. Forbes. Retrieved
from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dporterfield/2014/04/24/the-neglected-mission-of-u-s-
higher-education/
Pounder, D. & Chow, G. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators. Supporting
New Educators, 62(8), 56-60.
Pounder, D. & Merrill, R. (2010). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice
theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 25–57.
Riddle, D. (2009). Executive Integration: Equipping Transitioning Leaders for Success.
Retrieved from Center for Executive Leadership website:
www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/ExecutiveIntegration.pdf
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 115

Riggs, J. (2009). Leadership for tomorrow’s community colleges. The Community College
Enterprise, 15(2), 27-38.
Rivas, O. & Jones, I. Investing in yourself: one university’s leadership models (2015).
Research in Higher Education Journal, 27, 1-7.
Rodriquez, B., & Coldren, M. (2013). A strategy for succession planning. The Higher
Education Workplace Magazine – CUPA-HR, 4(3), 33-43. Retrieved from:
http://www.cupahr.org/hew/files/Strategy-for-Succession-Planning.pdf
Scandura, T. & Williams, E. (2004). Mentoring and transformational leadership: the role of
supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 448-468.
Solansky, S. (2010). The evaluation of two key leadership development program
components: leadership skills assessment and leadership mentoring. The leadership
quarterly, 21(4), 675-681.
Taylor, P. & Taylor, K. (2013) Leadership + Mentoring = Success. College and University, 89
(2), 65-67.
Toossi, M. (2012). Labor force projections to 2020: a more slowly growing workforce. Bureau
of Labor Statistics Monthly Labor Review, 43-64. Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art3full.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2015). National Center for Education Statistics, Table 1,
Number and percentage distribution of Title IV institutions, by control of institutions,
level of institution, and region: United States and other jurisdiction, academic year 2009-
10. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/showTable2005.asp?popup=true&tableID=7
072&rt=p
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 116

U.S. Department of Treasury (2012). The economics of higher education: a report prepared by
the Department of the Treasury with the Department of Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20High
er%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
Van Amburgh, J., Surratt, C., Green, J. Gallucci, R., Colbert, J., Zatopek, S. & Blouin, R. (2010).
Succession planning in US pharmacy schools. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 74(5), 1-7.
Voorhees, T., Poston, S. & Atkinson, V. (2007). A blueprint for building the leadership pipeline.
Public Management, 89(10), 8-12.
Wallin, D., Cameron, D. & Sharples, K. (2005). Succession planning and targeted leadership
development. Community College Journal, 76(1), 24-28.
Wilson, M., Van Velsor, E., Chandrasekar, A., & Criswell, C. (2011). Grooming top leaders:
cultural perspectives from China, India, Singapore and the United States. Retrieved from
Center for Creative Leadership website:
http://www.ccl.org/Leadership/pdf/research/GroomingTopLeaders.pdf
Young, M. (2005). Building the leadership pipeline in local, state and federal government.
Retrieved from CPA Human Resource Services website:
www.cpshr.us/documents/resources/CPS_Pipeline_8.23.05.pdf
Wolverton, M. & Gmelch, W. (2002). College deans. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 117

Appendix A
Participation Letter

Dear Participant,

You are cordially invited to participate in this study because of your position in an organization
with promising leadership practices. I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California completing my dissertation. The purpose of
the study is to examine your organization’s leadership capacity building which will contribute to
understanding best practices and to assist other organizations looking to strengthen their
leadership development.

This study will address the following research questions:

1. In what ways does the organization work to build the next generation of leaders?

2. What are the perceptions of stakeholders regarding the influence of those practices?

3. What are the factors that both facilitate and inhibit the development and implementation
of strategies designed to build leadership capacity?

Your participation is voluntary and at any time you may stop or withdraw from the study without
any consequences. Any identifiable information about you will be kept confidential at all times
during and after the study.

Your participation in this study will consist of the following during an 8 week period:

1) 45 minute interview
2) Observations in meetings, trainings, and field visits

If you have any questions or would like to participate, please contact me at ____.

Thank you for your consideration to participate in this study. Your input and contributions are
vital to the success of this study about promising leadership practices.

NAME
Doctoral Candidate- Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 118

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
For Administrators

Organization’s Name _______________________________________
Participant’s Name _______________________________________
Title of Participant _______________________________________
Location _______________________________________
Interviewer _______________________________________
Time Start_______ End_______ Total_____________

Administrators:

I’d like to ask you some questions about your experience as a leader.

1. Tell me about your role in the organization.

2. What is your organization’s mission and vision?

3. Tell me about your experience as an administrator.

4. What or who influenced you the most to apply for a leadership role in this organization?

5. Tell me about how your organization prepared you for your administrative role.

Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about leadership succession planning.

6. What is your organization’s philosophy/belief about leadership capacity building?

7. What does a succession plan look like in your organization?
Probe: How is the succession plan implemented?

8. Are there any challenges to implementing your succession plan and what are they?

9. What kind of formal and informal leadership opportunities are available at your
organization?

10. How does your organization identify the next generation of leaders?

11. When you are thinking about tapping a leader what characteristics/qualities are you
looking for?

12. When you notice an individual who has those qualities, what do you do?

13. How do you support an individual who is not ready for a leadership position but is
interested?

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 119

14. Are there any individuals that have stepped into a leadership role in the last two years? If
so, how many?

15. Given the succession pipeline right now, what are some changes you might implement?

16. What do you envision those changes to look like?

17. As we finish up this interview, I want to ensure that I understand your experiences with
leadership succession. I would like to provide you an opportunity to share anything you
feel is important about building leadership capacity internally that I have not asked.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 120

Appendix C
Interview Protocol
For Other Stakeholders
(e.g., Teacher Leader/Community Member)

Organization’s Name _______________________________________
Participant’s Name _______________________________________
Title of Participant _______________________________________
Location _______________________________________
Interviewer _______________________________________
Time Start_______ End_______ Total_____________

Teacher Leader/Community Member:

I’d like to ask you some questions about your experience as a leader.

1. Tell me about your role in the organization.

2. What is your organization’s mission and vision?

3. Tell me about your organization’s philosophy/belief about leadership capacity building.

4. How does your organization prepare leaders for administrative roles?

5. What opportunities of formal and informal leadership activities are available at your site?

6. How is it communicated to you?

7. What kind of support or opportunities have you received to pursue a leadership role or in
your current leadership position?

8. Who has been the most influential in helping you to develop in your role and how have
they assisted you in your development?

9. What traits and characteristics do you feel you possess in your leadership role?

10. Where do you see yourself in five years?

11. How do you plan to achieve these goals?

12. What changes do you feel should be implemented to build leadership capacity in your
organization?

13. What do you envision those changes to look like?

14. What do you feel are the challenges that hinder leadership opportunities in your
organization?
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 121

15. What are some barriers you faced when you transitioned into a leadership role?

16. What are some areas of growth you might want to focus on for your personal leadership
development?

17. As we finish up this interview, I want to ensure that I understand your experiences with
leadership. I would like to provide you an opportunity to share anything you feel is
important about building leadership capacity internally that I have not asked.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 122

Appendix D
Observation Protocol

Organization Name _______________________________________
Type of Observation _______________________________________
Location _______________________________________
Participants _______________________________________
Time Start_______ End_______ Total_____________
Observation Field Notes:

1. Describe the physical setting. Include the arrangement of the furniture and represent all
participants in the picture. Please describe the physical setting and description of
participants. Total number of participants:_________

What are you looking for? Researcher Notes
● What does the
environment look like?

● Physical set up?

● How are the people
grouped?

● Who is leading?

● What is the agenda?

● Time intervals on each
topic?

● Diversity/gender/age/
ethnicities

● Attire of participants?

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 123

2. Focus on the interaction between the leader and others. Write a narrative of the observed
interactions/behaviors and record verbatim of the conversations. Be sure to time stamp all
events, approximately every 10 minutes.

Time What are you
looking for?
Researcher Notes
● Context of
interaction?
(Hallway
conversation,
informal/formal,
etc.)

● Noteworthy
interactions

● Engagement of
Participants- How
actually engage
are participants?

● Tone of the
meeting (energy)

● Verbal/non-verbal
communication

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND PIPELINE 124

Post Observation Field Notes Reflection
Think about what happened during the observation that was not documented. Did the leader say
or do anything that is of particular interest to the study of leadership succession? Are there any
opinions you would like to share regarding building leadership capacity? What feelings do you
have about the leader’s interaction with the others in the meeting and how the interaction did/did
not support leadership succession? Do you have any interesting/new thoughts as a result of the
observation?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied Kouzes and Posner’s (2012) practices of exemplary leadership to examine best practices in building leadership capacity in a higher education setting. The purpose of the study was to understand the promising practices implemented in campuses or offices within a multi-campus, public higher education institution, including ways the organization worked to build the next generation of leaders, and the factors that both facilitated and inhibited the development and implementation of strategies to build leadership capacity. Using Creswell’s (2013) model for qualitative data analysis, data was collected through participant interviews, observations, job descriptions and program agendas, and analyzed for common themes and categories. Findings from this study indicated that while the institution does have good yet isolated practices in place, a single, system wide leadership program existed and was complemented by campus efforts to build leadership capacity. As pockets of emerging, experienced and knowledgeable leaders are developed, a unifying, institutional philosophy coupled with intentional investment in future leaders provide success and survival tools. The study begins to address the gaps within the institution and supports the ongoing need for leadership development at all levels.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership pipeline and succession: promising practices for building leadership capacity in a K-12 school district

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

PDF

Leadership capacity building within a Hawaiian-based nonprofit organization

PDF

Leadership capacity building within a Native Hawaiian nonprofit organization

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Leadership succession: promising practices to develop a sustainable leadership pipeline at a secondary school

PDF

Promising practices for developing leadership capacity in future school administrators

PDF

Promising practices for building leadership capacity: a community college case study

PDF

Promising practices: developing principal leadership succession

PDF

Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals

PDF

Leadership capacity building: promising practices in principal preparation

PDF

Promising practices for building leadership capital in educational organizations

PDF

Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools

PDF

Building leadership capacity: Practices for preparing the next generation of Catholic school principals

PDF

Promising practices for building a college-going culture for LatinX students: a case study of a large comprehensive high school

PDF

Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions

PDF

Building the leadership capacity of women in K-12 education: successful strategies that create the next generation of women school and district leaders

PDF

Building charter school leadership capacity: a look into leadership practices at accelerated academy

PDF

Effective school leadership: practices that promote a culture of high student achievement

PDF

The role of ethnic culture in work-family balance among Armenian women in leadership positions in higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Ishii, Debra Ann C. (author)

Core Title Leadership capacity and pipeline in higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/01/2016

Defense Date 03/04/2016

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

Tag building leadership capacity,OAI-PMH Harvest,promising practices

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Malloy, Courtney (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email dcishii@gmail.com,dishii@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-223817

Unique identifier UC11277451

Identifier etd-IshiiDebra-4221.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-223817 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-IshiiDebra-4221.pdf

Dmrecord 223817

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ishii, Debra Ann C.

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