“621$ ' 25-9“, <_. I x3313(III‘IQI’SIINéIII-WIIIII»xIfi;;\“I;I11-ri ;. . I I. I A STUDY OF INCIDENTS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW AND EXPERIENCED PRESIDENTS 0F SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE MIDWEST Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WILLIAM DAVID PETERSON 1972 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ~ ' A STUDY OF INCIDENTS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW AND EXPERIENCED PRESIDENTS OF SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE MIDWEST presented by William David Peterson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Administration and Higher Education Date February , 1972 0-7639 Ti HDAG 8 BWKNM LIBRARY ... exempt ABSTRACT A STUDY OF INCIDENTS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW AND EXPERIENCED PRESIDENTS OF SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE MIDWEST BY William David Peterson The central purpose of this study was to collect and analyze incidents which new and experienced college and university presidents reported as having had an im— pact on their effectiveness as presidents. The Critical Incident Technique was modified and used both for data collection and analysis. The sample consisted of twenty-six presidents of four-year colleges and universities in five Midwestern states. Twelve were classified as "new presidents," having been in office no less than six months but no more than eighteen months. Fourteen were classified as "experi— enced presidents," having been in office for more than two years. The primary basis for selecting experienced presi- dents was comparability of their institutions to those represented by new presidents. Eac- tale-pl". me a felt had he hm of the fie preside. iae been d. in; 5; .“e preI 6 .C ha'fe bEe: fix 9 {Eportq 13 'w'rici ; V ‘ “Guanined . ('1 £11 William David Peterson Each president was interviewed in person or by telephone and was asked to report four incidents which he felt had had an impact on his effectiveness as president. Two of the four incidents were to be effective, meaning the president interpreted the results of his actions to have been desirable; and two were to be ineffective, mean- ing the president interpreted the results of his actions to have been undesirable. One hundred twelve incidents were reported, sixty effective, fifty ineffective, and two in which the final outcomes had not yet been determined. Each incident was first categorized according to internal or external focus. A second categorization was based on the primary reference group or groups involved. Finally, each incident was categorized by the major precipitating factor. The researcher repeated each categorization three times to insure a measure of relia- bility. An independent judge also categorized 10 per cent of the incidents as a check on objectivity and validity of the researcher's categorizations. There was 95.5 per cent agreement on the repeated categorizations, and 83.3 per cent agreement between researcher and judge categori- zations. The great majority of incidents were internal in orientation (106 of 112 or 94.6 per cent). Of all inci— dents reported by experienced presidents, 96.6 per cent were inter ported by The four ; I; l 5,. . .dCul.Y, Q NE‘Q ‘ tak. uula t V' ‘ .kf Cort ‘5 William David Peterson tdere internal in orientation as were 92.6 per cent re— ported by new presidents. Seven primary reference groups were identified. The four internal primary reference groups were students, faculty, administration, and governing boards. The three external groups were local citizens, the press, and the state. Ten incidents could not be categorized by primary reference group. Students were the primary reference group for more incidents (36) than any other group. Faculty were primary referents in twenty—four incidents, administration in eighteen, and governing boards in nine. Local citizens were primary reference groups for two incidents, the press two, and the state one. Forty problem categories were initially isolated from the 112 incidents. These categories were then exam— ined to determine aspects of commonality, and were grouped into fourteen Critical Problem Categories. These cate- gories and the percentage of incidents they contained, were as follows: Finance (15.18); Campus Unrest (15.18); Staffing (13.39); Governance (10.71); Controlling (7.15); Governing Board (6.25); Public Relations (6.25); Academic General (5.36); Subordinate Ineffectiveness (4.46); Stu- dent Relations (4.46); Planning (3.57); Organizing (2.68); Compensation (2.68); and Employee Relations (2.68). When incidents in the Critical Problem Categories were tabulated by type of reporting president, no cate— gory contained more than 16.67 per cent of all incidents reported 'r all incide‘ ing cor-.ta; Presidents QECEO pr e S second in . William David Peterson :reported by new presidents, or more than 20.69 per cent of all incidents reported by experienced presidents. Staff— ing contained more incidents than any other for new presidents (9), and Campus Unrest the most for experi— enced presidents (12). Finance and Governance ranked second in number of incidents for new presidents (7 each), and Finance ranked second for experienced presidents (10 incidents). A STUDY OF INCIDENTS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW AND EXPERIENCED PRESIDENTS OF SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE MIDWEST BY William David Peterson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1972 ©Copyright by WILLIAM DAVID PETERSON 1972 Walter F. . m errcc‘x “i 5‘»; ‘ L“‘S St ACKNOWLEDGMENT S To the chairman of the Guidance Committee, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, appreciation is expressed for his help and encouragement throughout the development and completion of this study. To Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald, acknowledg- ment is due for her roles as advisor, committee member, and understanding employer. Sincere thanks to Dr. Vandel C. Johnson for his suggestions and encouragement as a committee member. To Dr. R. Winston Oberg thanks are due for service on the guidance committee and for introducing me to management thought. Special thanks are due Dr. Bruce Shertzer of Purdue University for his encouragement and understanding in the latter stages of this study. To my parents and family; and to my wife's parents, grandparents, and family; appreciation is expressed for their constant encouragement. To my wife, Kathy, a special debt of gratitude is owed and willingly acknowledged for her love, patience, and encouragement, as well as for her service as typist, editor, and critic. ii h' I Q ' .rxo ' Hui-4 e O ' ‘ T my: .tt.‘ :1 (I) U) r—c r_’- l? 3' t(, (r) (I) () l 1 (3 C7 3' (I) [-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 3 Significance of the Study. . . . 4 Approach to the Design of the Study . . 6 Scope and Limitations of the Study. . . 6 Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . 9 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . 10 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 11 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . 13 Literature on the Academic President . . 13 History of the American Academic Presidency . . . . . . . . . 14 Current Status of the Presidency . . . 17 The Contemporary President . . . . . 20 Literature on Training Needs for Presidents . . . . . . . . . . 20 Major Contributions to the Literature on the Academic President . . . . . 24 Presidential Qualities . . . . . . 30 Preparation. . . . . . . . . . 32 Education . . . . . . . . . . 33 Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . 34 Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . 36 Satisfaction . . . . . . . . 38 Organizational Roles. . . . . . . 39 Use of Time. . . . . . . .. . . 4O Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Reasons for Resignation. . . . . . 48 Discussion of Literature on the Academic President. . . . . . . 51 Literature Related to the Critical Incident Technique . . . . . . . 51 iii Chapter Chapter III. IV. Origin and DevelOpment of the Critical Incident Technique . . . . . . Description of the Critical Incident Technique . . . . . . Applications of the Critical Incident Technique . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of the Critical Incident Technique . . . . Discussion of the Critical Incident Literature Review . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . Selecting the Region and Institutional Types . . . . . . . . . Selecting the New Presidents . . . . Selecting the Experienced Presidents . . Eliciting the Participation of the Presidents . . . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . Developing the Critical Incident Format . 1. Establishing the General Aim of the Activity. . . . . . . 2. Developing Plans and Procedures for Gathering the Critical Incidents . . . . . 2a. Developing the Interview Content. 3. Collecting the Data: Conducting the Interview . . . . . . . 4. Analysis of the Data. . . . . 4a. Transferring Data from the Tapes to Critical Incident Abstracts 4b. Development of Work Cards . . . 4c. The Categorization Process. . . . 5. Reporting the Data . . . . . . Questions of Interest . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Participating Presidents . . . . . . . Analysis of the Critical Incidents . iv Page 51 53 55 61 65 65 67 67 68 69 70 71 74 76 77 80 82 84 85 87 89 92 95 97 99 99 104 Chapter Chapter Page Measures of Reliability and Objectivity. . 104 Reviewing the General Aim of the Study . . 108 Internal or External Orientation of the Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Primary Reference Groups. . . . . . . 111 Problem Categories. . . . . . . . . 121 Critical Problem Categories Which the President Confronted. . . . . . 121 Analysis of Critical Problem Categories . 129 Questions of Interest. . . . . . . . 165 smary o 0 Q o o o o o o o o o 173 Characteristics of the Presidents . . . 173 Analysis of the Critical Incidents. . . 174 Implications for the Questions of Interest. . . . . . . . . . . 176 V. THE STATE OF THE PRESIDENCY . . . . . . 180 Has the Presidency Changed?. . . . . 181 What Type of President Is Needed?. . . . 187 Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . 189 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . 191 The Problem . . . . . . . . 191 Use of the Critical Incident Technique . . 192 Design of the Study . . . . . . . . 192 Summary of the Principal Findings. . . . 194 Internal and External Orientation of Incidents . . . . . . . . . 194 Primary Reference Groups . . . . . . 194 Critical Problem Categories . . . . . 195 Evaluation of the Principal Findings. . . 196 The Findings and Purposes of the Study . 197 Applicability of the Findings . . . . 198 Evaluation of the Critical Incident Technique . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Implications. . . . . . . . . . . 205 Recommendations for Further Research. . . 207 v 3mm; HDTV“, ff": 2 M n ‘ ““J‘Vud ASPGCdrx A. Page BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 .APPENDICES Appendix A. Initial Letter . . . . . . . . 221 President‘s Reply Form . . . . . 222 Response Letter to Participants, "New Presidents". . . . . . 223 Response Letter to Participants, "Experienced Presidents" . . . . 224 First Follow—Up Letter . . . . . 225 Second Follow-Up Letter, New Presidents. . . . . . . . 226 Second Follow—Up Letter, Experienced Presidents. . . . . . . . . 227 B. Interview Content . . . . . . . 228 President Interview Form. . . . . 231 C. Individuals and Groups Mentioned by the Presidents in the Critical Incident Reports. . . . . . . 232 vi 1' T able 1. 2. 3. 6. '7. LIST OF TABLES Institutions by Size and Type of Control . . Presidential Preference for Interview Method. Tabulation of the Use of Personal and Telephone Interviews . . . . . . . . Size Categories for Participating Institutions. 0 I O O O O O 0 O 0 President's Highest Degree. . . . . . . Distribution of Presidents by Age and Tenure. Distribution of Presidents by Previous Position, Experience Level, and Type of Institutional Control. . . . . . . . Sources of Critical Incidents by Insti— tutional Size Category and Type of Control, and by Presidential Experience Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . Researcher Agreement in Classifying Critical InCidents I O O O . O O I I I I 0 Summary of the Number of Incidents Relating to Internal and External Affairs . . . . Summary of the Primary Reference Groups . . Summary of the Number of Effective, Ineffec— tive, and "Iffy" Incidents in Which Students Were the Primary Reference Group Iin ReIation to the Number of Effective, Ineffective, and "Iffy" Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifi— cations of Incidents). . . . . . . . vii Page 75 80 89 100 101 102 105 106 110 112 114 I? 3 T I .. - 3. T. “ARIBO .mI#t~/\.I.uc CINEIII .‘w nu u u - s S S S e d. I. I... . 6. . red“- l TI; :4 r 70 VII. I. 1 HI L Table Page 13. Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents in Which Facult Were the Primary Reference Group Iin Relation to the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents) . . . . . . . . . . 116 .14. Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents in Which Adminis- trators Were the Primary Reference Group Iin ReIation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . . . . 118 1.5. Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents in Which Board Members Were the Primary Reference Group (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . . . . 119 .JL.6. Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents by Primary Reference Grou and Experience Level of the Presi- dents (Selected Incidents-Selected Presidents). . . . . . . . . . . 122 :1_‘7. Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents by Primary Reference Group and Experience Level of the Presi- dents (All InCidents-All Presidents) . . 123 l 8. Summary of the Categories of Problems Confronting the Presidents. . . . . . 124 l 9. Summary of the Fourteen Critical Problem Categories . . . . . . . . . . . 126 2 0. Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Were Finance Related (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents) . 130 viii II. S: Table 2]. :22. $2243. .22 :5 Page Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Were Campus Unrest Related (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . 133 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Staffing Decisions (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Governance (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). - 140 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Controllin (in Relation to the Number 0 Inc1 ents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved the GoverningBoard (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . . . . . . . . . . 145 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Public Relations (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . . . . . . . . . . 147 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Academic General Concerns (in Relation to the NumBer 5E:Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . . . . . . . . . . 148 ix 29. (A) k: c (A) N - Table 128. 229. 23.]L, 32. Page Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Subordinate Ineffectiveness (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifi- cations of Incidents) . . . . . . . . 151 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Student Relations (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . 152 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Planning (in Relation to the Number of Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . 155 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Organizing (in Relation to the Number of IncIdents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents). . 157 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Com ensation (in Relation to the Number 0 Incidents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents) 158 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents Which Involved Em 10 ee Relations (in Relation to the N er 0 Inc1 ents Used as the Data Base for the Respective Classifications of Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents by Critical Problem Category and Experience Level of the Presi- dents TSelected Incidents-Selected Presidents) . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Table Page 35. Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffective Incidents by Critical Problem Cate or and EXperience LeveI of the Pre81dents (All Incidents-A11 Presidents). . 162 36. Number, Per Cent, and Rank of Incidents Per Critical Problem Category for New and Experienced Presidents (Selected Incidents- Selected Presidents). . . . . . . . . 163 :37. Number, Per Cent, and Rank of Incidents Per Critical Problem Category for New and Experienced Presidents (A11 Incidents- All Presidents) . . . . . . . . . . 164 xi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Leadership is vitally important to an organization or institution. Effective leadership becomes even more critical during periods of rapid change and institutional Stress. Even a casual perusal of the popular and profes— S ional literature reveals that institutions of higher edu— cation are currently experiencing great stress as they seek Much to respond to both internal and external pressures. <3Wff' this pressure focuses directly on the office of the president of the college or the university, for it is to this office that individuals within and without the college for "the history of 100k for leadership. And rightly so, A‘nerican higher education strongly supports the contention that no college or university has made important progress 1 ex cept under the leadership of an outstanding president." At the present time, however, colleges and uni— ” eJr'sities are experiencing increasing difficulty in \ 1"Basic Rights and Responsibilities for College End University Presidents," a statement adopted by the (hard of Directors of the American Association of State (2(311eges and Universities, May 6, 1970. 1 “' attractir orficers. rents, - yresidert r? f.a‘.’1;g 3 the world Y"’eISities .‘ ' . °* 135:1: L "'9 tsde a; . v s “We fl In e 15‘s.. n ”‘3' ‘, I . :fih c attracting and holding able persons as chief administrative officers.1 The February 22, 1971, issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, stated that as of that date a total of 139 colleges and universities were searching for presi- dents, and that in the previous twelve months, 266 college presidents were appointed. Thus, at a time when colleges and universities are having an increasing impact upon American society and upon the world, and at a time when American colleges and uni- versities are confronted with major difficulties, a number Of institutions are either without presidents or are operating with relatively inexperienced presidents. We have a general awareness of the problems facing academic presidents today. We have witnessed or read about the student unrest. A Carnegie Commission has informed us of the financial plight of many institutions. Loss of public confidence in higher education has become more a-E>parent through the acts of the state legislatures and the Congress. We know that these and other problems con- front the collegiate president. Much remains to be learned, however, about specific difficulties and successes which presidents of varying \ 1Ibid. See also, Warren G. Bennis, "Searching for the 'Perfect' University President," The Atlantic, QQxxvrr, No. 4 (April, 1971), 39. 2William A. Sievert, "139 Institutions Seek Presi— dents; . . . " The Chronicle of Higher Education, V, No. 20 (February 22, 1m), 1. terures a experien: f ting TIE; 35.331 are f0! the S TOT also eating cé experie: this is H EXEEI‘K‘ed Im IP‘ tenures and from varying types of institutions are experiencing. Is it necessarily true that the problems facing new presidents are qualitatively different from izhose facing the more experienced ones? If it is true, vehat are the differences, and what are their ramifications for the selection and training of new presidents? May it Inert also be true, however, that new presidents are experi— eezacing certain types of successes which are not being e33Jt:ganization is faced with pressures to grow and to re- fczrmulate the mix and nature of its major activities at the same time that it is faced with rising costs and d iminishing budgets--at least on a relative, if not an a~3Iasolute basis--it is squarely up against a management Q:l:‘isis."3 The president stands at the center of this \ lHarold Hodgkinson, "Who Decides Who Decides?" A‘sony and Promise, ed. by G. Kerry Smith (San Francisco: C‘rstey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1969), p. 141. 2Harold Stoke, The American College President (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959), p. vii. 3Richard H. Brien, "The 'Managerialization' of Iiigher Education," Educational Record, LI, No. 3 (Summer, 1970), 274. [‘I crisis a vital ix: the ins: collect : meet ing I S’T'V‘n‘l . Li""e crisis and his ability to "manage" the situation is of vital importance to the continued life and vitality of the institution. This study may yield insights into the collective measure of success presidents are having in meeting the crises . Third, the literature reflects a tremendous power struggle in higher education, the outcomes of which could-— and probably will-"alter relationships within and without the institution. A study of critical incidents may give some clues as to how the president is faring in this 8 truggle . And finally, a study which results in the col— J~ection of a number of critical incidents from a variety of presidents can serve as a useful data base for study by current presidents with respect to the way their col- leagues have handled situations they may also be facing; f0): study by those responsible for training educational acaIninistrators with respect to whether the programs they C2’3Efer are preparing their graduates to cope with the types Qf situations the presidents have reported that they have had to face; and for study by individuals training to be a(intentional administrators. " "‘r am! 1‘“ p. . I.. n “ t-‘Ett‘ Approach to the Design of the Study The Critical Incident Technique is the primary research tool that will be utilized in the study. This technique, with modifications to fit the scope of the study, will serve both as the method for collecting data and as an instrument for analyzing the data once it has been collected. Presidents from a variety of institutional types and with varying tenures will be asked to contribute four incidents which they feel have had an impact on their effectiveness as presidents. Incidents to be reported are both those in which they feel the consequences of their actions were desirable, and those in which they feel the consequences of their actions were undesirable or failed to have any impact on the situation. These inci- dents will then be analyzed on several dimensions to seek to gain a better perspective of the presidency and of the tYPes of situations presidents are currently facing. Scope and Limitations of the Study This study is limited to twenty—six presidents of Qc>lleges and universities in a five-state region in the Midwest. The presidents were selected on the basis of their tenure in office and on the basis of the types of jtl‘lstitutions they represented. Only presidents of four- year colleges and universities were included. \ 1John C. Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Tech- hique," psycholgical Bulletin, LI, No. 4 (1954), 327—58. *U nique i this s: . ," u As mentioned above, the Critical Incident Tech— nique is the primary research tool which is utilized in this study. Its strengths and limitations are discussed in detail in Chapter II. The Critical Incident Technique is typically utilized as a job analysis procedure. Incidents of effective and ineffective role performance are collected until no new information is forthcoming, and it is then assumed that an analysis of the incidents will reveal all the critical elements or requirements of the position under study. It should be emphasized that the current Study is not utilizing the Critical Incident Technique in this manner. Although elements in the role of the college and university president will become apparent in the inci— dents, no attempt is made to gain a sufficiently large number of incidents to insure that all critical require—- ments or elements will be revealed. Rather, the tech- nique is being utilized to collect incidents that have an impact on the effectiveness of college and university Presidents, with the primary purpose in analysis being to determine whether the incidents show variations by presi— dential tenure . This study is limited by the fact that only four incidents are to be collected from each of the presidents. There is little question that additional information could be gained if each president was asked to reflect on the fl: rr period of interest and then report all of the incidents that he could recall that fit the specifications of the study. Presidential time limitations had to be taken into consideration, however, and the decision was made to limit the number of incidents requested with the hOpe that this would increase the likelihood that presidents would be willing to participate in the study. An additional limitation of the study is that the reporting stipulations forced an even distribution between effective and ineffective incidents. This could lead to the impression that 50 per cent of a president's behavior is effective and 50 per cent is ineffective. This is not what the even distribution of responses is meant to imply. The presidents were asked to report two examples of effec- tive and two examples of ineffective incidents because previous research indicates that extremities of effective and ineffective behavior can be more accurately identified than those which fall between the extremes. The methodology used in this study places great reliance on the perceptions of the respondent. This reliance on perception must be cited as a potential 3‘ imitation, but (as will be further develOped in Chap- he): III), it was felt that the benefits to be gained from having the presidents report on their own behavior and \f '1‘ 1John E. Corbally, Jr., "The Critical Incident Bechnique and Educational Research," Educational Research \llletin, XXXV, No. 3 (March 14, 1956), 57-60. W 'their own perceptions of their effectiveness, outweighed the dangers of self-reporting bias. Assumptions of the Study Incidents that have an impact on the effectiveness of college and university presidents can be studied in a scientific manner. Even though the magnitude of the problems with which presidents must deal may vary due to insti- tutional size or other institutional character— istics, it is assumed that there is a sufficient commonality in the skills required to cope with the problems to make analysis both possible and meaningful. The president, by virtue of his position as chief executive officer, is the individual most able to assess the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of his actions, and is in the best position to determine whether an incident had desirable or undesirable outcomes with respect to the mission of the institution. Incidents obtained by telephone interview will lend themselves equally as well to analysis as incidents obtained by personal interview. Accordingly, incidents obtained by either inter- View method can be interspersed for analysis purposes. Vi‘. '. the .: 5... .RC‘ t“ f0: no EC“LS h_‘. 523:39} 10 Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in accordance with the purposes of this investigation: President.—-The chief executive and Operating officer of a four-year college or university; that person appointed by the governing body to represent it in day— to—day Operations . Experienced President.--A president who has been in office for twenty-four months or more. New President.-—A president who has been in office for no less than six months and no more than eighteen months and who previously has not been president of another college or university. Critical Incident Technique.--A procedure used in the collection and analysis of incidents in which the holder of a position in a certain occupation has acted in a way which, according to some criterion, has been of de<::isive significance for his success or failure in a task. Critical Incident.--An episode in role performance, the consequences of which are judged by the president to have had an impact on his effectiveness. Effective Incident.--An episode where the presi— dent's own actions, or the actions he recommends, are judged ‘: OL‘ZCOIHEE gresider; are judg autccmes 11 judged by the president to have resulted in the desired outcomes. Ineffective Incident.——An episode where the president's own actions, or the actions he recommends, are judged by the president to have resulted in undesired outcomes or have failed to have any effect on the situ— ation. Overview A frame of reference for the entire study is developed in Chapter I. A description of the background and significance of the study is presented along with a statement of the research problem. The sc0pe and limi' tations of the study are presented and important terms a2|:‘e defined. The related literature is reviewed in Chapter II. Sl'ane the specific subject of this study is the college and university president, and since the Critical Incident Technique is the primary research tool, the literature Q1'1 both the president and the Critical Incident Technique 1 8 reviewed . The study design and procedures are described in chapter III. Information is presented about the sub- 3 acts, the instruments employed, and the procedures followed to collect and analyze the data. Questions a‘T-‘e presented which serve as a base for the reporting of the data. :‘escript cf inter the stat mien tr but ‘ v . Uh “hi/C are Free. izPlicai ChaPter 12 Chapter IV contains an analysis of the data with descriptions of the findings pertaining to the questions of interest. Comments which the presidents have made regarding the state of the presidency and the state of higher edu— cation today, which have great interest and relevance but which were not part of the main body of the study, are presented in Chapter V. A summary of the study, the conclusions, and the implications for further research are presented in C hapter VI . tire w b‘01 s‘. My; 'fl m 5 ‘Fp‘ A'U "Er. -~o I ' l} CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to review litera- ture that has special relevance to the present study. Since the primary subject of the study is the college and university president, the first section of the chapter will be devoted to literature on the presidency. The second major section will be devoted to literature on the Critical Incident Technique since this technique provides the methodology for both the data collection and analysis. Literature on the Academic President Eells and Hollis,l have pointed out that more than 700 significant books, monographs, and magazine articles were published between 1900 and 1960 which dealt with the work of the college or university president. This number alone would make an exhaustive review of the presidential literature impractical for a study of this nature, but 1Walter C. Bells and Ernest V. Hollis, The College Presidenc 1900-1960: An Annotated Bibliography (Washing— ton, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1961). 13 when on dissert tive re finding fuller \ ground \ R U‘ . \ ‘e I. c. \ . M) 14 when one adds to that the number of books, articles and dissertations published between 1970 and 1971, an exhaus- tive review becomes non—productive. Accordingly this review will report the views and findings of only selected literature contributing to a fuller understanding of the presidency and providing back- ground upon which the present study may build. History of the American Academic Presidency Reeves informed us that the term "president" was American in origin. Harvard employed the title as early as 1640 and the College of William and Mary in 1693.1 Although other titles such as rector, chancellor, and provost have been used to designate the chief executive officer, the title of president has continued to be the most common since these early days.2 The meaning of the title "president of the col— lege," is dependent on the charter of the college, the statutes, the traditions, and the policy of the insti- tution.3 Rourke and Brooks have discussed what the title 1The Very Reverend James A. Reeves, "The Office of the PreSident," in College Organization and Adminis- tration, ed. by Roy J. Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1947), p. 96. 2Ralph Prator, The College President (Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963), pp. 4-6. 3Reeves, Op. cit. meant i: They wrc In t aim: of cl over in 4 trad Contempg 30113.11 be c ‘ the pres 1m, ‘ award 15 meant in the early days of American higher education. They wrote: In these early days the college president was chief administrator in fact as well as name. Every detail of campus management came under his scrutiny. More- over, he was able to maintain an active involvement in academic affairs while performing these adminis- trative duties.l Contemporary presidents of only our smallest institutions would be able to operate in a similar fashion. Schmidt examined the background of a large number of early college presidents and found that nine-tenths of the presidents who served before the Civil War were or- dained ministers. The few who were not took office after 1779. With only one apparent exception, occurring at Harvard from 1708 to 1724, there was not a single lay president in the entier Colonial Period.2 According to Prator, "Even after laymen began entering the presi- dential field, the barriers to nonclerics did not fall rapidly."3 The image the literature has given of the nine— teenth century president is one of an educational hero who 1Francis E. Rourke and Glenn E. Brooks, The Mana— erial Revolution in Higher Education (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), p. 4. 2George P. Schmidt, The Old Time College Presi— dent (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930), p. 3. 3Prator, op. cit., p. 6. founded Several leaders eating tempera. Rourke : hcwever Cationaj one of threw. “‘34: ‘39 Con: l6 founded an institution or lifted it to its first renown.l Several authors pointed to the influence these educational leaders have had on the history of higher education, indi— cating that they have become models by which even con— temporary presidents are measured and found wanting.2 Rourke and Brooks, and Henderson, felt the model has out- lived its usefulness. Other writers, such as Dodds,3 however, longed for the return of the president as edu- cational trailblazer. The picture of the twentieth century president is one of transition; from the pre World War II academic man, through the post World War II "institution builder," to the contemporary "crisis manager."4 This transition was reflected in the words of Harold Stoke: The transformation of colleges and universities reflects itself in the position of their presidents, and has brought to that position men whose training, interests, and skills are far different from those of their predecessors. The college president as the Man of Learning has given way to the Man of Management, 1Rourke and Brooks, op. cit., p. 110. 2Ibid. See also, Algo D. Henderson, The Inno— vative S irit (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), Pp. 2 2-230 3Harold W. Dodds, The Academic President: Edu— cator or Caretaker? (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Com- pany, Inc., 1962). 4Ian E. McNett, "A New Style of Presidential Leadership is Emerging as 'Crisis Managers' Confront the 1970's," The Chronicle of Higher Education, IV, 36 (July 6, 1970). I "‘ :C..5 O Ffir + .V‘. L P .“ o VS ‘ u n" ‘k he“ was I t 6‘. v u“ 1,‘ J are“ 17 although the change has not taken place without strain and conflict.1 Current Status of the Presidency The presidency of most colleges and universities today would obviously be quite different from the presi- dency of a college in the Colonial Period, or the nine- teenth century, or even as recently as a decade ago. In spite of the changes that have occurred the literature, for the most part, still reflects high regard for the position. One of the reasons for this is the fact that, whether the institution is large or small, there is only one president.2 Kerr, although affirming the concept that the president is no longer the central personage he was during most of the history of higher education, still called the president "the most important single figure in the life of the campus."3 Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor called the presidency the "pivotal office" in the bureau— cratic dimension of university organization. 1Harold W. Stoke, The American College President (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959), p. 3. 21bid., p. 2. 3Clark Kerr, "Presidential Discontent," in Per— gpectives on Campus Tensions, ed. by David C. Nichols (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970), p. 137. 4Nicholas J. Demerath, Richard W. Stephens, and R. Robb Taylor, Power, Presidents, and Professors (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1967), p. 41. 18 Literature can also be found, however, expressing grave reservations about the state of the presidency today. Dodds, for example, saw a need for better definition in the office. He said: The office is in need of better definition; it has lost its uniform and consistent character. Today it finds itself suspended between two worlds. While it has moved away from the old world of relative sim— plicity; it has not et come to terms with its new world of complexity. Stroup also evidenced this concern when he said: The president currently suffers from an unclear definition of his responsibilities . . . he has much that he is free to do. But he is not limited suf— ficiently as to what is expected of him. There are few standards to evaluate his effectiveness. . . .2 Other writers not only have felt that the office of the president has lost its distinctiveness, but that it has become virtually powerless. One such writer was McGrath. Under existing circumstances the office of the presi- dent is the weakest element in the complex of organi— zational controls. The current status of the chief executive is an almost complete reversal of the position of his predecessors. Typically they were the servants of neither the faculty nor the trustees.3 1Dodds, The Academic President, op. cit., pp. v-vi. 2Herbert Stroup, Bureaucracy in Higher Education (New York: The Free Press, 1966), p. 81. 3Earl J. McGrath, "Who Should Have the Power?" in Power and Authority, ed. by Harold L. Hodgkinson and Richard L. Meeth_(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1971), p. 189. than M in a p ity. : l9 Mooney, taking an even more pessimistic stance than McGrath, posited that no one in the university was in a position to take a leadership role or assume author— ity. Mooney wrote: The net effect of all these conditions is that no one has the power to take positive leadership in the development of the university as an integral enter- prise-~not the line administrator, his staff, the faculty councils, the departments or the colleges. Such power as any group possesses is functionally negative with respect to the whole, fully effective only in denying what others may try, destructive of initiatives and integration, self-propelling into further snarls and Splits, productive of deeper paralysis.l Whether the presidency and/or the university is powerful or powerless today is thus a debated point in the literature. That there has been dramatic change in the governance structures of the university is something few would deny. In the Opinion of the presidents who partici- pated in Hodgkinson's study, "changes in the internal governance and authority structure of the institution" were the most important changes that have occurred in O O O o 2 American higher educatlon ln recent years. 1Ross L. Mooney, "The Problem of Leadership in the University," Harvardtgducational Review, XXXIII, NO. 1 (Winter, 1963), 56-57. 2Harold L. Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transi— tion (Berkeley: The Carnegie Commission, 1970): P. 3. 20 The Contemporarerresident Just as the literature reflected a difference in the presidency today, it also reflected a difference in the contemporary president. A professor at Harvard Uni- versity's Graduate School of Business, spoke as follows regarding the "new breed" of presidents: The 1970 class of new college and university presidents is a "very different group of peOple" from those who came to the presidency as recently as five years ago. Today's new presidents have "different styles and different values," from those of their precedessors.l William J. McGill, president of Columbia University, also spoke to the change in the type of individuals now assuming the presidency: Most of [the] gentle and erudite men have been driven out, and thus the presidency has begun to pass to the hands of young, vigorous men with good fighting in- stincts; tolerant enough to deal with the profound changes that have occurred in the life styles of young people, understanding enough to respond thoughtfully to youthful emotions, firm enough to control the emotional tides flooding the campuses, and smart enough to avoid the worst extremes of overreaction. Literature on Traininngeeds for Presidents A stated purpose of this study was to gain infor- mation that would contribute to the improvement of prepa— ration programs for top—level administrators in higher 1Arch Richard Dooley as quoted by McNett, Op. cit. 2William J. McGill, "Courage to Lead," College and University Journal, IX, NO. 4 (Fall, 1970), 37. ducat indeed ‘V'npp . this 1 stated that “’5' v 5‘VWE M r-o 21 education. That a need exists for such information--and, indeed, a need for the training of presidents--was a view supported by a number of authors. Prator, for one, ex— pressed dismay over the lack of specific preparation Of the presidents.1 Henderson was another writer who saw this lack of training as a significant problem. He stated: A major problem in governance is that the persons chosen for high administrative office seldom have any training for their roles or any knowledge of socio- logical concepts relating to organizational and insti- tutional processes. Inadequately prepared presidents assume too much detailed decision—making responsi- bility, become serious bottlenecks, and use authoritarian methods.2 In another publication, Henderson made the point that scholarly eminence was no guarantee of administrative prowess. The roles of the dean and the president carry them far afield from their academic specialization of history or mathematics. . . . Previous scholarship in Latin or in chemistry does not prepare a man to work with architects or to sell budgetary deficits to donors or legislators. Although success in these aspects may often be the result of special qualities of personality, the high rate of turn— over in presidencies may in part be caused by fumbling due in turn to lack of administrative training or experience.3 lPrator, Op. cit., p. 19. 2Henderson, Innovative Spirit, p. 248. 3Algo D. Henderson, "Finding and Training Academic Administrators," Public Administration Review, XX, No. 1 (Winter, 1960), 19. 22 Dr. Charles F. Fisher, program director for the Institute for College and University Administrators, American Council on Education, seconded Henderson's obser- vation that scholarship was not sufficient for the con— temporary president. Fisher was asked, "How do you see the successful college president within the foreseeable future?" He replied: Recent years have seen a new administrative style emerging to meet the ever—mounting challenges to American colleges and universities-—factionalism; discord; competition for resources, influence and power; and so on. Today's academic leaders must have more than scholarship. They must have an appreciation of the complex factors which enter into administrative decision—making and the formulation of academic policy. They must understand the basic principles of management by Objectives, administrative efficiency and effectiveness, and personal leadership, and be able to apply these concepts with prudence and candor toward meeting the unique needs of each par- ticular institution and of the distinctive enterprise of American higher education in general.1 That the college or university president must be professionally trained as a manager--no matter how big or small the institution is over which he presides--was a perspective taken by Richard M. Whitter, assistant execu- tive director of The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges. He said: For too long now the terms "management" and "manager" to refer to college administration and administrators have been dirty words in the lexicon of higher lAs quoted in E. Milton Grassell, "The President Needs Training in Management," College Management, VI, No. 8 (August, 1971), 28. in mar. Fa c: of is so ac: an; (1.3; 90; tre net 23 education. The chief executive officer of any institution of higher education today must be a professional manager.1 Lahti also saw both the problem and the solution management training terms. He wrote: Facing the facts that (1) there is presently a critical shortage of competent managers in the field of education; (2) the need for well—trained managers is going to increase drastically; (3) the primary source of administrators will be upwardly mobile academicians; and (4) these recruits lack experience and training in the managerial skills, it becomes apparent that our responsibility, in addition to good recruitment selection, is to continue their travel upward through a vehicle of management development programs. As president of William Rainey Harper College, :i has instituted a vigorous management training pro- 1 for personnel at all levels. The reports Of the llts have been most encouraging with respect to the :fits of such an approach.3 Increasing support has thus been voiced for the .ning of college and university presidents. This sup— : was not unanimous, however, as illustrated in the .owing statement by Stoke: . . . the college presidency is so unique, so different from all other academic positions, that a full appreciation of it requires personal I_ lIbid., p. 29. 2Robert Lahti, "Developing Leadership for the Lgement of Higher Education," Colle e and University .ness, XLVIII, No. 5 (May, 1970), 6 . 3See Grassell, Op. cit. 24 initiation. It is among those for which experience alone is the best teacher. The position of the college president cannot be understood through the techniques of research, statistical analysis, and case studies.1 That these words should appear in a preface to Mr. Stoke's own book on the presidency was something this writer found to be somewhat paradoxical. That experience is an excellent teacher and that one cannot fully appreci- ate the position unless one has occupied it was something the writer was willing to acknowledge. That one can make no preparation for the position or that studies of the position are futile, the writer was Obviously not willing to acknowledge or this study would not have been under- taken. Major Contributions to the Literature on the Academic President It has been only in the past few years that major empirical studies of the academic presidency have been undertaken. Prior to this time the literature on the American college and university president consisted pri- marily of correspondence, memoirs, and speeches of former presidents. Although these writings have provided rich insights into aspects of the presidential role, they generally have been limited to a discussion of one insti- tution or have been lacking in knowledge of a factual 1Stoke, op. cit., p. viii. empiric rec “‘ MU hep: h'D- d1 25 :ical nature. Important studies have been done 1t1y, however, that have added to our knowledge of >resident and the presidency. In a study reported in 1960, Nelson1 sought to :ify and analyze the role expectations which incumbent (dents and board of control members held for the :e, position, and status of the college or university Ldent, and to compare these expectations to determine >ossib1e areas of agreement and disagreement held by >residents and the board members. Nelson surveyed twenty-six presidents and 104 l of control members in the state—controlled colleges riversities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New shire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The board of con- members were surveyed by questionnaire only and the Ldents by both questionnaire and interview. Nelson found that out of 120 role expectation s, 19 "were revealed to have a x2 above 3.84 (which : the 5% level of significance), and therefore possibly lle of producing conflict in role expectations."2 Of particular interest to the present study were melications Nelson felt that his findings had for 1Lawrence 0- Nelson, "Role Expectations for :ted College and University Presidents" (unpublished . dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960). 2Ibid., p. 114. gradu 53le (II .: 4. . = I, ‘X'Eq Ce: eke u“ t ‘ . 5 L: 26 graduate preparation programs in higher educational administration. 1. Graduate preparation programs for higher edu— cational administration should include experi- ences in the develOpment Of adequate competencies in verbal expression. Board member and president majorities expected a president to be a good public speaker and able to express ideas clearly. 2. Graduate preparation programs for higher edu— cational administration should aid the develop- ment of enthusiastic leadership abilities. They should also intensify their consideration of the area of human relations. Incumbent president and board member majorities expected a president to be a dynamic leader and able t_o work well with peOple. 3. Grmhmte preparation programs for higher edu- catumal administration should encourage inter- ested students to pursue advanced degrees. Both board member and incumbent president majorities expected a president to have a doctors degree. 4. Graduate preparation programs _for higher edu- cational administration should promote the develOp- ment of campus planning and educational planning skills. Board of control member and president majorities expected a president to have on paper a long range campus building plan and to have an educational develppment plan on a er. 5. Graduate preparation programs for higher edu- cational administration should continue to empha— Size the importance Of a democratic philOSOphy of Incumbent president and board administration. member majorities overwhelmingly expected a president to be democratic and to not be authori- tarian.l Nelson's study illustrated that a regional study 11d result in findings which had implications that ended far beyond the boundaries of the area covered in study. lIbid. . pp. 123-30. n.»vlvsy van ‘ o a ‘u “v ELuCi 4 P: .n- w. u the c: reflec at , A 7‘ her ‘15:.ed 2 27 In amore broadly based study of college adminis— tration, Corsonl found that the role of the academic president focused around six essential activities: student affairs, educational program, faculty selection, finance, physical facilities, and public—alumni relations. Corson's study, like Nelson's, was reported in 1960, and it will be of interest to the present study to see the extent to which the critical incidents reported by the presidents in 1971, reflect a similar focus. Prior to national studies by Ferrari2 and Hodgkin- son,3 the most systematic study of the academic presidency was done by Hemphill and Walberg.4 Conducting their study for the New York State Regents Advisory Committee on Edu- cational Leadership, Hemphill and Walberg were interested in gaining information on the following aspects of the presidency: demands of the position; allocation of time among activities; relative rank of important responsi— ilities; influence of the president on the institution; F J'John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Uni— rsities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., '0) . 2Michael R. Ferrari, Jr., "A Study of the Careers merican College and University Presidents" (unpub- ed D.B.A. dissertation, Michigan State University, } 3Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transition, 0p. cit. 4John K. Hemphill and Herbert J. Walberg, 53 :ical Study of College and UniversitLPresidents in the L 0? New York (Princeton, N.J.: EducatiBan Tesfing ‘ce, 19335. acac tEdC of tire greside the a; the Pre 28 ademic background; formal training; administrative and aching experience; prior positions; roadblocks to most fective job performance; and satisfactions of the sition.l Ferrari,2 seeking to expand the findings of Hemp- .l's and Walberg's study to a national level, used the :upational mobility theory develOped by Warner and gglen to study the career patterns of college and uni— sity presidents. The findings from Ferrari's doctoral dy have since been published in book form.3 As did phill and Walberg, Ferrari reported on such aspects of presidency as tenure, age, previous positions, and use :ime. In concentrating on the career patterns of the :idents, however, Ferrari also studied such aspects as educational and occupational status of the parents of presidents; the geographic origins of the presidents elation to their present institutions; the occupational ls of the presidents' wives; and the resemblance of the ar patterns and social origins of the academic presi— s with those of business and government elites. lHemphill and Walberg, op. cit. 2Ferrari , op . cit . 3Michael R. Ferrari, Jr., Profiles of American 3e Presidents (East Lansing: Michigan State Uni- ty Business Studies, 1970) . a . fern respe in pr: the and on . O? f~¢ C83 1: was bite to “359 of “h i. ty. 42.; ‘ 29 Ferrari developed and analyzed specific hypotheses with respect to each of the above aspects. Hodgkinson,2 chose presidents as the respondents for an extensive Carnegie Commission study of change in higher education. He gave the following explanation for this choice: Presidents were chosen as respondents for two major first, it was felt they were in a position reasons: to be better aware of the changes occurring on their campus and of having a broader perSpective of the institutional scene than other top administrators; and second, there was an interest in developing a profile of college and university presidents-—who they were, what their mobility patterns looked like, and how they viewed the importance of various changes on their cupus. With 1,230 responses to the questionnaire, or 46 per cent of the nation's college and university presidents, it was evident that the profile merited attention. Two other studies will be discussed which contri- bute to the information on the presidency. One, the work 5 was of interest be- vy Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor, ause of its inclusion of the major findings of Stephens' o 0 O I" 020 Citof JFerrari, "A Study of the Careers 42-44 . zHodgkinson, Institutions in Transition, op. cit. 41bid. 3Ibid., p. 37. sDemerath, Stephens, and Taylor, op. cit. docto. cent. or. the ‘Q I, ‘ HSE.J. 30 iral dissertation on the role of the college presi- l The other is a recently completed study by Alton e reasons academic presidents resign. The aforementioned studies provided considerable 1 information for an assessment of the current status 3 college and university presidency in the United L In the review that follows, presidential quali- desirable preparation; education; mobility; presi- .1 effectiveness; satisfaction; organizational roles; time; tenure; and reasons for resignation will be ered. ential Qualities Earlier in this chapter the views of several 3 were presented regarding the problems they felt I in presidential selection procedures. A clue to Lsons for these problems was given in the following ent by Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor: analysis of writings about presidential qualities various groups that relate to the president, or t participate in his selection, reveals several eresting facts. Perhaps the most important is that re is very little agreement on the essential quali- s. For example, opinions are about evenly divided to whether an academically trained man is likely 3e a more effective president than one with Li 1Richard W. Stephens, "The Academic Administrator, 2 of the University President" (unpublished doctoral ltiOl’l, University of North Carolina, 1956) . 2Bruce T. Alton, "A Consideration of Motivating in Resignation of the Academic Presidential Role" shed Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, aw W- 96:50: .f res 31 experience in fields other than higher education, such as business or the military. would seem reasonable to conclude that the selection a president would be a most difficult and awkward pro- ;s when the qualities sought could not be agreed upon. In the interview stage of his study, Nelson asked ruwaour incumbent presidents of state-supported col- es and universities in New England to cite the three sonal qualities they felt were the most important for >llege or university president to have. The twelve onal qualities referred to most often and the frequency esponse are given here. A president should have these personal qualities.2 Total Response Quality 10 1. Intelligence 10 2. Integrity 7 3. Ability to work with others 7 4. Leadership ability 6 5. Physical vigor and vitality 6 6. Administrative experience 5 7. Vision and imagination 5 8. Educational conviction 4 9. Tolerance and be unprejudiced lDemerath, Stephens, and Taylor, op. cit., p. 57. 2Nelson, op. cit., p. 63. 32 Total Response Quality 4 10. High moral character 4 ll. Skill in public relations 3 12. A confident personality eparation Hemphill and Walberg asked the presidents in the :ate of New York to give their recommendations regarding esirable preparation for the position of the president. Administrative experience was the most common recom- mendation that presidents offered about desirable jpreparation for the position. Many of the presidents strongly endorsed experience in college administrative ‘work for presidential aspirants. A number of presi- dents also mentioned special internships, workshops, case studies of accounting, and administrative plan— ning. When asked specifically about the value of college teaching experience most of the presidents said it was extremely beneficial and some said it was necessary for acceptance by the faculty. Presidents in New York thus agreed with the New England presidents cited above regarding the value of administrative experience. According to Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor, the question of academic prepa- ration was not new. It is rather significant that the academic- non-academic question is nothing new for selection cmmuttees. In 1906, President Andrews of Cornell University warned that the appointment of assistants totmlp the businessman president handle educational matters could not replace a true appreciation of the efflnts of scholars by the president himself. fmmphill and Walberg, op. cit., p. 50 2 Emmerath, Stephens, and Taylor, 0p. cit., p. 58. 1135 are ' . ‘E‘ Ltd‘s I. 33 On the other hand, as long ago as 1898 the value of the successful promoter type of president was being argued.1 Education The educational attainment of the college and uni- versity president is an important indication of the quali— fications and preparation with which selection committees are concerned. Hodgkinson's findings were of interest in this regard. Nearly half of all presidents (47 per cent) hold Ph.D.‘s, and another 20 per cent hold Ed.D.'s. Only 5 per cent have a bachelors as their highest degree, with 21 per cent holding masters. The remainder are in law, medicine, or other fields, or did not respond.2 Hodgkinson reported that humanities was the major field of concentration for the largest number of presi- dents, "although presidents whose highest degrees are in the humanities are concentrated largely at private sec- tarian institutions."3 For presidents of public insti- tutions the highest degree of approximately half was in he area of education.4 Hodgkinson's findings squared with those of E'I‘ari, who indicated that, "About three—fourths of lIbid., p. 59. I3 2Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transition, 0p. cit., 3 4 Ibid . Ibid. Cd :C their fiantly Stephe: 34 academic presidents have earned doctorates with the most prominent areas of study in the humanities and edu- cation . "1 Mobility Hodgkinson was concerned with the question of horizontal versus vertical mobility for presidents; i.e. , did the president work his way up through the channels in the institution in which he is now president (vertical), or did he enter the presidency from another institution (horizontal) .2 Hodgkinson reported that his data sug- gested that presidents come from other institutions. Although 10 percent of the sample had held one other administrative position on the campus and 14 percent had held some combination of one administrative and one or more faculty positions, the vast majority of 739 (60 percent of the sample) had held no previous positions on the campus where they were presidents. This suggests that most presidents do not work their way up through the hierarchy but indeed are imported from outside; rather than vertical mobility the direction seems to be horizontal. Even though presidents are coming from outside their own institutions, they are still coming predomi- nantly from other educational positions, as Demerath, Stephens, and Taylor indicated. lFerrari, "A Study of the Career . . . ," 9w. , from the Abstract. 2 Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transition, 92%., p. 143. 31bid. 3S Contrary to popular belief, the proportion of presi- dents selected from occupations outside higher edu— cation does not seem to have increased materially since 1900. The decline in the number of ex— ministers was most pronounced before the turn of the century, and it has continued as a trend.1 One of the trends that several of the authors cited was the increased emphasis on previous administra- tive experience, particularly for university presidents.2 Although Hemphill and Walberg indicated that only 6 per cent of the presidents in their study moved directly frcmn a faculty position to the presidential role,3 they indjxcated that most of the presidents have at least some teacfliing experience in their backgrounds.4 Ferrari was 11 his effectiveness as a president. This was not meant to discredit studies which have used reliable observers 'tKD report on the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of persons in the job being assessed. The rationale was tflnat in certain positions as singular in nature as that <>f the college presidency, or the junior college presi— Ciency, the role incumbent may be in the best position to Ijudge the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of his actions. One other contribution of Graham's study should be Inoted here, and that is the parallel he found between Fianagan's approach and that of the Ohio State University leadership Studies. ¥ The Ohio State studies were being 1Robert G. Graham, "The Junior College President's JOb: An Analysis of Perceived Job Performance and Possible Influencing Variables" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1965). 2Ibid., p. 94. 61 conducted during the same period that Flanagan was coordi- nating the occupational research efforts of the American Institute for Research. The Ohio State investigations were designed to obtain leadership behavior descriptions and they accomplished this by collecting from subordinates, statements of acts by their superiors.l The parallel nature of the Ohio State University ILeeadership Studies and Flanagan's Critical Incident Studies was considered significant in that at least two EBEEparate groups of researchers felt that the best means Of moving beyond the "trait" approach to leadership and <><2cupationa1 proficiency, was to obtain actual samples of job performance and then to analyze these for critical role behaviors . Evaluation of the Critical Incident Technique Several important criticisms have been made con— <2erning the Critical Incident Technique. The criticism 'that was most prevalent in the literature related to the 'technique's reliance on subjective judgment. The Critical Incident Technique does rely on subjective judgment both in the observer or reporter's assessment of what consti- ‘tutes effective and ineffective behavior, and in the in— ‘Vestigator's categorization of the data. Corbally re- Sponded to this criticism, however, when he wrote: ¥ lIbid., p. 13. 62 {Phe method does depend to a great degree on . . . :subjective judgment. . . . To the statistically nninded, this fact may lead to some depreciation of t:he use of the method in research. Too often, how- eever, educational research has suffered from the aapplication of one or both of two assumptions. The :Eirst is to assign a high degree of objectivity to aanything that can be brought under statistical treat- mnent. The second is to hesitate to push into an area vvith research unless a method can be devised which eat least gives the appearance of complete objectivity. 'To be sure, objectivity must be sought to the very \JtmOSt of the ability of the researcher. However, a Inethod which provides useful and apparently valid results should not be discarded because it seems to have elements of subjectivity.l Sax pointed to other limitations of the Critical In<3zi.dent Technique but, like Corbally, he did not feel 'tlléi1: these limitations warranted the rejection of the technique. The collection of data to gather critical incidents is subject to the same sorts of distortion as are other types of data collection procedures. Dis- tortions of memory, for example, can yield inaccur— ate descriptions of incidents. Even with incidents ‘which have recently occurred, such factors as per- sonal bias may distort obtained reports. However, a skilled interviewer can look for contradictions, probe for errors of omission, and try to discrimi- nate between the objective reporting of incidents and an interpretation of these events. There are dangers in applying the Critical Inci— dent Technique to as complex a job as that of the college ark: university presidency. One must be mindful that the \ T 1John E. Corbally, Jr., "The Critical Incident Bechnique and Educational Research," Educational Research \ulletin, xxxv, No. 3 (March 14, 1956), 60. Ii 2Gilbert Sax, Empirical Foundations of Educational 1SESearch (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., §G‘T—'8 , p. 192. 63 technique had its origins in military and industrial settings where the primary concern was training, instru- mentation and machine modification.l Encouragement to proceed with the present study, in spite of the limi- tations and dangers expressed above, was found in the Successful application of the technique to such complex Positions as those described earlier. Encouragement also was found in statements such as the following by Corbally: Research in education has placed increased emphasis on behavior, particularly in the areas of teaching and administrative competency. In the furtherance of investigations of this type, no method seems to hold more promise than the critical incident technique. C3C>1tbally went on to state: In spite of some disadvantages, the critical incident technique has much to offer the researcher in edu- cation and other social science fields. The technique offers an outstanding method of studying a task in terms of the behavior of those engaged in it. . . . It provides recommendations which can be utilized immedi- ately by practitioners in the field. The data, which are gathered in terms of critical incidents, provide much insight into the problems facing individuals as they attempt to perform certain tasks and provide case-study material for use in training others to perform these tasks. Also, the data provide many examples of good practice in the field which are useful for both in-service and pre-service training. C . 1John E. Corbally, Jr., "A Second Look at the (rltical Incident Technique," Phi Delta Kappan, xxxvrrr January, 1957), 141. 3E 2Corbally, "The Critical Incident Technique and ducational Research," p. 61. ' 31bid. 64 Andersson and Nilsson performed a number of methodological checks on the reliability and validity c>f"tlie Critical Incident Technique and found that it fared well. They stated: The methodological checks of the critical inci- <>intments may be made and announced as much as nine mOuths to a year prior to the date the president actually asSumes office, Chronicle issues covering a twenty—four 69 month period were reviewed to seek to insure that no new presidents who fit the specifications of interest were missed. This process identified twenty—one presidents in the five-state region who qualified as "new" presidents. Selecting the Experienced Presidents Once the "new" presidents were identified, it was necessary to identify individuals who were presidents of comparable institutions and who would have been in office at least twenty—four months at the time of the interview. Ehe Education Directory, 1970—1971, Higher Education, was used in this process. The Directory lists institutions by type and size, and gives the name of the president. TWenty presidents were identified, each one representing an institution gaining a new president.1 This represented one less experienced than new president because of the inability to find, within the five-state region, an insti- tut ion which matched one very small school that had gained a rlew president.2 \ i 1The Education Directory was also used to indicate pnetitution type and size for institutions gaining new residents. p 2It turned out that the "new" president of this Sarticular institution chose not to participate in the t\ldy so this did not prove to be a problem. 70 Eliciting the Participation of the Presidents The next step was to seek the participation of each of the new and experienced presidents who had been identified by the processes described above. The initial contact with the presidents was via a letter signed by the chairman of the writer's guidance committee. The letter briefly described the study; described what would be asked Of the president if he chose to participate; identified the researcher; and included a reply form and a stamped self- addressed envelOpe (see Appendix A). The reply form asked the president to indicate whether he would participate in the study and, if so, whether he preferred a personal or telephone interview. The form also asked the president to indicate the date his appointment was effective. This helped determine that the new presidents were, in fact, "new" as defined in the study and gave an indication of the range of years in office represented by the experienced grOUp of presidents. Presidents were also asked to send a cepy of their \_I_it_ae_, both to alleviate the need to ask for identifying information in the interview and to serve as another check of the fact that the "new" presidents were indeed new to the presidency and had not previously Se:'=‘ved in that position at another institution. Presidents whose response indicated a willingness t0 participate in the study were sent a letter signed by the writer giving further information regarding what would 71 be asked in the interview (see Appendix A). A call was then placed to their office to establish a date and time for the interview. Presidents whose responses indicated that they would not be able to participate in the study were sent a letter thanking them for replying and indicating that, Should they find at a later time that their schedules per— mitted participation, their inclusion in the study would be welcomed . Three weeks after the initial letter had been sent, a follow-up letter, signed by the writer, was sent to each President who had not responded to the initial letter. Once again a reply form and a return envelope were in— clLllded. The Sample Forty-one presidents-—twenty-one new and twenty e="Peiz'ienced'--were sent the initial letter. Thirty re- sponded, twenty-one agreeing to participate and nine indi— ca‘ting they would be unable to participate. Twelve of thl<>se responding positively were experienced and nine were new. Seven of the nine who indicated they would be uneble to participate were new.1 \ 11 1One of the experienced presidents who indicated te Would be unable to participate noted that he would like 0. but that he was leaving his current institution to aistime the presidency of an institution on the West fist. li~rlv his a o 72 One of the new presidents who indicated that he would be unable to participate, gave as a reason the fact that he had been a president for such a short period that he doubted that he could be of help to the study. When the writer contacted him by letter and assured him that his responses would indeed be valuable, he did agree to Participate. This brought to twenty—two the number of Presidents who agreed to participate in the study based on responses to the initial letter.1 As indicated above, three weeks after the initial letter had been sent, the writer sent a follow-up letter to the eleven presidents from whom no response had been reeeived. Six of the eleven responded at this time, five indicating they would be able to participate and one indi- cating he would be unable to participate. A seventh president responded at this time indicating that he was no longer at the institution where the letter had origi- 1“ally been sent, and further that he was no longer a p3":esident. Because his mail had obviously been forwarded to another state, it was impossible to determine whether t151-is individual was replying to the initial letter or the f o l low-up letter . \ 1One of the new presidents who initially agreed to paJ:~ticipate, later had his secretary call the writer's gffice to indicate that he would not be participating. his also, however, related to his newness in the position, rid after further written communication from the writer he hoe again agreed to participate. utik R‘i 73 This left only four of the original forty—one presidents from whom no response had been received. Five weeks after the follow-up letter had been sent, a second and more personalized follow-up letter was sent to these two new and two experienced presidents. A slightly re- vised version of the reply form was also sent. Two re— sponses were received, both negative and both from new presidents. No additional attempts were made to contact the remaining two presidents from whom no response had been received. Twenty-seven presidents had thus indicated a will— ingriess to participate in the study. Fifteen of these were experienced presidents and twelve were new. Each of the twenty-seven presidents was then contacted to schedule an interview date and time. Upon contacting the office of one Of the experienced presidents, it was learned that he was on vacation and would be unavailable until after the PrOjECted interview period. The president had left in— Structions to have his executive vice—president partici- pate in the study in his absence, but the researcher did not feel that this would meet the criteria established for a critical incident reporter. This institution thus was not included in the study. The final sample included twenty-six presidents, f0fifteen experienced and twelve new. The twenty-six presidents represented 63.4 per cent of the presidents 74 initially contacted. The fourteen experienced presidents represented 70 per cent of the presidents in this category who were initially contacted. The twelve new presidents represented 57 per cent of the presidents in this cate- gory who were initially contacted. In Table l, the insti- tutional types and sizes represented by the participating presidents are indicated. As indicated in Table 1, five presidents, or 19.23 per cent of the sample were presidents of private inde- Pendent institutions. Thirteen, or 50 per cent of the sample were presidents of private affiliated institutions. The remaining eight presidents, representing 30.77 per cent 0f the sample, were presidents of public institutions. All but one of the twenty-six participants were males, the one exception being a new president of a private affiliated college in the 2,000 to 3,000 size category. Developinggthe Critical Incident Format The Critical Incident Techniquel was selected as the most appropriate method for obtaining and analyzing primary data regarding episodes in role performance which have had an impact on the effectiveness of the college and university president. The CIT focuses attention on behavior. It is a technique that involves the reporting of incidents by \ C . 1The abbreviation CIT will be substituted for rltical Incident Technique in sections where the termi- Q:LOgy is frequently repeated. 7S m N mcflummflofluumm mucmcwmmum mo mamuoa ooo.om um>o a ooo.o~uooo.oa ooo.oauooo.m ooo.m sooo.~ H ooo.m nooo.a N H ooo.H noom omocmflummxm 3oz owocmflummxm 3oz unease conceafimmd mum>wum nwocmwummxm 3oz pcmocmmwocH muflm mum>fium Houucou mo mews can mufim an chHusuaumcHnl.H mqmde 76 qualified observers (reporters) who describe the behavior cat? the person being observed as either effective or in- effective according to the aims of the activity. In discussing the development of the Critical Inci- diearrt format, it is helpful to review the five basic steps of the CIT: 1. Determination of the general aim of the activity under study. Development of plans and specific procedures for gathering critical incidents which have had an impact on the effectiveness of the college and university president. 3. Collection of the data. 4. Analysis of the data. 5. Interpretation and reporting of the data. %E;___Establishingthe General &of the Activity The Critical Incident Technique requires the establishment of the general aim of the activity as the first step prior to the gathering of any incidents. As Flanagan noted, "It is clearly impossible to report that a Person has been either effective or ineffective in a Par11icular activity . . unless we know what he is exPected to accomplish."1 1 Flanagan, "Critical Incident Technique," p. 336. 77 This requirement takes on specific relevance in critical incident studies where observers are to be trained to report on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of role behavior in occupations other than their own. In the present study, however, it was felt to be presumptuous to seek to tell college presidents what the aim of their activity should be. Further, it was deemed desirable to avoid restricting the potential range of incidents that Presidents might report. Accordingly, a very general aim Of the presidency was adopted, namely, "To formulate plans and programs for, and to direct the administration of a cOllege or university." This aim was in keeping with the description of the position given in the Dictionary of l ESCupational Titles . 2° Develo in Plans and Procedures wathering the Critical Incidents Once the general aim of the activity was deter— mined, the next step in the Critical Incident Technique called for the development of specific plans and procedures for gathering the critical incidents. Basically, the chOice was between the use of written report forms to be completed by the respondent, and personal or telephone interviews with the respondents. Previous critical inci- dent studies which have utilized mailed report forms, have E u . 1Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Vol. I, DEfinition of Titles‘1 (3rd ed.; Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1965) . 78 evidenced a very low percentage of return. Also, the literature on the college president reflected that presi- dents are deluged with questionnaires and written requests for information.1 These factors, coupled with the indi- cation by Flanagan that the interview method was by far the most satisfactory means of gathering critical inci- dents, and that other methods are merely substitutes,2 led to the choice of the interview method of collecting the incidents. Once the decision was made to collect all data by interviews, the decision had to be made as to whether the interviews would be conducted in person only, or whether Presidents would be given the option to choose an in- Person or telephone interview. The chairman and one other member of the writer's guidance committee had had favorable experiences with studies involving a mixture of in—person and telephone interviews. This factor, Coupled with some feeling on the part of the writer and Inembers of the guidance committee that certain presidents might be willing to participate by telephone whereas they might not participate in an in-person interview, prompted \ 1Charlene Gleazer, "The College President vs. the Questionnaire," Educational Record, LI, No. 2 (Spring, 1970), 171-73. 2John D. Flanagan, Critical Requirements for Re— s\earch Personnel: A Study of Observed Behaviors of Per- Ennel in Research Laboratories TPittsHirgh: American Institute for Research, 1949) , p. 6. 79 the inclusion of the telephone inverview option. Presi- dential preference for the Options is cited in Table 2. TABLE 2.--Presidential Preference for Interview Method Preferred a Preferred a No Personal Telephone Interview Interview Preference New 7 2 3 Experienced 7 3 4 Total 14 5 7 One experienced president who initially indicated a preference for a telphone interview, when called, and after the instructions for reporting had been read, changed his preference to a personal interview. Although the Pr-'es:ident's Reply Form did not specifically give a "NO Preference" Option, there were seven presidents who indi- cated on their reply form that either a personal or a telephone interview would be satisfactory. Of the four e“(Perienced presidents who indicated they had no prefer- ence, three were interviewed in person and one by tele- pllone. Of the three new presidents who indicated they had no preference, one was interviewed in person and two by telephone. In those cases where the Option was left to the interviewer, the decision as to which interview method weuld be used was based on geographical distance and whether or not other personal interviews were scheduled in 80 the president's area at a time when he was available for an interview. In Table 3 the number of telephone and personal interviews are shown by presidential type. TABLE 3.--Tabulation Of the Use of Personal and Telephone Interviews Personal Telephone Interviews Interviews New 8 4 Experienced 11 3 Total 1 9 7 2a . Develo in the lflterview Content Several criteria were considered when developing the interview format. One criterion was brevity. It was c°n8idered desirable to keep the introductory comments as brief as possible, while still seeking to insure that the directions regarding the manner in which the presidents were to relate the incidents were as clear and precise as pc>Bsible. The original interview format was shown to s‘everal people and alterations were made based on their suggestions . A second criterion was accuracy. It was not anticipated that new presidents would have difficulty in coIt'rectly recalling the incidents they were relating Silice they, by definition, had not been in Office more 81 1:han eighteen months. Experienced presidents were also aisked to relate incidents that had occurred within the lorevious eighteen months, however, both to insure that the incidents they reported would have occurred roughly during t:he same time span as those reported by the new presidents, lint also to limit the time span for recall. Flanagan1 puointed out the importance of placing a time limit on the period of recall for incidents, since it tended to reduce Intrusual behavior to proper perspective and to reduce errors due to memory lapses and exaggeration. An extremely vital criterion was the basis for judflent concerning effectiveness, i.e., what was being Considered and who was doing the considering. In the Present study, what was being considered was the presi— dent's effectiveness, or lack of same in responding to j~1'l<=:i.dents that occur in the context of role performance. Since the presidency of a college or university is such a Singular position, the researcher cannot impose his own s"Zandard of effectiveness but must rely upon the compe— terice Of the respondent to do the judging from his or her perspective. Flanagan argued for this approach when he s‘tated: "It is important that these behaviors be identi- f:‘Led by those who describe them as especially effective lFlanagan, Critical Requirements for Research Engrsonnel, op. cit., p. 5. 82 according to their own standards, not those of any out— 1 I. side person or group. . . Given the above criterion and the critiques of the interview format, the final interview format was developed for use in the interviews (see Appendix B). 3 - Collecting the Data: Conducting the Interview The interviews were conducted over a nine-week period in the summer of 1971. It was necessary to extend the interviews over this period due to presidential Vacation schedules. No more than two personal inter- Views were scheduled for any one day both to allow for travel time between institutions and to allow the inter- Views to extend for as long a period as each president desired. Similarly, no more than two telephone inter- Views were scheduled for any one day. Although travel tithe was, of course, not a factor in carrying out the telephone interviews, this scheduling still allowed each interview to go for as long or as short a time as the pr:esident's responses dictated. The personal interviews averaged just over an hour (53 minutes), while the telephone interviews averaged less than half an hour (22 minutes). This would appear to cast doubt on the advisability of interspersing the data from lIbid., p. 6. 83 the two methods, but an analysis of the recordings of the 'twmo types of interviews revealed that the actual incident reporting times per incident were roughly comparable for 'tlae two methods. The average incident reporting time per :iricident was four minutes for telephone interviews and seven minutes for personal interviews. The major differ- ence appeared to be due to a tendency on the part Of both the interviewer and the respondent to spend less time on cordialities and general discussion regarding the presi- dency in the telephone as Opposed to the personal inter— Views. Also, one president who was interviewed by tele- Phone only related two incidents and another only three and this shortened the interview average. The quality of the incidents appeared comparable, however, whether col- lected by telephone or personal interview. Each president was asked to relate four incidents WI'lich he felt had had an impact on his effectiveness as a President. Two of the incidents the presidents were asked t‘> relate were to be of an effective nature, where the 1results of the president's actions were desirable. Two ixlcidents were to be of an ineffective nature where the I‘esults Of the president's actions were undesirable or where the president's actions failed to have any impact 0n.the situation. While--as might be eXpected given the instructions--most presidents did relate four incidents, One president related eight incidents and left it to the researcher to select four; another seven; two related six; 84 another five; two related only three incidents; and one only two. One new president who related just three inci- dents, all Of which were effective in nature, felt that it was still too early in his presidency for the ineffec— tive consequences of his actions to begin manifesting themselves. A total of 112 critical incidents were collected, 60 of an effective nature, 50 of an ineffective nature, and 2 which the respective presidents called "iffy," meaning they felt the incidents were significant but that the final outcomes were not yet known and they could prove to be either effective or ineffective. 4 - Analysis of the Data Once the data had been collected, the next step in the critical incident methodology was to analyze the data a<-‘=<.‘.ording to the procedure suggested by the CIT. This involved the develOpment of a posteriori categories from the data. All interviews were taped, and although an inter— VJlew report form (see Appendix B) was utilized for note— taking during the interviews and for calling 'certain items to the interviewer's attention, the tapes became the Primary source of data. 85 4a. Transferring Data from the Tapes to Critical Incident sztracts Although the presidents were given instructions as to the manner in which the incidents were to be reported, presidential reporting styles did vary. Therefore, both to establish consistency in the report format and to trans- fer the verbal material tO written format, it was necessary for the researcher to transfer each incident from the tapes to what was termed a Critical Incident Abstract. The re— searcher listened tO each incident at least twice and then Wrote an "Abstract" for each incident. This consisted of Presenting the background of the incident (as related by the president), what the president did, and the results 0f the president's actions. In certain of the more in— VOlved incidents there were several phases Of presidential response and these were noted. The Abstracts were then tYped on 815" x 11" paper for later use in the analysis Process. A sample Critical Incident Abstract is given oh the next page. The Critical Incident Abstract format served as a useful vehicle for taking the recorded information and Placing it in written form in a consistent fashion. Additional items of information which identified the incident were also placed on the Critical Incident Abstract. From left to right across the tOp of each abstract were recorded: 86 CRITICAL INCIDENT ABSTRACT President: E—3 Effective Incident One Telephone Interview Reporting Time: 2 minutes When the Incident Occurred: Spring 1970 C IRCUMSTANCES: The college was in financial difficulty and the board decided that it would be necessary to freeze faculty salaries for the 1971 fiscal year. The board asked the President to explain to the faculty the need for this action. WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID: The President wrote a very carefully worded page-and- a‘half letter in which he described the school‘s financial Circumstances and the reason the salary freeze was neces- sary. WHAT RESULTED: There was no griping whatsoever on the part of the faculty. Even though the President considers the faculty t? be very political and even though the faculty tradi— tlonally has had great power on the campus, they rather eerfully accepted this necessity and made no attempt ‘3 alter it. \ 87 Ffiirst Row (left to right) 1. Code number of the Presi- dent. 2. Whether the incident was effective or ineffective and the incident number. Second Row 1. Type of Interview (Personal or Telephone). 2. Reporting Time. EPriird Row 1. When the incident occurred (approximate date or period). 4b. DevelOJment Of Work Cards Even with the Critical Incident Abstracts, a System was needed to allow for categorization Of the inci- dents. Accordingly, each incident was reduced tO one or two descriptive sentences and these descriptions were tYE>ed on one side of a 3" x 5" card. An EXMPle is given below of the work card developed for the Critical Incident Abetract that was shown above. E3-2PA Effective One Sold a salary freeze to the faculty via an effectively written letter which interpreted the need for the freeze. 88 Once again, identifying information was recorded <3r1 the card so that the incident could be prOperly cate- gorized. The identifying information, from left to right, was as follows: 1. E3-~Identified the president who related the incident as being Experienced President 3. 2. 2PA--Identified the institution the President represented as being a Private Affiliated institution in size category two. 3. Effective--Indicated whether the president classified the incident as being effective or ineffective. 4. One-—Identified which effective incident (related by the specific president) was being described. In working with this card, the researcher could t1”nus quickly identify that this was Effective Incident one, reported by Experienced President Three, from a Private Affiliated institution, in size category two. Tune identifying codes for institutional types were as f<>llows: Private Independent = PI; Private Affiliated = 19A; Public = Pu. The size categories are given in Table 4 . ,_ 89 TABLE 4.--Size Categories for Participating Institutions Size Category Student Enrollment l 500 — 1,000 2 1,000 — 2,000 3 2,000 - 3,000 4 5,000 - 10,000 5 10,000 - 20,000 6 over 20,000 4c . The Categorization Process Having transferred the recorded data to the Critical Incident Abstracts, and having developed the Work cards, the data were in a format which permitted the researcher to begin the categorization process. The a posteriori categorization process which is utilized When the Critical Incident Technique is being applied as a job analysis tool, typically calls for breaking the incidents into separate elements for each behavior which the role incumbent exhibits. Since the purpose of this stludy was to compare the types of incidents having an impact on the contemporary president, and not necessarily to analyze the job Of the president, the researcher did n(31:: follow the above approach but rather continued to concentrate on the essential nature of each incident as a whole . The first step in the categorization process in- ‘Volved making rather gross distinctions about each inci- dent and then proceeded to more refined distinctions. 90 Thus the incidents were first sorted into two groups: one group representing incidents in which the presidents dealt with affairs and/or relationships which were internal to the institution; and the second group incidents in which the presidents dealt with affairs and/or relationships which were external to the institution. Not all inci— dents dealt solely with internal or external affairs or relationships, but in all cases the researcher felt there was a sufficiently predominant thrust in one direction or the other to allow for this type Of categorization. The manner in which this categorization was noted was as follows: (1) Based on the work card description of the incident, the researcher judged whether the primary emphasis of the incident related to internal or external affairs. If there was any question, the researcher re- ferred to the Critical Incident Abstract for that incident in an effort to insure accuracy in the categorization. Once the judgment was made, the notation "Internal" or "External" was made on the back of the work card. The date the judgment was made was also recorded. A week later, for two successive weeks, this process of cate- gorization was repeated to gain an indication of researcher reliability in categorizing the incidents. The extent of agreement between the first, second and third categori— zation, for this and the remaining stages in the analysis process is reported in Chapter IV. bas was gro mad tat whe faCI lar; inc: Viev 91 After all incidents had been categorized on the basis Of internal or external orientation, each incident was then subcategorized on the basis of primary reference group. For example, if the initial determination had been made that an incident was primarily internal in orien- tation, it was further reviewed to seek to determine whether a particular reference group such as students or faculty had played a primary role in the incident. Simi- larly, if the initial classification had been made that the incident was external in orientation, it was further re— viewed to seek to determine whether a principal reference group such as local residents or the state legislature or the press or other groups had been involved. Once again the distinction being made was noted on the back of the work card and the process was repeated per the schedule mentioned above. The next step involved a subcategorization by problem category. The question the researcher sought to ask regarding each incident was whether some particular problem had precipitated the incident. Was a financial crisis a precipitating factor or an unpopular regulation or a national or international event such as the Kent State episode or the Cambodian invasion? The results of the above steps are reported in Chapter IV.1 er. John Lovell, candidate for the Ph.D., Purdue University, served as an independent judge Of the objec- tivity of the researcher by categorizing 10 per cent of la. tht 1m 1156 vic' 92 The final step in the review of the incidents was largely a mechanical one for it involved listening to all the taped incidents one final time and writing down each individual or group mentioned. This was felt to be a useful step to give an indication of the variety of indi- viduals with whom the presidents interacted and, in turn, to gain some feeling for their impact on the president‘s effectiveness by noting the number of incidents in which they were mentioned. The results of this process should not, however, be confused with the categorization by pri- mary reference group. This final step was simply a tally of individuals or groups mentioned, not an analysis of their role in the incidents. 5. Reporting the Data The categorization process as described above was applied to all incidents reported by all presidents. Since certain of the presidents related more than two effective and/or ineffective incidents, and since two more experienced than new presidents participated in the study, a means was needed to make the data analysis equitable. To alleviate the bias that might develop if a disproportionate number of incidents were included for certain presidents, it was decided that no more than two the incidents per the steps noted above. The extent of agreement between Mr. Lovell's categorization and that of the researcher is noted in Chapter IV. ind pa: pro” Clem 93 effective and two ineffective incidents, reported by an individual president, would be used for the basic com- parisons that were of primary interest to the study. To provide a matching number of new and experienced presi- dents for comparison Of incidents on this dichotomy, it was decided that the incidents reported by the two experi— enced presidents representing institutions with over 20,000 students would not be utilized. As Table 1 indicates, there were no new presidents who agreed to participate in the study who represented institutions with over 20,000 students. Thus, both to gain greater proximity in the number of incidents to be reported by experience level, and to attain a more nearly matched sample of presidents by institutional size, the incidents reported by these two presidents were not included in a number of the com- parisons. All the incidents reported by the presidents, in- cluding those reported by the two experienced presidents mentioned above, were certainly still of interest, how- ever, for they gave basic information on the variety of types of incidents which are confronting the contemporary president. Therefore, where appropriate, this infor- mation is also reported in Chapter IV. Efforts have been made to insure that in all the data reporting the reader is informed clearly as to the incident pool that is being utilized for the analysis. on . ten: wha1 a d1 mci 94 It is important to indicate the manner in which the researcher selected the two effective or ineffective incidents that would be used for the comparisons, when more than two incidents had been reported. In some cases the president's own qualifying remarks helped to serve as a discriminating factor for the president would indicate which incidents he felt had had more or less of an impact on his effectiveness. In other cases certain incidents tended to more closely fit the specifications regarding what constituted a critical incident and this served as a discriminating factor. Also, if one or more of the incidents clearly involved circumstances peculiar to that college or university, whereas the others were more generalizable, these more generalizable incidents were included. Finally, if all incidents were of comparable importance to the effectiveness of the president, of com— parable specificity with regard to the definitions of the study, and of comparable generalizability, the researcher arbitrarily selected two of them. This presented an ad— mitted opportunity for bias, but it should be remembered that only five of the twenty—six presidents reported more than two incidents per category and one of these five, the one who reported the eight incidents (four effective, four ineffective) was one Of the experienced presidents from an institution with over 20,000 students, so the selection Of only two incidents per category was not needed. 95 Questions of Interest The nature of the data collected, plus the possi- bility that particular categories or cells might contain a limited number Of incidents, made the generation of statistically testable hypotheses an unsuitable approach for this study. There were, however, questions of inter- est which led to the development of the study, and to which the data reporting has been addressed. These questions were as follows: 1. Are new presidents facing essentially similar or different types Of incidents than is the case for experienced presidents? Will effective incidents as reported by experi- enced presidents show any marked differences from effective incidents reported by new presidents with respect to the reference groups involved and/or the types Of situations confronted? Will ineffective incidents as reported by experi— enced presidents show any marked differences from ineffective incidents reported by new presidents with respect to the reference groups involved and/or the types Of situations confronted? Do particular training needs become evident as a product of the types of incidents with which presidents are confronted and/or the measure of th( the 96 success or lack of same they are experiencing in handling these situations? Certain questions, which arose from the review of the literature and which were considered in relation to the data as analyzed in Chapter IV, included the following: 5. In the Hemphill and Walberg study the presidents reported that a "major roadblock" to their effec- tiveness was the amount of time they had to spend on administrative matters. They considered this, in turn, to be a result of the incompetence of their subordinates. This led to the question of whether the incidents reported in the current study would reflect a similar appraisal of subordi- nate effectiveness. Hemphill and Walberg asked selected presidents to relate some of their initial successes. Most of the responses had to do with the organizational development of the institution. This led to the question of whether the effective incidents re- lated by the new presidents in the current study would reflect a similar tendency. Several of the studies related information on the age, educational attainments, and mobility patterns of presidents. Would the demographic data collected in this study reflect similarities or differences with respect to these factors? 97 8. Campus unrest received extensive publicity during the period for which the presidents were asked to relate the incidents having an impact on their own effectiveness. To what extent, if any, did campus unrest come to the forefront in the inci— dents the presidents reported, and did the presi- dents perceive their responses to have been pri- marily effective or ineffective? These, then were some of the questions to which it was hOped at least tentative answers could be formu— lated as a result of the analysis of the incidents re- ported by the twenty-six presidents. Summary In Chapter III a detailed description of the design and procedure of the study was given so that the reader might have a basis for evaluating the findings which are to be presented in Chapter IV. The purpose of the study was to compare and con~ trast incidents which have had an impact on the effec— tiveness of new college and university presidents with those having an impact on experienced presidents. The Critical Incident Technique was selected as the methodology for both collecting and analyzing the incidents. The sample for this study consisted Of twenty-six presidents from colleges and universities in a five-state 98- region of the Midwest. Fourteen of the presidents were experienced presidents, having been in Office for more than two years; and twelve were new, having been in Office no less than six months and no more than eighteen months. The presidents represented a variety of institutional types and sizes. The presidents reported 112 incidents which they described as having had an impact on their effectiveness as a president. The incidents were reported in interviews conducted by the researcher. Sixty of the 112 incidents were of an effective nature and 50 were identified by the presidents as ineffective. Two incidents were unclassi- fied as to effectiveness because all the results Of the president's actions were not yet known. The presidents did, however, feel that the incidents were significant and merited reporting. Since the analysis Of Critical Incident data is quite subjective in nature, a detailed description was given of all procedures involved in the analysis process. An a posteriori analysis was made of the incidents following procedures suggested in the CIT literature. Finally, questions were presented which had served as a basis for the development of the study and/or which had developed as a result of the review Of the literature on the presidency. These questions served as a base for reporting the results of the analysis of the data which follows in Chapter IV. and Char are CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The present study was designed to collect, analyze, and compare incidents which have had an impact on the effectiveness of new and experienced college and university presidents. The Critical Incident Technique was used as the model for the data collection,and the data were then analyzed on an a posteriori basis following procedures recommended by the CIT. In this chapter the results of the data collection and analysis are presented. In the first section the characteristics Of the twenty-six participating presidents are described. This is followed by an analysis of the critical incidents which these presidents reported. The procedure for this analysis was described in detail in Chapter III. Finally, the implications of the analysis for the "Questions Of Interest" are discussed. Characteristics of the Participating Presidénts Tables 5 through 7 present a summary of data regarding the twenty-six presidents and the types of 99 100 institutions they represented. Twelve Of the twenty-six presidents met the specifications for being classified as "1 "new, and fourteen met the specifications for being . . . 2 cla351f1ed as "experienced." TABLE 5.--President's Highest Degree New Experienced Degree Number Percent Number Percent Ph.D. 8 67 9 65 Ed.D. 2 l7 1 7 D.B.A. l 8 J.D. l 8 L.L.B. 1 7 M.A. l 7 M.Ed. l 7 B.D. l 7 Total 12 100 14 100 From Table 5 one can see that the emphasis on the earned doctorate, which was reflected in the literature on the college president, was borne out in the current study. All Of the new presidents had either an earned doctorate or, in the one case, a law degree. In Table 6 the age of the presidents is shown by tenure. The average age of the new presidents was just over 44 while that of the experienced presidents was close 1In Office no less than six months and no more than eighteen months. 2In office no less than twenty-four months. I'T whose age affiliate. TABLE 6.-- % Age Gro; 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Ta aPPOintmen Sewing at 4 twentY‘One one who Ca“ haVing entE positions. is listed asthe Pri. & 101 to 53. Both of the new presidents in the 35—39 age range, whose ages were 36 and 37, were presidents Of private affiliated institutions. TABLE 6.--Distribution of Presidents by Age and Tenure New Experienced Age Group (6 to 18 2—5 6-10 More Than Months) Years Years 10 Years 35-39 2 40-44 4 45-49 6 2 l 1 50-54 4 2 55-59 1 2 60-64 1 N=12 N=7 N=3 N=4 Table 7 reflects the diversity of positions the participating presidents held immediately prior to their appointment as president of the institution they were serving at the time of the study. Although the presi— dents were previously in a wide variety of positions, twenty-one, or 81 per cent, were in positions in higher education. Of the remaining five presidents all but the one who came from the YMCA post could be considered as having entered the presidency from education—related positions. This is stated because even the president who isLListed as coming from a missionary position was serving as the principal of a mission school. TABLE 7 . j —__“———1 Academic De Assistant t Presider. Chancellor Dean of Adz. tration Dean of Ar: sCiences Director Of Educational ExecutiVe Big h SChool Pri “Cipal PIEsidEnt State SYSte rugher EdQC. vice Ch anCel of Stud But A use PreSide J1: 102 TABLE 7.--Distribution of Presidents by Previous Position, Experience Level, and Type of Institutional Control Private Private Independent Affiliated Public Experi- Experi- Experi- New enced New enced New enced Academic Dean 1 Assistant to the President 1 Chancellor 1 Dean of Adminis— tration 1 Dean of Arts and Sciences 1 Director of Guidance 1 Educational Consultant 1 Executive Vice President 1 High School Principal l Missionary 1 President I 1 Professor 2 1 Provost 1 State System of Higher Educ. Post 1 Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs 1 Vice President 1 1 Vice President Academic Affairs 1 l 1 Vice President UniV- Relations 1 1 YMCA National Council Position 1 \ Th cation sup ing the mo cation. A presidents previous e at the tin exPatience Interest i that the v his Sample “where they pIESidentS some Previ thEY Were d the Categoy Presidents had hdd an, J hate affil] EnCed ’ had and had adm they wel’e t affiliatio from havms \ 1 p0 143. HO 103 This preponderance of experience in higher edu- cation supports the data in the recent literature regard- ing the mobility patterns of presidents in higher edu- cation. Another aspect Of the mobility patterns of the presidents was checked, this being the number who had previous experience in the institution they were serving at the time of the study, and, for those who had previous experience, the extent of that experience or affiliation. Interest in this factor was keyed by Hodgkinson's finding that the vast majority (60 per cent) of the presidents in his sample had had no previous experience on the campus where they were president.l Thirteen of the twenty-five presidents on whom this information was available, had some previous affiliation with the institution at which they were president at the time Of this study. Only in the category of experienced public college or university presidents was it the case that none of the respondents had had any previous affiliation. Four presidents of pri— vate affiliated institutions, three new and one experi— enced, had received their undergraduate degree, taught, and had administrative experience at the institution where they were the president. For others the range of previous affiliation or experience with the institution extended from having only received the undergraduate degree there l p. 143. Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transition, Op. cit., (3); to been a f trative trative . to the i: been a me critical cent); 5C 2 which t Significa as Either comes wer dents Werg President. related. the instif 104 (3); to having only been a faculty member (1); to having been a faculty member plus having served in an adminis- trative post (2); to having only had previous adminis- trative experience there (1); to having been a consultant to the institution (1); and, finally, to having previously been a member of the institution's governing board (1). Analysis of the Critical Incidents The twentyvsix presidents reported a total of 112 critical incidents: 60 of an effective nature (53.6 per cent); 50 of an ineffective nature (44.6 per cent); and 2 which the two presidents who reported them felt were significant incidents but which could not yet be labeled as either effective or ineffective because the final out— comes were not yet known (1.8 per cent). These two inci- dents were labeled "iffy" since that is the way one of the presidents described the incident of this nature which he related. In Table 8 a summary is given of the number of incidents reported, by the size and type of control of the institutions the presidents represented. Measures of Reliability and Objectivity In Chapter III a detailed description was given Of the methodology the researcher followed in categorizing the data. The categorization process is certainly one Of the most important phases in any study which utilizes the Critical Incident Technique. At the same time, it is also :xwuH: o>auoowmoCH o>auomwmm HMUOB «Z» 302 MO HOHUCOU DGUHOQUZ UCQDHNGHQ «My UTOCQflMQQKW M0 WQNE mwflnu mucmwmuflUCH N0 “@3532 «N QHQQE WWW» NHOUQUWU ®NNW 43>rlvhfi FiU—hfivfilfifléiwvflué \fln,‘ ‘ H HM Waufikmvud ‘ .u»...vx~.~ \fiajfi Hinfifli \ N “0 QQKWLP ”Uta \flflnDMuIHvUIUMJ Erin uni. 45-unvdryadd ra— .,-h~ r .~N u l uhlntiv‘plv N I.J1‘ “ 5.! h...’ IN! 105 Oflansm u 9m «ucopcomoch oum>flum u Hm «UODMflwamm mum>flum u 4m VHNkOsrfi“¢‘¢ HEQESZEQhJZEQDJfilZSZfiJZSZEflfiJm5325232[fl:ihlm rarhararharqouNcuoaNcuawwwveuummmmcH m>nuommmm Azc 302 no Houucoo AH manna moms wouuommm ucoofimmum Ame poocofiuomxm mo maze anomoumu muam or» mucooHOcH mo Honesz Ho>oq mocoauomxm Hmwucopwmoum an new .Houucou «0 mmmfi ham whommumu mNHm HMGOHUSuHUmGH an mUCOGHOGH HMOflUHHU m0 mmOHDOmII.m mqmfla a subject researche 'I the relia ment . In incident week apar on each 0 Pendently Classific. Classificé TABLE 9_-. \ Secon Agreed 106 a subjective process which places great reliance on the researcher's judgment. Two steps were taken in this study to check on the reliability and objectivity of the researcher's judg— ment. In the first step the researcher categorized each incident on three separate occasions, each occurring one week apart. Although the categorizations were recorded on each of the three occasions, they were made inde- pendently. In Table 9, the extent to which the second classification1 agreed with the first, and the third classification agreed with the second is shown. TABLE 9.--Researcher Agreement in Classifying Critical Incidents Second Classification Third Classification Agreed with the First Agreed with the Second N % N % 106 94.6 107 95.5 As shown in Table 9, there was a high percentage Of agreement in the successive classifications of the incidents. While this check on the consistency Of the classifications yielded encouraging results, it should be noted that consistency or reliability in classification is not a guarantee that the classifications are Objective or valid. 1The words "categorization" and "classification" will be used interchangeably when referring to the types of analyses applied to the incidents. ’1‘ an indepe recording gorize ea Chapter I selected had been . been rech were effe, listened « them with; zations. aQIEQment internal C the Primar Where the: 107 To provide a check on the researcher's Objectivity, an independent judge1 was asked to listen to the tape recordings of 10 per cent of the incidents and to cate— gorize each incident based on the procedures described in Chapter III. The incidents to which he listened were selected to give prOportionate exposure to incidents which had been reported in person and by telephone, that had been reported by new and experienced presidents, and that were effective and ineffective in nature. The judge listened to twelve Of the taped incidents and categorized them without prior knowledge of the researcher's categori- zations. On ten of the twelve incidents there was perfect agreement between the researcher and the judge on the internal or external orientation Of the incidents, and on the primary reference group. On one of the two incidents where there was disagreement, the disagreement occurred in the internal/external dichotomy. Whereas the researcher felt the incident was external in orientation and so classified it, the judge felt that while the major thrust of the incident was external, there was still sufficient reference to internal concerns to justify an external- internal label signifying the extent to which the incident involved both domains. The disagreement in the second incident was in the primary reference group subcategori— zation. The researcher categorized the incident as 1Mr. John Lovell, candidate for the Ph.D., Purdue University. student-1 "student- the succe ”I in perfec twelve in validity a(Il'eement 108 :student-related whereas the judge categorized it as "student-then faculty—then civil authorities," implying ‘the successive role each group played in the incident. The researcher and the independent judge were thus in perfect agreement on the categorization of ten of the twelve incidents used as a test of the Objectivity and validity of the categorizations. This represented an agreement on 83.33 per cent of the test incidents. Reviewing the General Aim of the Study Before relating the results of the analysis of the incidents, it is important to recall the criteria the presidents were given for reporting critical incidents. Each president was told to reflect on his own experiences as a president and report four incidents which he felt had had an impact on his effectiveness as a president. Two Of the incidents he was asked to relate were to be of a nature where he felt the results Of his own actions or the actions he had recommended were desirable. These were called effective incidents. Two of the incidents he was asked to relate were to be ineffective, or of a nature where the results of his own actions or the actions he recommended were either undesirable or failed to have any impact on the situation. The presidents were informed that the incidents they were to relate may have covered only a few minutes or have extended over several weeks or even longer. The incident their on also tolv or crisi cation 0. tiveness on ident; into the 109 .incidents were, however, to have been of such a nature that ‘their outcomes could be determined. The presidents were also told that the incidents need not have been dramatic or crisis-centered, but merely that they fit the specifi- cation Of having had an impact on the president's effec- tiveness. The concern in the a posteriori analysis was thus on identifying characteristics which would provide insights into the nature of the incidents presidents related as having had an impact on their effectiveness. Internal or External Orientation of the Incidents An initial indication Of where participating presidents were focusing their attention, either by choice or by force, and/or the major arena for their actions, was gained through a review of the basic orientation of the incidents. The incidents were thus initially categorized into two groups; those that focused primarily on affairs or relationships which were considered to be internal to the institution, and those which focused primarily on affairs or relationships which were considered to be ex- ternal to the institution. An incident was thus cate- gorized as being "Internal" if the primary participants were governing board members, administrators, faculty, staff or students; and/or if the primary focus of the incident was on a fiscal or organizational or building decision if the p. the stat< community TABLE 10. 110 decision. An incident was categorized as being "External" if the primary concern or contact was with the press, or the state legislature, or the federal government, or the community. TABLE 10.--Summary of the Number of Incidents Relating to Internal and External Affairs* w Experienced New Subtotal Internal Affairs or Relationships Effective 29 28 57 Ineffective 26 21 47 Iffy l l 2 N=56 N=50 N=106 External Affairs or Relationships Effective l 2 3 Ineffective l 2 3 N=2 N=4 N=6 *Based on all incidents reported by all presidents. The information in Table 10 clearly shows the overwhelming extent to which the presidents related inci- dents with an internal frame of reference. Ninety-six and six-tenths per cent of all incidents related by all experienced presidents concerned internal affairs or relationships. Ninety-two and six-tenths per cent of all incidents related by all new presidents concerned internal affairs or relationships. Ninety-four and six—tenths per cent dents, w respect *- further 1 group, or Thus, if question or facult COmbinati Primary f when an 1 Was categ. the indiv; vidual 90‘ dent or we Volved' tr related. incidents pcarticular reference the percen groups Wer fitter“:ion . 111 per cent of all the incidents related by all the presi- dents, were thus internal in orientation. Primary Reference Groups Once the incidents had been categorized with respect to internal or external orientation, they were further reviewed to determine whether a primary reference group, or primary reference groups, could be identified. Thus, if an incident had been categorized as internal, the question the researcher considered was whether students, or faculty, or students and faculty, or other groups or combination of groups could be considered to have been the primary focus of the president's attention or concern.‘ When an individual was the primary referent, the incident was categorized according to the reference group of which the individual was a member. For example, if an indi- vidual governing board member had precipitated the inci— dent Or was the individual around whom the incident re- volved, the incident was categorized as governing—board related. Table 11 contains the summary of the numbers of incidents which were categorized as primarily involving particular reference groups or particular combinations of reference groups. The information in Table 11 also shows the percentage of incidents in which the various reference groups were considered to have been the primary focus of attention. TABLE 1 l 112 TABLE ll.--Summary of the Primary Reference Groups AIAP* SISP** Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Internal Reference Groups Students 36 32.14 30 32.96 Faculty 24 21.42 18 19.78 Administration 18 16.07 16 17.58 Governing Board 9 8.03 7 7.69 Students, Faculty, and Administration 3 2.68 2 2.20 Faculty and Administration 3 2.68 3 3.30 Students and Faculty 2 1.79 2 2.20 Students and Administration 2 1.79 l 1.10 External Reference Groups Local Citizens 2 1.79 2 2.20 Press 2 1.79 2 2.20 State 1 .89 - -- No Reference Group (9 Internal 1 External) 10 8.93 8 8.79 N=112 %=100.00 N=9l %=100.00 *AIAP stands for "All Incidents-All Presidents" and means that all incidents as reported by all presidents were used as the data base. **SISP stands for "Selected Incidents-Selected Presidents" and means that only two incidents per president in the effective and ineffective categories were used as the data base and that the incidents reported by the two experienced presidents from institutions with over 20,000 students were excluded from the data base to give an equal number of new and experienced presidents. referen any Oth dents p been eff student- enced pr cated in Ported bf the Prime C new Presj the Selec dents We: perceiltag as the pr both new 113 As shown in Table 11, students were the primary reference group for more incidents than was the case for any other reference group. The extent to which the presi- dents perceived these student—related incidents to have been effective or ineffective, and the extent to which the student-related incidents were reported by new and experi— enced presidents, is shown in Table 12. As is also indi- cated in Table 12, the one "iffy" incident that was re— ported by an experienced president, involved students as the primary reference group. One-third of the selected effective incidents1 for new presidents were student-related and over one-half of the selected effective incidents for experienced presi- dents were thus categorized (52.17 per cent). A lower percentage of the ineffective incidents involved students as the primary reference group. This was the case for both new and experienced presidents. When the incidents were added in which the stu— dents shared the primary role with faculty and/or the administration (see Table 11), students played a major role in 38.46 per cent of the selected incidents and 38.84 per cent of all incidents. 1Whenever the words "selected incidents" are used in this chapter, they are referring to the results of the analysis when no more than two effective incidents and no more than two ineffective incidents or one ineffective and one "iffy" incident were considered per president. In the case of the experienced presidents, the incidents reported by the two presidents from schools with over 20,000 stu- dents were not included in the ”selected incidents." I. AmUCvaflUCH M0 mCOflUflUfiMfimmmHU mv>fluUmnwm®m WC“ HON @mflm ”HMO WSU WM meD mucwfiflUCH :kNMH: UCM sM>flUUWMMQCH rm>HUUQNNW N0 HwflEDZ @2U 0U COfiuMHNm CHV QSOHU @UCQHQMWK MMMEflHQ mfiu 0H$3 muflmfiflum CUNCR CH NUCQMUHUCH :xAMNH: UCMV \mwxwflUUWMwaCH \mvxuflnwhvmnwmwmw N0 HWQESZ Q20 N0 \ANQECSJHWII.NH W‘HQQE 114 .mucmpflmmum HadlmucwofiocH Hadag .AHH magma co muoc ou ummmuv mucwofimmum oouomammlmucmpflocH pmuooammg Hmuz nauz oo.ooa H a oo.ooa a H =»MMH= mm.mm mm b mo.ma Hm v o>HuommmmcH mm.mv om ma 5H.Nm mm NH m>Huommmm ¥¥mHuommmmcH oo.om on m mm.mm «N m m>fluommmm mucmoflocH Had mucmoflocH omuomamm unmucooammum 3oz Ismucmcflmmum 3oz mucmpaocH mucwmwowH muconocH mucwwwoMH acou mom manflmmom U a m ucmu mom manflmmom v H m mo umnEsz ucmonum mo nonesz ucmosum mo nonfisz mo monasz AmucooaocH mo chHumoflmammmHU m>wuoommmm on» How mmmm sumo on» ma coma mucmoflocH =>MMH2 can .m>fluommmmcH .m>fiuoommm mo umnEsz on» on coaumamm cav maouu mocmuommm wumaflum as» mumz mpcmosum aoflnz an mucmouocH =>MMH= can .o>nuommmmcH .m>fluommum mo umnasz mg» no mumeeamuu.ma mamas as the 1 inciden‘ dents pe been eff faculty- enced pr dents re with fac rePOrtedi faculty . dents re EVer' On 115 After the students, the faculty were categorized as the primary reference group for the greatest number of incidents (see Table 11). The extent to which the presi— dents perceived their involvement with the faculty to have been effective or ineffective, and the extent to which the faculty-related incidents were reported by new and experi- enced presidents, is shown in Table 13. Experienced presi— dents reported more than twice as many effective incidents with faculty than ineffective, whereas the new presidents, reported more ineffective than effective incidents where faculty were the primary reference group. When all inci— dents reported by all new presidents were considered, how— ever, only one more ineffective than effective incident was reported. When the incidents were added in which the faculty shared the primary role with the students and/or the administration (see Table 11), the faculty played a major role in 27.47 per cent of the selected incidents and in 28.57 per cent of all incidents. Administrative personnel also played a primary role in a number of the incidents the presidents reported as having had an impact on their presidential effective- ness (see Table 11). The extent to which the presidents perceived these administration-related incidents to have been effective or ineffective, and the extent to which these incidents were reported by new and by experienced 1 3L. curw+tcukfluth Trans. Cs—r+(Cw¢-$.u un~znme mo umflEsz wzu Ou :OflumHmm :flv QSOHO mocmhmwmm thEflhm mCu mhmk noes: CH mucmoflUCH m>fluomwmocH can m>wuomwwm mo amassz one mo AHmEEsmuu.mw mamas 116 mmuz m uz vuz oauz mm.ma hm m m~.va Hm m w>wuommmwcH mm.mm om oa wv.om mm m m>fluommmm ded mmHm sumucmofimmum poocmfiummxm Inmucocflmmum cmocmwummxm mmuz muz meuz muz vh.am mm m Hm.mm Hm m m>fiuommmmcH mm.mH om w om.ma vm m m>auomwmm mucmnflocH Ham nlmucmcfimmum 3oz mucmoflocH pmuomamm Inmucmowmmum 3oz mucmowocH mucwmwomm mucmowocH mucwmwoww ucwu umm mHnHmmom muaswmm ucmu Mom manwmmom Wadswmm mo Honesz mo nonasz mo nonesz mo Honesz AmucmoaocH mo mcofiumoHMHmmmao m>auommmmm on» MOM mmmm name on» no comb mucmowocH o>fiuomwmmcH 0cm m>auom m mo nonesz ecu ou coHumHmm cHV msouo mocmummmm humefium on» mama Nuaoomm cows: ca mucmoaocH m>HuommmmcH can m>fiuommmm mo umnEdz may no humEEdmus.mH munch tratiVe and/Or t PlaYed a 117 presidents, is shown in Table 14. Both new and experienced presidents reported more ineffective than effective indi- dents in which members of the administration or the entire administrative team played a primary role. This was especially pronounced for experienced presidents where the ratio was three ineffective incidents to one effective incident. When the incidents were added in which adminis- trative personnel shared the primary role with the students and/or the faculty (see Table 11), the administration played a major role in 24.18 per cent of the selected incidents and in 23.21 per cent of all incidents. The governing board was the only other single body or reference group to be identified as a primary reference group for the internal incidents. The extent to which the board-related incidents were perceived by the reporting presidents to have been either effective or ineffective, is shown in Table 15, along with the extent to which the board-related incidents were reported by new or experi— enced presidents. From the information in the table, one can see that the effective and ineffective incident break- down was equal for experienced presidents, while new presidents reported one more effective than ineffective board-related incident. Of the three incidents where both the faculty and the administration were considered to have shared the wuwflaflrL Q>w¥0¢0mmm QC# MON wmmm mama ¢£+ UN Tqu: U¢CQKFWEH KC XQiEZE 0:» Cu coflumHom may msouu mocmummom xumswum ecu muck mKOumuumNCHEhw :03: 5 35305 «530335 new 3303mm mo Snag 9: mo \CmEesmilz mqmfi 118 mmm mmm ~m.- mm m nm.mm am e m>auommmmcH am.m om N on.m mm N m>fiuommmm maHa mmHm llmflcmcflwmum Umucwflhmmxm llmvcmflflmmhm UmUGQHHGQXM oauz muz mo.om mm m Hm.m~ Hm m m>nuommumcH mm.ma om a om.ma «N m m>auommmm mucmoflocH Ham mucmoHocH omuomflmm Inmucmoammum 3oz Inmucmoflmmnm 3oz mucmoflocH mucmpwocH mummOHUCH omumamm mucmpaocH owumem ucwo mom manfimmom uoumuu ucmu mom manfimmom Houmuu mo umnEsz Imficfleod mo Honesz Imwcfifiofl mo umnasz mo quEdz $5“ 0“ GOH¢MH¢M GHV “SOHO 00GOH0w0m NHMEHHQ 0S“ ®H03 wHOHMH#mHGHEU¢ AmucmoflocH Mo macaumo Ifimammmau m>auommmmm on» How mmmm when on» we coma mucmcaocH Mo umnmdz cows: ca mucmowocH m>HuomummcH can m>wuommmm mo HmnEdz on» no mumfifiswuu.va wands {I(u4!(wuw00flpL Q>mLU®QQO|®Lu HON @mmm MUMQ 03“ mm Ummb mufiufi . Eltlh. ”I. IaUCH MO HQQEDZ mnu Ou COHuMHQm Cay QSOHU mocmum m k . . HMS numom roasts an mucmcflurfi m>euommmmcH nan m>auomWMW mo uwmcnwswcwaumuuwma MWMMWMW II.MN qu<fi Illllllllllllllllll- \ lllIlIllI 119 Gflz Vflz av.n nm N mm.m Hm m m>fiuommmmcH hm.m om m o>.m mm m m>wuomwmm 33¢ mmHm numucmoflmmum omocmfiummxm Inmucmowmmum cmocmaummxm mflz MHZ on.m mm N mm.m an m m>wuommmmcH oo.oa om m 5H.v vm H m>fiuommmm mucmnwocH Had mucmcfiocH cmuomamm Ilmucovflmoum 3oz sumucmpwmmum 3oz mucmpwocH mucwwwowm mucmoaocH mucwmwowm ucmo mom manwmmom c HMO ucmo Mom manflmmom c HMO mo umnEsz o m mo umnEsz p m «o umnEdz mo Monasz AmucmoflocH mo mcowumoflMHmmmau m>auommmmm on» now mmmm name on» no poms mucmm IaocH mo Hmnesz on» ou coaumamm cflv asouu mocmnmmmm humEHHm on» wumz mumnemz cumom gowns cw mucmpflocH m>wuommmmcH can m>wuommmm mo Hmnasz on» mo mumsssmun.ma mqmda 120 primary role (see Table 11), two were effective incidents reported by a new president and one was an ineffective incident that also was reported by a new president. Similarly, of the three incidents which equally involved students, faculty, and administration, all were reported by new presidents. In this case, however, all three of the incidents were effective in nature. Two incidents involved students and faculty equally as reference groups. One was an effective incident re- ported by a new president, and one an ineffective incident reported by an experienced president. The two incidents which involved the press were both ineffective and both reported by one new president. The two incidents which involved the community, or local citizens, were reported as follows: one effective incident by a new president, and one ineffective by an experienced president. One "iffy" incident, reported by a new president, involved students and administration on an equal basis so both were considered to represent the primary reference group. One of the experienced presidents from the insti- tutions over 20,000 also reported an incident that was considered to involve students and administrators equally so when all incidents reported by all presidents were con- sidered there were two in this subcategory. 121 The one incident involving the state government was an effective one reported by an eXperienced president from an institution with over 20,000 students. Tables 16 and 17 contain a summary of the effective and ineffective incidents by primary reference groups. Problem Categories Once the incidents had been categorized with respect to internal or external orientation, and with respect to primary reference groups, a further review was made to determine the nature of the problems which had precipitated these incidents. Forty categories were initially isolated from the 112 incidents. These cate- gories of problems are shown in Table 18. The forty categories were then examined to deter- mine aspects of commonality. These categories which contained similar aspects were grouped into fourteen Critical Problem Categories which are shown in Table 19. To clarify the Critical Problem Categories, each is briefly defined here. Critical Problem Categories Which the President Confronted Finance: Includes responses to financial crises and budgetary decisions. Also includes decisions relating to new construction and capital outlay. Campus Unrest: Involves building takeovers, sit-ins, rallies, and other types of disruptions and 122 TABLE 16.--Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffec- tive Incidents by Primar Reference Grou and Experience Level of the PreSidents (Se ected Incidents-Selected Presidents) Effective Ineffective Incidents Incidents New Experienced New Experienced Students 8 12 5 4 Faculty I 3 7 5 3 Administration 3 2 5 6 Governing Board 1 2 2 2 Students, Faculty, and Administration 2 — - - Faculty and Administration 2 - l - Students and Faculty 1 - - 1 Students and Administration - - - - Local Citizens l — — 1 Press - - 2 - State - - - - No Reference Group 3 — l 4 123 frABLE 17.-—Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffec- tive Incidents by Primary Reference Group and Experience Level of the Presidents TAll Incidents-A11 Presidents) Effective Ineffective Incidents Incidents New Experienced New Experienced Students 9 l3 6 7 Faculty 4 10 S 5 Acuninistration 4 2 6 6 Governing Board 3 2 2 2 Students, Faculty, and Administration 2 1 - - Faculty and Administration 2 - l - Students and Faculty 1 - - 1 Students and Administration - l " " Local Citizens l — — 1 Press .. .. 2 .. State .. l .. .. N0 Re f er ence GrOUP 4 - 1 s TABLE 18.--Summary of the Categories of Problems Confront- 124 ing the Presidents AIAP* SISP** Problem Category Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 1. Finance 10 8.93 9.87 2. Minority Concerns 8.04 7.68 3. Campus Unrest 8.04 6.57 4. Dismissals/Non— reappointment 6.25 7 7.68 . Staffing 4.46 3.30 . Mishandling by Subordinate 4 3.57 4 4.40 7. Academic Governance 4 3.57 4 4.40 8. Student Involvement in Decision—Making 3.57 3.30 9. Public Relations 3.57 3.30 10. Community Governance 3.57 2.20 11. Building Decisions 2.68 3.30 12. Student Relations 2.68 3.30 13. Board-President Relations 3 2.68 3 3.30 14. Reassignment (Demoting) 3 2.68 3 3.30 15. Organizational Structure 3 2.68 3 3.30 16. Academic Reform 3 2.68 2 2.20 17. Faculty Evaluation 3 2.68 2 2.20 18. Board Effectiveness 2 1.79 2 2.20 19. Preperty Decisions 2 1.79 2 2.20 20. Residence Hall Regulations 2 1.79 2 2.20 21. Grading Challenges 2 1.79 2 2.20 22. Press Relations 2 1.79 2 2.20 23. ROTC 2 1.79 1 1.10 TABLE l8.--Continued AIAP* SISP** Problem Category Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 24. Faculty Compen- sation 1.79 1.10 25. Long-Range Planning 2 1.79 '- 26. Institutional Continuance .89 1.10 27. Placement .89 1.10 28. Delegation of Authority 1 .89 1.10 29. Board-Student ' Relations 1 .89 1.10 30. Residence Halls- Security .89 1.10 31. Employee Morale .89 1.10 32. Faculty In-Fighting .89 1.10 33. Academic Status .89 1.10 34. Student Fee Utilization l .89 1.10 35. Computer Purchase 1 .89 1.10 36. Student Conduct Regulations 1 .89 1.10 37. Collective Bargaining .89 1.10 38. State Relations 1 .89 -- 39. Board—Faculty/ Administrative Relations 1 89 ~- 40. Institutional Priorities 1 .89 —- N=112 %=150.00 N=9l %=100.00 *AIAP = All Incidents; All Presidents. **SISP Selected Incidents; Selected Presidents. 126 TABLE 19.--Summary of the Fourteen Critical Problem Categories AIAP SISP Problem Categories Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Finance 17 15.18 16 17.59 Campus Unrest 17 15.18 13 14.29 Staffing 15 13.39 13 14.29 Governance 12 10.71 9 9.89 Controlling 8 7.15 7 7.69 Governing Board 7 6.25 6 6.59 Public Relations 7 6.25 5 5.49 Academic General 6 5.36 5 5.49 Subordinate Ineffectiveness 5 4.46 5 5.49 Student Relations 5 4.46 4 4.39 Planning 4 3.57 1 1.10 Organizing 3 2.68 3 3.30 Compensation 3 2.68 2 2.20 Employee Relations 3 2.68 2 2.20 N=112 %=IIUT60 = 1 %=106.oo 127 confrontations. May have been precipitated by unresolved concerns of minority group students, or by ROTC-related protests, or by reactions to national or international events. Staffing: Refers to securing peOple with the appropriate skills and/or knowledge and placing them properly. Also involves transfers, demotions, promotions, and separations. Non-reappointments for non-tenured faculty were included in this category. Governance: Involves efforts to establish, reorganize or maintain academic, student, or community governance structures . Controlling: Refers to the process of evaluating performance in comparison to desired standards, and taking steps to bring performance in line with expectations. Also includes the president's involvement in establishing a student conduct code delineating acceptable standards of behavior, in establishing a judicial process for stu- dents, and in taking steps to insure residence hall security. GoverningiBoard: Involves relations between the governing board and the president, the faculty, the administration, and the students. Involves questions of appropriate board membership and efforts to increase the effectiveness of the board. 128 Public Relations: Involves contact with the press, the local community, the state legislature, the federal government, and other non—campus publics. Student Relations: Includes efforts by the presi— dent to establish good relations with students, either on his own initiative or in response to student initiative. Also includes special efforts by the president to meet student needs. Academic General: Involves matters of academic reform, student challenges to grades, and relations among the faculty. Subordinate Ineffectiveness: Refers to incidents where the president was forced to become involved due to a subordinate's mishandling of an assigned task or the inability of a subordinate to accept delegated authority. Also refers to cases of inappropriate style on the part of a subordinate. Planning: Involves the establishment of insti- tutional priorities, long-range planning, and decisions related to institutional continuance (should the institution be maintained or closed). Organizing: Includes efforts to modify or re- structure the administrative organization of the insti- tution. 129 Compensation: Refers to the process of deter- mining salary schedules for faculty and administrators. Also includes collective bargaining-related incidents when bargaining was the means of determining compensation and benefits. Employee Relations: Includes efforts by the president to positively influence employee morale and to work with the faculty to effect desired changes. Analysis of Critical Problem Categories "Finance" and "Campus Unrest" were the two Critical Problem Categories containing the greatest number of inci— dents. The extent to which finance-related incidents were effective or ineffective in the eyes of the reporting presidents, and the extent to which they were reported by new and experienced presidents is shown in Table 19. From the information in Table 20 it is evident that finance- related incidents constituted a higher percentage of the incidents related by the experienced presidents than was the case for the new presidents, although the difference in the actual number of incidents is slight. For experi— enced presidents the number of effective and ineffective incidents were identical, whereas new presidents reported one more effective than ineffective finance—related incidents. As noted in the description of this Critical Problem Category, certain of the "Finance" incidents 130 oauz oauz Nm.mH 5N m Hm.mm HN m m>Huume06H 50.9H om m vh.HN MN m 0>Hu0mmmm mflHd mmHm Inmucmowmwum cmocmuummxm numucmoummum omocwwummxm huz mflz vo.ma MN m mN.VH Hm m m>Hu00HmmGH mm.MH on v om.NH VN m w>Hu00Hmm mucmouocu Hum mucmouocu omuomumm Ilmucmoummum 3oz unmucwoumoum 3oz mucmcuocH mumwmwmwm mucmpuocH mucwmwowm ucoo Mom wanwmmom ucoo new manflmmom o H mo umnEsz mocmcum mo umnEdz mocmcum mo yonsdz mo umnEdz AmucmowocH mo mcofiumowuwmmmau m>wuoommmm mnu u0m mmmm muma mnu mm coma mucocwocH mo umnEdz mnu ou cofiumamm cuv omumamm oocmcflm muoz coanz mucmnfiocH m>uuommmmcH 0cm m>wuomwmm mo Honesz mnu mo mumsesmun.o~ mqmde 131 involved institutional responses to financial crises. These responses are of interest, given the financial dilemmas in which many institutions of higher education currently find themselves. In two private affiliated institutions, the respective presidents and governing boards determined that the financial difficulties facing their institutions were of such magnitude that drastic measures were called for, to and including the freeZing of faculty salaries for the next year (this was prior to the National Wage-Price Freeze). In both institutions the faculty accepted the freeze with little or no reaction, but, interestingly enough, in both situations the presi- dents reported subsequent ineffective aspects of their actions. In one of the institutions the president had made such a convincing statement to the effect that no one would be receiving raises, that he later encountered great reaction when he sought to raise the salaries of certain individuals who had clearly been given increased responsibilities. The second president found his faculty to be personally generous but professionally stingy. In spite of his pleadings for reduced budget requests, the department chairmen continued to submit requests that showed no effort whatsoever to reduce costs. When the president had to make dramatic cutbacks there was much unhappiness. Thus, whereas the faculty and department chairmen alike had accepted without a murmur the freeze 132 on their own personal salaries, they were unwilling to accept similar constraints on departmental budgets. At another private affiliated college, a new presi- dent also found himself facing a substantial budget deficit. His response was to put together a task force of students, faculty, one other administrator and himself and they fashioned a budget for the next fiscal year which pared $500,000 from the existing budget. It was this president's feeling that this reduced budget would have been far less acceptable if the task force which put it together had not been so representative. At another small affiliated institution the presi— dent and his wife participated in a fund—raising event that the students were sponsoring. The event was a "walk— a-thon" and the president feels his involvement was effective in terms of the money raised for the college, in terms of public relations for the college, and in terms of enhanced relations between the president and the stu— dents. In Table 21, a breakdown is given of the incidents related to campus unrest. As is shown, twelve of the seventeen incidents involving campus unrest were reported by experienced presidents, with three effective incidents reported for each ineffective one. Of the five incidents involving campus unrest that were reported by new presi— dents, three were ineffective and two effective. The 133 N uz muz HH.HH mm m m>.v am a m>uu0mwmmcH oo.om on m vv.om mm b m>Huommmm 33¢ mmHm numucocummum omocmwuomxm Ismucmowmmum omocmaummxm muz muz vo.ma mm m mm.¢a Hm m o>wuowmmmcH no.o om m mm.m «N m m>auommmm mucocuocH Had mucwpuocH omuomamm numucmcummum 3oz unmucmpwmwum 3oz mucmofiocH mucmowocH mucmoflocH cmumawm mucmouocH omumamm ucmu umm manummom ummuco ucmo mom manflmmom ummucs mo nonesz msmemo mo quEsz msmEmu mo umnEsz mo Monasz AmucmpwocH mo mGOflumowmwmmmHu w>fiuommmmm mnu Mo onu mm poms mucmcflocH mo HmnEsz mnu ou coaumamm cfiv omumamm ummuco m5 Emu mmmm muse mums noflnz mucmvaocH 0>HuoommmcH can 0>Huommmm mo Honesz msu mo humEEdmul.Hm mqmda 134 nature of these incidents involving campus unrest provide insights into the diversity of situations faced by the presidents who participated in the study. Seven of the seventeen incidents involved either a sit-in or a building takeover. At one public university, a group of students responded to the announcement of the Cambodian invasion by taking over the building that housed the ROTC offices. At another, a group of black students sought to dramatize their demands by attempting to take over the adminis- tration building. At yet another public institution, black students took over a cafeteria in the student center after a series of unrelated incidents had heightened racial tension on the campus. At a smaller private affiliated institution, a new president's efforts to block a threatened sit-in by blacks led to increased tension and, eventually, a takeover of the administration building. At another small liberal arts college, students began a sit-in in the administration building, but left before the building was closed for the night. Miscalculation of what it would take to satisfy black student demands resulted in a strike that paralyzed one large public university. A number of faculty joined in the strike and the president became involved in writing a strike policy concerning faculty strike action. At a private affiliated college, a black faculty member engaged repeatedly in disruptive behavior that in turn polarized the campus and the local 135 community. The effective handling of racial tension at a private independent college was called by its president, "the most important incident in the recent history of this college." Two presidents, one of a private inde- pendent college and the other of a public university, reported instances of campus unrest that occurred on their campuses in response to the Kent State and/or Jackson State killings. A third president felt that the disruption of a ROTC Presidential Review, although it occurred more than a year after the Kent State incident, could still be attributed as an attempt on the part of some of the students at this public university in Ohio to respond to what had happened at Kent. The manner in which presidents responded to these instances of campus unrest reflects the diversity of the institutions and the presidents represented in this study. This can be illustrated by taking two of the incidents where black students took over a building. Both inci- dents occurred at public universities, although the sizes of the universities differed substantially. One of the presidents was new, the other experienced. In the one case, involving the new president in the smaller public university, he and the vice—president for student affairs met with the black students from 4:00 a.m. until noon, whereupon the blacks felt their concerns were satisfied and ended the takeover. In the case of the experienced 136 president, he had security guards stationed in the build- ing in anticipation of the takeover. When the black stu- dents entered the building and put chains on the door, the security guards were instructed to use the bolt cutters they had with them to cut the chains and reOpen the build— ing. Any students caught resisting this operation or seek- ing to prevent free access to the building were arrested. The actions of the above-mentioned presidents seem diametrically opposed, yet both presidents could and did consider their responses to the incidents to be effec— tive given the outcomes. Incidents involving some aspect of the Staffing process were perceived by twelve separate presidents as having had an impact on their own effectiveness. These twelve presidents, seven new and five experienced, re- ported fifteen incidents which involved staffing. In Table 22 a summary is given of the extent to which these presidents perceived their involvement in the staffing process to have been effective or ineffective. As shown in the table, new presidents reported two effective staff- ing incidents for each ineffective incident (for a total of six effective and three ineffective), whereas the experienced presidents reported five ineffective inci- dents and only one effective incident that pertained to this category. 137 muZ muz mm.ma 5N m mo.mH Hm v 0>Huomwm0CH MM.M 0M H mM.v MN H O>Hu0mmwm mflHUOMMmCH oo.om CM 0 Mm.om «N m O>Hu0mmmm mucmnuocu Hus mucmcuocH wmuomumm IlmucmvfimmHm 302 Ilmucwmvflmmunm 3mz mucmmvHUCH WUCMUWUMH muchHUCH WUCMUWUMH “GNU Hwnm @HQHWMOQ OWHWMMUM UCflU Hmm wflnfimmom DWHWMMUM MO HmQESZ M0 wmngsz MO HQQESZ MO mmmngz AmpchHUGH MO WGOflUMUHMHmmMHU m>fluomnmmmm m3“ .HO mmmm mumo ecu mm coma mucmoflocH mo Honssz onu ou cOAuMHmm Gav mconHooo cammmum nm>uo>cH noun: mucmcuoaH m>uuommmmcH can m>uuummmm mo nmnasz msu mo sumsesmuu.mm mamas 138 The description of the staffing process given by French,1 was used as the basis for the definition for this category. Incidents were thus included which covered the flow of events from manpower planning through separations. The incidents reported by the new presidents tended to concentrate on reassignments and the selection of their own administrative team, whereas experienced presidents tended to report incidents related to nonreappointment and other staffing problems. Dramatically different approaches to the question of staffing were exemplified, however, by two new presidents, one of whom related as effective his decision ESE to make any personnel changes during his first year in office, whereas the other re- ported as effective his decision to almost completely realign the cabinet and to begin to build "his own team." Governance was the only other Critical Problem Category to contain more than 10 per cent of all the incidents. Hodgkinson,2 found that the largest single category of institutional change reported by the presi— dents in his study, "had to do with changes in internal authority and in the governance structure of the insti— tution." A clue as to the reasons for these changes may lWendell French, The Personnel Management Process (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964), p. 111. 2Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transition, 0p. cit., p. 139. 139 exist in the findings of the present study, in that in five of the twelve governance-related incidents the presidents themselves were the ones who were seeking to effect changes in the governance structures of their institutions. The direction in which the presidents desired to see the change occur, was toward greater participation in decision making by representatives of all members of the academic community. In three of the five cases the presidents felt their efforts were effective. One of the remaining presi— dents reported as ineffective his inability to interest students in a community government structure, and the other president's efforts to initiate a proposal for a joint student-faculty body were met with suspicion by both groups. The seven remaining governance incidents dealt with the president's relations with either the academic or the student council. In Table 23 a summary of the twelve incidents is given with respect to whether the presidents reporting them were new or experienced, and with respect to the extent to which the presidents perceived their involvement in the governance incidents to have been effective or ineffective. The definition for the Critical Problem Category 0f CCDntrolling was based upon the "administrative pro— Cesses" model of the organization. Under this model, controdling involves the process of evaluating performance in comparison to some desired standard, and of taking 140 m ll Z av.h NN N oo.oa om M ded Inmuceoflmeum Oeocefiuemxm Muz Nm.m HN N mM.v MN a mmHm aumucepflmeum Oeocefluemxm huz wuz vo.MH MN M Nm.m HN N e>fluoemmecH MM.MH on v hm.ma VN v e>Huoemmm muceOHocH Had mucepflocH Oeuoeaem numucesflmeum 3ez Inmuceoflmeum Bez muceOuocH mucepwocH . eocmcue>ou . eocscue>oo mo Hecfidz mo uecEsz mo uecEdz mo necesz AmucepflocH mo mcoflumOHmammsHU e>fluoemmem emu Hem emsm muse ecu ms memo mucecaocH mo necesz ecu ou COHumHem cflv eocmcue>oo sm>uo>cu nous: mucssuoau m>uuommmmcu scs m>uuommem so umnssz mnu so assessmuu.m~ mamas e>HuoemmecH e>fluoemmm 141 steps to bring performance in line with expectations.1 In the present study, the concept was extended to also in- clude incidents in which the president was involved in establishing desired standards for student behavior, and in establishing means to bring student behavior in line with these standards or expectations. In Table 24, a summary is given of the extent to which presidents per- ceived their involvement in these control—related inci- dents to have been effective, ineffective, or iffy. Of seven incidents in this category, three were related to faculty evaluation, three were related to student conduct policies, and one was related to matters Of residence hall security which also included conduct implications. The eighth incident, the "iffy" incident, related to a decision by the president of a private affiliated college to con— tinue a system of requiring students to earn a specific number of "points" for graduation. The points could be earned by chapel attendance and/or by attendance at cul- tural events or lectures. A number of students had agitated over the years for the abolishment of the point system, but the president decided to retain it in that he felt it helped to emphasize that for which the college stood. Parents have OVerwhelmingly supported the presi— dent's decision to stay with this system, but the president was not certain that the incident could be considered 1French, Op. cit., p. 48. 142 muz vuz 00.00H H H oo.00H H H =smsH= on.m um H nun Hm I m>HuommmscH oo.OH on m so.MH mm m m>Huommmm m€H4 mmHm numucevwmeum Oeocewuemxm nsmucepflmeum Oeoceauemxm MHZ MHZ mm.4 mm H sn.4 Hm H m>HuomsmmcH ps.s om m mm.m «N N m>Huommsm mucmsuocH HHs mucmsHocH smuomHmm Ilmucepfimeum 3ez Inmucepameum 3ez muchHOGH muWMWWMMW muCOmVHUCH muWMWMm—WMW uceo Hem eacummom Houucou uceu Hem eacflmmom Houucou mo necesz mo Hecasz mo uecEsz mo necfisz AmuceouocH mo mcowusoHMHmmsHu e>wuoemmem ecu mow emsm susn ecu mm news muceOflOcH mo necadz ecu ou cowusaem ch mcflaaouucoo U0>HO>GH SOHQK mfiGmCflUGH O>HUUQMH®GH U20 0>flUOOMHm MO H0952 m5». “0 %Hfl§mll.fim QO¢B 143 totally effective because there was still strong student sentiment against the point system. The president thus classified the incident as "iffy." The incidents which comprised the Governing Board Critical Problem Category were quite diverse in nature and illustrated the active roles presidents were assuming in relation to their governing boards. In two of the inci- dents the presidents were instrumental in bridging gaps which had existed previously between their boards and particular segments Of the academic community. In one incident an experienced president of a small private affiliated college succeeded in convincing the board to accept a recently graduated alumnus as a voting member. In the second incident a new president Of a private affiliated college was successful in having the board open its meetings to greater participation by faculty and administrators. The result has been enhanced trust and communication between the board and these groups. Two other presidents reported ineffective incidents with respect to the governing boards of their institutions. One, a new president of a private affiliated college, has been unsuccessful in involving his board in fund raising. The board has taken the stance that the president was hired to handle this. An experienced president of a similar institution reported that he had been ineffective in his efforts to change the status of his board from that 144 of a ceremonial body to that of a fully functioning, vigorous working body. A summary Of the effective and ineffective classifications of the Governing Board inci- dents is given in Table 25. The Public Relations Critical Problem Category contains incidents which occurred both inside and outside the institution, but which had a decisive influence on the public image or public relations of the institution. In one incident, the president had not been in Office even a week when a delicate public relations problem arose which threatened the well—being Of the entire institution. The problem related to a matter over which the new presi- dent had had no control, but it illustrated the fact that even presidents in their very first week of office are not immune from problems that potentially have a significant influence on their effectiveness. In this incident the new president was able to delegate the responsibility for handling the problem to the former acting president, and the problem was successfully resolved. Another new president reported two incidents in which he felt the institution had acted appropriately, but which he still reported as ineffective due to the manner in which the press reported them and the resulting damage to the institution's public image. A new president of another public university re- ported as effective his action tO convince the governing 145 muz muz Hv.n NN N Nm.m HN N e>HuoemmecH mm.m on H mm.e mN H e>Huoemmm mch mmHm Ilmucecheum OeoceHuemxm numuceOHmeum OeoceHuemxm vuz muz o>.m mN N Nm.m HN N e>HuoemmecH no.m on N NH.¢ vN H e>Huoemmm muceOHocH HHc muceOHocH oeuoeHem :ImuceOHmeum 3ez InmuceOHmeum 3ez muceOHocH muceOHocH muceOHocH OeusHem muceOHocH OeusHem uceu Hem eHchmom Ousom uceo Hem eHchmom cumom mo uecESZ ochue>Oo mo HecEdz mchue>ou mo uecEsz mo necesz AmuceOHocH mo chHusOHMHmmsHo e>HuoemmeMemu Mom emsMImuso ecu ms pews muceOHocH mo uecEdz ecu ou cOHusHem cHV Ousom mchue>Ou ecu se>Ho>cH BOch mucmsHocH m>HuommsscH scs m>Huommmm so umnesz ecu so Nussssmnu.m~ mamas 146 board to substitute a public relations effort, which benefited the entire university, for an expensive inaugu- ration for himself. The president felt his action has enhanced his reputation as a university president who was concerned about the taxpayer's dollar. A summary of the extent to which new and experi— enced presidents considered their involvement in public relations to have been effective or ineffective, and of the percentage of effective and ineffective incidents which this constituted, appears in Table 26. This infor— mation for the Academic General Critical problem Category appears in Table 27. Two incidents which were placed in the Academic General category because they involved aca- demic grades, were of particular interest because of the indications they give of the legalistic atmosphere now pervading society and higher education.1 In both incidents individual students were threatening to bring suit against a professor for having given them failing grades. In the one incident a new president of a private affiliated college was able to talk a male undergraduate out of pressing charges. The president was thus able to report this as an effective incident. In the second incident, however, a female graduate student in a large private independent university could not 1The remarks of an experienced president on the extent to which presidents must now concern themselves ‘with.lega1 matters, appear in Chapter V. 147 NHZ Hal-Z on.m NN H on.v HN H e>HuoemmecH mm.m on H In: mm u e>Huoemum 93¢ mmHm IlmuceOHmeum OeoceHuemxm aumuceOHmeum OeoceHuemxm muz vuz on.m mN N Nm.m HN N e>HuoemmecH oo.OH on m mm.m «N N e>Huoemmm muceOHocH HHc muceOHocH OeuoeHem InmuceOHmeum 3ez InmuceOHmeum 3ez muceOHocH mucecHocH muceOHocH OeusHem muceOHocH OeusHem uceo uem eHchmom mGOHusHem uceo Hem eHchmom mcoHusHem «0 uecEsz OHHcsm mo uecEsz OHHcsm mo uecEsz mo uecEsz AmuceOHocH mo mcoHusOHMHmmsHu e>Huoemmem ecu Mom emsm sumo snu ms sums mucmsHocH mo umbesz ecu ou coHusHmm aHv mcoHusHmm oHHnsm ce>HO>cH cOch muceOHocH e>HuoemuecH Ocs e>Huoemmm mo nececz ecu mo >usEEdmll.mN mcmde 148 Huz Huz on.M NN H wh.v HN H e>wuoemmecH III cm I III MN I e>wuoemmm mHuoeumecH oo.OH on M MM.m VN N e>wuoemmm mucecwocH HHd muceUHUcH OeuoeHem IImuceOHmeum 3ez IImuceOHmeum 3ez muchHOGH m#MMWWWMW mflcmmVHOGH GUMMWWMMW uceU Hem eHchmom OHEeOmo< uceu Hem eHchmom UHEeOmod mo necesz . mo uecEsz . mo uecEsz mo nececz AmuceOHocH mo mcoHusOHmHmmsHU e>Huoemmem ecu How emmm susn ecu ms memo muceOHocH mo HecEcz ecu ou coHusHem cHV mcueocoo Hsueceo OHEeosoc Oe>HO>cH cOHcS muceOHocH e>HuoemuecH Ocs e>Huoemmm mo HecEdz ecu mo NusEEchI.NN Manda 149 be swayed in her determination to press charges and the case was in litigation at the time of the interview. Even though the president anticipated that the professor and the university would win the case, he reported the inci- dent as ineffective because his efforts to prevent liti— gation had failed and because of the adverse publicity the school had already received over the case. In the Hemphill and Walberg study, presidents in New York reported that a major roadblock to their effec— tiveness was the time taken up by administrative detail (at the expense of more important matters). Presidents reported that they were forced to spend their time in this fashion due to a lack of competence on the part of sub- ordinate administrators.1 In the present study at least five incidents so clearly represented instances where the president was forced to become involved because Of subordi- nate ineffectiveness, that a Critical Problem Category was developed under this label. Other incidents in the study also reflected examples of subordinate ineffeciency or ineffectiveness, but the major thrust of the incidents lay in other problem areas and they were categorized accordingly. Two of the incidents in this category in- ‘volved the student personnel dean, one the entire student personnel division, one an unidentified subordinate, and :finally, a business manager. Each of the incidents was 1Hemphill and Walberg, Op. cit., pp. 55-56. 150 reported by a different president and four were classified by the presidents as ineffective, one as iffy (see Table 28). In the Student Relations Critical Problem Category, four of the incidents were effective and one ineffective (see Table 29). Two of the five incidents involved efforts by the respective presidents to provide increased Oppor- tunities for the black students on their campuses to estab— lish their identity. The new president Of a small private affiliated college enhanced his relations with students by making it a practice to eat with them several times a week in the student dining room. The new president of a public university demonstrated his concern for students by organizing a special effort to see that the placement needs of graduating students were being met. In the only ineffective incident in the Student Relations category, the new president Of a large private independent university was seeking to facilitate student interests by helping to bring the necessary parties to- gether to set up a major event. The president felt the students were deceitful, however, in that they turned the event into a rock festival. This resulted in some HuommmmcH III on I III mm I m>Huommmm aaHs amHm IImuceOHmeum OeoceHuemxm IImuceOHmeum OeoceHuemxm Nuz Nuz oo.OOH H H oo.o0H H H =HMMH= mm.4 mm H $5.4 Hm H s>HuomemmcH III on I III am I m>Huomuum muceOHocH HHm mucepHocH OeuoeHem IImucepHmeum 3ez IImuceOHmeum 3ez muceOHocH muceOHOcH muceOHocH mmec muceOHocH mmec uceo Hem eHchmOm Ie>HuoeumecH uceo Hem eHchmom Ie>HuoemmecH mo uececz euschuocsm mo necesz eumcHnuocsm mo uecEdz mo uecEsz AmuceOHocH mo chHusOHMHmmsHU e>Huoeamem emu Hem emmmIsuso ecu ms new: muceOHocH mo necEdz ecu ou cOHusHem cHV mmece>HuoemmecH eumcHOuocsm sm>Ho>cH nOch mucosHoaH m>HuomuumcH sum m>Huommmm so amnesz was so assessmII.mm mamas 152 Huz HHZ III 5N I III HN I e>HuoemwecH mm.m om H mm.v MN H e>Huoemmm m¢H¢ mmHm IImuceOHmeum OeoceHuemxm IImuceOHmeum ceoceHuemxm vuz Muz mm.v MN H mn.v HN H e>HuoemmecH oo.OH on m mm.m «N N e>Huoemum muceOHocH HHc muceOHocH OeuoeHem IImuceOHmeum 3ez IImucesHmeum 3ez “fins ”mum“... uceu uem eHchmom udepsum uceu Hem eHchmom uqepsum mo uecEsz mo uecEcz mo HecEdz mo HecEsz AmucecHocH mo chHusOHMHmmsHU e>Huoemmem ecu Mom emsm sumo ecu am new: mucecHocH mo HecEdz ecu ou cOHumHem cHV chHusHem ucecuum sm>Ho>cH coch mucmsHocH m>HuomuumcH scs o>Huommmm so amnesz mcu mo assessmII.mN mamas 153 The Critical Problem Category of Planning contained the only incident in the study which involved an event that occurred prior to the time the individual became president. The incident was included, however, because it led to the appointment Of the individual as president and was a pivotal event in the life of the college. At the time of the incident the individual was a consultant to the college and he made a recommendation that the institution remain Open. The governing board felt that, if the institution was to survive, it needed someone at its helm who believed in its future. They, therefore, asked this person to accept the presidency. This incident and the other three related by this president also represented the only inci— dents where the actual continuance of the institution potentially hinged on the outcomes Of the incidents. Two presidents, one the new president of a small private affiliated college and the other the experienced president of a large public university with over 20,000 students, reported as ineffective their inability to get their institutions to OOpe more effectively with long- range planning. The new president was specifically con- cerned with his inability to convince the dean of the college to move from an ad hoc method of operation to a Inethod based on prior planning, whereas the experienced president was generally concerned about the lack of long- range planning for the institution as a whole. 154 The final incident in the Planning category was reported by an experienced president of another large public university with over 20,000 students. The president re— ported as ineffective his inability to persuade the faculty to reorder their priorities to what he felt should be the priorities for faculty in an institution of that nature. The summary for the number and per cent of effective and ineffective incidents in the Planning category appears in Table 30. Two of the three incidents in the Organizing Criti- cal Problem Category were reported by the experienced president Of a public college, and were sequentially re— lated. The first incident in the sequence extended back beyond the suggested eighteen—month time Span, but it was retained as part Of the data given its relationship to the more current incident. The first incident involved the president's attempts to put into practice a theory of administrative organization that he felt had validity. The president still felt that the theory had its merits, but his attempts to implement the theory at this college "failed quite dramatically." As a result, they have had to completely revise the administrative structure of the college. The revision process was reported as the second incident in the sequence and the outcome in this case was effective in the eyes of the president. 155 H4.» nm N III HN I m>HuusmumcH III on I III mm I m>Huosumm mmHs . amHm IImuceoneuo OeoceHueoxm IImuceoneum oeoceHueoxm nme Hmm mm.w MN H III HN I e>HuoemmecH mm.m om H NH.4 4N H w>Huosmmm mucmsHocH HHm mucmsHocH ssuomHmm IImuceOHmeuo 3ez IImuceOHmeuo 3ez muceoHocH muceoHocH muceoHocH muceOHocH uceu ueo eHchmoo mchcsHo uceu ueo eHchmOm mchcmHm mo Heceoz mo Heceoz mo Heceoz mo Heceaz AmuceoHocH mo chHusOHMHmmsHO e>fiuoeomem e u now emsm sumo ecu ms Oemo muceoHocH mo ueceoc ecu ou cOHusHem cHV chcsHo Oe>HO>cH cOch muceoHocH e>HuoemmecH ocm e>Huoemmm mo uecEdz ecu mo NHsEEomII.om mamca 156 The remaining incident in the Organizing category was reported by the experienced president of a small pri- vate affiliated college and was an expression of his con- cern over the presence Of a faculty representative on his cabinet. The president felt that there were occasions when the academic dean could not discuss his concerns regarding individual faculty due to the presence Of this faculty representative. The president felt, however, that because he failed to take a firm stand on the cabinet organization when he first came to the institution, he now could not remove the faculty representative without severely damaging his relations with the faculty. Thus, while the initial instance of ineffectiveness fell outside the eighteen-month period, the president reported this as an "incident" in which he felt a continuing sense of in- effectiveness. The summary Of the number and per cent of effective and ineffective incidents in the Organizing Critical Problem Category appears in Table 31. Of the incidents that fell within the Compensation Critical Problem Category, one related to the stance one administrator took when the faculty began to move toward collective bargaining, and the other two illustrated the Imanner in which two presidents handled the establishment <1f new programs Of faculty compensation at their respec- ‘tive institutions. All three of the incidents were per— ceived by the three experienced presidents who reported them to have been effective in nature (see Table 32) . 157 A... Muz H¢.N NN N MM.M om H mHuoemwecH mm.v MN H e>Huoemmm mmHm IImuceoneuo oeoceHuemxm III HN I e>HuoemmecH III «N I e>Huoemmm muceoHocH oeuoeHem IImuceoneuo 3ez mucesHocH muceoHocH eHchmom mcHNHcsmuo mo necEdz mo uechz uceo Hem uceu Hem muceoHocH muceOHocH eHchmoo ocHNHcsmuo mo Heceoz mo Hecesz AmuceoHocH mo chHusOHMHmmmHU e>Huoeomem e u HON mmflm ”HMO 0E” mm UOWD muchflUGH MO HOQ§Z 0E“ 0U GOHHMHOK Cunv cHNHcs no UN>HO>GH SUHSS mUCmUHUGH m>H900MMwGH UGM m>fl90mmmm MO Hmflgz 05». MO >HM§m||.Hm NAQ49 158 hmm III EN I 00.0H OM M m¢H¢ IImuceoneuo OeoceHueoxm III MN I III on I mucmsHocH HH< IImuceoneuo 3ez mmm III HN I e>HuoemmecH on.m MN N e>Huoemmm omHm IImuceOHmeuo oeoceHueoxm III HN I e>HuoemmecH III wN I e>Huoemmm muceoHocH OeuoeHem IImuceOHmeuo 3ez m cm HUG muceoHocH u cW+usw uceo use eHonmom Icemsoo mo uechz mo uechz m cm Ho: muceoHocH u cmwusw uceu ueo eHchmoo IcemEOu mo uecEsz mo Heceoz AmuceoHocH mo chHusOHmHmmsHu e>Huoeomem ecw Hem emsm sumo ecu ms memo muceoHocH mo Hecsoz ecu ou cOHusHem ch cOHusmcemEOU ©e>HO>cH cowcz muceUHOCH e>HuoemmecH was e>Huoemmm MO HenEsz ecu HO Kn.HsH..HEHHmII.NM mqmdfi 159 The incidents in the final Critical Problem Cate— gory, Employee Relations, involved special efforts on the part of the presidents to influence faculty or faculty, staff, and administration actions. The presidents inti- mated that their effectiveness in these efforts depended to a great extent on their relations with these groups and this served as the basis for the label for the cate- gory. In two Of the incidents, one involving the experi— enced president of a public university and the other the experienced president of a private affiliated liberal arts college, the respective presidents were effective in in- fluencing faculty committees to reconsider actions they were proposing. The new president Of a small private independent college, on the other hand, expressed dis- appointment in the fact that he had been ineffective in convincing all college personnel that their support was needed to maintain the corporate image of the institution. This president felt quite strongly that the Optimism or pessimism which the employees reflected, could be a major factor in determining whether the institution survived. The summary for the Employee Relations Critical Problem Category appears in Table 33. Tables 34 through 37 contain summary information ‘which provide a synopsis of results of the incident analysis by Critical Problem Category. The tally Of the references presidents made to specific individuals or 160 Nuz HIIIZ III NN I III HN I e>HuoeumecH N@.@ on N mm.v MN H e>Huoeumm ode mmHm IImuceoneuo oeoceHueoxm IImuceoneuo oeoceHueoxm Huz HHZ mm.v MN H on.v HN H e>HuoemmecH III om I III vN I e>Huoemmm muceOHocH HHc muceouocH oeuoeHem IImuceoneum 3ez IImuceoneuo 3ez m ce Hoc m as He: muceoHocH monmmHem muceOHocH monmsHew uceu uem eHchmoo . uceo ueo eHchmoo . mo uecEsz eeNOHmEm eeNOHoEm mo uechz mo Hechz mo uecEsz AmuceoHocH mo mcoHusOHMHmmsHu e>Huoeomem ecu How emmm sumo ecu ms oemo muceOHocH mo uecsdz ecu ou cOHusHem cHV mGOHumHem eeNOHmEm oe>HO>cH cOch muceoHocH e>HuoemmecH ocs e>Huoemmm mo uecesz ecu mo NumEEOmII.MM wanes 161 TABLE 34.--Summary of the Number of Effective and In- effective Incidents by Critical Problem Categopy and Experience Level of the Presidents (Selected Incidents-Selected Presidents) Effective Ineffective Incidents Incidents New Experienced New Experienced Finance 3 5 3 5 Campus Unrest 2 7 3 1 Staffing 5 l 3 4 Governance 4 1 2 2 Controlling 2 3 l — Governing Board 1 1 2 2 Public Relations 2 — 2 1 Academic General 2 - 2 1 Subordinate Ineffectiveness - - 1 Student Relations 2 l l - Planning 1 - - Organizing - l - 2 Compensation - 2 - — Employee Relations - l l - 162 TABLE 35.--Summary of the Number of Effective and Ineffec- tive Incidents by Critical Problem Category and Experience Level of the Presidents (All Inci— dents-All Presidents) ——.__.._ Effective Ineffective Incidents Incidents New Experienced New Experienced Finance 4 5 3 5 Campus Unrest 2 9 3 3 Staffing 6 1 3 5 Governance 4 3 3 2 Controlling 2 3 l 1 Governing Board 2 l 2 2 Public Relations 3 l 2 1 Academic General 3 — 2 l Subordinate Ineffectiveness - - l 3 Student Relations 3 l 1 — Planning 1 - l 2 Organizing — l - 2 Compensation - 3 - - Employee Relations — 2 l — 2 II I» 0 2 ll Lu 0 2 II N Lu 2 II N \I 163 00.00Hu4 mmmm oo.00Hu4 mwmm N NN.N H N NH.N H mcoHusHmm mmNoHEEm m 44.4 N I II I cOHusmceoEOo m Ns.s m I II I mcHNHcmmuo I II I N NH.N H mchcsHm N NN.N H m Nm.s m mcoHusHmm ucsssum m as.s m s mm.4 N mmmcm>HuomuumcH euscHouocom N NN.N H 4 oa.m 4 Hsumcmo UHEmssoa N NN.N H 4 oa.m 4 mcoHusHmm oHHnsa m es.s m m Nm.s m susom mchum>oo 4 4m.m 4 m Nm.s m mcHHHouucoo m 4s.s m N 4o.mH s mocsqum>oo m HH.HH m H NN.NH m mchmsum N mN.NH m m mN.OH m umeuco madame H NN.NN OH N 4o.mH s mocsaHm ccsm uceu Hem uechz xcsm uceu Hem uechz muceoneuo OeoceHueoxm muceoneuo 3ez Amuceoumeuo oeuoeHeMImuceoHocH oeuoeHemv muceoneuo oeoceHueoxm ocs 3ez uom Nuomeusu EeHcouo HsOHuHuo ueo muceoHocH mo xcmm ocs .uceu ueo .uecESZII.mM mamas 164 00.00Hu4 mmmm 00.00Hum 4m" N m4.m N N mm.H H mcoHusHmm mmNoHQEN m NH.m M I II I cOHusmceoEOu s NH.m m I II I mcHNHcmmuo N m4.m N s ON.N N mchcsHm N m4.m N 4 H4.N 4 mcoHusHmm unassum s NH.m m s ON.m N mmmcm>HuosmmscH mHMGHGHOQSm m NN.H H m sN.m m Hsumcmo oNEmssos N m4.m N m sN.m m mcoHumHmm.oHHnsm s NH.m m 4 H4.N 4 names mchum>oo m om.s 4 m sm.m m mcHHHouucoo 4 Ns.m m N sm.NH N mocscum>oo m mm.OH s H Ns.sH m mcHsusum H as.0N NH m sN.m m ummuco msmeso N 4N.NH OH N 4N.NH N mocscHN xcmm “#ch Hmm HODESZ xcmm #GQU Hem HwQESZ muceOHmeuo oeoceHueoxm muceoumeuo 3ez Amuceoneuo HHaImuceoHocH HHcV muceoumeuo oeoceHueoxm ocs 3ez uOm Nuomeuso EeHcOuo HsOHuHHU ueo muceOHocH mo xcsm ocm .uceo ueo .uecESZII.NM momma 165 groups, which was the final stage of the analysis, appears in Appendix C. Questions of Interest The results of the incident analysis led to the following conclusions regarding the "Questions of Inter- est" which have served as a basis for the study. These questions were listed in Chapter III but will be repeated here. 1. Are new presidents facing essentially similar or different types of incidents than is the case for experienced presidents? Certain new presidents reported incidents which they felt were specifically related to their newness. Consideration of these incidents led the researcher to conclude that, while they may have been related to the presidents' newness in either or both the institution or the position in the institution, they were not incidents which were the result of newness to the presidency. Although one new president indicated that he pur- posely planned to make no personnel changes in his first year, and to keep other changes to a minimum, many of the other new presidents reported that they felt they had both the Opportunity and the Obligation to make some dramatic changes in the Operation and/or personnel of their institutions. Experienced presidents were also involved 166 in instituting changes, however, so involvement in change was not one-sided. The information in Table 37 shows that, when all incidents were considered, all Critical Problem Categories contained at least one incident reported by an experi- enced president. Two categories, Organizing and Compen— sation, did not contain any incidents reported by new presidents. Both categories contained only three inci— dents, however, and in the Organizing category two Of the three incidents were reported by one experienced president. The overall impression that was gained from a thorough review of all incidents was that, while certain incidents did relate to transitions in administrations, and were thus different from the types of incidents experienced presidents were reporting, the majority of incidents reported by new and experienced presidents in- volved very similar problems and concerns. Questions 2 and 3 will be considered together due to their similarity and the nature of the reporting. 2. Will effective incidents as reported by experi- enced presidents show any marked differences from effective incidents reported by new presidents with respect to the reference groups involved and/or the types of situations confronted? 167 3. Will ineffective incidents as reported by experienced presidents show any marked differ— ences from ineffective incidents reported by new presidents with respect to the reference groups involved and/or the types of situations confronted? The reader is referred to Tables 17 and 18 for a summary of the effective and ineffective incidents which involved specific reference groups, and to Tables 34 and 35 for the summary by Critical Problem Category. One of the more interesting findings Of the study was that both new and experienced presidents reported more effective than ineffective incidents involving students. When selected incidents were considered (Table 17), new presi- dents reported three effective incidents for every two ineffective incidents with students, and the experienced presidents reported three effective incidents for each ineffective incident. This ratio was closer to two effec- tive for each ineffective for the eXperienced presidents dealings with students when all incidents were considered (13 effective, 7 ineffective). With faculty-related inci- dents, the experienced presidents reported two effective incidents for each ineffective (when all incidents were considered), whereas the new presidents reported one less effective than ineffective incident. In incidents where administrators constituted the primary reference group, neither new nor experienced presidents reported as many effective as ineffective incidents. 168 When the types of incidents were considered as represented by the Critical Problem Categories, the most impressive finding concerned incidents involving campus unrest, and was the fact that experienced presidents re- ported three effective incidents for each ineffective incident. New presidents reported fewer incidents involv- ing campus unrest and they reported one less effective than ineffective incident. Staffing was a category where a distinct difference appeared between the two groups of presidents in the direction of success. Whereas new presidents reported two effective incidents for each ineffective incident (6 effective, 3 ineffective), experienced presidents reported only one effective and five ineffective inci- dents pertaining tO staffing. Differences did thus appear in the extent to which new and experienced presidents were meeting with success or difficulty in OOping with various types of incidents involving varying reference groups. The differ- ences were by no means all in one direction, however. 4. DO particular training needs become evident as a result Of the types of incidents with which presi— dents are confronted and/or the measure Of success or lack Of same they are experiencing in handling these situations? 169 The number and nature Of the incidents involving financial decisions, clearly revealed the need for presi— dents with training in this area. The presidents in the study reported as many effective as ineffective incidents in this category (see Tables 34 and 35), but even some of the effective incidents were in areas of deficit budgeting. Although campus unrest currently appears to be on the wane, the results Of the study emphasize the importance of training presidents to be able to OOpe with confron- tation situations. The experienced presidents who partici- pated in the study reported a large measure of success in this area. Possibly this is the reason they survived the unrest period. Presidents definitely need to be sensitized to the life style, feelings, and needs Of minority individuals and groups. Over 11 per cent of all incidents involved black students and/or black faculty. While the presidents re- ported more effective than ineffective incidents involving blacks, the impact the minority student can have on the effectiveness of the president was clearly demonstrated. One president considered the effective handling Of a racially tense campus setting to have been the most criti— cal incident in the life of the college in recent years. He also felt that it was a pivotal point in his presi- dency for he actually placed his job on the line with the governing board, asking for a vote of confidence regarding his handling of the situation. 170 In essence, each Critical Problem Category could be said to represent a training need or multiple training needs. The incidents presented by the twenty-six presi- dents reflected the diversity of situations with which the president must deal. They reflected the variety of consti- tuencies or publics with whom the president must interact. The president Obviously needs extensive training as a manager and a human relator. 5. In the Hemphill and Walberg study, the presidents reported that a "major roadblock" to their effec- tiveness was the amount of time they had to spend on administrative matters. They considered the necessity, in turn, to be a result Of the incompe- tence of their subordinates. This led to the question of whether the incidents reported in the current study would reflect a similar appraisal of subordinate effectiveness. The results of the incident analysis supported the Hemphill and Walberg finding that subordinates constitute a major roadblock to the effectiveness of many presidents. There were differences, however, in the way the roadblocks appeared in the incidents and the way the presidents in the Hemphill and Walberg study reported them. In the Hemphill and walberg study, the roadblock was the need to spend time on administrative detail (brought on by subordi- nate incompetence), whereas in the incidents in this 171 study, the presidents felt they had to make decisions that subordinates should have made but would not make, or else they had to seek to resolve crises precipitated by the incompetent handling of affairs by subordinates. For additional information on this, the reader is referred to the section in this chapter where the incidents in the Subordinate Ineffectiveness Critical Problem Category were discussed. 6. Hemphill and Walberg asked selected presidents to relate some Of their initial successes. Most of the responses had to do with the organizational development of the institution. This led to the question of whether the effective incidents re— ported by the new presidents in the current study would reflect a similar tendency. The analysis revealed that new presidents were much more involved in staffing and in planning activities than in organizing. Thus, this finding would not be supported by the results of this study. Since presidents were only asked to relate four incidents, they may have been in— volved in organizing activities, but: (1) had not had the Opportunity to evaluate whether the changes were effective or ineffective, or; (2) did not consider the incidents involving organization to have had as significant an impact on their effectiveness as the ones they reported. 172 7. Several of the studies related information on the age, educational attainments, and mobility patterns of presidents. Would the demographic data col- lected in this study reflect similarities or differences with respect to these factors? The reader is referred to the first section of this chapter for a review of the demographic information on the participating presidents. This information re— flected similarities in the age, educational attainment, and mobility patterns of the presidents in the current study, and those in the Ferrari and Hodgkinson studies. 8. Campus unrest received extensive publicity during the period for which the presidents were asked to relate the incidents having an impact on their own effectiveness. To what extent, if any, did campus unrest come to the forefront in the incidents the presidents reported, and did the presidents per- ceive their responses to have been primarily effective or ineffective? Campus unrest was definitely perceived as having been critical to the effectiveness of numerous presidents. Finance was the only other area which involved as many incidents. The majority of the unrest incidents were reported by experienced presidents, and they perceived their involvement in confronting these situations to have been primarily effective. 173 Summary The present chapter included three major sections. In the first section the characteristics Of the twenty-six participating presidents were described. This was followed by an analysis of the critical incidents which these presi- dents reported. Finally, the implications the analysis held for the "Questions of Interest" were discussed. Characteristics of the Presidents Twelve of the twenty-six presidents met the speci- fications for being classified as "new," and fourteen met the specifications for being classified as "experienced." Eight of the new presidents held the Ph.D., two the Ed.D., and one each the D.B.A. and J.D. Nine experienced presi- dents held the Ph.D., one the Ed.D., and one each the L.L.B., M.A., M.ed., and B.D. The average age of the new presidents was just over 44; that of the experienced presi- dents close to 53. Although both new and experienced presidents had been in a variety of positions prior to their appointment as president, 81 per cent were in other positions in higher education. Two of the experienced presidents had served as presidents of other higher educational institutions prior to their present appointment. NO specific pattern Of mobility, other than the emphasis on previous higher educational experience, was evident from this data. 174 Twelve of the twenty-five presidents on whom this infor— mation was available had had some prior affiliation with the institution which they were serving as president. Analysis of the Critical Incidents The twenty—six presidents reported a total of 112 critical incidents: 60 of an effective nature (53.6 per cent); 50 Of an ineffective nature (44.6 per cent); and 2 which the presidents who reported them felt were signifi— cant, but which they could not yet classify as effective or ineffective in that the final outcomes were not yet known (1.8 per cent). The researcher categorized all 112 incidents on three separate occasions. The second classification agreed with the first on 94.6 per cent Of the categorizations, and the third categorization agreed with the second on 95.5 per cent of the categorizations. An independent judge with a strong research background independently categorized 10 per cent Of the incidents (12 incidents) and was in perfect agreement with the researcher's cate- gorizations on ten Of twelve or 83.33 per cent of these test incidents. The second judgment concerned whether a primary reference group or groups could be identified for each incident. Thus, the question which the researcher con- sidered was whether a particular individual or group was the primary focus of the president's attention. Students 175 were judged to be the primary reference group for more incidents than any other group, having been considered to be the primary referent for 32.14 per cent of all inci- dents. The faculty was the primary referent in 21.42 per cent Of all incidents and the administration in 16.07 per cent. The governing board was the only other single referent group for the internal incidents, and this body was considered to have been the primary reference group in 8.03 per cent of all incidents. For the external incidents, local citizens were the primary reference group for two incidents (1.79 per cent of all incidents), the press for two incidents, and the state for one (.89 per cent Of all incidents). Ten of the incidents the presi- dents reported involved no specific reference group. The third judgment concerned the nature of the problems which had precipitated these incidents. This was the heart of the analysis, for the major purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the nature Of the incidents with which new and experienced presidents were confronted, and which they identified as having been critical to their effectiveness. Forty categories were initially isolated from the 112 incidents. These forty categories were then grouped into fourteen Critical Problem Categories. These fourteen Critical Problem Categories, and the percentage of incidents they contained were: Finance (15.18 per cent); Campus Unrest (15.18 per cent); Staffing (13.39 176 per cent); Governance (10.71 per cent); Controlling (7.15 per cent); Governing Board (6.25 per cent); Public Re- lations (6.25 per cent); Academic General (5.36 per cent); Subordinate Ineffectiveness (4.46 per cent); Student Relations (4.46 per cent); Planning (3.57 per cent); Organizing (2.68 per cent); Compensation (2.68 per cent); and Employee Relations (2.68 per cent). When the incidents in the Critical Problem Cate— gories were tabulated by the type of reporting president, no category contained more than 16.67 per cent Of all incidents reported by new presidents, or more than 20.69 per cent of the incidents reported by experienced presi- dents. The category of Staffing contained more incidents than any other for new presidents (9 out of 54), and Campus Unrest contained the most incidents for experienced presidents (12 out of 58). Finance ranked second in number of incidents for both new and experienced presi- dents, with Governance also containing the same number of incidents for new presidents. Im lications for the Questions 0 Interest Eight questions were presented in Chapter III as examples of the types of questions which had initially led to the development of the study or which had been generated in response to the review of the literature. 177 In the present chapter the implications were discussed which the results of the incident analysis held for these questions. Question One asked whether new presidents were facing essentially similar or different types of incidents than was the case for experienced presidents. The data suggested that new presidents may have certain freedoms and/or Obligations to implement change, and thus more of the incidents they reported involved change, but incidents involving significant changes were not limited to new presidents. Questions Two and Three were related to whether differences would appear between the effective and in- effective incidents reported by the new and experienced presidents. The results of the analysis showed a number Of similarities and differences in this regard. With some reference groups the experienced presidents reported more incidents involving effective than ineffective out— comes, whereas new presidents reported more ineffective than effective outcomes. With other reference groups, however, the ratio was just the reverse. Both new and experienced presidents, however, reported more effective than ineffective incidents in which students were the primary reference group and this was a noteworthy finding given the extremely tense period in student/administration relations these incidents covered. The presidents were not spared confrontation situations, obviously, given the number Of incidents of campus unrest which they reported, 178 but they were able to report three incidents where the unrest was handled effectively for each incident involv— ing ineffective handling or outcomes. Question Four asked whether the results of the incident analysis would identify particular training needs for presidents. Training needs were identified in the areas of finance, the handling of confrontation situ- ations, and human relations. Questions Five through Eight asked for comparison of the results of the current study with the results Of previous studies on the academic presidency. The results of the current study did support the Hemphill and Walberg finding that subordinate ineffectiveness was a major road- block to the effectiveness of the presidents (Question Five). The results did not, however, reflect the emphasis on organizational changes that the new presidents in Hemphill and Walberg's study reported (Question Six). The demographic data collected on the presidents partici- pating in this study showed similarities to the demo- graphic data collected in other major studies (Question Seven), and, finally, campus unrest was perceived by eXperienced presidents to have been a major factor deter— mining their effectiveness. They perceived their in- volvement in confronting these situations to have been primarily effective (Question Eight). 179 Chapter V contains the statements selected presi- dents made on the state of the presidency and other topics which were of interest, but which were not part of the critical incident study, and Chapter VI contains the summary and conclusions for the entire study. CHAPTER V THE STATE OF THE PRESIDENCY In essence, this entire study has concerned itself with the state Of the presidency, as reflected in the types Of incidents which presidents have been facing. By extrapo- lation from these incidents we have been able to gain in- sight into the world of the college and university presi- dent. When interview time permitted, however, the interviewer asked selected presidents to make specific comments on their perceptions of the state of the presi- dency. The question was asked primarily of experienced presidents, since they would have had more opportunity to feel the impact of changes in the presidential role, but several new presidents also commented on this topic. .Although these responses of the new and experienced presi—