Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Balancing the pros and cons of a new community college "grow-your-own" leadership program
(USC Thesis Other)
Balancing the pros and cons of a new community college "grow-your-own" leadership program
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BALANCING THE PROS AND CONS OF A NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE
“GROW-YOUR-OWN” LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
by
Audrey Reille
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Audrey Reille
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my Dissertation Chair, Dr.
Adrianna Kezar, who read many drafts throughout the dissertation writing process,
immediately provided feedback with guidance and advice, kept very high standards and
was always available to answer questions. I am also extremely grateful for the valuable
insights and comments provided by my Dissertation Committee Members, Dr. Cheryl
Marshall and Dr. Melora Sundt. Your expertise and thoughtful comments significantly
improved the depth and quality of this dissertation.
I would like to acknowledge the managers at Premier College who accepted to be
interviewed, and the participants in stakeholder meetings and focus group. Your
knowledge of the college culture and your ideas about the creation of a GYO program at
PC made this study all the more interesting, and motivated me to keep writing and finish
this dissertation in a timely manner, so that together, we can create the program that the
college needs. In particular, I want to thank the participants in the stakeholder meetings
who met with me each month and spent numerous hours discussing the program and its
design. You are the leaders that the college needs to keep moving forward!
Finally, I thank all of the GYO program directors and coordinators at community
colleges throughout the country, who accepted to share with me many documents relative
to their GYO programs and answer all of my questions by phone. I appreciate your
entrepreneurial spirit which led you to create your own programs, and your kindness and
willingness to share your work with me.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: Problem Statement 1
Background 1
Problem Statement 5
Research Questions 11
Significance of the Study 12
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14
Introduction 14
Existing Leadership Development Programs 15
Recommended Practices for New Program Design 22
Community College Leadership Competencies 29
Community College Characteristics and Impact on Leadership 44
Summary 61
Chapter 3: Methodology 63
Introduction 63
Methodology 63
Site Selection 66
Data Collection 69
Data Analysis 82
Trustworthiness 85
Ethical Considerations 88
Limitations of the Study 89
Chapter 4: Presentation of Findings 91
Introduction 91
Findings from Off-Site Data 91
Program Goals 92
Program Content 96
Program Administration 109
Comments and Advice to Other Colleges 117
Conclusion 122
Findings from On-Site Data 122
Introduction 122
Goals of the New Program 124
Program Components 129
iv
Mentoring and Job Shadowing 135
Curriculum 143
Administration 155
Conclusion 166
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations 169
Introduction 169
Major Research Findings 170
Program Goals 171
Program Components 172
Curriculum 174
Integrating the College’s Culture 176
Mentoring 178
Program Administration 180
Program Budget 182
Discussion 183
GYO Programs’ Strengths 184
GYO Programs’ Limitations 186
Implications for Practice 190
Future Research 194
Conclusion 197
References 199
Appendix A: List of Predominant Institutes and Seminars 209
Appendix B: Program Topics Addressing the Six Main Competencies 211
Appendix C: GYO Programs Phone Interview Protocol 212
Appendix D: PC’s Managers Interview Protocol 214
Appendix E: Consent Forms for Non-Medical Research 216
Appendix F: Analysis Codes 222
Appendix G: Sample Analysis Tables 224
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of Programs’ Advantages 21
Table 2: Emphasis of Each Leadership Competency 176
Table 3: Suggested Program Topics to Address Leadership Competencies 211
Table 4: Sample Analysis Table of Off-Site Data 224
Table 5: Sample Analysis Table of On-Site Data 226
vi
Abstract
This study examines how a community college can create an in-house leadership
program to “grow their own” leaders, in response to a nationwide shortage of qualified
administrative leaders, accentuated by the retirement of numerous administrators. The
literature suggests that in-house leadership training is a good strategy for community
colleges, however, there is no literature explaining how a college should develop a
program, based on its own culture and needs.
Action research and qualitative methods were used to define the goals of the
future program at the college studied, and make recommendation regarding the program’s
components, structure, administration, budget, and funding sources. Directors and
coordinators of 15 existing Grow-Your Own (GYO) programs were interviewed, to
understand how their programs were created and implemented. Secondly, data were
collected at the college studied through document reviews, interviews with 12 managers,
and monthly stakeholder meetings to evaluate the college’s culture, needs, and resources.
A focus group was conducted at the end of the study to test the survey findings and
recommendations to the college.
The study revealed that a GYO program can be a good strategy for a college to
prepare its future leaders at low cost, customize the training to the specific needs and
culture, and offer opportunities for participants to apply their new knowledge directly at
their college, with the support and guidance of a mentor. However, this type of program
presents limitations including a common lack of needs assessments and formal program
vii
evaluation, and a risk to overlook important training and competencies by only teaching
current strategies and practices, rather than encouraging improvement and innovation.
1
Chapter One: Problem Statement
Background
Community colleges are a vital part of the postsecondary education delivery
system. They serve almost half of the undergraduate students in the United
States, providing open access to postsecondary education, preparing students for
transfer to 4-year institutions, providing workforce development and skills
training, and offering noncredit programs ranging from English as a second
language to skills retraining to community enrichment programs or cultural
activities…. Without community colleges, millions of students and adult learners
would not be able to access the education they need to be prepared for further
education or the workplace. Community colleges often are the access point for
education in a town and a real catalyst for economic development. (American
Association of Community Colleges, 2008).
The community colleges play a primary role in the economy. They train and educate
individuals to transfer to universities, to become qualified workers, or to upgrade their
skills, contributing to the success of American businesses. However, to achieve their
mission of education, workforce and economic development, and to compete with other
educational institutions for funding, community colleges need strong and effective
leadership (Watts & Hammons, 2002).
Most community college administrators are baby-boomers, and many are retiring.
As a result, community colleges throughout the country are experiencing a growing
shortage of leaders and administrators ready to assume executive-level administrative
positions such as President or Vice-President (Campbell, 2002; Cota, 2006; Jeandron,
2006; O’Banion, 2007; Shults, 2001; Watts & Hammons, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan,
2002). According to Weisman and Vaughan (2002), in 2002, 80% of community college
Presidents were planning to retire in the following 10 years. This high percentage is not
surprising since almost half of all current community college Presidents are over 60 years
2
old (Eddy, 2008). The number of administrative positions which need to be filled exceeds
the number of qualified candidates. O’Banion (2007) reported that in the next five years,
nearly 50% of community college Presidents (about 600) and 25% of chief administrators
(approximately 900) will retire, meaning that 1,500 leaders will have to be prepared to
take their place. Adding to the problem, employees in the traditional leadership pipeline
are also aging and retiring (Shults, 2001), and individuals who do move up the ladder
create new vacancies at their current levels and also need to be replaced.
In California, which counts 110 colleges (over 10% of all community colleges in
the country) “the problem has already reached crisis proportions” (O’Banion, 2007, p.
48). The pools of applicants for presidencies are very limited; only a small number of
candidates are qualified, and searches often have to be extended for long periods of time
until the colleges receive a satisfactory number of applications from qualified candidates
(O’Banion, 2007). In the meantime, colleges often have to contract with retired
administrators, to work on an interim basis to fill the gap. In the February 2007
newsletter from the Association of California Community College Administrators
(ACCCA), Curtis (2007) reported that:
While the leadership gap in California has been growing for some time, it has
reached critical levels this year. In recent years, normal turnover in the top slot
has been between 25 and 30. In 2005-2006, 52 CEO slots saw changes (p. 1).
Because California is strongly impacted by the community college leadership shortage,
leaders from the Community College Leadership Development Initiatives (CCLDI), the
California Community College Association for Occupational Education (CCCAOE) and
the Association of California Community College Administrators (ACCCA), through
3
their publications and presentations at annual conferences, are strongly encouraging
college administrators to address the issue of college leadership shortage. The massive
retirements of community college administrators constitute a significant loss of
knowledge, expertise, history, experience and culture (Shults, 2001).
With the retirement of these leaders, inestimable experience and history, as well
as an intimate understanding of the community college mission, values, and
culture, will disappear, leaving an enormous gap in the collective memory and the
leadership of community colleges (Shults, 2001, p. 2).
The exodus of retired leaders who had highly skilled and specialized positions could
make the community colleges vulnerable, have major fiscal impacts (Campbell, 2006),
and cause the loss of collective knowledge of the system and of the political structures
(Evelyn, 2001). Future leaders need to learn from senior administrators and prepare to
replace them upon retirement.
In addition to acquiring the knowledge that current leaders have, future leaders
have to develop more complex skills and abilities to solve new types of problems (Amey,
2005; Kelly, 2002). To succeed, college Presidents are required to have many talents and
competencies to deal with an unprecedented number of challenges now present in higher
education (Amey, 2005; Evans, 2001; Kelly, 2002; Lorenzo, 1998; McClenney, 2001;
O’Banion, 2007). Numerous changes are occurring in the field of higher education:
“financial pressure, growth in technology, changing faculty roles, public scrutiny,
changing demographics and competing values” (Kezar & Eckel, 2002, p. 435) to name a
few. College leaders have to increase financial resources through fundraising, and
manage their budgets very carefully, as resources are limited and accountability and
transparency increase. Another major challenge is the change in student demographics,
4
the increase in diversity, and the growing need for basic skills and remediation courses.
Many students are not ready for college-level courses and need additional help before
they can pursue a degree or certificate (Evans, 2001). At the same time, new technologies
transform instruction to better meet student needs. For example, on-line courses have
become extremely popular as they allow students to study at times that are most
convenient to fit their work schedules, and avoid transportation issues. Course offerings
also have to be adapted to the changing labor market, and to train students for high-
demand jobs and keep the curriculum up-to-date (Carroll & Romero, 2003). Colleges
have to not only recruit and retain qualified administrators, but also faculty members with
up-to-date industry expertise, and the ability to use new means of instruction and new
technologies. In response to the multitude of new challenges, Evans (2001) concluded
that much change is needed for: “funding support, recruitment techniques, student
financial aid structures, student support services, the delivery of instruction, arrangements
of programs and class structures, and teaching methods and techniques” (p. 188). Again,
it takes strong and effective leadership to lead community colleges through the changes
needed to adapt to the new environment and challenges (Carroll & Romero, 2003).
Community college leaders must possess a wide range of skills to be successful.
In 2003, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) identified six core
competencies: organizational strategy, resource management, communication,
collaboration, community college advocacy and professionalism. Leaders should also
understand, and be committed to, the community colleges’ mission and values (Kelly,
2002; Manzo, 2003), as well as the specific culture of their institution, develop a
5
consultative and inclusive style of leadership, and continue to learn and grow throughout
their career (Amey, 2005).
In conclusion, the health of the economy depends, in large part, on the ability of
community colleges to successfully educate individuals, prepare students to transfer to
universities, or enter the workforce, in order to allow American businesses to remain
competitive in a global economy. Community college leaders must develop multiple
competencies to be effective and to lead the community colleges through an
unprecedented number of challenges and changes. As thousands of community college
administrators retire, creating a leadership gap, future community college leaders must be
identified and adequately prepared for executive-level administrative positions.
Problem Statement
The issue of leadership skill development for community college administrators is
complex. Three types of leadership development solutions are currently available: (1)
university-based graduate degrees, (2) short-term leadership programs such as institutes
and seminars, and (3) college in-house leadership development programs, customized by
the colleges and available to their employees (Manzo, 2003; Shults, 2001; Watts &
Hammons, 2002). The literature suggests that existing programs do not prepare a
sufficient number of new leaders to replace retirees and fill the leadership gap. Another
important question is whether the existing programs are effective in preparing employees
for community college leadership positions.
Despite their participation in leadership development programs (e.g., graduate
degrees, leadership seminars or workshops) community college leaders report not being
6
adequately prepared for their positions. For example, Shults (2001) reported that “New
community college Presidents feel unprepared to deal with key aspects of their jobs,
including fundraising, financial management, and working effectively with their
governing boards” (p. 1). As mentioned above, the survey conducted by AACC’s
Leading Forward Initiative identified six core competencies that community college
leaders should have, but suggested that their integration into the existing leadership
development programs was not well established (AACC, n.d). It appears that leadership
development programs specialized for community college employees have not changed
significantly in the last few years, to reflect the skills and competencies required of
community colleges leaders (Eddy, 2008).
Piland and Wolf (2003) noted that existing leadership development programs do
not match the missions and functions of the community colleges and are “in many cases
ill suited to meet the challenges leaders will face through the beginning decades of the
twenty-first century” (p. 93). A huge disconnect exists between university-based
leadership programs and the needs within the field. While doctorate degrees are usually
required or strongly preferred for executive administrative positions, they are not
believed to adequately prepare leaders for the challenges ahead (Manzo, 2003). Indeed,
university programs tend to emphasize theory and research (Brown, Martinez & Daniel
2002). Similarly, programs offered through professional associations are often too
theoretical rather than applied, and not as effective as on-the-job training (Piland &Wolf,
2003).
7
As we enter a new century, we urge the pursuit of a new leadership development
paradigm, one that places the individual community colleges in the middle of the
action. The leaders we need – in terms of quality and quantity – will result only
when the institutions themselves make leadership development a high priority,
invest in appropriate programming, and work cooperatively with other suppliers.
(Piland &Wolf, 2003, p. 94).
For all of the reasons presented above, community colleges must take a proactive
role in the development of their future leaders. A campus-based leadership program may
be more effective than an advanced degree or a statewide or nationwide leadership
development program, because it can be customized to the college’s characteristics,
culture, goals, and specific needs. “Nearly 70% of presidents believe that there is a need
to expand in-house development programs” (Hull & Keim, 2007, p. 689). However,
while most colleges are strongly interested in leadership programs, very few colleges
actually have one in place (Cota, 2006; Jeandron 2006). Current literature indicates that
college administrators acknowledge the need for leadership development and are
increasingly considering strategies to develop leaders among their current employees
(Cota, 2006; Jeandron 2006).
A recent trend in community college leadership development is the creation of in-
house leadership programs often called “Grow-Your-Own” (GYO) programs (Jeandron
2006). For the purpose of this study, a GYO program is defined as a leadership
development program offered by a college or district, to some of their employees, to
prepare them for leadership positions within the institution. GYO programs are consistent
with the institution’s culture and goals, and have an “emphasis on personal growth
through the acquisition of leadership skills. These skills may help participants enhance
8
their performance in their current and future positions in ways beyond just mastering
standard management techniques” (Jeandron, 2006, p. 7).
Developing a GYO program is a good strategy to identify and prepare future
leaders among a college’s current employees. In her book “Growing Your Own Leaders:
Community Colleges Step Up” Jeandron (2006) identified numerous benefits of GYO
programs. She conducted a survey and found that many program participants got
promoted and/or took leadership roles on their campuses. In addition, participants gained
leadership and management skills; become more involved in campus activities and
committees; increased their collaboration across disciplines; developed innovative
projects; and improved their problem-solving abilities and self-confidence. Jeandron
(2006) noted that colleges with a GYO program “continue to create a climate of learning
and leadership for their communities” (p. 39), which is the essence of leadership in the
21
st
century.
A variety of reasons have led community colleges to create GYO programs. The
main factor reported is the challenge of replacing retirees for administrative positions. In
addition, GYO programs can be part of a strategic plan, and/or help administrators focus
on the college’s vision, mission and goals, and possibly support an effort to change the
college’s culture in regards to leadership, collaboration and learning. In addition,
programs often include group projects that directly benefit the college and encourage
innovation (Jeandron, 2006). Moreover, campus-based leadership programs may be more
beneficial than others because they improve participants’ organizational cultural
9
competency, allowing them to make more appropriate decisions and communicate more
effectively internally.
GYO programs have the added advantages of benefiting any future leader, at no
cost to the participants, and low cost to the institution (Watts & Hammons, 2002). GYO
may also increase participants’ satisfaction with their career (Stone 1995), loyalty and
desire to continue working for the same college. Interestingly, the process of promoting
the program, seeking future leaders, and encouraging them to participate also plays an
important part of the leadership development efforts. Eddy (2008) suggested that many
leaders did not think of taking on leadership positions until someone suggested it to them.
For this reason, focusing on existing talent within the institution, and special attention
and support can make a significant difference. Although, the programs should not be
limited to few selected employees, but should be well-advertised and accessible to any
potential leader.
In an effort to learn more about community college in-house leadership
development programs, CCLDI conducted a survey in November 2006 to identify GYO
programs in California, as well as their components and outcomes (Cota, 2006). All 110
colleges were contacted, and only 11 responded that they had a program. The results
showed that the programs varied significantly in content, length, structure, participants’
profiles and selection process. Outcomes were not assessed formally, only anecdotally or
often not evaluated at all. The questionnaire did not provide a clear definition of GYO,
letting the respondents interpret and decide which of their activities or programs should
be reported. Not surprisingly, the responses ranged from genuine GYO to professional
10
development activities not directly related to leadership, such as workshops on student
learning outcomes or orientation to the campus for new hires.
Some literature exists on community college leadership development programs,
including assessments of programs targeting community college administrators, such as
ACCCA’s Admin 101 program, the Executive Leadership Institute (from the League for
Innovation in the Community Colleges) or the Future Leaders Institute (from AACC),
however, there is a gap in literature concerning the newest programs designed and
implemented by individual colleges or districts (Hull & Keim, 2007). O’Banion (2007)
reported important discrepancies between programs throughout the state, which were
confirmed in Cota’s (2006) report, indicating that GYO programs vary significantly in
content, length, structure, participants’ profiles and selection process. Not all programs
are equally successful and each one should be evaluated, to assess whether it is meeting
the college’s goals, and to identify areas for improvement, in order to optimize the impact
of the programs on the participants, and ultimately on the college.
Because of the major discrepancies between existing GYO programs and the lack
of assessment, colleges wishing to create a program cannot simply replicate what others
have done, since they have no way of knowing which program might be most adequate
for their own institution. Again, community colleges have different student populations,
communities, culture, history, processes, goals, values and different talents and
succession planning needs. Therefore, a campus-based leadership development program
can be a good strategy for colleges to grow their own leaders, but it must be customized
to the college’s specific needs and culture.
11
There is no literature on how to customize a GYO program. Jeandron’s (2006)
publication on GYO provides various examples and gives general advice, including steps
that should be taken by any college wishing to create a GYO, such as seeking the
President’s support, or advertising the program, but does not give a “recipe” for success.
To date, there is no publication indicating which approaches are best, based on colleges’
attributes, needs or culture. Specifically, there are no recommendations regarding
program content, delivery format, selection process, resource allocation, or program
advertising, based on colleges’ specific characteristics (e.g., size, culture, location, vision
or direction). Various aspects of the programs have been implemented differently by
colleges, and there is no one best practice that can fit all. As an example, participant
selection varies between colleges from the program being mandatory for all managers, to
the formation of a committee to evaluate applicants based on certain criteria (e.g., full-
time employees only, evaluation of current position, or demographics in an effort to
increase diversity), to a random “lottery”. In summary, because GYO programs are
relatively new, there is no literature available on how to customize programs to
community colleges’ culture and specific needs. This research project will recommend
how to design a GYO program, adapted to the unique characteristics and needs of one
community college.
Research Questions
The purpose of this qualitative, action research project is to design a community
college GYO leadership program, based on one college’s organizational culture, goals,
mission, needs and available resources. The main research question is: How should a
12
college-specific GYO leadership program be designed to best fit the needs and resources
of the college? The study also addresses the following sub-questions:
1. What are the program’s specific goals?
2. What program components (e.g., content, format, delivery) are most appropriate?
3. How can the program be created with limited funding?
Significance of the Study
The community colleges play an important role in the economy, and their success
will depend on their future leadership. The unprecedented volume of retirements, the
leadership shortage, the loss of knowledge and expertise of retirees, added to the
increasing level of complexity of the challenges that leaders face, make one wonder who
will provide leadership to the colleges. Will future administrators be adequately prepared
for these highly-demanding positions? How can the community colleges “grow” leaders
internally? These are very important questions for the future of community colleges.
Although limited research on community college leadership development
programs is available (Hull & Keim, 2007), GYO programs are believed to be a good
strategy for leadership development and succession planning. The literature suggests that
community colleges have different cultures, and different needs, therefore a customized
approach to leadership development may be best. Herr and Anderson (2005) explained
that action research dissertations can greatly contribute to a field’s knowledge base and
stated that:
Action research dissertations contain a local perspective that few traditional
researchers are able to provide. A dissertation forces action researchers to think
not only about what knowledge they have generated that can be fed back into the
setting (local knowledge), but also what knowledge they have generated that is
13
transferable to other settings (public knowledge). As more action research
dissertations are written, it is hoped that more of them will find their way into
publication. (p. 10).
This study will design a customized GYO program, based on the college’s specific needs,
goals, resources and capabilities. The research results will be used by the college to
create its own leadership program, and develop and retain new leaders, who will be well
prepared to lead the college through change, in a manner that fits the college’s culture. In
addition, some components of the research (i.e., approach, methodology), and findings
from the study of existing programs may be used by other colleges wishing to create their
own program. One can hope that future similar studies will allow researchers to identify
trends, patterns, and characteristics which could provide guidance to colleges on how to
create their own programs, based on their college characteristics, culture and goals.
14
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to design a community college GYO leadership
program, based on the organizational culture, goals, mission, needs and available
resources. The main research question is: How should a college-specific GYO leadership
program be designed to best fit the needs and resources of the college? The study also
addresses the following sub-questions:
1. What are the program’s specific goals?
2. What program components (e.g., content, format, delivery) are most appropriate?
3. How can the program be created with limited funding?
To answer these questions, it is necessary to review the current literature on
existing programs, recommended practices, leadership competencies, and college cultures
and characteristics influencing leadership, to take them into consideration for the design
of the program. The first part of this chapter examines existing leadership development
programs’ strengths and weaknesses, and identifies unmet needs that can be addressed
through the creation of a college GYO program. The second part presents recommended
practices for new program design, drawn from the literature (e.g., program content and
format, mentoring, applied team projects and work experience) to inform the design of
the college’s GYO program. The third part of this chapter describes the competencies that
community college leaders should have to be effective. Researchers’ findings are
organized using the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) competency
15
framework. The fourth and last part describes community college cultures and
characteristics which directly influence leadership strategies and actions.
Existing Leadership Development Programs
Three types of leadership development programs are available to community
college employees: university-based graduate programs, institutes and seminars, and
college in-house programs (Manzo, 2003; Shults, 2001; Watts & Hammons, 2002). The
programs have been critiqued by researchers who compared the programs’ outcomes to
the goal of developing leaders for the community colleges. This section presents an
overview of their findings, and their recommendations.
Graduate Degrees
Forty years ago, a number of community college leadership programs were
created, 10 of which were funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, but many were
discontinued or transitioned into general higher education when the funding expired
(Manzo, 2003). Currently, few degree programs focus on community college
administration and leadership. Therefore, traditional community college leadership
doctoral programs do not have the capacity to prepare a sufficient number of community
college leaders (O’Banion, 2007). To support his claim, O’Banion referred to the
National Center for Education Statistics data, demonstrating that the number of graduates
has declined by 78% between 1983 and 1997. Future leaders have access to numerous
programs in higher education or organizational leadership, but the curriculum does not
focus on community college culture and specific issues, and does not prepare them
adequately for the challenges ahead (Brown, Martinez & Daniel, 2002; Hull & Keim,
16
2007; O’Banion, 2007; Piland & Wolf, 2003). Programs should be specific to community
colleges because these institutions are unique. For instance, they offer open access, serve
diverse students, many who need remediation; and they work closely with industry and
their community (Adam, 2005).
Doctorate degrees are usually required for community college Presidents, Vice-
Presidents, and often preferred for Deans and faculty members, but researchers often
claim that doctorates do not adequately prepare leaders for their positions (Brown,
Martinez & Daniel, 2002; Hull & Keim, 2007; Manzo, 2003; Townsend, 1996). There is
a strong disconnect between existing leadership programs and the needs of future
community college leaders (Piland & Wolf, 2003). The programs tend to focus on core
courses such as organizational theory, history of higher education, law, policy and
finance, rather than developing leadership skills (Eddy, 2008). Higher education
leadership programs have not changed significantly in the last 30 years but leaders’ roles
and responsibilities have changed and the programs need to adapt to these change
(Brown, Martinez & Daniel, 2002; Hankin, 1996; Mason & Townsend, 1988).
Brown, Martinez and Daniel (2002) conducted a survey of community college
leaders to discover whether they perceived that leadership skills were taught adequately
in the doctorate programs they had earned. The results indicated that 31 of the 48
leadership skills assessed were identified by community college leaders holding a
doctorate as underemphasized in doctoral programs. It appears that the need for the
development of new leadership skills has been researched and documented, however,
training programs have not changed significantly to adapt to the new competencies
17
required (Eddy, 2008). For instance, researchers found that community college Presidents
felt under-prepared for the “level of politics involved, fundraising, budgeting, and the
amount of relationship building they were expected to accomplish” (Shults, 2001, p. 9-
10). Presidents would have wanted training in fundraising, financial management, and
working with their governing boards (Carroll & Romero, 2003; Ross & Green, 2000).
Moreover, some researchers believe that it is experience, not academics, that provides the
learning required to prepare for leadership positions (Brown, Martinez & Daniel, 2002;
Manzo, 2003).
In an effort to address these weaknesses, new programs have been created in the
last few years, integrating new competencies and attempting to accommodate the needs
of working professionals. Amey (2006) prepared a report for AACC highlighting the
strategies and practices of six university-based community college leadership programs
(including five doctoral programs and one leadership academy) that have been created
since 2000. She concluded that the programs were starting to align their contents to the
six leadership competencies proposed by AACC (2005). Each program integrated state-
specific content, and an emphasis on the community college mission, diversity and
multiculturalism. Activities included team projects, internships, and mentoring, to apply
the learning to the work environment. In addition, the delivery methods also adapted to
the needs of working professionals through flexible scheduling, evening, weekend and/or
online courses, accelerated courses and location rotation. These six programs appear to be
innovative and designed to meet the needs of future community college leaders, but they
do not have the capacity to train a sufficient number of employees to be a solution to the
18
nationwide leadership shortage. When possible, universities should use these programs as
models, and develop additional community college leadership programs.
Institutes and Seminars
A variety of institutes and seminars have been created, mostly by community
college associations, to provide leadership training to administrators, faculty and staff.
Researchers including Adam (2005), Eddy (2008), and Hull and Keim (2007) examined
the most predominant programs, such as the Future Leaders Institute, The Chair
Academy, and the Executive Leadership Institute (a list of the most predominant
programs is presented in Appendix A). These programs are meant to complement formal
education by offering a learning experience that allows participants to develop their
leadership skills in the context of community college administration. The review of the
programs’ components and of the literature discussing these programs, uncovers the
strengths and weaknesses discussed below.
Institutes and seminars present many advantages as they focus their curriculum
and learning objectives on community college leadership. Different programs are
designed specifically for different types of leaders: Presidents, Vice-Presidents,
Department Chairs, women, and other groups, which allow the programs to be
customized to the participants’ specific needs. The intensive training format, typically
from three to five days, permits employees to participate without having to be away from
work for an extended period of time, or to have to use their personal time, as they would
for a degree program. The content of the programs is not limited to theoretical concepts,
and often includes mentoring, practical applications, team projects, and other strategies
19
that are believed to make the learning more effective. Some programs include leadership
style assessments, individualized professional development plans, and other methods to
optimize employees’ participation and outcomes.
The main disadvantage of these programs is the cost of attending, and therefore
the limited access for many community college employees. According to Eddy (2008),
these programs mostly benefit presidential aspirants but do not develop leaders at all
levels of an institution. Few employees have support from their supervisors and a budget
available to participate in these professional development opportunities. Another
disadvantage is that although the training focuses on community colleges, it does not
include state-specific legislation and information, or take into consideration the
differences among colleges (based on their size, location, student body, and culture).
Participants may have difficulty implementing the strategies that they have learned if they
are not compatible with their college culture or processes. And finally, when programs do
not include an application of the theoretical concepts and some sort of follow-up on
progress made, participants may not apply their learning when they return to work, and
continue to operate as they did before the training.
In-House Programs
The primary goal of in-house programs is to prepare employees to perform their
roles more effectively within the institutional culture, and to improve leadership skills
and management techniques (O’Banion, 2007) for their current and future positions. In-
house programs serve primarily as professional development, but may also support
succession planning efforts. Programs may be as simple as internships and mentoring
20
programs, or much more elaborated and formal including courses, self-assessments and
applied projects (Watts & Hammons, 2002).
In-house leadership training programs present unique benefits. The main
advantage is that the programs can be accessible to future leaders at any level of the
institution. In addition, the element that distinguishes in-house programs is the ability to
adapt the content and design to the colleges’ culture and needs, and integrate state
legislation and its implications on the college operations. Eddy (2008) emphasized that
for the learning to be effective, knowledge acquired through training has to be applied on
the home campus, practiced within the institution and based on the organizational culture.
For this reason, in-house programs offer a degree of specialization and customization that
make the training directly applicable, and more effective. Colleges also have the ability to
make corrective changes to the programs and improve them year after year. Another
indirect benefit is that program participants’ job satisfaction tends to increase, along with
their loyalty to the college, and their interest in serving the college rather than seeking job
opportunities elsewhere (Jeandron, 2006).
The main disadvantages of in-house programs are that their budgets typically do
not allow the colleges to invite national experts to make presentations or conduct
seminars, and that the offerings can be limited because of scarce resources. But one could
argue that national experts would not integrate the college culture into their presentations,
therefore they would not necessarily be more effective than presenters selected internally.
College presenters or facilitators could attend training delivered by national experts, and
bring the information back to their colleges. Another characteristic of in-house programs
21
is that depending on the resources allocated, the college goals, and the availability of staff
dedicated to managing the programs, in-house programs vary greatly in content and
quality (Campbell, 2002; Cota, 2006). Program evaluations often focus on participant
satisfaction rather than outcomes in terms of enhanced leadership skills or internal
promotions.
Conclusion
The first part of this chapter provided a brief summary of the three types of
programs available, their main features, and strengths and weaknesses. Table 1 presents a
matrix recapitulating the advantages of each type of program to allow comparison.
Table 1
Comparison of Programs’ Advantages
Advantages
Degree
Program
Institutes and
Seminars
In-House
Programs
Community college focus Seldom Yes Yes
Customized to the participant’s college No No Yes
Applied rather than theoretical No Often Yes
Programs tailored to certain positions (e.g.,
President, VP, Department Chair)
No
Yes
Seldom
Short-term/intensive No Yes Often
Taught by community college experts Yes Yes Seldom
Variety of programs from which to choose Yes Yes No
Can customize content to participant (e.g.
individual assessment and professional
development plan)
No
Yes
Yes
Open access to employees No No Yes
Improved loyalty to employer No No Yes
A comparison of the courses taught or the competencies developed by each type of
program is not possible because within each type of program, the courses, pedagogy and
curriculum vary greatly. For this reason, the criteria examined in Table 1 are limited to
the advantages that researchers had discussed for the three types of programs.
22
As Table 1 indicates, in-house programs have the advantage of offering flexibility
and the ability to customize the training content to a college’s needs, and to be accessible
to future leaders at all levels of an organization, although their offerings may be limited.
Institutes and seminars offer a variety of programs from which employees can choose,
and have the financial means to attract experts to deliver the training (while colleges tend
to rely on their own experts and local networks, and may not be able to use the services
of high-priced experts). Overall, degree programs are not perceived to be a solution to
prepare future leaders in the community college system; although a few programs such as
those studied by Amey (2006) have a community college focus and are expected to have
better outcomes. The small number of community college-specific degree programs
indicates that even those that adequately enhance leadership skills do not have the
capacity to address the widespread leadership shortage. For this reasons, researchers
urged community colleges to develop their own programs and grow their own leaders
(Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Campbell, 2002; Manzo, 2003; Hull and Keim, 2007;
Piland & Wolf, 2003; Shults, 2001; Watts & Hammons, 2002). Again GYO programs are
not meant to replace any other programs, but to complement existing programs, by
providing leadership development solutions customized to the college culture and needs,
and by increasing access to potential leaders throughout the organization.
Recommended Practices for New Program Design
Scholars implore community college leaders to develop their own leadership
programs (Green, 1988; Roe & Baker, 1989), particularly in view of the fact that
although community colleges are considered homogeneous, significant
differences do exist among institutions (Katsinas, 1996). “…on-site leadership
training can take into consideration the characteristics and traits of the leader,
characteristics of the led, context or situation, structure, goals, location, training
23
and ability of subordinates, motivation, organizational culture, size of
organization, communication patterns, economics, politics, and other external
influences” (Brown, Martinez & Daniel, 2002, p. 63).
Researchers who recommended the creation of more GYO programs offered
advice based on the study of existing GYO programs, and the relevant literature. In his
book “The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies for Leadership Development” Campbell
(2002) described a variety of community college in-house leadership development
programs. Reported common practices include presentations, seminars, mentoring, job
shadowing, team projects, individual projects under the direction of a mentor, situational
leadership workshops using case studies, problem-solving activities while taking the role
of a particular administrator (e.g. college President or Vice- President), and direct
applications of theoretical concepts and ideas discussed. This section summarizes
recommendations from the literature, providing advice and basic guidance to colleges
considering creating a GYO program, regarding program content, format, creation and
administration.
Program Content
The literature suggests that the effectiveness of GYO programs’ content is not
formally assessed. Participants are often asked to fill out an evaluation at the end of the
training, which only indicates their level of satisfaction with the program. Information on
increased job performance, increased leadership roles and internal promotions tend to be
more anecdotal than supported by data (Cota, 2006). The lack of assessment data makes
the identification of optimal program content problematic. As explained in chapter one,
some programs do have data on outcomes that demonstrates the benefits of GYO
24
programs, however, the success is not attributed to any specific component(s) of the
programs (i.e., topics covered, teaching style, schedule, books selected, quality of
mentors, pedagogy and so on). Research is needed to identify specifically which features
of the programs constitute promising practices.
The content of a new GYO program should be customized to the college’s needs,
culture and goals. However, research has shown that some elements are included in the
majority of in-house programs. Hull and Keim (2007) surveyed 286 community colleges
which had some kind of campus-based leadership development programs and discovered
that 88% included classes, seminars, or workshops on team building and collaboration;
75% on institutional mission and purpose; 70% on institutional budgeting processes; 66%
on institutional funding; 64% on institutional culture and values; 58% on emerging
college issues; 56% on governance; and 55% on ethics. While these findings are based on
practices, rather than research demonstrating effectiveness, it is still interesting to note
which competencies colleges value and intend to teach to their future leaders. The third
part of this chapter will focus on leadership competencies, and provide data suggesting
what topics should be covered in the GYO program.
Program Format
Researchers have studied practices and concluded that “The most frequently
employed teaching methods include mentoring and job shadowing, individual or group
projects and presentations, readings and papers, and lectures (Jeandron, 2006, p. 25).
There is a gap in research concerning the effectiveness of various program formats, for
25
the same reasons as listed previously. However, some features of the programs which do
have research-based evaluation and feedback from participants are presented below.
Mentoring.
Based on the literature, mentoring appears to be a key component of nearly all
leadership development programs, and is recommended in numerous publications (Amey
& VanderLinden, 2002; Hull & Keim, 2007; Jeandron, 2006; Kelly, 2002; Shults, 2001;
Piland & Wolf, 2003; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). Mentoring plays a key role in
preparing employees for leadership positions, and is valuable to prepare for daily
challenges and tasks (Shults, 2001). The survey conducted by Jeandron (2006)
discovered the following benefits of mentoring to participants: “exposure to different
leadership styles; exposure to different departments or campuses; guidance with
individual and group projects; feedback on written assignments; [and] discussion of
leadership issues, including challenges” (p. 26). Leaders say that having a mentor helped
them prepare for and obtain their leadership positions (Amey & VanderLinden, 2002;
Kelly, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). In addition, mentoring can help create a
pipeline by making potential leaders aware that opportunities exist and that they can
become qualified for leadership positions.
Mentor programs also help fill the presidential pipeline with qualified candidates.
More than 50 percent of presidents surveyed by AACC said a mentor had played
a crucial role in helping them attain their positions. The current group of leaders
has a responsibility to prepare the next generation, said Ross of the ACE Fellows
Program (Kelly, 2002, p. 9).
For college succession planning, Hull and Keim (2007) suggested that Presidents
should groom their Vice-Presidents of instruction, who should groom their Deans, who
26
should mentor people in their division who show leadership abilities and potential. In
addition, Watts and Hammons (2002) suggested using the assistance of community
college experts and consulting with retirees who have a lot of knowledge to share. Piland
and Wolf (2003) emphasized that mentors should work closely with their mentees,
identify their professional development needs and propose solutions. For mentoring to be
effective, mentors and mentees have to make time to communicate regularly and work
closely together.
Professional development plans and individual assessments.
A number of programs such as the Chair Academy create individual professional
development plans for participants, based on their career goals, current position and skills
and competencies, to determine their learning and mentoring needs (Eddy, 2008). It is
also necessary to use assessment tools for participants to become more self-aware,
discover their leadership styles, and design strategies to use their strengths, and address
their weaknesses. Campbell (2002) suggested using Myers-Briggs Type Indicators.
Myran et al. (2003) recommended individual assessments, such as 360, to discover what
each leader needs to improve or develop. Likewise, Carroll and Romero (2003)
recommended that program participants examine their own leadership styles, reflect on
effective leadership, use multiple lenses and diverse perspectives, and apply their
learning to their collegiate setting. Eddy (2008) also suggested that self-assessment are
key to ethical development, and provide opportunities to improve cultural competency.
She also recommended including reflective practices for leaders to understand their own
27
orientations, values, assumptions and mental maps, so they become aware of weak areas,
as well as strengths and skills they can fully utilize.
Applied projects and work experience.
The seminars and institutes presented in the first part of this chapter highlighted
the importance for program participants to work on projects to apply their new
knowledge, and to practice the skills learned during training in their own work
environment. It is recommended to add a work experience and/or project component to
the leadership program. The program should include team-building activities and time for
networking (Jeandron, 2006), for participants to learn from one another, and develop a
more thorough understanding of the roles and responsibilities associated with different
departments and positions. Conger and Fulmer (2003) also recommended pairing
classroom training with exposure to different leadership positions, using techniques such
as job rotation, special assignments and job shadowing. The applied components of the
program would provide developmental experiences for employees who would be required
to work in a different setting, to have new responsibilities, and to problem-solve or make
decisions.
Program Creation and Administration
Researchers who surveyed GYO programs (Campbell, 2002; Jeandron, 2006) and
others who wrote articles on the topic offered recommendations regarding the creation
and administration of new programs. The first recommendation is to be inclusive in the
planning stage, involve the college President and ensure the support and commitment of
the board (Jeandron, 2006). Piland and Wolf (2003) advised to obtain board approval,
28
create policies, allocate adequate resources, assign the program to one responsible
individual and establish a leadership development committee to guide the program.
Jeandron (2006) also mentioned the importance of appointing a person or designating a
department to be responsible for the creation, implementation and management of the
program. The person, department, or committee in charge of the program should learn
about other GYO programs and models, but should not replicate them. Instead, they have
to assess what is needed at their own college, and adapt rather than adopt any other
program (Jeandron, 2006). Also, it is preferable to select presenters, trainers and
facilitators from the institution (Jeandron, 2006) to align the program to college culture
and values, and also to keep costs low.
A budget has to be determined to create and institutionalize the program. Funds
may be allocated from a variety of sources such as professional development funds,
President’s office, general funds, foundation, sponsors and grants. Colleges need to
develop an application and selection process based on criteria set by the college, such as
individuals’ interest, experience and career goals, and attempt to select a diverse group of
participants. To attract diverse employees (in terms of position, as well as ethnic
diversity, age and gender), it is necessary to market the program widely across campus.
The program should have an open access and be inclusive to provide opportunities to any
potential leaders, and attract diverse participants (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002), among
faculty, administrators and staff (Piland & Wolf, 2003).
Another important recommendation is to evaluate the program by asking
participants to provide feedback (Jeandron, 2006), and assess outcomes, by evaluating
29
what participants learned, how they applied the knowledge, and how it affected their
performance (Watts & Hammons, 2002). The results from evaluations and assessments
should be used to make corrective changes and seek continuous improvement of the
program. Furthermore, Piland and Wolf (2003) suggested that colleges located in the
same region could form a leadership development consortium to share resources, prepare
a larger pool of potential leaders and increase their outcomes and impact. This strategy
could be considered by colleges in close proximity or colleges that do not have sufficient
resources to create a program on their own, but could do it collaboratively.
Conclusion
The review of the literature provided information on successful and common
practices and a variety of recommendations regarding the program format, components,
and creation and administration process. The GYO programs reviewed showed numerous
differences in topics covered, program components and processes which indicates that
each college has to customize their program to their own needs, goals, resources and
culture. However, while strategies and activities differ by college, a consensus can be
reached regarding leadership competencies that community college leaders need to have
to be effective. Such competencies are discussed in the third part of this chapter.
Community College Leadership Competencies
Researchers have conducted studies to examine what competencies community
college leaders need to have to be effective. This section presents a synthesis of the
literature organized by categories. The most recent comprehensive effort to identify these
30
competencies was commissioned by the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC) in 2003. The study was based on five key assumptions:
Leadership can be learned; many members of the community college community
can lead; effective leadership is a combination of effective management and
vision; learning leadership is a lifelong process; and the leadership gap can be
addressed through a variety of strategies such as college grow-your-own programs
(p. 2).
As part of the “Leading Forward Initiative” funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the
AACC hosted four day-long leadership summits with 154 representatives from different
constituent groups (AACC affiliated councils, GYO programs, and other leadership
programs) to build consensus on key competencies (Vincent, 2004). Secondly, a survey
of community college leaders was conducted in December 2004 to verify the findings.
All 95 survey respondents validated the importance of the top six competencies
identified, which are: (1) organizational strategy, (2) resource management, (3)
communication, (4) collaboration, (5) community college advocacy and (6)
professionalism (AACC, 2005). It is very important to note that the six competencies
have to be applied to a community college setting, because the strategies, techniques and
processes differ greatly from other types of educational institutions such as K-12,
universities, or private (for profit) schools. This section uses AACC’s competencies as a
framework to discuss findings from various authors and researchers because these six
broad categories include all of the specific community college leadership skills and
abilities discussed in the literature. Each category is first defined according to AACC and
then compared with relevant findings from other studies.
31
Organizational Strategy
Organizational strategy includes all aspects of strategic management, to improve
the quality of education and meet institutional goals. Leaders should align the
organization’s mission, structures, and resources with the college master plan. Decision-
making and problem-solving should be data-driven, and should adapt to political,
economic and demographic changes (AACC, 2005). Community college leaders must be
able to define goals consistent with the community colleges’ missions, and focus on open
access, low cost and community service (Villadsen, 2002). Similarly, Brown, Martinez
and Daniel (2002) surveyed 128 instructional leaders at community colleges and
identified three important leadership skills that are part of organizational strategy:
understanding the mission of the community colleges, developing and communicating a
college vision, and leading through change. These skills are particularly vital for
community college Presidents as their primary role is to envision, advocate, and lead the
institution through change (Myran, Baker III, Simone & Zeiss, 2003).
The Community College Leadership Development Initiatives (CCLDI) conducted
a workshop to define elements to include in leadership development programs (Carroll &
Romero, 2003). “Community college trustees, presidents, and faculty members,
university professors and administrators, researchers, and others met for several days of
intensive discussion and planning” (p. 87). They identified 12 fundamental elements of
leadership that fit within the six competencies proposed by AACC. Of these 12, three are
part of organizational strategy: “Understanding, integrating, and shaping organizational
culture”; “Mastering planning organizational development, and decision making aimed at
32
improving quality”; “Dedicating oneself and one’s institution to teaching and learning”
(Carroll & Romero, 2003, p.87). Being able to create a vision and to develop a strategy
for the organization, or a department, is one of the major requirements for community
college leaders at all levels of the organizational chart.
Organizational strategy is a key competency for any leader, but it must be applied
to the specific organizational context. Indeed, an administrator with strong leadership
skills, including organizational strategy, but no experience in the community college
system would need additional training to become an effective community college leader.
For example, the leader would have to learn the community college mission and goals,
community college governance, institutional culture and politics, the role of the Board of
Trustees in college governance, or the differences between multi-college districts and
single-colleges’ structures and processes (Chiriboga, 2003). The leader would also need
to learn state-specific governmental structures and legislation that apply to the college,
such as the Board of Governors’ structure and role (in California) and community college
governmental relations. An effective leader would also have a thorough understanding of
instruction, matriculation and assessment requirements for community colleges;
accreditation standards, and the role of community colleges in economic and workforce
development (Chiriboga, 2003).
In addition to learning about the community college system and processes, it is
crucial for leaders to develop cultural competency, which means to understand their
college’s specific culture including values, beliefs, processes, goals and history. Leaders
need a multicultural perspective of leadership, sensitivity to others, and an understanding
33
of the institution’s culture and symbols (Brown, Martinez & Daniel, 2002; Gibson-
Benninger, Ratcliff & Rhoads, 1996). Cultural competency is essential for leaders to be
able to develop and communicate a common vision for the future (Eddy, 2008) and to
make appropriate decisions. Furthermore, leaders need a different set of skills depending
on their college’s culture, size and location. For example, different goals will be set and
different strategies will be effective if a President leads a large urban college or a small
rural college (Eddy, 2008). Each college is unique and has a different culture, which
means that different approaches or solutions should be customized to the organization. In
addition, colleges vary in governance, student body, financial resources, staffing, service
to community members (Brown, Martinez & Daniel, 2002) and processes. Colleges tend
to have their own way of doing things, based on historical practices, and leaders have to
know what is acceptable to the campus community and what will require a more tactful
implementation.
Resource Management
According to AACC (2005), leaders should be able to effectively manage
financial resources, human resources and information technology resources. Planning,
budgeting and resource allocations should be consistent with the college’s master plan,
policies, and ethics. The college should encourage staff development, resource
enhancement, and efficiency (AACC, 2005). Carroll and Romero (2003) pointed to the
importance of “managing internal institutional functions such as finance, personnel, legal
affairs, and facilities operations” (p. 87). Similarly, the study conducted by Brown,
Martinez and Daniel (2002) also highlighted the importance of effectively managing
34
resources (i.e. human, financial and other), improving institutional effectiveness,
delegating, evaluating personnel, and having strong organizational skills, time
management skills and accounting skills. In addition, leaders increasingly have to use
technology as a key resource for institutional effectiveness (Evelyn, 2001; McClenny,
2001; Shults, 2001) to improve communication, administration, teaching and
accountability.
Because of the limited resources allocated by the states to the community
colleges, researchers such as Evelyn (2001) or Kelly (2002) strongly emphasized the
importance of budgeting, strategic resource allocation, and fund raising. Leaders have to
be creative to obtain additional resources from private donors, foundations or public
grants (Evelyn, 2001; Kelly, 2002). It is also important for them to have fiscal experience
to manage funds effectively (Barwick, 2002; Boggs, 2003; Evelyn, 2001; Kelly, 2002).
Leaders have to learn about the community colleges’ sources of revenue, funding
structures, legislation (e.g., the sections of the education code that are specific to
community colleges), as well as their own college’s financial needs and budget
allocations (historical and present) to support the colleges’ goals of teaching and learning.
Beyond general accounting and budgeting, leaders must fully understand community
college-specific aspects of budgeting and funding sources, such as for California,
Proposition 98 or the Vocational and Technical Education Act, as well as internal and
external audits processes (Chiriboga, 2003). Leaders from other types of organizations
would not have the expertise required to manage funds effectively, and might consider
35
allocating funds to research, or other activities that are crucial in other environments, but
would not be appropriate for a community college.
Being able to effectively manage human resources is also essential. Vaughan
(1990) surveyed Deans of Instruction and Presidents and asked them to rank leadership
skills and abilities, and to rate their importance on a scale from one to five. Skills and
abilities with the highest ranking and rating included the ability to select capable people
and to motivate others. In addition to motivating people, effective leaders learn to
delegate and empower others and cultivate leadership in staff, faculty, administrators, and
students (Carroll & Romero, 2003) and encourage risk taking, innovation and inquiry.
Leaders use a facilitative and inclusive approach, integrate different perspectives, identify
and resolve issues, and enhance organizational learning (Amey, 2005).
Furthermore, community college leaders must master management techniques
that will be compatible with the community college culture and processes. For instance, a
leader must be able to motivate administrators and staff members to excel and to
innovate, because monetary incentives are usually not available. On the other hand,
faculty members are required to focus on teaching, are not expected to conduct research,
and do not have to invest much time in serving the institution beyond teaching. On most
campuses, faculty members who choose to work on special projects are granted release
time (reduction of their teaching load) or stipends to provide financial compensation for
the additional work. Leaders must know the intricacies of the roles and expectations of
community college employees, to manage human resources effectively, and be able to
evaluate individual performance. In addition, leaders need to know the state labor laws
36
that apply to their community college. For instance, in California, leaders would need to
learn about AB 1725 the 75/25 full time/part time faculty ratio, the 195 day rule for
classified staff, tenure review regulations, retreat right for administrators who previously
were tenured faculty, employee evaluation and the progressive discipline process, the
grievance process, collective bargaining, and minimum qualifications and equivalency
(Chiriboga, 2003). This knowledge is also of the utmost importance for leaders
responsible for union negotiations and contracts.
Communication
Community college leaders must have strong communication skills (i.e. active
listening, public speaking, writing) to articulate shared mission, vision, and values to
varied audiences, and to project confidence, expertise and responsibility (AACC, 2005).
Likewise, the study conducted by Brown, Martinez and Daniel (2002) suggested that the
most important skills for community college leaders were communication skills (i.e.
interpersonal, listening, public speaking, writing and conflict resolution). A large part of
community college leaders’ role is to communicate effectively, resolve conflicts, relate to
a broad range of people, and communicate the college’s mission (Barwick, 2002; Boggs,
2002; Brown et al., 2002; Carroll & Romero, 2003; Vaughan, 1990). It is also important
for community college leaders to create an environment that encourages individuals to
communicate freely and exchange ideas (Johnson, 1998). Effective leaders with strong
interpersonal communication skills are able to motivate and empower employees, and
resolve conflicts by helping individuals understand other perspectives and reach an
agreement. Writing skills are also very important for leaders to be tactful and effective in
37
communicating by e-mails, memos and letters to employees and external partners or
stakeholders. In addition, administrators are required to write numerous reports, and may
have to write grant applications. The quality of their writing skills impacts their ability to
demonstrate the value of their work, and to obtain additional funding.
Furthermore, community college leaders need to be able to communicate
effectively with different types of individuals. Indeed, they interact on campus with
students of all ages, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, education and training
needs, and career goals, as well as with faculty, staff, administrators and board members.
These groups and individuals have different communication styles, values and priorities,
and leaders must be able to adapt their communication to their audience. Leaders must
also be good listeners, to understand what all stakeholders are communicating regarding
the college. They must establish relationships with members of the community and
businesses, and make sure that they are serving their communities in accordance with
their mission.
Leaders also communicate with legislators and government agencies, and should
be able to speak about their institution in a manner that will encourage them to support
the community colleges. The data collected on campus to assess the college effectiveness
may not match the type of data that legislators and government representatives want to
see, and therefore leaders must learn what is valued, to deliver a message that will be
received favorably. The same applies for leaders’ communication with union
representatives, as they have to learn how to respond to unions’ requests and speak a
language conducive to agreement rather than conflict. Also critical, is the ability of
38
leaders to communicate with the media to portray a positive image of the college,
consistent with the college goals and desired reputation. Colleges typically have a person
in charge of media relations who is trained to represent the college effectively and
accurately. However, leaders throughout the organization may be interviewed when they
accomplish successful endeavors that attract the attention of the media. Successes will
normally allow time for leaders to prepare to communicate with the media, but in case of
emergency or disaster, leaders will have to respond immediately, and should be prepared
to handle crisis. In summary, community college leaders require excellent oral and
written communication skills, coupled with a thorough understanding of all aspects of
community colleges, their own institution, and their stakeholders’ interests and
perspectives.
Collaboration
Community college leaders need to embrace the diversity of ideas and
perspectives, and demonstrate cultural competence to facilitate teamwork and
collaboration, and leverage networks and partnerships (AACC, 2005). Shults (2001)
stated that “Important skills identified for future leaders include the ability to bring a
college together in the governing process, the ability to mediate… and the ability to build
coalitions” (p. 1). Similarly, Carroll and Romero (2003) also emphasized the importance
of “working with individuals and groups through collaboration, facilitation, and conflict
resolution” (p. 87). Community Colleges are required to have shared governance (Shults,
2001), involve stakeholders in discussions, often make records public for transparency
(e.g., it is common for a college to post meeting minutes on the college website) and
39
typically form committees charged with specific projects, rather than make decision
unilaterally. Vaughan’s study (1990) found that the most important skills and abilities
included being able to analyze, synthesize and evaluate and to produce results, and it is
important to highlight that problem-solving and decision-making are often collaborative
efforts on community college campuses, and leaders have to be able to facilitate the
process (AACC, 2005; Barwick, 2002).
Collaboration is a key competency for all leaders and for Presidents in particular.
Vaughan and Weisman (1998) suggested that Presidents need the ability to bring a
college together in the governing process, to mediate, to maintain a high level of
tolerance for ambiguity, to understand and appreciate multiculturalism, and to build
coalitions. To implement change strategies at community colleges, leaders have to use a
collaborative style of leadership (Barwick, 2002). Furthermore, effective leaders
delegate, empower others, encourage others to take initiatives, and provide support to
foster success throughout the organization (Boggs, 2003). Leaders also need the ability to
create partnerships and coalitions with external partners (Boggs, 2003), and act as
liaisons between the college and the community (Barwick, 2002). The quality of external
partnerships established is a success factor for leaders who are able to generate support
and donations (financial or in-kind) to their college.
In the community college environment, leaders must know how to deal with
diversity because the student population is increasingly diverse (Evelyn, 2001) and
diverse students have different needs based on their culture, language or background. The
term diversity commonly refers to race, ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status
40
(Townsend, 1996), but also includes gender, age, disability and sexual orientation. In
addition, the community colleges serve many non-traditional students and “special
populations” (Joint Special Populations Advisory Committee, 2008), meaning single
parents, nontraditional learners, learners with disabilities, limited English proficient
learners, learners with economic disadvantage, and adults seeking to re-enter the
workforce after years of unemployment. Therefore, leaders should be “sensitive to the
issue of diversity, interpersonally competent, and community builders” (Conger, 1993, p.
49). Furthermore, leaders should be committed to diversity (Barwick, 2002; Brown et al.,
2002; McClenney, 2001) and embrace and value it (Carroll & Romero, 2003) as it brings
a wide range of perspectives, ideas, and generate creativity and innovation. While leaders
in all educational institutions should develop a strong sensitivity to diversity, it is even
more critical for the community colleges because of their mission to serve their
communities, their focus on access and low-cost high-quality education, and their highly
diverse student body. Collaborative efforts should always include diverse perspectives,
and the consideration of the needs of diverse students, to lead to decisions and processes
that are appropriate for community colleges.
Community College Advocacy
Leaders should value and promote diversity, inclusion, equity, learning, academic
excellence, open access and their college’s mission and values (AACC, 2005). The
importance of understanding and defending the community college mission and values
was emphasized in most articles which focused on community college leadership
(Barwick, 2002; Boggs, 2003; Kelly, 2002; McClenney, 2001). Piland and Wolf (2003)
41
emphasized that “community college leadership has its own set of problems, challenges
and demands. The dynamic nature of community colleges, their place in the nation’s
higher education system, and their extremely diverse student bodies make community
colleges unique institutions of learning” (p. 95). Leaders must have a strong
understanding of the colleges’ history, mission, foundations and values such as teaching
and learning, excellence, access, equity and service (McClenney, 2001; Shults, 2001) and
must be personally committed to them (Kelly, 2002; Manzo, 2003).
After having embraced the community college mission and values, leaders act as
advocates and represent the colleges to external groups and individuals, to obtain or
strengthen their support. Carroll and Romero (2003) agreed with the importance of the
community college advocacy competency and emphasized the following key leadership
skills: “Valuing the history and mission of the community colleges and higher education,
and understanding state structures” and “Attending to the external environment, including
its educational, political, and economic dimensions; media relations; and civic
responsibility” (p. 87). Leaders have to learn how to lobby for the community colleges,
present their situations and accomplishments to legislators, and obtain more funding by
convincing others to increase their support (Kelly, 2002).
In California, the community colleges’ advocacy efforts, presentations to
legislators and participation in key statewide committees and meetings are less visible
and impactful than that of the K-12 institutions, with which the colleges compete for state
funding. It is becoming increasingly important for community college leaders to become
stronger advocates for the system, and to better communicate their value to those who
42
control their funding. Other educational institutions have published reports on community
college outcomes which misrepresented the colleges and provided a negative picture
(Sengupta & Jepsen, 2006; Shulock & Moore, 2007). Community college leaders need to
know how to tactfully respond to such attacks and provide data to better represent their
situation and accomplishments, despite the numerous challenges that affect their
measures of success, such as student success and university transfer rates.
Professionalism
The sixth and last competency suggested by AACC (2005) is professionalism. It
involves setting high standards, being accountable, reflecting on performance and
improvement, demonstrating the courage to take risks, making difficult decisions,
accepting responsibility, and demonstrating authenticity, creativity, integrity and vision.
Leaders need to be ethical, honest, fair, consistent (Boggs, 2003) and accountable. Carroll
and Romero (2003) pointed to the importance of the following three attributes:
“Nurturing ethical behavior and ethical analysis”; “Developing self-awareness and
accepting criticism as an element of growth”; “Exploring how moral and ethical
standards coupled with high-level performance and social responsibility give meaning to
the work we accomplish as individuals in our various roles” (p. 88). Hockaday and
Puyear (2002) also indicated that community college Presidents must have integrity,
confidence and courage, technical knowledge, a collaborative spirit, persistence, good
judgment and a desire to lead.
Leaders must not only have these skills and characteristics, but also demonstrate
them and model the behaviors they wish to see in others. They need to show their
43
integrity and ethics consistently to inspire trust, be accountable and take responsibility.
Community college leaders use tax dollars to provide educational services to their
communities and have the responsibility to make the best possible use of the funds. As
professionals they must have administrative skills (e.g., expertise in strategic planning,
management and budgeting) and academic skills (e.g., writing, critical thinking, and
expertise in instruction). Most importantly, community college leaders should have a
genuine interest and appreciation for the community colleges and the diverse
communities that the colleges serve (Shults, 2001). Self-awareness is very important for
leaders (Villadsen, 2002), and they should take time to reflect on their actions, their work,
and their results, to identify opportunities to improve. Indeed, leadership development
continues throughout one’s career.
Leaders constantly have to face new challenges and enhance their skills. Indeed,
leading can be defined as learning, since leaders must be professional learners and be
able to lead their organizations through change (Amey, 2005; Kezar, Carducci, &
Contreras-McGavin, 2006). Leaders should have the “cognitive ability to effectively
determine team needs and to be able to actually adjust their own style from authoritarian
to servant-like” (Amey, 2005, p. 701). The new situations and problems faced by the
community colleges call for a transformation of leadership from the traditional top-down
power-driven leadership to a more facilitative and inclusive style of leadership, to
empower others (Amey, 2005; Evans, 2001).
44
Conclusion
The literature reviewed identified numerous competencies that community college
leaders should have to be successful. The community college-specific skills, knowledge
and abilities identified can be grouped within the six general competencies identified by
AACC (2005). Nonetheless, the importance of applying the competencies to the
community college system should not be underestimated, because of the intricacies of the
community college mission, goals, structure and processes. Furthermore, individual
colleges have different organizational cultures and characteristics that directly impact
leaders’ actions and behaviors. Leaders must be culturally competent to apply their
competencies to the specific needs and expectations of their local college environment.
Community College Characteristics and Impact on Leadership
The community colleges are complex organizations with multiple missions and
challenges which are different than those of other educational institutions. Furthermore,
important differences exist within the community college system, depending on the
colleges’ size, location and culture. This section presents an overview of the community
colleges, of differences between rural, urban and suburban colleges, and of community
college cultures, all of which have direct implications on leadership.
The Community Colleges
The community colleges are different than other educational institutions because
of their mission, structures, processes and student populations, which directly impact
leadership, administration and operations. For instance, community colleges have
multiple curricular functions: student preparation for academic transfer, technical or
45
vocational education, continuing education for adults, skill upgrades, remedial education,
and community education (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). They are expected to provide any
training or education needed in the community they serve, and have to adapt their
offerings to changes in the labor market as well as to new technologies. Therefore,
community college leaders have to create strategic plans that allow the colleges to fulfill
their multiple roles, and cannot easily make financial decisions that would lead to the
elimination of programs needed in their community, like a private institution may be able
to do. While colleges tend to focus on some curricular functions more than others, all
have to be addressed, meaning that leaders have to manage human and financial
resources appropriately, and resolve potential conflicts between departments having
different goals and values (e.g., liberal arts focused on transfer, versus technical
education focused on workforce preparation).
Students.
According to AACC (2008), the community colleges serve nearly 12 million
students. Because of changing demographics, the number of traditional age and high
school students has been increasing. “In fact, half of the students who receive a
baccalaureate degree attend a community college in the course of their undergraduate
studies” (AACC, 2008). However, the average age of a community college student is 29
years old, and many students are working adults. The majority (59%) of students attends
college part-time, and most students work while pursuing their education (77% of full-
time students and 83% of part-time students are employed). The student population is
46
extremely diverse in regards to their backgrounds and educational needs, with 60%
women, 35% minorities, 39% first generation to attend college, and 17% single parents.
Community colleges are the gateway to postsecondary education for many
minority, low income, and first-generation postsecondary education students.
Since 1985, more than half of all community college students have been women.
In addition, the majority of Black and Hispanic undergraduate students in this
country study at these colleges. (AACC, 2008)
Depending on their individual goals, students may complete two-year degrees,
certificates, or only courses that may or may not be for credit. In the last few decades,
students’ literacy has declined, creating a need for more remedial courses (Cohen &
Brawer, 2003) and lower retention and graduation rates. In addition, dropout rates are
relatively high because of many situations beyond the colleges’ control, such as students
having difficulty completing their education while working and having family
responsibilities. The community colleges’ open-access policy allows students with low
commitment to enroll, and drop when they need to, as they know that they can always
return at a later date (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Financial reasons such as the need to work
more hours instead of attending classes, are often stated as a reason to postpone the
completion of a degree. Community colleges serve a large number of low-income
students. Half of students receive financial aid, including federal grants (23%), federal
loans (11%) and state aid (12%). (AACC, 2008).
Therefore, the characteristics of the student population make leaders’
responsibilities more complex as they must meet the needs of diverse students, in terms
of course offerings, student services, remediation, counseling, financial aid, and other
support services (e.g., on-campus child care and work-study programs). College leaders
47
are also expected to improve student success, with limited resources, while serving
students who are most “at risk” of dropping out or failing classes. Leaders have to defend
the colleges when their results are compared to universities’ results, without taking into
consideration the different contexts and additional challenges faced by community
colleges.
Finance.
Community colleges have a mission of open access and low cost. Their average
annual tuition and fees are only $2,361, compared to $6,185 for public 4-year colleges.
Some states have particularly low tuition rate, such as California with only $20 per unit.
On average, community colleges’ revenue sources are as follows, state funds: 37%;
tuition and fees: 17%; local funds: 21%; federal funds: 16%; and other: 9% (AACC,
2008). Typically, state funding is insufficient and unable to increase adequately to adapt
to increasing costs, inflation and the growing demand for community college courses.
Community colleges are particularly challenged during economic slow-downs as their
funding is reduced, and more students seek to enroll (i.e., those turned away by
universities which accept fewer students, unemployed adults who return to college to
prepare for new careers, or employees seeking skill upgrades). Community college
leaders have to be fiscally savvy and operate with low budgets, while accomplishing their
multiple missions of education, transfer and economic and workforce development.
College leaders also have to be entrepreneurial, collaborate with others to leverage
existing resources, create revenue-generating programs and seek additional resources
from private and public sources (e.g., grants and donations).
48
Administration.
The administration of community colleges is different in single-college districts
than in multi-college districts. Multi-college districts are more complex, structured, and
formalized, having an office that centralizes administrative functions (e.g., human
resources, payroll, and fiscal services). This structure may eliminate duplications in
purchasing, facility planning, recruiting and finance; minimize rivalry and competition
between colleges; and enhance recruitment efforts and services provided (Chang, 1978).
Colleges are mostly responsible for instruction, student services and accreditation
(Jensen, 1984). However, colleges within one district may compete for resources and
“attention” from the district office and the Chancellor, especially for program planning,
facility planning, and budgeting (Jensen & Giles, 2006). Presidents of these colleges can
focus on their campuses without having to negotiate with unions or be responsible for
other functions handled at the district level.
On the other hand, leaders of single-college campuses are responsible for all
aspects of their college administration, from instruction to fiscal services and personnel.
Presidents have more political and social pressure because they are public figures,
represent their college in the community, interact regularly with local newspapers,
businesses, chambers of commerce, service clubs (e.g., Rotary, United Way, Scouts) and
school districts, and are held accountable by all groups (Jensen & Giles, 2006). Presidents
of single-college districts report directly to their Board of Trustees, and are responsible
for decision-making for the institution, as they do not have a Chancellor like multi-
college districts do.
49
Community college administrators work with different groups having different
cultures and interests, such as students, faculty, staff, managers, board members, and
members of the community. Leaders must have good relationships with the campus
community, and have to collaborate with faculty members who are “the most unionized
of all postsecondary education” (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 132). At community colleges,
faculty’s “primary responsibility is to teach; they rarely conduct research or scholarly
inquiry” (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 76). Instructors often want smaller classes, better-
prepared students and a lower teaching load, which are not compatible with community
college policies (i.e., open access and community service) and budgetary realities.
Leaders have to be tactful and address the concerns of all groups of people on campus,
who may have unrealistic requests.
Rural, Urban and Suburban Community Colleges
Rural, urban and suburban colleges have different types of students, programs,
funding level, and therefore different leadership styles and strategies. According to Hardy
and Katsinas (2007), approximately 60% of community colleges are rural, 21% suburban
and 19% urban. In 2001, 34% of community college students attended rural colleges,
32% suburban colleges, and 34% urban colleges. Caucasian students represented 45% of
students at urban colleges, 54% at suburban colleges and 74% at rural colleges, indicating
a much higher level of diversity in urban colleges than in rural ones. In addition, “rural
community colleges enroll greater percentages of full-time students than their urban and
suburban counterparts (41, 31, and 32 percent, respectively)” (Hardy & Katsinas, 2007, p.
50
11). In the fall semester 2000, the mean enrollment was 6,288 for urban colleges, 5,443
for suburban colleges, and 2,100 for rural colleges.
Rural community colleges.
Rural colleges serve fewer students, more of their students study full-time, and
their student population is less diverse than that of urban and suburban colleges.
However, leading rural colleges can be even more challenging than urban colleges
because resources are scarce, and rural colleges have additional functions for the
community they serve (Fluharty & Scaggs, 2007). Lower enrollments suggest that small
and medium rural community colleges may not have sufficient resources to deliver a
comprehensive curriculum, and offer all programs needed in their community (e.g., allied
health and nursing programs are in high-demand but are very expensive to create and
maintain). Rural colleges have fewer students and cannot realize the economies of scales
possible at suburban and urban colleges. Their cost per student is higher, and these
colleges have more budgetary limitations than the other colleges.
Rural colleges serve communities that may be spread out geographically and
isolated, and have less variety in the type of businesses present in their districts. Rural
community colleges typically have a strong relationship with their communities. “The
isolated location of these institutions often makes them the only game in town for
educational and cultural events; the more rural the community, the more important the
college becomes to its constituents” (Leist, 2007, p. 309). The college focus is generally
on civil engagement, educational access, and economic development (Rural Community
College Initiative, 2007). Colleges may have a different mission and vision such as
51
“training a rural workforce, and building a healthy and inclusive community” (UCLA,
2005, p. 411), or building a sustainable rural community (Clark & Davis, 2007), rather
than focusing on academics and university transfer. In addition, rural colleges are actively
involved in community and economic development, and offer services to employers such
as small business assistance, to support their local economy (Chesson & Rubin, 2002).
The community college’s role in economic development and community outreach
is of heightened importance in rural areas, because these colleges are often major
employers in their regions, the convening location for cultural events, key
partners in collaborations, and viewed as a link to a better future by students and
businesses alike. Greater community expectations of rural colleges in reform and
change efforts create opportunities but also pressures that can lead to greater risk
of failure. College and community leaders need to develop a vision and strategic
plan for these institutions that is based on a realistic perspective of what they can
accomplish”. (Eddy & Murray, 2007, p. 101)
Rural colleges are externally focused, serve their communities in a variety of
ways, and often seek additional resources from different sources. Their leaders need to
know how to build partnerships, collaborate with the community on joint projects, create
consortia (Pennington & Williams 2002), and identify new ideas and adapt them to their
specific setting and situation (Eller et al., 2003). Leist (2007) suggested that Presidents of
rural colleges may require certain characteristics beyond those traditionally required in
other settings, such as “situational awareness, the ability to tell the story, and rural roots
[which] can help a rural President respect, embrace, and – finally – assimilate into the
lifestyle of local constituents” (p. 305). It is also important for rural leaders to have the
following competencies: “trust-building; serving as a transparent, open, and accessible
leader; and knowing the culture and history of the local area and its constituents” (p.
309).
52
Urban community colleges.
Urban colleges generally have more resources, and can offer a comprehensive,
broad-based curriculum to their students (Hardy & Katsinas, 2007), but have additional
challenges as they serve a highly diverse student population. Urban colleges tend to be
more concentrated geographically, which allows them to select which of the community
college missions they wish to emphasize most. The competition between colleges located
within driving distance leads them to specialize and differentiate their offerings from
their neighbor colleges’ offerings. Urban colleges may evaluate their outcomes by
measuring student learning, academic achievement and university transfer rates, more
than their impact on the local economy.
These colleges are likely to be student-oriented, as they serve a diverse student
population, offer numerous basic skills, developmental courses, English as a second
language courses; and offer supportive services to increase student retention and success.
Leaders of urban institutions must have a very strong sensitivity to diversity and
commitment to open access and equity. Because of the larger number of college
employees in metropolitan areas, labor unions tend to be powerful, requiring Presidents
of urban single college districts to have training and experience in labor relations and
negotiation (Eddy, 2008). Training for urban leaders should focus on social, economic,
and political characteristics of the urban environment (McPhail, 2000).
Suburban community colleges.
Suburban colleges represent 21% of community colleges and serve 32% of
community college students (Hardy & Katsinas, 2007). Their characteristics vary
53
significantly based on their location and the nature of the communities they serve.
Similarly to urban colleges, suburban colleges tend to have a diverse student body (on
average 46%) but the profile of their student population depends on the demographics of
their local community. Suburban areas are those that see the highest population growth
(Katsinas, 1994) and change, necessitating community colleges to be flexible and adapt
to the growing demand for education and training. Suburban colleges have the resources
required to offer a wider range of programs than rural colleges do (Hardy & Katsinas,
2007). Furthermore, like rural colleges, suburban colleges play an important role in their
communities, for education, community services and economic and workforce
development. Katsinas (1994) stated that:
It appears that the most prominent role suburban community colleges play is to
provide continuing education and skill upgrading for workers currently employed,
as opposed to providing training to bring new workers into the labor force for the
first time or after long disassociation with the labor force. This is likely due to the
higher educational attainment levels found among people living in the nation’s
suburbs. Customized training, therefore, is probably the most important role
suburban community colleges play. (p. 72).
In addition to offering training for employees, suburban colleges have to provide
access to education for people living in their community or moving to the suburbs, as
well as their children when they reach college age. Leaders of suburban colleges should
have the competencies required of urban leaders and rural leaders, such as a strong
sensitivity to diversity because of the changing demographics, commitment to open
access, strong relations with community members, and the ability to understand their
communities’ evolving needs, and to respond to those needs.
54
Individual Colleges’ Cultures
Developing the six core leadership competencies and understanding how to apply
them to the community college system is not sufficient for a leader to be successful at any
college. Indeed, each college is unique as it has different characteristics (e.g., size,
location and culture) which will require different strategies and actions of college leaders.
Colleges are culturally bound systems, where leaders must learn what are the needs of
their community, and how the culture of their college impacts actions, decisions and
change (Eddy, 2008). Cultural competency allows leaders to assess situations and define
ways to solve problems based on their colleges’ culture. Thus, changes are more likely to
be implemented and to succeed, as culturally competent leaders will avoid making
decisions that would be resisted by the campus community.
Consequently, new GYO programs should be customized to their college’s
culture and characteristics to prepare leaders to be successful on their own campus. The
literature identifies different types of community college cultures and their impact on
leadership. Levin (1997) identified four main community college cultures: (1) traditional,
(2) service, (3) hierarchical, and (4) business, which are used as a framework to discuss
differences across colleges, and implications for leaders. The four categories allow to
“capture a larger range of organizational behaviors and assumptions pertaining to the
community college, such as the central role of students and student development and the
fervor of community college leaders and supporters over institutional mission and
accomplishments” (p. 6), which have direct implications on college leadership. Colleges
55
have more than one type of culture, but one tends to dominate and drive strategies and
decision-making, without eliminating the secondary cultures. Levin (1997) stated that:
… organizations have multiple cultures, with one in dominance as the primary
culture and others subordinate as sub-cultures. The characteristics of
organizational culture… … include such qualities as beliefs, values, attitudes,
philosophies, and rituals; shared interpretations of experience, common practices
and explanations of events and behaviors; and similar narratives, stories, and
jokes about institutional history (Bolman & Deal, 1991; Kuh, Schuh, Whitt, et al.,
1988; Schein, 1985). Culture is viewed as a way of doing and behaving by groups
within an organization (Cooper & Kempner, 1993; Owen, 1995; Tierney, 1988).
(p. 2).
Traditional.
In a traditional culture, “the college mission and goals focus largely upon the
intellectual and cognitive development of students and the institutional role of providing
access to educational opportunities, largely through university transfer and preparation
for employment.” (Levin, 1997, p. 6). The institutional values focus on legitimacy,
prestige and social status (Clowes & Levin, 1994; Dougherty, 1994; Frye, 1992;
Kempner, 1991). The curriculum tends to be similar to universities’ curriculum while
vocational education and remediation are not high priorities. The traditional colleges
focus on academic achievement and university transfer rate. Since the emphasis is on
academics and student success (McGrath & Spear, 1991; Richardson, Fisk, & Okun,
1983), academic faculty members influence decisions and operations, and have more
power and prestige than others, such as occupational or vocational instructors (Seidman,
1985).
Leaders in traditional colleges must understand the importance of academics, and
allocate resources that support the college goals of academic excellence and university
56
transfer. Other aspects of the institutional life take a second place, leading to the
reproduction of social and economic inequities (Weis, 1985) because of the lack of focus
on equity, student services and remediation. Traditional colleges also tend to focus on
liberal education and do not seek to align their offerings with business and industry needs
(Roueche, Taber, & Roueche, 1995). Leaders in traditional colleges will foster academic
excellence and relationships with faculty, but will not devote a large portion of their time
developing partnerships with their community members, or offering additional services to
support the local economy. The most important leadership competencies in this culture
may be organizational strategy, to meet the colleges’ academic goals; resource
management, to allocate resources (funds, staff and faculty) to the areas that support the
attainment of college goals; communication; and professionalism, to be consistent with
the college image and pursuit of prestige. Community college advocacy and collaboration
with external partners may be secondary in these colleges.
However, at present, few colleges’ primary culture is traditional, because
community colleges have multiple missions beyond education, such as community
service and economic development. The size of the college also affects its culture, and
small colleges are more likely to focus on offering programs needed in their community
to maintain satisfactory enrollment levels, than to seek prestige. The traditional culture is
prevalent in some colleges which have above-average university transfer rates and strong
relationships with prestigious universities located in their districts, but this culture is
generally a sub-culture in the majority of community colleges.
57
Service.
In the service culture, “the college possesses the characteristics of a human
service organization with a mandate to protect and promote the well-being of its clients
(students)” (Levin, 1997, p. 1). The mission of service can apply to different goals such
as high student success rate, university transfer rate, student retention, student learning, or
equity and student services (Astin, 1985; Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Rendon & Mathews,
1994). Colleges with a service culture are student-centered organizations and their main
goal is the improvement of the students (Roueche & Roueche, 1993). Their philosophy is
based on student development (Cohen & Brawer, 1996), equity, open access and social
mobility. Institutional effectiveness is measured in terms of quality of instruction, student
learning and ability to meet the needs of the community. Student services personnel and
employees with degrees and expertise in student counseling are particularly valued
(Levin, 1997), as these colleges focus on student services, counseling, diversity and
equity. The service culture is responsive, flexible, and adaptable to the needs of students
and the community.
Leaders in service culture colleges focus on student and community needs, and
foster innovation for student learning and remediation for under-prepared students
(McGrath & Spear, 1991). They strive to increase enrollment and resources to better
serve their communities. Leaders in service cultures need to develop the six core
competencies as they need organizational strategy to create new solutions to serve the
community as the needs change; resource management to optimize impact and allocate
funds to instructions, student services, as well as all of the other key functions of the
58
institution; communication, to understand the community needs and communicate the
college goals to all employees; collaboration, to work with internal departments and
external partners; community college advocacy to obtain legislators’ support; and
professionalism to support the achievement of the multiple goals of the institution.
Hierarchical.
In a hierarchical culture, “The college president and administrative boards
demonstrate strong leadership traits and uphold ideals of social transformation and
excellence for both students and the organization.” (Levin, 1997, p. 1). Hierarchical
colleges emphasize planning, organizing, budgeting, staffing and evaluation (Levin,
1997), and strive for organizational excellence and success, increased student access and
high academic standards (Roueche & Baker, 1987). Administrators tend to focus on
management more than on leadership. Processes are bureaucratic which may inhibit
innovation and reduce efficiency. Shared governance is limited and leaders of
hierarchical colleges are expected to make decisions rather than to empower others to
lead. Collaboration is secondary. Leaders must have strong organizational strategy and
resource management skills, as they are the primary decision-makers and have a high
level of responsibility, including fiscal management and resource development.
Communication skills, community college advocacy, and professionalism are also
important because leaders personally represent the administration of the college and take
credit for success and blame for failure. These leaders work very hard for improvement in
student performance (Roueche & Roueche, 1993) and improvements in the organization
(Baker et al., 1995), and foster a strong institutional work ethic (Levin, 1997). The role of
59
the President is very important to communicate the college mission, create organizational
climate, and make meaning for others (Levin, 1997).
Few colleges are hierarchical as their primary culture. This culture can have very
negative consequences in an academic setting, and colleges tend to be more democratic
and decentralized. Because colleges are bureaucratic, they have a hierarchical
component, but many colleges foster an environment of open communication and
collegiality, and attempt to integrate multiple cultural values and perspectives.
Business.
In a business culture, “The community college adopts the practices and values of
business and industry in its operational styles.” (Levin, 1997, p. 1). Colleges with a
business culture value revenue generation, collaborate closely with businesses (Knowles,
1995), offer customized training for employees, develop community education and
contract education (not for credit), and seek grants and donations. The focus is on
workforce development and vocational education more than on university transfer. These
colleges collaborate with workforce investment boards and other economic and
workforce development entities. They use business strategies to solve problems, seek
excellence and improve effectiveness (Dennison, 1995; Roueche et al., 1995), and use
corporate concepts such as quality teams and partnerships (Baker et al., 1995; Roueche et
al., 1995).
Leaders of business culture colleges must excel at organizational strategy and
resource management, as they are strategists controlling resources to meet the demands
of the market, while increasing efficiency (Levin, 1997). Communication and
60
collaboration are key skills for these leaders who are externally focused and engaged in
partnerships with stakeholders outside of the college community. Community college
advocacy is necessary to obtain more resources from legislators and potential donors.
Professionalism implies the ability to emphasize efficiency, innovation, and customer
service (Roueche et al., 1995), having a market orientation, being externally focused, and
fostering innovation. Academic considerations are secondary to creating solutions for
clients needs.
Colleges’ business culture is becoming more common as institutions have to seek
new sources of funding, and learn to reduce their costs because of the lack of funds
available from the government. This culture is likely to be present in colleges’ specific
departments such as economic and workforce development, career and technical
education, community education, contract education, and other services to businesses.
However, most academic faculty members tend to have a more traditional culture and
continue to focus on academic achievement and student learning, which can bring
balance in the overall college culture.
Conclusion
Community colleges are different than other educational institutions. Because of
their mission of open access, they serve a large number of students, with diverse
backgrounds, educational needs and career goals. Funding for community colleges tends
to be insufficient for the number of programs and services offered, making the role of
leaders particularly difficult. Differences in offerings can be observed based on the
colleges’ location and size, which have implications on leadership and administration.
61
The leadership must also adapt to the colleges’ cultures and sub-cultures. The strength of
the different cultures also varies from one department to another, increasing the
complexity involved with becoming culturally competent.
Summary
This chapter presented a literature review of the leadership development programs
currently available and their strengths and weaknesses; demonstrated the existence of a
training need that can be addressed through the creation of GYO programs; offered
recommendations for the creation of such programs; reviewed the leadership
competencies that community college leaders need to have to be effective; and presented
community college characteristics and cultures, and their implications on leadership, to
provide information needed in the design of a new GYO program. Jeandron (2006)
identified common program topics that address the six core competencies, which are
presented in Appendix B. However, the literature review emphasized the importance for
each college to customize their own program, rather than attempt to replicate another
program that may not be appropriate for their own campus.
Although most colleges are facing the same challenge, it may not be wise for
them to employ the same strategies… …During the past two decades,
communities have become increasingly dissimilar – demographically,
economically, politically, and culturally. As this trend continues, institutions will
be less and less able to use someone else’s answers. They will need strategies
tailored to meet the specific situations on their campuses. (Lorenzo, 2002, p. 50)
Even the process of developing the curriculum for a GYO program varies greatly from
one institution to another. Some colleges survey their employees to inform the content of
their program, while others form a committee and make group decisions based on their
prior knowledge and perceptions, and on the literature on leadership (Jeandron, 2006).
62
Therefore, the literature review revealed a number of possible features for a new college
GYO program, but ultimately, its design will be mostly influenced by the data collected
on-site and analyzed to determine how to best customize the program to the college’s
culture and needs. The next chapter describes the methodology that will be used to collect
and analyze data at the college considered in this study.
63
Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology used to collect and analyze data, to guide
the design of a college’s GYO leadership program. Detailed information is provided on
the college site, sampling, data collection and analysis procedures, trustworthiness,
ethical considerations and limitations of the study. These components have been carefully
determined to obtain data that suggested how the GYO program should be designed to
best fit the college’s culture, goals, mission, needs and available resources. The study
also addresses the following sub-questions:
1. What are the program’s specific goals?
2. What program components are most appropriate?
3. How can the program be created with limited funding?
Methodology
Community colleges are experiencing a severe leadership gap, as the number of
open leadership positions exceeds the number of qualified candidates. The literature
review revealed that existing leadership development programs do not have the capacity
to train a sufficient number of leaders with community college expertise. Furthermore,
effective leaders must be able to apply their competencies to the community college
system, and more specifically, to the culture of their own college. The purpose of this
study is to design a leadership development program for a specific college to grow their
own culturally competent leaders. Therefore, the most appropriate type of research to
develop a solution within the college culture was action research, which “aims at solving
64
specific problems within a program, organization, or community” (Patton, 2002, p. 221).
Action research is defined as: “a form of self-reflective problem solving, which enables
practitioners to better understand and solve pressing problems” (McKernan, 1988, p. 6).
Indeed, the program must reflect the college’s unique organizational culture and
characteristics, to prepare leaders to operate within the culture, make appropriate
decisions and establish adequate strategies. Action research was needed to problem-solve
within the institution, taking into consideration the culture, goals, needs, resources,
capabilities and limitations in regards to the creation of a program. In order to design the
program, it was necessary to first collect data, reflect on it and analyze it to determine
what should be implemented. Action research is used to develop strategies to solve
problems, to create special programs, and to improve organizational effectiveness
(Stringer, 2007). Action research is the most appropriate methodology to innovate and
create a new way of solving a specific problem. Karlsen (1991) stated that:
A primary reason given for carrying out action research is the belief that one of
the most important professional contributions one can make is to take part in
creating something “new”, a social innovation, not just testing or reformulating
theoretical propositions or ideas. A great deal of learning in such projects will
involve conditions for creating and disseminating innovations. Thus, in addition
to be being concerned with evaluation, the researcher will be interested in
studying forces that lead to change.… The innovation will typically consist of the
creation of a new practice, or a new way of solving problems, whether it has to do
with new forms of leadership and organization, new kinds of planning, or new
ways of employing technology (pp. 150-151).
Herr and Anderson (2005) emphasized that action research involves “inquiry that
is done by or with insiders to an organization or community, but never to or on them” (p.
3). While I was the only researcher, I used input and feedback from a number of college
employees for several months, and was a participant-observer. The study results depend
65
in a large part on data provided directly by insiders, and for that reason, they played a
crucial role in the data collection and analysis process. In action research, knowledge is
practice-driven, or data-driven more than theory-driven (Herr & Anderson, 2005), and the
research “builds descriptions and theories within the practice context itself” (Argyris &
Schon, 1991, p. 86), utilizing inductive analysis. The main phases in action research are
to plan, act, observe and reflect (Lewin, 1948). In other words, the research aims to solve
a problem by first developing a plan of action; second, implementing it; third, observing
the effects; and fourth, reflecting on outcomes to modify the plan of action. These four
steps are repeated as a spiral of actions (Kemmis, 1982) to continuously improve the
outcomes of the intervention. However, because of time limitations, this dissertation
focuses on the initial design of the program, including content, delivery mode, resources,
structures, and processes, but not the actual implementation and evaluation of outcomes
which would require several additional years.
Action research may include quantitative and/or qualitative data, based on the
research question (Stringer, 2007). For this study, it was necessary to have a complex and
detailed understanding of the problem in the given environment, which could only be
obtained by talking directly with the people involved (Creswell, 2007). The problem
could not be addressed through quantitative measures and statistical analyses because it
was necessary to learn more about the college for a design to emerge, by conducting
inductive analysis and establishing categories or themes. The study required qualitative
research, for a holistic approach to collecting “data in a natural setting sensitive to the
people and places under study” (Creswell, 2007, p. 37). This analysis includes
66
participants’ input, a detailed description of the problem, as well as reflections and
interpretations of multiple sources of data, because numerous factors had to be taken into
consideration (e.g., the college’s culture, abilities and limitations in regards to creating a
GYO program and the managers’ willingness to dedicate time to the development of
younger leaders), which is why action research was the most appropriate method to solve
the problem within the specific organizational culture.
Site Selection
Since the need for a GYO program is now common, a typical case was selected.
A typical case means a college which needs a GYO program and is willing and able to
create one. The case should also be information-rich for in-depth study (Patton, 2002). To
comply with the college policy of not disclosing the college name in dissertations and
theses, the college selected will be referred to as “Premier College” (PC) in this
dissertation. PC is located in Southern California. Since the college opened in the 1940’s,
it has served over a million students. The college “offers more than 200 degree and
certificate programs and has earned statewide and national distinction in a number of
disciplines” (PC’s website, n.d). I selected PC because it is among the largest community
colleges in California and employs approximately 2,800 people, of which over 70 are
managers. More than half of managers at the Associate Dean level or higher are planning
to retire in the next five years, which will create an overwhelming number of vacancies at
the top of the organization.
Because of its size and the age of its managers, PC has a particularly strong need
for a GYO program. In the last five years, the college has had difficulty recruiting
67
managers and had to keep positions open for extended periods of time or had to use
interims for months or even years. For these reasons, the college leadership team
recognizes the importance of the issue of succession planning, and has agreed to
participate in this study leading to the creation of a GYO program.
This case is information rich because the college needs to prepare future leaders
for a variety of leadership positions throughout the campus. In addition, the large number
of managers suggests a greater potential to identify people willing and able to become
mentors. Another important factor that led to the selection of the site is the existence of a
Professional and Organizational Development (POD) department. The infrastructure and
the institution’s culture valuing professional development make the site particularly
appropriate for this research project. Finally, the college’s annual budget is over $150
million and therefore, despite current budget cuts, the college is likely to fund a GYO
program, as it is expected to reduce the costs associated with recruitment and turnover.
The program is perceived as a worthy initiative, likely to have a satisfactory return on
investment.
Another major reason for selecting the site was convenience, and more
specifically, access. To conduct action research, the researcher needs access to the site,
people, documents and artifacts in a more open fashion than for other types of research.
The work of the researcher must be supported by the college leadership and the study
participants. I have worked at PC for over four years and have established professional
relationships with the leadership team and many faculty and staff members. Stringer
(2007) suggested that it is important to “establish contact with all stakeholder groups as
68
quickly as possible. Each group needs to be informed of events and needs to feel that all
members can contribute to the research process” (p. 42). In 2008, I presented the project
to the college President and the management team. The college leadership welcomed the
study and accepted to endorse it, which allowed me to obtain access to people,
documents, and other data sources, as needed for the study.
PC is a large suburban college (single-college district) serving a very diverse
student population with 43% Hispanic, 27% Asian-Pacific Islander, 19% Caucasian, 6%
African American, and 5% other (PC’s website, n.d.). The college’s primary culture is a
service culture (Levin, 1997), as indicated in the organization’s mission statement: “to
welcome all students and to support them in achieving their personal, educational, and
career goals in an environment of academic success” (PC’s website, n.d.). The college
offers numerous remediation courses, English as a second language courses, a strong
emphasis on basic skills and numerous services to foster student success.
The college’s stated core values are integrity, diversity, community building,
student-focus, life-long learning, and positive spirit (PC’s website, n.d.). The college’s
mission of service applies to different goals including student retention and success,
student learning, university transfer, support services, equity, open access, community
services and social mobility. In addition, the college fosters excellence in academics, and
like a traditional college (Levin, 1997), PC would not sacrifice quality to achieve other
goals. Similarly to hierarchical colleges (Levin, 1997), PC strives for organizational
excellence and success, but offers an environment of open communication and
collegiality, and attempts to integrate multiple cultural values and perspectives. The
69
college has a business sub-culture as it seeks revenue generation from state, federal and
private grants, and is currently increasing its fundraising efforts through the college
foundation.
Data Collection
Qualitative data were collected to obtain rich information and conduct an in-depth
study, using naturalistic inquiry, defined as disciplined inquiry conducted in natural
settings (at the college’s campus), using natural methods (document reviews, interviews,
stakeholder meetings and focus group). The study occurred within fixed timelines, with
data collection and analysis occurring in the fall 2008 and the winter 2009. The data
collection included two phases. First, I collected data from existing GYO programs, to
learn how these programs were designed, and to identify possible success factors.
Second, I collected data at PC, to define the program’s goals, components, curriculum
and resources available.
Off-Site Data Collection
This phase was necessary to increase the knowledge base on community college
GYO programs, since the literature, to date, is limited. Learning about other colleges’
experience, and their programs’ success factors provided a broader understanding of
possible strategies and provided ideas for the program design.
Purposeful sampling of GYO programs.
I contacted the colleges listed in Cota’s report (2006) which presents the results of
her survey of GYO programs, as well as those listed by Jeandron (2006). In addition, I
reviewed the agenda of the North-American Council for Staff, Program, and
70
Organizational Development (NCSPOD) conference and identified several sessions on
colleges’ new GYO programs. I contacted each one of the colleges, identified the person
in charge of the program, and requested appointments for phone interviews. To increase
the number of cases examined, I also asked respondents to refer me to other community
college GYO programs if they knew of any. I identified over twenty community colleges
with a GYO program and collected data from fifteen sites. Of the fifteen colleges,
thirteen were large (over 7,500 students), two were medium (2,500 to 7,500 students),
and none were small (fewer than 2,500 students). One can assume that small colleges are
less likely to have a program because of their lower number of employees and of
management positions to fill, as well as limited resources (e.g., budget for professional
development and availability of staff time). Learning from large colleges may be more
relevant for this study as PC is very large. Regarding location, seven colleges were in
California, and eight were in other states, mostly on the East coast. Eight colleges were
urban, five suburban and two rural. The majority of the programs were relatively new and
had been in existence for less than five years.
Interviews.
I interviewed individuals in charge of GYO programs at 15 community colleges
to obtain information on their programs’ design, content, application and selection
process, outcomes, and on what they believe to be key success factors. Results
supplemented the literature and provided valuable insight for the design of the new
program. The interview protocol (provided in Appendix C) is semi-structured (Merriam,
1998) to collect specific data from all respondents (e.g., length of program, number of
71
hours and number of participants) and to allow the exploration of other ideas such as
specific strategies utilized (e.g., meeting off campus to prevent participants from going
back to their desk during breaks, but rather, focus on the seminars; not allowing any
meetings to be scheduled during training hours so all participants can attend; or giving
reading assignments prior to the workshops or establishing teams working on group
leadership projects). The interview protocol had previously been tested with peers, to
improve wording, reduce bias and make sure that the questions were clear and would
provide the information needed.
I conducted the interviews by phone because the nature of the information
requested did not require a face-to-face meeting, as the data collected was not personal or
particularly sensitive, but simply the description of existing programs. I chose not to use a
questionnaire that respondents would fill out independently and return to me, because I
wanted the opportunity to ask them to clarify ideas and elaborate on concepts of interests.
I set up appointments for the phone interviews and sent the questions a few days prior to
the interviews to give some time to the respondents to think about what they wanted to
share. I also asked them to provide documents such as program description, flyer,
application form, selection criteria, evaluation form, list of speakers, books used, and
curriculum, before the interviews, so I could be familiar with their programs before
talking with them and use the interview time more effectively. Before starting each
interview, I briefly told interviewees how I had heard about their programs, who referred
me (when applicable), and what was the purpose of my research. At the end of the
interviews, I thanked the respondents and invited them to contact me again by phone or e-
72
mail if they had any other thoughts they wanted to share. Interviews took between 30 and
60 minutes, depending on the amount of information provided by the interviewees before
the call, and their willingness to provide details and elaborate on their responses. I took
notes during the phone calls and transcribed them immediately after each one, to capture
as much data as possible.
Review of documents.
I reviewed documents available on college websites, and documents provided by
the interviewees, such as program descriptions, flyers, application forms, selection
criteria, evaluation forms, list of speakers, books used, and curriculum. I created codes
and tables to organize the data collected for analysis. For each type of document and
code, I looked for similarities, differences, creative ideas, and made a list of features and
ideas that at first glance seem to potentially “fit”. The fit was initially suggested by
comparing the college characteristics and culture that led to the selection of the features
examined, to PC’s characteristics. For example, the size of a college may be a factor in
the application and selection process. Hypothetically, the process at a large college could
suggest strategies to recruit employees with leadership potential and appropriate
background, while a small college could accept all applicants because of the limited
demand for the program. Ideas that emerged from the document reviews were discussed
with college employees at PC during the second phase of data collection, to discover
whether they might be appropriate at PC.
73
On-Site Data Collection
Data were collected at PC through document reviews, interviews, stakeholder
meetings, and a focus group to triangulate the data. Data triangulation is defined as the
“the use of a variety of data sources in a study” (Patton, 2002, p. 247) to test the
consistency of the results generated by the different sources.
Document reviews.
Document reviews are “unobtrusive measures” defined as “methods for collection
of data that do not require the cooperation of the subjects and are ‘invisible’ to them”
(Marshall & Rossman, 1989, p. 100). Unobtrusive measures are useful for data
triangulation and to verify consistency and accuracy. I reviewed documents that were rich
and contextually relevant sources of information (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Specifically, I
reviewed information on the college’s website, relating to the college’s mission, goals,
values and services to the community, to identify espoused values and stated vision. I
also reviewed the organizational chart and a description of individual managers’
responsibilities, to select twelve managers to interview, and gain a broad perspective
from all main areas of the campus.
I carefully reviewed ten recent administrative job announcements paying
particular attention to job requirements, to evaluate how the college phrases its need for
management and leadership, and what competencies are most valued. Job announcements
suggested what type of leaders the college intends to attract, and were particularly
informative. Finally, I reviewed the list and content of professional development
activities offered on campus, to familiarize myself with the current offerings, and to
74
become aware of processes and infrastructures that can be used for the new program. I
kept records of all documents reviewed and detailed reflective notes.
Purposeful sampling for interviews, stakeholder meetings, and focus group.
Employees at PC are grouped into three categories: (a) “classified staff” including
full-time and part-time staff from any department, represented by the “Classified Senate”;
(b) “faculty” including all faculty members (full-time and part-time), represented by the
Faculty Association and the Academic Senate; and (c) managers, either instructional or
non-instructional, represented by the “Management Steering Committee” in charge of
addressing issues that apply to the management team. In action research, sampling is
based on the selection of people on the basis of a particular set of attributes, the main
attribute being “the extent to which a group or individual is affected by or has an effect
on the problem or issue of interest” (Stringer, 2007, p. 43). In collecting data at PC, I
needed input from all stakeholder groups, which included managers who were planning
to retire in the next few years, and employees interested in taking leadership positions at
the college. These individuals may be junior managers, faculty members, or staff
members. As expected, employees from these three groups of stakeholders provided
different perspectives and input. It was therefore important to include all three in the data
collection process.
Managers at the Associate Dean level and above were interviewed because they
have more exposure to, or involvement with, college goal-setting and high-level decision
making, and because they include key administrators expected to retire in the next few
years. They were also expected to have a good understanding of the college’s culture and
75
philosophy of leadership. In addition, I collected data from other managers, staff and
faculty members, including representatives of the Faculty Association, Classified Senate,
and the Management Steering Committee, through monthly meetings. I received input
from over 20 employees to have a broad understanding of the college’s needs and
capabilities, as they relate to the GYO program design. The data were collected through
document reviews, interviews, stakeholder meetings, and a focus group (Herr &
Anderson, 2005).
Interviews.
Interviews are reflective processes that provide opportunities for participants to
describe the situation in their own terms (Stringer, 2007). I interviewed twelve managers
to define the college’s goals and expectations from the program, hear their suggestions
regarding program content, and identify available resources. I selected managers at the
Associate Dean level and above, because they participate in key meetings (such as
instruction meetings, and meetings with the President and Vice-Presidents), have
important responsibilities and leadership roles, and have a good understanding of the
college’s culture, leadership, available resources and succession planning needs. In
addition, they were likely to have expertise to share with program participants, and I
needed to evaluate their availability and willingness to participate in the program as
presenters.
Administrators were selected from all main areas of the college (instruction,
student services, fiscal services, human resources and facilities) to obtain information on
the need for leadership development on the whole campus. For instance, instructional
76
Deans offered their perspectives on supporting faculty members who may be interested in
administration, which were different from suggestions of managers in administrative
services. Administrators planning to retire in the next few years were interviewed to find
out whether they would be willing and able to mentor their potential replacements before
they leave the college. The sample was composed of seven managers with longevity
(“senior managers”) to get an insight into the college’s culture and history, as well as five
recently hired/promoted managers (“junior managers”) to hear their perspective and
understand what would have helped them better prepare for their new positions. In 2007,
the college President left his position; the Vice-President of Instruction took his place; he
was replaced by the Dean of Instruction, who was replaced by a faculty member. All of
these interim appointments were made rapidly, to respond to the situation, but the
individuals involved had not been prepared for such change. It is important to identify
what could be done to facilitate managers’ transitions into new positions.
The interviews were be semi-structured, and followed the protocol presented in
Appendix D, to collect specific data as well as to allow respondents to elaborate on their
opinions and visions in relation to the college’s need for leadership development and
ability to create a program. The interview questions were created to obtain information on
the leadership competencies most valued, respondents’ perspectives on leadership
development and suggestions for the new program, including goals, design, content,
evaluation of outcomes, and resources available, as well as their ability and willingness to
act as mentor or presenter. The information was used to ensure that the program content
and features fit the college culture, expectations, needs, and available resources. The
77
protocol used had previously been tested with the college’s Director of the Office of
Research and Institutional Effectiveness (RIE), to improve clarity and reduce bias.
The interviews were conducted in person, individually, in the managers’ own
offices (natural settings), and lasted approximately one hour each. I thanked the
respondents for taking the time to meet with me, reminded them of the purpose of the
study, and asked for their permission to audiotape the interviews, to ensure that
everything said would be available for analysis (Merriam, 1998). I allowed some
flexibility so respondents could share information on related topics that may be used in
the research project. Indeed, “The participant’s perspective on the social phenomenon of
interest should unfold as the participant views it, not as the researcher views it” (Marshall
& Rossman, 1989, p. 82). At the end of each interview I thanked the participants and
asked them to call or e-mail me if they thought of additional information they would like
to share. I transcribed the recordings and provided each interviewee with a copy of the
transcription, to check for accuracy.
During interviews, I also noted non-verbal communication, and compared
behaviors to individuals’ statements and college espoused values. “Nonverbal
communication is sometimes defined as the exchange of information through
nonlinguistic signs: gestures, which are more or less conscious, and body language, more
or less unconscious” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 273). Non-verbal communication
provided indications of interviewees’ availability, interest and commitment to the future
GYO program. I noted their willingness to talk, the quantity of information provided, the
time allocated to the interview, silences, hesitations, tone of voice and body language.
78
Immediately after each interview, I wrote detailed descriptive notes and reflective notes
(Creswell, 2007) categorized by topics. For instance, field notes included information on
the display in interviewees’ offices of leadership books, training binders from leadership
seminars and institutes, or awards and recognitions that might indicate expertise that the
manager could share with others. I kept logs and descriptive summaries of data collected,
interpretations, reflections and analyses.
Stakeholder meetings.
In action research “some of the members of the organization we study are actively
engaged in the quest for information and ideas to guide their future actions” (Whyte,
Greenwood & Lazes, 1991, p. 20). For this study, it was important to exchange
information with several employees to hear their reactions and suggestions from different
perspectives, and to gain a better understanding of what may or may not be appropriate
for the college. Herr and Anderson (2005) added that: “Participation or at least ongoing
feedback should be sought from other stakeholders in the setting or community in order
to ensure a democratic outcome and provide an alternative source of explanations” (p. 4).
For this reason, one of the main purposes of the meetings was to verify my understanding
of the data collected, and to complement it with input and feedback from the various
members of the group, throughout the design process.
The primary goal of the research was to design a program that would best fit the
college’s needs and resources. It was necessary to involve all stakeholders to obtain their
perspectives, as well as to respect the college’s culture of shared governance. The study
can be “enriched and made more complex by accounting for varying perspectives based
79
on stakeholders’ various positions in the research endeavor. Ultimately, though, it is the
doctoral student’s understanding that is presented to the academic community” (Herr &
Anderson, 2005, p. 85). Although I was be the sole researcher on this project, I formed a
stakeholder group at the college, to meet with me monthly from November 2008 to
January 2009, to act as sounding board and reflect on initial findings (Stringer, 2007).
The group included three managers, three faculty members and two classified staff.
Among them were one representative from the Faculty Association, one from the
Classified Senate and one from the Management Steering committee.
“The notion of reflexivity is crucial because action researchers must interrogate
received notions of improvement or solutions in terms of who ultimately benefits from
the actions undertaken” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 4). During the first stakeholder
meeting (November 2008), I presented the research project, the preliminary findings from
the study of existing GYO programs, and suggestions from managers’ interviews, and
asked for feedback and additional comments. The purpose of the second meeting
(December 2008) was to continue the discussion and focus on the program structure,
schedule, content, and selection process. During the third meeting (January 2009) I
presented conclusions and recommendations, as well as feedback from participants in the
January focus group, to give stakeholders one final opportunity to comment on the study
results.
I started each committee meeting by welcoming the participants, thanking them
for their participation, and stating the meeting objectives. Participants were asked to
reflect on the information presented and discuss it from their different perspectives, to
80
make sure that different stakeholders’ interests and needs were not overlooked, and to be
as inclusive as possible. I organized and facilitated each stakeholder meeting. Meeting
times and place were set so that the different stakeholders could participate. Before the
start of the first meeting, all participants read and signed the consent forms. For each
meeting I provided a detailed agenda including the initial findings, questions to the group
and ideas to discuss. Ground rules were set (Stringer, 2007), emphasizing that each
person should have the opportunity to express their opinion, and participants should be
respectful and non-judgmental. I also explained that while I encouraged them to be
creative and share all of their ideas, I could not make any promises regarding the
implementation of the program. I also stated that participants were likely to have
conflicting ideas and that I would have to make decisions based on all sources of data,
and choose suggestions that were supported by the literature. At the end of each meeting,
I provided a brief summary and stated the next steps and action items. Meeting minutes
were recorded, and e-mailed to all participants.
Focus group.
In addition to stakeholder meetings, a focus groups was conducted in January
2009 to test the research findings for the design of the program. I asked managers to
nominate people who might want to participate in the leadership program. I invited ten
individuals, based on their interest in discussing the program design. Seven employees
were able to participate (two faculty members, two managers and three classified staff).
The group discussed the program’s design, and suggested few modifications. Participants
were very enthusiastic about the program and confirmed most of the recommendations
81
made my managers and other stakeholders. I facilitated the focus group, took notes and
transcribed them. Before starting the meeting, participants read and signed the consent
form, and ground rules were explained, similarly to the stakeholder meeting’s.
Resolving field issues.
I was prepared to prevent or resolve issues that could arise during the data
collection. For example, some individuals could have refused to be interviewed or might
not have had time available to schedule a meeting. For this reason I contacted 16
managers and was able to interview 12. There are over 70 managers; therefore obtaining
12 purposefully selected participants was not problematic. In a couple of cases,
scheduling meetings was relatively challenging as most managers were very busy and a
few had to reschedule. For this reason, it was necessary to schedule meetings ahead of
time and meet with managers individually rather than in group, to interview them at their
convenience. Interviews were scheduled during a five-week period to accommodate
different schedules and availability.
Field issues can arise from the data collected. For example, the information may
be overwhelming if participants have strong opinions about how the GYO program
should be designed, and if their ideas are incompatible, unrealistic, or simply inadequate.
In this case, I made decisions based on the collective input received, its compatibility
with college goals and resources, and the recommendations gathered from the literature
and information given by other colleges’ GYO program. I regularly reminded participants
that the purpose of the research project was to design a program by taking into
considerations numerous factors to best fit the college’s needs and capabilities.
82
Therefore, they had the opportunity to provide input, but understood that not all
suggestions could be implemented.
Storing data.
I used high-quality recording equipment and tested it before starting interviews to
make sure it functioned properly. To protect data from damage or loss, I backed up all
computer files regularly and kept documents in a locked file cabinet. To avoid losing any
data, I maintained a list of information gathered (Creswell, 2007), arranged it in
electronic and paper files, and created analysis tables with respondents, codes and data to
facilitate the analysis.
Data Analysis
The data collected from other GYO programs were analyzed separately from the
data collected on-site. The analytical approach was to perform content analysis of
qualitative data collected, as “pure naturalistic qualitative strategy” (Patton, 2002, p.
252). In naturalistic inquiry:
the investigator typically does not work with either a priori theory or variables;
these are expected to emerge from the inquiry. Data accumulated in the field thus
must be analyzed inductively (that is, from specific, raw units of information to
subsuming categories of information) in order to define local working hypotheses
or questions that can be followed up (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 203).
On site, the investigator must engage in continuous data analysis, so that every
new act of investigation takes into account everything that has been learned so far.
Inductive data analyses can be performed on a daily basis, so that insights,
elements of theory, hypotheses, questions, gaps, can be identified and pursued
beginning with the next day’s work (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 209)
The data collection and analysis were done during the same timeframe because the
information collected had to be analyzed to improve the subsequent data collection
83
activities, as inductive themes emerged, and to discuss preliminary findings with
stakeholders throughout the study.
I used Creswell’s methodology and (1) created and organized files for data, (2)
read through text, made margin notes, formed initial codes, (3) described the case and its
context, (4) used categorical aggregation to establish themes or patterns, for example, for
GYO program content or program goals; (5) used direct interpretation for the analysis of
existing GYO programs; (6) developed naturalistic interpretations; and (7) presented in-
depth picture of the case (Creswell, 2007). I did not use qualitative research software
because of the small number of people in the study. Codes (provided in Appendix F)
were identified and used to create analysis tables for off-site data, and for on-site data
(see sample analysis tables in Appendix G).
Analysis of Data Collected Off-Site
Responses were disaggregated by college characteristics, such as their location
being urban, suburban or rural; their size, small when having fewer than 2,500 students;
medium for 2,500 to 7,500 students; or large for over 7,500 students (Hardy & Katnisas,
2007). I examined the content of the different programs and their outcomes, to attempt to
identify successful practices, or cause-effect relations between program components and
outcomes. Cross-referencing responses and college characteristics allowed the
identification of processes that might be suitable for PC. For example, the application and
selection process of other large colleges provided good suggestions for PC, while those of
small colleges were less structured, because of the smaller number of employees who
would participate, making a formal process unnecessary. Responses were also
84
disaggregated by type of goals given by respondents, in the creation of their own
programs. For example, some colleges focused on teaching management skills to
improve their employees’ effectiveness, while others used the program for succession
planning purposes. Colleges having goals similar to PC’s goals were more likely to have
components that would fit the needs of the college.
Analysis of Data Collected On-Site
The analysis was not based on a specific theory, but emerged from the inquiry.
Themes and codes emerged from the literature (e.g., AACC’s six leadership
competencies), and from the data collected off-site (e.g., program components) and on-
site (e.g., program goals). Document reviews, interviews, stakeholder meetings, and the
focus group defined the college’s most valued leadership competencies, program goals
and suggested program content and structure. For each question, the frequency of each
response was counted to identify similarities in perceptions and suggestions. Learning
needs were identified, as well as suggestions regarding the program administration,
content and structure, and an inventory of resources available (e.g., managers’ expertise
and availability or financial resources) was created to inform the design of the program.
A holistic examination of all of the data collected was necessary to develop findings and
recommendations.
There are multiple layers to the data analysis process: the initial meaning making,
including some decisions regarding directions for interventions or actions; and
then a revisiting of the data for a more thorough, holistic understanding. The latter
analysis takes the researcher beyond the initial level of understanding. (Herr &
Anderson, 2005, p. 81).
85
Trustworthiness
Verifying the trustworthiness is important to “ensure that researchers have
rigorously established the veracity, truthfulness, or validity of the information and
analyses that have emerged from the research process” (Stringer, 2007, p. 57). Four
criteria can be evaluated to assess trustworthiness: (1) “credibility: the plausibility and
integrity of the study”; (2) “transferability: the possibility of applying the outcomes of the
study to other contexts”; (3) “dependability: research procedures that are clearly defined
and open to scrutiny”; and (4) “confirmability: evidence that the procedures described
actually took place” (Stringer, 2007, p. 57, adapted from Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Credibility
Credibility was established through triangulation, member checking, inclusion
and prolonged engagements (Stringer, 2007). Data were collected through document
reviews, interviews, stakeholder meetings and a focus group, to compare findings. For
example, regarding leadership competencies, the document review showed espoused
values, politically correct and strategically well phrased values and goals, which
somewhat differed from data collected through interviews. Data triangulation provided
perspectives from diverse sources, and created meaning that could be complemented or
challenged by the different sources of data.
Stakeholder meetings and the focus group provided opportunities for participants
to clarify information and add any additional thoughts relevant to the study. Member
checking was done consistently by providing committee members with meeting minutes,
to make sure the data collected reflected what they intended to communicate. Another
86
important criterion to establish credibility is the inclusion of representatives from all
stakeholder groups. Indeed, if the program was designed exclusively based on data
provided by managers, some issues could be overlooked and create flaws in the program
design. For example, one barrier for faculty members to become managers is their lack of
opportunity to gain supervisory experience. The classified staff contract stipulates that
faculty members cannot supervise staff, and their only means to acquiring managerial
experience while being faculty members is to be Department Chair. This “detail”
prevents many faculty members from qualifying for administrative positions. Therefore,
the study should consider ways for faculty to gain supervisory and managerial
experience. Including participants from different stakeholder groups reduced the risks of
overlooking issues or needs specific to one category of employees. Furthermore, regular
meetings with my dissertation chair to discuss data collection and analysis provided
another perspective and guidance for a more thorough study.
Finally, credibility was enhanced through prolonged engagements, which means
providing participants with “extended opportunities to explore and express their
experience of the facts, activities, events, and issues related to the problem investigated”
(Stringer, 2007, p. 58). All participants were given time to provide data through
interviews, stakeholder meetings, focus group, and invitations to contact me by phone or
e-mail to share any additional thoughts.
Transferability
“Unlike traditional experimental/scientific research that looks for generalizable
explanations that might be applied to all contexts, action research focuses on specific
87
situations and localized solutions” (Stringer, 2007, p. 1). By design, some of the
recommendations from this research project may not be transferable to other colleges.
However, it is possible that some components of the program be appropriate for other
colleges. For this reason, the dissertation includes a “detailed description of the
context(s), activities, and events that are reported as part of the outcomes of the study”
(Stringer, 2007, p. 59). Readers will be able to make judgments about the similarities
between this college’s particular case and their own situations.
If there is to be transferability, the burden of proof lies less with the original
investigator than with the person seeking to make an application elsewhere. The
original inquirer cannot know the sites to which transferability might be sought,
but the appliers can and do. The best advice to give to anyone seeking to make a
transfer is to accumulate empirical evidence about contextual similarity; the
responsibility of the original investigator ends in providing sufficient descriptive
data to make such similarity judgments possible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 298).
Appliers’ level of trust in the study will influence their opinion regarding which parts of
the study may be transferred to their own institutions (Stringer, 2007). Moreover, “Action
research can also result in products and instruments that can be used in other settings”
(Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 6). While it is not expected that a college would successfully
replicate the entire program, another institution may learn from the findings and
discussion of the GYO program. The study includes recommendations for practices
drawn from the literature, the study of the 15 GYO programs and the data collected at
PC, which are applicable to any college that wishes to create a GYO program. Finally,
other colleges may replicate the methodology used in this study, to conduct their own
research and design programs customized to their own setting (Herr & Anderson, 2005).
88
Dependability and Confirmability
Audit notes were kept on all procedures followed, to demonstrate the rigor of the
study and the dependability of the findings. In addition, I retained notes, reflections,
methodological logs recording decisions made, activity logs, meeting calendars,
instruments, audio recordings, meeting minutes and other documents, as an audit trail, to
prove that the procedures took place (Stringer, 2007).
Ethical Considerations
Participants were provided a consent form (Appendix E) explaining the purpose
of the study, the procedures, the potential risks and benefits to the participants and to the
institution, the confidentiality measures, and the participants’ right not to participate or to
withdraw from the study at any time. Researchers are responsible for protecting
participants from any type of harm such as physical, financial, emotional or to their
reputations (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999). In this study, participants were not expected
to suffer any harm or discomfort, other than having to donate some of their time for the
data collection, which may add stress to their busy schedules. For this reason, I offered
flexibility in the scheduling of interviews to reduce the inconvenience caused. Some
participants might have felt that their reputation could be compromised if they refused to
mentor others or share their knowledge with future leaders through meetings or seminars.
To prevent this problem, I kept confidential the names of individuals who chose not to
participate in the study, and those who participated in the study but were not willing to
contribute to the program. To protect the institution, and comply with its policy, the name
of the college was replaced by a fictitious name.
89
Because of the variety of perspectives and opinions on campus, it was likely that
some employees would disagree with the results of this research project. This concern
was addressed by inviting employees from all categories to participate in the stakeholder
meetings, and by listening to all participants’ ideas during the monthly meetings.
However, the study recommendations are based on the analysis of the data collected and
the literature, not personal preferences or politics. The college may choose not to
implement the recommendations, and to adapt the suggestions to what the college
leadership believes is preferable, but that would not impact the dissertation.
Limitations of the Study
By design, action research becomes part of a change process and involves the
individuals that are part of the organization in the analysis and problem solving process
(Whyte, 1989). Indeed, with input from the college’s employees, the project is expected
to lead to a transition toward effective professional development of future leaders at PC.
The study was based in large part on participants’ input regarding the program design, as
well as managers’ willingness to help prepare future leaders. However, “interviewees
may not be willing to share all of the information that is needed with the interviewer”
(Marshall & Rossman, 1989, p. 83), which might reduce the effectiveness of the study.
In action research, the design is emergent, therefore the researcher should have
clear objectives but anticipate that:
As data gathering and analysis proceed, the questions, methods, design, and
participants may all shift somewhat. In fact, for action research, these shifts are
anticipated as part of the spiraling synergism of action and understanding. As
these cycles of research spiral over time, new questions, new literature, and new
methods emerge (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 70).
90
While new information was integrated throughout the process, and the study was driven
by the data collected, there was not sufficient time to explore all suggestions. In addition,
it was not possible to include all of the people who could have provided valuable data,
because of the size of college and the number of stakeholders. Lastly, because of time
limitations, this study focused on the initial design of the program, but not its
implementation and evaluation of outcomes.
91
Chapter Four: Presentation of Findings
Introduction
Data were collected from community college model programs and from PC to
answer the research question: how should a college-specific GYO leadership program be
designed to best fit the needs and resources of the college? The first part of this chapter
presents the findings from the off-site data collection and analysis, including program
goals, content, administration, and advice to other colleges considering creating similar
programs. The second part of the chapter presents the findings from the data collected at
PC, identifying the program goals, components, mentoring, curriculum, and
administration. In conclusion, comparisons are made between the features of the model
programs studied, and the data collected at PC regarding the design of the new program.
Findings from Off-Site Data
Fifteen college programs were examined through phone interviews (protocol
provided in Appendix C) and the review of documents posted on college websites or
provided by survey respondents, such as program schedule, application, selection criteria,
flyer, and evaluations. Of the fifteen colleges, thirteen were large (over 7,500 students),
two were medium (2,500 to 7,500 students), and none were small (fewer than 2,500
students). Regarding their location, seven colleges were in California, and eight were in
other states, mostly on the East coast. Eight colleges were urban, five suburban and two
rural. The programs had different goals and content, and reflected the needs and culture
of their colleges’ executive administrators. The names of the colleges are kept
confidential, and each college was assigned a number (e.g. C1, C2, and so on). For each
92
college, the survey respondent was the person in charge of the program, usually the
Director of Professional Development, and occasionally an administrator or faculty
member given release time to manage the leadership program.
Program Goals
Examining the goals of existing programs is necessary to answer the research
question, as it provides information on the colleges’ intent, and it allows the comparison
with PC’s goals to ensure that the cases selected are relevant. Furthermore, identifying
other college programs’ secondary goals may be informative in the design of PC’s
program. When asked to describe the goals of their leadership development programs,
respondents cited two related primary goals (1) to develop leaders who understand the
culture of the college for succession planning; (2) to improve participants’ leadership and
management skills. In addition, several colleges presented two secondary goals (1) to
solve college issues through team projects; and (2) to promote cross-divisional interaction
and collegiality.
Primary goals.
All colleges stated that one of the main goals of their leadership development
programs was to develop culturally competent leaders within their organization,
envisioning that some of the participants would subsequently be willing and able to
assume administrative leadership positions. Being culturally competent means
understanding the college’s own ways of doing things, such as making decisions,
resolving issues, working with faculty members, consulting with key people who have
formal or informal power on campus, setting goals and expectations, understanding the
93
college’s procedures and processes, and being aware of sensitive issues, politics and
power relations.
C8’s goal was to “develop and mentor those who have an interest in preparing for
administration or promotion to higher levels of leadership” (phone interviews, October
2008). For C10, the program’s purpose “was to develop a new set of leaders from within
the organization by offering the opportunity for promising and talented managers to hone
their leadership skills while on-the-job” (program description, 2008). The application
form for C2’s program indicated that:
The major goal of the Institute is to develop leaders and potential leaders within
the College community by fostering the ability of individuals to meet new
challenges the college will face in an era of rapid change. This kind of initiative
is especially important during a time when large numbers of experienced leaders
are expected to retire from community colleges across the country (program
description, 2008).
Interestingly, C9’s intent was succession planning for two particular departments
only, and the program was created and coordinated by the two Vice-Presidents in charge
of those departments. Except C9, all other college programs were campus-wide or
district-wide. For example, C5’s program was “created to foster the development of
visionary, pace-setting administrative leaders…, to promote the development of agents of
institutional change while providing big picture skills and the knowledge required to lead
and shape our district and the community college system” (program description, 2008) in
any department of the college. Similarly, C7’s goal was:
To foster the creation of a new generation of visionary, student-centered
administrative leaders. The program is designed to promote the development of
agents of institutional change while providing the basic administrative skills and
background knowledge required to navigate state, district, and college systems
(program description, 2008).
94
Indeed, the programs are designed to help participants obtain both management
and leadership skills, to become excellent leaders and administrators. However, some
colleges also welcome employees who wish to become better leaders in the position they
currently have, but have no intention of becoming administrators. For instance, C1 stated
that their program was “designed to expand employees’ capacity to be effective in
professional leadership roles and processes” (phone interview, October 2008) which is
not limited to administration. C3’s program goals were to prepare future administrators
and leaders, as well as improving leadership skills throughout the campus (phone
interview, October 2008). Similarly, C11 aimed to increase the leadership skills of all
participants: full-time staff, administrators and faculty (phone interview, October 2008),
and C14 to enhance the skill sets of faculty and staff to enable them to serve effectively
in college leadership positions (program description, 2008). C15 stated: “we endeavor to
encourage people from throughout the college to assume leadership positions and work to
provide them with leadership development activities (program description, 2008). Survey
respondents explained that while the programs were initially created for succession
planning purposes, they offered valuable opportunities to develop leadership throughout
the colleges, and grow leaders at all levels of the college.
Secondary goals.
Survey respondents described how the implementation of the leadership programs
allowed them to meet two secondary goals, (1) to solve college issues through team
projects and (2) to promote cross divisional interaction and collegiality. For example, C9
had two teams, one for each department involved, and each team was assigned a project
95
to solve a particular problem within their department. All college leadership programs
studied which included team projects were focused on real college issues and the teams
had to solve problems within the parameters of the college, existing budgets, processes
and resources.
C2’s program goals were to create a network of problem-solvers to work
collaboratively on a project of interest to the participants and of benefit to the college
community (program description, 2008). C10’s program was designed to facilitate
participant collaboration and discussion on key issues, on a regular basis, within the
context of leadership development. Similarly, C12’s program included the analysis of
organizational development topics specific to their college. C13’s program discussed
college issues and solutions in relation to the leadership books used in the program.
Cohorts and teams fostered an environment that supports communication and
learning between peers. For instance, C12’s program “promotes cross divisional
interaction (program description, 2008); and C13 encourages “networking among
participants” (program description, 2008). The goals of C5’s program included to “train
our own skilled community college leaders”, “develop a network of mutual support
among future administrative leaders” and to “facilitate cross-departmental and cross-
functional dialogue and the sharing of best practices” (program description, 2008).
Similarly, C7 aimed to “create a spirit of collegiality and mutual support among
administrative leaders” and to “facilitate cross-district and cross-functional dialogue and
the sharing of best practices” (program description, 2008). Survey respondents indicated
that employees seldom have the opportunity to learn about other departments and that the
96
program helped them learn about the operations on their own campuses, discover the
cultures of other departments, as well as create a network of “go-to” persons, based on
their expertise and areas of responsibility.
Program Content
Examining the content of the 15 community college leadership programs provides
examples of various strategies to develop leaders, and can inform the creation of PC’s
program. Information is presented regarding program structure and activities; including
self-reflection, assessments and professional development plans; topics for lectures and
seminars; mentoring; team projects; and other college culture specific aspects.
Structure and activities.
Four programs are rather informal and consist of monthly short meetings, less
than 2-hour long. C8 includes brown bag group lunches with one of each of the executive
administrators in the district to discuss leadership. C13 and C15 have informal
discussions on leadership books that participants have to read in advance. C14 includes
mini-lectures followed by small group activities designed to reinforce the material
presented.
The other 11 programs are much more formal and structured. Three of them (C1,
C11 and C12) start with an off-campus retreat for three days, to allow participants to get
to know one another, get immerged into the program, hear presentations from speakers
and participate in various activities. At C7, the annual program starts in October with a
day-long retreat designed to initiate team building among participants and provide
background information.
97
Eleven programs are one-year long (seven to ten months), two are two-year long,
one lasts one semester, and one is on-going for anyone to participate, without a particular
cohort. All colleges but one (C10) schedule the meetings on Fridays, as respondents
stated that it is the best day for faculty, managers and staff to be away from the classroom
or their offices. Meetings for the formal programs generally last the whole day, often
from 9 AM to 3 PM, or from 10 AM to 4 PM, with the exception of C2 which starts at
noon and ends at 4:15 PM.
The majority of the formal programs include presentations and panels, group
activities, readings assigned prior to each session, case studies, discussions, and team
projects. Colleges use outside guest speakers when they wish to bring in experts or
perspectives from other colleges. C5 stated that some of the presentations feature
administrative leaders who have established reputations as agents of change across the
state. C6 and C10 have presentations from other college Presidents, Chancellors and
subject matter experts. C12 offers a series of professional talks and interactive sessions
presented by local and state leaders in higher education. C7 and C8 use outside
consultants to facilitate some sessions. However, the college-specific or applied
presentations or sessions are facilitated by each college’s own administrators. For
example, C7 and C10 include sessions presented by their Presidents, Vice-Presidents and
other senior administrators.
Self-reflection, assessments and professional development plans.
All formal programs include assessment tools to improve participants’ self-
awareness. The assessments are used to create participants’ individualized professional
98
development plans, based on their skills, interests and career goals. Tools utilized in the
programs assess personality types, leadership styles, and strengths.
The most commonly used assessment tool is Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) used by seven colleges. This assessment allows participants to better understand
their personality type, realize whether they are predominantly Extravert (E) or Introvert
(I); if they process information mostly by Sensing (S) or Intuition (N); if they make
decisions by Thinking (T) or Feeling (F); and whether they predominantly deal with the
outside world by Judging (J) or Perceiving (P), (http://www.myersbriggs.org, February 8,
2009).
Three programs (C4, C5 and C6) use another personality test called DISC
(http://www.discprofile.com, February 8, 2009) which evaluates Dominance, Influence,
Steadiness and Consciousness. DISC also offers other tools focused on team dimensions,
work expectations, coping and stress, and dimensions of leadership profiles. Three
programs (C3, C6 and C11) use 360-degree assessments such as Lominger’s
(http://www.lominger.com/develop_coach.php, February 8, 2009), or John Maxell’s
(The 360 Degree Leader, 2006) for participants to receive feedback on their leadership
from superiors, peers as well as subordinates.
Three programs use tools to identify strengths: C1 uses StrengthQuest
(https://www.strengthsquest.com, February 8, 2009) and C4 and C5 use StrengthFinder
(http://www.strengthfinder.com, February 8, 2009). Both tools were created by Gallup,
and help employees identify their strengths, to see what they do best, and focus on
utilizing their strengths rather than improving their weaker skills. Other self-reflection
99
activities and assessments include Daniel Goleman’s EQ theory (Emotional Intelligence;
Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, 1995) used by C1; the Herrmann Brain Dominance
Instrument (http://www.hbdi.com, February 8, 2009), used by C2, which explains how
individuals tend to think and act in normal situations or under pressure; and Thomas
Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument which evaluates assertiveness and cooperativeness.
Some programs include an individualized professional development plan for each
participant. For example, C11 conducts individual needs assessments, and develops a
professional development plan for each participant, to improve their self-awareness, and
enhance the skills identified for each person. In C1, the second year of the program is
based on each participant’s individual development plan and focuses on individual work
with a mentor.
Topics for lectures and seminars.
Three programs (C4, C10 and C11) stated that they directly used AACC’s six
core competencies to design the content of their program. For example, C10 has six
sessions, one per core competency, described on their program brochure as:
1. Organizational Strategy: An effective community college leader strategically
improves the quality of the institution, protects the long-term health of the
organization, promotes the success of all students, and sustains the community
college mission, based on knowledge of the organization, its environment and
future.
2. Resource Management: An effective community college equitably and
ethically sustains people, processes, and information as well as physical and
financial assets to fulfill the mission, vision, and goals of the community college.
3. Communication: An effective community college leader uses clear listening,
speaking, and writing skills to engage in honest, open dialogue at all levels of the
college and its surrounding community, to promote the success of all students,
and to sustain the community college mission.
4. Collaboration: An effective community college leader develops and maintains
responsive, cooperative, mutually beneficial, and ethical internal and external
100
relationships that nurture diversity, promote the success of all students, and
sustain the community college mission.
5. Community College Advocacy: An effective community college leader
understands, commits to, and advocates for the mission, vision, and goals of the
community college
6. Professionalism: An effective community college leader works ethically to set
high standards for self and others, continuously improve self and surroundings,
demonstrate accountability to and for the institution, and ensure the long-term
viability of the college community. (Program brochure, 2008)
The other programs did not directly refer to AACC’s six core competencies;
however, the content of the programs’ curriculum also falls into the six competencies,
with various degrees of emphasis. Organizational strategy is addressed through the
following topics: institutional mission, goals and values (C1); managing vision and
purpose, dealing with ambiguity and strategic agility (C3); vision, creativity,
organizational analysis, systematic planning, deliberative decision making, crisis and
conflict management (C7); and the mission and philosophy of the community college
system, major issues in community college and strategic planning (C6). Nearly half of the
programs have a strong emphasis on leading change. For instance, C7 offers: visionary
college leadership: the administrator as an agent of change; changing colleges for
“changing students”; envisioning the “college of the future”; and fostering a culture of
continuous institutional improvement (program brochure, 2008). C5 has four related
seminars: focus on the future: leading through change; thinking and acting like an
entrepreneur; role of planning in institutional transformation and institutional change in a
community context (program brochure, 2008).
The resource management components of the programs focus primarily on human
resources and financial resources. C9 offers: effective hiring practices; motivating
101
employees; managing performance evaluations and designing professional development
plans; and new perspectives on building and motivating successful teams. C3 teaches
coaching, teambuilding, motivating and recognizing others, and building effective teams.
Most programs cover coaching and mentoring others (e.g., C6); team building,
community building, nurturing talent in others (e.g., C7) and decision making, power and
influence, and negotiation and mediation (e.g., C1). Most programs teach issues related to
budgeting, funding sources, and fiscal management.
C2’s curriculum includes grant-writing and C6 and C7 have a session on
communicating effectively. Nonetheless, communication is rarely taught as a topic.
Communication skills are developed through activities, group projects, writing
assignments and presentations.
Similarly, only three programs have sessions on collaboration. C1 teaches how to
build coalitions and communities, C7 covers building positive community relations and
C12 has a topic dedicated to leadership to develop community partners. Most programs
include team-building activities and lectures, but the focus is not exactly on collaboration.
However, through group projects solving real college issues, participants learn how to
collaborate and obtain the support of key individuals they need to complete their projects
and solve issues.
Community college advocacy is not a strong emphasis in the leadership programs
examined. In fact, only one college, C5, has a session on becoming an advocate for your
college and the system. C6 teaches media management but that includes how to deal with
102
the media for multiple purposes, such as catastrophes (e.g., earthquakes) or college
accomplishments (e.g., awards).
Professionalism is addressed through ethical leadership (C6); ethics and values
(C3); and is greatly emphasized at C1 with the following topics: self knowledge for
leadership; leading from the heart; emotional intelligence; ethics and integrity; courage
and perseverance; and servant leadership.
Mentoring.
While all respondents recognized the value of mentoring, only three programs
(C1, C8 and C9) provide a mentor to each participant, and one program includes
mentoring when requested individually by a participant (C5). Four programs have
mentors assigned to teams, who help participants throughout the projects they are
conducting, but do not help them with their current job responsibilities or career goals.
C2 explained that each team has at least one mentor for the project, although two is
preferable, one Dean-level or Vice-President, and one closer to the level of
implementation of the project (e.g. faculty or director), to get a broader perspective.
Similarly, C7 has one mentor per team of four to six people, but it appears that team
mentors act as team coaches more than mentors. C10 has a mentoring program that is
independent of the leadership program. C11 stated that program participants help one
another, which is comparable to peer-mentoring.
The other programs did not have any type of mentoring systems in place. Reasons
given were that employees find informal mentors with whom they feel comfortable rather
than being assigned someone; or that there were too many participants in the program to
103
provide one mentor for each; or that it seemed too difficult to implement. However, two
colleges in California mentioned that they sometimes pay for employees to participate in
the Association of California Community College Administrators (ACCCA)’s mentor
program. This program pairs each mentee with a mentor in their specific field of interest.
Mentees and mentors establish a contract, with learning objectives and activities (e.g. job
shadowing). Mentees learn from their mentors on an on-going basis for a year, and are
required to have a minimum of four face-to-face meetings. Mentees regularly
communicate with ACCCA’s program coordinators to report on their progress and
discuss any issues. Furthermore, mentees must participate in ACCCA’s professional
development activities including the program’s 3-day retreat, the annual conference, the
budget workshop, and a day in Sacramento with the State Chancellor. This program is
well structured and can be used as model.
Team projects.
All formal programs surveyed include a team project component. Most teams are
created with the intent to group people who may not normally have the opportunity to
work together. For example, C11 uses Myers Briggs to create diverse teams, in terms of
leadership style, in addition to gender, type of job, and area of the college that the
participants represent. Teams are often assigned a mentor or coach to help participants
throughout the projects (e.g. C7). Teams at C7 are expected to “reinforce the knowledge
they acquire by carrying out their own case studies, requiring them to identify and
analyze a crucial college problem, research and analyze associated issues, and craft a
detailed plan aimed at its solution” (program description, 2008).
104
All teams have to work collaboratively to solve a college issue during one or two
semester(s). For instance, program participants at C9 form teams, and each group
identifies a college problem, prepares a proposal, implements it, assesses outcomes to
make sure the problem is solved and makes a presentation on the project. According to
the program description (2008) “the intended outcomes for the participants are to learn
about and complete all aspects of the planning and budgeting phases, the proposal writing
and presentation phases, and the implementation phase of identified projects”. Survey
respondents stressed the value of the team projects as a good strategy to make
participants directly implement at their college what they have learned in the program.
Similarly, participants at C2 conduct group projects that include interviews,
research, forming alliances, seeking funding if needed, writing reports and presenting the
projects and outcomes at the end of the year-long program. The team project must reflect
the strategic plan of the institution, and benefit to the college community as well as be of
interest to the participating employees. The program description highlights the following:
1. A primary goal of the project is to raise awareness of institutional goals and to
develop new and effective ways to work together to achieve them.
2. A second major goal is for participants to further develop leadership abilities on
an experiential level. Thus, you are encouraged to take a broad perspective on
issues relevant to the projects by making use of insights gained into local, state
and national trends impacting the College and the larger community. Likewise,
you are invited to draw on your increased understanding of the nature of
leadership and of self in relation to others.
3. Finally, the project will provide opportunities to draw on enhanced
communication and conflict resolution skills, and develop improved strategies for
navigating the complexities of our organizational culture and solving problems
collaboratively (program description, 2008).
The projects require participants to work in teams and meet regularly to plan and
implement the project. At C5, the teams meet several times each month to create a
105
business plan for their solution, implement it, and prepare the final presentation. Thus,
participants immediately utilize what they learn by applying the concepts and techniques
they acquire to address real campus opportunities (program description, 2008).
Solution Teams will be formed to develop and complete real-life projects that will
be implemented on our campus. You can expect to spend approximately one hour
out of class for each classroom hour. Some of this may be on your own time, and
other times will depend on your team’s availability to meet. A commitment to the
program and to your Solution Team will assist you in growing professionally and
learning about your leadership capabilities. At the end of the program, teams will
present their plans and celebrate their achievements. (C5 program description,
2008).
All teams present their work at the end of the program. At C6, a report of the
project is presented to President’s Council along with any tangible outcomes (manuals,
recommendations, etc.). At C7 all teams make a presentation on the last day of the
program, and the best project each year is also presented to the Board of Trustees.
Participants are encouraged to do their very best because the projects present an
opportunity to solve college issues and get recognition for their work and
accomplishments.
College-specific aspects.
The culture of each college is integrated in the programs. Respondent at C10
stated: “The content is culture specific and most of it is taught by our college
administrators” (phone interview, October 2008). For example, according to the program
description, participants at C2 study decision-making in the context of individual and
institutional values; study organizational structure and organizational culture; and gain a
deeper understanding of the college mission, vision and values. C7 includes presentations
on the college’s administrative roles and functions for participants to better understand
106
administrative positions in the context of their own college. Most colleges, such as C8,
offer sessions presented or facilitated by college executive administrators that focus on
the college’s culture and processes. C4’s survey respondent stated: “We involve our
administrators in the program, and work on real college issues” (phone interview,
October 2008). Indeed, team projects described previously are directly applied to the
college and take into consideration the culture and processes of each institution. Survey
respondent at C5 added that: “The team projects are on real college issues and
implemented at the college, with the existing structure, culture, processes etc.” (phone
interview, October 2008). C7 created their program around the theme of “Visionary
Leadership” which is a strong focus and value in this institution. Teams start the program
by doing a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis of the
organization to identify issues and define their project for the year. Thus, the culture of
the college is integrated in the programs, mostly through team projects and activities, but
also through presentations made by college administrators.
The topics selected for presentations or workshops also reflect the college culture.
For example, C5 has a strong emphasis on change and “each session is designed around
one or more presentations focusing on “real-world” college district issues related to
institutional change and development” (phone interview, October 2008). C10 modifies
the curriculum each year to include current issues such as diversity or safety on campus
(phone interview, October 2008). C11’s program “covers the six leadership competencies
identified by AACC, but supplements it with local examples and timely campus issues.
107
The application of the topics learned is specific to the college culture and ways of doing
things” (phone interview, October 2008).
Five colleges (C3, C4, C6, C10 and C12) surveyed college employees to identify
what they needed and wanted to learn through the program. Survey respondent at C3
stated: “We did an assessment to identify the competencies most needed on our campus,
and we included them in the training (e.g. inspiring others, making hard decisions etc.).
We tailored the program to our specific needs.”(phone interview, October 2008).
Similarly, C6 responded: “The program addresses college issues and gaps, and
employees training needs such as budgeting, FTES, etc. We teach what employees say is
difficult, or what they want to learn” (phone interview, October 2008).
In addition, C12 did a campus climate study to understand what issues could be
addressed through leadership training. Additional themes were also generated from
comments in open-ended questions (phone interview, October 2008). C4’s needs
assessment aimed to identify how to foster collegial enrichment and collaboration on
campus (phone interview, October 2008). These five colleges assessed employees
learning needs through different lenses, based on their focus and values. In addition, C10
took administrators’ upcoming retirements into consideration in developing the
program’s content and selecting participants.
Interestingly, the survey revealed that the strongest factor influencing the design
of the leadership programs is the person(s) who created them. Indeed, only five colleges
conducted a needs assessment, and the other ten created programs based on their
perceptions of their colleges’ needs, or their own concept of how leadership programs
108
should be designed. In most cases, the programs reflected the vision of their leaders, or
their philosophies of leadership. For instance, at C10: “The President presented on
theories of leadership and his personal leadership style and led the group in a
collaborative, college case study analysis (phone interview, October 2008). C1 stated that
the program reflects their philosophy of leadership and is greatly inspired by the
President. Similarly, C5 specified that: “Everything that is led by the Chancellor includes
the college’s vision and the President is heavily involved in the program (phone
interview, October 2008). The program at C14 is entirely “facilitated by the President,
and applied to the college’s way of doing things” (program description, October 2008).
The influence from the leaders is even more obvious at C9 where the program is only
available for employees in two particular departments and “every aspect of the program
is determined by the VPs’ needs and wishes” (phone interview, October 2008).
Whether the colleges are urban, suburban or rural does not seem to affect
significantly the design of their leadership program. However, some rural colleges seem
to have a closer relationship with their community and a stronger emphasis on
community service. For instance, participants at C4 do service learning and community
service (e.g., charity work in their local community) at the end of the program. While the
experience may not be directly related to the college’s operations, it is aligned with the
culture of servant leadership and service to the community. It strengthens the
relationships between the college and the population it serves.
Urban colleges have a stronger emphasis on diversity and outreach. For instance,
C7 offers sessions on “expanding outreach to underserved populations”. C7 also includes
109
timely training such as: “managing capital construction projects” and “contracts and
capital construction” as it is currently re-building its campus with bond-funding. The
culture at C7 encourages seeking grants and leveraging resources, and therefore, a session
is offered on: “creating and implementing specially-funded projects” (program
description, October 2008).
Program Administration
Learning about other programs’ administration provides ideas and models for PC.
This section presents findings relative to the level of staffing needed to create and run the
program, program advertising, application process and selection criteria, evaluation, costs
and funding.
Staffing for the program.
Creating and implementing a leadership development program involves a
substantial amount of work. Colleges that have a department in charge of staff
development offer the leadership program through that department. Those units have one
manager, who is most often a Director of Professional and Organizational Development,
or a Coordinator, and in one instance (C3) an Associate Vice-President of Professional
Development, and a Dean of Professional Development (C9). These managers have staff
ranging from one to four employees, and as a team, they create and implement the
programs. In addition, some colleges created an advisory committee for their programs
(e.g., C2, C7) to receive input from staff, faculty and managers.
When colleges do not have a professional development department, some
individuals step up to create and implement the program. At C8, the program is organized
110
by the executive administrators who volunteer to implement the program. At C10 the
program is managed by the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources and the
human resource support staff. At C11, a full-time faculty member is granted release time
to act as Director of the program, and receives clerical support from a secretary in the
school of business. At C12, the President’s Office manages the program, with the help of
a committee.
Advertising.
With the exception of C9 whose program is only available to employees who
have been selected by the two Vice-Presidents leading the program for their own
departments, all colleges advertise their programs through e-mails and letters to eligible
employees. The programs also gain visibility through recognition events and printed
materials. For example, participants have a celebration at the end of the program (e.g.,
C1) or are recognized at particular events (e.g., President’s Tea at C2) which increase
employee awareness of the program. In addition, most colleges have a brochure or a
program description available to employees and sometimes posted on their college
website. Program completers often recruit future participants through word of mouth and
referrals (e.g., C2 and C13). The programs are promoted through the college newsletters
(e.g., C3 and C11). And finally, managers encourage people with potential to participate
(C11) and discuss the program in department meetings and senate meetings (C12).
Application process and selection criteria.
Phone survey responses and the review of application forms and selection criteria
revealed that the programs have formal application processes, many of which are
111
particularly comprehensive. For most programs, employees interested in participating
have to submit an application form, a resume and a letter or essays answering specific
questions. For instance, they are asked to describe their current job responsibilities and
career aspirations (C1, C4, C5, C6, C7 and C12); what contribution they will make to the
program (C1, C2 and C5); leadership experience (C2, C4, C5, C6 and C7); community
service (C2 and C4); service to the campus (C4 and C6); professional development goals
(C5); and reasons for wanting to participate in the program (C5, C7and C12). Most
programs also require a letter of endorsement from the employee’s supervisor and/or
letters of recommendation from co-workers. Supervisors’ support is required to ensure
that employees will be granted release time to participate in the program during work
hours. Letters of recommendations have to explain how the applicants demonstrate
potential for leadership (e.g., C1, C2 and C4). Applicants also have to sign the
application or a separate form to confirm their commitment to participate in all required
activities.
Common selection criteria include the number of years of employment at the
college (e.g., minimum of one year for C4 and C7, two years for C2); leadership
experience (C7); leadership potential (C6); aspirations and career goals (C5, C6); current
job responsibilities (C1); anticipated personal contribution to the program (C1, C2 and
C5); demonstrated interest in leadership (C4); evidence of interest in professional
development (C4); and diversity (e.g., C6 male vs. female, faculty vs. staff and type of
position). The selection is made by the program director in consultation with senior
administrators or a formal committee. The committees consist of faculty, administrators
112
and staff members who review and rank applications using established criteria (C2, C4,
C6, C11, 12). In addition, three programs require applicants to have an interview with the
program director (C1, C4 and C11) to discuss their motivation and career goals.
However, three colleges (C3, C9 and C10) have different processes. At C9
participants are selected by senior executive administrators with no application process.
C10’s program is open on a non-competitive basis to college employees in managerial or
administrative positions, on a first come first served basis, for up to 30 registrants per
year. At C3, enrollment is limited and is by invitation only. Individuals interested in
participating in the program “should express their interest to their supervisors who will
forward recommendations up through the Unit Vice President. College Cabinet will
ultimately determine the employees who will be invited to attend” (program description,
2008).
Participants’ profile suggest a balance between faculty, “junior” managers and
staff members who are interested in seeking leadership positions in the future or
improving their skills for the positions they currently hold. The proportion of faculty,
administrators and staff depends on each college’s goals and selection requirements. The
total number of participants varies from 10 to 45; however, most programs accept 15 to
25 participants per year. Survey respondents said that they had to keep the programs
small for the cohort spirit, networking, the effectiveness of group activities, and to be
able to give time and attention to all participants.
113
Program evaluation and outcomes.
Eight colleges have program participants fill out an evaluation form at the end of
each session. The feedback received is used to make improvements to the programs (e.g.,
C3). At C1, the evaluations are included in the regular staff development review and
planning processes. A review of the evaluation forms indicated that participants provide
feedback on the agenda, speakers, activities, facilities and so on, but that this process only
provides immediate feedback and measures satisfaction, not actual outcomes. Some
colleges (C6, C8, C11, C13 and C15) admitted that they have no process to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program.
Nine colleges complete a final assessment at the end of the program, but again,
most of the questions on the surveys measure participants’ satisfaction with the programs
and ideas for improvement, but very few address actual outcomes. Nonetheless, C9 does
ask participants to describe what they have accomplished professionally as a result of the
program. C3 surveys participants and their supervisors to measure improvements in terms
of leadership skills. When asked about program evaluation, most survey respondents
stated that participants were very happy with the program, but few had measured
outcomes.
Five colleges (C2, C4, C5, C7 and C9) track participants’ promotions on their
campus or other colleges. Six months after the completion of the programs, results ranged
from 40% promotions at C7, to 33% at C4. At C9, more than 50% of participants have
been promoted since the program started in 2002. However, promotions are the results of
114
multiple factors (e.g., experience, skills, potential, education and personality) and cannot
be attributed solely to employees’ participation in the program.
Programs do not have formal processes to assess participants’ learning in
comparison to their initial personal development plans and individual goals. However,
some colleges evaluate their programs through the participants’ ability to meet the
programs’ expectations and goals, and the feedback received from participants and their
supervisors. During the phone interview (October 2008) C9 stated that “The projects
themselves worked and had good measurable outcomes. Participants indicated they had
gained new leadership strategies. Supervisors saw greater confidence in managing,
leading, and utilization of good management practices”. Similarly, survey respondents at
C5 and C10 stated that:
Success is demonstrated through the effectiveness of the Team Projects. It works
very well. Participants have shown more personal leadership. The program really
made an impact in terms of self-awareness too, for example, if participants are
really interested in moving up. (C5 phone interview, October 2008).
The benefit to the fellows in the Academy has been their ability to see a broader
perspective of the college by networking with other fellows throughout the
college and working closely with one another on case studies. Networking,
professional and personal relationships have developed and grown through their
interactions, and some have found the Academy experience to help them expand
their role within their own positions. They are no longer bound by their job
descriptions and contribute to the college in many ways. (C10, Phone Interview,
October 2008).
Cost and funding.
According to the survey responses, the cost varies greatly from one program to
another. The main difference is whether the program includes a retreat for three days in a
hotel, which significantly raises the cost, for lodging, food and the use of meeting rooms.
115
The retreat at C12 costs $17,500 for three days, and the one at C6 costs $25,000 for three
and a half days. On the other side of the spectrum, the most economical programs are
those that bring employees together for a couple of hours to discuss leadership books.
C5’s budget is relatively low as it only covers lunches, materials, shirts with logos for the
teams, notebooks, handouts, books, and assessment tools.
Many programs are able to function on a budget of approximately $10,000 per
year. For instance, C4 has a budget of $10,000 but only spent about $7,000 in 2007-2008.
They used a consultant for the leadership assessments, and paid for the food provided at
meetings, the celebration lunch at the end of the program, books, framed certificates and
stipends to external presenters. Similarly, C2 spends $11,000 per year for lunches,
materials, assessments, articles, books, and the graduation ceremony. C7’s budget is
$10,000 for 5 monthly meetings, a recognition event at the end of the program, travel
costs for outside speakers, breakfasts and lunches, and materials. C9 spends $10,000 for
the consultants and $2,000 for food and supplies.
C1’s program costs $15,000 per year. In addition to the costs listed above, a
faculty member received a stipend to coordinate the program. Start-up and first year costs
totaled approximately $30,000 to cover faculty stipends for program development, off-
campus meeting room rental, meals, and materials. C3 has a budget of $20,000 per year
for all leadership training, covering the cost of books, 360 assessments, consultants,
refreshments, meals, rental of meeting places off-campus, door-prizes, framed certificates
and other materials. The cost for C10 is $20,000 per year for speakers, graduation
ceremony, books, gifts, handouts, certificates etc. The most expensive program is C11
116
with a $40,000 budget because of the resort’s costs (housing, meals, and meeting rooms),
the cost of outside trainers and stipends for faculty who teach in the program, in addition
to books, assessments, and other materials.
None of the programs paid stipends to program participants. It is assumed that
individuals wishing to take leadership positions will invest time into their professional
development without receiving additional compensation. Furthermore, the training
sessions are scheduled during work hours and participants are allowed to work on team
activities during work hours as well. Not all programs paid presenters. Faculty members
were likely to receive stipends for creating and facilitating workshops while managers did
not. Outside speakers such as colleagues, college presidents and administrators did not
receive payment for their participation but their travel costs were usually reimbursed. It is
therefore possible to create a program with a low budget, to purchase books, materials
and refreshments, when staff members are available to coordinate the program, or when a
committee of volunteers can be formed.
Most commonly, the cost of the program is paid in part or in totality out of the
Professional Development budget (C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C9, C10 and C12). In addition,
funds are made available from Academic Affairs (C2), Chancellor’s Contingency Funds
(C7), President’s Office (C10), President’s Hospitality Budget (C14), Office for Human
Resources (C10), College Foundation (C6), and Vice-Presidents’ budgets (C9). C11’s
funding is different as the program is entirely funded by the College Foundation. “Money
is raised specifically for this program. Past participants often choose to donate money to
support the participation of other college employees” (phone interview, October 2008).
117
Comments and Advice to Other Colleges
Survey respondents were asked what were the key components that made their
programs successful, and what advice they would give to another college in the process
of creating a program. The comments and advice related to the support from college
leaders; goals and expectations; program planning and components; participants’ level of
expertise; perceived value of the program; and limitations and areas for improvement.
Support from college leaders.
All colleges emphasized the importance of having support from the top, without
being prompted to comment on that issue. Support from the Board of Trustees, the
President, and the Vice-President is necessary to give credibility to the program and to
encourage supervisors to allow employees to participate during work hours. In addition,
senior administrators often become involved in the planning of the program, in
presentations and activities, and use their personal networks to invite outside speakers
and presenters. C5 stated that: “Colleges must have the support of the people at the top,
and use the President’s connections to have access to external speakers” (phone
interview, October 2008). In addition, the program must be perceived as valuable and in
alignment with college goals to remain funded through difficult budget years.
Goals and expectations.
Multiple respondents insisted on the importance of making goals and expectations
clear from the beginning of the program, so only those who are really committed and
motivated will apply for the program. Attendance at all sessions and the completion of all
activities is crucial to the success of the programs. C2 stated on their program description
118
that participants will not graduate if they do not meet all of the requirements. C3
emphasizes that participants are expected to attend all sessions. C10 and C11 also
stressed the importance of scheduling all of the sessions ahead of time, before candidates
even apply, so they can mark their calendars and have time to plan and arrange their
schedules as needed.
Participants who were selected and given the opportunity to improve their
leadership skills may assume that the college will offer them a promotion. Two colleges,
C3 and C6 warned that it is necessary to make expectations clear so participants will not
think that they will automatically get promoted upon completion of the program. C6’s
program description specifies that: “The program is preparatory in nature and does not
constitute a guarantee of career progression”. A lack of clarity can lower the motivation
and loyalty of employees who might feel disappointed and discouraged when they are not
selected for administrative positions.
Program planning and components.
Numerous comments and suggestions related to planning the program. C3
suggested taking a whole year to “plan the program and find out what competencies are
needed on campus (e.g. leadership, management, processes and procedures, nuts and
bolts of being an administrator here, hiring, firing, coaching, Banner etc.) and make
changes as needed, year after year” (phone interview, October 2008). C2 also suggested
taking time to plan the program, and work with faculty and staff members to get different
perspectives. Keeping the number of participants small was important for C4, C6 and C8,
to have the advantages of a cohort, engage participants and give them enough attention.
119
Obviously, respondents cited the importance of choosing relevant and timely topics (e.g.,
C5 and C9), using speakers with strong expertise and credibility (e.g., C7, C9 and C12),
providing quality presentations and activities (e.g., C9), using assessment tools, case
studies, and team activities.
Teamwork and networking were cited by the majority of respondents, as factors
of success. That includes interaction among participants and with presenters, experts, and
administrators from the college and other institutions (e.g., C2, C10 and C12).
Respondent at C3 stated that: “The group work is very beneficial as it brings people
together to work as a team and create networks”. This may be a rare opportunity for
employees who work independently and often feel isolated, such as faculty members
(e.g., C5).
Using online resources can improve communication and efficiency. For instance,
at C10 a Blackboard web site was created to facilitate discussions and exchange ideas. C2
also uses a discussion board to make sure people do the readings before the meetings by
asking them to contribute to the discussion board by a given deadline. Holding
discussions virtually also saved time during the meetings.
Participants’ level of expertise.
C2 stated that one of their success factors is to have two leadership programs to fit
participants’ level. They offer an institute for entry-level managers and an academy for
middle managers. The institute teaches basic leadership competencies, while the academy
addresses “the increasingly complex competencies required of leaders who have a broad
scope of responsibilities for both people and projects” (program description, 2008). C3
120
does not have two programs, but also believes that it would be preferable to have
“different programs for people who are at different levels and have different needs.
People can speak freely if their bosses or subordinates are not present. They don’t get
bored or overly challenged if the level is inadequate” (phone interview, October 2008).
Only one of the programs surveyed was able to offer two levels. Many other respondents
actually believed that the diversity within cohorts was an advantage. Respondent at C2
stated that: “It’s good to have a mixture of participants. Diversity makes the teams better
by increasing knowledge and resources. It gives a broader perspective of the community
college” (phone interview, October 2008). It appears that there are both pros and cons to
having different levels of managers in one single program, and each college should
decide what is best for their own institution.
Perceived value of the program.
Two colleges offer credits to program participants. At C10, participants have the
opportunity to obtain three credits in the college’s “Perspectives in Leadership” course by
attending the workshops, completing the readings, and participating in discussion and
leadership activities. At C1, participants can receive credit for three units the first year,
and two units the second year (or may elect to use the program for flex hours). C1 and
C10 believe that granting credits makes the program more valuable.
Respondents explained how being selected to participate in the program, and
completing it was an honor. Most programs have a recognition event at the end of the
programs. At C1 certificates and trophies are presented at the President’s Honors Tea at
the end of the spring semester. C2 also recognizes participants at the “President’s Tea”.
121
Teams have a Board recognition event, where the best teams make a presentation on their
projects (e.g., C5 and C7). At most colleges (e.g., C3, C4, C6, C11) graduates receive a
framed certificate upon completion of the program, or a plaque (e.g., C6 and C10). At
C11, alumni have social events each month for networking and to continue to stay in
contact.
Limitations and areas for improvement.
Respondents shared some experiences that they would not recommend. For
example, C10 which is closely connected to its community had panel discussions with
leaders from the community, but the content was not directly relevant to what participants
needed to learn. The college chose not to do it again the following year. On the subject of
mentors and coaches, C9 shared that program participants were not comfortable going to
the Vice-Presidents for guidance because they did not know them well enough. They did
not take advantage of the help that was available. Therefore, it is important to have
training for both mentors and mentees to make sure that expectations and goals are clear,
and to optimize the utilization of resources.
In terms of needs for improvement, all colleges stated that they do not have a
system in place to provide opportunities to participants to get work experience. None of
them had internships or opportunities for job rotation or simply job shadowing.
Respondents commented that those are valuable ideas, but they are too difficult to
implement. C6 said that they were open to doing it but employees would have to do the
work in addition to their regular jobs for no extra pay, and that might not be realistic.
122
Conclusion
The analysis of 15 comparable programs provided rich examples for the design of
PC’s leadership program. Most programs focused on the leadership competencies
identified by AACC; included presentations, seminars, readings, case studies and group
activities; and used both internal and external speakers and trainers. It was interesting to
note the wide differences between programs in terms of structure, activities and funding.
Several of the programs operated on a budget of $10,000 or less, which demonstrates that
PC can create a program despite the difficult budget times.
Survey respondents provided advice and identified the key factors that made their
program successful. They stated that it is important to have the support of the college
leaders, to clearly communicate expectations to ensure participants’ commitment to the
program, to use self-assessment tools, to have team activities, to train mentors on their
role, to recognize participants and to celebrate graduation. PC can learn from their
experiences, avoid potential difficulties or delays, and be more innovative by using
mentors, and perhaps by providing opportunities for participants to gain some
management experience.
Findings from On-Site Data
Introduction
In addition to the analysis of existing programs at community colleges, data were
collected at PC from October 2008 to February 2009. The study included representatives
from all groups involved, managers, faculty, and staff members, who provided input
throughout the data collection and analysis process. Information was gathered through 12
123
interviews with managers whose positions were Associate Dean, Dean, Vice-President
and President. They were assigned a number following the letter M (e.g., M1, M2, etc.) to
keep their names confidential. Five managers were new to the position (less than one year
on the job) and were selected to better discover what helped or could have helped them
prepare for their current positions. These managers are referred to as “junior managers”
in this chapter. The remaining seven managers had several years of experience in
leadership and administration, and all of them had over 20 years of experience working at
community colleges. These managers are referred to as “senior managers” in this chapter.
They were selected to get a preliminary idea of how they may be able to contribute to the
leadership development program. The interviews were semi-structured and followed the
15-question protocol provided in Appendix D.
Moreover, a stakeholder group was formed with representatives of the faculty,
staff and managers, to hear their perspectives on all of the aspects of the program.
Finally, a focus group was held to test the findings from the study and ensure that the
recommendations are appropriate for the college. Data were also collected through the
review of the college’s mission and vision statements, goals and strategic objectives for
2008-2009, website content, and ten job opening announcements for management
positions. This section presents the findings on the goals of PC’s future program, the
components needed, the use of mentors, the curriculum, and finally, the administration of
the program.
124
Goals of the New Program
In order to design a customized leadership program at PC, it is critical to define
the program’s goals, to ensure that the program will be in alignment with the college’s
intent. Managers interviewed one-on-one, as well as participants in stakeholder meetings,
were asked to describe the goals of creating the program. The two main goals identified
were succession planning and the development of leadership skills in the context of the
college culture.
Succession planning.
Nearly all respondents agreed that the main goal of the program is to prepare
employees for administrative leadership positions, as several managers are getting close
to retirement. M1 stated that:
We have to prepare people to take the position of those who are going to retire.
It’s a dire problem now, the pools are getting more and more shallow;
increasingly, we are not finding the kind of people we are looking for. And that
tells us something. Again, we cannot guarantee a job to anyone, but the goal here
is to create leaders for tomorrow in a very deliberate fashion for the system.
(Interview, October 2008).
M12 also mentioned the leadership gap statewide and nationwide because of
Baby-Boomers’ retirements and the need to develop leadership for this college as well as
others: “The goal is to fill the leadership pipeline for the community college system”.
(Interview, October 2008). Interestingly, senior managers tended to describe the
program’s goal from a college’s need standpoint, whereas junior managers commonly
stated the need to help future leaders prepare for administrative positions. Perhaps senior
managers were concerned about the future of the college and their own legacy, while
junior managers were focused on their careers and future contributions to the college.
125
M4 emphasized that the college has to develop people who can succeed in
administration on this campus, create opportunities to learn and provide sufficient
expertise from senior managers to enhance their learning. (Interview, October 2008). The
issue of identifying employees with potential for leadership was often mentioned. M7
stated that: “Not enough leaders are interested in administration so one of the goals of the
program is to create opportunities to encourage people with potential to consider
management positions and prepare for them” (Interview, October 2008). Similarly, M3
stated that one of the goals of the program should be “to identify people who are
interested, acknowledge them, and provide learning opportunities” (Interview, October
2008). Three of the managers interviewed stated that they had never considered working
in administration until someone told them that they had potential and should think about
it. Participants in the stakeholder meetings also emphasized the importance of
encouraging potential leaders to seek administrative positions.
Faculty members explained that with yearly pay raises, stipends and
compensation for teaching overload or summer courses, they could earn more than Deans
do, therefore money was not an incentive. In addition, the majority of them became
professors because they enjoy teaching, and they do not know whether they would be as
satisfied in administration. According to the faculty members who participated in the
stakeholder meetings, professors’ perception of administration includes too many
meetings, paperwork, politics, the obligation to work 12 months rather than 10, and a loss
of flexibility in their weekly schedule. Some managers, participants in the stakeholder
meetings, as well as a few employees who participated in the focus, group suggested
126
giving employees an opportunity to try administration before asking them to make a
long-term commitment. M12 recommended that the college “provide opportunities to
different people to get an idea of what administrative positions are like” (Interview,
October 2008). M5 emphasized the importance “for potential leaders to test the waters,
see if the positions are what they imagined, and if they would enjoy the work” (Interview,
October 2008). It appears that many employees do not consider working in
administration because their limited understanding of the work discourages them from
pursuing these positions. A participant in the focus group (January 2009) suggested
creating a document that would describe how employees affect students, based on their
jobs and responsibilities, so that faculty members could better understand how they can
lead change and make decisions that would benefit students at a much wider scale if they
became administrators.
Leadership skills in the context of the college culture.
As expected, all respondents cited the development of leadership skills as a goal
of the program. The majority of employees described leadership in the context of
administrative positions, while some others highlighted the importance of developing
leadership skills at all levels of the college. M5 stated that the program should develop
the leadership skills of those who do, and those who do not want to move into
administration. Similarly, M11 stated:
The goal should be to enhance the effectiveness of any individual staff member
who aspires to improve in their leadership role, regardless of their position. You
can be a classified staff member and be a leader in your own department without
becoming a manager. It’s just helping to lead the department. I think it’s not just
for those who want to go into management. We need leaders at all levels.
(Interview, October 2008).
127
Employees participating in the study insisted on the importance of understanding
both the community college system and the culture of the college, for leaders to be
effective. M1 stated that: “When we hire people from a four-year school, they have a
very hard time. We need people who know the California community colleges’ system,
mission and specific culture” (Interview, October 2008). In addition to knowing the
system, leaders have to understand the college’s culture, history, ways of doing things
and what is or is not appropriate. Specifics about the college impact both management
and leadership. For instance, a leader must know the college’s procedures and processes
to be a good administrator, and must understand the college’s politics and people’s
expectations to be able to lead (stakeholder meetings, November 2008-January 2009).
M2 stated that one of the goals of the program is to “create an opportunity for
future leaders to have exposure to the procedures of the college, and learn how to do
things here” (Interview, October 2008). M3 added: “to provide learning opportunities that
are contextualized, customized to our college, and directly applicable” (Interview,
October 2008). M7 also stated that the goal of the program was to create leaders, and that
“Home-grown is a tactic of choice because those leaders will know how to be effective in
the context of the college, its culture, its processes etc.” (Interview, October 2008).
Understanding the dynamics between faculty, staff, managers, unions, Senate Presidents,
and all other stakeholders is critical to adapting one’s leadership style to a specific
college. At the time of the interview, M4 was retired but still working at the college until
his replacement would be selected and hired. He stated:
The person who will replace me will have to learn what is the culture at PC, how
we do things here, and what the expectations are, which takes time. It is important
128
for the new person to learn that before they rush out to show how good they are,
or else they will make mistakes, and it will be difficult to be trusted and respected
after that. All colleges are different in how they do things, and how they treat
people. Cultural rules such as what we let happen and what we don’t let happen,
are important to know. (Interview, October 2008).
Participants in the stakeholder meetings insisted on the importance of adapting the
program to the culture of the college, possibly through case studies and problem-solving
activities. In addition, they suggested that presenters or mentors share insights on politics
with the program participants. One faculty leader explained that to get a new idea
accepted on campus it is important “to present it to the right people in the right order”
(December 2008). Not discussing the change with some key people or approaching them
out of order may create delays and strong oppositions that could be avoided by culture-
savvy leaders. Stakeholders repeatedly commented on the relationships between faculty
and administrators, and the importance of understanding local expectations and
boundaries. Interactions between administrators and faculty vary greatly from one college
to another, and managers at PC have to be sensitive to the culture of shared governance
and collaboration (Stakeholder Meeting, November 2008).
One of the goals of the program is to help participants fully understand the college
values, goals and priorities, so that they can set a vision for their department that is
aligned with the college’s vision. Decisions are more likely to be supported if they
contribute to the attainment of college goals (Stakeholder Meeting, January 2009). It is
also necessary to understand the history of the college and the reasons for what happened
in the past, to avoid critiques and complaints from those who have worked at the college
for decades (Stakeholder Meeting, November 2008). A participant in the stakeholder
129
group summarized the point by stating that: “When someone starts a new job, they should
first learn the culture before they do anything that may not be right for the job and the
college”. This learning process can take a lot of time; therefore one of the goals of the
program should be to provide participants with as much college-specific information as
possible.
Program Components
Several study participants suggested starting the program each year with a one-
day orientation to introduce the program, clarify expectations, and set goals for each
participant. Program participants would be given assessments and tools to reflect on their
own leadership styles and strengths, and develop their individualized professional
development plan, based on their career goals. Teams would be formed, taking in
consideration employees’ job responsibilities, departments, expertise and leadership
profiles (Stakeholder Meetings, November 2008 – January 2009, and focus group,
January 2009). After the orientation, the program would include presentations, seminars,
case studies, team activities, and readings.
Presentations and seminars.
The employees involved in the study clearly differentiated two categories of
topics to teach through presentations or seminars. The first type includes topics that all
future administrators need to learn, such as college policies, processes and procedures
(Interviews with M4, M5, M6, M10, October 2008), personnel issues, employee
evaluations, contracts (Interviews with M5, M6, M10, October 2008), funding sources,
budgeting (Interviews with M5, M6, M10, October 2008), governance structure
130
(Interview with M10, October 2008) and other community college concepts, vocabulary
and acronyms (Stakeholder Meeting, November 2008). The second type of topics
includes regulations, systems and vocabulary which are specific to certain departments.
For instance, managers in instruction need to know how to schedule classes and how to
determine how many sessions to offer (Interview with M4, October 2008). Managers in
the athletic department have to know an additional set of regulations for the discipline.
Administrators in student services need to learn about all of the programs that exist for
low-income student, disabled students, and other special populations (Stakeholder
Meeting, November 2008).
Participants in the study stated that the most appropriate manner to teach those
topics would be through presentations and seminars. They suggested that the common
topics be taught through general sessions that would be mandatory for all program
participants, but that the specific topics be offered as separate modules or electives, so
that employees could have the flexibility to select the topics most relevant for their career
goals (Stakeholder Meeting, December 2008 and Focus Group, January 2009). The
modules could be offered through the Professional and Organizational Department.
Participants in the leadership programs would have priority registration but the modules
would be open to other college employees as well.
Regarding presenters, instructors and facilitators, it was suggested by several
respondents to use managers from the college for college-specific aspects, and experts
from other colleges for the topics that can be enriched with additional perspectives and
models. M4 stated that: “We need different views on things, get ideas from other
131
districts, get different perspectives” (Interview, October 2008). In addition, according to
M11, it is valuable to have a variety of speakers to demonstrate different approaches and
styles that people can emulate (Interview, October 2008). Speakers should also represent
a variety of positions including Deans, Vice-Presidents, Presidents and Chancellors to
present different perspectives (Interview with M12, October 2008). Stakeholders added
that many program participants will want to hear from middle-managers because their
presentations will be more relevant to their short-term goals than that of Presidents and
Chancellors. Stakeholders also emphasized that hearing from outside speakers would
provide new ideas and encourage improvements rather than continuing to do things the
same way. Lastly, respondents highlighted the importance of selecting quality, engaging
speakers, to make the program successful. A member of the stakeholder group suggested
that:
Speakers should be carefully selected so participants hear from those who have
passion and are positive and motivated, rather than those who have been around
for a long time and have become cranky and negative. We need inspirational
speakers and should avoid those who will communicate a culture of non-
involvement. Let’s encourage people to do more collectively on campus, across
areas (Stakeholder Meeting, November 2008).
Case study, team work, and reading.
In addition to presentations and seminars, participants need activities that will
encourage them to critically think about issues, within the context of the college. The
majority of respondents strongly recommended the use of case studies to make
participants solve real college issues. For instance, M10 suggested “a case study
approach, with discussions, to draw out what are the dimensions that a leader should be
thinking about in approaching an issue, what are the things that are impacting the
132
situation, what are the things you have to keep in mind and why” (Interview, October
2008). M6 emphasized the importance of teaching how to deal with difficult people and
conflict resolution techniques through role playing and discussion of scenarios. In the
process, participants would learn which problems occur frequently, such as performance
issues or grievances, how to address them and what rules apply (Interview, October
2008). Similarly, M8 stated that: “There should be a lot of role playing in the program.
Cases studies should be used a lot. We should try and teach people how to critically
think, and you can do that in a variety of ways, and primarily through the case study
method” (Interview, October 2008).
M1 added that the case studies could be assigned to teams that would investigate a
problem in depth and propose a solution (Interview, October 2008). M10 suggested that
teams should be diverse and have members from different departments, functions and
levels of responsibility (Interview, October 2008). According to M11, working on group
projects is also valuable because participants will get to know one another, bond, and
may create a support system. Furthermore, M1 suggested encouraging networking,
relationship building within participants, and peer-mentoring.
There should be peer-mentoring with people on the same campus, to talk about
locally relevant issues. I think people naturally tend to gravitate to those with
whom they already have a rapport or a trusted relationship. It is very important to
have a peer who is a safe person we can go to, call when we are doing our job,
and ask for advice when needed, and act as a sounding board (Interview with M1,
October 2008).
Stakeholders agreed that participants need to work on real college issues and
problem-solve, through a direct application of what is taught, case studies, team projects
and discussions. They highlighted that the program should give participants the
133
opportunity to practice what they learned, and apply it, while networking and building
relationships with other participants. The structure of the program would provide support
that would enable team members to feel empowered as they use their leadership skills to
solve problems or conduct projects (Stakeholder Meetings, November 2008-January
2009).
Five managers and several participants in stakeholder meetings and focus group
stated that participants should have reading assignments prior to presentations and
seminars to enhance their learning and allow them to contribute more effectively to
discussions. M1 stated that: “No amount of growth can occur without reading about good
practices or case studies”. According to M7: “The program should include books and
readings on leadership. Readings are important for people to learn and reflect on
leadership” (Interview, October 2008). Several of the managers interviewed participate in
the President’s Roundtable, which is a group of managers who read one book per month
and meet for two hours to discuss the reading and how it can be applied to the college.
They all reported that they enjoyed participating, although they did not always feel free to
speak, because they were in the presence of their supervisors and could not be as candid
as they might be in a group of peers. While readings were recommended, only one
manager suggested that the program should include writing assignments. Many managers
stated that they were overworked and had limited time to do new things, therefore the
program should be realistically designed, not to overwhelm participants.
134
Other suggestions.
Three managers and two faculty members suggested setting up online resources to
support the program. The college could create a website for the program or add web-
pages to the college’s website to post information and resources that program participants
would need to access. M2 stated: “We could have some online components, maybe
online training, as well as a place to go for resources, such as the Chancellor’s Office
website and other relevant websites”. Other respondents suggested listing resources such
as links to other sites, contact lists and handbooks. For instance, M5 stated:
We need to create a handbook with all of the college’s processes and procedures,
and a contact list, for employees to know whom/where to call when they have a
question. You can provide a list of people to know on campus, indicating their
areas of responsibility and expertise, as resources, so when something comes up,
the person knows where to turn for answers. Those documents should be available
online. (Interview, October 2008).
Participants in stakeholder meetings and focus groups agreed on the need to have
a list of resources, and a list of people to contact posted online. A faculty member also
suggested using Blackboard, in particular the discussion board, for participants to be able
to interact, and access materials used in the training. Podcasts and a wiki for frequently
asked questions were suggested, but that would require a moderator to verify content and
add references, which may not be available.
During each stakeholder meeting, members discussed the importance of giving
program participants a certificate of completion that would demonstrate their effort,
learning and accomplishments. They added that the college should clearly communicate
that completion of the certificate would be appreciated by hiring committees. The
certificate should indicate how many modules the participant completed. In addition, a
135
faculty member stated that the possibility of granting salary advancement credit should be
explored, to give an additional incentive for employees to participate. The other members
of the group agreed, as they believe that it would be important for faculty and staff.
Regarding career goals, some faculty and staff members stated that they do not
have enough information about administrative positions’ responsibility and day-to-day
work to know if they would be interested in doing this type of work. They insisted that it
would be very valuable to include in the program presentations from administrators on
their jobs, challenges, college degree and work experience requirements, as well as their
own career path into administration. One faculty member also stated that job
requirements at PC lack consistency. For example, the number of years of experience or
degree requirements may vary for different Dean positions, which is confusing to those
who are interested in applying for these jobs, but are not clear about what they need to do
to prepare. Stakeholders also suggested that the program provide some coaching on
resumes, employment applications, and interviews.
Mentoring and Job Shadowing
Nearly all participants in the study emphasized that mentoring should be part of
the program. It was repeatedly mentioned that future leaders need someone to provide
expertise, advice, support, encouragement, as well as exposure to administrative
functions and opportunities to gain experience through participation in projects. While
mentoring and job shadowing are two different things, approximately half of managers
talked about job shadowing when they were asked to discuss mentoring. It seems that
“mentees” see a mentor as a person to go to for questions and advice regarding work
136
issues, professional development or career plans. On the other hand, senior managers had
the tendency to group together mentoring and job shadowing because they saw mentoring
as preparing somebody to replace them upon retirement. In this scenario, indeed, job
shadowing would be a crucial part of the learning experience.
Mentors’ role and relationship with mentees.
According to M1, for the mentoring relationship to be effective, mentees need to
create their own specific goals, and prepare a learning plan. The mentor will then provide
feedback on the mentee’s learning needs and provide the support needed for the person’s
professional development. She stated:
A person can think of a job, look at the job description, see what they are missing,
and do a sort of a self-appraisal. There must be a clear identification of what it is
that they need to learn. It’s important to have somebody, have a mentor, who is
going to give you a reality check, and help you see what you need to do to prepare
(Interview, October 2008).
Several of the managers interviewed stated that they already mentor employees on
campus, often helping them prepare to replace them when they retire. M1 stated that the
role of mentors is to provide resources, information and advice on politics and ways to
deal with people or manage projects on campus (Interview, October 2008). M11
explained how mentoring can be either informal or formal.
Informal meaning, you can see someone or know someone that you like their
style, and you want to emulate them, and that you might have interactions with,
but that’s not formal. Then you can have the formal where you actually sit down
and you have discussions, questions, if you want to pick someone’s brain, if you
want to get technical advice, you want some insight as to how to handle a difficult
situation. I think that both are important. One you might see as mentoring or role
model, and the other more as problem solving and individual support system
(Interview, October 2008).
137
During the focus group (January 2009), a junior manager talked about his mentor
and how he appreciates that his mentor has an open door policy, is always available for
him, and shows him what he does. Mostly, this mentor coaches his mentee with work-
related issues, policies, regulations (e.g., Title V.), and PC’s way of doing things.
Accessibility seems to be a key factor for a successful mentor-mentee relationship. M10
stated that:
You have to make time to explain the why of things. Mentees need to have
enough access to you that they can see how you make decisions, and be a part of
decisions as appropriate. There needs to be an open door policy as much as
possible, accessibility, not so much formal meetings, but as needed. They need
you when they need you in a sense (Interview, October 2008).
In the focus group (January 2009), a manager explained how he had two mentors.
One was really good with people and relationships, and the other was very
knowledgeable regarding processes and management in general. For this person, having
the two mentors was the key for learning both aspects of administration. He suggested
that mentees should have access to various mentors with different areas of expertise. This
manager also emphasized that it is important for the mentoring relationship to be long
term, to build trust, and have continuity.
Employees who participated in the study put a great emphasis on the relationship
between mentors and mentees. Most stated that open communication and trust were
essential. M2 indicated that: “It’s okay to ask questions” and M3 that: “It’s okay to make
mistakes; it is part of learning. The relationship should be nurturing, encouraging, and
safe, so the mentees could communicate freely” (interviews, October 2008). A staff
member who participated in the focus group (January 2009) also insisted that she wants a
138
mentor who would be honest and committed to her professional growth. In order to be
able to establish these types of relationship, the selection of mentors and the pairing with
mentees is very important.
Selecting mentors.
Most participants in the study suggested that current senior managers become
mentors for the program, because they have expertise in their field, as well as cultural
competency. A manager in the focus group (January 2009) indicated that the majority of
mentors will have to be from the college, to reflect the college culture and ways of doing
things. However, others prefer having mentors from other colleges, to be able to
communicate more freely. For instance, M1 stated “I think there needs to be some safety
by having a mentor outside the campus” (Interview, October 2008). During their first
meeting (November 2008), stakeholders suggested that it would be preferable to have
mentors from other colleges to get new perspectives, new ideas, and encourage
improvements, rather than keep doing things the same way. M7 suggested having “inter-
college mentoring” with the colleges located in proximity to the campus (Interview,
October 2008). The issue of using internal or external mentors is also a question of
availability. Senior managers indicated during interviews that their workload was very
high, and that they were unlikely to be able to mentor all program participants. As a
possible solution, M2 indicated that: “We could ask retirees from our college to mentor
employees, to share their expertise. They would have more time available to do that than
the managers who are still working” (Interview, October 2008). M3 had the same idea:
“Maybe we could use retirees for mentoring. Many have expertise, time, willingness and
139
commitment to do it” (Interview, October 2008). The stakeholders discussed the issue
(December 2008) and concluded that the program should provide access to a variety of
mentors from the college, other colleges, as well as retirees, to have a sufficient number
of mentors and a wide range of expertise.
M5 emphasized the importance of having “a mentor with expertise in the area that
the mentee wants to learn, so he/she can receive specific training in the important aspects
of the specific area”. M6 made the same suggestion, as the expertise needed for example
in student services, fiscal services, or instruction, are very different (Interviews, October
2008). M10 had participated in a mentoring program, but was paired with someone
whose expertise was in a different area of college administration, and was not able to
learn was she needed. She stated: “I had been paired with X, and she was very nice, but I
never had anything to ask her. It was a bit awkward because there wasn’t really any
structure or anything to talk about” (Interview, October 2008). This problem can be
avoided if the mentee has clear learning objectives and the mentor has expertise relevant
to the mentees’ career interests. In addition, mentors have to be genuinely committed to
their mentees’ professional development. M3 stated: “Mentoring is very important. But
mentors should be well selected; they should be prepared and committed to helping the
mentees’ professional development” (Interview, October 2008). Participants in
stakeholder meetings (November 2008 – January 2009) insisted that mentors have to be
intrinsically motivated to mentor others and help them grow professionally, and that
mentors will need training on how to be good mentors.
140
Mentoring for succession planning.
A couple of senior managers who have already announced their upcoming
retirement said that they had identified people with potential who could replace them.
However, others said that they would love to groom someone but none of their staff
members were ready and willing to step up. Two managers who had been recently
promoted said they were bothered by the fact that there was nobody to take their place
when they left their prior positions, so they did not have the chance to mentor someone.
During interviews, managers were asked how they would help someone prepare
to replace them when they retire or take another position. They all responded that they
would mentor them, show them what their work is really like, and share their knowledge
and expertise. For instance, M12 stated that: “To prepare someone to replace me, I would
introduce them to people on campus, share with them files, information, show them how
things work and are organized, what is what, issues, challenges, the culture of the college
etc.” (M12, Interview, October 2008). M10 indicated spending time with her mentee
debriefing on situations and explaining how she handled things and why, and what she
needed to look out for (M10, Interview, October 2008). Here are two examples of
managers’ description of what they do or would do, with a mentee:
If I had had someone interested in taking my previous position, I would have
shown them everything, handed over an information binder, met with them every
month to discuss the work, given advice such as “this is what you need to do in
terms of hiring, with respect to budgeting and purchasing, and dealing with fiscal
services, to evaluating your staff…” and have an HR section in the binder. I
would have a section on campus politics, one on expectations, and one on how to
work with me since I would be their supervisor, and be clear from the start. (M1,
Interview, October 2008).
141
I am currently mentoring two people. I carbon copy them on important e-mails for
them to learn how to handle situations. They attend meetings like when a faculty
member has to be reprimanded. I put them in charge of certain tasks and
responsibilities for them to gain experience. I meet with them once a week to
discuss any problems and current activities. They both sit on committees and go
to training as needed. This year they’ll do program reviews. They have been
involved with student learning outcomes. I do everything possible to expose them
to all of the work and responsibilities of the Dean, and give them a chance to
learn. We also discuss the budget together. (M6, Interview, October 2008).
Managers’ responses indicate that once someone has been identified as a potential
replacement, the mentor can teach that person college processes, procedures and policies;
explain the college culture, context, expectations, politics and relationship with leaders
and unions; and show how to handle specific situations, through the participation in
meetings and the inclusion in e-mail communication. In addition, a mentor can create
opportunities for the mentee to gain relevant experience, connect with key individuals,
and demonstrate their ability to do the work. The data collected on-site clearly indicates
that gaining experience is a main component of leadership development in the context of
growing a college’s own administrative leaders.
Experience and job shadowing.
“You can’t tell or teach everything. People learn and grow through experience,
trial and errors” (M5, Interview, October 2008). Similarly, M4 stated that: “To develop
leadership skills, rather than send someone to a conference on leadership, give the person
the opportunity to handle other projects or situations, to gain more experience”. As M3
indicated, the experience should be gained in the context of the college:
People learn to lead by doing, by applying what they have learned. It is important
to contextualize the learning, and practice to develop leadership skills. We should
encourage people to take the lead on projects and give them a chance to develop
their skills (M3, Interview, October 2008).
142
M10 explained that before she came to PC, she worked in the private sector,
where she learned management and leadership, but had to learn how to be an effective
administrator at a community college. She started as part-time program coordinator, and
her supervisor progressively increased her responsibilities by adding projects and grants,
which allowed her to get the community college experience she needed. She suggested
that certain grants and projects can provide opportunities for employees to learn
budgeting, project management, reporting, supervision, and other relevant skills
(Interview, October 2008). Furthermore, giving a chance to someone to try administrative
tasks will help them discover if they enjoy the work or if they would rather remain a
professor or staff member. M4 stated that: “Some people are very good at what they do
but they don’t like to lead, they don’t like conflict or to hold people accountable”
(Interview, October 2008). Employees need to find out whether administration is a good
fit for them before they accept a permanent administrative position.
Job shadowing is also effective for people who want to better understand what
administrative positions are really like, and if they would enjoy the work (M12,
Interview, October 2008). M2 stated that: “There should be an exploratory component in
the program, so employees, faculty or staff, could explore what administration is like, and
see if that is what they want” (M2, Interview, October 2008). Furthermore: “People learn
by example, by seeing how good leaders do things. Mentors can model good leadership,
and people learn by working closely and being exposed to what they do” (M2, Interview,
October 2008). The stakeholders agreed that job shadowing would be very valuable for
future leaders to better understand positions, to see firsthand how departments work and
143
how decisions are made, and what administrators have to deal with, in terms of
responsibilities, workload, politics, and work with other employees (Stakeholder
Meetings, November 2008 – January 2009). M1 had the opportunity to job shadow a
Dean at another college and reported that the experience was very beneficial. She stated:
I job shadowed a Dean of instructional programs at another college. I had 18
months with this person. My mentor took me to meetings that were eye-opening. I
saw everything down to the detail, what was the Dean’s job, how to schedule
classes, what are some conflicts that the Dean had to deal with, I mean to the
extent that it was appropriate for me to participate. (M1, Interview, October
2008).
In conclusion, based on the data collected, having a mentoring component to the
program seems very important to meet the program’s goals. The program design should
include strategies to support one-on-one mentoring, job shadowing, and opportunities to
gain experience, in addition to the formal training described previously. Mentors can help
employees define their career goals, learning needs, professional development plans, and
strategies to prepare for leadership positions. Senior administrators can transmit their
expertise and knowledge of the college’s culture, history, practices and expectations to
future leaders, before they retire or leave their positions (Stakeholder Meetings,
November 2008 – January 2009).
Curriculum
During the interviews, managers were asked to describe what important
characteristics, skills and competencies leaders at PC should have. The responses to this
question indicate which leadership competencies are perceived as most important and
should be taught in the program, if possible and appropriate. In addition, managers were
asked to describe leadership challenges they often face at PC, to provide examples of
144
situations for which future leaders need to prepare. This information will also inform the
creation of the curriculum for the program. The responses are presented below and
organized following the six core competencies proposed by the AACC, which are
organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community
college advocacy and professionalism. Furthermore, the review of ten recent job
announcements for management positions also indicated which competencies the college
seeks in job applicants for administrative positions.
Organizational strategy.
Less than half of respondents mentioned organizational strategy as an important
competency that leaders at PC should have. M1 stated that: “It starts with having a vision.
You need to have a clear idea of how the college’s mission, goals, objectives and
planning processes are in alignments. Leaders need clarity to be able to articulate it to
those around them” (Interview, October 2008). M7 also emphasized the importance of “a
clear vision, mission and purpose, and the ability to communicate them” (Interview,
October 2008). Like M1 and M7, other managers mentioned the leader’s ability to
communicate the mission and vision, but did not talk about the leader’s ability to create
them. Perhaps the mission of the community colleges as described in the education code,
complemented by the college’s vision and mission, determine the mission and vision of
departments. It seems that leaders are expected to embrace the overall mission of the
college and to be able to communicate it clearly, but not to create one for their particular
department or areas of responsibility. According to one instructional manager, the
departments’ mission come from the college mission, and administrative leaders have to
145
be able to communicate it, not redefine it. This could be due to the job responsibilities of
interviewees, many of whom were middle-managers.
Moreover, organizational strategy includes leaders’ ability to strategically plan
operations, make data-driven decisions, evaluate outcomes, make improvements, adapt to
change, respond to new situations, support innovation, and align college resources to the
college’s master plan. These competencies were not mentioned by respondents. One
possible explanation is that the college is highly bureaucratic and has systems in place for
all of these aspects, transforming these competencies into managerial tasks. Indeed,
administrators are required to track outcomes, make data-driven decisions, establish
goals, and participate in all institutionalized strategic planning tools and processes.
When asked about leadership challenges, three managers explained that the
quantity of paperwork and bureaucratic tasks they had to complete was very time-
consuming, limiting their availability for other important activities. Examples provided
include the Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) process, which includes Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs), and multiple
reports to the college and external funding organizations. The PIE process is detailed and
very important for accreditation purposes. It is a standardized way to define
organizational strategy across campus. Therefore, in the context of PC, organizational
strategy is driven by planning systems and processes. The systems in place support the
college’s need for data and intent to align all department goals with the college goals. The
review of ten managerial job announcements confirmed that the college seeks managers
146
with the ability to plan and organize the work by utilizing the systems in place, and
embrace the mission of the college.
Resource management.
The job announcements reviewed indicated a strong emphasis on personnel
issues, supervision, evaluation, as well as budgeting, and basic computer skills. All
managers commented on the importance of being skilled at managing human resources.
M1 mentioned how to delegate the right assignments to the right people, providing the
tools and support necessary so people can be successful; how to work with different types
of employees (faculty, staff or managers), setting expectations, giving appropriate
timelines, and so on (Interview, October 2008). M2 explained how “Leaders have to be
able to trouble-shoot, and solve problems, not micromanage, leave people the chance to
do things their way, not try to control everything, but demonstrate their trust in others”
(Interview, October 2008). M10 stated that “one of the challenges is getting the right
people on the bus, and getting them in the right seats on the bus. That is hard to do in our
environment, and it’s really critical I think” (Interview, October 2008). Several other
managers commented on the difficulty of managing resources in an environment that
limits managers’ ability to make changes in their staff, because of unions and contracts.
In addition, since compensation and other benefits are negotiated by unions for all of
their members, no merit-based rewards are available and the system does not encourage
performance or support motivation. M8 stated that:
The most important challenge that I face in my position is to keep people on task
and to continue to motivate and to excite them about doing that task. Keeping
people focused on teaching, focused on students, focused on learning, and
147
keeping them excited over many years of doing that. That probably is the single
biggest challenge that I face in this job (Interview, October 2008).
Several managers explained that managing employees, personalities and different
levels of performance is not easy, but the best way to learn is by doing it, and by referring
to contracts and rules. Knowing contracts for faculty and staff was cited as extremely
important by nearly all managers, as well as having conflict resolution skills. Managers
explained how they had to deal with individual performance issues as well as situations
involving several people, typically conflicts between staff and faculty, or sometimes with
managers. M1 stated:
Leaders need to know how to discipline employees with dignity and compassion
but firmness. We need to have high self-awareness, know our own lenses and
biases. Having formal training is necessary because this doesn’t come naturally to
people. Having a good knowledge of HR, contracts, can avoid a lot of pain. There
are challenges between classified staff and faculty. Managers have the authority
and responsibility to supervise staff, but faculty are different. They are more
independent. I had to deal with a conflict between a classified staff and a faculty,
and I don’t know what could have prepared me for it, because it was very
complex. I think managers need to have training specifically in conflict
resolution, to bring the two together (Interview, October 2008).
Similarly, M3 and M6 stated that resolving personnel issues and conflict between
employees who are in disagreement is a large part of administrative jobs. Many
employees have strong personalities, and different expectations of what employees
should do, which often leads to grievances. Managers have to deal with all discipline
issues, and to do so, they must be familiar with the contracts and labor laws that apply to
each situation (Interview, October 2008). According to M4:
The world is not black and white; there are gray areas. We need to make sure we
are treating people right, in compliance with the laws and regulations, and past
practices. It is very important to have experience when dealing with personnel
148
issues, to keep the district out of any legal exposure that down the line would cost
both in terms of money as well as our reputation.
Managers have the responsibility to manage grievances and evaluate staff and faculty
members. They need to be trained on the grievance process, evaluation process, relevant
policies and procedures, contracts, and labor laws (M5, Interview, October 2008), and
learn how to work with union leaders (M10, Interview, October 2008).
After the management of human resources, the second most often cited
competency was the management of financial resources. Understanding the college’s
budget, sources of funding, corresponding rules and regulations, budgeting principles and
systems, and all of the related processes and procedures is crucial for administrators.
Managers are responsible for their departments’ budgets; therefore they have to allocate
resources where needed, within the parameters established by the funding sources, and
monitor expenditures. This is particularly important this year, as the college is switching
to a different system called Banner, and all of the managers have to be trained. M11
emphasized:
If I were to say anything, I would say you need to know budgets. You will live or
die by that. It could make you, it could strengthen you and your sphere of
influence, and it will keep you legal. You just look more effective and competent
if you are able to manage budgets effectively. You can also make things happen if
you know how to leverage resources (Interview, October 2008).
Indeed, being able to leverage resources is also an important skill, as the college
budget is limited, and even more so now that the economic situation led to a reduction of
educational institutions’ funding. M2 stated: “Another challenge is that our budget is very
restrictive, and we can’t afford to do the things we would like to” (Interview, October
2008). Scarce resources have to be managed very effectively, and managers have to be
149
able to adapt to changing levels of funding. Interestingly, only one manager mentioned
the value of grant-writing skills. Being able to attract additional funding is important for
administrators. Perhaps the other managers who were interviewed relied on their staff and
the college grants office to write applications and did not think that grant-writing was a
high priority for administrators.
The management of technological resources can also have a tremendous impact
on the college. Only two managers discussed the importance for a leader to have good
computer skills. Technology at the college level was not discussed at it is centralized in
one department, and other managers on campus do not make decisions related to the
technology used. The college selected new systems to improve the technology on campus
and the whole campus community is working diligently at implementing the new
systems.
Communication.
Excellent communication skills, oral and written were included in the
requirements for all managerial positions reviewed. In addition, all managers interviewed
stated that interpersonal, oral and written communication skills are very important for
managers. Leaders must be good listeners and have strong interpersonal communication
skills (M1, M2 and M6, Interviews, October 2008) to solve problems such as conflict
between employees. M8 stated: “I think that communication skills are absolutely
essential. When I say communication skills I mean an ability to listen, and a willingness
and excitement about listening, rather than just going through the mechanics of it”.
Managers also insisted on the importance of communicating with honesty, openness and
150
patience (M3, M4 and M7, Interviews, October 2008). According to M3, “Good oral and
written communication skills strengthen confidence in the leader”. Leaders must be able
to share the information they receive from the President and Vice-Presidents to their staff,
faculty and managers, and show transparency. M1stated that:
In my experience, people have always appreciated that I communicate with them
frequently, regularly, about what is going on. When something is appropriate to
share, it’s better if everybody knows, rather than to decide who needs to know
what. They can help me think from their vantage point, what they need to do, or
how we might affect change, or how we might carry out college goals and so on
and so forth. Communication builds trust. (Interview, October 2008).
M11 explained that it was important for leaders to provide “written updates via e-
mail or other notices, regular meetings with people, or informal meetings to get some
things figured out or accomplished” (Interview, October 2008). According to M11, in
addition to sharing information, communicating can make people feel valued and
acknowledged, and can increase job satisfaction and loyalty. Communication is
particularly important where shared governance is valued. M3 stated: “One of the best
interventions I can make as a leader is to facilitate rich, complex, and ongoing
communication throughout the institution” (Interview, October 2008).
Collaboration.
In a community college environment, being collaborative is key for any leader.
Job announcements indicated that the college seeks team-players who understand
consultation and shared-governance. Managers are expected to be responsive,
collaborative and collegial (M2, Interview, October 2008). M8 explained that:
Decisions have to reflect the people that you work with, and if you don’t have a
relationship with them, then it won’t happen. Someone here I respect a great deal
once told me that my effectiveness as a leader would depend entirely upon the
151
relationships I develop with the people I lead. It is absolutely the truth (Interview,
October 2008).
Decisions have to be made in consultation with all college leaders involved in the
particular issue, such as the Presidents of the Academic Senate, the Faculty Association,
or the Classified Senate. However, the process can be challenging and may lead to delays
(M11, Interview, October 2008). Different groups may have different opinions and it is
necessary for them to communicate and collaborate. M8 stated: “It’s very important to
have respect for all those with whom you engage, and willingness again, to consider
contrary points of view and opinions that may be in direct conflict with your own”
(Interview, October 2008). M6 also emphasized the importance for leaders to have people
skills, to be able to interact with different people, and have innovative ideas on how to
work with diverse people and meet their needs (Interview, October 2008).
Community college advocacy.
Job announcements described the importance for job applicants to have passion
for the mission of the community colleges, but did not require managers to be advocates
outside the campus, with the exception of the Director of the college foundation.
Similarly, half of managers explained that leaders have to have passion for the mission of
the community colleges and promote and support the values of the college. For instance,
M2 stated that: “A leader has to be dedicated to the cause, have a vision, work toward the
mission, and have passion and enthusiasm for the work and the college”. M3 believed
that: “A leader should have energy, creativity and a strong commitment to the college and
its mission”. Similarly, M10 added that: “The number one factor is a passion for students
and our mission. Not just students, but students of the community colleges in particular”
152
(Interviews, October 2008). Managers’ responses were focused on leaders as they work
with the campus community, but did not mention advocacy to external audiences.
Interestingly, nobody discussed representing the college in the community, or advocating
to government agencies or funding agencies.
Professionalism.
Professionalism is very important for community college leaders. Specifically,
managers discussed leaders’ expertise, work ethic, commitment, and personal
characteristics. To be considered professional, leaders must know “the community
college system, the education code, and the history of the college”, and have “the specific
skills and experience required for the job to have credibility” (M3, Interview, October
2008). Five managers insisted on the importance of having experience working at
community colleges, knowing the California community college system, and
understanding of the culture and history of the college in which they work.
M2 suggested that: “A leader has to have a caring attitude towards the students
and the faculty members” (Interview, October 2008). Several managers stated that
leaders showed care and empathy toward the people with whom they work and the
students they serve. However, it was also noted that compassion could limit
accountability, leading to performance issues. According to M1:
A delicate balance between compassion and responsibility is the most important
thing that leaders should have. I have seen cases where compassion takes over, for
example, when a manager allows a team to do nothing, or to do something very
minimal, or to do bad work, and they can’t seem to bring themselves to hold
people accountable. (Interview, October 2008).
153
According to M3, a leader should be genuinely interested and involved in college
activities. Several managers insisted on honesty, responsibility, patience, adaptability,
integrity, ethics, credibility, collegiality and humility. Leaders have to “understand that
there is a lot to learn, and that our job changes everyday” (M4, Interview, October 2008),
and be good role models (M6, Interview, October 2008). M1, M4 and M9 insisted that
leaders should not be afraid to admit when they do not know something, or when they
made a mistake, because honesty will create trust. M9 stated:
I think you always have to be easy about saying “I don’t know”, “I just don’t
know”, with the caveat that I will do the best I can to find out. If I can’t find out,
I’ll find someone who can find out. Because I think as soon as they perceive you
to be phony, or unreal, you’re done. They just won’t come back to you.
(Interview, October 2008).
In addition, leaders have to be responsive, visible and accessible. “The people at
the college need to know that they can come to you and that you will be there at the times
you are scheduled to be there” (M8, Interview, October 2008). Leaders have to be team-
players, loyal to the college, and committed to “academics, excellence, rigor, and open-
access”. “When you become a manager, what you say is perceived differently by people
on campus. You have to be aware of that, and be more conscious of what you say” (M7,
Interview, October 2008). Indeed, community college administrators must behave
professionally at all times:
It’s important to know that your behavior is always being interpreted, and that
when you make an error, or when you behave badly, when you lose your temper,
when you ask someone to leave your office, when you do whatever thing that you
might do, the individual to whom that happened has a long memory, and that the
old adage that we have all been taught, you can never take back what you have
done or what you have said, once it’s over, it’s over. Now, people may forgive
you for whatever that was, but they don’t forget it. And in my mind, not forgetting
means that they are not going to be as apt to be as honest and forthright with you
154
as they once were. And I think that that’s very important for people to know. (M8,
Interview, October 2008).
M3 suggested that to be an effective leader, a manager needs to have “strong
personal support, understanding of self, high self-awareness and connection to self. Being
able to separate mood, or personal issues with the work, and being very consistent in
managing people, with calm, openness and fairness” (Interview, October 2008).
Openness was also a strong ability that M11 described:
Leaders need to have the big picture in mind. When you are coming up through
the ranks, you know your area of expertise, you rely on certain means of how you
receive information, how you form opinions. As you advance, you have to be
willing to go into uncharted territory, to be open to new things, to assume that you
don’t know everything, and to look at different perspectives. I think just that
whole openness to see what you can learn and maybe taking an issue that you
thought you knew and seeing that there is another side to it. I think that’s very
important, that broader bigger view.
Summary.
The six core competencies identified by AACC are important for community
college leaders, but based on managers’ responses, the emphasis at PC is on the
management of resources and professionalism. Communication and collaboration skills
can be enhanced through group activities, but it may not be necessary to create sessions
on those topics. Community college advocacy is not an area of focus at PC.
Organizational strategy is important but systems and processes in place at the college
already guide managers on how to develop plans to meet the college goals.
Furthermore, participants in the focus group (February 2009) were asked what
they wish to learn through the program. Their responses focused on resource
management and college processes. The main learning needs cited were: management
155
styles and strategies; managing people and delegating; dealing with personnel issues;
motivating employees; conflict resolution techniques; education code, laws, processes
and procedures. In addition, two junior managers commented on what they wish they had
known better when they first obtained their positions. They cited the education code,
community college system, shared governance, how things work on a college campus,
what the procedures and policies are at PC, and how to work with the Chancellor’s Office
(M2 and M12, Interviews, October 2008). These subjects can be learned from
presentations, relationships with a mentor, and access to new resources.
Administration
Creating and implementing the program will require resources and new policies
and procedures. Managers were asked to comment on the availability of resources (i.e.
funding, expertise, time and facilities), and to discuss the profile of program participants,
the selection criteria, recruiting, scheduling, and how to evaluate the effectiveness of the
program. The information collected from managers was then complemented with
comments from stakeholders and participants in the focus group, as presented below.
Resources for the program.
Managers were very hesitant to comment on financial resources available for the
program because 2008-2009 was a particularly difficult budget year. At the time of the
interviews, in October 2008, the state budget had not passed and administrators already
knew that the college had to prepare for significant budget cuts. M1 explained that the
college was no longer receiving any funding specifically for professional development
and that general funds would have to be allocated to the program, which seemed very
156
unlikely (Interview, October 2008). M7 explained that in difficult budget situations,
administrators had to prioritize and allocate funds to areas that were most directly in
alignment with the college’s core goals and activities. He suggested looking for grants to
pay for the program’s costs. M3 and M11 suggested that the program could be created at
a very low cost, as most contributors would do it on a voluntary basis and that the college
would only have to pay for materials and refreshments (Interviews, October 2008). Some
limited funds might be available from the Professional and Organizational Development
department, but that will depend on its level of funding in 2009-2010.
Managers were asked if they would be willing to make presentations on their jobs
or their area of expertise; to mentor a program participant; to allow job shadowing; and/or
to provide opportunities for someone to gain work experience in their department. All
managers said that they would be willing to make a presentation or teach a session related
to their area of expertise. All managers were open to the idea of mentoring, however,
those who already mentor one or more employee(s) said that they would not have time to
mentor others. Managers recognized the value of job shadowing but nearly half had
concerns about confidentiality issues. For instance, M1 stated: “I could do job
shadowing, but for someone who works at another college, not an insider. There are too
may potentials for breach of confidentiality. I deal with difficult issues” (Interview,
October 2008). Few managers believed that they could provide opportunities for
employees to gain managerial experience in their departments because of contract
limitations and obligations. Overall, managers were wiling to contribute to the program;
nonetheless, several mentioned that their availability would be limited because of their
157
current heavy workload. Others such as M2 indicated that they can always make time for
important things: “I think we can make time for the things that are important. It depends
on how we prioritize” (Interview, October 2008).
Facilities on campus are available for training. As suggested by the stakeholders
during the third meeting (January 2009), Founders’ Hall, which is the building housing
the President’s office, would be perfect for monthly group meetings. Other modules open
to the college community could be offered at the Professional and Organizational
Development (POD) center on campus, which has classrooms and a computer lab
available for training. The main issue is staffing, as POD lost a full-time coordinator and
a full-time director, and is now only staffed by a full-time secretary, a part-time clerical
specialist, and a part-time director who is also in charge of two other programs in another
division of the campus. It would be necessary to create a committee in charge of creating
and coordinating the program, as current staffing levels are not sufficient to create new
professional development programs.
Participants’ profile and selection criteria.
As suggested by M3: “We should limit the size of the group to make the program
more effective, to have enough mentors, and to allow networking and relationship
building within the group of participants” (Interview, October 2008). Clear criteria need
to be established for the recruitment of participants into the program. M4 advised to “Be
selective but not exclusive, advertise the program and the criteria so people understand
that it is open but that they do have to qualify”. M1 also stated that: “The criteria will
have to be clear so the program is not perceived as exclusive and mysterious, which
158
would contribute to the rumor that there is preferential treatment of certain people on
campus” (Interviews, October 2008). The same issue was brought up by several
stakeholders during the third meeting: “Make sure it doesn’t look like the selection
depends on ‘who you know’. Make the selection criteria clear. Show objectivity and
fairness” (January 2009). Employees expressed concerns that they did not know how
people were selected to go to outside leadership training and conferences, or to
participate in the President’s Roundtable, in which employees meet with the President
once a month to discuss leadership books.
In order to define selection criteria, it is necessary to clarify what type of
employees should be part of the program. The stakeholders discussed this issue and
agreed that the program should be open to all categories of employees, faculty, staff and
managers. Furthermore, a number of seats should be reserved for each category to have a
diverse, well-balanced group, and make sure that all are represented. Perhaps one third of
participants should be from each category. The stakeholders warned that the program
should not be limited to full-time employees because in some areas most employees are
part-time, and that would exclude too many good employees (Stakeholder Meetings,
November 2008-January 2009).
The majority of managers and stakeholders suggested that the selection process
should identify individuals with a genuine interest in leadership and administration (M3,
M6 and M5), who are motivated (M6 and M3), and have a desire grow professionally
(M5). Since one of the main goals of the program is succession planning, several
managers stated that the program should select employees who aspire to leadership roles
159
(Interviews, October 2008). The stakeholders were asked to comment on this issue, and
stated that the program should select employees who are first and foremost motivated and
committed to the program and have a strong interest in leadership, whether they want to
prepare for administrative positions or simply want to develop their leadership skills for
their current position (Stakeholder Meetings, November 2008-January 2009).
Some managers suggested selecting individuals with an aptitude for leadership
and some management experience. For instance, M4 stated that: “People should have
demonstrated some aptitude for leadership, and be seen in the college community as
being the right person to be in the program” (Interview, October 2008). M6 stated that the
employees selected to enter the program should have “some sort of leadership
experience”. On the contrary, M7 stated that: “We should not require applicants to
already have assumed leadership roles, because we would be excluding people with
potential who haven’t had an opportunity to demonstrate their leadership capabilities”.
Stakeholders agreed with M7 and recommended not to require prior leadership
experience, because that criterion would prevent people with potential from entering the
program.
Regarding the application process, stakeholders suggested requiring a letter or a
short essay, a resume and some sort of evidence that the person’s supervisor is supporting
the applicant. Candidates would have to take some time to fill out the application and
perhaps, write why they wish to be in the program, why they should be selected, or what
are their career goals. They would be given the meeting dates ahead of time and would
have to sign a form, committing to participate in all required meeting and activities.
160
Managers should be asked to nominate and encourage people with potential to apply
(Stakeholder Meetings, November 2008 – January 2009). M5 also stated that: “Their
supervisors should make a recommendation, to demonstrate that they believe in the
person’s potential and that they will allow him/her to participate in the program during
work hours” (Interview, October 2008).
Since the suggestions provided by the managers and stakeholders were
informative from the college culture, norms and expectation standpoints, but did not
provide tangible criteria for selections, stakeholders were asked how the selection should
be done. They recommended creating a small committee to determine the selection, as
well as the other aspects of the program (dates, topics, speakers and so on). Stakeholders
believed that the criteria should not be too restrictive, and that if too many people apply, a
lottery could be done, and those who met the criteria but were not selected one year but
have priority the following year (Stakeholder Meeting, January 2009).
Recruiting.
The program should be advertised through e-mails, college newsletter, and
discussed in meetings. Stakeholders suggested advertising the presence of outside guest
speakers, as a rare opportunity to learn from them and hear their perspectives. They
explained that the program should be perceived as valuable to the participants and
strongly endorsed by the college. It was suggested to use quotes from evaluations to serve
as testimonials from past participants.
Several managers and stakeholders indicated that some people who have
leadership potential may not think of becoming an administrator, so they need to be
161
identified and encouraged to apply. M6 stated: “Some people will jump at the
opportunity, but some others who may not believe that they can and should do it, need to
be encouraged by their managers”. Similarly, M1 suggested that managers should
personally invite employees with leadership potential to apply to the program. During the
focus group, two managers who used to be full-time faculty members explained that
faculty members do not understand that by working in administration, they can positively
affect a larger number of students than they do in the classroom. Showing them how they
could have a much broader impact would be a selling point.
Interestingly, the main obstacle to recruiting for the program may be employees’
perceptions of their own likelihood to be promoted at PC. Interviews with managers and
input from stakeholders and participants in the focus group indicated that there is a
perception across campus that employees have to leave the college if they want to move
up in administration. A junior manager stated that “We tend to hire people who are
already experienced. It wasn’t until recently that I started to see people promoted from
within. We like to hire people who have been tried and tested somewhere else”
(Interview, October 2008).
Several stakeholders and participants in the focus group (November 2008 –
January 2009) explained that they no not have opportunities to learn, to work on budgets
or to gain supervisory experience. One faculty member asked to do job shadowing in
administration but her request was denied. Stakeholders believed that many employees
feel they have to leave PC to get promoted, or simply to acquire more experience. The
salaries are very competitive and the positions are hard to get at PC. Outside job
162
applicants who have already done the same type of work as what they are applying for,
are more likely to be hired. Even when there are no strong candidates from other
colleges, current employees are unlikely to get promoted because they do not have
experience in all aspects of the administrative position that needs to be filled. For this
reason, positions can stay vacant for many months. A faculty member stated that leaving
the college to gain experience elsewhere implies sacrifices, and often a pay cut, or same
pay for more work and responsibilities (Stakeholder Meetings, November 2008 – January
2009).
For all of these reasons, it is very important that the program includes mentoring,
participation in meaningful and visible team projects, and to the extent possible,
opportunities for employees to gain management experience. These opportunities need to
be widely available to improve the morale and perception of potential leaders. One
faculty members stated that it seems to her that recently, all interim appointees have been
selected for the permanent positions. They had a great advantage because they gained
experience as interim while other applicants could not. According to her, this created
frustration for those who did not get the chance to serve as interim, and an impression
that to move up, employees have to “get into the network”. Stakeholders confirmed that
limited opportunities encourage employees to look elsewhere for growth and promotions.
Although, faculty members would lose their retreat rights by leaving the college, and are
more likely to stay at the college and continue to teach rather than become administrators.
(Stakeholder Meetings, November 2008 – January 2009). It is necessary to change
people’s perception of their chances to be promoted at PC, by creating solutions to the
163
multiple barriers described by stakeholders. At the same time, participants in the program
must understand that their completion of the program will not guarantee career
advancement.
A staff member stated that “we need to clarify career ladders, so employees will
know what their options are and what they need to do to get there”. “It is difficult for
employees to see a possible career path, as well as alternative paths, since many positions
may not become available for long periods of time” (Stakeholder Meeting, December
2008). A manager participating in the focus group stated that: “We need to develop a
culture on campus where people think of management as an option that they can
consider. We should offer information on career pathways and create a culture that
encourages that” (January 2009).
Consequently, recruiting for the program means more than advertising. It is
necessary to address employees’ negative perceptions of their inability to be promoted at
their own college. However, these employees may be correct, and perhaps the college
needs to re-evaluate its selection process, so that successful program participants may
indeed have a chance to be hired for the positions they are preparing to take.
Scheduling.
Scheduling is a very important issue, as the program should be offered when
managers, staff and faculty are available. Stakeholders insisted that all mandatory
meeting dates should be set ahead of time and listed in the program flyer, so applicants
could mark their calendars and verify their availability even before applying. Based on
the information provided by managers, faculty and staff members, the best day of the
164
week to schedule training is Friday. Stakeholders concluded that the core sessions on
management and leadership that would be mandatory for all participants should be
scheduled once a month, on a Friday, preferable from 9:30 AM until 3:30 PM. Other
modules would be offered at different times that would be set based on the target
audiences. The program would be one-year long, and mandatory meetings should not be
scheduled when classes are not in session, because faculty members may be gone on
vacation. Therefore, the cohort would meet in September, October, November, at the end
of February, March, April, and the last meeting including the graduation, would be in
June. There would thus be a total of seven day-long meetings, in addition to the modules.
Modules specific for managers and staff could be scheduled in December and January.
Participants in the focus group agreed that this proposed schedule would work for them.
Evaluation.
Managers were asked how the program could be evaluated. M11 suggested: “You
can do a quick evaluation sheet at the end of each session about the speaker and so on”. It
will help identify what can be done better the next time (M4). However, as M3 stated:
“Evaluations right after the completion of the program can show participants’ satisfaction
and their ideas to improve the program, but they do not assess if their leadership skills
have developed” (Interviews, October 2008). M3 suggested doing “a longitudinal
evaluation to assess outcomes. For example, do an evaluation after six months, and after
a year, to be able to see if what was learned was implemented”.
Three managers explained that each participant will have individualized goals and
learning needs, and therefore the evaluation should assess if the individuals met their own
165
goals. M1 suggested that each participant prepare an action plan at the end of the
program, “saying what they are going to do to implement what they have learned, and
demonstrate that they can do it well”. M7 and M10 suggested using some pre and post
assessments to evaluate learning and growth for each individual. However, customizing
the assessment to each person’s own learning needs would be too cumbersome. In
addition, the goals of the program are to help participants gain leadership skills and
prepare for administrative positions at the college. Therefore the stakeholders suggested
focusing on measuring leadership skills and promotions.
To evaluate the gain in leadership skills, managers suggested self-evaluations,
peer-evaluations and evaluations from supervisors and mentors (M1, M5, M6, M10 and
M11, Interviews, October 2008). Asking supervisors to evaluate the learning may be
problematic because it would be perceived as a work evaluation, which is highly
regulated, especially for faculty members. The stakeholders recommended not asking
supervisors to formally evaluate participants’ learning. M10 suggested: “For mentoring
and shadowing components, you can survey the mentors and ask them to describe the
areas of improvement, or what they felt were strengths that emerged. It would have to be
qualitative in some way”. Similarly, M11 stated:
Each employee would have a sponsor or a nominator, and we can ask that person
and see if they saw any noticeable changes. The other way of doing that could be
that the participant chooses some people that they know well, so it’s kind of safe,
and says, fill this out about me, do you notice any changes, and what kind of
changes. That would be great feedback for the person and for the program.
These suggestions seem to provide interesting feedback for each participant, but
the possible lack of structure or consistency in the process makes assessing the program
166
difficult. Five managers (M4, M5, M6, M7 and M12) suggested monitoring participants’
promotions at PC or at other colleges, to measure if they are moving into administration.
Although, as M7 mentioned, promotions can be attributed to multiple factors, and may
not be the result of participation in the program. Also, if many participants do not get
promoted, it does not necessarily mean that the program failed, as their lack of
advancement may also be the results of dozens of other factors or circumstances.
Conducting an evaluation of the program’s effectiveness is not easy, but it is very
important to understand how the program can be improved. During the meetings,
stakeholders suggested doing evaluations of each session, a more comprehensive survey
at the end of the program, and a follow-up survey one year after completion. This three-
step evaluation would indicate if participants’ expectations were met, what improvements
they would suggest, what they learned in the program, how useful the program was in
helping them prepare for administrative positions, and if they were promoted.
(Stakeholder Meetings, December 2008 and January 2009).
Conclusion
The data collected off-site and on-site presented important similarities and
differences. For instance, the main goals of the programs are consistent, as they aim to
develop culturally competent leaders for succession planning, as well as enhance the
leadership skills of other employees who may not choose to become administrators but
wish to be better leaders in their current position. Therefore, the programs selected for
analysis are relevant to the design of PC’s program. Both off-site and on-site, the
emphasis on the college culture and ways of doings things was very strong and integrated
167
throughout the programs. Regarding succession planning, employees at PC expressed
concerns that faculty and staff members with leadership potential may not consider
administration as they do not have incentives to do so. Therefore, it is very important to
identify those employees and encourage them to apply for the program.
Employees at PC suggested that the best strategy to develop leaders is mentoring,
and insisted that the program should have a mentoring component. Only three of the
other programs had individual mentors for their program participants. Also, the issue of
future leaders being given an opportunity to gain management experience was very
important at PC while the other colleges did not have systems in place for that purpose.
The other components of the programs were comparable to what was suggested for PC’s
program (i.e. orientation, self-assessments, professional development plans, lectures and
seminars, team projects, readings and so on). The length of the program, one academic
year, and the scheduling on Fridays seems standard in most programs and consistent with
PC’s needs. Using internal speakers for college-specific topics and external speakers to
get different perspectives was also a common practice.
Regarding the administration of the programs, colleges had different levels of
staffing available to coordinate them, but all had in common at least one person who was
passionate about the program, as well as strong support from the President and Vice-
Presidents. Since the Professional and Organizational Development department at PC is
understaffed with only a secretary, a part-time clerical specialist and a Director who is
also in charge of several other programs, PC will need to establish a committee dedicated
168
to the program. Other programs studied were led by a committee, or were coordinated by
multiple individuals and were able to function successfully.
The key to making the program successful and low-cost is to use existing
resources, in particular the expertise of senior managers, and perhaps that of retirees and
managers from other colleges. The most costly programs allocated funds to pay for off-
campus locations and to hire consultants. Other model programs showed that PC can
create a low-cost program by using its own facilities, trainers and speakers (as well as
outside speakers invited by the President and other college leaders who have networks),
and a committee of volunteers for the coordination of the program. Funds will only be
required for materials, books, assessments, supplies, certificates and refreshments.
169
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Introduction
The community colleges play an important role as they educate nearly half of all
undergraduate students (AACC website) and support the economy by developing the
workforce. Community colleges currently face a shortage of qualified administrators to
replace Baby Boomers who are retiring in large numbers. This constitutes a significant
loss of knowledge, expertise, history, experience and culture (Shults, 2001). Future
community college leaders need to be identified and prepared for executive-level
administrative positions. The literature suggests that existing leadership development
programs (i.e., graduate degrees or leadership seminars) do not adequately prepare
individuals for community college leadership positions. Therefore, community colleges
must take a proactive role in the development of their future leaders.
A recent trend in community college leadership development is the creation of in-
house leadership programs often called “Grow-Your-Own” (GYO) programs (Jeandron
2006), which are offered by a college or district to some of their employees to prepare
them for leadership positions within the organization. However, there is a gap in
literature concerning the newest programs created by colleges and districts (Hull & Keim,
2007). Because of the major differences between existing GYO programs and their lack
of assessment, colleges wishing to create a program cannot simply replicate what others
have done, since they have no way of knowing which program might be most adequate
for their own institution. In addition, community colleges have different student
170
populations, communities, culture, history, processes, goals, values and therefore,
different leadership training needs.
Consequently, a campus-based leadership development program can be a good
strategy for colleges to grow their own leaders, but it must be customized to the college’s
needs and culture. The purpose of this qualitative, action research study was to make
recommendations on the design of the GYO program for a specific college. The main
research question is: How should a college-specific GYO leadership program be designed
to best fit the needs and resources of the college? The study also addresses the following
sub-questions:
1. What are the program’s specific goals?
2. What program components (e.g., content, format, delivery) are most appropriate?
3. How can the program be created with limited funding?
For this study, data were collected from 15 existing GYO programs to learn how other
community colleges created their programs. Next, data were collected from the site
studied, called “Premier College” (PC) to preserve confidentiality, through document
reviews, interviews with managers, monthly stakeholder meetings and a focus group to
test the research findings.
Major Research Findings
The literature review, and the analysis of data collected at 15 existing programs
and at PC, provided a wealth of information leading to recommendations on how the
GYO program should be created. This section presents the major research findings from
all three sources, answering the three research questions listed above. First, the program
171
goals are defined, then the components (including curriculum, integration of college
culture, mentoring and administration) and finally, the budget and funding sources.
Program Goals
During phone interviews, when asked to describe the goals of their existing
leadership development programs, colleges cited two related main goals: to develop
leaders who understand the culture of the college for succession planning, and to improve
participants’ leadership and management skills. Some of them also cited two secondary
goals: to solve college issues through team projects; and to promote cross-divisional
interaction and collegiality. According to the data collected at PC, the goals of the future
program is also to prepare employees with leadership potential for administrative
positions, and to enhance the skills of other employees who may not want to become
administrators but be leaders in other types of positions at the college. Therefore, the
programs studied have the same main goals as PC does, which makes the comparison
relevant and useful.
The research indicated that not enough people are interested in administration,
therefore, the college needs to encourage people with potential to consider management
positions and prepare for them. Three of the managers interviewed stated that they had
never considered working in administration until someone told them that they had
potential and should think about it. Participants in the stakeholder meetings also
emphasized the importance of encouraging potential leaders to apply for administrative
positions. Furthermore, employees indicated that there is a perception across campus that
employees have to leave the college if they want to move up in administration. For
172
instance, a junior manager stated that “We tend to hire people who are already
experienced. It wasn’t until recently that I started to see people promoted from within.
We like to hire people who have been tried and tested somewhere else” (Interview,
October 2008). Therefore, the college will have to clearly communicate the goals of the
program to change the culture and create a new perception that the college supports
employees’ professional growth and provides opportunities for promotions.
Program Components
The literature, in particular Campbell (2002) and Jeandron (2006), and the
study of existing GYO programs, indicate that several components of a GYO can be
valuable to the college. Campbell (2002) described a variety of community college in-
house leadership development programs which included presentations, seminars,
mentoring, job shadowing, team projects, individual projects under the direction of a
mentor, situational leadership workshops using case studies, problem-solving activities,
and direct applications of theoretical concepts and ideas discussed. Jeandron (2006)
reported that programs include mentoring and job shadowing, individual or group
projects and presentations, readings and lectures.
The study of 15 existing GYO programs led to the same conclusions, except
for mentoring and job shadowing that were rarely available. The majority of programs
studied included an orientation on the first day, presentations and panels, readings, case
studies, discussions, team projects and presentations. All formal programs included
assessment tools to improve participants’ self-awareness, and to create individualized
professional development plans, based on participants’ skills, interests and career goals.
173
Tools utilized in the programs assess personality types, leadership styles, and strengths.
Carroll and Romero (2003) also recommended that program participants examine their
own leadership styles, reflect on effective leadership, and use multiple lenses and diverse
perspectives. Eddy (2008) suggested that self-assessments are necessary for participants
to become more self-aware, discover their leadership styles, design strategies to use their
strengths, address their weaknesses, improve their cultural competency and are also
critical to ethical development.
Managers interviewed at PC and participants in the stakeholder meetings and the
focus group suggested that the program should include day-long mandatory sessions on
management and leadership, one Friday per month, including presentations from inside
and outside speakers, case studies and team projects. In addition, they requested shorter
modules that participants could take as electives, through the Professional and
Organizational Development department, for specific knowledge that would apply to
some divisions but not all (e.g., special programs for student services, or curriculum
development for department chairs). They insisted on the importance of offering
mentoring and job shadowing, for participants to better understand what administrative
positions entail, and to gain new skills.
Therefore, if resources needed were available at PC, the program should start with
a one-day orientation during which participants would become familiar with the program
structure and requirements. They would take individual assessments to better understand
their own leadership styles and strengths and create their professional development plans.
The program would then include day-long sessions on leadership and management,
174
including presentations from administrators and outside speakers, as well as shorter
modules on other topics (electives), team activities, readings, and case studies. These
recommendations have been validated through the stakeholder meetings and the focus
group.
Curriculum
The literature indicated that community college leaders need numerous
competencies that fall into AACC’s six main categories: organizational strategy, resource
management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy and
professionalism. According to AACC, organizational strategy includes all aspects of
strategic management, to improve the quality of education and meet institutional goals.
Resource management is the management of financial resources, human resources and
information technology. Communication means active listening, public speaking and
writing. Collaboration involves embracing the diversity of ideas and perspectives, and
demonstrating cultural competence to facilitate teamwork and collaboration, and leverage
networks and partnerships. Community college advocacy promotes diversity, inclusion,
equity, learning, academic excellence, open access and colleges’ mission and values.
Professionalism means being accountable, reflecting on performance and improvement,
demonstrating the courage to take risks, making difficult decisions, accepting
responsibility, and demonstrating authenticity, creativity, integrity and vision.
The comparison of the curriculum of the 15 programs studied indicates that the
competencies taught through the programs fit AACC’s six core competencies. In fact,
three of the GYO programs are designed based on the six competencies. The other
175
programs address the competencies but emphasize some more than others (see Table 2
for a comparison of the competencies). Indeed, organizational strategy has a strong focus
in the majority of programs, with sessions on managing vision and purpose, dealing with
ambiguity and strategic agility; vision, creativity, organizational analysis, systematic
planning, deliberative decision making, crisis and conflict management; visionary college
leadership, the administrator as an agent of change; changing colleges for changing
students; envisioning the college of the future; and fostering a culture of continuous
institutional improvement. All programs studied have a strong emphasis on resource
management and focus primarily on human resources and financial resources.
Communication is rarely taught as a topic; however, communication skills are developed
through activities, group projects, writing assignments and presentations. Similarly, few
programs have sessions on collaboration. However, through team projects, participants
learn how to collaborate and obtain the support of key individuals they need to complete
their projects and solve issues. Community college advocacy is not a strong emphasis in
the leadership programs examined. Professionalism is addressed by half of the colleges,
in particular at C1 with the following topics: self knowledge for leadership; leading from
the heart; emotional intelligence; ethics and integrity; courage and perseverance; and
servant leadership.
At PC, less than half of managers interviewed mentioned organizational strategy
as an important competency that leaders should have. However, it is important to note
that they were not prompted to comment on specific competencies, but rather, they were
asked an open-ended question. Based solely on managers’ responses, it seems that the
176
emphasis at PC is on the management of resources, communication and professionalism.
All managers insisted on the importance for leaders to be able to address personnel
issues, communicate effectively, be professional, and understand budgets. Community
college advocacy and collaboration were rarely mentioned. Nevertheless, the curriculum
should address all six leadership competencies, because the literature clearly indicates
that they are all critical. However, PC’s program should emphasize human resource
management and conflict resolution, such as solving personnel issues, because they are
clearly the most challenging areas at PC.
Table 2
Emphasis of Each Leadership Competency at the 15 GYO Studied and at PC
Competency Suggested in Literature
Emphasis at GYO
Studied
Emphasis at PC
Organizational Strategy Strong Medium
Resource Management Strong Strong
Communication Medium Strong
Collaboration Medium Medium
Community College Advocacy Weak Weak
Professionalism Medium Strong
In addition, as suggested by the stakeholders, some specialized modules could be
offered through the Professional and Organizational Development department for
employees who wish to learn area-specific knowledge such as measuring student learning
outcomes, creating new curriculum, regulations applying to categorically-funded
programs in student services and so on.
Integrating the College’s Culture
In the literature, Jeandron (2006) and Campbell (2002) stated that the main
advantage of GYO programs was the ability to integrate the culture of the colleges into
the programs, to grow leaders who will be culturally competent, and know how to lead
177
within the context of their own campuses. In addition, team projects give participants the
opportunity to solve real college issues and directly apply what they learn in the program.
Eddy (2008) suggested that for the learning to be effective, knowledge acquired through
training has to be applied on the home campus, practiced within the institution and based
on the organizational culture. For this reason, it is important to integrate the college
culture in the program and have teams work on college issues.
Based on the data collected from the 15 GYO programs, the culture of each
college is integrated in the programs. C10 stated: “The content is culture specific and
most of it is taught by our college administrators” (Phone Interview, October 2008).
Program participants at C2 study decision-making in the context of individual and
institutional values; study organizational structure and organizational culture; and gain a
deeper understanding of the college mission, vision and values. C7’s program includes
presentations on the college’s administrative roles and functions for participants to better
understand administrative positions in the context of their own college. Most colleges
offer sessions presented or facilitated by college executive administrators that focus on
the college’s culture and processes. The topics selected for presentations or workshops
also reflect the college culture.
At PC, participants in the stakeholder meetings insisted on the importance of
adapting the program to the culture of the college through presentations, case studies and
problem-solving activities. In addition, they suggested that presenters or mentors share
insights on politics with the program participants. Stakeholders repeatedly commented on
the relationships between faculty and administrators, and the importance of
178
understanding local expectations and boundaries. Interactions between administrators and
faculty vary greatly from one college to another, and managers at PC have to be sensitive
to the culture of shared governance and collaboration. In addition, they expressed a need
to have college administrators make presentations on their positions to help participants
understand what jobs may be a good fit for them. Therefore, the program should have a
strong emphasis on PC’s ways of doing things, history, politics and other insights,
operations, processes and procedures.
Mentoring
Based on the literature, mentoring plays a key role in preparing employees for
leadership positions, and is valuable to prepare for daily challenges and tasks (Shults,
2001). The survey conducted by Jeandron (2006) discovered the following benefits of
mentoring to participants: “exposure to different leadership styles; exposure to different
departments or campuses; guidance with individual and group projects; feedback on
written assignments; [and] discussion of leadership issues, including challenges” (p. 26).
Leaders say that having a mentor helped them prepare for and obtain their leadership
positions (Amey & VanderLinden, 2002; Kelly, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). In
addition, mentoring can help create a pipeline by making potential leaders aware that
opportunities exist and that they can become qualified for leadership positions. Piland
and Wolf (2003) emphasized that mentors should work closely with their mentees,
identify their professional development needs and propose solutions. For mentoring to be
effective, mentors and mentees have to make time to communicate regularly and work
closely together.
179
The study of the 15 programs indicated that while all colleges recognized the
value of mentoring, only three programs (C1, C8 and C9) provide a mentor to each
participant, and one program includes mentoring when requested individually by a
participant (C5). Four programs have mentors assigned to teams, who help participants
throughout the projects they are conducting, but do not help them with their current job
responsibilities or career goals. Nevertheless, two colleges use ACCCA’s program to
give employees access to a mentor and professional development activities. This program
is comprehensive and includes structure and accountability to ensure success. For
instance, mentees must create a contract, with learning objectives and specific activities
to be conducted throughout the year. Mentees work individually with their mentors and
participate in group activities and training (3-day program retreat, meetings, workshops
and conferences). Colleges can use this program, or learn from it to develop their own.
At PC, nearly all participants in the study emphasized that mentoring should be
part of the program. It was repeatedly mentioned that future leaders need someone to
provide expertise, advice, support, encouragement, as well as exposure to administrative
functions and opportunities to gain experience through participation in projects.
According to M1, for the mentoring relationship to be effective, mentees need to create
their own specific goals, and prepare a learning plan. The mentor will then provide
feedback on the mentee’s learning needs and provide the support needed for the person’s
professional development.
Most participants in the study suggested that current senior managers can serve as
mentors in the program, because they have expertise in their field, as well as cultural
180
competency. However, it was also suggested to use mentors from the outside to get new
perspectives, new ideas, and encourage improvements, rather than keep doing things the
same way. Mentors could be recruited from current college administrators, retirees, and
community college experts from other organizations to have a sufficient number of
mentors and a wide range of expertise. As explained in chapter four, the selection of
mentors would be critical. It would also be very important to provide mentors with
training and guidelines to ensure that the mentoring relationship is effective. Mentors and
mentees would be paired based on mentors’ expertise and mentees’ career goals and
learning needs. Activities would include meetings, job shadowing, and participation on
projects when appropriate. Like ACCCA’s mentoring program, PC’s program would use
contracts signed by mentees and mentors, describing learning objectives, activities and
timelines to formalize the relationship and keep both parties accountable.
Program Administration
The literature emphasized the importance of being inclusive in the planning stage
and involving the college President. Piland and Wolf (2003) advised to obtain board
approval, create policies, allocate adequate resources, assign the program to one
responsible individual and establish a leadership development committee to guide the
program. Jeandron (2006) also mentioned the importance of appointing a person or
designating a department to be responsible for the creation, implementation and
management of the program. It is preferable to select most of the presenters, trainers and
facilitators from the institution (Jeandron, 2006) to align the program to college culture
181
and values, and also to keep costs low; as well as invite some outside speakers to bring
new ideas and perspectives.
The directors of the GYO programs studied made the same comments and
recommendations. All insisted that having the support of the President and the Vice-
Presidents is necessary to give credibility to the program and to encourage supervisors to
allow employees to participate during work hours. Furthermore, senior administrators
often become involved in the planning of the program, in presentations and activities, and
use their personal networks to invite outside speakers and presenters. Designating
someone who is responsible for the program was also cited as a key success factor. The
staffing varied greatly from one manager, often a Director of Professional and
Organizational Development, or a Coordinator, to a team of four employees, or a
committee created to coordinate the program.
At PC, stakeholders were asked to comment on how the program should be
coordinated. Since the Professional and Organizational Development department is
under-staffed and does not have a person who could spend numerous hours on the
creation of this program, stakeholders suggested creating a committee, led by someone
with passion for leadership development. A committee comprised of managers, staff and
faculty members could be formed to design the curriculum, invite presenters and trainers,
select program participants, evaluate the outcomes of the program, and suggest
improvements. The college President would endorse the program and encourage
employees to participate.
182
Program Budget
The literature indicates that a budget needs to be created to institutionalize the
program (Jeandron, 2006; Piland & Wolf, 2003). Funds may be allocated from a variety
of sources such as professional development funds, President’s office, general funds,
foundation, sponsors and grants (Jeandron, 2006).
The programs studied indicated that their budgets came in part or in totality from
the Professional Development budget, and in some cases from Academic Affairs,
Chancellor’s Contingency Funds, President’s Office, Office for Human Resources,
College Foundation, and Vice-Presidents’ budgets. The cost of the programs varies
greatly from one college to another. The main difference is whether the program includes
a retreat for three days in a hotel, which significantly raises the cost, for lodging, food
and the use of meeting rooms. However, many programs are able to function on a budget
of approximately $10,000 per year. For instance, several programs have a budget of
$10,000 to pay for the food provided at meetings, the celebration lunch at the end of the
program, books, assessment tools, framed certificates and stipends to external presenters.
At PC, some managers indicated that the program could be created at a very low
cost, as most contributors would do it on a voluntary basis and that the college would
only have to pay for materials and refreshments (Interviews, October 2008). Evidently,
some financial resources need to be allocated to the program. The stakeholders suggested
that in tight budget years, the program can be created and maintained with a low budget,
provided that employees are willing to develop and coordinate the program with no
additional pay. In this case, a moderate budget would be needed to pay for books,
183
assessment tools, certificates, other supplies and materials, and refreshments. Employees
suggested that funds should be made available from the professional development budget
or the President’s Office. In addition, the college could seek sponsors who might be
willing to contribute a few thousand dollars in exchange for the advertisement of their
products and services (e.g., the local credit union or vendors used by the college for
insurance).
Discussion
The study confirmed that a GYO program can be an excellent strategy to help
employees prepare for administrative positions. This was suggested by several authors
including Amey and VanDerLinden (2002), Campbell (2002), Manzo (2003), Hull and
Keim (2007), Piland and Wolf (2003), Shults (2001), and Watts and Hammons (2002). In
addition, GYO program directors all believed that their programs were effective and
many reported that program participants often got promoted to administrative positions.
Indeed, by creating their own programs, colleges can integrate their culture and ways of
doing things in the training, so that participants not only develop management and
leadership skills, but also acquire cultural competency. However, a comparison of data
collected at PC and at the 15 existing colleges with the literature of community college
leadership competencies and leadership development programs, indicate that in-house
training can have severe limitations.
184
GYO Programs’ Strengths
In-house leadership training programs present considerable benefits including:
accessibility, flexibility, effectiveness, direct application in the context of the college,
opportunity to solve real college issues through the training, and possible use of mentors.
Indeed, these programs can be accessible to a larger number of employees at any level of
the institution, as opposed to leadership seminars that only few employees get to attend
each year because of the cost. Most of the GYO programs studied had 15 to 20
participants, but some programs accepted up to 45 people each year. Each college can
decide whom to include and how many people to train.
In addition, the element that most distinguishes GYO programs from other
leadership programs, is the ability to customize the content and design to the colleges’
culture and needs, as well as integrate state legislation and its implications on the college
operations. The study of the 15 programs showed how each college had created its own
curriculum and teaching methods, to meet its individual goals. Most colleges emphasized
current issues (e.g., leading through change; bonds and construction) or college values
(e.g., ethics and servant leadership). Programs had different levels of staffing and funding
as they were created based on the resources available. The meetings were scheduled on
days and times most convenient for employees to be able to attend, and the location on-
site eliminated the issue of transportation time and cost.
The literature and the responses given by employees who coordinate GYO
programs, indicate that the programs are perceived as effective to prepare employees for
administrative leadership positions at their respective colleges. Supervisors reported that
185
participants gained leadership and management skills, and many got promoted to
administrative positions. The customization of the programs as well as the length of the
training (usually one academic year) also make the program more successful than short-
term leadership programs (e.g., institutes and week-long institutes) or non-specialized
degree programs.
Eddy (2008) emphasized that for the learning to be effective, knowledge acquired
through training has to be applied on the home campus, practiced within the institution
and based on the organizational culture. For this reason, in-house programs offer a degree
of specialization and direct application that make the training more valuable than other
external programs. Team projects make program participants think critically about a
college issue, within the context of the college, investigate the problem with depth and
propose a solution adequate for the college. According to the 15 programs studied, team
projects also improve communication, collaboration, and networking, as participants have
to work with new people across campus, in areas they may not know. The literature also
suggests that GYO program participants become more involved in campus activities and
committees; increase their collaboration across disciplines; develop innovative projects;
and improve their problem-solving abilities (Jeandron, 2006).
GYO programs can include mentoring, which is highly valued at PC. Managers
stated that a mentor can teach a mentee college processes, procedures and policies;
explain the college culture, context, expectations, politics and relationship with leaders
and unions; and show how to handle specific situations, through the participation in
meetings and the inclusion in e-mail communication. In addition, a mentor can create
186
opportunities for the mentee to gain relevant experience, connect with key individuals,
and demonstrate their ability to lead. Furthermore, mentors can help employees define
their career goals, learning needs, professional development plans, and strategies to
prepare for leadership positions. Senior administrators can transmit their expertise and
knowledge of the college’s culture, history, practices and expectations to future leaders,
before they retire or leave their positions. Furthermore, through mentoring and job
shadowing, employees can better understand positions, to see firsthand how departments
work and how decisions are made, and what administrators have to deal with, in terms of
responsibilities, workload, politics, and work with other employees, to find out whether
administration is a good fit for them before they accept a permanent administrative
position.
GYO Programs’ Limitations
The main limitations identified through the study are the risk to overlook
important training needs, because of managers’ biases and the college characteristics and
culture; the lack of training needs assessments prior to the program creation; the tendency
to make decisions based on convenience rather than effectiveness; and the risk to train
people to replicate past practices rather than seek improvement.
The research has shown that individuals who create the program’s curriculum
may introduce strong biases and focus solely on what they believe is important. Instead
of growing “our own” leaders, they may grow “their own” leaders, by molding them at
their own image or vision. The examples studied revealed that most program directors
had created the programs based on what they believed was needed and valuable. Other
187
colleges may be tempted to do the same thing. For example, in PC’s case, employees
strongly emphasized that leaders should be prepared to deal with personnel issues, know
contracts, be prepared to work with unions, be excellent communicators, and
understanding budgeting. While this is essential, other vital competencies were seldom
mentioned, such as the ability to create a vision, strategize, seek additional sources of
funding, be sensitive to diversity and be an advocate for the community colleges.
According to the literature, suburban colleges like PC tend to have a diverse
student body and a high population growth necessitating them to be flexible, adapt to the
growing demand for education and training, and be sensitive to the issue of diversity
(Katsinas, 1994). Suburban colleges play an important role in their communities, for
education, community services and economic and workforce development (Hardy &
Katsinas, 2007). Therefore, their leaders need to have a vision, an ability to lead change
and innovation, and strong relations with community members. For these reason, the
GYO program at PC should teach all six leadership competencies that AACC’s defined
as national standards, rather than only those that are most valued at the college.
Some of the biases identified can be explained by the characteristics and culture
of the college. For instance, the literature suggested that in a “traditional culture” (Levin,
1997), the emphasis is on academics and student success (McGrath & Spear, 1991;
Richardson, Fisk, & Okun, 1983). Levin (1997) described a traditional culture as where,
“the college mission and goals focus largely upon the intellectual and cognitive
development of students and the institutional role of providing access to educational
opportunities, largely through university transfer and preparation for employment.” (p. 6).
188
Other aspects of the institutional life may take a second place, leading to the reproduction
of social and economic inequities, because of the lack of focus on equity, student services
and remediation (Weis, 1985). Leaders in traditional colleges foster academic excellence
and relationships with faculty, but do not focus on developing partnerships with their
community members (Levin, 1997). Although community college advocacy and
collaboration with external partners have been identified as key competencies for
community college leaders, they may be secondary in traditional colleges. This was
apparent at PC as none of the employees participating in the study mentioned community
college advocacy or collaboration with external partners, and seemed to be internally
focused rather than externally.
PC managers’ focus on management rather than leadership is typical of
“hierarchical culture” (Levin, 1997), which emphasize planning, organizing, budgeting,
staffing and evaluation, and strive for organizational excellence and success, increased
student access and high academic standards (Roueche & Baker, 1987). In a hierarchical
culture, “The college president and administrative boards demonstrate strong leadership
traits and uphold ideals of social transformation and excellence for both students and the
organization.” (Levin, 1997, p. 1). Their leaders foster a strong institutional work ethic
(Levin, 1997), which was confirmed by managers’ strong beliefs in professionalism as a
key leadership competency. Typically in hierarchical colleges, the role of the President is
very important to communicate the college mission, create organizational climate, and
make meaning for others (Levin, 1997). This appears to be true for PC, as managers
189
interviewed adhered to the college’s mission and stated goals, and did not mention the
ability to create a vision and a strategic plan, as a key leadership competency.
The study of 15 GYO programs revealed that only five colleges had surveyed
employees to identify what they needed and wanted to learn through the leadership
program. The other colleges did not do any type of training assessment, since they
believed that they knew what needed to be done. Interestingly, the study revealed that the
strongest factor influencing the design of the leadership programs was the person(s) who
created them. Indeed, 10 programs were created based on leaders’ perceptions of their
college’s needs, or their own concept of how leadership programs should be designed. In
most cases, the programs strongly reflected the vision of their leaders, or their
philosophies of leadership.
In addition to the lack of assessment, the programs indicate that learning theories
were not taken into consideration in the design of the programs. Indeed, pedagogy,
program structure and scheduling were decided based on convenience rather than
effectiveness. For instance, most programs have day-long sessions, with lectures and
presentations, while no evidence was presented to suggest that these methods were
effective. In reality, the scheduling was set based on participants’ availability, and the
structure of the program based on presenters’ preferences. Colleges that wish to create a
program should refer to learning theories to design programs that are conducive to
learning, and integrate activities that are known to be effective.
Another limitation of GYO programs is that the amount of detailed information
provided in the training on how to do things, can reduce creativity and discourage
190
employees from trying new things. Participants are thus encouraged to keep replicating
past practices rather than seeking improvements. This is particularly problematic for
colleges that do not use outside presenters in their programs, and only present their own
perspectives and ways of doing things, making their programs too narrowly focused.
Implications for Practice
All colleges have their own biases and lenses, and value some competencies more
than others, to the point that they may not pay attention to critical competencies in their
future leaders. For this reason, colleges that wish to create a GYO program should do an
internal assessment of their needs (Jeandron 2006), and use the literature on community
college leadership competencies, to create a more holistic approach to the development of
their future leaders. In addition, they need to refer to adult learning theories and focus on
effectiveness rather than convenience and availability. A training needs assessment can
reveal issues that the college should address, and opportunities to help employees
improve their skills and feel that their college is willing to invest in their professional
development. A needs assessment is necessary for a program to be comprehensive and be
more likely to meet the needs and goals of the college. Literature is available on what
skills and abilities community college leaders need to have to be effective. AACC’s six
competencies are the result of extensive research and should be used for new programs.
Furthermore, the literature showed that community college leaders must develop multiple
competencies to lead the community colleges through an unprecedented number of
challenges and changes (Amey, 2005; Kelly, 2002), such as “financial pressure, growth
in technology, changing faculty roles, public scrutiny, changing demographics and
191
competing values” (Kezar & Eckel, 2002, p. 435). Therefore, if senior managers only
transmit their knowledge to junior managers but do not provide opportunities to learn
new knowledge and skills, the training will be incomplete and quickly outdated.
Furthermore, colleges should use outside speakers to present different
perspectives, promising practices, and encourage participants to seek improvement rather
than replicate what was done in the past without reflecting on it. One possible solution is
to create a program in collaboration with other local community colleges, to share
resources, curriculum, speakers, and bring together employees from different campuses.
A multi-college program could reduce bias, increase the breadth and depth of the
materials taught, and offer access to a variety of presenters and mentors from different
institutions. Participants could interact with, and learn from, other employees at
neighboring colleges. Collectively, the colleges would have a wider pool of applicants for
positions they need to fill, and employees would also see more opportunities to move up
in administration. Colleges might consider an exchange programs for their employees to
work at another campus for a certain period of time, and acquire more experience. The
important point is that colleges that wish to start a program should be creative rather than
replicate what has been done by others, and find the right balance between inside and
outside perspectives, to foster cultural competency without introducing excessive bias.
Mentoring plays a key role in preparing employees for leadership positions, and is
valuable to prepare for daily challenges and tasks (Shults, 2001). Nevertheless, not all
mentoring relationships are successful. It is recommended that colleges carefully select
mentors and pair them with mentees whose learning needs correspond to the mentors’
192
expertise. Colleges should also formalize the mentoring relationships, set clear guidelines
and expectations, and train mentors. ACCCA’s mentor program may be used as model.
Participants establish a learning contract, activities and timelines, and communicate with
coordinators to report on their progress or discuss any potential issue. Mentors and
mentees are provided instructions and guidelines at the beginning of the year, to improve
the effectiveness of the working relationships. Mentors can be recruited from the college
or other neighboring colleges. When appropriate, mentees should job shadow and seek
opportunities to learn about their mentors’ position and responsibilities.
For a GYO program to be successful, it must be strongly supported by the College
President and Vice-Presidents (Jeandron, 2006; Piland & Wolf, 2003). It must be
perceived as valuable, equitable, and accessible. Colleges have to create an application
process and clear criteria to select participants, so employees understand why they are or
are not accepted in the program. One person must be responsible for the program, but
may work in collaboration with a committee and/or a few other staff members (Jeandron,
2006; Piland & Wolf, 2003). The 15 programs studied demonstrated that while some
programs are very costly, others operate with a budget under $10,000 per year. Therefore,
money should not be a major obstacle to the creation of a program. The key success
factor seems to be the college’s commitment to the program, and the dedication of the
employees who coordinate it.
Before starting a program, each college must be able to clearly articulate the
specific goals, to align the training to the outcomes sought, to define criteria to select
program participants, and to be able to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. When
193
succession planning is the main goal, colleges should identify employees with leadership
potential and encourage them to apply. It is also important to understand employees’ own
perceptions regarding their ability to get promoted and identify any potential obstacle that
may need to be overcome. To encourage employees to participate in the program and
seek administrative positions, it may be necessary to improve their awareness of the
realities of these positions, and help them understand how their leadership can make a
difference at the college. In addition, career pathways should be made clear, because
employees may not be aware of existing career opportunities, job requirements and their
own ability to meet those requirements. Mentoring and job shadowing should be made
available when possible, so employees could be exposed to different positions and
discover what type of job would be right for them. Furthermore, the hiring process should
be aligned with the intent of the creation of such a program. For instance, completion of
the program should be valued by hiring committees, and experience gained through the
program should be taken into consideration while evaluating applicants’ qualifications.
Finally, the data collected at PC revealed a need to make certain resources
available for junior managers such as handbooks, detailed policies and procedures,
contact lists, and lists of websites to find information on regulations and requirements.
This is a reminder that in addition to training, colleges must provide an adequate
environment, systems, tools and information to allow administrators to succeed.
Understanding the college’s ways of doing things is very important, and can in part be
communicated through written documents. However, insights on politics, history and
personalities are unlikely to be taught through a formal program; therefore junior
194
managers will have to learn how to operate within the college culture as they obtain
administrative positions, by actually doing the job, and by seeking advice from their
mentors.
Future Research
The purpose of this study was to identify how a college-specific GYO leadership
program should be designed to best fit the needs and resources of a college. The research
conducted included a review of the literature, the analysis of 15 existing programs, and
data collection and analysis at the site studied. The research findings also revealed a need
for future research in four areas. First, the concept of creating a multi-college program to
share resources, include different perspectives, and train a higher number of employees,
needs to be studied to evaluate its advantages and disadvantages. Second, more research
is needed to compare GYO programs and other leadership programs, to identify the
strengths of each type and potentially design a hybrid program to eliminate most of the
limitations of both types. Third, it is necessary to investigate how the training programs
and the hiring processes can be better aligned, to support the promotion of employees
into administrative positions. Fourth, research should be conducted to create a valid
assessment tool, to evaluate if GYO programs met their individual goals, and to identify
promising practices.
A possible solution to the issue of bias and encouraging replication rather than
improvement by training leaders in-house, may be to create regional programs, in
collaboration with other community colleges located in proximity. In this model, a few
community colleges, perhaps two to four to keep the coordination manageable, would
195
have one common program and share presenters, mentors, and other resources. Thus,
participants would learn multiple approaches and perspectives on the competencies
taught through the program, and would have access to a variety of mentors. However, the
program would have to be more general than a regular GYO program, and it may not be
possible to integrate the culture of the colleges because they may vary significantly. A
regional program would allow the preparation of community college leaders for the
region rather than one college, and employees may be more likely to apply for positions
at participating colleges, rather than remaining at the same campus. Future research is
needed to validate this hypothesis and evaluate the feasibility of such a model. Regional
programs may already exist, and if so, should be studied to identify their pros and cons,
evaluate their outcomes and identify promising practices for community college
leadership development.
Another possibility would be to create a hybrid program, perhaps by selecting a
group of employees at a college, by allowing them to attend a formal leadership program
and to return to their campus to implement what they learned. A list of leadership
programs available is provided in Appendix A. Participants could form teams and work
on projects or solve problems as a group. They would meet and discuss how what they
learned in the training can be applied to their campus and their job responsibilities. Thus,
the training would be broader than that of a GYO, but participants would also apply their
new knowledge and skills to the context of their college. The groups would also create a
cohort spirit, and increase cross-departmental communication and networking. The
college would not have to create a curriculum, invite trainers and speakers, and would
196
avoid most of the work involved in the creation of a GYO. However, leadership institutes
and seminars are more expensive, and the cost of training a group of employees through
outside programs is likely to significantly exceed that of a GYO program.
When a GYO program is created primarily for succession planning purposes, it is
necessary to identify and remove potential obstacles. Conversations with employees at
PC and at the 15 colleges studied revealed that employees do not have strong incentives
to seek administrative positions. For instance, faculty members with longevity tend to
earn salaries comparable to the Deans’ but are not required to work in the summer and
have much more flexibility in their schedule than administrators do. In addition, if they
left their college to get administrative experience elsewhere, they would lose their tenure.
Moreover, faculty members and classified staff are often not considered for management
positions because they lack supervisory and management experience. It is necessary to
research possible measures to create incentives for employees to move into
administration, and to remove existing obstacles in the hiring processes that prevent
future leaders from being considered for these jobs.
As previously mentioned, the phone interviews with existing GYO program
directors indicated that the evaluations conducted were used to improve the programs
based on participants’ feedback. In some cases, colleges kept track of employees’
promotions or acceptance of leadership roles on campus (e.g. Senate President).
However, promotions and new leadership roles cannot be solely attributed to the
participation in a leadership program. Research should be conducted to create an
assessment tool to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a GYO program, and assess the
197
value of the different components of the programs. It is necessary to identify promising
practices, as opposed to common practices. Many of the programs were very
comprehensive and required numerous hours of staff time to keep the programs running.
An assessment of the different components of the programs would indicate what should
be continued and what could be eliminated, if resources were reduced. Also, new
assessment methodologies are needed to directly link outcomes to goals. Several colleges
stated that the goal of their programs was to prepare leaders for administrative positions;
however, they evaluated the effectiveness of their programs based on the success of the
team projects or participants’ satisfaction with the programs rather than their original
goals.
Conclusion
As a “junior” administrator, I was interested in studying how community colleges
can help employees prepare for administrative leadership positions. I was not surprised to
discover that formal education and short-term leadership institutes are not sufficient to
prepare administrators for the challenges ahead. The idea of in-house training seemed to
provide a wonderful opportunity for those who want to improve their leadership and
management skills. I learned that few colleges have a GYO program, and that they
generally do not have comprehensive evaluation methods to assess the programs’
effectiveness. Programs are generally created based on individuals’ subjective
perceptions and ideas, rather than needs assessment and utilization of literature on
leadership and adult learning theories. The study of GYO programs’ strengths and
weaknesses revealed the challenge of achieving balance between the internal influence,
198
which is necessary to teach cultural competency, and outside perspectives to improve
quality and reduce bias. Anyone in the process of designing such a program should
reflect on the notion of creating “our own” leaders, as opposed to “my own” or “their
own”.
199
References
Adam, M. (2005). Help wanted: Community college leaders. Too many retiring in
coming years. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from
http://www.sandiego.edu/soles/centers/ccldi/
American Association of Community Colleges. (2008). Community college statistics.
Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index.htm
American Association of Community Colleges. (2005). Competencies for community
college leaders. Washington, D.C: American Association of Community
Colleges. Retrieved on February 4, 2008, from http://dbtext.aacc.nche.edu/dbtw-
wpd/data/CompentenciesForLeaders.pdf
Amey, M. J. (2005). Leadership as learning: Conceptualizing the process. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(9), 689-704.
Amey, M. J., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). Career paths for community college
leaders. (Research Brief Leadership Series, No. 2). Washington, D.C.: American
Association of Community Colleges.
Anderson, J. (1997). Leadership training initiatives for community college
administrators: A focused synthesis of the literature. Community College Review,
24(4), 27-53.
Association of California Community College Administrators. (2008). Retrieved on
February 4, 2008, from http://www.accca.org
Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker III., G. A. (1998). Managing change: A model for community college leaders.
Washington, D.C.: Community College Press, American Association of
Community Colleges.
Baker, G. et al. (1992). Cultural leadership: Inside America’s community colleges.
Washington, D.C.: Community College Press, American Association of
Community Colleges.
Baker, G. et al. (1995). Team building for quality: Transitions in the American
community college. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press, American
Association of Community Colleges.
Barwick, J. T. (2002). Pathways to the presidency: Same trails, new vistas. Community
College Journal, 73(1), 6-11.
200
Berquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boggs, G. (2002). Forward. In D. Campbell (Ed.), The leadership gap: Model Strategies
for leadership development. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Boggs, G. (2003). Leadership context for the twenty-first century. In W. E. Piland & D.
B. Wolf (Eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 123, Help wanted:
Preparing community college leaders in a new century (pp. 15-25). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brown, L., Martinez, M., & Daniel, D. (2002). Community college leadership
preparation: Needs, perceptions, and recommendations. Community College
Review, 30(1), 45-66.
California Community College Council for Staff and Organizational Development.
(2008). Retrieved on May 7, 2008, from http://www.4csd.org/
Campbell, D. F. (2002). The leadership gap: Model strategies for leadership
development. Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association
of Community Colleges.
Campbell, D. F. (2006). The new leadership gap: Shortages in administrative positions.
Community College Journal, 76(4), 10-14.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). The Carnegie
Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. New York: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications
Carroll, C. M., & Romero, M. G. (2003). Leadership development: A collaborative
approach. New Directions for Community Colleges, 123, 83-91.
Chang, N. (1978). Organizational structure in multi-campus community junior
colleges/districts. Denver: Community College of Denver.
201
Chesson, J. P., & Rubin, S. (2002). Toward rural prosperity: A state policy framework in
support of rural community colleges. Chapel Hill, NC: Rural Community College
Alliance.
Chiriboga, C. (2003). Administration 101: Evaluation of a professional development
program. New Directions for Community Colleges, (123), 73-81.
Clark, M. M., & Davis, E. (2007). Engaging leaders as builders of sustainable rural
communities: A case study. In P. L. Eddy & J. P. Murray (Eds.). Rural community
colleges: Teaching, learning, and leading in the heartland. New Directions for
Community Colleges (pp. 47-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clowes, D., & Levin, B. (1989). Community, technical and junior colleges: Are they
leaving higher education? The Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 349-355.
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1987). The collegiate function of community colleges:
Fostering higher learning through curriculum and student transfer. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (2003). The American community college. (3
rd
ed.) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved March 5, 2008, from
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu
Cooper, J., & Kempner, K. (1993). Lord of the flies community college: A case study or
organizational disintegration. The Review of Higher Education. Summer 1993,
419-437.
Cota, S. (2006). Grow your own leadership programs: Community colleges leadership
development initiatives. Community College Leadership Development Initiatives,
University of San Diego.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Curtis, E. (2007, February). Desperately seeking CEO. (ACCCA Reports). Sacramento,
CA: Association of California Community College Administrators.
Dennison, J. (Ed.). (1995). Challenge and opportunity. Vancouver, B. C.: University of
British Columbia Press.
202
DiscProfile. (2009). Retrieved on February 8, 2009, from http://www.discprofile.com
Dougherty, K. (1994). The contradictory college. Albany: State University of New York.
Duval, B. (2003). Role of universities in leadership development. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 123, 63-71.
Eddy, P. L. (2008). Changing the guard in community colleges: The role of leadership
development. In A. Kezar, (Ed.), New Horizons for Leadership Development of
Faculty and Administrators in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Eddy, P. L., & Murray, J. P. (2007). Strategizing for the future. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 137, 99-106.
Eller, R., Jensen, J. M., Robbins, R. L., Russell, J., Salant, P., Torres, V., et al. (2003).
Opportunities in place: National assessment of the rural community college
initiative. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Evans, G. (2001). The world on our backs. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 25(8), 181-192.
Evelyn, J. (2001). Community colleges face a crisis of leadership. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 47(30). Retrieved February 29, 2008, from
http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Fluharty, C., & Scaggs, B. (2007). The rural differential: Bridging the resource gap. New
Directions for Community Colleges, (137), 19-26.
Frye, J. (1992). The vision of the public junior college, 1900-1940. New York:
Greenwood Press.
Gibson-Benninger, B. S., Ratcliff, J. L., & Rhoads, R. A. (1996). Diversity, discourse,
and democracy: Needed attributes in the next generation of community college
leadership programs. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and
continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today. New
Directions for Community Colleges, (95), 65-75. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:
Bantam.
Green, M. F. (1988). Leaders for a new era: Strategies for higher education. New York:
American Council on Education, Macmillan.
203
Hankin, J. N. (1996). The door that never closes: Continuing education needs of
community college leaders. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and
continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today. New
Directions for Community Colleges, (95), 37-46. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hardy, D. E., & Katsinas, S. G. (2007). Classifying community colleges: How rural
community colleges fit. New Directions for Community Colleges, 137, 5-17.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for
students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Herrmann International. (2009). Retrieved on February 8, 2009, from
http://www.hbdi.com
Hull, J. R., & Keim, M. C. (2007). Nature and status of community college leadership
development programs. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
31(9), 689-702.
Jeandron, C. A. (2006). Growing your own leaders: Community colleges step up.
Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association of
Community Colleges.
Jensen, A. M. (1984). Multicampus community colleges: Twenty years later. San
Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino Community College District.
Jensen, R., & Giles, R. (2006). Insider’s guide to community college administration. (2
nd
ed.) Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association of
Community Colleges.
Johnson, N. J. (1998). Study reveals surprising perceptions of community college
leadership. Community College Journal, 68(5), 37-38.
Joint Special Populations Advisory Committee. (2008). http://www.jspac.org/
Karlsen, J. I. (1991). Action research as method: Reflections from a program for
developing methods and competence. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory action
research (pp. 143-158). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Katsinas, S. G. (1994). A review of the literature related to economic development and
community colleges. Community College Review. 21(4), 67-80.
Katsinas, S. G. (1996). Preparing leaders for diverse institutional settings. In J. C. Palmer
& S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and continuing education for community
college leaders: What it means today. New Directions for Community Colleges,
(95), 15-25. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
204
Kelly, E. (2002). The changing of the guard. Community College Week, 14(21), 6-9.
Kempner, K. (1991). The community college as a marginalized institution. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of ASHE, Boston.
Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in
higher education: The revolution of research on leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change
strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive
concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.
Knowles, J. (1995). A matter of survival: Emerging entrepreneurship in community
colleges in Canada. In J. Dennison (Ed.), Challenge and pportunity (pp. 184-207).
Vancouver, B. C.: University of British Columbia Press.
Kuh, G., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., et al. (1988). Involving colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Leist, J. (2007). External culture: Its impact on rural community college presidents.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(4), 305-325.
Levin, J. S. (1997). The cultures of the community college. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 22
nd
, Albuquerque,
NM, November 6-9, 1997.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1981). Do evaluators wear grass skirts? “going native”
and ethnocentrism as problems in utilization. Paper presented at the joint annual
meeting of the Evaluation Network and the Evaluation Research Society, Austin,
Texas.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Lominger International. (2009). Retrieved on February 8, 2009, from
http://www.lominger.com/develop_coach.php
Lorenzo, A. L. (1998). A framework for understanding change: Context, criteria, and
culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(4), 335-348.
Lorenzo, A. L. (2002). Recruiting and developing leaders for the 21
st
century. In D.
Campbell (Ed.), The leadership gap: Model Strategies for leadership development
(p. 47-57). Washington, DC: Community College Press.
205
Manzo, K. K. (2003). Cultivating the future. Community College Week, 15(19), 6-8.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing Qualitative research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Martin, J. (1995). The great transition: Using the seven disciplines of enterprise
engineering to align people, technology, and strategy. New York: American
Management Association.
Mason, S. O., & Townsend, B. K. (1988, November). Graduates of doctoral programs in
higher education: Demographics and career patterns. Paper presented at the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, St. Louis, MO.
Maxwell, J. C. (2006). The 360 degree leader: Developing your influence from anywhere
in the organization. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.
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.
McClenney, K. M. (2001). Converting crisis to opportunity. Community College Journal,
71(6), 24-27.
McGrath, D., & Spear, M. (1991). The academic crisis of the community colleges.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
McPhail, C. J. (2000). Transforming community college leadership preparation: A cohort
leadership learning model. Retrieved July 12, 2008, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/
16/d5/8c.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Myers and Briggs Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved on February 8, 2009, from
http://www.myersbriggs.org
Myran, G., Baker III., G. A., Simone, B., & Zeiss, T. (2003). Leadership strategies for
community college executives. Washington, DC: Community College Press,
American Association of Community Colleges.
O’Banion, T. (2007). Crisis and calamity in the community college. Community College
Journal, 77(3), 44-47.
Owen, S. (1995). Organizational culture and community colleges. In J. D. Dennison
(Ed.), Challenge and opportunity, 141-168. Vancouver, B.C.: UBC Press.
206
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pennington, K., & Williams, M. R. (2002). Building institutional capacity at rural
community colleges through consortia. Cullowhee, NC: Western Carolina
University.
Piland, W. E., & Wolf, D. B. (2003). In-house leadership development: Placing the
colleges squarely in the middle. New Directions for Community Colleges, 123,
93-99.
Rendon, L., & Mathews, T. (1994). Success of community college students: Current
issues. In J. Ratcliff, S. Schwarz, & L. Ebbers (Eds.), Community Colleges, 343-
353. Needham, MA: Simon and Schuster Custom Publishing.
Richardson, R., Fisk, E. & Okun, M. (1983). Literacy in the open access college. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roe, M. A., & Baker, G. A. (1989). The development of community college leaders: A
challenge for our future. Community College Review, 16, 5-16.
Roueche, J., & Baker III., G. (1987). Access and excellence. Washington, D.C.: The
Community College Press.
Roueche, J., & Roueche, S. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student
in the open door college. Washington, D.C.: The Community College Press.
Roueche, J., Taber, L., & Roueche, S. (1995). The company we keep: Collaboration in
the community college. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community
Colleges.
Ross, M., & Green M. F. (2002). The American college president. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education.
Rural Community College Initiative. (2007). Retrieved on July 12, 2008, from
http://www.mdcinc.org/rcci/publications.htm.
Seidman, E. (1985). In the words of the faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sengupta, R., & Jepsen, C. (2006, November). California’s community college students.
Public Policy Institute of California. California Counts Population Trends and
Profiles, 8(2), 1-24.
Shein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
207
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2007, February). Rules of the game: How state policy creates
barriers to degree completion and impedes student success in the California
community colleges. Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy at
California State University, Sacramento. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from
http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=7314
Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college
leadership. (Research Brief Leadership Series, No. 1). Washington, D.C:
American Association of Community Colleges.
Stone, C. (1995). Grow your own community college leaders: How one college did it.
HCCS Leadership Training Institute. Paper presented at Leadership 2000, the
Annual International Conference of the League for Innovation in the Community
College and the Community College Leadership Program.
StrengthsFinder. (2009). Retrieved on February 8, 2009, from
http://www.strengthfinder.com
StrengthsQuest. (2007). Retrieved on February 8, 2009, from
https://www.strengthsquest.com
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tierney, W. (1988). The web of leadership. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Townsend, B. K. (1996). The role of the professoriate in influencing future community
college leadership. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and
continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today. New
Directions for Community Colleges, (95), 59-64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
UCLA Community College Bibliography. (2005). Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 29(5), 411-417.
Vaughan, G. B. (1990). Pathway to the presidency: Community college deans of
instruction. Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association
of Community Colleges.
Vaughan, G. B., & Weisman, I. M. (1998). The community college presidency at the
millennium. Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association
of Community Colleges.
Villadsen, A. (2002). Collective wisdom, clones, and new creations. Community College
Journal, 73(1), 38-41.
208
Vincent, E. T. (2004). A qualitative analysis of community college leadership from the
Leading Forward Summits: Final report prepared for the American Association
of Community Colleges. ACT, Inc. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from
http://www.ccleadership.org/pdfs/act_report.pdf
Watts, G. E., & Hammons, J. O. (2002). Leadership development for the next generation.
In G. Watts (Ed.), New Directions for Community Colleges, 20, 59-66. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Weisman, I. M., & Vaughan, G. B. (2002). The community college presidency 2001.
(Research Brief Leadership Series, No. 3). Washington, DC: Community College
Press, American Association of Community Colleges.
Whyte, W. F. (1989). Action research for the twenty-first century: Participation,
reflection and practice. American Behavioral Scientist 32(5).
Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1991). Participatory action research:
Through practice to science in social research. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.),
Participatory action research (pp. 19-55). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
209
Appendix A: List of Predominant Institutes and Seminars
The Association of California Community College Administrators (ACCCA)
offers a 5-day intensive seminar called “Admin 101”, for community college
administrators in California. In addition, ACCCA has a formal 1-year mentor program, in
which mentors and mentees establish a contract with learning objectives that are achieved
through the work with the mentor, such as job shadowing, and the participation in
professional development activities offered by ACCCA.
The Administrative Leadership Program (ALP) by the Institute for Community
College Development (ICCD) at Cornell University is condensed in a 3-day workshop.
The Chair Academy of the National Council for Staff, Professional &
Organizational Development has been specifically designed for Department Chairs, and
to prepare them for their next positions. The program involved the participation in 5-day
session the first year, followed by another 5-day session the following year. The interval
of time is designed to give participants adequate time to apply the concepts that were
learned during the training. At the beginning of the program, participants develop their
individual professional development plan, and work with a mentor for a year, to assist
them in implementing the plan.
The Future Leaders Institute (FLI) from the American Association of Community
Colleges is a 5-day leadership seminar for administrators (mainly Deans and Vice-
Presidents) who wish to move up the ladder in community college administration. The
program includes an assessment of leadership styles, and focuses on change, people and
ethics.
210
The Leadership Academy from the Community College Leadership Development
Initiative (CCLDI) is a 7-day program, where participants learn about their individual
leadership styles, learn about community college leadership, and work in teams to share
best practices.
The Leadership Fellows Program also from CCLDI, differs in format and content,
as participants attend policy seminars, and discuss issues and research relevant to
community college leadership and challenges.
The League for Innovation in the Community Colleges offers several leadership
programs including (1) the Executive Leadership Institute (ELI) which focuses on
preparing senior level administrators for presidency, and consists of one-week intensive
training; and (2) the National Institute for Leadership Development (NILD) specifically
for women leaders. The program includes mentoring, and an applied long-term project
within the participants’ institutions, for them to apply the concepts learned directly to
their work environment, and provide value to their colleges.
The Presidents Academy, by AACC is only open to Presidents from member
institutions, and consists of a 5-day session in the summer, including the sharing of best
practices, such as working with the Board of Trustees.
211
Appendix B: Program Topics Addressing the Six Main Competencies
Jeandron (2006) conducted a survey of GYO program and identified program topics that
fall into the six competencies suggested by AACC.
Table 3
Suggested Program Topics to Address Leadership Competencies
Competency Suggested Program Topics
Organizational Strategy Collective Leadership
Strategic Planning and Goal Setting
Legislative Affairs
Community Expectations
Economic Development
Resource Management Finance and Governance
Interviewing and Hiring
Budgeting
Grant Writing
Communication Advanced Communication Skills
Constructive Confrontation
Communication Styles
Journal Writing
Collaboration Team-building Activities
Organizational Cultural Diversity
High-performance Coaching and Mentoring
Partnership Building
Community College
Advocacy
Building a Learner-Centered College
History and Purpose of Two-year Colleges
How to be a College Ambassador
Trends in College Teaching and Learning
Professionalism Lifelong Learning
Responsibility in the Workplace
Motivation, Recognition, and Leadership Excellence
212
Appendix C: GYO Programs Phone Interview Protocol
Date: ____________________________________
Name of respondent: ________________________
Position: __________________________________
College: ___________________________________
Person’s involvement with the GYO program: _______________________________
Hello,
My name is Audrey Reille. I am a doctoral student at USC and my dissertation focuses
on community college grow-your-own leadership development programs. I have heard
about your college’s program from ____________________ and would like to ask you
some questions about its design and implementation. But first, please tell me about your
college:
College
1. How many students does your college serve?
2. How diverse is your student population?
3. Is the college located in an urban, suburban or rural area?
Program design and implementation
4. Can you please describe your college’s grow-your-own leadership development
program?
If not already covered, or presented in the documents provided, ask:
a. What are the main components of the program?
b. How long are the meetings?
c. When are they scheduled?
d. Who presents at those meetings?
e. How long is the program?
f. What additional work do participants have to do in between
meetings/sessions (e.g. reading, group projects)?
g. Do you use leadership style assessments? If yes, which ones?
h. Does the program include mentoring?
i. If yes, how is it structured and implemented?
j. Is there a work experience component (e.g., internship, job shadowing or
job rotation)?
213
5. How did you tailor the program to your college’s specific culture and needs?
6. How do you advertise the program?
7. Who are the staff members in charge of the program?
Selection process and participation
8. Describe the selection process.
9. How many people participate each year on average?
10. Describe your participants’ profile.
11. Specifically, in what proportions are faculty members, managers and classified
staff participating in the program?
Stated goals and outcomes
12. What are the program’s goals?
13. How do you evaluate program outcomes?
14. To date, how effective has the program been?
15. What do you perceive to be the key components that make your program
successful?
Costs and funding
16. What are the costs associated with the program?
17. How is the program funded?
Other comments and suggestion
18. What advice would you give to another college in the process of creating a
program?
19. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Thank you very much for your time!
214
Appendix D: PC’s Managers Interview Protocol
Date: _________________
Name of respondent: __________________________
Position: ____________________________________
Thank you for making the time to meet with me today. As you know, as part of my
doctoral dissertation I am conducting research to design a leadership development
program on campus, to help college employees (faculty, staff or managers) prepare for
leadership positions at PC. May I please record this interview to capture your full
answers? Thank you.
Leader characteristics and competencies
1. What do you think are the most important characteristics, skills and competencies
that leaders on our campus should have?
Leadership development
2. In your opinion, what are the best ways to develop leaders?
3. When you first obtained your position, what did you wish someone had taught
you?
4. Please describe examples of leadership challenges that you often face in your
position.
5. What has helped you prepare for your current position?
6. How would you go about preparing someone to replace you before you leave your
current position? (for a promotion or retirement)
7. Currently, to what extent do future leaders in your department/area have the
opportunity to participate in leadership training programs such as institutes and
seminars?
Leadership program
8. What do you think are the goals of the creation of a leadership program?
9. What content do you think the program should include?
10. What suggestions can you offer regarding program design? and implementation?
215
11. What criteria should be used to recruit and select participants?
12. How would you share your knowledge and expertise with future leaders?
a. Would you be willing to present a workshop on your work, or on a topic
related to leadership?
b. Would you be willing to mentor 1 or 2 persons and make time to meet with
them regularly?
c. Would you agree to job shadowing to allow others to understand what your
job is really like?
d. If someone was allowed to work with you for a year to gain experience, how
would you utilize this person to maximize their learning and value to your
area?
13. How could the outcomes of the leadership development program be evaluated?
14. What resources should be made available to develop a leadership program?
15. Do you have any additional comments?
Thank you very much; your input is very helpful. Please call me or e-mail me if you have
any further ideas or suggestions.
216
Appendix E: Consent Forms for Non-Medical Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Design of a Community College
“Grow-Your-Own” Leadership Program
Stakeholder meetings and focus groups
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Audrey Reille (doctoral
student) and Adrianna Kezar, Ph.D. from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. The data gathered from this study will be used as part
of Audrey Reille’s dissertation study. You were selected for this study because you are an
employee at the site studied. Six to 10 employees will participate in the meetings. Your
participation is voluntary. Please take as much time as you need to read the information
sheet to decide whether you want to participate. If you decide to participate, you may
refuse to answer any question or comment on any idea without any consequence to you.
You will be given a copy of this form.
Participation in the meetings will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to design a leadership program on this campus to help
employees prepare for leadership positions. The program design will be customized to
the college’s culture, characteristics, goals and resources.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to discuss various aspects of the creation of a leadership development
program, such as the content of the program or the selection process. Each meeting will
last approximately an hour and a half. I will take notes during the meetings. The meetings
will take place in a conference room on campus, during normal business hours.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. You may sense discomfort discussing
your place of employment. You may be inconvenienced from taking time out of your day
to participate in the meetings. Your participation in the study and the information you
provide will be kept confidential. Your participation in this study will in no way impact
your employment.
217
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no direct benefits to you from participating in the research project. However,
the study is expected to lead to the creation of a leadership program that can benefit you
if you choose to participate in it.
It is anticipated that program participants will benefit by having an opportunity to prepare
for leadership positions on your campus by participating in a customized program
emphasizing leadership and cultural competency, at no cost to them.
It is anticipated that the college will benefit as the program will improve participants’
leadership skills and qualifications to apply for administrative positions.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the sponsor or in
the product being studied.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name
(pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. The information which
has your identifiable information will be kept separately from the rest of your data. The
data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password protected
computer.
When the results of the research are published or discussed, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. Electronic files will be deleted and documents shredded.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
218
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Audrey Reille, (909) 594-5611 ext. 6106, areille@mtsac.edu, Mt. San Antonio College,
1100 N. Grand Avenue, Walnut, CA 91789 or Dr. Kezar, (213) 821-1519,
kezar@usc.edu, USC Rossier School of Education, WPH Room 703C, Los Angeles, CA
90089. You may also contact Barbara McNeice-Stallard, Director of Research &
Institutional Effectiveness, (909) 594-5611 ext. 4109, research@mtsac.edu, Mt. San
Antonio College, 1100 N. Grand Avenue, Walnut, CA 91789.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been
given a copy of this form.
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.
Audrey Reille ___________
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as subject’s)
219
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Design of a Community College
“Grow-Your-Own” Leadership Program
Managers’ Interviews
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Audrey Reille (doctoral
student) and Adrianna Kezar, Ph.D. from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. The data gathered from this study will be used as part
of Audrey Reille’s dissertation study. You were selected for this study because you are a
manager at the site studied. A total of 12 to 15 subjects will be selected from the
managers group to participate. Your participation is voluntary. Please take as much time
as you need to read the information sheet to decide whether you want to participate. If
you decide to participate, you may refuse to answer any question or stop the interview at
any time without any consequence to you. You will be given a copy of this form.
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this research
project.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to design a leadership program on this campus to help
employees prepare for leadership positions. The program design will be customized to
the college’s culture, characteristics, goals and resources.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to answer questions related to the college and to leadership
development during an interview with me. The list of questions will provided a few days
prior to the interview. The interview will last about an hour. Before the interview, I will
seek your permission to audio-tape our dialogue. After the interview, I will transcribe
your words. Then, you will have the chance to correct the transcription if needed, or add
to it. Finally, the audio recording will be erased, and the transcription will only be
identified by a code. Only I will know your identity. If you do not want to be audio taped,
you may still participate in this study, and I will take notes during the interview. The
interview will take place in your office, or if you prefer, at another place convenient to
you, at a day and time of your choice.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. You may sense discomfort
responding to questions about your place of employment. You may be inconvenienced
220
from taking time out of your day to participate in the interview. Your participation in the
study and the information you provide will be kept confidential. Your participation in this
study will in no way impact your employment.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no direct benefits to you from participating in the research project. However,
the study is expected to lead to the creation of a leadership program that can benefit you
if you choose to participate in it.
It is anticipated that program participants will benefit by having an opportunity to prepare
for leadership positions on your campus by participating in a customized program
emphasizing leadership and cultural competency, at no cost to them.
It is anticipated that the college will benefit as the program will improve participants’
leadership skills and qualifications to apply for administrative positions.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the sponsor or in
the product being studied.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law. The information collected about you will be coded using a fake name
(pseudonym) or initials and numbers, for example abc-123, etc. The information which
has your identifiable information will be kept separately from the rest of your data. The
data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet/password protected
computer. When the results of the research are published or discussed, no information
will be included that would reveal your identity. The data will be stored for three years
after the study has been completed and then destroyed. Electronic files will be deleted
and documents shredded.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The
investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant
doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.
221
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team
to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff can
not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Audrey Reille, (909) 594-5611 ext. 6106, areille@mtsac.edu, Mt. San Antonio College,
1100 N. Grand Avenue, Walnut, CA 91789 or Dr. Kezar, (213) 821-1519,
kezar@usc.edu, USC Rossier School of Education, WPH Room 703C, Los Angeles, CA
90089. You may also contact Barbara McNeice-Stallard, Director of Research &
Institutional Effectiveness, (909) 594-5611 ext. 4109, research@mtsac.edu, Mt. San
Antonio College, 1100 N. Grand Avenue, Walnut, CA 91789.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been
given a copy of this form.
I agree to be audiotaped I disagree to be audiotaped
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.
Audrey Reille ___________
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as subject’s)
222
Appendix F: Analysis Codes
Off-Site Data
Source: 15 community colleges’ leadership programs, phone interviews and document
review.
• Program goals
o Develop culturally competent leaders for succession planning
o Improve participants’ leadership and management skills
o Solve college issues through team projects
o Promote cross divisional interaction and collegiality
• Program content
o Structure (e.g. length, schedule, certificate) and activities
o Self-reflection, assessments and professional development plans
o Topics for lectures and seminars
o Mentoring
o Team projects
o Online resources
o College culture specific aspects
• Program administration
o Staffing for the program
o Support from the top
o Advertising
o Application process and selection criteria
o Program evaluation and outcomes
o Cost and funding
• Comments and advice to other colleges
o Key success factors
o Limitations and areas for improvement
On-Site Data
Source: Managers’ interviews, stakeholder meetings, focus group and document review.
Program goals
• Succession planning
• Leadership skill development
• College culture and being culturally competent
223
Strategies to develop leaders
• Mentoring
• Job shadowing
• Training, education and conferences
• Practice/experience
Program components
• Seminars/lectures with case study
• Team work
• Reading and writing
• Self-refection/assessments
• Online resources
• Program completion
6 leadership competencies
• Organizational strategy
• Resource management
• Communication
• Collaboration
• Community college advocacy
• Professionalism
Challenges in community college leadership
• Personnel issues, contracts and conflict resolution
• Community college system
• Budget
Resources for the program
• Financial resources
• Time and expertise
• Space
Program Administration
• Criteria for selection
• Evaluation
• Advertising
• Scheduling
Moving up
• Opportunity to get experience required for the job
• Unclear job requirements and career paths
• Other obstacles
224
Appendix G: Sample Analysis Tables
Off-Site Data
Source: GYO programs phone interviews
Table 4
Sample Analysis Table of Off-Site Data
College Culture-Specific Aspects of the GYO Programs
College
Rural
Urban
Sub
Small
Med.
Large
Comments
C1 Sub
L The program follows our philosophy of leadership, and is
greatly inspired by the President.
C2 Urb L
23,000
Culture strongly supports professional development
C3 Urb L
70,000
stdns
on 6
camps
The program is based on the leadership competencies that
have been identified to help our district achieve its mission
and vision. We did an assessment to identify the
competencies most needed on our campuses, and we
included them in the training (e.g. inspiring others, making
hard decisions etc.).
C4 Rural M
5,000
We wanted collegial enrichment and collaboration. We did
an assessment to see what we needed. We involve our
administrators in the program, and work on real college
issues. The participants solve college problems.
C5 Sub L
21,000
The team projects are on real college issues and
implemented at the college, with the existing structure,
culture, processes etc. Everything that is led by the
Chancellor includes the college’s vision.
The President is heavily involved in the program too.
C6 Urban L
30,000
The program addresses college issues and gaps, and
employees’ training needs such as budgeting, FTES, etc. We
teach what employees say is difficult, or what they want to
learn.
C7 Urban Large Created the program around the theme of “Visionary
Leadership”. Teams work on real world problems. They
start by doing a SWOT analysis of the organization to
identify issues and define their project for the year.
C8 Urban L
28,000
The sessions are presented and facilitated by college
executive administrators and focus on the college’s culture
and processes.
225
Table 4, Continued
C9 Urban L
8,100
The program is tailored for 2 particular departments around
real issues, and everything is culture specific. Every aspect
of the program is determined by the VPs’ needs and wishes.
C10 Urban M
4,000
The program is based on the college’s needs, and upcoming
retirements. The content is culture specific and most of it is
taught by our college administrators.
C11 Rural L
20,000
We adapted another program, tweaked it to fit the college
culture. The participants work on real college issues.
C12 Urban L
20,000
We surveyed college employees to find out what they
wanted and needed to learn. We did a climate study to
identify issues. Themes were also generated from comments
in open-ended questions.
C13 Urban L
25,000
We discuss leadership books and how they apply to the
college and employees.
C14 Sub L
13,000
The program is facilitated by the college President and
applied to the college’s way of doing things.
C15 Sub L
14,000
Individual sessions on leadership are facilitated by different
people, so it varies. We try to make it relevant to our college
culture.
226
On-Site Data
Source: PC Managers’ Interviews
Table 5
Sample Analysis Table of On-Site Data
Main Category: Challenges in Community College Leadership
Sub-category: Personnel Issues
Respondent Junior/
Senior
Comments
M1 Junior
How to work with faculty. Personnel issues. Knowing
contracts. Dealing with conflict between faculty and staff.
Conflict resolution.
I would have liked to be taught how to work with faculty,
enforcing the contracts, but in my former role, I had no purview
to do that. There are challenges between classified staff and
faculty. Managers have the authority and responsibility to
supervise staff, but faculty are different. They are more
independent. I had to deal with a conflict between a classified
and a faculty, and I don’t know what could have prepared me
for it, because it was very complex. I also things that managers
need to have training specifically in conflict resolution.
M2 Junior There are situations to resolve with staff and faculty.
M3 Senior
I often have to resolve personnel issues and conflict between
employees who are in disagreement. I do that often; it is a big
part of the job.
M4 Senior
We need to make sure we are treating people right, in
compliance with the laws and regulations, and past practices.
It is very important to have experience when dealing with
personnel issues, to keep the district out of any legal exposure
that down the line would cost both in terms of money as well as
our reputation.
M5 Senior Dealing with personnel issues, faculty and classified staff, is the
most common issue. A leader has to listen, refer to policies and
procedures, and make decisions.
M6 Senior I needed to know more about the policies, the procedures and
the fundamentals, how to handle things like grievances for
example, or evaluations, and how important they are.
Personnel problems, not so much students, it’s more faculty and
staff that bring challenges. There often are conflicts between
adjuncts and full-time/permanent faculty and staff. The Dean is
the one who has to terminate people. Some people don’t handle
disciple well, and create problems.
227
Table 5, Continued
M10 Senior Working with bargaining units, contracts, faculty complaints
and grievances. Working with union leaders. One of the
challenges is getting the right people on the bus, and getting
them in the right seats on the bus. That is hard to do in our
environment, and it’s really critical.
M11 Senior Personnel issues.
M12 Junior Managing staff, personalities and different levels of
performance can be tough too, but to learn it, you have to
experience it.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examines how a community college can create an in-house leadership program to “grow their own” leaders, in response to a nationwide shortage of qualified administrative leaders, accentuated by the retirement of numerous administrators. The literature suggests that in-house leadership training is a good strategy for community colleges, however, there is no literature explaining how a college should develop a program, based on its own culture and needs.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
PDF
The awareness and practice of intentional leadership
PDF
Promising practices for building leadership capacity: a community college case study
PDF
Persistence among low income community college students
PDF
Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college
PDF
Organizational framing: evaluation of a community college law enforcement training center
PDF
The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions
PDF
Organizational leadership and institutional factors related to the implementation of online educational programming in California community colleges
PDF
Plugging the leaky pipeline: how academic deans support the persistence of underrepresented minority students in science and mathematics
PDF
Negotiating racial conflict: the leadership role of the dean of students
PDF
Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework
PDF
Leadership development in student affairs graduate preparatory programs
PDF
Factors that promote or inhibit the involvement of African American parents in a community college early childhood education program
PDF
Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students
PDF
The effects of online courses for student success in basic skills mathematics classes at California community colleges
PDF
Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges
PDF
Hanging out on Crenshaw: examining the role of racial identity on the academic acheivement of black students at a southern California community college
PDF
Civic engagement: a case study of civic leadership in partnering with an urban public school district
PDF
The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution
Asset Metadata
Creator
Reille, Audrey
(author)
Core Title
Balancing the pros and cons of a new community college "grow-your-own" leadership program
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/14/2009
Defense Date
05/04/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
community college,in-house training,leadership development,OAI-PMH Harvest
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Kezar, Adrianna (
committee chair
), Marshall, Cheryl (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
AudreyReille@yahoo.com,reille@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2359
Unique identifier
UC1206520
Identifier
etd-Reille-2937 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-572244 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2359 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Reille-2937.pdf
Dmrecord
572244
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Reille, Audrey
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
community college
in-house training
leadership development