William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair/Major Professor for

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Presentations | Downloads: 40 | Comments: 0 | Views: 178
of 82
Download PDF   Embed   Report

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, Dissertation Chair/Major Professor forSimone Gardiner.

Comments

Content

TIVE STUDY ON PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES PROFESSORS AND
STAFF OF ADMINISTRATORS’ LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPETENCIES AT SELECTED COMMUNITY COLLEGES.

_________________________
A Dissertation Proposal
Submitted to the Whitlowe R. Green College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
_______________________
By
Simone A. Gardiner

_______________________
October 2011
Prairie View A&M University
_____________________

Table of Contents
Chapter 1..............................................................................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................5
The Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................6
Research Questions..............................................................................................................6
Null Hypothesis...................................................................................................................7
Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................7
The Augmentation Model of Transactional and Transformational Leadership.. 7
Assumptions …...................................................................................................................9
Delimitations of the Study.................................................................................................10
Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................10
Significance of the Study...................................................................................................10
Definitions of Terms..........................................................................................................11
Organization of the Study..................................................................................................13
Chapter II...........................................................................................................................14
Literature Review..............................................................................................................14
Addressing Community College Administrators...............................................................17
The Transformation of Higher Education..........................................................................19
The Economic Engines for the Nation...............................................................................19

Diverse and Inclusiveness..................................................................................................21
Meeting the Challenge of Student Completion.................................................................21
An Investment towards Student Success...........................................................................23
Leadership …....................................................................................................................24
Leadership Prospective..........................................................................................25
Leadership Revitalize............................................................................................31
Perspective on Leadership Effectiveness...............................................................33
Leadership Theories...............................................................................................35
Trait Theory...............................................................................................35
Behavioral Theories...................................................................................36
Contingency Theories................................................................................38
Transformational Leadership.................................................................................39
Transformational Leadership Styles...........................................................40
Division Chairs/Deans as Leaders.....................................................................................41
Chapter III..........................................................................................................................41
Methodology......................................................................................................................44
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………...44
Null Hypothesis.................................................................................................................45
Research Design................................................................................................................45
Participants …………………...........................................................................................47
Sample...................................................................................................................47
Instrumentation..................................................................................................................47
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)......................................................48

Transformational leadership......................................................................49
Transactional characteristics......................................................................49
Laissez-faire leadership.............................................................................50
Reliability and Validity....................................................................................................510
Construct validity...................................................................................................51
Examining the construct validity of MLQ 5X...........................................52
Procedures …….................................................................................................................52
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................54
Summary ……...................................................................................................................56
References..........................................................................................................................57
Appendix A. Letter to Chancellor......................................................................................72
Appendix B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form....................................73
Appendix C. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form......................................75

Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Since their establishment in 1901, community colleges have grown into a unique
educational system that have proven to be of vital importance not only to the communities they
serve, but to the social, economic, and intellectual development of the United States (Sullivan,
2001). During this period, community colleges have distinctively delivered a plethora of
educational opportunities to older as well as younger students, and have done so within the
milieu of their host communities (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). The effectiveness of these institutions
lies in the willingness of administrative leaders to deviate from traditional academic patterns
which resulted in what has become the most democratic component in the system of higher
education (Brint & Karabel, 1989). Of great importance, is the role of community colleges in
creating and maintaining strong partnerships with regional corporations, so that colleges are able
to provide critical on-going workforce education and life-long learning (Roueche, Baker & Rose,
1989).
According to Wisniewski (2004), higher education faces a systematic dimension and an
unprecedented period of evaluating change which has been critical by shifts in public attitudes
and reductions in the implicit level of public support. In order to understand the impact and to
respond effectively to the complex educational, social, political and economic concerns of
society, higher education must aggressively develop and recruit a cadre of integrated educational
leaders who can engage their institution, the faculty and staff in a change paradox of
transformation leadership. Wisniewski (2004), further strategize that one way to develop this
potential is to effectively create institutional educational leadership development opportunities

where faculty/staff can produce multi-dimensional perspectives. In view of drawing on
modifications one should strive for strength in the development of educational leadership that
will translate to administrative effectiveness to meet the challenges of a constantly changing
environment and understand the ability to think strategically and act collaboratively
(Wisniewski, 2004).
Institutional educational leaders should work with the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board to close the achievement gap. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board (2008) postulates that community colleges must work towards achieving the goals of
Closing the Academic Gaps by 2015 which is an important milestone. In Texas, the enrollment of
students in community colleges is more than one-half of the students’ population in higher
education. Additionally, in order to grow widely and sustain the economy base on the state and
safeguard the wellbeing of its citizenry, a commitment from community colleges will have to
enhance and educate more students in order to meet the high demands for the workforce in the
twenty first century.
Over the past five decades, educators have been in search of academic programs
methodologies and strategies that will enhance the academic achievement of students at the
community college level. However, during this period the achievement gap between students of
all ethnicity in mainstream America has not decreased; rather it has widened. Consequently, the
most recent standard base accountability movement is requiring all school leaders to engage as
instructional leaders of the instructional program for all students (Lashway, 2002; Green, 2010).
Members of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board postulates that community
colleges are well poised to accomplish their goals base on the following criteria: geographic
accessibility to populations across the state, the relatively low cost of tuition, and the close

relationship that these institutions have with area businesses and industries to train and retrain the
workforce. As these institutions continue their expansion to better serve the growing population
of Texas, they must also ensure that students receive a high quality education provided by
qualified faculty that will disseminate the knowledge and skills required for students to succeed.
During the period of 2008, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board reported that the
important scope and function of community colleges have long served higher education in Texas.
For example, in the year 1964, there were 34 public community/junior colleges within districts
nationwide. The periods of 1970s and 1980s ushered in rapid growth within a number of
community college districts, also there was addition of several multiple campuses, which gave a
combined total of 50 community college districts. These statistics revealed enrollment for
students in non-duplicated credit enrollment increase from 38,000 in the fall semester of 1964 to
approximately 569,000 students in the fall 2007.
The majority of junior colleges in the nation were considered to be forerunners to our
present day community colleges. These colleges were intended to operate with an open door
admission policy which offered academic courses that lead to an associate of arts degree
transferable towards a four year college degree. Community colleges today offer equal
opportunities to all students who which to transfer college courses. Consequently, the technical
workforce and programs that are offered can lead to initial employment or occupational
advancement within the students’ academic major (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board,
2008).
There has been a change in the demographic shifts for Texas community colleges from
2000 to 2015; in Texas’ population are projected to increase from 20,852,000 to 26,156,000, an
increase of nearly 25 percent. In addition to its growth, Texas’ population is experiencing other

fundamental changes. The state’s Hispanic population is expected to increase from 32 percent of
the total population in 2000 to over 40 percent by 2015. Together, Hispanics and African
Americans are projected to account for more than 51 percent of Texas’ population by 2015
(Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2008).
From an historical perspective, Hispanics and African Americans have been underrepresented in Texas higher education. As recently as 2007, these groups accounted for 54
percent of the state’s population age 15 to 34, but only 39 percent of the state’s college and
university enrollment. Interestingly, these ethnic populations make up a major percent of the
state’s labor force and leadership pool. Unless significantly greater numbers of students from
these populations enter higher education and successfully complete degree or certificate
programs, Texas will face an uncertain economic and political future. The window of opportunity
for successfully educating these groups at the same rate as Whites is narrowing only 10 to15
years, if the retirement of the post-World War II “Baby Boomers” from the workforce is used as
a measure (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2008).
Bailey and Alfonso (2005) argued that there is a considerable problem which deems to be
controversial over the use of community college graduation rate to measure institutional
effectiveness. Graduation rates at Community Colleges are far less than those at four year
institutions. In part, this is an artifact of multiple missions of community colleges, some of which
does not necessitate graduation to indicate student success. Additionally, community colleges are
often open-admission institutions whose non-traditional students tend to be less prepared relative
to those admitted at four year colleges. It is therefore, incumbent on administrators of these
institutions to place into effect a leadership styles that is effective, efficient and competent to
guide and enhance the academic success of all students.

Statement of the Problem
Several articles have been written with regards to leadership in community colleges, but
very little research has been done on leadership in academic departments. Within community
colleges or higher education institutions, chairpersons have the authority to make departmental
decisions, but rarely does formal training exist for this position. Therefore, there was a
heightened need to study how the leadership styles among administrators at the community
college level may be affected by perceptions of others. This focus was through the eyes of deans,
and chairpersons with close emphasis on their leadership styles and competence in leading
community colleges in selected Texas community colleges.
Community college presidents and upper-level administrators along with experienced
faculty who started their careers in the sixties, seventies, and the eighties are nearing the end of
their career which leaves key leadership roles to be filled (Duree, 2007; Shults, 2001). The age
factor is important and community college presidents between their 50’s and 80’s with 84 percent
these leaders will retire by 2016 (Weisman & Vaughan, 2007). Furthermore, some presidents
report that 38 percent of their chief administrators will also retire by 2016 (Weisman and
Vaughan, 2007).
One problem community colleges are facing is the difficulty in finding and identifying
new, fully qualified leaders ready to replace those retiring: “Leadership in the community college
has suffered from benign neglect. There is little conscious attention paid to questions of where
community college leaders will come from, how their talents will be developed, and their
experience valued” (Community College Leadership Development Initiative, 2000; McFarlin,
Crittenden, & Ebbers, 1997). This problem is precipitated by the lack of future leaders in the
community college pipeline. Existing leaders must start identifying, training, and “growing their

own” to meet the increasing need for new leadership. A typical career pathway to a senior level
or executive-level position begins with aspiring leaders in the middle (Amey & VanDerLinden,
2002). Succession planning will become critical in the next decade because part of the process
necessitates creation of programs that will help develop future leaders.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this conceptual quantitative study was to determine if there is a difference
in community colleges professors’ perception on administrative leadership style and
competencies at selected community colleges. The study utilized the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) questionnaire and the data collected from each survey was analyzed to
ascertain both leadership styles and competencies of administrators. The study further sought to
determine if leadership style and competencies at these selected community colleges impacted
student success.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
1. Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators
and self-evaluation of administrators?
2. Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators
and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on gender?
3. Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators
and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on ethnicity?
4. Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators
and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on length of service?

Null Hypothesis
H01 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff
perception of administrators and self-evaluation of administrators.
H02 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff
perception of administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on gender.
H03 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff
perception of administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on ethnicity.
H04 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff
perception of administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on length of
service.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical model used for this study included the Augmentation Model of
Transactional and Transformational Leadership.
The Augmentation Model of Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership evolved from research conducted by Burns (1978), a
political scientist and pioneer on the study of transformational leadership. Burns examined the
leadership traits and qualities of leaders who were categorized as transformational and
transactional. Avolio and Bass (2004) conducted research studies on transformational leadership
and reported a link and extension of transactional leadership.
The theoretical framework used for this study looked at the augmentation model of
transactional and transformational leadership. According to Bass (1985), transformational
leadership exceeds transactions and focuses on the followers' needs, values, and self-esteem.
Avolio and Bass contended that transactional leadership augments transformational leadership.

Depending on the situation, both leadership styles can be used by the same leader. Avolio and
Bass (2004), purported that transformational leadership is the optimal experience, particularly
because transactional leadership addresses lower levels of performance that have little or no
impact on outcomes.
Transactional leaders may be sensitive to the needs and motives of the followers;
however, their behaviors are governed through an exchange of a reward system such as votes
(i.e., subsidies for campaign contributions), jobs, or personal favors. The exchange and
relationship between the leader and follower can be described as a tradeoff between two
individuals focused on the means and not necessarily the outcome. The tradeoff is considered a
business transaction or a mutual agreement between the leader and follower on job demands and
rewards. Although the transactional leader's interaction with the follower is motivated by
promises and tradeoffs, the relationship between the two can move to a higher dimension.
According to Avolio and Bass (2004), the transactional leader can complement the
transformational leader, who exerts a higher level of leadership characteristics and behavior that
subscribes to effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort. The qualities of transformational
leadership are described on a higher level of learning and exchange with the followers. The
transformational leader manages as well as lead by influencing aspiring followers to reach their
highest potential.
The transformational leader is able to anticipate organizational and employee
performance outcomes and steps in before the mistakes occur, thus achieving a higher level of
satisfaction. Avolio and Bass, (2004) concurs that transformational leadership can be thought of
as a higher order exchange process: not a simple transaction, but rather a fundamental shift in
orientation, with both long- and short-term implications for development and performance (2004,

p. 20). Figure 1 will illustrate the relationship between transactional and transformation
leadership through the Augmentation Model developed by Avolio and Bass.

Figure 1. Augmentation Model of Transactional and Transformation Leadership.
Note. Adopted from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Manual, by B. Avolio and B. Bass,
1995, p. 21. Copyright 1995, 2000, 2004 by Mind Garden, Inc. Reprint with Permission from the
Mind Garden, Inc. on May 2, 2011
Assumptions
The following assumptions will be in relation to the research study:
1. The respondents will understand the instrument.
2. The respondents will understand the term for transactional and transformational
leader.
3. The respondents will give thoughtful and honest response on the instrument.

Delimitations of the Study
The study was delimited by the responses of community college deans, college
chairpersons, faculty and staff. This study can only be generalized to public community colleges.
Limitations of the Study
The research from this study was applicable to community college deans and
chairpersons engaging in leadership development efforts.
Significance of the Study
Significant research was conducted on community college deans and chairpersons at the
top level for the community colleges. There was limited research concerning leadership at the
chairperson level. The leadership style for further leaders at the community college levels
determined the congruence of leading the institution exceptionally. McArthur (2002), postulates
that a comprehensive understanding of the principles for leadership styles in higher education is
a key factor for the success and vigor of any institution. The balancing act for any academic
department of the community college is the given premise of leadership where it is more very
important and a catalyst intellectual insight with inherent structures that is emphasized in
leadership.
Leadership development will exist, but those administrative leaders in the middle must
also accept responsibility for their own development. To fill the pipeline, future community
college leaders will come from within (McFarlin, Crittenden, & Ebbers, 1997). It is imperative
that some steps be taken for aspiring administrators. Aspiring leaders will have the responsibility
to plan at the community college level through engagement, planning, and emulating the entire
process of leading at the higher education level.

Results from this study provided community college administrators with the ability to
examine leadership styles and competencies and how these variables relate. Based on the
findings of the study, community college professors, administrators and presidents will be
provided with an insight on the various patterns and characteristics of effective leadership
beginning at the presidential level at a large community college system in Texas. The college
leaders will be responsible for the management and coordination of the decision-making
processes on institutional factors such as organizational and strategic planning, administrative
policies, human relations, and finance (Myran et al., 2003).
Specifically, the study provided descriptive data and implications for greater
understanding of the essential leadership characteristics that are relevant to student persistence,
retention, and other success factors. The results of this analysis are important for administrators
who are interested in increasing and improving their leadership characteristics in relation to
student success outcomes. The data provides college administrators with the higher order of
leadership styles that can be recognized as being transformational and innovative, thus
contributing to effective organizational change and educational reform on student success.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the key terms to be used are defined below:
Administrators: Administrators are those persons who serve in management positions in
community colleges and are empowered to make administrative and budgetary decisions
such as planning, supervising, community service activities, fundraising, allocation of
resources, and perform other related duties (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). In this study
administrators are identified as leaders who hold positions as community college deans
and chairpersons. These educational administrators are the core strategists in shaping and

planning the framework of the organization which includes the full engagement in the
policy-making, development of procedures, planning, and budgetary processes of the
organization.
Administrative Leadership: Administrative leadership includes official managerial
functions such as organizational structuring, vision generation, organizational strategy
development, and resource acquisition. It is “a top-down function based on authority and
position” (Uhl-Bien et al., 2008). The structured nature of administrative leadership
establishes a conduit through which official decisions and strategies can flow and be
implemented. It is focused on the establishment of control and the exploitation of
responses, resulting in greater organizational efficiency (Schreiber & Carley, 2008).
Closing the Gaps: Closing the Gaps is a term that was adopted by the 76th Texas
Legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in 2000. The focus of
this initiative was to increase the enrollment of Hispanic and African American students
entering colleges and universities in Texas by 2015. Closing the Gaps among Texas
students in terms of college participation requires the enrollment of 630,000 more Texas
students by 2015 (THECB, 2008).
Community College: A community college is any institution accredited to award the
Associate of Arts or the Associate of Science as its highest degree. Community colleges
offer academic, workforce, and continued education training (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).
Leadership: The process of persuasion or example by which a leader induces a group to
pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers
(Gardner, 1990).

Leadership Style: The term leadership style is equivalent to the manner in which the leader
influences subordinates (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004).
Transformational Leadership:, "transformational leadership can be perceived as a higher
order exchange process: not a simple transaction, but rather a fundamental shift in
orientation, with both long- and short-term implications for development and performance"
(Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 20).
Transactional leadership: According to Avolio and Bass (2004), the transactional leader can
complement the transformational leader, who exerts a higher level of leadership
characteristics and behavior that subscribes to effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort.
Organization of the Study
This study consists of five chapters. Chapter I provides the introduction, background of
the problem, statement of the problem, research questions, purpose of the study, significance of
the study, assumptions, delimitation, limitations and definition of terms. Chapter II was a
detailed review of the literature on addressing community college administrators, investment
towards student success, definition of leadership and leadership perspectives. Chapter III
describes the methodology including the research questions, hypotheses, design strategy,
sampling design, and the measures for data collection and analysis procedure. The expected
findings from the research were thoroughly discussed. In the completed dissertation, Chapter IV
offers a detailed review of the data analysis and results. Chapter V includes a comprehensive
discussion of the summary, conclusions, implications of the findings, and recommendations for
future studies.

Chapter II
Literature Review
The late 1950s ushered in a new era for community colleges as they transitioned
from junior colleges to open public institutions serving and attracting a new breed of
students (Planty, Provasnik, & Daniel, 2007). Since the inception during 1950s,
community colleges have experienced a steady increase in student growth and
enrollment. Some factors that have contributed to this increase are as follows: high
birthrates of the baby boomers, financial aid opportunities through the GI Bill, student
loans, the civil rights movement of the 1960s, population growth, and the need to meet
the demands and challenges of a rapidly changing society requiring a highly trained and
prepared technological workforce (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). According to Planty,
Provasnik, and Daniel, (2007), from 1974 up to 2006, the number of community colleges
in the United States increased by 17%, from 896 to 1,045.
Community colleges serve as a driving force for higher education by providing
millions of students’ access and opportunity to pursue their educational and career goals
and prepare to meet the challenges of a competitive and technological workforce of the
21st century. Community colleges have become the gateway to connecting traditional and
nontraditional students through a fluid educational pipeline that is seamless and
transformational. For more than a century, community colleges have contributed to the
educational development, expansion, and reform of higher education. In 2002, the
National Center for Education Statistics reported eight community colleges in the 1900s.
Thirty years later (1930s), community colleges increased from eight to 436 with an
average enrollment of 70,000 students. In 1947, the President's Commission on Higher

Education advocated free and open access admissions to two years of study. The open
endorsement by the federal government and education reform paved the way for the
transformation of community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Vaughn, 2004).
In 2010, the American Association of Community Colleges reported that on average
nationally, students enrolled in credit-bearing courses at U.S. community colleges in fall 2009
was 11.4% higher than it was in fall 2008 and 16.9% higher than it was in fall 2007. The largest
growth came in the full-time student population, which grew by 24.1% between fall 2007 and
fall 2009. Due to the economic uncertainty of our nation, most colleges will provide a minimum
affordable option for high school graduates and adult learners returning to college with an
average cost of just $2,544 per year (College Board, 2009). Consequently, the percentage of
students enrolled in community colleges have increased by 16.9% to 8 million per term over the
past two years (Mullin & Phillippe, 2009), while noncredit enrollment in basic skills, short- term
workforce, or vocational courses conservatively estimated to an additional 5 million students
(AACC, 2010a).
American education must provide opportunities for all students to better themselves, and
community colleges are an important entry way into higher education for the advancement of all
students. One major mission and practice of the community college is open access, which plays
an important democratizing role in the American postsecondary system (Dowd, 2003).
Arguably, central to the mission of most community colleges is the ideal of access to
education in a commitment to American democracy and “justice for all.” Premised on the
principles of open access, a comprehensive mission, and service to the community, community
colleges make access possible and affordable for those who would otherwise remain
marginalized from higher education because of life circumstances; lack of social, capital, or

economic capital; societal constraints; or systemic or institutional barriers to social and economic
mobility (Bragg, 2001).
Community colleges hold the potential for being the social institutions most capable of
leveling and transforming the playing field for the historically marginalized; these colleges can
and often do serve as catalysts for social change. We believe that community colleges have the
potential to be vanguards for social justice, understood here as fair and just institutional or
structural arrangements and personal, social, and professional relationships that provide access,
opportunity, and inclusion of historically marginalized or otherwise oppressed individuals or
groups of people.
Education in the community college setting is concerned with the transmission of
knowledge that allows students to think critically while developing skills that prepare them for
the workforce and advancement in their careers. Community colleges also provide courses for
self improvement and further educational pursuits. Such knowledge acquisition processes may
foster curiosity to question the nature of experience and meaning. It is through the experience of
meaning that students may desire to continue their education in the community college setting.
The instructors of community colleges must transmit knowledge via current curricula that
provide more relevant skills for the twenty first century readiness. Throughout American higher
education, the epistemological rootedness of knowledge that is transferred to students is typically
geared toward a Eurocentric worldview (Bragg, 2001).
According to Bragg (2001), community colleges are a uniquely American invention
reflecting the democratic ideals of our nation; community colleges have broken with higher
education tradition. Their services are shaped by the core values of open access, community
responsiveness, resourcefulness, and a clear focus on teaching and learning. Community colleges

have opened access to higher education to people who would not otherwise have that opportunity
because of financial or geographical limitations, lack of preparation, or family or job
responsibilities. In the history of community colleges they enroll the most diverse student body
in higher education. Their missions are focused on promoting and supporting student learning
and do not include requirements for discipline related research and publication by faculty.
Addressing Community College Administrators
The main responsibilities of academic deans are to serve as facilitators between
presidential initiatives, faculty governance, and student needs (Astin & Scherrei, 1980). By
virtue of their midlevel placement within the higher education organizational structure which
guides through vicissitudes and transitions (Morris, 1981; Roaden, 1970). This administrator
serves as the center of controversy, conflict, and debate; they advocate the role of coalition
builder, negotiator, and facilitator. Researchers have concluded that the deanship is a leadership
role with overtones that are more political and social than hierarchical or technical
In support, (Dill, 1980;Gmelch et al., 1999) supports the fact that the deans’ task is that
they must successfully work with a wide range of individuals, interests, and groups. Morris
(1981) argues that deans' success is primarily measured by how well constituencies are stroked,
cajoled, cultivated, and kept in line. Deans essentially serve two masters the senior
administration and the faculty who are expected to bridge and join both perspectives. Although
this balancing act is not unique in organizational life, there are features of the academic middle
manager that are typically not found elsewhere. Within this organizational context, deans have
been variously described as "doves of peace" intervening among warring factions, "dragons"
holding internal and external threats at bay, and "diplomats" guiding and encouraging people
who live and work in the college (Tucker & Bryan, 1991, p. ix) Even though individual deans

have achieved remarkable power and status, there are many signs pointing toward an ebbing of
powers.
Over the years accountability has emerged as one of the most dominant and influential
social value that will impact the dean's work. In the past, deans were seen as scholarly leaders.
This vision has been replaced by an executive image of the dean as one who is politically astute
and economically savvy (Gmelch et al., 1999). For example, deans are increasingly being
charged with the responsibility to lead their colleges' efforts to obtain external funding (Blair,
2000). The pressure to get more involved in development has shifted the traditional role of the
dean as an academic-policy maker and the liaison between professors and the administration to
entrepreneur and politician (Mercer, 1997) . The performance of academic deans and
chairpersons are seen by many as pivotal to the success of individual units.
In order to understand how deans are evaluated by others including senior administration,
faculty, and staff is relatively new and an unstudied phenomenon (Gmelch et al., 1999;
Matczynski, Lasley & Haberman, 1989). Their evaluation has been slow to develop and has not
been guided by firmly established assessment practices that are systematic, fair, and accurate.
Academic deans are often deemed effective-or ineffective-by informal assessments of their
leadership style, the performance of their duties and responsibilities, and even, at times, their
individual traits or qualities. Gmelch, Matczynski, Lasley & Haberman further alluded the
importance of the evaluation process to the individual as well as the institution. It is my intent to
present a systematic approach for evaluating the leadership effectiveness of community college
deans and chairpersons in this case emphasizing information collected from their faculty and
staff.
Lord and Maher (1991) shared the perception of the implicit leadership theory that

leadership is a process of being perceived by others as a leader. In contrast, Taggar et al. (1999)
suggested that leadership in autonomous teams results from the negotiated roles or the
relationships between team members. Those individuals who assume a leadership role possess
characteristics that are commonly perceived by other team members as indicative of leadership.
According to Gmelch et al., (1999), faculty and staff perceptions about leadership
effectiveness can be a valuable, efficient, and a cost-effective source of information; it may
sometimes be difficult to ascertain valid and reliable information to formulate a unit level
indicator of leadership effectiveness. In some cases, the nature of the dean's role and
responsibilities can be viewed differently by faculty, provosts, students, and deans themselves.
Academic vice presidents rely on deans to carry out the academic mission of their units. Tucker
and Bryan (1991) contended that deans are constantly judged by their actions and reactions to the
problems, opportunities, and challenges they face (p. 197)
The Transformation of Higher Education
Community colleges have long been recognized as two year open door institutions, with
an emphasis on providing a wide range of students with access to a four year college program
(Kane, Orszag, & Gunter, 2003). The course of higher education was transformed by the Truman
Commission report (1947) within the United States from “merely being an instrument for
producing an intellectual elite” to becoming “the means by which all citizen are encouraged” to
pursue higher learning (President’s Commission, 1947) page #8. The Commission’s reports
marked the first general use of the term community college and recommended that they expand
nationally to provide universal access to postsecondary education. Expanding to every state and
shaped by such forces as the educational and training needs of returning veterans, the baby boom
generation and the growing need for skilled workers in a shifting economy. Most community

colleges have changed the paradigm for higher education in the United States from one where
students had to “go away” to college to one that provides access to high quality and affordable
higher education and training in local communities. Underscoring their accessibility, there is a
community college within a short commute of 90% of the U.S. population, and they provide a
learning lifeline in hundreds of small, rural communities (National Commission on Community
Colleges, 2008).
In the last decade, several forces have converged to bring about increased attention on the
outcomes of students once they start at a college, with a particular emphasis on course
completion and graduation rates. For example, in the ongoing debate over re-authorization of the
Higher Education Act, the Bush administration and leaders in Congress have indicated a desire to
hold higher education to new standards of accountability, just as they have with the public
schools through the No Child Left Behind Act. In 1999, the Student Right-to-Know and Campus
Security Act, which amended the Higher Education Act, that requires colleges to report their
graduation rate for cohorts of first time and full-time students in degree programs (Kane, Orszag,
& Gunter, 2003).
The Economic Engines for the Nation
Community colleges play an essential role in preparing the nation’s workforce. Currently,
they prepare over half of the nation’s registered nurses and the majority of other health-care
workers. Statistical data indicates that over 80% of first responders with postsecondary
credentials and a growing percentage of the nation’s technological workforce are graduates of
community colleges. (National Commission on Community Colleges, 2008). Community
colleges have become the institutions of choice for workers who desire to upgrade their skills
and for displaced workers preparing to reenter the workforce. Community colleges develop

curricula to prepare these individuals to meet the needs of the local economy and working
closely with industry, government, and other education sectors.
Diverse and Inclusiveness
Community colleges provide access to higher education to a wider student population.
This diversity represents students’ age, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, and degree of
disability. Forty-seven percent of first-generation college students, 53% of Hispanic students,
45% of Black students, 52% of Native American students, and 45% of Asian/Pacific Islander
students attend community colleges. Although the average age of community college students is
28, 46% of them are age 21 or younger (NCES, 2007).
Meeting the Challenge of Student Completion
President Obama has challenged community colleges administrators’ to increase the
number of graduates and program completers by five million students over a 10-year period,
(Obama, 2009). Although Congress was not able to deliver federal funding support to the
colleges through the American Graduation Initiative as proposed, the administration has stated its
continued commitment to increasing the educational attainment levels of Americans, challenging
community colleges to bear a significant part of the burden. On March 30, 2010, at a ceremony
at Northern Virginia Community College, President Obama signed H.R. 4872, the Health Care
and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, into law. The Act provides $2 billion for the
Community College and Career Training Grant Program. This new Trade Adjustment Assistance
program focused on workforce preparation. In an earlier address to a joint session of Congress,
President Obama asked every American to commit to at least one year of higher education or
career training so that the United States would once again produce the highest quality of college
graduates in the world.

The president further contends that, in an increasingly competitive world economy,
America’s economic strength depends on the education and skills of its workers. The Obama
administration has pointed out that, in the coming years, jobs requiring at least an associate
degree are projected to grow twice as fast as those requiring no college experience. In its report
of the Springboard Project, the Business Roundtable (2009) echoed President Obama’s challenge
to increase education attainment levels to build a competitive workforce. This report
recommends unlocking the value of community colleges, stating that these institutions have the
potential to play a dominant role in strengthening local economies. In order to accomplish these
goals, community college student completion and transfer rates must improve. Too many
students do not make it successfully through remedial programs into college level courses, and
too many do not complete their programs because of insufficient financial support or poor
institutional or state policies and practices.
One of the first initiatives to improve student completion in community colleges was
postulated by the Lumina Foundation for Education in 2010, with the launch of the National
Achieving the Dream (ATD) for all college students. The goal of the initiative was to increase the
success rate of community college students; specifically, students of color, working adults, and
students from low-income families. The ATD initiative emphasizes the use of data and the
creation of a “culture of evidence” at the colleges to inform decision-maker and administrators
on how to measure progress against a specific set of student success metrics. Ultimately,
Lumina’s “Big Goal” was to increase the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees and
credentials to 60% by the year 2025 (Lumina Foundation, 2010).
In support, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has
rated the current educational achievement attainment level for the Unites States at 40% (OECD,

2009). The ATD cohort began with a total of 26 colleges, but has now expanded to 128 colleges
in 24 states, including the District of Columbia. With this low academic profile the organization
has focused on improving and expanding developmental education, gatekeeper courses, first-year
experience, learning communities, academic and personal advising student support services, and
tutoring. A recent report indicated that the initiative is effectively increasing student persistence
rates by as much as 13% (Jaschik, 2010). ATD colleges are also working to strengthen linkages
to K–12 and to engage the community. The initiative also is focused on changing state and
federal policies that create barriers for students (ATD, 2010).
An Investment towards Student Success
It is important to garner support from policymakers and foundations, but the goals of
improving educational attainment in the United States can best be attained if educators take the
lead in improving student success. College and university faculties and administrators need to
work together to improve student’s completion rates and to facilitate the transfer of students from
community colleges into upper-division course work through better course articulation and
dissemination of information.
In the book, entitled “Crossing the Finish Line” authored by Bowen, Chingos, and
McPherson (2009), the authors contended that many four-year institutions could increase their
overall graduation rates, despite low socioeconomic status, by increasing their numbers of
community college transfers. They further contended that transfer students can do better in fouryear universities if they had come directly from high school with the same credentials. While
community college transfers students generally do at least as well as native university students
after transferring, both in terms of grade point average and degree attainment. It is important for
both policymakers and educators to address the barriers to student success and transfer. Higher

education in the United States is exemplary in many ways, but it can be much stronger if the
contributions of community colleges are appropriately recognized and if educators work together
to break down barriers to student success.
Leadership
Community college leaders of the 21st century are at crossroads where they can make a
difference in helping lead and transform the future of higher education. The leaders of today,
should be prepared to meet the challenges affecting community colleges such as; competition for
the same resources, strategic planning, accountability standards on effective measurement,
workforce demands on training needs, student learning expectations and intervention support,
world economic factors, technology in the classroom, and other rapidly changing conditions
(Myran, Zeiss, & Howdyshell, 1995).
Furthermore, community college leaders will be challenged to create a student centered
teaching and learning environment that includes faculty support and leadership commitment
beginning at the top of the organization. Community college leaders have a compelling
obligation and responsibility to lead and transform the design and delivery of education
strategies that will affect aspiring students in pursue of a better tomorrow (Myran et al.).
Leadership is a powerful term that has been researched and defined in various ways. The term is
viewed by many to be "as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have
attempted to define the concept" (Stodgill, 1974, p. 259). Over the years, the term has evolved to
include different definitions, descriptions, factors, and situations. However, a common
description identified with the leadership definition is the ability for a leader to influence an
action or a behavior that will ultimately affect an outcome or a situation. The following
leadership definitions described leaders as influencing an action:

1. "Leaders are people who are able to think and act creatively in non routine situations
and who set out to influence the actions, beliefs, and feelings of others" (Doyle & Smith,
2001, p. 2).
2. "Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group in its
efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement" (Stodgill, 1974, p. 57).
3. "Leadership is the ability to influence, shape, and embed values, attitudes, beliefs and
behaviors consistent with increase commitment to the unique mission of the
community college" (Roueche, Baker, & Rose, 1989, p. 34).
4. "Leaders influence and inspire others through a value-driven vision, persuasive,
anecdotal communication and the development of a strong, predictable self” (Bennis &
Nanus, 1985, p. 65).
Leadership Prospective
There is no typical leader because leaders come in all sizes and shapes. Some are striking
in appearance and exude personality and charisma, whereas others appear quite ordinary”
(Hockaday & Puyear, 2000, pg. 2). Recent studies that have been conducted on the competencies
required for community college presidents, revealed a lists that is exhaustive, with considerable
overlap and redundancy. The most current list of competencies for community college leaders is
published by the American Association of Community College organization (AACC, 2006). This
document appears to have captured the findings from previous research on community college
leader competencies and has categorized them into six core competencies with 45 specific items.
The six competencies are organizational strategy, resource management, communication,
collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism. This framework is intended to

provide current and future community college leaders with a guide for further leadership
development.
AACCs competencies for community college leaders serve as the leading framework for
U.S. community colleges. The American Association of Community College organization
believes that the development and availability of well-prepared community college leaders is
critical for the continued success of community colleges and their students (AACC, 2006). For
this reason, and in response to the impending leadership gap that is anticipated within the
community college leadership ranks, the AACC and the Leading Forward initiative developed a
competency framework for current and future community college leaders.
J. Hockaday (personal communication, Aug 2002, cited in Vaughan & Weisman, 2003),
believes that presidents and trustees have the responsibility for identifying, cultivating, and
educating future leaders. Hockaday also believes that presidents and boards are obligated to
nurturing and shaping leaders. Leadership development, then, can best be defined as a local
initiative supported by the local president and the college of board of trustees. Therefore, it is the
perception of presidents and trustees to fill academic and administrative vacancies with the most
qualified leaders as possible. To do this, the president and board should possess complementary
philosophies on leadership and leadership development before they can approve campus-based
leadership development programs (Vaughan & Weisman, 2003; Boggs, cited in Campbell, 2002).
Effective community college leadership is critical to meeting the societal needs of the
twenty-first century. Olmstead (2001) indicates that leading these dynamic institutions in a world
that has become more complex and demanding presents many challenges. All of the difficulties
of teaching and leadership, it is perhaps best to focus first on why people should want to take on
these roles. To be successful in today’s environment and that of the future, leaders must find

ways to involve people in their decisions. They must be catalysts for finding ways to make things
happen for the college and its people and they should encourage and support innovation and
discovery (Boggs, 1995).
Vaughan and Weisman (2007) noted that community college leadership should seek to
preserve the traits and skills that have already served to create, nurture, and place community
colleges in a strategic position for further prominence in higher education. They also believed
that the issues that upcoming community college leaders will have to address will be different
and more complex than those faced by community college leaders in the past. Although there is
no specific blueprint for college leadership, certain skills have been identified as important for
effective presidents, including the ability to bring a college together in the governing process; the
ability to mediate; having a good command of technology; maintaining a high level of tolerance
for ambiguity; understanding and appreciating multiculturalism; and the ability to build
coalitions.
In 2001, the American Association of Community Colleges online survey of community
college presidents indicated belief that future presidents will need an even more entrepreneurial
spirit, a greater command of technology, and a more adaptive approach than presidents need
today. Although many presidents receive leadership training before moving into a presidency,
they are not prepared for all aspects of the job. Based on the notion of the implicit leadership
theory, leadership is a process of being perceived by others as a leader (Lord & Maher, 1991).
In support, Keller (1999) found that implicit leadership perceptions reflect ones personality traits,
such as agreeableness, openness, and self-monitoring.
Eddy & VanDerLinden, (2006) posited that strong educational leadership is needed to
guide community college leaders forward. In support, (Shults, 2001) indicated that statistical

data has shown that approximately 45% of community college presidents will have retired by
2007 and an even worse prediction offered by Weisman and Vaughan (2003) predict 79% of
community college presidents will be retired by 2012. Echoing this view, Amey et al. (2002)
assert that there is much work to be done in preparing the younger generations of community
college leaders with skills and competencies necessary to meet this educational leadership
challenge.
Brown, Martinez, and Daniel (2002) examined community college leadership preparation
programs by surveying three hundred community college leaders regarding their perceptions of
the adequacy of their doctoral programs in higher education leadership. One hundred and twentyeight instructional leaders indicate that there is a disconnect between the skills and knowledge
that are emphasized in graduate programs in contrast to the skills and knowledge today’s leaders
felt as important for effective leadership. They further alluded, that the monopolistic situation
given the current demographic trends and the focus of established doctoral leadership programs,
graduate programs alone may not fulfill the needs for leaders in community colleges.
Vaughan (2000), asserts that there are three avenues for preparing future community
college leaders: First, funding should be increased through the American Association of
Community Colleges (AACC, 2001) to support the development of potential leaders; secondly,
relevant graduate programs must be designed through a collaborative efforts involving college
presidents, AACC, foundations, and graduate professors; and finally all current presidents must
give a serious consideration to the pool of potential leaders on college campuses. Leadership
opportunities with or without previous experience in leadership training and development
programs, new community college leaders are often drawn from faculty ranks. They may have
well-developed teaching skills, but not necessarily the requisite leadership skills.

Interpretation of perspectives leads to opportunities for leadership development which is
varied and extensive. One of the dimensions is to foster leadership potential and entrée into the
broader institutional culture through mentoring relationships with current leaders. Thinking out
of the box as we enter a new century, we urge the pursuit of a new educational leadership
development paradigm, one that places the individual community colleges in the middle of the
action. The effective leaders that are needed in terms of quality and quantity will result only
when the institutions themselves make educational leadership development a high priority, invest
in appropriate programming, work cooperatively, and premise the future essential core of
assertiveness.
It is a normal phenomenon for leaders to rise and become cynical; however, community
colleges must become proactive in the development of leaders. They need to take responsibility
for playing a major role in producing the next generation of educational leaders. The turnover
and attrition of educational leaders is not exclusive to education, but to all sectors of industry in
the United States (Lavigna & Hays, 2004). Higher education has also studied the possible effects
of the retirements of the baby boomer generation administrators as well.
Boggs (2003, p. 15) asserts that America’s community colleges are facing the “most
significant transition of leadership” in its history; he further reiterated that today’s leaders need to
take responsibility for selecting and developing the leaders of tomorrow. Given the everchanging social dynamic associated with educational leadership, leaders must expand beyond the
institutional core competencies and functions central to the college’s mission, advancing efforts
leading to the creation and alignment of partnerships and corporate alliances.
The impending leadership and crisis also presents an opportunity to address

the problem of a lack of diversity within the ranks of community college leadership. Vaughan
(2004) has challenged community college institutions (current leaders, professional associations,
and higher education programs) to view the imminent leadership crisis as an opportunity to
diversify community college executive level administration. He notes that most community
college presidents’ cognize the same way, and lack the diversity of thought found in most other
senior leadership positions. Prompted by the predicted leadership crisis, Vaughan (2004)
encourages a critical examination of community college leadership competencies and skills to
determine whether community college leaders might be identified in other fields, like business,
government, and the military.
Leadership is therefore regarded as a crucial factor in the initiation and implementation of
the transformations in organizations. If leadership wants to engender a positive impact on
individuals, teams, and organizations, both practitioners and researchers have argued that earlier
leadership paradigms such as directive versus participative leadership, consideration versus
initiating structure, autocratic versus democratic leadership, and task versus relations-oriented
leadership should be broadened (see, for example, Avolio & Bass, 1995; Conger, 1993; Ekvall &
Arvonen, 1991, 1994; Puffer & McCarthy, 1996).
With respect to the management of transformation processes in organizations, there is a
strong need for leaders who are more change-centered. These leaders place value on the
development of a clear vision and inspire followers to pursue the vision. In this way they provide
a strong motivational force for change in followers. Anderson and King (1993) also concluded
that besides a participative leadership style, a clear vision or mission is most likely to foster
innovation. Leaders who enhance followers’ confidence and skills to devise innovative
responses, to be creative, and to take risks, can also facilitate the change over processes in

organizations (Howell & Avolio, 1989).
The emergence of “new leadership” theories such as transformational and charismatic
leadership occurred in the past decade (Bryman, 1992). Although the terms “charisma” and
“transformational leadership” are often used interchangeably, Bass makes a distinction between
them, with charisma forming a sub-dimension of transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio,
1993). As promoters of change, transformational leaders elicit performance beyond expectations
by instilling pride, communicating personal respect, facilitating creative thinking, and providing
inspiration.
There are many leadership models and leadership styles which have been studied and
proposed, for example, including the “charismatic,” “transformational,” and “super leadership”
styles (Avolio & Bass, 1988 ; Black, 2002 ; Casimir, 2001 ; Combs, 2002 ; McGovern, Foster, &
Ward, 2002 ; Morrison, 1992 ; Northouse, 2003 ; Richards, 2000 ). Aguirre and Martinez (2002)
contended that the use of “transitional” and “transformational” leadership models for higher
education administrators. Conversely, Casimir (2001) postulates that their needs to be a
combination of more than one leadership styles for institutional effectiveness.
Leadership Revitalized
Leadership development opportunities may revitalize faculty, mature their growth and
development, and expand their skills (Cooper, Pagotto, 2003). Traditionally, leadership has been
viewed as having to do with processes of power and influence (Etzioni, 2004; Fleisch, 2004).
Organizations are multifaceted and the essence of leadership is the ability to facilitate change in
complex systems (Minas, 2005). In this review, the researcher finds that while leadership is
essential, power alone may do little to prevail over the complex challenges of community college
leadership, and discovers leadership characteristics that might best inform such undertakings.

Modern theorists define leadership as an activity of influencing people to strive willingly for
group objectives, interpersonal influences exercised in a situation and directed through the
communication process, toward the attainment of a specialized goal (Hersey, Blanchard,
Johnson, 2001). Leadership is considered a central dimension to institutional improvement and
change (Fleisch, 2004). Gillett-Karam (1999) concludes that the leadership role of a community
college mid-manager requires a myriad of skill:
…more than manipulators of paperwork . . . they are also human relations experts,
dealing with people issues, conflict, dilemmas, debate, and controversy. They are
expected to be managers of human needs and wants, negotiators of interest groups,
examiners of power relationships, mentors, and change agents. (p. 10)
In her review of previous research, Gillet-Karam (1999) discovered that investigators
reported from 51 to more than 110 specific duties and responsibilities related to mid-level
managers in higher education. Filan (1992) describes the chair/dean position as being a widely
regarded key to an effective college program, yet he also concludes that the people who fill these
positions often receive very little, if any, formal training.
Bennis and Nanus (2003) assert that educational leadership is influenced by fads,
political tides and academic trends. Over the past three decades, research has witnessed the
manifestation of various conceptual models of educational leadership, including informal
leadership (those without recognized authority), transactional leadership which depends on a
leader’s power to reward/reinforce subordinates (Bass, 1997), and transformational leadership
which focuses explicitly on how leaders can bring about positive change (Hallinger, 2003) or
processes and approaches to developing an organization’s ability to innovate by engaging the
higher needs of followers (Spinelli, 2006).

Transactional leadership could prove to be significant in the effort of community colleges
to undergo successful change by becoming more flexible and challenging the status quo. One
researcher posits that with a transaction approach, top down decision making in the community
college would be replaced by teams of staff far from the center making the most decisions.
Future leaders will need to initiate more experimental programs and services and take more risks
(Alfred, 1999). Underlying this vision would be leadership that no longer adheres to command
and control concepts but instead relies on visioning and persuading skills.
Perspective on Leadership Effectiveness
Heck, Johnsrud, & Rosser (2000), contend that there are a plethora of ways to evaluate
the leadership of administrators, deans and chairs regarding the expectations of the role and the
institutional purposes for evaluation. Any number of different aspects of the role could
potentially be evaluated including performance (e.g., on-the-job behavior), cognitive processes
(e.g., ability to solve problems or make appropriate decisions), or effectiveness (e.g., results
oriented activities such as increasing resources, improving the quality of programs).
Effectiveness is a pertinent criterion when the evaluation purpose is to hold individuals
accountable for certain types of results. Institutions may develop a number of specific purposes
for evaluation including improving performance, affording opportunities for professional
development, or granting a merit pay increase.
Institutions may endeavor to demonstrate to their external stakeholders that their
administrators as a group are effective. Such a purpose requires a set of common criteria that is
appropriate to each member of the group as well as a means to assess the criteria across a number
of administrators, each functioning within a specific unit-level context. Adding to the challenge
of defining a set of evaluation criteria; however, is the lack of a commonly accepted definition of

what leadership effectiveness in higher education is and a measure of agreement about which
aspects of leadership may be most important to assess in order to evaluate performance in
various administrative roles (Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989; Bimbaum, 1992; Dill,
1984; Fincher, 1996; Whetten & Cameron, 1985).
Fincher (1996) argues that leadership effectiveness in higher education is mostly a matter
of perception. Individual perceptions of effectiveness are based on what leaders are perceived to
have accomplished; that is, perceptions are grounded in the individual's experience with the
leader's behavior, either directly or indirectly. From these experiences, individuals determine
whether they believe leaders are effective or ineffective (Birnbaum, 1992; Fincher, 1996;
Whetten & Cameron, 1985). Such perceptions are then crucial to the viability of the leader's
position within the institution. The varied view on the dean's role suggests that no single
evaluation model is likely to include all of the important responsibilities, skills, or results
associated with the leadership of deans and directors. Leadership in organizational contexts is
complex and multidimensional (Yukl, 1989, 1993). That complexity has attracted scholars from a
variety of disciplines who bring contrasting conceptualizations of leadership and the assessment
of its effectiveness.
Theorists in psychology tend to focus on the individual and view leadership as an
outcome of managerial effectiveness, success in influencing people, and developing commitment
to task objectives (Yukl, 1989). Chemers (1993) argues that leadership is a process of social
influence, and "effective" leadership is the successful application of the influence to mission
accomplishment. From this perspective, it follows that effective leaders are able to obtain the
cooperation of other people and to harness the resources provided by that cooperation to attain
organizational goals. Followers are responsive to what leaders say and do, and leaders are

responsive to followers. Accordingly, leader effectiveness depends upon equity in social
exchange with the leader gaining status and exercising influence while helping the group to
achieve desired mutual outcomes, as well as the individual leader achieving social rewards, such
as recognition (Hollander, 1964, 1978). Hollander contends that this social exchange, or
transactional approach to effective leadership, involves a trading of benefits.
Leadership Theories
Four main generations of leadership theories are described in this review of literature: (a)
trait theory, (b) behavioral theory, (c) contingency theory, and (d) transformational theory.
According to Yukl (2001), traditionally, leadership theories focused on particular traits,
behaviors, and situations which served as predictors of leadership effectiveness. However, Bass
(1990) purported a movement away from autocratic leadership models that addressed a
combination of factors that includes the leader's personality traits, situation, followers, and
structure of organization. This movement is defined as transformational leadership which has
delineated such leader as one who is a visionary and seek to appeal to their followers and move
them toward higher and more universal needs and purposes" (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 314).
Due to its importance to my study, transformational leadership is described in a separate section.
Trait theory. The leadership trait theory was linked to war and conflict involving world
leaders such as Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Napoleon, and Hitler. Trait theory focused on the individual
characteristics and personality of the leader regardless of the situation. The trait theory was
aimed on the following leadership qualities: physical characteristics such as height, weight,
stature; personal appearance; personality traits; personal abilities; and social skills (Bass, 1990;
Stogdill, 1974). According to Stogdill, leaders are born with innate leadership traits consisting of
a definite set of characteristics that are displayed regardless of the situation. Bennis and Nanus

(1985) reported that leaders were born and not made, thus suggesting that the traits were
based on innate and heroic qualities.
Early research studies reported issues and flaws associated with trait theory, which
provided a limited view of leadership and acknowledged only the leader and not the situation.
According to Bensimon, Neumann and Birnbaum (1989), the trait theory failed to provide a
consistent set of leadership characteristics that leaders possess. As a result, Bensimon et al.
(1989) reported that the research studies suggested problems with the assessment on the
effectiveness of leadership from a trait perspective thus providing a strong argument for the need
to redefine the effectiveness of leadership characteristics. In the early 1990s, the personality or
trait theory was gradually replaced with a new leadership movement which led to the exploration
of behavioral characteristics of leaders and contingency models of leadership (Bass, 1985).

Behavioral theories. Behavioral theories emerged as a result of looking at what leaders
actually did versus their traits or capabilities. Theorists were now concerned about the leaders'
behavior towards their followers. The emphasis was that leadership capability could be learned
and was not necessarily an innate trait. In the late 1950s and 1960s, research studies began to
focus on the pattern of leaders' behaviors which were grouped together into leadership styles.
Many different schemes were developed with the purpose of identifying and developing
employees' style of working. The best known was Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid (1964).
The behavioral theories examine whether the leader is task (initiating structure) or people
(consideration) oriented or both (Bensimon et al., 1989). Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid
(1964) introduced the task versus people preference. The concept was that the leader was
concerned about his/her followers, but at the same time had to be concerned for the job that had
to be accomplished. The grid identified five leadership styles that represented the different
combinations of concern for people and concern for task or production. A leader with a high
score on the managerial grid on concern for people and concern for performance was possessed
an effective leadership style. This new shift on behavioral theories led to the Ohio State and
University of Michigan studies, which identified two dimensional leadership styles; initiating
and considerate structure, and two types of leader behaviors; productive or employee centered
(Bryman, 1986). The results of the Ohio State studies lead to the identification of four possible
leadership styles: high structure and high consideration, high structure and low consideration,
low structure and high consideration, and low structure and low consideration (Stogdill & Coons,
1957).
According to Stogdill and Coons, high structure and high consideration was the focus of
most researchers because they believed this was the best leadership style out of the four. The

results of the Michigan studies found that leaders used one leadership style and the style used did
not depend on the competency of the employees (Bryman, 1986). The job centered and employee
centered leadership style seemed to correspond with the concepts of initiating and consideration
structure. These studies showed that leaders with a considerate and employee centered style were
most concerned for the employee's welfare. Leaders with an initiating structure and production
centered style were most concerned with achieving goals (Megginson, Mosley, & Pietri, 1989).
These behavioral theories focused on four main leadership styles: concern for task; concern for
people; directive leadership; and participative leadership. The idea behind these leadership styles
was that followers experienced a greater satisfaction and were more productive. A review of
these studies found that there were many differences and inconsistencies because researchers had
not considered the context or the setting in which the style was used. This began the movement
of the situational and contingency theories (Bryman, 1986).
Contingency theories. In the late 1960s, the leadership movement proceeded to
contingency theories. The idea that emerged was that one leadership style might be successful in
some situations but not other situations. Contingency theories studied leadership style in various
environments. These theories took a broader view that included factors about leadership ability,
the followers' behaviors and the given situation. Successful leaders were those that could best
adapt their leadership style to meet the needs of their followers in any given situation. Fiedler
(1967), who dominated the research on leadership in the 1970s, was the first to develop a
contingency model. According to Fiedler, the leader's performance was contingent on the leader's
personal characteristics and the degree to which the leader controls the situation.
Fiedler developed the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) theory to identify leadership
styles based on two interacting factors: leadership style and the leader's level of control and

influence in a given situation. Fielder discovered three things were important: the relationship
between the leader and the followers, the structure of the task, and position power. High LPC
leaders seemed to have good strong relationships and were supportive, such as making the
relationship more important than the task. According to Fiedler, low LPC leaders focused on the
task and then the relationship, but only after they were satisfied that the work was going well.
The best leadership style had a combination of all three factors. According to Lunenburg and
Ornstein (2004), contingency theory depends on the interaction of the leader's personal traits, the
leader's behavior, and factors in the leadership situation. The factors included the characteristics
of the leader, followers, and the situation. Effective leadership is based on various situational
factors. Bolman and Deal (1997) noted: "contingency theories focused on the relationship
between managers and immediate subordinates and said little about issues of structure, politics,
or symbols" (p. 302). The models focused on the internal organizational structure and
relationship between the supervisor and subordinates thereby, offering limited recognition of the
external factors such as motivation, inspiration, achievement, and self-actualization. These
observations led to the development of transactional and transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leaders have been described (Viator, 2001) as providing leadership that
transcends task structuring and reward/penalty processes of power, to include behavior which
elevates, broadens and motivates subordinates for the good of the institution. Gardner (1990)
describes practitioners of transformational leadership as futurist who foster hope, build levels of
confidence and raise expectations, as exemplified by the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Vince
Lombardi and John F. Kennedy. Recent research (Miller, 2006), describe transforming leaders as
people who deliberately choose to love his or her followers. The case has been made (Wills,

1994) that although the literature provides a very long list of suggested leadership prerequisites
like focus; resolve; confidence; a sense of priorities, and so forth, one of the most important
requirements of leaders is the ability to connect with others i.e. create follower ship.
Gardner (1990) depicts leadership as a “process of persuasion or example that induces a
group to pursue objectives held or shared by the leader” (p. 1). Obviously, there can be no
effective leadership without followers, and in this way, all leaders are in the relationship
business. Therefore, the transformational leader can be viewed as one who transforms
relationships. The transforming leader is uniquely focused on both the follower and the vision,
and that mutuality of exchange is an important aspect of the relationship.
Amey (2004) surmised that one of the most important aspects of organizational
functioning is the role of leaders and leadership, and further recommends that organizations take
a learning approach wherein an important aspect of a leader’s role is facilitating leadership
development in others. Amey (2004) suggests that in order to do this, leaders must move from
traditional top-down approaches toward the more facilitative approaches, which require
continued assessment of the leadership needs of the group.

Transformational leadership styles. The turmoil of the late 1970s and 1980s, when
constant change became the norm, influenced the emergence of a new leadership approach
through the adoption of transformational models (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Devanna,
1986). Burns, a political scientist and pioneer on the study of transformational leadership,
developed a model based on Weber's (1947) seminal work on charismatic leaders. According to
Weber, charismatic leaders display exceptional traits and qualities that are supernatural and
superhuman with the magical power to inspire others. These traits were regarded as having
divine origin and high order of purpose. Burns examined the leadership traits and qualities on
values identified as amoral and moral. Burns described amoral value leaders as being coercive
and manipulative. An amoral leader had the need to wield power. Conversely, Burns considered
moral value leaders as individuals who emerged from and always returned to the fundamental
wants and needs, aspirations, and values of the followers. Burns purported that transactional
leaders have the moral means to lead while transformational leaders are responsive to the moral
means and ends of leadership. Transformational leadership occurs when "one or more persons
engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of
motivation and morality" (Burns, 1978, p. 20). For example, Burns considered the exchange of
resources and transactions between the leaders and follower in connection to moral
responsibilities of honesty, responsibility, and fairness. The moral value of transformational
actions between the leaders and followers was directed to liberty, justice, and equity. Burn's
research studies conducted in 1978 on leadership were recognized for the infusion of ethical and
moral values and dimensions.
Division Chairs/Deans as Leaders

Academic deans have been identified by a variety of job titles (e.g., chair, division chair,
division director and assistant dean). Regardless of the title, these leaders carry out the day-today operations and business of community colleges (Shults, 2001). The role of academic deans is
considered a first level position within the institution and is essential in dealing with faculty
concerns and communicating directives from senior administrators. The academic deans are
designated to lead and implement the initiatives set forth by the presidents and board of trustees.
Therefore, the ability of the academic deans to lead effectively will be assessed base on the
outcome of the institutional goals and objectives (Leftwich, 2001).
Division chairs/deans are concurrently exalted as leaders in academic circles due to the
vastness of their responsibilities and diminished as leaders in academia due to the lack of
ultimate authority given them to accomplish their responsibilities. It is a role that is often illdefined and one for which few are prepared (Hecht, 2004). Recognizing division chairs as bona
fide leaders may be the first step in obtaining appropriate professional development for them.
Secondly, an examination of how institutions may approach the evaluation of existing
development programs may provide important insights and recommendations for change.
Leadership consultant and Professor Ken Hammer believes that higher education
department chairs/deans tend to be too conservative in their exercise of leadership and often do
not recognize the influence they can have on the institution (Hammer, 2006). Organizations can
and should appreciate that leadership doesn’t just happen for everyone, thereby embracing
Gardner’s (1990) assertion that leadership development calls for frequent assessments and
repeated opportunities for training. Educational mid-level leadership is a required ingredient, and
institutional change a necessary journey, for continued success in our system of higher education.

Long-term, continuous institutional improvements may be dependent upon faculty taking on
augmented amounts of ownership and campus leadership (Hollinger, 2001).
Dressel (1981) found that both faculty and institutional administrators prefer that
department chairs/deans ascend from the ranks of faculty. Senge (2000) considers this ascending
as part of a natural emergence based on the faculty member’s extraordinary performance, vision
and unique quality. Dressel (1981) further asserted even though faculty may dread the
administrative task, they also believe that only faculty should lead faculty, thereby insuring that a
new department chair/dean will likely be faculty oriented.
Chambliss (2003) asserts that the most effective strategies for managing challenges faced
by the department chairs/deans include building a sense of purpose, assuring accountability, a
participatory leadership style, modeling, using positive rewards and empathy, and mediating
struggles between faculty members. Complimenting these findings, Krahenbuhl (2004)
determines the following qualities to be essential to successful chair/deanship:
1

Competence (it is difficult to be effective if one is incompetent)

2

Honesty (no one’s memory is good enough to be otherwise)

3

Vision (a dean has to be able to imagine the possibilities)

4

Decisiveness (leaders have to make decisions in a timely way)

5

Communication (shortcomings here are very handicapping)

6

Empathy (this will lead to more humane decisions)

7

Balance (emotional, intellectual, behavioral; moderation applies especially to deans)

8

Humor (don’t treat things lightly but have fun and create an atmosphere for those around
you that is upbeat and happy)

9

Delegation (fail here, and the work of the college will grind to a halt)

10 Optimism (it is hard for an organization to be more optimistic than its leader)
11 Inspiration (seeing what others fail to see is a gift few have; settle for lifting others to
greater success)
12 Role Model (the dean might cut his or her own budget first, teach a freshman seminar
each semester, be a leader in deans’ professional organizations, and be a good (campus
citizen). (pp.19-20)
Despite the existing multitude of recommended skill development, strategies, qualities
and prerequisites for new faculty chairs/deans, a study completed by Gmelch (2000) of more
than 2,000 department leaders between 1990 and 2000 found that approximately three percent
had any type of leadership preparation. Researchers (VanDerlinden, 2003) have concluded that
while there are a myriad of local to national leadership development seminars available for
aspiring campus chairs/deans, these programs are typically unknown to those who could benefit
the most.

Chapter III
Methodology
This chapter consists of five sections, the research design, participants in the study, the
instrument, the procedure, and limitations to the study. Results from this study provides
community colleges administrators with the ability to examine leadership styles and how these
styles might impact student success at community colleges. Based on the findings of the study,
community college professors, administrators and presidents have an insight on the various
patterns and characteristics of effective leadership styles that should be exhibited by
administrators, departmental chairs and deans at the community college level in the state of
Texas. Myran et al. (2003) argued that college leaders should be responsible for the management
and coordination of the decision-making processes on institutional factors such as organizational
and strategic planning, administrative policies, human relations, and finance.
Specifically, this study provides descriptive data and implications for greater
understanding of the essential leadership characteristics that are relevant to student persistence,
retention, and other success factors. The results of this analysis are important for administrators
who are interested in increasing and improving their leadership characteristics in relation to
student success outcomes for college students enrolled in community colleges. The data should
provide college administrators with the higher order of leadership styles that can be recognized
as being transformational and innovative, thus contributing to effective organizational change
and educational reform on student success.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
1

Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators

and self-evaluation of administrators?
2. Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators
and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on gender?
3. Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators
and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on ethnicity?
4. Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of administrators
and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on length of service?
Null Hypothesis
H01 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrators and self-evaluation of administrators.
H02 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on gender.
H03 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on ethnicity.
H04 - There is no statistically significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ based on length of service.
Research Design
According to Yukl (2006), survey research with questionnaires is by far the most
common method used to study leadership. The research design for this study was primarily a
survey research design. This involves the collection of data via surveys and descriptive and
inferential analyses of the data to answer the proposed research questions. Survey research
collects information about such things as subjects, interests, beliefs, attitudes, opinions and
behaviors, through questionnaires, interviews, or paper and pencil tests. Surveys can also be used

to explore relationships among variables, or used to explain relationships. Descriptive research
describes data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied. It involves
obtaining, tabulating and describing collected data on the population studied in a manageable
form (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009).
The descriptive analyses for this study included frequency and percentages for each item
on the survey. The inferential analyses included chi-square analyses to address the proposed
research questions. The Chi square is a non-parametric test of statistical significance for data in
which the independent and dependent variables are recorded as group (qualitative data).
Typically, the hypothesis tested with chi square is whether or not two different variables,
measured usually from the same subjects, are related. A non-parametric test makes no
assumption about the shape of the distribution curve. The variables in this study include
administrators’ leadership style as the independent variable and administrative competencies at
community college as the dependent variable which are identified. All collected data were
analyzed by using SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2010).

Participants
The target population for this study consisted of community college deans, chairpersons’
faculty, and staff of four community colleges in Houston, Texas. The total number of participants
was approximately 1485 persons.
Sample
A random sample was selected from the target population. The random sample consisted
of 80 community college administrators, 60 community college deans and chairpersons, and 100
faculty and staff members from all the constituent community colleges in the study. These four
community colleges were selected because of the large number of colleges within each segment.
The diversity of these community college sizes within the states, and the professional
acquaintances within the states. To help facilitate an optimal survey return rate, the researcher
contacted the Presidents and Vice Chancellors of the Community Colleges to obtain endorsement
letters. The age range of the participants ranges from 35 to 65 years of age. While some of the
participants are senior administrator and may have experience some health challenges, the
temporary setback has not inhibited them from serving in their present capacities. The names of
the campuses for Houston Community College are as follows: Spring Branch, Stafford, Central,
Southeast and Northeast campuses.
Instrumentation
This research study utilized the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) which
includes three new components in leadership styles and behaviors. The MLQ instrument was
used to measure the leadership styles of the community college administrators based on a fivepoint Likert-scale representing the relative frequency of each behavior.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was developed by Bass in 1995. The
MLQ, a self-administered questionnaire, was designed to measure four leadership styles:
transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, and augmentation of transformational with
transactional leadership. The MLQ instrument has undergone several revisions since 1995. The
original instrument consisted of six leadership components to measure the constructs of
leadership styles and behaviors.
Through extensive research conducted on the MLQ in 1993 and 1994, Avolio and Bass
(2004) both uncovered new empirical evidence that helped refine the instrument to include three
new components in leadership styles and behaviors. The new constructs focused on
transformational leadership dimensions, specifically management-by exception (active) and
management-by-exception (passive) (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Further evidence of Bass's (1985)
research studies of the MLQ showed that the combination of transactional leadership and
transformational leadership provided a basis for factors such as extra effort, effectiveness, and
satisfaction (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
The MLQ (5X Short Form) was used for this study. This instrument has been through
numerous revisions and is used by business organizations, public and religious entities, and
military operations to measure leadership styles and behaviors (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ
has been translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Italian, Chinese, Thai, Korean,
Hebrew, and Turkish for use in various leadership assessment and training projects (Avolio &
Bass, 2004).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) evaluates different leadership styles
either from passive leaders to transactional leaders. Also it allows individuals to measure how

they perceive themselves and with others perception. The MLQ is designed with the 360-degree
feedback method, 24 raters supplying respondents’ advice on their performance in relation to
how they did on the test. Participants are asked to respond to 45 items in the MLQ 5x-Short or 63
items in the long form using a 5-point scale (“Not at all” to “Frequently if not always”).
Approximately 15 minutes is required for completion.
For this study, the MLQ instrument was used to measure the leadership styles of the
community college administrators based on a five-point Likert-scale representing the relative
frequency of each behavior. A numerical value was assigned for each of the responses as the
following: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Once in a while; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Fairly often; and 4 =
Frequently, if not always. The questionnaire consisted of 45 items that were classified into 12
subcategories and matched to the four leadership styles categories: transformational,
transactional, laissez-faire, and augmentation of transformational with transactional leadership. A
high numerical value was interpreted as transformational leadership. A low numerical value
indicated laissez-faire leadership style. Each leadership style consisted of subcategories or
subscales identified as the following:
Transformational leadership. Subcategories of transformational leadership include the
following: (a) idealized influence (attributes and behaviors), (b) inspirational motivation, (c)
intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration. Specific to idealized influence
(attributes and behaviors), transformational leaders behave in ways that result in them being
admired, respected and trusted, such that their followers wish to emulate them. They are
extraordinarily capable, persistent, and determined leaders (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Regarding inspirational motivation, transformational leaders behave such that they
motivate and inspire those around them by providing leading with meaning, optimism, and

enthusiasm for a vision of a future state (Avolio & Bass, 2004). In response to intellectual
stimulation, transformational leaders encourage followers to question assumptions, reframe
problems, approach old solutions in new ways, and to be innovative. At times, their followers'
ideas may differ from those of the leader, who may solicit or encourage such responses (Avolio
& Bass, 2004). For individualized consideration, transformational leaders actively develop the
potential of their followers by creating new opportunities for development, coaching, mentoring,
and paying attention to each follower's needs and desires. Leaders know their staff well as a
result of listening, communicating, and walking around encouraging, rather than monitoring
(Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Transactional characteristics. Subcategories of transactional characteristics include the
following: (a) contingent reward, (b) management-by-exception (active), and (c) management
by-exception (passive). With contingent rewards, transactional leaders provide rewards to the
followers who meet the agreed objectives through pay, promotions, and recognition (Avolio &
Bass, 2004). Specific to management-by-exception (active), transactional leaders actively
observe and monitor the follower's deviation from the standard work performance and then take
corrective action (Avolio & Bass, 2004). For management-by-exception (passive), transactional
leaders take a wait-and-see approach regarding the followers to deviate from the work standards
thus making mistakes and errors that ultimately result in a prescribed corrective action for
employees (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Laissez-faire leadership. The descriptive characteristic identified for this subcategory is
the absence of any leadership behavior. Leaders are described as ineffective and nonproductive,
thus creating confusion (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Laissez-faire is a stand-alone category.
Augmentation of transformational and transactional leadership. The subcategory characteristics

of augmentation of transformational and transactional leadership include extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction. The augmentation of both transformational and transactional
leadership behaviors generate greater enthusiasm among the followers' work performance levels
such as extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Reliability and Validity
According to Neill (2004), reliability “is the extent to which a test is repeatable and yields
consistent scores”. In addition high reliability tests are said to be homogenous (Krathwohl,
1998). Homogeneity is weakened “by items that receive different responses depending on how
they are received” (Krathwohl, 1998, p. 436). Internal consistency reliability estimates how
reliable the instrument is by measuring how consistently items constituting a measure yield
results related to the phenomenon (Krathwohl, 1998; Trochim, 2006). The Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire is a well- established instrument rising to the key measure of
Transformational Leadership as well as being extensively researched and validated. Avolio and
Bass’s test manual shows strong evidence for validity; the MLQ has been used in over 300
research programs, doctoral dissertations, and master’s theses, along with several constructive
outcomes for transformational leadership. Construct validity is also thoroughly explained with
factor analyses which resulted in a six-factor model for the MLQ. In addition, a study conducted
by Antonakis (2003), supported the nine-factor leadership model and its stability in
homogeneous situations. Reliability scores for the MLQ subscales ranged from moderate to
good. Reliabilities range from .74-.94 for each leadership factor scale.

Construct Validity
The initial conceptualization of the transactional and transformational leadership model
presented by Bass (1985) included seven leadership factors (Charisma, Inspirational, Intellectual
Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception, and
Laissez-Faire) although Charismatic and Inspiration were highly correlated but conceptually
different. Evidence for a five factor structure combining Charisma and Inspirational leadership
was presented by Bycio, Hackett and Allen (1995) for the earliest version of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 1) used by Bass (1985). However, Bycio et al. (1995)
noted some reservations regarding their findings indicating that: Although the overall
confirmatory factor analysis fit indices tended to support the existence of five leadership
components, the transformational factors were highly correlated, and more important, they
generally did not have strong differential relationships with the outcome variables (p. 474).
Examining the construct validity of MLQ 5X. The MLQ 5X was developed in
response to substantive criticisms of the MLQ 5R survey. (See Bass & Avolio, 1993 for a
discussion of these criticisms and rebuttals). Again, the criticisms concerned the high correlations
among the transformational scales, as well as between the transformational leadership scales and
contingent reward; the mixing of behaviors, impact and outcomes within a single leadership
scale, and distinguishing between behaviorally-based charismatic leadership [referred to as
idealized influence (behaviors) in this report], versus an attribution or impact on followers
referred to as idealized influence (attributed) in this report, or elsewhere as “attributed charisma"
(Conger & Kanungo, 1987; 1998; House, Spangler, & Woyke, 1991).
Procedures

A letter (See Appendix A.) in conjunction with a copy of the research proposal was
delivered to the Chancellors for the targeted population. The letter summarized the theoretically
frame work of the study and outlined the methodology and procedures to be used. The researcher
will informed the chancellors that a copy of the results will be made available to the Institutional
Research Department. After completion of all required documentation by the IRB department,
the researcher sent an authorization letter.
The researcher proceeded by discussing the logistics in conducting and collecting the
data. The researcher requested a contact person to assist with the administration of the
questionnaires. To ensure anonymity of the administrators, dean and chairpersons’ responses,
their names were omitted from the instruments. All completed instruments were logged and
examined for non-responses and errors. Instruments that were not properly executed were
discarded from the study. Once the foregoing task is completed, the data from the instruments
collected was be coded and entered into the computer. The statistical package used for the data
analysis was the Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2010).
The researcher submitted the appropriate materials (consent form, survey instrument,
procedures used in data collection, and reporting procedures) to Prairie View A & M University
Institution Research Board (IRB) for approval to conduct the survey before any data was
collected. The data collection process consisted of (a) receiving IRB approval, (b) conducting an
initial mailing of the survey instrument, (c) collecting and organizing survey responses, (d)
sending a follow-up email and (e) reviewing the survey instruments for completeness. The
researcher used the following data collection process to manage and control the quality of data
collected.

1

Secured listing and mailing labels of the Community College Administrators, dean
and chairpersons for each of the community colleges in that are participating in
Houston, Texas.

2

Reviewed listings and mailing labels for identifying the presidents, administrators,
dean and chairpersons.

3

Assigned a code number to each of the administrators, dean and chairpersons and
placed it on the survey instrument and log sheet. The names and institutions
corresponding to the code number will be kept in a locked secured file. The survey
packages were mailed to 80 community college administrators, 60 community college
deans/chairpersons and 100 faculty and staff members for a total sample of 240
participants. The mailed survey packages contained the survey instrument for either
the administrators or the dean and chairpersons. A letter of instruction and a postage
paid return envelope were included. All mailed packets were accounted for using the
code number. The frequency count were maintained by date and non-responders were
mailed a follow-up letter.

4

The returned survey instruments were reviewed for completeness. Responses to the
survey instrument were entered into the SPSS program database.

5

The researcher contacted the remaining prospective participants by email or
telephone in order to gain their commitment to complete the survey instrument. No
additional mailings of the survey packages were requested by those remaining
prospective participants.
Data Analysis

Upon receipt of the survey instruments, the individual responses to the specific items
related to the community college leader competencies were entered into SPSS variable fields and
the additional questions for the administrators, dean and chairpersons were entered into a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. All responses were anonymous and were not attached to an
individual by name or to a community college. SPSS software version 18.0 was used to analyze
the data. The SPSS software is a powerful tool that is capable of conducting just about any type
of data analysis used in the social science, the natural sciences, or in the business world. (George
& Mallery, 2007, p.1).
The specific tests of differences varied based on the research questions. The types of
statistical tests to be used included the descriptive statistics (mean, median, mode, standard
deviation, range and correlation) and inferential statistics (independent t-tests, paired t-tests and
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients). The Descriptive statistics involves tabulating, depicting,
and describing sets of data using frequency counts, averages, and graphs. Descriptive statistics
serve as a tool for describing and summarizing, and reducing to manageable forms the properties
of an otherwise unwieldy mass of data. (Glass & Hopkins, 1996, p. 2). Inferential statistics is a
formulized body of methods for solving another class of problems. This general class of
problems involves attempts to infer the properties of an entire set of data from inspection of only
a small sample. Thus, the purpose of inferential statistics is to find out information for a
population from the characteristics of a sample of the population. (Glass & Hopkins, 1996, p. 23).
The following research questions will be paired with appropriate statistical tests designed
to answer the research question.

1

Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrator sand self-evaluation of administrators? The research question will be
analyzed by using the chi-squared test for independence, mean, median, mode, and
standard deviation.

2

Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ base on gender? The research
question will be analyzed by using mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and
the chi-squared test for independence.

3

Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ base on ethnicity? The
research question will be analyzed by using mean, median, mode, standard
deviation, the chi-squared test for independence.

4

Is there a significant difference between faculty and staff perception of
administrators and self-evaluation of administrators’ length of service? The
research question will be analyzed by using mean, median, mode, frequency,
standard deviation, and the chi- squared test for independence.
Summary

This chapter outlined the format that the investigator followed to accomplish the three
objectives of the study and to answer the research questions. The following chapters provide the
analysis of data and summary, conclusions, and recommendations.

References
Achieving the Dream. (2010). Strategies at Achieving the Dream colleges. Available from
www.achievingthedream.org/campusstrategies/strategiesatachievingthedreamcolleges/default.tp
Alfred, R. (1999). Distinctive colleges create competitive advantage through maverick
behavior. Community College Journal 69(4), 108-122.
Aguirre , A., & Martinez . R. (2002). Leadership practices and diversity in higher education:
Transitional and transformational frameworks. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 53
-62.
Amey, M., VanDerLinden, K., & Brown, D. (2002). Perspectives on community college
leadership: Twenty years in the making. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 26(7), 573-589.
Amey, M. J., and VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). “Career paths for community college leaders.”
Research Brief Leadership Series. Washington, DC: American Association of Community
Colleges.
Amey, M. (2004). Learning leadership in today’s community colleges. Community College
Journal. March, 7-11.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2010a). Fact sheet 2011. April 11, 2011, from
www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/whsummit/Documents/boggswhsummitbrief.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges (2001), AACC Survey on Leadership
Unpublished survey. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2005). Competencies for community college
leaders. Retrieved from www.ccleadership.org/resource center/competencies.htm
Anderson, N., & King, N. (1993). Innovation in organizations. In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1–
34).Chichester: Wiley.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
Astin, A. W., & Scherrei, R. A. (1980). Maximizing leadership effectiveness. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Avolio , B. J., & Bass , B. M. ( 1988 ). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond . In J.
G. Hunt , B. R. Baliga , H. P. Dachler & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership
vistas (pp. 20-50 ). Lexington , MA: D.C. Heath
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1995). Construct validation and norms for the
multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ-Form 5X). New York, NY: Center for
leadership studies, Binghamton University, State University of New York.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,
CA: Mind Garden, Inc

Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005) Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on program
effectiveness at community colleges. DLumina Foundation for Education New Agenda
Series, 6(1).
Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993a). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.
M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions (pp. 49–80). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and National Boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2),130-138.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper
Business.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative
leadership: The "L" word in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report
No.1, Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, The George
Washington University
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Black , A. E. (2002). African American and white elites confront racial issues. Society, 39(4), 3945.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Blair, J. (2000). Schools of education tracking down "big money." Education Week, November
22.
Boggs, G. R. (2003). Leadership context for the twenty-first century. New directions for
Community Colleges. 123(2) 15-25.
Boggs, G. R. (1995). The President and the Executive Leadership Team: Solving strategic
problems. In G. A. Baker III and Assoc. (eds.), Team Building for Quality. Washington,
DC: Community College Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, W., Chingos, M., & McPherson, M. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college
at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bragg, D. (2001). “Community college access, mission, and outcomes: Considering intriguing
intersections and challenges.” Peabody Journal of Education, 76(1), 93–116.
Brown, L., Martinez, M., and Daniel, D (2002). “Community college leadership preparation:
Needs, perceptions, and recommendations.” Community College Review 30(1), 45–66.
Bryman, A. (1986). Leadership and organizations. Boston, MC: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Business Roundtable. (2009). Getting ahead- Staying ahead. Helping America’s workforce
succeed in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author. Available from
www.businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/BRT_Getting_Ahead_online_version.pdf

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass' conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468478.
Campbell, D. F. (2002). The leadership gap. Washington , DC: American Association of
Community Colleges.
Casimir , G. ( 2001 ). Combinative aspects of leadership style: The ordering and temporal
spacing of leadership behaviors . Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 245-279.
Chambliss, C. (2003). Bringing out everyone’s best: Ten psychological tips for academic
department leaders. Opinion Paper. ED 481 788
Chemers, M. M. (1993). An integrative theory of leadership. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman
(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: perspectives and directions (pp. 293319). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
College Board. (2009). Trends in college pricing. Washington, DC: American Association of
Community Colleges.
Combs , G. ( 2002 ). Meeting the leadership challenge of a diverse and pluralistic workplace:
Implications of self-efficacy for diversity training . Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies , 8(4), 1-16.
Community College Leadership Development Initiative. (2000). “Meeting new leadership
challenges in the community colleges.” Claremont Graduate University, California

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. A. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review(12), 637–647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J.
A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 78–97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J.A. (1993). The brave new world of leadership training. Organizational Dynamics,
21(3), 46–58.
Cooper, J. E., & Pagotto, L. (2003). The American community college. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Dill, W. R. (1980). The deanship: An unstable craft. In E. Griffiths & D. J. McCarty (Eds.), The
dilemma of the deanship (pp. 261-284). Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers.
Dill, D. D. (1984, Summer). The nature of administrative behavior in higher education.
Educational Administrative Quarterly, 20, 69-99.
Dowd, A. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the
community college. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
586(1), 92–119.
Doyle, M. E., & Smith, M. K. (2001). Classical leadership, the encyclopedia of informal
education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm
Dressel, P. L. (1981). Administrative leadership: Effective and responsive decision making in
higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Duree, C. A. (2007) The challenges of the community college presidency in the New Millennium:
Pathways, preparation, competencies and leadership programs needed to survive
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Eddy, P., & VanDerLinden, K. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in higher
education. Community College Review, 34(1), 5-26.
Etzioni, A. (2004). A self-restrained approach to nation-building by foreign powers.
International Affairs, 80(1), 1-17.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two
dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(5), 17–26.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Filan, G. L. (1999). The trick to being a community college chair. Leadership Abstracts (World
Wide Web ed.), 5(1). Retrieved from
www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0192.html
Fincher, C. (1996). Theory and research in administrative leadership. In J. C. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (11), 307-336. New York, NY:
Agathon Press.
Fleisch, B. (2004). Structural Change, Leadership and School Effectiveness/ Improvement:
Perspectives from South Africa. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
25 (1), 95-112.
Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2007). SPSS for windows; Step by step (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gillett-Karam. R. (1999). Midlevel management in the community college: A rose garden? New
Directions for Community Colleges, 105(9), 5-11.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gmelch, W. H. (2000). Rites of passage: Transition to the deanship. Paper presented at the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Conference, Chicago, IL.
Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. C. (1999). The academic dean: An
imperiled species searching for balance. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 717- 740.
Green, R. L. (2010). The four dimension of principal leadership: A foundation for leading 21st
century schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
Hammer, K. (2006). Quoted in: Creating a culture of leadership. Academic Leader. 22(2), 7-8.
Hecht, I. (2004). The professional development of department chairs. New Directions for Higher
Education. 126(2), 27-46.
Heck, R. H., Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Administrative effectiveness in higher
education: Improving assessment procedures. Research in Higher Education,
41(6), 663 - 684.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2001). Management of organizational behavior;
Leading human resources (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hockaday, J., & Puyear, D. (2000). Community college leadership in the new millennium.
Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York, NY: Free Press.

Hollinger, D. A., (2001), Faculty governance, the University of California, and the future of
academe. Academe, 87(3), 30-33.
House, R.J., Spangler, W.D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36, 364-396
Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1989). Transformational versus transactional leadership: How
they impact innovation, risk-taking, organization structure and performance. Paper
presented at the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
Jaschik, S. (2010, June 1). Moving the needle. Inside Higher Ed. Available from
www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/01/nisod
Kane, T. J., Orszag, P. R., & Gunter, D. L. (2003). State fiscal constraints and higher
education spending: The role of Medicaid and the business cycle. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership
theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 589–607.
Krahenbuhl, G. S. (2004). Building the academic deanship: Strategies for success. Westport, CT:
American Council on Education and Praeger.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational & social science research: An integrated
approach (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders (ERIC Digest, 160). Retrieved from
http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest160.html
Lavigna, R. J., & Hays, S. W. (2004). Recruitment and selection of public workers: An

international compendium of modern trends and practices. Public Personnel
Management, 33(3), 237-253.
Leftwich, P. (2001). Transformational leadership at the department chair level in North
Carolina community colleges. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K, J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions
and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Lumina Foundation for Education. (2010). Goal 2025. Available from
www.luminafoundation.org/goal_2025/
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. A. (2004). Educational administration: Concepts and practices
(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomason Learning, Inc.
Matczynski, T., Lasley, T. J., & Haberman, M. (1989). The deanship: How faculty evaluate
performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(6), 10-14.
McFarlin, C. H., Crittenden, B. J., & Ebbers, L. H.(1997).Background factors common

among

outstanding community college presidents. Community College Review, 27(3), 19–31.
McArthur, R. (2002). Democratic leadership and faculty empowerment at the community
college: A theoretical model for the department chair. Community College Review, 30(3),
1–10.
McGovern , D. , Foster , L., & Ward , K. (2002 ). College leadership: Learning from experience.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 29-41.
Megginson, L. C., Mosely, D. C., & Pietri, P. H. (1989). Management, concepts and application.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Mercer. J. (1997, July 18). Fund raising has become a job requirement for many deans. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 43, p. A31.

Miller, M. (2006). Transforming Leadership: What does love have to do with it? Transformation,
23(2), 94-106.
Minas, H. (2005). Leadership for change in complex systems. Australasian Psychiatry, 13(1),
33-39.
Morris, V. C. (1981). Deaning: Middle management in academe. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Morrison , A. M.(1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mullin, C. M., & Phillippe, K. (2009, November). Community college enrollment surge: An
analysis of estimated fall 2009 headcount enrollments at community colleges (Policy
Brief2009-01PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Myran, G., Zeiss, T., & Howdyshell, L. (1995). Community college leadership in the new
century: Learning to improve learning. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Myran, G., Baker, G., Simone, G., & Zeiss, T. (2003). Leadership strategies for community
college executives. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). National postsecondary student aid study:
200X .Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Community Colleges. (2008), Winning the skills race and
strengthening America’s middle class: An action agenda for community colleges. New
York, NY: The College Board. Available from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/winning_the_skills_race.pdf
Neill, J. (2004). How to choose tools, instruments, & questionnaires for intervention research &
evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.wilderdom.com/ tools/ToolsHowChoose.html

Northouse , P. G. (2003). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Sage
Publications.
Obama, B. (2009, July 14). Remarks by the President on the American Graduation Initiative.
Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Available from
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-the-AmericanGraduation-Initiative-in-Warren-MI/
Olmstead, E. (2001). It's the community-college life for me. Chronicle of Higher Education,
47(37), B5.
President’s Commission on Higher Education. (1947). Higher education for democracy: A report
of the President's Commission on Higher Education (vols. 1–2). New York, NY: Harper.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Education at a glance
2009: OECD indicators. Available from www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009
Planty, M., Provasnik, S., & Daniel, B. (2007). High school course taking: Findings from the
condition of education 2007 (NCES 2007-065). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Puffer, S.M., & McCarthy, D.J. (1996). A framework for leadership in a TQM context. Journal
of Quality Management, 1(1), 109–130.
Richards , O. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resourcebased view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164-177.
Roaden, A. L. (1970). The college deanship: A new middle management in higher education.
Theory into Practice, 9(4), 272-276.
Roueche, J. E., Baker, G. A., & Rose, R. R. (1989). Shared vision: Transformational leadership
in American community colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Schreiber, C., & Carley, K. M. (2008). Network leadership: Leading for learning and
adaptability. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership: Part 1
conceptual foundations (pp. 185-224). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Senge, P. (2000). Organizational Learning/Total Quality Management Journal for Quality &
Participation, 22(6), 34-41.
Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college
leadership. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Spinelli, R. J. (2006). The applicability of Bass’s Model of Transformational, Transactional, and
Laissez-Faire Leadership in hospital administrative environment. Hospital Topics,84(2),
11-18.
SPSS Inc. (2010). SPSS Base 18.0 for Windows User's Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.
Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leadership behavior: Its description and
measurement (Bureau of Business Research Monograph No. 88). Columbus, OH: Ohio
State University.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Sullivan, L.G. (2001). Four generations of community college leadership. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 25(8), 559-571.
Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams:
Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899–926.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2008). Closing the gaps by 2015: Progress report.
Retrieved from www.thecb.state.tx.us/Board/PressRelease.cfm

Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. (1986). Transformational leadership. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research methods knowledge base. [S.l.]: Web Center for Social
Research Methods. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php
Tucker, A., & Bryan, R. A. (1991). The academic dean: Dove, dragon, and diplomat (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: McMillan Publishing.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2008). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion
(Eds.), Complexity leadership: Part 1 conceptual foundations (pp. 185-224). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Vaughan, G. B. (2000). Balancing the Presidential Seesaw: Case studies in community college
leadership. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Vaughan, G., & Weisman, I. (2003). Leadership development: The role of the president-board
team. New Directions for Community Colleges, 123, 51-61.
VanDerlinden, K. E. (2003). Learning to play the game: Professional development and
mentoring. Retrieved from
www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ResourceCenter/AACCPublications/AAC
C_Publications.htm
Vaughan, G.B. (2004). Diversify the Presidency. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(10),
B14-B16. Retrieved from Research Library (Document ID 750697341).
Viator, R. E. (2001). The relevance of transformational leadership to nontraditional
accounting services: Information systems assurance and business consulting. Journal of
Information Systems, 15(2), 99.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Weisman, I., & Vaughan, G. (2002). The community college presidency. Washington, DC:
American Association of Community Colleges.
Wills, G. (1994). What makes a good leader? Atlantic Monthly, 273(4), 63-73.
Weisman, I., & Vaughan, G. (2007). The community college presidency. Washington, DC:
American Association of Community Colleges.
Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1985). Administrative effectiveness in higher education.
Review of Higher Education, 9(1), 35-49.
Wisniewski, M.A. (2004). Implications for leadership development programs. Leadership in
Higher Education, 2(1), 14-23.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
Management, 15(2), 251-289.
Yukl, G. (1993). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (2001). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Appendix A. Letter to Chancellor

Appendix A. Letter to Chancellor

Appendix B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form

Appendix B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leader Form

Appendix C. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form

Appendix C. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close