University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The influence of executive leadership on community college completion rates

(USC Thesis Other)

The influence of executive leadership on community college completion rates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES i

The Influence of Executive Leadership on Community College Completion Rates

by

Bharadwaj S. Hegde

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

May 2019

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my dissertation advisor, Dr. Helena Seli, and dissertation committee
members, Dr. Douglas Lynch and Dr. David Stout for their support, patience, and dedication.
Their guidance and input were invaluable. The final product benefitted greatly from each of
their unique perspectives. Most importantly, working with them made the process of completing
the dissertation engaging, enjoyable and educational.
I would also like to thank my parents. I think I finally completed my education! Thank
you for forty-six years of support, encouragement, and guidance.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my family. Going back to school presented
many challenges. Without the support of my wife Beth and our two wonderful children, Sarah
and Lucas, I never could have overcome those challenges. Thank you. I love you.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES iii

ABSTRACT
Community colleges have long been lauded for significantly increasing access to
postsecondary education for individuals who may have few other options due to academic
difficulties, financial constraints, or other factors (American Association of Community
Colleges, 2017). The rate at which students complete degrees and certificates, however, has
remained essentially unchanged over the last 10 years (National Center for Education Statistics,
2017). While organizations employ a variety of metrics to measure student completion, all have
demonstrated a stubborn stability.
The broad influence of community college presidents uniquely positions them to effect
change that can significantly improve student completions. Using the Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analytic framework, a qualitative study was designed to explore the interaction of
organizational barriers with the knowledge and motivation of community college presidents to
gain greater insight into the challenges presidents face when instituting change to improve
completion rates. The findings from the study indicate that while presidents are both motivated
and knowledgeable, they face significant challenges within the institution and from external
entities. External pressures from state mandates drive the types of institutional change efforts in
which president engage while strong union protections bolster faculty resistance resulting in
significant challenges in creating accountability for student outcomes. The study offers
recommendations for practice and encourages presidents to take greater risks in driving student
completions, hold faculty accountable for student outcomes, and to focus the institution on
student completions by setting and communicating clear goals.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice 1
Community College Background Information 2
Importance of Addressing the Problem 6
Global Goal 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups 8
Stakeholder Performance Goals 12
Stakeholder Group for Study 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions 13
Methodological Approach and Rationale 14
Organization of the Project 15

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 17
Community College Completion Rates 17
The National Reform Effort 18
Student Support Programs 20
Early integration into college life 22
Coherent academic programs 23
Intensive student engagement 26
Readiness for Change 30
Organizational readiness for change 31
The role of leadership in organizational change 32
Community college president competencies and roles 33
Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework 35
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Affecting
Community College Presidents 36
Knowledge Influences 36
Knowledge of institutional context 37
Knowledge of research-based best practices 38
Knowledge of change management and leadership 41
Motivation Influences 42
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES v

Expectancy-value theory 44
The value of student completion as a goal 44
Self-efficacy theory 46
Self-efficacy beliefs of presidents 46
Organizational Influences 47
Cultural model for increasing student completions 48
Cultural setting for increasing student completions 49
Conceptual Framework: Knowledge, Motivation and the Organizational
Context Interactions of Community College Presidents 52
Conclusion 56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 57
Participating Stakeholders 58
Interview Sampling Criteria 58
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 59
Document Review and Sampling Criteria and Rationale 61
Document Review Strategy and Rationale 61
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 62
Survey Strategy and Rationale 62
Data Collection and Instrumentation 63
Survey: Leadership Efficacy Questionnaire 65
Documents and Artifacts 67
Interviews 68
Data Analysis 69
Credibility and Trustworthiness 71
Ethics 72
Limitations and Delimitations 75

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 77
Findings 78
Theme 1: The Complexity of Measuring Completion Rates 79
National Data Sources and Metrics 80
Perception and Utility of Completion Measures 86
Finding in Context 89
Theme 2: Best Practices, the Reform Movement, and State Legislation 89
Student Attributes 90
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES vi

Institutional Practices 93
Macro-Level Opportunities` 96
Finding in Context 101
Theme 3: Faculty Resistance to Change and Accountability 101
Faculty Accountability 102
Strategy for Addressing Resistance 106
Communication 106
Resources allocation 108
Finding in Context 110
Theme 4: Examining Value: The Associate Degree and Institutional Goals 110
The Associate Degree 111
Institutional Goals 113
Finding in Context 114
Conclusion 115

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 116
Discussion 117
The Potential for Training 122
Recommendations for Practice 124
Engage in Risky Behavior 124
Articulate Student Success 126
Faculty Accountability for Student Outcomes 128
Focus on First-time, Full-time Students 130
Strengths and Weaknesses of the KMO Framework 132
Future Research 134
Student Intent in Measuring Completions 134
Single Institution KMO Study 135
Guided Pathways and AB 705 136
Conclusion 137
References 142
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 176
Appendix B: Institutional Document Analysis Protocol 178
Appendix C: Professional Experience Curriculum Viète Analysis Rubric 179
Appendix D: Leader Efficacy Questionnaire Sample 181

Running Head: COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
In 2009, the Council of Economic Advisors produced a report indicating that over the
next two decades jobs requiring at least an associate degree would grow twice as fast as those
requiring only a high school education. In response, President Barack Obama established the
“American Graduation Initiative” calling for an additional five million Americans to achieve
degrees and certificates at community colleges by the year 2020 (Obama, 2009). In his
announcement, Obama indicated the increase in the educational attainment levels of Americans
would be necessary for the United States to lead in the global economy. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics confirmed the 2009 prediction showing that jobs requiring postsecondary training grew
at nearly twice the rate of those requiring only a high school diploma or less between 2009 and
2013, a trend that is expected to continue (Byun, Henderson, & Toossi, 2015; Richards &
Terkanian, 2013). Increased educational attainment strengthens the economic prospects of the
nation, as well as local communities and individuals (Barro, 2013; Berger & Fisher, 2013;
Jepsen, Troske, & Coomes, 2014; United States Department of Labor, 2015; Woessmann, 2016).
The problem of practice addressed in this dissertation is that of unchanging completion rates in
public two-year community colleges.
The rate at which community college students completed degrees and certificates has
remained essentially unchanged over the last 10 years. The National Center for Education
Statistics (2017) indicated that the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree seeking students at
public, two-year institutions completing a certificate or associate degree within three years or
150 percent of normal time at their starting institution fluctuated between 23.6% and 19.5% for
cohorts starting between 2000 and 2010. A six-year timeframe favored by organizations such as
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 2

the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and the National Student
Clearinghouse Research Center (NSC) indicates that a higher percentage of community college
students do eventually complete degrees and certificates (AACC, 2016). Using this broader time
frame, the 2007 through 2011 first-time, full-time student cohorts completed a degree or
certificate at rates between 36.3% and 39.9% (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center,
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). Regardless of how completion rates are measured, the rate itself
remains consistent over time.
The national emphasis on increasing community college completion continues to be
strong. Rising tuition prices and reductions in state subsidies have increased the pressure on
colleges to demonstrate improvements in student completions (Agasisti & Belfield, 2017).
Relatively stagnant completion rates and low absolute completion rates contrasted with the
potential benefits of increased educational attainment serve to emphasize the importance of
addressing the issue. Successful completion of a community college credential is associated with
higher individual earnings (Jepsen, Troske, & Coomes, 2014), better health outcomes (Kaplan,
Fang, & Kirby, 2017), and a more prosperous economy (Drucker, 2016). Increasing the rate at
which students obtain degrees and certificates at community colleges holds the potential to
positively impact prosperity nationally, locally, and for individuals.
Community College Background Information
Community colleges are large, complex organizations with multiple missions that serve a
diverse student body. In addition to liberal arts and technical training offerings, the mission of
community colleges includes a strong focus on providing access to postsecondary education to
historically disenfranchised populations (Gilbert & Heller, 2013). From an instructional
perspective, community colleges address three broad overlapping domains. In the first domain,
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 3

the focus is academic, vocational, and remedial education. The second domain focuses on
economic and social mobility of the individual and community development. Finally, the third
domain focuses the role community colleges as part of the pathway to earning baccalaureate
degrees or to entering the workforce (Levin, 2000). Each domain utilizes instructional offerings,
student services, and ancillary support while shifting the emphasis of the desired outcome and
together for the basis of the overall community college mission. While the instructional mission
of community colleges can be shaped into straightforward domains, the access portion of the
mission can be more complicated to conceptualize and presents challenges in examining
completion as primary metric of institutional success.
Community colleges have long been lauded for significantly increasing access to
postsecondary education for individuals who may have few other options due to academic
difficulties, financial constraints, or other factors (AACC, 2017). As open access institutions,
community colleges are non-selective in their admissions policies and as such, students enter the
institution with a wide range of goals, expectations, and academic abilities. Creating completion
metrics therefore becomes complex. If, for example, all entering students are considered when
calculating completion rates, then performance may appear unduly low as some students may
never have intended to complete a degree or certificate (Goldrick-Rab, 2010). Similarly, there is
no agreement within the education community as to the window of time within which students
should complete a degree or certificate when measuring completion. The Department of
Education uses a three-year timeframe, while professional organizations such as the American
Association of Community Colleges and the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
prefer a six-year timeframe. Regardless of which measure is used, completion rates have not
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 4

improved significantly or consistently over time despite the significant amount of research
examining various aspects of completion.
The research literature on community college student success focuses on broad areas: 1)
the effect of entering student demographics and prior educational experience, 2) student
behaviors and perceptions particularly related to engagement, 3) the effectiveness of individual
intervention programs on improving various measures of student success. Each area of study
provides insights into the how institutional factors can interact with students to produce a
described outcome. Greene, Marti, and McClenny (2008), for example, note that while White
students consistently outperform African-American and Hispanic students in both enrollment and
academic performance metrics, the difference in performance is unrelated to effort and suggest
that institutional factors are at play. Similarly, extensive empirical evidence demonstrates that
student behaviors and perceptions are driven by institutional efforts at engagement which can
positively influence student outcomes (Bard, 2016; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek,
2006; Martin, Galentino, & Townsend, 2014; Shumaker & Wood, 2016; Tinto, 1999; Trowler,
2010). Finally, a wide range of studies demonstrate the efficiency of specific intervention
programs such as learning communities, supplemental instruction, first-year experience
programs, tutoring programs, and student success courses at improving retention and completion
rates (Goldrick-Rab, 2010). While research examining student characteristics and behavior as
well as student interactions with institutional programs are plentiful, other factors that likely
affect student outcomes are less explored.
Institutional characteristics (size, location, etc.), leadership and curricular offerings have
garnered little attention from scholars (Calcagno, Bailey, Jenkins, Kienzl, & Leinbach, 2008).
Notably absent in the research literature is the effect of faculty professional development
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 5

programs on student outcomes (Jacoby, 2006). In a 2002 assessment of community college
faculty development programs, Murray (2002) points out the demand for improved professional
development had yet to result in the assessment of program effectiveness connected to desired
student outcomes. As late as 2017, scholars were suggesting conceptual evaluation models for
faculty development to address the lack of focus on student performance as well as other issues
such as poorly developed curricula and ill-conceived evaluation frameworks for faculty
development programs (Hines, 2017). Considering the central role classroom faculty play in the
student experience, the lack of research is surprising. More broadly, community college research
often lacks a strong connection to institutional outcome of degree and credential attainment.
Regardless of the focus of a given study, the student outcome metric used to measure
success varies and often does not include completion. Measures such as course grades, term-
over-term retention, persistence to subsequent sequential courses, and student and faculty
perceptions are frequently applied measures. These metrics are important to measure as the data
can be informative in decision-making, program development, and improvement efforts.
Inclusion of a clear completion outcome in program evaluation, however, is also necessary since
completion of a credential is correlated to benefits beyond school. While evidence that attending
college without completing a degree has some positive benefits, the benefits of completing a
postsecondary credential are both broad and clearly established in the research literature
(Belfield & Bailey, 2011).
Educational attainment affects unemployment rates, median earnings, and health
outcomes. In 2015, the unemployment rate amongst those with less than a high school diploma
was 8.0% and for those with a high school diploma was 5.4%, both substantially higher than the
3.8% unemployment rate for those holding an associate degree (United States Department of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 6

Labor [USDOL], 2015). Similarly, wages for those with higher levels of education were
substantially higher. Median weekly earnings for those with less than a high school diploma,
those with only a high school diploma and those with an associate degree were $493, $678, and
$798 respectively (USDOL, 2015). Beyond employment and earning, educational attainment
can also influence health outcomes.
Cutler, Huang, and Lleras-Muney (2015) reported that people who are more educated are
substantially less likely to report they are in poor health, less likely to report they suffer from
depression or anxiety, and less likely to miss work because of illness. These health outcomes are
important for individuals, families, and communities as well as economy at large since
absenteeism among employees is a significant drain on productivity (Wada et al., 2013).
Increasing community college success rates holds the potential to increase an individual’s ability
to earn a living wage, achieve better health outcomes, and to be productive members of the
workforce.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of flat completion rates within community colleges is important to address
for individuals, local communities, and from the national perspective. First, from the perspective
of the individual, gainful employment prospects and health outcomes increase significantly with
higher levels of educational achievement. Jepsen, Troske, and Coomes (2014), for example,
show that those earning community college degrees experience increased average quarterly
earnings of $2000 for women and $1500 for men. Additionally, higher levels of educational
attainment are associated with lower risk tolerance for health care related issues, more regular
visits to primary care physicians, and overall health outcomes even when controlling for age,
race, economic standing, and marital status (Kaplan, Fang, & Kirby, 2017). Second, from the
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 7

perspective of local communities, economic growth, particularly that based on attracting
companies to the area, often requires postsecondary-level trained workers (Drucker, 2016;
Porter, 2000). From the broadest perspective, the economic prosperity of the country is, at least
in part, contingent on an educated workforce (Woessmann, 2016). Coupled with the political
emphasis of increasing postsecondary educational attainment via the community college,
addressing completion rates of approximately 7.3 million credit students or 45% of
undergraduate student enrollment in the US, becomes a critical task (AACC, 2016). Considering
the relatively low rates of completion seen today, the potential breadth and scope of the impact
made by improving this rate is could be very significant.
Global Goal
The American Association of Community Colleges seeks to engage community colleges
in “the completion agenda” by asking institutions to commit to increase the number of students
who hold degrees and certificates by 50% by 2020 (AACC et al., 2010). The goal was
established in coordination with five other national organizations (Association of Community
College Trustees, National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, League for
Innovation in the Community College, Phi Theta Kappa, and Center for Community College
Student Engagement) and annually measures the number of degrees and certificates granted by
member colleges. Member colleges who accepted the AACC challenge pledged to increase both
the number of degrees and certificates awarded as well as the graduation rate. This study
focused on the graduation rate because the gross number of degrees and certificates is not
necessarily contingent on the institutional improvement. If, for example, the number of students
enrolled at a given community college grows, the institution may produce more degrees and
certificates while maintaining status quo performance. Additionally, community college
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 8

enrollments tend to be strongly affected by the broader economy. Higher community college
enrollments are typically associated with higher unemployment rates and may result in more
degrees conferred but may not represent improved institutional performance (AACC, 2015). The
corollary is that lower unemployment rates typically result in depressed enrollments which could
result a lower absolute number of degrees and certificates granted. Completion rates, however,
are not contingent on enrollment volume so may provide a better understanding of institutional
performance.
The rate at which students obtain degrees and certificates is important for both individual
community colleges as completion rates are a critical measure of success that drives funding at
the federal and local level. More broadly, educational attainment level plays a key role in the
economic well-being of individual communities as well as the country as a whole (Barro, 2013).
The AACC member colleges committed to this goal either explicitly or implicitly. Identifying
colleges with a commitment to the goal set forth by the AACC and examining the provision of
leadership in relation to their success rates was the goal of this study.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are several significant stakeholders involved in improving community college
completion rate. Parents of students, P-12 partners, four-year partner institutions, and local
businesses all have a vested interest in seeing more students achieve degrees and certificates at
community colleges. The three groups that hold the most potential to directly impact the
completion rates, however, are the community college faculty, deans and vice presidents, and
chief executive officers, who often hold the title of president. While there are other groups who
contribute to improve student completion rates, faculty, students, and administrators are the
primary change agents.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 9

As stakeholders, students are critical. The actions taken by faculty, staff, and
administrative leaders are designed to modify the behavior of students in a manner that will
increase completion rates. As such, the consideration of student needs is central to
understanding and addressing the issue of low completion rates. Students must play a central
role in identifying these needs and, to some significant extent, must be involved in identifying
the type of instruction, support services, and resources needed to change behavior. Ultimately,
students are responsible for their success, and faculty, staff, and leadership are responsible for
creating environments and systems that facilitate their success.
Faculty members are responsible for delivering instruction through a combination of
content and pedological expertise and as such, can profoundly affect student experience and
outcomes. While faculty members are not the sole institutional agents responsible for teaching
and learning, they are the primary actors putting them in an influential position for achieving the
increased completion rates through improved instructional practices. There are very few
empirical studies broadly examining the quality of instruction either at individual community
colleges, districts, or states. While numerous studies explore the efficacy of pedagogical
approaches, particularly in developmental education and the community college setting
generally, the impact of instructor quality on student outcomes is largely unexplored in
community colleges (Twombly & Townsend, 2008). In addition to their primary responsibility
for instruction, faculty also perform important leadership roles particularly as department chairs
where curricular decisions, teaching assignments, and course schedules are often developed
(McArthur, 2002; Scott, 1990). Since these responsibilities are shared with deans and vice
presidents, faculty must work closely with administrative leadership to affect any desired change.
Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, and Morris (2006) point out that the relationship between followers
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 10

and leaders (in this case faculty and deans, vice presidents, and presidents) plays a central role in
achieving desired organizational outcomes. As such, administrative leaders at every level need
to engage faculty in any significant organizational improvement efforts in a way that allows for
the development of common values, a shared understanding of desired outcomes, and
organizational trust to successfully move forward (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &
Walumbwa, 2005).
Community college vice presidents and deans serve as mid-level managers with
significant oversight in their respective scope of responsibility. The positions are highly
operational in nature and are typically responsible for the day-to-day operation of the community
college (Shults, 2001). Because vice presidents and deans have regular contact with faculty and
chief executives, they can influence key administrative and instruction decisions. The
operational nature of these positions allows vice presidents and deans to direct initiatives
designed to improve student success (Bragg, 2000). The veracity with which they approach their
tasks can thus have a profound influence on the effectiveness of these efforts. As a result, these
blended operational and leadership roles can have a significantly affect the outcome of
institutional improvement efforts.
Overall leadership and management authority at community colleges resides with the
president. Within the context of this dissertation, only chief executive officers were examined.
Many community colleges operate within the context of multi-campus district with each campus
having a president who reports to a chancellor. Chief executives serving in a multi-campus
district were not considered for participation in the study as final authority in for decisions in
operational areas such as budgeting, human resources, administrative services, and institutional
planning, all of which can potentially impact student outcomes, often rest with the chancellor.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 11

Presidents serving in single-campus districts and reporting directly to a governing board hold
responsibility for all operational areas and as such have a greater ability to directly affect
institutional outcomes. Of particular importance, incumbents in these positions are typically
influential in determining funding levels for specific areas of a college and guiding the
development of college-wide goals, which together can determine the focus of the institution.
While presidents typically have oversight of these areas, additional responsibilities around
development and fundraising as well as lobbying efforts at the state level often draw attention
away from internal institutional leadership (Eddy, 2005; Glass & Jackson, 1998). Despite strong
external demands for their time, presidents hold the formal authority and leadership
responsibility to improve community college student outcomes (Plinske & Packard, 2010).
A single, best approach to leadership has yet to be identified in the academic literature.
Empirical studies have, however, identified certain key leadership activities that consistently
demonstrate efficacy (Northouse, 2015). The broadest of these activities is the establishment of
a vision for the college. Community college presidents must guide their institutions in
developing a common vision with a mutually agreed upon definition and understanding of
institutional success in order to make significant progress towards achieving any significant goal
(McDonald, 2007). A common vision provides inspiration to engage in the work necessary to
increase student completion rates, while the development of measurable objectives provides a
tangible goal to assess success (Hallinger & Heck, 2002). The development of these two
constructs is central to the role of community college leaders in improving student completion
rates.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 12

Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1 presents the global goal set forth by the American Association of Community
Colleges and the assumed stakeholder goals in relation the global goal.
Table 1
Global Goal and Assumed Stakeholder Performance Goals
Global Goal
By 2020, the American Association of Community Colleges seeks to increase the rate at which
students earn degrees and certificates by 50%.
Presidents Deans and VPs Instructional Faculty
By 2020, presidents will lead
organizational change efforts
that result in a 50% increase in
student completion rates.
By 2020, academic deans and
VPs will implement
programming focused on
student completion that leads
to a 50% increase in fall-to-fall
retention rates.
By 2020, community
college instructional faculty
will increase course success
to 90%.
Stakeholder Group for Study
While the contribution of all stakeholders impacts the ability of community colleges to
achieve the global goal of increasing student completion rates by 50%, it is the community
college presidents who leadleads the effort. A complete analysis of student completion would
take into consideration all stakeholders. For practical purposes, this study focuses on the
presidents and their ability to lead organizational change efforts that result in a 50% increase in
student graduation rates on their respective campuses by 2020. Presidents provide leadership that
helps establish the culture of the institution, set institutional goals, allocates funds, and creates
and enforces institutional policy. These functions hold the greatest ability to influence the
overall completion rate at individual institutions. Without enough emphasis on student
completion by college presidents through the establishment of aggressive goals, allocation of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 13

funds for completion initiatives, and comprehensive planning to improve completions, it is
unlikely that the faculty or deans at a community college could increase the rate at which degrees
and certificates earned.
Failure to address student completion at community colleges is potentially damaging
from the societal level to the individual level. From the broadest perspective, the economic
prosperity of the country is, at least in part, contingent on an educated workforce (Woessmann,
2016). Since community colleges enroll approximately 7.3 million credit students and account
for 45% of undergraduate student enrollment in the US, these institutions must increase
completion rates to produce a workforce that can meet employment needs (AACC, 2016). For
individuals, the importance of completing community college degrees and certificates is directly
tied to their ability to be economically self-sufficient. Earning a community college degree can
increase average earnings by as much as $8000 annually, which can mean the difference between
self-sufficiency and reliance on social service support (Jepsen, Troske, & Coomes, 2014).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to explore the degree to which community colleges are
meeting the goal of increasing the rate at which students attain degrees and certificates by 50%
over the 2010 baseline by the year 2020. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences related to increasing student completions. While a complete
performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholder groups, for practical purposes the
stakeholder of focus in this analysis was community college presidents. In particular, the study
focused on presidents who serve as the chief executive officer of their respective institutions. For
the purposes of this study, to be considered a chief executive the incumbent needed to report
directly to the governing board of the institution and have broad, unilateral oversight of all
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 14

college operations. Presidents serving within the context of multi-campus community college
district in which they report to an individual such as a chancellor, for example, were excluded
from consideration. Presidents in a position to guide the development of the vision of the college
and had significant oversight to operationalize that vision are best positioned to drive significant
organizational change to achieve the stated goal.
As such, the following questions will guide this study:
1. To what extent are community colleges on track to achieve the goal of increasing
student degree and certificate attainment rates by 50% by 2020?
2. What knowledge and motivational factors related to leading organizational change
influence the ability of presidents to effect a 50% increase in student completion rates
in community college environments?
3. How does the interaction between organizational culture and context with the
knowledge and motivation of community college presidents affect student outcomes?
4. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for presidents to increase student completions?
Methodological Approach and Rationale
This dissertation was a field study that focused on the ability of community college
presidents to influence the primary metric of student completion rates by providing
organizational leadership to their respective college communities. The questions that guided the
study lend themselves to an “emergent” research design that can be responsive to the information
presented by study participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because there is no predefined,
singular path to achieving higher rates of student completions, study participants provided
multiple perspectives regarding the knowledge and motivation necessary to achieve the stated
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 15

goal. Participants also provided insight into how their own knowledge and motivations interact
with the organizational opportunities and barriers within their institution. By engaging in a
qualitative field study examining the interaction of executive leader knowledge and motivation
with organizational influences that may hinder successful organizational change, a broader
understanding of the common gaps in leadership knowledge and motivation that negatively
influence community college completion rates may be brought to light.
The goal of a qualitative study, as with any study, is to provide accurate, dependable, and
reliable data and analysis (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Central to answering qualitative
research questions is the notion of human perspective (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Through an in-
depth, holistic exploration of the topic at hand with a carefully selected cohort of participants, the
researcher seeks to bring to the fore common themes on the nature of the problem. More
specifically, the study sought to explore potential gaps in contextual knowledge that may prevent
community college presidents from achieving stated goals. Similarly, the study asks how
motivation affects leaders’ desire to engage in goal attainment behavior. To establish a higher
degree of credibility, multiple sources of data are valuable. Creswell (2014) suggests that using
multiple data sources can increase credibility in qualitative studies. Thus, this qualitative study
will rely on interviews as well as document analysis to enhance credibility.
Organization of the Project
This dissertation is organized in five chapters. The preceding chapter provided an
overview of the issues associated with community college completion rates. The global goal of
increasing the rate at which degrees and certificates are awarded as well as the stakeholders’
roles in achieving that goal were also introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the
literature in community college reform efforts to improve completion rates, an examination of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 16

research-based best practices in this area, and a brief examination of best practices in change
management. Chapter Three provides an analysis of the interaction of the assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational issues preventing goal attainment, as well as methodology used to
establish the study participants, data collection, and analysis methods. Chapter Four presents
results from the data analysis. Finally, Chapter Five presents suggested solutions based on the
data from the study and existing literature. Recommendations for closing the perceived gaps in
performance are presented using an implementation and evaluation plan.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 17

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review examines the research associated with community college
completion rates. This effort is undertaken to understand the breadth of reform efforts from
which community college executive leaders can draw in their own attempts to improve
completion rates. The review begins with an overview of the development of the current reform
environment. A closer examination of current research on the role of administrative functions,
curricular efforts, and student affairs, non-academic support programs is then presented. The
review will then move to a more focused examination of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences experienced by executive leaders using a Gap Analysis framework
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Community College Completion Rates
Leadership plays a critical role in improving the outcomes of any organization (Carter &
Greer, 2013). Leaders must apply specific content knowledge in combination with appropriate
leadership skills to successfully move organizations forward (Noruzy, Dalfard, Azhdari, Nazari-
Shirkouhi, & Rezazadeh, 2013; Thomas, 1988). Community colleges are multifaceted
organizations with numerous stakeholders who may hold significantly different perspectives on
how to improve the institution. Increasing the rate at which students complete an associate
degree or certificate at community college is complex and multi-tiered problem requiring
executive leaders to have a broad range of knowledge and competencies (Nevarez & Wood,
2012). This complex set of skills needs to be brought to bear within the context of the current
reform environment if the goal of increasing student completion rates of degrees and certificates
by 50% by 2020.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 18

Despite the AACC challenge, completion rates have remained stagnant. While measures
of completion rates vary across organizations, the literature shows each measure has remained
consistent over time. For example, the United State Department of Education defines
community college completion rates as the number of first-time, full-time students beginning in
the fall term and completing a degree within 3 years at the original institution of enrollment. By
this measure, completion rates have remained between 19.5% and 23.6% between 2000 and 2010
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2014). In comparison, the National Student
Clearinghouse examines student cohorts after six years and allows for students to complete their
degree at any institution. For full-time students, this measure, while much higher at 40% +/- 2%,
has also remained consistent since the 2006 cohort (National Student Clearinghouse Research
Center [NSCRC], 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Regardless of the preferred metric,
community college executive leaders have a crucial role to play to achieve the stated goal.
The National Reform Environment
Significant reform efforts in community colleges were set in motion by the release of
“Higher Education for Democracy: A Report of the President's Commission on Higher
Education” in 1947. The influence of this document on the higher education landscape is
difficult to overstate. The report made sweeping recommendations for increasing participation,
ending discrimination in college enrollment practices based on race, religion, and gender, and
eliminating financial barriers to postsecondary education access. The commission clearly
indicated that postsecondary programs should be open to all individuals capable of completing a
given course of study. While inclusive of all levels of postsecondary education, the report
emphasized the importance of community colleges in achieving these ambitious goals.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 19

Because the recommendations highlighted community colleges and were closely linked
to the community college mission, the sector saw unprecedented growth in the decades following
the release of the report (Gilbert & Heller, 2013). Between 1961 and 1970, 497 community
colleges were opened in the United States. The rapid growth in the sector brought continuing
and ongoing calls to improve the quality of education from the academic community and focused
primarily on organizational structural reform and pedagogical improvements (Clark, 1960;
Cohen, 1969; Dougherty, 1991; McCabe, 1981). The nature of these ongoing efforts created the
environment from which a broader approach to reforming the community college system
emerged.
The current reform environment requires community college leaders to be well-versed in
the history, theory, and research literature in the field. The creation of this environment began in
1996 when community colleges prominently reentered the national political discourse. President
Bill Clinton proposed tax credits and deductions that would meet the cost of community college
and every president since that time has included community colleges in their education policy
agenda (“Bill Clinton 1996: On the issues: Improving education,” n.d.). This political spotlight
increased the pressure on community colleges to show improved completion outcomes, an effort
that generated significant interest among philanthropic, non-profit organizations as well as the
national community college organizations (Lester, 2014).
One of the most prominent and influential national reform efforts is “Achieving the
Dream” (AtD). This is a privately funded, non-profit initiative that partners with community
colleges and community college support organizations and emphasizes a careful examination of
institutional data for decision-making in the areas of program development and funding, and the
implementation of research-based best practices specifically focused on increasing completion
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 20

rates (“Achieving the Dream,” n.d). As a participating and founding partner in AtD, the
American Association of Community Colleges’ (AACC) subscribes closely to this approach.
Further, the AACC “Completion Agenda” which calls for the participating colleges to increase
the number of degrees and certificates awarded by 50% between 2010 and 2020 closely mirrors
the goals set forth by AtD shaping the current reform environment in which community college
leaders must operate (Bailey, 2016; Boggs, 2011; Maxwell & Person, 2016). By shaping the
community college reform environment to emphasize the use of data for decision-making, AtD
created a need for community college leaders to be well-informed of the research literature in
this area (McNair, Duree, & Ebbers, 2011). Critical areas for executive leader consideration that
influence student completion rates include student support programs inclusive of developmental
education, and readiness for organizational change.
Student Support Programs
Empirical research in the area of non-academic student support service programs is
extensive. Studies have been conducted examining the effectiveness of a wide range of student
services programs designed to improve outcomes such as term to term retention, course
completion, transfer to a four-year institution for continued study, and completion of a
community college credential (Kuh, O'Donnell, & Schneider, 2017; Martin, Galentino, &
Townsend, 2014; Price & Tovar, 2014; Sandoval-Lucero, Antony, & Hepworth, 2017; Saxon &
Morante, 2014; Scrivener et al., 2008). Much of this research, however, focuses on the
implementation of a specific program adapted for the characteristics of a given institution. Other
institutions may implement a program of the same name but change program characteristics for
their perceived needs. No broadly accepted framework for understanding the commonalities and
differences across institutions has yet emerged (Hatch, 2016). Several literature reviews (Bailey
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 21

& Alfonso, 2005; Brownell & Swaner, 2009; Crisp & Taggart, 2013; Price & Tovar, 2014) have
sought to identify promising or high-impact practices that demonstrate efficacy in increasing
persistence and completion metrics in community colleges. Numerous practices are identified in
these reviews. Consistently identified practices include first-year experience programs, college
success strategies courses, extended orientation programs, learning communities, and
supplemental instruction. Despite the consistency with which these programs appear in reviews
as promising or high-impact programs, providing a uniform definition of each program and its
components remains a challenge making it difficult to provide information to individual
institutions on how to develop, implement, and scale such programs (Hatch, 2016).
The Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE) developed a student
timeline framework that categorizes student support programs into three areas: 1) planning for
success, 2) initiating success, and 3) sustaining success (CCCSE, 2012). While the CCCSE
framework does not provide program characteristics for each category of program, several key
design principles are offered that are supported more broadly in the literature. These design
principles include early integration into college life, the provision of coherent academic
pathways, integrated classroom and support services, intensive student engagement, and faculty
professional development (CCCSE, 2012, 2013, 2014). An examination of programs that offer
students an early integration to college life, coherent academic pathways, and ongoing intensive
student engagement programs is presented to garner a deeper understanding of the factors that
impact student success. There is very limited research that explores the relationship between
professional development and student outcomes and so is not addressed as part of this review.
While countless other factors impact students’ ability to succeed, the goal of this review is to
present factors over which community college executive leaders have influence.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 22

Early integration into college life. Within the CCCSE (2012) framework, programs
within the “planning for success” area focus on integrating students into college life. Early
integration into college life is viewed as activities that occur prior to students matriculating and
the initial three to four weeks of the students’ first term. Practices included in this area include
assessment and course placement, course registration, and orientation. Each of these practices
has demonstrated efficacy over time.
Assessment testing and mandatory placement are positively correlated to higher grade
point averages and increased persistence particularly in the areas of developmental education
(Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997; Morante, 1998; Saxon & Morante, 2014). More recently, the
efficacy of placement instruments has come into question particularly in the popular media
(Scott-Clayton, 2012). While scholars acknowledge these criticisms, the practice of placing and
mandating coursework is largely supported when assessment is conducted in an effective manner
(Saxon & Morante, 2014). Connected closely with assessment and placement practices are
registration practices.
Ample evidence indicates that students who enroll prior to the start of course perform
better in the class and are more likely to be retained into the following term and year (Smith,
Street, & Olivarez, 2002; Burns, 2010). Further, Crosta (2014) found that enrollment intensity
and continuity were correlated to successful transfer to four-year institutions and credential
completion. That is, students who enroll term over term without interruption (enrollment
continuity) are more likely to complete a community college credential. Similarly, students who
enroll in full-time course loads are more likely to successfully transfer to a four-year institution.
The planning process by which students determine their schedules also affects student outcomes.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 23

Academic advising provides students with knowledge, guidance, and support within the
community college environment to select a program of study. Early selection of a program of
study with appropriate and skilled guidance demonstrates a positive effect on student completion
(O’Banion, 1994; Price & Tovar, 2014). While guidance may be provided through varying
mechanisms, early student advising often occurs through new student orientation programs.
Program components vary widely for orientation and academic planning programs in terms of
duration, mandatory versus optional, and intensity (contacts with program faculty and staff). The
overall intent of these programs, however, is to engage students with the college early in their
student experience as early engagement has shown positive effects on retention and persistence
measures (Sandoval-Lucero, Antony, & Hepworth, 2017; Terenzini et al, 1994; Townsend &
Wilson, 2006). Closely related to academic planning efforts are institutional practices that
provide students a coherent academic pathway.
Coherent academic pathways. The CCCSE (2012) framework indicates that
institutions should provide students with clearly defined activities, inclusive of multi-term course
planning, that lead to a specified outcome such as a credential, degree, or transfer to a four-year
institution. Applying this principle, the American Association of Community Colleges launched
the Pathways initiative in 2015 intended to support member colleges in the design and
implementation of structured academic and career pathways. The project encourages colleges to
develop clear program maps that students can follow to achieve their stated goals. The initiative
further emphasizes that colleges should assist students in selecting a pathway upon entry into the
institution (AACC, n.d.). Both activities are broadly supported by theory and research.
The principles on which the AACC Pathways initiative and CCCSE framework are
grounded firmly in motivation theory. Selecting a clear program of study is based on the notion
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 24

that goal setting improves motivation and thus performance. The positive influence of goal
setting on motivation is established in several theoretical frameworks including social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1977), goal orientation theory (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007), expectancy-value
theory (Eccles, 2006) and others, all of which have been served as a frameworks for empirical
studies to demonstrate a positive effect on student outcomes (Moeller, Theiler, & Wu, 2012;
Pajares, 1996; Pintrich, 2000). In a meta-analytic study examining the psychological factors that
influence community college student outcomes, Fong et al. (2017) found that student persistence
and achievement were more strongly correlated with motivation and self-perception than other
factors examined. Jenkins and Cho (2013) demonstrated the efficacy of the approach more
directly. In a longitudinal study spanning five years, they found that community college students
who entered a clearly defined program of study within their first year of college were more likely
to complete a credential or transfer. While the pathways approach appears to produce positive
results for community college students who self-identify as seeking a degree, credential, or
transfer outcome, the research generally does not take into consideration students who may have
other primary reasons for attending college. Since student intent may influence completion
outcomes, a broader consideration of intent is necessary to garner a broader understanding of the
effect of pathways.
There are very few studies that examine how non-degree or certificate seeking students
affect community college completion rates overall. Studies exploring how student intent affects
the likelihood of degree or certificate completion are available and shed some light on the topic.
In a review of the community college trends, Bryant (2001) notes several studies found students
enroll in community college for the reasons other than obtaining a credential at a rate of 10% to
12%. Just five years later, Bailey, Leinback, and Jenkins (2006) conducted a study that found
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 25

17% of students reported “personal enrichment” as their primary reason for college enrollment.
Both 2001 review and the 2006 study generally support the conclusion that student intent to
complete a degree or certificate affects outcomes. The critical difference in the data presented by
these two studies is the number of students reported as “personal interest” or “personal
enrichment” and likely results from the data sets used for analysis.
In their 2006 study, Bailey, Leinback, and Jenkins used the Beginning Postsecondary
Student data set from National Center for Education Statistics (2003) and found a correlation
between completion rates and students’ primary reason for enrollment. The study found that 17%
of students reported “personal enrichment” as their primary reason for enrollment, 23% said “job
skills,” 36% said “transfer to a 4-year program,” and 21% said “obtain an Associate degree or
certificate.” Not surprisingly, those reporting that “obtaining job skills” as their primary reason
for enrollment completed degrees or certificates at substantially lower rates over a six-year term,
30% compared to the average of 36% for all students. Interesting to note, however, is that
students reporting their primary reason for enrolling as “personal enrichment” and “obtain a
degree or certificate” completed degrees and certificates at the same rate.
Horn, Nevill and Griffith (2006) use data from the 2003-2004 National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study to examine the effect of intent and commitment on student persistence. They
use enrollment intensity and stated intent to classify students as either “more committed” or “less
committed” to completing a credential. Students enrolled in a formal degree program attending
classes at least half time and reporting an intent to obtain a credential or transfer were classified
as “more committed” while students enrolled in a formal degree program for less than half time
or not reporting intent were classified as “less committed.” Those not enrolled in a formal
degree program were classified as “not committed.” Application of this criteria results in 49% of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 26

students showing as “more committed,” 39% as “less committed” and 12% as “not committed.”
In this study, only the “not committed” group was defined as “non-degree seeking.”
Additionally, the study population included all students eligible for federal financial aid enrolled
between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004, and not an exclusive cohort of students beginning in a
specific academic year. Their findings are consistent with those of Bailey, Leinback, and
Jenkins (2006). The analysis indicates that students in the “more committed” group were more
likely to have either obtained a credential or persisted to the subsequent fall semester than those
in the “less committed” or “not committed” groups (83%, 70%, and 58% respectively).
Regardless of the methodology, there is support for the notion that student intent can affect
student completion metrics.
The conclusions reached in these studies as well as in broader studies of goal setting and
motivation serve to point out that taking into consideration student intent may change student
completion outcome metrics for community colleges. Research on the effectiveness of creating
coherent academic pathways may also be affected in that comparison groups may have more
students who do not have a strong intention to complete a degree or certificate and thus do not
select a pathway or major. Two additional dimensions of the Pathways initiative include, “Help
students stay on the path,” and “Ensure students are learning” (AACC, n.d.). Activities that
support these dimensions align with programs which the CCSSE (2012) framework categorizes
under “intensive student engagement.”
Intensive student engagement. The “initiating success” portion of the CCCSE (2012)
framework focuses on practices that foster intensive student engagement particularly within
students’ first year of course work. Within the context of the community college environment,
the first year of course work may occur over multiple years since many students enroll part-time.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 27

The most salient definition of student engagement within the context of the CCCSE framework
and for the current study is the extent to which students participate in educationally effective
practices in and out of the classroom that produce measurable, desired outcomes (Finley, 2011).
A broad range of programs that emphasize student engagement have demonstrated efficacy in
improving student outcomes particularly related to course success, persistence, and retention
(Dudley, Liu, Hao, & Stallard, 2015). Two programs broadly adopted within this framework at
community colleges include first-year experience programs and developmental education
(CCCSE, 2012).
Developmental education is intended to enhance the academic and college success skills
of students who demonstrate deficiencies in the areas of math, reading, and writing. Many
programs intentionally incorporate college success skills into the math, reading, and writing
content areas although there is significant variation in the degree of emphasis placed on such
skills (Bailey, 2009). Jaggars and Stacey (2014) estimate that a full 60% of entering community
college students require at least one developmental course. The success of developmental
education programs is central to a college’s ability to increase completion rates in large part
because of the percentage of students who require remediation. Accelerated developmental
coursework coupled with academic supports such as tutoring are considered highly effective
practices (Hodara & Jaggars, 2014). Despite these findings, there is significant disagreement on
the efficacy of developmental education.
More recent research has called into question the benefit of developmental education
particularly in studies that focus on completion of college-level course work in math and English
as the primary benchmark for the success of these programs (Crisp & Delgado, 2014; Xu, 2016).
Of particular note is research conducted by the RP group for the California community college
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 28

system. Bahr et at. (2017) concluded that students who completed high school within the last 10
years are substantially more likely to complete college-level courses in math and English if they
never enroll in a developmental course regardless of placement results. This study is of
importance as the state legislature of California passed legislation (Assembly Bill 705) directing
colleges not to impede students from enrolling in college level coursework unless the institution
can demonstrate a high likelihood of failure without remediation. The California Community
College Chancellor’s office subsequently developed placement rules and suggested student
support based on the study to ensure compliance with the new legislation. The new guidance
indicates that any student who completed high school within the last 10 year be placed into a
college-level coursework in both math and English (Hope & Stanskas, 2018). The effects of the
legislation and new placement rules are yet to be seen as implementation of the is not required
until the 2019 academic year. Over the next several years, support programs for students who
traditionally enroll in developmental coursework may take on far greater significance. First-year
experience programs which often run in parallel with developmental education programs are an
excellent example.
Notwithstanding a common name, there are countless program designs in the first-year
experience arena. Kuh, O'Donnell, and Schneider (2017) indicate that high quality first-year
experience programs “emphasize critical inquiry, writing, information and media literacy,
collaborative learning, and other skills that develop students’ intellectual and practical
competencies” (p. 10). Regardless of specific program design elements, students who participate
in first-year experience programs show increased positive relationships with faculty,
understanding of college resources, involvement in campus activities, and better time-
management skills than non-participating peers (Hatch & Bohlig, 2016). Typical elements of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 29

first-year experience programs found to influence student success positively include student
support programs such as supplemental instruction, learning communities, and study skills or
student success courses (Fike & Fike, 2008; Scrivener et al., 2008; Windham, Rehfuss, Williams,
Pugh, & Tincher-Ladner, 2014).
Supplemental instruction is an integrated academic support program widely adopted in
the community colleges. Typically, supplemental instruction offers voluntary study sessions
facilitated by trained student or faculty tutors. Variations of supplemental instruction are
numerous and include VSI which offers study session virtually and structured learning assistance
which makes sessions mandatory (Bettinger, Boatman, & Long, 2013; Huang, Cui, Cortese, &
Pepper, 2015). The success of students is largely predicated on student attendance and
participation. For participating students, supplemental instruction has consistently demonstrated
positive student outcomes related to both retention and completion (Crisp & Taggart, 2013).
Learning communities are another popular integrated support structure in community colleges.
In general, learning communities create cohorts of students who take two or more classes
together and provide at least one integrated curricular component between the courses (Jackson,
Stebleton & Laanan, 2013). Once students have matriculated into a community college, early
engagement with the college community show positive effects on retention and completion.
While Learning Communities take on various programmatic structures, vary in the level of
curricular integration, and differ widely in student requirements, the strategy is consistently
identified as a best practice for student engagement. Despite being identified as a high-impact
practice by CCCSE (2012), the empirical evidence on learning communities is mixed. Some
studies have showed a moderate impact on course completion and course performance (grades)
but evidence demonstrating longer term effects on persistence and completion is lacking (Crisp
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 30

& Taggart, 2013; Visher, Weiss, Weissman, Rudd, & Wathington, 2012). Sometimes integrated
into learning communities, study skills or student success courses have demonstrated efficacy in
improving some student outcomes.
The intent of student success courses is to help students build knowledge and skills
necessary for success in college. Common topics range from study and time-management skills,
test taking, exploration of learning styles, campus facilities and support services, motivation to
succeed, and college and career planning (Derby & Smith, 2004). Note that while the application
of learning styles to improve student outcomes is not supported in the academic literature
(Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008), many
community colleges continue to use this terminology and framework particularly within the
context of student success courses. Regardless of the varied topics covered, research has
consistently demonstrated positive student outcomes for those who participate in such courses.
Students who enroll in success courses are more likely to be retained in the following term and
year, more likely to complete degree-applicable coursework in their first year, and more likely to
transfer to four-year institutions (Zeidenberg, Jenkins, & Calcagno, 2007). According to Cho
and Karp (2013), positive effects are stronger when students enroll in these courses during their
first term at community college.
Readiness for Change
Organizational readiness for change (OCR) is an important factor in the successful
implementation of new policies, programs, and practices designed to improve student outcomes
(Shea, Jacobs, Esserman, Bruce, & Weiner, 2014). Despite a large body of research, an agreed
upon definition or measure of OCR has yet to emerge. Nonetheless, an examination of the
literature can provide insight into the need for laying the groundwork for successful change
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 31

efforts in community colleges. The OCR literature is examined from three perspectives. First,
OCR is used as a lens to examine resistance to change within organizations. Second, the role of
leadership in preparing organizations for change is examined using Weiner’s (2009) theoretical
framework. Finally, the role of the community college president and perceived necessary
competencies is briefly explored.
Organizational readiness for change. Increasing the number of students who complete
a degree or certificates at community college by 50% by 2020 will require significant
organizational change (McClenney, 2013). Organizational readiness for change (ORC) plays a
significant role in the success or failure of initiatives to achieve desired outcomes. McNabb and
Sepic (1995) defined ORC within the context of organizational culture and organizational
climate. The culture of an organization is defined the deeply rooted set of value and beliefs that
define behavioral norms within the organization (Schein, 1996, 2004). Organizational climate
refers to behaviors or actions which are expected, supported, and rewarded (Schneider &
Rentsch, 1988). Defining ORC within the constructs of organizational culture and climate
provides a window into the broader reasons for why change efforts fail. The failure of change
efforts is often attributed to leaders, but the reasons may be more closely tied to deeper cultural
values and beliefs and the associated operating environment that together produce significant
organizational resistance to change (McNabb & Sepic, 1995).
The resistance to change efforts is well documented within the community college
environment. McArthur (2002) and Levin, Jackson-Boothby, Haberler, and Walker (2015)
indicate that a lack of faculty to participate in decision-making processes particularly in matters
of perceived importance causes resistance. Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio (2008) see resistance as a
“sense making” activity that could be better utilized by the agents of change. They also suggest
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 32

that change agents often violate trust of constituents through broken agreements raising the level
of resistance. Locke and Guglielmino (2006) suggest that subcultures within community colleges
experience institution-wide change initiatives differently and that they in turn can influence the
success or failure of the change often unbeknownst to leadership. While a comprehensive
examination of the reasons for resistance to change is beyond the scope of this project, it is
important to note that significant resistance is present. As such, examining executive leaders’
understanding of and readiness for organizational change is pertinent.
The role of leadership in organizational change. While a broadly accepted framework
for organizational readiness for change has not yet emerged, Weiner (2009) provides a
theoretical framework suggesting that ORC is a multi-level, multi-faceted construct reliant on
change commitment and change efficacy. He defines change commitment as the level of
members’ shared resolve to execute the change and change efficacy as shared belief in their
collective ability to successfully execute the change. Other considerations such as an
organization’s financial, technical, human, and other material resources play important roles in
an organization’s readiness as well. Weiner’s (2009) theory examines how perceptions of these
structural factors affect members’ change commitment and efficacy. When considering the
circumstances necessary to generate readiness, consistent messaging and actions from leaders,
social information sharing, and a shared vision and value of the change are cited by Weiner
(2009) as well as numerous other researchers in varying contexts (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999;
Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache, & Alexander, 2010; Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007;
Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008; Van der Voet, Kuipers, & Groeneveld, 2016). The evidence
seems to suggest executive leadership plays a critical role in preparing organizations for
successful change efforts.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 33

An examination of studies exploring OCR reveals a consistent underlying assumption
that it is the responsibility of executive leaders to prepare the rest of the organization for change.
As the chief executive, community college presidents are organizationally positioned to initiate
and sustain change. They are positioned to interpret and communicate the mission and vision of
the college, establish institutional outcomes, direct resources, and as such to change faculty and
staff perspectives on both change commitment and efficacy. Further, the board of trustees and
community stakeholders often expect college presidents to work intensively on improving
student outcomes (Burrows, 1999; Donahue, 2003). The combination of the expectations of
community college presidents’ performance, the central role executive leaders play in the
creating an environment of successful organizational change, and the structural positioning of the
presidency, suggest that it is appropriate to hold incumbents in these positions accountable for
the primary metric of student completion rates.
Community college president competencies and roles. The core role of the
community college leaders has remained fixed over the last fifty years. As early as 1960s,
scholars were characterizing the role of the community college president is one of the most
difficult and complex leadership positions in American society. Gillie (1967) indicated campus
planning for the physical plant, economic planning inclusive of fundraising, program planning to
meet student and community needs, and merging of institutions to become a comprehensive
community college as key areas of responsibility that made the position so complex and for
which a president is likely to be held accountable. The goal of each of these activities is to
improve the student experience and ultimately, student completion outcomes. While executive
leaders’ goal of improving student outcomes has remained fixed, the scrutiny under which they
work, and the organizational issues faced have changed significantly.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 34

Between 1969 and 1989, calls for greater accountability and the advent of broader
collective bargaining signaled a meaningful change in the role of community college leadership.
The role of the president shifted from a highly autonomous decision-maker to that of a political
leader who needs to demonstrate flexibility, thoughtfulness, and vision to his or her followers
and lead in ways that include numerous stakeholders in the decision-making process (Lewis,
1989; Sullivan, 2001). A 2012 report issued by the AACC highlights four areas of competencies
necessary for community college leaders to succeed: 1) organizational strategy, 2) institutional
finance, research, fundraising, and resource management, 3) communication, and 4)
collaboration (AACC, 2012). The AACC competencies at once reflect the unchanging core role
of community college leaders, that of improving student success, and the changing environment
in which presidents lead. While community college boards of trustees and presidents themselves
generally agree that the AACC framework identifies the appropriate skill set (Dupree & Ebbers,
2012), researchers and presidents alike have questioned the likelihood of one individual
developing all the competencies (Gille, 1967; Goff, 2003). Considering the complexity of the
framework, it is reasonable to assume that presidents need a deep knowledge of community
college practices in numerous areas to develop a coherent organizational strategy and direct its
resources towards achieving the stated goal. Further, they must be motivated to enact change in
a complex, changing context.
The current study sought to examine the underlying knowledge requirements and
motivation necessary for presidents to deliver leadership to effect organizational change leading
to increased student completion rates. Examining these factors within the organizational context
of community colleges and exploring how knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
influence one another is intended to expose gaps that can potentially be systematically addressed
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 35

(Clark & Estes, 2008). A more focused examination of knowledge and motivation factors that
may influence presidential leadership, as well as the organizational context of how community
colleges operate is presented using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework.
Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) indicate that organizational performance issues are caused by
influence factors related to knowledge, motivation, or organizational causes. If a gap exists
between actual performance and desired performance, a close examination of the knowledge and
motivation of stakeholders, and the organizational factors that influence the stakeholder can
identify the specific causes for the performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl (2002)
provides a revision of Bloom et al.’s (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives in which the
knowledge dimension is formed by four distinct categories – factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive – that provide a useful frame through which to explore potential performance
issues related to knowledge. Similarly, Rueda (2011) describes three components of motivation
that can each influence stakeholder performance. These include active choice, a conscious
decision to actively pursue a specific goal, persistence, the decision to pursue a specific goal in
the face of distractions or competing goals, and mental effort, the willingness to exert the
required mental energy appropriate for completing the task at hand. Lastly, organizational
influences such as a lack of effective, efficient work process, lack of resources, or organizational
culture elements can all impact stakeholder performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Examining the
literature that explores the knowledge and motivation necessary for successful executive-level
leadership and the organizational context of community colleges underpins the conceptual
framework developed for this study.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 36

Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Affecting Community
College Presidents
The stakeholder group of study are community college presidents. As such, the
knowledge specific to presidents that, if acquired, can help leaders positively impact completion
rates is important to explore. Similarly, motivation plays a key role in the actions or lack of
actions in which individuals engage (Rueda, 2011). The constructs of self-efficacy and utility
value were selected to explore the motivation of executive leaders. Finally, understanding the
organizational context in which leaders act and how that context influences their ability and
motivation to enact change towards the desired goal rounds out the preparation for a study
utilizing the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge Influences
Leaders must apply specific content knowledge to successfully lead organizational
change and improvement efforts (Noruzy, Dalfard, Azhdari, Nazari-Shirkouhi & Rezazadeh,
2013; Thomas, 1988). Deficiencies in the necessary knowledge and skills among executive
leaders can potentially hinder the ability to successfully move organizations toward the stated
goal (Rueda, 2011). Understanding the knowledge and skills executive leaders currently possess
in the areas of community college best practices and leadership is a necessary step in
determining areas of deficiency. An examination of the existing research literature can help
determine the critical skills leaders need to successfully lead organizational change. Comparing
empirically validated skill sets to current knowledge and skills of executive leaders can help
determine if critical gaps exist that are impacting performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Specifically, increasing the number of students who complete an associate degree or certificate at
their community college requires executive leaders to have a broad range of knowledge and
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 37

skills (Nevarez & Wood, 2012). The ability to apply research-based knowledge and leadership
skills within their specific institutional context is central to achieving this goal (Goldrick-Rab,
2010; Eddy, 2005).
Knowledge of institutional context. Contextual knowledge of the institution type and
the specific institution are required to improve performance under two specific circumstances;
first when individuals do not know how to achieve their performance goal, and second, when
developing a solution will require novel problem-solving strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008). An
appropriate framework should be used when addressing performance issues affected by the
change agent’s lack of knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) provides a revision of Bloom et al.’s
(1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives in which the knowledge dimension is formed by four
distinct categories, factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Each category of
knowledge can be examined to help determine the cause of performance issues and the ability of
individuals to address those issues (Rueda, 2011).
Factual knowledge refers to the commonly accepted facts within a given field or area of
study and includes axiomatic knowledge required to understand and function within a given
discipline (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge refers to a self-awareness of cognitive
process that allows individuals to consider the context of a given problem, including why and
when one should engage in a specified behavior and is critical for executive leaders (Rueda,
2011). This category of knowledge is particularly important for academic leaders to make
adjustments to their behavior that may be required to achieve the desired outcome (Kok &
McDonald, 2017; Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013). Factual knowledge and
metacognitive awareness are critically important for executive leaders and can be considered
foundational to providing community college leadership. The current study, however,
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 38

emphasizes conceptual and procedural knowledge to evaluate the extent to which community
college presidents are actively engaging in leadership activities to increase the rate at which
student complete of degrees and certificates. Understanding of successful models, organizational
structures, theories, and principles that affect community college completion rates, for example,
is considered conceptual knowledge and is required for executive leaders to conceive of potential
solutions to the issue (Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Krathwohl, 2002). Similarly, procedural knowledge,
or knowledge that refers to steps taken to accomplish a task, is required when implementing
organizational changes to achieve a different outcome (Bertram, Blase, & Fixsen, 2015;
Krathwohl, 2002).
Knowledge of research-based best practices. Executive leaders need to have a
thorough conceptual understanding of research-based best practices in student success at
community colleges. The body of research knowledge relating to community college student
success examines a wide range of factors that impact student completions. These factors include
organizational structure and governance, curriculum design and delivery models, instructional
practices, student demographics, and numerous program-specific interventions. Goldrick-Rab
(2010) suggests three broad categories of research to consider when examining factors that
impact student success and provides the framework for examining the conceptual knowledge of
research-based best practices needed by executive leaders. The categories include macro-level
opportunity structures, institutional practices, and student attributes. While community college
presidents are unlikely to be expert in all areas, a novice level understanding in all areas and an
expert level of knowledge in some areas may facilitate the ability to provide leadership to the
broad constituencies involved in efforts to achieve higher levels of student completions (Nevarez
& Wood, 2012).
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 39

Macro-level opportunity structures are defined as external factors such as state and
federal governance structures and federal financial aid policy that either limit or facilitate
community colleges ability to increase student completions (Goldrick-Rab, 2010). Executive
leaders need to have some level of understanding that such external factors can significantly
impact student completions. State governance structures, for example, can significantly impact
community college funding and the ability of students to access higher education (Doyle &
Zumeta, 2014). As states engage in revising funding formulas and focus more on outcomes-
based funding models, executive leaders need to understand and respond appropriately
(D’Amico, Friedel, Katsinas, & Thornton, 2014; Lahr et al., 2014). Similarly, the ability and
ease with which students can access federal financial aid impacts students’ ability to complete
community college degrees and certificates (Boatman & Long, 2016; Scott-Clayton, 2015).
Understanding the impact of policy changes on students and other how other colleges have
changed institutional practices to successfully manage these challenges is critical knowledge for
executive leaders to advance the cause of increased student completions.
Institutional practices are defined as policy and practice that can be shaped within the
institution and affect student completion rates at the college in question (Goldrick-Rab, 2010).
Examples of institutional practices include course offerings, faculty selection, organizational
learning practices, and student support programs. Presidents need to have a clear understanding
of which program offering might be most effective in addressing the issues associated with
student completion and how those programs impact a diverse student body. For example, first-
year experience programs that include a college success course are a popular intervention to
address student retention. Research indicates that first-year experience programs show a positive
effect on year-to-year retention but that such programs are more impactful on women (Windham
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 40

et al., 2014). Similarly, the type, timing, and cancelation of course offerings, faculty selection,
and professional development opportunities for faculty all hold the potential to affect student
completion rates. (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Eagan & Jaeger, 2009; McAfee & Finch, 2013;
Turner, González, & Wood, 2008). Understanding how individual programs affect student
completion outcomes, as such, becomes a critical knowledge competency for executive leaders.
Finally, student attributes refer to characteristics and challenges with which students enter
the institution that affects student completion rate and can include level of student demographics,
academic preparation, economic circumstance, level of information regarding college, and social
support structures (Goldrick-Rab, 2010). Executive leaders need a clear understanding of the
school-work-life balance needs of diverse student populations to promote programs that can
successfully increase retention and completion (Ingram & Gonzalez-Matthews, 2013). Social
capital, in this context considered the network of family, friends, and college faculty and staff
from whom a student can garner assistance, for example, impacts Hispanic and African-
American students’ ability to successfully persist and complete degrees and certificates
(Sandoval-Lucero, Maes, & Klingsmith, 2014). First-generation college students present a
broader challenge that presidents must understand. Engle and Tinto (2008) indicate that these
students are four times more likely to leave college without completing a degree or certificate
than students with parents who hold a college degree. In part, this disparity is due to first-
generation students’ lack of understanding of college systems and processes (Moschetti &
Hudley, 2015). Similarly, academic preparation and socio-economic status of incoming students
affect students’ likelihood of successful degree and certificate completion (Bahr, 2007; Crisp &
Delgado, 2014; Windham et al., 2014). To address the complex issue of community college
completion rate, executive leaders need to understand how this multitude of issues interact to
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 41

create student experiences that lead to success or failure (Nevarez & Wood, 2012). The
application of that knowledge requires that community college presidents have procedural
knowledge of change management and leadership.
Knowledge of change management and leadership. Executive leaders must have the
procedural knowledge necessary to successfully implement changes that produce improved
student completion outcomes (Cloud, 2010). The ability to take the conceptual knowledge
related to best practices in student completion and apply that knowledge within the context of a
specific organization is a necessary skill when attempting to improve student outcomes (Levin,
1998; Lok & Crawford, 1999). In applying these skills, community college presidents must
necessarily overcome resistance and create commitment among stakeholder groups as part of the
change process (Matos Marques Simoes & Esposito, 2014; Dent & Goldberg, 1999). A complex
mix of approaches is likely necessary. Understanding how and when to apply a directive versus
collaborative leadership approach, how to adjust organizational funding priorities and
institutional policy, and how to successfully make the case for change are requisite skills to
successfully lead institutional change that results in increased student completion rates (Malm,
2008). From a leadership perspective, communication facilitates the successful application of all
strategies.
The need for leaders to communicate clearly to stakeholders during the change process is
well established and has been demonstrated to reduce resistance and uncertainty, increase
readiness, and gain commitment among stakeholders (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007;
Brashers, 2001; Kitchen & Daly, 2002). Each of the factors are issues facing community college
presidents as they engage in change efforts. A strong understanding of how to use these tools
and techniques to successfully make the case for change is necessary (Caldwell, 1993). Within
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 42

the context of community colleges, renewed calls for greater accountability from accreditation
agencies and lawmakers have resulted in the need to gather, analyze, and communicate data
effectively (Ewell, 2011). National and local data are broadly available in community colleges
and are commonly used by community college faculty and administrators (Jenkins & Kerrigan,
2008). The vast amount of data available can prove problematic causing biases in the decision-
making process leading to conflict (Bawden & Robinson, 2009; Van Knippenberg, Dahlander,
Haas, & George, 2015). Community college presidents are well-positioned to help provide
context for the available data which can reduce the issues associated with information overload
(Mayer, 2011). As such, the ability to distill and communicate relevant information can be seen
as a key skill in community college change management.
Table 2 shows the two knowledge influences identified in the literature review.
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Presidents need to know research-based best practices in the
areas of community college student success as it relates to
course success, persistence, and completion.
Conceptual
Presidents need to master the implementation principles
associated with successful organizational change efforts.
Procedural

Motivation Influences
Motivation is defined as a set of processes that lead an individual to initiate sustained,
goal-directed behavior (Mayer, 2011). Motivation theorists strive to explain individuals’ goal
selection, their ongoing persistence, and the level of effort allocated to tasks required to achieve
those goals (Wigfield, Eccles, Fredricks, Simpkins, Roeser, & Schiefele, 2015). The ability of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 43

community colleges to significantly increase success rates is dependent on the motivation that
executive leaders exhibit in driving change towards the identified goal. Within the context of a
work environment, there are three primary components of motivation which are (a) active
choice, a conscious decision to actively pursue a specific goal; (b) persistence, the decision to
pursue a specific goal in the face of distractions or competing goals; and (c) mental effort, the
willingness to exert the required mental energy appropriate for completing the task at hand
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Examining the motivational influences that affect how executive leaders
develop and exert leadership through active choice, persistence, and mental effort in service to
the goal of increasing student completion can provide useful insights in identifying specific
performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
There is extensive evidence that higher levels of motivation lead to better work
performance making the examination of leader motivation a critical step in identifying
performance gaps (Van Iddekinge, Aguinis, Mackey, & DeOrtentiis, 2017; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Kuvaas, 2006). Executive leadership performance is most frequently judged through
organizational performance and more specifically through follower performance. Research
indicates that leadership directly impacts follower performance (Bellé, 2013; Dumdum, Lowe, &
Avolio, 2013). If executive leaders are not motivated, follower and organizational performance
will be diminished. As such, examining the mediating and moderating variables that affect the
level of motivation of executive leaders can expose potential causes of overall organizational
performance. While there are numerous motivational theories and constructs that can be applied
to examine the efforts of executive leaders, this study focuses on expectancy-value theory and
the self-efficacy theory. Expectancy-value theory provides a framework to explore executive
leaders’ perceptions regarding the value of the stated goal, and their expectations in achieving
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 44

the goal, while self-efficacy theory facilitates an exploration of leaders’ perceptions of their
ability to achieve the goal (Eccles, 2006; Pajares, 2006).
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value theory examines achievement-related
choices by considering the value individuals assign to a task or goal and the expectations
individuals have for success (Eccles, 2006). The value that one assigns to a task can be
characterized as the level of desire to complete the task and influenced by four related constructs
which are (a) intrinsic value, the pleasure one associates with a task, (b) attainment value, task
consistency with self-identity, (c) utility value, task value associated with obtaining short or
longer-term goals or rewards, and (d) perceived cost, potential emotional or social cost
associated with a given task (Eccles, 2006). The research literature broadly supports the
influence of value on motivation and performance (van Knippenber, 2000; Wigfield & Eccles,
2000, Mayer, 2011). Examining the constructs that influence value can therefore provide insight
into motivation-related performance issues (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Expectation, or formally, expectancies, are defined as an individual’s belief regarding
how well he or she will perform on a given task either in the near or long-term (Wigfield et al.,
2015). Though closely related, ability beliefs are distinguished in this model and are defined as
one’s self-perception of his or her current competency in completing a task. The distinction
between ability beliefs and expectancies is two-fold. First, expectancies focus on how well one
believes he or she will do on an identified task whereas ability focuses on belief of one’s level of
competency. Second, expectancies focus on tasks that have yet to be completed while ability
focuses on perceived current competency.
The value of student completion as a goal. Assigning a high value to a task or goal can
significantly increase motivation to achieve that goal (Eccles, 2006). If executive leaders assign
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 45

the goal of increasing completion rates with a high utility value, it is more likely that they will
engage the problem with greater mental effort and will persist in attempts to achieve the goal in
the face of significant challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008). The challenges community college
presidents face are numerous, come from diverse stakeholders, and can result in conflicting
priorities (Beehler, 1993; Jones & Johnson, 2014; Kubala & Bailey, 2001). As such, the value
that executive leaders place on increasing completion may be tempered by competing priorities.
Malm (2008) identified seven challenges perceived by community college leaders: (a) fiscal, (b)
internal culture, (c) employee recruitment and retention, (d) community relations, (e)
infrastructure, (f) demand for new programs, and (g) student access to baccalaureate degrees. An
examination of the internal culture of community colleges identified a corollary challenge as
executive leaders noted that “embracing the value of results” was a challenge (Malm, 2008, p.
618). Presidents noted that generating commitment among stakeholder groups to focus on
defined outcomes proved a significant challenge which is indicative of both resistance and lack
of follower commitment to the goal. In addition to competing priorities and challenges, the
history of community college may affect the value that executive leaders assign to the increasing
student completions.
Community colleges have a long history of focusing on creating student access with
considerably less emphasis on student completions (Gilbert & Heller, 2013; Dassance, 2011).
While access to postsecondary education has increased significantly, many community college
leaders believe this should remain a primary focus of the institution (Bragg & Durham, 2012).
While increasing completion rates and simultaneously maintaining and improving access is
possible, financial issues are often seen as hindering the ability to achieve both goals (Mullin,
2010; Belfield, Crosta, & Jenkins, 2014). The combination of competing priorities and historical
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 46

influences point to the possibility that presidents may place less value on completion rates than
other priorities making it a viable line of inquiry. A lack of emphasis on the goal itself may
reduce the motivation of executive leaders to work specifically on improving completion rates.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy refers to the extent to which an individual believes
he or she can successfully complete a task (Pajares, 2006). A large body of research evidence
indicates that the belief that one holds regarding their ability to bring about a desired outcome
shapes their motivation to take the necessary action required to do so (Bandura, 2000). Because
self-efficacy has such a strong influence on motivation and thus action, examining the how the
efficacy beliefs of individuals attempting to achieve a specific goal can help expose performance
issues related to motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Bandura (1977) notes four sources of
efficacy expectations each of which can affect an individual’s self-efficacy: (a) performance
accomplishment, past experiences, successful or unsuccessful, (b) vicarious experience, the
observation of peers who either succeed or fail at similar tasks, (c) verbal or social persuasion,
intentional or unintentional messages sent by others, and (d) emotional states or arousal, an
individual’s physiological or emotional state (Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 2006). Each of these
influences can have either a positive effect on an individual’s self-efficacy; successful experience
increases self-efficacy while a negative experience can reduce it, seeing peers succeed can
increase self-efficacy while seeing them fail can lower it, and so on. Of the four influencers,
Bandura (2000, 1977) indicates that performance accomplishments tend to be the most powerful.
Self-efficacy beliefs of presidents. Over the last 16 years, extensive research has shown
a clear connection between leader self-efficacy and organizational and employee performance
outcomes (Fitzgerald & Schutte, 2010; McCormick, 2001; Paglis & Green, 2002; Ramchunder &
Martins, 2014). Examining each of the four influencers of self-efficacy, performance
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 47

accomplishment, vicarious experience, social/verbal persuasions, and emotional states, as they
relate to community college executive leaders may provide valuable insight into how executive
leader motivation is affecting completion rates. Executive leaders who have had previous
success increasing success rates may demonstrate higher levels of self-efficacy than those who
have not. Leaders who have been a part of teams that have increased completion rates may
similarly demonstrate higher self-efficacy because they have vicariously experienced success.
Similarly, the positive social persuasion and positive emotional state response that leaders
experience over the course of their career is likely to influence their self-efficacy positively while
negative experiences will decrease their self-efficacy (Whitt, Scheurich, & Skrla, 2015).
Determining the influences that affect the self-efficacy and the executive leaders’ level of self-
efficacy can shed light on the motivation of executive leaders to engage in sustained efforts to
increase student completion rate (Clark & Estes, 2008; Whitt, Scheurich, & Skrla, 2015, Pajares,
2006,). Table 3 shows the assumed motivation influences identified in this literature review.
Table 3

Motivation Influences

Assumed Influence Construct
Presidents need to see the utility value in establishing and
achieving high completion rate targets in achieving both their own
professional goals and institutional goals.
Utility Value
Presidents need to have confidence in their ability to lead
organizational change to drive increases in student completion
rates.
Self-Efficacy

Organizational Influences
In addition to knowledge and motivational factors, organizational factors such as work
processes, availability of material resources, and organizational culture are critical dimensions in
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 48

addressing performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). As such, it is important to explore the
extent to which organizational factors affect the ability of executive leaders to implement
changes that can improve student completion rates. A cultural model and cultural settings
framework can be utilized to examine the organizational influences on performance.
Cultural models represent the implicit values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms within an
organization that guide the behavior of individuals, and ultimately the organization, while the
cultural setting is defined as the tangible manifestations of that culture (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Cultural models facilitate the exploration of major assumptions among key stakeholders
that can impact performance, while examination of the cultural setting exposes the observable
behaviors and artifacts that impact performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2004).
Consequently, community college executive leaders’ awareness of the key cultural elements
plays a critical role in their ability to effectively provide leadership that improves student
completion rates.
Cultural model for increasing student completions. Cultural models can be described
as the shared mental schema within an organization that shapes how individuals perceive their
current circumstance (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Because individuals exist within the
culture, these schemata are often taken for granted and not perceived as important. While
community colleges across the country have signaled a desire to increase the number of degrees
and certificates awarded in their mission statements (Ayers, 2015), the culture within community
colleges may resist the changes necessary to do so. Instituting organizational changes that could
result in significant increases in student completions is often perceived by presidents as being
met with significant resistance from faculty (Cook, 2012).
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 49

Resistance to change, however, is not limited to a single level of an organization (Pardo
del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003). In a survey of 3000 mid-level managers, Spreitzer and
Quinn (1996) found that senior level managers were consistently noted as resisting change
efforts. Indeed, a desire to maintain the status quo by people in positions of authority such as
community college presidents is broadly supported in the research literature (Kay et al., 2009).
Consequently, it becomes incumbent on community college executive leaders to examine the
cultural model of resistance in a manner that is inclusive of its influence on their own behavior.
Cultural setting for increasing student completions. Cultural settings are tangible
expressions of the cultural models present within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model identifies work processes and material
resources as important, tangible areas to examine when exploring performance gaps. Work
process can be defined as the interaction of people and material to achieve a stated goal over
time. Material resources refers to the availability of supplies, equipment, and by extension,
funding available to achieve the stated goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Within the context of the
community college environment, work process and material resources can be considered key
cultural settings when examining executive leaders’ ability to increase student completion rates.
Decision-making work process. Community college work processes are most clearly
expressed in policies and documented practices. The process through which institutional
decisions are made influences the ability of leaders to affect change and consequently the ability
to improve student completion rates. If, for example, the prescribed decision-making framework
requires consensus among various stakeholder groups, executive leaders may feel their ability to
make what they perceive to be the “right” decision is limited.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 50

A common decision-making framework employed in community colleges is that of
shared governance (Kater & Levin, 2004). The practice of shared governance engages faculty
and staff in decision-making in academic areas such as curriculum, faculty evaluation, and tenure
recommendations, as well as non-academic areas such as budget and program growth and
elimination of programs (Levin, 2000). Effective shared governance practices can help create
buy-in and better shape ideas while poorly practiced shared governance can lead to firm
adherence to the status quo (Lucey, 2002).
Shared governance structures, particularly when legislated by state law, are important for
community college presidents to consider (Morphew, 1999). The state of California notably
passed legislation in 1988 that mandated and outlined shared governance throughout the
statewide community college system. Schuetz (1999) posited that the implementation of shared
governance can promote distrust among faculty, staff, and management groups resulting in
fragmented agendas, politized budgets, and increased resistance to change. An examination of 25
community colleges, showed nuanced results that indicate that while shared governance resulted
in a greater sense of trust between faculty and administration, that cooperation did not
necessarily follow, and each group tended to pursue their own agendas that often did not
coincide (Piland & Bublitz, 1998). In a review of the literature examining the relationship of
effective governance to structure, processes, leadership, and trust, Kezar (2004) argues structure
and process are subordinate to leadership that develops trustful relationships. The tension
created by mandated structures and evidence that leadership can overcome that tension exposes
the need for community college presidents to have a sophisticated understanding of how to
overcome resistance and build commitment to successful organizational change. The efficacy of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 51

the shared governance decision-making process is then likely contingent on the ability of
community college presidents to build trust and overcome resistance.
Material resources. Two aspects of the material resources that can affect executive
leaders’ ability to affect change include the amount of available resources and the ability to
allocate those resources as leaders deem most effective. The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities found that as of 2014, funding for community colleges had not yet climbed back to pre-
recession levels in 48 states (Mitchell, Palacios, & Leachman, 2014). This lack of funding may
diminish access and hamper colleges’ ability to achieve desired completion outcomes (Mitchell,
Palacios, & Leachman, 2014; Waller, Glasscock, Glasscock, & Fulton-Calkins, 2006). The
mechanisms by which funds are allocated within the institution also influences executive leader
decision-making.
Since 1970, at least 30 states have implemented a performance-based funding model to
allocate state-level funds. While performance-based funding has not been demonstrated to
improve student outcomes, it has altered the behavior and perceptions of community college
presidents (D’Amico, Friedel, Katsinas, & Thornton, 2014; Tandberg, Hillman, & Barakat, 2014;
Lahr et al., 2014). Executive leaders indicate increased cost of compliance, a narrowing of
institutional mission, greater restrictions on underprepared students, and lower academic
standards associated with performance-based funding (Dougherty et al., 2014). In addition to the
noted increase in cost for compliance, other changes show a shift in priority for executive
leaders. This imposed shift may hamper the autonomy of executive leaders to make decisions
based on perceived local need and consequently impede their ability to successfully increase
student completion rates.
Table 3 shows the organization mission, global goal, and stakeholder goal, and the
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 52

organizational influences that can impact executive leaders’ ability to increase student
completion rates identified in this literature review.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural Model/Setting Organizational Influence
Cultural Model 1: Resistance
Community colleges need to embrace
organizational change efforts to overcome
resistance.
Cultural Setting 1:
Shared governance
Community colleges need to successfully employ
the shared governance decision-making process to
successfully drive organizational change.
Cultural Setting 2:
Financial allocation
Community colleges need to manage the
organizational barriers associated with internal and
external funding allocation mechanisms to provide
appropriate resources for change efforts.

A conceptual framework represents the concepts and theories that are taken as axiomatic
for a given study (Maxwell, 2013). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicate that every study has a
conceptual or theoretical framework and that it permeates the process of the study. Within the
context of a dissertation in practice, the concepts and theories used to form the framework are
derived both from academic literature in relevant fields as well as the practical experiences of the
researcher.
The academic literature examining student completion rates presents a wide range of
programs and interventions that can positively affect student performance outcomes and
completions including academic and non-academic support programs, curriculum redesign, and
academic advising programs (Crisp & Taggart, 2013; Dawson, van der Meer, Skalicky, &
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 53

Cowley, 2014; Hatch, 2016; Hodara & Jaggars, 2014; Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Price & Tovar,
2014). At the same time, the evidence shows that the rate at which students achieve degrees and
certificates remains stagnant nationally (AACC, 2016; NCES, 2014; NSCRC, 2012, 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016). When taken together, these two ideas lead directly to the question of why
completion rates have remained flat if there are programs that can positively affect the outcome.
It is this observation that leads to the research questions of the current study specifically
examining the role of executive leaders in improving completion rates. While many stakeholders
have the potential to impact student completion rates, community college presidents hold the
formal authority to implement the systemic change required to improve completion rates and so
are the focus of the study.
The present study employs Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework described in
Chapter Two to garner a greater understanding of the knowledge and motivation of the
community college executive leaders and potential organizational issues that impede progress
towards increasing the rate at which students achieve a degree or certificate. Key knowledge
issues selected for examination in this study include the executive leaders’ understanding of
research-based best practices in improving completion rates and an understanding of
organizational change implementation. The motivation constructs used in the study include
executive leaders’ perception of the utility value of degree completion and an examination of the
self-efficacy of presidents as it relates to improving completion rates. Similarly, the
organizational issues were identified using a cultural models/cultural settings framework
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). As described in Chapter Two, resistance to change serves as
the primary model while community college decision-making policies and material resource
policy issues serve as the primary cultural settings. While the literature review presents each of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 54

these elements independently, it is the interaction of the stakeholder knowledge and motivation
with identified organizational issues that form the conceptual framework and lens for this study.
Figure one (following page) presents a visual representation of this conceptual
framework. The figure shows that the executive leader knowledge and motivational factors
reside within the overall organization. Executive leaders then bring to bear their knowledge of
the problem being addressed and ability to initiate and sustain goal directed behavior to affect the
organizational issues impeding goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is this interaction
between the stakeholder knowledge and motivation to affect organizational issues that holds the
potential to affect the specified outcome represented by the stakeholder goal.
The interaction between the selected knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues
outlined for this study is straightforward. Executive leaders must be motivated to increase
student success rates. Their motivation can be influenced by their perceived ability to affect the
change or assumed utility value in accomplishing the task, as noted in the literature review, but
can also be impacted by organizational resistance and their own knowledge of how to address
that resistance (Mayer, 2011). Similarly, executive leaders must have a strong understanding of
how to programmatically effect change. Not having this knowledge can significantly reduce
their motivation and increase organizational resistance (Cook, 2012). These interactions then
influence the degree to which the outcome is achieved.
Examining the interaction of the knowledge and motivation issues of executive leaders
with the related organizational issues provides an appropriate lens through which to potentially
identify key factors that result in unsatisfactory performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The goal of
this study is to engage in a structured process that can identify what executive leaders are doing
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 55

to positively or negatively affect their institutions’ achievement of student completion goals and
then suggest areas for further research.

Executive Leaders
Knowledge: Conceptual and Procedural knowledge and
skills related organizational change practices needed to
implement best practices in community college student
success.
Motivation: Self-efficacy of executive leaders in relation
to influencing organizational change to improve student.
Perceived value of increasing student success in relation
to challenges associated with organizational change.
Goal for Stakeholder
By 2020, executive leaders will provide
campus leadership that results in a 50%
increase in student completion rates at their
respective institutions.
Community College
Cultural Model: Multiple levels of community college faculty, staff, and
leadership are resistant to organizational change. Cultural Settings: (1)
Shared governance decision-making practices and policies can resist or
facilitate change. (2) The amount and ability to allocate material resources
affect change efforts.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for interaction of leader knowledge and
motivation with organizational culture.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 56

Conclusion
Community colleges have a long history of reform efforts and have developed numerous
programs that demonstrate the ability to positively affect student outcomes. Despite these
successes, the national graduation rate has remained stagnant. This study examines the role
presidents can play in increasing the rate at which student earn degrees and certificates conferred
by community colleges. The literature review provides a brief history of reform efforts followed
by an examination of the role of organizational and leadership change readiness on the ability to
achieve desired outcomes. The review then explores a range of commonly adopted
programmatic efforts to improve student completions and concludes with a more focused
examination of assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that shape
community college executive leaders’ ability to engage in reform efforts. Chapter Three
provides a detailed description of the methods and tools used to collect and analyze data to
examine the research questions presented in Chapter One.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 57

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which community college
presidents can influence student completion rates. Community college presidents exert broad
influence on institutional goals through such mechanisms as planning practices, internal funding
decisions, personnel decisions, communication with faculty and staff, and program emphasis in
all areas of the college (Eddy, 2005). As such, this study examines executive leaders’ knowledge
of practices that can improve completion rates, their motivation to do so, and how the
organizational culture and setting assist or impede those efforts. The development of the
methodology and analysis were developed based on the research question for the study.
1. To what extent are community colleges on track to achieve the goal of increasing
student degree and certificate attainment rates by 50% by 2020?
2. What knowledge and motivational factors related to leading organizational change
influence the ability of presidents to affect a 50% increase in student completion rates
in community college environments?
3. How does the interaction between organizational culture and context with the
knowledge and motivation of community college presidents affect student outcomes?
4. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for presidents to increase student completions?
Chapter Three discusses the methods and tools used to collect and analyze data for the
study. The chapter begins with a brief description of participating stakeholders, details the
rationale for the selection of data collection methods and participants, and provides a description
of the instruments used. The chapter then moves to a discussion on credibility and
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 58

trustworthiness of the current study, ethics associated with qualitative research, and concludes
with a section outlining the limitations and delimitations of the study.
Participating Stakeholders
Many constituencies are significant stakeholders when considering community college
completion rates. Parents of students, four-year partner institutions, and local businesses all have
a vested interest in seeing more students achieve degrees and certificates at community colleges
(Jordan, Cavalluzzo, & Corallo, 2006; Yamamura, Martinez, & Saenz, 2010). Beyond students,
the three groups that hold the most potential to directly impact the completion rates, however, are
community college faculty, academic and student services deans, and executive leadership. This
study focuses on the ability of executive leaders to bring to bear their knowledge, skills, and
motivation to influence change to existing systems and overcome organizational barriers in order
to increase student completions. The study focused on community college presidents who served
in single campus districts and served as the chief executive for the institution. Presidents
working in a district structure who reported through a chancellor and not directly to a governing
board were not identified as chief executives and so not considered for participation.
Participants were selected by sending an email request for participation to presidents serving at
institutions that met the study criteria. All participants provided data through interviews.
Additionally, document analysis consisted of an examination of resumes provided by all
participants and relevant publicly available institutional planning documents.
Interview Sampling Criteria
The following criteria guided sampling.
Criterion 1. Individuals serving as president within a publicly funded community college
system.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 59

Criterion 2. Individuals serving as the chief executive for their institution defined as
reporting directly to the governing board of the institution.
Criterion 3. Individuals serving as president at institutions who were member colleges of
the American Association of Community Colleges.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Individuals were selected for this study using a non-probability, qualitative, convenience
sampling method. All single district community colleges in California, Oregon, and Washington
states where the president served as the chief executive were identified through an examination
of online institutional and state documents. Email invitations to potential study participates were
first sent to the fifty colleges in California. Fifteen California presidents indicated a willingness
to participate. As the study sample was to consist of 10 to 12 participants, additional invitations
were not extended. The initial design of the study intended to include presidents from multiple
states, however, the response rate from California presidents was very high. This sample was
accepted for several reasons. First, the purpose and underpinnings of the study did not include a
geographical component. Similarly, the initial design of the study did not emphasize the effect
of statewide governance on the ability of presidents to deliver leadership to affect outcomes.
Since all respondents met the study criteria, and because the state of California is deeply
connected to a wide range of national community college initiatives, highly engaged in AACC
initiatives, and represents one in four community college students nationally, the sample was
accepted. In total, the study consisted of 13 California community college presidents. Two
volunteers were unable to participate within the given time parameter for the study.
The purpose of this study is to understand how leaders can affect change in the
community college environment. Because the goal of the study is to understand the
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 60

meaningfulness of leadership activity within the given environment, a qualitative approach is
employed. To examine this issue, 13 community college presidents were interviewed. Since the
study seeks to examine specific constructs of knowledge and motivation of executive leaders and
how those interact with organizational issues to affect student completions, a guided interview
approach that focused on those specific topics was employed (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
The study explored how leaders use their knowledge and motivation to construct leadership to
face organizational issues in order achieve the desired outcome – that of increased student
completion rates. Examining the interaction between organizational culture and context with the
knowledge and motivations of community college presidents was, in essence, the examination of
how leadership is constructed. Within the context of the conceptual framework presented in
Chapter Two, the goal of the stakeholder under examination was to facilitate program
development and provide change leadership to increase student completions. This activity was
broadly defined as leadership within the community college environment. The examination of
leadership can be conducted through numerous lenses (Bolman & Deal, 2013). This study seeks
to make meaning of the experiences of executive leaders and as such a qualitative approach was
deemed most appropriate.
The sampling criteria developed for the study were both broad and simple. The focus of
the study was how executive leaders apply their knowledge and motivation to address
organizational issues to influence community college completion rates. Examining the
knowledge and motivation of leaders directly provided first-hand insight into the perceptions that
leaders hold of their ability to affect the desired outcome. The use of only public institutions
who are members of the AACC is intended to provide a basic consistency in context. While the
organizational cultures of these institutions varied, public institutions share significant
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 61

commonalities in that they receive public funds, utilize federal financial aid funds, and are open
access institutions. Membership in the AACC was selected as a sampling criterion because it is
the establishing organization of the global goal under investigation. Non-member organizations
may not have committed to the stated goal. Finally, only presidents who served as the chief
executive officer for their institution were considered for the study. Presidents working in a
district structure who did not report directly to a governing board were not considered to be chief
executives as their ability to influence college operations is likely tempered by reporting
structure.
Document Review Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The criteria below guided document selection.
Criterion 1. Documents were publicly available on college websites, state or federal
regulators (Department of Education, Statewide community college system sites, or similar).
Criterion 2. Individuals serving as the chief executive for their institution willingly
provided resumes to be reviewed as part of the research project.
Document Review Strategy and Rationale
Document review occurred in two stages. The first stage occurred prior to interviews.
Publicly available planning documents with titles such as “strategic plan,” “master plan,” or
“educational master plan,” were sourced from participating college websites. Additionally, data
provided to the department of education via the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) was used to identify student degree and completion rates. These data were used to
formulate interview questions regarding institutional goals and goal setting and presidents’
perception and knowledge of current institutional performance. While the domains in the
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 62

interviews remained consistent across participants, questions regarding goal setting,
organizational resistance, and governance were more focused by this initial document review.
After the completion of interviews, resumes provided by presidents were examined to
explore the professional experience of presidents particularly in the areas of community college
program implementation and change management and leadership. Personal documents also
provided insight into the personal perspectives and viewpoints of study participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Within the context of the conceptual framework for this study, the knowledge
and skills of executive leaders were central to the examination of how participants perceived and
addressed organizational issues. A review of the professional experience and skill as perceived
by the participant as observed on resumes were then considered in relation to interview
responses.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The criteria below guided survey sampling selection.
Criterion 1. Individuals serving as president within a publicly funded community college
system.
Criterion 2. Individuals serving as the chief executive for their institution defined as
reporting directly to the governing board of the institution.
Criterion 3. Individuals serving as president at institutions who were member colleges of
the American Association of Community Colleges.
Survey Strategy and Rationale
Survey instruments are often used to quantify the perspective of groups and are most
often utilized in quantitative research. In the present study, this was not the case. The Leadership
Efficacy Survey was delivered to participants electronically and participants were made aware
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 63

that results would be visible to the researcher in order to shape participant-specific interview
questions. Completed surveys were returned via email and so results were clearly tied to
individual participants. Individual results from the survey were used to tailor interview questions
regarding motivation and self-efficacy for individual participants. In total, eight of 13
participants completed the survey prior to the interview. Presidents who responded to the survey
were asked more specific questions regarding self-efficacy based on their individual survey
results. Those not completing the survey were first asked generally about their self-efficacy
beliefs followed by questions relating to the specific constructs measured by the Leadership
Efficacy Survey. The limited number of participants and respondents made quantitative analysis
of the data inappropriate (Salkind, 2017).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The primary purpose of this study was to determine how the organizational culture and
context interact with the knowledge and motivation of community college presidents to affect
student completion rates. Data for this study was collected using document analysis and
interviews. The survey instrument was used only as means to sharpen interview questions to
make data collection more efficient. These methods were selected to garner a greater
understanding of the interaction of the stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation with
organization culture, context and barriers, and how this interaction affects the desired outcome of
increased student completions. While surveys are often used as a quantitative tool, the small
number of participants made it unlikely that quantitative analysis would lead to compelling
findings.
The intent of the study is to inform practice. A two-phase data collection process was
employed. The first phase of the study consisted of two parts. First was the collection and
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 64

analysis of publicly available institutional planning documents and documentation stating the
individual college completion rates. The analysis of documents was intended to explore the
stated goals of the institution in terms of completion metrics and desired outcomes and to
document the past completion rate for each institution. In addition to document analysis, the
Mind Garden Leadership Efficacy Questionnaire (LEQ) was used to survey executive leaders’
self-perception of efficacy with granted copyright permission from Mindgarden Inc. The survey
results were not incorporated into analysis but rather used as a method to focus interview
questions. The LEQ parses self-efficacy into Leader-Action, Leader Self-Regulation, and Leader
Means. The survey components are described in detail in the Instrumentation section.
Responses allowed for more specific inquiry in regard to self-efficacy. If a participant scored
low on the Leader-Means self-efficacy scale, for example, then self-efficacy questions were
focused on resource availability, institutional policy, and support from colleagues.
The second phase of the project consisted of semi-structured interviews focused on the
interaction of culture and context with leaders’ knowledge and motivation. The interview
protocol is provided in Appendix A. The questions in the protocol were used as a starting point
for each topic explored and follow-up questions were asked for the purposes of clarification and
depth. During the interviews, all participants were asked to provide a resume and all did so.
Analysis of resumes was then conducted to examine leaders’ prior knowledge and years of
experience in the areas of organizational change management, administrative functioning of a
community college, and best practices in community college student success. A researcher -
developed scoring rubric for this analysis and is provided in Appendix B. Results of this
analysis were then used to contextualize interview responses during the analysis phase.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 65

Developing a robust and integrated understanding of the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational issues to provide actionable recommendations requires a multi-
tiered examination of current practice. The surveys and institutional document analysis were
used to gather data on the context in which presidents served to inform the interview process.
More specifically, the surveys gathered information regarding participants’ self-efficacy while
the document analysis provided insight into the goals and past outcomes of the institutions in
which presidents served. This data was then used to inform the direction of individual
interviews. The analysis of the experience of presidents via resumes then provided context for
examining interview data and served as a validation measure of interview responses. For
example, if a president expressed a higher degree of self-efficacy in raising completion rates,
past experience either as a leader or a follower in an environment where completion rates were
improved could provide a degree of support for the importance of self-efficacy within the context
of the study. In this way, the use of multiple data collection methods allowed for verification
and triangulation of data to increase the level of credibility and trustworthiness of the findings
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Together, these data collection methods provided a rich data set to
illuminate how community college executive leaders can make gains in completion rates at their
institutions or what factors might be preventing them from doing so.
Survey: Leadership Efficacy Questionnaire
The 23 item Leadership Efficacy Questionnaire (LEQ) provided by Mind Garden Inc.
was delivered to participants via email. Expected completion time for the survey was
approximately 10 minutes. All participants were asked to complete the survey. The study
consisted of 13 participants and eight completed the survey. According to Salkind (2017),
quantitative analysis using small sample sizes increases the likelihood that analysis can lead to
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 66

erroneous conclusions. As such, quantitative analysis of the LEQ was not conducted. Rather, the
results of the document analysis and LEQ survey were used to shape the individual interviews.
The results from these data collection techniques allowed for the interviews to focus primarily on
the interaction of executive leaders’ motivation and knowledge with the organizational context in
which they were working. Specific questions regarding how each executive leader applied his or
her knowledge and skills to the organizational issues at their institution were developed for the
interview process.
Because the study sought to examine how executive leaders’ knowledge and motivation
interact with organizational issues (see conceptual framework in Chapter Two) to influence
leaders’ ability to affect student completion rates the LEQ was an appropriate instrument. The
LEQ has successfully demonstrated that leadership efficacy is comprised of three components
predictive of positive leader outcomes (Hannah, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2012).
• Leadership Action Self-Efficacy—perceived capability to effectively execute
critical leader actions including motivating, coaching and inspiring others as well
as the ability engage followers with organizational goals and vision.
• Leader Self-Regulation Efficacy—perceived capability to lead through complex
situations, generate effective solutions to leadership problems, and interpret
context and followers.
• Leader Means Efficacy—leaders’ perceptions that the organization’s policies,
resources, and colleagues (peers, senior leaders, and followers) can be leveraged
to impact their leadership.
These three leadership efficacy constructs from the LEQ fit closely within both the KMO
framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) as well as the conceptual framework developed for this study.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 67

More specifically, leadership means efficacy allowed for the exploration of how organizational
culture and settings impact leader motivation, while action and self-regulation efficacy allowed
for the exploration of the potential impact of leader motivation on organizational issues. Note
that the full copy of the LEQ instrument is not provided per the copyright agreement with Mind
Garden Inc. Sample items are provided in appendix C.
Documents and Artifacts
Two types of documents were examined during this study: those pertaining to individual
participants and those relating more broadly to the institution. Documents pertaining to student
completions were collected and analyzed from four sources. These sources included the United
States Department of Education (DOE), the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center
(NSCRC), the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), and the individual
institutions at which participants worked. This dissertation in practice was conducted as a field
study and so data from national organizations such as DOE, NSCRC, and AACC were used to
examine one of the research questions of the study, that is, the extent to which community
colleges are increasing the rate of community college completions. Because DOE, NSC, and
AACC all use different measures for student completions, all three sets of documents are
examined (see Chapter Two for specific definitions). Documents from individual institutions
pertaining to student completions were also examined.
Individual institutional documents included in the study were only those that were
publicly available and retrievable from each school’s website. Documents that included any
indication of student completion rates, as well as institutional documents that note goals for
student completions, such as educational master plans or strategic plans were of primary interest.
Study participants were asked during the interview about their level of influence in setting
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 68

institutional goals. The examination of institutional documents allowed for the opportunity to
connect these goals with the self-efficacy belief of executive leaders (results in Chapter Four).
In addition to institutional documents, an analysis of participants’ resumes was
conducted. Resumes from individual participants provided a clearer picture of the knowledge
and skills with which participants entered community college presidencies. Resumes were
obtained from each participant on a voluntary basis and all participants provided the document.
Because executive leaders enter these positions with a wide range of backgrounds and
professional experiences, a validation of skills through an examination of the resume is
appropriate (McNair, 2015). Specifically, the review of resumes sought to determine the level of
knowledge and skill in community college instructional, student services and change
management upon embarking on these leadership positions and to validate data collected during
this study’s interview process.
Interviews
Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with community college presidents.
The semi-structured interview process was selected because it allowed for a flexible format. The
goal of a semi-structured interview is to allow each participant to provide his or her unique
perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, the interview questions were designed to
encourage participants to consider the interaction of the knowledge, skills, and motivation with
major institutional barriers and how that interaction hinders or facilitates progress towards goal
attainment. The interviews were conducted via video conference or phone. The video
conference platform Zoom was selected for the sake of practicality, cost, and utility. As with
phone calls, the Zoom platform also allows for the interviews to be recorded for documentation
purposes. All participants served within the California Community College system and were
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 69

scattered across a large geographical area making it both impractical and costly to conduct face-
to-face interviews. While the online video format was preferred because, according to Krueger
and Casey (2009), it allows for both the researcher and participant to receive at least some non-
verbal ques to heighten communication and understanding of both questions and responses,
participants were given the option of the phone. Most participants (nine of 13) preferred to be
interviewed by phone. Interviews occurred during various times of day based on the availability
of the participants. The interview protocol is provided in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process through which raw data is translated into coherent and
relevant information and aligned with the research questions that guide the study. The analysis
for this study began along with data collection and continued until all relevant data had been
analyzed. Initial document analysis of the completion rates of colleges at which participants
served as well as publicly available planning documents was conducted prior to the interview.
Additionally, for participants who completed the LEQ survey, results were examined and noted.
These data were examined prior to each interview and guided follow-up questions during the
interview protocol. For example, if a president worked at a school that demonstrated relatively
high completion rates, then the participant was asked what types of actions he or she had taken to
produce those rates or what institutional characteristics they felt contributed.
Interviews constituted the primary data set for the study. As is common with qualitative
studies, analysis of interviews began during the data collection process. In this initial phase,
brief analytic memos were written that noted potential themes, points of interest within each
interview, and explicitly noted the level of student success at each institution based on document
analysis. The intent of these memos was to provide opportunities to examine possible
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 70

connections between leadership knowledge and motivation of presidents to institutional
performance. Coding of interviews began after completion of three interviews and continued
after the completion of each interview. Two phases of analysis were used.
After interviews were transcribed, the first phase of coding consisted of a combination of
open coding and the application of a priori codes based on the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap
analytic framework and conceptual framework developed for the study. Knowledge, motivation,
and organizational issues were used as the broadest a priori codes and were supplemented by
specific constructs in each of those areas based on the assumed influences developed as part of
this study. For example, “utility value of the associate degree,” “resistance to change,” and “best
practices in community college completion” were each pulled directly from the conceptual
framework to serve as initial coding constructs. Phase two of the analysis sought to identify
emergent ideas, develop axial codes, and shape the themes from the data to address research
questions.
The development of axial codes and themes initially progressed through a careful
examination of a priori codes from phase one. Responses were examined for commonalities and
differences between participants. This review was conducted multiple times to expose emerging
themes that addressed the research questions and to provide supporting or contradictory evidence
for potential themes arising from a priori coding. This analysis provided the basis for the
development of axial codes that aggregated open codes and a priori codes. Finally, axial codes
were used to shape themes that best addressed the research questions of the study.
Throughout the process of analysis, conversations with community college faculty and
leaders from institutions that did not participate in the study were conducted. Initial conclusions
and supporting data were discussed to identify gaps or biased conclusions. Reflective memos
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 71

from these conversations were then produced and used as part of the process to create the final
themes discussed in Chapter Four.
Finally, because this was a field-based study, examining the extent to which the field is
making progress towards achieving the global goal of increasing community college success
rates by 50% by 2020 required the examination of a broader set of data. Completion results
reported to the Department of Education and the state of California as well as studies conducted
by the American Association of Community Colleges were used for additional analysis. These
data are presented separately in Chapter Four and a discussion of potential implications is
provided in Chapter Five.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research can produce challenges to credibility and trustworthiness around
issues of small sample size, researcher bias, generalizability, and replicability (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2014). These issues were addressed within this study in three ways. First, three methods
of data collection were utilized including, survey, document analysis, and interviews to collect
data focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers facing community
college presidents. Data gathered during interviews was validated through document review to
the extent documentation allowed. Data triangulation, as this type of validation is referred to,
during the data collection phase of the study is specifically utilized to increase the credibility of
qualitative studies (Casey & Murphy, 2009). Second, the selection of the study participants was
intentionally diverse. Presidents were selected from colleges that vary in size, geographical
location, and student demographics. This variance allowed for the study to focus centrally on the
role that executive leaders play in completion rates. While data triangulation, member checking,
and intentionality of study participants helps build the credibility of the study, trustworthiness is
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 72

more strongly tied to the researcher bias (Cope, 2014). Finally, initial results were discussed
with a range of experts within the community college and leadership area. Individuals included
community college faculty members, deans, and staff as well as executive leaders from other
fields of practice. These discussions were intended to increase results’ coherence and provide
insight into the potential generalizability of the results (Sousa, 2014).
The premise of trustworthiness is to demonstrate that findings of the study emerged from
the data and not from the predisposition of the researcher either towards study participants or the
topic of investigation. One basic level of bias is reduced because the researcher in this study
does not work at or with any of the institutions or participants. However, since the researcher
was deeply involved in community college work for 20 years, it was important to address other
potential biases. To enhance the overall trustworthiness of the study, the researcher carefully
examined his positionality, the results of which are presented in the next section. This process
includes a critical examination of assumptions, biases, and theoretical orientation regarding
community college leadership resulting in findings being more grounded in the data collected for
this study.
Ethics
In the context of qualitative research, the perception that the researcher engages in ethical
practices plays a significant role in producing trustworthy results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
As such, it becomes incumbent on qualitative researchers to address primary areas of potential
ethical concern. There are four primary areas for ethical consideration when working with
human subjects: 1) well-being and safety of study participants, 2) informed consent of
participants, 3) protection of participant privacy, and 4) transparency of study purpose with
research participants (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The nature of adherence to ethical behavior in
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 73

each of these areas is debated in the social science research community (Lincoln & Guba, 1989).
While the nuances of ethical behavior can be contested, there is broad agreement that the safety
and well-being of participants is a paramount and that well-being is often contingent on informed
consent, privacy, and transparency.
Viewed from the broadest perspective, the current study sought to examine the impact
that community college presidents can have on student completion rates. While faculty, staff,
and junior level managers all offer valuable insight into how executive leaders influence student
completions, the stakeholder group selected for this study was presidents themselves. To garner
a data set that could shed light on the specific research question of the study, a field study
employing individual interviews with 13 college presidents was conducted. Participants were
selected by sending a broad email to presidents who were employed at colleges that met the
study parameters. The lack of a pre-existing relationship minimized potential concerns of how
data might be affected by any perceived power dynamics between researcher and participants.
Additionally, all participants were in positions of significant formal authority, further limiting
concerns of coercion. These dynamics limited the potential for direct harm to study participants.
To further limit potential for harm, the researcher worked closely with experienced qualitative
researchers to develop probing but thoughtful questions that brought forward useful data while
limiting concerns of harm to participants.
To fully address the major areas of ethical consideration, including informed consent,
protection of privacy, and transparency of purpose, additional steps were taken. All participants
were verbally informed at the start of the interview that the interview would be recorded,
transcribed and that data files would be stored on a laptop in the researcher’s possession.
Additionally, participants were informed that data would be anonymized including participant
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 74

names, name and specific location of institution, and other specific information garnered from
interviews that could be easily linked to specific participants. Lastly, all participants were
provided the research questions for the study and offered an opportunity to ask clarifying
questions via email and during the interview. The voluntary nature of participation, the limited
relationship between the researcher and participants, lack of power differential between the
researcher and participants, and the transparent communication of the purpose of the study
limited potential ethical issues in terms of participants. To further address ethical concerns, it is
important that the researcher consider their own biases on the topic being studied.
As a researcher no longer employed at a community college, I have limited vested
interest in the result of the study. Twenty years of work experience in the community college
field have, however, left me with two significant biases that were important for me to take into
consideration when designing and conducting the study. First, I believe leadership holds primary
responsibility for institutional improvement. While state and federal lawmakers, faculty, staff,
and students can all take steps to improve student outcomes, I believe it is the role of the
president to create circumstances that compel those stakeholders to act. Although this belief is
supported by the research literature in education and other areas of study, the potential to ask
leading questions or questions that would lead to a specific conclusion was heightened by this
bias. Working closely with experienced researchers allowed me to address this concern. In
addition, I asked colleagues in the community college field who did not participate in the study
to review anonymized data and recommendations to see if the conclusions I drew were
reasonable. My second primary bias revolved around the idea of possibility. I believe
community college performance can significantly improve across all geographic and
demographic domains. Put more directly, I believe community colleges can and must do better.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 75

The idea that institutions can broadly improve student success rates is not well supported as there
are very few institutions who have successfully raised and sustained completion rates beyond
40%. To control for this bias, it was important for me to consider the possibility that community
colleges are performing at a very high level and that completion rates had reached something
close to their upper limit. Doing so made it easier to explore not only deficiencies in community
college leadership but also what presidents were doing well.
Limitations and Delimitations
The current study was a qualitative examination of how the knowledge and motivation of
community college executive leaders interacts with their specific organizational context to affect
student completion rates. The study included 13 participants limiting the scope of study to only
those perspectives and the organizational context in which they work. Even with a focus on
public community colleges who are members of the AACC, there was a high degree of variance
in the individuals and institutions studied. Further, only the perspective of presidents was
examined. The value of the study relies on the truthfulness and completeness of responses from
participants and the ability of the researcher to accurately gauge responses. Finally, since change
efforts involve numerous stakeholders, the study was far from complete. Examining only the
perspective of presidents limited the inquiry in that leader perceptions are not always the same as
perceptions held by those they lead (Cogliser, Schriesheim, Scandura, & Gardner, 2009). As
such, readers should take care to compare their specific organizational context with those
described here, carefully consider the knowledge and motivation of their own leaders and
explore if the conclusions reached from this research apply to their environment before
generalizing findings to their context.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 76

The characteristics that limit the utility of this study also provide intentional boundaries
or delimitation for the study. Only public community colleges that are members of the AACC
were considered. Public community colleges share a commitment to open-access education, are
funded by tax dollars, and serve students with a wide range of academic need (Ayers, 2017).
Additionally, only presidents serving as the chief executives with broad formal administrative
authority and leadership status participated in the study. The commonality of these
characteristics can potentially make the study results more generalizable.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 77

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge and motivation necessary for
community college presidents to increase student completion rates by 50%. In 2010, American
Association of Community Colleges collaborated with the Association for Community College
Trustees, the Center for Community College Student Engagement, the League for Innovation in
the Community College, the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, and
the Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society to establish the Completion Agenda. The completion agenda
sought to produce 50% more students with degrees and certificates by 2020 and brought
increased emphasis to the examination of completion rates (McPhail, 2011). This study focused
on completion rates because the number of degrees and certificates can fluctuate with factors that
are unrelated to the improved delivery of education such as enrollment and changes in
institutional offerings.
Community college presidents were selected as the primary group of study. To achieve
substantially different outcomes which a 50% increase in completion rates represents, institutions
would need to perform differently. Presidents were seen to have the greatest level of
organizational influence to effect changes at scale that could produce this vastly improved
outcome. As such, this study sought to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
issues that affect the ability of community college presidents to engage in change efforts that led
to an increase in completion rates. The research questions that guided this study were:
1. To what extent are community colleges on track to achieve the goal of increasing
student degree and certificate attainment rates by 50% by 2020?
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 78

2. What knowledge and motivational factors related to leading organizational change
influence the ability of presidents to affect a 50% increase in student completion rates
in community college environments?
3. How does the interaction between organizational culture and context with the
knowledge and motivation of community college presidents affect student outcomes?
4. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions for presidents to increase student completions?
To explore potential answers to question one, completion reports from the National
Student Clearinghouse Research Center, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES),
and the American Association of community colleges were explored. Additional exploration of
available data from the NCES was also conducted and is presented. In an effort to answer
questions two and three, data were collected through interviews with 13 community college
presidents. An analysis of institutional planning documents and resumes of participants was
conducted to provide further insight into institutional issues and prior knowledge and skills of
participants respectively.
While the research questions guided the study, the qualitative nature of the investigation
resulted in themes and insights beyond that of the assumed influences discussed in the literature
review. The qualitative data were carefully and systematically reviewed, and every effort was
made to reach conclusions that were based on the collective understanding and perspectives of
study participants.
Findings
The theoretical framework developed for this study places the knowledge and motivation
of presidents inside the organizational context and culture of their individual institutions. It was
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 79

within the interactions that the findings for this study emerged. The framework, however,
underestimated the role of external factors largely outside of the scope of community college
presidents to influence. Specifically, state legislation and funding-incentivized programs proved
to be far more influential both on the knowledge and motivation of presidents and the internal
functioning of each college.
The four themes that emerged from the study integrated knowledge, motivation, and
organizational issues. The emergent nature of the qualitative study led to findings focused
primarily on the interactions of the assumed influences. As such, findings are presented
thematically. Theme one focuses on the complexity of measuring student completions and
considers how this complexity affects participants’ perception of completion rates. Theme two
explores presidents’ knowledge of best practices in improving community college completion
and contextualizes that knowledge in terms of the broader reform efforts and state legislation.
Theme three discusses presidents’ perception of the causes of resistance to change, the
relationship between resistance and accountability, and the strategies that presidents employ to
address the resulting issues. Finally, theme four examines the value presidents place on the
associate degree, completion metrics, and institutional goals.
Theme 1: The Complexity of Measuring Completion
Answering the question of progress towards achieving increased completion rates is
unfortunately not straightforward. The diverse backgrounds and academic goals of students and
the open access nature of the community college create several challenges in defining a broadly
accepted completion rate. Questions regarding the appropriate timeframe in which to measure
completions, if the completion should be from the starting institution, and defining the cohort of
measurement are all challenges. Data and reports from the National Center for Education
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 80

Statistics and the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center are the most commonly used
sources of national data. A brief examination of completion data from these sources serves to
demonstrate the complexity of measuring student completions and does not clearly indicate if
community colleges are improving from an aggregate perspective. Study participant perceptions
of completion rates is then presented.
National Data Sources and Metrics
The data used for analysis of completion rates comes from two different sources;
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC) and the Department of Education’s
(DoE) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) each collect their own data from
community colleges. Data collection methods and data sets vary slightly and result in variations
in calculated completion outcomes. For example, the NSCRC (2018) shows a three-year
completion rate of first-time, full-time, credential seeking students at public two-year community
colleges at their starting institution for the Fall 2011 cohort at 20.4% while NCES calculates the
same metric at 20.0% (NCES, 2017). A closer examination of these differences is beyond the
scope of this study. Detailed descriptions of NSCRC and NCES data collection methods are
available from both organizations (Dundar & Shapiro, 2016; Ginder, Kelly-Reid, & Mann,
2018). For the purposes of this study, both measures are considered sufficiently reliable and
valid for examining change over time of completion rates.
The measure long favored by the NCES is the number of first-time, full-time, credential
(degree or certificate) seeking students who complete their degree at their starting institution
within 150% of “normal” time. For an associate degree, the assessment is completed after three
years as two years is considered “normal.” The NSCRC presents a six-year measure that
considers both part-time and full-time, first-time, credential seeking students and counts first
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 81

credential completion from any institution. Both NCES and NSCRC are beginning to offer
additional measures of completion disaggregating the data by enrollment intensity and offering
four and eight-year completion outcomes. Because the six-year and three-year rates have a
longer history of measurement, they are the most viable metrics to use to explore improvement
over time. Adding to the complexity, the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC, 2017) does not present a consistent goal choosing to emphasize completion rates in
some documents (Juszkiewicz, 2017) and the number of degrees and certificates granted in
others (AACC, 2016). The three performance measures noted here, the three-year completion
rate, the six-year completion rate, and the number of degrees and certificates granted annually,
each provide different insights and challenges when trying to determine the performance of
community colleges.
Available analysis from the NSCRC, the NCES, and the AACC are presented. Tables 5
and 6 provide a summary of cohort completion rates by metric and reporting organization
followed by a brief discussion of each.
Table 5
NSCRC: Percent of First-Time Students at Public 2-Year Institutions Completing a
Degree/Certificate Within Six Years at Any Institution by Enrollment Intensity

Cohort year (fall term) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Ending year (spring term) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Overall (PT, FT, and mixed intensity) 36.3 39.9 39.1 38.2 39.3 37.5
Exclusively full-time 52.6 57.6 57.0 54.6 54.5 58.4
Exclusively part-time 18.4 19.9 18.8 18.3 20.4 18.6
Mixed enrollment intensity 33.2 36.5 35.9 32.6 36.9 32.6

The NSCRC provides these data in annual reports and does not compare results over
time. The data presented in the Table 5 are drawn from six separate reports (NSCRC, 2012,
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 82

2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Reports of additional cohorts are not available. The reports
clearly articulate that community college students are achieving their credential attainment goals
at higher rates than are expressed in the NCES three-year measure and emphasize that examining
students who complete at only their starting institutions significantly depresses rate of attainment
measurements. In general, NSCRC does not seek to provide research that speculates on the
future performance of community colleges or to establish causal or correlational factors that
affect completion rates. Rather, their stated purpose is to better inform practitioners and policy
makers about the various pathways by which students complete their education. The NCES
takes a similar informational approach.
Table 6 provides completion rates for first-time, full-time students who started at public
two-year intuitions and completed a degree or certificate at their starting institution within 150%
of the “normal” time (NCES, 2017). The NCES has collected this measure for a substantially
longer timeframe and as such, ten years of data are provided.
Table 6
NCES: Percent of First-Time, Full-Time Students at 2-Year Public Institutions Completing
Within 150% of Normal Time at Their Starting Institution

Cohort year (fall) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Ending year (spring) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Completion Rate 20.3 20.6 20.4 20.3 20.2 19.8 19.5 20.0 21.9 23.6

Neither the NCES nor the NSCRC data provide clear evidence of improving or declining
completion performance from the national community college perspective. It is hopeful to see a
more than 3% increase in the 150% completion rate measure between the 2010 and 2013 cohorts
but provides little insight in terms of improvement over time. The completion rate for the 2000
cohort, for example, was also 23.6%. Noting this challenge, the AACC takes a different
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 83

approach and examines the number of degrees and certificates awarded annually by public two-
year institutions.
As an advocacy organization for community colleges, the AACC takes stronger positions
on the meaning of completion data. Reports by the AACC have made comparisons between
enrollment volume, degrees and certificates awarded, and completion rates. Their perspective on
enrollments and student completion rates is rapidly evolving. In 2016, the AACC’s “Trends in
community college enrollment and completion data” stated:
College enrollment has declined since its peak in fall 2010, and completion rates have
either held steady or declined slightly, depending on the cohort and measure. Declining
enrollments, particularly in institutions that educate a high proportion of nontraditional
age students, are not unusual as the economy recovers. But stagnant completion rates are
disappointing. (Juszkiewicz, 2016)
The 2017 version of the same report takes a different tone:
Community college enrollment has declined sharply since its peak in fall 2010, but
completion rates have either held steady or increased slightly, depending on the cohort
year, student demographics, and other variables. The tremendous work invested in
increasing completion rates makes the positive change in completion rates a particularly
welcome development. (Juszkiewicz, 2017)
In earlier reports, the AACC has also explored using the number of degrees and
certificates awarded as a potential metric. A 2015 report titled, “Community college completion:
Progress toward goal of 50% increase,” examined trends in awards. The number of degrees and
certificates is important to examine for two reasons. First, presidents in this study showed
significant interest in examining the number of credentials granted. One participant, for
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 84

example, indicated, “I tend to look at the raw numbers . . . Our completions in the last five years
have grown by a thousand degrees and certificates.” Similarly, a second participant noted:
We haven't moved the needle on graduation rates. My, my take on that is, it’s more
important to move the number on graduates, right? . . .We've increased the number of
graduates both with associate degree, the associate degree for transfer and, and a high-
quality certificate.
While the number of graduates did increase at the institution, it was later clarified that the
participant was specifically referring to the number of awards and assumed an increase in
number of students.
The second reason the number of awards is of importance to examine is financial.
Degrees and certificates awarded play an important part in performance-based funding formulas.
In California, a weighted point system will be used to provide performance funding. For
example, every associate degree for transfer produced by an institution will result in additional
funding of $1760 for the subsequent fiscal year. Similarly, a general associate degree will be
funded at $1320, certificates of 18 or more units at $880, and so on (California Community
Colleges, 2018). This portion of the California funding formula accounts for 20% of the overall
state allocation of funds for community colleges and incentivizes the production of degrees as
opposed to the production of graduates. As such, a cursory examination of degrees and
certificates produced compared to graduates produced is provided using data from the NCES.
Data were available for 2011-2012 through 2016-2017 academic years. Because all
participants in this study were from California, a breakout for the state is also provided. Tables 7
and 8 below show the aggregate degrees and certificates granted (referred to in aggregate as
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 85

awards), the unduplicated headcount of students receiving degrees, and the rate of increase over
the previous year of each for the US (California excluded) and California respectively.
Table 7
US Degrees and Certificates Awarded Compared to Students Receiving Awards

Completion Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Total awards 980458 963196 950889 916557 874725 851799
Unduplicated student
headcount
815354 804904 799304 779822 755974 739250
% change in students
receiving awards from
previous year
1.30% 0.70% 2.50% 3.15% 2.26%
% change in awards
given from previous
year
1.79% 1.29% 3.75% 4.78% 2.69%

Table 8
California Degrees and Certificates Awarded Compared to Students Receiving Awards
Completion Year 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Total awards 193040 178929 162455 150075 140333 124805
Unduplicated student
headcount
124980 119232 112916 107996 103674 93099
% change in students
receiving awards from
previous year
4.82% 5.59% 4.56% 4.17% 11.36%
% change in awards
given from previous
year
7.89% 10.14% 8.25% 6.94% 12.44%

These data indicate the number of students completing degrees and certificates is
increasing slower than the number of degrees and certificates being awarded. This phenomenon
appears to be stronger in California community colleges. Between 2012 and 2017, the number
of students receiving degrees increased by 34.7% in California while the number of awards
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 86

increased by 54.4%. Outside of California, those rates were 10.30% and 15.1% respectively.
This suggests that students are completing community college with multiple credentials more
frequently, particularly in California. Considering the nature of the state’s funding formula and
the perspectives presidents in this study expressed in terms of examining completions, further
examination of this trend may be called for. A discussion of possible causes and further analysis
of this topic is provided in Chapter Five. The utility of these measures in increasing student
completions, however, is contingent on the practitioner’s perception of applicability and
accuracy.
Perception and Utility of Completion Measures
Participants in this study conceived of completion metrics substantially differently than
those used by either the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) or the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC). They expressed
greater alignment with the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) in that the
number of degrees and certificates awarded was of greater interest. The number of degrees and
certificates also aligned with the California community college funding model. Participants
uniformly agreed that student intent as indicated by “degree or certificate seeking” was not
sufficiently accurate noting that students may have different reasons to self-identify as credential
seeking. Reflecting a consensus opinion, one participant said:
I think there's definitely a disconnect between what we expect and what is really going
on. That misinforms our calculations on completion and success. There is no box to
check that says, ‘I want to take one class because I want to improve my accounting
skills.’ I think people have aspirations, they've been told they need to get a degree so
they check that box and so we count them as individuals who said they wanted to transfer
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 87

even though they probably didn't have the intention of transferring. I think the counselors
and financial aid folks and the students know that if they don't check that box then it's
going to impact their ed plan, and if they don’t have an ed plan with a stated goal then
they’re going to struggle for financial aid.
Similarly, presidents’ perceptions of completion were substantially broader than those expressed
in the formal metrics. Several presidents gave examples of students who gained skills and
improved their professional status without completing a degree or certificate. For example:
For me it's based on what your own goals are and then we can move from there. I'd have
people that come to us from the workplace and just want to upgrade workplace skills so
they get a promotion or get a salary increase and for me that's a success and that's a
completion.
When asked to consider student success broadly, presidents thought about student
completion primarily from the student perspective and less as a fixed outcome measure.
Notably, they consistently pointed to metrics they felt could inform institutional practice.
Presidents felt that the role of the institution was to help students discover and articulate their
goals and then provide the services necessary for students to achieve that goal. Asked how he
conceived of completion, one president succinctly indicated, “I think about how we ensure
students set a goal and how do we facilitate them achieving that goal?”
Participants felt that retention, persistence, and equity data were most useful in terms of
informing practice. When asked about how they think about student success, participants tended
to move to more specific measures. For example:
When I think about student success rates, I look at course completion rates and I look at
degrees and certificates – who’s completing? If I go down a little bit from that, then I
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 88

look at things like who's staying, who's here, and who dropped out and why? Then I drill
down to look at equity . . . so that I can figure out the barriers and who isn't passing and
who is.
Another president quickly transitioned from discussing the three-year completion
measure to indicate that, “You're also going to look at how the persistence, so in other words,
term to term retention, fall to fall, retention, number of credits attained for each student versus
the number of credits they take.” She then provided an extensive explanation of how these types
of measures were used to increase overall student success.
Despite this emphasis on examining completions from the student perspective and
examining metrics to inform practice, all participants acknowledged the importance of formal
completion metrics particularly in relation to funding. As one president noted, “With the new
kinds of ways that we’re being urged to look at completion and the numbers that are going to be
used for possible funding, we'll be paying more attention.” Presidents also seemed to recognize
that taking the broader perspective on student success presented challenges in terms of
developing a consensus on campus of how to consider student success. Another participant
articulated the challenge, saying:
What's important is that the students get what they . . . not even intended . . . what they
ultimately want when they are successful . . . when they say they're successful . . . they've
gotten the skills, they've gotten the certificate, then I've got a completer, I'm pleased. The
harder sell is when I'm funded by completion.
Overall, presidents felt that the formal completion metrics put forward by state and
national organizations did not sufficiently take into consideration student intent. Perhaps more
importantly, presidents felt that these metrics were not useful in informing practice. At the same
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 89

time, they also clearly understood that degree and certificate attainment was important for
students, and that formal completion metrics were important to track and improve in light of state
funding practices.
Finding in Context
From an examination of the reports produced by two of the major reporting groups on
community college completion, no conclusion could be definitively drawn in terms of
improvement. There is evidence to suggest that more students are completing credentials
nationally and in California. There is also evidence to indicate that students are completing
more than one credential as part of their community college and that this phenomenon is more
pronounced in California. Data for this measure was limited to six years making it difficult to
draw a broader conclusion. The rate at which students are completing, however, seems to have
remained within longtime bounds. The recent spike in the national three-year completion rate of
first-time, full-time students to 23.1% matches the completion rate for the 2000 cohort.
Additional data will reveal if the increase is a trend or simply an increase within normal bounds.
Theme 2: Best Practices, the Reform Movement, and State Legislation
A strong understanding of best practices in improving community college completion
rates is necessary to guide an institution to improve student completion. Study participants
demonstrated high-level knowledge of best practices associated with completion. The
uniformity with which participants described practices was notable. Every participant discussed
institutional reform efforts to improve student completions through the development of the
Guided Pathways initiative, and secondarily, the institutional response to Assembly Bill 705 (AB
705). The data indicate that presidents are knowledgeable of best practices associated with
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 90

student completions and that major change efforts on campuses are driven primarily by statewide
initiatives.
Goldrick-Rab (2010) suggested community colleges should examine student attributes,
institutional practices, and macro-level opportunity structures when considering factors that
affect student outcomes. Student attributes refers to characteristics such as past academic
experience, demographics, and economic circumstance with which students enter the institution
that can affect student outcomes. Institutional practices are those policies and practices that can
be shaped with the institution such as program offerings and instructional practices. Finally,
macro-level opportunities are defined as external factors such as state and federal policies that
either limit or facilitate colleges’ ability to increase student completions. Presidents’
demonstrated understanding of the effect of student attributes and institutional practices on
student completions serves to validate their conceptual knowledge of research-based best
practices in student completions. A discussion of macro-level opportunities, specifically the
Guided Pathways initiative and AB 705, demonstrates the influence of the broader reform
movement on presidents’ selection of campus-based reform.
Student Attributes
Reducing the equity gap is an articulated goal of the California Guided Pathways
initiative (Hope, 2017). Despite this, participants generally discussed issues of equity outside of
the Guided Pathways initiative. One president did indicate that his campus community
developed a broader umbrella program under which “our guided pathways initiatives are going,
our SSS [Student Support Services] and equity blend is going.” More typically, participants
discussed issues of equity as important in and of themselves. When asked generally about
improving student completion rates, a second participant noted the value of programs targeting
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 91

specific populations, saying, “We have a program here to Hispanic serving institution grants. We
have 100 students who started this year, the first-year experience. Of those 100, we had 89 back
after the first year.” He went on to indicate that such programs played a secondary role and that
the focus to improve outcomes for historically disenfranchised populations needed to be in the
classroom, saying, “That interaction between the students and the faculty member in every
discipline is more important than anything we talk about, do counseling, financial aid or anything
else and that is where we need to go to improve completion.”
Closing the equity gap was specifically noted as a significant priority in improving
completions by seven participants and discussed in more general terms by all others.
Interestingly, when discussing issues of equity and closing the achievement gap, participants
shifted their primary emphasis from academic and support programming for students to the
knowledge and attitudes of faculty. In discussing a growing Hispanic student population at her
college, one president indicated that the willingness of faculty to adjust to changing student
demographics was mixed. While she was impressed with many faculty members’ willingness to
adapt, she also acknowledged that “there’s going to be some faculty where there’s no way in the
world that we can break through an unwillingness to see it differently.” A second president
indicated the importance of closing the equity gap and noted substantially more resistance from
some faculty members:
Now, the other thing that you need to look at, and this is the data I make available to the
faculty also, is equity data. That is to say, what percentage of their students are of
various groups and how all those students are doing in their class. I mean, I have faculty
who fail all Latinos.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 92

Both presidents indicated that there was relatively little that could be done to remedy this
situation. The prevailing attitude is conveyed in the following statement made by a third
president:
I hate to say it, but sometimes . . . well, what I try to do as an administrator is to
encourage those voices that are very positive and see positive effects and see that all
groups can do better. And for those who aren't willing to change, to be honest they retire,
and we just refresh the faculty.
Two presidents explicitly discussed proactive approaches to address issues of equity.
One indicated that she had brought in equity speakers that she felt the faculty would respect and
respond to positively. The other described an internal professional development program in
which his vice president of instruction annually led 15 to 20 faculty through a year-long equity
and inclusion training. Additionally, he indicated that “The board has to be educated about
equity, social justice issues,” expressing the need for the problem to be addressed from the
institutional level. The speakers were seen as ineffective while the year-long workshop in
conjunction with board engagement was seen as an effective approach over time.
Participants acknowledged the importance of closing the achievement gap between ethnic
groups. They demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the scope of the issue with some
connecting the issues to broad institutional change and others with specific intervention
programs. Coalition building and professional development opportunities for faculty were the
primary strategies participants used to address the achievement gap. The prevailing
understanding of the issue was clearly expressed by one president leading a college with quickly
changing student demographics. He noted that, “The demographics of the students in California
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 93

has changed tremendously over the last 20, 30 years. The instruction hasn't changed. Instructors
haven't changed.”
The empirical research demonstrating how to successfully close the achievement gap is
limited. A study by Greene, Marti, and McClenney (2008) eliminated student effort as the cause
of the achievement gap and suggests that institutions should take greater responsibility to ensure
that lower performing student groups access high-quality programs. Other studies identify
factors that predict likelihood of retention in specific groups. High school grades, number of
courses, and early identification of a college major all seem to predict higher retention in African
American males (Hagedorn, Maxwell, & Hampton, 2001) but also predict retention among the
general student population (Fike & Fike, 2008).
The importance of addressing issues of equity, however, was not tied directly to the need
to increase overall completion rate. One participant explicitly articulated his perspective, saying:
When you see African Americans just exceeding 30%, Latinos at 33 and that perpetuates
itself decade after decade and the faculty have been saying the same thing for decades.
You have, and this is my personal opinion, you have an ethical and moral and
professional obligation to change it.
The data from this study did not establish the reason presidents perceive closing the equity gap as
important. The lack of directly connecting issues of equity to overall completion rates suggest
that other factors may be at play. Ethical and moral obligation is the only direct perspective
given and so is noted.
Institutional Practices
Study participants were aware of institutional practices that impact student completion
rates. Programs that address the lack of academic preparedness were discussed by all
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 94

participants throughout the interviews and were seen as a central factor in students’ ability to
succeed. Every participant mentioned at least two individual programs noted as a best practice in
the literature review including supplemental instruction, learning communities, first-year
experience programs, and intrusive counseling. Expressing the importance of these programs,
one president said, “anything we can do [with] learning communities, the support that's available
in our learning commons library area, to our math lab, English writing lab, our overarching
learning resources, the tutoring program, supplemental instruction . . . will help students
succeed.”
While aware of targeted programs, presidents were more interested in institutional
programs affecting the student experience and ultimately classroom performance. When
referring to programs developed over the last fifteen years, one president noted “even when we
saw lots of movement in terms of innovation and activities, there was still no real change for
students.” Another was more detailed:
We've spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on the basic skills initiative for
10 years. Did not move the dial. They've spent billion dollars, whatever the numbers are,
on all the students access money and student equity money. We are all getting it. We've
all added counselors and we've added tutors and support systems. Now we're getting free
tuition, we're doing everything to me on the student services side and none of that matters
if they aren't passing classes.
These programs were mentioned within the broader context of supporting students
throughout their student experience. As a third president noted, “I like to talk about the overall
student experience and within the overall student experience is supporting students in meeting
their academic goals.” Taking this broader perspective of the student experience is supported by
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 95

both longitudinal studies as well as programs that engage students for one or more years
(Dudley, Liu, Hao, & Stallard, 2015; Horn, Nevill, & Griffith, 2006; Kuh, 2011). A second key
factor that arose from the interviews was that of efficiency.
Presidents discussed two related aspects of efficiency that they felt could significantly
improve student outcomes. First, presidents discussed degree and certificate efficiency referring
to the practice of limiting the number of courses and credits needed to complete a degree, as a
key factor. One participant said, “What we really need to be focused on is units to degree, and
units taken, you know, the number of units taken by a student [to complete].” This sentiment
was reflected by six participants when discussing how best to increase student completions.
Second, presidents were keenly aware of student enrollment patterns and issues of course
availability. “We need to get students to take 15 units . . . not just 12,” was a sentiment
expressed by five presidents and has been shown to be an effective practice (Crosta, 2014). In
general, participants showed substantial interest in the enrollment process. Individual presidents
separately emphasized the need for students to enroll prior to the start of a course, adjust the
number of units taken, and minimize the number of non-degree applicable classes as strategies to
increase student throughput. When asked about strategies, one president noted the importance of
the academic calendar, rhetorically asking, “How it’s set up [in terms of] course sequencing?
Can students move easily through a program?” A second president indicated the importance of
having “curriculum that will directly articulate into a university or into a job” in order to keep
students motivated to complete programs.
The need for efficiency as a strategy to increase completion was counterbalanced by the
need to maintain access for students. Presidents felt that ensuring access was a vital part of the
institutional mission and were willing to accept lower completion rates to achieve that part of the
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 96

mission. One president noted that, “It's important that we continue to provide access for the
nontraditional students or the students that are less prepared that, that is going to have an impact
on our completion rate.” Other presidents were stronger in their articulation of what completion
means in terms of the access mission:
Why shouldn't I be able to call somebody that comes here and increases their job skills as
a completer when that's their goal? They are getting a better job which increases their
income and we have committed resources to making sure that that sort of training and
education is available. So in my head, that's a completer.
These comments were echoed by all participants and indicate a willingness and desire to accept
and serve students who are unlikely to obtain a degree or certificate but are perceived to benefit
from taking advantage of the services offered by the college.
Macro-Level Opportunities
Macro-level opportunities are external factors that either hinder or support an institution’s
ability to achieve their desired outcome. There were two external factors every participant
discussed as critical, Assembly Bill 705 (AB 705) and the Guided Pathways Initiative. In
aggregate, the components of these two external factors encompassed every best practice
discussed by presidents in interviews.
AB 705 addresses developmental education within the California community colleges.
The bill requires that community colleges maximize the probability that students complete
transfer-level coursework in English and math within one year. To accomplish this, the
regulation requires that students are not placed into developmental courses unless the college can
show evidence that suggest the student is highly unlikely to succeed in college-level courses
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 97

without remediation. The implication, as presidents noted, was that the vast majority of students
would directly enter college-level coursework. As one president noted:
I've talked to a couple of friends of mine who on the institutional research side. There's
no way anybody could actually develop a viable plan and have data to support it, given
that we've never done this before. So the option from our perspective, we're going to
place most of our students in the college level classes and then we're going to have to
figure out how to provide requisite support.
Overall, presidents were supportive of the mandates placed on their institutions.
Speaking from experience at a different institution, one indicated that “we quadrupled the
number of students who we placed into transfer level, but they succeeded at the same levels as
students who [faculty] felt more comfortable with because they were placed with the Accuplacer
test.” Several presidents saw the legislation as a way to move faculty forward in improving
developmental education:
It's interesting because we don't want a million laws, but it seems to take laws to make
movements . . . if there's a law like AB 705, we just had a district wide meeting with our
English and our math faculty with counselors and staff, trying to figure out how we're
going to meet the law and for the group of faculty who were saying ‘I refuse,’ somebody
was able to stand up and say, ‘You may not like it, but it's the law. You have to do it. So
let's figure out how we're going to do it.
This sentiment was shared by presidents who felt faculty resisted changes regardless of what data
were presented and saw AB 705 as an opportunity to further infuse the use of data into college
practices:
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 98

Now when the faculty are saying, you know, ‘We're not comfortable. Only 20 percent
should go to transfer level.’ First of all we have the legislation. We have to prove that
they're unlikely to succeed at transfer level, which is going to be hard to do, so I'm going
to rely on the data . . . I understand and fully appreciate faculty care about students.
They're not intentionally trying to set students up for failure, but in fact, when we look at
the data, that's exactly what we've done.
Presidents further understood that AB 705 would require extensive support for students
enrolling in college-level courses who historically enrolled in developmental courses. Presidents
discussed institutional practices focusing on student support most often within the context AB
705. Primarily, the focus was on providing academic support through tutoring, supplemental
instruction, and co-requisite classes designed to address student content deficiencies and support
the development of college success skills.
There is evidence that students who are placed into developmental education classes but
nevertheless enroll in college-level math and English classes are more likely to complete college-
level math and English than those who enroll in developmental classes (Fong & Melguizo,
2017). There is also extensive evidence to indicate that accelerated developmental education
pathways are more effective (Hern & Snell, 2014; Hodara & Jaggars, 2014; Jaggars, Hodara,
Cho, & Xu, 2015; Scrivener, Weiss, Ratledge, Rudd, Sommo, & Fresques, 2015). As noted by
the study participant above, there is very little evidence that would indicate the result of placing
the vast majority of students into college level classes. A study conducted in support of AB 705
by the RP Group (Bahr et al., 2017), a research consortium focusing on California community
colleges, produced estimated completion rates of students who placed into developmental course
work should they be placed directly into college-level course work. Their analysis indicated that
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 99

students have a 42% chance of completing college-level English if placed directly as opposed to
a 12% chance if placed into a developmental class one level below college-level. Similar
estimates were made for transfer-level math classes based on students past academic experience
and indicating that the likelihood of passing a college-level math course increased at least
threefold by bypassing remedial classes (Bahr et al., 2017). Overall, presidents interviewed for
this study were supportive of the project, were willing to accept that significant curtailing of
developmental offerings was a reasonable way to proceed and indicated that the external
requirement was effective in moving reluctant faculty forward. Guided Pathways is a broader
initiative influencing community colleges.
The Guided Pathways is an initiative at both the California Community College
Chancellor’s office as well as at the AACC. The AACC partnered with several research and
policy organizations to develop and launch their project. Several California community colleges
participated in the pilot project. Inspired by AACC, the California Community College
Foundation launched a 20-college pilot program in 2017 in partnership with AACC and others.
At the same time, the California state legislature passed a budget that earmarked $150 million
dollars in one-time funding to be expended over five years to expand Guided Pathways. This
funding strongly incentivized presidents across the state to engage in the project. All participants
in this study indicated that their colleges were highly engaged in the state Guided Pathways
project.
The California Guided Pathways project is intended to provide colleges a framework for
developing clear course-taking patterns for students, assisting them in making better enrollment
decisions and selecting a specific course of study, and integrating support services for easier and
more timely access. The state chancellor’s office, which is administering both the program and
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 100

the legislatively allocated funds, is also developing performance indicators for which institutions
will provide data. Presidents showed significant interest in this project. Expressing the overall
sentiment of the study group, one president said, “I do believe the concept and the research is
solid on that and that's why among other reasons we’re charging full bore into the guided
pathways.” One aspect of the project that presidents liked was the relative flexibility it afforded
institutions in keeping a wide variety of academic and support programs:
Each of the components of the four pillars [of Guided Pathways] is about closer
connection to the students and helping guide them. And I don't think that lessens the need
or value for a variety of special success efforts. Through the guided pathways we're going
to be able to, I hope, better assure that [students] know ‘this is available for you.
In fact, the Guided Pathways project was seen by the participants as an excellent tool to breach
topics that were perceived as challenging. One participant indicated that “the more we can make
sure that our faculty and counseling staff are really helping students understand you need to
finish your degree and that means, you know, taking more units. We’re working on that with
[Guided] pathways.” Curriculum, metrics and outcomes, equity, impact of performance-based
funding, demand-based scheduling, increasing units per term taken by students, framing change
for the campus, and changes to the enrollment process were all cited as areas that could be
addressed through the Guided Pathways project. One president addressed curriculum, demand-
based scheduling, units taken per term by students, and enrollment processes simultaneously,
saying:
Guided pathways are prescribed and have to have curriculum that will directly articulate
into a university or directly articulate into a job. So it's industry demand. So for example,
you pick your top 10 industries . . . in LA, health care, IT, logistics and say, ‘Okay, I'm
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 101

going to design a path, a curricular path of courses that will get [students] a job in that
industry at a high wage.’ Then you work with the faculty and you create those pathways
and then you build a block schedule, a two-year schedule so students do not have to walk
in four times . . . to register.
Presidents saw the program components for the Guided Pathways project as well-
grounded in research on student success. The project was also seen as valuable as a vehicle to
engage their colleges in change efforts and presidents had formulated ways in which to use the
project to engage in the organizational changes they saw as necessary to increase student
completions.
Finding in Context
Theme two indicates that every component of institutional change that presidents
discussed during the interview process was directly tied to either to AB 705 or the Guided
Pathways initiative. No participants indicated current programming designed to improve student
completions that was not directly related to these two factors. This absence is notable and
suggests that change initiatives are primarily driven from outside of the institution. Presidents
noted that the Guided Pathways initiative and AB 705 were useful tools in driving significant
organizational change and overcoming resistance to change.
Theme 3: Faculty Resistance to Change and Accountability
Community college presidents need to apply change management and leadership skills to
overcome resistance to improvement efforts in order to successfully improve completion rates.
All participants discussed resistance to change initiatives from the faculty. Four presidents made
mention of change resistance from administrators and then indicated that those administrators
were removed from those positions typically within two years of the presidents’ tenure.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 102

Resistance to change from other administrators is not addressed further because presidents
indicated the ability to take direct action to eliminate it. Interestingly, there was no mention of
community college staff exhibiting resistance in any of the interviews.
Faculty resistance to change and various causes of the resistance are well-documented in
the community college and higher education literature (Levin, Boothby-Jackson, Haberler &
Walker, 2015; Levin, Jackson, & Guglielmino, 2006; McArthur, 2002; Tagg, 2012). Every
participant in this study acknowledged resistance to change amongst the faculty. Presidents
invariably followed statements expressing resistance to change with potential ways to address
that resistance.
The data from this study suggest that presidents perceive the role of unions and collective
bargaining agreements to be a significant cause of resistance to change efforts and that their
ability to address this source of change was limited. Of central concern to participants was the
resulting lack of faculty accountability for student performance. Participants also noted a lack of
trust between management and faculty caused by previous leadership as a significant cause of
resistance and described strategies they felt were successful in address it.
Faculty Accountability
Participants in this study attributed faculty resistance to the role of the union and
distinguished between union involvement and shared governance policy. All participants noted
issues with unionized faculty. Reflecting the consensus, one president indicated that “I mean it's
union, it's resistant to rigorous evaluations and just, you know, authentic self-reflection and using
data.” Numerous specific examples were given of faculty behavior based on their union
protections. Several examples were given that seemed to be outside of typical behaviors
associated with faculty resistance to change. For example, one president indicated that the union
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 103

refused to participate in institutional accreditation reporting and had not “signed off” on the
accreditation reports. Another president said, “I can't even begin to explain how militant a
faculty union leader I had the last two years.” He went on to describe several ways in which the
faculty leader worked not only to undercut change efforts but engaged with the college’s board
of trustees to undermine confidence in his leadership. The president expressed great relief at the
faculty member losing the union leadership election. Similar examples were omitted from this
finding as they lacked typicality.
Perhaps more critically, faculty union strength appeared to affect how presidents work
with faculty on a day-to-day basis. Each of the comments provided below were given within the
context of discussing faculty resistance to change in the light of union protections. The following
sentiment regarding accountability and the faculty was shared by 10 of 13 participants:
To me the area is we need to be looking at our faculty and we need to be looking at our
classes and I need to be able to say only 56 percent of our students are passing a math
class that's not okay. And I hold you accountable for it, figure out how to be better. Um,
but you cannot talk that way to faculty.
The lack of ability to hold faculty accountable for institutional goals was expressed in a variety
of ways. For example:
It would be ridiculous to say that the curricular changes that I'm hoping for will be
happening are going to be entirely based on student need and what the research says. I
will be lying. Let's be honest. It's going to change based on where the faculty are.
Six presidents noted that providing performance data to faculty was best done by ensuring
faculty understood that the leadership of the institution would not take or expect action, as
summarized in this comment:
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 104

We looked at course success rates by course and by instructor. Not just the average and
the median. And we actually gave them to the instructors and we said no punishment, no
retaliation. Take that data and do with it as you wish.
In a more brazen example, another president noted,
Faculty, you know, will say to managers, ‘I’ll outlive you. You're the twelfth Dean I've
had here. You’re the 15th president I've worked with and I've outlived all of them and I
haven’t made any changes.
The challenges associated with holding faculty accountable for student outcomes is one
that participants in the study attributed, at least in part, to the role of unions. Presidents
distinguish between union issues and those of shared governance. Overall, presidents were
supportive of shared governance processes and perceived faculty involvement in decision-
making a strength. “I'm sitting in an administrative chair. I'm not on the ground every day with
students. They know better than I do how to solve the problem,” said one president of having
faculty involved in decision-making.
It is worth noting that shared governance in California community colleges is mandated
by Assembly Bill 1705 and that administrative leadership is required to engage the academic
senate at each college in defined decision-making processes. While there is no mandate for
union participation in shared governance activities, one president noted that, “Even though
participatory governance lies in the Senate, the union thinks they have a role in it. The attitude
[with the union] was completely one of distrust.” This was the only comment in the data that
articulated the conflation of union, academic senate, and shared governance and is noted only as
a point of interest. More typically, presidents expressed respect for and utility in faculty
expertise. When asked about the role of faculty, one president said, “Faculty are amazing. I
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 105

don’t have any of the answers, but I know how to put a whole group of faculty in a room and let
them go and come up with brilliant ideas.” The approach of creating opportunities for faculty to
engage in idea generation was typical. Another president indicated, “You have to be a president
that really takes care of your faculty and allows them to come up with the ideas for them to come
up with a solution for them to figure out how it's going to be done.” Mistrust between faculty
and administration was cited both as a challenge and reason for employing the strategy of
engaging faculty in decision-making.
Presidents noted mistrust of administration based on the acts of past leadership as a cause
of resistance as well as some level of fear. One president mused, “What kind of trauma are folks
holding onto that keeps them from doing their best?” She asked this question in the context of
how best to address faculty issues to allow for forward movement in change processes. Another
president made a similar observation, saying:
The faculty actually had been reeling from a lot of change in leadership. And quite
frankly, they were feeling quite traumatically stressed so . . . some of the early
conversations were around things they had always wanted to do but they hadn't felt
supported in doing so.
Both presidents reached the same conclusion in terms of how to initially address the issues of
mistrust caused by previous leadership. They identified initiatives that faculty had been
interested in and felt unsupported in accomplishing under previous leadership and then provided
support and resources. Overall, six presidents explicitly noted mistrust, fear, or both resulting
from past experiences with administrators as a cause of faculty resistance.
Participants in this study indicated that unions played a significant role in creating
resistance to change. Further, participants cited a lack of trust between management and faculty
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 106

as a primary cause of resistance supporting the existing research (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008;
Kater; 2017; Oreg, 2006; Van den Heuvel, Schalk, & van Assen, 2015). Studies have
demonstrated that unionization leads to more adversarial relationships with management (Castro,
2000; Garfield, 2008; Wickens, 2008;). The role that existing unions play in creating resistance
to reform efforts is less explored in the literature. Garfield (2008) suggests that the collective
bargaining process may result in a less consistent faculty voice in governance. This weakened
voice may then result in lowered trust in governance decisions (Kater, 2017) which in turn could
lead to increased resistance to reform efforts (Tierney & Minor, 2004). In addressing resistance
to reform efforts, presidents did not specifically tie strategies to causes. Rather, their focus was
on communicating the centrality of students as the work of the college and providing support for
engaged faculty.
Strategy for Addressing Resistance
Community colleges need to embrace organizational change efforts and overcome
resistance to achieve higher student completion rates. The AACC (2012) identified
organizational strategy, resource management, communication, and collaboration as key
competency areas for presidents to succeed. In terms of addressing resistance to change,
participants noted the utility of state mandates and funding-incentivized programs as discussed in
theme two. The importance which presidents assigned to the use of external pressure to
overcome resistance is hard to overstate and is emphasized in theme two. Beyond the use of
mandates, presidents noted consistent communication focused on the student experience and the
allocation of resources to support engaged faculty as key strategies to overcome resistance.
Communication. Presidents indicated that communication was used to develop a
stronger commitment to the success of the student as noted in this comment:
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 107

They're tightly tied to the community. For me, it's getting [faculty] to look at our
community, look at the needs that we have in terms of poverty, in terms of lack of focus
our young people have. This is the future. I mean it's just getting them to recognize the
importance of the work.
Emphasis on the students’ ability to succeed was used both as a general and targeted strategy to
overcome resistance. One president indicated, “We use that word ‘student success’ is practically
in every sentence. I write it all day along.” Her intent in using the words “student success”
frequently was to focus the institution on the student experience. A comment from another
president illustrates how presidents felt they could use the idea of student success to overcome
resistance from small cohorts of faculty:
When [faculty] got together, they would come up with all of these reasons why they were
hesitant, or concerns and it was kind of funny. I thought we had momentum and then we
fall back, and I just kept nudging saying, ‘how do we get this so you can best serve the
students?’ Right? That's what it's about. And when we keep the focus laser pointed on
that, the objections are there, but they fall to the secondary tier level and not that primary.
Consistent communication behavior from executive leaders as demonstrated by these comments
is a key factor in overcoming resistance to change efforts (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999;
Battilana, Glimartin, Sengul, Pache, & Alexander, 2010; Holt, Armenakis, Field, & Harris, 2007;
Kitchen & Daily, 2002). Participants consistently indicated that when working with faculty, they
work to consistently keep the focus on student success and student outcomes.
Communication of an organizational vision for success is also cited as a critical factor in
generating the conditions necessary for organizational change (Kottter, 2009; Matos Marques
Simones & Esposito, 2014). The broader vision for success was primarily discussed within the
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 108

context of institution-wide initiatives, particularly in the form of external partnership. Five
participants indicated that they consistently communicated to the college community about
external validations of excellence. The Aspen Institute’s College Excellence program was noted
by three participants while others mentioned initiatives for which they sought to receive
recognition from state, regional, or national organizations. Interestingly, measures imposed by
these external entities were used to illustrate what individual colleges wished to achieve. These
measures, particularly from the Aspen Institute include overall completion rates and completion
rates disaggregated by historically disenfranchised student groups.
Participants indicated they regularly focused conversations with faculty on serving
students well. Providing faculty data, with or without associated action, demonstrates at least
some level of interest in engaging faculty on the topic of student outcomes. This interest did not
extend to formal institutional planning documents. A document review conducted for this study
showed that none of the institutions represented in this study published measurable completion
goals in publicly available documents such as the educational master plan or institutional
strategic plan. In all cases, these documents discussed improving student success without
indicating the metric by which that would be measured.
Resource allocation. Research indicates that diminished resources may hamper the
ability of community colleges to achieve desired student outcomes (Mitchell, Palacios, &
Leachman, 2014; Waller, Glasscock, Glasscock, & Fulton-Calkins, 2006). Nine of thirteen
presidents did feel they had the resources necessary to achieve greater student success.
Summarizing the majority view, one president said, “we have what we have and I think we can
do a lot more with what we do have.” Another president was more forceful in her assertion
saying, “It's simply using resources right. It's taking what we're doing and doing it right rather
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 109

than just doing it.” The four presidents who expressed that funding was insufficient also
indicated that the funds could be used more effectively. The minority consensus was:
I don't have enough money to do the systemic changes that I really want to make fast, but
I can utilize, prioritize the needs, the resources I have and look for opportunities for
people who are interested in innovation and creativity to support that.
The allocation of a small amount of funds to specific faculty to expedite change efforts
was common strategy. The notion of supporting faculty with small amount of funds was
frequently discussed within the context of supporting change or innovation. After indicating that
he felt that overall funding was insufficient to make systemic changes, a second president said,
“It doesn't take the money to support faculty . . . I can give a faculty member $500 so they can
try a new teaching technique, if they need supplies. I have that kind of money.” This sentiment
was shared by all presidents regardless of their perspective of overall funding efforts. Asked
how to best encourage resistant faculty to engage in change efforts, another president indicated a
limited but important role, saying:
I can feed them and make them feel happy and make them feel glad to come to work.
You know, that's about what I can do and I can advocate and fight for them to get
resources and go out and find grants and, you know, but my job is to stay out of their way
because they’re the ones working with students. But it’s kind of complicated thing.
Only one president indicated that she actively withheld funds to create changes. When asked
how to overcome resistance from a recalcitrant math faculty, she responded:
I'll tell you exactly how you do it. You withhold faculty positions until they make some
movement and that's exactly what I did here. And we got some movement within a
semester. I was quite impressed with the faculty.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 110

Overall, presidents felt that funding was sufficient to make progress on improving student
outcomes and felt they had significant control over allocations to drive change. The consensus
feeling on how presidents could drive change and overcome resistance is summarized in the
following comment:
Presidents set tone, presidents set culture, and presidents move resources around. That's
the only thing I can do to move the dial on student success is I can set the tone and say
things like 73 percent [course completion rate], is not okay. I can give the resources to
help and support [people working to make progress].
Finding in Context
Theme three indicated that presidents perceived that faculty resistance to change was
driven by union protections. Presidents also indicated that this resistance was not from all
faculty but rather a small yet significant, and vocal, minority. The biggest challenge associated
with this resistance was the inability to hold faculty accountable for student outcomes. The tack
that presidents employed to address this resistance was two-fold. First, presidents indicated that
they worked diligently to keep the focus on students and student success. In many regards, this
practice can be considered a focus on the mission of the college. Second, presidents provided
funds to faculty members and departments who expressed interest in engaging in a change, a
practice that can be characterized as an incentive used by presidents.
Theme 4: Examining Value: The Associate Degree and Institutional Goals
Presidents need to see the utility value in establishing and achieving high completion rate
targets in achieving both their own professional goals and institutional goals. The perceptions
articulated by study participants regarding the value of the associate degree and institutional goal
setting were consistent across participants and shed light on how presidents perceive student
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 111

completion at their institutions. The data indicate that presidents have a nuanced view of the
value of the associate degree and perceive the value of institutional goals around completion to
be relatively low.
The Associate Degree
Participants distinguished between three types of associate degrees when discussing their
value: the associate degree for transfer, the general associate degree, and career-technical
degrees. The associate degree for transfer was first awarded to students completing their degree
in 2012 and provided guaranteed articulation into four-year programs in the California State
University system and portions of University of California system. The general associate degree,
however, does not provide guaranteed articulation and as two participants noted using personal
examples, often results in students having to repeat courses. Career-technical degrees were
considered those that provided specific job-related skills and certifications such as nursing,
welding, auto mechanics, or landscape design. Participants clearly differentiated between the
associate degree for transfer, the general associate degree, and career-technical degrees. The
value of the degree was typically tied directly to students’ next activity.
When asked about the usefulness of the general associate degree, one president indicated,
“We don't need them anymore. We absolutely don't. If you have an [associate degree for
transfer], you don't need both.” A second president described the general associate degree in the
following manner:
We secretly know that it's not a degree. It is two years of general education classes,
period. That's what it is. And we should all be honest about it. When I have students
leaving here with an AA degree in psychology, I say them. ‘So what do you plan to do?
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 112

Because you know you need to go get at least a bachelor's if not a master's,’ because what
can you do with that?
The overall sentiment of participants was that career-technical degree and transfer degrees were
valuable and should be emphasized. A third president summed it up this way:
I think we should be talking about how important [transfer and career-technical degrees]
are and how much value they have because on the CTE [career-technical education] side
they have a lot of value. You've got the one for transfer and then you've got the ones that
are to help you get a job.
Despite strongly favoring the technical and transfer degrees, participants also noted the
value of general education. Expressing the consensus opinion, one president noted:
There's still value in a good solid general arts or liberal arts education. While a good
portion of our mission is to prepare people for the world of work and/or transfer and then
the world of work, it’s also helping general education so that they are better citizens and
more active within their communities
The value of the general education was also expressed within the context of preparing students
for the workforce. Participants felt that the ability to continue learning was tied to the broader
skills associated with general education:
I am hearing from employers that they do value education beyond high school [even] just
to the associate's degree or the certification aligned with their specific industry. They also
look for entry level folks who then can continue their education to become supervisors
and managers and they're looking to community colleges for that.
Finally, two presidents noted the value of a general associate degree based on the
educational attainment level of their communities. One indicated that, “The educational
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 113

attainment level here is among the lowest in the state. For somebody to have an AA here is a real
separator.” He then went on to indicate that he did not feel it was a strong differentiator for
students in larger urban areas.
Institutional Goals
During the initial document review for this study, it was noted none of the participating
colleges articulated measurable goals within their strategic or educational master plan. The need
for a clearly stated vision, goals, and the capacity to measure and evaluate progress is well
documented in the organizational change and management literature as components of successful
change (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Lewis, 2011). One participant had clearly articulated
measurable goals regarding student outcomes, including completions as part of her presidential
goals separate from college-wide plans.
Participants indicated measurable student completion goals were set by the “academic
senate annually as required by some [state] regulation.” In general, presidents perceived this
type of goal setting as not adding significant value or creating significant disagreements. When
discussing why measurable objectives were not in his master plan a second president said:
Each time we've done it, I've gotten partly there. I think the reason I'm still here
[employed at the college] after seven years is I involve the key players and I'm satisfied
with good enough somethings. So each time we've done a three year strategic plan, I've
been able to get it to be tweaked and tightened and get more and more people to say,
‘well we want this to be more measurable.
A third president indicated more clearly that specific measurable goal did not provide any
significant value within the context of institutional improvement efforts:
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 114

I'm a fan of bold goals and that is if I say our success rate 60 and I'm satisfied there, I
shouldn't have a job. I'd rather say I want it to be 100 percent . . . I don't have goals that
I've set for the college because I think, ‘So what? You meet them.’ And then what? The
question is, do students feel as if they have made progress and that they have completed
their goals?
Presidents’ perspectives on institutional goals align closely with findings noted in theme
three and with perceptions of how best to consider completions discussed as part of theme four.
In general, measurable goals are closely related to accountability and so faculty resistance
bolstered by union protections is likely to foster presidents’ perception that setting and
communicating measurable goals will likely be contentious. In terms of metrics, if presidents
perceive completion metrics to be more salient when examined in relationship with student
intent, then setting goals using the prescribed metrics from the state or federal government is
likely to be unappealing. Regardless of the reason, presidents participating in this study did not
value establishing and communicating student completion goals as part of an overall institutional
improvement strategy.
Finding in Context
Theme four highlights that presidents viewed the value of an associate degree was tied
directly to students’ next activity. While presidents did see value in the liberal arts education
provided as part of degree completions, associate degrees for transfer and associate degrees that
provided job or industry-specific skills were seen to have greatest value. The potential value of
institutional goal setting was tempered by the perception that the activity was potentially
contentious based on faculty resistance to accountability or as meaningless because the external
measures failed to properly account for variance in student intent.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 115

Conclusion
The four themes that emerged from this study highlight the complexity involved with
serving as a community college president. Theme one indicates that measuring student
completions is complicated. Measuring completion rates presents challenges based on the
student population while measuring the number of degrees and certificates granted may distort
perceptions of performance. Theme two suggests that while college presidents are highly
knowledgeable of strategies that can improve student outcomes, college change initiatives are
highly regulated and mandated from both the statewide community college governing board and
the state legislature. Theme three suggests that there is substantial faculty resistance to change
bolstered by union protections creating circumstances that make accountability very challenging.
And finally, theme four implies that presidents’ perceived value of the associate degree has
shifted based largely on its potential utility for the students after they leave the institution.
The notable commonality in each of these themes is the external factors over which
presidents have limited influence. A range of powerful external entities from the Department of
Education to local employers had a significant impact on how presidents perceive their work and
ability to affect change. Chapter five provides a discussion of findings, recommendations for
practice, and suggestions for further research.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 116

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational issues that affected the ability of community college presidents to lead
organizational change efforts resulting in a 50% increase in student completion rates. The
American Association of Community Colleges served as the entry point for the study and
established the global goal of 50% increase in completion rates. Community college presidents
serving as the chief executive at their respective colleges were the stakeholder group of study.
The study framework employed the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap analytic
framework. The literature review was used to identify assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that are likely to affect the ability of presidents to achieve the global
goal of higher completion rates. Additionally, a conceptional framework denoting the interaction
of the knowledge and motivation influences with the organizational influences was developed.
Document analysis, interview protocols, and a sample selection protocol were then developed to
explore the assumed influences.
External influences presented themselves as significant in each of the four themes derived
from the data analysis. The veracity of these external factors has significant implications for
practice for community college presidents. In order to contextualize the recommendations, the
chapter begins with a broader discussion of the thematic findings from the study to highlight the
environment in which community college presidents lead, the strategies they employ to engage
in reform efforts, and best practices in organizational change that appear not to be employed.
Additionally, because the KMO framework lends itself to the development of learning solutions
for problems of practice, a brief discussion on the potential for training activities to enhance the
performance of presidents is presented. Recommendations for leadership practice based on the
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 117

thematic findings of this study and existing literature are then presented. The chapter concludes
with a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the KMO gap analytic approach (Clark &
Estes, 2008) and suggestions for future research.
Discussion
This study sought to explore the motivation and knowledge that community college
presidents brought to bear on their organizational setting in order to achieve higher student
completion rates. The findings of the study suggest that presidents are motivated to increase
student completions, are knowledgeable about best practices to do so, and employ several best
practices associated with successful change leadership. The environment created by external
mandates and internal relations, however, may be more informative in terms of understanding
how presidents can affect completion rates. A more succinct framing of the thematic findings is
illustrative.
• Theme one: Community colleges are assessed using student completions by state and
federal departments of education, external funders, and external groups. Student
completions are difficult to measure and there is not broad agreement on which metric is
most appropriate. Presidents see little value in external completion measures and prefer
to examine data that they feel is more informative for practice.
• Theme two: Current legislation and funding-incentivized mandates dictate the
programmatic approaches that colleges take to improve student completion rates.
• Theme three: Faculty unions facilitate successful resistance to improvement efforts by a
vocal minority. Unions and collective bargaining agreements make holding faculty
accountable for student outcomes difficult.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 118

• Theme four: The general associate degree in and of itself is perceived to have limited
value. Stakeholders perceived value of associate degree, and by extension the community
college education, is based on skill acquisition for employment and the ability of the
student to successfully acquire a bachelor’s degree.
Put together, the leadership environment is daunting. Presidents operate in an environment
where external performance measures are perceived as incomplete at best and inappropriate at
worst, mandates limit the autonomy of presidents to shape organizational changes, holding
faculty accountable for student performance is difficult, and the value of the product, the
associate degree, is judged by the ability of students to achieve other goals.
Despite these challenges, participants were optimistic that the changes necessary to
significantly improve student completions are feasible and readily articulated strategies aligned
with successful organizational change. They utilized state mandates and legislation as leverage to
generate a sense of urgency for change, a necessary step in organizational change (Kotter, 2009).
As several presidents noted, both AB 705 and the Guided Pathways initiative presented
opportunities to insist that faculty engage in creating a different student experience. They
expressed confidence in their ability to build a strong coalition of faculty willing to make change.
While they indicated significant challenges in holding faculty accountable through administrative
action, presidents were confident that recalcitrant faculty members could be replaced with
innovative faculty over time through naturally occurring attrition. In doing so, presidents
demonstrated a high degree of self-efficacy and an understanding for the need to build strong
coalitions when implementing change, both of which are necessary in successful change efforts
(Bandura, 1977; Flannigan, Jones, & Moore, 2004). Presidents even expressed confidence in the
existing faculty to apply their knowledge and skills to develop and implement innovative
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 119

solutions, a behavior and characteristic associated with leaders of successful change (Gilley,
McMillan, & Gilley, 2009).
The sense of optimism was further expressed in leadership behaviors supported in a wide
range of empirical research. Presidents indicated that they consistently brought the focus of
change efforts back to student success, a notion they considered central to the community college
mission, particularly when faced with resistance (Hallinger & Heck, 2002; McDonald, 2007).
They encouraged innovation and change through financial support, encouragement, and by
engaging faculty in shared decision-making processes often beyond mandated requirements
(Caldwell, 1993; Kater, 2017; Tagg, 2012). Taken together, presidents employed several
leadership strategies closely aligned with research-based best practices in organizational change.
Successful reform that results in substantially improved completion rates nonetheless remains
elusive and suggests room for the application of additional or different strategies.
Two key elements of successful change efforts were notably missing within the data
collected for this study. First, presidents were reluctant to engage in institutional goal setting
within the context of organizational change to improve student outcomes. Institutional goal
setting related to student completions was perceived as potentially contentious based on faculty
resistance to accountability or as meaningless because completion metrics imposed by external
entities such as the US Department of Education failed to properly account for variance in
student intent. Second, presidents expressed limited ability to hold faculty accountable for
performance. This perceived challenge resulted in an emphasis on supporting faculty interested
in, and often already engaged in, instructional innovation.
There is extensive evidence to support institutional goal setting as a critical step in
achieving successful organizational change (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Beer, Eisenstat, &
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 120

Spector, 1990; Lewis, 2011; Kotter, 1996). Regardless of which approach is employed, in
almost all instances, establishing a clear vision for the change and articulating and
communicating measurable and observable goals is considered a necessary part of a successful
change effort (Stouten, Rousseau, & De Cremer, 2018). The nature of goal setting, however,
can vary. In his widely used eight-step model of change, for example, Kotter (1996) indicates a
need to create a sense of urgency for change. He goes on to argue that urgency should imply
“boldness” and that goals should reflect that boldness to diminish a sense of complacency, which
he argues may hinder change efforts. Participants in this study noted that formal goal setting was
challenging not only because of the potential of creating unneeded tension with faculty but also
because selecting the goal is complicated. If a goal appears unachievable or extremely difficult
to achieve, it tends to be rejected (Locke & Latham, 2002), reducing the likelihood of successful
change. If a goal is not ambitious enough, however, it may be interpreted as meaningless which
could also result in lower likelihood of successful organizational change (Rousseau &
Tijoriwala, 1999). Despite these challenges, goal setting is an activity that is well-supported by
both theory and research (Kleingeld, van Mierlo, & Arends, 2011; Locke & Latham, 2002, 2006;
O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994) and could be a useful tool for community college
presidents in their efforts to implement change.
Goals and accountability are closely related. The Aspen Institute (2017) indicates that
successful presidents lead the process of establishing institutional goals, inclusive of student
completion rates, hold themselves accountable to those goals, and delegate both accountability
and authority to achieve those goals to subordinate leaders. The report further indicates that such
behavior is considered high-risk and is not common among presidents (Aspen Institute, 2017).
The environment described by participants in this study, particularly in relation to faculty unions,
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 121

supports this conclusion and shows that holding faculty accountable for student outcomes is
challenging.
An examination of the collective bargaining agreements between faculty unions and
colleges represented in this study confirms that student performance data are not typically an
articulated part of the evaluation process. Student, peer, administrative, and self- evaluations
that typically comprise the evaluation process provide limited insight into instructional quality
(Sain & Williams, 2009) and often serve as the only source of information for community
college faculty evaluation (Heller, 2012). Student performance data was consistently absent
from the evaluation processes. One contract explicitly forbade the use of student performance
data in the faculty evaluation process and one college included the use of retention data, referring
to the percent of student who complete the course with any grade. In most instances, peer and
administrator evaluations completed through a classroom observation of unspecified length, self-
evaluations, and prescribed student evaluations comprise the whole of the formal evaluation
process. Participants in the current study consistently indicated that providing faculty with
student success data required assurances that no action would be taken further supporting the
idea that student performance was not a metric used to evaluate faculty. Further, language in the
collective bargaining agreements provide limited guidance for corrective action should
evaluators deem it necessary. Typically, evaluators were asked to provide recommendations for
a professional development plan and follow up on completion of the plan in the subsequent
semester or year. Only two of the 13 collective bargaining agreements included language
indicating the potential ramifications for faculty members not adhering to recommendations or
showing progress in areas of unsatisfactory performance. Similarly, only one contract
specifically indicated that the evaluation process could be used to commend excellent work.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 122

However, there was no indication of potential financial benefit to the instructors if they received
an excellent evaluation. Additionally, receiving tenure or a promotion in rank for faculty
members required only satisfactory performance. These constraints make holding faculty
accountable for student outcomes such as course success, retention, or degree attainment very
challenging.
The recommendations for practice consider the findings from this study and the broader
academic literature in organizational change, leadership, performance management, and learning.
The recommendations are interrelated, far from comprehensive, and require readers to carefully
consider their organizational context. They emphasize the need to establish and communicate
institutional goals, develop stronger faculty accountability for student outcomes, and focus on
first-time, full-time student cohorts while acknowledging that doing so is a high-risk proposition
for community college presidents.
The Potential for Training
Several of the presidents who participated in this study had participated in workshops,
seminars, and fellowships specifically for community college leaders and presidents. Training
for new and experienced community college presidents is offered through the AACC, the Aspen
Foundation, the League for Innovation in the Community College, the Community College
League of California, among others. The opportunities to access learning opportunities specific
to community college leadership are plentiful. Further, nine of 13 participants in this study held
doctoral or master’s degrees that related directly to educational management and organizational
change. Overall, study participants had received substantial formal training in leadership,
organizational change, and the community college environment.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 123

This study examined the knowledge and motivation of community college presidents and
how those factors interacted with organizational issues. Overall, presidents were knowledgeable
about the types of changes necessary to improve student completion rates and were motivated to
make those changes. The organizational issues that arose from the study were highly influenced
by external factors or factors outside the purview of presidents to influence. For those factors
that were within their scope of influence such as faculty resistance to change, presidents
appeared to utilize strategies that were supported by empirical evidence. The two areas where
presidents did not engage in supported practices were that of institutional goal setting and the use
of formal authority to overcome resistance. In both instances, presidents indicated sufficient
knowledge to do so while articulating reasons why they did not engage in those behaviors.
Taking this into consideration, it is reasonable to conclude that training may not be a strong
solution for presidents to overcome the issues associated with creating change in community
colleges.
There was some evidence in the data to suggest that a strong professional network of
presidents was not in existence. Three participants indicated that they would be interested to
know how other presidents thought about the topic being discussed. The evidence is far from
strong but is intriguing. The data analysis for this study was structured to find commonalities
among community college presidents so strategies to improve student outcomes mentioned by
individual presidents were typically not included in the findings. Sharing unique perspectives
within a trusted professional network may be of substantial value to presidents particularly as
they enter these positions.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 124

Recommendations for Practice
The findings from the current study indicate significant challenges to engaging in
organizational change likely to result in increased completion rate. Despite these challenges,
presidents employed several best practices noted in the organizational change literature.
Institutional goal setting and accountability processes were two notable areas of deficiency when
comparing established best practices with strategies presidents indicated they used. These
deficiencies appear related to the environment in which presidents lead as described in the
findings of this study. Both activities were noted to be difficult because they were likely to cause
conflict either as a result of the activity itself or because of strong union protections.
Based on the findings of this study and with consideration of existing evidence, four
recommendations for practice are offered. First, take significant but judicious risks to advance
student performance. Second, develop and communicate a vision that articulates student success
in terms of completion. Third, create faculty accountability systems that take into consideration
student outcomes. Fourth, reconsider the level of emphasis placed on serving first-time, full-
time, degree-seeking students.
Engage in Risky Behavior
Presidents need to take significant risks to improve student success. While specific
actions that constitute high-risk behavior is likely to vary based on the institutional context,
generally, ‘high-risk’ in the current context can be considered behaviors that likely result in
significant conflict. In 2013, the Aspen Institute (2013) released a study in which they identified
five qualities of exceptional community college presidents amongst which was the a “willingness
to take significant risks to advance student success” (p.6). The study goes on to indicate that
despite being a quality exhibited by presidents who achieved exceptional results, boards of
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 125

trustees commonly favored hiring candidates who are risk-averse in order to avoid potential
controversy or conflict particularly with faculty. While the report does not make clear their
definition of risk, it is reasonable to infer that actions that result in controversy or conflict are
considered high-risk.
The two areas in which risk-taking was most common among exceptional presidents
include open acknowledgement of low levels of student success and realigning resources to
focus on student success (Aspen Institute, 2013). Measuring and understanding current levels of
institutional performance and allocating resources to address the perceived causes to poor
performance are fundamentally necessary to improve organizational outcomes (Lewis, 2011). If
these fundamental activities associated with organizational change are considered risk-taking
behavior, then presidents must consider the ways to manage risk and make it productive.
Conflict is a likely result of any significant organizational improvement effort (Krantz,
2018; Morrill, 1991). The findings from this study indicate that community college presidents
understand that conflict is both likely to occur and needs to be managed. Moreover, most
participants in this study clearly avoided activities they felt would create conflict; namely
institutional goal setting and holding faculty accountable for student outcomes. If conflicts are
unavoidable, as they appear to be, then presidents need to take active steps to engage in conflicts
that result in institutional improvement. Central to managing risk for community college
presidents is garnering the support of governing boards. Governing boards, whether elected or
appointed, are responsible for appointing and overseeing college presidents. When conflicts
arise regarding institutional changes, support from the governing board may be necessary to
carry on with those changes. As such, it is critical for presidents to help governing boards
understand the nature of the improvement enterprise, the likely sources of potential conflict, and
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 126

collaboratively and pre-emptively develop strategies to overcome objections to change. Since
presidents do not typically serve as frontline managers, it is also necessary to train, support, and
empower vice presidents and deans to judiciously engage in conflict when deemed necessary.
Community college deans and vice presidents serve as the primary point of contact
between faculty and administrators (Bragg, 2000). Significant stress factors for people in these
positions include not knowing how their performance is evaluated, feeling like they lack the
authority to meet their responsibilities, and managing conflicts involving faculty (Wild, Ebbers,
Shelley, & Gmelch, 2003). Presidents can ameliorate these issues by providing opportunities to
increase conflict management skills, clarifying expectations and understanding that meeting
those expectations will likely involve significant conflict, and empowering managers to engage
in risk-taking behaviors in support of student achievement goals.
More broadly, community college presidents need to prepare their institutions to manage
the conflicts that naturally arise from organizational change efforts designed to improve student
completion rates. Courting the support of the governing body by broadening their understanding
of challenges associated with improvement efforts establishes an appropriate institutional
perspective. Guiding and supporting leadership teams to take risks and use resulting conflict
productively improves the operational likelihood that efforts to improve student completion rates
will succeed.
Articulate Student Success
Establishing and communicating student completion goals may benefit institutional
commitment to change initiatives. Participants indicated a reluctance to establish and
communicate student completion performance goals for the institution. This reluctance was
surprisingly uniform across the study participants during interviews and document analysis.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 127

Colleges did not present articulated, measurable student completion goals within their publicly
available planning documents and interviews confirmed that this was intentional. As noted in
theme four, presidents indicated that establishing measurable goals was likely to be a contentious
activity and would add little value in efforts to move the institution forward.
The research literature in organizational change is exceptionally unified in this area.
Establishing goals and communicating progress on those goals to stakeholders is a central
component in successful change efforts particularly when significant resistance to change is
present. Resistance to change can be reduced when leaders set clear, measurable goals aligned
with the vision of the organization (Locke & Latham, 2002; Smith, Locke & Barry, 1990). A
broad review of the organizational literature by Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) shows that
defining measurable outcomes plays a critical role in successful change efforts regardless of the
specific change methodology. Appelbaum, St-Pierre and Glavas (1998) give organizational goal
setting the same centrality in organizational change and further note that unrealized past goals
may impede the change process. In this instance, it is reasonable to speculate that if goals were
set by previous institutional leaders, they were not accomplished. Moreover, participants in the
study indicated that other statewide initiatives were “supposed to solve all our problems but
didn’t move the needle.” While this perspective may help explain why presidents do not set
institutional goals, communicate them broadly, and the provide continued reporting on those
goals, it does not invalidate the need to do so.
The challenges associated with measuring completions and determining which definition
of completion is most relevant adds significant complexity to the task of goal setting. The role of
the president is to meet this challenge by clearly communicating the meaning, strengths and
weaknesses of each metric, quelling concerns from faculty union leadership, and articulating a
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 128

clear purpose for focusing on completion rates. Establishing institutional goals holds the
potential to focus faculty, staff, and administrators on strategies that specifically relate to
completions. The use of metrics such as retention and persistence remain critically important to
inform practice and should continue to be measured and reported. These metrics, however,
should serve as leading indicators for completion rates.
Study participants already utilize a variety of established best practices in change
management such as consistent communication emphasizing a focus on students, incentivizing
specific behaviors, and engaging in shared decision-making. These practices should be utilized
to smooth the process of creating institution-wide completion goals. Finally, as institutional
goals are established, presidents need to carefully and consistently communicate the summative
nature of completion goals, the relationship of leading indicators such as retention, persistence,
and course success to the completion goal, and how the combined use of such metrics provides a
clearer picture into institutional performance.
Faculty Accountability for Student Outcomes
Community college presidents should work towards incorporating student outcomes
including course success, retention, and completion into a faculty accountability system. One
participant in the current study indicated that the “interaction between the students and the
faculty member in every discipline is more important than anything we do counseling, financial
aid or anything else and that’s where we need to go to improve completion and persistence.”
Considering community college students spend most of their on-campus time in the classroom
with instructional faculty (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005; Tinto, 1997; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005)
it is reasonable to reach such a conclusion. Seen in this light, extending accountability for course
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 129

success, retention, and ultimately completions to include faculty to a greater extent is necessary
to improve faculty performance and student outcomes.
Appropriately holding faculty accountable for student outcomes is both necessary and
challenging. Participants in this study clearly indicated that strong protections afforded by union
contracts and influential or outspoken union leaders are often successful in limiting
accountability for student outcomes. It is, however, far from the only challenge associated with
faculty accountability.
There are numerous and complex factors affecting student performance that faculty may
feel are beyond their influence to directly affect including family responsibilities, economic
status, quality of preparation, and level of external support (Burns, 2010). If faculty perceive
accountability measures as unfair because of factors outside of their control, then such measures
are unlikely to yield the desired result (Siegel, Post, Brockner, Fishman, & Garder, 2005). In the
broader academic literature, employee accountability has been shown to improve both
engagement and performance (Smith & Bititci, 2017; Saks, 2006). Gruman and Saks (2011)
further argue that alignment between individual and organizational goals is a necessary condition
for this to occur. Articulating institutional goals and then creating aligned faculty goals is a
necessary step in holding faculty accountable for student outcomes. The ability to do so,
however, may require addressing the barriers associated with collective bargaining agreements.
Collective bargaining agreements provide extensive protection for tenured faculty. These
agreements typically limit the content of the faculty evaluations as well. The level of limitation
varies significantly from one institution to the next. Further complicating matters is the
interaction between collective bargaining agreements and state education code. California
Education Code EDC 87792, for example, clearly articulates:
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 130

No regular employee or academic employee shall be dismissed except for one or more of
the following causes:
(a) Immoral or unprofessional conduct.
(b) Dishonesty.
(c) Unsatisfactory performance.
(d) Evident unfitness for service.
(e) Physical or mental condition that makes him or her unfit to instruct or associate with
students
This language indicates that if a tenured faculty member is delivery “unsatisfactory
performance” then he or she could be dismissed. For this language to be useful in the context of
accountability, collective bargaining agreements must clearly identify the nature of
“unsatisfactory performance.”
Termination is not a desirable outcome and certainly one of last resort. The intent of
clearly defining acceptable faculty performance is to increase accountability for student
outcomes. A first and necessary step for community college presidents then is to utilize the
collective bargaining process to clearly and collaboratively define the nature of satisfactory and
unsatisfactory performance that includes the examination of student outcome data.
Focus on First-time, Full-time Students
In order to increase student completions, presidents should incorporate a specific focus
on first-time, full-time, degree and certificate seeking students. There were five primary factors
taken into consideration in developing the recommendation that presidents increase institutional
focus on first-time, full-time students. First, this population typically accounts for 15% to 17%
of incoming cohorts of students and about 33% of the total student population on any given
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 131

campus, making it a significant portion of the student population (NCES, 2017). Second, over
the course of a six-year study, nearly 50% of students engage in “mixed intensity” enrollment
patterns, meaning they enroll full-time in some primary terms and part-time in others (NSCRC,
2016). Third, full-time and continuous enrollment are correlated to higher rates of student
completions and transfer rates (Crosta, 2014) and increasing full-time and continuous enrollment
is a broadly supported strategy, as seen from the findings in this study. Fourth, the institution has
more access to these students since they are typically on campus more often and interact with
more faculty members. This access offers the institution an opportunity to develop and delivery
highly efficient, cost-effective programming to increase student commitment which is correlated
with higher completion rates for all student populations (Greene, Marti, & McClenney, 2008;
Sparkman, Maulding, & Roberts, 2012; Woosley & Miller, 2009; Wyatt, 2011). Finally,
increasing the completion rate of first-time, full-time students positively effects college funding
levels and key stakeholder perception of the institution.
Increasing the focus om first-time, full-time students can be achieved within the Guided
Pathways framework that presidents indicated their colleges were adopting. Implementation
guidelines for the project do not emphasize first-time, full-time students. Adding a consideration
of this cohort into the existing conversations around Guided Pathways implementation is
potentially straightforward since encouraging more students to take full-time course loads is
already a defined strategy. If possible, institutional data that highlights the number and
percentage of first-time, full-time students who continue enrolling full-time over three years
should be collected and presented to teams developing programming to fit within Guided
Pathways. This data would allow presidents to suggest a two-pronged approach to increasing
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 132

more full-time enrollment, one encouraging part-time students to enroll full-time, and a second
encouraging students to remain full-time.
First-time, full-time students represent a significant portion of the student population, are
uniquely accessible to the institution, and demonstrate an initially high degree of commitment
creating a potential opportunity to achieve strong results with relatively limited resources. This
recommendation is not intended to suggest that less attention be given to other targeted
programming such as those focused on historically disenfranchised student populations. Issues of
equity need continued attention as do part-time students. Rather, the recommendation to
increase focus on first-time, full-time students is intended to expose an opportunity to improve
performance with limited use of resources.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the KMO Framework
The KMO gap analytic framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) was designed to address
problems of practice by identifying gaps in knowledge and motivation of key stakeholders and
identifying organizational issues that hinder performance. The framework typically lends itself
to the development and implementation of learning activities particularly in the areas of
knowledge and motivation. If the identified stakeholder lacks the knowledge to complete the
task, then providing the appropriate training can address the issue. Motivation issues can often
be addressed through incentive programs or environmental changes but can just as often benefit
from learning opportunities. For example, if stakeholders do not see the value of a goal or
activity, providing a learning opportunity to contextualize the utility may increase motivation
(Eccles, 2006). In identifying organizational issues, work processes, material resources, and
internal interactions are examined to determine potential causes of performance problems (Clark
& Estes, 2008). If issues arise centrally from internal interactions, they can be addressed through
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 133

aligning organizational culture with goals and behavior, something often addressed through
learning opportunities.
The KMO framework provided two key advantages for this study. First, the process of
trying to understand the nature of the problem of practice identified for the study was more
productive because the framework provides a highly structured, expansive, and encouraged
examination of the issue from multiple perspectives. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational
issues were viewed through a multidimensional lens incorporating evidence from a wide range of
content areas from learning to organizational development to economics because the three
constructs are studied by various disciplines. Second, the framework is designed to result in the
development of a solution and so supported the development of a methodology intended to find a
solution. In the case of this study, viable solutions were not identified in part because of the very
broad nature of the inquiry.
The weakness of the KMO framework for this study was two-fold. First, the structure is
designed to examine a single stakeholder group. Second, the framework is not well-suited to
examine broader problems of practice. In large, complex organizations, it is unlikely that
addressing the needs of a single stakeholder group will fundamentally change the summative
outcome, in this case the rate of student completions. When numerous institutions are evaluated
because they have the same undesirable outcome, the necessity for specificity becomes apparent.
The colleges examined as part of this study all had the same undesirable outcome, that of low
student completion rates, but the circumstances in which each stakeholder operated were
different, making it difficult to identify unified, common solutions. The structure of this study
would likely be more productive if applied at a single institution and across multiple stakeholder
groups.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 134

Future Research
Three potential areas for future research are offered. First, research that incorporates a
time component of student intent is discussed. The second topic is the potential application of
the KMO framework at a single community college. And finally, opportunities for research that
arise from the Guided Pathways initiative and the passage of AB 705 are discussed. The breadth
of these initiatives provides substantial opportunities for researchers. These initiatives will be
watched closely by a numerous stakeholders and research is likely already underway. The
discussion below tries to reach beyond the research necessary to maintain those projects.
Student Intent in Measuring Completions
There is very little dispute that absolute completion rates for community colleges across
the country are lower than desired. There is, however, substantial disagreement in terms of the
relative success of the community college system. The argument has an inherent political
component as funding and public perception are both impacted by how completions are reported
(Ewell, 2011). As such, considering the additional factor of the time in which students intend to
complete a degree or certificate may be a useful line of further research.
Presidents in this study consistently preferred to consider completions from the student
perspective; that is, they were most interested in knowing if students achieved their goal. No
student completion metrics were identified in the existing literature that took into consideration
the time in which students intended or expected to achieve their goal. Considering that most
community college students attend part-time, further research in this area may be of significant
value.
Adding the dimension of time to student intent may better contextualize completion rates
for both the professional community and the public. Doing so may also inform academic and
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 135

student support program development. For example, if a significant number of students indicate
a desire to complete an associate degree by attending part-time, then it would be reasonable to
design programs accordingly.
Single Institution KMO Study
The specificity of the KMO framework is well-suited to the study of a single institution.
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues are likely to vary from institution to
institution. As such, solutions would need to vary by institution as well. The KMO framework
and the process used for the study provides a structure that results in identifying a measurable
problem of practice, determining gaps that cause the performance gaps, and developing solutions
to address those gaps. Participants in this study indicated a wide range of programs that
produced no tangible results. It is reasonable that at least some of these programs did not address
the right cause of the problem, an issue the framework is suited to address.
The KMO framework would be highly effective in identifying viable solutions and
implementation strategies to the problem of practice examined through the course of this study
within a single institution. The application of the framework would be particularly useful if
multiple stakeholder groups were studied. Examining presidents, vice presidents and deans, and
faculty in a single institution with the KMO framework could expose critical misalignments
between the stakeholder groups and lead to the identification of strategies to address the
misalignment within the specific context. Lastly, since solutions developed using the KMO
framework often involve developing and implementing learning solutions, it is ideal for the
college environment. Not only are learning solutions likely to be well received by all
stakeholders, the infrastructure to deliver such solutions such as teaching and learning centers,
professional development expectations, and funding are often present.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 136

Guided Pathways and AB 705
The implementation of Guided Pathways and AB 705 are likely to result in substantial
insight into how institutional efforts at organizational reform operate. The extensive nature of
reforms required to implement Guided Pathways combined with the fact that the program is
being implemented by a wide range of colleges could inform numerous areas of research.
Viewed as a single large experiment, opportunities for research emerge in numerous areas. In
terms of community colleges, the initiative will allow for the study of how guided pathways
affects student outcomes as well as the student experience. As colleges are likely to implement
the program differently, the effect of individual program elements could be studied. In general,
the scope of the project and its relative uniformity across institutions may provide the
opportunity to identify which program, or combination of programs, and under what
circumstances, improves the student experience and likelihood of goal attainment.
The initiative could also be used as a vehicle to study leadership more generally. The
opportunity to study numerous leaders completing the same complex task with similar access to
resources is relatively rare. Studies examining aspects of leadership from behavior to style,
institutional and leadership responses to external mandates, the effect of mandates on
implementation veracity could all be informative.
AB 705 provides narrower but critical opportunities as well. With the implementation of
AB 705, researchers may be able to definitively answer if students are better served by having
developmental education or by simply eliminating it altogether. As intriguing as that is, research
investigating teaching and learning may be far more useful. AB 705 is likely to generate, at least
from the faculty perspective, widely diverse college-level English and math classes. The
research opportunities within these classrooms are quite interesting. The rapid rate of change
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 137

could facilitate an examination of faculty response to shifting classroom demographics. Study in
this area could explore aspects of equity, academic rigor, and faculty instructional flexibility.
Students’ prior academic experience and course performance could even be used to explore the
actual prerequisite knowledge and skills necessary for success in college level coursework.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore the potential that the position of community
college president holds to increase student completion rates by 50%. In 2010, American
Association of Community Colleges in collaboration with the Association for Community
College Trustees, the Center for Community College Student Engagement, the League for
Innovation in the Community College, the National Institute for Staff and Organizational
Development, and the Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society to establish the Completion Agenda. The
completion agenda sought to produce 50% more students with degrees and certificates by 2020
and brought increased emphasis to the examination of completion rates (McPhail, 2011). This
study chose to focus on completion rates because the number of degree and certificates can
fluctuate with factors that are unrelated to improving the delivery of education such as
enrollment and changes in institutional offerings.
Community college presidents were selected as the primary stakeholder for study. To
achieve substantially different outcomes which a 50% increase in completion rates represents,
institutions would need to perform differently. Presidents were seen to have the greatest level of
organizational influence to effect changes at scale that could produce this vastly improved
outcome. As such, this study sought to explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
issues that affect the ability of community college presidents to engage in change efforts that led
to an increase in completion rates.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 138

The KMO gap analytic framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) is designed to address problems
of practice by identifying gaps in knowledge and motivation of key stakeholders and identifying
organizational issues that limit their ability to achieve the desired goal. A qualitative study
design was employed to identify organizational barriers and gaps in knowledge and motivation
that prevent presidents from leading institutions to achieve 50% higher completion rates.
The result of applying the KMO framework is typically the development and
implementation of learning activities particularly in the areas of knowledge and motivation. If
the identified stakeholder lacks the knowledge to complete the task, then providing the
appropriate training can address the issue. Motivation issues can often benefit from learning
opportunities but can also be addressed through incentive programs or environmental changes.
For example, if stakeholders do not see the utility value of a goal or activity, providing a learning
opportunity to contextualize the utility may increase motivation. For identified organizational
barriers, solutions typically involve adjusting or aligning work processes, adjustments in the
allocation of material resources. If the identified barrier is a misalignment between the
organizational culture and stakeholder behavior, then learning opportunities can also be used to
create alignment.
The theoretical framework developed for this study placed the knowledge and motivation
of presidents inside the organizational context and culture of their individual institutions. It was
within the interactions that the findings for this study emerged. The framework, however,
proved to underestimate the influence of external pressures on the knowledge and motivation of
presidents and the degree to which external factors drove the internal functioning of each
college. The emergent nature of a qualitative study design provided sufficient flexibility to
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 139

examine the research questions. Instead of identifying specific knowledge, motivation,
organizational issues, four thematic finding emerged.
The four themes that emerged from the study integrated knowledge, motivation, and
organizational issues. Theme one addresses the challenges associated with measuring
completion, taking into consideration participants’ perception of completion rates. Theme two
explores presidents’ knowledge of best practices in improving community college completion
and how broader reform efforts interact to affect the utility of that knowledge. Theme three
discusses presidents’ perception of the relationship between faculty resistance to change and
accountability and resulting strategies presidents employ. Finally, theme four examines the
value presidents place on the associate degree, completion metrics, and institutional goals.
These thematic findings did not result in the development of a learning program that
would improve the knowledge and motivation of community college presidents and help them
overcome the organizational barriers. In fact, presidents demonstrated high levels of knowledge
in the areas of community college best practices and change management strategies and showed
themselves to be highly motivated to achieve better student outcomes. Further, the most
significant organizational barriers, state mandates and union-bolstered faculty resistance, were
seen as largely beyond the scope of participants to significantly influence. Even in these
circumstances, presidents were thoughtful and creative in choosing to leverage state mandates to
push positive change and building coalitions of faculty who were willing to enact change.
The findings suggest that the complexity of the community college presidency continues
to increase. Considering the centrality of state mandates, it would be reasonable to speculate the
level of autonomy of colleges, and by extension presidents and faculty, is substantially lower
than in past decades. This context made identifying useful recommendations for practice that
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 140

were generally applicable even across the study group surprisingly challenging. Three were
identified.
Drawing from the organizational change and leadership literature, the first
recommendation suggested that presidents engage in more risk-taking behavior. Within the
context of the recommendation, risk was conceived as activities likely to result in conflict. The
activities that participants avoided because of perceived risk included institutional goal setting
and holding faculty accountable for student outcomes. These activities are addressed in the
second and third recommendation; establish and communicate student completion goals and
incorporate student outcomes measure into the faculty accountability. Of the institutions
represented in the study, none presented measurable goals for increasing student completions in
their institutional planning documents. The importance of such goals is broadly agreed to be a
necessity for successful change efforts. Generating greater faculty accountability requires that
community college first set institutional goals for student completions and then develop
complementary faculty goals. Notably, one participant indicated that he had a faculty member
who consistently failed all Latinx students but that there was nothing he could do as the
president, suggesting a need for greater faculty accountability. The final recommendation
suggested that presidents reconsider the institutional focus on the 33% of first-time, full-time,
degree-seeking students typically found on community college campuses. Providing services to
encourage more students in this cohort to remain full-time and to enroll continuously can be
cost-effective, accomplished within the current college framework, and potentially increase
completion rates substantially.
Overall, this study highlights the complexity of the environment in which community
college presidents lead and constraints under which they operate. State legislation and mandates
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 141

are fundamentally changing the ways in which colleges operate and the ability of presidents to
shape the change agenda on their campuses. At the same time, community college presidents
may be able to leverage these mandates to create the substantive change necessary to improve
student completion outcomes. Careful research on the effect of these mandates will answer this
question soon enough.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 142

References
Achieving the Dream. (n.d). Our approach. Retrieved August 12, 2017, from Achieving the
Dream website: http://achievingthedream.org/our-approach
Agasisti, T., & Belfield, C. (2017). Efficiency in the community college sector: Stochastic
frontier analysis. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(3), 237-259.
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model
for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N. L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. E. (2007). Uncertainty during organizational
change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change
Management, 7(2), 187-210.
American Association of Community Colleges, (n.d.). AACC 21st century center: Resources for
reclaiming the American dream. Retrieved from https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/AACC_21stCenturyBro_low.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges, the Association of Community College Trustees,
the Center for Community College Student Engagement, the League for Innovation in the
Community College, the National Institute for Staff & Organizational Development, and
Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society. (2010) Democracy’s colleges: Call to action.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/news/articles/documents/callaction_04202010.pdf.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2012). AACC competencies for community
college leaders. Retrieved from:
http://dev.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/Documents/AACC_Core_Co
mpetencies_web.pdf
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 143

American Association of Community Colleges. (2015). Community college completion:
Progress toward goal of 50% increase. Retrieved from
http://dev.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Documents/completion_report_05212015.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges. (2016). Fast facts. Available from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/AACCFactSheetsR2.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges. (2017). About community colleges. Retrieved
from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/aboutcc/Pages/default.aspx
Appelbaum, S. H., St-Pierre, N., & Glavas, W. (1998). Strategic organizational change: the role
of leadership, learning, motivation and productivity. Management Decision, 36(5), 289-
301
Aragon, S. R., & Johnson, E. S. (2008). Factors influencing completion and noncompletion of
community college online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3),
146-158.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and
research in the 1990s. Journal of management, 25(3), 293-315.
Aspen Institute Task Force on the Future of the College Presidency (US). (2017). Renewal and
progress: strengthening higher education leadership in a time of rapid change. Retrieved
from https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/05/Renewal_and_Progress_
CEP-05122017.pdf?_ga=2.211694805.1914928902.1546633145-
441800057.1546633145
Aspen Institute and Achieving the Dream Inc. (2013). Crisis and opportunity: Aligning the
community college presidency with student success. Retrieved from
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 144

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/CEP_Final_Repo
rt.pdf?_ga=2.182858086.1914928902.1546633145-441800057.1546633145
Ayers, D. F. (2015). Credentialing structures, pedagogies, practices, and curriculum goals:
Trajectories of change in community college mission statements. Community College
Review, 43(2), 191-214.
Ayers, D. F. (2017). Three functions of the community college mission statement. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2017(180), 9-17.
Bahr, P. R. (2007). Double jeopardy: Testing the effects of multiple basic skill deficiencies on
successful remediation. Research in Higher Education, 48(6), 695-725.
Bahr, P.R, Fagioli, L.P., Hetts, J., Hayward, C., Willett, T., Lamoree, . . . Baker, R. (2017).
Improving Placement Accuracy in California’s Community Colleges Using Multiple
Measures of High School Achievement. Retrieved from
http://rpgroup.org/Portals/0/Documents/Projects/MultipleMeasures/Publications/Bahr_et
_al-2017-Improving_Placement_Accuracy_in_California.pdf
Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on program
effectiveness at community colleges. Community College Research Center, Columbia
University. Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/paths-
persistence-program-effectiveness.pdf
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental
education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2009(145),
11-30.
Bailey, T. (2016). The need for comprehensive reform: From access to completion. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(176), 11-21.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 145

Bailey, T. R., Leinbach, D. T., & Jenkins, P. D. (2006). Is student success labeled institutional
failure? Student goals and graduation rates in the accountability debate at community
colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 1. Community College Research Center, Columbia
University.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bard, K. (2016). Successful rural community college students: examining the association of
student demographics, high school environmental variables, and high school outcome
variables on community college degree attainment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from MOspace Institutional Repository. University of Missouri--Columbia.
Barro, R. J. (2013). Education and economic growth. Annals of Economics and Finance, 14(2),
301-328.
Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Alexander, J. A. (2010). Leadership
competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(3), 422-438.
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other
paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191.
Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of
Communication, 51(3), 477-497.
Beehler, M. C. (1993). The changing role of the community college president in Washington
state. Community College Review, 20(4), 17-26.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 146

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990), Why change programs don’t produce change,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 158-166.
Belfield, C. R., & Bailey, T. (2011). The benefits of attending community college: A review of
the evidence. Community College Review, 39(1), 46-68.
Belfield, C., Crosta, P., & Jenkins, D. (2014). Can community colleges afford to improve
completion? Measuring the cost and efficiency consequences of reform. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 327-345.
Bellé, N. (2013). Leading to make a difference: A field experiment on the performance effects of
transformational leadership, perceived social impact, and public service
motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, mut033.
Berger, N., & Fisher, P. (2013). A well-educated workforce is key to state prosperity. Economic
Policy Institute, 22(1)
Bertram, R. M., Blase, K. A., & Fixsen, D. L. (2015). Improving programs and outcomes:
Implementation frameworks and organization change. Research on Social Work
Practice, 25(4), 477-487.
Bettinger, E. P., Boatman, A., & Long, B. T. (2013). Student supports: Developmental education
and other academic programs. The Future of Children, 23(1), 93-115.
Bhar, P. R., Fagioli, L. P., Hetts, J., Hayward, C., Willett, T., Newell, M., . . . Baker, R., (2017).
Improving placement accuracy in California community colleges using multiple
measures of high school achievement. Retrieved from RP Group website:
http://rpgroup.org/Portals/0/Documents/Projects/MultipleMeasures/Publications/Bahr_et
_al-2017-Improving_Placement_Accuracy_in_California.pdf.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 147

Bill Clinton 1996: On the issues: Improving education. (n.d.) Retrieved June 17, 2017 from:
http://www.4president.us/issues/clinton1996/clinton1996education.htm
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership:
A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and
Applied Management, 7(3), 304-311,313-319.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. In B.S. Bloom (Ed.),
Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay
Boatman, A., & Long, B. T. (2016). Does financial aid impact college student
engagement? Research in Higher Education, 57(6), 653-681.
Boggs, G. R. (2011). Community colleges in the spotlight and under the microscope. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(156), 3-22.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
(5
th
ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. CA: SAGE Publications.
Boylan, H. R., Bliss, L. B., & Bonham, B. S. (1997). Program components and their relationship
to student performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3), 2-8.
Bragg, D. D. (2000). Preparing community college deans to lead change. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2000(109), 75-85.
Bragg, D. D., & Durham, B. (2012). Perspectives on access and equity in the era of (community)
college completion. Community College Review, 40(2), 106-125.
Brownell, J. E., & Swaner, L. (2009). Outcomes of high-impact educational practices: A
literature review. Diversity and Democracy, 12(2), 4-6.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 148

Bryant, A. N. (2001). ERIC review: Community college students: Recent findings and trends.
Community College Review, 29(3), 77-93.
Burns, K. (2010). At issue: Community college student success variables: A review of the
literature. The Community College Enterprise, 16(2), 33.
Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional stakeholders.
Contemporary Education, 70(4), 5.
Byun, K. J., Henderson, R., & Toossi, M. (2015). Evaluation of BLS employment, labor force
and macroeconomic projections to 2006, 2008, and 2010. Monthly Lab. Rev., 138, 1.
Calcagno, J. C., Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, T. (2008). Community college
student success: What institutional characteristics make a difference? Economics of
Education Review, 27(6), 632-645.
Caldwell, R. (1993). Employee involvement and communication strategies for managing
change. Strategic Change, 2(3), 135-138.
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2018, May 22). 2018-19 Funding Formula
Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from
https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/CFFP/Fiscal/Budget%20News/2018-
19/Funding_Formula_FAQ_May222018.pdf
Carter, S. M., & Greer, C. R. (2013). Strategic leadership: Values, styles, and organizational
performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(4), 375-393.
Casey, D., & Murphy, K. (2009). Issues in using methodological triangulation in research:
Dympna Casey and Kathy Murphy explore the advantages and disadvantages of using
triangulation. Nurse Researcher, 16(4), 40-55.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 149

Castro, C. R. (2000). Community college faculty satisfaction and the faculty union. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 45-55.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2012). A matter of degrees: Promising
practices for community college student success: A first look. Retrieved from CCCSE
website: https://www.ccsse.org/docs/matter_of_degrees.pdf
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2013). A matter of degrees: Engaging
practices, engaging students: High-impact practices for community college student
engagement. Retrieved from CCCSE website:
https://www.ccsse.org/docs/Matter_of_Degrees_2.pdf
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014). A matter of degrees: Practices to
pathways: high-impact practices for community college student success. Retrieved from
CCCSE website: https://www.ccsse.org/docs/matter_of_degrees_3.pdf
Cho, S. W., & Karp, M. M. (2013). Student success courses in the community college: Early
enrollment and educational outcomes. Community College Review, 41(1), 86-103.
Clark, B. R. (1960). The" cooling-out" function in higher education. American Journal of
Sociology, 65(6), 569-576.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cloud, R. C. (2010). Epilogue: Change leadership and leadership development. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 2010(149), 73-79.
Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Balance in leader
and follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: Relationships with performance
and work attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 452-465.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 150

Cohen, A. M. (1969). Dateline'79: Heretical concepts for the community college. Beverly Hills,
CA: Glencoe Press. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED288591
Cook, B. J. (2012). The American college president study: Key findings and
takeaways. Retrieved from the American Council on Education website:
https://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/The-American-
College-President-Study.aspx
Cope, D. G. (2014). Methods and meanings: credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative
research. Oncology Nursing Forum (Vol. 41, No. 1).
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crisp, G., & Delgado, C. (2014). The impact of developmental education on community college
persistence and vertical transfer. Community College Review, 42(2), 99-117.
Crisp, G., & Taggart, A. (2013). Community college student success programs: A synthesis,
critique, and research agenda. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 37(2), 114-130.
Crosta, P. M. (2014). Intensity and attachment: How the chaotic enrollment patterns of
community college students relate to educational outcomes. Community College
Review, 42(2), 118-142.
Cutler, D. M., Huang, W., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2015). When does education matter? The
protective effect of education for cohorts graduating in bad times. Social Science &
Medicine 127 (2015): 63-73.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 151

D'Amico, M. M., Friedel, J. N., Katsinas, S. G., & Thornton, Z. M. (2014). Current
developments in community college performance funding. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 38(2-3), 231-241.
Dassance, C. R. (2011). The next community college movement? New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2011(156), 31-39.
Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of
supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-
assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational
Research, 84(4), 609-639.
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change”. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41.
Derby, D. C., & Smith, T. (2004). An orientation course and community college
retention. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(9), 763-773.
Donahue, J. (2003). A case study of select Illinois community college board chair perspectives
on their leadership role. Community College Review, 31(2), 21-46.
Dougherty, K. (1991). The community college at the crossroads: The need for structural
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 61(3), 311-337.
Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014).
Performance funding for higher education: Forms, origins, impacts, and futures. The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 163-184.
Doyle, W., & Zumeta, W. (2014). State-level responses to the access and completion challenge
in the new era of austerity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 655(1), 79-98.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 152

Drucker, J. (2016). Reconsidering the regional economic development impacts of higher
education institutions in the United States. Regional Studies, 50(7), 1185-1202.
Dudley, D. M., Liu, L., Hao, L., & Stallard, C. (2015). Student engagement: A CCSSE follow-up
study to improve student engagement in a community college. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 39(12), 1153-1169.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of transformational and
transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and
extension. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th
Anniversary Edition (pp. 39-70). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Eagan, M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2009). Effects of exposure to part-time faculty on community
college transfer. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 168.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eddy, P. L. (2005). Framing the role of leader: How community college presidents construct
their leadership. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(9-10), 705-
727.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-
generation students. Retrieved from Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education website: http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-
Moving_Beyond_Access_2008.pdf
Ewell, P. T. (2011). Accountability and institutional effectiveness in the community
college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(153), 23-36.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 153

Fike, D. S., & Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community
college. Community College Review, 36(2), 68-88.
Finley, A. (2011). Assessment of high-impact practices: Using findings to drive change in the
compass project. Peer Review, 13(2), 29.
Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2010). Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing
self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 495-505.
Flannigan, S., Jones, B. R., & Moore, W. (2004). An exploration of faculty hiring practices in
community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 28(10), 823-
836.
Fong, C. J., Davis, C. W., Kim, Y., Kim, Y. W., Marriott, L., & Kim, S. (2017). Psychosocial
factors and community college student success: A meta-analytic investigation. Review of
Educational Research, 87(2), 388-424.
Fong, K. E., & Melguizo, T. (2017). Utilizing Additional Measures of High School Academic
Preparation to Support Students in their Math Self-Assessment. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 41(9), 566-592.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the
story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see
the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 154

Garfield, T. K. (2008). Governance in a union environment. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2008(141), 25-33.
Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman
Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of
Higher Education, 84(3), 417-443.
Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Organizational change and characteristics of
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 38-47.
Gillie, A. C. (1967). The role of the community college president. Retrieved from: https://eric-ed-
gov.libproxy2.usc.edu/?id=ED017245
Ginder, S.A., Kelly-Reid, J.E., and Mann, F.B. (2018). 2017–18 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) Methodology Report (NCES 2018-195). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Glass, J. C. Jr., & Jackson, K. L. (1998). A new role for community college presidents: Private
fund raiser and development team leader. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 22(6), 575-590.
Goff, D. G. (2003). What Do We Know about Good Community College Leaders: A Study in
Leadership Trait Theory and Behavioral Leadership Theory. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy1.usc.edu/fulltext/ED476456.pdf
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student
success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437-469.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 155

Greene, T. G., Marti, C. N., & McClenney, K. (2008). The effort—outcome gap: Differences for
African American and Hispanic community college students in student engagement and
academic achievement. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 513-539.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee
engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 2(163-194), 105.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2002). What do you call people with vision? The role of vision,
mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger
(Eds.), Second international handbook of research in educational leadership and
administration (pp. 9–40). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W., & Hampton, P. (2001). Correlates of retention for African-
American males in community colleges. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 3(3), 243-263.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader self and means
efficacy: A multi-component approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 118(2), 143-161.
Hatch, D. K. (2016). A brief history and a framework for understanding commonalities and
differences of community college student success programs. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2016(175), 19-31.
Hatch, D. K., & Bohlig, E. M. (2016). An empirical typology of the latent programmatic
structure of promising practices at community colleges. Research in Higher Education,
57(1), 72–98.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 156

Heller, J. R. (2012). Contingent faculty and the evaluation process. College Composition and
Communication, 64(1), A8-A12.
Hern, K., & Snell, M. (2014). The California acceleration project: Reforming developmental
education to increase student completion of college‐level math and English. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2014(167), 27-39.
Hines, S. R. (2017). Evaluating Centers for Teaching and Learning: A Field‐Tested Model. To
Improve the Academy, 36(2), 89-100.
Hodara, M., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). An examination of the impact of accelerating community
college students' progression through developmental education. The Journal of Higher
Education, 85(2), 246-276.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational
change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 43(2), 232-255.
Hope, L. (2017). Guided Pathways and the future for California’s students [PowerPoint slides].
Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://cccgp.cccco.edu/Portals/0/2017%2520Guided%252
0Pathways%2520Presentation%2520IVC%2520Flex%2520Days.pptx&sa=U&ved=0ah
UKEwiQoLyNpfreAhXoi1QKHQNbBXQQFggMMAQ&client=internal-uds-
cse&cx=008193847720522529409:gq5qnhnmmki&usg=AOvVaw3jUdyzz_w-
P8FSOSd8ewq1
Hope, L., & Stanskas, J. (2018, July 10). Assembly Bill (AB) 705 implementation. Retrieved
from https://asccc.org/sites/default/files/AA%2018-
40%20AB%20705%20Implementation%20Memorandum_.pdf.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 157

Horn, L., Nevill, S., & Griffith, J. (2006). Profile of Undergraduates in US Postsecondary
Education Institutions, 2003-04: With a Special Analysis of Community College Students.
[Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2006-184]. National Center for Education Statistics.
Huang, T., Cui, J., Cortese, C., & Pepper, M. (2015). Internet based peer assisted learning:
Current models, future applications, and potential. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and
Learning, 811.
Ingram, T. N., & Gonzalez-Matthews, M. (2013). Moving towards engagement: Promoting
persistence among Latino male undergraduates at an urban community
college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(8), 636-648.
Jackson, D. L., Stebleton, M. J., & Laanan, F. S. (2013). The experience of community college
faculty involved in a learning community program. Community College Review, 41(1), 3-
19.
Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment on community college graduation
rates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081-1103.
Jaggars, S. S., Hodara, M., Cho, S. W., & Xu, D. (2015). Three accelerated developmental
education programs: Features, student outcomes, and implications. Community College
Review, 43(1), 3-26.
Jaggars, S. S., & Stacey, G. W. (2014). What we know about developmental education outcomes:
Research overview. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Jenkins, D., & Cho, S. W. (2013). Get with the program… and finish it: Building guided
pathways to accelerate student completion. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2013 (164), 27-35.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 158

Jenkins, D., & Kerrigan, M. R. (2008). Evidence-Based Decision Making in Community
Colleges: Findings from a Survey of Faculty and Administrator Data Use at Achieving
the Dream Colleges. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Jepsen, C., Troske, K., & Coomes, P. (2014). The labor-market returns to community college
degrees, diplomas, and certificates. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(1), 95-121.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Jones, S. J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Are community college presidencies wise career
moves? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(4), 300-309.
Jordan, W. J., Cavalluzzo, L., & Corallo, C. (2006). Community college and high school reform:
Lessons from five case studies. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 30(9), 729-749.
Juszkiewicz, J. (2016). Trends in Community College Enrollment and Completion Data,
2016. Retrieved from American Association of Community Colleges website:
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/TrendsCCEnrollment_Final2016.pdf
Juszkiewicz, J. (2017). Trends in Community College Enrollment and Completion Data,
2017. Retrieved from American Association of Community Colleges website:
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CCEnrollment2017.pdf
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141-184.
Kaplan, R. M., Fang, Z., & Kirby, J. (2017). Educational attainment and health outcomes: Data
from the medical expenditures panel survey. Health Psychology, 36(6), 598-608.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 159

Kater, S. T. (2017). Community college faculty conceptualizations of shared governance: Shared
understandings of a sociopolitical reality. Community College Review, 45(3), 234-257.
Kater, S., & Levin, J. S. (2004). Shared governance in the community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(1), 1-23.
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J.
(2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a
motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97(3), 421.
Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and
leadership, or structures and formal processes?. New Directions for Higher Education,
2004(127), 35-46.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends
in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169-183.
Kitchen, P. J., & Daly, F. (2002). Internal communication during change
management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(1), 46-53.
Kok, S. K., & McDonald, C. (2017). Underpinning excellence in higher education–an
investigation into the leadership, governance and management behaviours of high-
performing academic departments. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 210-231.
Kotter, J. P. (2009). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73(2).
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 160

Krantz, J. (2018). Dilemmas of organizational change: A systems psychodynamic perspective.
In The systems psychodynamics of organizations (pp. 133-156). Routledge.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kubala, T., & Bailey G. M. (2001). A new perspective on community college presidents: Results
of a national study. Community College Journal of Research &Practice, 25(10), 793-804.
Kuh, G., O'Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. G. (2017). HIPs at ten. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 49(5), 8-16.
Kuh, G.D, Kinzie, J., Buckley, J, Bridges, B.K., & Hayek, J.C., (2006). What matters to student
success: A review of the literature. Final report for the National Postsecondary
Cooperative and National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/Kuh_Team_Report.pdf
Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and
moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(3), 504-522.
Lahr, H., Pheatt, L., Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S., Natow, R. S., & Reddy, V. (2014). Unintended
impacts of performance funding on community colleges and universities in three
states. Community College Research Center, Colombia University. Retrieved from
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/unintended-impacts-performance-
funding.pdf
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change
in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 161

Lester, J. (2014). The completion agenda: The unintended consequences for equity in community
colleges. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 423-466).
Netherlands: Springer.
Levin, J. S. (1998). Organizational change and the community college. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 1998(102), 1-4.
Levin, J. S. (2000). The revised institution: The community college mission at the end of the
twentieth century. Community College Review, 28(2), 1-25.
Levin, J. S., Jackson-Boothby, A., Haberler, Z., & Walker, L. (2015). Dangerous work:
Improving conditions for faculty of color in the community college. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 39(9), 852-864.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic
communication (Vol. 4). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Lewis, M. D. (1989). The role of the community college president: A review of the literature
from 1969-89. Retrieved from: https://files-eric-ed-
gov.libproxy2.usc.edu/fulltext/ED307947.pdf.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1989). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. The Review of
Higher Education, 12(3), 221-240.
Locke, M. G., & Guglielmino, L. (2006). The influence of subcultures on planned change in a
community college. Community College Review, 34(2), 108-127.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 2006. New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15(5): 265–268.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 162

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organizational
culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and
development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(7), 365-374.
Lucey, C. A. (2002). Civic engagement, shared governance, and community colleges. Academe,
88(4), 27
Malm, J. R. (2008). Six community college presidents: Organizational pressures, change
processes and approaches to leadership. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 32(8), 614-628.
Martin, K., Galentino, R., & Townsend, L. (2014). Community college student success: The role
of motivation and self-empowerment. Community College Review, 42(3), 221-241.
Matos Marques Simoes, P., & Esposito, M. (2014). Improving change management: How
communication nature influences resistance to change. Journal of Management
Development, 33(4), 324-341.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Maxwell, N. L., & Person, A. E. (2016). Comprehensive reform for student success. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(176), 7-10.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). How learning works. Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
McAfee, O., & Finch, A. (2013). How career development can enhance college faculty. Journal
of Knowledge & Human Resource Management, 5(10).
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 163

McArthur, R. C. (2002). Democratic leadership and faculty empowerment at the community
college: A theoretical model for the department chair. Community College Review, 30(3),
1-10.
McCabe, R. H. (1981). Now is the time to reform the American community college. Community
and Junior College Journal, 51(8), 6-10.
McClenney, B. N. (2013). Leadership matters: Addressing the student success and completion
agenda. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(164), 7-16.
McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive
theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8(1), 22-33.
McDonald, R. (2007). An investigation of innovation in non-profit organizations: The role of
organizational mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256–281.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
McNabb, D. E., & Sepic, F. T. (1995). Culture, climate, and total quality management:
Measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity & Management Review, 369-385.
McNair, D. E. (2015). Deliberate disequilibrium: Preparing for a community college
presidency. Community College Review, 43(1), 72-88.
McNair, D. E., Duree, C. A., & Ebbers, L. (2011). If I knew then what I know now: Using the
leadership competencies developed by the American Association of Community Colleges
to prepare community college presidents. Community College Review, 39(1), 3-25.
McPhail, C. J. (2011, November). The Completion Agenda: A Call to Action. (Summary Report
from the November 10-11, 2010, meeting of the American Association of Community
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 164

Colleges commissions and board of directors. American Association of Community
Colleges.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, M., Palacios, V., & Leachman, M. (2014). States are still funding higher education
below pre-recession levels. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5(1), 14.
Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J. M., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting and student achievement: A
longitudinal study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 153-169.
Morphew, C. C. (1999). Challenges facing shared governance within the college. New directions
for Higher Education, 1999(105), 71-79.
Morrill, C. (1991). Conflict management, honor, and organizational change. American Journal of
Sociology, 97(3), 585-621.
Moschetti, R. V., & Hudley, C. (2015). Social capital and academic motivation among first-
generation community college students. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 39(3), 235-251.
Mullin, C. M. (2010). Rebalancing the Mission: The community college completion challenge.
(AACC Policy Brief 2010-02PBL). American Association of Community College.
Murray, J. P. (2002). The current state of faculty development in two‐year colleges. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(118), 89-98.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, second follow-up (BPS: 96/01). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 165

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of education statistics. [Data table].
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_331.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of education statistics. [Data table].
Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_326.20.asp?current=yes
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2012). Completing college: A national view
of student attainment rates – fall 2006 cohort. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport4/.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2013). Completing college: A national view
of student attainment rates – fall 2007 cohort. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport6/.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2014). Completing college: A national view
of student attainment rates – fall 2008 cohort. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport8/.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2015). Completing college: A national view
of student attainment rates – fall 2009 cohort. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport10/.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2016). Completing college: A national view
of student attainment rates – fall 2010 cohort. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport12/.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2017). Completing college: A national view
of student attainment rates – fall 2011 cohort. Retrieved from
https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport14/.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 166

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2018). Yearly success & progress rates –
2018. Retrieved from https://nscresearchcenter.org/snapshot-report-yearly-success-and-
progress-rates/
Nevarez, C., & Wood, J. L. (2012). A case study framework for community college
leaders. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(4), 310-316.
Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V. M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013).
Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge
management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: an empirical
investigation of manufacturing firms. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 64(5-8), 1073-1085.
Obama, B. (2009). Remarks at Macomb community college in Warren, Michigan. Retrieved
from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-200900565/pdf/DCPD-200900565.pdf
O’Banion, T. (1994). An academic advising model. NaCADA Journal, 14(2), 10-16.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of
group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1285-1301.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self‐efficacy and managers' motivation for
leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215-235.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543-578.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 167

Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pardo del Val, M., & Martínez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and
empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
Piland, W. E., & Bublitz, R. F. (1998). Faculty perceptions of shared governance in California
community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(2), 99-
110.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544.
Plinske, K., & Packard, W. J. (2010). Trustees’ perceptions of the desired qualifications for the
next generation of community college presidents. Community College Review, 37(4),
291-312.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a
global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15-34.
Price, D. V., & Tovar, E. (2014). Student engagement and institutional graduation rates:
Identifying high-impact educational practices for community colleges. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(9), 766-782.
Ramchunder, Y., & Martins, N. (2014). The role of self-efficacy, emotional intelligence and
leadership style as attributes of leadership effectiveness. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 40(1), 01-11.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 168

Richards, E., & Terkanian, D. (2013). Occupational employment projections to 2022. Monthly
Lab. Rev., 136, 1.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. (1999). What's a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning
and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84: 514-528.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage Publications.
Sandoval-Lucero, E., Antony, K., & Hepworth, W. (2017). Co-Curricular Learning and
Assessment in New Student Orientation at a Community College. Creative
Education, 8(10), 1638.
Sain, B., & Williams, M. R. (2009). An examination of the use of portfolios for faculty
evaluation at community colleges. Journal of Applied Research in the Community
College, 17(1), 56-59.
Sandoval-Lucero, E., Maes, J., & Klingsmith, L. (2014). African American and Latina (o)
community college students' social capital and student success. College Student
Journal, 48(3), 522-533.
Saxon, D. P., & Morante, E. A. (2014). Effective student assessment and placement: Challenges
and recommendations. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(3), 24.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 229-240.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 169

Schneider, B., & Rentsch, J. (1988). Managing climates and cultures: A futures perspective. In J.
Hage (Ed.), Issues in organization and management series. Futures of organizations:
Innovating to adapt strategy and human resources to rapid technological change (pp.
181-203). Lexington, MA.
Schuetz, P. (1999). Shared Governance in Community Colleges. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from
https://www.ericdigests.org/2000-2/shared.htm.
Scott, J. H. (1990). Role of community college department chairs in faculty development.
Community College Review, 18(3), 12-16.
Scott-Clayton, J. (2012, April 20). Are college entrants overdiagnosed as underprepared?
Retrieved from: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/are-college-entrants-
overdiagnosed-as-underprepared/
Scott-Clayton, J. (2015). The role of financial aid in promoting college access and success:
Research evidence and proposals for reform. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 45(3), 3.
Scrivener, S., Weiss, M., Ratledge, A., Rudd, T., Sommo, C., & Fresques, H. (2015). Doubling
graduation rates: Three-year effects of CUNY's Accelerated Study in Associate Programs
(ASAP) for developmental education students. Retrieved from MDRC website:
https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_fr.pdf
Scrivener, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C. E., & Sommo, C. (2008). A good
start: Two-year effects of a freshmen learning community program at Kingsborough
Community College. Retrieved from MDRC website:
https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/A%20Good%20Start.pdf
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 170

Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., & Weiner, B. J. (2014). Organizational
readiness for implementing change: A psychometric assessment of a new
measure. Implementation Science, 9(1), 7.
Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college
leadership. (Research Brief, Leadership Series No. 1). American Association of
Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.6137&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Shumaker, R., & Wood, J. L. (2016). Understanding first-generation community college
students: An analysis of covariance examining use of, access to, and efficacy regarding
institutionally offered services. The Community College Enterprise, 22(2), 9-17.
Siegel, P. A., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., & Garden, C. (2005). The moderating
influence of procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and
organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 13.
Smith, A. B., Street, M. A., & Olivarez, A. (2002). Early, regular, and late registration and
community college student success: A case study. Community College Journal of
Research & Practice, 26(3), 261-273.
Smith, M., & Bititci, U. S. (2017). Interplay between performance measurement and
management, employee engagement and performance. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 37(9), 1207-1228.
Smith, K. G., Locke, E. A., & Barry, D. (1990). Goal setting, planning, and organizational
performance: An experimental simulation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 46(1), 118-134.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 171

Sousa, D. (2014). Validation in qualitative research: General aspects and specificities of the
descriptive phenomenological method. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(2), 211-
227.
Sparkman, L., Maulding, W., & Roberts, J. (2012). Non-cognitive predictors of student success
in college. College Student Journal, 46(3), 642-652.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be transformational
leaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3), 237-261.
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change:
Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management
Annals, 12(2), 752-788.
Sullivan, L. G. (2001). Four generations of community college leadership. Community College
Journal of Research & Practice, 25(8), 559-571.
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change?. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 44(1), 6-15.
Tandberg, D. A., Hillman, N., & Barakat, M. (2014). State higher education performance
funding for community colleges: Diverse effects and policy implications. Teachers
College Record, 116(12), n12.
Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., &
Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research
in Higher Education, 35(1), 57-73.
Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance?
Administrative Science Quarterly, 388-400
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 172

Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2004). A cultural perspective on communication and
governance. New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 85-94.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA
Journal, 19(2), 5-9.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Townsend, B. K., & Wilson, K. (2006). " A hand hold for a little bit": Factors facilitating the
success of community college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of
College Student Development, 47(4), 439-456.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11,
1-15.
Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20
years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139.
Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty what we know and need to
know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5-24.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184.
United State Department of Labor. (2015). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational
attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htmwork
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to
organisational change: The role of leader–member exchange, development climate, and
change process characteristics. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 313-334.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 173

Van den Heuvel, S., Schalk, R., & van Assen, M. A. (2015). Does a well-informed employee
have a more positive attitude toward change? The mediating role of psychological
contract fulfillment, trust, and perceived need for change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 51(3), 401-422.
Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B. S., & Groeneveld, S. (2016). Implementing change in public
organizations: The relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change
in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 18(6), 842-865.
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Aguinis, H., Mackey, J. D., & DeOrtentiis, P. S. (2017). A Meta-Analysis
of the interactive, additive, and relative effects of cognitive ability and motivation on
performance. Journal of Management, 0149206317702220.
Van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. (2015). From the Editors:
Information, Attention, and Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 58 (3),
649-657.
Visher, M. G., Weiss, M. J., Weissman, E., Rudd, T., & Wathington, H. D. (2012). The Effects
of learning communities for students in developmental education: A synthesis of findings
from six community colleges. National Center for Postsecondary Research.
Wada, K., Arakida, M., Watanabe, R., Negishi, M., Sato, J., & Tsutsumi, A. (2013). The
economic impact of loss of performance due to absenteeism and presenteeism caused by
depressive symptoms and comorbid health conditions among Japanese
workers. Industrial Health, 51(5), 482-489.
Waller, L., Glasscock, H. M., Glasscock, R. L., & Fulton-Calkins, P. J. (2006). Community
college funding. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(5-6), 443-
461.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 174

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation
Science, 4(1), 67.
Whitt, K. K., Scheurich, J. J., & Skrla, L. I. N. D. A. (2015). Understanding superintendents'
self-efficacy influences on instructional leadership and student achievement. Journal of
School Leadership, 25(1), 102-132.
Wickens, C. M. (2008). The organizational impact of university labor unions. Higher
Education, 56(5), 545-564.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015).
Development of achievement motivation and engagement. Handbook of Child
Psychology and Developmental Science.
Wild, L. L., Ebbers, L. H., Shelley, M. C., & Gmelch, W. H. (2003). Stress factors and
community college deans: The stresses of their role identified. Community College
Review, 31(3), 1-23.
Windham, M. H., Rehfuss, M. C., Williams, C. R., Pugh, J. V., & Tincher-Ladner, L. (2014).
Retention of first-year community college students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 38(5), 466-477.
Woessmann, L. (2016). The economic case for education. Education Economics, 24(1), 3-32.
Woosley, S. A., & Miller, A. L. (2009). Integration and institutional commitment as predictors of
college student transition: Are third week indicators significant?. College Student
Journal, 43(4).
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 175

Wyatt, L. G. (2011). Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and
retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 10-20.
Xu, D. (2016). Assistance or obstacle? The impact of different levels of English developmental
education on underprepared students in community colleges. Educational
Researcher, 45(9), 496-507.
Yamamura, E. K., Martinez, M. A., & Saenz, V. B. (2010). Moving beyond high school
expectations: Examining stakeholders' responsibility for increasing Latina/o students'
college readiness. The High School Journal, 93(3), 126-148.
Zeidenberg, M., Jenkins, D., & Calcagno, J. C. (2007). Do student success courses actually help
community college students succeed? CCRC Brief. Number 36. Community College
Research Center, Columbia University.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 176

Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Thank you for your willingness to talk to me. I know it can be hard to find time to do some the
“extra” things in such a busy job. I am hopeful that I can gather information that might prove
useful to you as you continue your leadership of the college. As you know, I’m interested in
examining the role that senior leadership plays in affecting the completion rates at community
colleges. The complexity of community colleges and their deep and wide missions can make
providing leadership a challenge. Examining those challenges and how leaders such as yourself
address those issues in relation to completion rates is the basis of this research. More
specifically, I’m examining what it takes for community college leaders to affect completion
rates.
Questions
1. How do you define student completions?
2. Please describe your professional experiences that you feel most prepared you for this
position. (Knowledge – Conceptual)
3. What programs or services do you think could most impact student success at your
institution? (Knowledge – Conceptual)
4. Can you give an example of a “significant organizational change” that you’ve either
engaged in or would like to engage in?
a. How do you begin the process of making a significant organizational change?
b. What do you consider a less meaningful change?
5. Within the context of your organization, who do you engage when making significant
changes? (Knowledge – Conceptual)
a. What types of challenges, if any, have you experienced in the form of resistance
to change and do you have preferred methods of addressing those challenges?
(Organizational influences)
6. How would you characterize the value of a community college degree? (Utility value)
a. How would you characterize the value of the certificate programs offered by the
college versus an AA/AAS?
7. Considering your college’s current completion rate, your student population, and
available resources, what do you think the target completion rate for the college should
be? (Utility value, Cultural setting 2)
a. Is this an aspirational target? Do think having an aspirational target is useful?
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 177

8. Do you feel that your position as the president is established in such a way as to provide
you with the influence you need to increase student completion rates? (Leader means
self-efficacy, organizational influences)
a. What, if anything, would you change about your job description?
9. In what ways do you influence key players within the organization particularly when
working on programs that you believe will impact both student completion rates as well
as the day-to-day work of faculty and staff? (Leader action self-efficacy)
10. Do you think changes at the institution can be made that dramatically change completion
rates quickly – that is, within five years? (Cultural model 1)
11. What does an organization that is “ready for change” look like? (Cultural model 2,
Knowledge – Conceptual)
a. Does your organization meet that criteria?
b. Considering where the organization is now, do you think you’ll be able to have
the effect on the college that you want? (Self-efficacy)
12. Do your personal goals for student completions differ from those that the institution has
set? (Cultural setting 2)
a. How did this come about? OR Can you describe the role that you played in
establishing the institutional completion goal?
13. How does the financial picture of the institution affect the way in which you provide
leadership? (Cultural setting 1)
a. Can you give an example of financial resources affected something that you did in
terms of your leadership?

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 178

Appendix B
Institutional Document Analysis Protocol
Stated Institutional Metrics and Goals Analysis Protocol
Public-facing institutional documents pertaining to institutional goals will be examined via web-
search. Potential documents to be examined include but are not limited to:
• Institutional strategic plan(s)
• Educational master plan
• Institutional research reports
• Student success reports
The purpose of this analysis is to explore the extent to which the institution is focused on student
completions, what metrics are used to measure student completions, and if the institution has a
formal goal of increasing student completion rates. Follow-up questions during the interview
process will probe the reasons for metrics used.
Data Collect Tool
Institution Name:
Document
Name
Student Success
Metric
Stated
Result
Report
year(s)
Completion
rate metric
(Y/N)
Formal Goal
to increase
completion
rate (Y/N)

Document Name:
Stated formal goal(s) for increasing student completion rates:

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 179

Appendix C
Professional Experience Curriculum Viète Analysis Rubric

Participant Name: ___________________________________________

Community College Best Practices Analysis
Years of Experience: How many years of experience does the participant have working within a
community college program that has been empirically shown in the academic literature to be a
best practice in improve student completion rates? Example of programs include:
• Counseling/Advising/Academic planning
• Academic support (such as supplemental instruction)
• Curriculum reform in developmental education
• Learning communities
• Faculty professional development
Experience is distinguished between direct experience and indirect experience.
Direct Experience: Includes direct service to students within the program, direct oversight of the
program, and evidence of initiation of the program.
Indirect Experience: Experience with indirect oversight such as supervision of program manager
not coupled with direct experience or tangential contact with best practices programs such as
experience using tutoring as a faculty member.

Knowledge Domain:
Community College Best Practices
Years of Experience by type Total
Years
Direct Indirect
Counseling/Advising/Academic planning
Academic support (i.e. S.I.)
Curriculum reform in developmental education
Learning communities
Faculty professional development

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 180

Knowledge of Organizational Change Practices Analysis
Years of Experience: How many years of experience does the participant have engaged in the
design and implementation of an institution-wide program or process that involved multiple
stakeholders? Experience in this area is distinguished by leadership and participant.
Leadership: Evidence that the participant initiated the change, led the design and
implementation, or both.
Participant: Participant was a member of the team or department that instituted an institutional
change. Evidence that indicates consistent participation in the design and implementation
process.
Knowledge Domain:
Organizational Change Practices
Years of Experience by type Total
Years
Description of change Participant Leader

Administrative Functioning of Community Colleges
Years of Experience: How many years of experience does the participant have with the
administrative functions of a community college? Experience in this area is distinguished by
years of experience in non-administrative leadership positions and administrative leadership
positions.
Non-administrative leadership: Service as department chair or committee chair without budget
oversight.
Administrative Leadership: Service within an exempt position within a community college that
includes supervision of faculty and/or staff and budget oversight.
Knowledge Domain:
Administrative Functioning
Years of Experience by type Total
Years
Description of position Non-Admin Admin

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION RATES 181

Appendix D
Leader Efficacy Questionnaire Sample
Sample Items from Leader Efficacy Questionnaire — Self Assessment Form

Copyright - Sean T. Hannah and Bruce J. Avolio (2013). All rights reserved.

Directions: Think about yourself as a leader in your organization and for each item below,
indicate your level of confidence. A score of 100 represents 100% confidence, whereas a score
of 0 means no confidence at all.

As a Leader I can...

1. Develop agreements with followers to enhance their participation
2. Coach followers to assume greater responsibilities for leadership
3. Inspire followers to go beyond their self-interests for the greater good
4. Rely on the organization to provide the resources needed to be effective
5. Go to my superiors for advice to develop my leadership
6. Effectively lead working within the boundaries of the organization's policies
7. Motivate myself to take charge of groups
8. Think up innovative solutions to challenging leadership problems

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Community colleges have long been lauded for significantly increasing access to postsecondary education for individuals who may have few other options due to academic difficulties, financial constraints, or other factors (American Association of Community Colleges, 2017). The rate at which students complete degrees and certificates, however, has remained essentially unchanged over the last 10 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). While organizations employ a variety of metrics to measure student completion, all have demonstrated a stubborn stability. ❧ The broad influence of community college presidents uniquely positions them to effect change that can significantly improve student completions. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analytic framework, a qualitative study was designed to explore the interaction of organizational barriers with the knowledge and motivation of community college presidents to gain greater insight into the challenges presidents face when instituting change to improve completion rates. The findings from the study indicate that while presidents are both motivated and knowledgeable, they face significant challenges within the institution and from external entities. External pressures from state mandates drive the types of institutional change efforts in which president engage while strong union protections bolster faculty resistance resulting in significant challenges in creating accountability for student outcomes. The study offers recommendations for practice and encourages presidents to take greater risks in driving student completions, hold faculty accountable for student outcomes, and to focus the institution on student completions by setting and communicating clear goals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges

PDF

Support service representatives impact on first-generation low-income community college students

PDF

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

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

How to improve emergency communications' unit (COMU) task book completion rates in California

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Good governance: the role and impact of school boards in setting student outcome goals

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis

PDF

Factors impacting four-year postsecondary matriculation at a college-preparatory, Catholic high school: an innovation study

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study

PDF

Community college faculty member perspectives of workforce development-oriented public-private partnerships

PDF

Satisfactory academic progress for doctoral students: an improvement study

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

Asset Metadata

Creator Hegde, Bharadwaj Shankar (author)

Core Title The influence of executive leadership on community college completion rates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/14/2019

Defense Date 02/13/2019

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

Tag community college,community college reform,completion rates,executive leadership,KMO,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,President,student outcomes,student performance

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Lynch, Douglas (committee member), Stout, David (committee member)

Creator Email hegde.edu@gmail.com,rhegde10@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-120812

Unique identifier UC11676886

Identifier etd-HegdeBhara-7065.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-120812 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HegdeBhara-7065.pdf

Dmrecord 120812

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hegde, Bharadwaj Shankar

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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