l! if g7o1‘7/0032 ” \l‘ll‘lmlllllllllll‘lii “mgzu 3 1293 00767 E University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF CHEIF FINANCIAL OFFICERS AT LARGE, FOUR—YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: PERCEPTIONS OF ROLE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND RELATIONSHIPS presented by Barbara Hiemstra Ringquist has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein College and University Administration MGW Major professor Date December 8, 1989 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thh checkout from your record. TO AVOD FINES return on or bdoro die duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE __ l IL [_II | L {I _____"___J _L_ MSU Is An Alfirmdlvc ActiorVEquol Opportunity Institulon chO-ot A STUDY OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS AT LARGE, FOUR-YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: PERCEPTIONS OF ROLE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND RELATIONSHIPS by Barbara Hiemstra Ringquist A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1989 COS§RJS ABSTRACT A STUDY OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS AT LARGE, FOUR—YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES: PERCEPTIONS OF ROLE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND RELATIONSHIPS By Barbara Hiemstra Ringquist The study was designed to enlarge the existing profile of the CFO at large, four-year public colleges and universities where previous CFO research was limited to CFO self report; this study also included the chief executive officers and the chief academic officers. A mail ques- tionnaire was used. Part I attempted to verify CFO responsibility for job fUnctions reported in the literature, and investigated their institutional import- ance. The intent was to establish which functions were viewed by all three respondent types as CFO responsibilities and which were perceived as highly or critically important. Part II focused on broader CFO responsibilities and explored levels of CFO organizational involvement and influence. Information about CFO formal organization rank, relationship to the controlling board, involve- ment in executive decision-making activities, impact on formulation and implementation of policy in other divisions, and involvement in external relations was gathered. Major/complete CFO responsibility for accountancy, finance (except budget development) and general services functions was indicated by a majority or most of the respondents who also indicated minor/no CFO re- sponsibility for business services (except bookstore) functions. The CFO was perceived to have major/complete responsibility for administration functions nonacademic labor relations, nonacademic personnel administra- tion, and riskInanagement/insurance but minor/no responsibility for insti- tutional research, academic labor relations, and legal management func- tions. The CFO was clearly perceived to have minor/no responsibility for academic data processing, while most respondents indicated major/complete responsibility for nonacademic data processing. CFO rank was viewed as lower than CAO rank, but only the presidents and CAOS indicated CFO rank equal to the rank of other vice presidents; CAOs indicated higher. CFO board involvement was perceived as less than that of the presidents, equal to the provosts, and more than that of other vice presidents. CFO influence on the major decision—making council was viewed as high/very high by the presidents and CFOs and moderate by the CAOs. CFO involvement in development and implementation of academic and student services policy was reported as low/none. CF05 appear to be only seldomly or moderately involved in external relations activities. Copyright by BARBARA HIEMSTRA RINGQUIST 1989 DEDICATION To Josephine and Shirley ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A special thank you to my family for their support throughout this endeavor, and sincere appreciation to Dr. Frederick Whims, Dissertation Director, for his guidance, encouragement, and friendship. Gratitude is also extended to the remaining committee members for their assistance-- Dr. Howard Hickey, Dr. Frederick Ignatovich, and Dr. Phillip Carter. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. Introduction to the Study .............. 1 CHAPTER II. Review of the Literature ............... 10 CHAPTER 111. Research Methods and Procedures ........... 38 CHAPTER IV. Analysis and Presentation of the Data ........ 55 CHAPTER V. Summary, Implications, and Recommendations ...... 120 LIST OF TABLES ........................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .......................... xiii APPENDIX A: Chief Executive Officer Cover Letter and Questionnaire 141 APPENDIX 8: Chief Academic Officer Cover Letter and Questionnaire 145 APPENDIX C: Chief Financial Officer Cover Letter and Questionnaire 149 APPENDIX D: First Followup Correspondence ............. 154 APPENDIX E: Second Followup Correspondence ............ 157 APPENDIX F: Definition of Terms .................. 160 APPENDIX G: Directory of Institutions ............... 165 APPENDIX H: Variable Comparison Data ............... 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................. 182 vii Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10: ll: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: : Percent Distributions for the : Percent Distributions for the : Percent Distributions for the : Percent Distributions for the : Percent Distributions for the LIST OF TABLES : Actual and Percent Response Rates ............ : Subscale Reliability Coefficients ............ : Percent Distributions for the Accountancy Subscale by Respondent Type .................... Administration Subscale by Respondent Type .................... Business Services Subscale by Respondent Type ................... Finance Subscale by Respondent Type .................... General Services Subscale by Respondent Type ................... Data Services Subscale by Respondent Type .................... : Comparison of Responsibility to Importance: Subscale Correlation Coefficients ................ CFO Most and Least Delegated Job Functions as Reported by the Chief Financial Officers ............ Responsibility for Accountancy: Subscale ANOVA Data. . . Responsibility for Accountancy: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Responsibility for Accountancy: Subscale Post Hoc Data . Responsibility for Administration: Subscale ANOVA Data . Responsibility for Administration: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Responsibility for Business Services: Subscale ANOVA Data .......................... viii Page 55 58 6O 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 69 69 7O 7O 71 71 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 25: 26: 27: 28: 29: 30: 31: 32: 33: 34: 35: 36: 37: 38: ix Responsibility for Business Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ................. Responsibility for Finance: Subscale ANOVA Data. . . . Responsibility for Finance: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Responsibility for General Services: Subscale ANOVA Data Responsibility for General Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ................. Responsibility for Data Services: Subscale ANOVA Data Responsibility for Data Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Importance of Accountancy: Subscale ANOVA Data . . . . Importance of Accountancy: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Importance of Administration: Subscale ANOVA Data. . . . Importance of Administration: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Importance of Administration: Subscale Post Hoc Data . . Importance of Business Services: Subscale ANOVA Data . . Importance of Business Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Importance of Finance: Subscale ANOVA Data ...... Importance of Finance: Subscale Descriptive Statistics . Importance of Finance: Subscale Post Hoc Data ..... Importance of General Services: Subscale ANOVA Data. . . Importance of General Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Importance of General Services: Subscale Post Hoc Data . Importance of Data Services: Subscale ANOVA Data . . . . Importance of Data Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... Page 71 72 72 73 73 73 74 75 75 75 76 76 77 77 78 78 78 79 79 8O 8O 81 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 39: 40: 41: 42: 43: 44: 45: 46: 47: 48: 49: 50: 51: 52: 53: 54: 55: 56: Page CFO Rank Compared to Provost Rank: Item ANOVA Data . . . 84 CFO Rank Compared to Provost Rank: Item Descriptive Statistics ....................... 84 CFO Rank Compared to Rank of Other Vice Presidents: Item ANOVA Data ....................... 84 CFO Rank Compared to Rank of Other Vice Presidents: Item Descriptive Statistics ................. 85 Percent Distributions for Comparison of CFO to CEO Board Involvement by Respondent Type ............. 86 Percent Distributions for Comparison of CFO to CAO Board Involvement by Respondent Type ............. 86 Percent Distributions for Comparison of CFO to Other Vice Presidents’ Board Involvement by Respondent Type . 87 Percent Distributions for Selected CFO Board Relations Items ......................... 88 CFO Board Relations Compared to President: Subscale ANOVA Data ....................... 89 CFO Board Relations Compared to President: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ................. 89 CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost: Subscale ANOVA Data .......................... 90 CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ................. 9O CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost: Subscale Post Hoc Data ........................ 91 CFO Board Relations Compared to Other Vice Presidents: Subscale ANOVA Data .................. 91 CFO Board Relations Compared to Other Vice Presidents: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ............ 91 Percent Distributions for the CFO Academic Policy Involvement Subscale by Respondent Type ........ 94 Percent Distributions for the CFO Student Services Policy Involvement Subscale by Respondent Type ..... 94 Percent Distributions for the CFO Business Policy Involvement Subscale by Respondent Type ........ 95 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 57: 58: 59: 60: 61: 62: 63: 64: 65: 66: 67: 68: 69: 70: 71: 72: 73: 74: 75: xi CFO Ten Most Frequent Campus Contacts .......... CFO Executive Decision-Making Council Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data .................. CFO Executive Decision-Making Council Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ............ CFO Executive Decision-Making Council Involvement: Subscale Post Hoc Data ................. CFO Academic Policy Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data . . CFO Academic Policy Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... CFO Academic Policy Involvement: Subscale Post Hoc Data CFO Student Affairs Policy Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data .......................... CFO Student Affairs Policy Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ................. CFO Business Policy Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data . . CFO Business Policy Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ....................... CFO Business Policy Involvement: Subscale Post Hoc Data CFO Involvement in External Relations Activities: Subscale ANOVA Data .................. CFO Involvement in External Relations: Subscale Descriptive Statistics ................. Business Services Responsibility by Years Serves: Chi Square Data ...................... Business Services Responsibility by Region: Chi Square Data .......................... Business Services Responsibility by Region: Chi Square Data .......................... Finance Responsibility by Region: Chi Square Data. . . . CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost by Budget: Chi Square Data .................... Page 96 97 98 98 99 99 99 100 100 101 101 101 104 104 105 106 107 108 109 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 76: 77: 78: 79: 82: 83: 84: 85: 86: 87: 88: 89: 90: 91: 92: 93: 94: xii Page CFO Board Relations Compared to Other Vice Presidents by Budget: Chi Square Data ............... 110 Administration Responsibility by Budget: Chi Square Data 110 Administration Importance by Budget: Chi Square Data . . 111 Administration Responsibility by Undergraduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .............. 112 : General Services Responsibility by Undergraduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .............. 113 Administration Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .................... 114 General Services Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .................... 115 Business Services Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .................... 116 Data Services Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .................... 116 Percent Distributions for CFO Administration Subscale Items ......................... 124 CFO Job Function Responsibility Research Summary . . . . 129 Accountancy Responsibility by Years Served: Chi Square Data .......................... 174 CFO Rank Compared to Other Vice Presidents by Region: Chi Square Data .................... 174 CFO Board Relations Compared to the President by Region: Chi Square Data .................... 175 CFO Involvement in Student Policy by Region: Chi Square Data .......................... 175 Importance of Business Services by Region: Chi Square Data .......................... 176 Importance of Finance by Region: Chi Square Data . . . . 176 CFO Board Relations Compared to President by Budget: Chi Square Data ...................... 177 CFO Involvement in Academic Policy by Budget: Chi Square Data .......................... 177 Table Table Table Table Table Table 100: Table 101: Table 102: Figure Figure Figure Figure 95: 96: '97: 98: 99: xiii Page Importance of Business Services Budget: Chi Square Data. 178 CFO Board Relations Compared to President by Budget: Chi Square Data ...................... 178 CFO Rank Compared to Provost by Undergraduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .................... 179 CFO Board Relations Compared to President by Undergraduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .............. 179 CFO Rank Compared to Provost by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data ...................... 180 CFO Board Relations Compared to President by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .............. 180 Importance of Business Services by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .................... 181 CFO Board Relations Compared to Other Vice Presidents by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data .......... 181 LIST OF FIGURES Page : CFO Rank Compared to CAO Rank by Respondent Type. . . . 82 : CFO Rank Compared to the Rank of Other Vice Presidents by Respondent Type .................. 83 : Perception of CFO Influence on Executive Council by Respondent Type .................... 93 : Perception of CFO External Relations Activities by Respondent Type .................... 103 2 cluded the large public institutions along with small public, large and small private, community and technical colleges, and medical schools among their various sample populations. Again, these studies tend to address the identification of financial officer routine assignments and education- al and career backgrounds, with a limited exploration of financial officer organizational relationships. The NACUBO, National Association of College and University Business Officers, statement on business administration in higher education implies that business officers should not only possess strong technical skills, but that they should also possess the ability to assume large responsibil- ities and retain a professional viewpoint: As an administrator, the chief business officer should have both the strengths of the executive and the capacity to work comfortably and effectively as a counselor to the governing board and to the chief executive officer...be not merely a compiler but an interpreter of data and financial informa- tion. Because a principal contribution to the institution will be in helping to determine how resources are used to achieve primary goals, the officer should be a person who not only comprehends academic objectives but appreciates them as personal goals...be an effective communicator in the adminis- trative councils of the institution, in relationships with the faculty and other members of the academic community, and with those who compose the staff of the business organization...be sensitive to questions of human and public relations...be able to represent the institution before any audience interested in its mission, goals, achievements, or courses of action...a person who, working within the framework of the institution’s policies and objectives, seeks constantly to help the institu- tion make the most of its resources, and in both campus and community relationships is an example of dedicated service ...business officers of this caliber have influence beyond the limits of their institutional roles and, in their professional relationships, influence the development of higher education itself (CUBA, 1:1, p.6, 1982). Discussion of these broader responsibilities tend to be speculative rather than based upon actual research findings. There exists a need to expand the limited chief financial officer profile by ascertaining busi- 3 ness officers’ levels of involvement with the functional job areas as identified in the literature, by examining the importance of the responsi- bilities to the institution, and also by exploring and verifying those broader, less position-specific responsibilities described in the above excerpt taken from NACUBO’S 1975-1983 College and University Business Ad- ministration manual, to which many chief business officers refer for tech- nical guidance in many of the specific job function areas ("The earlier volumes that established the title not only have been used for years by colleges and universities as their own basic references in the field of management, but are cited in the codes and regulations of many states as proper authority for the design of financial accounting and reporting sys- tems of academic institutions") (CUBA, 1983: vii). The Study The study attempted to enlarge the existing profile of the CFO at large, public institutions of higher education. In addition to the veri- fication of chief financial officer functional area responsibilities as reported in the literature, perceptions on the importance of the assigned functions were investigated. Functional area responsibilities most and least often personally attended to by the chief financial officers were identified, and a frequency ranking of financial officer weekly contacts was obtained. Chief financial officer involvement in institutional rela- tions, board relations, legislative relations, and public relations was also explored. A mailed questionnaire was identified as the vehicle for data collection. Samples of the cover letters and questionnaires are lo- cated in Appendices A, B, and C respectively. Part One of the chief executive, academic, and financial officer 4 questionnaires addressed various position—specific job function areas identified throughout the literature. Only Jenkins has studied these functions at the large, public four-year college and university level. His study did not, however, include the perceptions of the chief executive and chief academic officers. The list of functional areas used in this study was developed from readings about the business officer position in higher education and in- corporates the functions identified in earlier studies at the community college level (Calver, 1985 and Nhims, 1974); at large, four-year public colleges and universities (Jenkins, 1978, 1983); and, at other types of institutions of higher education (CUBA, 1975-83). The list represents a unique synthesis of the findings of previous research; a directory of terms is presented in Appendix F. The respondents were asked their per- ceptions of the extent to which responsibilities are assigned to the busi- ness officer at their institution, and also how important they thought those responsibilities are to the institution. The financial officer questionnaire contains additional sections which attempt to discover the areas in which the chief financial officers perceive themselves to be most and least personally involved in the identified job functions. Part Two of the chief executive, academic, and financial officer questionnaires examined several broader chief business officer responsi- bilities. The categories are institutional, board, legislative, and pub- lic relations (CUBA: 1:1, p.3, 1982; Lawrence and Robertson in Campbell, p. 10, 1985; Hallenfeldt, p.111-112, 1983; and Whims, 1974). The respon- dents were also asked to indicate number of years served. This section of the questionnaire attempted to obtain some feeling for the level of organizational involvement and influence which chief fin- 5 ancial officers have, as a group in large, four-year public institutions of higher education. In Power In and Around Organizations, Henry Mintzberg discusses a theory of organization power built upon the premise that or- ganizational behavior (especially decision-making, goal setting and stra- tegy development) is ...a power game in which various players, called influencers, seek to control the organization’s decisions and actions. The organization first comes into being when an initial group of influencers join together to pursue a common mission...Since the needs of influencers vary, each tries to use his or her own levers of power, means or systems of influence, to control decisions and actions. How they succeed determines what con- figuration of organizational power emerges. Thus, to under- stand the behavior of the organization it is necessary to understand which influencers are present, what needs each seeks to fulfill in the organization, and how each is able to exercise power to fulfill them (Mintzberg, p. 22, 1983). Mintzberg asks how power is operationalized--how the needs of individual actors are linked to organizational actions. Those actors who choose to stay with the organization use their voice, or influence, in shaping it provided they possess "...(1) some source or basis of power coupled with (2) the expenditure of energy in (3) a politically skilful way when neces— sary." The basis of power comes from control of a critical resource, tech- nical skill, or body of knowledge, or from legal prerogatives, or from access to those who possess these attributes. He stresses that although much more than power and influence determine what an organization does, they certainly do matter (1983: 20-24). Mintzberg describes the flow of power from the external coalition (board) to the internal coalition (chief executive officer) as power pas- sage and the actions the organization takes (decisions made) as the power game. The game begins as soon as the chief executive officer delegates any of his or her formal power and problems of control arise. The need 6 to control the behavior of the managers to whom s/he has delegated formal power involves getting them to suspend their own needs and function on behalf of the external coalition the chief executive officer represents. The chief executive officer is the single most important influencer in the organization and uses the organization’s systems of authority, ideology, and politics to orient the organization toward his/her goals. The remaining players, conversely, use weaknesses in these systems to alter the shape of these goals. A few examples would be to use, or create if not existing, direct links to external influencers to displace or change existing goals; to control an area of operation critical to the organization; and, to have or build access to and influence upon other players important to the operation of the organization-—external, per- sonal, and internal influence bases. This study investigates the location of the financial officer position within the formal hierarchy and attempts to verify previously identified financial officer job functions. Finan- cial officer contact and influence with both internal and external coali- tions of the organization will be addressed through questionnaire items regarding both chief financial officer influence and involvement in insti- tutional, board, legislative, and public relations. Cohen and March, in Leadership and Ambiguity: the American College President, mention several reasons why we might expect board members and business officers to have similar view of the presidency. They assert that the "relative closeness of business officers to boards" was borne out by their interview data which included a number of business officers who wanted to emphasize in their interviews ”the care they took not to let their official and relatively frequent informal contact with the board members undermine the president’s position." (Cohen and March, 1974: 74). 7 The issue of chief financial officer board relations in large, public four-year colleges and universities is addressed in Part Two of the ques- tionnaires. Only the chief financial officer questionnaire contained Parts Three and Four. Part Three sought information about the institutions’s enroll- ment and budget, and Part Four requested a rank ordering of weekly finan- cial officer campus contacts for the purpose of gaining a picture of C80/ CFO frequency of association with presidents, board members, executive officers, and other campus individuals. Limitationsand Assumptions of the Study The study was limited to the responding chief executive, chief aca- demic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of the items included in the questionnaire. The study was also limited to large, four-year public institutions of higher educations--those public, four-year colleges and universities with a student headcount population of 10,000 or more as re- ported in the 1988 Higher Education Directory. The three survey populations consist of the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers at all four-year public colleges and universities with reported headcount enrollment of 10,000 or more. One hundred and ninety institutions were selected on this basis (see Appendix G for the list of institutions included in the survey). Data were used for group profile purposes only, and individual re- sponses were held in strict confidentiality. Data were uniformly coded and stored in computer format for use in statistical and descriptive analyses. Data were analyzed using SPSS" software. The specific questions addressed by the study are presented fully in Chapter Three. 8 The first part of the study explored Mintzberg’s three prime bases of power which are ”control of a resource, control of a technical skill, or control of a body of knowledge, any one critical to the organization" by assessing the perceived CFO responsibility level and the perceived importance of a number of job functions (1983: p. 24). More specifically, the investigation attempted to verify, with the additional perceptions of the executive and academic officers, those job functions previously iden- tified in the literature on large public four-year institutions by the self-report of the CFOs, and also to establish where there is agreement on which of the job functions are concentrated solely (nonsubstitutably) with the CFO. The importance, or criticalness, of the job functions to the organization as perceived by the three groups of university officers was also investigated to identify which job functions were considered to be essential to the institution. Another basis of power identified by Mintzberg is derived simply from access to those who can rely on the above three sources of influ- ence. The second part of the study explored this concept by examining CFO board of control, internal (institutional), and external (legislative and public) relations. Summar In the interest of increasing our knowledge of the chief financial officer as a practicing administrator of higher education, this study was used as a vehicle for exploring both the assigned, position-specific as well as the broader institutional, board, legislative, and external rela- tions responsibilities of CBO/CFOs. The study further examined interac- tions between the chief financial officer and other institutional players. 9 The three groups surveyed for comparison purposes were the chief executive, the chief academic, and the chief financial officers at large, four-year public institutions of higher education. This comparison of the three respondent groups extends the literature on CBO/CFO job functions at large, public colleges and universities beyond the self-report level, while the comparison of the three groups to the areas of financial officer institutional, board, legislative, and public relations is unique to the literature developed thus far on the financial officer position at large, public institutions of higher education. The literature on the chief financial officer position in higher education is reviewed in the following chapter, while subsequent chapters present the study in greater detail. The design of the study, research questions developed from the review of the literature, testable hypothe- ses, survey administration procedures, and a discussion of the methodology used in analyzing the collected data are presented in the third chapter. The fourth chapter consists of a summarization of the analyses, while the fifth chapter consists of a summarization of the findings of the study and a presentation of conclusions, implications, and recommendations. CHAPTER THO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of a review of the literature which addresses the role, responsibilities, and rela- tionships of the chief financial officer in institutions of higher edu- cation. Many of the studies of the chief financial officer in higher edu- cation concentrated on the community college level, while other studies explored the financial officer position at a combination of types of in- situations of higher education. The research on the chief financial offi- cer in large, four-year pubic colleges and universities is limited. This review is presented in three sections: (1) college financial officer assigned job functions and responsibilities; (2) college financial officer relationships to presidents, other executive officers, and the governing boards; and, (3) college financial officer role and background. Jab Egngtions and Responaibilitjas of Chief Financial Officers In his studies, Jenkins gathered information about the role and functions of chief financial officers. He selected the following twenty- three major areas of chief financial officer responsibilities from the literature and asked his respondents to describe the scope of each respon- sibility, identified on a five-point scale, as either "no-minor-shared- major-complete." The chief financial officers responding to his 1983 10 11 Chief Financial Officer Responsibilities Accounting Methods Coordination Auxiliary Operations Non-Academic Personnel Budget Preparation and Control Administration Bursar Payroll Data Processing Operations Physical Plant Facility Planning and Construction Purchasing Fund Raising Risk Management and Grant and Contract Administration Insurance Indirect Cost Rate Establishment Safety Institutional Research Security Internal Control Staff Benefits Investment Management Student Financial Legal Management Assistance study of the CFO position at large, four-year public institutions reported complete responsibility for the accounting, budgeting, bursar, indirect cost rate determination, internal control, investment management, pay- roll, physical plant, purchasing, and the risk management and insurance areas. They reported at least major responsibility for auxiliary enter- prises, safety, security, nonacademic personnel administration, staff benefits, and facilities planning. Jenkins found methods coordination and grants and contract administration to be shared responsibility areas while financial assistance, fund raising, and institutional research were listed as minor or not job responsibilities. Data processing and legal manage- ent were not classified in any of the designated categories (1985, p. 28). Robbins and Nance (1982) compared nineteen chief business officer responsibilities by type, control (public or private) and size of insti- tution. They identified some variation for all three factors but found the greatest variation to be by type of institution, e.g., university business officers were responsible for more functions (82 percent) than were community college chief business officers (69 percent), and the business officers were more apt to have responsibility for data process- ing at universities than at liberal arts colleges (70 versus 38 percent). 12 Hungerman (1984) asked small college business officers to indicate their scope of responsibility for twenty-five position-related areas. Accounting, budgeting, contract administration, insurance, internal con- trol, investment management, non-academic personnel administration, pay- roll, physical plant, purchasing, staff benefits, student billing, loan collection, bookstore, and food services were reported by at least two thirds of the respondents as both actual and recommended major or complete responsibility area assignments. The reported responses for actual and recommended responsibility at the “major" or "complete" level for adminis- trative data processing were about 60 and 69 percent respectively, about 58 and 66 percent for legal management, and about 59 and 61 percent for security, whereas actual and recommended responses for the student finan- cial aid function were about 32 percent and 40 percent respectively. The academic data processing, faculty planning, student registration, fund raising, and teaching functions were reported below the one third response rate for both actual or recommended responsibilities at the "major" or the "complete" level (p. 52-67). Hungerman also asked his respondents to indicate the present and current major issues of concern. The responding business officers indi- cated shared, major, or complete responsibility for nine of the current issues listed by Hungerman: non-academic cost savings programs, produc- tion of additional income through conversion of facilities, deferred main- tenance, energy costs savings programs, affirmative action, occupational safety and health regulations, compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, long range planning, and funding of deficits, if any. The business officers were also asked to identify and rank any addi- tional issues which they perceived as current major concerns. About 55 13 percent reported enrollment decline; about one third cited financial aid to students, deferred maintenance, and inflation; and, from 9 to 19 per- cent mentioned price structure, employee compensation, fund raising, en- dowment, and government support (p. 37-42). Using the four categories of finance and accounting, supervisory, administrative and teaching, Javidpour'concluded that "the primary import- ant duties and functions of business officers were: planning, budgeting, accounting, internal control investment, legal management, purchasing, student financial assistance collections and disbursement of funds, fin- ancial reporting, maintaining physical plant, supervisory of non-auxiliary enterprises, payroll, and selecting staff" (p. 113). Setoodeh used financial and accounting, materials management, aux- iliary enterprises, management of the institution’s financial organiza- tion, fund raising and public relations, planning and controlling insti- tutional operations, administration of funds, acquisition of funds, and consultation as identified responsibility areas in his study. He found close agreement between the presidents and chief business officers except in the area of the development of financial policies, where the chief fin- ancial officers indicated "that they are and that they should be respon- sible for formulation of new financial policies"; a statistically signifi- cant number of the presidents did not share that view (p. 114). Setoodah identified the primary'goals for'chief financial officers as strengthening the financial structure of the institution and ensuring thermost effective use of available resources (p. 113). The National Association of'College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) handbook divides twenty-seven chief financial officer responsi- bilities into administrative management, business management, fiscal man- 14 agement, and financial accounting and reporting categories. A separate section of the two volume NACUBO handbook and of Weizenbach’s book (pub- lished by NACUBO, edited by Wizenbach) are dedicated to overview and discussion of each identified responsibility area. The four categories are summarized below. Administrative Manaqemaat Institutional Planning Space Management Management Information Systems Records Management Risk Management and Insurance Sponsored Programs Legal Services Student Financial Aid Personnel Administration Fiscal Management Administration of Endowment and Business Management Purchasing Goods and Services Auxiliary Enterprises and Other Services Facilities Planning, Design, and Construction Facilities Operation and Maintenance Safety, Security and Law Enforcement and Transportation Financial Accounting & Reportinq Fundamental Concepts of Financial Similar Funds Investment Management Cash Management Loan, Endowment, Annuity, Life Institutional Budgeting Income and Agency Funds Auditing Plant Funds Cost Information Determination Financial Reports Indirect Cost of Sponsored Programs (CUBA, 1982: iv-v) Accounting and Reporting Current Funds Calver and Volger stated that chief business officer roles have expanded during the seventies and eighties and decided that, since the NACUBO, National Association of College and University Business Officers "upon which CBOs heavily rely for professional guidance," acknowledged these functions, they would use them in their study of community college business officers (1985, p. 38). These functions were explored through a "no-low-average-high" scale to discover which functions community col- lege chief business officers considered most important. A "no-shared- delegated-direct" scale was used to ascertain the level of responsibility 15 community college business officers associated with each function. Fiscal and financial duties were viewed as being more important than other chief business officer functions. Business officers in the Calver and Volger study most often person- ally performed the functions they ranked as most important, with budgeting identified as the most often personally performed and purchasing as the function most often delegated (p. 39-41). Endowments was the role func- tion most often found by Calver and Volger as not a chief business officer responsibility whereas institutional planning was the function most often shared with other administrative areas. The functions considered least important by the responding community college business officers were usu- ally shared or the business officer was not responsible for them (p. 39- 40). Keller studied a variety of insitutions and reported that past pro- liferation of CFO responsibilities has leveled off. She stated that, There is a stable core of responsibilities for the job, which is virtually identical for CBOs in all types and sizes of in- stitutions. This consists of the basic financial functions existing in virtually all institutions plus several other basic functions which have become, through common practice over the years, typical functions of the CBO. Beyond that core, responsibilities become quite variable (p. 76). Where the functions existed at the institution, over 90 percent of all chief business officers responding to Keller’s survey reported respon- sibility for accounting,budgeting, bursar, payroll, and purchasing activi- ties. Between 74 and 84 percent of all respondents identified general services, auxiliary enterprises, facility planning and construction, and investment of endowment as responsibility areas. Fifty-eight to 64 per- cent also cited safety and security, internal audit, data processing. and grants administration/sponsored projects as responsibilities. Twenty to 16 49 percent of the responding chief business officers were responsible for labor relations (49 percent), legal services (45 percent), student finan- cial aid (24 percent), and institutional research and planning (21 per- cent). Less than seven percent of the respondents were responsible for intercollegiate athletics, fund raising, and student activities, the re- maining three functions listed by Keller (p. 40-43). This leveling of chief business officer functions reflects a long term shift from 1964 when, in his study of the duties, functions and professional status of state college business managers in New Jersey, Silver found that state college business managers were "largely responsible for all the major functions of the college except those which*were instructional in nature." Keller reported budgeting (70.3 percent), accounting (40.8 percent), and physical plant operations (39.7 percent) as the three most time con- suming business officer activities, with personnel (27.6 percent) and facility planning (17.5 percent) the next most time consuming activities. The remaining functions were reported as time consuming by less than 13 percent of the respondents (p. 58-59). Keller also found that a majority of chief business officers in all respondent groups reported spending less than 20 percent of their time on external involvements (p. 60). In response to Keller’s request to identify the aspects of their job in which the most difficult problems were faced, 55.5 percent of all re- spondents in the study mentioned financial, 41.6 percent reported person- nel and labor relations, and 44.6 percent identified management problems. More than one half of the chief business officers presented examples of task-oriented assignments as being the most satisfying parts of their job, while about 30 percent gave examples of most satisfying activities which fell into Keller’s relationship-oriented, or working with others, cate- 17 gory, and about 13 percent gave examples which fit the reward-oriented category which included both tangible rewards such as salary and benefits and intangible rewards such as status and power (p. 68-72). The 1974 whims community college study grouped thirty-seven job functions into nine categories” While the survey results yielded at least a two-thirds concensus among and between the president and business offi- cers on twenty-four functions as being primary CBO responsibilities. Planning / Campus Planning / Information Planning / Long Range Planning * Policy Formulation Procurement Collection of Student Fees Federal Relations Fund Raising Legislative Purchasing Allogatign Budgeting Collective Bargaining Facilities Utilization Payroll Salary and Wage Determination *\\\ Ii- I'll-\Ii-M- ert aintenance * Inventory * Maintenance of Equipment * Maintenance of Facilities * Maintenance of Grounds Fiscal Management * Accounting Administrative Services / Data Processing * Food Service Publication Services * Student Activity Fund Student Housing * Student Loan * Student Store/Bookstore * Transportation Staff Maintananga Faculty and Staff Housing * Personnel Management Resgurce Development Endowment Fund Management Investment Real Estate * Leadership Ergtectign Auditing Bonding Insurance Protection of persons/property *\ ai-x-x-a- NOTE: An astarisk preceding a function indicates two-thirds concensus between and among the presidents and business offi- cers. A slash preceding a function indicates that the presi- dents disagreed with the C805 that the function was a chief business officer responsibility. 18 Nhims noted, as did Setoodah, the perceived level of involvement of the business officers in the formulation of policy as "being a significant area of disagreement between the chief business officers and the presidents" (p. 45, 91). Hhims also found differences in opinion between the two groups on nine functions where over two thirds of the chief business officers in- dicated they performed the functions while the responding presidents failed to reach the two-thirds consensus level: (1) campus planning, (2) information systems, (3) long-range planning, (4) fund raising, (5) legis- lative, (6) federal relations, (7) facilities utilization, (8) data pro- cessing, and (9) endowment fund management. Publications services, stu- dent housing, faculty and staff housing, and real estate did not receive a two—thirds level response from either group. Those functions which re- ceived the highest level of agreement (90 percent) between and among both sets of respondents were the budgeting, payroll, salary and wage deter- mination, collection of student fees, accounting, inventory, investment, auditing and insurance functions (p. 45-47). Nhims reported that size of the community college did not appear to be related to the number and type of functions performed. He did note, however, that the factor of college size did have some bearing on the amount of time spent supervising selected functions; the larger the col- lege, the greater the time spent with policy formulation and leadership (p. 84, 86). In addition to job functions and responsibilities, researchers of the chief financial officer position in higher education have explored several areas of chief financial officer relationships within the higher education setting. 19 Organizational Relationships of Chief Financial Officers Jenkins stated that in all three of his studies, "the CFOs’ most common relationship to the president is as one of three or four officers who with the president share major institutional concerns and make deci- sions on matters affecting university policies and programs". He found that the relationship of the chief financial officer to the governing board varied among institutions. At one end of the spectrum the most fre- quent financial officer contact with the board occurred when the president requested that special reports he prepared and presented. The second most commonly reported relationship, however, "found the CFO reporting directly to the governing board on business or financial matters and performing specified services as a responsible executive secretary or treasurer" (1985, p. 28). Both the 1973 and 1978 data collected by Jenkins found a majority of responding chief financial officers indicated "that they were on the same organizational level as the chief academic officer and that the latter and the CFO*were equally involved in most institutional decisions." (1978, p. 62). However, his 1983 data indicated that the chief academic officer "was at a higher organizational level than the CFO or was at least considered the major officer reporting to the president." (1985, p. 28). This finding is in line with the conclusion of others that the chief academic officers are second in command to the president. Hungerman’s 1984 study of small college business officers reported a majority (68.6 percent) of the respondents said that the president, business officer, and all the other chief officers formed a team. However, eighteen percent of the respondents reported that the president, the business officer, and the academic officer acted as a team. Sixty- 20 four percent of the business officers reported they were on the same organizational level as the academic officer and equally involved in most institutional decisions; no respondents indicated being on a higher level. The majority of responding business officers either did not report to the board or presented special board or presidential reports only' when invited; none were voting members. Abut 80 percent of the respondents, however, attended all full board meetings and 84 percent attended all board finance subcommittee meetings while just 55 percent attended all executive committee meetings (p. 28-31). Hungerman gathered data on key administrative positions actually reporting to the business officer and whether it was felt the position should report to the business officer. The majority of the respondents indicated the positions of comptroller, director of physical plant, and director of computer center should report to them whereas only the comptroller and director of physical plant actually did report to them. The business officers also identified several nonlisted administrative positions as reporting to them: director of student financial aid (11 percent), director of purchasing (9 percent), business manager (9 percent), head of communications (4 percent), bookstore manager (26 percent), food service director (28 percent), and security chief (13 percent) (p. 50-52, 106-107). Approximately 60 percent of the respondents to Hungerman’s survey served on their administration’s budget/finance and planning committees while a good on third of them also served on the president’s council and the administrative council. About 23 percent of the responding business officers served on the financial aid council, while only 13 percent served on the academic council (p. 31-34) 21 Setoodah reported that the level of administrative responsibility of the financial officer was "perceived to be equal to or greater than that of the chief academic officer and greater than the chief student officer, athletics director, director of institutional research, director of university relations, or assistant to the president" by both the presidents and financial officers (p. 114). He further reported that the chief financial officer had more contact with the president and various governing bodies than did other senior administrators, and identified the following positions as commonly subordinate to the chief financial officer: comptroller, director of personnel, director of physical plant, and director of auxiliary enterprises (p.114-115). Setoodah summarized his data as establishing that, although the president is the most influential person in shaping the institution’s financial policy, the chief financial officer has greater influence on key financial decisions than is generally believed; that the position appears to be more important than other similar administrative positions in the administration of higher education institutions; and, that the position has gained more prestige and importance due to the recent problems in financing (p. 116-117). Calver found a significant relationship between total number of a chief business officers’ subordinates and institutional size and reported that most respondents to his study of chief business officers at community colleges "work directly with the president and are assigned substantial supervisory responsibilities and, in general, the larger the institution, the more subordinates" (1984, pp. iii, 129). In his 1974 research on Michigan community colleges, Whims attempted to determine the organizational relationships of the business officer as 22 they related to locus of power, organizational rank, circle of influence, and organizational relationships. He found several differences between president and chief business officer perceptions of organizational relationships. He reported that "a much higher percentage of chief business officers responded that they should hold faculty rank and have a higher organizational status than the chief academic officer" than did the presidents. However, he also noted that a majority of each group indicated "that the CBO should hold a staff position in the organization" (p.88). Nhims found the community college business officers and presidents in basic agreement that the business officer should be a member of administrative councils; provide direct assistance in the development, evaluation, and control of operations; report directly to the president; be a member of standing and special committees; and, be a consultant to those officers responsible for obtaining financial support (p. 87). The business officers’ major weekly contacts were identified in order of frequency as being the president, accountant, controller, physical plant director, student affairs dean, and academic officer (p. 90). Campbell, when speaking of the community college business officer, stated that "the chief business officer’s or CBO’s role has become in- creasingly important as trustees look to their managerial ability to meet the "bottom line" of any necessary budget cuts" (1985, p. 1). He views the chief business officer role as changing from that of a principally budget comptroller to that of an equal partner in an entrepreneurial team. Campbell speaks to the current battle cry of "leadership" and its under- lying assumption that strategic management and vision will help create alternatives and ease the way to preferred rather than uncertain futures 23 (p. 1-3). Chaffee asked whether budgets implement the important values of the institution and endorsed the integration of academic planning and budgeting. She found that successful schools were led by persons who tried to build reality based upon their shared perceptions of what the institution ought to be. She identified professionalizing the management team as one of the successful strategies in turning around declining colleges. Peck believes the shift in leadership style necessitates an accompanying shift in the role of the chief business officer to become part of the entrepreneurial team. Campbell viewed the technological, identity, economic, and competi- tion crises as forcing college leaders to develop new competencies and adaptive strategies. Campbell promotes supporting the changing role of top management through provision of ”professional development institutes in team building, conflict resolution, goal setting and so on fer the entire top administrative or management council of an institution" (1985, p. 112). He also calls for additional research on the changing structure, function, and roles of the college top management team and its business officers (p. 111-115). LeCroy examined the relationship between college business officers and college academic officers in an attempt to encourage a full education- al partnership between the academic and business division. He encouraged better utilization of the skills of the business officers at our colleges and described their multifaceted talents as follows. With the skill of'a gourmet cook, they combine state and local funds, federal monies, private funds, bequests, and grants into a grand dinner that is not just palatable but nourishing to our institutions and our students. These are talents that have been invested well. (p. 37) 24 LeCroy then identified other, less conspicuous talents which he thought were too often buried: (1) chief business officers are more nearly in touch with trends that significantly affect the educational process, (2) chief business officers need to share their ability to plan in varied ways to meet tomorrow’s goals, and (3) chief business officers understand the meaning of productivity, ways that efficiency can stimulate growth (p. 37-38). LeCroy discussed the stereotypic business-versus- academic polarities which often perpetuate competitive rather than joint problem solving behaviors. He asserts that "we-they" images do exist and do increase polarization within our institutions. His example of the way academic officers might be stereotyped by business professionals follows. Academics are absentminded. They are frequently unrealistic, often inappropriately theoretical. When push comes to shove, their idealism takes a stand something like ”We must do this, whatever the cost." They read The New Yorker and Esguire and the periodicals of their discipline; they ignore deadlines, fail to read memos, and ask obvious questions. They are inap- propriately defensive about what they do not know, which is considerable. When projecting a budget these academics always ask for 20 percent more than they really need! (p. 38). Conversely, LeCroy presented the academic officers’ hypothetical image of business officers. Business professionals are methodical and sometimes insensi- tive. They carry pocket-sized calculaters and brief case sized computers. They talk another language--accounting. They display placards that read Tima is Mgney or Wasta Nat, Want Ngt, and have trouble with small talk. It is widely suspected that they have 50 percent more money than they say they do. More important, they have a secret institutional kitty stashed away somewhere in case of ’real’ hardships! (p. 39 . LeCroy'encouraged chief business officers to increase and improve communi- cations using the techniques of self-disclosure, access to information, pacing, and positive attitude (p. 39). 25 Calver’s 1984 study included a section on leadership behaviors. He surveyed community college business officers and their immediate supervi- sors on business officer leader behaviors, using questions extracted from the Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire (LBDQ)-Form XII to describe the two leader behaviors of initiation of structure (IS) and consideration (CS). Calver selected these two behaviors as the most desirable type of leader behavior based on his research of leadership literature. He used ten items from each of the two scales to measure responses on his five- point 'never-seldom-occasionally-often-always" scale (pp. 144-146). The chief business officers reported relatively high scores on both the initiation of structure and consideration behaviors. This did not differ significantly (.05 level) from the responses of their immediate supervisors, although the supervisors scored their business officers slightly higher on initiation of structure than on consideration while the business officers’ self perceptions were slightly higher on consideration than on initiation of structure (p. 162-163, 146). Calver also asked the immediate supervisors how well their business officers performed their roles. He used a nine dimension evaluation form with a four-point ”ineffective-below average effectiveness-above average effectiveness-very effective” scale. Almost 95 percent of the supervisors described their chief business officers’ overall leadership effectiveness as at least above average with 42.5 percent ranking their business offi- cers at the very effective level. The dimension of technical ability was most often evaluated as very effective while the dimensions of employee welfare and training were most often identified as below average and ineffective, respectively (p. 152-153, 163). Calver reported that a ”low, positive (.20 correlation coefficient), but significant relationship 26 was found between the CBOs’ Composite Effectiveness Level and the size of an institution, that is, the larger the institution, the higher a CBO’s effectiveness level. However, since the correlation accounts for only 4% of the variance, it is a very weak correlation" (1984, p. 164). In addition to job-related responsibilities and relationships, researchers of the financial officer position in higher education have explored chief financial officer title, personal, and educational characteristics. College Financial Officer Role and Background The major studies of the chief financial officers in large, public colleges and universities have been conducted by Jenkins, beginning with his initial 1973 study, and including his 1978 and 1983 followup research. In a 1985 article which summarized his 1983 research, Jenkins reported that chief financial officers of large public universities usually carry the title of vice president with about 83 percent of the respondents to his 1983 followup study indicating that they carried the title of vice president or vice chancellor. The two most common titles reported were vice president for business and finance and vice president for business affairs (p. 28). Keller surveyed 600 chief business officers in accredited, public and private liberal arts colleges, universities, community colleges, junior' colleges, technical colleges, health institutions, and other institutions such as religious seminaries. The study focused on work and educational backgrounds, number of functional responsibilities, and time spent on external affairs. She agreed that "a majority of CBOs now have vice presidential titles, except in institutions of under 1000 enrollment 27 (both public and private) and community colleges of under 5000 enrollment" (p. 39). Hungerman attempted to determine the profile of the business officer in small colleges. He was interested in background characteristics, re- lationships to top management, concern with major issues, and position responsibilities. The study results were based upon the self report of responding business officers at fifty-three public and private colleges with enrollments of 1,000 or less. The majority of the respondents held titles such as manager, director, treasurer, comptroller, bursar, and vice chancellor, while about 40 percent held the title of vice president. This finding is similar to Keller’s finding in institutions with enrollments of under 1,000 (p. 25). Setoodeh, in his 1981 study of the chief financial officer position, randomly selected 200 presidents and chief financial officers at private and public, two-year and four-year higher education institutions. He found the most frequent title of the business officer was vice president, with the title of business manager commonly used in two-year and smaller colleges (p. 113). The 1981 Javidpour research on eighty-six randomly selected public and private institutions of higher education with teaching staffs between five hundred to one thousand found the most prevalent title for chief business officers at large institutions to be vice president followed by a designator such as "for business affairs", while in private institutions the most common title was business manager (p. 113). The National Association for College and University Business Officers indicates that there are "at least four major functional areas to be administered in a college or university: (1) instruction, research, 28 and public service, (2) business and financial management, (3) student services, and (4) institutional development, including fund raising, public relations, and alumni relations.” (CUBA, Sep, 1982, 1:1, 2). The association further indicates that "not all institutions have an officer for each of these areas. In those that do, however, these officers are: (1) a chief academic officer, usually referred to as a vice president for academic affairs, dean of the college, or provost; (2) a chief business officer, typically designated as vice president for business and finance (or business affairs), business manager, or controller; (3) a student services officer, who may be identified as vice president for student services or dean of students; and (4) a development officer, often referred to as vice president for development (or community or external relations) or director of development." (CUBA, Sep, 1982, 1:1, 3). Jenkins reported that the average chief financial officer in large public institutions of higher education was male, almost fifty, and had occupied the position for about eight and one-half years (1985, p. 28). He identified a rise in the educational level of chief financial officers in large, public institutions of higher education since 1973, and reported that most have attained at least a master’s level in their formal education and many hold the doctorate (1985, p. 28). Hungerman reported the average respondent was forty-seven years of age, white, male, and averaged six to seven years in their present position. Forty-five percent of the respondents held bachelor’s degrees, 43 percent held master’s degrees, and 9.5 percent held either an Ed.D or Ph.D (p. 22-23). Ninety-five percent of all business officers in the Javidpour study were male and 35 years of age or more. He reported that they "may have 29 a bachelor’s or master’s degree but the chances of having a doctoral degree is small” (p. 109). Most of the responding business officers were members of at least one professional organization and a small number of them held academic rank from which they teach a few hours at the bachelor’s or master’s level. Fifty-five percent of them had served twenty-one or more years in business and from eleven to twenty years in the position of chief business officer. The majority of the business officers indicated they reported to the presidents, they received good or very good remuneration, and they had good or very good job satisfaction levels (p. 109-110). Chief business officers responding to the Keller study were, in the main, white, male, averaged forty-seven years of age, had been appointed to their position within the last five years, and held a master’s degree (p. 79-83). Setoodah described the chief financial officer as "a mature male with a graduate degree, solid work experience in higher education insti- tutions, and a relatively short history of service in his present posi- tion" (p. 112). Calver and Volger reported on the characteristics of community college business officers. ‘They indicated that community college business officers are middle aged (mean of 46 years), white males who entered their current position with almost fifteen years of prior experience, primarily in education, followed by business and the military. They reported that slightly over one half of community college chief business officers entered that position with an earned graduate degree, about 84 percent of which were in the disciplines of business and education. Most of the chief business officers entered the position from outside the institution 30 and two thirds of them had prior nonbusiness officer experience in two or more career fields (p. 142-143). Respondents to the 1978 Jenkins study indicated that their primary career orientation before appointment as chief financial officer was college business administration and that, while 58 percent of the respondents indicated the position of chief financial officer was their ultimate career goal, 16 percent desired to become a chief financial officer at a larger or more prestigious institution and 8.5 percent sought a college or university presidency as their ultimate career goal (p. 51). This finding held for his 1983 study also. Specialization for most chief financial officers in large, public institutions of higher education was found by Jenkins to be business administration or management with some specialization in higher education administration (1985, p. 27-29). Approximately 76 percent of the respondents in Hungerman’s study specialized in business administration, accounting, or finance, while the remaining reported specializations were from a variety of disciplines outside the business area. Most (92.4 percent) of the responding business officers reported having previous college business administration work experience while 34 percent had previous experience in college teaching and academic administration. Forty-seven percent of the respondents reported business or industry job histories and 21 percent cited some work experience in the government setting (p. 23-28). In the Keller study, specialization at the master’s level tended to be in business administration, accounting, or finance. The majority of responding business officers with earned doctorates specialized in college/educational administration; the most common undergraduate major was in the field of business (p. 84-89). Keller reported her most 31 significant finding was that "30% of CBOs still have had no prior experience in higher education before being appointed CBOs. This would seem a rather high percentage. Some of the 30% were individuals hired many years ago when the practice was more common. It is becoming less so now, yet a considerable number of indi- viduals appointed recently still do not have this experience. More common now is the practice of appointing as CBO those who have a small amount of higher education experience, but whose prior career has been predominantly outside of higher educa- tion” (p. 122-123). Keller noted that a "preference for those whose careers were more specialized to higher education seemed to be exhibited only after insti- tutions reached 2500 in enrollment" (p. 96). She identified different required business officer competencies for different settings with careers specialized to higher education for universities, liberal arts colleges, and health institutions. The amount of previous higher education experi- ence was greater (exceeded the years of outside experience) only for uni- versities and health institutions. A greater percentage of those with the vice presidential title had 75 percent more of their experience in higher education (p. 98). Twombly’s study of career lines of two-year college administrators revealed that "outside sources were the most common direct sources of current chief business officers" (p. 17). The business officers in her study were likely to have moved directly to their current position from a position of the same title at another institution. They also frequently came from positions in business and industry, and school administration. According to Twombly’s report, some movement from assistant/associate staff and administrative director/dean was noted (p. 16-23). Javidpour identified a comprehensive understanding of the major areas of business administration, an M.B.A. degree, an understanding of 32 the general concept of educational philosophy, and the qualities of tact, human relations skills, experience, ability to cooperate, and supervisory and leadership ability as desired business officer traits (p. 113). Setoodah ranked the following qualifications as being important to the position: personal traits such as integrity, courtesy, understanding, patience, courage, sensitivity, and vision; a terminal degree, preferable in accounting or business administration; and, administrative experience in a higher education setting (p. 113-115). Floyd conducted a nationwide survey to ascertain the characteris- tics, previous employment experiences, and educational backgrounds of business officers at 600 randomly selected public community, junior and technical colleges. She included the chief executive officer, the chief instructional administrator and the chief business officer of each insti- tution contacted. While the profile characteristics identified by Floyd more or less confirmed the findings of others cited in this review, she found "the C805 disagreed with the CEOs and the CIAs on the preferred minimum educational level. The C805 preferred the bachelor’s degree... while the majority of the CEOs and CIAs preferred the master’s degree" (p. 52). Interestingly, Floyd reported a majority of responding business officers held a master’s degree or higher (p. 52). Floyd reported that, for those who preferred a bachelor’s degree as the minimum education level for a chief business officer, business admin- istration was the preferred major area of study by the presidents and chief instructional administrators while the chief business officers pre- ferred accounting at the bachelor’s level. All three groups agreed that business administration was the preferred major for both "some graduate“ and "master’s level" study. At the doctoral level, 67 percent of the 32 the general concept of educational philosophy, and the qualities of tact, human relations skills, experience, ability to cooperate, and supervisory and leadership ability as desired business officer traits (p. 113). Setoodah ranked the following qualifications as being important to the position: personal traits such as integrity, courtesy, understanding, patience, courage, sensitivity, and vision; a terminal degree, preferable in accounting or business administration; and, administrative experience in a higher education setting (p. 113-115). Floyd conducted a nationwide survey to ascertain the characteris- tics, previous employment experiences, and educational backgrounds of business officers at 600 randomly selected public community, junior and technical colleges. She included the chief executive officer, the chief instructional administrator and the chief business officer of each insti- tution contacted. While the profile characteristics identified by Floyd more or less confirmed the findings of others cited in this review, she found “the CBOs disagreed with the CEOs and the CIAs on the preferred minimum educational level. The C805 preferred the bachelor’s degree... while the majority of the CEOs and CIAs preferred the master’s degree" (p. 52). Interestingly, Floyd reported a majority of responding business officers held a master’s degree or higher (p. 52). Floyd reported that, for those who preferred a bachelor’s degree as the minimum education level for a chief business officer, business admin- istration was the preferred major area of study by the presidents and chief instructional administrators while the chief business officers pre- ferred accounting at the bachelor’s level. All three groups agreed that business administration was the preferred major for both "some graduate" and "master’s level'I study. At the doctoral level, 67 percent of the 33 presidents and 50 percent of the chief business officers preferred edu- cational administration as the major area of study, and 58 percent of those chief business officers holding a doctorate majored in educational administration (p. 29-31). Fifty percent of the chief instructional ad— ministrators preferred business (accounting and business administration), 25 percent preferred educational administration, and 25 percent preferred any other major area of study at the doctorate level (p. 85-86). The~majority of all groups surveyed by Floyd felt that certification as a public accountant (CPA) was not a necessary requirement for the chief business officer position (p. 31-32). There was also agreement among the three groups that the business officers have previous work experience in education, especially in educational administration (p. 32-37). A majority of the responding presidents and instructional administrators also favored some previous instructional experience and 50 percent of the business officers agreed with them (p. 41). Although a majority of the business officers, instructional administrators, and presidents also con- sidered previous experience in business, industry, and government impor- tant, fewer business officers in the Floyd study had specific experience in management and accounting outside the colleges than desired by any of the three groups (p. 46-48, 54). um r The literature revealed a fairly consistent core of responsibilities held by business officers at different kinds of institutions of higher education--public and private, large and small, two- and four-year, and specialized colleges and universities. Most business officers reported complete or'major responsibility for accounting, budgeting, bursar, audit 34 or internal control, investment management, payroll, physical plant, pur- chasing, insurance, auxiliary services, safety and security, and nonaca- demic personnel administration. Institutional and long range planning, coordination of grant and contract administration, and data processing activities were frequently identified by the chief business officers as shared functions. However, the study of small colleges which split data processing into academic and administrative categories found chief business officers held more respon- sibility for administrative data processing while they were relatively uninvolved in the operation of academic data processing activities. While student financial aid, fund raising, labor relations, and legal services were most often reported by the business officers as minor functions or as functions not performed, most research results indicated they were performed by a minority of business officers on a fairly regular basis. A common relationship between the chief financial/business officer and the president appears to be as one of several officers sharing major institutional concerns and decisions. Setoodah asserted the business officer has more contact with the president and various governing bodies than other senior administrators and LeCroy depicted the relationship of the business officer'to the academic officer'as being somewhat adversarial in nature. Positions identified by various researchers as reporting to the chief financial officers were comptroller, director of physical plant, director of personnel, director of auxiliary enterprises and/or some com- bination of titles which more or less fit into these categories, e.g., a manager of bookstore, business manager, or food service director. The reports on the business officer relationship to governing boards were mixed; some business officers serve as officers on their boards while 35 others attend regularly but only become involved when asked to present special reports. Most of the chief business officers, however, attend board meetings and are involved at the subcommittee level, especially with the board’s financial subcommittee. The majority of chief financial officers appear to hold the title of vice president at many types of institutions of higher education and especially at the larger colleges and universities. The typical profile of a business officer for all types of institutions reviewed is that of a white male just under fifty years of age who holds a master’s degree and who has fifteen to twenty-year of previous experience, from five to eight of which are in his current position. Jenkins found that the business officer position was the ultimate career goal for a majority of the respondents to his studies and Javidpour reported good or very good reported levels of job satisfaction for the majority of chief business officers responding to his survey. The primary career orientation, both actual and preferred, of chief financial/business officers at most types of institutions was found to be college business administration, with some reported career background in business, industry, or government settings. However, Keller reported a substantial portion (about one third) of business officers indicated no previous educational experiences prior to appointment to their chief business officer position. Most chief business officers hold bachelor’s degrees while many hold master’s degrees and a few hold the doctorate. The majority of reported undergraduate specializations were in accounting, management, and business administration. Business administration and accounting were the most popular specializations at the master’s level while the most frequently 36 reported area of specialization at the doctoral level was educational administration. Much of the research on chief business officers focused on community colleges with some investigation of institutions of higher education in general which combined the study of chief business officers at large, small, public, private, technical, health, liberal arts, and religious and other specialized colleges and universities. Jenkins investigated the chief financial officer at large, public universities and Hungerman studied the chief business officer at small colleges. The major focus of chief business/financial officer research has been on the identification of job responsibilities and on developing an educational, career, and personal characteristic profile. Calver also looked at community college business officer performance effectiveness, leader behavior, and level of delegation of assigned tasks while Javidpour asked about job satisfaction and Jenkins inquired about ultimate career goals. Hungerman and Whims most thoroughly studied the relationship of the chief business officer to other administrators and to the board of control. Only Floyd included the chief instructional administrator (CIA) as respondents 'hi her' research activities but several investigators recommended that the chief academic officer perceptions of the chief business officer position be explored. Investigation of the chief financial officer at large, public universities has been limited to the Jenkins surveys which were sent to chief financial officers and concentrated mainly on the identification of reported position responsibilities and briefly touched upon personal, career, and educational characteristics as well as title and hierarchal relationship to the board, the president, and the chief academic officer. 37 It is the intent of this study to further the research on the chief financial officer position in large, public colleges and universities by examining the perceptions of the presidents and the chief academic officers as well as the perceptions of the chief financial officers in relation to job functions and responsibilities, including a look at levels of chief financial officer personal involvement in identified functional areas. Chief financial officer involvement in executive level, institu- tional, board, legislative and public relations roles and relationships will also be investigated, including weekly chief financial officer con- tacts. CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES The general intent of this investigation was to explore further the position of the chief financial officer at large four-year public colleges and universities. The study was developed to enhance the position profile which has evolved thus far in the literature on the chief business/finan- cial officer, and to explore CFO relationships with institutional, board, legislative, and public constituencies. The main focus of the study was to obtain and compare the perceptions of the CFO position held by three executive officers: the chief financial, the chief executive, and the chief academic officers at selected institutions of higher education. Im- pressions of chief financial officer responsibilities and the importance of those responsibilities to the institution as‘well as impressions of in- stitutional, board, legislative, and public relationships were sought. Pooulationsand Sampla The 1988 Higher Education Directory was used to identify four-year public colleges and universities within the fifty American states with listed enrollments of 10,000 or more. The enrollment figures listed in the directory represent head count enrollment as taken from the United States Department of Education Center*for Statistics. 'This identification process produced a numbered list or directory of 190 institutions; the 38 39 list of the names of the identified institutions is presented in Appendix E. The chief financial, chief executive, and chief academic officers at these institutions constituted the three respondent populations, and each officer received the appropriate cover letters and questionnaires; these materials are presented in Appendices A, B, and C. Choice of the Mailed Questionnaire Method After considering the limitations and advantages of using a written questionnaire approach, a mail questionnaire was selected as the research instrument. Questionnaires have the advantage that they can be adminis- tered to more than one person at a time (e.g. an assembled group), sent through the mail rather quickly and inexpensively, answered by the respon- dent at his/her own pace, designed to maintain respondents’ anonymity, and standardized with exactly the same questions for all respondents (Anderson et al, 1975, p. 311). Norusis identifies the great advantages of conduct- ing your own survey as follows. You can ask the questions you want to ask in the way you want to ask them. You can choose exactly the population you want to study and select just the kind of sample you need... you can deal with all of the problems that come up during the survey itself. In short, you can do everything possible to make sure the survey will help you answer your questions (Norusis, 1986, p. 12). It was understood that the study would, however, be subject to the limitations incurred when data is obtained through the use of a written questionnaire. Researchers using a written survey must limit their obser- vations to fewer events than with other forms of study. They must select the events to observe before they begin the survey and, because the infor- mation gathered is more limited, there is less flexibility in interpreta- tion (Harrison, 1979, p. 13-14). Responses to a mailed questionnaire may 40 not be accurate or truthful (e.g. a respondent may make careless errors or feel threatened by an item). Low response rates are also a problem and may result in a biased sample, and responses to mailed questionnaires are subject to situationally-induced differences. Further, respondents must be able to read and write (Anderson, et al, p. 311-12 and Norusis, 1983, p. 33). It was anticipated that the study would yield meaningful results within the described areas of investigation. It*was also assumed that the positions of'the'chief financial officers within the study population were sufficiently homogenous to yield a composite description of role, respon- sibilities, and relationships, and that the individual opinions of the respondents would provide meaningful collective data. Several steps were taken to address the general limitations of the mailed questionnaire and promote an acceptable response rate. The total population was surveyed to avoid the risk of sampling error, and the in- struments were pretested to assure that items could be completed easily. In addition, the study targeted a relatively homogeneous and highly educated population. Two survey instruments were designed, one for the chief financial officers only, and one for both the chief executive and the chief academic officers. The first instrument, the chief financial officer questionnaire, included four major sections. Part I (A) addressed job functions and consisted of two dimensions: chief financial officer responsibilities, and the importance of those responsibilities to the institution. Part I (B and C) identified in rank order the five functional areas in which chief financial officers are most and least personally involved. Part II of the CFO questionnaire examined perceptions about chief financial 41 officer board, institutional, legislative, and external relations, while Part III sought institution enrollment and budget information. Part IV of the CFO questionnaire identified the most frequent weekly contacts of the chief financial officer'with other campus individuals. 'The chief'exe- cutive and chief academic officer questionnaires were shorter and dupl ica- ted Part I (A) and Part II of the chief financial officer questionnaire. The instrument was pretested to establish content validity-—to ascertain that the instrument measured what it was intended to measure (i.e., its accuracy, or the degree that the observable measures were ac- curate representations of the intentions of the survey). The chief execu- tive, chief academic, and chief financial officers at two universities answered appropriate questionnaires, and the additional review of the in- struments by several professors was also obtained. Information provided by the pretesters and reviewers was used to modify the questionnaires. Deve ent f t uesti nn ire The research questions which follow guided the development of the items for the questionnaire, the formulation of the research hypotheses, and the selection of subsequent data analyses which tested the null hypo- theses. Within the scope of large four-year public colleges and univer- sities, only Jenkins has inventoried job function responsibilities, and his study'was limited to the self-report of chief financial officers. One aim of this study was to ascertain whether Jenkins’ observations held, while a second aim was to explore the perceptions of the presidents and academic officers to determine whether they were in agreement with the chief financial officers’ assessment of the responsibility levels of their own job functions. For the responsibility items, a five-point scale and 42 accompanying definition of the terms "none-minor-shared-major-complete" was used (Jenkins, Calver, et al). It was expected that the financial officers in this study would be in general agreement with the findings of the Jenkins research. It was also assumed that the presidents would agree with the financial officers to some extent (Setoodeh and Whims). Because the academic and financial officers represent two distinct sets of insti- tutional objectives and two distinct organizational divisions, there was interest in whether differences exist between the two and, if so, what kind. Chief academic officer perceptions were expected to differ from financial officer perceptions more than'were the perceptions of the presi- dents (LeCroy). Research Questions: 1. As perceived by the chief executive officers, to what extent is the chief financial officer responsible for the functional areas identified in the research of the literature? 2. As perceived by the chief academic officers, to what extent is the chief financial officer responsible for the functional areas identified in the research of the literature? 3. As perceived by chief financial officers, to*what extent is the chief financial officer responsible for the func- tional areas as identified in the research of the lit- erature? 4. How do the responses of the chief executive, academic, and financial officers to CFO job function responsi- bility level compare? Hypgthesis: Ho1i No group differences will be found among the chief exe- cutive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of levels of responsibility for the identi- fied functional areas (Hm: uEi = uM . u") for all i. 43 In addition to the perceived level of responsibility for the identi- fied job functions, how important to the institution do the respondents perceive the job functions to be? The concept of criticalness assumes one’s level of power and influence rises with the essentialness of one’s activities to the organization (Mintzberg). Again, it was expected that the presidents would be in stronger agreement with the financial officers than the provosts would be. How does each population’s perception of job function responsibility relate to that group’s perception of job function importance? Are they strongly alike, somewhat related, weakly related, independent, or mutually exclusive? Because there are so many items (thirty eight) in the job portfolio, medium or weak associations were expected. Research Questions: 5. As perceived by chief executive officers, how important are the identified functional areas to the institution? 6. As perceived by chief academic officers, how important are the identified functional areas to the institution? 7. As perceived by chief financial officers, how important are the identified functional areas to the institution? 8. How do the responses of the chief executive, academic, and financial officers to CFO job function importance compare? Hypothasis: H02, No group differences will be found among the chief exe- cutive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of the importance of the responsibilities to the institution (Hm: uEi - u“ - u“) for all i. Research Questions: 9. What is the relationship between the responses of the chief executive officers to the responsibility for the job functions and their responses to the institutional importance of the job functions? 44 10. What is the relationship between the responses of the chief academic officers to the responsibility for the job functions and their responses to the institutional importance of the job functions? 11. What is the relationship between the responses of the chief financial officers to the responsibility for the job functions and their responses to the institutional importance of the job functions? Hypotheses: Ho3 No relationship exists between the executive officers’ perceptions of responsibility level and institutional importance (Ho: R2,: = 0). Ho, No relationship exists between the academic officers’ perceptions of responsibility level and institutional importance (Ho: Rm = 0). H05 No relationship exists between the financial officers’ perceptions of responsibility level and institutional importance (Ho: R3,: = 0). There was additional interest in addressing CFO organizational rela- tionships beyond the job function responsibilities and their importance to the institution. The study also explored the extent to which the chief financial officers were perceived by themselves and their presidents and provosts to be involved and influential in other organizational areas. Questionnaire items which addressed chief financial officers’ relationship to their institution’s controlling board, their relationship to their institution’s executive decision-making council or committee, their rela- tionship to policy formulation and implementation in both business and nonbusiness areas within their institution, their representation of the institution in external relations, and their formal rank.within the insti- tution were identified for exploration (Mintzberg). It was thought that Jenkins’ finding on CFO formal rank within the institution would hold, i.e., that chief financial officers would perceive themselves as being ranked slightly lower than the chief academic officer 45 and equal to or somewhat higher than other vice presidents. This assump- tion was also made for both the chief executive and the chief academic officers--the expected finding was that the tradition of the academic officer being the "second in command" would hold for all three respondent types. se rch stions: 12. What are the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of financial officer formal rank within the institution? 13. How do the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of financial officer formal rank within the institution compare? Hypothesis: H06: No group differences will be found among the chief exe- cutive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of CFO formal rank (Hm: uEi - uM = u“) for Chief financial relationships to the outside governing board were also addressed in the questionnaire through a series of items which asked about the CFO’s involvement with board activities and board members as compared to the board involvement of the president, provost, and other vice presidents. The presidents were expected to view themselves as hav- ing stronger relationships with the board than the financial officers, to view the provost and financial officers as being equal in board relations, and to view CFO board relations as somewhat stronger than the other vice presidents’ board relationships. LeCroy’s description of the stereotypi- cal image the CFOs and provost hold of each other led to the speculation that perhaps the provosts would view the financial officers as having somewhat stronger board relations than the provosts and other vice presi- 46 dents. It was expected that the CFOs would perceive themselves as having board relationships less strong than the presidents, equal to the pro- vosts, and stronger than the other vice presidents. Research Questions: 14. What are the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of financial officer board relations? Descriptive statistics will be pre- sented. 15. How do the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of financial officer board relations compare? 312mm: Ho7i No group differences will be found among the chief exe- cutive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of chief financial officer board relations (HOi: uEi = uAi = uFi) for all i. Chief financial officer internal relationships‘were examined through a series of items about major areas of decision-making, policy setting, and policy implementation in colleges and universities. It was expected that the CFOs would view themselves as having a higher impact in their own areas and a lower impact in academic and student areas. No expectations were formulated for the presidents and academic officers. Rasearch Questions: 16. What are the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of financial officer in- stitutional relations? Descriptive statistics will be presented. 17. How do the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of institutional rela— tions compare? Hypothesis: Ho8i No group differences will be found among the chief exe- cutive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of financial officer institutional relations (H05: ulEi = uM = u“) for all i 47 The involvement of the chief financial officer in legislative, public, and community relations was also examined. Baseargh Questions: 18. What are the chief executive, academic, and financial officers’ perceptions of CFO external relations? 19. How do the chief executive, academic, and financial officers’ perceptions of CFO external relations compare? Hypothesis: Ho9 No group differences will be found among the chief exe- cutive, chief academic, and chief financial officers’ perceptions of financial officer external relations (Ho: uE = uA . UP). The chief financial officers received a slightly longer question- naire than did the chief executive and chief academic officers. The CFOs were asked to list the job functions for which they most and least often delegated assignments to other staff members. The intent was to identify those areas in which the CFOs spent the greatest and least amount of their time. They were also asked to list their most frequent weekly campus con- tacts in an attempt to build a picture of the typical CFO campus network. This has been done only at the community college level (Calver and Whims). Resgarch Quastions: 20. In rank order, with which five functional areas are the chief financial officers least likely to be involved? 21. In rank order, with which five functional areas are the chief financial officers most likely to be involved? 22. In rank order, what are the ten most frequent chief fin- ancial officer weekly contacts with other campus indivi- duals? The independent variables were examined to determine whether rela- tionships between them and the questionnaire response patterns exist. 48 Basgargp Question: 23. Are there relationships among the demographic characteristics (head count enrollment, budget, number of years served, and geographic location) and the responses to items addressing functional responsibilities, importance of functional respon- sibilities to the institution, formal rank, and board, insti- tutional, and external relations? 8222mm: Ho10 There are no associations in response patterns as a function of years served, geographic area, budget, or enrollment ngstionnaira Administration and Data Collaction The questionnaire was mailed to the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers at selected institutions.with an accompanying cover letter’which described the purpose of the study, its importance, the importance of the response, and the desired response date. In addition, the investigator offered to provide a summary of the findings. Each sur- veys was printed on a different color of paper to expedite the administra- tion, collection, and data coding processes (Borg and Gall, and Dillman). A week after the original mailing, the first followup procedure was implemented. The complete respondent group was thanked for responding or reminded, if they had not already done so, that their response was important (Dillman, and Calver, 1973). Copies of this correspondence are included in Appendix D. The second followup effort consisted of mailing a new cover letter (Borg and Gall) and a second copy of the appropriate questionnaire to non- respondents several weeks after the reminder/thank you letter was sent. In the instances where only one or two responses were received from a given institution, a personal note was handwritten on the followup cover letter which informed the nonrespondent that responses had been received 49 from their executive, academic, and/or financial officer (5), and that filling out and returning the questionnaire would help round out or com- plete the data set (Calver). Copies of the followup letters are presented in Appendix E. The final followup effort was to telephone those chief executive and academic officers whose other two officers (financial and president or provost) had previously responded to either the initial or second mailing and asking if they'would be willing to complete the questionnaire. Questionnaires were individually stamped with an identification num- ber, and an identical number'was placed next to the corresponding institu- tion on the master mailing list (Calver, Dillman). A slash mark was made in the appropriate officer column next to the number on the list when the matching questionnaire was received. A second slash mark (which formed an ’X’ in the column) was made when each reply was double checked for accurate entry prior to further followup and processing activities. Data Qrganizatipn The individual questionnaire items about job function responsibil- ity, job function importance, board relations, institutional involvement, and external relations were grouped into subscales for the following sev- eral reasons. First, keeping the number of statistical analyses to the minimum reduces Type I error, the probability of statistically significant differences occurring because of chance. With some thirty-eight responsi- bility items, thirty-eight importance items, two formal rank items, four- teen board relations items, nine institutional relations items, and five external relations items, there were 106 separate comparisons possible for each respondent population. 'Testing each comparison separately'would lead 50 one to predict that several statistically significant results would be found in the data by chance alone, even if the populations do not differ. Second, the scope of the individual indicator may not match the scope of the concept that we wish to measure, i.e., particular questions may indicate what we wish to measure for some respondents but not for others. To know what a particular response should be taken to indicate, we can see whether it forms part of a larger pattern of response. Third, the response to any single question may be in error and the effects of such an error on a single item will be diluted if more aggre- gate data is analyzed. Last, indices and scales are efficient mechanisms for data analysis; considering several items may give a more comprehensive and more accurate indication (Orenstein and Phillips, p. 258-260, Babbie, p. 390-391). The thirty-eight job function areas were divided into five categor- ies taken from the reading of the literature and presented below (NACUBO, Whims, Calver, et al). Ten subscales were developed from this consolida- tion-~five responsibility subscales and five importance subscales. The.job function groupings were then reviewed by several chief financial officers who agreed with the placement of the job functions within the groups. Job Function Area Subscales Based,on Reading of the Literature Accountancy Finance Accounting Borrowing of Finances Auditing Budget Control Bursar/Cashier Operations Budget Development Internal Control Cost Information Determin. Payroll Development/Fund Raising Reporting Economic Dev./Real Estate Indirect Cost Rate Estab. Investment Management 51 Adams—tramp Grant & Contract Administration General Services Labor Relations (academic) Labor Relations (nonacademic) Campus Mail Service Legal Management Data Processing (academic) Management Information Systems Data Processing (nonacademic) Institutional Research Facility Planning/Construction Personnel Administration (nonacademic) Facility Operation/Maintenance Risk Management and Insurance Physical Plant Space Management Purchasing Safety and Security Transportation Business Services Bookstore Food Services Housing Press/Copy Centers University Center Telecommunications The thirty relationship items in Part II of the parallel portion of the survey instruments reflecting Mintzberg’s controlling board, internal, and external influence considerations were collapsed into nine sub-scales: 1) CFO organization rank; 2) CFO board relations compared to the presi- dent; 3) CFO board relations compared to the provost; 4) CFO board rela- tions compared to the other vice presidents; 5) CFO executive council impact; 6) CFO involvement in academic areas; 7) CFO involvement in busi- ness areas; 8) CFO involvement in student affairs; and, 9) CFO external relations. Examination of both Part I and Part II data focused on sub- scale rather than on individual item analyses. Data Analysis The parallel portions of the questionnaires consisted of a five- point scale. In the past, scaled data of this nature would be considered as only ordinal data, and the statistics appropriate for this level of 52 measurement would be limited (Stevens, 1975, in Bohrnstedt and Knoke, 1988: p. 16-17). More recently, Bohrnstedt and Knoke have argued that the most important distinction in selecting appropriate statistical techniques is whether the underlying variables being considered are continuous or discrete: "Sinceemost ordinal scales are assumed to reflect an underlying concept which is continuous, their measures will often be treated as if they were continuous as well” (p. 18). In this study, the underlying variables are considered to be continuous and statistical techniques appropriate to this type of data were used. Preliminary analysis included obtaining frequency counts and per- cents for all items. This produced a basic descriptive analysis, as well as making it possible to check for any incorrect coding or other irregu- larities not found in the original data entry examination. The focus was on summary scores for each of the subscales rather than on each of the 106 items separately. First, a priori groupings were formed based upon a conceptual interpretation of a reading of the litera- ture, then a reliability analysis*was conducted to examine their cohesive- ness (scale reliability). Several indices based on more than one data item were calculated for each of the three respondent groups. Items were dropped from their subscales when or if the item-total correlation was below .3; if there was a moderate item-total correlation, below .5, and the other variables in thelgroup had noticeably stronger item-total corre— lations; or if the alpha score for the scale was considerably improved by dropping an item. Further, alpha coefficients above .4 were required for subscale retention. Adjustments were made to subscale content prior to further analytic activity and are discussed fully in Chapter Four. When reporting subscale percent distributions, data were categorized into five 53 discrete units to represent the five-point scale used in the survey in- strument. The ranges were 1 to 1.50 (l), 1.51 to 2.50 (2), 2.51 to 3.50 (3), 3.51 to 4.50 (4), and 4.51 to 5 (5). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient technique was used to measure the degree of association between the presidents’ perception of both CFO job function responsibility and job function importance and to indicate the strength of agreement about the relationship, if any. This technique was repeated for the chief academic officer population and for the chief financial officer population. Statistical differences among the three groups were tested at the .05 level of significance using analysis of variance (Anova), with the Scheffe'test employed as the post hoc comparison. These procedures were applied when looking for differences in the independent means among the three populations on job function responsibility levels, on the importance of the job functions to the institution, on formal rank, on board rela- tions, on institutional relations, and on external relations. CFO responses to the most and least delegated job functions were tabulated to determine the five most often named activities, and weekly campus contact replies were analyzed to determine the ten most often named contacts. The chi square test was used to determine whether there were associations between the response patterns and the independent variables undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment, budget size, years served, or geographic location. Summary The purpose of the study; characteristics of the population and sam- ple; the rationale for using a mail questionnaire; the development of the 54 survey instrument, including a presentation of underlying research ques- tions and testable hypotheses; procedures for'administration of the survey and collection of data; and the techniques selected for analyzing the data resulting from the research project were discussed in this chapter. The study involved using two questionnaires which shared a common core of items to gather responses from the three types of respondents. Compari- sons by respondent type and questionnaire item groupings were proposed. Chapter Four will present fully the findings of the study. CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Surveys were mailed to three populations, 190 chief executive, 190 chief academic, and 190 chief financial officers at large, four-year pub- lic colleges and universities. The response rate for the chief academic and chief financial officer populations was very good, the 127 responses needed to attain the 95 percent confidence level was obtained. The re- sponse rate for the chief executive officers was lower, only 96 replies were received from this population. Additionally, several of their re- turned forms bore initials which might indicate that replies were made by another administrator. Because the t-test comparisons of the responding and nonresponding CEOs on the geographic region, undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment, and budget variables produced no significant differ- ences, analyses were conducted as described in the previous chapter. How- ever, caution in interpreting the chief executive officers’ responses was observed throughout the presentation and discussion of the data. Table 1: Actual and Percent Respondent Rates* Number of Percent of .=__Eamtion Tim—Jamie; Chief Executive 96 50.5 Chief Academic 127 66.8 Chief Financial 130 68.4 * A total of 190 surveys was sent to each respondent group 55 56 Subscale Reliability The reliability check on the subscales developed from the literature assumed three criteria for the rejection of an item from its a priori sub- scale: (1) an item-total correlation below 0.3; (2) a moderate item-total correlation, between .3 and .5, when the other variables in the group had noticeably stronger item-total correlations; or, (3) the potential impact on the alpha score of dropping an item. Reliabilities for job function responsibility subscales led to the deletion of auditing (.23), reporting (.24), development/fund raising (.15), and grant and contract administration (.18) from their original groupings because item-total correlations were below 0.3. The item-total correlations for the business services variables ranged from .56 to .76 with the exception of telecommunications (.44) which was pulled from the group based on the second criterion. Item-total correlations for general services variables ranged from .58 to .82 with the exception of academic data processing (.33) and non-academic data processing (.42), which were removed from that subscale. The item-total correlations for the external relations variables ranged from .51 to .72 with the exception of liaison with student and parents (.38) which was deleted from the external rela- tions subscale. Auditing, reporting, development/fund raising, grant and contract administration, telecommunications, academic data processing, and non- academic data processing were then grouped tentatively. Only the tele— communications, academic data processing, and non-academic data process- ing variables exhibited item-total correlations above a 0.3; the other variables ranged from .13 to .21. A subsequent grouping of just telecom- munications, academic data processing, and non-academic data processing 57 produced an alpha coefficient of .7888, and an experimental subscale con- taining the communications functions, data services, was proposed for in- vestigative purposes. The adjusted groupings follow. Job Function Area Subscales Modified to Reflect Reliability Testing AEQQEDLAQQX Accounting Bursar/Cashier Operations Internal Control Payroll Administration Labor Relations (academic) Labor Relations (nonacademic) Legal Management Management Information Systems Institutional Research Personnel Administration (nonacademic) Risk Management and Insurance Space Management Business Services Bookstore Food Services Housing Press/copy centers University Center Data Services Data Processing (academic) Data Processing (nonacademic) Telecommunications Finance Borrowing of Finances Budget Control Budget Development Cost Information Determination Economic Dev./Real Estate Indirect Cost Rate Estab. Invest Management Genemal Services Campus Mail Service Facility Planning/Construction Facility Operation/Maintenance Physical Plant Purchasing Safety and Security Transportation The Part II questionnaire subscales, board relations, institutional relations, and external relations (without the student and parent liaison item) had alpha coefficients ranging from .69 to .94. There was a total of twenty subscales after the reliability adjustments were made--six job function responsibility level subscales, six job function importance to the institution subscales, three board relations subscales, four institu- tional relations subscales, and an external relations subscale. 58 Table 2: Subscale Reliability Coefficients Alpha Subscale_Name §£9£§== PART I SUBSCALES: Accountancy (Responsibility) .7979 Administration (Responsibility) .7744 Business Services (Responsibility) .8370 Data Services (Responsibility) .7888 Finance (Responsibility) .6915 General Services (Responsibility) .9371 Accountancy (Importance) .7765 Administration (Importance) .8339 Business Services (Importance) .7846 Data Services (Importance) .7414 Finance (Importance) .7445 General Services (Importance) .8697 PART II SUBSCALES: Board (CFO to CEO) .7900 Board (CFO to CAO) .8930 Board (CFO to other Vice Presidents) .9217 Executive Council .8171 CFO in Acadamip Areas .7325 CFO in Business Areas .7605 CFO in Student Areas .8061 CFO External Relations .7925 59 The comparison of the chief financial officer rank with that of the provost and the comparison of the chief financial officer rank to those of the other vice presidents were treated separately. The auditing, re- porting, grant and contract administration, and perform as liaison to students and parents items were not included in any of the subscales. Again, the focus of analyses was on the twenty subscales and on the two formal rank items. Survey Part 1 CFO Job Function Subscale Percent Distributions Part I of the questionnaire listed thirty-eight job function respon- sibilities identified in the literature on the chief business/financial officer in higher education. The focus was on large, four-year public colleges and universities and the intent was to obtain the perceptions of the chief executive and chief academic officers as well as the self report of the chief financial officers. When reporting subscale percent distri- butions for responsibility levels and importance, data were categorized into five discrete units to represent the five-point scale used in the survey instrument. The ranges were 1 to 1.50 (none/none), 1.51 to 2.50 (minor/low), 2.51 to 3.50 (shared/medium), 3.51 to 4.50 (major/high), and 4.51 to 5 (complete/critical). Associated ANOVA tables begin on page 69. Table 3 presents the perceived level of CFO responsibility for the accountancy subscale job functions and for their perceived institutional importance by respondent type. Some 86.7 percent of the presidents, 85.7 percent of the academic officers, and 95.3 percent of the financial offi- cers indicated the CFO has major or complete responsibility for account- ancy functions. Some 83.1 percent of the presidents, 77.3 percent of the academic officers, and 78.2 percent of the financial officers perceived 60 accountancy to be of high or critical importance to their institutions. Table 3: Percent Distributions for the Accountancy Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent Value Executive Acad mic Finan ial Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- ' ' JALELLLQLfi wflwéfi. None None 2.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 Minor Low 5.6 0.0 3.6 1.8 0.8 0.8 [_Shared Medium 5.5 16.9 9.8 20.9 3.1 21.0 Major High 27.8 47.1 44.6 57.3 32.8 58.0 Mtg—CLIMAL =584_2=$- 0 41 . 1 29% LA; Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The percent distributions for responses to the administrative job functions and the perceived importance of them to the institution are presented in Table 4. The majority of the academic officers, 53.9 per- cent, reported the administrative subscale assignments were shared com- pared to 44.3 percent of the responding presidents and financial officers. Table 4: Percent Distributions for the Administration Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- 61 Nearly a third of all three respondent groups viewed the administrative functions as minor or not the responsibility of the CFO. Only 14.5 per- cent of the CAOs perceived the administrative functions as major or com- plete CFO responsibilities while 21.6 percent of the presidents and 23.4 percent of the financial officers indicated major or complete responsi- bility for the administrative functions identified in the questionnaire. Sixty-six percent of the responding presidents rated the adminis- trative functions as being of high or critical importance with 61.7 per- cent of the academic officers and 53.2 percent of the financial officers sharing that perception. The percent distributions for the business services subscale are displayed in Table 5. Data indicate that 47.7 percent of the presidents, 45.4 percent of the academic officers, and 40.8 percent of the financial officers viewed the chief financial officers’ responsibility level for business services functions as minor or none, while close to 30 percent of respondents in each of the groups viewed business services functions as being shared. Table 5: Percent Distributions for the Business Services Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent Value Executive Acadamic Finapaial Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor =Aaugaa===.s121111x==Lspse=n=s121111y=_Iance__=s1211111==tapse= _flppa None 22.1 0.9 18.5 1.0 18.3 1.8 Minor Loy 25.6 3.7 26.9 1.9 22.5 1.8 Shared _Jflgdipm 32.6 52.4 30.5 44.2 29.2 41.9 _Major High 13.9 32.9 17.6 47.0 24.2 48.1 =C2p2Istss=gtitiss11====§s§====1119=======21§=====§19 §1§==___§11_. Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 62 Thirty percent of the chief financial officers ranked business ser- vices functions as major or complete CFO responsibilities compared to 24.1 percent of the CAOS and 19.7 percent of the presidents. Some 54.5 percent of the financial officers and 52.9 percent of the academic officers per- ceived business services functions as high or critical compared to 43.9 percent of the presidents. The majority of the presidents, 52.4 percent, rated business services as being of medium importance to the institution. Finance functions were identified as the major or complete responsi- bility of the CFO by 68.6 percent of the presidents, 57.9 percent of the academic officers, and 69.4 percent of the financial officers. Interest- ingly, 81.9 percent of the presidents and 78 percent of the CAOs perceived finance functions as being of high or critical institutional importance compared to 65.1 percent of the financial officers. A third of the finan- cial officers ranked financial responsibilities as being of medium insti- tutional importance compared to 15.7 percent of the presidents and 21.1 percent of the academic officers. The percent distributions for the fin- ance subscale are provided in Table 6. Table 6: Percent Distributions for the Finance Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor 63 The percentage distributions for the general services subscale are presented in Table 7. These functions were rated as major or complete CFO responsibilities by 65.6 percent of both the executive and financial officers and by 71.2 percent of the academic officers. General services assignments were rated as minor or not CFO responsibilities by 29.2 per- cent of the executive officers, 22.4 percent of the academic officers, and 25.0 percent of the financial officers. Less than 10 percent of each respondent type viewed general services job functions as shared. General services functions were considered as being highly or critically important to the institution by 83.3 percent of the presidents, 72.7 percent of the academic officers, and 71.1 percent of the financial officers. Table 7: Percent Distributions for the General Services Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent V lue Executivaa Acadpmic Finan.ial Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- W%M%IMQ%. None None 3 10.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 Minor Lima 1 18.8 1.1 14.4 0.8 20.3 1.7 i Shared Medium? 5.2 15.6 6.4 26.5 9.4 27.2 Major High 28.1 61.1 33.6 52.9 23.4 60.4 MAHAWJALLALALAE 10-7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 8 presents the percent distributions for the data services subscale. All three respondent types were divided on the perception of CFO responsibility for'data services functions, but were in agreement that the functions were of high or critical importance to the institution. From 44 to 49 percent of all three respondent groups perceived data services 64 Table 8: Percent Distributions for the Data Services Subscale by Respondent type Percent Percent Percent Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- Respon- Impor- as being minor or not a CFO responsibility. Conversely, 30 to 40 percent of all three groups viewed data services functions as major or complete CFO responsibilities. Data services were rated as shared CFO functions by 23.4 percent of the presidents, 24.6 percent of the academic officers, and 20.8 percent of the financial offices. Some 92.2 percent of the responding presidents, 90.2 percent of the CAOS, and 88.5 percent of the financial officers perceived data services functions as being highly or critically important to the institution. Survey Part I Responsibility to Importance Correlation Coefficients The CFO job function responsibility subscales were compared to the parallel job function importance subscales for each of the three sample populations, the chief executive, the chief academic, and the chief fin- ancial officers. The resulting correlation coefficients are presented in Table 9. All significant coefficients were positive; the responses con- cerning responsibility and importance tended to yield either high scores or low scores on both items. 65 Table 9: Comparison of Responsibility to Importance--Subscale Correlation Coefficients by Respondent Type 14% MM “11% f Aptppntancy .4371** .2878** .3936** , Administration .1848* .1970* .2684** Business Services .2714** .3149** .3617** , Data Services .1525 .1336 .1387 Finance .4521** .3752** .4391** GeneralaServices .2804** .3280** .2055* * significant at less than the .05 level ** significant at less than the .01 level Coefficients ranging from .00 to .20 were interpreted as no or negligible correlations; .20 to .40 coefficients represented the range for low correlation; .40 to .60 coefficients represented the range for moderate correlations; .60 to .80 coefficients represented a marked degree of correlation; and, coefficients above .80 were interpreted as high cor- relations (Franzblau). Although significant correlations were obtained, most were in the no or low categories, while a few attained moderate status. There was a moderate correlation between the presidents’ perceived level of financial officer responsibility fer accountancy and finance and the perceived importance of those functions to the institution. The correlations between the presidents’ responses to the level of financial officer responsibility and institutional importance for the business ser- vices and general services subscales indicated a low relationship, while the correlations for the administration and data services subscales fell in the no relationship category. 66 The chief academic officers indicated no correlation between CFO level of responsibility and institutional importance for the adminis- tration and data services subscales. They indicated a low relationship between responsibility' and importance for' the accountancy, business services, finance, and general services subscales. The financial officers indicated a moderate relationship between the CFO responsibility level and importance to the institution on the finance subscale and no relationship on the data services subscale. The financial officers indicated a low relationship between CFO responsibil- ity and institutional importance for the remaining subscales, administra— tion, accountancy, business services, and general services. Overall, only the accountancy and finance subscales for the presi- dents and the finance subscale for the financial officers attained a mod- erate relationship level. No significant correlations at the .05 level were obtained for the data services subscale. Survey Part I CFO Job Function Delegation The chief financial officers were asked to indicate five job func- tions which they most often delegate (were least personally involved with) and the five job functions which they least often delegate (were most personally involved with). The findings are illustrated in Table 10. The payroll, accounting, bursar/cashier, reporting, and purchasing and transportation job functions were identified as the most often dele- gated job functions. Budget development, budget control, borrowing of finances and financial planning, investment management, and physical plant were the job functions the financial officers delegated least of- 67 ten. Four of the least delegated items are in the finance subscale, which was viewed by about two thirds of the chief executive, chief aca- demic and chief financial officers as being the major or complete re- sponsibility of the CFO. Over two thirds of all three respondent types also agreed that finance was of high or critical importance to the in- stitution. Table 10: CFO Most and Least Delegated Job Functions as Reported by the Chief Financial Officers (Percent) (Percent) 1. Payroll (10.0) 1. Budget Development (13.2) 2. Accounting ( 9.6) 2. Budget Control ( 9.5) 3. Bursar/cashier ( 7.9) 3.5 Borroying Finances ( 7.3) 4. Reporting ( 5.2) 3.5 Financial Planning ( 7.3) 5.5 sPurchasing ( 5.0) 5. Investment Mapagamant( 6.3) 5.5 Transpprtation ( 5.0)?1 6. PhysicaliPlant ( 6.2) §p__ary of Survey Payt_1 In summary, the findings for Part I of the questionnaire, the chief financial officer job function responsibility levels and the importance of the functions to the institution indicate that at least three fifths of all respondent types perceived the CFO as having major or complete responsibility for the accountancy and general services job functions. The chief financial officers appear to view themselves as significantly more responsible for accountancy functions than do the academic officers. Over three fifths of the responding presidents and financial officers also concurred that the CFO has major or complete responsibility for finance 68 job functions, and a majority of the academic officers (57.9 percent) were in agreement. Four of the least delegated job functions identified by the responding chief financial officers fell within the parameters of the finance subscale. Less than a third of each respondent group perceived the CFO as having major or complete responsibility for the administration and busi— ness services subscale job functions. Fewer than one third of the presi- dents and academic officers perceived the CFO as having major or complete responsibility for data services functions whereas 40 percent of the CFOs viewed data services functions as major or complete CFO responsibilities. More than three fifths of each respondent group ranked all of the job function subscales, except the business services subscale, as being of high or critical importance to the institution. About one half of the academic officers and financial officers viewed the business services job functions as highly or critically important, while about one half of the presidents perceived them to be of medium importance to the institu- tion. Survey Part,I Comparisons of Respondent Types on CFO Responsibility The responses of the chief executive, the chief academic and the chief financial officers to the job function responsibility subscales were compared using oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. The sub- scale means for each respondent type were compared to discover whether differences exist. Where significance at or below the .05 level were found, a multiple comparison test was applied to ascertain where the differences were. The Scheffe test was selected as post hoc comparison for this study. 69 Analysis of variance data for the accountancy responsibility sub- scale is presented in Table 11 and associated descriptive statistic data is presented in Table 12. Table 11: Responsibility for Accountancy: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F Sppggg Frgggpm §gpaggs Sggaggs Batig ELQDQQIIIIX Between Group 2 5.9662 2.9831 5.7704 .0034 Within Groups 327 169.0461 .5170 Total 329 175.0123 Table 12: Responsibility for Accountancy: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 90 4.4000 .8723 .0920 Academic 112 4.3058 .7479 .0707 Financial 128 4.6133 .5558 .0491 Total 330 4.4508 .7294 .0401 Fixed Effects .7190 .0396 Random Effects .0963 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0226 Because significance between the three respondent types was found at less than the .05 level, a multiple comparison was made to ascertain where the difference occurred. The means of the academic officers and the CFOs differed. The financial officers viewed themselves as significantly more responsible for the accountancy functions than the academic officerss perceived the CFOs to be. The means between the financial officers and the presidents and between the academic officers and the presidents were not found to be significant at the .05 level and are considered as equiva- 70 lent. Table 13 presents the post hoc procedure data. Table 13: Responsibility for Accountancy: Subscale Post Hoc Data Mean GrOUD Academic Executive Financial 4.3058 Academic 4.4000 Executive 4.6133 Financial * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level The analysis of variance data for the perceptions of financial officer responsibility for administration job functions and the asso- ciated descriptive statistics data are presented in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. No significant differences were identified among the three groups at the .05 level of significance. Table 14: Responsibility for Administration: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F 2:34;: ”We. Between Groups 2 1.1192 .5596 .8554 .4261 Within Groups 326 213.2756 .6542 Total 328 214.3948 71 Table 15: Responsibility for Administration: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 88 2.8722 .8855 .0944 Academic 117 2.7906 .7561 .0699 Financial 124 2.9264 .8002 .0719 Total 329 2.8636 .8085 .0446 Fixed Effects .8088 .0446 Random Effects .0446 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0009 The means of the three respondent types for the business services subscale were compared and no significant differences were found. The ANOVA and descriptive statistic data are presented in Tables 16 and 17. Table 16: Responsibility for Business Services: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F .=__52_unc_e OWL Between Groups 2 1.6640 .8320 .6009 .5490 Within Groups 311 430.5949 1.3845 Total 313 432.2589 Table 17: Responsibility for Business Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 86 2.5930 1.1526 .1243 Academic 108 2.7074 1.1860 .1141 Financial 120 2.7750 1.1852 .1082 Total 314 2.7019 1.1752 .0663 Fixed Effects 1.1767 .0664 Random Effects .0664 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0053 72 The ANOVA test for the finance subscale was also conducted and resulted in no significant differences among the three respondent types. Analysis of variance data and associated descriptive statistics for the finance subscale are shown in Table 18 and Table 19. There were no sig- nificant differences among the sample populations at the .05 level for the finance subscale. Table 18: Responsibility for Finance: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F Aces HWWMA Between Groups 2 3.0305 1.5152 2.8995 .0565 Within Groups 321 167.7501 .5226 Total 323 170.7805 Table 19: Responsibility for Finance: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 86 3.6860 .7264 .0783 Academic 114 3.5589 .6433 .0602 Financial 124 3.7846 .7868 .0707 Total 324 3.6790 .7271 .0404 Fixed Effects .7229 .0402 Random Effects .0691 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0093 Comparisons were also made for general services responsibility subscale group means. The ANOVA and descriptive statistic data for this subscale are presented below in Tables 20 and Table 21. There were no significant differences among the three responding officer types on this subscale. 73 Table 20: Responsibility for General Services: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F ==Sfl;__m ”WHEN Between Groups 2 1.3969 .6985 .4072 .6658 Within Groups 346 593.5209 1.7154 Total 348 594.9178 Table 21: Responsibility for General Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 96 3.6131 1.3983 .1427 Academic 125 3.7600 1.2418 .1111 Financial 128 3.7489 1.3058 .1154 Total 349 3.7155 1.3075 .0700 Fixed Effects 1.3097 .0701 Random Effects .0701 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0088 The means comparison for the data services responsibility subscale yielded no significant differences in the response patterns of the three respondent groups. The analysis of variance and descriptive statistic data are presented in Table 22 and Table 23, respectively. Table 22: Responsibility for Data Services: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F F gel-Ira; F rW Between Groups 2 3.5721 1.7861 1.0796 .3409 Within Groups 347 574.0964 1.6545 Total 349 577.6686 74 Table 23: Responsibility for Data Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deyiation Error Executive 94 2.7766 1.2909 .1331 Academic 126 2.7619 1.2102 .1078 Financial 130 2.9769 1.3527 .1186 Total 350 2.8457 1.2865 .0688 Fixed Effects 1.2863 .0688 Random Effects .0715 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0011 There was, overall, only one significant difference among the three respondent types on the six job function responsibility subscales. The academic officers and the chief financial officers differed significantly on the accountancy subscale, the CFOs indicated that they held more re- sponsibility for these functions than the provost viewed them as having. There were no significant differences between the presidents and either the academic officers or financial officers on the accountancy subscale. Survey Part I Comparisons of Respondent Types on CFO Importance The job function importance subscale group means were also compared for differences among the three respondent types using analysis of vari- ance and applying the Scheffe procedure as the post hoc treatment when differences were found. Analysis of variance data for the accounting importance subscale is presented in Table 24 on the following page. The associated descriptive statistic data is displayed in Table 25. No sig- nificant differences were found among the means for the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers on the accountancy importance subscale. 75 Table 24: Importance of Accountancy: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F F § Fr . . Between Groups 2 1.5094 .7547 2.1171 .1221 Within Groups 315 112.2901 .3565 Total 317 113.7995 Table 25: Importance of Accountancy: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count .Mean Deviation Error Executive 89 4.2472 .5989 .0635 Academic 110 4.0977 .5934 .0566 Financial 119 4.0903 .5990 .0549 Total 318 4.1368 .5992 .0336 Fixed Effects .5971 .0335 Random Effects .0490 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0038 Comparisons were also made for administration importance subscale group means. The ANOVA and descriptive statistic data for this subscale are presented in Tables 26 below and Table 27 on the following page. Table 26: Importance of Administration: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F =__$_!11;__LC£ ”WWW Between Groups 2 3.1031 1.5516 4.2663 .0149 Within Groups 303 110.1937 .3637 Total 305 113.2968 76 Table 27: Importance of Administration: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 82 3.8552 .5752 .0635 Academic 115 3.7717 .6102 .0569 Financial 109 3.6078 .6158 .0590 Total 306 3.7357 .6095 .0348 Fixed Effects .6031 .0345 Random Effects .0720 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0118 Significance among the three respondent groups on the administration importance subscale was found at less than the .05 level. The multiple comparison test indicated that the means of the presidents and the chief financial officers differed. The presidents viewed the administrative functions as being significantly more important to the institution than did the chief financial officers. The means between the academic offi- cers and the financial officers and between the academic officers and the presidents were not significantly different at the .05 level and are con- sidered equivalent. Table 28 presents the post hoc procedure data. Table 28: Importance of Administration: Subscale Post Hoc Data Mean Group Financial Academic Executive 3.6078 Finance 3.7717 Academic 3.8552 Executive * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level 77 The means of the three respondent groups for the business services importance subscales were compared and did not result in significant dif- ferences among the groups. Analysis of variance and associated descrip- tive statistic data are presented in Tables 29 and 30 below. Table 29: Importance of Business Services: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F .=====§9!££§ FIQSQ9m=====éQ9QC2é===é9EéL2é===Béng===fl£QfléfllliL¥= Between Groups 2 .1009 .0505 .1194 .8875 Within Groups 291 123.0214 .4228 Total 293 123.1223 Table 30: Importance of Business Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Maan Deviation Error Executive 82 3.5293 .6482 .0716 Academic 102 3.5490 .6366 .0630 Financial 110 3.5055 .6640 .0633 Total 294 3.5272 .6482 .0378 Fixed Effects .6502 .0379 Random Effects .0379 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0038 The application of the analysis of variance procedure when checking for differences among the means of the three respondent groups on the fin- ance importance subscale resulted in significance at less than the .05 level. Tables 31 and 32 contain the ANOVA and descriptive statistic data and are presented on the following page. 78 Table 31: Importance of Finance: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F F S Fr 1 S g B !. E ! !.1.! Between Groups 2 2.3041 1.1521 3.7161 .0255 Within Groups 298 92.3854 .3100 Total 300 94.6895 Table 32: Importance of Finance: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 83 3.9501 .6091 .0669 Academic 109 3.9069 .5692 .0545 Financial 109 3.7471 .4997 .0479 Total 301 3.8609 .5618 .0324 Fixed Effects .5568 .0321 Random Effects .0624 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0085 Table 33 presents the post hoc multiple comparison data for the fin- ance importance subscale. The mean of the presidents differed signifi- cantly from the mean of the financial officers. The presidents perceived the finance functions to be significantly more important to the institu- tion than did the chief financial officers. Table 33: Importance of Finance: Subscale Post Hoc Data Mean Group Financial Academic Executive 3.7471 Finance 3.9069 Academic 3.9501 Executive * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level 79 No significant differences between the chief academic and the chief fin- ancial officers or between the academic officers and the presidents were observed for the finance subscale. Significant differences at less than the .05 level were also found for among the means of the three respondent types for the general services importance subscale. The analysis of variance and associated descriptive statistic data are presented below in Tables 34 and 35. Table 34: Importance of General Services: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F . Source Fraadpm §guagas §guagas Batip Eggpapjlity Between Groups 2 2.5139 1.2570 3.6330 .0275 Within Groups 329 113.8310 .3460 Total 331 116.3449 Table 35: Importance of General Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 90 4.0365 .5570 .0587 Academic 121 3.9079 .6177 .0562 Financial 121 3.8158 .5804 .0528 Total 332 3.9092 .5929 .0325 Fixed Effects .5882 .0323 Random Effects .0621 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0083 There was a significant difference in perception of the importance of the general services functions to the institution between the presi- dents and the chief financial officers. The presidents perceived the general services functions to be significantly more important to the in- 80 stitution than the financial officers did. There were no significances reported at the .05 level between the president and the academic officer or between the chief financial officers and the chief academic officers. Table 36 presents the post hoc comparison data. Table 36: Importance of General Services: Subscale Post Hoc Data Mean Group Financial Academic Executive 3.8158 Finance 3.9079 Academic 4.0365 Executive * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level No significant differences were observed between the three respon- dent types when the analysis of variance test was applied to the data services importance subscale. Tables 37 and 38 present the ANOVA and associated descriptive statistic data for the data services subscale. Table 37: Importance of Data Services Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F ___Smncs. .._.__._._ F rgwmmmma Between Groups 2 .4383 .2191 .5640 .5695 Within Groups 331 128.6053 .3885 Total 333 129.0436 81 Table 38: Importance of Data Services: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 90 4.1704 .6246 .0658 Academic 122 4.2158 .6165 .0558 Financial 122 4.1311 .6292 .0570 Total 334 4.1727 .6225 .0341 Fixed Effects .6233 .0341 Random Effects .0341 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0015 Significance among the means of the responding chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers was identified at the .05 level for three job function importance subscales, administration impor- tance, finance importance, and general services importance. In all three instances, the presidents viewed the importance of the subscale functions to their institutions as being significantly more important than the fin- ancial officers perceived them to be. No significant differences at the .05 level were observed between the presidents and the academic officers or between the financial officers and the academic officers for any of the six importance subscales. Survey Part II CFO Organization Rank Percent Distributions The respondents were asked how the rank of the CFO compared to the rank of the provost and other vice presidents. Figure 1 displays the percent distributions for each respondent type for CFO rank compared to the rank of the provost. Some 5.3 percent of the presidents and 5.4 percent of the financial officers viewed CFO rank as much lower than that 82 of the provost compared to only 2.4 percent of the academic officers. However, 53.8 percent of the presidents, 55.5 percent of the CAOS, and 51.9 percent of the financial officers viewed the position of the CFO as being somewhat lower in rank than the provost. Fully a third of the presidents and academic officers (35.5 percent and 35.7 percent) viewed the CFO and provost as being equal in rank, while 41.1 percent of the financial officers indicated they were equal in rank to the provost. Of the responding presidents, 3.2 percent indicated CFO rank was somewhat higher than provost rank compared to 5.6 percent of the academic, officers E Executive I Academic Financial 60.00 v 55.00 4 50.00 v 45.00 4 40.00 1» 35.00 4 30.00 4 25.00 + 20.00 + 15.00 - 10.00 . 5.00 . 0.00 - M Lower S Lower Equal 3 Higher M Higher Figure 1: CFO Rank Compared to CAO Rank by Respondent Type and 1.6 percent of the financial officers. None of the financial offi- cers viewed CFO rank as much higher than provost rank but 2.2 percent of the presidents and .8 percent of the academic officers did. The percent distributions for financial officer rank compared to the rank of other vice presidents are presented in Figure 2. None of the academic officers and only 3.2 percent of the presidents and 1.6 per- cent of the financial officers perceived CFO rank to be much lower than the rank of other vice presidents. Of the responding presidents, 9.6 83 percent viewed CFO rank as somewhat lower than that of the other vice presidents as did 6.4 percent of the academic officers and 10.2 percent of the financial officers. Fifty percent of the presidents and 52 percent of the financial officers viewed CFO rank as equal to the other vice presidents compared to 59.7 percent of the academic officers. About a third of the presi- dents considered CFO rank to be somewhat higher than the rank of other vice presidents compared to 26.6 percent of the CAOs and 28.3 percent of the financial officers. Only 4.3 percent of the presidents, 7.3 percent E Executive 1111 Academic I Financial 9365888555??? 8333333338333 M Lower S Lower Equal S Higher M Higher Figure 2: CFO Rank Compared to Rank of Other Vice Presidents by Respondent Type of the academic officers, and 7.9 percent of the financial officers viewed the CFO as holding a much higher rank than the other vice presidents. Survey Part II Comparisons of Respondent lypes on CFQ Rank: Analysis of variance was computed for both the financial officer rank compared to provost rank item and for the item financial officer rank compared to the organization rank of other vice presidents. Tables 39 and 41 present the ANOVA data for these subscales while Tables 40 and 84 42 present the associatedldescriptive statistic information for these sub- scales. Significance at the .05 level was not observed for either of the rank items. Table 39: CFO Rank Compared to Provost Rank: Item ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F 11111111118 Fres111111111g111e11111g1111111111111111111212111111 Between Groups 2 .5112 .2556 .5592 .5722 Within Groups 338 154.5210 .4572 Total 340 155.0323 Table 40: CFO Rank Compared To Provost Rank: Item Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 92 2.4239 .7447 .0776 Academic 123 2.4634 .6810 .0614 Financial 126 2.3730 6162 .0549 Total 341 2.4194 .6753 .0366 Fixed Effects .6761 .0366 Random Effects .0366 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0018 Table 41: CFO Rank Compared to Rank of Other Vice Presidents: Item ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean ,11111111113 Fres111111111g111e1111191111111181111111111111111111 Between Groups 2 .3995 .1997 .3287 .7201 Within Groups 338 205.3953 .5077 Total 340 205.7947 85 Table 42: CFO Rank Compared to Rank of Other Vice Presidents: Item Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 92 3.2717 .8134 .0848 Academic 123 3.3577 .7028 .0634 Financial 126 3.3095 .8243 .0734 Total 341 3.3167 .7780 .0421 Fixed Effects .7795 .0422 Random Effects .0422 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0036 Again, no differences at the .05 level of significance were found for either the CFO rank compared to provost rank item or the CFO rank com- pared to the rank of the other vice presidents item. Survey Part II CFO Board Involvement Subscale Percent Distributions This section of the survey compared the board activities of the chief financial officer to those of the presidents, provosts, and other vice presidents. Involvement of the chief financial officers with the institution’s controlling board is compared to the involvement of the presidents with the institution’s controlling board in Table 43. Eighty-seven percent.of'the presidents, 91.1 percent of the academic officers, and 93.5 percent of the financial officers perceived the CFO as somewhat less or much less involved with the controlling board compared to the president. 86 Table 43: Percent Distributions for Comparison of CFO to CEO Board Involvement by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent .==__\LIJJJ_£ WM Finan—GA: Much Less 39.1 43.9 36.6 omewhat Less 47.9 47.2 5619 Egual 11.9 8.1 6.5 Somewhat More 1.1 0.8 0.0 Lin—mm: 0.1 L1? 014: Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 The involvement of the chief financial officer with the controlling board is compared to the involvement of the provosts with the controlling board in Table 44. One third of the chief academic officers, 26.1 percent of the presidents, and 18.5 percent of the financial officers viewed the CFO as being somewhat less or much less involved with the board than were the academic officers. Table 44: Percent Distributions for Comparison of CFO to CAO Board Involvement by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent =1L3—1Afi %& Finan—iii. Much Less 6.5 8.1 4.8 _Spmewhat Less 19.6 25.2 13.7 _Egual 60.9 54.5 58.9 Somewhat More 13.0 12.2 21.0 Am 0.11 041 1.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 87 A majority of each of the three respondent types perceived the CFO to be equally as involved in board activities as the provosts. Twenty-one per- cent of the financial officers perceived the CFO to be somewhat more in- volved in board activities than the provosts; 13.0 percent of the presi- dents and 12.2 percent of the academic officers ascribed to this view. Only 1.6 percent of the financial officers and none of the presidents or academic officers perceived CFO board involvement as much more than that of the provosts. Table 45 presents the percent distributions for financial officer involvement with the controlling board compared to the involvement of other vice presidents with the controlling board. Forty-five percent of the presidents, 41.3 percent of the academic officers, and 34.4 percent of the financial officers indicated that CFO board involvement was equal to that of the other vice presidents. About 46.2 percent of the presi- dents, 52.1 percent 0f the academic officers, and 57.4 percent of the fin- ancial officers perceived CFO involvement as somewhat more or much more that of the other vice presidents. Table 45: Percent Distributions for Comparison of CFO to Other Vice Presidents’ Board Involvement by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent ,_______Value Eagsutiyg===___flcademic Finauatal= Much Less 5.5 3.3 4.1 Somewhat Less 3.3 3.3 4.1 _Egual. 45.0 41.3 34.4 Somewhat More 39.6 40.5 41.8 M (1.16 11.§ _15;_&;= Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 88 Selacted CFO Only Board Relations Items Part III of the chief financial officers’ questionnaire asked the financial officers a few additional questions about their relationship to their controlling board. Table 46 reflects the percent distributions for these items. Nineteen percent of the responding financial officers held office on their governing board and five financial officers (3.8 percent) were voting members. Some 23.1 percent of the responding financial officers serve as members of their governing board’s finance or similar subcommit- tee, and 27.7 percent of responding financial officers work directly with Table 46: Percent Distributions for Selected CFO Board Relations Items Yes 0 No Response Total 913% LMLMLM LM. Hold Office 25 19.2* 103 79.2 2 1.5 130 100.0 _yota 5 3.8 56 43.1 69 53.1 130 100.0 Subcommittee 30 23.1 92 70.8 2 6.2 130 100.0 Work w/treas 36 27.7 37 28.5 57 43.8 130 100.0 , Downplay 45 34.6 62 47.7 23 17.7 130 100.0 * Of those CFOs who serve as officers, 60 percent (15) serve as board treasurers; .08 percent (2) serve as board secretaries; .04 percent (1) indicated s/he chairs the board; .08 percent (2) serve as "other" types of board officers; and, 20 percent (5) did not respond to this item. the treasurer of the board. Although 93.5 percent of the responding fin- ancial officers perceived CFO board activities to be somewhat or'much less than that of the president and only 6.5 percent of the CFOs reported their relationships with the controlling board were equal to or greater than the presidents (Table 11), fully a third, 34.6 percent, of the financial offi- 89 cers indicated that they at times downplayed the strength of their board relationships. Survey Part II Comparisons of Respondent Types on CFO Board Relations: Analysis of variance was calculated for each of the three CFO Board relations subscales. Financial officer involvement with the institution’s controlling or governing board compared to the involvement of the presi- dent, provost, and other vice presidents with the controlling board was investigated. The means comparison data for CFO board relations compared to the president are presented in Tables 47 and 48. No significant dif- ferences were found for this subscale. Table 47: CFO Board Relations Compared to President: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean 11111111113 Fre3111111111g111e11111g111e111111111111111111111111 Between Groups 2 .3717 .1859 .4708 .6249 Within Groups 335 132.2527 .3943 Total 337 132.6244 Table 48: CFO Board Relations Compared to President Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 92 1.8478 .6712 .0700 Academic 123 1.7663 .6392 .0576 Financial 123 1.7846 .5826 .0525 Total 338 1.7951 .6273 .0341 Fixed Effects .6283 0342 Random Effects .0342 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance -0.0019 90 Tables 49 presents the analysis of variance data for the comparison of financial officer board relations to provost board relations, and Table 49 presents associated descriptive data. Table 49: CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F .=__ieu_ncs "W Between Groups 2 6.0014 3.0007 5.9454 .0029 Within Groups 336 169.5840 .5047 Total 338 175.5854 Table 50: CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 92 2.8152 .6821 .0711 Academic 123 2.7122 .7111 .0641 Financial 124 3.0194 .7300 .0656 Total 339 2.8525 .7208 .0391 Fixed Effects .7104 .0386 Random Effects .0951 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0223 There was a significant difference in perception between the finan- cial officers and the academic officers on this subscale. The financial officers viewed themselves as having stronger relations with the control- ling board than the academic officers viewed the CFOs as having. There was no significance found at the .05 level between the president and the academic officers or between the chief financial officers and the presi- dents. Table 51 presents the post hoc comparison data for this subscale. 91 Table 51: CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost: Subscale Post Hoc Data Mean Group Academic Executive Financia1_ 2.7122 Academic 2.8152 Executive 3.0194 Financial * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level When the means on the CFO board relations compared to the board relation of the other vice presidents subscale were contrasted, no sig- nificant differences were observed. Tables 52 and 53 present the ANOVA and associated descriptive statistic data for this subscale. Table 52: CFO Board Relations Compared to Other Vice Presidents: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F ___Smee “919ng Between Groups 2 2.9697 1.4849 2.1801 .1147 Within Groups 331 225.4480 .6811 Total 333 228.4177 Table 53: CFO Board Relations Compared to Other Vice Presidents: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 91 3.4110 .8156 .0855 Academic 121 3.5107 .7920 .0720 Financial 122 3.6459 .8639 .0782 Total 334 3.5329 .8282 .0453 Fixed Effects .8353 .0452 Random Effects .0671 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0073 92 Survay Part 11 Board Relations Summary In summary, all three respondent types indicated that chief finan- cial involvement with the controlling board was somewhat or‘much less than that of the president and about equal to that of the provosts. Signifi- cantly more of the financial officers indicated the CFO had stronger in- volvement with the controlling board than did the academic officers, more of whom tended to view the chief financial officer as somewhat less in- volved with the board than the provosts were. .All three respondent groups indicated that the chief financial officers had at least equally strong involvement with the board as did the other vice presidents. Over one half of the academic officers and financial officers reported somewhat more or much more chief financial officer board involvement compared to the board involvement of other vice presidents and 46.2 percent of the presidents shared that perception. Survey Part 11 Institutional Relations Subscale Percent Distributions The questionnaire presented a series of questions about the level of CFO involvement and influence with the executive, decision-making, council of the institution. The percent distributions for CFO influence on the executive council are presented in Figure 3. None of the financial officers, 2.2 percent of the presidents, and 1.6 percent of the academic officers indicated that the CFO had no influ- ence on the institution’s executive council. Some 9.6 percent of the presidents, 9.7 percent of the academic officers, and 10.2 percent of the financial officers viewed CFO influence on the executive council as low. Executive council influence was rated as moderate by 36.6 percent of the presidents and 36.7 percent of the financial officers compared to almost 93 one half, 49.2 percent, of the academic officers. Some 44.1 percent of the presidents, 36.3 percent of the academic officers, and 46.1 percent of the financial officers viewed CFO executive council influence as high, while 7.5 percent of the presidents, 3.2 percent of the academic officers, and 7 percent of the financial officers perceived CFO council influence as very high. E Executive I Academic I111 Financial 1 l None Low Mod High V High Figure 3: Perceptions of CFO Influence on Executive Council by Respondent Type Financial officer involvement in academic policy formulation and im- plementation as perceived by each of the respondent types was explored in Part II of the mail questionnaire. Percent distributions for the academic policy subscale are displayed in Table 54. Eighty percent of the financial officers, 80.2 percent of the presi- dents, and 87.3 percent of the academic officers viewed CFO involvement in formulating and implementing academic policy as low or none. Financial 94 officer academic policy involvement was perceived as moderate by 16.7 per- cent of the presidents, 18.5 percent of the financial officers, and 9.5 percent of the academic officers. Table 54: Percent Distributions for the CFO Academic Policy Involvement Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent .=__J_IAJ_A£ %& “Mpg—:11. None 18.8 26.2 10.8 Low 61.4 61.1 69.2 Moderate 16.7 9.5 18.5 High 2.1 3.2 1.5 yggy High 1.0 9.0 0.Q=== Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 The percent distributions for chief financial officer involvement in the formulation and implementation of student services policy is pre- sented in Table 55. Table 55: Percent Distributions for the CFO Student Services Policy Involvement Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent .=======l119§ §A§£91112===___A£ademic Finapttal= None 16.7 15.1 8.5 Low 47.9 64.3 58.4 Moderate 29.2 16.6 26.2 High 4.1 3.2 6.9 1311111911 11 (11.8 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 95 CFO involvement in student policy formulation and implementation was perceived as low or none by 64.6 percent of the presidents, 79.4 percent of the academic officers, and 66.9 percent of the financial officers. Moderate involvement in student policy formulation and implementation was indicated by 29.2 percent of the presidents, 16.6 percent of the academic officers, and 26.2 percent of the financial officers. The percent distributions for CFO business policy involvement are displayed in Table 56. Chief financial officer involvement in business policy formulation and implementation was perceived as high or very high by 88.4 percent of the presidents, 87.2 percent of the academic officers, and 97.7 percent of the financial officers. While 10.5 percent of the presidents and 11.2 percent of the academic officers indicated moderate CFO involvement in business policy formulation and implementation, only 1.5 percent of the financial officers agreed that their involvement was moderate. Table 56: Percent Distributions for the CFO Business Policy Involvement Subscale by Respondent Type Percent Percent Percent =___\LL121 £214me pm None 0.0 0.0 0.0 _Loy 1.1 1.6 0.8 , Moderate 10.5 11.2 1.5 High 38.9 44.8 40.8 yggy High 42*; 4a14 56.21..= Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 The chief financial officers were asked to list by general title, in rank order, those campus individuals they most frequently came into 96 contact with on a weekly basis. Table 57 presents the ten most often identified responses. The president and academic officer were ranked as the first and second most frequent CFO weekly campus contacts. The budget director or associate vice president for budget, and the director of physical plant were identified as the third and fourth most frequent CFO weekly campus contacts. The fifth most frequent CFO weekly campus contact was the stu- dent affairs vice president. The sixth through ninth ranked CFO weekly campus contacts were the assistant vice president for business and fin- ance, the personnel director, the controller, and the bursar. There was a tie for the tenth-ranked most frequent CFO weekly campus contact between the vice president for development and the director of media relations. Table 57: CFO Ten Most Frequent Campus Contacts ==Aank Titla Numpgr PQEEQDL== 1 President 109 86.5 2 Vice Pres. Academic Affairs/Provost 103 81.7 3 Assoc. Vice President/Dir. Budget 93 73.8 4 Director. Physital Plant 80 63.5 5 Vice President Student Life 59 46.8 6 Assistant Vice President. Bustin. 54 42.9 7 Director. Personnel 53 42.1 8 Controller 52 41.3 9 Bursar 46 36.5 10.5 Vice President Development 25 19.8 10.5 Director. Media Relations 25 19.8 97 It is interesting to note that the responsibility for four of the finance subscale job functions (budget development, budget control, the borrowing of finances and financial planning, and investment management) as well as the responsibility for the physical plant were earlier identi- fied by the financial officers as the five least delegated CFO job func- tions. It appears that the chief financial officers keep in close touch with the personnel from these areas. Survey Part II Comparisons of Respondent Types on institutional Relations The responses of the chief executive, the chief academic and the chief financial officers to the institutional relations subscales were also compared using oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where significance at or below the .05 level was found, a post hoc treatment was applied to ascertain where the difference(s) were. Analysis of’varianceldata for the executive council subscale is pre- sented in Table 58 and associated descriptive statistic data is presented in Table 59. The difference among the three group means was found to be significant at less than the .05 level. The chief financial officers in- dicated they had more involvement with the institution’s major decision- making body than the academic officers thought the CFOs had. Table 60 presents the post hoc comparison data. Table 58: CFO Executive Decision-Making Council Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F .“ Spupgg Frggggm §guagas §guagas Ratio gpppapiljty Between Groups 2 3.8471 1.9235 3.4537 .0327 Within Groups 342 190.4763 .5569 Total 344 194.3233 98 Table 59: CFO Executive Decision-Making Council Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 93 3.4301 .8247 .0855 Academic 124 3.2500 .6914 .0621 Financial 128 3.4896 .7376 .0652 Total 345 3.3874 .7516 .0405 Fixed Effects .7463 .0402 Random Effects .0754 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0120 Table 60: CFO Executive Decision-Making Council Involvement: Subscale Post Hoc Data Mean Grouo Ac mi tiv Fina ial 3.2500 Academic 3.4301 Executive 3.4896 Financial * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level When the group means for financial officer involvement in academic policy development and implementation were contrasted, significance at less than the .05 level was found. The post hoc procedure indicated that the financial officers differed significantly from the academic officers on this subscale. 'The financial officers viewed themselves as having more involvement in the formulation and implementation of academic policy than the academic officers perceived the CFOs to have. 'Table 61, Table 62, and Table 63 present the analysis of variance data, the descriptive statistic data, and the post hoc comparison data for the CFO academic involvement subscale. 99 Table 61: CFO Academic Policy Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F 11111111113 Frg111p111111g111111111g1111111111111111111111111111 Between Groups 2 2.3334 1.4442 3.2413 .0403 Within Groups 349 155.4752 .4455 Total 351 153.3533 Table 62: CFO Academic Policy Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 96 2.2188 .7138 .0729 Academic 126 2.0635 .7042 .0627 Financial 130 2.2692 .5911 .0518 Total 352 2.1818 .6717 .0358 Fixed Effects .6674 .0356 Random Effects .0646 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0086 Table 63: CFO Academic Policy Involvement: Subscale Post Hoc Data Mean Group Acadamic Executive Financia1_ 2.0635 Academic 2.2188 Executive 2.2692 Financial * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level Significance at the .05 level was not found when the group»means for the three respondent types were compared on the CFO involvement in student affairs policy formulation and implementation subscale. The analysis of 100 variance data and associated descriptive statistic data are presented in Tables 64 and 65, respectively. Table 64: CFO Student Affairs Policy Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean .11111111111 Fr11111111111g11111111191111111111111111111111111111 Between Groups 2 3.0793 1.5397 2.8139 .0613 Within Groups 349 190.9593 .5472 Total 351 194.0391 Table 65: CFO Student Affairs Policy Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 96 2.4479 .8094 .0826 Academic 126 2.2659 .7119 .0634 Financial 130 2.4692 .7119 .0624 Total 352 2.3906 .7435 .0396 Fixed Effects .7397 .0394 Random Effects .0667 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0085 The groups means comparison for the three respondent types for the CFO involvement in business policy subscale found a difference at less than the .05 level of significance» Subsequent post hoc treatment identi- fied a significant difference between the academic officers and the chief financial officers on this subscale. The financial officers perceived themselves as having a higher level of involvement in setting and imple- menting policy in their own areas than the academic officers viewed the CFOs as having. No significant differences were observed between the financial officers and the presidents or between the academic officers and 101 the presidents. Analysis of variance data, associated descriptive data, and post hoc comparison data are shown in Tables 66, 67, and 68, respec- tively. Table 66: CFO Business Policy Involvement: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F Spupga Frgagpm Sguapgs §guagas Aatip gpppapility Between Groups 2 3.4495 1.7247 4.9543 .0076 Within Groups 347 120.7998 .3481 Total 349 124.2493 Table 67: CFO Business Policy Involvement: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 95 4.4632 .6451 .0662 Academic 125 4.3960 .6391 .0572 Financial 130 4.6231 .4905 .0430 Total 350 4.4986 .5967 .0319 Fixed Effects .5900 .0315 Random Effects .0709 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0119 Table 68: CFO Business Policy Involvement: Subscale Post Hoc Data , Mean Group Academic Executive Financial_ 4.3960 Academic 4.4632 Executive 4.6231 Financial * (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.050 level 102 Survey Part 11 Institutional Relations §ummary In summary, slightly over one half of the presidents and financial officers perceived CFO executive council influence to be high or very high while slightly less than forty percent of the academic officers agreed. Almost one half of the academic officers viewed CFO executive council im- pact as moderate, compared to fully a third of the presidents and CFOs. The chief financial officers were perceived by all three respondent types as having little overall impact on academic and student services policy formulation and implementation and as having high or very high impact on the development and implementation of policy in their own unit. When group means were compared, several differences significant at the .05 level were found. The CFOs perceived themselves as having more involvement with the major decision-making council than the academic officers viewed them as having. The CFOs also viewed themselves as having more involvement with academic and business policy formulation and imple- mentation than the academic officers thought the financial officers had. Survey Part II CFO External Relations Subscale Percent Distributions The questionnaire contained several items which attempted to assess the extent to which CFOs serve as the institutions’ representative to out- side agencies and groups. The percent distributions for the chief finan- cial officer external relations subscale are exhibited in Figure 4. Of the responding presidents, 7.3 percent indicated the CFOs were almost never involved in external relations activities compared to 6.4 percent of the academic officers and 4.0 percent of the chief financial officers. Some 27.1 percent of the presidents, 38.4 percent of the aca- demic officers, and 30.9 percent of the chief financial officers perceived 103 the CFO as seldom being involved with the external relations items. Slightly over one half, 51 percent, of the presidents perceived the CFOs as being involved in external relations moderately often compared to 39.2 percent of the academic officers and 48.4 percent of the financial officers. The CFOs were perceived as being very often involved in exter- nal relations by 13.6 percent of the presidents, 15.2 percent of the aca- demic officers, and 15.9 percent of the financial officers. Only one per- cent of the presidents, 0.8 percent of the academic officers, and 0.8 percent of the financial officers viewed the CFOs as being almost always 5 Executive I Academic 1111 Financial 60.00 ~- 50.00 .. 40.00 i 30.00 4 20.00 .. 10.00 0 I A I 04» - 4 A. Never Seldom Mod.Often V. Often A. Always Figure 4: Perceptions of CFO External Relations Activities by Respondent Type involved in external relations. All three respondent types viewed chief financial officer involvement in external relations as occurring moder- ately often or seldomly. Sunvoy Rant 11 Comparison of Rosponoent Typos on CFO External Relations Again, the group means of the chief executive, chief academic, and chief financial officers were compared using the oneway analysis of vari- ance procedure. Significance at the .05 level was not found for the CFO 104 external relations subscale. 'The analysis of variance data and associated descriptive data are presented in Table 69 and Table 70, respectively. Table 69: CFO Involvement in External Relations Activities: Subscale ANOVA Data Degrees of Sum of Mean F =m ”W Between Groups 2 2.5743 1.2872 2.2392 .1081 Within Groups 344 197.7455 .5748 Total 346 200.3199 Table 70: CFO Involvement in External Relations: Subscale Descriptive Statistics Group Standard Standard Type Count Mean Deviation Error Executive 96 2.8438 .7550 .0771 Academic 125 2.7500 .7867 .0704 Financial 126 2.9524 .7312 .0651 Total 347 2.8494 .7609 .0408 Fixed Effects .7582 .0407 Random Effects .0613 Random Effects, Estimate of Between Component Variance 0.0062 Survey Variable Response Patterns The undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment, budget, years served in position, and geographic region variables were compared to the responses of each sample population for the chief financial officer formal rank items and for each of the various subscales. A total of 330 variable comparisons were computed and 30 were significant at the .05 level and are included in this report. Chi square significance at the .05 level was obtained for those items and subscales presented in the following tables 105 when compared to the independent variables. Table 71 presents the chi square data for business services responsibility by years for the CFOs. Table 71: Business Services Responsibility by Years Served: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct 0-5Yrs 6-10Yrs 11-15Yrs 16-25Yrs >25Yrs Total RBUSSER/financial Minor/None 28 12 3 2 4 49 57.1 24.5 6.1 4.1 8.2 40.8 52.8 42.9 20.0 14.3 40.0 Shared 11 6 9 5 4 35 31.4 17.1 25.7 14.3 11.4 29.2 20.8 21.4 60.0 35.7 40.0 Major/Complete 14 10 3 7 2 36 38.9 27.8 8.3 19.4 5.6 30.0 26.4 35.7 20.0 50.0 20.0 Col Total 53 28 15 14 0 120 44.2 23.3 12.5 11.4 8.3 100.0 Chi Square Value 16.49854 D.F. 8 Significance .03578 Fully two thirds of the responding financial officers across all categories of years served in position indicated a tenure of ten or less years, and the majority or most of them indicated CFO responsibility for business services was minor or none. The majority of financial officers in the 11-15 year range perceived CFO responsibility for business services functions as shared, while CFOs in the 16-25 year range indicated major/ complete responsibility for these functions. Chief financial officers with more than 25 years of experience were divided between minor/no and shared CFO responsibility for business services functions. There were three chi square significances at the .05 level for the region variable. The region variable appeared to impact the presidents’ and academic officers’ responses for the business services responsibility 106 functions and the presidents’ responses for the finance responsibility functions. Table 72: Business Services Responsibility by Region: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Northeast South Midwest West Total RBUSSER/executive Minor/None 7 9 17 8 41 17.1 22.0 41.5 19.5 47.7 87.5 29.0 58.6 44.4 Shared 13 7 8 28 46.4 25.0 28.6 32.6 41.9 24.1 44.4 Major/Complete 1 9 . 5 2 17 5.9 52.9 29.4 11.8 19.8 12.5 29.0 17.2 11.1 Col Total 8 31 29 18 86 9.3 36.0 33.7 20.9 100.0 Chi Square Value 12.87989 D.F. 6 Significance .04498 The presidents differed by region in their perception of the level of financial officer responsibility for business services functions. The majority of presidents from the northeast and midwest regions indicated that the CFO level of responsibility for business services functions as minor/none, whereas the responses of presidents from the western region were divided between minor or none and shared. The presidents from the south differed in that most of their responses indicated shared financial officer responsibility for business services while their remaining re- sponses were evenly distributed among the minor or none and major or complete responsibility levels. Table 73 presents the chi square data for the business services responsibility subscale by region for the academic officers. The level 107 of CFO responsibility for business services differed among the academic officers from various regions. The majority of academic officers from the midwest, northeast, and west indicated minor or none as the CFO level of Table 73: Business Services Responsibility by Region: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Northaast___§outh Midyest West Total RBUSSER/academic Minor/None 7 12 20 10 49 14.3 24.5 40.8 20.4 45.8 50.0 30.0 58.8 52.6 Shared 4 13 6 9 32 12.5 40.6 18.8 28.1 29.9 28.6 32.5 17.6 47.4 Major/Complete 3 15 8 26 11.5 57.7 30.8 24.3 21.4 37.5 23.5 Col Total 14 40 34 19 107 13.1 37.4 31.8 17.8 100.0 Chi Square Value 14.97276 D.F. 6 Significance .02047 responsibility for business services, while the responses from academic officers from the south were fairly evenly divided across the responsi- bility levels. Some 47.4 percent of academic officers from the west, however, indicated shared CFO responsibility for business services. Table 74 presents the chi square data for the presidents for the finance subscale by region. The region variable also appeared to influ- ence somewhat the presidents’ perceptions of CFO level of responsibility for the finance functions identified in the questionnaire. CFO finance major/complete responsibility level was either the majority or the most frequent response of the presidents in the northeast, south, and midwest. 108 Most of the replies of responding presidents from the west, however, were divided between shared and major or complete CFO responsibility for the finance functions. Table 74: Finance Responsibility by Region: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Northeast South Midwest West Total RFINANCE/executive Minor/None 2 1 3 2 8 25.0 12.5 37.5 25.0 9.3 28.6 3.0 10.3 11.8 Shared 2 4 9 8 23 8.7 17.4 39.1 34.8 26.7 28.6 12.1 31.0 47.1 Major/Complete 3 28 17 7 55 5.5 50.9 30.9 12.7 64.0 42.9 84.8 58.6 41.2 Col Total 7 33 29 17 86 8.1 38.4 33.7 19.8 100.0 Chi Square Value 14.05229 D.F. 6 Significance .02906 Chi square significance at the .05 level was obtained for four subscales on the budget variable, three for the presidents and one for the academic officers. Table 75 presents the chi square data for the presidents on the CFO board relations compared to the provost subscale by the budget variable. The majority of presidents at institutions with budgets of $600 million or less indicated that provost and CFO board involvement was equal. However, a third of the presidents at institutions budgets in the 5301-600 million category reported that the chief financial officers had more involvement with the board than did the provosts, while the 109 the presidents with budgets greater than $600 million divided between equal and less CFO board involvement. Table 75: CFO Board Relations Compared to Provost by Budget: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Budget in Millions Row Col Pct 0-100 101-300 301-600 >600 Total CFOVCAO/executive Somewhat/Much 10 9 2 3 24 Less 41.7 37.5 8.3 12.5 26.1 30.3 25.0 14.3 33.3 Equal 23 22 7 4 56 41.1 39.3 12.5 7.1 60.9 69.7 61.1 50.0 44.4 Somewhat/Much 5 5 2 12 More 41.7 41.7 16.7 13.0 13.9 35.7 22.2 Col Total 33 i 36 14 9 92 35.9 39.1 15.2 9.8 100.0 Chi Square Value 12.68513 D.F. 6 Significance .04832 Table 76 presents the chi square data for the CFO board relations compared to other vice presidents subscale by budget. When comparing CFO board involvement with the board involvement of the other vice presidents, there was a tendency for the chief financial officer to be perceived by the presidents as having more board involvement than the other vice presi- dents as budget levels increased. The majority of presidents with budgets of $100 million or less indicated equal involvement; most of the presi- dents with budgets of $101-3001nillion were divided between equal and more CFO involvement compared to the other vice presidents; and, the majority of presidents in the categories above $3001nillion indicated the financial officer more involvement with the board than the other vice presidents. 110 Table 76: CFO Board Relations Compared to Other Vice Presidents by Budget: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Budget in Millions Row Col Pct 0-100 101-300 301-600 >600 Total CFOVSVPS/executive Somewhat/Much 3 2 1 2 8 Less 37.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 8.8 9.1 5.7 7.1 22.2 Equal 20 17 3 1 41 48.8 41.5 7.3 2.4 45.1 60.6 48.6 21.4 11.1 Somewhat/Much 10 16 10 6 42 More 23.8 38.1 23.8 14.3 46.2 30.3 45.7 71.4 66.7 Col Total 33 35 14 9 91 36.3 38.5 15.4 9.9 100.0 Chi Square Value 12.72990 D.F. 6 Significance .04753 Table 77 presents the chi square data for administration responsibi- lity by budget for the financial officers. The chief financial officers Table 77: Administration Responsibility by Budget: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Budget in Millions Col Pct. 0-100 101-300 301-600 >600 RADMIN/finance Minor/None 12 15 8 5 30.0 37.5 20.0 12.5 26.1 31.9 42.1 41.7 Shared 16 23 11 5 29.1 41.8 20.0 9.1 34.8 48.9 57.9 41.7 Major/Complete 18 9 2 62.1 31.0 6.9 39.1 19.1 16.4 Col Total 46 47 19 12 37.1 37.9 15.3 9.7 Chi Square Value 13.33400 D.F. 6 Significance Row Total 40 32.3 55 44.4 29 23.4 124 100.0 .03803 111 with institutional budgets of $100 million or less were evenly dispersed along the no-minor-shared-major-complete response scale, whereas most of the CFOs in the 5101-300 million and the majority of CFOs in the $301- 600 million categories indicated shared financial officer responsibility for administration functions. The financial officers with budgets larger than $600 divided evenly between the shared and minor/none categories. Overall, there were fewer major/complete responses as budgets increased. Table 78 presents the chi square data for the administration impor- tance subscale for CAOs by budget. A majority of CAOs in all categories except the 5301-600 million range indicated the administration functions were of high or critical importance to the institution; the CAOs in that range, however, indicated these functions were of medium importance. Table 78: Administration Importance by Budget: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct 0-100 101-300 301-600 >600 Total IADMIN/academic Minor/No 2 1 3 66.7 33.3 2.6 4.3 6.3 Medium 16 10 12 3 41 39.0 24.4 29.3 7.3 36.0 34.8 24.4 75.0 27.3 High/Critical 28 31 3 8 70 40.0 44.3 4.3 11.4 61.4 60.9 75.6 18.8 72.7 Col Total 46 41 16 11 114 40.4 36.0 14.0 9.6 100.0 Chi Square Value 17.55442 D.F. 6 Significance .00745 Chi square significance at the .05 level was obtained for the presi- dents for the administrative responsibility subscale on the undergraduate 112 enrollment variable. ‘Tables 79 presents the chi square data for this sub- scale for the executive officers. Table 79: Administration Responsibility by Undergraduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct <15.000 16-20.000 >20.000 Total RADMIN/executive Minor/None 13 14 3 30 43.3 46.7 10.0 34.1 25.0 53.8 30.0 Shared 26 12 1 39 66.7 30.8 2.6 44.3 50.0 46.2 10.0 Major/Complete 13 6 19 68.4 31.6 21.6 25.0 60.0 Col Total 52 88 10 88 59.1 29.5 11.4 100.0 Chi Square Value 20.06849 D.F. 4 Significance .00048 One half of the presidents at institutions with undergraduate en- rollments of less than 15,000 indicated chief financial officer responsi- bility for administrative functions was shared. Although 46.2 percent of the presidents at institutions with an undergraduate enrollment range of 16-20,000 agreed that financial officer responsibility for administration functions were shared, the majority (53.8 percent) viewed the financial officer responsibility level for the administrative functions as minor or none. Conversely, the majority response of the presidents at institutions with an undergraduate enrollment exceeding 20,000 was major or complete chief financial officer responsibility for administration job functions. Table 80 presents the chi square data for the presidents on the gen- eral services responsibility subscale by undergraduate enrollment. The 113 presidents at institution with undergraduate enrollments of 16-20,000 di- vided their responses between minor/none and major/complete whereas a large majority of presidents at institutions with less undergraduate en- rollments of less than 15,000 and greater than 20,000 indicated major or complete CFO responsibility for general services functions. Table 80: General Services Responsibility by Undergraduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct <15.000 16-20.000 >20.000 Total RADMIN/executive Minor/None 14 12 2 28 50.0 42.9 7.1 29.2 23.7 46.2 18.2 Shared 2 3 5 40.0 60.0 5.2 3.4 11.5 Major/Complete 43 11 9 63 68.3 17.5 14.3 65.6 72.9 42.3 81.8 Col Total 59 26 22 96 61.5 27.1 11.5 100.0 Chi Square Value 9.64044 D.F. 4 Significance .04694 Chi square data for the presidents on administration responsibility by graduate enrollment is presented in Table 81. The majority of presi- dents at institutions with graduate enrollments less than 3,000 indicated shared CFO responsibility for these functions. Presidents at institutions with graduate enrollments in the 4-6,000 range divided between shared and minor/none, while the majority of presidents at institutions with graduate enrollments of 7,000 or more indicated minor or no CFO responsibility for administration functions. CFO responsibility for administration functions appears to decrease as size of graduate programs increases. 114 Table 81: Administration Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct 0-3.000 4-6.000 7.000+ Total RADMIN/executive Minor/None 12 12 6 30 40.0 40.0 20.0 34.1 22.6 46.2 66.7 Shared 30 9 39 76.9 23.1 44.3 56.6 34.6 Major/Complete 11 5 3 19 57.9 26.3 15.8 21.6 20.8 19.2 33.3 Col Total 53 26 9 88 60.2 29.5 10.2 100.0 Chi Square Value 12.95428 D.F. 4 Significance .01150 Table 82 presents the chi square data for the presidents on the gen- eral services responsibility subscale by graduate enrollment. Very few responding presidents in any graduate enrollment category indicated that CFO responsibility for general services functions was shared.' A large majority of presidents at institutions with graduate programs of less than 3,000 reported major/complete CFO responsibility while those with graduate program enrollments of 4-6,000 split between the major/complete and minor/ none categories. A majority of presidents of institutions with graduate enrollments over 7,000 indicated minor/no financial officer responsibility for general services functions, but a substantial number, 45.5 percent, contradicted that perception with their indication of major/complete as the level of CFO responsibility for general services. 115 Table 82: General Services Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct 0-3.000 4-6.000 7.000+ Total RGENSER/executive Minor/None 12 10 6 28 42.9 35.7 21.4 29.2 20.3 38.5 54.5 Shared 2 4 6 33.3 66.7 6.3 3.4 15.4 Major/Complete 45 12 5 62 72.6 19.4 8.1 64.6 76.3 46.2 45.5 Col Total 59 26 11 ' 96 61.5 27.1 11.5 100.0 Chi Square Value 12.94506 D.F. 4 Significance .01155 Chi square significance at the .05 level was also obtained for the graduate enrollment variable for the financial officers on the business services responsibility subscale and the data services responsibility subscales. Table 83 presents the chi square data for the financial officers on the business services responsibility subscale for graduate enroll- ment. The financial officers at institutions with graduate enrollments of 3,000 or less were divided in perceptions of CFO responsibility for business services whereas the majority of financial officers at the large and very large graduate institutions viewed CFO responsibility for these functions as minor or none. 116 Table 83: Business Services Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct 0-3.000 4-6.000 7.000+ Total RBUSSER/financial Minor/None 21 19 9 49 42.9 38.8 18.4 40.8 29.6 55.9 60.0 Shared 23 7 5 35 65.7 20.0 14.3 29.2 32.4 20.6 33.3 Major/Complete 27 8 1 36 75.0 22.2 2.8 30.0 38.0 23.5 6.7 Col Total 71 34 15 120 59.2 28.3 12.5 100.0 Chi Square Value 11.36097 D.F. 4 Significance .02279 Table 84: Data Services Responsibility by Graduate Enrollment: Chi Square Data Count Row Pct Row Col Pct 0-3.000 4-64000 7,000+ Total RDATASER/financial Minor/None 21 22 8 51 41.2 43.1 15.7 39.2 27.3 61.1 47.1 Shared 18 5 4 27 66.7 18.5 14.8 20.8 23.4 13.9 23.5 Major/Complete 38 0 5 52 73.1 17.3 9.6 40.0 49.4 25.0 29.4 Col Total 77 36 17 130 59.2 27.7 13.1 100.0 Chi Square Value 12.78493 D.F. 4 Significance .01238 Table 84 presents the chi square data for the financial officers on the data services responsibility subscale for the graduate enrollment 117 variable. Most financial officers at institutions with large and very large graduate enrollments indicated minor/no financial officer responsi- bility for data services while most financial officers at institutions with graduate enrollments of 3,000 or less indicated major/complete CFO responsibility for the data services functions. Chi square significance at the .05 level was also obtained for several other subscales/items. These significance were interpreted as resulting from an overwhelming response to and/or a corresponding short- age or, in a few cases, a complete absence of, responses to a dependent variable level across all categories of the independent variable. For example, no chief financial officer in any budget or undergraduate en- rollment category indicated the CFO had more involvement with the board than did the presidents; yet a strong majority in each instance reported financial officer involvement with the controlling board was less than that of the presidents. Such concentrated responses left numerous cells with much higher and/or'much lower than expected cell frequencies, but did not appear to result in a pattern of responses which could be attributed to the uniqueness of the independent variable. The chi square tables for these cases are located in Appendix H. Summary of Variable Response Pattonns Chief financial officer perceptions of responsibility for business services by years served in position were concentrated in the 0-10 year category. About two thirds of the financial officers were in this range and most or a majority of them indicated minor or no CFO responsibility for these functions. 118 There were several differences in response patterns by the geogra- phic region variable. CFO responsibility for business services functions were reported by presidents from the northeast, midwest, and west as min- or/none while presidents in the south were evenly divided across the re- sponsibility levels. The presidents’ response patterns for the finance functions by geographic region indicated that these functions were per- ceived as major/complete CFO responsibilities by presidents in the north- east, south, and midwest. However, presidents in the west divided be- tween shared and major/complete CFO responsibility for finance functions. On the CFO board relations compared to provost board relations sub- scale, the majority or most presidents at all budget levels indicated equal board involvement; although fully a third of presidents in the $301- 600 category indicated more CFO involvement with the board than provost involvement with the board, while a third of the presidents in the greater than $6001nillion budget category reported less CFO board involvement com- pared to the board involvement of the provosts. The response patterns of the presidents by budget on the CFO board involvement compared to the other vice presidents subscale demonstrated a tendency for more rather than equal CFO board involvement as budget levels increased. The response patterns of the academic officers varied by budget level on the adminis- tration importance subscale. The majority of academic officers in all budget categories indicated high or critical administration function im- portance except those in the $301-6001nillion category who reported medium importance. The presidents’ response pattern to CFO responsibility for adminis- tration functions by undergraduate enrollment was mixed. At institu- tions with undergraduate enrollments of less than 15,000, the presidents 119 reported shared; for the 16-20,000 category the majority of the presidents indicated minor/no, but forty-six percent indicated shared; and a majority of presidents at institutions with undergraduate enrollments greater than 20,000 indicated major/complete chief financial officer responsibility for administration functions. As graduate enrollment increased, fewer presidents reported major/ complete CFO responsibility for general services functions and more presi- dents indicated minor/no CFO responsibility for these functions. As size of graduate enrollment increased, financial officers also moved from re- porting CFO responsibility for business services functions as major/com- plete and shared to minor/no responsibility. The financial officers also reported less CFO responsibility for the data services subscale as gradu- ate enrollment increased. The next chapter will examine the findings of this study in light of the observations discussed in the earlier review of the literature on the chief financial officer in large, four-year public institutions of higher education in particular as well as in other types of institutions of higher education. Additionally, the expected findings identified in the third chapter will be compared to the actual findings presented in this chapter, and suggestions for future research will be proposed. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study was designed to enlarge the existing profile of the chief financial officer at large, four-year public institutions of higher edu- cation. Unlike previous research efforts addressing the chief financial officer position at such colleges and universities, which were limited to the self report of the financial officers, this study sought the percep- tions of the chief executive officers (presidents, Chancellors) and the chief academic officers (provosts, vice presidents for academic affairs) in addition to those of the chief financial officers. To attain this objective» a mail questionnaire'was developed and sent to the chief execu- tive, chief academic, and chief financial officer at each of the 190 col- leges and universities identified in the 1988 Higher Education Directory as having a student head count enrollment of at least 10,000. The first part of the study focused on verification of previous re- ports in the literature which noted position-specific financial officer responsibility for various job function areas. In addition, this portion of the investigation examined the extent of consensus in the perceptions which those in three prominent university positions have concerning the importance of the those job functions to the university. The intent was to gain information in two areas. There was interest in establishing which of the job function areas were considered by all three respondent types as being concentrated solely and nonsubstitutably with the chief 120 121 financial officer and, in addition, with determining which were perceived as being of high or critical importance to the institution. The second part of the study focused on several broader responsibil- ities of the chief financial officer and attempted to obtain some clear idea of the level of organizational involvement and influence which chief financial officers have, as a group, in large, four-year public colleges and universities. Information about the formal organizational rank of the chief financial officer, that individual’s relationship to the insti- tution’s controlling board, involvement in the organization’s executive decision-making activities, impact on the formulation and implementation of policy in other divisions of the institution, and involvement in the organization’s external relations was gathered. Job Function Responsibility and Importanoa The accountancy, finance, and general services operations were per- ceived by the majority of subjects in each respondent group as being the major or complete responsibility of the chief financial officer. Further, the CFOs viewed themselves as being significantly more responsible for accountancy functions than the academic officers viewed the CFOs as being. This outcome is in overall agreement with the findings in Jenkins’s 1983 study of the financial officer at large, public institutions of higher education which reported complete or major CFO responsibility for various accountancy, finance, and general services functions. The Hungerman small college research, the Whims community college research, the Javidpour re- port, and the Keller study of assorted post secondary institutions of edu- cation also indicated that many of the accountancy, finance, and general services functions were the major, complete, or primary responsibility of 122 the chief financial officer. A detailed review of the items within the subscales revealed that the subscale findings held for all items within the accountancy and gen- eral services subscales. That is, the findings for these subscales and for the items within them were consistent with the majority opinion of all respondent types. Within the finance subscale, all items but one were perceived by a majority of respondents in all three groups as major or complete CFO re- sponsibilities. The majority of the presidents were divided between those who viewed budget development as a major or complete financial officer responsibility and the slightly smaller group of presidents who viewed these functions as a shared CFO responsibility. However, the academic officers perceived the financial officers to be less responsible for the development of the institution’s budget than the CFOs perceived themselves to be. Almost one half of the academic officers indicated that budget development was a responsibility'which the financial officers shared. ‘The difference between the academic officers and the financial officers on this item was found to be significant at the .05 level. The difference between the financial officers and the presidents and between the academic officers and the presidents were not statistically significant. The differing perceptions of the academic and financial officers at large, four-year public institutions of higher education about budget development is comparable to the differences between the perceptions of the presidents and financial officers reported by both Seetodeh in his study of 200 randomly selected presidents and CFOs at public and private, large and small higher education institutions and by Whims who reported the differences in perception regarding responsibility for financial 123 policy were a significant area of disagreement in his study of Michigan community colleges. The administration subscale was found to contain several inconsis- tent job function items. Although a majority was not realized for any of the responding officer types, the administration subscale classification attained for most of each respondent group in this study'was shared rather than absolute chief financial officer responsibility. This overall find- ing differed from the reports of other researchers cited earlier on some of the administration subscale items. A majority of each respondent group perceived the administration functions to be highly or critically impor- tant, but the presidents differed significantly from the financial offi- cers in that they viewed these functions as being more important to the institution than did the CFOs. The administrative subscale contained eight items based upon both the CUBA classification and the writings of other researchers in the field. As Table 22 illustrates, the nonacademic labor relations, the nonacademic personnel administration, and the risk management and insur- ance items were perceived to be major or complete responsibilities of the chief financial officer by a majority of all three respondent types. This is in concert with the findings of Jenkins, Hungerman, Javidpour, Keller and Whims. While Jenkins’s responding financial officers reported that finan- cial officers shared responsibility for institutional research, the major- ity of all three respondent types in this study viewed financial officers as having only minor or no responsibility for this area. Chief financial officer responsibility for this item may be diminishing, or perhaps inclu- sion of two additional respondent groups had an impact on CFO responses. 124 0000000 1,001-0.00 _0000 0_000h rr nonacm 0&0 mcowuawogma auwgonaz r m.mm 9.0m o.om m.mm o.oo~ o.m¢ m.m~ m.mm o.mm ¢.N~ m.mm pcme 0:0: wow m o.ooH m.m v.mH fi.ooH N.m~ m.¢fi .LzmcH w.pe z xmwm H.oo~ ~.m H.0m H.ooH ~.eH H.NN .EU< .me .umomcoz o.oofi N.nm ¢.mv ¢.¢fi o.oo~ o.m~ m.o¢ m.mw o.ooH m.mm m.~m m.om .m>m .omcH .usmz o.oo~ m.mH o.w~ o.ooH m.- w.m~ w.o~ 0.00“ o.¢H m.HN o.o~ m.mm o.oofi 0.001 5.0 0.AH 0.001 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 2.0000 ._00 .000 0.001 A.AL 0.01 0.001 0.0 0.01 .000 ._0000L mammm wwwmmamm mwuamw mama HmmmH wwwmmaqm uwummw mama nAmmmwnwmwdwawwumwmmdmnwdwu aupH \00002 \10012 \00002 \00002 \20002 \e00_= .1_010000_a .101000000 1r0>0000000 r0000H 01000000 0020000020000< 000 000 00010001000_0 0000003 ”00 0,00k 125 Although both Hungerman, in his research of small private and public colleges, and Javidpour, in his study of private and public medium and large institutions, reported major or complete financial officer responsi- bility for legal management, the majority of all three respondent types in this study reported CFO responsibility as minor or none for legal man- agement and for academic labor relations. This difference in findings may have to do with the inclusion of private institutions and with the size of institutions in the Hungerman and Javidpour studies. Responses to the management information systems item and to the space management item were divided within each of the respondent groups and a majority opinion was not obtained. Most, but not a majority, of the responding presidents, academic officers and financial officers indicated that CFOs have minor or no responsibility for the business services job functions. This finding is not in accordance with the findings of Jenkins for large colleges and universities, of Hungerman for small private and public colleges, of Whims for community colleges, or of Javidpour and Keller for a mixture of types of higher education institutions. These investigators reported major, complete, or primary CFO responsibility for those business services functions included in their respective studies: bookstore, food services, housing (Jenkins, (Hungerman, Keller, and Whims) and press/copy centers and university center (Keller). All items within the business services subscale, except the book- store item, were perceived by a majority or most of the respondents as minor or not a CFO responsibility. One half of the academic officers viewed the bookstore function as a major or complete responsibility of the financial officer. However, the presidents and financial officers were 126 divided in their perception of CFO responsibility for the bookstore. Some 44.2 percent of the presidents indicated the bookstore function was minor or not a CFO responsibility, and another 42.1 percent of the presidents viewed this function as the major or complete responsibility of the fin- ancial officer. Financial officer perception of CFO responsibility for the bookstore function was 44.9 percent major or complete and 41.6 percent minor or none. The differences among the responding presidents, academic officers, and financial officers on the bookstore item were not signifi- cant at the .05 level. Chief financial officer responsibility for the data services subscale functions was viewed by most, but not a majority, of the presidents and academic officers as minor or none, while the finan- cial officers were almost evenly divided between those who perceived fin- ancial officer responsibility for data services as either minor/none or major/complete. The data services subscale which included three items, academic and non-academic data processing and telecommunications, had been derived ad hoc as a result of earlier reliability analysis. The responses to the individual data services items indicated that chief financial officer responsibility for the academic data processing function was viewed by a majority of each respondent group as minor/none, while most, but not a majority, of each respondent group perceived nonaca- demic data services to be the»major or complete responsibility of the fin- ancial officer. 'These data are in agreement with Hungerman’s findings for CFOs in small colleges. Data processing was not classified in any of the resulting designated responsibility level categories reported by Jenkins. The presidents and academic officers held divided perceptions about the level of CFO responsibility for telecommunications, with a full third indicating both minor/none and major/complete CFO responsibility. However, 127 one half of the CFOs reported major or complete responsibility for tele- communications, while one third reported minor or no CFO responsibility for telecommunications. The chief financial officers reported payroll, accounting, bursar/ cashier, reporting, purchasing, and transportation as the job fUnctions they are least personally involved in. 'These more routine activities are the most delegated of the CFO job function respon- sibilities, and the chief financial officers appear’to control these areas through their subordinates. However, several of the finance subscale functions were identified by the financial officers as areas in‘which they were most personally involved--those which they least often delegated to subordinates. These functions contrast to the CFO most delegated func- tions in that they are not routine and in that they require policy deci- sions to determine where the organization’s money goes, how it is used, for what purposes, and whether'it.was used as designated. These functions also include investing the organization’s money, financial planning, and borrowing finances (bonding, etc.) when necessary or advantageous. Mintzberg’s notion of organizational impact based upon control of decisions and actions included control of operation(s) critical to the organization. While this study was successful in verifying the areas of operation controlled by the CFOs, success in identifying those items which were critical to the operation of the organization is less clear. The majority of each of the three respondent types viewed the importance of all the identified job functions as being highly or critically important to the institution, with the single exception of the business services job functions which were perceived to be of medium institutional importance by a majority of the responding presidents. The comparison of financial officer responsibility levels to the institutional importance of the 128 functional areas yielded only moderate and weak positive correlations which were significant at the .05 level. The strongest correlations were observed in both the accountancy and finance categories. Accountancy re- sponsibility and importance correlations for the presidents and finance officers were .4371 and .3936 respectively, and the finance correlations for the presidents, provosts, and financial officers were .4521, .3752, and .4391 respectively. However, the high or critical institutional im- portance response patterns may simply be an affirmation of the selection of job function responsibilities, and a ranking of these functions within the high or critical categories would serve better the ordering of the im- portance of these items. Overall, major or complete CFO responsibility for the accountancy, finance and general services functions was indicated by a majority or most of the chief executive and the chief financial officers. The aca- demic officers agreed with these perceptions, with the exception that they perceived the budget development function to be shared. The findings were in accord with the conclusions of several other researchers. The perception that the CFO responsibility level for business services is minor or none is a finding which differed from the cited literature. All business services subscale items except the bookstore function‘were viewed by a majority or most of the three respondent types as minor or not a CFO responsibility. The administration subscale findings were obscured by the contra- dictory responses to several of the individual items contained‘within that subscale (the financial officer is perceived to haveemajor or complete re- sponsibil ity for nonacademic labor relations, nonacademic personnel admin- istration, and risk management and insurance functions but to have minor 129 or no responsibility for institutional research, academic labor relations, and legal management functions). The chief financial officer is clearly perceived to have minor or no responsibility for academic data processing, while most of each respondent group perceived nonacademic data processing as a major or complete CFO responsibility. However, no clear consensus regarding the financial officer responsibility level for the management information services, space management, and telecommunications functions was found in the responses of the presidents, academic officers, and fin- ancial officers at large, four-year public colleges and universities. Table 86 presents a summary of the findings of this and other studies of the chief financial officer job function responsibilities. Table 86: CFO Job Function Responsibility Research Summary* Job Function Ringouist Jenkins Hungerman Javidpour Keller Whims . Accounting MC C MC MC MC P Bursar/Cashier MC C MC Internal Control MC C MC MC MC _anroll MC C MC MC MC P Labor Relations r43531113110) M_N Labor Relations , (nonaoaoemic) MC P Legal Management MN MC MC Mgt.1nfo. §ystems INC Institutional Research MN S Personnel Admin. , (nonacademic) MC M MC MC MC P Risk Management/ Insurance MC C MC MC MC P Space Management INQ; ‘ Bookstore INC M MC MC P 130 Table 86: CFO Job Function Responsibility Research Summary* (Cont’d.) WWMWWW Funggion Ringouist Jenkins Hungermannoayidpour Keller Whims Food Services MN M MC MC P Housing 0N1 M MC MC P Presleooy Centers MMo MC Uniyarsity tanter .MM MC Data Processing (aoadamic) jflL, INC tMN Data Processing (nonacademic) MC INC MC Telecommunications INC Borrowinnginances MC Budget Control MC C MC MC MC Budget Development INC C MC MC MC Cost Information Dotermination MC Economic Development [Real Estate MC Indirect Cost Rate Establishment MC C Investment Mgmt. MC C MC MC P Qampus Mail MC Facility Planning/ Construction MC M MC Facility Operation/ Maintenance MC P Physical Plant MC 0C MC MC MC Purchasing MC C MC MC MC Safetytand Security MC M MC MC Transportation MC * MN 2 minor or no responsibility S = shared responsibility MC a major or complete responsibility P = primary responsibility INC = inconclusive findings 131 Rang, Boaro, institution and External Relations A majority of the presidents, academic officers and financial offi— cers reported CFO rank as somewhat lower than the rank of the provosts while at least a third of all respondent groups reported CFO rank as equal to provost rank. This is in agreement with the 1985 Jenkins report con- cerning financial officers at large, public institutions of higher educa- tion, but differs from Hungerman’s study of small colleges in which two thirds of the responding financial officers reported formal rank equal to that of the academic officer. The majority of presidents, academic officers, and financial offi- cers agreed that CFO rank was equal to that of the other vice presidents, while one third of the presidents and fully a fourth of the academic offi- cers and financial officers viewed CFO rank as somewhat higher than the rank of the other vice presidents. The financial officers do not appear to be ranked higher than the other vice presidents. Financial officer board involvement was examined to explore CFO links to other players who have influence on the organization. There was agreement among the majority of the three respondent groups that finan- cial officer involvement with the controlling board was somewhat less or much less than the involvement of the presidents with the controlling board. No financial officer indicated somewhat more or much more board involvement than the presidents, yet a third of the financial officers reported they did at times downplay the strength of their relationship to the board. When comparing CFO board involvement to academic officer board in- volvement, a majority of all three respondent groups indicated that board involvement was equal . However, significantly more financial officers in- 132 dicated they had stronger relations with the board than the academic offi- cers perceived the CFOs as having. A majority of the chief academic and financial officers perceived CFO board involvement as being somewhat more or much more than that of the other vice presidents while the presidents were divided between equal and more CFO board involvement compared to the other vice presidents. Mintzberg’s concept of having access to and influencing other areas important to the operation of the organization was examined by exploring financial officer involvement in policy development and implementation in the major areas of the organization. A majority of the presidents and chief financial officers perceived CFO influence and involvement with their institution’s major decision-making committee or council to be at a high or very high level, while most of the academic officers perceived CFOs to have moderate influence and involvement. This difference between the academic officers and the financial officers was significant at the .05 level; the chief financial officers perceived themselves as having more council influence than the academic officers viewed the financial officer as having. The majority of all three respondent groups indicated that financial officer had little or no involvement in the development and implementation of both academic and student services policy and program. Conversely, the majority of all three respondent types indicated that financial officer involvement in developing and implementing program and policy in the busi- ness division was high or very high. The academic and financial officers did, however, differ at the .05 level of significance in their perception of financial officer involvement in business policy; the CFOs perceived themselves as having a higher level of involvement in setting and imple- 133 menting policy in their own areas than the academic officers viewed them as having. Financial officer involvement in external relations activities were examined to explore the extent of CFO direct links to Mintzberg’s external organization influencer. The academic officers were rather evenly divided in reporting the chief financial officers as seldom or moderately often involved in the external relations identified in the questionnaire. How- ever, one half of the presidents and slightly under one half of the chief financial officers viewed CFO involvement in external relations as moder- ate. These differences were not found to be significant at the .05 level. Moderate~or low financial officer involvement in external relations corre- sponds to Keller’s finding that financial officers spend less than 20 per- cent of their time on external activities. Implications The study, which included for the first time the perceptions of the chief executive and chief academic officers at large, four-year colleges and universities verified several earlier findings based on self report by chief financial officer. The accounting, general services, and fin- ance (with the exception of budget development) functions were confirmed by the presidents and academic officers as either major or complete fin- ancial officer responsibilities. These same items were also identified as financial officer responsibilities in studies of other kinds of post- secondary institutions. These functions should be acknowledged as the main components of the chief financial officer job responsibility pro- file at large-four year public colleges and universities, and other areas of the chief financial officer position explored more fully. 134 Although several job functions were confirmed by a majority of the responding presidents, academic officers, and financial officers as being major or complete financial officer administrative responsibilities, sev- eral previously-identified administration functions were also identified by a majority of the responding, presidents, academic and financial offi- cers as minor or not CFO responsibilities. The CFO job profile at large, four-year public colleges and universities should be modified to reflect these findings. For instance, the institutional research, academic labor relations, and legal management items were classified as minor or not a CFO responsibility by a large majority of all three respondent groups in this study. Business services functions were listed separately in the question- naire and, for the first time, all but the bookstore functions were not recognized as a major or complete chief financial officer responsibility. In fact, the majority of the presidents, academic officers and financial officers viewed them as minor or not CFO responsibilities. Which execu- tive officer is now responsible for them becomes the new question. Why has the responsibility for these functions shifted and where it went is deserving of further investigation. The experimental data services subscale did not work; there does not appear to be a cluster of data services functions which are the major or complete responsibility of the chief financial officer. The study did, however, establish agreement among the responding presidents, academic officers, and financial officers at large, four-year public colleges and universities that CFOs have minor or no responsibility for academic data processing but may have substantial responsibility for nonacademic data processing. This finding is in accordance with research concerning the 135 chief financial officer at small colleges and establishes a factor for large institutions of higher education. Financial officers definitely do not control academic data processing. Although the majority of financial officers viewed telecommunications as a major or complete CFO responsi- bility, this function did not emerge as a major or complete CFO responsi- bility in the responses of the presidents and academic officers. Data services operations will become even more important to the in- stitutions as technological advancement in this area continues. Control of the campus communications (telecommunications) operations and both academic and nonacademic data processing functions could, applying the Mintzberg concept, provide an avenue to influence on the organization’s decision-making process. Overall, the data services subscale received one of the highest importance scores across all respondent groups. This area will continue to grow as technology advances and associated functions will become more and more critical to organizations. The associate vice president for, or director of, budget was listed in Table 57 as the third most frequent CFO campus contact. Several presi- dents noted on their returned questionnaire forms that they were or had reorganized their budget activities into a separate unit which reported directly to the president. If this should be the beginning of a trend at large, four-year colleges and universities, financial officer responsi- bility for budget development could be changing. An additional title which appeared in the financial officer listing of weekly campus contacts, but which was not one of the ten most frequent weekly contacts, was the vice president for administrative affairs. What job function responsibilities are being assigned to this relatively new unit? Existing CFO responsibilities could be shifted to this portfolio, 136 e.g. data services, nonacademic personnel, etc. If there are trends toward moving selected CFO functions directly into the president’s office or into new or different existing units, the profile of the CFO at large, four-year public colleges and universities could be diminishing in terms of Mintzberg’s concept of control of criti- cal operations as a base for the exercise of power and influence in the organization. Of the nine discernable significant findings, only three significant differences were between the financial officers and the presidents. The financial officers and presidents differed significantly on three of the importance subscales--the administration importance, finance importance, and general services importance subscales. The academic officer also, but not significantly, perceived these functions as being more important to the institution than the financial officers did. Because the financial officers do not appear to place as high a level of importance on these items as do the presidents and academic officers, the financial officers may not be taking full advantage of the potential influence factors avail- able to them. The other six significant differences were between the financial officers and the academic officers. The mean of the presidents’ respon- ses was closer to the mean of the academic officers’ responses in all instances (importance, responsibility, and institutional relations sub- scales) except on the academic policy subscale and budget development item where the presidents appeared to be in closer agreement with the financial officers. The financial and academic officers differed significantly on three of the four institutional relations subscales; in each instance, the fin- 137 ancial officers indicated they had more involvement than the academic officers thought the CFOs had. The two institutional relations subscales of most concern to the academic officers are the executive decision-making council involvement subscale (a majority of presidents and financial offi- cers indicated high or very high CFO involvement while about one half of the academic officers indicated moderate CFO involvement) and the academic policy involvement subscale (a majority of all types viewed CFO involve- ment as low, but more financial officers and presidents than academic officers indicated moderate). The presidents were in closer agreement with the financial officers than with the academic officers on both sub- scales. The academic officers may not have an accurate perception of the true impact of financial officers in areas.which have important consequen- ces for their (the academic officers’) own operations. Resource allocations are generally determined through budget devel- opment processes. The financial officers view themselves as having sig- nificantly'more responsibility for this process than the academic officers thought the CFOs had, and the presidents were in closer agreement with the financial officers than with the academic officers on this item. Should the financial officers actually have more responsibility for budget de- velopment, more involvement in the institution’s executive decision-making council, and more involvement in academic policy areas than the academic officers think.the CFOs have, then the academic divisions may be operating under false assumptions in terms of their ability to set their own direc- tions and to determine their own actions. On the other hand, the past decade has brought increased attention to higher education. State colleges and universities have been subjected to decreases in real dollar funding; the mood of the legislators and tax- 138 payers has become fiscal accountability; and the freedom of information act has eased the way for those outside the business division, and, indeed, outside the institutions themselves, to review what the colleges and universities are doing. It may be that the ending of the growth or boom period of the sixties and early seventies has caused the chief aca- demic officers to pay more attention to resource allocation and to become more active in the budget development process. Such activity would, of course, detract from complete control of the budget development process by the chief financial officers and tend to»move responsibility for budget development into the shared responsibility category. However, these same trends, according to the earlier literature review, have contributed to the evolution of the comptroller or business manager position into the now common vice president for business and fin- ance position. Perhaps a resettling of some of the budget activities is occurring. In all cases of significant difference between the financial officers and the academic officers, the financial officers reported more CFO involvement than the academic officers reported. Given the competi- tion for resources which stems from the very different goals of what are generally the two largest university divisions within the organizational structure (academic and business), LeCroy’s informal description of ten- sion between the academic and financial officers may be well founded. The results of this study could be considered to confirmed this tension. In light of the current accountability environment, chief executive officers are being selected not only for'their academic backgrounds, lead- ership qualities, and vision, but also for their proven ability as mana- gers. Perhaps this accounts for those chief executive officers who indi- cated they'were relocating the budget officer into the president’s office. 139 Certainly such a trend would impact the traditional portfolio of the col- lege and university financial officers, and an associated trend to add more vice presidents could well contribute to a diminished chief financial officer portfoliou However, it may be that the financial officers are the very individuals being reassigned, and that others are being appointed to administer nonbudget development aspects of the traditional chief finan- cial officer portfolio. Recommendations This investigative effort resulted in several observations which are offered for'consideration in future research concerning the chief fin- ancial officer in higher education settings. First, the budget develop- ment concept should be explored in greater detail. Perhaps the setting and implementing of financial policy could be separated into several, more specific research questions which could distinctly delineate the line be- tween establishing and implementing the budget priorities. Second, there is a need to explore more fully the finding that one third of the responding financial officers indicate they at times downplay the strength of their relationship with the controlling board (this ques- tion was based on 3 Cohen and March interview observation). If none of the 130 responding chief financial officers indicated greater board in- volvement than the presidents, why do they at times feel a need to down- play their board relationships?’ Perhaps the financial officers are trying to indicate they are good team players and are trying to keep their in- volvement with the board in balance. Or, conversely, they may be keeping the visibility level of their involvement down to maintain it. Third, it is time to direct attention away from the confirmed, 140 rather autonomous profile of the CFO within the business division and ex- plore the more general, executive level CFO activities at the point where the financial officer links with executives from other rather autonomous divisions at the presidential executive team level. The differing percep- tions of the academic and financial officers on involvement with the con- trolling board, on CFO influence on executive level policy'development and implementation, and on CFO involvement in both academic and student policy issues should be explored in greater detail. Fourth, future studies should attempt to test the importance concept differently, perhaps a ranking of the identified job functions which have already been established as highly or critically important to the institu- tion. Also, future chief financial officer function responsibility and relationship research might experiment with a four-point scale to nudge the respondents into an upper-lower response which would clarify better how financial officer job function responsibility, importance, and rela- tionships are perceived. Fifth, those who attempt to study executive profiles and institu- tional relationships within higher education institutions might continue to include a second or third respondent group. When agreement and/or disagreement is discovered, the findings are strengthened. Last, replication of parts of this study might prove a worthy en- deavor, particularly because some of the findings were at odds with pre- vious research. These findings may be indicative of new trends, or of the impact of including more than the self-report of those in the posi- tion being studied, or of some other factor. APPENDIX A Chief Executive Officer Cover Letter and Questionnaire MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . 141 COLLEG! 0' EDUCATION LAST LANSING 0 IICHIGAN 9 “024-1094 WAITIENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTIA'DON UNISON “ALI January 5, 1989 Dear Chief Executive Officer: This questionnaire is concerned with expanding the existing, but limited, profile of college and university financial officers at large, four-year public institutions of higher education. The intent of the study is to determine chief executive, academic, and financial officers' perceptions of the chief financial officer position at their institu- tions. Your response is especially important because a high survey return will strengthen the integrity of the findings of the study. The average time required for chief executive officers pretesting the questionnaire was 15 minutes. The prompt completion and return of the questionnaire is important to the success of this study. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire; all responses will be strictly confidential, and the findings will be reported in aggregate data format only. Conments or responses to the questionnaire are welcome; a summary of the study results will be made available upon request. Your contri- bution to making this effort a successful research endeavor is greatly appreciated. Respectfully yours, arbara L. Ringquis Dr. Frederick R. Whims MSU doctoral student & Director Dissertation Director Academic Space and Remodeling 107 Agriculture Hall Central Michigan University Michigan States University M51 11 an .llhmattm Art-mu ’Lqual Opportunity hut-tution 142 A STIDY OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS AT URGE, Full-YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES AND WIVERSITIES PERCEPTIDI (I RQE. RESPUISIBILITIES. MO RELATIGISHIPS PART I. This section of the questionnaire focuses on your perceptions of the responsibility or functional teas assigoed to tie institution's chief business/financial officer. First, indicate whether you consider the listed functions as 'None', 'Minor', 'Shared'. 'Major', or 'Cmplete' responsibilities of the chief business/financial officer at your institution. 1 - 'hone', the CFO is not responsible for this functional area. 2 - 'Minor', the CFO is responsible for a minor portion of the functional area and another executive officer is responsible for the major share. 3 I 'Shred', the CFO and another executive officer are equally responsible for a functional tea. 4 - ‘hajor', the CFO is responsible for the major portion of the functional area while another executive officer is responsible for a minor share. 5 - 'Caaplete', the CFO is the only executive officer responsible for the functional area. Second, indicate the “portance of the function to your institution. [— CFO RESPONSIBILITY (Circle One) j I- INSTITUTIONAL IIPMTANCE (Circle One) 1 Functional Areas _Non_e 5.1995. SM Majo: Couplete lone .ng_ Mg! 11.12 Critical 1. Accounting . . ........ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. Auditing . . . . ....... I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. Auxiliary Enterprises a. Bookstore. . ....... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 b. Food Services ....... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 c. Housing. . . ....... I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 d. Press/Copy Centers . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 e. University Center ..... l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4. Borrowing of Finances. . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5. Budget Control . . . 1 ..... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6. Budget Oevelopent . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7. hunt/Cashier Operations. . . l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. College Services a. Capos Mail Service. . . . 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 b. Teleco-unications . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 9. Cost. Information Determination 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. Data Processing (academic) . . 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. Data Processing (nonacademic) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12. Developent/Fund Raising . . . l 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 l3. Eoonaic Development/Real Estate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. Facility Planning/Construction 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. Facility Operation/Maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 143 [— CEO RESPMSIBILITY (Circle One) j r-INSIITUTIMAL IIPGIIAICE (Circle One)-1 Functional Areas _R_on_e M M 533g Conglete 1935 L3; ML! M Critical 16. Grant 3 Contth Aministration I 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 S 17. Indirect Cost Rate Establishment I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 IO. Internal Control . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 19. Institutional Research . . . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 20. Investment Management. . . . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 S 21. Labor Relations (academic) . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 22. LabOr Relations (nonacademic) I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 23. Legal Management . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 S 24. Hglt. Information System . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 25. Personnel Achin. (nonacademic) I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 26. Payroll. . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 27. Physical Plant . . ...... I 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 28. Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S 29. Reporting: Federal. State. and lntra/Inter-institutional I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 30. Risk Management 4 Insurance. . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 S 31. Safety and Security . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 32. Space Management . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 33. Transportation . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 PART II. This section of the questionnaire attempts to examine your perceptions about CBO/CFO institutional relations. board relations. legislative relations. and public relations. R R [—— CI CLE OK ESPMSE ———) Much Somewhat Somewhat huch I. Hhat is the organizational rank of the chief financial Lower Lower Equal Higher higher officer compared to the a. chief academic officer? . . . . . . ..... . ..... l 2 3 4 5 b. other vice presidents? ................. I 2 3 4 5 Much Somewhat Somewhat Much 2. How often does the chief financial officer interact with Less Less Equal More More members of the board of directors/trustees on a formal basis (attend board meetings.present reports. make recannendations. etc.) compared to the a. chief executive officer? ................ I 2 3 4 5 b. chief academic officer? . . . . . ...... . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 c. other vice presidents? . . . .............. I 2 3 4 5 3. How often does the chief financial officer interact with mem- bers of the board of directors/trustees on an informal basis (onevon-one contacts. social events. etc.) compared to the a. chief executive officer? . . . . . . .......... l 2 3 4 5 b. chief academic officer? . ................ I 2 3 4 5 c. other vice presidents? ..... . . . . . ....... l 2 3 4 5 10. II. 12 l3. 14. 16. I7. 18. 19. 21. 144 how extensive is the involvement of the chief financial officer in developing board of director/trustee meeting agendas cupared to the a. chief executive officer? . ............ . b. chief academic officer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c. other vice presidents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . how influential is the chief financial officer in assisting the chief executive officer in translating board policies into operational procedures and guidelines compared to the .0 “T“ x.”‘c Off‘cer? I O O I O O O O I I O O O I O 0 O b. other vice presidents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on board of director/trustee decision making compared to the .. Chief .‘e‘c‘ut ‘ '2 Off ‘cer? O O I O I O I O I O O O I O 0 O b. chief academic officer? ................. c. other vice presidents? ............ . . How extensive is the involvement of the chief financial officer in developing executive committee/council agendas? . . how extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on executive committee/council decision making? . . . . . flow extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on long—range. strategic goal setting/strategy development? how extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in academic policy/progrn developnent? . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in student services (other than housing and general services) policy/program development? How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in financial and business policy/program development? . ..... How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in implementing academic policy/program? Now extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in implementing student services (other than housing and general services)policy/progru? Now extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in implementing financial and business policy/program? how frequently does the chief financial officer serve as a liaison to the state legislature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How frequently does the chief financial officer interpret and translate legislative action into appropriate institutional policy and procedure? how frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to local and elected community officials? How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to local business and community leaders? How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to student and parent groups? how many years have you served as a chief academic officer? R R ON r—-——-CICLE(RIE ESP SE-——' Much Somewhat Somewhat Nuch Less Less Eoual More More I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 Very None Lg! Moderate High High I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 Almost Moderately Very Almost Never Seldom Often Often Always I‘ 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 S mum YOU VERY RICH Fill TAKING TIE TIE TO COWLETE THIS SIR'EY Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope APPENDIX B Chief Academic Officer Cover Letter and Questionnaire MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' 145 COUJGI OI EDUCATTOh EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 0014 I.” DUMTIENT OI EDI'LATIONAI ADHINISTIATTUN WCKSON MALI January 5, 1989 Dear Chief Academic Officer: This questionnaire is concerned with expanding the existing, but limited, profile of college and university financial officers at large, four-year public institutions of higher education. The intent of the study is to determine chief executive, academic, and financial officers' perceptions (H’ the chief financial officer position at their institu— tions. Your response is especially important because a high survey return will strengthen the integrity of the findings of the study. The average time required for chief academic officers pretesting the questionnaire was 15 minutes. The prompt completion and return of the questionnaire is important to the success of this study. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire; all responses will be strictly confidential, and the findings will be reported in aggregate data format only. Comments or responses to the questionnaire are welcome; a summary of the study results will be made available upon request. Your contri- bution to making this effort a successful research endeavor is greatly appreciated. zr" ' . VOA/1 Barbara L. Ring ist " Dr. Frederick R. Hhims Respectfully yours, MSU doctoral student & Director Dissertation Director Academic Space and Remodeling 107 Agriculture Hall Central Michigan University Michigan States University Mil u an Alhrmumv Arimn [qua] ()fporlumh [Millet-0n 146 A STlDY OF CHIEF FINANCIAL UFICERS AT LARGE, Full-YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES AND WIVERSITIES PERCEPTILII or RilE. RESPGISIBILITIES. AND RELATIGISHIPS PART I. This section of tie IpIestionnaire focuses on your perceptions of the responsibility or fmctional teas assigIed to the institution's chief business/financial officer. First. indicate whether you consider the listed functions as 'None', 'Ninor', 'Shared‘, 'NaJor', or 'Cmplete' responsibilities of the chief business/financial officer at your institution. I - ‘None', the CFO is not responsible for this functional area. 2 - 'Ninor', the CFO is responsible for a minor portion of the functional area and another executive officer is responsible for the major share. 3 - 'Shm'ed', the CFO and another executive officer are equally responsible for a functional area. 4 - 'Nuor', the CFO is responsible for the major portion of the functional area while another executive officer is responsible for a minor share. 5 . 'Cuplete', the CFO is the only executive officer responsible for the functional area. Second, indicate the importance of the function to your institution. [—- CFO RESPONSIBILITY (Circle One) —-I r INSTITUTIONAL IWMTANCE (Circle One) 1 Functional Areas m limo—r M [521$ Conplete Mg LL 5.99.! M Critical I.Accounting.......... 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 2.Auditing........... 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 3. Auxiliary Enterprises a. Bookstore. . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 b. Food Services. . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 c. housing. . . ....... l 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 d. Press/Copy Centers . . . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 e. University Center ..... I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 4. Borrowing of Finances. . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 S.BudgetControl...-..... 1 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 6. Budget Developent . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 7. Burst/Cashier Operations. . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 8. College Services a. Capos Nail Service. . . . l 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 b. Telecwunications . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S 9. Cost Information Determination I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 10. Data Processing (academic) . . l 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 5 II. Data Processing (nonacademic) I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 12. Developent/Fmd Raising . . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 I3. [cont-1c Developnent/Real Estate I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I4. Facility Planning/Construction I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 15. Facility Operation/Maintenance I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 r—— CFO RESPONSIBILITY (Circle One) -1 r—INSTITUTIONAL IMPORTANCE (Circl Functional Areas m iii—no: M fljg Complete M5. [A lie—dig mg; Crit 16. Grant 4 Contract Administration I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 1?. Indirect Cost Rate Establishment I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 18. Internal Control ....... I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 Is. Institutional Research . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 20. Investment Nanagement ..... I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 21. Labor Relations (academic) . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 22. Labor Relations (nonacademic) I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 23. Legal Nanagement . ...... I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 24. Hpt. Information System . . . 1 2 3 4 S l 2 3 4 25. Personnel Amin. (nonacademic) l 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 26. Payroll. . . . . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 27. Physical Plant ........ I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 28. Purchasing .......... 1 2 3 5 l 2 3 4 29. Reporting: Federal, State, and Intra/Inter-institutional I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 30. Risk Nanagement B Insurance. . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 31. Safety and Security ..... I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 32. Space Management . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 33. Transportation ........ I 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 1117 PART II. This section of the questionnaire attempts to exuine your perceptions about CBO/CFO institutional I. N o relations. board relations, legislative relations, and public relations. [————— CIRCLE OTC RESPONSE ——-| e One )-1 ical mmmmm (”WWW Oil-HUT“ 4303030341! Huch Salewhat Smewhat Huch iihat is the organizational rank of the chief financial Lower Lower Equal Higher Higher officer compared to the a. chief acadaic officer? ................. I 2 3 4 5 b. other vice presidents? ................. I 2 3 4 5 Much Somewhat Somewhat Huch How often does the chief financial officer interact with Less Less Mal Hore Nore members of the board of directors/trustees on a formal basis (attend board meetings,present reports, make recommendations, etc.) compared to the a. chief executive officer? ................ I 2 3 4 5 b. chief academic officer? ................. I 2 3 4 5 c. other vice presidents? ................. I 2 3 4 5 How often does the chief financial officer interact with mem- bers of the board of directors/trustees on an informal basis (one-on-one contacts, social events, etc.) compared to the a. chief executive officer? ........ . . . ..... I 2 3 4 5 b. chief academic officer? . ................ I 2 3 4 5 c. other vice presidents? . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... I a 3 4 s 5. IO 11 12 13 14 IS 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 148 How extensive is the involvement of the chief financial officer in developing board of director/trustee meeting agendas compared to the a. chief executive officer? ................ b. chief academic officer? . . . . . . . . . . ....... c. other vice presidents? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How influential is the chief financial officer in assisting the chief executive officer in translating board policies into operational procedures and guidelines compared to the a. chiefacademicofficer?................. b. othervicepresidents? How extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on board of director/trustee decision making compared to the a. chief executive officer? ....... . . . . . . . . . b. chief academic officer? ................. c. other vice presidents? . ................ How extensive is the involvenent of the chief financial officer in developing executive committee/council agendas? . . How extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on executive committee/council decision making? ..... . . How extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on long-range, strategic goal setting/strategy development? How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in academic policy/progrn developnent? ...... . . . . . . . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in student services (other than housing and general services) policy/progrml developnent? ..... . ....... . . . . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in financial and business policy/program developnent? . . . . . . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvanent in imluenting acaduic policy/prograa? ...... . . . . . . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in imlementing student services (other than housing and general services) policy/progru? . . . . ........... . . . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in implementing financial and business policy/program? ..... How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as a liaison to the state legislature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How frequently does the chief financial officer interpret and translate legislative action into appropriate institutional policyandprocedure?...... ....... How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to local and elected coqunity officials? How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to local business and connunity leaders? How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to student and parent groups? . . . . . How many yers have you served as a chief academic officer? CIRCI. R r---———-— E 04E ESPOISE -——-' Huch Somewhat Somewhat Nuch Less Less Eoual More More I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 Very Hone L01 Moderate Hig] Rig I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 Almost Noder ately Very Almost M Seldom Often Often AIM I. 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 TIM YOU VERY RICH Fill TAKING TIE TIDE TO WLETE THIS SIRVEY Please return this (pestionnaire in the enclosed staped and addressed envelope APPENDIX C Chief Financial Officer Cover Letter and Questionnaire 149 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING P MICHIGAN 0 “B1440.“ DDAITIENT OF DUCATTONAI ADMINISTRATION IIICKSON HALL January 5, 1989 Dear Chief Financial Officer: This questionnaire is concerned with expanding the existing, but limited, profile of college and university financial officers at large, four-year public institutions of higher education. The intent of the study is to determine chief executive, academic, and financial officers' perceptions of the chief financial officer position at their institu- tions. Your response is especially important because a high survey return will strengthen the integrity of the findings of the study. The average time required for chief financial officers pretesting the questionnaire was 20—25 minutes. The prompt completion and return of the questionnaire is important to the success of this study. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire; all responses will be strictly confidential, and the findings will be reported in aggregate data format only. Comments or responses to the questionnaire are welcome; a summary of the study results will be made available upon request. Your contri- bution to making this effort a successful research endeavor is greatly appreciated. Respectfully yours, ,’—' Barbara L. Ringquist Dr. Frederick R. Hhims MSU doctoral student 3 Director Dissertation Director Academic Space and Remodeling 107 Agriculture Hall Central Michigan University Michigan States University MST. ' u an A/lnmauw Arum. /£quol Opportunity Immluiion 150 A STIDY OF DIIEF FINANCIAL UFICERS AT LARGE, FUR-YEAR PUBLIC COLLEGES AND LliIVERSITIES PERCEPTIGI If RQE. RESPGISIBILITIES. ANO RELATIUISNIPS PART I. This section of the westionnaire focuses on your perceptions of the responsibility or fmctional teas assigied to tie institution's chief business/financial officer. First, indicate whether you consider the listed functions as 'None'. 'Minor", 'Shared', 'MaJor", or 'Cmplete' responsibilities of the chief business/financial officer at your institution. I - 'Mone', the CFO is not responsible for this functional area. 2 - 'Minor', the CFO is responsible for a minor portion of the functional area and another executive officer is responsible for the major share. 3 - 'Shared‘, the CFO and another executive officer are equally responsible for a functional area. 4 - 'MaJor', the CFO is responsible for the maJor portion of the functional area while another executive officer is responsible for a minor share. 5 - 'Ccmiplete', the CFO is the only executive officer responsible for the functional area. Second, indicate the imrtance of the function to your institution. [-— CFO RESPONSIBILITY (Circle One) -| r INSTITUTIONAL IWIRTANCE (Circle One) 1 Functional Areas _N_o_n_e_ fling m 5339: Canplete M IL m ELIE Critical I. Accounting . . . ....... I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 S 2. Auditing . . ......... I 2 3 4 5 l 2 4 5 3. Auxiliary Enterprises a. Bookstore ......... I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 b. Food Services. . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 c. Housing. . . . ...... I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 d. Press/Copy Centers . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 e. University Center. . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 4. Borrowing of Finances. . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 5. Budget Control . . . ..... I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 6. Budget Developent . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 7. BursrlCashier Operations. . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 B. College Services a. Cupus Mail Service. . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 b. Telecmunications . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 9. Cost Information Determination I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 IO. Data Processing (academic) . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 II. Data Processing (nonacademic) I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 IZ. Developent/Fmd Raising . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I3. Econtmlic Develop-ent/Real Estate I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 14. Facility Planning/Construction I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 15 Facility Operation/Maintenance I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 151 r— CFO RESPINSIBILITY (Circle One) -| r—INSTITUTIGIAL IIPMTANCE (Circle One)-1 Functional Areas 1013 m M 1313 Conglete Eggs Lg; m H_i2 Critical 16. Grant 8 Contract Adainistration I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 1?. Indirect Cost Rate Establishment I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 18. Internal Control . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 19. Institutional Reserch . . . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 S 20. Investment Management. . . . . I 3 4 I 2 3 4 5 21. Labor Relations (academic) . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 22. Labor Relations (nonacademic) 1 2 3 4 s 1 2 3 a ' s 23. Legal Management . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 24. Mgt. Information System . . . 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 25. Personnel Admin. (nonacademic) I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 26. Payroll. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 27. Physical Plant . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 28. Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 29. Reporting: Federal, State, and Intra/Inter-institutional I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 30. Risk Management 8 Insurance. . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 31. Safety and Security . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 32. Space Management . . . . . . . l 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 5 33. Transportation . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 B. From the preceding, list the five functional areas C. From the preceding, list the five functional areas for which you delegate the ggeatest responsibility for which you delegate the least responsibility to to a subordinate (i.e., those areas in which you a subordinate (i.e., those areas in which you are are least personally involved). most personally involved). Functional Area Functional Area I. I. 2. 2. 3| 3 4. 4. 5. 5 PART II. This section of the mestionnaire attempts to exaine your perceptions about CBO/CFO institutional relations, board relations, legislative relations, and public relations. r———-— CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE ————' Much Somewhat Somewhat Much Lower Lower Equal Higher Higher I. Hhat is the organizational rank of the chief financial officer compared to the a. chief academic officer? ......... . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 5 b. other vice presidents? . . . . . . . . ......... I 2 3 4 S 152 R I_—— CI CLE ME RE9IISE —-| 3. 5. IO. 11. 12. 13. I4. 15. Much Smewhat Suuhat Much Less Less Equal More More How often «hes the chief financial officer interact with mabers of the board of directors/trustees on a formal basis (attend board meetings,present reports, make recommendations. etc.) compared to the a. chiefexecutiveofficer?................ I 2 3 4 5 b. chief academic officer? . . . . . ........ . . . . I 2 3 4 5 c. dhrvicepresidents?................. I 2 3 4 5 How often dies the chief financial officer interact with mem- bers of the board of directors/trustees on an informal basis (one-on-one contacts. social events. etc.) compared to the .0 d‘d .‘ecut‘n off‘ar' O O O O O I O O D O I O O O O O ‘ 2 3 ‘ 5 b. chiefacademicofficer?................. I 2 3 4 5 ‘0 “hr "u wa'unts? O O O O I O O I O O O O I O O O O 1 2 3 ‘ 5 How extensive is the involvement of the chief financial officer in developing board of director/trustee meeting agendas compared to the a. chief executive officer? ............ . . . . b. chief academic officer? . . . ......... . . . . . c. othervicepresidents? How influential is the chief financial officer in assisting the chief executive officer in translating board policies into operational procedures and guidelines compared to the a. chiefacademicofficerl................. b. othervicepresidents? How extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on board of director/trustee decision making conpared to the a. chiefexecutiveofficer? b. chiefacademicofficer?................. c. othervicepresidents? ...... How extensive is the involvement of the chief financial officer in developing executive cosmittee/council agendas? . . How extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on executive couittee/council decision making? . . . . . . . How extensive is the influence of the chief financial officer on long-range, strategic goal setting/strategy develop-ent? How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in academic policy/progrma developnent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in student services (other than housing and general services) policy/progr. developent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mow extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in financial and business policy/progru developnent? . . . . . . Mow extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in impluenting academic policy/program? . . . . . . . . . . . . How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in impluenting student services (other than housing and general ’av‘ces) ”I‘cylwow‘? O O O O O C O I O O O O O O I O O 0 How extensive is the chief financial officer's involvement in impluenting financial and business policy/progrmn? . . . . . I I I Very Hone Log Moderate mg Hi! 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 A 4 5 5 5 I6. I7. 18. I9. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 153 R [—— CI CLE DIE RESPOISE ———-| Almost Moderately Very Almost Never Seldom Often Often Always How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as a liaison to the state legislature? .............. I 2 g 3 4 5 How frequently dies the chief financial officer interpret and translate legislative action into appropriate institutional policyandprocedure?.................... I 2 3 4 5 How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to local and elected crumunity officials? I 2 3 4 5 How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to local business and community leaders? I 2 3 4 5 How frequently does the chief financial officer serve as an institutional liaison to student and parent groups? ..... I 2 3 4 5 Hal may yers have you served in a chief financial officer position? Do you hold office on the board of directors/trustees? (check one) I ' yes D no If yes: Nae the office If yes: Are you a voting member of that body? (check one) Eyes [3 no Are you a board of directors/trustees' finance or similar committee member? (check one) [:3 yes [3 no If no: Do you work directly with the treasurer of the board? (check one) 3 yes C] no Have you at times domplayed the strength of your board relationships? C: yes [:no About how many times have you appeared before legislative/regulatory bodies in the past yet? About how many times have you been interviewed on by the press in the past year? 27. About low many times have you been interviewed on radio or TV in the past year? 28. About how many times have you given speeches to outside groups in the past year? PART III. This section of tie westionnaire deals with backgroimd information about your institution. Fulltime Fulltime I. Total fall I988 head count enrollment to nearest thousand Undergrad Graduate 2. Size of institution's l988-89 total budget to nee-est million, including all funds, both genaal B restricted: S PART IV. Please rmik order by genaal title those campus individuals you come into contact with most frequently on a weekly basis, listing the most frequent contact first (ex-pies would be tie cable vice president, the director of physical plant, the president, etc. ). You may list fever m-es than the lumber of spaces provided. a. f. b. 9- c. h. d. i. e. J- TIII YOU VERY RICH Fill TAKING Tit TIIE TO MLETE THIS SIRVEY Please return this mestionnaire in the enclosed stmxped and adiressed envelope APPENDIX D First Followup Correspondence MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY " 154 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “8143054 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION HICKSON MALI January 20, 1989 Dear Chief Executive Officer: Last week a questionnaire was mailed to you asking you to provide information about your perceptions of the chief financial officer position at large public institutions of higher education. If you have not already done so, would you please take the short time necessary to complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope which was enclosed. Your re- ply is extremely important because responses from individuals with varied types of administrative experiences are needed. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, I want to thank you. Your contribution to this research effort is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Barbara L. Ringquist, M U Doctoral Student, 8 Director Academic Space and Remodeling Central Michigan University MSI ' u an AflumefII-r Armin Equal Opportunity lmsfuufmm MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY . 155 COLLEGE OI EDUCATTON EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488244934 DEPARTMENT OI EDUCATIONAL ADMINIST‘RA'DON nICLSON HALL January 20, 1989 Dear Chief Academic Officer: Last week a questionnaire was mailed to you asking you to provide information about your perceptions of the chief financial officer position at large public institutions of higher education. If you have not already done so, would you please take the short time necessary to complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope which was enclosed. Your re- ply is extremely important because responses from individuals with varied types of administrative experiences are needed. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, I want to thank you. Your contribution to this research effort is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 4!. Barbara L. Ringquist, MSU Doctoral Student, 8 Director Academic Space and Remodeling Central Michigan University MSU u on Allwmafwr Amom Equal ()fl’nrhfllflt Imunumm MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' 155 COLLEGE OI EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “IN-l9“ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTIATION DICKSON HALL January 20, 1989 Dear Chief Financial Officer: Last week a questionnaire was mailed to you asking you to provide information about your experiences as a chief financial officer of a large public college or university. If you have not already done so, would you please take the short time necessary to complete the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope which was enclosed. Your re- ply is extremely important because responses from individuals with experience in your administrative position are needed. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, I want to thank you. Your contribution to this research effort is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Wz iflff Barbara L. Ringquist, MS Doctoral Student, & Director Academic Space and Remodeling Central Michigan University MSL’B an A/IirrrmfII-r Anion ’Lqual Ofpnrfumfs lmshlufaom APPENDIX E Second Followup Correspondence 157 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OI EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “324-I934 DDARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HAIL February 22, 1989 Dear Chief Academic Officer: Several weeks ago, you and your Chief executive and chief financial officers were mailed a questionnaire which asked you to provide informa- tion about the position of chief financial officer in large public insti- tutions of higher education. Your reply remains important to this research effort, not only because various administrative viewpoints are needed, but also because your response will help increase the strength of the findings. If you have not already done so, would you please take a few minutes to complete the survey. A return envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you are preparing to complete your survey now, please accept our appreciation for your help. If your survey has recently been mailed, we thank you for your contribution and for your support of the graduate education process. Respectfully yours, ,,’- . Dr. Frederick R. Hhims Barbara L. Ring Doctoral Student, 8 Director Dissertation Director Academic Space and Remodeling 101 Agriculture Hall Central Michigan University Michigan State University MSI I is on Al/Irfildflf'! Acfmm I’Equal Opportunity Institution MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 158 COLLEGE OI EDUCATION EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN ' “B1449.“ DEPARTMENT OI EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON IIALL February 22, 1989 Dear Chief Executive Officer: Several weeks ago, you and your Chief academic and Chief financial officers were mailed a questionnaire which asked you to provide informa- tion about the position of chief financial officer in large public insti- tutions of higher education. Your reply remains important II) this research effort, not only because various administrative viewpoints are needed, but also because your response will increase the strength of the findings. If you have not already done so, would you please take a few minutes to complete the survey. A return envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you are preparing to complete your survey now, please accept our appreciation for your help. If your survey has recently been mailed, we thank you for your contribution and for your support of the graduate education process. Respectfully yours, AM, Z12... gfi / ”:5” (lg “(WK Barbara L. Ringquist, Dr. Frederick R. Hhims Doctoral Student, & Director Dissertation Director Academic Space and Remodeling 10] Agriculture Hall Central Michigan University Michigan State University ALSUILI an A/IIrmafu'r .4“:an ’lzqual Opportunity Imsfifufiom MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 159 COLLEGE Of DUCA'DON EAST LANSING 0 IICHIGAN 0 “I264.” DON'T Of EDUCATTONAI ADMINISTRATION muses "All February 22, 1989 Dear Chief Financial Officer: Several weeks ago, you and your chief executive and chief academic officers were mailed a questionnaire which asked you to provide informa- tion about the position of chief financial officer in large public insti- tutions of higher education. Your reply remains important to this research effort, not only because various administrative viewpoints are needed, but also because your response will help increase the strength of the findings. If you have not already done so, would you please take a few minutes to complete the survey. A second questionnaire and a return envelope are enclosed for your convenience. If you are preparing to complete your survey now, please accept our appreciation for your help. If your survey has recently been mailed, we thank you for your contribution and for your support of the graduate education process. ' Respectfully yours, / M