Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A cultural study of shared governance at two community colleges
(USC Thesis Other)
A cultural study of shared governance at two community colleges
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
®
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A CULTURAL STUDY OF SHARED GOVERNANCE
AT TWO COMMUNITY COLLEGES
by
Gordon Dossett
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY
EDUCATION
May 2005
Copyright 2005 Gordon Dossett
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3180317
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180317
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to my wife, Hanne, who accepted years of lost
evenings and missed weekends in my quest for knowledge. She showed me a love
aspire to.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Administrators, faculty and staff at the two sites gave generously of their time
and ideas. Colleagues at Santa Monica College, especially Dr. Lesley Kawaguchi,
listened patiently to my musings on governance and offered invaluable insights. Dr.
Linda Hagedom and Dr. Thomas Olson provided guidance as members of the
dissertation committee. My advisor, Dr. William G. Tierney, was by turns, Moses,
Vince Lombardi, Mr. Creakle, Prospero—and, ultimately, the wise shepherd I hoped
he would be. To them all, I give my heartfelt thanks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION........................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ ix
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement............................................................................ 5
Purpose of the Study......................................................................... 7
Research Questions........................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study................................................................. 7
Assumptions...................................................................................... 7
Limitations........................................................................................ 9
Organization of the Study................................................................ 10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................ 9
The Rational Actor M odel............................................................... 14
Overview and Key Concepts ................................................ 14
The Rational Actor Model and Governance............................ 16
Strengths and Weaknesses of Governance in the Rational
Actor Model.......................................................................... 19
The Structural M odel ............... 21
Overview and Key Concepts...................................................... 21
The Structural Model and Governance..................... 22
Strengths and Weaknesses of Governance in the Structural
M odel ................................... 26
The Political M odel.......................................................................... 28
Overview and Key Concepts...................................................... 28
Strengths and Weaknesses of Governance in the Political
M odel................ 33
The Human Resources Model.......................................................... 36
The Cultural Model...................................... 41
Overview and Key Concepts...................................................... 41
Governance in Human Resources Model.................................. 48
Strengths and Weaknesses of Governance in Human
Resources Model......................................................... 52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Chapter Page
3. METHODOLOGY..... ..... 58
The Value of Case Studies and Comparison to Other
Qualitative Methods.................................................... 59
Site Selection and California Community Colleges....................... 62
Selection and Description of Clear Lake College and Bitterroot
College.................................................................... 70
Data Collection.................................................................................. 73
Interviews.......................................................................................... 73
Organizational Meetings.................................................................. 75
Fieldnotes.......................................................................................... 76
Key Text and Information................................................................ 76
Data Analysis............................................................................. 77
Ethical Considerations..................................................................... 78
The Researcher and Researcher Bias.............................................. 80
Validity............................................................................................... 82
Triangulation..................................................................................... 84
Limitations........................................................................................ 85
Conclusion................................................................................. 85
4. THE CASE STUDIES: REPORT OF THE DATA COLLECTED ... 87
Section I: California’s 2003 Budget Crisis and Community
College Budgeting....................................................................... 88
Section II: Background on the Two Sites...................................... 91
History of College and Its Governance: Clear Lake College 91
History of College and Its Governance: Bitterroot College 95
Current Governance of Clear Lake College ..... 101
Current Governance of Bitterroot College................. 109
Clear Lake College’s Response to the California Budget,
Fall-Spring 2002-2003......... 116
Bitterroot College’s Response to the California Budget,
Fall-Spring 2002-2003.......................... 121
Reorganization at Clear Lake College.................... 124
Reorganization at Bitterroot College........................... 128
Information ..... 125
Leadership............... 126
Trust ............................................... 129
Section III: Concepts of Culture................................ 132
Clear Lake College................ 133
Socialization................................................. 133
The Clear Lake W ay .................................. 133
Humor and Banter ...... 135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Chapter Page
Professional Affiliation .................................... 137
Dress and Forms of Address........................................... 137
Socializing.................................................... 138
Acronyms.............................................................................. 138
The Planning Council..................................... 139
Strategy...................................... 140
Information............................................................................... 141
Leadership................................................................................ 143
Trust...................................................................................... 146
Bitterroot College........................................................................ 150
Socialization.......................................................................... 150
Differing attitudes toward Governance.................................. 151
Dress and Forms of Address............................................... 153
Planning Council.................................................................. 154
Strategy................................................................................. 154
Information............................................................................ 158
Leadership................................................................................ 161
Trust...................................................................................... 167
5. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS......................................................... 172
Analysis of the Findings on Educational Culture.......................... 173
Socialization at Clear Lake College................................................ 174
Socialization at Bitterroot College.............................. 176
Dress Distinguishes Faculty and Administrators..................... 176
Comparison of Socialization at Bitterroot College and
Clear Lake College................................................. 178
Strategy at Clear Lake College................. 181
Strategy at Bitterroot College............... 183
Comparison of Strategy at Bitterroot College and Clear Lake
College ................... 186
Information at Clear Lake College ................ 189
Information at Bitterroot College ............... 192
Comparison of Information at Bitterroot College and Clear
Lake College....................................................... 195
Leadership at Clear Lake College................. 198
Leadership at Bitterroot College............... 206
Comparison of Leadership at Bitterroot College and Clear
Lake College ........................................ 210
Trust at Clear Lake College ........................................ 215
Trust at Bitterroot College .......................................... 216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
Chapter Page
Comparison of Trust at Bitterroot College and Clear Lake
College................................ 219
6. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR PRACTICE
AND FUTURE RESEARCH.................................. 221
Analysis of the Findings on Educational Culture .................... 222
Differences in Socialization....................................................... 222
Differences in Strategy............................................................... 223
Differences in Information......................................................... 224
Differences in Leadership ................................................... 226
Differences in Trust.................................................................... 227
Limitations of the Study................................................................... 229
Implications for the Practice of Governance................................... 231
Reevaluate Criteria and Process for Selecting a College
President...................................................................................... 232
Insure that Most Senior Administrators Have Significant
Tenure at the College................................................................. 233
Create a Stronger Social Network.................................................... 233
To Promote Change, Take Time and Use Plentiful, Varied
Communication........................................................................... 233
Recommendations for Future Study............................................... 234
Socialization...................................................................................... 234
Strategy............................................................................. 234
Information........................................ 235
Leadership......................................................................................... 235
Trust................................................................................................... 236
REFERENCES............................................................................................. 238
APPENDICES ...................................... 258
A. Consent to Participate Form.. ...... 259
B. Interview Protocol............................................................................... 265
C. Summary of Responses to Interview Protocol ...... 268
D. Follow-up Interview Protocol.......................................... 282
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Key Concepts of Culture............................................................................ 43
2. Interview Subjects............................................. ..................................... . 73
3. Shifts in California Community College Funding, 2002-2003:
Source—Community College League of California, Budget
Analysis................................................................................................ 90
4. Clear Lake College Response to State Budget, Fall 2002-
Spring 2003......................................................................................... 117
5. Bitterroot College Response to State Budget, Fall 2002-
Spring 2003 ....................................................................................... 122
6. Reorganization at Clear Lake College...................................................... 126
7. Reorganization at Bitterroot College........................................................ 129
8. Analysis on Socialization on Socialization............................................... 179
9. Analysis of Strategy................................................................................... 187
10. Analysis of Information............................................................................. 196
11. Analysis of Leadership............................................................................... 211
12. Analysis of Trust........................................................................................ 220
13. Differences in Socialization .......... 223
14. Differences in Strategy............................................................................... 225
15. Differences in Information......................................................................... 226
16. Differences in Leadership ........... 228
17. Differences in Trust.................................................................................... 230
18. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 1-5.............................. 268
19. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 6-11.................................... 276
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
ABSTRACT
Despite its increasing importance, college governance has been the subject of
little empirical research. To offer insight into effective governance, this exploratory
study used the cultural framework advanced by Tierney (1988), supplemented by an
additional concept, trust. Based on case studies of two California community
colleges, the study found that the college classified as effectively governed offered
several significant differences from the college classified as ineffectively governed.
A culture of effective governance included a strong sense of identification
with the college; decision-making that rested on shared values; widespread formal
communication among faculty and administration; and use of informal
communication channels among faculty leaders and senior administrators.
Especially important were leadership and trust. The president empowered others,
successfully advocated for the campus, and showed commitment to the college,
partly from his long tenure. The president's trustworthy actions over years were
crucial in establishing a climate in which the college could take urgent action. In
addition to suggestions to investigate further the cultural concepts used for this
research, the study offered suggestions for practice, urging colleges to insure
longevity in senior administration and to re-evaluate approaches to presidential
searches.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Over 90% of Americans believe that “colleges and universities are one of the
most valuable resources to the U. S.” according to a survey in a recent Chronicle o f
Higher Education (Selingo, 2003, p. All). Higher education serves a vital economic
function, training a workforce and, on an individual level, providing economic
opportunity. Furthermore, students go to college from the “conviction that
something in the undergraduate experience will lead to a more competent, more
concerned, more complete human being” (Boyer, 1987, p. 1).
Institutions of higher education serve these roles in the midst of a changing
society that poses an array of challenges. Students arrive with different levels of
preparation. Technology raises a host of questions: To what extent should
technology-mediated education be offered? Which courses—if any—should be
offered online? For-profit institutions raise other questions: Should universities
adopt a more corporate model and consider the student as customer? Further, a call
for accountability by accrediting agencies and governments means that colleges must
challenge the notion or find ways of meeting it, often at a time of diminishing
resources.
Given the importance of higher education, responding effectively to these
challenges is crucial, putting increased focus on the governance of institutions of
higher education (Eckel & Kezar, 2004; Gumport & Pusser, 1997; Lingenfelter,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
2004; Tiemey, 2004). What is being done to insure that colleges are well-governed
and equipped to face challenges of a changing society?
Historically, the earliest writing on governance in higher education relies on
personal anecdote and tacitly draws on Thomas Carlyle’s notions that “great men”
govern and shape institutions. Based on anecdotes and personal experience, revered
college presidents provide advice on college governance. For example, Charles
Franklin Thwing, as President Emeritus of Western Reserve University, wrote in
1926 that, “The president is ever to be possessed of a proper theory of the nature of
higher education .... If the president lacks a just understanding of the nature of
education, his administration will be intellectually dissolute, emotionally irritating
and in point of service, ineffective” (p. 212). Thwang, typical of early educational
leaders writing about governance, does not define abstractions such as a “just
understanding of the nature of education” nor does he offer analysis based on
anything other than anecdote.
The president of a university exercised the greatest power in governance by
the first decade of the 20th century; afterwards governance became diffused.
“Pressing upwards from a departmental base, faculty members . . . moved into
governmental affairs via the formalization of a structure of senates, councils and
associated committees” (Duryea, 1973, p. 125).
As professional organizations gained a foothold after World War II,
professors, administrators, and governing board members began to define what often
had been fairly loosely structured responsibilities in governance. A key document
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
emerged in 1966-1967, when members of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (Association of University
Professors approved “The Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.”
This canonical document (hereafter referred to as “The Joint Statement”) establishes
a standard for governance by setting forth in broad strokes the responsibilities for the
governing board, the president and the faculty. The Joint Statement does not
distinguish among institutions, even though large universities vary considerably from
small liberal arts colleges or community colleges (Birnbaum, 1988a, p. 9). Further
more, even seemingly straightforward principles in The Joint Statement can require
participants’ judgment to define (Schuster, 1991). Despite these shortcomings, The
Joint Statement’s principles have been applied over the past 35 years in the vast
majority of American colleges and universities. Philosophically, then, there is
widespread agreement in academia about principles of governance; however, most
writing on governance supports the assertion that “the formal decision-making
mechanisms on most campuses are not working very well” (Boyer 1987, p. 235).
Or, put another way, “while [The Joint Statement] presents positions of high
principle that have been endorsed by many campus constituencies, it is less
successful in identifying the specific structures and processes that would implement
these principles” (Birnbaum, 1988a, p. 8).
A review of the literature reveals that those who criticize the governance of
higher education—as well as those who praise it—generally do not rely on empirical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
research with a theoretical underpinning (Kezar, 2004; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Tiemey
2004). Many timely questions crowd to the fore:
1. What is the connection—if any—between a college’s governance and
the quality of its educational program?
2. What does it mean for a college to be effectively governed? Is
effective governance marked by collegiality and consensus or spirited debate and
dissension?
3. Does business provide a helpful model for the management and
leadership of higher education?
4. What aspects of a college environment can be most often linked to
effective governance?
5. Can the governance of a college be “engineered” to become effective?
To begin to address these questions, the field needs preliminary research into
the interplay of social forces and individuals active in governance. Case studies are
especially well suited for research that is largely exploratory (Isaac & Michael, 1990;
Lee, 1991). Although it would be valuable to study almost any college or university,
I have chosen two California community colleges. That segment of higher education
has been subject to the least research, research that is all the more important since
almost 5.7 million students were enrolled in 1,085 public community colleges,
according to the latest information from the Department of Education (Almanac,
2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The most promising theoretical framework for research on governance is
culture. While providing some helpful concepts and strategies, the structural
framework employed in some studies has not revealed the complexities of the
institutional behavior. In response, a number of recent articles have argued cogently
that an institution’s culture is a more important factor that its structures (Kezar 2004;
Kezar& Eckel, 2004; Lee 1991; Tiemey, 2004).
Problem Statement
The Joint Statement asserts that collaboration in governance will create “an
increased capacity to solve educational problems” (p. 158). However, the renewed
interest in governance in higher education over the past dozen years suggests that,
first, governance is problematic, and second, that it is increasingly important, given
the need for higher education to meet various emerging needs (shifting enrollments,
changing market demands, adapting to technology and competition (Gumport &
Pusser, 1997).
While research seeks to shed light on aspects of governance that research
mostly has been in the form of anecdotes or reports, lacking a clear, theoretical
framework (Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Lee 1991; Minor, 2004; Tiemey, 2004). The
literature that does have such a framework has been overly weighted toward
structural analysis. Such analysis cannot provide insight into the myriad of human
interactions, which recent studies suggest play a greater role in governance than the
structures of governance do. I conducted a study of the governance culture of two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
colleges-one that was classified as effectively governed, the other as ineffectively
governed.1
To study the interactions of those closely administrators and faculty leaders
involved in governance I used a cultural theoretical framework. Birnbaum (1988a),
Lee (1991), Schein (1992), Schuster, Smith, Corak, and Yamada (1994), and Tiemey
(1988a), suggest that this framework encourages understanding of the complex and
unique network of people that exists in each organization. This network is at the
heart of governance. Tiemey (1988a) has advanced six “essential concepts” to study
the organizational culture of institutions of higher educations. The concepts:
(a) environment, (b) mission, (c) socialization, (d) information, (e) strategy, and
(f) leadership, provided anchor points to organize the data collected from the two
sites of this study. I studied an additional concept— tmst— which has emerged in
recent literature as being especially significant in decision-making (Tiemey 2003a;
Kezar, 2004; Kramer et al, 1996; Pope, 2004). Tmst provides the organizational
“emotional glue that binds followers and leaders together” (Bennis & Nanus, 1997,
p. 142). Trust has been found to be helpful and possibly necessary as organizations
face risk and attempt to make effective decisions in a timely fashion (Luhmann,
1988; Mishra, 1996; Schein, 1992; Webb, 1996).
1 As I describe below, leaders of three state-wide governance organizations categorized
colleges as “effectively” or “ineffectively” governed, leading to my choice of the two sites. I will not
provide my own definition, but will rely upon their working conceptions of effectively and
ineffectively governed colleges. Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart~who observed that he
couldn’t define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it— I am assuming that experienced leaders
will know effective governance when they see it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the salient aspects of the
governance culture of a college classified as effectively governed, and that of a
college classified as ineffectively governed, and to compare and contrast these
aspects to better understand ways in which shared governance might be improved.
Research Questions
The research questions for the study, then, were:
1. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
that has been classified as being effectively governed?
2. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
classified as being ineffectively governed?
3. What do the differences between these salient aspects suggest about
promoting effective governance?
Significance o f the Study
In addition to the practical implications of the study for those involved in
shared governance, the study has implications for the field of higher education
research. The study provided an example of the efficacy of the cultural framework,
and suggested which cultural concepts showed special promise in giving insight into
governance. Further, the study offered specific suggestions for practice.
Assumptions
The study rested on several assumptions. The study assumed that the data
had been collected thoroughly, analyzed carefully and presented in such a way that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they will have some applicability to the field and to further research into governance
in higher education.
The research design relied on two central assumptions about the site
selection. First, the study assumed that the culture of governance at a college
classified as effectively governed would be significantly different from the culture of
governance at a college classified as ineffectively governed. Second, once the sites
had been determined, I assumed that the one college was “effectively governed,” the
other “ineffectively governed.” (The site selection process will be discussed in the
next chapter.) It was not my purpose to define effective or ineffective governance,
although that is a topic worthy of extensive research in its own right. Instead, this
study took as a given the classifications and for each site examined the various
cultural concepts (e.g., the data about leadership that emerged at one site compared
to the data about leadership that emerged at the other).
2 Although I did not systematically attempt to validate the classifications, data from the study
suggest that the two colleges were appropriately classified. The president of Clear Lake College (the
effectively governed one) received a statewide award for leadership and after his retirement, the
college named a building after him; the president of Bitterroot College (the ineffectively governed
one) retired abruptly after only two years at the college. His recommended successor as interim
president left weeks later after it was discovered that her doctorate came from a paper mill. Campus
leaders at Clear Lake College used the Planning Council to rapidly formulate a plan that included
layoffs (if necessary) in response to the state budget crisis o f spring, 2003. To a person, interviewees
supported the plan, even going so far as to feel pride for it. In contrast, the president at Bitterroot
College unilaterally announced a hiring freeze and senior administrators cut back 200 class sections
from the spring schedule to avoid financial problems. Those moves generated a good deal of
dissension.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
Limitations
A weakness in using case studies is the difficulty in generalizing, based upon
them (Isaac & Michael, 1990, Lee, 1991, Stake, 2000). Since the study used two
community colleges as sites, efforts to generalize based on the findings could have
an additional barrier. Furthermore, case studies “are particularly vulnerable to
subjective biases,” especially in the choice of which groups will be studied (Isaac &
Michael, 1990, p. 48). Also, as just noted, the study did not define “effectively
governed” and “ineffectively governed,” so it relied upon the ability of informants to
use their judgment to provide a working definition.
The study was also limited in participants. Although I briefly addressed other
stakeholders, the roles of trustees, students, unions, and the community in
governance remained largely unexamined. In studying the governance culture, I
focused on formal participants—those holding administrative positions and current
and former leaders of the Academic Senate (2002) and disciplines—which may have
overlooked larger socializing aspects that may influence governance.
A further limitation was the particular sociopolitical context of the study.
California’s budget problems in 2003, the time of my data collection, created great
strain on the community college system. Thus, readers could question whether the
cultural conditions were “normal” and representative. (Arguably, though, the strain
could be said to bring characteristics of the campus culture into sharp relief, making
aspects visible that might have remained hidden.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Organization o f the Study
This study is divided into six chapters. After this opening chapter, the second
chapter reviews the literature, covering research into governance divided into five
theoretical models: (a) rational actor, (b) structural, (c) political, (d) human
resources, and (e) cultural. Through a discussion of this research, I present a
rationale for using the cultural model, specifically Tierney’s six concepts of culture
(1988a). The third chapter offers a rationale for using case studies and choosing the
two sites and explains the method of analysis, as well as other methodological issues,
including the creation of an additional concept of culture—trust—to complement
those already proposed. The fourth chapter presents the data collected. The chapter
is divided into two major sections—one for each site. Within each site, data is
presented according to the concepts of culture. The fifth chapter analyzes the data,
this time organized according to the concepts of culture: within each concept, I
discuss each site and then synthesize results. Because of the abundance of data and
complexity of analysis, I added a sixth chapter, which distills key findings, offers
implications for practice, and suggests issues for future study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Effective governance in higher education is of unquestioned importance.
Today, colleges and universities face many challenges. Lower barriers to entry into
the education market allow for vigorous competition from for-profit colleges.
Digital technology and other innovations challenge educators to deliver education
differently. States provide less funding but call for at least the same level of
education. Legislatures and accrediting bodies demand greater accountability.
When compared to their counterparts of 5, 10 or 20 years ago, students arrive with
less (or different) academic preparation, calling for different strategies to insure that
they learn. To address these challenges and ultimately further its mission, any
college must draw upon the best talents of the people who govern it.
Researchers and practitioners need a way to study governance in order for
colleges to improve. What is implied by governance is complex, and definitions of
governance in higher education vary. Birnbaum (1988a) defines governance as “the
structures and processes through which institutional participants interact with and
influence each other and communicate with the larger environment” (p. 4). Such a
definition emphasizes both structure and the larger environment. While the outside
environment (which would include the trustees’ and president’s interaction with
outside stakeholders) is important, it broadens the scope of inquiry significantly. To
make this study manageable and to focus on the key constituents in day-to-day
governance, I examined the governance process occurring between and among
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
faculty leaders and administrators, looking especially at academic senates and the
president. I used Tierney’s definition of governance: “a process designed to
achieve particular outcomes” (2004, p. 87).
In this governance process, the study focused on a key social construct—
trust. As I will discuss more folly in chapter 4, trust is consistent with the theoretical
framework used for the study, and more importantly, trust emerged repeatedly during
the data collection as a concept warranting special examination. That trust emerged
from the data parallels an increasing awareness in the literature of its importance.
Trust, implicit even in the naming of boards of trustees, has implications into fields
such as religion, government and economics, philosophy and psychology. Trust is
important because it is foundational (Kezar, 2004; Tierney, 2003b); that is, other
crucial aspects of governance and decision-making are difficult, if not impossible,
without it. Furthermore, trust is especially important because it implies action. If
organizations are largely maintaining the status quo, trust is not vital; conversely, if
organizations strive to act, individuals must trust each other (Burt & Knez, 1996;
Luhmann, 1988; Schein, 1992). Given the plethora of external and internal
demands, colleges today clearly must act.
3 Consensus in the research focuses on faculty (acting through senates) and presidents
(working with other administrators) as being central groups in governance. (See, for example, AAUP,
ACE and AGB 1967; Bensimon (1990b); Birnbaum (1991); Flanigan (1995); Gilmour (1991); Lee,
(1991); Gilmour (1991).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
Trust has been the subject of great interest recently in organizations outside
of higher education. Recent research on trust within higher education (Kezar, 2004;
Pope, 2004) shows promise; however, the subject has not received adequate
examination. In 2002, William G. Tiemey, as president of Association for the Study
of Higher Education, highlighted the importance of trust, stating that, for governance
to function effectively, “[f] acuity and administrators need to tmst one another, or
rather, they need to believe that each is trustworthy” (Tiemey, 2003b).
Given the relatively little research on tmst and institutions of higher
education and given that faculty (and senates) and administration (and presidents)
conduct the day-to-day acts of governance, the study needed a framework (or
conceptual model) that encouraged insight into those areas. Underlying any
examination of an organization are related assumptions, which can be grouped into
theories, frames or conceptual models. “Conceptual models not only fix the mesh of
the nets that the analyst drags through the material in order to explain a particular
action; they also direct the analyst to cast nets in select ponds, at certain depths, in
order to catch the fish he [or she] is after” (Allison & Zelikow, 1999, p. 4). These
models “filter out some things while allowing others to pass through easily. Frames
help us order experience” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 12). Actions in an organization
may be compared to the action in the Kurosawa film Rashomon: the action seems
“objective.” However, taken from different viewpoints, several descriptions of the
action emerge (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 13).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Researchers are not in complete agreement on classifying these theories.
Writing in 1982, Jeffrey Pfeffer compared “the domain of organization theory [to] a
weed patch [more than] a well-tended garden” (p. 1) and 20 some years later, it may
seem at first to be just a bigger weed patch. However, it is possible to discern five
major theories or models: rational actor (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Chaffee, 1983;
Pfeffer, 1982), structural (or bureaucratic) (Bimbaum, 1988a; Bolman & Deal,
1997; Cohen & March, 1986; Keller, 1983; Kerr ,1963; Mintzberg, 1979; Perrow,
1970), political (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Bimbaum 1988a; Bolman & Deal, 1997;
Chaffee, 1983; Leslie 2003; Pfeffer, 1982; Shaffitz & Ott, 1996), human resources
(or organizational behavior) (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Bolman & Deal, 1997;
Shafritz & Ott, 1996); and cultural (or symbolic) (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Eckel &
Kezar, 2003; Kezar, 2004; Schein, 1994; Tiemey, 1988a). Each model highlights
particular aspects of organizations. In the discussion below, I outline: (a) the
features of each model, (b) the governance issues that the model highlights, and
(c) the strengths and weaknesses of using the model to examine governance and the
issue of trust. I conclude with a summation of why I believe the fifth model—the
cultural model—provided the most promising approach to studying governance in
higher education.
The Rational Actor Model
Overview and Key Concepts
The rational actor (or rational choice) model is popular because Western
culture places a premium on “free will and conscious choice” (Pfeffer, 1982, p. 5),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
and individuals in organizations presumably like to think of themselves as acting
rationally for the greater good of the organization. Because such thinking is
engrained in the culture, when no model is explicitly stated, the rational actor model
often is implied (Allison & Zelikow, 1999). The organization can be the unit of
analysis (Allison & Zelikow, 1999), but more commonly the unit of analysis is
the individual (Chaffee, 1983). Allison and Zelikow (1999) and Simon (1976) set
forth four “core concepts” to the model: (a) goals and objectives, (b) alternatives,
(c) consequences, and (c) choice (Allison & Zelikow, 1999, p. 18). In a simplified
application, then, an actor (an individual or organization) understands what is
required (the goal) (a) creates and evaluates a series of alternatives, (b) carefully
considers the consequences of each, (c) makes the best rational choice, and
(d) designed to achieve the stated objective (and/or maximize resources). To these
four core concepts, Chaffee (1983) would add implementation, evaluation and
feedback, in effect emphasizing the on-going nature of decision-making.
Theorists incorporate many other complications that are part of rational
decision-making. An actor uses judgment to distinguish between fact and value; acts
according to a “hierarchy of ends”; and evaluates and applies knowledge to
determine the best outcome (Simon, 1976, pp. 45-77). When using the model to
examine decision-making, Chaffee (1983) posits several key elements, including
values of the individuals. She asserts that individuals must have a “clear set of
specific values or objectives, which serve as criteria for particular decisions” (p. 60).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Leadership within an organization can be viewed as authority, “the power to
make decisions which guide the actions of others” (Simon, 1976, p. 125). However,
for rational choice to succeed, authority must include an informal “authority of
ideas” (Simon, 1976) to allow proper consideration of the expertise of those with less
hierarchy.
Communication within this model allows for knowledge and information to
be shared not only to determine the best course of action, but also to insure that those
with final decision-making power understand the reasons being advanced for a
particular action (Simon, 1976). Further, administrators need to determine who
needs to communicate with whom to make the best decision, insuring that those most
affected have a chance to participate in deliberations (Chaffee, 1983, p. 60).
The Rational Actor Model and Governance
Many of the reports issued on governance have the rational actor model
implicit in their approach. For example, “The Statement on Government of Colleges
and Universities” (American Association of University Professors, American
Council on Education and Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 1967) calls for particular roles and responsibilities for trustees, the
administration, the faculty and, to a lesser extent, students in decision-making.
While not empirical studies, such reports emerge regularly and often rely upon the
rational actor model.
Furthermore, the model informs day-to-day governance. For example, in
1993 when then-president Gerhard Casper proposed to reorganize Stanford
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
University’s School of Humanities and Sciences, he relied upon the model’s
assumptions. He advanced several premises or goals, including keeping the school
as one (to promote common interests and maintain economy of scale) and supporting
disciplinary clusters. To carry out these goals, his proposal then delineated how the
dean would work with three deputy deans from Humanities, Social Sciences and
Natural Sciences, to oversee budgets and other matters (Casper, 1993).
Allison and Zelikow (1999) illustrate how the model can focus academic
inquiry into governance. In their study of the Cuban missile crisis, they assume, for
example, that “the state is a unified actor; the state has a coherent utility function; the
state acts in relation to threats and opportunities; [and] the state’s action is value-
maximizing” (p. 27). What follows, then, is a series of questions: “What threats and
opportunities arise for the actor? Who is the actor (e.g., the Soviet Union or its
leader in 1962, Nikita Khrushchev)? What is its utility function (e.g., survival,
maximization of power, minimization of threat, etc.)? To maximize the actor’s
objectives in the specified conditions, what is the best choice?” (p. 27).
We can extrapolate such questions to academic governance. In a case study
of budgeting practices in the 1970s at Stanford University, Chaffee (1983) writes that
rational decision-making can occur provided that “the values of the institution as a
whole [are] understood, a sense of stability [is] present, and the power structure [is]
understood” (p. 47). In the budget process, Stanford’s provost advanced clear
academic objectives, including supporting programs of academic importance and
significant student interest. Participants sought decisions that advanced the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
objectives, and, over the 10 years being examined, the rational actor model described
the process (Chaffee, 1983, p. 46).
Despite Chaffee’s (1983) findings over the last 20 years, few empirical
studies have used the model. It is much more prevalent in implicit ways. Authors
advance ideas on governance predicated upon a “rational” environment. Brinkman
and Morgan (1997), for example, argue that budgeting and planning should be
possible for such relatively stable areas such as library allocation, and actions taken
there can serve as a template for less predictable areas such as allocations for
technology (pp. 301-02). Bennis and Naunus (1997) assert that effective future
leaders will need to think differently—for instance, designing flatter organizational
structures (pp. 211-220). Implicit in these two examples—and a multitude of other
articles—is the premise that individuals can determine a goal, persuade others to help
move toward it, and achieve it.
Trust within the rational actor model rests on the premise that individual A
can discern enough information about individual B to determine whether or not B
can be trusted to perform action X (Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Gambetta, 1988;
Hardin 1993). Thus researchers focus on ascertaining the relevant information upon
which to make decisions about trust, implicitly acknowledging that larger structures
are neutral (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
Strengths and Weaknesses o f Governance
in the Rational Actor Model
Because the model reflects what decision-makers state in explaining day-to-
day, as well as long-term, strategic decisions, the model has an initial pragmatic
appeal. Further, since it calls upon individuals to share values to provide foundations
for decision-making, the model provides a framework for actors to come together,
thus making the approach a unifying one (Chaffee, 1983, p. 15). Also, given a stable
environment, it can accurately reflect the governance process, as noted above
(Chaffee, 1983).
However, individuals may not agree upon core values, may not be able to
articulate them or may determine them only after they make a decision (Bimbaum
1988a, Chaffee, 1983). Therefore, a criticism of the model is that the very “rational”
elements underlying behavior may not be measurable or identifiable, especially
considering the number of actors in the organization (Allision & Zelikow, 1999).
Furthermore, “rational decision-making does not necessarily produce superior
decisions” (Chaffee, 1983, p. 15). Even if it did, the core agreement of values
necessary for the rational decision-making to succeed could have a long-term affect
of blinding an actor to other possibilities (Chaffee, 1983, p. 15).
Tmst in this model presumes the individual as the unit of analysis and social
structures as value-neutral. Thus, “trust comes about when individuals hold similar
views of the world that are in sync with the structures in which they reside” (Tiemey,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
2003, p. 4). It also presumes that individuals can ascertain the key information upon
which to rationally determine whether or not to trust another.
Individuals may not even want to be rational. Cohen and March (1986) argue
that “[individuals and organizations sometimes need ways of doing things for which
they have no good reason. They need to act before they think” (p. 396). Reason
does not always prevail in leadership and in communication—two key aspects of
governance. Aside from logic, leaders can make decisions based on personal feeling,
social influences, intuition and many other factors (Senge, 1994). Furthermore,
within a social network, communication can take the form of gossip, rumor or half-
truth, thereby creating barriers to “rational” evaluation.
Another criticism of the rational actor model is it overlooks the larger
influences of overarching social structures (Tierney, 2003b, p. 4). As such, applying
the model can have the effect of condoning or rationalizing the status quo.
Finally, the dearth of recent empirical studies using the rational actor model
in higher education—despite its widespread use in day-to-day governance—suggests
that researchers are persuaded that the model is inherently flawed. Allison and
Zelikow (1999) believe that the model can be used in conjunction with others
and conclude that it offers “not just a convenient, but also a powerful first
approximation” (p. 403). Still, the model has given very little insight into the
interactions of faculty and admini stration— the two key groups involved in day-to-day
decision-making at institutions of higher education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
The Structural Model
Overview and Key Concepts
The Structural Model incorporates the rationality of the Rational Actor
Model, but shifts the emphasis from decision-making to organizational structure and
processes. Implicit in this emphasis is that structures, procedures and processes
trump individual action. As such, the unit of analysis is the organization or some
part of it. “Structural organization theory is concerned with vertical differentials—
hierarchical levels of organizational authority and coordination, and horizontal
differentiations between organizational units . . . The organizational chart is the ever
present ‘tool’ of a structural organizational theorist” (Shaffitz & Ott, 1996, p. 203).
Like the rational actor theorist, the structural theorist believes that “organizations
exist to achieve established goals and objectives” and “organizations work best when
rationality prevails over personal preferences and external pressures” (Bolman &
Deal, 1997, p. 40). However, the structuralist goes on to focus on such matters as
“structures . . . designed to fit an organization’s circumstances,. . . specialization
and division of labor, [appropriate forms of coordination and control [and]
restructuring” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 40).
While a good deal of the earlier work using this model implies a static quality
of the structures (Mintzberg, 1979), more recent studies consider structures as
dynamic aspects of systems (Bimbaum, 1988a). Karl Weick (1976) advances the
helpful concept of educational organizations being loosely coupled systems—that is,
in contrast to tightly coupled systems, educational organizations often don’t have a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
clear chain of command or progression of cause and effect. An action of today taken
at a college may be loosely coupled with an action of tomorrow. Against the
backdrop of rational actor theory and more static examinations of structure, loose
coupling may be viewed negatively; however, Weick sees a number of advantages to
educational organizations being loosely coupled. Loose coupling allows for part of a
college to respond to an environmental change while insulating the rest of the college
from potentially harmful effects. It allows for more self-determination of the actors,
helpful for a well-educated workforce. It keeps costs down since fewer people are
needed to coordinate activities.
Michael D. Cohen and James G. March (1986) address issues of structure in
Leadership and Ambiguity, arguing that educational organizations are organized
anarchies. The president’s power and lines of authority are diffuse, the goals unclear
and faculty participants transitory. Rather than making rational choices, participants
in organized anarchies engage in garbage can decision-making:
A key to understanding the processes within organizations is to view a choice
opportunity as a garbage can into which various problems and solutions are
dumped by participants. The mix of garbage in a single can depends partly
on the labels attached to the alternative cans, but it also depends on what
garbage is being produced at the moment, on the mix of cans available and on
the speed with which garbage is collected and removed from the scene.
(p. 175).
The Structural Model and Governance
Called the most widely used model to study governance (Kezar & Eckel,
2004), the Structural Model has been used on a macro and micro level. On a macro
level, some researchers urge that structures and processes be altered to include
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
external stakeholders in decision-making (Jones, Ewell, & McGuinness 1998, p. 10)
or to structure public community colleges or universities differently (California
Commission on Higher Education, 1999; Carnegie Foundation, 1982; Dougherty,
1991). Micro level research includes study into decision-making, supporting
structures and processes that encourage more interaction among internal groups and
a blend of top-down and bottom-up decision making (Benjamin, Carroll, Jacobi,
Krop, & Shires, 1999). Some research incorporates an examination of structure,
even though another model provides the underpinning of the analysis (Lee, 1991,
Tierney 1988b), suggesting the value of the model in providing at least a baseline for
governance issues.
In examining administration and faculty’s roles in governance, one structure
has received special consideration: the Academic Senate. Barbara A. Lee’s
“Campus Leaders and Campus Senates” (1991) is an empirical study based on
observations at eight institutions. While the structural model was only part of the
study’s approach, nonetheless, Lee concludes that the college’s culture and
administrative response toward the senate were more important than structure in
promoting an effective senate.
Attempting to evaluate senates is difficult since no empirical study has
advanced a clear standard by which to establish effectiveness. As Bimbaum (1991)
notes, “in general, those who criticize the senate have not clearly articulated the
criteria they have employed, and their analyses tend to be narrative and anecdotal”
(p. 10). Nonetheless, he infers that critics of the senate use the structural model (and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
two other models) to evaluate performance. Bimbaum concludes that within the
structural model, the manifest functions of the senate are performed poorly. These
functions include such matters as such as meeting often, being involved in the
decision-making process for key decisions, recording minutes and preparing reports
for administrative officers.4
Others using the structural model dispute the assessment that senates are
performing poorly (Flanigan, 1994; Gilmour, 1991b; Lee 1991; Nance 1994). Based
on survey data collected from 79% of 402 institutions surveyed, Gilmour (1991b)
concluded that senates do participate significantly in decision-making; however, lack
of financial support and rewards hinder senates’ efforts. College presidents and
senate presidents disagree dramatically on the level of support needed for senate to
fully function (Flanigan, 1994; Gilmour, 1991).
As a modification to the governance structure, Keller (1983) recommended
that colleges create a Joint Big Decision Committee (JBDC), which called upon
participants from various college constituencies—“selected senior faculty members
and key administrators, with some junior faculty, students or trustee members”— to
address well-defined tasks, with its deliberations being kept secret (p. 61).
Subsequent research (Schuster et al., 1994; Yamada, 1991) suggested that few
colleges had adopted JBDCs, and that participants in those that did exist felt little
4 In section on the cultural model (below), I return to Bimbaum’s article to discuss the
Senate’s “latent” functions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
ownership in the resulting decision-making. The secrecy proved counterproductive
(Schuster et al., 1994, p. 183). An offshoot of JBDC’s strategic planning councils
(SPCs), achieved more widespread currency.
Instead of membership being appointed, SPCs tended to have a formalized
membership. Although some researchers and participants in governance thought
SPCs could usurp already established structures (Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges, 2002; Williams, Gore, Broches, & Lostoski, 1987), Schuster
et al. (1994) reported that those concerns were unfounded and that those SPCs “that
had attempted to ignore will-established faculty or administration decision centers
. . . lost their base of support and could not function effectively” (p. 181). SPCs
resulted in more complexity by adding more structures and processes; therefore, they
could be said to encourage inefficiency. Nonetheless, successful SPCs “create [d]
support on campus for difficult decisions and stimulate[d] an institutional climate
for change” (p. 183). SPCs improved communication. Where successful, this
communication led to improved morale; however, where SPCs proved unsuccessful,
morale declined because heightened expectations were dashed. Schuster et al.
(1994) also found that for the SPC structure to succeed, the president’s leadership
was “indispensable” (p. 186).
Trust within the structural model puts focus on “structures that allow for
constant monitoring and consultation” (Powell, 1996, p. 52). Extrapolating from
research in business, identification with such a structure (or organization) can
predispose an individual toward that unit’s conception of trust (Kramer, 1996;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Powell, 1996). Thus, faculty who identify with the Academic Senate would be
influenced by that group’s collective conception of trust in local administrators, and
in turn, state organizations of faculty leaders would shape local senate leaders’
conceptions of trust and the level, type and quality of monitoring and consulting.
The same pattern would occur from the administration point of view.
Strengths and Weaknesses o f Governance
in the Structural Model
The model’s widespread use suggests that at least it captures some important
organizational attributes and offers points of comparison among organizations.
Where decisions follow a well-ordered process (determining budgets in relatively
stable times, for example), the model can effective.
However, despite its popularity, the model has significant weaknesses. While
it can delineate formal structures and processes, it overlooks informal influences.
Further, it does not provide a way to explore processes in dynamic circumstances
(Baldridge, Chaffee, 1983; Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1991; Tierney 1988a). While it
can document change by providing before and after snapshots of structures and
processes, it does not address the conditions underlying the change, nor any of the
related political or interpersonal interactions (Baldridge et al., 1991). When we
consider how leadership functions or how people can best communicate to govern
effectively, the structural model provides little insight. Furthermore, Kaplan (2004)
has found that “structures of governance [e.g., academic senates] do not appear to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
account, in a significant way, for variance of outcomes among institutions of higher
education” (p. 31).
Some researchers suggest that the uniqueness of every institution renders the
structural model ineffective: “what works [to understand and improve governance]
will vary from campus to campus” (Kezar & Eckel, 2003, p. 16). This point emerges
in a variety of studies (Birnbaum, 1988a; Schuster et al., 1994).
The model has led to several important concepts, especially loose coupling
(Weick, 1976). The Senate’s role in governance, for example, can be described as
loosely coupled; it makes a recommendation that the president can accept or reject.
Further, the actions the Senate takes in formulating the recommendation are often
loosely coupled. What effect does this loose coupling have on the final
recommendation? Would tighter coupling result in better decision-making? Do
some processes of governance exhibit such tighter coupling? Are they more
effective? To what extent are the president’s actions loosely coupled in the decision
making process? In short, loose coupling encourages closer examination of
processes and structures.
Organized anarchy, by being the inverse of the structural model, provides
insight into a set of issues, many of them helpful in understanding actions in
governance. Because actions are often loosely coupled, we can understand decision
making as opportunistic, a chance for leaders to resolve problems. In contrast to the
structural model, organized anarchy embraces randomness. It acknowledges the
inability of structures to adequately explain decisions, but in its place, the lack of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
structures and process make an inadequate framework upon which to construct
models that can predict specific action or suggest a course of action for
improvement. In short, organized anarchy may provide insight into past behavior,
but not into patterns of behavior, structures or processes upon which to make
governance more effective.
Trust as seen in this model must be extrapolated from business research,
and the applicability is not immediately apparent. Research focuses on larger
organizational structures, such as networks and assumes a competitive climate,
conditions which do not necessarily transfer to the internal administration-faculty
forms of decision-making central to governance in higher education. Another
shortcoming with the model is that it implies rigidity to concepts (trust, governance)
that are fluid.
The Political Model
Overview and Key Concepts
Underlying the political model is an ideology of an organization as a place of
struggle and conflict in which some individuals and groups win and others lose
(Pfeffer, 1981, p. 371). Although power may be “America’s last dirty word,”
(Kanter, 1979, p. 400), theorists since the 1970s have focused on power and the
political frame as value-neutral or positive (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Baldridge et
al., 1991; Bolman & Deal, 1997; Kanter, 1979; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1992).
Pfeffer (1992) even goes so far as to write that “power and influence are .. . the
secret of success for both individual and organizations” (p. 345). Power may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
defined as “an elusive blend of at least three elements: (a) bargaining advantages,
(b) skill and will in using bargaining advantages, and (c) other players’ perceptions
of the first two ingredients” (Allison & Zelikow, 1999, p. 300). Bolman and Deal
(1997) advance five core propositions of the political model:
1. Organizations are coalitions of various individuals and interest
groups.
2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values,
beliefs, information, interests and perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve the allocation of scarce resources.
4. Scarce resources and enduring differences give conflict a central role
in organizational dynamics and makes power the most important resource.
5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and
jockeying for position among different stakeholders (p. 163; authors’ emphasis).
The unit of analysis for this frame is frequently the organization in context
with other organizations (Sergiovanni, 1984, p. 6), although it can be the
organization itself or the individual as a political actor within the organization.
Information and communication within this model are used strategically to
further the interest of various groups (Bimbaum, 1988a). In contrast to the rational
actor model (which presumes that actors strive for the reasoned choice), the political
model presumes that those who have the greatest power are able to shape
information and in turn determine decisions and reap the greatest rewards (Pfeffer,
1981).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Sources of power may be based on reward, coercion, and expertise (French &
Raven, 1959). Perceptions of legitimate power also are important.
If [an individual] accepts as right the social structure of his group,
organization, or society, especially the social structure involving a hierarchy
of authority, [the individual] will accept the legitimate authority of [another
individual] who occupies a superior office in the hierarchy. Thus legitimate
power in a formal organization is largely a relationship between offices rather
than between persons. (French & Raven, 1959, p. 380)
Governance in the Political Model. Although reports frequently rely upon
the structural or rational actor model (explicitly or implicitly), the Carnegie
Foundation report, The Control o f the Campus: A Report o f the Governance o f
Higher Education (1982), implicitly uses some aspects of the political model. The
report focuses on the level of accountability of universities to the public. It “opposes
any government move to accredit institutions” (p. 77), however, its recommendations
on a micro level are tame and tend to be more structural. Few participants in
governance would argue, for example, “that faculty should support a campus-wide
senate” (p. 75). Perhaps the most widely known report on education, Nation at Risk,
had a similarly political purpose on a macro level (Holton, 2003, p. B13). Public
universities are increasingly subject to outside pressures. To influence the outcome
of key decisions, “[f] acuity must realize that the contemporary arena of institutional
repositioning is at least as much about political positioning between competing
interest groups, both within and outside their workplaces. To speak of mutual trust
and cooperation is pie-in-the-sky thinking” (Gumport, 1997, p. 135). A common
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
thread of these articles is to position educational concerns in a political framework,
especially when considering an outside, societal context.
In their examination of leadership Kerr and Gade (1986) highlight many
sources of power within and outside institutions of higher education. They assert
that “[t]o be effective in getting any change in the midst of all these power blocs, the
president must engage in a pacific form of guerrilla warfare” (p. 145), taking on one
bloc at a time, making sure that all blocs do not surround the president at once.
Unless the president is skilled in such warfare, the campus can experience stasis.
Julius, Baldridge and Pfeffer (1999) broaden the conception of leadership to
include faculty. To effect change, leaders must understand that colleges are “people-
processing” institutions, with unclear goals that can be shaped to aid the leader’s
purpose. Decision making processes are so unclear that they are best characterized
as “decision flowing” (p. 116). To control this decision flow, leaders must consider
timing, must focus actions, and must frame issues incorporating the institution’s
history (Julius et al., 1999; Pfeffer 1992). Given the institution’s unclear goals,
leaders need to pay special attention to strategic planning, inculcating key
participants by providing salient background information, and by establishing
benchmarks for evaluation. Without thorough follow-through, “most plans are
eventually relegated to a store room in the library” (Julius et al., 1999, p. 125).
Although colleges are especially conflict-averse, leaders should not necessarily avoid
conflict; they should manage it. To do so, leaders need to promote mutual interests,
offer real alternatives to those opposed to the change, and use external pressure to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
promote internal changes (Julius et al., 1999, pp. 121-122). Leaders who appear to
be promoting self-interest undercut their ability to gain support (Marcus, 1999).
Leaders have several symbolic sources of power. Pfeffer (1992) identifies
these as language, ceremonies and settings. Use of language shapes issues and
perceptions. It can even include the title a personal receives, because the title (vice-
president, chair of a task force) suggests a person’s power and bestowing it can be a
means to furthering a leader’s objective. A leader has the prerogative of shaping
ceremonies, such as town hall meetings or opening day celebrations, but ceremonies
also include day-to-day activities. Setting includes office size, lay-out, and other
details that suggest power. Pfeffer (1992) cites an example of a congressional leader
deliberately choosing to use a small desk to create less of a barrier between himself
and his visitors. In this case, the congressman sought to downplay his power and
encourage communication (p. 297).
The advice to leaders and observations about symbolic sources of power that
I have just summarized emerge from business and political studies. Despite calls for
research (Floyd, 1985), the political model has not been widely used in empirical
studies based at institutions of higher education, particularly examining the decision
making of senates and administrations.
Trust within the model raises two distinct ideas. First, since the model
assumes conflict, trust may be seen as necessary within coalitions or groups.
Boundaries between groups and organizations make trust and collaboration more
difficult, and those within the boundaries find collaborations easier (Zucker, Darby,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Brewer, & Peng, 1996). In some cases, intense interaction of a relatively small
group can lead to groupthink (Janis, 1982), which is related to unwarranted trust.
Within sub-groups, then, leaders must balance the goal of creating trust with the
danger of that trust blinding members to other relevant information.
The model also presumes that trust is subordinate to power and control as a
means to achieving goal. Hence, trust has a somewhat ambiguous place. Sun Tzu’s
comments on the political strategy of war put the ambiguity clearly. On the one
hand, he advocates creating a “moral influence” that encourages “the people to be in
harmony with their leaders, so that they will accompany them in life and unto death
without fear of moral peril” (Griffith, 1971, p. 64). On the other hand, since “all
warfare is based on deception” leaders should pretend inferiority, incapacity and
disorder (pp. 66-67). In short, trust becomes something that can be manipulated in
the service of the leader’s purpose.
Strengths and Weaknesses o f Governance
in the Political Mode
Since most observers of governance in higher education believe that times are
changing rapidly and that institutions are fraught with differing viewpoints, the
political model has an immediate appeal: it starts from the assumption of competing
or unclear goals. This conflict in governance is exemplified on a fundamental level
by recent events at the University of Akron and Miami-Dade Community College—
in which the power of local academic senates was greatly curtailed after a union was
voted in (Smallwood, 2003, pp. A10-A11). Administrators at University of Akron
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
maintain that the deletion of significant senate powers were legally necessary;
faculty assert that the move was either retaliation or a bargaining maneuver.)
Further, the model can incorporate both formal and informal sources of power, so it
can capture a broad range of processes and influences in decision-making. For
research into educational institutions in a social context, the political model captures
the differing objectives and influences. Because it includes differing objectives, the
model offers insight into process and strategies designed at promoting change within
institutions.
The model includes symbolic aspects of power, which encourages
examination of the subtle, yet important actions that shape perceptions and action.
These influences are powerful because they can be easily overlooked (Pfeffer, 1992);
the political frame brings them into the light.5
In contrast to the rational actor model, political theorists do not start from the
premise of individuals or the groups striving to determine some rational, “best”
decision. Instead, all matters are under constant reevaluation, with the decisions
being determined by the interplay of the organization and exterior forces
(Sergiovanni, 1984, p. 6). This value-neutral stance can be seen as a strength, since
allows researchers to focus on the process—on how changes come about. However,
I would argue that ultimately it is a greater weakness. Because it assumes
5 1 will argue below that to see these symbols only in the political frame, however, is like
seeing a cloud only in terms of meteorology. Language, ceremonies and settings have a wealth of
associations that are important for understanding organizations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
disagreement, it provides little emphasis on moving toward consensus—an ideal
state which arguably would result in the greatest effectiveness. In addition, the model
is inherently value-neutral; it cannot discern any kind of ideal or establish any kind
of benchmark for evaluating effectiveness. It defines “best” in terms of control and
power; in effect, whatever succeeds in being put in place is best, and the researcher
can gain insight into the processes whereby the course of action was determined.
The model can encourage observers to see hidden agendas and scheming every
where, and it can encourage a Machiavellian attitude, individuals using it simply to
advance their own personal interests (Morgan, 1986, p. 197). Of course, hidden
agendas and scheming certainly emerge in governance in higher education; however,
a model that encourages their examination is at odds with the value-laden purpose of
colleges.
Bolman and Deal (1997) argue that politics is inherent in any organization
and that individuals in organizations may be guided by three important principles of
moral judgment: mutuality (Do all parties agree on the rules of operation?),
generality (Does a specific action follow a moral code that is applicable to all
comparable situations?), and caring (Does the proposed action show concern for
those affected?) (pp. 192-193). While these constructs aid in giving an evaluative
dimension to the political model, the model’s emphasis remains on process and
pragmatism—helpful aspects to consider in governance, but not the whole picture.
When applied to trust, the model may be able to show how trust may be used
to achieve certain desired results, particularly how to encourage trust within a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
subgroup of the college (such as the senate or administration). However, the model
presents an ambiguous view of trust, since deceitfulness arguably can serve the end
result as well.
The Human Resources Model
Overview and Key Concepts
Against a backdrop of what can be perceived as an increasingly de
personalized society (Baldridge et al., 1991), the human resources model emerges
with its central metaphor of the organization as family. Underlying this model are
four basic assumptions:
1. Organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the reverse.
2. People and organizations need each other; organizations need ideas,
energy and talent; people need careers, salaries and opportunities.
3. When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both
suffer: individuals will be exploited or will exploit the organization—or both will
become victims.
4. A good fit benefits both: individuals find meaningful and satisfying
work, and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed (Bolman &
Deal, 1997, pp. 102-103).
A key theorist who informs this model is Abraham Maslow, whose hierarchy
of needs assumes that basic needs such as food shelter and security must be met
before a person can flourish. Therefore, since the self-actualizing employee is at the
top of Maslow’s hierarchy—and is the most creative and productive—it is the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
obligation of an organization to provide conditions for employees to move toward
self-actualization (Shafritz & Ott, 1996). The unit of analysis for the human
resources frame, then, is usually the whole organization.
Drawing upon Maslow’s ideas, Douglas MacGregor (1957) advanced a
theory that strived to satisfy social, ego and self-fulfillment needs. McGregor
questioned the conventional wisdom that assumed a lazy worker, resistant to change
and free from ambition; such a worker called for a manager to exert control, through
various incentives or threats. Instead of this conventional, Theory X approach,
McGregor advanced Theory Y, predicated on management helping individuals to
achieve organizational goals, which he believed were latent in individuals. Although
managers help organize work, “Theory Y relies heavily on self-control and self-
direction” (Shafritz & Ott, 1996, p. 181).
McGregor’s Theory Y is foundational when the human resource frame is
applied to colleges and universities, where the model is sometimes called the
collegial model (Baldridge et al., 1991; Bimbaum, 1988a). As an abstraction,
collegiality is as desirable as freedom or justice, but when researchers examine it
more closely, significant strands of meaning emerge. Baldridge et al. (1991) cites
three aspects: “(1) decision making by consensus, (2) the professional authority of
faculty members, and (3) the call for more humane education” (p. 37). Bimbaum
(1988a) cites two definitions, one of which implies more deference to the faculty’s
authority and knowledge (p. 87).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
In an indirect way, the human resources model has informed some research
that has sought alternatives to structural or rational actor models. For example, in
“Listening to the People We Serve,” Chaffee (1998) underscores the importance of
caring in institutions of higher education. She states, “Learning is the interaction of
knowledge and people. It is time for us to pay as much attention to the latter as the
former” (p. 37).6 Peace (2001) argues that instead of “hard” qualities such as
assertiveness, leaders need to cultivate vulnerability, candor and sensitivity to
promote effective group decision-making and productivity.
Governance in Human Resources Model
In institutions of higher education, the leader is “first among equals”
(Baldridge et al., 1991; Bimbaum, 1988a, p. 89; p. 43). He or she gathers judgments,
listens, negotiates and compromises. This strategy flows from the professional
nature of professors (and such a strategy would apply, for example, for physicians in
hospitals or scientists in industry) (Baldridge et al., 1991, p. 37). Decision-making is
based upon consensus and aimed at fostering “a shared sense of direction and
commitment” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 157). The Academic Senate embodies
consensus by encouraging collegial consultation. A statement adopted by the
Academic Senate for the California Community College calls on local senates to
recognize that decision-making calls for “interdependence, a commitment to
communication, and the exchange of ideas” (1998, p. 10).
6 Chaffee also relies on the cultural model in this article.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Few empirical studies are grounded in the human resources model (Kezar &
Eckel, 2004). However, the model does ground reports on governance. The
chancellor of the California Community College system at the time of this study
called for the adoption of a credo that includes this statement:
I recognize that if our community colleges are to successfully serve the best
interests of students . . . that my contribution alone will not enable it to
happen. I recognize that the commitment must come from everyone at all
levels, and that we are mutually dependent upon one another to perform our
respective roles with excellence. (Nussbaum, 1995; appendix)
The Association of American University Professors (AAUP) cites as an overarching
assumption about shared governance that “governance should result from
interdependence and cooperation among the various governance components”
(Ramo, 1998, p. 6).
When viewed within the human resources model, trust in governance focuses
on the interpersonal nature of trust and its importance in sustaining the social fabric
of a community. Matters such as a person’s reputation, the physical proximity of
the truster and the trustee, and the level of communication between them all play
important roles in determining whether a person will trust another (Burt & Knez,
1996; Good, 1988). Lewicki and Bunker (1996) advance a developmental model of
trust, positing a series of stages through which trust (or distrust) is established.
Strengths and Weaknesses o f Governance
in Human Resources Model
In American colleges, a model that underscores collegiality has an immediate
emotional and idealistic appeal. Further, research conducted in business
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
organizations justifies greater reliance upon employee participation (Ledford, 1993)
and empowerment (Bennis & Nanus, 1997). Clearly, in higher education, it informs
the faculty viewpoint and provides a foundational doctrine for the AAUP as well as
for state academic senates and local ones. Presidents such as Darroch Young
(personal communication, 2004) of Pierce College have embraced the model,
seeking to promote wide involvement of organizational members in decision
making.
A weakness of the human resources model is that it is too idealistic, that it
advances a vision of what should be without fully addressing the process of how to
make decisions (Baldridge et al., 1991, p. 37). Even Douglas McGregor’s (1957)
practical experience as a college president showed that the theory could not capture
important aspects of actions required in educational organizations. And the credo
advanced by the California community college chancellor (cited above) has not been
adopted across the community college system—despite the credo’s relatively
innocuous underlying philosophy.
If institutions of higher education must change to meet an array of
challenges—and if change often produces conflict—the model’s inability to respond
adequately to conflict is a serious shortcoming (Baldridge et al., 1991, p. 37).
Further, some observers believe that a true collegial model can succeed only when
the number of participants are small and can meet often, face-to-face (Bimbaum,
1988a).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
On an empirical level, the scarcity of research that relies upon the model
suggests two central weaknesses. Either researcher’s tacitly acknowledge that the
model is more helpful in advancing an ideal, or researchers have not been able to
discern ways of measuring a multitude of factors that would provide insight into
promoting collegial governance.
When considering trust within the model, the stages of trust advanced by
Lewicki and Bunker (1996) show promise. However, much of the social psychology
research has focused on interpersonal relationships that overlook the broader social
fabric within which trust is established. This omission is especially important in
examining the interplay between the administration and faculty, since faculty
leadership (and increasingly administrative leadership) revolves.
The Cultural Model
Overview and Key Concepts
Anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) defines culture as “an historically
transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited
conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which [people] communicate,
perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (p. 89). In
adapting the concept of culture to business and educational organizations, Edgar
Schein (1992) emphasizes three key levels of culture: (a) artifacts, (b) espoused
7 According to The Chronicle o f Higher Education (2003, August 29), 5 years in the current
position is the median for college presidents; senate presidents typically serve 1 or 2 years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
values, and (c) basic underlying assumptions (p. 17). Artifacts are “all the
phenomena that one sees, hears, and feels . . . [including] the visible products of the
groups, such as the architecture of its physical environment, its language, its
technology and products, and its artistic creations” (p. 17). Artifacts are “easy to
observe and very difficult to decipher” (p. 17). Researchers using the cultural frame
stress the importance of contextualizing meaning for the particular organization,
especially important in determining the meaning of artifacts. (For the importance of
context, see Alvesson, 2002; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Peterson & Spencer,
1990; Tierney, 1988b). Espoused values may be congruent with the beliefs of
those in an organization. However, espoused values may be “in effect, either
rationalizations or only aspirations for the future” (Schein, 1992, p. 21). In contrast,
“if a basic assumption is strongly held in a group, members will find behavior based
on any other premise inconceivable” (Schein, 1992, p. 22).
The cultural model—as advanced by Geertz (1973), Schein (1992), and
Tiemey (1988a) discussed below—focuses on the organization as the unit of
analysis.
To define the cultural framework and apply it to higher education, Tiemey
(1988a) advanced six interlocking concepts: environment, mission, socialization,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
information, strategy, and leadership.8 Each concept raises particular questions and
issues (Table 1).
Table 1. Key Concepts o f Culture
Environment How does the organization define its environment? What is the attitude toward
the environment? (Hostility? Friendship?)
Mission How is it defined? How is it articulated? Is it used as a basis for decisions?
How much agreement is there?
Socialization How do new members become socialized? How is it articulated? What do we
need to know to survive/excel in this organization?
Information What constitutes information? Who has it? How is it disseminated?
Strategy How are decisions arrived at? What strategy is used? Who makes decisions?
What is the penalty for bad decisions?
Leadership What does the organization expect from its leaders? Who are the leaders? Are
there formal and informal leaders?
Note. (Tiemey, 1988a)
8 Several other frameworks have been proposed for the cultural model. Martin (1992)
advances three perspectives: integration, differentiation and fragmentation. The integration
perspective, characterized by Schein’s (1992) concepts that I sketched above, implies a shared
perspective, but researchers differ on just what is shared. Some researchers take a “generalist”
approach, looking at communication, symbols, structures— a wide variety o f elements in an
organization’s culture. Other research focuses on, for example, adherence to a company’s stated
mission (p. 53). The differentiation perspective highlights the role o f subcultures and inconsistencies
in an organization. The fragmentation perspective emphasizes that some issues “will be seen as
ambiguous, generating unclear relationships among manifestations and only ephemeral issue-specific
coalitions that fail to coalesce in either organization-wide or subcultural consensus” (p. 169). Martin
advocates shifting among these three perspectives to best understand an organization’s culture.
Eckel and Kezar (2003) propose a “mobile model”: “the change process, like a mobile, is
made up o f various interdependent component (or strategies), which, although they may move
somewhat independently are ultimately connected directly or indirectly to each other (p. 147). Key
components of the mobile model include senior administrative support, collaborative leadership,
visible action, flexible vision and staff development. Lueddeke (1999), in advancing his Adaptive-
Generative Development Model, would agree with an emphasis on collaborative leadership. His
approach, however, is more pragmatic, calling for consideration o f these other components: (a) needs
analysis, (b) evaluation, (c) resource support and evaluation of external conditions (pp. 247-253). I
believe that Tierney’s model provides the most comprehensive and workable framework, so that is the
focus o f my discussion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
The environment has been especially important as colleges find themselves
facing challenges because of technology and new forms of education (especially for-
profit colleges) (Gumport & Pusser, 1997) and calls for more accountability to
receive funding and accreditation (Jones et al., 1998).
The mission of a college, tied closely to a “shared vision” (Senge, 1994), can
promote successful change, including even reduction in programs (Kezar & Eckel,
2004). Mission ties in with the college’s objectives and goals and its history
(Tiemey, 1999, p. 65), which can include sagas, or stories of its past (Clark, 1980).
A “flexible vision” can provide “a flexible yet clear and desirable picture of the
future that includes goals and objectives related to that future’s implementation”
(Eckel & Kezar 2003, p. 78).
Socialization can come from leaders who “embed” culture through several
primary and secondary mechanisms (Schein, 1994), which include (primarily)
budget allocation, deliberate role modeling, observed criteria for recmitment, and
(secondarily) organizational rites and rituals, stories and mission statements. The
newcomer’s entry into the organization is marked by change, contrast and surprise
(Louis, 1985, p. 442). It is important that a newcomer develop “a cognitive
framework for expressing and interpreting meanings in a particular culture” (p. 445).
Developing this framework need not be coercive; in fact, all sorts of social
interactions—formal and informal— guide a person entering the new culture (Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979) as can organizational sagas (Clark, 1972). Sagas promote
loyalty, trust and social bonds that members willingly assume (Clark, 1972, pp. 51-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
52). If socialization becomes too insular—especially in relatively small groups of a
dozen or fewer— groupthink can occur (Janis, 1982). Groupthink can result when
members of the group strive to avoid conflict and embrace conformity. In general,
the research into socialization processes in higher education has been has been
characterized as being “replete with taken-for-granted definitions of socialization”;
furthermore, this research has had little effect on college and university
administrators in the face of day-to-day problems (Tiemey, 1997, p. 1).
Information, the fourth of Tierney’s concepts of culture, includes various
forms of communication as well as knowledge (1988a, pp. 132-133; 1991). Good
communication is especially crucial in “a complex, turbulent environment in which
technological and other forms of interdependence are high” (Schein, 1992, p. 371).
Within the organization, specialized language, as well as metaphors and symbols,
enforces a sense of the culture’s identity (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 254), which in
turn, can enable positive change (Chaffee, 1998; Eckel & Kezar, 2003). Informal
conversation (Tiemey, 1983) and images (Morgan, 1986) play significant roles in
shaping organizational behavior and culture. Feminist philosopher Nancy Nyquist
Potter (2002) advances the helpful concept of uptake. At a basic level, uptake refers
to acknowledgement within a speech act, demonstrating that a person or persons
understand another’s meaning (Austin, 1975). Potter argues, however, that uptake
also depends upon social conventions: “[a] community or society that doesn’t give
uptake to claims thwarts the well-being of (at least some) members of that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
community and opens the doors to other detrimental effects to the overall citizenry as
well” (Potter, 2002, p. 157).
Strategy can be seen as a consciously determined plan, “a pattern in a stream
of actions,” a vision implicit in an organization’s values or a niche (Mintzberg,
(1987a). Individuals in organizations can understand strategy as a shifting among
these four definitions. A central purpose for strategy is to provide consistency and to
reduce uncertainty (Mintzberg, 1987b, p. 29). It can resolve big issues so that people
can concentrate on the important day-to-day details. Given the increasing volume of
“strategic” efforts, Mintzberg (1987b) sounds an important word of caution. He
likens strategies in organizations to blinders worn by horses: “they keep them going
in a straight line, but impede the use of peripheral vision” (p. 31). When planning
goes astray and the strategy proves ineffective, the problem can be tied to several key
factors including lack of vision, inadequate communication and, ultimately, inability
to incorporate the proposed changes into the culture (Kotter, 1995).9 Planners may
believe that a proposed strategy has been explained, but unless they tie the strategy,
briefly and clearly, into the organization’s mission and insure that everyone
understands the strategy’s connection, the strategy is doomed to fail.
Leadership most prominently rests with the college president: “The president
creates the atmosphere” asserts former Cornell University president Frank H. T.
9 This latter point seems to be circular reasoning to me. Successful strategy by definition
will incorporated into the culture; unsuccessful strategy will not. Nonetheless, Kotter’s (1995) point
underscores the interrelatedness o f the various aspects of culture that I’ve been discussing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Rhodes (1998, p. 15; his emphasis). Members of the culture look especially to the
formal leader to make meaning for the culture, to create its “reality” (Smircich &
Morgan, 1982, p. 262). Pondy (1978) underscores the importance of a leader’s use
of language, especially in a time of change: “meanings change roughly as fast as the
enacted environment changes, and the rate of language renewal will need to keep
pace if leadership effectiveness is to be sustained . . . What is communicated is not
words, but meanings” (p. 93). Furthermore, “the leader’s subtle use of the language
may also be an important factor in determining his effectiveness, both in enhancing
his credibility and managing the influence process” (Pondy, 1978, pp. 93-94).1 0
Creating this “reality” is an important and difficult task. “Leadership requires skill
in the creation of meaning that is authentic to oneself and one’s community”
(Bensimon & Neumann, 1993, p. xv).
When that meaning is not consistent with the community’s view, distrust
emerges and cooperation dissipates (Lee, 1991; Tiemey 1988b). In difficult times,
successful presidents control rumor and seek out means to increase communication
(Whetten, 1984). Leadership implies an interplay between the leader and the led
(Cleveland, 1982, p. 185), and can embrace the notion of leaderships teams
(Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). While individuals can transform cultures (Bennis &
Nanus, 1997; Cleveland, 1982; Geertz, 1973; Tiemey, 1999) such examples are rare
1 0 Note here that Pondy (1978) inadvertently makes the point by using only the male
pronoun—“his”— thus suggesting his conception of leadership as being male. Language inevitably
must carry meaning, just as to live, people must breathe.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
in higher education (Bimbaum, 1988b). A long-serving college president may be
better able to promote change (Korshgen, Fuller, & Gardner, 2001), especially if he
or she creates a strong administrative team and adopts specific actions (Eckel &
Kezar 2003), including keeping the organization focused on particular short-term
concerns.
Governance in the Cultural Model
Tierney’s (2003b) six concepts have highlighted various aspects of
governance. Good communication promotes effective governance (Kuss, 2000; Lee,
1991), and, in turn, openness in governance promotes effective communication
(Bimbaum, 1988a, p. 220).
Strategy includes the strategic planning councils discussed above within
the structural framework; however, within the cultural model SPCs can be viewed as
cultural artifacts. That is, when an organization talks about being strategic, both the
process and outcomes represent important values of the organizational culture
(Alvesson, 2002, p. 79). Swenk (1999), in a study of strategic planning failures,
argues that strategic planning relies inherently on rational actor theory, a theory that
does not capture effectively the behavior in educational organizations. Further, the
faculty and administrators bring different styles of decision-making. The faculty put
more emphasis on process—“on collegiality, thoroughness, carefulness and expert-
based review” (Swenk, 1999, p. 12) and those values often conflict with
administrators’ desire for quick implementation. Swenk offers three activities that
administrators might undertake to ensure better “alignment” between cultures
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
(pp. 14-17). Similar to Kotter (1995), she argues that administrators need first to
make the argument for planning (or strategic change), taking into consideration the
faculty viewpoints and the organization’s mission. Second, the administration needs
to incorporate a partial participation model to insure effective participation of the
faculty. Although widespread participation is important, a partial participation
model acknowledges the college’s hierarchy and the administration’s responsibility
to make certain decisions. Further, this model can encourage trust: “When trust
exists and participation is encouraged, participants realize their ideas will be
considered seriously during the decision-making process” (p. 17).
Leadership studies have examined the interplay between the president and
faculty. Bensimon (1991) in a study of how faculty created the image of a president
coming from outside the campus, noted that a range of “gestures” created the
perception of whether the president was friendly or hostile to the faculty. Positive
gestures included advocating faculty interests to the outside community, acting as a
follower, and letting the faculty be heard. Negative gestures include failure to
consult, failure to communicate and failure to acknowledge shared governance.
Bensimon reports that the presidents who exhibited positive gestures, in turn,
improved the faculty’s morale and engagement (pp. 651-652). However, negative
gestures did not necessarily have a harmful effect if the faculty perceived that the
president was acting on behalf of the worthy academic values. Bensimon’s findings
are complemented by Kezar’s (2004) research which has found that leadership is one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
of three key factors—along with trust and relationships—that “supersede structures
and processes in effective decision making” (p. 44).
In an ethnographic study of a college and its leadership “web,” Tiemey
(1988b) found similar gestures, or “symbolic action and language” (p. 217). For
example, when the new college president moved her desk so that it was no longer
immediately visible from the hallway, members of the campus community
interpreted the action to mean that the new president was not accessible and did not
value personal interaction. This single act was linked to others—that the previous
president would walk the hallways with a quick word to many that she passed, while
the current president could walk within two feet of someone and not say a word.
Tiemey found such connections not just in the category of communication, but also
the construction of time and space, leading him to urge researchers to “move toward
an ethnology of leadership in higher education from a cultural viewpoint that takes
into account interwoven organizational webs” (p. 218).
Leaders need to shape communication and to make meaning to lead
effectively: “Effective leadership is . . . possible [only] when leaders are aware of
[the web of symbolic action and language] and when they can shape it themselves by
spinning actions and discourse on a symbolic level” (Tierney, 1988b, p. 217).
To complement other concepts advanced by Tiemey (1988a), trust must go
beyond purely personal or interpersonal dynamics to include its social role. Further,
as with Tierney’s other concepts, trust must be value neutral: a culture can be said to
have a range of causes, responses, symbols, patterns of communicating—all related
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
to trust in that culture. Viewed culturally, then, trust arguably overlaps all of
Tierney’s concepts. For example, a president entering a college with a more
distrusting perspective than that of other college leaders may alter the way that
college shares information and decision-making; thus, trust enters into the concepts
of leadership, socialization, strategy and information. Trust as viewed within the
model can be illustrated by considering, for a moment, college trustees. Not only do
they bring to their positions their own conceptions of interpersonal trust, they have a
formalized position of trust in relationship to the college stakeholders (the
community, students, faculty, staff, even society at large). A board’s actions have a
literal and symbolic significance. Recently, the importance of the symbolic meaning
was underscored in events occurring in the South Orange County Community
College District in California. The district’s Board of Trustees sought to replace a
trustee who had resigned. However, faculty, working with the community, gathered
enough signatures to put the election to a vote. In a time of budget cut-backs, the
election will cost $400,000-$800,000. Faculty leaders report that they were not
necessarily opposed to the person the board sought to appoint, but they objected to
the board’s lack of consultation, especially in light of a history of confrontation and a
no confidence vote taken against the superintendent (Gottlieb, 2003). Clearly, the
incident illustrates that trust (as well as distrust) implies important social, historical
and symbolic aspects, all of which emerge in the cultural model. These issues
emerge in literature that is based on business organizations (Bies & Tripp, 1996;
Kramer et al., 1996).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Strengths and Weaknesses o f Governance
in the Cultural Model
The cultural framework offers many benefits to studying organizations. It
captures the interplay between the individual and the organization. The political
framework emphasizes this interplay; however, the political framework, by focusing
on conflict, can guide researchers away from other important interactions. In
contrast to the human resources (or collegial) framework, cultural theorists are not
evaluating organizations in relation to an ideal position, so—at least potentially-
they are more open to discerning all sorts of behavior within an organization. Many
students of organizations find that the rational actor framework another kind of ideal,
one that does not fully capture important aspects of organizational behavior. Further,
the rational actor and the human resource frame tend to focus more fully on the
individual (Schein, 1996, p. 2). The structural framework, while capturing important
aspects of organizations, cannot address the subtle motivations of people within
organizations. In addition, “[m]echanically linking structure to meaning denies the
active, ongoing, and always problematic character of interaction” (Van Maanen &
Barley, 1985, p. 35). The structural approach is aligned more with what Pondy (in
another context) calls “playing notes” as opposed to “making music” (1978, p. 94).
Trust within this framework implies not just internalized concepts of trust,
but how those evolve in a social network (Cufaude, 1999; Gambetta, 1988; Good,
1988; Luhmann, 1988; Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996; Schein, 1992; Webb,
1996; Young, 2004). In the context of this network, Williams (1988) advances the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
concept of “thick trust” to describe “reliance on and between a group of persons in
terms of their known dispositions, personal relations, and so on” (p. 12). In a study
of 55 middle schools, for example, Tschannen-Moran (2003) examined behavior that
strengthened individuals’ commitment to the social organization of the school—what
she called “organizational citizenship behavior.” “Trust in the principal was
significantly correlated to organizational citizenship” (p. 13).
Three theories of trust offer special promise. Cummings and Bromiley
(1996) posit trust as a matrix, organized by three dimensions of trust (“keeps
commitments, negotiates honestly, avoids taking excessive advantage”), and three
components of belief (“affective state, cognition, and intended behavior”).
Cummings and Bromiley’s Organizational Trust Inventory, designed to measure
levels of the nine boxes created by the matrix, was created for examining trust
among businesses and within parts of a business organization. While one of the
concepts—avoids taking excessive advantage—seems ill-suited to educational
organizations, the other concepts appear worthy of further study. The author of a
second theory, Tschannen-Moran (2003), used middle schools as the locus for her
theory, which defined trust as “one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another
party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent,
honest and open” (p. 162). Although identifying five traits makes it possible to
classify Tschannen-Moran’s work under the human resources model, it could be
used to consider organizational culture if various individuals are asked about other
individuals or parts of the organization. Further, incidents (from past and present) in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
a culture could be anchored by the five traits. A third theory is that of Braithwaite
(1998), who distinguished between two kinds of trust. Exchange trust stems from an
individual’s or group’s ability to accumulate resources and allocate them effectively.
Communal trust or social trust “depends on identification with the group and
perceived agreement on common norms” (Bimbaum, 2004). Communal trust is
backward-looking, then, while exchange trust is forward looking. If organizations
with a high degree of communal tmst begin to shift to exchange trust, the communal
trust may erode (Braithwaite 1998). Of these three theories, the theory of
Braithwaite (1998) was best suited for this exploratory study, since it advanced two,
focused concepts relevant to issues raised in chapter 1 (especially colleges’ need to
respond to an increasing number of demands).
The strength of the cultural model when compared to the other four models I
have outlined can be illustrated in the example cited above of the South Orange
County College district. The rational actor model would underscore the apparent
breakdown in decision-making: clearly spending over $400,000 on election in which
the two groups had no substantive disagreement seems irrational on the face of
things. However, once a researcher begins to place tmstee, administration, faculty
and community interactions into the rational actor framework, determining a matrix
to evaluate rationality becomes overwhelmingly complex. A political framework
would highlight the ongoing power struggle, presumably evaluating the efficacy of
bringing the trustee matter to a vote. However, this framework would encourage an
evaluation of strategy, and provide little insight into the underlying, substantive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
issues and the social circumstances of the disagreement. The human resources
model would examine the interpersonal dynamics that led to the apparent conflict.
However, this framework would provide little insight into the social conventions that
become acceptable over time and can shape decision-making. An analysis using a
structural framework would attempt to determine what structures and mechanisms
led to such actions. However, given that many boards, administrations and faculty
structure their organizations in fairly similar ways, the organizational structures and
processes would not seem inherently rich sources for insight. Viewing the situation
from the cultural frame would bring into examination relevant aspects of Tierney’s
framework, which would include aspects of interpersonal and social issues raised by
the four other frameworks. However, the issues would be interrelated. In this
instance, I believe socialization, leadership and information would be especially
important. To further examine information within the district’s culture, Potter’s
(2002) concept of uptake could suggest an examination of why faculty members
clearly did not believe that they had received uptake from the Board of Trustees, as
well as conventions of expressing uptake in the district.
Adams and Ingersoll (1985), Bensimon (1989), Bimbaum (1988a), Bolman
and Deal (1997), argue that researchers and practitioners should shift perspectives,
considering the organization from the various models’ viewpoints. While I agree
that using multiple approaches provides invaluable insights, it is beyond the scope of
this study to collect extensive data and analyze it particular to each framework.
Furthermore, few empirical studies have emerged to demonstrate fully the value of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
the cultural framework, so the field would benefit from seeing just how the cultural
framework alone can be used.
The cultural framework has several potential weaknesses. Researchers
disagree over whether or not a culture can be “managed” (Lundberg, 1985; Nord,
1985). If a goal of organizational research is to define and promote more effective
organizations, an approach that cannot be used to implement change has important
disadvantages to other frameworks. Most agree that at least awareness can lead to
improvement, even if improvement cannot be clearly defined. Nonetheless, the
“management” of culture can raise ethical issues (Lundberg, 1985) or have an
Orwellian suggestion. If leaders attempt to turn themselves into folk heroes,
employees may exhibit “resentment, resistance and mistrust” (Morgan, 1986,
p. 138).
The acknowledgement of the complex interplay that creates culture can be
seen as a weakness; the welter of interconnections could make analysis so complex
and individualized that it could not be applicable to other situations.
I believe the strengths greatly offset these potential weaknesses. Tierney’s
early study The Web o f Leadership (1988b), for example, was able to tease out
important details of leadership that were once unique to the college being studied yet
applicable to other situations.
Overall, we should recognize that, because of the complexity of
cultures,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Our understanding . . . is usually much more fragmented and superficial
than the reality .... [Thus] managers can influence the evolution of
culture by being aware of the symbolic consequences of their actions
and by attempting to foster desired values, but they can never control
culture in the sense that many management writers advocate. (Morgan,
1986, p. 139)
Having established a rationale for setting the study of governance within the
cultural frame, I will now move to an examination of my choice of sites for the
study. I also will explain my decisions for the study’s methodology, which
complements the theoretical frame.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The central research questions for the study were:
1. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
that has been classified as being effectively governed?
2. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
classified as being ineffectively governed?
3. What do the differences between these salient aspects suggest about
promoting effective governance?
A study of governance using a cultural framework calls for a methodology
that brings into relief salient aspects of cultures. Inherent in a culture is a complex
web of meanings (Geertz, 1973), each strand linked to others, making it difficult to
tease out any one, at least in early stages of analysis. As I noted in chapter 2, few
studies of governance have been set in the cultural frame. Qualitative researchers
give emphasis to the “socially constructed nature of reality . . . They seek answers to
questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning” (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2000, p. 8; authors’ italics). This emphasis was central to the study.
For several reasons a quantitative or positivist framework would not have
been as effective. “Quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of
causal relationship between variables, not processes” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 8).
At an early stage of study, it is not possible for a researcher to propose specific
variables (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996), and even after further research, the idea of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
focusing on a limited part of a culture undermines the cultural framework’s emphasis
on inter-relatedness. Furthermore, since processes are central to cultures, the
quantitative approach also has an added drawback.
Because of its relative strengths for the study, I chose a qualitative
approach for the study. With this approach came several specific challenges:
(a) generalization, (b) researcher bias, (c) validity, and (d) reliability. Because of
their importance, I will discuss each in separate sections below. Within the
qualitative approach, I conducted instrumental case studies (Stake, 2000, p. 437)
examining shared governance at two campuses—one that practices it effectively, the
other ineffectively.
The Value o f Case Studies and Comparison
to Other Qualitative Methods
Stake (2000) summarizes several key aspects of cases. They are “bounded
systems” in which behavior conforms to particular patterns. A researcher can
identify particular features of a case, and recognize some that are not part of the case.
A case study is “concentrated inquiry into a single case” (p. 436). Stake delineates
three kinds of cases studies: (a) intrinsic case studies, in which the researcher finds
the case inherently valuable for its own sake, for the phenomenon of the case itself;
(b) instrumental case studies, in which the researcher attempts “to provide insight
into an issue or to redraw a generalization”; and (c) collective case studies, in which
the researcher uses several instrumental cases in an attempt to “lead to better
understanding, perhaps better theorizing, about a still larger collection of cases”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
(p. 437). The study that I conducted did not fall into the first category, since I sought
better understanding of cultural aspects that promote effective governance (and was
not primarily looking at two cases for their intrinsic value). Although the study
straddled Stake’s second and third categories, I would classify it more fully as an
instrumental case study: I chose only two cases, and each was arguably its own case
(one a college thought to be effectively governed and the other ineffectively
governed). Furthermore, collective case studies suggest that the research area has
been subject to more complete understanding than the one that I investigated, which
was relatively open and free from established theories. As Isaac and Michael (1990)
note, case studies in general, are especially appropriate at an early stage of
investigation into a particular area. Further, “case studies of governance are useful
because they can identify practices or structures on one campus that may be either
adapted or avoided by other institutions with similar cultures, missions, and
problems” (Lee, 1991, p. 61).
A weakness in using case studies, however, is the difficulty in generalizing,
based upon them (Isaac & Michael 1990; Lee 1991; Stake 2000). Since I used
community colleges as sites for the case studies, I had another built-in barrier in
efforts to generalize based on my findings. Furthermore, case studies “are
particularly vulnerable to subjective biases,” especially in the choice of which groups
will be studied (Isaac & Michael, 1990, p. 48). (Later in this chapter, I elaborate
upon my strategies to overcome these potential weaknesses.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Other research approaches, however, do not offer the promise of case studies.
Surveys on governance (Flanigan, 1994; Gilmour, 1991 a/1991 b) provide an
overview of attitudes and structures, but they are not designed to capture details of a
particular landscape. Recent surveys give researchers a good general picture of
governance in 4-year institutions (Tiemey & Minor, 2003) and 2-year institutions in
California (Flanigan, 1994); however, the literature provides few detailed views of
governance in particular cultures. An ethnography would provide such a detailed
view, but the overriding purpose of such a study would be to capture the essence of a
particular culture; an ethnographer would study governance within the larger context.
Such research could prove insightful, but with a focus more fully on a particular
(and unique) culture, an ethnography would provide even less opportunity for
generalizations than case studies do. Participatory action research could offer a
detailed look at governance, but in a particular culture and from a particular
viewpoint; thus it could be criticized as being biased (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000,
p. 568), as well as restricted. In such a collaborative venture as governance, it is
important to understand the interplay of groups, as opposed to the actions of one of
the groups in isolation. A life study (or life history) of a person who has moved from
one group into another (or a pivotal figure in governance at a college or at the state
level) could prove insightful. It is not unusual to find a faculty leader who becomes
an administrator, or a retired faculty member or administrator becoming a trustee. A
life history could describe cultural and structural demands that affect a person as he
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
or she assumes a new role. However, without more complete research on the culture
and interplay of the groups, such an approach seems premature.
To conduct the case studies, I relied on interviews, analysis of key documents
and observation of meetings. My design may be divided into sections as discussed
below.
Site Selection and California Community Colleges
I studied governance at two public California community colleges. I chose
community colleges for several reasons. On a societal level, “the community college
is today as important as the high school as a place for fostering racial and ethnic
understanding and integration” (Dougherty, 2002, p. 338). Since community
colleges are open-access institutions, they will bear the greatest part of the burden of
educating Tidal Wave II, the generation that will be graduating from high school
around 2010. In California, that number of students will be 30% greater than it was
in 1999 (California Citizens Commission on Higher Education, 1999, p. 20).
Already community colleges educate nearly half of all students enrolled in
institutions of higher education. (Approximately 5.7 million students were enrolled
in 1,085 public community colleges, according to the latest information from the
Department of Education (Almanac, 2003). These numbers compare to just over 6
million students enrolled in 628, 4-year institutions.) Further, community colleges
remain the least researched segment in higher education; the level of research “does
not nearly reflect the schools’ importance in American life” (Cohen & Brawer, 1996,
p. 387).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
In 2005, California has 109 public community colleges in 72 community
college districts, serving over 2.5 million students, making it the largest education
system in the world (California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2005).
Only 37% of California’s college students are enrolled in public 4-year institutions,
and 50% are from minority groups (Almanac, 2003). Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that the California community college system is especially important to
promote equity and access to higher education.
A brief history of California community colleges gives a sense of why they
are especially appropriate sites for a study in governance. Like their counterparts
across the county, California community colleges came into being as an offshoot of
secondary education, and their governance initially was dominated by local
governing boards, sometimes the same boards that oversaw the first 12 years of
education (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 103). Gradually, community colleges boards
came into existence, responsible only for what originally were considered in some
districts as Grades 13-14 (consistent with the conception of community colleges as
high schools with ashtrays). In 1965, the Winton Act granted the right to employees
to join organizations; however, governing boards and presidents had no obligation to
listen to, much less rely upon, the input of those organizations. The informal “meet
and confer” method of governing led to frustrations and lawsuits. In 1975, Senate
Bill 160 outlined for the first time the rights for collective bargaining. In 1978, the
California electorate passed Proposition 13, a property tax cutting measure that had a
“profound effect” on community college governance (Nussbaum, 1995, p. 8). Even
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
though the governing boards were local, the funding base now largely shifted from
local to state control, so the governor and legislature became crucial, yet distant
parts of the governance structure. In sum, the early history of community colleges
in California suggests a governance characterized by loose coupling (with
responsibilities to state, community and campus constituents). Responsibilities for
district and campus governance were not well delineated; however, with its history
rooted in K-12 systems, the clear authority fell to administrations as authorized by
boards of trustees.
In 1988, an important event occurred in the governance of California
community colleges: the passage of Assembly Bill 1725. AB 1725 “required
governing boards to adopt procedures to ensure that faculty, staff, and students could
participate effectively in district and college governance” (Nussbaum, 1995, p. 9).
Two years later, the Board of Governors established rights and responsibilities for
academic senates (Title 5 of California Code of Regulations, Sections 53200-53204).
The regulations required the boards to “consult collegially” with the senate when
adopting policies and procedures in “academic and professional matters.” (These
matters reflect the principles set forth in the Joint Statement previously discussed in
chapter 2.). To consult collegially, boards and senates had to agree on one of two
options: (a) to “rely primarily on the advice and judgment of the academic senate”
or (b) to “reach mutual agreement with the academic senate.” “Academic and
professional matters” are specified in Title 5 as follows:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses
with in disciplines;
2. Degree and certificate requirements;
3. Grading policies;
4. Educational program development;
5. Standards and policies regarding student preparation and success;
6. District and governance structures, as related to faculty roles;
7. Faculty roles and involvement in the accreditation processes,
including elf study and annual reports;
8. Policies for faculty professional development activities;
9. Processes for program review;
10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development; and
11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon
between the governing board and the academic senate.
For items 1-10 (and 11, if agreed upon), Title 5 requires each community
college district to have a written policy stating whether the item is subject to the
standard of “rely primarily upon” or “mutually agree.” The implication of those
standards is explained in a report adopted by the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges (the state-wide umbrella organization for local academic
senates) and the Community College League of California (2005) (a state-wide
umbrella organization for college presidents and governing boards). If a college’s
governing board must “rely primarily” upon the local academic senate to establish
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
curriculum, for example, the primary authority rests with the faculty (as represented
by the senate). Therefore, the board usually will accept the senate’s recommenda
tion. However, when faced with “exceptional circumstances” and/or “’’compelling
reasons,” a board of trustees may overrule the senate’s advice. “In [such] instances
. . . the reasons for the board’s decision must be in writing and based on a clear,
substantive rationale which puts the explanation in an accurate, appropriate, and
relevant context” (Academic Senate, 1998, p. 5). The “mutually agree” standard, on
the other hand, means that faculty and administration share authority. No action can
occur—no policy can be implemented or changed—unless both groups agree.
Boards may make an exception for “compelling legal, fiscal and organizational
reasons.” Generally, an existing policy may not be changed without mutual
agreement. For faculties and senates, the “rely primarily” standard has a
philosophical appeal, but the “mutually agree” standard may be more effective in
blocking actions that the faculty oppose (Clark, 2003).
Response to AB 1725 has been mixed. While some believe that the law
creates more involvement and better decisions (Menegas, 1990; Mira Costa College
1990) and keeps boards of trustees accountable (Nussbaum, 1995), others criticize it
for taking responsibility (especially from mid-level managers) and giving it to
faculty without providing accountability (Kanter, 1994). Some criticize the law’s
resulting amount of consultation and delay (Kanter 1994; Wirth, 1991). One veteran
faculty leader acknowledged that shared decision-making seems “ponderous” and
“time-consuming” and “ineffective”; however, problems result not because of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
“the notion of ‘sharing,’ but in the particular authorities of those doing the sharing”
(Lovas, 1994, p. 11).
Although AB 1725 sought to clarify the rights and responsibilities of faculty,
administrations and boards of trustees, most accounts and studies published over the
last dozen years continue to highlight problems in governance1 1 . One example was
reported in The Chronicle o f Higher Education in May 2002 (Evelyn & Bartlett,
2002, p. A10). Mark G. Edelstein, president of Diablo Valley College, received a
vote of no confidence from the Faculty Senate, because, according the Senate
President, “he was not interested in shared governance.” Edelstein (ironically, a
past president of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges) was
attempting to create administrative positions to replace faculty-elected department
heads. In the midst of the controversy, Edelstein was selected by the Board of
Trustees of Santa Barbara City College to become its next president. After protests
by the Academic Senate there, Edelstein withdrew as a candidate. In 2002-2003, the
superintendents of the College of Marin, West Hills-Mission District, Southwestern
College, Santa Monica College, and Ventura County District have received no
confidence votes (and as of spring 2005, in four of the five cases, the superintendents
17
no longer work for the district).
1 1 O f course, the nature o f these reports and articles may be a result o f what constitutes news.
Rarely does The Chronicle o f Higher Education have a headline proclaiming “Faculty, Administration
Reach Amicable Decision.”
1 2 The information is available at the Academic Senate’s page on the college’s websites:
www.marin.cc.ca.us;www.missioncollege.org; www.swc.cc.ca.us; www.smc.edu; www.vcccd.cc.ca.us
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
A recent article in The Chronicle for Higher Education (Evelyn, 2002b,
p. A22) cited the influence of faculty unions upon governing boards and, in turn, on
governance. The article centered on the resignation of the Chancellor Philip Westin
of the Ventura Community College District in part because the union, Westin’s
strident adversary, publicized his leadership as “union-busting” and possibly spurred
an audit of his expenses. The results of the audit exonerated the chancellor, but
turned public opinion so heavily against the chancellor that trustees accepted
Westin’s resignation. The union has sought increased influence through election of
friendly trustees, notably in districts in San Diego, Walnut, and San Marcos (Evelyn,
2002b, p. A22). Marty Hittelman, president of the community college section of the
California Federation of Teachers, disagrees with those who claim great influence:
“You can never buy a board. You can’t even rent it for a while. It simply doesn’t
work that way” (Evelyn, 2002, p. A22).
Researchers, observers and participants have offered various reasons for the
difficulties of governing California community colleges. “Buffeting” events of the
last twenty years include:
Loss of local control, fiscal asphyxiation, a surge of nontraditional, often
poorly prepared students; and rancorous, uncivil power struggles among
faculty, administrators, and boards. Consequently,. . . many contemporary
community college leaders find themselves thrust into situations for which
they are unprepared, even if experienced as leaders. (Hernandez, 2000, p. 5)
To address the leadership problems, the Community College Leadership
Institute (CCLI) came into being in April, 2000. The CCLI, a collaboration of
various segments and organizations, including the Academic Senate for California
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
Community Colleges, called for a leadership training program centered such
fundamental elements as communication skills, institutional culture, and decision
making to improve quality (Hernandez, 2000, pp. 7-12).
Implicit in the weaknesses in governance of California community colleges is
disagreement about just what governance is, and the responsibilities of various
constituent groups. According to one researcher and former college president,
There is no consensus on the meaning or intent of the concepts. The goals of
shared governance are unclear. Although state guidelines attempt to provide
clarity, there is little confidence at the college level that state regulations
provide the framework for successful implementation. In fact, some believe
that the entire concept of shared governance is flawed. (White, 1998, p. 4)
Related to this definitional problem is a difference in perceptions, depending
upon constituency. In a 1994, survey of college presidents and academic senate
presidents, college presidents generally perceived the faculty role in the ten areas
mandated by Title 5 as being more satisfactory as did senate presidents. Senate
presidents “were less satisfied with the level of involvement in institutional planning
and budget development and district and college governance structures.” Further
more, college presidents perceived that academic senates received adequate release
time, while senate presidents saw lack of adequate release time as a significant
barrier to carrying out their role in shared governance (Flanigan, 1994, pp. 5-6).
Another weakness is that the local governance structure that has emerged
following AB 1725 “tends to promote balkanization of the college/district,” asserts
Thomas J. Nussbaum, chancellor of the California community college system from
1996-2004. “Now empowered, each constituency [i.e., the academic senate, faculty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
union, classified union] meets regularly and develops an agenda to pursue its
interests ...” (Nussbaum, 1995, p. 20). The more informal “meet and confer” style
of governance meant that individuals could take a broader view and—in theory, at
least—act in the college’s best interest.
Lack of trust is perceived as a central problem. Trust and cooperation did not
improve after the passage of AB 1725 (Flanigan 1994). A “we/they” mentality is an
important barrier to improving the faculty’s role in academic and professional
matters. Senate presidents report “administrators’ lack of commitment” as being a
significant barrier to governance, while college presidents do not. Senate presidents
reported greater levels of distrust between faculty and administrators than between
faculty and trustees. Chancellor Nussbaum (1995) believes some of this problem is
structural since college presidents must negotiate with each of the various college
constituencies (p. 24).
In short, California community colleges are suitable sites for research into
governance because of the large number of students they educate, their role in
providing access (particularly to underrepresented students) and their history of
challenges. Within this system, I looked at two particular colleges. I turn next to my
reasons for their selection.
Selection and Description o f Clear
Lake College and Bitterroot College
To choose the colleges for the study, I relied upon the broad perspective and
judgment of people familiar with community colleges at the state level. At the time
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
of my contact, these people held leadership positions in state-wide organizations
representing the governing boards, the administration, and the academic senates. I
conducted six phone interviews (with two people representing each group) from
September 27-October 16, 2002, using a protocol. Based on the response of this
expert panel I chose two colleges—one that is known for effective governance
(which I will call Clear Lake College), the other for ineffective governance (which I
will call Bitterroot College).1 3
Two key factors led to these sites being selected: (a) the number of times a
college was cited by the expert panel and (b) the classification of district. Districts
may have single or multiple campuses. Five out of the six interviewees believed that
the governance issues are more complex on campuses in multiple-campus districts.
(The study would need to examine the interplay not only of campus faculty leaders
and administrators, but also their counterparts on other campuses in the district.
Also, most campuses would have a president and the district would have a
chancellor. In single-college districts, the college president is almost always the
superintendent of the community college district). In making my determination, I
did not want to choose one campus in a single-college district and the other in a
multiple-college district, since the complexity of governance would be markedly
different.
1 3 The choice o f names is not meant to suggest anything about either site’s geography.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
From the six interviewees, Clear Lake College was cited as being especially
effective by four—the highest number in agreement. Another college was sited three
times. For ineffective governance, Bitterroot was cited three times. Another college
was cited four times (the highest total), but that college was in a multi-campus
district, so Bitterroot provided a better match with Clear Lake. Two single-campus
districts would allow for greater focus on faculty/administration interactions and
would provide two sites that are more typically structured, when considering
colleges and universities across the country.
In confirming my choice of sites, I considered other factors. Each college is
generally similar in size (in terms of students, faculty and administrators), diversity
of student population, and location (each situated outside a large metropolitan area).
Finally, each college has an established culture, having served its community for
decades.
To protect the confidentiality of the colleges and participants, I cannot
provide a complete description of the sites, nor specific details that would lead to
either college being readily identified. Furthermore, to insure anonymity, some
details have been altered that have no bearing on the subject of the study. I have
changed individual names, the exact names of various committees, days and times of
meetings and other such details. For individuals, I created pseudonyms randomly
from names in my local telephone book; therefore the gender and ethnicity of any
particular name given below, do not necessarily correspond to that of the participant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Data Collection
After initial contact by email, I telephoned the college presidents and
academic senate presidents within the week. The four individuals agreed to support
the project, and I obtained the requisite signatures from the two college presidents. I
visited the two college sites multiple times from April-September 2003 and collected
data along the lines described below.
Interviews
Using a semi-structured protocol (Appendix B), I conducted forty-two
interviews (approximately 33 hours total), which may be divided according to the
categories in the categories in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Interview Subjects
Clear Lake College Bitterroot College
Administrators 7 7
Faculty 9 7
Follow-up/administrator 2 2
Follow-up/faculty 4 3
Total 22 19
Subjects were chosen primarily according to positions: included in these
numbers are each college’s president, the vice-president of instruction, academic
senate president and incoming academic senate president, curriculum committee
chair, faculty union president, and deans and other vice-presidents. The protocol
included a request for the names of others who could provide insight into governance
at the campus. Virtually all names suggested were already on my list of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
interviewees, so responses to that question confirmed my original selection of
participants. (Since no additional suggested names were mentioned more than once,
my initial group of interviewees remained unchanged.) None of the initial group of
interviewees refused to be interviewed; however, scheduling problems prevented
interviews with several potential interviewees who were less central to governance.
Both of the colleges did not have department chairs or heads, so the study could not
achieve an exact correspondence on the level of departmental governance. Most
interviews occurred in the subject’s office, although one follow-up interview was
conducted by telephone and three other interviews at campus sites chosen by the
subject (a classroom and two meeting rooms).
With the exception of the telephone interview (for which I took notes), I
audio taped all interviews. In the interest of time, I paid individuals to provide
transcripts of the audiotapes. These individuals had no professional or personal
connection to either college. I closely supervised the production of the transcripts,
providing guidelines and checking them against the audio tapes. For key passages of
my analysis, I returned to the audiotape (and field notes) to insure that the data as
represented was correct. The transcript of these interviews ran to over four hundred
pages, single-spaced. Interview subjects were not paid, and they signed consent
forms.
To validate the accuracy of hypothesizes emerging from the data and to gain
greater understanding, I conducted eleven follow-up interviews, which loosely were
structured around two themes (Appendix D for the protocol). These two themes—
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
trust and reorganization—emerged from the first interviews and observations of
organizational meetings. For these follow-up interviews, I interviewed the
Academic Senate President, the incoming senate president, the Vice President of
Instruction, and the faculty union presidents. I also selected two others who were
especially involved and who represented an important viewpoint to aspects that
emerged in the original collection of data. I conducted a follow-up interview with
the president of Clear Lake College; the president at Bitterroot College unexpectedly
retired, and efforts to contact him to complete the follow-up interview either in
person or via email proved unsuccessful.
Organizational Meetings
In addition to interviews, the study relied upon accounts of eleven key
meetings concerned with governance at the two colleges. At each college, I attended
meetings of the following groups: Planning Council, Curriculum Committee,
Academic Senate, and Deans’ Council. I chose these meetings in consultation with
the two college presidents and academic senate presidents. Furthermore, the
presidents’ personal assistants, who kept calendars of many governance meetings,
suggested some meetings and updated me about their locations and times. Meetings
lasted from 45 minutes to two and a half hours, with the average being an hour and
45 minutes. The size of the groups ranged from 8 to 50 (including observers). I
taped these meetings, their transcripts of key sections totaling over three hundred
pages. In all these meetings, the chair introduced me and informed the group the
purpose of my visit. I assured the group of the confidentiality of their participation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
To insure the best sound quality, I placed the tape recorder in the center of the table,
which necessitated my sitting nearby to change the tape. (In the one exception, the
recording secretary for the meeting changed the tape, and I sat off to the side). On
several occasions, I was asked to speak during the group’s discussion; to avoid being
drawn into the discussion, I answered briefly (in no more than thirty seconds). None
of the participants was paid.
Fieldnotes
During meetings, interviews and campus visits, I took fieldnotes, attempting
to observe details necessary for thick description (Geertz, 1973) and to document
possible artifacts of the campus culture and ways in which participants make
meaning of events (Jones, 1996; Schein, 1992). As part of “focused observation”
(Angrosino & Mays de Perez, 2000, p. 677), I recorded key gestures of participants,
details of offices and meeting rooms, seating patterns, participants’ arrival and
departure times, and details about participants’ (unstated) dress codes (Jones, 1996).
Key Texts and Information
Documents, websites and other texts related to governance at the two sites
contributed to the analysis. Key texts included:
1. The most recent accreditation report from the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior colleges, particularly Standard Ten
pertaining to governance and administration;
2. The Board of Trustees’ policy and administrative regulations on
governance;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
3. The constitution and by-laws of the Academic Senate;
4. Historical documents pertaining to governance (including important
historical events), including minutes of meetings;
5. Memorandum on key events or practices;
6. College catalog; and
7. Local news reports and press releases.
Data Analysis
To analyze the collected data—transcripts, fieldnotes, and documents— I used
a modification of grounded theory, advocated most notably by Strauss and Corbin
(1998). To analyze the culture of the two sites, I first coded information according to
categories advanced by Tierney (1988a): (a) environment, (b) mission,
(c) socialization, (d) information, (e) strategy, and (f) leadership. Results suggested
that for these two sites, little data emerged regarding environment and mission.
Thus, I focused on the remaining concepts, using open coding (Strauss & Corbin,
1998, pp. 101-121). Open coding calls for conceptual categories to emerge from the
data, a method consistent with case studies and with a study of the culture of the two
sites. ATLAS.ti software aided in the sorting and analysis of data.
Open coding resulted in the creation of an additional cultural concept: trust.
For this concept to parallel Tierney’s (1988a) concepts, it was value neutral. That is,
the study considered how the two cultures responded to matters of trust. (Who
trusted whom to do what? Or who distrusted or mistrusted whom? Did the college
have a history of mistrust, distrust or trust? How was that history affecting current
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
actions and relationships?) Trust needs to be considered as a separate cultural
concept for three reasons. First, the issue is vital to organizations, as demonstrated in
chapter 2. Second, classifying trust solely under any of the other six concepts
distorts its meaning. Clearly, socialization plays a vital role in shaping whether or
not individuals in an organization trust each other. However, each person enters with
his or her own conception of trust, which suggests that socialization does not fully
address the trust’s complexity. Trust certainly emerges as important under the
concept of leadership; however, it overlooks socialization. (If a leader who is
predisposed to trust others enters an organization whose key participants are
predisposed to distrust others, the dynamic would certainly shape the culture.
Viewing trust through the lens of one or the other concept distorts the dynamic.)
Trust, arguably, could enter significantly into other concepts, too. Trust obviously
affects strategy. An organization could have a trusting or distrusting stance toward
the surrounding environment. Finally, a third reason for considering trust as a
separate concept is that it would promote effective approaches to studying it.
Ethical Considerations
Qualitative researchers need to protect the anonymity of participants and to
avoid deception (Chell, 1998; Christians, 2000; Creswell, 1998; Stake, 2000). To
address the first of these two central concerns, I chose case studies, which allowed
me to avoid focusing on any one individual. Furthermore, as noted above,
pseudonyms for the colleges and participants help protect their anonymity, as does
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
the alteration of identifying details on matters not germane to my analysis (names of
towns, buildings, meeting times, etc.).
To avoid deception, I disclosed my experience as an academic senate
president (and I also stated my commitment to a disinterested analysis in this study).
While I stated the nature of the study—both orally and in writing on the consent
form— I could not fully disclose why a particular site was chosen. (If asked, I
responded that I relied upon individuals who had experience at the state level and
had a good overview of governance in California community colleges. In the several
instances that I was questioned further, I acknowledged that other factors entered in
which I could not disclose.) Such disclosure easily could have biased participants to
emphasize why governance was (in one case) especially effective or (in the other)
especially ineffective.
The study followed the guidelines approved by the University of Southern
California’s (1998) Institutional Review Board and summarized in the consent form,
which all interviewees signed (Appendix A). Subjects participated voluntarily; each
interviewee received a standard letter, explaining why he or she would be helpful to
the study and notifying him or her that I would be telephoning or emailing regarding
a possible interview. The consent form stated that participants could withdraw at
any time. (None did.) Data were kept secure, and all records will be destroyed upon
completion of the study. In addition, those participants who requested information
on the study’s findings will receive it upon the study’s completion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 0
The Researcher and Researcher Bias
The researcher and his or her interaction with observation and data collection
recently has been the subject of intense discussion, especially when a qualitative
methodology is used (Angrosino & Mays de Perez, 2000; Fontana & Frey, 2000;
Gergen & Gergen, 2000). Some of the discussion connects with issues of reflexivity
that recently have divided anthropologists (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Marcus,
1998; Spindler & Spindler, 1987). These discussions have made researchers aware
of at least the potential to shape data and the need to explain the researcher’s stance
toward his or her gathering and analysis of information.
I am a middle-aged, White male with over 25 years experience in higher
education, most of which consists of teaching in California community colleges. At
the time of the study, I had served as chair of the curriculum committee and was then
president of the Academic Senate at Santa Monica College. I was at the center of a
series of unusual events at the college, which I must acknowledge to address my
position in this study.
In January 2003 (after the structure of the study was in place), the governor
of California announced his intention to revise the 2002-2003 budget and make cuts
to the budget of the state’s community colleges. The announcement angered
community college faculty and administrators throughout the state; it also forced
them to reevaluate budget allocations at their local colleges. Community college
advocates converged on Sacramento (in a march in March), and ultimately prevailed
in reducing the governor’s proposed cutbacks. At Santa Monica College, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
president/superintendent responded to the proposed cutbacks by advocating the
elimination of ten academic programs. When the funding picture improved, the
president reduced the number to five (including long-standing automotive and
architecture programs). She insisted that to avoid those eliminations jeopardized the
fiscal stability of the college. In an action taken in May, 2003, the Board of Trustees
approved the elimination of the programs.
Through the Academic Senate and the college’s faculty union, faculty voiced
opposition to the elimination. To address what they saw as a serious undermining
of the educational mission of the college as well as principles of participatory
governance, faculty voted no confidence in the college’s superintendent/president.
Eighty-six percent supported the no confidence resolution. As Academic Senate
President, I was in the midst of this increasingly divisive situation as I conducted
research and entered the first stages of analysis.
To avoid deception, I disclosed the unfolding of these events to presidents
and vice-presidents I interviewed, setting the events in the context of how Santa
Monica College was responding to possible budget cuts and my role in that response.
I was brief and dispassionate, but the network of information-sharing in California
community colleges is extensive, and I wanted to insure my integrity with
interviewees by explaining my involvement. (Most faculties I interviewed knew
about activities at Santa Monica College, and asked me after the interview about
events there.) I do not believe that my disclosure significantly altered the content of
the interviews because neither college in the study was facing immediate program
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
elimination in response to the budget. (Fiscally, both colleges were in relatively
healthy positions. Each had budgetary reserves of over 5% that could be used to
weather the worst scenario anticipated in spring 2003.)
Because of the obvious potential for bias, I sought more data to advance any
hypothesis that might have even the appearance of reflecting a bias based on my
experience at SMC. Because of my experience, I also have gained a more complete
perspective of how quickly a campus culture can change, which has informed some
of my analysis in chapter 5. Having addressed issues related to researcher bias, I
turn to the broader question of the overall validity of the study.
Validity
For qualitative research, validity is closely tied to trustworthiness. How can
the investigator (as well as other researchers) know that what he or she is claiming is
“valid” or can be trusted? The validity of a particular study rests upon several bases:
(a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Schwandt, 1997). Credibility reflects a
researcher’s integrity in depicting subjects accurately. Transferability involves the
likelihood that observations and conclusions drawn from the study can be transferred
to related situations. Dependability means that the researcher’s reasoning and
conclusions clearly follow the data presented and account for any changes in design.
Confirmability means that the results rest on the data, that a similar study conducted
by another researcher would reach the same conclusions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
This study responds to the four central concerns to validity by applying
several strategies:
1. Credibility. I addressed concerns for researcher bias (above). In
addition, the transcripts of interviews and meetings, fieldnotes, and other
documentation supported triangulation (discussed below), additional assurance of
credibility.
2. Transferability or Generalization. One viewpoint on this issue is that
a qualitative study, in contrast to a quantitative one, need not be generalizable. That
is, a qualitative study’s effectiveness emerges through its description of situations
and the ability of readers to consider applicability (Stake, 2000). Thus, a case study
may have naturalistic generalization (Stake & Turnbull, 1982) when readers reaffirm
observations from other readings and experience. Through the thick description of
the next two chapters, the study achieved this kind of generalization. The study
satisfied the more traditional concept of generalization by its methodology of site
selection and triangulation.
3. Dependability. The study’s design remained in place throughout the
data collection and analysis. The social conditions under which data collection took
place (specifically the budget constraints facing California community college in
spring 2003) are discussed in chapters 4 and 5. Furthermore, as part of my protocol,
I acknowledged these conditions and asked interviewees to consider their responses
in the broader framework of their experience (not only in light of possible budgetary
cutbacks from the state).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
4. Confirmability. The study’s conclusions rested on thick description,
triangulation and analysis presented in chapters 4 and 5.
Triangulation
Triangulation (Denzin, 1978) has been the key concept in establishing
validity in qualitative research. Just as coordinates cannot be established in space
unless they are viewed from different angles, so claims and data itself cannot be
confirmed unless a researcher establishes them from varying viewpoints. Richardson
(2000) argues that “crystallization” would be a better metaphor for validity, since
“[c]rystals grow, change, alter, but are not amorphous. Crystals are prisms that
reflect externalities and refract within themselves .... What we see depends upon
our angle of repose” (p. 934).
The choice of two sites and the types of data collection for this study
provided triangulation (or crystallization) and an assurance of validity. I relied upon
different ways of collecting data (observation, interviews, and texts) that an outside
observer could substantiate. If, for example, a culture is characterized by
miscommunication which leads to mistrust in governance, that miscommunication
would likely emerge not just in different meetings, but also in written miscommun
ication (or perhaps lack of written communication). Furthermore, generalizations
advanced in chapter 5 and chapter 6 relied upon more than one type of data, so
triangulation was present in the analysis of data, as well as in the collection.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Limitations
Aside from faculty leaders and key administrators, the study did not seek to
examine the interplay among other members of the two cultures being studied.
Therefore, the roles of trustees, students, staff members and community members
remain virtually unexplored. Furthermore, the study relied upon formal agents of
governance—the college president, vice presidents, academic senate presidents,
other senators, etc. Since those individuals represented only a small percentage of
those who work at the two sites, the study may overstate the importance of those
individuals and understate other informal, socializing agents, which in turn may have
subtle (yet possibly significant) effects on governance. While the study addressed
historical events at each site, the focus was on recent events. Consequently, the
study was limited in its analysis of the way key historical events shaped each
college’s culture. A longitudinal study could better address such issues.
The backdrop of the state’s deepening fiscal problems may have skewed
responses, both in interviews and meetings. A further limitation may be that
governance issues particular to California community colleges may not resonate with
those concerned with governance in institutions that are significantly different (in
size, type, mission, geographical location, and so on).
Conclusion
The cultural framework proved especially promising for a study of
governance. A qualitative methodology complements that theoretical framework.
A case study of two colleges—one classified as effectively governed, the other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ineffectively governed—was appropriate at this early, exploratory stage of
investigation into governance from a cultural frame. The sites—two community
colleges— were also appropriate given the few studies of governance in community
colleges, the large number of students they educate and the access to education that
they provide.
To insure validity, the study relied on triangulation of data collection—
interviews, organizational meetings, documents and fieldnotes. Open and selective
coding procedures proved conducive to theory-building, enabling the study to
advance an additional concept by which to evaluate culture: trust. The next chapter
provides a summary of the data collected at the two sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
CHAPTER 4
THE CASE STUDIES: REPORT OF THE DATA COLLECTED
The research questions for the study were:
1. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
that has been classified as being effectively governed?
2. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
classified as being ineffectively governed
3. What do the differences between these salient aspects suggest about
promoting effective governance?
As the review of the literature in chapter 2 established, governance in higher
education has not been studied adequately, especially in light of its importance as
universities and colleges strive to meet a host of challenges. Such study calls for a
theoretical model; chapter 2 also presented the reasons why the cultural model was
especially promising for this study. Chapter 3 explained the study’s methodology.
During spring and summer, 2003,1 conducted interviews, observed meetings and
collected other data at two sites, both of them California community colleges.
The study’s findings, which form the basis of this chapter, are divided into
three sections: (a) background information on California’s budget, (b) background
findings specific to each site, (c) findings organized according to cultural concepts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Section I: California’ s 2003 Budget Crisis
and Community College Budgeting
The study was conducted against a backdrop of California’s state budget
whose picture initially worsened, then brightened a bit. Since these two community
colleges, like most in the state, receive virtually all of their funding from
Sacramento, the reports of the budget crisis, as it was usually called, had a significant
impact on decision-making and governance. Therefore, a brief overview of the
budget situation that year is necessary to set the context for the data.
After the state legislature passes a budget and the governor signs it
(frequently past its June 30 deadline), the Chancellor’s Office for California
Community Colleges calculates the allotment for each community college district.
This calculation is subject to some later modification, depending on enrollment, but
essentially districts usually know their base funding amount in September for that
fall and spring. The state also provides categorical funding, determined at the same
time, for specific programs such as disabled students, technology support programs,
and vocational training.
California community colleges receive funding largely based on full-time
equivalent students (FTES). (One FTE equals 525 hours of education.) When
growth is funded by the legislature, each college may receive additional funding, if
the college reaches its annual growth target (a certain percentage set for each
college). However, if a college exceeds its growth target, the state does not provide
additional funding. In effect, colleges are taking it upon themselves to fund “excess
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
growth,” paying related faculty salaries and other costs without receiving state
compensation. Most colleges can’t afford to overshoot their growth target by much.
Hence, colleges must anticipate demand for particular courses, understand
scheduling patterns, and consider many other factors. A college also must determine
how much of the summer FTES would benefit the past fiscal year and how much
would benefit the upcoming fiscal year. (Colleges have the option of shifting all or
part of summer FTE forward into the next fiscal year or backward into the previous
one.) To make matters more complicated, the state later may alter the level of
allocation for the growth funding. If a college makes its 4% growth target, for
example, and other community colleges also hit their growth targets, the state
allocation for growth funding may not be enough to fund entirely the community
college system’s growth. Therefore, districts may be informed months after a fiscal
year that that 4% growth will be funded by the state at only 75%. Overall, college
officials gauging enrollment and state funding are like sailors docking with another
ship at sea in churning waters.
The 2002-2003 year was remarkable for several shifts in the budget, coming
as a response to worsening economic conditions in the state (Table 3). The first shift
occurred in December, 2002, when Governor Gray Davis enacted mid-year cuts to
the community college budget. These cuts meant that the state was withdrawing
funding— $215 million—that individual districts had been counting on for the 2002-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Table 3. Shifts in Community College Funding 2002-2003: Source—Community College League of
California, Budget Analysis
Timing Action
December, 2002 Governor makes an unprecedented midyear cut o f $215 million for current
fiscal year, 2002-2003
January, 2003 Governor proposes $4,523 billion for community colleges-a $530 million
cut for 2003-04, coming on top of the $280 million cut for 2002-2003
March, 2003 Thousands of community college supporters rally in Sacramento,
protesting the governor’s proposed $530 million cut
May, 2003 Governor’s “May Revise” proposes $4,768 billion for community colleges
(reducing the proposed cut to $285 million)
August, 2003 Governor signs budget passed by legislature: community colleges receive
$4,966 billion—an $87 million cut
2003 year (Community College League, 2004)1 4 . Then, in January, 2003, the
governor proposed his budget for the next year, 2003-2004: a $530 million cut to
base funding for the community colleges’ 2003-2004 budget. This figure was
difficult enough in itself, but because the mid-year cut had lowered each district’s
base funding, this $530 proposed cut promised to be even more devastating.
Community college groups banded together to protest these proposed cuts, most
notably in a large march on Sacramento, March 17, 2003. Legislators responded,
reducing the cutbacks in their final budget to $87 million, providing community
colleges with $4,966 billion.
1 4 All the budget information in this section comes from this source. The League analyzes
the budget based on information from the legislature and the Chancellor’s Office for California
Community Colleges.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Since I was conducting fieldwork as the budget was being negotiated, budget
concerns rose quickly to the surface in meetings and interviews. To insure that that
responses reflected a wider perspective—one not subject only to the pressing issue of
the moment—the interview protocol asked subjects to consider issues in a longer
term context. Nonetheless, the budget crisis meant that each college was subject to
some pressure from the sense of urgency originating in the capitol, and that pressure
had an effect on each college’s culture. That effect may have been partly diminished
when compared to some other community colleges, since both colleges in the study
had considerable reserves to draw upon—a certain percentage of the annual budget
set aside for emergencies. (The Chancellor’s Office recommends that college’s
maintain at least a 3%-5% reserve or be put on an unofficial “watch” list. Clear Lake
College’s reserve was 3.5 %; Bitterroot College’s, 8%).
Section II: Background on the Two Sites
To understand the culture and governance at the two sites of the study, the
reader needs background information on each of the colleges, specifically (a) the
college’s history and past governance, (b) its current governance, (c) its response to
the California budget, and (d) its reorganization of academic administrative
structures. Aspects (c) and (d)—because they parallel each other— are especially
important for some of the conclusions presented in chapter 5 and chapter 6.
History o f the College and Its Governance: Clear Lake College
For 40 years, Clear Lake College has served its surrounding community by
providing life-long learning and vocational and transfer programs. To purchase land
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
and improve facilities, the college has been aided by four bond issues, the latest in
1997 by a 75% vote. To provide easier access to classes and services, the college
has opened several satellite centers, the most recent in a town 12 miles from the
central campus.
Following the trend of California community colleges, the college’s
enrollment has expanded steadily over its history, although the last several years
have seen the enrollment hold at about 14,000 students, with full-time equivalent
students totaling approximately 11,000. Over 60% of the students are White, 25%
Hispanic, 4% Asian, under 3% African American. It regularly ranks in the top one-
third of community colleges in total transfers to the University of California and
California State University systems; approximately one-quarter of its transfers are
minority students.
The founding college president of Clear Lake College served for 25 years,
the first academic vice-president for 31, establishing what one participant called a
“benevolent dictatorship.” From the late 1970s until 1991, four subsequent
presidents served. In the early 1980s, budget cutbacks led to a series decisions
(described as “horrible”) that caused a good deal of dissension on the campus. The
last of these four presidents arrived from out-of-state, made some decisions that
again rankled the campus and left for another community college presidency in the
state. Then Jack Early, the current president, arrived—again from out of state.
According to Early, his predecessor made some decisions that needed to be made,
but his manner was “a little close to the vest.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Although college records do not document the exact year of its birth, the
Academic Senate has a long history at the college going back to the early days of
the college. In “academic and professional” matters (as they later were classified
under law), the senate has always had a central role. According to one senior
administrator, the college has always operated with the belief that “faculty had the
best knowledge and sense” of these matters, especially in the area of curriculum and
academic program development. Faculty members appointed by the senate have
always chaired the Curriculum Committee and the committee now called Academic
Council, the former overseeing passage of new courses, the latter concerned with
prerequisites, course requirements for certificates and other such matters. Once a
new course has received the appropriate committee and senate approval, the
administration formally presents it to the board of trustees for approval. Only twice
in its history has the Board of Trustees questioned approval of a course: once in the
1960s for a course called “The Chemistry of Drugs,” and later for a course entitled
“The Anthropology of Religion.” (Each of the courses was approved after being
slightly revised.)
When the faculty union came into existence in the early 1980s, collective
bargaining complicated shared governance. Since personnel decisions are private, as
are collective bargaining negotiations, some decision-making became less open,
especially in areas in which union and senate responsibilities overlapped. (For
example, in the budget decisions described below, possible program reductions
implied lay-offs, which are subject to collective bargaining agreements.) The union
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
brought a formal structuring of contracts, which heretofore had been negotiated
individually.
The history of governance at Clear Lake College is anchored in people who
continue to affect the culture of the college. The founding president still lives in the
area, other retirees maintain contact with people at the college and many current
participants have a long history at the college. The college newspaper reminds the
community of these ties. An obituary in the April, 2003 paper, for example,
described the career of a former senate president who helped establish the college’s
sabbatical policy. He was one of a group of college retirees—they called themselves
“silverbacks and old fogies”—who met once or twice a year. The obituary of this
senate president noted that he had read a poem at a service commemorating the life
of another faculty member who had been active in governance until shortly before
her death in 2002. The last couple years have seen a wave of retirements—22
faculty, administrators and classified workers in 2003 alone.
Recent history is documented in the self-study for accreditation (1999),
which commends Clear Lake’s Chief Executive Officer. (The college recently has
started using this title as well as Chief Instructional Officer and Chief Business
Officer, although most internal communication continues to use the titles of
president, vice president of business services and vice president for instruction). The
report praises him for “extremely effective leadership” in defining goals for the
college, as well as developing strategies for carrying them out. His fundraising and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
his shepherding the passage of the college’s most recent bond measure earn special
commendation.
The self-study offers some criticisms. An internal survey revealed that
although planning processes and areas of responsibility for the budget are clearly
delineated, approximately 40% of the faculty believed that decisions are not based on
systematic planning, and 20% suspected the budget was determined by the
administration according to unreported criteria and plans. One-third of the faculty
believed that the Planning Council was not an effective forum to express faculty
priorities for budget and planning. Faculty members of the council believed that
administrators met beforehand, determined what plans to advocate, and then
generated material to be distributed at meetings.
An issue closely tied to budget is staffing levels. The accreditation self-study
reports that managers and classified staff found the staffing levels problematic in
1998, with the workload uneven and especially burdensome for some jobs.
History o f the College and Its Governance: Bitterroot College
Bitterroot College has served its surrounding community for over 60 years,
holding its first classes for 13 students in a high school. Forty-five years ago, its
trustees purchased over 100 acres, and the college began offering classes on its new
campus two years later. Originally established to enable local students to transfer to
universities, the college has expanded to be a comprehensive institution, currently
including “vocational and technical training programs, [and] courses for personal and
professional development.” The college offers classes at several sites to take
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
advantage of specialized facilities and to promote access. Bitterroot has plans for an
off-campus center, and in spring of 2003, the college was in the early stages of
planning for a bond measure to fund additional facilities, the first such measure in
the college’s history.
Over the past 20 years, the enrollment has increased, from 4,600 to its current
level of 12,000 students, (a full-time equivalent total of 8,500). A survey of the
recent student population shows that 52 % are White, 22% Hispanic, 15% African
American, 6% Asian, and the remaining 5% unknown. The college ranks slightly
above average among community colleges in total transfers to the University of
California and California State University systems.
The college’s founding president was not featured in any documents nor
referred to in meetings or interviews. Several participants recalled a president from
the 1970s who had come from another community college relatively nearby and
presided over relatively unstructured and collegial decision-making. Then, the
College Council consisted of “12 people discussing issues.” For example, 1 year, the
council determined the outlines of a $20,000 golden handshake incentive.
In the mid-1980s the college’s faculty union and Academic Senate came into
being. Decision-making became anchored in policies and structures, especially
following the passage of AB 1725 in 1988.
When campus leaders who have some history at Bitterroot think back to a
“Golden Age,” they recall a president and an academic vice president who worked
together during this time until the mid-1990s. The president, who served for 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
years, had a good rapport with the faculty and staff, and devoted a large measure of
his time to community ties. His vice-president of instruction managed most of the
day-to-day details of the campus. A former faculty member and dean at Bitterroot,
she was—in the words of a current faculty leader— “very strong and well-loved.”
The halcyon days of the Golden Age contrast sharply with the college’s
turbulent recent history. The Board of Trustees chose a new president from a college
out of state— Kimberly Menchine— to “focus inward and respond to campus needs.”
She sought to improve the use of technology, both to improve infrastructure as well
as to help instruction directly. She quickly became known for her confrontational
style. At one meeting, for example, when faculty pressed the president for further
explanation about a proposed course of action, she responded, “We’re gonna do it
because I’m the God damned president of the God damned college.” Early in her
tenure, President Menchine attended several Academic Senate meetings and then
requested a permanent place on senate agendas. After much debate, the senate
declined, offering her a place for specific items she wished to discuss and
encouraging her to attend whenever she wanted to discuss an agenda item. Over
the next year and a half, she appeared before the senate only once, saying that “she
does not feel welcome.” At a series of coffees designed to get to know the faculty,
Menchine antagonized one division by calling them “racist” and “elitist.” At the
June, 1997 Board of Trustees meeting, an English professor called for the president’s
resignation. The chair of the board ejected the professor, who then filed a lawsuit,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
claiming his free speech rights were violated. Eight months later, according to the
local newspaper, the district settled the lawsuit for $44,000.
Further conflict centered on distance education. In response to a faculty-
driven grant, a task force on distance education was created. The senate (and union)
believed that the consequences of distance education were so significant that distance
education should “be addressed through a shared governance process, giving it
purpose, structure, and especially, accountability.” The president believed that the
task force was “an informal faculty effort to explore new ideas” and that distance
education need not go through shared governance processes.
Faculty leaders and the president also clashed over class size. In fall, 1997
the Curriculum Committee acted to stipulate maximum class sizes. President
Menchine maintained that the committee did not have authority in this area. A task
force created in spring, 1998 to resolve the dispute agreed to collect data on class
size and student success; however, that initial progress disintegrated when the
president subsequently stated that— unlike its usual practice— for any change to take
effect, the Curriculum Committee must decide unanimously. (At least one
administrative member presumably would vote at her direction, effectively blocking
any limits on class sizes that faculty might support).
In spring 1998, President Menchine authorized a consultant to examine the
feasibility of an industrial technology program. Ultimately, for the president to
institute such a program, faculty leaders believed that Title 5 (state regulations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
governing education) required Senate consultation, and faculty leaders questioned
why the consultant was not urged to partner with faculty to conduct the study.
This latest action led to a flurry of campus-wide exchanges by Menchine and
the academic senate president. In May, the Senate passed a resolution condemning
Menchine for shunning shared governance, a resolution presented to the Board of
Trustees.
President Menchine’s effect on the campus community so distressed one
administrative assistant in the president’s office— “a respected 30-year employee,”
according to the accreditation self-study—that she ran for election to the Board of
Trustees. She won, along with another newcomer, setting up a new dynamic on a
board that had two trustees who had served for 20 years each. Within 2 years,
President Menchine left to become president of another community college. “We
wished her happy trails elsewhere,” said one faculty leader.
The board appointed as interim president Erin Wayne, the then-Academic
Senate President, who was a professor of psychology, and former faculty
accreditation coordinator. Faculty felt jubilant, believing that the board was
affirming the faculty’s centrality in governance on academic issues. However,
Wayne, herself, believed that the board was not making a special gesture. Trustees
told her that her standing on the campus, as well as her work in the community and
on accreditation made her a good choice. Furthermore, trustees knew her and felt
comfortable with her. The misunderstanding of the trustees’ intentions exacerbated
problems: in 2001, the board appointed a permanent president, Richard Sabella,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
and gave him an unpublicized mandate to change the college. (The faculty’s
expectations and Sabella’s actions will be discussed later in this chapter.)
In addition to the turmoil at the highest level of the college governance
structure, the college community saw many other administrators come and go. For
example, the college has had five acting or permanent vice-presidents of academic
affairs over the last 10 years. According to the 1998 accreditation self-study,
“numerous leadership changes have created some anxieties and uncertainties among
faculty and staff.”
Even more areas of dissension emerged. President Menchine and then
Sabella sought more input into the hiring of full-time professors. Bitterroot policy
held that hiring committees consisting mostly of faculty had the primary
responsibility of forwarding a candidate to the Board of Trustees for formal
employment offers. Both Menchine and Sabella maintained (correctly) that other
community colleges in the state gave much more authority to the college president;
they sought greater input.1 5 Related to the hiring matter, the Chancellor’s Office for
California Community Colleges sent a “technical assistance team” to investigate
claims of discrimination in hiring of faculty. This action was taken in response to
several complaints the Chancellor’s Office received; furthermore, a lawsuit charging
discrimination had been filed against the college. While the lawsuit was eventually
1 5 Sabella ultimately negotiated a change in the policy, allowing him to meet with candidates,
then to enter into discussions with the hiring committee and— if he had strong disagreement-to send to
the Board of Trustees his own candidate for a position.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
found to be without merit, the task force criticized the college’s recruitment and
hiring practices. (The discrimination charge never emerged in interviews conducted
for this study nor in meetings.)
Current Governance o f Clear Lake College
The elected Board of Trustees of Clear Lake College has ultimate legal
authority for the governance of the college. The college employs 194 full-time
faculty members, 40 of whom have earned their doctorate, and the highest degree for
the majority is a master’s degree. Ethnicity of the faculty reflects the largely White
surrounding community: 76% are White; 17% Hispanic; 4% Asian-American; and
3% African-American. Three-quarters of the faculty are 40 to 60-years-old, the
average being 48. The college also employs approximately 375 part-time faculties.
The Board of Trustees delegates governing of the day-to-day operations to
the president, who formally presides over governance of all areas of the college. The
college employs 40 administrators and managers (approximately 8% of its full-time
workforce), most of whom have a master’s degree as their highest earned degree.
Managers oversee the work of 260 classified staff.
In the spring, 2003 Jack Early had held the position of college president for
12 years and planned to retire soon, this being his last position. He has a background
in government administration, and in college and university teaching, and he
previously served as president of a community college in New England. He came to
Clear Lake after two presidents who had served short terms and moved on to other
jobs. He recalls Academic Senate President Myra Montgomery telling him that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
faculty perceived him as a “good looking, slick guy” who was “getting his ticket
punched” at Clear Lake, on his way to something bigger. Over a decade later, Jack
Early reports that “I never let Myra know, but I was sort of devastated by that
comment.” Described by a dean as a “pretty tough customer,” Early, nonetheless,
prompts some faculty to describe him as “remarkably hands-off.” He’s appreciated
across campus for raising funds for the college and anticipating the college’s needs.
Even Senate President Myra Montgomery, known for her skepticism and caustic wit,
said he is “a great college president.” And as a quick aside she added, “He ought to
be canonized.” Although he chairs the Planning Council and meets often with
representatives of the Academic Senate (and other campus groups), he defers to
Vice-President of Instruction Beth Richardson in most academic and campus
governance matters.
The president relies upon several formal channels for governance. The
Planning Council serves as the central, college-wide structure for decision-making.
Chaired by the President Early, the council meets bi-weekly, but is sometimes
canceled when the president can’t attend or when no business is pressing. Its
membership of 12 consists of representatives from various constituency groups
(student government, classified and faculty unions, Dean’s Council, the Academic
Senate). The three vice presidents also are members, and the executive assistant to
the president takes minutes. The Planning Council reviews college-wide planning
and budget matters and makes recommendations to the board. Administrative policy
provides for a course of action in the event that the senate disagrees with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Planning Council, but during interviews and observed meetings, no one mentioned
that eventuality.
The president and vice-presidents are housed in the administration building
located in the center of campus. The building is similar in architecture and decor to
most other buildings on the campus, architecture that relies on concrete, wood, and
earth tones that blend into the hilly campus terrain. Offices for the deans of
academic divisions and student services dot the campus, each dean having an office
near the program for which she or he is responsible. Each dean’s office complex
also houses staff for budget and general administration of the program.
Several other campus groups represent particular constituencies and perform
functions related to those. The president and vice-presidents meet regularly as the
president’s cabinet. The Deans’ Council meets bi-weekly, monitoring such matters
as course offerings, catalogue changes, program developments and enrollment
trends. Chaired by the vice president of instruction, the Deans’ Council meets in a
conference room in the administration complex. Occasionally, the group, which
consists of deans from the five divisions, dean of counseling and the Academic
Senate president, considers a wider perspective, exploring, for example, the needs
of the 21st century student (as did the Academic Senate, as discussed below).
Generally, matters within the council’s purview can be decided by the group,
although problems and plans that the council discusses may be subject to
deliberation and action by other groups. For example, problems with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
administrative academic structure had been discussed at the Deans’ Council before
the reorganization plans moved to a campus-wide task force.
The Academic Senate has specific “professional and academic” rights and
responsibilities. In 1989, upon the adoption of AB 1725—the Assembly Bill
mandating principles of shared governance—Clear Lake College’s Board of Trustees
explicitly delineated the roles of administration and the Academic Senate. The
college chose to “rely primarily” upon the recommendation of the Academic Senate
in the 10 (plus one) areas covered in statute. Those areas are:
1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses
within disciplines;
2. Degree and certificate requirements;
3. Grading policies;
4. Educational program development;
5. Standards and policies regarding student preparation and success;
6. District governance structures, as related to faculty roles;
7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including
self-study and annual reports;
8. Policies for faculty professional development activities;
9. Processes for program review;
10. Processes for institutional planning and budget development, and
11. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Therefore, within these areas, only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling
reasons will the recommendations not be accepted. If a recommendation is not
accepted, the Board of Trustees will “promptly communicate its reasons in writing”
to the senate. (Title 5, Article 2, sections 53203, (d), (1) Administrators have the
charge (as adopted from AB 1725) to “lead, organize, plan and supervise . . . [and to]
understand the needs of faculty and the learning process.”
These 11 areas of senate responsibility led to an unusual feature of the
college’s governance. Any action item coming before the Board of Trustees has a
box signifying that if an item is an academic or professional matter, the senate has
considered the matter. Governance leaders state that any such item has unfailingly
received Academic Senate agreement and the Senate President’s signature. (Faculty
leaders believe that historically disputes have arisen about the initial classification of
an item being an “academic and professional matter,” although those leaders could
not recall specific examples.)
The Academic Senate President serves a 2-year term, the second year with a
president-elect. Senators serve 2-year terms; roughly 15% of the full-time faculty—
26 members—make up the senate. Faculty members elect the senate according to
division, at-large and officer categories.
The Senate meets bi-weekly on Tuesday afternoons, usually from 3-5. (It
does not meet during the winter and summer breaks.) Each printed agenda features
at the top the college logo (typical of the agendas from other campus organizations);
however, the agenda incorporates the logo from the Academic Senate of California
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Community Colleges as well. By-laws provide for several standing committees,
including curriculum, community education and professional rights and
responsibilities.
The Academic Senate minutes are detailed and posted on its website. Over
the last 4 years, the minutes attest to the group’s interest in a wide range of
professional and academic issues including those affected by state legislation. Most
of the senate’s agenda relates to administrative initiatives, regular functions of the
college, and information from other constituents (i.e., changes to accreditation,
budgeting for programs, assessment and other curricular matters, reports from
student and classified groups).
Occasionally, the senate will step back to re-examine its work in a broad
educational context. For example, at the beginning of one spring term, the senate
heard presentations on the twenty-first century student (called “Dude” by the senate
president), with specific aspects of the Clear Lake student from the vantage point of
assessment, job preparation, technology, math skills, and transfer. (The Deans’
Council received the same presentation.) Vice President of Instruction Beth
Richardson asked the senate to consider possible changes the college should make to
better serve “Dude,” and the matter received further discussion and action over the
next several meetings.
An unusual feature of the senate is the active participation of the vice
president of instruction. Although she has no formal role (and is listed as a guest in
the minutes), she regularly attends meetings, clearly welcome by the leadership and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
great majority of the senate. A survey of 229 pages of senate minutes covering the 2
years preceding this study shows that Beth’s name appears 469 times. The names of
the two senate presidents for that time occur 561 and 713 times. The names of these
three individuals dominate the minutes; in contrast, the name of the 2003 president
elect occurs only 138 times, the curriculum chair’s, 342.
The senate has an office— “a closet big enough to hold a desk,” according to
senate president Myra Montgomery— and a phone, although messages have clogged
its answering machine for years. Senate officers rely upon their own offices and
phones, and the administrative assistant to the vice president of instruction takes
minutes for meetings. In a previous turn as senate president, Montgomery reported
spending $4,000 a year of her own money for conferences and other senate expenses;
she told a visit team during accreditation and the senate now receives $5,000 in
funding for conferences, social events and other activities. To do senate work, the
senate president is reassigned from half of his or her teaching load; the president
elect receives one third reassigned time.
The unions for the classified staff and faculty have specific, legally mandated
areas of responsibility, shared by the trustees and district. For the purposes of this
study, areas subject to collective bargaining are outside of the area of shared
governance, although they impinge at times on governance decisions (for example,
in the consideration of program reduction and layoffs, discussed below). Union
representatives participate in the Planning Council and report to the senate on
occasion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
The governance processes are “loosely coupled” (Weick 1976):
responsibility for decision-making is diffused, decisions take time, and there is not
always a clear cause and effect or logical progression from initial concern to a
decision’s final outcome. Because of most participants’ long tenure at Clear Lake,
issues tend to emerge in groups simultaneously: faculty leaders and administrators
recognize problems or opportunities to act and tend to discuss them in administrative
and faculty meetings, and possibly at Planning Council meetings. (Discussions take
place in social settings as well.) The college president noted that decision-making
relies also upon informal channels, especially conversations with leaders of the
Senate and union. These informal conversations contribute to the loose coupling that
characterizes decision-making. Aspects of the reorganization process (discussed
below) suggest this loose coupling.
The Board of Trustees, the Planning Council, the Academic Senate and other
campus groups hold meetings at Joshua House. To get there, administrators, staff,
faculty and students walk for several minutes from the center of campus and across
the college’s main street. The large house, a renovated 19th century residence called
“spectacular” on the college’s website, features a red-tiled roof and four large
columns marking the entrance. Once inside, those who come for a meeting go
through a foyer with a chandelier and into a large room that features oak floors,
arched windows and a fireplace. (Joshua House also has a small, sit-down
restaurant, where both campus and some community people come to eat.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Current Governance o f Bitterroot College
The elected Board of Trustees of Bitterroot College has legal authority for the
governance of the college. The college employs 120 full-time faculty members, 24
of whom have earned their doctorate, and the highest degree for the majority is a
master’s degree. Ethnicity of the faculty reflects the largely White surrounding
community: 69% are White; 8% African-American, 4% Hispanic; 4 % Asian-
American; and the remaining unknown. Approximately 85% of the faculty are
between 40 and 60-years-old. The college employs approximately 300 part-time
faculty.
The Board of Trustees delegates governing of the day-to-day operations to
the president, who formally presides over governance of all areas of the college. The
college employs 25 administrators and managers (approximately 7% of its full-time
workforce), most of whom have a master’s degree as their highest earned degree.
(Most deans and senior administrators have earned their doctorates.) Managers
oversee the work of 190 classified staff.
College decision-making moves through several groups. The president’s
cabinet, consisting of the president and four vice-presidents, meets regularly. The
Deans’ Council, chaired by the Academic Vice President, consists of the deans of the
academic divisions and meets bi-weekly. The group oversees matters concerned
with enrollment, course offerings, division budgets and staffing. In July, 2003, for
example, the Deans’ Council discussed full-time faculty hires, each dean making a
case for hires in his or her division; the vice-president then stated which positions he
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
would advice the president to fill. (Ultimately, they were approved by the Board of
Trustees.)
The president and vice-presidents and their staffs have offices in the
Administration Building, built a decade ago. The contemporary-looking building is
tucked away in a comer of the campus, a hundred yards from the board room. Plans
had called for the administration to be housed in the center of campus, but the
original site was kept natural to preserve a grove of trees. Its being housed off to the
side makes a statement “that is not too terrific,” according to one faculty leader.
The CCC and Deans’ Council meet in conference rooms in the building, and the
Academic Senate has its offices there.
Bitterroot College relies upon two college-wide structures for decision
making: The College Coordinating Committee (CCC) and the Planning Council.
CCC has a charge to:
Serve as the coordinating body for governance issues at Bitterroot College,
except academic and professional matters and collective bargaining issues.
[The Committee] will have four main functions: issue management,
providing a communication network for distributing information to all
campus constituent groups, determining the decision-making and
recommending authority of campus-wide participatory governance
committees, and submitting recommendations to the President in areas of
‘effective participation.’
Administrative regulation (approved in May, 2001) specifies membership to be
seven voting members, including a representative for the Board of Trustees (either
the president or a vice-president), the senate and faculty union presidents, associated
students, classified union, Deans’ Council representative and a classified staff
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I ll
representative. Although CCC usually routes issues to appropriate committees and
organizations, it can recommend a course of action to the president under certain
circumstances (for example, emergencies or the absence of any organization to
which to refer a matter). The CCC “shall seek consensus,” but nonetheless, can act
if a motion is supported by a vote of six of the seven members. The chair is elected
by the group, which meets bi-weekly in a small conference room outside the
president’s office in the Administration Building.
The Planning Council, according to administrative regulation, “is to manage
the changes within the institution in order to accomplish the mission and goals of the
college in the most efficient way.” Previously, a budget committee had been
separate from a planning committee. The 24-person task force that devised the
current council recommended that budget be the task of one of six work groups that
would report to the Planning Council. The other five work groups are responsible
for educational planning, technology, facilities, human resources, and institutional
image. The Planning Council meets bi-weekly, co-chaired by the academic senate
president and a vice-president designated by the president (Spring, 2003, the Vice
President of Business Services). The Planning Council has 30 members from the
various campus constituent groups. Its large size and incorporation of the budget
into the process made the Planning Council one of the reasons that drew President
Sabella to the college. By deciding upon with this model, the college seemed to him
to be “ahead of the curve” in planning. The president, an ex-officio member, attends
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
meetings usually to report on particular items. Administrative regulation states that
the Planning Council,
Will work collegially with the college president until consensus is reached
on budget priorities. However, the president may recommend budget
expenditures to the Board without consensus of the Planning Council in those
instances of legal and fiscal emergency cited by Education Code and Title 5.
Every third year, the Planning Council reviews the college’s vision and strategic
goals. Annually, through the work groups, the council approves of objectives and
monitors their progress.
The Planning Council meets in The Board Room, a large room in the student
services complex, located off the center quad of the campus. Participants enter the
room through a hallway painted grey and maroon, the college colors. The room, also
the site for meetings of the Board of Trustees and Academic Senate, has a dais for
trustees, in front of a wall that displays pictures of the individual trustees. When
Board meetings are not in session, tables are arranged in a large rectangle in front of
the board dais. Whoever is chairing the meeting traditionally sits with his or her
back to the dais, facing the group assembled around the rectangle. Visitors usually
sit off the to chairperson’s left, outside the rectangle.
The Academic Senate represents the faculty for academic and professional
responsibilities specifically listed in a board policy, approved in its latest form on
April 9, 2001. The Bitterroot College Board of Trustees will “rely primarily” upon
the senate in the following areas:
1. Curriculum, including establishing prerequisites;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
2. Degree and certificate requirements;
3. Grading policies;
4. Educational program development.;
5. Standards and policies regarding student preparation and success; and
6. Policies for faculty professional development activities.
The Board will come to mutual agreement with the senate for policies and
procedures related to the following Academic and Professional matters:
1. District governance structures, as related to faculty roles.
2. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation processes, including
self study and annual reports.
3. Processes for program review.
4. Processes for institutional planning and budget development.
5. Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon.
For matters in which the board cannot reach mutual agreement with the
senate, a college-wide Mutual Agreement Committee exists, whose membership
and procedure is delineated in administrative regulation. According to a senior
administrator, the committee has never met and “I’m not sure we’d know how to put
it together if we had to right now.” With many areas of disagreement at the college,
he expressed surprise that the committee had not been useful.
Board policy states that the faculty union must consult with the Academic
Senate before bargaining on issues of “overlapping authority or concern.” These
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
areas include tenure, the academic calendar, and faculty service areas (academic
disciplines in which a faculty member may teach and for which she or he may have
“retreat” rights).
The Academic Senate has a membership of 21 members (roughly one-sixth
of the full-time faculty) including officers, at-large members and member
representing divisions. The president serves a 2-year term, the previous president
advising her or him for one semester. The executive committee consists of the
president, the first and second vice-presidents, an at-large member and the
administrative assistant. Seven ex officio members have responsibility to report to
the senate on behalf of the following organizations or programs: (a) faculty union;
(b) Program Review; (c) Tenure Review, (d) Faculty Academy; (e) Flex Calendar;
(d) Curriculum Committee and Honors Program. (Administrative regulations list
these last four as standing senate committees. Eight “campus-wide participatory
governance committees” include information technology, calendar, staff
development, and matriculation.)
The senate meets bi-weekly on Wednesdays, usually from 3 to 4:30 (or 5:00).
(It normally does not meet during winter or summer sessions.) The senate has a
website which contains links to the current year’s agendas; however, one-third of the
links are dead. An agenda template provides for nine items (for example, “call to
order,” “approval of the minutes,” etc.). At the top, the agenda states:
Academic Senate Agenda
Date
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
For a meeting I attended, no date was filled in. In keeping with the college’s custom,
no logo appears on the agenda or minutes. No minutes are posted. Senate minutes,
which are taken by the senate’s administrative assistant, are kept in binders kept on
bookshelves outside the senate president’s office.
The Academic Senate shares a space with other staff, although its president
has a private office, and the full-time administrative assistant has a cubicle outside.
The senate used to have more dedicated space as well as shared space with classified
staff with whom faculty needed to work. When President Sabella came, however,
the senate was “walled off,” in the words of a faculty leader.
The Senate consistently undertakes a thorough review of courses (through its
approval of courses through the Curriculum Committee). Further, the Senate
consistently nominates Bitterroot faculty for consideration for state-wide awards.
(And recently, a professor received an award for promoting diversity.) The Senate
also receives nomination s for outstanding adjunct faculty, reviewing letters of
recommendation composed by their division deans. Attendance (as reflected in the
last 5 year’s minutes of Senate meetings) is strong, with 85%-90% attendance at
most meetings. In recent years, the senate has taken action on a sexual harassment
policy, calendar change, academic freedom, and the establishment of an academy for
adjunct faculty.
Despite these consistent efforts—and on-going work of key committees— an
examination of Senate minutes and documents from 1998-2003 reflects signs of
decreased participation and follow-through, especially during Sara Wilson’s tenure
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
as president. For example, in 2000, then-Senate President Erin Wayne distributed an
evaluation, the results of which are in the minutes. No other such survey was
conducted. Annual goals and year-end reports are included in minutes for 1998-
2001, but none were in minutes for the 2002-2003 year. (Wilson said the senate set
goals and collected year-end reports from committees, and a Flex-Committee year-
end report was in the committee file.) Further, agendas from several years ago show
the names of more faculty members speaking on various subjects. In 2002-2003
agendas, often only three or four faculty present agenda items.
Clear Lake College’ s Response to the California
Budget, Fall-Spring 2002-2003
In response to Governor Gray Davis’s proposed budget cuts of spring 2003,
Clear Lake College leaders believed they had to act quickly and drastically. College
president Jack Early consulted with the vice-presidents and leaders of the constituent
groups, the Deans’ Council determined approaches to cost-cutting, deans met with
their program chairs, and program chairs talked to their faculty. (See Table 4 for a
summary of the college’s response to the budget crisis.) The Academic Senate and
the faculty union sent questions to the vice president of business services who
responded “kind of off the record.” The Planning Council met and reviewed
preliminary proposals to meet the cuts.
In a speech to the campus delivered at the start of the spring term, President
Jack Early outlined the projected cut to the budget and summarized the college’s
strategy:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
Table 4. Clear Lake College Response to State Budget, Fall 2002-Spring2003
Aspects of decision
making Actions
Key elements Proposed: Cutbacks of between S4.0-4.4 million; undetermined yet
proposed and significant number of layoffs— Adopted: less than $1 million in
adopted cutbacks; no layoffs
Rationale College needed to come together to address problems; needed to decide
when best to take the brunt o f cuts, in the face o f near-certain drastic
cuts
Timeframe January-April: Planning Council shaped responses
Leadership and President Jack Early, vice presidents, deans, faculty (and leaders of
participation other constituencies) work together informally and on the Planning
Council
Communication Presentation of information to Planning Council; February address to
entire campus at start of spring, 2003
Campus Response Governance leaders unanimously support decisions and decision-making
process
We know the magnitude will be devastating, somewhere in the $4 million to
$8 million range .... Remember a few months ago when we thought the
$500,000 cut would be difficult? . . . We’ve had lots of discussion in the
Planning Council on what the target [for cuts] should be. Should we lean
toward pessimism and set a target that minimizes the probability of having to
cut more next year? Or should we be more optimistic and set a lower target,
avoiding the possibility of seeking more cuts that we need to make? We’ll
have one more discussion, but it’s clear that we’ll end up in the $4- 4.4
million range, with the understanding that if we’re low, we’ll have to use
one-time funds to balance next year’s budget, and make additional cuts next
year for the following year.
Jack outlined the cuts to course offerings, stating that all departments and
divisions would be considering ways to cut their budgets 20%-24%. He said,
“Although it’s painful for me to say, layoffs are inevitable . . . and I’m very saddened
by that.” He laid out a timetable for the campus, as well as criteria and principles to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
guide decision-making. Principles included being “forthright and explicit about
reductions in the level and scope of programs and services” and supporting a process
“characterized by openness, respect, sensitivity, inclusiveness and representation of
all affected individuals and constituencies.” He ended his comments on a personal
note:
I’ve heard (secondhand) that some folks think I’m retiring soon and that I
really don’t care very much about the results of the cuts we make. Yes, I
am planning to retire within the next two years. But I’ve lived and breathed
Clear Lake College for the last 12 years—much longer than I’ve been
anyplace else, and I care deeply about this place, just like most everyone else
in this room. There is nothing more important to me than being able to say to
myself, after I leave, that I worked absolutely as hard as I could to provide
the leadership that our college needed during these difficult times. So I ask
that we join together and make these difficult choices .... That’s it. It’s all
bad news, but it’s important that we all understand the incredible challenge
we face. Thank you for listening.
In February, the Planning Council recommended program reductions,
especially in areas of categorical funding (those marked by the legislature for
specific purposes). For example, Disabled Student Services was one categorical
program whose budget had been marked for severe state cutbacks. Layoffs—not
within the purview of the Planning Council, since they were subject to provisions of
collective bargaining—followed along the lines of program reduction. (A senior
administrator told me that although administrators needed to make the layoff
decisions, it did not follow—as administrators at other colleges asserted—that shared
governance could not address closely related issues. The Planning Council’s
discussion and recommendations, in this administrator’s view, showed that shared
governance could work on such emotionally charged issues.) Later in February, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
Board of Trustees formally passed a recommendation of a budget approved by the
Planning Council. It also approved sending out “March 15 notices” to staff and
administrators in the affected programs. (This action was technically the first step in
a lay-off process. It preserved the college’s right to terminate a contract as long as
the administrator or faculty member received notification by March 15 of the year in
question that his or her continued employment at the college was not guaranteed.)
After an unprecedented turnout in Sacramento of thousands of students,
administrators, faculty and other community college supporters, the legislature
determined to scale back the budget reductions. Faced with this good news, the
Planning Council met in April, at which time Jack Early recommended that program
reductions be scaled back. Scaling back the reductions meant rescinding most (if not
all) of the lay-off notices.
I attended this meeting, which was held in Joshua House. In a large room
with a paneled fireplace, wall sconces and cream colored walls, the twelve members
of the council sat behind tables that formed a rectangle, with President Jack Early
and his administrative assistant seated on one side, two classified representatives
seated opposite him and the remaining nine representatives—administrators and
professors— seated on the remaining two sides. The faculty and administrators were
mixed—not seated by group. At the start of the meeting, 20 observers had taken
seats in rows perpendicular to President Jack Early’s table. The agenda contained
two main items: “5.0 2003-2004 Categorical Reduction Target—20 minutes” and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
“6.0 Second Review of Proposed Component Reductions—Base and Categorical
Budgets—30 minutes.”
The vice presidents of student services and instruction explained newly
drawn up budgets to address the changes emerging from Sacramento. Having
examined the budgets, Jack noted that even though lay-offs “aren’t part of this
group” he wanted to touch on the “notices that were delivered and now rescinded,
because I know the pain and suffering that caused and probably the negative feelings
that linger on, probably for a very [long] time.” When asked by the classified union
president just how many lay-off notices were rescinded, Jack replied, “that’s sort of
confidential—I will say most of them.” He explained that some people received
notices because their positions were funded by grants, and others were temporary
employees, so he didn’t know right then. (Three months later, he told me that no
employee had been laid off because of the budget.) After considerable discussion of
the details of the new budgets, Jack Early asked to go around the table, with each
person stating his or her views toward this new budget, which moved away from the
drastic cutbacks originally anticipated. To a person, administrators, faculty, staff,
and the one student member voiced support for both the process and results. One
dean, for example, praised the classified union in particular and stated that the
proposed budget relies “on the integrity . . . and the strength” of those involved in
decision-making. The faculty union president echoed the president, who earlier in
the meeting had called for reflection upon the process—to take what had worked and
modify other aspects. She stated that given the magnitude of the cuts in the previous
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
and current proposal, the process had been “amazing .... We have kept a sense of
purpose strongly in the core of the conversation.”
For its June 2 meeting the Board of Trustees received a 36-page booklet,
providing an accounting for its various funds and proposing at budget for the next
fiscal year. Included in the report, whose preparation was guided by Vice President
of Business Services Virginia Sage, was a timeline showing which groups took what
actions on what date. During the week of January 27, for example, the Planning
Council recommended “process,” “timelines,” “budget assumptions,” and
“enrollment assumptions.” Review of the preliminary plan with the union and senate
leadership occurred the weeks of March 3,10 and 17. All in all, the checklist
presents 57 distinct consultations from the moment of Governor Davis’s January
proposal until Board adoption.
Bitterroot College’ s Response to the California
Budget, Fall-Spring 2002-2003
With state budget problems looming, Bitterroot College took two central
actions: imposing a hiring freeze and cutting 210 sections from its spring offering.
(For a summary see Table 5.) The latter action also responded to problems with the
college’s own budget: a $500,000 accounting error meant significant mid-year
adjustments that were compounded by the governor’s own midyear cuts.
President Richard Sabella announced the hiring freeze in December. The
move had not been discussed among faculty leaders and the president, nor had the
Planning Council or Coordinating Committee discussed the move. Despite the lack
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
Table 5. Bitterroot College Response to State Budget, Fall 2002-Spring2003
Aspects of decision
making Actions
Key elements Hiring freeze; cancellation o f 210 sections for spring, 2003; task
proposed and
adopted
force to save $1.4 million
Rationale College sought to avoid layoffs— cancellations were result of
miscalculation
Timeframe November-December 2002
Leadership and President Sabella decided; Vice-President Deignan sought approval
participation of union president to cancel sections
Communication Hiring freeze announced to the campus in a memorandum; phone
call to union president; decisions announced in Planning Council
Campus response Governance leaders and campus community generally accept the
hiring freeze; faculty express frustration and anger over
of consultation, the move generally was accepted to meet what was widely
considered to be a significant problem. Further, the act seemed to be a “management
right,” a term that will be discussed more fully in Section III of this chapter.
Cutting the 210 sections was more complicated. As explained in Section I
above, college administrators needed to weigh many variables in order to match
number of class sections and the budget. Any miscalculation could cost a district
dearly. In fall, 2002, the vice-presidents and the president miscalculated the number
of sections the college could afford to offer. Cutting 210 sections meant losing the
equivalent of 735 full-time equivalent students—roughly 8% of its enrollment, so the
miscalculation was huge. Compounding the problem was the fact that the winter and
spring schedules already had been published. Once the district published a schedule
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
and thereby (according to the district’s contract with the faculty) offered professors
teaching assignments, the district needed the consent of the union leadership to
withdraw the sections. Reluctantly, the faculty union president agreed. The district
determined which sections would be cut, and deans notified the part-time faculty
who had been assigned to those sections. Students received notice, in some cases
after they had already registered for particular sections.
All those involved with the action understandably were displeased with the
outcome, although all emphasized various aspects of the decision-making. Vice
President of Instruction Neil Deignan faulted President Sabella, stating that Sabella
gave no direction for the college. “His mentality was to save money now,” Deignan
stated about Sabella,” then look how this savings is going to impact the college in the
future.” When Sabella realized the potential loss of offerings to the planned winter
and spring sessions, he first thought to cut the winter session entirely. Deignan
persuaded him to retain most of the offerings. Sabella then wanted to cut the
summer 2003 offerings by 50%— but that could hurt next year’s FTES (since the
college would not have the option to carry much FTES forward to meet targets for
2003-2004).
Academic Senate President Sara Wilson said that early in fall 2002, she
warned Deignan and Student Services Vice-President Jeffrey Quay that the large
summer offering and the increased fall FTES meant cutting back the number of
sections offered for spring, 2003, the second half of the fiscal year. The vice-
presidents reassured Wilson. “Neil was being optimistic” she said, and Jeff said
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
‘“let’s wait until we get to P2,’” the second census period, when the college would
have a more accurate picture. “I trusted both of them,” Wilson said, several months
afterward, and the scheduling miscalculation was “a major, major, major mistake.”
In hindsight, Wilson believed that she should have insisted that the scheduling be
brought before Planning Council in early November.
The faculty union president emphasized the haphazard nature of the decision
making. On Friday afternoon, November 21 Deignan reached her on her cell phone
as she was leaving town. The phone connection kept cutting out, so the conversation
was delayed until Friday night, when she reached her destination. Then she heard
for the first time about a large— $500,000— accounting error. After gaining
assurances that the college would make every effort to respond to hardships among
the affected part-timers, she felt she had no choice but to agree.
In late November and December, the Deans’ Council and Planning Council
discussed the matter. (The deans—the ones who had to inform affected faculty—
were displeased about being out of the process.) When the matter came before
Planning Council, members advanced ideas to avoid a $1.4 million shortfall,
anticipated if the Governor’s January budget became law. Some of the suggestions
could be implemented long-term, to avoid such miscalculation in the future.
Reorganization at Clear Lake College
The genesis of the college’s most recent academic administration
reorganization may be traced to the college’s previous accreditation self-study,
which noted that the introduction of an information system had exacerbated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
problems of workload for the academic programs’ administrative structure. The
college had nine academic divisions, each with a division chair (a manager), an
administrative assistant (a classified staff member) and program leader (a faculty
member). In the late 1990s, a number of division chairs— individually and
collectively through a forerunner of the Dean’s Council— asked Vice President of
Instruction Beth Richardson to explore problems with the structure. Because the
administrative assistants had varying degrees of seniority, expertise and workload,
the divisions operated significantly differently. In those divisions that had a high
turnover rate for division chairs, the administrative assistant virtually guided the
division; in others, the division chair served in this role. Some long-time
administrative assistants wrote curriculum, a responsibility of the faculty. Some
divisions were burdened by an especially heavy workload, a problem that grew
increasingly worse as classified staff transferred to other divisions with lighter
workloads. To keep the nine divisions and add more classified support would cost
approximately $600,000 more, a prohibitive amount. Since no other proposal
emerged as feasible, the structure remained in place until the demands of learning
and collecting data under a new system made action necessary.
In May, 2000, a group including union leaders began meeting to address
these problems. (See Table 6 for a summary of key aspects of the reorganization.)
Senate leaders were not in the initial group. Recollections and documents give
varying accounts of who initiated the process and who participated. Senate minutes
(from October 2000) state that division chairs called on Vice President Beth
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
Table 6. Reorganization at Clear Lake College
Aspects of decision
making Actions
Key Changes Nine divisions became five; deans chosen to oversee the divisions;
division staffs have more equal workloads; English and Business placed
in one division
Rationale Provide a “cost-neutral” solution to divide workloads evenly to insure
that work is completed more efficiently and effectively
Timeframe 27 months (initial discussions-May 2000; all divisions in place-August,
2002)
Leadership Vice-President of Academic Affairs Beth Richardson; ad hoc committee
(ROSE)
Communication 24 broadcast emails from Beth Richardson; one full senate meeting and
discussions in several others; 3 campus-wide forums (including the
senate meeting) with transcripts of questions and answers from 2.
Campus response Administrators strongly supported the reorganization; most faculty
supported it, although English faculty opposed the initial rationale and
the outcome; one faculty leader criticized the cost
Richardson to explore changes; Beth, in a campus-wide email from February, 2001,
emphasizes her own role in starting the process. In any event, by the end of the
process, Beth was the individual most closely identified with the reorganization, and
this start is interpreted by some professors as—depending on their viewpoint— a sign
of Beth’s clever strategic abilities or her manipulation. Once faculty and staff unions
saw likely salary increases for key positions, they formed a nucleus that supported
the reorganization.
Starting in fall, 2000, the Review of Structures and Employment (ROSE) task
force included then-incoming Senate President Myra Montgomery. It conducted
three campus-wide forums (one formally a senate meeting) responding to questions,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
and Beth’s office distributed a transcript of the exchanges via email. Beth
encouraged faculty from different disciplines to consider what “clusters” made sense
according to ROSE criteria (e.g.,“similarity of program goals, related curriculum,
[and] potential for shared facilities”). In February 2001, a division chair’s retirement
prompted the selection of the social science division as the pilot division, beginning
fall, 2001. In May, Beth announced the final configurations:
1. Social Science (including psychology, political science, anthropology,
geography, meteorology, history and philosophy);
2. Health, Physical Education and Athletics (including nursing);
3. Arts (including drama, dance and photography);
4. Natural and Applied Sciences (including computer science,
engineering, construction; and
5. English, languages, and business.
Over the next year, contract negotiations ironed out compensation for the
newly configured positions, and the senate and administration agreed to a timetable
and composition for search committees for the deans. By fall, 2002, the new deans
and divisions were in place.
Administrators believed that the reorganization greatly improved distribution
of the work and hoped that long-term, it would help disciplines focus on ways of
improving their programs. English professors, though, opposed it from the start.
They doubted the rationale and then, belatedly, found that no other discipline wanted
to join with it in a division. Beth’s final configuration, from their point of view,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
came without deliberation, making the reorganization seem like a done deal, after all.
As one English professor expressed it, “we knew we were on a train and we were not
getting off.” However, faculty generally supported the reorganization. One faculty
leader went so far as to say that he felt “great empowerment” in the process.
Reorganization at Bitterroot College
In fall, 2002, in the midst of the state’s worsening budget, President Sabella
instituted a hiring freeze. His administration was starting contract negotiations with
the faculty, which could lead to increased expenditures. When the Dean of Student
Services and the Dean of Performing Arts resigned (the former to take an associate
dean position at another college, the latter to accept a vice-president position at
another college), Sabella believed he could save the college money through a
redistribution of responsibilities. Further, the dean of athletics would be retiring in
summer, 2003. Sabella directed the vice-presidents of student services and
instruction to develop a reorganization plan to be in place, fall 2003. (For a
summary of aspects of Bitterroot’s reorganization, see Table 7). The three of them
became the ones widely identified with the reorganization efforts. Cost-savings was
clearly the single most important factor behind the effort to reorganize; however, in
the twenty goals given to the president by the Board of Trustees, cost savings is
never mentioned. Therefore, Sabella’s personal agenda of cost-savings—linked to
the widening fiscal woes of the state—drove the reorganization plan.
After vice-presidents Deignan and Quay created preliminary plans for their
areas, Sabella directed them to show the deans, since the deans would be affected
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Table 7. Reorganization at Bitterroot College
Aspects of decision
making Actions
Key Changes Three fewer deans; initial proposal to change Administration o f Justice
out of Social Science Division (not in final reorganization)
Rationale Cost savings; balance administrative duties to achieve better, more even
distribution of workload
Timeframe December 2002-June, 2003
Leadership President Sabella; Vice-Presidents Deignan and Quay
Communication Discussion among president and vice-presidents; discussion with deans,
but deliberate effort to contain tentative reorganization; 10 weeks later,
memo to campus community and plans brought to Planning Council and
senate meeting
Campus response No one happy with the outcome; most faculty think it suggests the small
role faculty play in governance, despite some changes in final
reorganization
most significantly; however, deans were not allowed to distribute these plans to
faculty in their division. Inevitably, faculty heard that a reorganization plan was
afoot. However, it was not publicized until 10 weeks later—March 24— when
President Sabella sent a memorandum to all faculty outlining a plan for
reorganization and his rationale (Table 7).
The number of deans for instruction and student services would be reduced
by two, from 12 to 10, the number of divisions from 9 to 7. Although the proposal
called for several changes that received little comment, the following changes in
administrative responsibility were the most controversial:
1. Moving Administration of Justice from Social Sciences to Allied
Health;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
2. Moving the library and learning center programs from an academic
dean to a student services dean;
3. Moving most of the programs that had been under the Fine and
Performing Arts division to what became tentatively called “Language and Fine and
Performing Arts”;
4. Moving responsibility for distance education from an academic dean
to a classified coordinator in student services;
5. Moving lab technicians from an academic division to information
technology; and
6. Moving the media specialist to the Foundation director’s office.
Although Sabella advocated the move to save costs, no specific dollar amount was
attached to the change. The move sought to balance administrative responsibilities,
yet the language division chair would be supervising 64 additional faculty (up from
80 before the reorganization), making it two or three times as large as some of the
other divisions.
Vice presidents Deignan and Quay fielded questions and comments, some
from faculty angered over the lack of consultation and educational purpose in the
proposal. Finally in May, Sabella announced his decision, which included two
significant changes from the proposal presented to the faculty in March:
1. Administration of Justice would remain housed in the Social Science
Division; and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
2. The Graphic Artist would remain with the media center, but that area
would report to a dean of student services, not academic affairs.
As called for in the March proposal, the number of deans would be reduced
by three (including the dean of athletics retiring at the end of summer, 2003). The
dean of what was called (tentatively) Language and Fine and Performing Arts would
oversee five new areas (film and television; art; music; photography; and theater
arts). Counseling would oversee the learning center, the library and the media
center. Computer lab technicians and business and computer graphics staff would
report to Information Technology. The business dean would be responsible for
courses and faculty in multimedia and computer graphics, two areas that had been in
fine, performing and media arts.
Senate President Sara Wilson, commenting overall on the reorganization, said
that “it was an example of shared governance working,” this despite others saying
that “shared governance is dead” at Bitterroot. “I ... think that re-organization is a
management right. And I have said that publicly and have still managed to stay
alive.” Despite this assessment of what reorganization suggests about governance,
Wilson used the words “regrettable” and “temporary” to describe the reorganization
itself. It was regrettable because of all the time and controversy it caused, and it
became temporary when Sabella announced he would be leaving. “I don’t think
anyone was pleased with the reorganization—including the administration.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
Vice President Deignan agreed that the reorganization pleased no one. He
believed the counselors were most displeased because the identification of their
discipline became blurred with the addition of the media center and other areas.1 6
An Academic Senate officer characterized the reorganization as “heavy-
handed.” He asserted that, “It's a prime example of how shared governance is not
supposed to work. I think everyone would agree that it was a slap in the face for
shared governance.” A dean characterized the new organization as “cumbersome”
and “unbalanced.” She said that the reorganization should have made the statement
that “teaching positions are more important than administrative positions.
[However] one of the messages that went out - or that [people felt went out was]
‘People [senior administrators] are going to change our lives without even asking.’”
Section III: Concepts o f Culture
For this section, findings are organized by site and according to the concepts
of culture advanced by Tierney (1988a). Of Tierney’s six concepts, two—
environment and mission—drew forth little data. Therefore, beyond a brief
comment in the next chapter, those concepts will not receive additional discussion.
The previous chapter offered a rationale for including trust as a concept to evaluate
culture.1 7
1 6 After the data collection was concluded, Neil Deignan became president of Bitterroot; one
of his first actions was to call for a review o f the reorganization.
1 7 Another part of the findings is presented in Appendix B. There a table summarizes each of
the 30 interviewees’ responses to the questions that comprised the interview protocol. Chapter 4 also
cites data from those interviews, organized into the various subsections o f the chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
Clear Lake College
Socialization
This is the cultural area that is the most complex at Clear Lake, especially
given the longevity of the key participants in governance. The administrators
interviewed for this study averaged 21 years at the college, faculty leaders 18 years.
An influx of new faculty has occurred over the last 6 or 7 years. The union president
and the incoming senate president, for example, have been at the college less than a
decade. Nonetheless, those two showed that they had been socialized to the college,
reflecting the attitudes of most of their more senior colleagues. Key aspects that
shape socialization are summarized below.
The Clear Lake Way
A thread running through conversations about the college recalls the way
matters were conducted back in the good old days by the first generation of
administrators, faculty and staff. “That’s the Clear Lake Way,” people would say,
with a smile, sometimes with a nod of the head. A president of the senate in the
1960s appeared at a senate meeting a couple years ago and defined “The Clear Lake
Way” as “the glacial, indirect way things get done around here.” President Jack
Early alluded to it when he said,
We’d love to go back to that old world where people could drop in and chat
for a half an hour. That world doesn’t exist anymore. But.. .1 can name a
half a dozen . . . old timers, retired now, who certainly don’t understand why
it can’t be.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
An instruction assistant who retired in the spring of 2003 after 25 years at the
college remarked that, “once upon a time we were a family, but [now we have] an
‘us versus them’ mentality.” The faculty union president, who was well aware of her
newcomer status, remarked that the old Clear Lake way has faded out as
standardization has entered. The union’s arrival in the early 1980s played a part in
this greater formalization and standardization. “Prior to that each faculty member
would negotiate [his or her] own salary .... There was no standardized format for
advancement.” A dean remarked that 20 years ago, the college sought to avoid “the
dreaded dean system,” preferring to keep control as decentralized as possible. But
accountability from the chancellor’s office meant more data collection and with it,
more standardization. Also, divisions were working at cross purposes, with art
classes, for example, scheduled so that students could not get to English or math
classes on time. The division change (discussed in Section 2) was a “watershed
moment.” According to the dean,
A lot of the dyed-in-the-wool, anti-dean people had retired . . . [And after the
reorganization] we would hear from off-campus from those folks: “how
could you have done this?” But I think if you’re here and in touch with the
needs of the college, and you really understand how information gets
processed and decisions get made [you would understand the decision]. Even
the academic senate, which has usually been the hotbed of opposition for any,
in their opinion, strong-handed administrative change agreed that things were
not working efficiently.
Vice President Beth Richardson, whose long history at the college gives her insight
into the Clear Lake Way, offers this explanation: “we don’t readily or easily accept
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
what’s popular outside the college. We need to use our own processes, our own
procedures.”
Humor and Banter
Humor emerged in many public meetings. For example, at an April 1, senate
meeting presided over by Myra Montgomery— an avowed animal lover— the treasurer
handed out a senate budget. Members were alarmed at first to see their funds
drastically depleted, until they looked at some irregular expenditures and realized it
was April Fool’s Day. The treasurer had included “Bus to Llama Fest 2003— $925;
Llama pet psychic— $1,850, and Presidential Vacation Fund— $7,320.57.” Another
stretch of a senate meeting, after a discussion about learning theory, proceeded as
follows:
Senator: You find that talent matters almost not a whit. It’s practice. It’s a
certain kind of practice. It’s time on task.
Second Senator: I practiced and practiced and practiced the piano for three
solid years until my teacher committed suicide.
Third Senator: That’s not enough [time].
Myra: So if we keep having meetings, we’ll get good at them?
Fourth Senator: Only if we stay on task.
Often the humor has an edge, for which Myra is especially known. Myra
chided Beth several times during one senate meeting. Once when a meeting was a
bit chaotic, Beth piped up with the comment that money spent on the retirement
party was money well spent. Chairing the meeting, Myra said, in a mock-withering
tone, “Can you be quiet and speak when you’re called on? Thank you.” After
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
having delegated some work, Myra remarked, “You see, I am effective. I could have
been an administrator. You just get everyone else to do the work.” Beth, too, uses
this bantering style. At the Planning Council meeting that culminated in budget
cutbacks being reduced, President Jack Early had handed around the amended
budgets and said a few words. Then he turned the discussion over to Beth, who
began by saying: “Thank you, Jack. You’ve all now had a chance to read through
every last one of these pages while Jack was talking, so I’m sure you know what the
reductions are.”
The campus newspaper reported a story that Jack Early told at the Planning
Council. A group of students, faculty and administrators from the college had
chartered a bus to a rally in Sacramento. Myra and Jack were talking to legislators
when he realized that he needed to leave to allow time for the mile and a half walk
back to the bus. Myra offered to give Jack a ride. He initially declined, but she
insisted. She just needed to get her car out of the hotel parking garage. After
rummaging through her purse in vain, she returned to the hotel in search of her
validated ticket, only to find that it had been in her purse all along. When they left
the parking garage, Myra turned the wrong way. Eventually, they arrived at the bus,
which was taking off—having just given up waiting on him. The telling of the story,
the newspaper reported, “was quite enough to turn Montgomery’s face quite red, and
silence (at least for a moment) the usually very vociferous voice of the academic
senate.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
The 2003 retirement party had as its theme “What Were You Thinking?” the
senate president-elect adapted popular song lyrics to provide a comical running
commentary on the retirees, and played the songs in a band at the event (which was
held at Joshua House). Generally, the humor is shared by all present. However, at
least one administrator, a relative newcomer, finds the humor “unprofessional,”
especially comments that have a cutting edge to them.
Professional Affiliation
Some faculty and administrators stressed affiliation with professional
organizations (the health and science fields, especially). Offices reflected such
affiliations, too, with several offices holding plaques signifying membership in
professional organizations.
Dress and Forms o f Address
One retiree commented that the level of formality on the campus had changed
considerably over the years; she could recall addressing students as “Miss” or
“Mister.” Today, general social interaction at Clear Lake College is characterized by
informality of address and dress. Although vice presidents and the president
occasionally wore more formal attire—sports coat and tie, dresses—most
administrators and professors dress casually—khakis, corduroy pants and shirts,
open-collar shirts, sweaters and occasionally sweatshirts. By dress, it would be hard
to distinguish most administrators from most professors. Similarly, people address
each other invariably by first name in conversation and in meetings (a) pattern that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
held true for the classified staff with faculty and administrators, as well).1 8
Occasionally in a campus-wide email, the president would be called “President
Early.” On one occasion (described in the Trust section below), Jack Early’s choice
of wearing a Clear Lake baseball jacket made a statement of campus unity.
Socializing
Off-campus connections among and between faculty and administration
appear strong, with campus lives continuing seamlessly into parties and other social
gatherings. At a party, for example, a plan emerged to allow the union president to
fill a role on the Planning Council—not as a union representative, but as Senate
representative, especially appropriate because the union president represented a
vocational area. In several interviews, people mentioned comments of retirees,
suggesting ongoing connections with people no longer on the campus, some of
whom had moved out of state. One dean noted that she had had to avoid comments
on the reorganization when she was at social gatherings.
Acronyms
The campus thrives on acronyms. In the interest of readability, this chapter
regularly refers to only one: ROSE—for the reorganization, discussed previously.
However, the college community uses acronyms for various positions (division
1 8 To give a sense o f this informality, I have chosen to use first names predominantly
throughout discussion of Clear Lake College in this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
chairs used to be called DCs; program leaders, PLs), academic divisions, committees
and organizations.
The Planning Council
The Planning Council in particular—and governance structures generally—
may be seen as aspects of socialization. The Planning Council, like strategic
planning bodies elsewhere (Keller 1983; Schuster et al., 1994), reflects the history
and people of Clear Lake College. When AB 1725 became law, the academic senate
at each community college was given the eleven areas of responsibility. When Clear
Lake College incorporated these areas into board policy, the board agreed to “rely
primarily” upon the senate for “processes for institutional planning and budget
development.” Myra Montgomery, who was serving an earlier term as senate
president in the 1990s when these matters were negotiated, believes that board policy
clearly gives the senate a special role in planning. She believes, however, that in the
late 1980s and early 1990s community college presidents throughout the state made
a concerted effort to offset the Academic Senate’s newly-created responsibilities.
The preferred method was the creation of these “Noah’s Ark” committees—two
representatives from each group, generally—to oversee planning. She fought the
creation of the Planning Council then (and she still opposes it philosophically today).
However, she yielded her opposition when it started pitting the faculty against the
classified staff. Although its was central to the spring, 2003 budget discussions, the
Planning Council—as evidenced by comments in the last accreditation self-study and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
comments from faculty—continues to generate differing responses among
administrators and faculty.
Strategy
Major initiatives and proposals (such as college budgets, consideration of a
new bond measure) come from the administration in various ways. The president
seeks the advice of the leaders of key constituent groups, in confidence if the matter
is especially sensitive. The administration initiates consideration of formal college-
wide matters through the Planning Council. A key strategic process—hiring of full
time positions— goes initially through a dual process, with the Deans’ Council and
the Academic Senate considering the process, determining recommendations for the
vice president of instruction, and she, in turn, forwarding recommendations to the
president and to the board of trustees, which makes the final determination. In 2002,
this process was altered slightly, when members of the Deans’ Council and the
Academic Senate met at Joshua House for dinner and deliberation, resulting in a
joint recommendation, which moved forward to the Board of Trustees without
changes.
The Academic Senate follows a bottom-up strategy for initiatives it
undertakes. Various objectives emerge in draft form early in the fall. These are
revised over the next couple meetings. Committees propose areas for the senate as a
whole. For example, the Curriculum Committee proposed a restructuring of its
membership (which occurred roughly during the academic administration
reorganization).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
The most recent accreditation self-study from several years ago called for
more transparency in the budgeting and planning process. These comments arise
mostly from the structure most closely linked to strategy, the Planning Council.
Senate president Myra Montgomery said that “every nonadministrative
representative” believes that the council is the weakest part of governance at the
college. She cited its history and the way the budget is laid out. For example, Myra
would like to see income and expenditures broken down so that members could
clearly see how the college meets the 50% law. (In principle the law requires that
half of a college’s funding go to direct classroom use, most notably toward
professors’ salaries. In practice, the business office has a complex calculation to
determine if the college is meeting the law.) Myra also decried that the Planning
Council has only once examined the college’s 311 statement—the document filed
annually with the state that details actual expenditures.
An example of a long-term strategic process is illustrated in the section on the
college’s reorganization. The response to the budget crisis illustrates the college’s
strategy in a shared governance situation requiring relatively quick action.
Information
The exchange of information at Clear Lake College relies upon the longevity
of the key people in governance. In spring, 2003, the shortest tenure of any of them
at Clear Lake was 6 years (the faculty union president); the college president had
served twelve years, and most participants had served 15 or more. Because of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
wealth of shared experience and knowledge, an informal network to share
information existed. President Jack Early stated,
There’s a formal governance system and then there’s . . . a whole set of
informal relationships and communication channels that, I think, probably
really do 80% of the work.... You know, we’ve all been here a long
time . . . There’s lots . . . of communication channels that develop over
time and . . . make it easier for us to communicate.
A semi-structured channel is Vice President Beth Richardson’s attendance at
Senate meetings. Given her unique vantage point of having been a student, faculty
member, and administrator for over thirty years at Clear Lake, she plays a key role in
Senate meetings, despite having no formal position in the Senate. Of Beth’s
participation, Myra said,
I like having her at senate meetings because sometimes she has information
that she throws at us that we don’t have, but other people don’t like it. They
feel inhibited. I think everything should be public, and I thought what
AB1725 was about was a collegial relationship .... So you can’t hardly have
a collegial relationship with people to whom you don’t allow to come to your
meetings. So you have to be kind of straightforward about everything.
At meetings, information took several forms. All meetings had an agenda,
some setting forth time for the listed items. (An English Department meeting had an
agenda of seven items on a half sheet of paper, printed on the back of an adjective
clause practice exercise.) Most meetings focused on information that was distributed
beforehand or, more often, during the meeting. Typical of this kind of information
are the following documents distributed at various meetings I attended: budget data,
a draft of particular bill under consideration in Sacramento, an outline for a new
course on Latin American music, an article entitled “Informed Self-Placement: An
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Attractive Alternative to Conventional Assessment Practices.” Invariably, the chair
of the meeting or a member of the organization summarized the document under
consideration, highlighting key aspects. Response to the information was attentive
and usually engendered follow-up questions and sometimes debate over how to
proceed based upon the information.
Leadership
Representing the administration and faculty in governance, three campus
leaders stand out: President Jack Early, Vice President Beth Richardson and
Academic Senate President Myra Montgomery. Although widely respected by both
groups, well-established at the college, and well-versed on local and state
perspectives, each has his or her own style.
From the interviews I conducted— which include ones with representatives
from union leadership and one avowed critic of administrators— praise for Jack
Early’s leadership is unanimous. His reputation had clearly spread, as evidenced by
a state-wide award he recently received. Jack’s willingness to delegate— to Beth,
especially, on issues closely related to the faculty’s work-makes him seem “hands
off’ to some faculty. In areas in which he chooses to lead directly, however, he takes
a clear, guiding role. He’s “almost ego-less” in his leadership, according to Beth, or,
put another way, she says, he has a “big enough ego, [so that we don’t] have to do it
his way.” In response to the question of whether Clear Lake College is a better place
now or ten years ago, Jack responded, “It wouldn’t say much about my leadership if
I said I thought it was a better place ten years ago.” In elaborating, he said that it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
was “far better” (in terms of programs, services, response to the community,
facilities, faculty salaries); his explanation, however, cited what “we,” the college
leaders, had done, and his guidance was merged in with the group. At the beginning
of his time at Clear Lake, he approached budget cutting by asking those closest to the
program to suggest cuts, and then he largely followed those suggestions. Sensing
that the college needed additional funding-universally supported on the campus-- he
went to the community, quickly raising the college’s endowment from under $1
million to over $6 million. He then proposed a bond measure to enhance facilities,
especially for student services and performing arts. As noted previously, the bond
passed with 75% of the vote.
Jack has a self-deprecating sense of humor. At graduation, one faculty leader
noted, he stands up, welcomes everyone and says, “In the interest of not boring you,
I’m done” and sits down. His own assessment was that several years after arriving,
people on campus said about him, “He hasn’t fucked up incredibly badly. Maybe
he’s not so bad.”
Given those perceptions of his leadership, an examination of how he has led
shows a clear sense of what he wants to accomplish and a belief in the collaborative
process to achieve results. This determination emerged, for example, in his address
to the college when it faced the latest state budget crisis (described above) and his
oversight (with Vice President of Business Virginia Sage) of the budget ultimately
adopted. His ability to collaborate was illustrated at the April, 2003 Planning
Council meeting, which showed in the culmination of several meetings of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
hammering out a budget. Academic Senate President Myra Montgomery says that
that faith in the collaborative process was not completely present when he arrived at
Clear Lake. His previous college did not have any kind of legally-mandated,
participatory governance, and he had, in his words, some “knock-down, drag-out
battles” with senate leaders to negotiate professional and academic matters.
Nonetheless, at the core of his leadership, is a belief in “mutual respect and trust and
. . . focus on our mission.”
Beth Richardson engenders widespread respect, in significant measure
because campus leaders have faith in her love of and commitment to the college. If
her long-term service to the college has raised some personal capital, some of it was
expended during the reorganization. One faculty leader who has worked closely
with her thought immediately of Beth when asked who was most responsible for
furthering trust on the campus. However, this leader qualified the response:
Certainly there are a lot of questions about “Is Beth trustworthy?” [In my
own] personal relationship with her . . . .1 think she’s always been honest
I wouldn’t be surprised if she occasionally withheld things because it’s
strategic, but I don’t she ever been specifically untrue. I think she’s very
talented in terms of—I won’t say manipulating, although some people would
say that—I would say working with the politics of the institution.
In contrast to Jack’s and Beth’s leadership, Myra Montgomery’s is less
purposeful or strategic. For example, early in one senate meeting, she asks,
rhetorically “What should we do now?” (Several senators answer: “adjourn.”) And
at another point she asks, “What should I do?” She guides the senate through a
thoughtful analysis of a legislative proposal for revising the state’s Master Plan for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
education, a proposal she generally opposes. However, the senate takes no stand on
the matter, and she’s initially unaware of the bill’s progress in the legislature, until
she examines a handout to find a hearing date. Such discussions, while not being
purposeful, do affirm her knowledge of current state issues and their historical
background. And from interviews, it is clear that administrators and faculty know
issues that she—and the senate—support, for example, increasing the number of
full-time faculty and spending more money directly on classroom teaching. In
interviews, however, neither faculty members nor administrators mention specific
initiatives the senate has advanced.
Trust
Based on observations of meetings, on interviews and various internal
documents, faculty leaders and administrators trust each other to approach
governance issues collegially and to solve problems in ways that reflect the best
thinking of those participating in governance. All interviewees believe that a climate
of trust exists at the college. That is not to say that there is placid agreement in all
aspects of decision-making—but all interviewees believe that everyone involved in
governance values the college and is acting out of its best interests. (Indirectly, this
trust and concern for the college’s well-being is reflected in the behavior of the
students: (a) it is not unusual to see a student walking across campus engaged in
conversation suddenly stop, (b) pick up a candy wrapper, and (c) toss it in a nearby
garbage can and keep walking. In governance matters, students participated
diligently in senate and Planning Council meetings.) Faculty leaders and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
administrators unanimously credited the president for being most responsible for
promoting trust; the president said “I think everybody is pretty trustworthy here
.... [E]verybody is responsible, starting with the board [of trustees].” Such a
characterization especially typifies interaction of the leaders who act on “thick trust”:
“reliance on and between a group of persons in terms of their known dispositions,
personal relations and so on” (Williams, 1998, p. 12).
Before Jack Early arrived, the college suffered from a lack of trust, in part
resulting from presidents that did not stay long and lacked a clear commitment to the
college. From what Jack understood, the two preceding presidents were “a little
autocratic in nature .. . [T]hey didn’t engender trust.” He credited having an “open-
door policy” to encouraging trust, which didn’t occur overnight. “I think it took five
or six years before it really started to take.”
A previous president had been responsible for a breach of trust that still
resonated in the mind of a couple of the faculty members I interviewed. In the
spring, when the budget had been particularly tight, the senate had agreed that the
college fund two fewer new full-time faculty positions. Over the summer, the budget
improved, but instead of planning to hire the two positions, the administration
authorized the purchase of two police cars.
In contrast to events of the past, Jack Early could not recall an instance of a
breach of trust. He said, “The VP’s always tell me that I have a way of forgetting.”
However, he could recall an example when he had betrayed someone’s trust. The
vice president for business services, Virginia Sage, oversees many areas, including
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
information technology. Jack thought that a vice president or associate vice
president of information technology could make college administration more
effective. He spoke briefly about it with Virginia. Jack then talked to a man with
expertise in the area who was retiring and developed a written proposal. When Jack
showed it to Virginia, she was “very upset” since he had taken the matter that far
without involving her. Jack withdrew the proposal—“we’ll just go back to ground
zero on this.” And with the worsening budget intervening, Jack and Virginia agreed
to put off the decision for a year. Jack regretted that he had proceeded without fully
consulting Virginia: “I think it took a few months . . . for us to be fully open with
one another again.”
Trust on the campus had three central attributes:
1. Consistency in communication. Public statements corresponded with
private assessment, a sign of trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Leaders, for example,
voiced support for the process and results of the budget deliberations. Publicly and
privately expressed opinions on the reorganization were consistent, whether the
person was for or against it. At the Planning Council, Jack expressed his sadness at
sending out March 15 notices. In a private interview the next day, he stated that he
knew that despite the March 15 notices being rescinded, people would have lingering
insecurity and he regretted the long-term effects of the notices, even though people
weren’t laid off.
2. Risk-taking. Since trust implies risk-taking, I asked campus leaders
about situations in which they had taken risks because of trust. Faculty leaders
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
responded that the administration had taken them into their confidence and they had
done likewise. Jack Early noted that he had told senate and union leaders about very
preliminary plans to pursue a bond measure (plans that were not generally known
during my visits to the campus.) Those confidences were kept, Jack said.
3. Symbolism. When Jack Early attended the Planning Council meeting
to propose decreasing program cutbacks (and as a result to rescind layoffs), he
walked in wearing a Clear Lake College baseball jacket. Wearing the jacket was
consistent with statements he made to the campus about his “living and breathing”
the college for 12 years. Also, such identification resonated with comments made by
all campus leaders that whatever disagreement they might have had about the
decision, they had no doubt that he was acting out of the best intentions for the
college. During that discussion, his body language, too, mirrored his trust of
representatives. When the classified union president, sitting opposite Jack, leaned
forward on his elbows, and nodded to emphasize key points affirming his support for
the budget proposal, Jack, too, leaned forward, and he, too, nodded. In part because
of the trust Jack Early engendered, the placement of the administration building in
the center of campus also was a sign of trust, suggesting the centrality of
administration in college’s pursuit of its mission.
In terms of Braithwaite’s theory of trust (1998), Clear Lake is characterized
by communal trust, which is backward-looking and implies an established social
network. Communal trust is evidenced in the longevity of faculty leaders and
administrators, thick trust, shared core values, shared humor, informal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
communication channels, and the Clear Lake Way (discussed previously). Myra
Montgomery, especially, represents communal trust to faculty, since her role is
largely to insure that a traditional faculty voice is heard in decision-making. She is
not advancing new ideas or insuring a marshalling of college resources, aspects of
exchange trust, which is forward-looking. To an extent Jack Early embodies this
kind of trust: he spearheaded efforts to raise money in the community and organized
the college’s well-supported response to the state budget crisis. Beth Richardson,
too, led efforts to reorganize to spend funds more efficiently and effectively. Both
Beth and Jack—as noted above—are central to the reservoir of communal trust, both
having contributed to it by incremental actions over the years.
Bitterroot College
Socialization
The campus community is sharply divided along faculty and senior
administration lines (with most deans siding with faculty, informally, while,
formally, carrying out directives from above). Long-term campus members
sometimes are split from short-term ones. Since the president and three of four vice-
presidents arrived in the past four years, the groups have some overlap; however,
newer faculty members report some tension with long-term colleagues. In some
ways, these divisions represent a struggle to determine who truly represents
Bitterroot College. One key moment occurred in the midst of the reorganization,
when the faculty union president (herself a relative newcomer) spoke before the
Board of Trustees. The administrators are just passing through she said: the faculty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
are steadfast and truly represent the college. “We were here before you arrived, and
we’ll be here after you’re gone.” Such a bluntly stated division underscored and
exacerbated the tension on the campus. When President Sabella spoke at one
meeting of the College Coordinating Council, for example, the union president made
no effort to conceal her disdain: she rocked her chair back until it leaned against the
wall and she gazed at the ceiling. One dean, summing up the social interactions
among key governance participants, called relations “vicious.”
A key source of this polarization is the college’s history, more specifically
the contrast between turbulent governance of the present and the collegial
governance of its past. All faculty leaders interviewed for this study thought at least
governance—if not the college, overall—was better ten years before than it was in
2003. These leaders emphasized that policies in place years ago were ignored by
newer, senior administrators.
Differing Attitudes toward Governance
In documents, meetings and interviews, participants in governance show
great sensitivity to the language of governance. In one meeting, a faculty leader
spoke of “span of control” and a vice-president cited the administration regulation
number and quoted a particular passage of regulation. Given this attention to
language, the delineation of “participatory” and “shared” governance is especially
important. Several years ago, in an attempt to resolve governance problems, leaders
from the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (representing faculty)
and the Community College League of California (representing administration)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
spoke on the campus. These state-wide leaders stressed that “participatory” was
technically the best description for governance. In matters of governance,
stakeholders participated; on behalf of the trustees, the president decided.
Administrative regulation at Bitterroot consistently uses “participatory” to modify
“governance.” The use of “shared” in this study’s interview protocol undoubtedly
prompted some comments on the distinction, but both faculty and administrators
took pains to spell out the difference, suggesting that the underlying issues of control
had not been resolved fully. One vice-president explained the matter this way:
Shared means to a number of people here that you can't make the decision
without me saying yes. Participatory means we're involved in the decision
making, but we realize that the president or somebody might make the final
call or the board [of trustees]. I might not have to say yes for it to be made.
But I have to be guaranteed that I'm part of the process and part of the
shaping the decision. There [are] some people who are really struggling with
those differences.
One dean recalled the saying of a president from over 15 years ago: “Everybody
here wants to wear the president’s robe,” suggesting that faculty really wanted to
decide issues, not merely share or participate.
A related concept was “management right.” Faculty had mixed attitudes
about the term, with some believing that no such thing existed and that labeling an
action a “management right” was an effort to evade structures and processes set up
for participatory governance. Other faculty, notably senate president Sara Wilson,
thought that certain issues—the reorganization, for example—could be classified as a
management right. The vice-presidents and the president sought to clarify roles, to
avoid roadblocks in decision-making. While claiming a particular matter was a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
“management right” and nonetheless asking for opinions, the senior staff sought to
make the point that they simply could have made a decision, but they sought input to
shape the decision and ultimately to insure acceptance.
Dress and Forms o f Address
Social divisions on the campus were reflected partly in dress and the way
people were addressed. Administrators dressed more formally than faculty did.
Male administrators wore ties and sport coats; female administrators generally wore
dresses or slacks with a coat. In contrast, male faculty members, while sometimes
wearing a sport coat, never wore ties (unless a specific function such as a hiring
interview warranted it), and female faculty members usually wore less formal
dresses or pants and blouses.
Some of the staff in student services wore plastic tags with the college’s logo
and their name. Vice President Jeffrey Quay initiated the name tags, to make it
easier for students to know the staff. However, in several meetings in which
counseling staff members were present, he was the only one wearing a name tag.
Vice President Neil Degnan said that he and others occasionally wore the name tags
in the community or if he and they were greeting large numbers of students.
The level of formality in addressing and referring to each other varied. Often
in meetings, the president and vice-presidents were called or referred to as “Dr.
Sabella,” or “Dr. Deignan” or “Dr. Quay.” Occasionally—by faculty—the president
would be referred to as “Sabella”—never as “Richard.” Deans would be called by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
first name in meetings, as would faculty members (as well as classified staff and
students).
In private conversation, a couple of interviewees called the president
“Richard,” but usually he was called “Sabella” and less frequently President or Dr.
Sabella. Aside from the president, faculty and administrators referred to each other
by first name in conversation.
Planning Council
The central position of the council in planning causes it to take on importance
in how campus decision-makers view governance. A divide exists between the
council on paper and in practice (discussed in the following section on strategy).
Further, since the council came into being as a product of the long and hard
deliberations of many campus leaders, the council’s inability to improve decision
making symbolizes the frustrations tied to governance on the campus.
Strategy
In the college’s most recent accreditation, The Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) singled out the college’s inadequate
research, calling for a “midterm report.” That report, filed in 2002, was rejected by
the ACCJC, indicating that the college had made insignificant progress addressing
the problem. A second report, filed in 2003, was more detailed, and by then a new
director in charge of research (and marketing) had had several months in her
position. That report was accepted.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
The accreditation report also faulted the planning structures, resulting in the
college redesigning them. The structures that emerged— The Planning Council and
CCC (described in Section 2)—set forth a strategy for decision-making. The College
Coordinating Council, which has representatives from all campus constituencies,
serves as a traffic cop, determining the appropriate venue for issues, directing the
issues there and establishing a timeline and oversight. An issue might be routed to
the Planning Council, the Academic Senate, the Dean’s Council or one of the unions.
The Planning Council has adopted—based on its stated vision, mission and values—
a series of 20 “planning assumptions.” Included in these 20 are: “The population of
our service area will continue to grow”; “Marketing will be important”; and
“Effective and efficient participatory governance is critical to the operation of the
college.” Given these assumptions, the Planning Council has created “institutional
goals” for four areas: (a) programs, (b) communication, (c) infrastructure, and
(d) resources. For each area, the Planning Council has set one to four goals. For
example, goal number one under communication is “create a brand identity and
marketing strategy.” To implement these goals, the council has approved a three
year plan of “institutional strategies and tactics.” To carry out the first goal of
communication, for example, the council approved six strategies, including
“’’explore options for increasing the ‘user friendliness’ of the college’s communi
cations its publications” and “continue to review and adjust the scope and focus of
the college’s marketing program in light of internal and external changes and
priorities of the college and community.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
With such a clearly delineated process, planning at the college might appear
to be a success; however, in practice, the planning process is not working well. One
faculty leader, who helped create the formalized structures and processes said:
I think what we had done on this campus in developing our participatory
governance policy [was] to make it clear when input should be really
obtained to help . . . make better decisions; to get the buy-in for the decision.
[Now, however] I think there [is] a feeling [among deans and vice-presidents]
that— don't even do that part because the decision has already been made. And
[if I’m an administrator]. . . how do I now communicate to the group that I
would normally ask input [from and instead say] “this is how it's going to
be”? It’s caused a lot of stress, a lot of discomfort about how the decision [is]
being made.
Furthermore, the president classified key issues as a “management right,” and
therefore not subject to shared governance processes. The reorganization and the
budget responses (discussed in Section 2) are prime examples. Both examples
illustrate a criticism that many participants make: that instead of being deliberate,
well-considered, and determined over an adequate timeline, decisions are too often
rushed and made in isolation, without buy-in and without full consideration of
repercussions.
For the reorganization, the President Sabella’s goal was to “save money
now,” according to Vice-President Deignan. “Then look how this . . . savings is
going to impact the campus in the future.” Saving money “was sort of an ego thing
for him.” Instead of adhering to the goals adopted by the Planning Council, the
president claimed a management right to reorganize and allowed campus-wide input
only after the plans largely were formulated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
Determining the level of course offerings is not necessarily classified as one
of the 11 areas for which the district and the senate must consult collegially. It
became a union issue only after the classes appeared in print. The senior
administrators’ actions supported the perception of many faculty leaders, one of
whom stated: “you know the administration-if they can get away with just doing it,
they're going to do it.” Another faculty leader lamented “the circular pattern of
putting things in motion and then not following through.” This leader, widely
respected on the campus, believed the pattern was so ingrained that even in five
years, the philosophy still would be, “Let's just get through the next day—if we can
only get to the next day.”
Another example of decision-making was short-lived but had potentially
long-lasting implications. In the summer, 2003, Dr. Sabella decided to act to stop
the disappearance of equipment from classrooms. The first that the deans heard of
the problem came during Deans’ Council, chaired by Vice President Deignan:
Deignan, directed by Sabella, told the deans to collect all classroom keys from
adjunct faculty. In an interview, a dean— who introduced the incident as an example
of shared governance as practiced at Bitterroot— was outraged. The problem had not
widely been perceived as severe. The president did not explain why he chose this
solution. No one had been consulted. Other— in this case, the deans— were left to
carry out the decision.
Within a week, the order to recall the keys was rescinded. According to the
faculty union leader, the dual catalysts for rescinding the order were the deans’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
comments and her threat to file a grievance on behalf of each affected adjunct
professor.
Information
President Sabella, in my interview with him, emphasized the importance of
sharing information in the governance process. Although he acknowledged some
responsibility for disseminating information, he stated that he:
Expected those constituents to take things that are done or discussed [in
various organizational meetings] back to masses, so to speak, the people out
in the field. I think if there is a flaw in [governance]— not at Bitterroot only,
but most of the other institutions I've been at—it [information] doesn't get out
there. And I don't know how to do that effectively. Some people seem to
think it's through e-mails, some people seem to think it's through college
forums. And I've practiced all of those. But I— we don't do it well. Maybe
partly it's my fault, but I think it's all of our responsibilities to do that and it's
tough.
Despite the president’s stated commitment to information-sharing, faculty
leaders and some administrators criticized the president for not promoting good
communication. One vice-president cited, as an example, not informing the campus
of his imminent retirement. Early in spring, 2003, President Sabella had determined
to retire, yet not even senior staff had been given the information to begin to plan for
his departure. (Furthermore, he set in motion a controversial reorganization plan,
sending the vice presidents out to defend it, knowing all the while that he would be
leaving.) Sabella did not attend a senate meeting and did not regularly communicate
with the faculty via memorandum, email, or face-to-face conversations. One faculty
leader noted that he did have,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
. . . these little Cheeto parties where people would come and eat Cheetos and
talk. But I think those stopped eventually. So he was pretty much of a
shadowy figure and yet all of a sudden things were happening. Changes.
And we're going, “oh, was that— do you remember discussing that? Did you
see that? Did that come to the senate?
This viewpoint was shared widely by faculty leaders and deans. One faculty
leader stated that shared governance, for the president and vice-presidents, seemed
largely a “communication model”:
I think the administration— the VP's and the president— see themselves as
being the leaders of the college, the big decision makers. I think they think of
shared governance as trickle down communication .... [W]hen we go to big
shared governance meetings [e.g., Planning Council, CCC],... they tell us
what decision has been made in the absence of shared governance
functioning.
Since faculty leaders and most deans didn’t view governance in this way, the
information was either not widely disseminated or, if it was, the information was
presented bitterly, as part of a fait accompli. Further, when a matter was under
discussion, relevant information was sometimes absent. A central reason advanced
for the reorganization was cost-savings, yet members of the Planning Council
received no written information explaining how much would be saved. In response
to a question, Vice President Jeffrey Quay estimated $200,000; at the Senate the next
day he estimated $250,000.
Another point of contention was the flow of information: Who received
information? When? How detailed should it be? In May, 2003, at a Planning
Council meeting that focused on the reorganization, Vice-presidents Deignan and
Quay, stated that the initial information about possible new configurations went first
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
to the deans, since their workloads would be most directly affected with any change.
Quay said that keeping the information confidential was crucial since the plan was
changing, and faculty, staff and students shouldn’t become concerned over a plan
that might very well vanish after only a day’s consideration. If administrators had
shared every shift in proposals college-wide,
. .. we would have been run out of town on a rail.... [W]e would have been
accused of not knowing what the hell we were doing .. . [W]e'd look like a
bunch of ninnies. You might say we look like that anyway, but we didn't
want to exaggerate it. So we did ask them [deans] to keep it [the initial stage]
quiet because at least information could have gotten out that would not have
come out in the one that we finally recommended and we think that's
appropriate.
Although Neil Deignan, too, defended the timing of information when he
spoke at the Planning Council meeting, he elaborated in an interview after President
Sabella had resigned. According to Deignan, he and Quay had favored a wider
distribution earlier in the process, but Sabella insisted on information being kept
confidential. The information was not discussed at CCC since the reorganization
was considered a “management right.”
Information is difficult to find on the college website. Frequently, search
engines highlight documents that had been posted in 1999 or 2000, but the link is
dead. Minutes for college-wide meetings rarely are posted. (According to the most
recent accreditation self-study, minutes for Board of Trustee meetings are available
only upon request in the president’s office.) One faculty leader said point blank,
“our website is not reliable.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
Another crucial aspect of communication on the campus is tied to how
campus leaders use language to express the difficulty of governance. Metaphors of
anger and frustration emerge often, both in meetings and in private conversations.
One strand expressed implied or overt violence. Against a backdrop of the
impending reorganization, “ramming” or “shoving” something down someone’s
throat emerged five times in interviews. People received slaps in their faces. A vice-
president spoke of spraying something with a machine gun and “go[ing] for the
jugular.” One faculty leader said, “I may talk a good line about assassinating
Richard Sabella.” People spoke of being “scared,” “beaten up,” and “taking a
beating,” of the president “screaming” at individuals, of “putting out fires” and of
“dead bodies.” President Sabella mentioned that after taking one job, he discovered
that his predecessor had been charged with murdering his wife: “He laid [sic] in wait
and murdered her.” (After Sabella’s retirement, a story circulated on the campus that
he always slept with a gun and Bible under his pillow.)
In contrast to the violent metaphors, a domestic metaphor was used by one
participant, a veteran faculty leader. Attempting to explain that the college needed to
return to its written policies, she said, “The cake needs to be re-baked.” She repeated
the metaphor, either oblivious to or willfully overlooking its culinary impossibility.
Leadership
Only one person holding a leadership position in governance received
widespread praise for her work—a professor of English, former Academic Senate
President and current chair of the curriculum committee. Faculty and administrators
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
alike praised her knowledge of curricular issues, and her ability to move matters
through the committee. Over the past dozen years, faculty nominated her three times
for the Senate Academic Senate’s Educator of the Year Award. In a message to
students, she emphasizes the importance of language: “Language—the use of
words--... is not just the ability to talk; it is the ability to think.... Language
teaches us how to live in the world, and if we live in the world, and live fully, we
must be able to communicate with conviction, both privately and publicly.”
In contrast, as president, Richard Sabella embodied concepts of leadership for
the institution, but by word and action, he gave mixed messages. His espoused
values conflicted with underlying values (Schein, 1992). He expressed a central
purpose behind his leadership in this statement: “I got in trouble at my last
institution— not in trouble, but— I told people that this institution was not created for
your job; it was created for the students . .. . ” Prefacing the comment by “trouble”
and then withdrawing it typifies the pattern of mixed messages. Further, Sabella
implies that standing up for students is courageous—or controversial since it caused
“trouble.” Whatever his other intent, he was taking pains to establish the importance
of students. However, when he retired and listed accomplishments of his tenure as
president, he cited only obliquely a couple that included students. (For example, he
noted that during his tenure, the college “increased number of courses offered” and
“expanded high school orientations.”)
He sent another mixed message regarding power. He emphasized the
importance and difficulty of understanding roles, believing that shared governance is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
especially difficult because the roles aren’t clearly delineated. “None of us has any
power. It’s like in a marriage: if your wife doesn’t let you be the boss, you’re not
going to be the boss.” Such a comment implies that “his wife” should let him be the
boss, yet Sabella maintained the power and control never interested him. An action
that belied that point, however, was his successful effort to gain the ability to
terminate vice-president for insubordination. Previously, that power had been
granted only to the Board of Trustees. Once given to him, Sabella used it on several
occasions to insure vice-presidents carried out his orders (according to a faculty
leader and a vice president). Sabella also sent a mixed message about shared
governance. He voiced support for it, both in interviews when he was hired and in
an interview for this study. However, other statements and actions seemingly
contradicted that position. Sabella, seemingly aware of the skepticism, said, “[S]ome
people will say that Sabella doesn't believe in [shared governance], but I believe in it
to my bones.” However, later in the interview he went on to say that “[s]hared
governance will eat you up— because it's an amorphous animal like this great big
old amoebae.” His actions undermined his proclamations of support for shared
governance. By declaring a hiring freeze in fall, 2002 without consulting either CCC
or the Planning Council, he bypassed an opportunity to share decision-making. In
another example, in talking about the reorganization, he first underscored that it was
not formally a shared governance issue, but he thought it was “healthy” for the
campus to discuss it. He went on to anticipate campus discussion: “People are
going to chew on that for three months. ‘Give us your best shot.’” He then
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
reiterated that reorganization was a “management right.” “Chewing” on
something—especially for 3 months—implies something that is trivial. It suggests
“chewing the fat.” A “shot” implies a metaphor from boxing: presumably he is
standing firm, bracing himself for a hit. Neither metaphor coincides with the stated
support of shared governance. Repeating that the matter was a “management right”
suggests that his position is entrenched.
Sabella was not linked to any popular action that helped the campus. Annual
goals given to him by The Board of Trustees were not publicly shared with the
campus community. Previously, the interim president—the former Senate President-
- worked with the Senate and proposed to the trustees that such goals include:
improve communication; “minimize governance controversies” and “increase
campus collegiality.” None of those proposed goals was included in the list that
Sabella received. (I was given a copy of the 2003-2004 goals and told that the goals
were essentially the same as the ones given to Sabella upon his arrival.) Instead
Sabella’s goals included: “maximize the number of open computer lab hours for
student use”; “maintain a high level of compliance with governmental regulation”
and “develop and implement an orientation program for all new employees.” In
effect, these and other goals were prompting actions of the president, goals that had
not been derived from or shared with campus organizations or governing bodies such
as the Planning Council.
Sabella regularly talked with only the senate and union presidents and few
other professors. He rarely sent out memorandum or emails to the campus.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Consequently, knowledge of actions often came about obliquely, giving the sense
that the Sabella was surreptitiously moving into areas in which others should have
been informed.
Campus leaders naturally compared and contrasted him with other presidents.
A popular president of a decade ago who focused his attention on the community
nonetheless, still “knew everyone’s name” on campus. Sabella, in contrast, was a
“shadowy figure” who was unsure of the discipline of a professor that he admired.
Most campus leaders linked him closely with President Menchine, in being aloof and
creating tension. (She was the president who said she was the “God damned
president of the God damned college.”) One of the vice-presidents said that he told
Menchine she had a habit of going into a situation and “kicking over a bucket.” He
asked her to speak to him before she acted, since he was the one who had to clean up
the mess afterward. “You don’t force change,” said the vice-president. He gave an
analogy of driving a car: it was important to take the brake off before accelerating.
Opinions were mixed on the two vice-presidents as leaders, and the situation
was further complicated because they were carrying out the will of the president, so
deans and faculty leaders weren’t sure to what extent the vice presidents’ actions and
beliefs were their own. Jeffrey Quay, vice-president of student services, was widely
said to have little support among counselors because he had not aided efforts to make
their jobs more effective and less burdensome. (In the reorganization, he supported
his area taking on administrative responsibility for the media center and tutoring
areas, an action that many counselors thought blurred their professional identity, an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
identity they had fought hard to create.) Neil Deignan, vice-president of academic
affairs, was personally liked and trusted, although some people questioned his
competence, especially after the 210 sections were canceled. One faculty leader said
she would like to believe that Deignan was not fully responsible for that since
questions of competence undermined her ability to trust him (Tierney, 2003a). Into
Sabella’s second year, one faculty member reported a clear change in Deignan’s
disposition: he became “much less open and friendly . . . very business-like .... It
was just terrible.” Another faculty leader lamented that Deignan had not had any
good presidential role models at the college. According to this professor, Degnan
was chosen vice-president after the first two choices withdrew: the hiring committee
thought he could succeed with the right guidance. Neither Menchine nor Sabella had
provided it.
The current senate president received few evaluative comments. Senate
president Sara Wilson actively co-chaired the Planning Council, so she had a
prominent role not just in senate meetings. Further, she was beginning to head up
the college’s self-study team for accreditation. Nonetheless, in interviews, the only
direct praise she received was from Sabella, who valued her putting students first and
her collaborating with Neil Deignan. The only direct criticism came from another
faculty leader who believed that Wilson had been responsible for letting the
administration slide away from the policies that gave faculty more of a role in
decision-making (compromising with Sabella on the full-time hiring policy, for
example). Although Wilson was not criticized directly, other faculty members
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
criticized the state of the senate. Few minutes were posted, “committees are forming
or not forming” contributing to a sense of “disarray.” Wilson, however, showed a
good command of issues central to governance. For example, in undertaking the
self-study, she edited a series of newsletters in which she addressed such issues as
“student learning outcomes” (an especially sensitive issue in the new standards for
accreditation).
The slight recognition of faculty leaders contrasted with the accomplishments
and roles suggesting that some faculty members could be particularly effective
leaders. A former senate and accreditation self-study leader had been chosen as
interim president. Additionally, Bitterroot’s senate had nominated her for a state
senate award for outstanding educator. Another former senate president was
appointed to head the search committee for the president to replace Sabella.
Trust
Faculty leaders and administrators do not trust each other to approach
governance issues collegially and to solve problems in ways that reflect the best
thinking of those participating in governance. In interviews that occurred after his
sudden retirement, President Sabella was cited as being most responsible for
fostering distrust on the campus. As noted above, he stated support for shared
governance when seeking the president’s position, according to faculty, just part of a
pattern of mixed messages that sowed distrust.
Sabella designated Quay and Deignan as the administration’s point persons
for the reorganization. Since the process exacerbated the distrust on campus, both
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
Quay’s and Deignan’s trustworthiness suffered. As discussed in the information
section above, Deignan personally would have handled the sharing of information
differently, encouraging discussion of ideas early on. (In fact, Deignan had been
reprimanded by Sabella for initially allowing some of the proposals to be distributed
to faculty.) However, to the campus, Deignan showed solidarity with the president,
who had recently received the power to discharge any vice-president for
insubordination.
Sabella suggested he had a close, trusting relationship with Vice President
Neil Deignan. “I've known Neil for 25 years [before they both came to Bitterroot].
He's like me; we sort of cut our teeth on shared governance in an environment that
didn't believe in it.” However, Deignan explicitly distinguished himself from
Sabella. “I’m not like him,” Deignan said, citing a conversation in which Sabella
advised him not to get too close to the faculty. “I think you have to build alliances
with all groups of the campus.”
President Sabella’s tenure on the campus lasted just two years. Many signs
point to his distrust of campus leaders and vice-versa. However, the current distrust
was part of a complex web going back years to President Menchine’s arrival. Her 3-
year tenure sought to reverse work that many faculty and some administrators took
pride in. By calling one division’s faculty racist and elitist and by being heavy-
handed in her dealings, many on campus distrusted her. The distrust was
underscored by her statement of justification for another situation, “because I’m the
God damned president of the God damned college.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
Potential misunderstanding also contributed to the distrust. Because the
faculty viewed their role in governance as central, they saw the governance policies
as well-conceived. Menchine’s perceived repudiation of those policies and her
departure brought a faculty member to the president’s role on an interim basis.
Because faculty thought—and still think—the trustees’ appointing a professor as
interim president was a sign of good faith, they view any action against those
policies with distrust. Although an examination of the trustees’ role in governance is
outside the scope of this study, a number of campus leaders cite the trustees’ role in
creating misunderstandings. One faculty leader says that the trustees suggested to
Menchine and Sabella that the college was “broken” and needed “fixing,” giving
them a mandate to change the college. However, she asserted, the campus
community has never heard the way in which trustees believe the campus needs to
improve. Such an unstated mandate for change creates a climate of distrust,
especially since many professors take pride in their expertise, in their long-term
commitment to the college and in what they perceive as effective policies and
structures for governing.
Another aspect to the distrust is that professors and senior administrators
perceive commitment to the college differently. Consequently, many professors
question the motives of administrators. At one Board of Trustees meeting, the union
president dismissed administrators, saying the faculty was at the college when
particular administrators arrived and the faculty would be there when they left. One
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
vice-president said such comments crossed the line: “It’s distrust down at the
personal level—how do you get through that?”
Underlying the distrust is differing values. Obviously, President Sabella’s
concept of shared governance differs significantly from the faculty’s. As a president
new to the college, he did not make any gestures to suggest commonality and
promote trust (Bensimon, 1990a). The president was not the only one whose
viewpoint diverged from the faculty leadership’s: one dean said bluntly, “I think
shared governance stinks.”
Although the faculty generally collaborate to advance a unified faculty
position (just as the administration does in formal decision-making), individual
faculty leaders do not have complete trust in each other. The union leader, for
example, was accused of acting like the administration by not fully communicating
with the counseling staff and “selling out” some of their concerns. Other faculty
leaders believed that the current senate president had not vigorously defended the
senate’s rights, contributing to their erosion.
A fundamental aspect of trust is competence (Tierney, 2003a, Tschannen-
Moran, 2003). For A to trust B to do X, A must trust B’s competency in that
particular action. Competency became an issue in faculty’s leaders’ evaluation of
the trustworthiness ofNeil Deignan. Personally, most faculty leaders expressed
support for Deignan. Their expression of trust was qualified because they didn’t
know whether unpopular actions (e.g., in the reorganization) were his idea or
Sabella’s. Questions of competency entered when the college closed 210 sections in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
spring 2003. Again, faculty leaders were unclear the extent to which Deignan was
responsible.1 9
When viewed according to Braithwaite’s theory (1998), neither communal
trust nor exchange trust existed across administration and faculty lines or even within
groups. The questions of competency with the closing of sections undercut any
exchange trust that faculty may have felt toward senior administrators, this despite
senior administrators insuring that the college had a solid 8% contingency reserve.
As described above in the socialization section, faculty leaders and administrators
disagreed over core values and over what constitutes commitment to the college.
These and other differences worked against the creation of communal trust.
The exact role distrust plays in the ineffective governance of the campus is
unclear. As noted previously, this study found some sign of decline in senate
activities. However, distrust appears to have preceded problems in governance, as
evidenced by President Menchine’s actions and the flurry of responses from the
senate and its president.
1 9 The question is important for the campus since Deignan became the permanent president
after Sabella’s retirement. Several interviewees late in the data collection process noted that they
were unaware the extent to which Deignan had disagreed with Sabella’s approach to governance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
The research questions for the study were:
1. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
that has been classified as being effectively governed?
2. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
classified as being ineffectively governed?
3. What do the differences between these salient aspects suggest about
promoting effective governance?
The review of the literature (chapter 2) presented an overview of governance
from five theoretical frameworks (rational actor, structural, political, human
resources, and cultural), offering a rationale for setting a study in the cultural
framework. Further the literature review summarized William G. Tierney’s (1988a)
six concepts of educational culture: (a) mission, (b) environment, (c) strategy,
(d) information, (e) socialization, and (f) leadership. To study the challenge of
improving governance and to explore the possibilities of setting a study in a cultural
framework, I proposed a methodology, detailed in chapter 3. Because of the
importance of trust, I advanced reasons for considering this as an additional concept
of culture, to complement those advanced by Tierney. The chapter advanced a
rationale for the selection of two sites—both California community colleges—one
judged to be effectively governed, the other ineffectively governed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
To insure triangulation and enhance reliability and validity, the data collected
at these two sites came from a variety of sources, including interviews with key
administrators and faculty, observation of meetings of central governance
organizations, administrative regulations, accreditation reports, minutes of meetings,
college newspapers, and memorandum. Once collected, this data was coded and the
findings presented in chapter 4. That chapter was organized into three sections:
(a) background information on California’s 2003 budget crisis and community
college budgeting; (b) background findings on the two sites, including each college’s
history of governance and current governance; and (c) findings organized by the
cultural concepts. I now turn to the analysis of the findings, organized by the
theoretical framework for the study.
Analysis o f the Findings on Educational Culture
The study found little that could be categorized under the cultural concepts of
environment and mission; therefore those concepts were not discussed in chapter 4
•jr.
and will not be discussed here. This section analyzes the findings according to the
key concepts of educational culture (strategy, information, socialization and
2 0 The background findings suggest that since both colleges had long histories and
encompassing missions, administrators and faculty leaders were not focused on a significant
reevaluation o f the college mission. Further, the college’s appeared to be well-viewed by the
communities that they served. (Both had signs that that community would pass a bond giving the
college additional funding for capital projects; after the site visits, the surrounding communities of
each district passed bond issues.) I can only speculate that newer colleges would have more of a
focus on mission and that colleges facing more immediate local issues would focus on the
environment. It is beyond the scope o f this study to ascertain whether the lack of findings in these
areas suggests anything about effective governance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
leadership and trust). The analysis of each concept is organized by each site, and
then by comparison and contrast of both sites. For each concept a table provides a
summary of the analysis. Because of the exploratory nature of this study, the
analysis is somewhat diffuse. In chapter 6 ,1 will offer a distillation of key points of
the analysis as well as their implications for policy and future research.
Socialization at Clear Lake College
A number of aspects of socialization are salient to the effective governance at
Clear Lake College. Chief among these aspects is the Clear Lake Way, a set of
expectations anchored in an older, simpler time. The Clear Lake Way implies
skepticism for a quick fix or the latest fad and implies reliance instead on individuals
at the college working through matters for themselves. Although the state
increasingly has called for more reporting, although collective bargaining has made
individual salary negotiations obsolete, and although faculty can no longer drop by
for long, impromptu conversations with the college president, the Clear Lake Way
persists. People smile and nod when they say “That’s just the Clear Lake Way,”
suggesting that they know it’s a partly outdated outlook, yet one that is welcome
nonetheless. The Clear Lake Way, then, provides a sense of identity with the
college. It reflects the affection that those in governance have toward the college,
and for newcomers helps reinforce the feeling that the college is a special place.
Further, because of the values underlying it, the Clear Lake Way acts as an internal
compass, giving stability to governance. A potential problem from such socialize-
tion is the danger of groupthink (Janis, 1982); however, within the insulated circle of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
governance, disagreement occurs (e.g., English professors’ response to
reorganization and Myra Montgomery’s voiced skepticism of administrators).
Complementing the Clear Lake Way is “thick trust” (Williams, 1988) among
faculty and administrators. (As noted in chapter 2, Williams defines “thick trust” as
“reliance on and between a group of persons in terms of their known dispositions,
personal relations, and so on” (1988, p. 12)). Personal stories about campus figures
appear in the college paper, and people occasionally tell stories about each other in
meetings. In conversation faculty leaders and administrators refer to retirees, and
the founding president continues to be involved in the college. Faculty and
administrators socialize off-campus, and meetings often have moments of humor,
widely (but not universally) shared. The ways professors and administrators dress
and are addressed would appear both to support and to reflect thick trust: both
groups are addressed by first name and wear casual, yet professional clothes.
Personal relationships allow those in governance to separate the individual from any
particular decision, sidestepping conflict. For example, Myra Montgomery strongly
disagreed with Jack Early about how the college should write policies about shared
governance, yet she expressed the opinion that “he should be canonized.” An
English professor strenuously objected to the reorganization, yet offered personal
praise for Beth Richardson, who chose the final plan. The ability to overcome
disagreement and focus on the task at hand was especially important as the college
quickly formulated a plan to address the budgetary problems of spring 2003. These
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
findings are consistent with those of Kezar (2004) who found that relationships, trust
and leadership were especially important in promoting effective governance.
Socialization at Bitterroot College
A newcomer to the college sees clear divisions—especially between
relatively new senior administrators and veteran faculty leaders. One faculty leader
spoke directly about the perception that presidents Menchine and Sabella approached
the college as something that needed fixing, although faculty were unaware of what
was broken. Menchine spurred the college to rely more on technology and directed
more resources to its technological infrastructure. Both Menchine and Sabella tried
to alter hiring processes. Sabella— and vice presidents Deignan and Quay— spoke
often about management rights. Clearly, the socializing process for new senior
administrators envisioned a campus culture quite different from that perceived by
veteran faculty, a pattern of differing perception documented in the previous
accreditation report. Faculty leaders harkened back to a time when processes called
for their active participation in decision-making. In the case of hiring, the process
underscored the primacy of the faculty viewpoint. Even a relatively new faculty
member, the faculty union’s president, had taken on the viewpoint of veteran
professors when she said at a Board of Trustees meeting that faculty would be here
when the current crop of new administrators would be gone.
Dress Distinguishes Faculty and Administrators
Deans, vice presidents and the president dress more formally: women wore
dresses or slacks with a coat; men wore ties and sport coats. Faculty members are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
more casually dressed. In meetings, the president is never called or referred to by his
first name; instead, he is “Dr. Sabella.” Vice presidents often were called “Dr.
Deignan” or “Dr. Quay,” occasionally “Neil” or “Jeffrey”. Deans and faculty
members were called by first names. For Bitterroot College, these distinctions in
dress and address are consistent with the social distinctions between and among
groups, distinctions rooted in different values. Perhaps reflecting the sometimes-
conflicted role of the deans, the deans’ dress formally signifies their role as part of
the administration; however, in interviews, their positions and concerns frequently—
but not universally—reflect the faculty’s viewpoint.
I saw little evidence of leaders in governance having a social network of any
kind. On weekends, the president returned to his family living 150 miles away. No
one alluded to conversations held off-campus in social circumstances. No one
reported that president Menchine and other previous presidents or retired faculty
entered into current governance in any way (aside from their historical contributions
affecting issues currently). Two faculty leaders each emphasized that they were
good friends, a mundane detail if not for the absence of seemingly close friendships
among others who have devoted years of their lives to the college. Few details of
leaders’ personal lives emerged, although several people alluded to an illness in Neil
Deignan’s family. The campus newspaper, too, provided no details of the personal
lives of current or past administrators or faculty.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
Comparison o f Socialization at Bitterroot
College and Clear Lake College
The most striking difference in socialization is the implied commitment to the
two colleges. Because most administrators and faculty leaders have worked over 15
years at Clear Lake, their commitment has been demonstrated to each other. In
contrast, at Bitterroot, long-time faculty leaders suspect the motives of the senior
administrators, wondering what they’re trying to fix, why they are trying to fix it,
and if they are simply positioning themselves for jobs elsewhere. Ironically, this was
the way of thinking Jack Early reported when he arrived at Clear Lake, since two of
his predecessors had come and gone quickly. His longevity, in part, resolved the
question. At Bitterroot, the long-time president from the college’s “golden age”
clearly showed commitment to the college, which in turn appears to have helped
promote an effective, decision-making environment (Table 8).
Longevity of service alone, though, would not seem to be the decisive factor
in promoting a well-integrated social environment. Although Clear Lake has a
tightly knit social fabric among and between administrators and faculty (current and
past), the long-term faculty at Bitterroot do not seem closely knit. It is beyond the
scope of my study to ascertain the causes; however, the results of social cohesion are
clear. At Clear Lake, despite deep differences of opinion about the reorganization,
administrators and faculty have been able to put aside differences to address other
issues, most notably the budget problems of spring 2003. Clear Lake’s president
offered an insightful analysis of the matter: “I'm not sure how much it helps to have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
Table 8. Summary o f Analysis on Socialization
College Sense of identity Elements of cohesion/fragmentation
Clear Lake College Clear Lake Way provides
stability, sense o f identity
Longevity, acronyms, similarity of dress and
address across administration/faculty lines,
shared stories suggest similar values and
promote social cohesion
Bitterroot
College
Little unifying identity
among or between
administration and faculty
leaders
Differing values (e.g., toward what shows
commitment to the college) make for social
fragmentation
Both Sites—
Implications for
Effective
Governance
Strong identity can promote
effective governance
Similar core values (e.g., what means
commitment to the college, what are
management rights) promote social cohesion
a good governance system but at least the noise of a bad one isn't negatively
affecting us .... Sure makes it a lot more fun to work here, too.” To offset any
occasional “noise” in the system, Clear Lake has social relationships that put the
college’s governance in a broader perspective. Clear Lake’s leaders trust one
another, which enabled them to respond to the budget crisis, a finding in keeping
with an assertion of Webb (1996) that “the magnitude of a crisis and the importance
of trust are positively linked” (p. 289). Bitterroot leaders, however, cannot rely on
such relationships, so the noise in its system is that much louder. At Bitterroot, the
lack of social cohesion contributes to decision-making being acrimonious and
draining.
Not surprisingly, the leaders of both colleges reflect the effectiveness of the
socialization process. At Clear Lake, leaders share a largely ironic sense of humor,
knowledge of individuals’ histories and characteristics, style of dress, use of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
acronyms, and so forth. At Bitterroot, veteran faculty leaders share values rooted in
an earlier time when they believe their contributions were appreciated. The president
at Bitterroot dictated the tenor of the vice presidents’ actions, and since Sabella
served only 2 years, that socialization was not deep. One of the vice presidents in an
interview, for example, took pains to distinguish his approach from the president’s,
despite the vice president’s need to follow the president’s approach in public.
Given the longevity of most of Clear Lake’s administrators and faculty
leaders, and the longevity of Bitterroot’s faculty leaders, both colleges face the
challenge of drawing in new participants. Several respondents expressed concern
that newer full-time professors are not participating as much as their predecessors,
and both colleges rely upon part-time faculty who remain largely outside
governance. Further, at Clear Lake, the retirements of the president and vice
president of instruction were imminent. For most respondents, then, the future held
some doubts—despite the satisfaction respondents felt at present. Those doubts
suggest that campus leaders realize the important socializing role of those two
positions on their campus.
At Bitterroot, after Sabella’s abrupt retirement in August, 2003, interviewees
expressed hope that a new president could change the college’s direction. However,
Sabella in 2 years seems to have little effect at the underlying socialization of new
faculty coming to Bitterroot.
Overall, a comparison of socialization at Clear Lake College and Bitterroot
College suggests several observations related to effective governance: (a) longevity
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
implies commitment to a college, and perceived lack of commitment undermines
effective governance; (b) longevity does not necessarily lead to a tightly knit social
organization; and (c) social relationships off-campus across faculty and
administrative lines can help put disagreements in a larger perspective, enabling the
college to move forward to other issues.
Strategy at Clear Lake College
The actions of administrators and faculty leaders at Clear Lake College reveal
several salient aspects of their approach to strategy in decision-making. These
aspects emerge most clearly in the college’s response to the changing state budget
and to reorganization. The former involved a strategy developed (and modified)
quickly—over 6 months. The latter involved a strategy developed in several months
and played out over two years. Consistent with Mintzberg (1987b), President Jack
Early and Vice President Beth Richardson sought to reduce uncertainty in planning
for the 2003 budget and for the reorganization. Early and Richardson explained the
need for action, pledging an adherence to core values.
To prepare the campus community for rapid planning to address the budget,
Early, spoke to the college community at the start of spring term 2003. He laid out
the situation bluntly, stating, for example, that with the governor’s proposed cuts,
“lay-offs are inevitable.” He called for a process “characterized by openness,
respect, sensitivity, inclusiveness and representation of all affected individuals and
constituencies.” In calling for such a process, the strategy reflected Clear Lake’s
cultural values. None of the college leaders would have anticipated any other kind of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
process, and all respondents for this study report afterwards that the process was
characterized by these values. Early’s approach to strategy follows the model for
successful planning advanced by Swenk (1999). Further, Early’s response to the
campus community shows a process consistent with Schein’s observation that “if a
basic assumption is strongly held in a group, members will find behavior based on
any other premise inconceivable” (1992, p. 22). Early (as well as the college
community) was fortunate that the budget situation brightened, so lay-offs were
averted. Still, the widespread support for the college’s strategy can be attributed to
several factors: (a) a process characterized by core values shared by the campus and
reaffirmed by the president; (b) trust among governance leaders (which will be
discussed below), (c) clear communication that establishes the need to act and to
diminish uncertainty, (d) deliberations that were open and representative of campus
groups and viewed as legitimate (consistent with findings of Shuster et al. (1994)
that strategic planning can aid in difficult, campus-wide decisions).
Respondents reported widespread yet not universal support for the
reorganization. The four factors just listed also helped the strategy for reorganization
succeed, although instead of the Planning Council, an ad hoc representative group
shepherded the process along, a group led by Richardson. Some professors—
especially English professors—believe that the decision-making was not transparent,
since they maintain that the final configuration had not been publicly discussed.
Richardson disputes this, and the documentation is ambiguous. A further cause for
dissension lay in the nature of the change. With the budget, campus members
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
understood the shifting conditions and readily accepted a need to act; for the
reorganization, most professors needed to be educated and then persuaded about the
challenges that staff and administrators faced, challenges that would increase if a
new organization were not created. Most English professors did not accept the
rationale for change, and the English faculty being grouped with a quite different
discipline (business) made the final reorganization difficult to accept. However,
most other faculty—and all administrators—acknowledged the need to change and
believed that the final organization furthered planning for the various divisions.
Strategy at Bitterroot College
Despite professed pride in the planning process and the structure of the
Planning Council, Bitterroot College showed significant flaws in its strategy and
planning. Administrators and faculty leaders’ actions in the reorganization and
response to budget crisis exemplified the flaws. No respondent was satisfied with
either decision for either area. From the faculty viewpoint, both matters should have
had a full airing before the Planning Council; from the senior administration’s
viewpoint, the matters were subject to a “management right” to decide. Despite the
efforts of the most seasoned participants over many months, the Planning Council
and its detailed policies did not anticipate ambiguous areas such as these two.
The administration/faculty disagreement—coming about despite these
extensive policies— adds support for the position that an analysis of governance from
a structural framework has significant blind spots (Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Swenk,
1999; Tierney, 2003b). Part of the structural problem lies with definition and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
authority. According to college policy (rooted in state regulation), the president has
the right to act unilaterally in a financial emergency, so President Sabella simply
declared a hiring freeze, citing financial emergency. What constitutes a financial
emergency is defined essentially by the president and the trustees: certainly,
Bitterroot was not on the verge of bankruptcy with an 8% contingency reserve.
However, since all community colleges in California allow presidents or district
superintendents to act under the same circumstances, a structural framework is
inadequate to provide insight into strategy in such instances. It is inadequate because
the president in some cases can trump shared governance structure and policy with
the rationale of financial emergency—or in other cases, management right. What
becomes more important, then, is how the college community responds to such acts,
something the cultural model is well-suited to address.
The college’s recent culture shaped actions for both administration and
faculty. The campus climate was characterized by sharp dissensions and distrust. A
previous president had clashed openly with the Academic Senate regarding class size
and distance education. Like the previous president, President Richard Sabella
disagreed with professors about the relatively small role he played in hiring full-time
faculty. Given this background, Sabella was disinclined to subject either his
responses to the 2003 budget or the reorganization to early and full scrutiny. On its
face, the reorganization would seem to have an immediate appeal to faculty: the plan
called for three fewer deans, which arguably could have meant more full-time hires.
However, that fact carried little weight for several reasons.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
Although the deans are classified as administrators, they often are allied with
faculty on curriculum, scheduling and many governance matters. Further, the
reorganization meant a de facto new identification for programs such as
administration of justice, digital media and other programs. Faculty did not initiate
this change, nor did senior administrators offer any academic rationale for the
change. Most professors who would have been directly affected simply did not
believe that the matter was purely one of who- reports—to— whom. Therefore, most
faculty seeing no tangible benefits (aside from vague “cost savings”), opposed the
reorganization. One dean highlighted the strategic misstep of the president when she
said that what the reorganization should have been about was emphasizing that
faculty positions were more important than administrative ones—a statement
reflecting the senate’s stances for over a decade. However, the two vice presidents
overseeing the reorganization—and the president who initiated it—did not
emphasize that aspect. In its failure to provide a convincing vision, to rely upon
good communication and to convince faculty leaders and deans of its effectiveness,
the college’s experience reflected problems outlined by Kotter (1995) in commenting
on failed strategic planning. Further, most faculty leaders assess the reorganization,
in the words of one leader, as “a slap in the face” of shared governance and the
senate. Thus, the college’s experience underscores a study of Lee (1991), which
highlights the importance of a college’s culture and administrative response toward
the senate in promoting an effective senate. From the president’s viewpoint, though,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
promoting the senate’s effectiveness makes little sense if it means strengthening
opposition to his plans.
Comparison o f Strategy at Bitterroot College
and Clear Lake College
The four factors that allowed the strategic planning to succeed at Clear Lake
College were absent at Bitterroot College. At Bitterroot the process lacked: (a) a set
of core values, (b) trust among governance leaders, (c) communication to establish a
need to action and to avoid rumors and uncertainty, and (d) a Planning Council
empowered to deliberate. (For a summary of key aspects of strategy, see Table 9).
The strategic, short-term budget decision-making on the surface has some
significant differences. At Bitterroot, problems were both external (an anticipated
state budget shortfall) and internal (miscalculations of student enrollment and a
$500,000 accounting error). At Clear Lake, the problem was largely external (an
anticipated state budget shortfall). Thus, the Clear Lake campus community more
easily could focus on a perceived outside threat to their college’s mission, whereas
Bitterroot leaders engaged in finger-pointing and felt compelled to choose a course
of action largely dictated by circumstances. Ironically, none of the key leaders
devoted much consideration to a strategy adopted at other colleges: spending money
from the college’s reserve. (Clear Lake had a 3.5% reserve, Bitterroot, 8%— figures
comfortably above that recommended by the Chancellor’s Office.) That the
colleges—especially Bitterroot— did not actively consider the sudden budget shortfall
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
Table 9. Analysis o f Strategy
College Values Trust Communication
Legitimacy/
emplowerment
of Planning
Council Leadership
Clear Lake
College
Core values
reflected in
process,
results
Participants
trust one
another
Communication
establishes need
for action,
diminishes
rumor and
uncertainty
Deliberative
body accepted
as legitimate
empowered to
act
Led by long
standing
leader
Bitterroot
College
Different
underlying
values
Distrust
between
president,
faculty
leaders
Communication
limited, need for
actions not
accepted
Deliberative
body accepted
as legitimate
but not
empowered to
act
Led by new
president
vp’s
Both Sites-
Implications
for Effective
Governance
Strive for
agreement on
core values
before pursuit
o f long-term
decision
making
Trust aids
decision
making,
important
if decisions
must be
made
quickly
Promote
widespread
communication
Empower
Planning
Council to
deliberate and
make
recommendatio
ns
Change
promoted by
long
standing
leader
an “emergency” worthy of using the reserve emphasizes the importance of past
thinking in shaping current strategy and planning.
The reorganization process and results differ greatly. Faced with
happenstance (the unrelated departure of three deans), Bitterroot President Sabella
took initiative largely based upon personal goals. The president had neither the
personal standing, nor the long term-loyalties to draw widespread support for the
move, nor did he effectively communicate a convincing rationale for proposed
changes. Further, the timeline in this context was quick: several months. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
quickness could be seen as a benefit, since the college saved staff time discussing
and debating the matter. However, because of the continuing dissension connected
with the reorganization, the new president (appointed after the data collection for this
study) has opened a reexamination of the reorganization.
In contrast, Clear Lake College’s process was more comprehensive and time-
consuming. (Most full-time faculty attended at least one of several forums; the vice
president wrote extensively to the campus community; and administrators re
negotiated contracts with the classified and faculty unions.) It is significant that the
vice president was identified as the central figure behind the reorganization, in effect
buffering the president from the give-and-take of the deliberations. Further, Beth
Richardson’s unquestioned loyalty and understanding of Clear Lake College gave
her a considerable reservoir of good-will upon which to draw (consistent with
Korschgen, Fuller, and Gardner, 2001, who found that long-standing leaders are
better equipped to promote change). Even leaders in English— who remained critical
of their division structure a year after the plan—espoused support, even admiration
for Richardson. Finally, at Clear Lake as well as at Bitterroot, administrators
maintained that it was within their purview to reorganize. The actions at Clear Lake,
though, were consistent with the college leaders’ espoused values and underlying
assumptions; Richardson sought input to make the best decision, a decision that
would affect the campus community. (At Bitterroot, despite avowals of
collaboration, the process struck many deans and professors as closed. Thus, the
disparity caused distraction, tension and distrust.) Perhaps more importantly, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
honest disagreement at Clear Lake did not impede the college’s ability to plan
quickly and effectively to meet the budget problems of spring 2003.
Therefore, a comparison of strategy employed by Clear Lake College and
Bitterroot College suggests several observations related to effective governance:
(a) communication and discussion are time-consuming, but widespread and thorough
discussion of plans results in greater long-term acceptance; (b) the successful
implementation of a strategy is more likely if championed by a leader who engenders
loyalty and has standing in the campus community; (c) strategy and planning
benefits from resting on a shared vision rather than the leader’s personal one; and
(d) a history of successful planning and trust lays the foundation for emergency,
short-term planning.
Information at Clear Lake College
Several salient aspects about information emerged from the findings. As a
foundation, the president, vice president of academic affairs and the senate president
at Clear Lake College had a clear understanding of what constituted information
and—even more importantly— a willingness to communicate, not just among
themselves but their constituents and the campus community generally. That
understanding resulted from an unusual convergence of the three leaders, each of
whom had a long history at Clear Lake, in governance and with each other. Among
the three leaders, communication occurred almost shorthand. For example, at one
crucial Planning Council meeting, Jack Early anticipated Senate President Myra
Montgomery’s criticism that the data being presented was skewed and responded to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
the criticism before she even spoke. All three leaders emphasized the “informal
relationships and communication channels,” which Early said did 80% of the work,
consistent with the findings of Tierney (1983). The frequent communication and
widespread understanding is reflected in the barrage of acronyms used by the
campus community. (To have a reorganization process, the college quickly came up
with ROSE.) Acronyms not only reflect the communication, but reinforce a sense of
shared community (Bolman & Deal, 1997); administrators, faculty and staff know
what these terms mean, whereas the rest of the world does not. These open patterns
of communication have been linked to positive change (Chaffee, 1998; Eckel &
Kezar, 2003), and I believe they helped Clear Lake in governance, generally, and in
the reorganization and the short-term budget strategy, particularly.
The college newspaper underscored the sense of community, covering not
just immediate, student-oriented stories, but informing the campus about retired
faculty and staff members and events such as the rally in March, and telling
anecdotes of well-known campus members (Clark, 1972). Overall, the experience
at Clear Lake confirms Lee (1991) and Kuss (2000) that good communications
promotes effective governance, and vice versa (Bimbaum, 1988a). Further, my
findings are consistent with research suggesting the importance of communication in
establishing trust (Gambetta, 1988; Good, 1988; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996).
Vice president Beth Richardson’s participation at Senate meetings is an
unusual form of communication and information-sharing. Her active participation
in meetings (and frequent appearance in the minutes) shows the blurring of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
information, communication and influence upon decision-making. One faculty
leader who routinely had not attended senate meetings criticized the practice,
because she felt it would stifle discussion. However, senators disagreed with that
viewpoint, and senate minutes and my observation suggested that open
communication took place.
Private communication on governance matters was generally consistent with
public communication. That is, in interviews if Person A voiced opposition to a
particular action, I subsequently found that others knew what Person A believed.
There was one significant exception to this pattern. The dean whose area included
English, spoke at a meeting of English professors and voiced support for their
concerns. However, only weeks before, as part of the discussions to address the
budget problems, the dean unilaterally had proposed an increase to composition
teachers’ load. Thus, in the meeting, some of the professors challenged the dean,
who responded by saying that he “had to think globally.”
One professor stressed that “communications are important,” to which the
dean said they were, and thanked the faculty who had attended a rally in Sacramento
a couple weeks before and communicated effectively with legislators. In effect, by
veering off of the implications of the professor’s comment, the dean illustrated part
of the problem between himself and the group: he either could not or would not
respond to the group’s concerns, showing a lack of uptake (Potter, 2002).
Additionally, on the matter of the teachers’ load, the confrontation with the dean
showed unwillingness to accept perceived deception. (In contrast to the dean’s lack
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
of uptake, President Early showed a subtle form of uptake at a Planning Council
meeting. At a critical time during the meeting, the classified union president stated
his support for the president’s proposed budget, leaning forward and nodding;
President Early, sitting opposite the union leader, leaned forward, too, and nodded.)
Communication rests on some key symbols. Governance meetings often take
place in Joshua House, an elegant, comfortable house that betokens the respect for
governance widely shared on the campus, and the administration’s central location
on campus symbolizes its central role in decision-making. Jack Early wore a Clear
Lake College jacket to one crucial meeting, symbolizing his loyalty to the college.
Beth Richardson’s role in senate meetings, in addition to presenting information,
symbolizes a collaboration that most faculty members value. These positive symbols
reinforce a sense of the culture’s identity (Chaffee, 1998; Eckel & Kezar, 2003;
Morgan, 1986).
Information at Bitterroot College
Information and information-sharing were problematic at the college, as
underscored by the language of violence and frustration described in chapter 4.
President Sabella communicated with the campus community only infrequently;
consequently, initiatives coming from his office raised questions. For example,
preliminary proposals for the reorganization were shown only to deans, and when
some early news leaked out, faculty members were uncertain and troubled. Vice
president Quay explained that the proposals were tentative and that releasing them
would cause undue alarm. Alarm and resistance emerged anyway. The pattern of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
incomplete communication extended to the college’s website and to senate postings
of agendas and minutes. Further, the faculty handbook—which had a wealth of
information, including procedures for hiring— was out of print. The college
newspaper tended to have several articles written by one student writer, focusing on
a relatively narrow band of immediate concerns. Thus, the newspaper would offer
faculty and staff little perspective or reliable information on governance issues.
On a personal level, President Sabella’s actions contradicted his words. In an
interview for this study, he spoke in support of shared governance, for example, but
called it “an amoeba that will eat you alive.” Although he praised the Planning
Council, he did not use it for key strategic and planning decisions (regardless of
whether or not he had the right to decide unilaterally).
A history of related problems contributed to difficulty in gathering and
sharing information needed to make and implement decisions. The previous
accreditation report faulted the college for inconsistent research. The college hired a
person to head the research office, but also put her in charge of marketing, which
complicated evaluation of work coming from her office. (Her office was responsible
for the “branding statement,” a revision of the college’s mission statement to be used
for fund-raising and other community events.) Another historical incident made
communication difficult between the senate and the college president. Several years
earlier, the college president had been rebuffed in her efforts to have a consistent
place on the senate agenda. Later, Sabella felt unwelcome at senate meetings,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
despite Sara Wilson’s conviction that she had asked him to attend at least twice and
had invited him publicly at a Board of Trustees meeting.
On a symbolic level, communication was problematic, too. The symbolism
of the Board of Trustees selecting an interim president from the ranks of the faculty
is the best illustration of the problem. Faculty leaders to this day believe the move
validated their beliefs in shared governance, the primacy of the faculty in hiring full
time professors and a host of related issues. However, Erin Wayne, the interim
president, explicitly states that she was not appointed to make that statement. When
President Sabella entered and sought to take the college away from some of these
principles, he received the blessing of the board, which confused and frustrated
professors. Another symbol is the placement of the administration building on
the edge of campus, which symbolizes to some faculty the isolation of the
administration. This perception exists despite the senate’s being housed in the same
building and decision to locate it there saving a grove of trees. Finally, the metaphor
of the “rebaked cake” seems especially apt: many faculty want to “re-bake” the cake
of governance. The impossibility of the metaphor reflects the frustration of faculty
during the tenure of presidents Menchine and Sabella.
One further comment regarding information needs to be made. The
misinterpretation of enrollment data in fall, 2002 resulted in the dramatic cutback in
classes in spring 2003. Clearly, the reasons for this action largely rest with an
inability to analyze information, an inability that had repercussions at the college
(denying students classes, eliminating adjuncts’ assignments, and exacerbating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
tensions between administration and faculty, thereby making future collaboration
more difficult). It is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate errors of analysis in
any systematic way; however, such an error undermines trust in a leader’s
competence, clearly a foundational quality.
Comparison o f Information at Bitterroot
College and Clear Lake College
Both colleges plan and act on the same sorts of information: projections of
income based upon state budgets; number of sections; weekly teacher hours, full
time equivalent students enrolled in programs, etc. This study suggests that leaders
are more important than any structures or formal channels in shaping this
information and communicating it. (For a summary of key aspects of information,
see Table 10). It is true that methods of conveying information—websites, campus-
wide forums, minutes of meetings, the college newspaper, campus-wide emails—
were used poorly at Bitterroot to inform faculty and administration about
governance. However, in recent history, the administration and to a greater extent
the faculty relied upon campus-wide communication methods (posted minutes,
memorandum to all faculty). The result was more documentation about the
differences between administrative and faculty viewpoints, but not clearly better
governance.
Because of long-term, trusting relationships among leaders across faculty and
administration lines, Clear Lake College relied upon informal channels to convey
information, especially sensitive information (such as preliminary discussions about
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
Table 10. Analysis o f Information
College
Formal
channels
Informal
channels
Consistency
o f message
Symbols and
metaphors
Use in
decision
Clear Lake
College
Formal
communication
channel provide
variety of
information to
campus
community
Longevity,
trust promotes
informal
communication
Public,
private
opinions on
issues are
consistent
Symbols,
uptake
underscore
understanding
Information
gathered,
used in
decision
making
Bitterroot
College
Inconsistent
formal
communication
(websites,
distribution of
minutes)
Little informal
communication
Significant
discrepancies
between
public,
private
opinions
Metaphors of
frustration
Historically
weak on
institutional
research,
some key
information
missing
Both Sites—
Implications
for
Effective
Governance
Consistency,
variety o f
communications
helps
governance
Important for
governance
leaders to
communicate
though
informal
channels
Avoid
significant
gaps between
public,
private views
Symbols and
metaphors
reflect state of
campus
Research,
information-
sharing
promote
effective
governance
seeking a bond measure and determining what such a measure should include).
Because the relationships were neither long-term nor trusting at Bitterroot College,
informal channels were rarely used. Sara Wilson regularly talked to President
Sabella; however, the short-term budget planning came to the fore quickly, with little
chance for input, and she received little preliminary information about the
reorganization.
In more formal channels of communication, Clear Lake held campus-wide
forums to consider the reorganization. Faculty received minutes of the meetings, as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
well a numerous emails regarding the on-going discussions. Although Beth
Richardson sent out these notes— and certainly shaped them to reflect her optimistic
assessment of the process— she included criticisms (and her responses), promoting a
sense of openness to the decision-making. To respond to the state budget shortfall,
Jack Early informed the campus bluntly and honestly in an opening day speech at the
start of the spring, 2003 term. In contrast, Richard Sabella was not well-known
across the campus and on the reorganization and cutback of sections he sent the
faculty and staff only brief memorandum. The vice presidents spoke to the Planning
Council, but only after speaking to the deans and keeping proposals confidential.
Symbolic communication is important. Because symbols inherently are
subject to interpretation, misinterpretation easily can arise. Because the admini
stration building at Bitterroot College reinforces perceptions about the
administration, faculty symbolize its location as suggesting isolation, as opposed
to its supporting the environment. In contrast, at Clear Lake, the administration
building’s central location seems appropriate, and its centrality in turn reinforces
perception that it is important.
Overall, a comparison of information and information-sharing at Clear Lake
College and Bitterroot College suggests several observations related to effective
governance: (a) long-term, trusting relationships across faculty and administration
lines promote informal communication, which in turn promotes effective
communication for formal governance; (b) effective communication rests on
commonly understood symbols; conversely, ambiguous symbols create
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
miscommunication, doubt and distrust; (c) patterns of language (specifically the
metaphors of frustration at Bitterroot College) can reflect the mood on campus and
the attitude of a campus toward its governance; and (d) ineffective communication
coincides with problems within these other cultural constructs, but the presence of
good communication does not alleviate those problems by itself.
Leadership at Clear Lake College
This study found several salient aspects of leadership linked to effective
governance. At Clear Lake College concepts of leadership were linked especially to
three people: senate president Myra Montgomery, academic vice president Beth
Richardson and Clear Lake College president Jack Early. As previously noted, each
has long tenure with the college and in dealings with each other. Campus-wide,
Early and Richardson are praised as leaders. Montgomery clearly shapes the
thinking of the senate and has widespread respect among the faculty interviewed for
the study.
According to former Cornell University president Frank Rhodes (1998), “The
president creates the atmosphere” [his emphasis], an observation supported in this
study. Early does this partly through making meaning for the campus (Pondy, 1978;
Smircich & Morgan, 1982). For example, in his speech to the campus at the start of
the spring, 2003 term, Early defined the budget crisis and the terms under which it
would pursue a response. The terms were consistent with college leaders’
expectations of collegiality and his past performance as president. By extending past
practices but reaffirming them for the current, urgent situation, Early defined the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
situation for the college community. And governance leaders responded along the
lines Early had set forth, according to interviews conducted after the spring
semester’s decision-making had concluded.
Richardson and Montgomery, too, led by bringing meaning to events and
issues before governance organizations. Through her numerous emails and editing
of the minutes of reorganization meetings, Richardson informed the campus
community, making meaning of the event. She acknowledged opposing views and
concerns, but the consistent flow of messages conveyed an important subtext: the
reorganization would happen and many individuals would contribute to the final
decision. Just as Early did with the budget, Richardson acted consistently with
campus expectations through most, if not all, of the process. The results, then, were
accepted by four of the five divisions. (Professors in the fifth division believed that
Richardson had not fully aired a proposal to combine business, English and foreign
languages.) Richardson’s participation in the senate meetings is another example of
her helping the campus to make meaning out of information. On a myriad of issues
from reorganizing the Curriculum Committee to interpreting events in Sacramento,
Richardson comments. Given the trust she has earned, her expertise and longevity
on the campus, her comments shape the way senators perceive issues. Senate
president Myra Montgomery, has even more influence, based also on her trust
worthiness, expertise and longevity. Her previous term as senate president when
Early first arrived gives her a broad perspective. Despite the collegiality on campus,
the senators—and I believe professors who are less involved in governance—
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
especially value the faculty perspective in governance, and Montgomery has earned
her credibility. She challenged Early when he first arrived at Clear Lake, insisting
that responsibilities of the senate, mandated by AB 1725, be written into policies at
Clear Lake. Although her role in decision-making—in keeping with that of the
senate—is advisory in many matters, Montgomery uses public forums and private
conversation to make meaning as matters are being considered. Montgomery states:
I give Jack and Beth a very hard time and do it publicly. I do it in the
meetings, I do it in a lot of places, and both of them take it pretty well...
It’s sort of like training horses. You make it easy for people to do the right
thing and hard for them to do the [wrong] thing.
The example cited previously— in which Early anticipated Montgomery’s objection
to the use of a set of data— illustrates Montgomery’s ability to shape the discussion.
An important aspect of being an effective leader is trusting as well as
engendering trust (Bennis & Nanus, 1997). All three leaders have this quality—
Early and Richardson across faculty and administrators, Montgomery with senior
administrators and the faculty, perhaps less so with other administrators. Faculty and
some administrators referred to a time before Early’s arrival in which governance
was characterized by distrust. How did the campus move from that state to the
current one largely characterized as collegial and trusting? In follow-up questions, I
asked various administrators and faculty leaders, and to a person they credited Jack
Early. When asked who was responsible for creating trust on the campus, he
maintained that everyone was—starting with the college trustees. When pressed to
explain his role, he acknowledged that faculty distrusted the administration when he
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
arrived, and that he had played a significant role in the change. He said a president
can change the “spirit” of a college, but that in his experience at Clear Lake, such a
change had taken place only after “4 or 5 years.” To establish trust, he benefited
from several key people retiring. He didn’t trust them, and “by their nature” they
would not have trusted the president, no matter who he or she was. He promoted
trust in governance by being trustworthy and proving his trustworthiness, day in and
day out. In turn he has a trusting nature. He said that the vice presidents kid him
about “forgetting” any breaches of trust; instead he called it being “forward-
looking.” His advice on creating trust was direct: “Always be as open and honest as
you can with people, and when you can't be completely open, say you can't be
completely open and why. And never promise something that you're not sure you
can deliver.”
This outlook benefited from being complemented by vice presidents whose
outlook was not as sanguine as the president’s. The vice president of business was
fair and pleasant to work with, according to a faculty union leader, but her
participation in governance consisted largely in presenting and analyzing the
financial status of the college. Beth Richardson was more strategic or
“manipulative” depending on a person’s perspective. Furthermore, her leadership on
some controversial governance matters (e.g., the reorganization and allocation of
full-time faculty positions) allowed Early to remain above the fray. Altogether, then,
these two vice presidents working with the president made an effective team; their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
actions in reorganization and on the budget support findings of Eckel and Kezar
(2003), regarding maintaining a short-term focus on problem-solving.
Early’s success as a leader partly can be attributed to his identifying and
achieving goals that benefited the college as a whole. He successfully raised money
for the college and led efforts for the college to pass a bond, actions universally
supported on the campus. The budget deliberations in response to the 2003 state
budget also represented an effort for him to lead the college in the context of
challenging, outside circumstances. While the shrinking of resources could have
caused various groups to retreat to defend their turf, Early sought to emphasize the
collegial spirit that he had helped instill. Early led the Planning Council in the
deliberations. Since he had a “hands off style” in many campus matters, his close
attention to this process told the Council and campus members generally that the
matter was serious and campus leaders needed to rise to the occasion. Also, since
decision-making on colleges is usually “loosely coupled” (Weick, 1976), decision
making that is tightly coupled underscored the immediacy of the situation. Early
made clear that the Planning Council would be the venue for decision-making. And
in one meeting, for example, council members voted on the specific budget proposal
that would be sent to the board of trustees.
Thus, Early established himself as a leader who sought consensus, who
empowered other campus members to make decisions, but who took charge of
crucial matters, creating an appropriate sense of urgency. In these approaches, Early
reflected the values of the leaders of the administration and faculty (consistent with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
Bensimon, 1991). His widespread support stems from his ability not only to reflect
these values, but also to help create them, as evidenced by the reported improvement
in governance over his tenure as president.
Richardson’s leadership benefited from Early’s actions that established and
reaffirmed her position in governance at the college. Of course, from a structural
point of view, any vice president of instruction will play a crucial role at a college.
Early enhanced that position in subtle ways. At meetings, Richardson’s reports came
near the top of the agenda. Early encouraged Richardson’s good-natured joking
about himself, underscoring the security of her position. Most importantly, he
accepted her recommendations on crucial matters such as academic staffing and the
reorganization. Although technically recommendations to him (and in some cases
ultimately to the board of trustees), Richardson’s decisions in actuality were seen by
the campus as final. By establishing her ability to decide, Early placed confidence in
her—again reflecting campus opinion, but also shaping it (since Richardson was not
in the vice president position when Early was hired). Further, giving Richardson that
authority insulated Early from controversial academic decisions.
Richardson’s deep ties to the college reaffirmed gave her considerable
credibility in decision-making. In contrast to Early’s two predecessors who came
and left, Richardson stayed—and she had no ambitions for a college presidency.
Therefore, even those who cited disagreements with her decisions expressed warm
feelings for her personally and respect for her professionally. Faculty and a couple
administrators noted two major sources of disagreement: the reorganization and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
choice of allocation of full-time faculty positions. In contrast to the budget
situation—in which the adversary is outside the college—the “adversaries” in these
situations are internal. In other words, if biology receives a full-time position,
history might not, or vice versa. Since the campus leaders understand this trade-off
and since recommendations come to her via the senate and the Deans’ Council, there
is some buffer between her and an unpopular decision.
At times, though, she has chosen to change recommendations. (Interviewees
were vague on the details, but they clearly recalled that she had. Some people
thought English was always getting positions; another interviewee cited an athletics
position that had not been recommended by the senate nor the deans, but which she
still thought the college needed.) She also chose to go her own way at the end of the
reorganization process, largely following the divisions as they emerged from the
ROSE Task Force, but creating the last one at the very end of the process, in a way
that seemed mostly her own. (As I have noted, some campus leaders were surprised
at the establishment of the division with English, foreign languages and other areas.)
It is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate the major decisions
Richardson has made in any depth. However, college leaders voice strong support
for her work when it reflects consensus and the college’s strong social ties, and some
college leaders take exception when she goes her own way. The depth of her ties to
the college community allows her to break away from consensus occasionally and
continue to be widely trusted.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
In some ways Myra Montgomery shares important traits of leadership with
Beth Richardson. Because of her knowledge and long-standing position on campus,
her views are respected in meetings—not just given lip service. (The respect she
receives from senior administration underscores a finding of Lee (1991) that
correlated effectiveness of the senate with acceptance by the administration.)
Montgomery differs from Richardson (and Early) in the extent to which she relies on
caustic humor and skepticism of others in governance (in her case, specifically her
skepticism about administrators). This skepticism establishes her credibility with
faculty, although her caustic comments alienate some deans. Like Early,
Montgomery occasionally can embrace matters that unite the campus (for example,
supporting the March rally in Sacramento and various bills before the legislature).
Taking the three central leaders together, another significant point emerges.
In effect interviewees tell a saga of leadership at Clear Lake College (Calas &
Smircich, 1988; Clark, 1972). Campus members appreciate the commitment, the
knowledge, the trust that these leaders engender. These leaders represent values that
they— the campus members— themselves hold, and they have a strong need to find
them in the leadership (Schein, 1992). To see these values embodied in the
president, the vice president and the senate president is a source of pride. Campus
leaders readily relate parts of the story of Beth Richardson’s rise through various
positions on the campus over 30 years. And because campus leaders hold the
president and vice president in high esteem, interviewees expressed considerable
consternation at their imminent retirements. Senate leader Myra Montgomery’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
departure from office comes as a matter of course when her term expires. The senate
president-elect has much less history at the college than any of these three central
leaders; however, his understanding of senate issues and beliefs reassures senators
that the positions of the senate will be heard and respected.
Finally, the study suggests that a culture can be shaped or “managed”; thus, it
opposes analysis ofNord (1985) and Lundberg (1985). Further, this study sees no
evidence to support concerns that a leader can create “resentment, resistance and
mistrust” (Morgan, 1986) by attempting to control a saga or myth about his or her
leadership. Stories arise (both at Clear Lake and Bitterroot), shaped by many factors,
not primarily by any myth-making efforts in the president’s office.
Leadership at Bitterroot College
Several salient aspects findings emerge from an examination of leadership at
Bitterroot College. Only one person is widely accepted as an effective leader across
faculty and administration lines: Curriculum Chair Eileen Fox (for reasons discussed
below). Various obstacles prevent those holding leadership positions from being
widely accepted as leaders. The faculty’s suspicion about the commitment of senior
administrators who have been at the college only a couple years presents a sizable
obstacle for the vice presidents of student services and instruction, as well as the
college president. (Although the vice president of business affairs has worked at the
college over 20 years, and serves on important governance committees, his role in
governance was not emphasized by interviewees, nor did he take an active role in
meetings I observed.) The dean of the largest division had the respect of several
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
faculty leaders and served in many governance groups (for example, the Planning
Council, the Curriculum Committee, Matriculation Committee). However, she too,
was relatively new (and one interviewee reported that she had been chosen by then-
president Menchine over the recommendation of the committee). Senate president
Sara Wilson, as well as most faculty leaders, had worked over 15 years at the college
and so had demonstrated a long-standing commitment to it.
However, she could not persuade the president to follow the suggestions of
the senate. Although Sabella said he respected shared governance, his actions gave
the impression that it was relatively unimportant. As a result, in matters such as the
reorganization and the canceling of 210 class sections in spring 2003, most faculty
leaders saw little leadership in the senate. Previous faculty leaders—including one
senate president who served as interim president and another who would head the
search committee for Sabella’s successor— were not centrally involved in governance
in spring 2003.
The only leader from faculty or administration mentioned by several
interviewees as being especially effective was Eileen Fox, chair of the Curriculum
Committee. Her recognition as a leader stems from her knowledge of the subject and
her ability to move matters forward, despite other areas of conflict on the campus.
Significantly, Neil Deignan turned over responsibility for chairing the Curriculum
Committee to the faculty, believing that that role should be undertaken by a faculty
member, in keeping with the senate’s role under AB 1725. (Technically, the vice
president of instruction continues to serve as co-chair, but meetings are run by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208
faculty co-chair, unless he or she is unable to attend the meeting.) Even though the
Curriculum Committee has not been entirely free from contentious issues (for
example, about distance education and class size), Fox has been an effective leader.
I believe that those in leadership take on a collective responsibility for the
failings of the college. No one saw the reorganization as a success, for example.
Since all the key leaders had a role in it, none could call himself or herself a
successful leader, based upon that. Given the larger pattern of conflict in
governance, the people in governance were not proud of their collective result.
Further, the vice presidents were constrained by the president in their
approach to governance. The president’s actions especially affected the perception
of Neil Deignan. Many interviewees said that they liked Deignan personally, but
they didn’t know whether he was acting on his own beliefs or Sabella’s. His actions
on the reorganization illustrate the matter perfectly. For the reorganization, he (and
Quay) spoke before the Planning Council and the Academic Senate while Sabella
was away having knee surgery. In a private interview Deignan stressed that from the
outset of the reorganization, he would have relied on a much more open process.
Instead, his public role in faithfully carrying out Sabella’s plan made some faculty
and deans think his (Deignan’s) approach was secretive. Ultimately, then, Sabella’s
actions had the effect of undermining Deignan’s standing with the faculty, their trust
in him and their perception of Deignan as a leader.
With the dearth of successful leaders, the meaning of events is not clear
across the campus. Administrators and faculty leaders offer competing meanings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
An example is the effort to define “management right” and “participatory
governance.” Another example is the welter of meanings that emerged from the
reorganization. Senate President Sara Wilson saw signs of effective governance,
since some original proposals were revised in the final reorganization. However, for
most faculty, the whole discussion meant that “shared governance is dead.” One
dean said that it should have meant that the college is putting its money in the
classroom, that that area was most important. In short, in the absence of successful
leadership, faculty and administrators in governance strove to make their own
meaning. Because the meaning-making of senior administration did not gain a
foothold with the faculty and vice-versa, the college moved farther away from
consensus.
Taking the ineffective leadership altogether, the college is creating a saga.
By using the language of violence (described previously), members of the campus
community expressed their anger and frustration over the inability of the leadership
and the college community generally to transcend these significant differences to act
effectively. In the area of curriculum— through Eileen Fox’s leadership and gives
them credit of their accomplishments to: and gives them credit for their
accomplishments. However, one unifying saga of leadership remained largely
elusive, reflecting the deep social divisions within the college and the differing
identities. Did Bitterroot College need a leader to advance bold reforms? Did
Bitterroot need a leader to restore the glory of the faculty’s educational vision? Or
was there some middle ground that can satisfy these competing visions? Until the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
college community could decide, it would be difficult to see a leader embraced by
faculty and senior administration at the college.
Comparison o f Leadership at Bitterroot
College and Clear Lake College
Out of the five concepts of academic culture, leadership emerged as the most
important in its effect on governance at the two colleges examined in this study (a
finding consistent with recent research conducted by Kezar, 2004). (For a summary
of key aspects of leadership, see Table 11). A president was crucial in transforming
the culture of each college—for ill at Bitterroot, for good at Clear Lake. A dozen
years ago, a successful team led Bitterroot. The president focused efforts off-
campus; the vice president of instruction, who had come up through the ranks,
handled day-to-day matters in a tough but respected way. Then President Menchine
entered. Her efforts to bring in more technology and change the college culture
instead brought resistance, hostility and competing visions that undermined
governance up through Sabella’s resignation.
A dozen years ago at Clear Lake College, two presidents had cycled through
the college, leaving behind suspicions that Jack Early would do the same and setting
up confrontations between the faculty and administration. However, Early stayed
and fashioned an understanding with the faculty leadership and the college
community. A large part of his focus was off-campus relations. Working in tandem
with the academic vice president—another person who moved up through the ranks
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
Table 11 Analysis o f Leadership
Clear Lake President President President President, Sagas
College establishes trust leads actions delegates vice support
incrementally
over years
viewed
campus-wide
as successes
power, credit president
make
meaning for
the college
leaders’
standing on
campus
Bitterroot Short-term President President President, Sagas of
College president linked only to delegates little vice dysfunction
establishes controversial power, yet has presidents’ further
little trust actions vp’s represent
him
meanings
conflict with
those of
faculty
leaders
suspicion
Both Sites-- Presidents need President’s President Trusted Sagas both
Implications time to unqualified empowers leaders can reflect and
for establish trust successes others and define issues affect state
Effective
Governance
create trust acknowledges
their work
for college of
governance
and handled day-to-day matters in a firm but respected way—the leadership
succeeded.
A president clearly does not work in isolation. The Board of Trustees hires
the president and can fire him or her. Although this study did not set out to examine
the trustees’ role in governance, enough evidence emerged through interviews to
suggest that the trustees play a pivotal role. At Bitterroot, the trustees sent a
confused message—if not to the president, to the college community at large-
whereas at Clear Lake the message was clear. Clear Lake administrators and faculty
had nothing but praise for the trustees’ support of the college.
Given a base of support from the trustees, the president wields significant
power. This study suggested that it takes time for a leader to create a governance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
process characterized by collegiality and trust. Early’s estimate was 4 or 5 years—
an estimate confirmed by other faculty and administrators. Conversely, based on
Bitterroot’s example, a governance process characterized by trust can come
unraveled much more quickly. Menchine’s actions created distrust and dissension
within months. These findings are consistent with writings about the difficulty in
creating of trust (Hawthorn, 1988; Kramer et al., 1996) and the relative speed in
which distrust can be created (Hardin, 2002).
This study’s findings emphasized the importance of the president in creating
or undermining trust. Since the average tenure of a college president is five years,
this finding about the president’s role is especially significant. For colleges
characterized by strife-torn governance, a president may well need years to establish
a climate of trust, at which point—if the college follows the statistical average—that
president may leave without that basis in governance having been established firmly.
For colleges that are characterized by collegial governance, a newly-selected
president has the ability to undermine collegiality quickly, especially if given a
mandate to reform the college. Therefore, this study underscores the paramount
importance of choosing a college president who can reflect the values of the college
community and, over time, subtly shape those values. Early’s day-to-day work at
establishing trust embodies this point.
Having proven their trustworthiness, leaders can create meaning for the
college. Without such trustworthiness across faculty and administration lines,
various individuals attempt to make meaning, which in effect creates competing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
visions and identities for the college. At Bitterroot, these competing meanings were
so disparate as to render campus-wide decision-making very difficult. President
Sabella sought to sidestep it by bringing the reorganization to the Planning Council
only after much of the proposal had been determined and declaring a hiring freeze
without any discussion at the Planning Council. In contrast, at Clear Lake, President
Early laid out an interpretation of the state budget that was accepted across the
campus. Vice president Beth Richardson gave meaning to the process of
reorganization. She established a need for it which most professors ultimately
accepted.
Early and Richardson’s meaning-making laid a groundwork for decision
making. Once campus leaders accepted Early’s assessment of the budget and its
meaning for Clear Lake, various divisions and groups offered competing proposals—
in effect offering various meanings for the college. Once consensus among those
competing meanings evolved, Early led the college to appreciate the final decision.
The senate and union presidents, then could tell the story of the process with some
pride, and in turn that story presumably would shape how future leaders respond to
crisis. In the reorganization, Richardson’s meaning-making was not universally
accepted; thus, two competing stories emerged—one suggesting how leaders can
take on a difficult task and succeed, the other, how the vice president shrewdly out-
maneuvered faculty leaders to impose her will. The competing meanings in this
case—clearly an important one for Clear Lake—did not impede the college’s leaders
when they came to resolve the budget matters. Therefore, Clear Lake’s experience
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
suggests that a campus community can accept divergent meanings if there is a
reservoir of good-will and trust. Such disagreements in the context of trust perhaps
can reflect the health of a college’s governance, since they show depth of feeling and
commitment and suggest that the college has not lapsed into groupthink or
complacency.
The campus community’s need to make meaning causes different kind of
sagas about leadership to emerge on the campuses. Bitterroot College’s sagas use
vocabulary of violence and frustration (people being beaten up and slapped in the
face, cakes being re-baked). Telling these sagas may be cathartic or instructive.
However, the sagas could also have the effect of reinforcing attitudes. The decline
of the posting of senate minutes and agendas, for example, may reflect the faculty’s
despair in altering the college president’s plans. The sagas of Clear Lake College,
however, affirm that it is a special place, one that needs careful nurturing to remain
special. Hence, many faculty leaders are concerned to see the imminent retirement
of two people central to many of the leadership stories—Beth Richardson and Jack
Early.
Overall, a comparison of leadership at Clear Lake College and Bitterroot
College suggests several observations related to effective governance: (a) leaders
who arrive on a campus can create trust incrementally over time, but can undermine
it quickly; (b) a president benefits focusing on issues that unify the campus (bond
issues, addressing the state budget crisis); (c) a successful president empowers others
and gives them credit of their accomplishments; (d) a trusted leader can make
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215
meaning for the college, an ability especially important in urgent situations; and (e)
effective leaders’ actions create sagas for the campus, which celebrate successes and
establish expectations for future actions.
Trust at Clear Lake College
Given common social values and the long history of the college leaders at
Clear Lake College, it is not surprising that the culture is characterized by trust.
Among the leaders, “thick trust” (Williams, 1998) existed. Two salient findings of
the study were that the president role was pivotal in the creation of Clear Lake’s
climate of trust and that that climate seems closely tied to the college’s effective
governance. Since trust clearly exists in a social context, the matter is not simply a
question of whether A can trust B to do X (Hardin, 2002)—but rather this: can A
who is president/vice president/senate president etc. at Clear Lake College trust B
who is president/vice president/senate president/etc. to do X. The roles of A and B
imply not just the traditional administrative and faculty divisions but also all the
shared history and the socialization to Clear Lake. Therefore, in the example cited
previously of the dean’s inconsistency as perceived by the English faculty,
professors were angered not just for the immediate matter of teaching load, but for
its being a violation of trust. Furthermore, given the college’s “thick trust,” Early,
Richardson and Montgomery all had proven themselves trustworthy to the campus
community. Even though the senate president-elect and faculty union president have
shorter tenures on the campus—each approximately 6 years—each spoke of the
importance of trust, clearly having incorporated the campus attitude. Moreover, each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
expressed trust in the administration, despite honest differences of opinions. These
two leaders—as well as the long-established ones—cited examples in which they had
trusted someone and opened themselves to a risk. In finding the importance of this
social network, this study supports the findings of Cufaude (1999), Gambetta (1988),
Good (1988), Luhmann (1988). Being willing to take risks, and more generally
being willing to trust are needed for an organization to act (Luhmann, 1988; Schein,
1992), especially in a quickly changing environment.
In having both communal and exchange trust (Braithwaite, 1998), the college
suggested a model for avoiding the conflict cited by Bimbaum (2004)—that shifting
to forward-looking exchange trust could undermine backward-looking communal
trust. Although it was beyond the scope to study past events in any depth,
nonetheless, comments from campus leaders suggest that exchange trust can be
established if it is through widely supported actions (as discussed in the leadership
section above).
Trust at Bitterroot College
Findings at Bitterroot College suggest several salient aspects about trust, or
more specifically distrust and how it might be avoided. Campus leaders
unanimously characterized the campus relationships as distrustful. The social
circumstances of the distrust—particularly its history—are especially important,
supporting research by Hardin (2002). Surveys for the 1992 accreditation report a
campus characterized by effective leadership and shared governance, an environment
showing no sign of widespread distrust. Distrust began shortly after the arrival of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
President Menchine. In a meeting designed to get to know the faculty, Menchine
called professors in one division “racist” and “elitist,” and her heavy-handed
treatment of the campus community steeled many professors against her. She made
governance difficult for her fellow administrators. Menchine’s desire to change the
campus seemed to come from an unpublicized directive from the Board of Trustees,
acting on unstated problems with the college. The board’s subsequent appointments
of a professor as the interim president and then of Richard Sabella sent a mixed
message regarding the faculty’s role on the governance of the college.
It is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate the intention of the trustees’
actions; however, presidents Sabella and Menchine clearly sought to implement
changes (changes that had not been the product of the Planning Council or earlier
planning groups), provoking distrust from faculty leaders and some deans, who
questioned not just the proposed changes but the reasoning behind them and the
ways the president pursued them. Thus, college trustees bear some responsibility for
the distrust, either for providing the impetus for change or condoning the president’s
actions without encouraging a wider discussion to engender support beforehand.
In addition to the historical and social sources, questions of competency have
contributed to distrust. The two vice presidents and the president miscalculated
enrollment and needed to cut 8% of college’s offerings in spring 2003. Such an
action created distrust since deans and faculty leaders questioned senior
administrators’ competency to act in the best interests of the college.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
At Bitterroot College then, faculty leaders, most of whom have worked at the
college for over a decade, looked at trust this way: A (faculty leaders, some deans)
distrust B (a senior administrator) to do X (reorganize the college, plan in the face of
budget cutbacks) because they are suspicious based on past events, they question B’s
competency, and they fail to understand folly why B is acting, suspecting a hidden
agenda. President Sabella and at least one dean are suspicious of shared governance
and faculty leaders, believing that administrators have management rights and that
the senate is intruding into areas in which it has neither responsibility nor expertise.
As a result, matters become entangled in discussion and little action occurs. (The
college’s discussion of academic freedom is a case in point. The discussion began as
an academic matter, but opened into a months-long examination of the rights of
classified and students, ultimately reaching no consensus for those two groups.)
Therefore, the trust/distrust formula may also be written: A (a senior administrator
or dean) distrusts B (faculty leaders) to do X (reorganize, incorporate technology,
hire faculty for the college’s future). Unsurprisingly, neither communal nor
exchange trust (Braithwaite 1998) existed to aid in governance at the college.
One result of the distrust is a sign of some faculty apathy, consistent with
Minor’s (2004) finding that “[c]ynicism based on past transgressions of an
administration can infose distrust, causing faculty to withdraw or feel apathetic”
(p. 135). This relative apathy contrasts with resistance to President Menchine
several years earlier. Then the senate president communicated several times with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
entire faculty and the senate passed a resolution—read to the Board of Trustees—
calling for the president to return to the tenets of shared governance.
Comparison o f Trust at Bitterroot
College and Clear Lake College
Trust would seem to be inextricably bound to social cohesion. That is, if a
person trusts another, he or she is more likely to move from purely professional
interactions to more social ones; conversely, if a person distrusts another, he or she is
unlikely to seek the other’s company unless obligated to do so. Overlaid on these
interpersonal relations is the sense of history and social roles on the campus. Since
this study was a snapshot taken in spring, 2003 of trusting relationships at Clear Lake
and mostly distrusting ones at Bitterroot, I could not discern first-hand exactly how
the trust or distrust became so firmly rooted. (For the reasons advanced above, I
relied mostly upon documents and interviews.) Nonetheless, the leader seems to be
most directly responsible, for reasons advanced in the previous section.
Braithwaite (1998) asks a fundamental question: is the social trust found
among individuals in governance the result or cause of good governance? This study
offered a tentative and preliminary response: at Clear Lake College, trust appears to
have come first—through incremental actions of the president. The experience at
Bitterroot College also suggested the importance of the individual and of trust being
fundamental. There President Menchine quickly sowed turmoil and distrust, and the
campus’s positive opinion of governance quickly changed (Table 12).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
Table 12. Analysis o f Trust
College
Depth of
relationships
Decision
making
President’s
role Time frame
Communal/
exchange
Clear Lake
College
Close
relationships
among
governance
leaders promote
“thick trust”
Trust allows
for quick
decision
making when
warranted
President
plays major
role in
creating
trusting
climate
Trust on
campus
comes from
incremental
actions
o f president
over
years
Communal
trust
predominates
but exchange
trust exists
Bitterroot
College
Longevity among
faculty leaders;
close relationships
uncommon
Distrust
discourages
president
from shared
governance
President
plays major
role in
creating
distrusting
climate
Distrust
created
over months
Neither
communal
nor exchange
trust exists in
large measure
Both Sites-
Implications
for Effective
Governance
“thick trust” aids
communication,
governance
Trust
encourages
use o f shared
governance
President
plays major
role in
climate of
trust or
distrust
Distrust can
come
quickly; trust
takes time
Exchange
trust need not
necessarily
undercut
communal
trust
Overall, a comparison of trust at Clear Lake College and Bitterroot College
suggests several observations related to effective governance: (a) trust appears to be
related to an organization characterized by close relationships; (b) trust promotes
both effective and - if necessary—quick decision-making; (c) because trust in
governance is interpersonal as well as social and historical, trust takes time to
achieve; (d) communal trust (although predominant) can blend with exchange trust.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH
1. The research questions for the study were:
2. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
that has been classified as being effectively governed?
3. What are the salient aspects o f the governance culture o f a college
classified as being ineffectively governed?
4. What do the differences between these salient aspects suggest about
promoting effective governance?
After providing a review of the literature in chapter 2 establishing a rationale
for taking a cultural approach, I explained the choice of methodology in chapter 3,
setting forth how I would conduct two case studies—one at a college classified as
effectively governed, the other, ineffectively governed. Chapter 4 advanced the
findings organized by college and by five cultural concepts (four of the six concepts
advanced by Tierney (1988a) plus one additional concept, trust). Chapter 5 provided
an analysis of the findings, supported by data.
Because of the exploratory nature of the study, the findings presented in
Chapter Five were somewhat diffuse. In this chapter, I distill the key ideas that
emerged in the analysis. The chapter concludes with sections on the study’s
limitations, implications for the practice of governance and suggestions for future
research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
Analysis o f the Findings on Educational Culture
The study found little that could be categorized under two of Tierney’s
(1988a) proposed cultural concepts—environment and mission; therefore those
concepts were not discussed in chapter 4 and will not be discussed here. This section
distills the analysis presented in chapter 5 according to the key concepts of
educational culture (socialization, strategy, information, leadership and trust). For
each concept, a table provides a summary.
Differences in Socialization
At Clear Lake College, governance rested on socialization that was wide
enough to include retirees and numerous social gatherings and deep enough to
promote a strong, informal network of communication. Faculty leaders and
administrators showed their commitment to the college through their long tenure and
the common identification with the Clear Lake Way. Widespread use of acronyms,
informality of address, the pleasant setting of governance meetings—all socialized
Clear Lake faculty leaders and administrators to the concept that governance—and
the college— had an identity and was special.
At Bitterroot, longevity of service did not yield evidence of strong social
network outside day-to-day college work nor of strong social bonds. Further, the
relatively short tenure of key senior administrators meant that administrators had
only a short track record upon which to rely in an urgent situation or one calling for
change. Furthermore, senior administrators—especially the president—pursued
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
223
change, without fully establishing the rationale for it. Thus, their core values were
viewed as being at odds with faculty leaders’ and some deans’ (Table 13).
Table 13. Differences in Socialization
Clear Lake College Bitterroot College
1. Longevity of faculty leaders and 1 . Short tenure of administrators implies
administrators implies commitment to the lack of commitment to the college—
college conflicts with long-term faculty leaders
2. Longevity extends to retired faculty/staff and 2. Longevity o f faculty does not correlate
off-campus gatherings with extensive references to retirees or
off-campus gatherings
3. Harmony suggests consistent core values— 3. Conflict reflects differing underlying
sense of stability, identity (acronyms, Clear values
Lake Way, humor)
Differences in Strategy
Clear Lake College’s approach to strategy receives widespread support for
the decisions that ultimately emerge, whether these decisions results from relatively
short or long-term deliberations. Leaders—chiefly the president and vice president
of instruction—make a case for the urgency of a particular action. In significant
measure because of these leaders’ long-standing tenure in the college community and
their trusted status, other participants in governance generally accept that the college
must act in the situation under consideration. Throughout the deliberative process,
college leaders communicate by speaking to the assembled college community and
using other open forums, websites, and e-mails. The result is that uncertainty is
diminished. The Planning Council (or possibly an ad hoc committee) has true
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224
authority to shape the final decision, even though formal authority remains with the
president (or has been delegated to the vice president).
In contrast, divisions between the faculty and senior administration make the
strategy at Bitterroot College especially contentious and its results unsatisfying to
both administration and faculty leaders. At times, differing core values and—more
importantly—distrust across faculty and administration lines make strategy difficult.
Senior administrators lacked long-standing tenure and trust; thus, efforts to convince
faculty leaders of the urgency of a situation often faced skepticism that could not be
overcome. Instead of communicating to reduce uncertainty and resistance to a plan,
senior administrators acted unilaterally or secretly. When matters came to Planning
Council, the perception was that the decision had already been made—or, in the
words of one faculty leader—that “shared governance is dead.” Consequently,
participants felt dispirited and unmotivated to exchange ideas in hopes of
determining the best final decision (Table 14).
Differences in Information
Because the three key leaders at Clear Lake College had long-standing,
trusting relationships, conversation flourished, underscoring the importance of
informal information-exchanges to promote effective governance. Further, the
college relied on formal means of communication, too— open meetings, distribution
of minutes of senate and other governance meetings, broadcast emails, the campus
newspaper, forums. Governance leaders clearly understood symbols that
underscored a commitment to governance (Table 15).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225
Table 14. Differences in Strategy
Clear Lake College Bitterroot College
1. A process characterized by the values shared
by the campus and reaffirmed by the
president
2. Trust among governance leaders
3. Clear communication diminished uncertainty
4. General agreement for need to act
5. Open, representative Planning Council
deliberates to determine course o f action
6. Ability to use ad hoc structures (ROSE)
7. Both short term and long term strategic
efforts result in widespread support among
governance leaders
8. Strategy led by administrators with long
standing on campus
1. A process characterized by conflicting
values— faculty/administration
2. Distrust among governance leaders
3. Senior administrators initially restricted
communication causing rumors and
uncertainty
4. Skepticism over need to act
5. Open, representative Planning Council
deliberates largely after matters seemed
settled
6. No use o f ad hoc structures
7. Both short term and long term strategic
efforts result in dissension among
governance leaders
8. Strategy led by senior administrators each
with fewer than four years on the campus
In contrast, Bitterroot College was inconsistent in distributing information.
Minutes for meetings were not consistently posted and many links were obsolete.
Other postings had not been updated for years. The president did not regularly
communicate with the faculty generally, and did not meet regularly with faculty
leaders, with the exception of the senate president. Consequently, informal
communication channels were virtually nonexistence across faculty and senior
administration lines. Symbols were open to interpretation, underscoring uncertainty.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
Table 15. Differences in Information
Clear Lake College
1. Many informal conversations stemming from
long-term, trusting relationships across
faculty and administration lines
2). Communication based upon commonly
understood symbols
3. No pattern of negative metaphors
4. Frequent use of emails, posting of senate
minutes and other governance documents
5. History of some criticism o f communication
not being open
Bitterroot College
1. Few informal conversations
2. Ambiguous symbols created
miscommunication, doubt and distrust
3. Metaphors of frustration reflected the
mood on campus and the attitude of a
campus toward its governance
4. Inconsistent email, posting of minutes
5. History of criticism o f communication not
being open, but also periods of plentiful
communication highlighting dissension in
governance
As a result, leaders in governance developed a pattern of language to express
their frustration and futility.
Differences in Leadership
At Clear Lake College, the president and vice president of instruction have
widespread respect and support, which enables them to make meaning of events for
the campus generally and for governance. The two leaders and the senate president
are considered as trustworthy by other participants in governance and contribute to a
climate of trust. Campus leaders cite the president as the one most responsible for
creating trust. Through incremental actions over several years, the president proved
himself trustworthy. Further, he devoted efforts to off-campus and widely popular
actions, delegating some more controversial matters to others. The vice president of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227
instruction was more strategic—or manipulative—in her leadership; nonetheless, she
had a deep reservoir of service to the college to draw upon, and she remained
popular and supported, which enabled her to make decisions that were not
necessarily based on consensus. Sagas of each the three leaders suggested that the
campus celebrated their contributions to college governance.
In contrast, the past two presidents at Bitterroot College served for short
terms, sought to promote change over the active resistance of faculty leaders, and
created a climate of distrust. To act in response to what they perceived as urgent
situations, senior administrators advanced their thinking; however, faculty leaders
made meaning quite differently. Senior administrators had few widely supported
accomplishments; the president delegated responsibility for carrying out his
decisions, but not the ability to make the decisions. Further, not all vice presidents
supported the president’s actions. As noted earlier, the root of problems in
leadership was the previous president, who early in her tenure harshly had criticized
faculty publicly and created a climate of distrust, which prevailed through the next
president’s tenure. Sagas reflected the conflict, although some sagas focused on
smaller successes in governance and accomplishments from the previous decade
(Table 16).
Differences in Trust
The trustworthiness of governance leaders at Clear Lake College and the
willingness to trust across faculty and administration lines emerged as especially
important in the quick time-table for addressing the state budget crisis of spring,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228
Table 16. Differences in Leadership
Clear Lake College
1. The president benefited from delegating
authority for controversial internal matters
2. The president benefited from focusing on
issues that unify the campus
3. Long-time service to the college benefited
senior management
4. Trusted senior administrators made meaning
for the college in urgent situations
5. Effective leaders’ actions created sagas for
the campus, which celebrated successes and
established expectations for future actions
Bitterroot College
1. The previous and current president
themselves promoted controversial change,
suffering a backlash from faculty and some
deans
2. The president was not identified with any
issue that unified the campus
3. Key senior administrators had short
tenures, exacerbating tensions with long
time faculty leaders
4. Senior administrators’ efforts to make
meaning resulted in conflicting meanings,
no consensus for action in urgent situations
5. Attempts to find saga o f effective
governance led to smaller scale matters of
governance; prevalent sagas enforced
tension and distrust
2003. Although trust was promoted by and reflected in the Clear Lake Way,
acronyms, shared humor and sagas of successful leadership, the actions of the
college president were broadly credited with promoting a climate of trust on the
campus. The president maintained—and faculty leaders confirmed—that trust was
the result of a series of incremental actions over years. Also, the president’s success
in fundraising for the college suggested that the resulting expressive trust need not
undermine the communal trust of the campus (Bimbaum 2004; Braithwaite 1998).
Thus, Clear Lake may be viewed as a model of ways to create trust, even “thick
trust” (Williams, 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
In contrast, Bitterroot College may be viewed as a model to create distrust.
Upending a trustful, harmonious climate for governance, a new president several
years ago created distrust in a few weeks by a direct attack on the campus values—
calling faculty of one division “racist” and “elitist.” In addition she sought to shift
authority for decision-making away from shared governance policies that gave a
good deal of authority to faculty (e.g., hiring policies for full-time faculty). The
Board of Trustees complicated the matter when appointing a faculty leader as interim
president; the new president returned to the previous efforts to change policies of
shared governance. As discussed in the socialization section, the underlying values
differed greatly between senior administration and faculty leaders, thereby
exacerbating the distrust. With distrust prevalent, administrators and faculty leaders
labored to a unsatisfying decision on reorganization, and the president by-passed
shared governance as much as possible (Table 17).
Limitations o f the Study
Although chapter 3 outlined the ways in which this study strived to insure
trustworthy findings, there are limitations, as with any scholarly work. The study did
not seek to examine to any great extent the interplay of trustees, students, staff
members and community members in college governance. Furthermore, the study
relied upon formal agents of governance—the college president, vice presidents,
academic senate presidents, the academic senate, etc. Since those individuals
represented only a small percentage of the campus community at the two sites, the
study may overstate the importance of those individuals and understate other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
Table 17. Differences in Trust
Clear Lake College
1. Trust deeply rooted in interpersonal, social
and historical aspects
2. President created trust incrementally over
time; faculty leaders and administrators were
trustworthy and trusting
3. Thick trust between and among
administrators and faculty
5. Trust promoted both widely supported and-if
necessary— quick decision-making
Bitterroot College
1. Historical, social and interpersonal aspects
of relationships among governance leaders
made trust hard to establish
2. Previous president eroded trust quickly;
faculty leaders and administrators did not
establish their trustworthiness and did not
trust each other
3. No thick trust across faculty/senior
administrator lines; trust among faculty
mixed
5. Lack of trust led to decisions by fiat that
are quick but not widely accepted
informal, socializing agents, which in turn may have subtle (yet possibly significant)
effects on governance. Further, the study did not seek to determine whether leaders
largely shared values and views of campus members as a whole. While the study
addressed historical events at each site, the focus was on recent events.
Consequently, the study was limited in its analysis of the way key historical events
shaped each college’s culture. A longitudinal study could better address such issues.
The backdrop of the state’s deepening fiscal problems may have skewed
responses, both in interviews and meetings. Another unusual event occurred at
Bitterroot College, with the president’s sudden retirement and the appointment of
an interim president who served only a couple months. Since several interviews
occurred after the president’s departure, responses probably reflect a perspective that
differs from that of other interviewees conducted before his departure. A further
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
limitation may be that governance issues particular to California community colleges
may not resonate with those concerned with governance in institutions that are
significantly different (in size, type, mission, geographical location, and so on).
Another limitation may be my position as a faculty member and leader at a
community college. Despite my best efforts to triangulate data and to base analysis
on the data, I was the one presenting the analysis, and my long experience is that of a
faculty member. In certain circumstances, a veteran administrator may have
emphasized factors that I did not.
A final limitation may be the study’s approach to sites of “effective” and
“ineffective” governance. The study did not seek to define those terms, but relied
instead upon the assessment of informants who had a broad perspective of colleges,
based upon the informants’ work at state-level organizations. Despite evidence
presented here that supports those informants’ assessments, the study did not seek to
measure either college’s effectiveness.
Implications fo r the Practice o f Governance
This study organized data according to five cultural concepts to better
examine aspects of culture and its role in governance. Of course, there was a good
detail of inter-relatedness among the concepts, and participants in college or
university governance usually would consider issues holistically. Thus, based upon
the findings of these case studies, I offer several implications for governance,
implications that cut across the concepts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232
Reevaluate Criteria and Process for
Selecting a College President
In each case study, a president transformed his or college’s culture—for the
better at Clear Lake College, for the worse at Bitterroot College. Although this study
did not examine presidential selection, its aftereffects were striking. At Bitterroot,
trustees sent conflicting messages about what they expected in presidential
leadership. Their actions suggested that they saw college values quite differently
from the way that faculty saw them. Consequently, when the new president was
empowered to develop programs based upon those values, she ran into resistance and
quickly created distrust which continued to the time of the study.
If the story at Bitterroot can be taken as a cautionary tale, trustees should
consider a college’s culture and organizational goals more fully, ideally at an initial
stage in any presidential search. I am not advocating pursuit of the status quo; rather,
at such an obvious turning point in a college’s history, trustees, faculty leaders,
administrators and other stakeholders should articulate their sense of the college’s
current and proposed mission and identity. Ideally, campus leaders would reach
consensus on key aspects, which in turn, would suggest attributes for an incoming
president. Sending a team to interview a prospective president’s current colleagues
would insure that he or she is not merely writing an effective resume or giving the
right answer in an interview. Giving a president an unpublicized mandate for
change—especially if that change causes strong opposition—undermines trust, and,
in turn, day-to-day governance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
Insure that Most Senior Administrators Have
Significant Tenure at the College
At Clear Lake College, senior administrators had considerable history at the
college, which reaffirmed their commitment and helped create trust. At Bitterroot,
the president and key vice presidents did not have such a reservoir to draw upon.
Colleges should consider ways of cultivating leadership from within—developing
faculty and deans so that they are prepared to serve as senior administrators—or
providing incentives for incoming senior administrators to stay in the hopes of
proving trustworthy and building trusting relationships.
Create a Stronger Social Network
Clear Lake College relied on conversations and informal channels to conduct
a good deal of its formal governance. Bitterroot College did not have the positive
one-to-one relationships and social experiences that could forge friendships and
partnerships that, in turn, might allow participants to set aside personal differences
and solve problems. College governance, then, would seem to benefit from creating
and nurturing social contacts consistent with the college’s culture. These contacts
could come about through activities as varied as fundraisers for scholarships,
cocktail parties, and weekend work for Habitat for Humanity.
To Promote Change, Take Time and
Use Plentiful, Varied Communication
At Clear Lake College, the vice president of instruction took 18 months, held
numerous forums, sent over 20 e-mails to reorganize academic departments. She
used her standing on the campus and consistently shepherded the process along.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
Despite the closed nature of the first meetings, the many collective hours, and
dissension of some professors, the strategy was effective because it gained enough
acceptance to be locked into place, and the college could go on to face other matters.
In contrast, reorganization on a smaller scale at Bitterroot may have happened
quicker, but faculty leaders and some deans did not accept it, and the matter will
reopened. Thus, for large changes that are not especially time sensitive, Clear Lake
College’s actions for the reorganization provide a good model. Further such slowly
developed changes may lay the foundation for quick decisions when the college is
facing an emergency.
Recommendations for Future Study
Because of the dearth of empirical studies using the cultural model to explore
governance, the findings of this study are preliminary. Thus, the data suggest many
courses for future study. Within the cultural concepts are several promising areas for
research.
Socialization
This study found that longevity of service and strong identification with the
college promoted effective governance; however, longevity of service did not
necessarily insure effective governance. How can colleges best reap the benefits of
such longevity? Further, what factors promote strong identification with a college?
Strategy
If Swenk (1999) is correct (as findings at Bitterroot College suggested)—that
administrators seek quick action while faculty seek collegiality—the field would
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
benefit from research into ways of overcoming the differing perspectives or using the
perspectives to plan effectively.
Information
Although interviewees (especially at Bitterroot College) decried what they
saw as poor communication on their campus, no one defined what that meant,
making it seem a convenient scapegoat. (“If only communication were better. . . ”)
The field would benefit from further study of the efficacy of various strategies of
communication (broadcast and individual e-mails; website postings; faculty and staff
handbooks; informal channels, including off-campus socializing; formal channels,
including oral communication at meetings and minutes of meetings). Further, a
study of the timing of information-sharing in planning would be helpful, especially
in predictable events such as budgeting.
Leadership
This study suggested that an effective leader can create positive change and
that leadership is the most important of the cultural concepts in promoting effective
governance. The study’s findings are potentially at odds with the AGB’s call for
leadership that is “nimble and alert” (1996). If that call is interpreted to be a call for
change, then it is especially important to study how change can be achieved
consistent with a college’s culture. Trust is a central issue in doing this. The single
most important thing a college can do to promote effective governance is to hire a
president who empowers staff and faculty and in the process proves himself or
herself trustworthy. The field could benefit from case studies of successful
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
236
presidents who create trust, in the process both reflecting and shaping a college’s
culture.
Trust
The study suggested that effective governance relies upon leaders— especially
the president— establishing trust. Since presidents serve an average of only 5 years,
research into new presidents or candidates for a college’s presidency could be
especially important. Research into the applicability of “swift trust” (Meyerson et al.,
1996) as examined in temporary groups might prove helpful for colleges. Further, if
exchange trust is forward-looking and designed to maximize resources and benefit
those in an organization (Braithwaite, 1998), it would seem well-suited to quicker
decision-making. However, is Bimbaum’s concern justified, that shifting an
emphasis to exchange trust could undermine backward-looking communal trust
(Bimbaum, 2004; Braithwaite, 1998)? The field would benefit from research into
Bimbaum’s argument. Further, how do prospective presidents define and act upon
personal concepts of trust, within a particular social framework? An aspiring
president brings with him or her concepts of trust, but those concepts emerge—not in
the abstract—but within a particular culture, characterized by a history, particular
leaders—and various aspects (aspects that may be categorized by Tierney’s concepts
of culture). Can research suggest when a candidate for a college’s presidency holds
differing concepts of trust from that of other college leaders?
Once a president has served for a time, what might improve trust? This study
suggested that the president’s incremental actions over time help to establish it, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
237
that long-time leaders with credibility to their constituents also help create conditions
for effective governance. Research into other colleges—especially ones with
shorter-tenured faculty—could reveal other strategies to promote trust. In the
reverse situation, what actions can trustees, administrators and faculty take to
respond to a culture of distrust? This study suggested that once trust has been
ruptured, it is not repaired until the president and other key leaders leave their
positions. If those leaders remain in place, can colleges effectively govern in a
campus Cold War and establish some sort of mutual verifiability? Or if distrust is as
corrosive as this study suggested, what actions can faculty, administrators, and
trustees take to address the matter before the college’s governance severely harms
the college’s ability to carry out its mission? (A starting point might be Lewicki and
Bunker (1996), who propose a model for overcoming distrust, a model that has
personal and interpersonal dimensions.)
Finally, the practice of governance would benefit from knowing which comes
first—a climate characterized by trust or effective governance. And if trust comes
first—as this study tentatively suggested—then what steps are vital to begin to create
it?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
239
REFERENCES
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2002). Empowering local
senates. Sacramento. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from
http://www. academicsenate. cc. ca. us/LocalSenates/Hb. htm
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and the Community College
League of California. (1998). Participating effectively in district and college
governance. Sacramento, CA.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1996). Renewing
the Academic Presidency. Washington, D.C. (Report of the Commission on
the Academic Presidency).
Adams, G. B., & Ingersoll, V. H. (1985). The difficulty of framing a perspective on
organizational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C.
Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 323-234). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Alfred, R. L. (1998). Redesigning Community Colleges to Compete for the Future.
Community College Journal o f Research and Practice, 22(4), 315-333.
Allison, G. (1984). Public and private administrative leadership: Are they
fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In T. J. Sergiovanni, & J. E.
Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture (pp. 214-239).
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence o f decision: Explaining the Cuban
missile crisis. (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Almanac. (2003, August 29). Almanac issue 2003-2004. The Chronicle o f Higher
Education, L (1).
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage
Publications.
Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Perez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From
method to context. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f
qualitative research (pp. 673-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Association of Governing Boards (AGB). (1994). Renewing the academic
presidency: Stronger leadership for tougher times. Washington, D.C.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
240
Association of American University Professors, American Council on Education and
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1967).
Statement on government of colleges and universities. In M. W. Peterson
(Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education. An ASHE Reader
(pp. 157-63). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Austin, J. (1975). How to do things with words. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Baldridge, J. V, Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P. & Riley, G. L. (1991). Alternative
models of governance in higher education. In M. W. Peterson (Ed.),
Organization and governance in higher education: An ASHE reader (pp. 30-
45). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Benjamin, R., Carroll, S., Jacobi, M., Krop, C., & Shires, M. (1999). The redesign
o f governance in higher education: Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper Business.
Bensimon, E. M. (1989). The meaning o f ‘good presidential leadership’: A frame
analysis. The Review o f Higher Education, 12(2), 107-123.
Bensimon, E. M. (1990a). The new president and understanding the campus as a
culture. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures
(pp. 75-87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bensimon, E. M. (1990b). Viewing the presidency: Perceptual congruence between
presidents and leaders on their campuses. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 71-90.
Bensimon, E. M. (1991). The social processes through which faculty shape the
image of a new president. Journal o f Higher Education, 62(6), 639-660.
Bensimon, E. M. (1991). A feminist reinterpretation of presidents’ definitions of
leadership. Peabody Journal o f Education, 66(3), 143-56.
Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bimbaum, R. (1988a). How colleges work: The cybernetics o f academic
organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
241
Bimbaum, R. (1988b). Presidential searches and the discovery of organizational
goals. Journal o f Higher Education, 59(5), 489-509.
Bimbaum, R. (1991). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate:
Why senates do not work but will not go away. In R. Bimbaum (Ed.),
Faculty in governance: The role o f senates and joint committees in academic
decision making (pp. 7-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bimbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking
back. In Tiemey, W. G. and V. M. Lechuga (eds.), Restructuring shared
governance in higher education: New directions for higher education, no.
127 (pp. 5-22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blau, P. M. (1973). The organization o f academic work New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice
and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New
York: Harper and Row.
Braithwaite, V. (1998). Communal and exchange trust norms: Their value base and
relevance to institutional trust. In V. Braithwaite, & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust
and governance (pp. 46-74). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Brinkman, P. T., & Morgan, A. W. (1997). Planning and management for a
changing environment. In M. W. Peterson (Ed.) Improving academic
management (pp. 288-306). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1996). Trust and third-party gossip. In R. M. Kramer, &
T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers o f theory and research
(pp. 68-89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brinkman, P. T., & Morgan, A. W. (1997). Changing fiscal strategies for planning.
In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and
management for a changing economy (pp. 288-306). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Calas, M.B., & L. Smircich. (1988). Reading leadership as a form of cultural
analysis. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachier, & C. A. Schilesheim,
Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 201-226). Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
242
California Commission on Higher Education. (1999). Toward a state o f learning:
California higher education for the twenty-first century. Los Angeles, CA:
Center for Governmental Studies.
California Community College Chancellor’s Office (2005). Retrieved February 1,
2005, from http://www.cccco.edu/
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). Governance o f higher
education. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1982). The control o f the
campus: A report o f the governance o f higher education. Washington, D.C.:
Carnegie Foundation.
Casper, G. (1993). Restructuring the school o f humanities and sciences.
[Memorandum]. Standford, CA: Stanford University.
Chaffee, E. E. (1983). Rational decision-making in higher education. Boulder, CO:
National Center for Higher Education Management Series.
Chaffee, E. E., & Tierney, W. G. (1988). Collegiate culture and leadership
strategies. New York: American Council on Education/MacMillan
Publishing Company.
Chaffee, E. E. (1998). Listening to the people we serve. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.),
The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance (pp. 13-38).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Chell, E. (1998). Critical incident technique. In G. Symon, & C. Cassell (Eds.),
Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research: A practical
guide (pp. 51-72). London, England: Sage Publications.
Christians, C. C. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (pp. 133-
155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Clark, B. R. (1972). The prganizational saga in higher education. In M. W.
Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education: An ASHE
Reader (pp. 46-52). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Cleveland, H. (1982). The leadership of followers, and vice versa. Journal o f
General Education, 34(3), 181-88.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
243
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1971). Leadership in an organized anarchy. In M.
W. Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education: An
ASHE Reader (pp. 399-420). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity. (2n d ed.). Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1994). Managing community colleges: A
handbookfor effective practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American Community College. (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations o f social theory. Cambridge, MS: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Community College League of California (2005). Budget reports. Retrieved
February 1, 2005, from http://www.ccleague.org/leginfo/budget.asp
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cufaude, J. (1999). Creating organizational trust. Association Management, 1(7),
26-34.
Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI):
Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
organizations: Frontiers o f theory and research (pp. 302-330). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cufaude, J. (1999). Creating organizational trust. Association Management, 1(7),
26-34.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative
research (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dougherty, K. J. (1991). The community college at the crossroads: The need for
structural reform. Harvard Education Review, 61, 311-336.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
244
Dougherty, K. J. (2002). The evolving role of the community college: Policy issues
and research questions. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook o f
theory and research (Vol. XVII, pp. 295-348). New York: Agathon Press.
Duryea, E. D. (1973). Evolution of university organization. In J. A. Perkins (Ed.),
The university as an organization (pp. 15-37). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in
higher education. Westport, CN: American Council on Education/Praeger.
Etzioni, A. (1964). Administrative and Professional Authority. In A. Etzioni (Ed.),
Modern organizations (pp. 75-84). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Evelyn, J. (2002a, September 6). Diminished power: Faculty members lose
department chairmanships at some community colleges. The Chronicle for
Higher Education, pp. A20-A21.
Evelyn, J. (2002b, December 6). A political tightrope in California. The Chronicle
o f Higher Education, p. A22.
Evelyn, J., & Bartlett, T. (2002, May 24). Low confidence candidate. The
Chronicle o f Higher Education, p. A10.
Flanigan, P. K. (1994). California Community Colleges Faculty Role in Shared
Governance. (ERIC Document No. 373 816)
Floyd, C. E. (1985). Faculty participation in decision making: Necessity or luxury?
Washington, D.C.: ASHE.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to
negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f
qualitative research (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In J. M. Shafritz, &
J. S. Ott (Eds.), Classics o f organization theory (pp. 375-384). Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and
breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213-39). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Gerber, L. G. (1997, September-October). Reaffirming the value of shared
governance. Academe, 14-18.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
245
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation o f cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and
Transformations. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f
Qualitative Research (pp. 207-226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Gilmour, J. E. J. (1991). Your faculty senate: More effective than you think?
Academe, 77(5), 16-19.
Gilmour, J. E. J. (1991). Participative governance bodies in higher education:
Report of a National Study. In R. Bimbaum (Ed.), Faculty in governance:
The role o f senates andjoint committees in academic decision making
(pp. 27-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Good, D. (1988). Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust. In D. Gambetta
(Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 31-49). New
York: Basil Blackwell.
Gottlieb, J. (2003, December 6). Faculty forces college trustee election. Los
Angeles Times, B6.
Griffith, S. B. (1971). Sun Tzu: The art o f war. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gumport, P. J. (1997). Public universities as academic workplaces. Daedulus,
126(4), 113-136.
Gumport, P. J. (2001). Divided we govern? Peer Review, 3 (3), pp. 1-5. Retrieved
February 1, 2005, from www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-spOl/pr-
spOlfeaturel. cfm
Gumport, P. J., & Pusser, B. (1997). Restructuring the academic environment. In
M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), Planning and management
for a changing environment (pp. 453-478). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography. Principles in practice.
London, England: Tavistock Publications.
Hardin, R. (1993). Trusting persons: Trusting institutions. In R. J. Zeckhauser
(Ed.), Strategy and choice (pp. 185-209). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
246
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Hawthorn, G. (1988). Three Ironies in trust. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making
and Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 94-107). New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Heppner, F. (1991, May). Why Robert Bums was right about best-laid plans or
what's wrong with the curriculum the way it is? Change, 43-48.
Hernandez, J. (2000). Dancing on a moving rug: Reflections on designing a
partnership for community college leadership. [Report.] Community College
Leadership Development Initiative/Claremont Graduate University.
Holton, G. (2003, April 25). An insider’s view of ‘a nation at risk,’ and why it still
matters. The Chronicle o f Higher Education, p. B 13.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation: A
collection o f principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning,
design, and evaluations o f studies in education and the behavioral sciences.
(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: EDITS Publishers.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, M. O. (1996). Studying organizational symbolism. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Jones, D., Ewell, P., & McGuinness, A. (1998). The challenges and opportunities
facing higher education: An agenda for policy research. [Report.] The
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Julius, D. J., Baldridge, J. V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. The
Journal o f Higher Education, 70(2), 113-33.
Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. In J. M. Shafritz, & J.
S. Ott (Eds.), Classics o f organization theory (pp. 400-411). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Kanter, M., & Viar, D. (1994, June). A framework for change. A report prepared
for the Community College League Commission on the Future. Sacramento,
CA. (ERIC Document No. 396 605)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
247
Kaplan, G. E. (2004). Do governance structures matter? In Tierney, W. G., & V.
M. Lechuga (Eds.), Restructuring shared governance in higher education:
New directions for higher education, no. 127 (pp. 23-34). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keller, G. (Ed.). (1983). Shaping an academic strategy. Academic strategy: The
management revolution in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Keller, G. (2001). Governance: The remarkable ambiguity. In P. G. Altbach, P.
Gumport, & B. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense o f higher education (pp. 304-
322). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K.
Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (2n d ed.),
pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kerr, C. (1963). The uses o f the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Kerr, C., & Gade, M. L. (1986). The many lives o f academic presidents: Time,
place and character. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges.
Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships,
trust, and leadership, or structures and formal processes? In Tiemey, W. G.,
& V. M. Lechuga (Eds.), Restructuring shared governance in higher
education: New directions for higher education, no. 127 (pp. 47-59). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2004). Meeting Today's Governance Challenges: A
Synthesis of the Literature and Examination of a Future Research Agenda.
Journal o f Higher Education, 75(4), 371-99
Kolodny, A. (1998). Failing the future: A dean looks at higher education in the
twenty-first century. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Korschgen, A., Fuller, R., & Gardner J. (2001, February). The impact of
presidential migration: Raising questions about presidential tenure in higher
education. AAHE Bulletin.com. Retrieved August 10,2004, from
www. aahebulletin. com/public/archive/migration. asp?pf= 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
248
Kotter, J. P. (1995, March-April). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail.
Harvard Business Review, 59-67.
Kramer, R. M. (1996). Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the
hierarchic relation. In R. M. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
organizations: Frontiers o f theory and Research (pp. 216-245). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kramer, R. M, Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and
collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M. Kramer,
& T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers o f theory and research
(pp. 357-389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kuss, H. J. (2000, Spring). The dean and the president. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 109, 27-32.
Ledford, G. E. (1993). Employee involvement: Lessons and predictions. In J. R.
Galbraith, & E. E. Lawler III (Eds.), Organizing for the future: The new
logic o f managing complex organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, B. A. (1991). Campus leaders and campus senates. In R. Bimbaum (Ed.),
Faculty governance: The role o f senates and joint committees in academic
decision making (pp. 41-63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leslie, D. (2003, June). Governance or governing? Paper presented at the
University of Southern California’s Governance Roundtable 2003, June 12-
14,2003, Sante Fe, New Mexico.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In R. M. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:
Frontiers o f theory and research (pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Lingenfelter, P. E. (2004). The state and higher education: An essential
partnership. In Tiemey, W. G., & V. M. Lechuga (Eds.), Restructuring
shared governance in higher education: New directions for higher
education, no. 127 (pp. 47-59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
249
Lovas, J. C. (1994, July 17-20). Shared governance: The next generation. Paper
presented at Leadership 2000, the annual International Congress of the
League of Innovation in the Community Colleges and the Community
College Leadership Program (6th ), San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document No.
375873)
Lueddeke, G. R. (1999). Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and
innovation in higher education. The Journal o f Higher Education, 70(3),
235-60.
Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In
D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations,
pp. 94-107. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Lundberg, C. C. (1985). On the feasibility of cultural intervention in organizations.
In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),
Organizational culture (pp. 169-185). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
March, J. G., & Simon, J. A. (1959). Organizations. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
March, J. G. (1984). How we talk and how we act: Administrative theory and
administrative life. In T. J. Sergiovanni, & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership
and organizational culture (pp. 18-35). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton.
Marcus, L. R. (1999). The micropolitics of planning. The Review o f Higher
Education, 25(1), 45-64.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York:
Oxford University Press
McFarlin, C. H., Crittenden, B. J., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). Background factors
common among outstanding community college presidents. Community
College Review, 27(3), 19-32.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
250
McGregor, D. M. (1957, November). The human side of enterprise: Management
review. In J. M. Shafritz, & J. S. Ott (eds.), Classics o f organization theory
(pp. 400-411). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Menegas, I. (1990). AB 1725 Implementation questionnaire: Final report for the
academic senate o f California community colleges. Retrieved February 1,
2005, from http://www.academicsenate.cc. ca. us/Publications/
Papers/ABl 725Implementation, htm
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary
groups. In R. M. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:
Frontiers o f theory and research (pp. 166-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Minor, J. T. (2004, Summer). Four challenges facing faculty senates. The NEA
Education Journal, 125-139.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The professional bureaucracy. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1987a). The strategy concept I: Five p's for strategy. California
Management Review, 30(1), 11-24.
Mintzberg, H. (1987b). The strategy concept II: Five p's for strategy. California
Management Review, 30(1), 25-32.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall o f strategic planning: Reconceiving roles
for planning, plans and planners. New York: The Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1994, January-February). The fall and rise of strategic planning.
Harvard Business Review, 107-14.
MiraCosta College. (1990). The relationships among the governing board, the
superintendent/president, and the academic senate in collegial governance
at MiraCosta college— and the mandate of AB 1725 (ERIC Document
No. 348082). Oceanside, CA: Mira Costa College.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In
R. M. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers o f theory
and research (pp. 261-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mitchell, M. B. (1987). The process of department leadership. The Review o f
Higher Education, 11(2), 161-176.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
251
Morgan, G. (1986). Images o f organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Nance, V. C. (1994). Exploration offaculty perceptions o f the role and
participation o f the faculty senate in the community college governance
process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California.
Neumann, A., & Bensimon, E. (1990). Constructing the presidency: College
presidents' images of their leadership roles: A comparative study. Journal o f
Higher Education, 61(6), 678-700.
Neumann, A. (1991). The thinking team: Toward a cognitive model of
administrative teamwork in higher education. Journal o f Higher Education,
62(5), 485-513.
Nord, W. R. (1985). Can organizational change be managed? A synthesis. In P. J.
Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),
Organizational culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Nussbaum, T. J. (1995). Evolving community college shared governance to better
serve public interest (ERIC Document No. 397 922). Sacramento, CA:
California Community Colleges.
Peace, W. H. (2001, December). The hard work of being a soft manager. Harvard
Business Review, 99-104.
Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic culture and
climate. In W. G. Tiemey (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures
(pp. 3-19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic climate and
culture. In W. G. Tiemey (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures
(pp. 3-19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Understanding the role of power in decision making. In J. M.
Shafritz, & J. S. Ott (Eds.), Classics o f organization theory (pp. 359-374).
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Boston, CA: Pitman.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
252
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations.
Boston, CA: Harvard Business School Press.
Piland, W. E., & Giles, R. (1998). The changing face of the California presidency.
Community College Review, 25(4), 35-43.
Pondy, L. (1978). Leadership as a language game. In M. W. McCall, & M. M.
Lombardo (Eds.), Leadership: Where else can we go? (pp. 87-99). Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Pope, M. L. A conceptual framework of faculty trust and participation in
governance. In Tiemey, W. G., & V. M. Lechuga (Eds.), Restructuring
shared governance in higher education: New directions for higher
education, No. 127 (pp. 75-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Potter, N. N. (2002). How can I be trusted? Oxford, CN: Rowman and Littlefield.
Powell, W. (1996). Trust-based forms of governance. In R. Kramer, & T. Tyler
(Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers o f theory and research (pp. 51-67).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pusser, B. (2002). Higher education: The emerging market and the public good. In
P. Graham, & N. Stacey (Eds.), The knowledge economy and postsecondary
education: A report o f the national research council committee on the
impact o f the changing economy on the education system. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1995, January). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital.
Journal o f Democracy, 6, 65-78.
Ramo, K. J. (1997, September/October). Reforming shared governance: Do the
arguments hold up? Academe, 38-43.
Ramo, K. (1998). Assessing the faculty's role in shared governance: Implication o f
AAUP standards. Washington, DC: Association of American University
Professors.
Rhodes, R. A., & Tiemey, W. G. (1990). Exploring organizational climates and
cultures. In W. G. Tiemey (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures
(pp. 87-97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rhodes, F. H. T. (1998, Spring). The art of the presidency. The Presidency, 12-18.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
253
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook o f qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-949).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1996, June). Culture: The missing concept in organizational studies.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 229-240.
Schuster, J. H. (1991). Policing governance. Academe, 779(5), 33-36.
Schuster, J. H., Smith, D. G., Corak, K. A., & Yamada, M. M. (1994). Strategic
governance: How to make big decisions better. Phoenix, AZ: American
Council on Education/Oryx.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Scott, J. V. (1997, November/December). Death by inattention: The strange fate of
faculty governance. Academe, 28-33.
Selingo, J. (2003, May 2). What Americans think about higher education. The
Chronicle o f Higher Education, pp. A10-17.
Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice o f the learning
organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Cultural and competing perspectives in administrative
theory and practice. In T. J. Sergiovanni, & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership
and organizational culture (pp. 1-13). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Shafritz J. M., & J. S. Ott (Eds.). (1996). Classics o f organization theory. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Publishers.
Schuster, J. H., Smith, D. G., Corak, K. A., & Yamada, M. M. (1994). Strategic
governance: How to make big decisions better. Phoenix, AZ: American
Council on Education/Oryz Press.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Smallwood, S. (2003, October 10). Union in: Governance out. The Chronicle o f
Higher Education, pp. A10-A11.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
254
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning.
The Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257-273.
Smircich, L. (1985). Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding
organizations and ourselves? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C.
Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 55-72). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (Eds.). (1987). Interpretative ethnography of
education: At home and abroad. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook o f qualitative research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishers.
Stake, R.., & Turnbull, D. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal o f
Philosophy and Social Science, 7 , 1-12.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics o f qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Swenk, J. (1999). Planning failures: Decision cultural clashes. The Review o f
Higher Education, 23(1), 1-21.
Tiemey, W. G. (1983). Governance by conversation: An essay on the structure,
function, and communication codes of a faculty senate. Human
Organization, 42(2), 172-178.
Tiemey, W. G. (1988a). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the
essentials. Journal o f Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.
Tiemey, W. G. (1988b). The web o f leadership: The presidency in higher
education. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press, Inc.
Tiemey, W. G. (1989). Symbolism and presidential perceptions of leadership. The
Review o f Higher Education, 12(2), 153-166.
Tiemey, W. G. (1991). Academic work and institutional culture: Constructing
knowledge. The Review o f Higher Education, 14(2), 199-216.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
255
Tiemey, W. G. (1997, January-February). Organizational socialization in higher
education. Journal o f Higher Education, 68, 1-16.
Tiemey, W. G. (1999). Building the responsive campus: Creating high
performance colleges and universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Tiemey, W. G. (2003a). Remembrance of things past: Trust and the obligations of
the intellectual. The Review o f Higher Education, 27(1), 1-15.
Tiemey, W. G. (2003b). Trust and academic governance: A Conceptual
Framework: Unpublished manuscript.
Tiemey, W. G. (2004). A cultural analysis of shared governance: The challenges
ahead. Higher Education: Handbook o f Theory and Research, 19, 85-131.
Tiemey, W.G., & Minor, J. (2003). Challenges for governance: A national report.
[Summary of findings.] Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis,
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). Fostering organizational citizenship in schools:
Transformational leadership and trust. In W.K. Hoy, & C.G. Miskel (Eds.),
Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 157-179). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Thwing, C. F. (1926,). The college president. New York: MacMillan Company.
University of Southern California. (1998/ Situation audit: Strategic plan.
Retrieved on August 10, 2004, from http://www. use. edu/aboout/
factbook/strategicpriorities/
Van Maanen, J. (1984). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of socialization.
In J. L. Bess (Ed.), College and university organization: Insights from the
behavioral sciences (pp. 211-245). New York: New York University Press.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a
theory. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin
(Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 31-53). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
256
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (vol. 1). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Webb, E. J. (1996). Trust and crisis. In R. M. Kramer ,& T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers o f theory and research (pp. 288-301). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In M.
W. Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 30-
45). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn.
Weick, K. E. (1985). The significance of corporate culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F.
Moore, M. R. Louis, C, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational
culture (pp. 381-389). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Whetten, D. A. (1984, November/December). Effective administrators: Good
Management on the College Campus. Change, 38-43.
White, K. B. (1998, Summer). Shared governance in California. New Directions
for Community Colleges (102), 19-29.
Williams, B. (1988). Formal structures and social reality. In D. Gambetta (Ed.),
Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 3-14). New York:
Basil Blackwell.
Williams, C. G. (1998, Fall). The collaborative leader. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 103, 51-56.
Williams, D., Gore, W. Broches, C., & Lostoski, C. One faculty’s perception of its
governance role. Journal o f Higher Education, 58(6), 629-657.
Wirth, P. (1991, May). Shared governance: Promises and perils [Opinion paper.]
(ERIC Document No. 331 568)
Yamada, M. M. (1991). Joint big decision committees and university governance.
In R. Bimbaum (Ed.), Faculty in governance: The role o f senates andjoint
committees in academic decision making. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
257
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., Brewer, M. B., & Peng, Y. (1996). Collaboration
structure and information dilemmas in biotechnology: Organizational
boundaries as trust production. In M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers o f Theory and Research (pp. 90-113). Thousand
Oaks CA: Sage Publication.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE FORM
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
260
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
l i e * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ! ! ! ! ! ! * * ! ! ! * * * * * * * * * * * ! ) ! * * * ! ) ! * * ! ) ! * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
A Cultural Study of Shared Governance at Two Community
Colleges
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by William G. Tiemey,
Ph.D. and Gordon Dossett, M.A., from the Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
Results of the study will contribute to Gordon Dossett’s dissertation, a partial
requirement for his Ph.D. in Education. You were selected as a possible participant
in this study because of your experience in governance at your college. A total of
approximately 20 subjects will be selected from faculty and administrators at your
college to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to understand more fully which aspects of a college’s
culture promote effective governance.
■ ■ * ■ PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
Participate in a One-to-One Interview
The interview, conducted with Mr. Dossett, will be scheduled at a time and place of
your convenience, preferably your office. You will be asked a series of standard
questions, after which, you may be asked individual follow-up questions. To insure
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
261
accuracy, interviews will be audio taped. All comments made in interviews will be
confidential, and tapes will be stored securely in Mr. Dossett’s home office. The
interview will take approximately 45 minutes.
Participate in a follow-up interview
This interview would be to seek to clarify matters that have emerged from
observations and/or other interviews. Researchers anticipate that approximately one
fifth of interviewees would be asked for a follow-up interview. Questions for such an
interview would be open-ended. In every other respect, the procedures would be the
same as those outlined above.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Reasonable forseeable risks, discomforts and inconveniences are minimal. To
mitigate against any of these occurring (particularly in the event of criticisms of
individuals or the institution), researchers will preserve the anonymity of the
institutions and interviewees by assigning them pseudonyms in the written study.
Further, researchers will make every effort to keep individual’s confidentiality by not
revealing (or disguising) detail that would identify the institution or a particular
individual.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Very little empirical research has been conducted on college governance, particularly
from a cultural perspective and at the community college level. While you
personally probably will not benefit from the study’s results, the study offers the
possibility of guiding future participants in college governance to understand the
relationship between aspects of a college’s culture and its governance. Further,
should particular aspects of that culture prove especially vital in good governance,
faculty and administrators could consider ways of promoting those aspects.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in the research for this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
262
Audiotapes of interviews and observed meetings, as well as any documents
pertaining to this study, will be kept locked in Gordon Dossett’s home office. No
one else will have access to them. Interviews will be transcribed, and each
interviewee assigned a number. Only the researchers will have access to the master
sheet, containing the names of interviewees and assigned number. Six months after
the completion of the research, the tapes and transcripts will be destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Principal Investigator William G. Tiemey at (213) 740-7218 or Co-Investigator
Gordon Dossett at (310) 391 2332.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Bovard Administration Building, Room 300, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
4019, (213) 740-6709 or upirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
263
SKi.VVI I RE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, PAREN T OR LEGAL
REPRESENT A FH F.
I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to
my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of
this form.
Name of Subject
Name of Parent or Legal Representative (if applicable)
Signature of Subject, Parent or Legal Representative Date
Please indicate by checking and initialing the category below what type of
information you want to receive. It is your responsibility to let the investigator know
if your address and/or telephone number changes. The contact information is in this
informed consent form under “Identification of Investigators”.
□ ____General Information about what the study found
□ ____ An email of the dissertation
□ ____No information
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
264
i SIGNATdRF OF INVESTIGATOR
I ■ > <. - L .~
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative, and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information
described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date
(must be the same as subject’s)
j SIGIVVTI'KE OK WITNESS (If an oral translator is used.}
My signature as witness certified that the subject or his/her legal representative
signed this consent form in my presence as his/her voluntary act and deed.
Name of Witness
Signature of Witness Date
(must be the same as subject’s)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
266
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Interviewee:
Time, Date, Place of Interview:
Contact information:
(Brief description of project; request to consider broader perspective—not just that
caused by state budget problems)
Questions
Please tell me a little bit about yourself. How long have you been here?
1. What is your assessment of the college today? What are the challenges and
opportunities for the college?
2. Is this a better institution now or 10 years ago? [Why do you believe as you
do?]
3. What role, if any, has the college’s governance played in the college’s
improvement [or decline]?
4. Can you give an example of shared governance as it is practiced at name of
college?
5. How well do you think governance is working on this campus? What are its
strengths and weaknesses at name of the college?
6. What could be done to improve it?
7. Please discuss the role of the administration and faculty in governance at
your college. [Do they essentially have the same or different approaches to
it?]
8. When you think of governance at name of college, what story comes
immediately to mind?
9. Can you give an example of administrators and faculty collaborating and
coming to a good decision? What factors allowed for that to occur? Will you
please explain why you thought it was a good decision?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
267
10. Can you give an example when the faculty and administration could not
collaborate?
Again, what factors caused that to occur?
11. If I were to come back to name of the college in 5 years, how would the
college have changed?
Are there any memos, statements, reports that would help me understand governance
at name of college? Who would be the best one or two people to interview?
(Thank participant and assure her or him of confidentiality of responses.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
269
Table 18. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 1-5
. Overall
• assessm ent o f -
• th ecollegel
C hallenges/-
nppoiiiim iie'
BeHij now
or
1 0 \ea rs
ago? .
Governance
role in
college's
1.1 1 0 1 0'. cine;,i
in decline?
' Ex o f shared
governance
('.irengih','weaknesses
■ here)
H ow well is
shared
governance
working?
How can
shared
governance
' be
improved?
: l i “Golden age” N ow Uncertain—-
yet no
distraction
from bad
governance
Planning C ouncil-
2003 budget
“Pretty happy
with it right
now”
Can’t think
o f anything
2 Budget N ow “Significant” Planning Council—
2003 budget
“D ecisions are
better through
shared
government”—
Jack supports
as do all
groups
Slow, but
inherent in
the process
3 Budget,
underprepared
students; link to
high schools
N ow “A ll o f us
have worked
so hard to
make it
better”
Planning Council “Just great”—
“bright,
reasonable”
people in
leadership
Slow:
“Democracy
takes time”
4 Budget and
opportunities:
Very strong
leadership,
faculty,
administrative
structure
N ow Significant:
Governance is
“in the middle
o f it”
ROSE Well Slow;
training for
program
chairs,
senators to
develop
wider
perspective
5 Cost o f living
in area;
opportunities—
strong campus
community and
commitment to
surrounding
community
“Much
better
now”
Significant;
decisions
based on good
info, yet
newer faculty
have less
commitment
outside
disciplines
ROSE was “a home
run”; Planning
Council
“Pretty w ell” Avoid
introducing
items that
fall under
collective
bargaining
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
270
Table 18. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 1-5
Overall
assessment o f
the college:
Challenges/
opportunities
Better
now
or
10
years
.ig.tV
Governance role
in college's
improvement
or decline?
I v oi sb:„ed
"UWIIMiKC
(strengths/
wcufiKW'.e-' here)
How wejL is
shared
govern, auce
working?
1 lou c
shared
-governance be J
im p:o\ed.’
6 Budget: To see
the college from
underrepresente
d perspectives
Now Information &
processes better
(for extra
curriculum)
Planning Council-
-2003 budget
“It’s probably
not
detrimental”— •
concern about
getting in new
blood
Draw in others
to offset
“amazing
amount o f
culture and
history'” being
lost through
retirement
7 Budget:
College has a
“solid
infrastructure”
Mixed Presidential
leadership
W ell Can be
improved
through better
communi
cation
8 Budget:
Meeting
community
needs
Now Governance
important for
“planned
improvement”
ROSE “Pretty w ell”
tries to be
inclusive, yet
lacks diversity
Bring more
diversity to
faculty,
administration
and curriculum
9 Strengths:
Loved by
community; job
training and
transfer
programs.
Challenges:
Adjusting to
reorganization
I was
not
here
Planning Council Mixed:
Organizations
individually
working well,
yet Planning
Council work
frequently a
done deal
10 “In a good place
in terms o f
governance”
N ow Work with
union for part-
time faculty
support
Sign-off on board
agenda items;
weakness—
Planning Council
Well More open
exchange o f
information
11 Good school:
Open in terms
o f its
governance
Now' Governance
helped college
address
students’ needs
Academic Senate,
union, Planning
Council
W ell Alter the
structure o f
Planning
Council (more
faculty or
senate
representation)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
271
Table 18 (continued).
Or era! 1
assessm ent o f
the college;
Challenges/
op w .fin iiies
I'.el ci
now
or
III
years
-go?
i io\ci!i nice
rule in c o lle g e \
. improvement
oi iice lin e '
Ex o f shared
cove, naive
t-:u n ; lbs w e d u e '.s c ,
here)
1 low well is
shared
governance
working?
How can
• shared
governance be
jjVitxy |.'»Tiai47 . .
u U p IU V v U t
12 Good
environment,
programs;
cooperation
between faculty
and
administration;
budget
N ot
here,
but
m ost
say
better
now
Budget 2003, cost
cutting task forces
Well Promote
communic
ation to help
transition
under
reorganization
13 “Camelot”—
great place to
work: Budget
and fewer
students in
pipeline
N ow Jack-—
“fabulous
person”— faith
in people who
work for him
ROSE Well
14 C ollege has
becom e more
diverse over the
years; still a
sense o f
“congenial
togetherness”
Same Unclear; we
continue to
prepare
students:
“Pleasant place
to work.” State
imposes
paperwork.
“W e never had a
situation in which the
college
administration didn’t
com e to the faculty
for advice.”
Well Avoid local
view o f the
problem
15 College more
rule-bound, yet
still overall
“wonderful”
place
M ixed Idealistic hope
for shared
governance, yet
rules imposed
from state
ROSE: Priority for
hiring full-time
faculty; good
communication, but
not always shared
priorities, values
Well;
decisions
generally in
tune with
advisory
groups
Avoid
“creeping
business
metaphor”
16 Great place,
reorganization a
challenge,
learning
outcomes an
opportunity
N ow Hard to say Initial work on
budget cuts
Mixed:
Very smart,
strong
leaders, yet
structure o f
senate works
against
faculty point
o f view
Beth should
not attend
senate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
272
Table 18 (continued).
( ner.ill
avii'^m eni in
the college:
t li.ilU’i-.vi
opportunities
Better now
or
I n ; e..i-i
Governance
i.tlc in
college’s
im p u n c u e .ii
oi u e J iii. ’
! \ ni d u iv o
governance,
i-irjugth-. vvc ikncs.-.c',
here)
:Km o e ll is
'■h.ncii
g'neiiiciK c
working?
1 1 1 1 A e-n
shared
governance
be
improved?
B1 Great potential;
opportunity:
Planning
Council’s
design;
challenge:
Shared
governance
N ot here,
but believe
it’s better
now
“Absolutely
has to be a
link”
Planning Council;
CCC
Weakness— not
understanding roles
“Okay” Understand
ing roles—
shared
governance
is a
challenge—
“wish I
knew how
to improve
it”
2
“College grew
up without
people being
aware it grew
up”
Much
better now
Unclear;
college
wrestling with
issues
resolved
elsewhere
years ago
Planning Council;
Matriculation;
Reorg/strength:
structures;
weaknesses: distrust
Not well Have had
technical
assistance;
just need
time
3 D o more with
less— tougher
than Prop 13
M ixed—
better
structures,
yet less
trust
(“vicious”)
Contribute to
decline—
shared
government
“stinks”—
there are
“certain areas
o f
administration
faculty should
not get
involved in”
Reorganization “Well
enough”
President
“courageous
” in
restraining
shared
government,
that had
been “wild
and loose”
4 Challenges:
New
accreditation
standards;
funding;
physical plant
intended for
smaller college
Wasn’t
here;
financially
better with
higher
reserve;
better
programs
Important;
shared
government
oversees
academic
programs
Enrollment
management— shift
to faculty chair o f
curriculum committee
Better
cominunicati
on still a
problem but
more faculty
participation
Meetings
with the
senate exec
and cabinet
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
273
Table 18 (continued).
Overall
.i-sc-m 'em o'
the college;
Challenges/
in p n in ii'iies
licitci row
or
lO vc.us
V o .’
Governance
loie it
college's
improvement
or decline?
Ex o f shared
govcriKiiiec
(-.l.viK ills we A n
cs'cs hotel
ilcw well i
sh.it ed
governance
".ofviim'’
How can
shared
governance he
improved?
5 It’s been a
“Rough
decade” for the
college; well-
trained faculty,
yet
cumbersome in
terms o f shared
government
W asn’t
here— but
lately
improved
Fine balance,
in process o f
being
negotiated
Matriculation—
effective because
it’s student-
centered
W ell, esp. in
Curriculum,
honors,
matriculation
committees
and budget
decisions on
Planning
Council
Better
communi
cation (ex. o f
keys)
6 Finances, hiring
full-tim e faculty'
Same—
strong
academic
program
then and
now
“S lot”—
curriculum
committee
important
Curriculum—
shared
government,
being re-defined,
but good people
participating
“I think w e do
a good job”
College is
striving to find
balance; keep
people
informed
7 Budget, clashes
between
administration
and faculty
Slight
decline
At center o f
problem
K eys recalled
from adjunct
faculty
“A bit o f a
power
struggle.”
“Y ou need a
leader.”
8 The college has
gone off-track
the last couple
years; people
don’t feel as if
they belong
10 years ago
(then people
working in
the same
direction)
A big role;
no one
follow s
established
policies
(CCC)
Lack o f minutes
and agenda for
most meetings
N ot well Need to follow
policies; better
communicatio
n; new
participants
9 Very low
morale, lack o f
trust
10 years ago Central AB 1725 policies
as negotiated for
college; diversity
requirement
agreed upon by
the college
N ot working:
not
collaborative
Everyone
wants to be
involved:
need a
president who
listens and
responds
thoughtfully
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
274
Table 18 (continued)
- .................
< >\„y . i: i
J'SL ,s;ivnl I!l'
the college:
Challenges/
upjw rwiir.ii".
■
Metier mm
i f S l i i a i i
to M-jrs
.!£.»•’
( io \ciir pl„
tolc in
eollcuc"-.
improicmenl
orclivltiie'’
1 . of shared
g O lC IIM IK V
(S lY.iL'lilS.Mca
kncises heic)
1 Urn well i"
shared
cm em anie
IWlll.lllg'1
1 low i an ■.hared
governance he
improved'.’
10 Building trust;
improving
communication;
opportunity can
com e from
change
Mixed;
curriculum,
grants,
technology
better;
governance
worse
At the heart
o f it
Planning
council;
calendar
committee
“Better than
most think”—
people involved,
structures,
policies fine, but
ignored
Improve trust,
communication
11 Strength:
Staff—
weakness:
reliance on
part-time
faculty, relative
lack o f diversity
Mixed:
M ore full
time
faculty yet
less o f a
family as
college has
grown
Important;
college has
25 years o f
shared
government;
in past has
kept college
from giving
out pink slips
Budget
committee,
early 1990s
Structure in
place with the
Planning
Council, yet
largely
informational
Commitment by
the
administration
12 College
unstable over
the last 4 years;
“It’s a shaky
time.”
10 years
ago
Policies
established—
but ignored
In theory,
president
should consult
with groups as
issues arise; in
practice, the
president just
acts
N ot working;
Strengths:
written policies;
weaknesses:
lack o f
participation,
admin flouts
policies
Training o f
participants
13 Challenge:
Commun
ication;
older/younger
faculty split;
lack o f stable,
engaged
leadership
Not here;
mixed—
improved
tech,
growth, yet
“enormous
growing
pains,”
“things
sliding
downhill”
“50%” o f
the morale
problem
traced to
shared gov
Cutting 200
classes to meet
budget
problems
“Completely
dysfunctional”
“faculty and
deans culpable
here, too.” On
both sides a
“resistance to
trust”
N ew president;
better
communication
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
275
Table 18. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 1-5
•
l! t
( 1 1. Iv ' »s
opportunities
HeiU’i
now oi
' years
u J ’ .'
l O W I I W 1 U .1
'ole in
lo ile .’t's
I l i y i l l ' UllCII
oi ilm in e ’
i \ o* sluii cd
eo' eni,iiu.c
llO" « J i !'
shared
; II' i r t l n i c e
i ■ u k i i i _ "
I low L ill
•dialed
governance be
H 'fioverr
14 Overall, doing
what we need
to be doing—
providing
quality
education;
challenge—
leader-ship;
opportunity1 :
U se good
policies already
in place
10
years
ago
Ignoring
policies
hastened
decline
Today— it’s not
working
N ot well; the
senate
leadership has
been weak; the
president has
been dogmatic
Re-education;
“The cake may
need to be
rebaked”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
276
Table 18. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 1-5
Administration/
Faculty: Similar
attitudes about
shared go \ ei nance1 '
Storj ul'.ihared
governance
Ex. o f shared
governance
collaborating for
good d eeision -
factors
Ex, o f shared
governance not
working
College 5 tears
in.the future
1 Y es Budget process
spring 2003
Budget process,
spring 2003
“Hard pressed to
think o f a case”
Uncertain— -“it
will be different
I’m sure” since
Jack, Beth retired
2 Yes G iving up full
time positions
because o f
pressing budget
concerns
Budget process,
spring 03; facilities
master plan—
specific tasks and
commitment
Bargaining and
contracts
N ew Student
services facility;
other faculty
improvements;
review o f master
plan;
consolidation o f
health program
offerings
3 Y es, although in
the end the
administration must
make the decision
Hiring list for
full-time faculty
Budget process
spring 2003; good
communication,
hard work, trust
“A long time
ago”— instances
o f disagreement
over full-time
hiring priorities
N ew bond;
underprepared
students’ needs
addressed; new
faculty, pres.,
vice pres.
4 Yes, at Planning
council; others
have narrower
perspective
ROSE meetings ROSE: Understood
parameters, good
communication,
trust
Negotiation over
reassigned units
Retirement o f
Jack, Beth— and
other V P’s—
“scary” since “a
lot o f respect for
those 4 people”
5 yes N o story Budget process
Spring 2003;
master plan—
Virginia’s sharing
o f budget
information
Academic
positions; Beth is
in position to
weigh all factors
N ew student
services building
and other
facilities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
277
Table 19. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 6-11
Adimnisi ration'
I uciiliy ''inuLtr
attitudes about
, shared
go \ emunee''
Story of shared
g o \ci nance
r.N . o f shared
CO' ernanee
collaborating for
good decisum--
factors
Ex. o f shared
goxernunce
not working
College? >earn ir. 1
lire future !
6 Probably not— but
they should;
faculty outlook
more discipline-
based
1. Adjunct
faculty: What is
governance?
2. Union criticizes
senate over
ROSE— yet union
at the table at the
outset
ROSE because o f
the study
beforehand,
communication
Programs
wanting more
support
* Better budget
* More new faculty
* Better technology
(Smart
classrooms)
7 Different Starting a campus
center
Bond measure;
cuts across groups
to avoid
provincialism
“I can’t think
o f one”
Make progress in
breaking
“provincialism,”
smoothing out
...bum ps that we
have in
cooperation”
8 Different: Admin:
the big picture;
faculty: “I’m
telling you what I
need”
N o story Planning Council;
Budget 2003—
mutual respect
ROSE— yet if
it wasn’t
working, why
no protests to
the president,
the board
The college will
suffer a loss o f
diversity because
o f budget cuts
9 Yes Graduation—
“college coming
together really
valuable”
Budget, 2003—
common goals
Cuts not
proposed to
student service
admin.—
different set o f
priorities
Fear budget cuts to
staff, enrollment;
need to increase
participation o f
new faculty
10 Different Senate lack o f
offices reported to
visiting
accreditation team
AB 1725 ROSE Cost o f living in
the area will
challenge bringing
in new students
11 Yes, “but
administrators
know bottom line
the decision is
theirs essentially”
AB 1725
implementation on
the campus
Improving
salaries—^driven
by data
Years ago—
the decision to
buy police
cars instead o f
hire faculty,
after the
budget
improved
* N ew facilities
* N ew president &
admin.:
“just hope its as
open [in
its] decision-
making”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
278
Table 19. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 6-11
AJinimsii aiioir
Faculty: Similar
attitudes about
sh.ued L'otcmaiice'’
Sinrj oiMiarcu
governance
Ex. o f shared
c o w mma.
collaborating for
good d e c isio n -
factors
■a ol ihaic ;
giueuiiince not
working
ColRgc5 years,
in the future
1 2 Different: Ex. o f
B eth’s actions with
Senate, other
campus
organizations
ROSE: Use o f
laptop to project
comments, later
distribute to
faculty
Distance Ed
Committee
Som e people
thought Senate’s
reaction to ROSE
should have been
“hell no, w e w on’t
go”
* Hope to get
able pres., VP
* More full
time faculty
* Positive
changes
13 Yes ROSE V ocational/transfer
programs combined
to work together
“Can’t think o f
any”
N ew facilities;
“Harmony
W ay” will
continue
14 Yes— “I’ve never
consider the
administration an
enemy. N ot
everyone shares my
viewpoint.”
N o story Goals and
objectives suggested
for Curriculum
Committee
ROSE [No answer]
15 Yes Needing class II
driver’s license
to drive a van
(ex. o f rules)
ROSE: Budget
deliberations
2003— good
decisions generally
but some
idiosyncratic (hiring
priorities)
“Hope w e’ll
still be
standing” after
state budget
problems; new
student service
facility;
“worried”
about pres,
leaving
16 Yes ROSE Contract
negotiations
2003 budget
the term started
with an appeal to
openness,
collaboration, but
faded with pink
slips
“To me it’s all
people”—
worry that Jack,
Beth’s leaving
w ill make life
“very different”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
279
Table 19. Responses to Interview Protocol Questions 6-11
.• ’ w.Ui'.mislr.iMon iacul:
y:
Similar attitudes
about slimed
governance?
Su v\ or shared
governance
Ex. o f shared
governance
collaborating for
good d ecision -
faetors.
Ex. o f shared
go\ ernanev not
' working
College 5 years in
the future
B1 Purpose the same; but
bring a different focus
Reorganization Curriculum
Committee;
developing Ed
Master Plan
Reorganization Change; turnover
will increase
willingness to
change
2 Faculty
leadership/admiti
differ— faculty think
admin, can’t make
decisions without
their approval
Rip Van
Winkle—
college fell
asleep in the
1970s— awoke
30 years later
Planning
Council’s task
force for budget
cuts; worked
because people
believed problem
severe
Many people
say reorganize—
I disagree
“Horse and buggy
days are gone”—
multicampus:
“will it be better?
God only knows,
in some sense.”
3 Faculty' believe they
should make the
decisions;
administration
believes their role is
advisory
Senate
president
requesting mid
term report o f
deans; VP
saying they
must comply
with request
Reorganization—
administration o f
justice remains in
social science
after participation
o f senate, deans,
advisory group
Reorganization
— deans first
told Pres and
V P ’s w ill decide
reorg
Changed
“dramatically”—
more
accountability
and faculty will
not be running the
place
4 Generally yes, but
different perspectives
Previous
president not
think business
services and
student services
subject to
program review
Enrollment
management;
faculty academy;
curriculum;
faculty orientation
In som e ways,
reorganization
Different sites;
new leadership,
faculty; from
shared
government point
o f view— depends
on leader and
issue
5 Different; faculty see
themselves
representing faculty,
not as people trying
to reach best decision
N o story Enrollment
management—
improve
processes; flex—
focus on students
helps make good
decisions
N o— some level
o f collaboration
in all decisions
More new
faculty,
administrators;
hope the group
will be creative
and collaborative
6 Others would say
differently— “1 see us
working together”
Faculty meeting
with president
Menchine to
insist on hiring
com mittee’s
candidate—
“strong” faculty
leadership
Hiring
committees—
“good people
making good
decisions”
On confidential
matters
College will be
bigger, more
sites; stronger ties
to public/private
industry
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
280
Table 19 (continued).
Administration/Faculty:
, Similar attitudes about
shared governance'.’ Slor> o f shared
governance
! .x. i f shared
governance
colluboialing for
good decision -
factors
Ex. o f shared
governance not
working
College 5 years in
the future
7 “We haven’t pulled
together yet.” For some
issues collaboration; for
others distrust
Creation o f
Planning
Council—
purposefully
made large so
everyone is at
the table— to
combat distrust
“Want to help
me out here?”
Can’t think o f
one offhand
Inter-session
imposed
Larger size; more
sites; more
impersonal, yet
excellent
education
8
Conceptually similar yet
differ in practice
10 years ago,
off-campus
conference to
explore shared
government; 4
years ago, visit
and lecture on
shared
government, by
experts
Curriculum
committee
Reorganization Continuing cycle
o f college not
following through
9 Different; administration
must take wider view
President
M enchine tells
division that its
faculty are racist
and elitist
Dealings with
academic vice
president,
dean— applying
policy
Reorganization Depends— “If we
get a president...
a true leader that
people can get
behind, I think
[we] will
start to come out
o f this down
ward spiral.”
10 Different; faculty have
obligations
administration acts
without asking (budget,
hiring freeze, enrollment
management)
M enchine’s
“coronation,”
attitudes disdain
for A B 1725— “
50 page
document I’m
not going to
bother to
read”— sees
governance and
management as
inter
changeable—
(Many
examples)
Calendar
change;
succeeded
because process
clear, students
put first, process
thorough, not
rushed
Reorganization
(V P ’s probably
felt pressured
by president
to act quickly)
N ew facilities and
sites, more
technology-
mediated
instruction; same
arguments on
management, e.g
issues; actions
informed by
research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
281
Table 19 (continued).
,
:
Administi alion Pae
Simihii -tUmidc*
about ih it oil
govonuiii.e ’
'■lory ol 'ihiiiud
gov cm.nice
i \ ot -thiii ed
governance
collaborating lm
good division—
factors
t \ ol sh.ucJ
unvciiunce not
vvoikmg
ColletlC 1 v.MIS 1 1 1
the luture
11 Administration
alway wary o f
shared government
Old College
Council o f 12
people— not bound
by structures,
address wide
variety o f issues
Deliberation o f
budget cuts—
succeed because
history o f
examining
budgets,
acceptance o f
severity o f
problem
Reorganization “Tone is set by
the president” so
future depends
upon who’s in
charge— “It’s the
people who make
the system work.”
12 Mixed; some
administrators want
to act unilaterally,
some seek
collaboration
Reorganization:
VP distributes
proposals to deans,
forced to recall
material
Revision o f
hiring policy with
president
Menchine;
worked because
all sides listened,
compromised
President
Sabella’s
efforts to
change hiring
policies
Reorganization
changed to better
serve students;
new
administrators
13 Different; faculty
and deans approach
problems
creatively; senior
administrators view
governance as
“trickle down
communication”
Academic freedom
policy— debated,
embraced by staff,
faculty, trustees,
admin— passed
finally— but regs
differ from policy
passed: “it’sju st
weird as hell here”
Ex. outside
shared
government o f
faculty’s dealing
with plagiarism—
senate, union,
admin collaborate
Budget Depends on the
president
14 Not clear, because
o f new senate
leadership;
administration
would rather act
without shared
governance
entering in
Policies applied
equally to faculty,
administration
regarding student
workers/
mailroom
Faculty academy;
came about
because o f trust
among the senate
leadership, Neil
Initial
discussions o f
shared
government
with Dr.
Menchine
“I hope we have a
president w ho’s
been here for a
year.” Because o f
a good hiring
process, will have
some stability,
“an advocate for
the college to the
community.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Improving the transfer rates of minority students: A case study
PDF
A study of the Navy College Program for Afloat College Education: Implications for teaching and learning among nontraditional college students
PDF
Community college students: The effect of parenthood and selected variables on degree -seeking aspirations
PDF
An examination of the contract education program in a multi-college community college district in Southern California: A descriptive and qualitative case study investigation
PDF
A typological history of non-heterosexual male college students in the United States, 1945 to the present
PDF
Factors influencing academic success of Chinese international students in Los Angeles community colleges
PDF
Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older
PDF
Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students
PDF
Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program
PDF
A study of the profile and leadership traits of vice presidents of instruction in the California community college system
PDF
Course -taking patterns of Chinese students native and non -native speakers of English at community college
PDF
Evaluating the California Community Colleges Registry
PDF
Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college
PDF
Faculty characteristics: What are their relationships with academic outcomes of community college students?
PDF
Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
Community college students and achievement in mathematics: Predictors of success
PDF
Academic, environmental and social integration variables that maximize transfer preparedness for Latino community college students: An application of academic success models to the study of Tran...
PDF
Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
An exploration of the gateway math and science course relationships in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
Community college students' perceptions of collaborative learning in developmental writing classes: Identifying the factors that promote positive active learning
Asset Metadata
Creator
Dossett, Gordon
(author)
Core Title
A cultural study of shared governance at two community colleges
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Education, administration,education, community college,education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Tierney, William G. (
committee chair
), Hagedorn, Linda Serra (
committee member
), Olson, Thomas (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-340551
Unique identifier
UC11340280
Identifier
3180317.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-340551 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3180317.pdf
Dmrecord
340551
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Dossett, Gordon
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 au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, community college
education, higher