.54.? . r. .

as}?

3
"E__

w

 

1".

‘t

.34
$2345 '

:1;-

vizut.
.. . .
.1 .. ....I
‘I‘ ~‘Osuslk l:
l.llA4l -\<-? . 3’v'
. z! 7.3%“:
. . $396M
9%.)! . 53",»...er
h53n Butt?!
1.: 5k..- :3}

’ m...
, .
9 "f D'-

It 4'53,

712%
6 .i

.3... .1. . . ‘ .
1:21.. . \S-
. , 4 , V .2“. it}!
. L351}...
Ivst...|5a ii!
ii\‘...‘41uw|v.n
i... z: A

.3...._\u

. ‘
E ‘o\ x ..

r ...

ti!
.1). :.

 

I

 

 

ICHIGAN STATE UNIVERS TY LIBRARIES

mists WWWiiiliiiiiliiiiiili‘ii‘iWWW

3 1293 01387 1276

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP TRAINING AND
BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

presented by

James M. Still

has been accepted towards fulfillment_ .
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph.D. degree“, Educational Administration

 

Date 5 ,I// 95

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOXtoromavothl-chodtomm yum
'ro AVOID FINES Mum on or before data duo.

 
   

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

as. r 0*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M80 is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity instituion
W1

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP TRAINING AND
BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT CHAIRS
By

James M. Still

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

1995

tr;
pr
a l
jou
l

Chef.

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP TRAINING AND
BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

By

James M. Still

This study was designed to determine whether selected community college
department chairs perceived any changes in their leadership behaviors as a result
of participating in a leadership training program. The population for the study
consisted of chairs who had completed one year of leadership training provided by
the National Community College Chair Academy, a program initiated specifically for
training community college department chairs in eladership skills. The training
program consisted of an introductory week-long leadership development session,
a two-semester practicum, a mentoring program, the development of a personal
journal, and a concluding week-long leadership development session.

Thirteen participants were selected forthe study. An instrument (Leadership
Self-Rating Scale) was designed forthe purpose of assessing the participants’ level
of understanding and degree of implementation of the eight topical units before and
after the training. The eight units of the training were: The Complex Role of the

Chair, Behavioral Styles, Strategic Planning, Curriculum Development, Classroom

James M. Still
Research, Conflict Management, Performance Standards, and Total Quality
Management. Interviews were conducted with each respondent and were guided
by their responses to the Self-Rating Scale. Participants described what they
understood better in each unit and in what ways they were implementing leadership
skills differently in the same units.

An analysis of the data indicated that chairs did perceive that they had
changed their leadership behavior as a result of the training. Participants reported
that they experienced these changes in a variety of ways and attributed the changes
both directly and indirectly to the Institute. Almost all (12) perceived themselves to
be more effective leaders as a result of the training. Respondents often mentioned
the formal sessions and networking opportunities, both integral parts of the Institute
experience, as contributing to an improvement in their understanding of the eight
topical units and the success of their efforts to implement what they had learned
during the Institute. Many described the Institute experience as the event that
significantly improved their self-confidence as academic leaders and as the catalyst

that influenced them to study these topics further.

Copyright by.
JAMES M. STILL

1995

ca".

dur

To my wife, Phyllis Bail Still; my sons, Andrew, Joseph, and Matthew; and my
daughter, Ashley, fortheir understanding of the many hours I spent away from them

during this project. Thanks for your unending support. It's finally done, gang!

Tt

prr

80‘.

“In
HI

Dr.
enc:
'lakl

dissr

CONN

aSUp

thela

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although it is true that only one name appears as the author of such a work,
the reality is that the final product reflects the work and the perseverance of many.
The individuals mentioned below all played significant roles in assisting me with this
project and deserve to share in this accomplishment.

At Michigan State University, Dr. Louis Hekhuis, my major professor and
advisor on this study, was a continuous source of encouragement and assistance.
Without his availability and advice, this dissertation could not have been completed.
Dr. Howard Hickey, a member of my committee, was a source of continual
encouragement throughout this whole advanced degree process. His advice to
"take one little chunk at a time” helped me endure both the course work and the
dissertation. Drs. Eldon Nonnamaker and Jim Bristor were valuable members of my
committee who offered good suggestions and were very supportive.

My employer during this eight-year process, Delta College, provided me with
a supportive network and environment in which to complete the work. In particular,
the late Darrell Berry, my dean, gave me substantial latitude to adjust my work
schedule in order to conduct research and to meet with my advisors at Michigan
State. He was also a constant source of encouragement until his death in December

1994. Dr. Gene Packwood, Director of Research and Development at Delta, played

vi

his
wr;

CO!

forg

QUE

 

 

a significant role in my success throughout the program. His willingness to give of
his time and expertise in guiding me through the process of logical thinking and
writing contributed in a major way to the completion of this project. I am not
convinced I could have done this without his help.

The 13 department chairs who were the subjects of this study. I will never
forget their willingness to participate and their candid responses to the interview
questions. They are true friends and effective leaders.

There are others who helped me and who need to be acknowledged. First,
my friend and colleague, Dr. Marilyn Rhinehart, who gave of her time to proofread
and make editorial suggestions on my dissertation. I will always be indebted to
Marilyn for taking the time to assist me in the final stages of this dissertation.
Second, Barbara Hair for transcribing the interviews of the 13 participants of this
study. Third, Johanna Frohm for her computer expertise that resulted in the graphs
used to indicate change in understanding and implementation. Fourth, the entire
HPER staff of Delta College, especially my secretary, Emily Heil, for understanding
that toward the end I just needed to be left alone in order to finish. They did
understand, and their lack of interruptions helped more than they will ever know.
Fifth, Drs. Al Seagren and Dan Wheeler from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Their advice and feedback during the early stages of this study were invaluable.
And finally, all of my friends and colleagues here at Delta who continually asked me

if I had finished yet. That question was an inspiration for me to keep going.

vii

en

of'

the

rem

 

I cannot comprehend that anyone could complete a dissertation without the
encouragement, advice, and assistance of many people. I am deeply appreciative
of the friendship and help those mentioned here gave me. They deserve much of
the credit for any merit this paper may have. I will always be grateful to them for
their many contributions and accept the responsibility for any shortcomings that

remain.

viii

LIS

Chi

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. xii
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1
Introduction to the Study ................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ............................... 5
Purpose of the. Study ................................... 7
Importance of the Study ................................ 8
Research Questions ................................... 9
Limitations of the Study ................................ 10
Definition of Terms ................................... 12
Organization of the Study .............................. 14
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................... 16
Introduction ......................................... 16
The Administrative Structure of Community Colleges ......... 17
Profile of a Department Chair ........................... 19
The Complex Role of the Chair ........................ 21
Leadership Styles of Chairs ........................... 24
Strategic Planning .................................. 27
Curriculum Development ............................. 28
Classroom Research ................................ 29
Conflict Management ................................ 30
Performance Standards .............................. 32
Total Quality Management ............................ 34
How Chairs Come to Their Roles ........................ 35

Can Leadership Skills Be Taught to Community College
Chairs? ........................................... 37
Are Leadership Training Programs Effective? ............... 40
Chapter Summary .................................... 44

ix

METHODOLOGY .................................... 45

Introduction ......................................... 45
Research Methodology ................................ 45
The Population ...................................... 46
Selection of Participants ............................... 47
Instrumentation ...................................... 49
Collection of Data .................................... 52
The Interviews ....................................... 53
Analysis of the Data .................................. 55
RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS ..................... 57
Introduction ......................................... 57
Research Question 1 ................................. 57
Results of the Interviews ............................. 59
The Complex Role of the Chair ........................ 60
Leadership Styles ................................... 63
Strategic Planning .................................. 67
Curriculum Development ............................. 73
Classroom Research ................................ 79
Conflict Management ................................ 84
Performance Standards .............................. 91
Total Quality Management ............................ 95
Research Question 2 ................................ 100
Knowledge and Understanding of Leadership ............ 101
Increased Self-Confidence ........................... 102
Networking ....................................... 103
Research Question 3 ................................ 105
Two Formal Training Sessions ........................ 105
Individual Professional Development Plan ............... 106
Reflective Journal Writing ........................... 106
Mentorship Program ................................ 107
Two Conference Calls .............................. 108
Final Reports ..................................... 108
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ........ 109
Summary .......................................... 109
Conclusions ........................................ 113
Implications for Practice .............................. 116
Implications for Further Research ....................... 117
Reflections ........................................ 1 18

APPENDICES

A. The Leadership Self-Rating Scale ....................... 122
B. Letter of Approval From the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects .................. 125
C. Initial Letter to Study Participants ....................... 126
D. Informational Questionnaire ...................... V ..... 1 27
E. Participant Consent Form ............................. 128
F. Preinterview Letter to Study Participants ................. 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 130

xi

Figure

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Change in Understanding of the Complex Role of
the Chair ........................................... 61
Change in Understanding of Leadership Styles ............. 64
Change in Understanding of Strategic Planning ............. 68
Change in Implementation of Strategic Planning ............ 71
Change in Understanding of Curriculum Development ........ 74
Change in Implementation of Curriculum Development ....... 77
Change in Understanding of Classroom Research ........... 79
Change in Implementation of Classroom Research .......... 82
Change in Understanding of Conflict Management .......... 85
Change in Implementation of Conflict Management .......... 89
Change in Understanding of Performance Standards ........ 92
Change in Implementation of Performance Standards ........ 94
Change in Understanding of Total Quality Management ...... 96
Change in Implementation of Total Quality Management ...... 99

xii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introducticnjmhefludv

Conventional wisdom suggests that the success of an organization may
well rest with the quality of its leaders. Over the years, hundreds of writers have
attempted to describe and explain the qualities of those individuals who have
been perceived as leaders. Researchers have attempted to discover behaviors
that characterize effective as opposed to ineffective leaders. What it is that
successful leaders do and how they learned such skills are two topics that seem
to dominate current research.

According to Bennis (1985), today’s leader is an individual who is able to
manage change effectively. Successful leaders are visionaries. They are able
to create the future through anticipation and innovation. They are risktakers who
have little fear of failure, for it is through setbacks that they often perceive
opportunities for additional learning. The effective leader of today empowers
those within the organization to make decisions and invites all employees to
become actively involved in establishing and attaining the organization’s mission

and goals.

 

 

ab
exc

D03

eXar

2

A number of writers have indicated that effective leaders are lifelong
learners. In fact, Bennis (1985) referred to this characteristic as the dominant
focus of the leaders he studied. He argued that:

learning is the essential fuel for the leader, the source of high-octane

energy that keeps up the momentum by continually sparking new

understanding, new ideas, and new challenges. It is absolutely
indispensable under today’s conditions of rapid change and complexity.

Very simply, those who do not learn do not long survive as leaders. (p.

188)

Not only do leaders learn, but, more important, they are able to learn in an
organizational context. They create organizations in which learning becomes
part of the environment. All experiences become learning opportunities that are
used to search for new ideas or reexamine present methods. Michael (1973)
referred to this type of skill as "the new competence.“ It involves being able to
acknowledge and share uncertainty, embrace error, respond to the future,
become interpersonally competent, and gain self-knowledge.

External forces in today’s world require those in leadership roles to be
competent in a wide range of skills. It is no longer sufficient simply to occupy a
position of power to be perceived as a leader. Much more is expected of the
modern leader. Barker (1992) asserted that, in orderto survive, leaders must be
able to anticipate the future, be innovative in their planning, and exhibit
excellence in their performance. His advice to those who hold leadership
positions was ”change or die.”

Agreeing with both Bennis and Barker, this researcher was interested in

examining the effects of leadership training. Specifically, he sought to determine

 

 

III
III

ch

Du

The

aye

SDea

Cage

 

 

3

whether leadership behaviors can be changed through an organized learning
experience. The value of such an inquiry rests in the ability to determine whether
a relationship exists between leadership training and behavioral change.

Community college chairs were chosen as the subjects of this study as a
result of their participating in a one-year leadership training program that began
during the summer of 1992 and concluded in July 1993. The program, referred
to as the Institute for Academic Leadership Development, was sponsored by the
National Community College Chair Academy. The purpose of the Institute was
to provide community college chairs with intensive training in the development
of academic and transformational leadership skills. Through the Institute,
academic leaders were exposed to the information, skills, and insight they
needed to excel in their positions, which entail the dual roles of department
manager and academic leader.

The initial group of Institute participants comprised 40 community college
chairs from the United States, Canada, and the United States territory of Guam.
During the year-long Institute, they were involved in the following activities:

1. An introductory week-long leadership development session.
The first week of formal training covered eight leadership topics or units and used
a variety of active, collaborative, and learning techniques, including guest
speakers, large- and small-group discussions, breakout sessions, role-playing,

case studies, and informal discussions and dialogue.

C(

pa

dlsl

and

DUn'l

C000

4

2. A two-semester practicum, which included the development and
implementation of an Individualized Professional Development Plan (IPDP).
The IPDP incorporated goals, activities, and assessment processes focused on
the leadership units presented during the first week-long session. Each
participant developed a plan that included an action strategy for change in each
of the eight topical units presented during the first week of formal training. The
plans were to be carried out at their colleges, and progress on the
implementation was to be recorded through weekly reflective journal writing.
Also included as part of the practicum experience were two conference calls
with Institute mentors and a written final report.

3. A mentorship program. Participants picked a college mentor who
was to provide support, encouragement, and feedback during the process. In
addition, an Institute mentor was assigned to provide support, guidance, and
counsel to both the participant and his or her college mentor.

4. The development of a personal journal. In this journal, the
participants recorded their activities, experiences, and strategies related to their
lPDPs. The journal was to serve as a progress report, as well as a basis for
discussions with mentors, who reviewed thejournal entries, commented on them,
and provided feedback on a regular basis.

5. A concluding week-long leadership development session.
During this second week of leadership development, participants revisited the

concepts and principles from the first week of training while sharing and

 

 

lea
Vila
inst;
U703

Indig

5

comparing experiences from their practicums. They also were exposed to new
topics designed to round out the essential skills for becoming an effective
academic leader. Chairs who successfully completed all components of the
program received professional certification.

The first week of formal training took place in Prescott, Arizona, in July
1992. The eight leadership units presented in that session were:

1. The Complex Role of the Chair

2. Leadership Styles

3. Strategic Planning

4. Curriculum Development

5. Classroom Research

6. Conflict Management

7. Performance Standards

8. Total Quality Management

Statementctthefimblem
In community colleges, division or department chairs fill an important
leadership role. In fact, Bennett (1983) suggested that the position of chair is
vital to the well being of the institution. Roach (1976) estimated that 80% of
institutional decisions are made at the department level. Chairs are regarded as
those individuals within the institution who get things done. Bennett (1983)

indicated that institutions with weak upper-level administrators but strong chairs

F-“
nun-v

 

 

 

 

 

ti

V.

ch
cc.

At

(Tu

ha‘l'e E
the Che

6

can survive. However, those institutions with weak department chairs may
experience major difficulties.

The role ofthe department chair is both complex and stressful. Referred
to as paradoxical by some and ambiguous by others, the position demands a
wide range of leadership skills. It is in regard to these leadership skills that
problems often arise. Researchers have claimed that the typical chair rarely is
prepared to meet the demands of the position. People normally ascend to the
chairmanship from a faculty position; however, there appears to be little
correlation between performing well as an instructor and succeeding as a chair.
At best, the majority of chairs learn their trade through on-the-job training
(Tucker, 1992).

Bennett (1990); Seagren, Creswell, and Wheeler (1993); and Tucker
(1992) all indicated that community college chairs are expected to be leaders of
their departments. This expectation is held by both the dean and the faculty.
Chairs’ success may well depend on their ability to acquire and practice effective
leadership behavioral skills. Assuming that chairs have a desire to be effective
in their role, it may take them a significant amount of time to learn the behavioral
skills necessary for success.

To summarize, it may be erroneous to assume that department chairs
have a clear understanding of their role as a leader. In fact, many may perceive
the Chair’s role as a facilitator or manager of tasks and people, as opposed to

one of real leadership. A number of researchers (Creswell et al., 1980;

 

 

 

“Ne
thlnl
has]

aQDH

COmmL

7

Lombardi, 1983; Seagren, Wheeler, Mitchess, & Creswell, 1986) have addressed
many aspects of the position of the department chair, especially at the college
and university level. These researchers have suggested that, when appointed,
a majority of chairs may fit the following profile. They have little, if any, training,
receive little recognition, work long hours, perform many tasks, experience both
stress and conflict, may have no job description, are caught in the middle
between department members and administration, have major responsibilities,
possess little authority, and are expected to lead. Many may argue that no
rational person would want a position with the preceding description. Perhaps
it is possible, however, to train individuals to be more effective in such a
leadership role.

The issue of leadership and leadership training for community college
chairs was the focus of this study. Can leadership behaviors be changed as a
result of training? What specific leadership behaviors changed as a result of
chairs’ participation in thetraining program? Do chairs feel more effective in their
role as a result of training? What components of the training program did chairs
think had the greatest effect in stimulating behavioral change? In light of what
has been written, undertaking a study to address the preceding questions is both

appropriate and timely.

W

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine whether selected

community college department chairs perceived any changes in their leadership

I “mum
i v" ' ' I“ " -
t—i—a...“

 

 

W8
effe
106.7.
9X06
debs

depa

IGlatlo
DErCGh
exist. C
lime in

depart”)

8

behaviors as a result of participating in a leadership training program. The
population for this study consisted of chairs who had completed one year of
leadershiptraining provided bythe National Community College Chair Academy,
a program initiated specifically for training community college department chairs
in leadership skills. A secondary purpose in conducting the study was to
determine whether chairs perceived certain components of the training program
as being more influential than others in contributing to leadership behavioral

change.

Impedancecftbefitudv

A basic assumption that the researcher made in undertaking this study
was that community college administrators have a strong desire to appoint
effective department chairs. Researchers have found that chairs usually rise to
their positions from the ranks of the faculty, with little, if any, administrative
experience. Further, a majority of institutional decisions are made at the
department level. Accordingly, it may be safe to assume that effective
department chairs make significant contributions to effective institutions.

The importance of this study lies in determining whether a positive
relationship exists between leadership training and behavioral change, as
perceived by community college department chairs. If such a relationship does
exist, community college administrators may want to invest both revenue and
time in leadership training programs such as the one in this study for their

department chairs.

 

 

'1'

 

 

re
de
loc

the

effer
W88
perfor
DaftlciI
Irajm'ng
a rEsull
Were mt

DIGSQM :

9
Besearchfluesticns

The following research questions were posed to assist in the
implementation of this study:

1. What specific behaviors did chairs perceive to have been
modified as a result of their participation in the leadership training
program? The focus here was to describe and explain what specific behavioral
changes chairs thought had occurred as a direct result of their participating in the
one-year Institute for Academic Leadership Development training program. The
researcher assumed that, if change had occurred, chairs would be able to
describe in what manner they were behaving differently. The researcher was
looking for specific examples related to the eight topical units presented during
the initial week of the program, as reflected in the participants’ journals, final
reports. and interviews.

2. In what ways did chairs perceive themselves to be more
effective leaders as a result of training? An important element of this study
was an attempt to ascertain the relationship between training and job
performance. The researcher sought to ascertain the perceptions of the
participants regarding their understanding of their abilities as leaders following
training. Did chairs believe they were more effective as department leaders as
a result of the training? If so, in what specific situations did they believe that they
were more effective? Both questions seemed appropriate and important forthe

present study.

_.——
f

9N“

 

It 3!
gen
CUSI'

gene

for mc

Chafls

1O

3. What individual components of the program did chairs
perceive to be most influential in contributing to their behavioral change?
The Institute for Academic Leadership Development training program had seven
major components: (a) receiving one week of formal training, (b) choosing and
working with a mentor from the participant’s institution, (c) formulating an
individual professional development plan, (d) keeping a weekly journal, (e)
participating in two conference calls, (f) preparing a final report on 15
competencies, and (g) participating in a final week of training and follow-up. This
researcher was interested in determining whether chairs perceived some
components of the program to be more effective than others in bringing about

change in their leadership behavior.

I' 'I I' [ll SI |

This study was ethnographic in nature. A limitation of field or
ethnographic research is the tendency to make generalizations from the results.
It should be understood that such studies are not conducted for the purpose of
generalization, but rather to record accurately the realities of an event. As
Cusick (1983) stated, "It can be legitimately argued that their chief use is not for
generalizability, but for refining concepts that may be used by others in the future
for more precise forms of research” (p. 134).

This study was limited to a small group of community college department
chairs who participated in a year-long leadership training program.

Consequently, the results of the study may not be generalized to all community

 

thel
SUDC
30d r
Studie

Cusic

11
college department chairs in the United States. The data reported in the study
represent the perceptions of 13 participants in the training program.

Afurther limitation of the study lies in the method by which the study group
was selected. The researcher’s selection of this group was based on access to
the group, which is appropriate for ethnographic studies that are theoretical in
nature. According to Glaser (1970),

Theoretical sampling is done In order to discover categories and their

properties and to suggest their interrelationships into a theory. Random

sampling is not necessary for theoretical sampling. . . . The researcher
who generates theory need not combine random sampling when setting
forth relationships among categories and properties. These relationships
are suggested as hypotheses pertinent to direction of relationships, not

tested as description of both direction and magnitude. (p. 106)

A final limitation of the study is the lack of any statistical data to support
the validity and reliability of the findings. In qualitative studies, it is impossible to
supply such data. However, the lack of statistics does not indicate that validity
and reliability cannot be established. The validity and reliability of ethnographic
studies are enhanced through the accurate recording of the event being studied.
Cusick (1973) addressed this concern, stating:

As one lives close to a situation, his description and explanation of it have

a first-person quality which other methodologies lack. As he continues to

live close to and moves deeper into that situation, his perceptions have

a validity that is simply unapproachable by any so-called standardized

method. Likewise, as his validity becomes better, so his reliability, which

is an extension of his validity, becomes better. As the researcher is the

actual instrument, as he becomes more aware, more valid, so he must of
necessity become more reliable. (p. 232)

 

an
Th

int

th

80d

YGar
pr Ofe

prOgr

Unit WI

12
D [j 'l' [I

The following terms are used frequently in this dissertation. These
definitions reflect the context in which the terms were used in this study.

Behavinmhangfi. Aself-reported perception of a difference in leadership
behavior as a result of the Institute for Academic Leadership Development
training program.

W. One of the eight topical units of the Institute. This
unit focused on a variety of informal strategies that instructors can use on a
continual basis to solicit feedback from students as to their mastery of concepts
and content, in order to modify and improve the teaching-learning process.
These methods are used in an attempt to determine what is and is not working
in the classroom. \___

W. A publicly funded, two-year, postsecondary institution
of higher education. These institutions are accredited and offer both certificate
and associate degree programs.

Componentscfibejrainingpmgram. The individual elements of the one-
yeartraining program. These included two weeks offormal training, an individual
professional development plan, a weekly reflective journal, a mentorship
program, two conference calls, and a final report.

W. A person who is either appointed by a dean
or elected by fellow faculty members, and is responsible for leading an academic

unit within the institution.

 

[I

St

8C3

afle

«fies
flafifi
was;

COOdL

UnG’er

VQKK

13

Eormaflrajnjng. A program designed to prepare a designated group of
individuals in skills the program directors deem necessary to increase job-
perforrnance effectiveness. In this study, formal training refers to the two weeks
of training in Prescott, Arizona.

WW. Participants’ self-reported
implementation of behavioral skills related to the following six topical units of the
Institute for Academic Leadership Development: Strategic Planning, Curriculum
Development, Classroom Research, Conflict Management, Performance
Standards, and Total Quality Management.

WM. A year-long series of
activities designed to improve participants’ academic leadership skills.

Leadershmbehavm. Those acts in which leaders engage as they
attempt to coordinate or direct a group in achieving commonly accepted goals.

. Leadershipjraming. A program designed to help individuals in leadership
roles acquire leadership skills or enhance their present skills. In this study, the
training was designed specifically for community college department chairs and
was provided at the Institute for Academic Leadership Development, which was
conducted from July 1992 to July 1993.

WWW. An organization established
under the sponsorship of the Maricopa Community College system in Phoenix,
Arizona. The goal of the academy is to provide opportunities for the

development of academic leaders in community colleges.

14

Participants. The community college chairs who participated in the year-
long leadership training program sponsored and presented by the National
Community College Chair Academy.

Perception. Participants’ consciousness or awareness of changes in their
leadership behavior as a result of completing the one-year leadership training
program sponsored by the National Community College Chair Academy.

We. The units that were included in the formal training portion
of the one-year program. Presentations and group discussions were the primary
components of the formal training sessions. The topical units were: The
Complex Role of the Chair, Leadership Styles, Strategic Planning, Curriculum
Development, Classroom Research, Conflict Management, Performance
Standards, and Total Quality Management.

Undefiandmmmadmhmbeham. Participants’ self-reported
understanding of behaviors related to the eight topical units included in the

Institute for Academic Leadership Development.

C . I' [ll SI |

Chapter I contained an introduction to the study, a statement of the
problem, purpose and importance of the study, the research questions,
limitations of the study, and definitions of key terms. Chapter II contains an
overview of the administrative structure of community colleges, followed by a
review of literature pertaining to the varied roles and responsibilities of

community college chairs. Also examined are writings on the leadership skills

15
needed by community college chairs, as well as leadership training programs
designed for theSe individuals.

The methodology used in conducting the study, as well as the procedures
used to gather and analyze the data, are explained in Chapter III. The results of
the data analysis are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary
of the study, a discussion of the findings, conclusions drawn from the findings,

and recommendations for further research.

 

1L

 

0'6

(65

ear
of if
univ.
Ther

IOCayil

deCISic

“QSHM

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

IDILQdIJQIIQIl

The focus of this study was the issue of leadership and leadership training
for community college department chairs. The researcher’s purpose in
conducting the study was to determine whether selected community college
department chairs perceived any changes in their leadership behaviors as a
result of participating in a leadership training program.

Included in this chapter is an overview of the development of the
administrative structure of community colleges and how the academic structure
of these institutions was patterned after the structure of four-year colleges and
universities. An aspect of that structure is the position of the department chair.
There is a wealth of literature on the historical role of the department chair as the
liaison between faculty and administration, and that relationship also is reviewed.

Writings on the role community college chairs are expected to play in
today’s environment are discussed. Specifically, the importance of chairs in the
decision-making process and their leadership responsibilities are addressed.

Finally, how chairs normally rise to their positions and how chairs acquire

the skills they need to perform effectively are discussed. Also examined are

16

 

 

 

col
tot
HOV.
dr'sci

In Cre

of the
a Chair

leaderSI

17
writings on the leadership skills needed to be an effective community college
chair. In the final section, leadership training programs are reviewed in an effort
to determine whether leadership behavior can be changed as a result of such

training.

II 9|"ll' S! I [C 'ICII

The administrative structure of community colleges is patterned on that of
colleges and universities (Cohen, 1989). As America’s early institutions of higher
education grew in both size and diversity of curriculum, it became increasingly
difficult to manage them. The solution was to divide these institutions into
manageable units. Consequently, the academic units of colleges and
universities were divided into departments or divisions. The number of
departments often depended on the size of the institution and the number of
disciplines being taught within particular departments. For example, in smaller
colleges, the range of classes taught may have required a variety of disciplines
to be part of one department, therefore limiting the total number of departments.
However, in larger universities, a department may have consisted of only one
discipline, and, according to Cohen (1989), the number of departments often
increased as the number of instructors in each discipline increased.

In community colleges, departments or divisions are the building blocks
of the academic structure. These instructional units traditionally are headed by
a chairperson. Accordingly, it is the chair who assumes the responsibility for

leadership of the division. Tucker (1992) referred to the chair’s job as both

 

 

 

an
Ho
I’l'ir
four
(16;);
1983
Dosltl
39965
that R:
made;
DIGSIde

0. XI)

18

difficult and complex, yet extremely important to the well-being of the institution.
He emphasized the importance of chairs, saying that an institution with strong
administrators and weak chairs is an institution in trouble. Conversely, according
to Tucker, institutions with strong chairs can survive regardless of the strength
of the administration.

Little has been written on the topic of community college division chairs.
A review of the literature showed that even less has been written on the
relationship between leadership skills and effectiveness as a community college
chair. In fact, there is a dearth of both literature and research on this topic. A
majority of the literature and research on chairs has concerned four-year colleges
and universities, and much of what has been written is anecdotal in nature.
However, according to Tucker(1992), Seagren (1993), Knightand Holen (1985),
Winner (1989), and Bennett (1990), it is the department chairs in both two- and
four-year institutions who play a key role in getting things done. ”It is at the
department level that the real institutional business gets conducted" (Bennett,
1983, p. 1). As early as 1942, the chairmanship was characterized as the "key
position" in a department and in the institution (Jennerich, 1981). The position
appears to be pivotal to the well-being of the institution. It is so pivotal, in fact,
that Roach (1976) estimated that 80% of the decisions made in an institution are
made at the department level. "An institution can run for a long time with an inept
president but not for long with inept Chairpersons," according to Peltason (1984,

p. xl).

..
.J
.4 ' 1"- r

 

 

V.

pc
ex
ea
80C
199.

ways

Q)

19

Because so little has been written about community college chairs, this
review of literature was centered on the position of department chair. Although
there are occasional references to community college chairs, a majority of the
review refers to chairs in general. As Tucker (1992) pointed out, there are some
differences between the perceived roles and responsibilities of community
college chairs and their counterparts at four-year institutions. However, when
considering leadership and administrative roles and responsibilities, ”community
college chairpersons will find that their institutions may have more in common

with four-year institutions than they realize" (Tucker, 1992, p. 31).

Wait

The roles and responsibilities chairs must assume are important to the
well-being of the department and the institution. Chairs normally rise to the
position from faculty status. Usually with little if any formal training, they are
expected to administer and lead their departments. Considered ”first among
equals,” these individuals are expected to represent the interests of the faculty
and to be the link between the administration and the department (Seagren et al.,
1993). The chair’s role has been described and characterized in many different
ways. According to Jacobs (cited in Seagren et al., 1993):

The Chair’s job has been characterized as a "militarist" who uses power,

authority, resources, and sanctions to command; a "malcontent" who

delegates, defers, decides slowly, and acts defensively; a ”masochist”

who nags others to get tasks done; a “mediator" who cajoles, pacifies,

rewards, and tends to complicate matters; a "messiah” who exhorts,

inspires, and shames; and a ”mentor" who leads with maturity, wisdom,
and skill. (p. 5)

 

 

 

to 1
rep;
to b.
for A
IOij
tODIC

00m,

20

There is general agreement that department chairs are busy people.
Daily, they must make difficult decisions about budget matters, recruiting and
evaluating faculty, solving and resolving conflict, establishing and attaining
department goals, resolving student complaints, making changes in curriculum,
and meeting students’ needs (Creswell et al., 1990). In accepting these and
many other responsibilities, chairs are expected to be leaders, yet they receive
little recognition, are required to work long hours, and often find themselves
caught in the middle between the administration and the department. Bennett
(1990) summarized the plight of the department chair as follows:

Until quite recently, chairpersons at many institutions have toiled in

relative obscurity and isolation. Without much institutional recognition or

support, they have attended to the multiplicity of activities for which they
typically have responsibility. Frequently they have labored alone, not
realizing that other chairs have many of the same problems, vexations,
and uncertainties. Often they have been sustained more by their own
convictions about the importance of the position than by the attentions
paid to it or to them by key campus administrators. Colleges and
universities have been the beneficiaries, for no institution can succeed

with poor chairpersons. (p. ix)

The literature contains numerous references to the importance of chairs
to the well-being of the departments they serve and the institutions they
represent. Also described are the many roles that chairs must assume ifthey are
to be perceived as effective by both the faculty and administration. The Institute
for Academic Leadership Development (Seagren & Filan, 1992) identified eight
topics related to the issue of leadership for department chairs and included these

topics as the emphasis of its training program. These topics are: (a) The

Complex Role of the Chair, (b) Leadership Styles, (0) Strategic Planning, (d)

 

 

 

 

mr
set
on

am
cha

COl'l

21
Curriculum Development, (e) Classroom Research, (f) Conflict Management, (9)
Performance Standards, and (h) Total Quality Management. The literature
relating to each of the above-mentioned leadership roles of department chairs is

reviewed in the following pages.

WWW

Researchers have reported that the complexity of the role of department
chair may well be attributed to the ambiguous and paradoxical nature of the
position (Bennett, 1983; Brann & Emmet, 1972; Gmelch & Burns, 1991; Prucnal,
1982; Tucker, 1992). Assuming the chairmanship involves a major transition for
most faculty. Chairs must change from specialists to generalists and attempt to
see the big picture. Their loyalty must now center on the institution rather than
on the discipline they just left. The chairmanship is an ambiguous role, and this
ambiguity has both political and psychological dimensions (Bennett, 1983). As
chairs’ relationships change because of their new position of leadership, it is
common for them to ask who they are and to search for where they fit as a chair
(Bennett, 1983). The ambiguous nature of the role is further complicated by the
lack of administrative and leadership experience that most chairs bring to the
position. According to Tucker (1992), a period of confusion is common as new
chairs attempt, to some degree at one time or another, to perform the numerous
roles he identified in his study.

Perhaps even more confusing to chairs is the paradoxical nature of the

role. Caught between the faculty and the administration, chairs are required to

.53?

 

 

er

(in

Cha
Chat
TGSpI
maria
Dace;

22
meet the demands of both groups. Gmelch (1991) referred to the position as the
"Janus Job.“ He wrote:

In Roman mythology, the god Janus was depicted as the god who had

two faces. Simultaneously, one face turned to the front and the other to

the back. Though department chairs are not in danger of deification, they
also have two faces. One is that of an administrator, the other the face of

a faculty member. (p. 4)

Further evidence of the paradoxical nature of the role is the fact that the
chair is expected to lead, yet rarely is given the authority to do so (Tucker, 1992).
Although the chair is considered first among equals, his or her ability to bring
about change can be severely restricted by a strong coalition of those equals.
Deans look to the chair as the one who is responsible for shaping the
department’s future, yet it is almost impossible to effect change without the
support of the faculty. Tucker wrote, "The chairperson, then, is both a manager
and a faculty colleague, an advisor and an advisee, a soldier and a captain, a
drudge and a boss" (p. 33).

Alexander (1981) analyzed the perceived role, preparation, and needs of
chairs in Massachusetts community colleges. She concluded that the
chairmanship is no longer a faculty position with a few administrative
responsibilities. Rather, Alexander found that chairs perceived their role as a
management position with major leadership expectations. Further, chairs

perceived those leadership tasks to be directed primarily toward the care of the

curriculum and the supervision and evaluation of full- and part-time instructors.

 

 

 

comm
by fra
perforl
lnvohw
inforrr

facult:

from '
slude
Issue:

requlr

alsoh

 

23

Burke (1985) also studied the managerial roles and activities of
community college chairs. He found that the work of the chair was characterized
by fragmentation, variety, discontinuity, and brevity; many activities were
performed daily. The majority of the Chair’s activities were unplanned and
involved verbal contact for the purpose of gathering or using information. This
information exchange involved interacting directly and frequently with the college
faculty, primarily in one-to-one, unscheduled meetings.

Like most educational leaders, chairs face many demands and requests
from those who have a stake in the institution. Faculty, administrators, and
students almost daily ask chairs to make decisions regarding a wide range of
issues (Pappas, 1989). Students may want a voice in establishing curriculum
requirements or may lodge a complaint against a faculty member. The faculty
also have many needs, ranging from approving travel requests to increasing the
course requirements for a curriculum. Deans have policy and procedural
requests that range from budget proposals to class schedules. The chair thus
becomes a ”fulcrum in the balancing act" (Tucker, 1984, p. 6) among all of these
rival forces (Seagren et al., 1993). Seagren et al. stated:

This fulcrum has no clear pivot point, however. Chairs suffer from role

ambiguity because they have no clear mandate for their position. They

seldom are supplied with clear job descriptions or clear criteria for
performing theirjobs. They come to the position without training (Waltzer,

1975), though they might have experience in quasi-administrative roles

(such as chairing an important departmental committee) before assuming

the responsibilities of a chair (Creswell et al., 1990). Unfortunately, a

chair’s experiences before taking the position seldom include any formal
orientation. (p. 11)

24

Chairs, then, often find themselves serving dual roles. Due to the nature
of the position, chairs must represent the perspectives of both the faculty and
administration. They continually are faced with conflicts involving the resolution
of issues "both horizontally (forthe department) and vertically (forthe institution)"
(Seagren et al., 1993, p. 11). However, they are the only professionals on
campus who must attempt to "interpret the department to the administration and

the administration to the faculty" (Booth, 1982, p. 4).

W

A review of the literature supported the assumption made in this study that
chairs are appointed or elected on the basis of their ability to provide leadership
to an academic department (Bennett & Figuli, 1990; Seagren et al., 1993;
Tucker, 1992). In fact, Tucker characterized the chairmanship as a key position
in college administration. He asserted that the chair "must provide leadership to
the faculty and at the same time supervise the translation of institutional goals
and policies into academic practice" (p. vi). At the heart of the department is the
chair. However, most chairs are drawn from the faculty ranks and assume the
position with little, if any, formal administrative or leadership experience. In
addition, few opportunities for leadership training or orientation are available to
them.

For most people, the move from faculty member to the position of chair is
a major transition. It requires a change in perspective from a specialist to a

generalist who must now focus on the big institutional picture. The transition

 

 

 

SR

or

\wa
knc
lea:
OHM
DFOI
Lear

IElatt

Furihl

25

requires changing from an individual viewpoint to leading a group of colleagues
in a direction guided by a clear vision. Further, it requires a change in loyalty
from a discipline to the institution. Finally, according to Bennett (1983), chairing
a department requires a significant change in behavior. In this new position,
chairs need to develop a consistent leadership style that will allow them to
interact more effectively with all members of the department.

There is a wealth of literature on leadership. Numerous studies have
been conducted and theories developed in an attempt to determine the
differences between those who are perceived as leaders and those who are not.
Researchers have argued for years about how leaders acquired their leadership
skills. Whether leaders are born or whether leadership skills can be developed
or learned has been the genesis of the discussions.

Yukl (1989) suggested that leaders learn about leading in several major
ways. Experience in a leadership role enables an individual to build a valuable
knowledge base and precedent. Through a series of trials and errors, a leader
learns to reflect on the effectiveness of particular actions. Also, by observing
others perceived as leaders and by working with a mentor or role model, one is
provided with a continuous source of new ideas, observations, and examples.
Leaders also learn through education and skill building, especially in terms of
relationships with people, communication, teamwork, and strategic thinking.

What are the leadership goals and expectations of department chairs?

Further, how will those who accept the role of chair learn to lead effectively? And

26

what leadership style will be most productive to success as a chair? These are
appropriate questions, according to Seagren et al. (1993), and some researchers
have begun to address them. Today, most people expect educational institutions
to be run well in terms of efficiency and accountability, and to be places In which
it is safe and stimulating to work and study. Chairs play a major role in ensuring
that the above-mentioned conditions exist in their departments.

Seagren et al. (1993) thought that the primary leadership goal of each
department chair should be to help both the faculty and students develop their
knowledge and skill to the best of their ability. They wrote:

This concept, the strengthening or empowering of others, is related to the

long-standing tradition of individual academic autonomy, requiring the

chair to develop a vision beyond immediate tasks and challenges toward
longer-term aims and achievements. Such transformational leadership
is essential if higher education is to cope with the challenges it currently
faces. The leader’s responsibility is then to ensure that the workload of
each member of the department is designed to strengthen his or her
professional status through the achievement of the shared vision. Only
through such achievement can the standing of the individual, the
department, the chair, and the institution be seen to have grown through
leadership. Department chairs, arguably more than any other leader in
higher education, are best able to work with individuals toward these

shared goals. (pp. 24-25)

Few researchers have examined the leadership styles of effective
department chairs. However, Cameron and Ulrich (1986) suggested that those
who are perceived as effective in leadership roles develop styles that are
transformational in nature. They are able to create a need for change, help their

colleagues overcome resistance to change, articulate a clear vision, and

stimulate others to commit to and implement that vision.

27
SI I . El .

Planning is an activity that all organizations must do. Businesses spend
large amounts of time planning in an attempt to meet the needs of consumers.
Governments must plan as the social and economic conditions of the population
change. Like business and government, educational institutions must take part
in the planning process. As the demographic and economic status of their
potential student populations change, colleges and universities need to develop
strategies to both recruit students and meet students' needs. Further, college
and university planning also should address methods to ensure student success,
provide necessary services, address student diversity issues, provide quality
instruction, and maintain fiscal responsibility (Tucker, 1993).

Planning in colleges and universities, as well as community colleges,
involves those at the department level. According to Tucker (1993), the primary
planner in each department is the chair. Who else would take the lead in asking
where are we, where do we want to be, and how do we get there? These are
questions that effective leaders in all organizations must ask. And from
questions of this nature emerge mission statements, department goals, and
plans.

Although little has been written regarding chairs’ specific role as strategic
planners, researchers have supported the important part chairs play in a variety
of planning processes. Often referred to as academic planners, chairs are

perceived as the leaders in developing and achieving a departmental mission

 

 

tr'

th

What
eachr
are al.
'CUsto
& Ft;

edUcatl

Chairs

28

(Bennett & Figuli, 1990). In a survey of community college chairs in the United
States and Canada, 91% ofthe respondents reported that developing long-range
plans and integrating unit plans with institutional plans was either important or
very important (Creswell et al., 1993). Jennerich (1981), who queried 300
department chairs, found that these individuals ranked planning skills high on
their list of skills/competencies necessary for success. Tucker (1992) described
the chair’s role in the planning process as follows:

Many of the chairperson’s standard functions automatically make him or

her the department’s chief planner. This role is an almost imperceptible

one, because seldom does any of these standard functions appear to be

solely a planning function. The sum of these standard functions, pursued

almost on a daily basis, makes the chairperson the chief architect of the
department’s future. (p. 35)

WW

Yet another responsibility of department chairs centers on the curriculum.
What classes should be taught, how they should be taught, who might best teach
each course, and what courses require modification to better meet student needs
are all questions that chairs regularly must consider. Referred to by some as
”custodians of academic standards“ or "caretakers of the curriculum" (Bennett
& Figuli, 1990; Tucker, 1992), department chairs must lead the faculty in
answering these questions.

In a 1992 study conducted by Seagren and Filan that focused on
educational beliefs and values, roles, skills, tasks, challenges, and strategies that

chairs thought were important, the respondents consistently mentioned

 

 

 

Fir
the
COI

dee

and
Ge;
last

SIDE;

gag

29

curriculum issues. For example, when asked to rate 32 tasks for which chairs
are responsible, 93% of the respondents rated updating the curriculum as
important to very important. When rating 34 challenges they might face in the
next five years, more than 90% of the responding chairs strongly agreed or
agreed that managing program quality, maintaining quality faculty, and
strengthening and changing the curriculum represented their major challenges.
Finally, when asked to select which strategies might be most useful in addressing
these challenges, 90% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that
conducting curriculum reviews to maintain relevance would assist them in
dealing with their roles and responsibilities as chairs.

It is the chair, then, who must monitor the curriculum of the department
and, in the process, ensure that the curriculum reflects the mission of both the
department and the institution. Who else is in a position to accomplish such
tasks? As Bennett (1990) wrote, "no dean, provost, or president can easily

speak to this issue. All are dependent upon chairs" (p. xi).

CIassmmBeseach

Just as department chairs have indicated a strong belief in their role as
"caretakers of the curriculum," they have expressed as strong a commitment to
and responsibility for ensuring quality instruction in the classroom. In analyzing
the role of the community college chair, Lombardi (1974) observed that chairs
ranked curriculum and instruction among the most frequently performed and

most important areas of responsibility. Seagren and Filan (1992) found similar

 

f
-——-—
*—
————
f
———
'—

7

‘r

co

I lea
09/
hold.
Strate
pfObIe
Howel

I”Prov

 

nfli

UGO/bled

one the f;

30

results in their study. When asked to what extent they valued each of 17
educational beliefs and value statements, 97% of the respondents strongly
agreed or agreed with using a wide variety of teaching methods. In fact, this item
received the highest rating in the beliefs and values section of that study.

Department chairs are responsible for encouraging quality instruction
within their departments (Tucker, 1992). With today’s emphasis on quality, it
would be catastrophic for department members to learn that students or the
community perceived them as presenting less than quality in the classroom.
When addressing this issue, there are a number of strategies that chairs might
consider using. Developing mentoring programs, asking the department’s best
teachers to take a leadership role in changing attitudes, providing professional
development funds forteachers to attend teaching workshops and seminars, and
holding department retreats focused on identifying and discussing new teaching
strategies are some approaches that may be implemented (Tucker, 1992). The
problem of how to improve the quality of instruction is not a simple one.
However, it is a major responsibility of each chair to attempt to lead the effort to

improve the quality of instruction in his or her department.

ConflisLManagement
Department chairs have been likened to the Roman god Janus, who was
depicted as having to faces, because chairs at times also must wear two faces--

one the face of an administrator and the other the face of a faculty member. It

31

is from this dual role that arises much of the conflict that department chairs
experience (Gmelch & Burns, 1991).
Chairs must learn to manage conflict in their positions (Gmelch & Burns,
1991). Conflict is an accepted part of the job and perhaps a result of the
demands made by diverse groups. Administrators, faculty, and students all
contribute to the dilemma. In their study of more than 800 department chairs
from 101 research and doctorate-granting institutions, Gmelch and Burns (1991)
identified confrontations with colleagues as a leading cause of conflict for the
respondents. This conflict-management role was the most stressful one for
chairs and had a major influence on their decision whether to seek another term.
Tucker (1992) wrote that conflict is a subject that many chairs either do
not want to talk about or perceive as happening in other departments. He
warned, however, that chairs must accept the fact that conflict does occur in
almost every department at some time, and it must be addressed. Tucker
commented:
The chairperson ought to be concerned about conflict within the
department, because once it occurs, it tends to fester and grow. Conflict
is divisive; it pits individual faculty members against each other and
wastes time and effort that are best used in more creative endeavors. It
often develops a dynamic and logic of its own. A conflict can polarize a
department, forcing members into competing groups. In extreme cases,
destructive and hostile behavior can destroy a department’s effectiveness.
Chairpersons who learn to identify and diagnose conflict at an early stage
and who help their departments deal with it effectively fulfill one of the
most difficult requirements of their role. (p. 397)

In another study, Gmelch and Burns (1991) reported that chairs found

themselves pressured to perform effectively as both administrators and faculty

 

 

DOV.
mer

one

found
progre

resDOr

QUallty

32

members. They said, "This paradoxical situation of trying to fill a ’swivel’ position
causes department chairs to feel double pressure to be an effective manager and
productive faculty member. The cost of this paradox appears to be excessive
stress" (p. 5).

Finally, in her study of the relationship between training and role strain for
community college chairs in Iowa, Wenzel (1987) identified a number of stressors
for chairs. She concluded that chairpersons experienced role strain as a result
of role ambiguity, work overload, lack of a clearjob description, and participation

in collective bargaining.

EertQLmancsLStandaLds

The quality of a program or programs within a department depends greatly
on the quality and performance of the faculty. Performance reviews provide
powerful opportunities for chairs to judge and develop quality in their depart-
ments (Seagren et al., 1993). Tucker (1992) described performance review as
one of the Chair’s most difficult yet most important responsibilities. He wrote,
"Probably no other activity has more potential for strengthening or weakening the
department over a period of years" (p. 216).

In their survey of community college chairs, Seagren and Filan (1992)
found that 97% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that managing
program quality was a major challenge of the chairmanship. Further, 95% of the
respondents strongly agreed or agreed that it also was a challenge to maintain

quality faculty. Although performance reviews do create anxiety for both the

 

 

5%

ml.

eve
fish
cfifla

the n

make
Shouk
impon.
Should
feEdbac
Suggest
1993). Ir

33

chair and the faculty member, they do provide "the platform for ln-depth
communication and the occasion to shape the direction of the department and
the priorities of the faculty member" (Seagren et al., 1993, p. 45).

There is general agreement that some form of faculty evaluation is
necessary for the development of quality instruction, and that it is the department
chair who is responsible for the evaluation process (Bennett & Figuli, 1990;
Seagren et al., 1993; Tucker, 1992). Much has been written to assist chairs with
this task.

According to Seagren et al. (1993), the literature on performance
evaluation centers on the following questions: What is to be measured? How
is it to be measured? Who is to measure it? What are the quality indicators or
criteria? The answers to these questions depend on "the nature ofthe institution,
the mission of the department, and the interests of the faculty members" (p. 46).

Creswell (1985) wrote that decisions or recommendations that chairs
make on promotion, tenure, merit pay, sabbatical leaves, and contract renewals
should all be based on some form of evaluation. Because these decisions are
important to faculty members, all aspects of departmental and faculty activities
should be examined. The evaluation process should also provide valuable
feedback to faculty members in terms of their overall professional progress and
suggested areas of growth, development, and improvement (Seagren et al.,
1993). In conjunction with the faculty, the chair needs to develop a process to

effectively measure the quality of instruction in the department. Most such

34
processes include some form of self-evaluation, student feedback on teaching
effectiveness, and peer review.
Tucker (1992) summarized the importance of the Chair’s role in the
evaluation process as follows:
One of the most important components of faculty evaluation is
communication with each faculty member regarding what is expected and
what will be evaluated. This communication can be in the form of a
contract, a written memorandum of understanding, or an official
assignment statement. A verbal understanding not in writing may not be
enough. Handled properly, evaluation can improve faculty morale and
result in a strong, effective department. Handled improperly evaluation
can destroy morale, decrease the chances for the department’s success

in meeting objectives, and place the chairperson on the receiving end of
a long succession of grievances. (p. 216)

IotalflualitiLManagemem

Little has been written on the chair’s role in implementing the concepts of
Total Quality Management (TQM). Because this is a relatively new concept in
higher education, the lack of literature on this topic is not unexpected. However,
as the concepts of TQM are adopted in institutions of higher education, and the
move has begun, department chairs will assume important roles in implementing
those concepts. If it is true, as Bennett (1990) stated, that "it is at the
departmental level that the real business of the institution--teaching, research,
and service--is conducted" (p. xi), it is probably safe to assume that chairs will be
actively involved in TQM.

When looking atthe key themes of TQM, a relationship can be established

between the present roles of chairs and the goals of this new initiative. Chairs

.4 ‘5‘

 

 

T).

de
th.
the

de'

Knig

Dost

35

are responsible for the quality of the curriculum and instruction, as well as for
meeting the many needs of students. With their responsibility for performance
reviews, chairs continually are addressing the issue of improvement. Strategic
planning demands vision and a strong commitment to teamwork within the
department. Empowerment must be present if faculty are to be trusted to do
their best and take pride in their performance. Finally, it is the chair who accepts
the task of assisting and encouraging staff members to fulfill their professional

development and training needs.

I | GI . G I II . B I

Tucker (1992), Seagren et al. (1993), Bennett and Figuli (1990), and
Knight and Holen (1985) all characterized department chairs as rising to the
position in a similar way. The majority of chairs were faculty members who were
either elected by their peers or selected by their dean. Few chairs had any
administrative or leadership experience before the appointment; however, most
have a strong desire to succeed. Finding themselves in a position representing
both faculty and administrative interests, chairs initially spend a significant
amount of time attempting to define their role. Knight and Holen referred to the
responsibilities of the chairperson as complex. This is probably a fair description
of the job when the many roles, duties, and responsibilities described in the
literature are considered (Lombardi, 1974; Seagren & Filan, 1992; Tucker, 1992).

Seagren et al. (1986) described the complexity of the chairmanship and

the difficulty of the transition from faculty member to administrator. Because

l‘
_ _.u. "hang" 7

 

 

 

(1)

IE

Tt
DE
lee
80.
Ha.
dor
(19

(19;

con}
Shot
”Btu
Engb
leads.

COIIeg!

36

most chairs assume the position with little, if any, formal leadership or
administrative training, how do they learn to be effective in their role?

Traditionally, chairs learn their role by performing in that position (Seagren
et al., 1993). Chairs do the management tasks that administrators demand and
take care of the concerns and needs of their faculty colleagues. In many
respects, they toll in relative obscurity and isolation (Bennett & Figuli, 1990).
However, much more is expected of department chairs today than in the past.
The chair of today is expected to be the leader of the department. Institution
personnel are beginning to realize that success is difficult without strong
leadership at the departmental level. According to Bennett and Figuli (1990),
some institutions have begun to help chairs by providing access to leadership
training in the form of workshops, conferences, and seminars. But more must be
done to help chairs develop the skills they need to succeed as leaders. Tucker
(1992), Bennett and Figuli (1990), Seagren et al. (1993), and Knight and Holen
(1985) cited the general lack of leadership training for department chairs.

A number of writers have addressed the issue of training for university and
community college department chairs. Engbretson (1986) concluded that deans
should communicate to their division chairs that definitive role expectations,
training, and orientation programs should be arranged for all new chairs. Further,
Engbretson recommended that mutually planned, ongoing, and evaluated
leadership development programs should be initiated at all Wyoming community

colleges. He concluded that similar studies were needed on a wider scale to

 

 

0i

Cl'

ION
skill
OCq
COm‘

Centr

SIUC'I'e

TGIalln

37

determine other factors related to the need for increased leadership training for
department chairs.

The findings from McCarthy’s (1986) study of staff development needs for
community college chairs in Massachusetts confirmed those of Tucker, Bennett,
Hammons, and others—that chairpersons generally are drawn from faculty ranks
and have little or no administrative experience when they assume the position.
McCarthy identified chairs as holding a "key" leadership role affecting the
success and growth of the department and the institution, yet she found that few
opportunities for training were available to them. She concluded that department
chairs need and deserve both preservice and inservice staff development in
specific areas.

Cemmunitxfielleeefihaitsl

The focus of this study was the issue of leadership and leadership training
for community college chairs. Can individuals in leadership positions acquire the
skills they need to be perceived as effective in their role? How might this process
occur? Might the education and training method be effective for training
community college chairs and others in leadership roles? These questions were
central to the present study.

The topic of leadership and the acquisition of leadership skills has been
studied extensively. Bennis and Nanus (1985) reviewed a number of theories

relating to the way such skills are acquired. According to the authors, leadership

" ‘ Lfltfi '

 

 

3C

tae

Ler
to ;
leac
defi:
at it

H3eri

has it
theoq
“99:
I0 IranS

DOV/er:

leadersl

38

skills once were thought to be a matter of birth. That is, people thought that
effective leaders were born, not made. This notion often was referred to as the
"Great Man" theory. "Those of the right breed could lead; all others must be led.
Either you had it or you didn’t. No amount of learning or yearning could change
your fate" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, p. 5).

Other theories of leadership were developed when theorists generally
acknowledged that the Great Man theory failed to define leadership. Many
believed that leaders evolved out of great events. For example, George
Washington was available when the colonies sought their independence, and
Lenin was present at the time of revolution. But this "Big Bang" theory, too, failed
to provide a true definition of leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). So, "like love,
leadership continued to be something everyone knew existed but nobody could
define. Many other theories of leadership have come and gone. Some looked
at the leader. Some looked at the situation. None has stood the test of time"
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985, pp. 5-6).

Bennis and Nanus (1985) described the present-day leader as one who
has the power and skill to transform his or her organization. They modeled their
theory on the lacocca phenomenon; according to theirtheory, "power is the basic
energy needed to initiate and sustain action or, to put it another way, the capacity
to translate intention into reality and sustain it. Leadership is the wise use of this
power: Transforrnative leadership" (p. 17). They further described their view of

leadership as follows:

 

 

lher
sug
accz
lead.
Other
SUQQI
educa

00mm

Ieaders
intherr
ShOuld j
de'v’elop,
when as

beha"tier,

39

Effective leadership can move organizations from current to future states,
create visions of potential opportunities, instill within employees
commitment to change and instill new cultures and strategies in
organizations that mobilize and focus energy and resources. These
leaders are not born. They emerge when organizations face new
problems and complexities that cannot be solved by unguided evolution.

They assume responsibilities for reshaping organizational practices to

adapt to environmental changes. They direct organizational changes that

build confidence and empower their employees to seek new ways of
doing things. They overcome resistance to change by creating visions of
the future that evoke confidence in and mastery of new organizational

practices. (pp. 17-18)

How, then, are leadership skills acquired? There is evidence in the
literature that leaders learn about leading in several major ways. Yukl (1989)
suggested that leaders learn through (a) experiences, allowing individuals to
accumulate a knowledge base and precedent; (b) trial and error, enabling
leaders to learn appropriate responses based on previous experiences; (c)
others who have preceded them in similar roles and are willing to provide ideas,
suggestions, and information; (d) the use of mentors or role models; and (e)
education and training, especially in skills associated with people, better ways of
communicating, and strategic thinking.

Hammons (1984) suggested that if it is desirable to have chairs who are
leaders, great care must be exercised in the selection process. Once chairs are
in the role, a better job must be done of orienting them to that role; also, they
should be provided with continuous opportunities for training and professional
development. Bennett (1983) wrote that chairs experience a major transition

when assuming the role, and this necessitates significant changes in their

behavior. He warned that chairs’ leadership styles will play a significant part in

 

 

ant
fin;
Ina

fort

fiafifi
rmes
educ
Ofpal
resea
Skills_
desigr

Chairs

that Iast
Ieaders.

leaderst

40
their success or failure. It is crucial, therefore, that chairs develop leadership
abilities, but, unfortunately, most of them learn through trial and error.

A number of writers have presented strong cases supporting department
chairs’ need for leadership skills. Seagren et al. (1993), Tucker (1992), Bennett
and Figuli (1990), Bennett (1983), and Hammons (1984) all portrayed chairs in
important leadership roles that require a wide range of specific leadership skills.
In addition, these authors stressed the need for leadership training opportunities

for department chairs.

EIII'I"E Eflil'7

The remainder of this literature review is a discussion of education and
training programs available for community college chairs or others in leadership
roles. Do leadership development programs exist both in and outside of
education? If such programs exist, has leadership behavior changed as a result
of participation in those programs? A search of the literature revealed limited
research on the actual effectiveness of programs designed to develop leadership
skills. No studies were found that focused on the effectiveness of programs
designed to improve the leadership skills of community college department
chafls.

Gardner (1989) wrote that leadership development is a learning process
that lasts a lifetime. The workplace remains the most effective arena for personal
leadership growth, despite a growing movement toward and dependence on

leadership development programs and centers for advanced training.

 

 

pr
pe.
obj.

prof

Cour:
comp

the fut

prOIESS
and mill
loll
0WI
09
Who fem-
C0
mPIEIjn‘

Get
Sill/ls

41

Geiger(1990) studied the effectiveness ofthe Administrators’ Leadership
Training Academy, which was designed to provide knowledge and skills in
management, instructional leadership, and community resources for more than
800 employees of the District of Columbia Public Schools. The training was
conducted in six cycles from 1981 to 1984. Participants indicated that the
program significantly improved their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and work
performance. Geiger concluded that the program achieved its goals and
objectives, as well as having a positive influence on the personal and
professional growth of the participants.

Liebman (1990) studied the effects of a "visionary leadership" training
course on nine college student leaders at the University of Maryland. Upon
completing the course, all of the participants expressed positive feelings about
the future and their ability to influence it.

Playko and Daresh (1990) reviewed a study examining the personal and
professional transition of four classroom teachers who participated in experiential
and reflective leadership programs sponsored by the Danforth Foundation. All
four teachers reported that they had a more positive view of administration
following the program and referred to themselves as leaders. Those participants
who remained as teachers assumed more leadership roles in their schools after
completing the program.

Gehrke (1991) investigated methods of improving teachers’ leadership

skills. She stated that teachers often learn new roles just by doing the tasks

42

demanded of the role. She used as examples such roles as department chair,
team and grade leader, and committee chair. Gehrke suggested that a more
systematic approach be followed to help teachers develop the necessary skills
to be effective as leaders. She recommended that a more concerted effort be
made to develop and evaluate programs designed to improve teachers’
leadership skills.

Schmuck (1993) reported on a two-year experimental administrator-
preparation program that was implemented with 24 participants in Oregon
beginning in 1988. The first summer, the institute focused on the development
of administrative skills and concepts of instructional leadership for secondary
school principals. The following summer, the focus was on developing
management skillsthrough participation in four school-management courses, the
National Association of Secondary School Principals Assessment Program, a
mentoring experience, and five seminars for mentoring pairs. In four evaluation
substudies, it was found that (a) most participants were able to articulate a
leadership philosophy and showed evidence of applying skills learned during
their mentorship; (b) participants expressed more favorable attitudes toward the
training program and a deeper understanding of leadership than did
nonparticipants; and (0) experimental participants were more successful in
obtaining administrative positions than were their traditional counterparts.

Thirteen of the participants who completed the program became

administrators during the school year immediately following their field-based

43

mentorships. When Schmuck (1993) asked those participants whether they
believed the program had helped them learn the skills they needed to be more
effective administrators, they responded affirmatively. In particular, they
mentioned the skills of problem solving, including strategic planning and conflict
management, communication skills, and team building. The group also referred
to the contribution the program had made to their ability to facilitate and organize
meetings. This included a perception of using more group or consensus
techniques in formulating meeting agendas and procedures. Finally, all 13
participants believed that the program had prepared them well for their
leadership roles as principals.

Vomberg (1992) studied the components and outcomes of the Meadows
Principal Improvement Program, which was designed to improve the leadership
skills of secondary school principals in Texas. He found that the program had a
major influence on "involving new principals in instructional improvement,
coordinating the instructional program, and in providing an orderly school
environment" (p. 17). Also, participants evidenced a high degree of peer
cohesion and group dynamics, along with an increase in instructional and
curriculum leadership and planning. Vomberg concluded that:

effective inservice programs are necessary to maintain principals’

development as instructional leaders. These should focus on a variety of

instructional issues and leadership processes which serve to motivate and

focus the professional principal on instructional improvement. Inservice
principals perceived that such activities are helpful. (p. 19)

44

ChapteLSummary

The literature contains a wealth of information on department chairs.
Some research has been undertaken on college and university department
chairs, but little has been directed at their community college counterparts. Much
of what has been written is anecdotal in nature. There appears, however, to be
consensus in the literature that department chairs occupy positions of leadership
that are strategic to the well-being of colleges and universities. Many writers
have presented strong cases for the need to provide chairs with opportunities for
learning to lead, replacing the traditional approach of learning on the job. In
reviewing the literature in terms of department chairs and leadership, this
researcher noted that there is some interest, on a national level, not only in
developing programs to increase chairs’ leadership skills, but also in evaluating
the success of such programs. A review of this nature may enhance both the
programs and the leaders who emerge from them.

As a result of the review of literature on the position of department chair
and leadership, the researcher developed a methodology to determine whether
leadership behaviors can be modified as a result of participating in training such
as that offered by the Institute of Academic Leadership Development. This

research methodology is presented in Chapter III.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Intraduatinn
The methodology used in conducting this study is explained in this
chapter. The population is described, as is the selection of participants for the
study. The instrument developed to gather data for the study and the interview
process are discussed. The data-collection and data-analysis procedures also

are described.

Reseanchetlndclogv

The research methodology forthis study involved participant observation
and interviewing. This investigative methodology is acceptable in field or
ethnographic research, the purpose of which is to develop theory based on the
reality of an event. The researcher’s problem is to accurately describe and
explain the reality of the event or unit being studied (Cusick, 1983). Because this
researcher’s primary purpose was to determine whether community college
chairs perceived any changes in their leadership behaviors as a result of
participating in a leadership training program, the methodology described above

was appropriate for the study.

45

46
The researcher decided to use the participant observation/interview
method to gather the data for this study because he was a participant in the
event and had access to the population. In addition, the logistics and costs of the
data gathering appeared to be reasonable. According to Cusick (1983):
Participant observation is an appropriate way to undertake studies of
social subsystems or their components because the subsystem is itself
a participative venture created and sustained by the members as they
pursue their endeavors. According to the logic of the method, the
researcher must not only witness and describe the events under study,
but by conducting himself properly come to participate in the creation and
sustenance of those events. Ideally he will share the perspective of the
participants, and come to understand the events just as they do. The
results will be much more than a third-person account of the events; it will
be a description and an interpretation of the events from the point of view
of those who create and sustain them. (p. 132)
The majority of data for the study were collected through interviews with
the participants. Additional data were acquired through an instrument designed
for the study and a short informational questionnaire developed to supply data

related to behavioral change, or lack thereof, on the part of the participants.

IbeEqulaticn
The population for this study included 40 community college department
chairs who had been selected to participate in the first Institute for Academic
Leadership Development sponsored by the National Community College Chair
Academy. The year—long Institute began in July 1992 and concluded in July
1993. The participants were selected by Gary Filan, Executive Director of the
National Community College Chair Academy. Of the 40 chairs who were

selected, 36 were employed by community colleges in the United States. Of the

47

remaining four chairs, three were from Canada and one was from Guam. A
number of participants were from the same institution. Eight other instructional
leaders also were selected to participate in the initial Institute, but they were not
a part of this study. Among them were one vice-president of academic affairs,
five deans, one associate dean, and one assistant dean. According to Filan,
selection of participants was based on their colleges’ understanding of the
purpose ofthe Institute and commitment to host an Institute beginning in summer
1994.

At the conclusion of the Leadership Institute in July 1993, the population
of 40 chairs had dwindled to 30. Some of those who did not complete the
program had previous commitments for the summer of 1993, others chose to
withdraw from the program, and a few were unable to receive funding to finish
the program.

Of the 30 participants who completed the year-long Institute, 11 were
males and 19 were females. Removing the researcher from the population left
29 chairs who finished the training program and were eligible to be selected as
participants for the study. Of those individuals, 8 had been chairs for less than
1 year, 19 had been chairs for fewer than 5 years, and 11 had held the position

from 5 to 20 years.

5 l I' [E I' . I
The 15 participants for this study were chosen by a panel of experts

consisting of the three Institute staff members who were the primary developers

48

of the year-long training program, as well as the two Institute facilitators. They

were:

Gary Filan Executive Director ofthe National Community
College Chair Academy

Alan Seagren Professor of Educational Administration,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Dan Wheeler Coordinator of Professional and Organizational
Development, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Ruth Guzley Institute Facilitator

Mike McHargue Institute Facilitator

During the one-year practicum that followed the initial week of formal
training, the above-mentioned panel members served as Institute mentors for all
participants. Participants were divided into five groups, each of which was
assigned to one of the panel members. The mentors received each participant’s
Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP), weekly journal entries, and
final report, as described in Chapter I. They were responsible for providing
feedback and suggestions on a regular basis to each participant in their group.
The feedback and suggestions were supposed to be connected to the progress
participants were making on achieving their lPDPs. These five Institute staff
members were also available to alleviate any confusion that participants were
experiencing with the practicum. Finally, all were present during both weeks of
formal training in Prescott, Arizona. During those two weeks of formal training,

some were presenters whereas others acted in an advisory capacity.

49

The researcher asked each member of the panel of experts to select three
chairs from his or her group to participate in this study. Selection was to be
based on the following criteria:

1. Quality of participant’s work.

2. Timeliness of participant’s work.

3. Participant’s completion ofall components of the training program.

4. Evidence of participant’s commitment to the mission of the training
program.

5. Observation of participant during the two weeks of formal training

in Prescott, Arizona.

Instrumentation

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine whether
community college chairs perceived any change in their leadership behaviors as
a result of training. To help participants reflect on whether their leadership
behavior had changed as a result of the Institute, the researcher developed an
advance organizer instrument. This instrument, referred to as the Leadership
Self-Rating Scale (Appendix A), also was used to provide structure and guidance
during the interview process.

The Leadership Self-Rating Scale was divided into three sections. The
first section concerned participants’ understanding of the eight units covered
during the first week of formal training in Prescott, Arizona. Those eight units

were:

50

The Complex Role of the Chair
Leadership Styles

Strategic Planning

Curriculum Development
Classroom Research

Conflict Management
Performance Standards

Total Quality Management

@NP’P‘PP’N.‘

Participants were asked the following question:

Reflecting on the eight topical units covered during the first week of formal
leadership training in Prescott in July of 1992, how would you rate your
understanding of each unit before the Institute as compared to your
understanding of each unit alter the Institute?

Ratings were based on the following scale:

5 Understand Well --I could teach others this topic.

4 Understand Adequately --I am pretty clear on this topic.

3 Understand Somewhat -I understand enough about this
topic to get by.

2 Understand a Little -I have a very limited grasp of
the topic.

1 Understand Nothing --I have no grasp of this topic.

In the second section of the instrument, participants were asked how
differently they perceived they were implementing six of the eight units presented
during the first week of formal training in Prescott, Arizona. Only six units were
used in this section because two of the units, The Complex Role of the Chair and
Leadership Styles, did not lend themselves to implementation.

The six units used in the implementation section of the Self-Rating Scale

were:

51

Strategic Planning Initiatives
Curriculum Development Initiatives
Classroom Research Measures
Conflict Management Methods
Performance Standards for Instruction
Total Quality Management Principles

@9995)?

Participants were asked the following question:

The following six units covered in Prescott during the first week of training
(July 1992) all lend themselves to direct implementation. Reflecting on
these units, how differently are you implementing these leadership skills
today compared to before the Institute?

Ratings were based on the following scale:

Dramatically Different
Considerably Different
Somewhat Different
Very Little Difference
No Difference

N/A Not Implementing

ANw-FU'I

In the third section of the Self-Rating Scale, participants were given an
opportunity to explain other events and/or experiences, besides the Institute, that
they thought may have influenced their level of understanding or degree of
implementation of the units covered in the Institute. The question read as

follows:

There may be events or experiences other than the Institute that have
played a role or been a factor in your understanding and implementing the
above eight topics. Therefore, in order to further clarify your responses,
would you please indicate below any factors that you think have had an
effect on either your level of understanding or degree of implementation.

Before the Leadership Self-Rating Scale was sent to the participants, it
was pilot tested and retested with three randomly selected participants who

agreed to help in testing and retesting the instrument. The scales were sent to

52
the three participants, who completed both the understanding and implementa-
tion sections and returned them to the researcher within one week. Two weeks
later, identical instruments were sent to the participants; again they completed
the instruments and returned them within one week.

When comparing the results from both test administrations, the researcher
noted that in no case did a participant change a rating in either section by more
than one number from the first to the second iteration. Results of this pilot test
were accepted as a measure of the test-retest reliability of the instrument and

indicated its readiness for use in the study.

W

The plan for conducting this study was submitted to the Michigan State
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) fortheir
review. The study was deemed to conform to proper legal and ethical standards
and was approved by the committee (see Appendix B).

In July 1994, the researcher sent a letter to the 15 chairs whom the panel
of experts had selected, asking them to participate in this study (see Appendix
C). They were informed that participating in the study would involve completing
a short informational questionnaire (Appendix D); sending the researcher their
Institute journals, lPDPs, and final reports; and completing the Leadership Self-
Rating Scale. In addition, potential participants were asked to sign the enclosed
consent form (Appendix E) and to agree to a later interview with the researcher.

They were assured that the information they provided would remain strictly

53

confidential and that neither their name nor the location of their institution would
be used in the study.

Fourteen of the 15 participants completed and returned the Self-Rating
Scale along with the other requested materials. One of those participants was
dropped from the study because of failure to complete a journal and a final

report. Thus, the study group included 13 participants.

IheJmeLviews

In November 1994, the researcher sent a letter to the participants,
thanking them for returning the requested materials and explaining the interview
process that would follow (Appendix F). The researcher enclosed a copy of
respondents’ completed Leadership Self-Rating Scales with the letter to assist
them in preparing their responses to the interview questions. Participants were
told that, based on their responses to the Self-Rating Scale and their general
perceptions of the training program and the effect it had on their leadership

behavior, they would be asked to respond to the following questions:

Understanding
1. What is it you understand better in each of the units?
2. To what do you attribute this increased understanding?

Implementing
3. What is it that you are doing differently in these six areas?

4. To what do you attribute this change of behavior?

54

General Questions

5. Do you perceive yourself to be a more effective leader as a result of the
training? Why or why not?

6. What component or components of the program do you perceive was
most influential in contributing to your behavior change?

A few weeks after sending participants the above-mentioned letter, the
researcher called each one to schedule a telephone interview. Participants were
informed that the interview would last no more than an hour and would be
recorded and transcribed.

The same format was followed for each of the 13 interviews. As noted,
each participant had a copy of his or her responses to the Leadership Self-Rating
Scale. Using these responses as a guide, the researcher asked the respondents
to explain what they understood better in each of the categories if, in fact, they
had indicated an increase in their level of understanding. Interviewees were then
asked to what they attributed this change in their level of understanding. In
cases in which participants reported no increase in level of understanding, they
were asked to explain why they indicated that their level of understanding in that
particular unit had not increased.

The researcher used the same method for questioning in the six
implementation categories. When respondents indicated that they were
implementing their leadership skills differently, the researcher asked them to
describe what they were doing differently. As was the case in the understanding

section, interviewees were asked to what they attributed this change of behavior.

55
In instances in which they reported no difference in their degree of
implementation, the participants were asked why they had not changed.

Each interview was concluded by asking respondents to answer the two
general research questions cited above. All participants were encouraged to use
as much detail as necessary to answer the questions adequately.

During the interviews, the writer occasionally asked participants to say
more about a particular topic--for example, "Can you tell me a little more about
some of the methods you have implemented in your department to address
conflict management?" He was careful not to ask leading questions of the
participants. Most of the interviews lasted from 40 to 50 minutes; no interview

lasted more than an hour.

Analysispttbeuata

The researcher read the participants’ IPDPs, journals, and final reports.
Responses to the Leadership Self-Rating Scale were analyzed, and graphs were
designed in both the understanding and implementation sections. The graphs
were used to compare the differences in levels of understanding from before to
after the Institute and to indicate how differently respondents perceived that they
were implementing leadership skills today as compared to before the training.
Individual responses from the Self-Rating Scales were further used to develop
lead-ins to the questioning during the interviews. Responses to the short

informational questionnaire also were compiled.

56

After completing the interviews, the researcher transcribed all of thetapes
and read the responses. He reviewed the interview transcripts to identify
common responses and trends; these were highlighted for identification
purposes. Of special interest were responses that indicated changes in
leadership behaviors that, according to the respondents, were a result of their
participation in the Institute. The researcher also noted responses that seemed
to be related to the literature reviewed in Chapter II.

Results of the data analysis are reported in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS

101mm

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine whether selected
community college department chairs perceived any changes in their leadership
behavior as a result of participating in a leadership training program. The following
three research questions were posed:

1. What specific behaviors did chairs perceive to have been modified as
a result of their participation in the leadership training program?

2. In what ways did chairs perceive themselves to be more effective
leaders as a result of training?

3. What individual components of the program did chairs perceive to be
most influential in contributing to their behavioral change?

The results of the study are organized around each of the three research

quesfions.

BeseambfiuesflonJ

What specific behaviors did chairs perceive to have been modified as
a result of their participation in the leadership training program?

57

58

At the outset, it should be noted that the leadership behaviors that were
investigated in this study were limited to behaviors related to the following eight
topical units of the leadership training program, as defined in Chapter I:

The Complex Role of the Chair
Leadership Styles

Strategic Planning

Curriculum Development
Classroom Research

Conflict Management
Performance Standards

Total Quality Management

9°?‘9’S1‘5‘9’Nr‘

As noted in Chapter III, the researcher developed an advance organizer
instrument for use in this study. The purpose of the instrument, the Leadership Self-
Rating Scale, was twofold. First, the researcher used the chairs’ responses to the
scale to help structure and guide the interviews. Second, the results were used to
indicate where change in participants” levels of understanding and degrees of
implementation of each of the eight topical units had or had not occurred. Graphs
are included as part of the summary of each of the units, to depict the reported
changes.

The Leadership Self-Rating Scale was divided into categories of
understanding and implementation. In the understanding category, participants
rated their level of understanding of each topical unit, both before and after the
Institute, using the following five-point scale:

5 = Understand Well

4 = Understand Adequately

3 = Understand Somewhat

2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

59
The data presented in the graphs indicate how participants perceived their level of
understanding of each of the eight units, before and after the Institute.

In the implementation category, participants rated how differently they
perceived they were implementing leadership skills in six of the eight units at that
time, as compared to before the Institute. The six units were: Strategic Planning
Initiatives, Curriculum Development Initiatives. Classroom Research Measures,
Conflict Management Methods, Performance Standards for Instruction, and Total
Quality Management Principles. The researcher determined that the other two units
of study (The Complex Role of the Chair and Leadership Styles) did not lend
themselves to implementation, and therefore he did not include them in this section
of the Rating Scale. Participants rated the six units using the following five-point
scale:

5 = Dramatically Different

4 = Considerably Different

3 = Somewhat Different

2 = Very Little Difference

1 = No difference
Again, the data in the graphs indicate the degree to which participants perceived

they were implementing the six leadership skills at that time as compared to before

the Institute.
BesultsottbeJntemiews
Results of the interviews regarding understanding of each of the eight

behavioral categories are reported in the following order:

60

- Summary of change in understanding

- Trends in understanding

- Factors contributing to changes in understanding

- Other factors related to changes in understanding
For six of the eight behavioral categories, the following information regarding
implementation is reported:

- Summary of change in implementation

- Trends in implementation

- Factors contributing to changes in implementation

- Other factors related to changes in implementation

The following pages contain an analysis of the respondents’ self-reported
changes in their level of understanding and degree of implementation of the units of

study. Each section begins with a graph showing the changes that occurred.

WW

.nn-J - lql!‘ 'I I0‘ «.10:- I‘ out a o - o I‘ l- . The
changes respondents’ reported in their level of understanding in the behavioral
category of the complex role of the chair are shown in Figure 1. As shown in the
graph, a majority of participants (eight) indicated that they understood the complex
role of the chair at least somewhat before the Institute. However, all participants
reported that upon completion of the Institute, they understood the unit adequately
to well. The large increase in understanding for some individuals may have been
due, in part, to the fact that they were in their first year as a department chair. In
contrast, those participants who indicated a greater level of understanding before the

Institute were all experienced chairs.

61

 

Legend

V§ Beforelnstnute
\\\\ After Institute

 

 

 

U1

/////////%

A

////////////////////¢

(A)

M

Level of Understanding

 

    

1
Number of Particrpants

U1 _
_s
_g _

Key: 5 = Understand Well
4 = Understand Adequately
3 = Understand Somewhat
2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

Figure 1. Change in understanding of the complex role of the chair.

ILendLmndeLstandngbeJompleLmlLQUherair Many of the
participants reported that the role of the chair is partially self-imposed but is also
imposed by others within the institution. This resulted in different groups having
entirely different expectations of the chair. Faculty have one set of expectations,
whereas administrators often have another. Students have yet another concept of
what the role of the chair should be, and support staff may have still another. Thus,

many chairs felt caught in the middle.

62

Writing ajob description and communicating it to others helped with the push-
pull situations in which many chairs found themselves at times. Development of a
job description opened lines of communication with faculty and others with whom the
chairs interacted regularly.

It appeared that understanding the complexities inherent in the role helped
build confidence in the participants’ abilities to perform their leadership
responsibilities. Many realized that all chairs faced the complexities of the job and
that it was not a failing on their part to view the role as complex.

Another theme or trend that was evident in the participants’ responses was
a realization that there are some commonalities in the role of chair from institution
to institution. However, there are also some major differences. Therefore, it is
important for chairs to understand the environment in which they are working and
leading because it may place restrictions on leadership methods they can use.

An analysis of participants’ responses yielded additional findings. Many
chairs understood the need to maintain an institutional focus while dealing on a daily
basis with individuals motivated primarily by a self-centered focus. One participant
expressed her thoughts on self-centered faculty and institutional focus by stating:

I guess probably I understand that a lot of the faculty are very self-centered

and they are not very interested in the division as a whole as they are in

protecting or advancing their own turf. I almost feel that there should be a

state for chairs to be in which is not administration and not faculty. They don’t

have a lot of alliance with either side and they are just kind of sitting on the
fence. I have always felt strongly that whatever your role is, you should be
looking at the good of the institution as number one, and then to the division,

and then down to your own personal area. I found that most of the people in
the division are working in the opposite direction.

63

A final trend that emerged reflected the participants’ recognition of the need
to balance the leadership and management roles. A sense of confidence was
evident as participants realized the differences between the two roles and the
importance each played in the context of performing successfully as a chair.
Participants also developed a clearer understanding of the importance of serving as
a liaison between administrators, faculty, and students, as well as community groups
such as advisory committees.

«on 0| ' . II o I-.Io.‘ 'I .II' qlil! o I‘ OH. -. o ‘ o l‘
chair. Length of tenure as a chair and the networking that occurred as part of the
training were the two factors that participants mentioned most often when asked to
describe the most significant reasons for the change in understanding they had
experienced. Much of the networking took place at the Institute. Many respondents
described the Institute as the catalyst that started them thinking more about the role
of the chair. They described the activities of the program as ”sparking" their interest
in the topic.

Or {on ‘1‘. o Iql!‘ 'I I!‘ qul! I‘ IIII‘. 0‘0 I‘
chair. Participants identified no other factors related to changes in understanding

the complex role of the chair.

Leadershipfitvles
Summammanguuummndmwmrsbmm The changes
participants reported in their levels of understanding in the behavioral category of

leadership styles are shown in Figure 2. As shown in the graph, a majority of

64

participants (nine) reported understanding leadership styles at least somewhat
before the Institute. Almost all of the chairs (12) reported understanding the unit
adequately to well following the Institute. Those participants who reported having
little to no understanding of leadership styles before the Institute had less than one

year of experience as department chairs.

 

Legend

\‘ Before Institute
After Institute

 

 

 

U1

//////////2

A

    

   
 

//

////////.

/////////

   

//
//

LA.)

//
////////////

r\J

Level of Understanding

\
\
§
§

\

//

_b

 

       

t

   

C)

mWWW/fl
”WW

-—‘
._L
.—i

Number of Participants

Key: 5 = Understand Well
4 = Understand Adequately
3 = Understand Somewhat
2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

Figure 2. Change in understanding of leadership styles.

65
Wigs. A number of trends emerged

as a result of the data analysis. Participants reported gaining confidence in their
leadership styles, along with an increased understanding of the differences in
behaviors and how those differences affected communications within their
departments and the college in general. Other themes that emerged in their
responses demonstrated respondents’ recognition of the need to be tolerant of
others and to develop patience when leading, as well as the importance of
continuously attempting to improve communications.

In terms of confidence, many chairs reported discovering that their leadership
behavior or style was all right. Many reported that it was important for them to
realize that there was no one best leadership style. Rather, they learned that
different environments and/or situations required different leadership behaviors.
One chair commented that the unit:

. . . helped me to see that my particular leadership style is okay, and that

servant leadership, which I apparently discovered that I’m a believer in, isjust

as valid as other forms of leadership. So, the DiSC1 was the vehicle that

made me see that there are all different types of leadership styles and there

isn’t one that is right. Different situations may require different styles.
Another participant reported increased self-confidence in her leadership behavior by
stating:

I guess most of all I understood my leadership style and I probably have

always had the same style. No matter how I try to change and do something

differently, I always come back to the same style. I think I understood myself
better, and I knew exactly where l was coming from.

The increase in self-confidence and understanding of behavioral differences

enabled chairs to interact more effectively with those they supervised and to whom

66

they reported. Many participants indicated that they were no longer surprised when
faculty and staff acted differently than they, themselves, did. They tolerated these
behavioral differences more easily and thus saw themselves as developing better
communication skills as a result.

Some respondents also remarked that as a result of an increased
understanding of leadership styles, they displayed greater patience. One chair said,
“I’m more accepting of behaviors that may have annoyed me before. I can accept
now that this is a person and because they are that way, I don’t expect to change
their behavior." A number of the participants made a similar discovery. They spoke
of their realization of the need to adapt to varying behavioral styles in order to lead
effectively rather than attempting to change those around them. It follows that this
required great patience on their part.

Finally, as a result of their training in this area, participants recognized that
leadership behavior is often situational. In general, they developed an appreciation
of the need to adjust their leadership behaviors to the situation in which they found
themselves. As an example, the degree of security of one’s position may affect how
one might attempt to lead. Those whose colleagues elected them to the position of
chair may lead differently from those whom a dean appointed to the position.

The one participant who indicated he had not changed as a result of this unit
stated that he had not yet developed the confidence to lead.

.010 0| 't'I.Io. I lql!‘ 'I ,l.‘ quI!‘ ‘90.: II . For

most of the participants, the Institute provided the impetus or motivation to learn

67

more about differences in behavioral styles. Some reported spending significant
amounts of time reflecting on the different behaviors of their colleagues and how
they might apply what they had learned to communicate better. Other chairs
reported attending conferences or doing additional reading in the area of behavioral
differences. A few mentioned that experience had also helped them learn how to
communicate more effectively and to work with different behavioral styles.

.I‘ «on ‘-.‘o I lql!‘ 'I IO‘ .IoIIo ‘J‘LII .Four
participants indicated having previous experience with this and other behavioral-style
instruments. For this reason, they reported less change in understanding as

compared to the other chairs who participated in the study.

SI l . El .
Summamtcbangemunderstandingbfstrategicplanning. The changes that
participants reported in their levels of understanding in the behavioral category of
strategic planning are shown in Figure 3. The majority of participants (eight)
reported that they understood strategic planning only "a little" before attending the
Institute, but almost all (11) understood it adequately to well after the training
experience. This was one of the units in which the participants reported the highest
level of understanding after the Institute.
WW9. Many participants indicated
that they had broadened their definition of planning to include not only an
examination of conditions within their institutions, but also a study of conditions in the

external environment. Correspondingly, they had incorporated into their planning

68

 

Legend

\‘ Before Institute
After Institute

 

 

 

|'\) u) A

Level of Understanding

_.

 

 

3
Number of PartICIpants

Key: 5 = Understand Well
4 = Understand Adequately
3 = Understand Somewhat
2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

Figure 3. Change in understanding of strategic planning.

processes an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses within the context of
both the internal and external environments. They also stated that they better
understood the differences between daily operational planning and strategic
planning. One participant summed it up by stating, "I have been able to separate

what is called strategic from tactical and daily operational stuff."

69

Interviewees articulated most often the importance of ”buy-in” by the faculty
and others connected to the department. The participants viewed this "buy-in“ as
a necessity if the plan was to have any chance of successful implementation. They
also expressed a general understanding that such "buy-in“ occurred when chairs
involved faculty and staff in developing the plan. One participant said, "The training
taught me to get a lot more grass-roots faculty involved with the plan and to keep
them involved afterthe plan has been in place." Another stated, “Definitely the more
people involved, the better it is . . . but definitely representatives from groups of
people. It does need to involve as many pe0ple as possible." Many of the other
chairs made similar comments. They frequently used the term "team-building" in
describing those things that they understood better about the process of strategic
planning.

Another important finding or trend that was evident in the participants’
responses was the critical need for vision and development of a mission statement
for the department. Almost every interviewee emphasized the importance of
developing a mission statement that could both guide the planning process and
communicate the department’s purpose and direction to others. A majority of the
chairs referred to the need within their own departments or divisions either to
produce a mission statement or to revise the one they had. One participant
responded:

I have a better idea of the process; establishing and developing a mission

statement and from that a goal and an action plan. I understand about
looking at where we are going and what things we want to try to accomplish

70

to get there and how we go about doing this. That represents a level of more
precise understanding than I had prior to the Institute.

Another chair described the importance of a mission statement with the
comment: "What we do is this: We start with a mission statement. We are totally
revising our mission statement because we’ve got to know where we are going.”
Other participants responded in a similar manner.

.919 9I '9.I0. 9 I._I9‘ I.I9‘ «IO'IQO .‘9' 9III'9.MOSt
ofthe participants attributed their change in understanding either directly or indirectly
to the Institute. For some, the Institute provided the tools to undertake strategic
planning. One chair commented that the Institute provided the tools to do what the
institutional environment required.

For others, the Institute became a stimulus to learn more about strategic
planning. They viewed the training as a catalyst that sparked their interest in
increasing their knowledge of the topic. And they did this through a variety of
means. They attended other conferences, read additional material on the subject,
networked with others involved In such planning, and learned from others’
experiences in developing strategic plans. For these participants, the Institute
motivated them to learn more.

.I‘ -_9I9 ‘9'9 9 I-.I9‘ 'I .IO‘ -.I9'I9_ 9 .‘9' 9..II'I9..
Respondents identified no other factors related to changes in understanding of

strategic planning.

71

Summamombangmmplemematimgfstrategnplannmg. The degree to

which participants reported they were using their leadership skills in relation to
strategic planning differently today as compared to before participating in the
Institute is shown in Figure 4. Almost all of the participants (11) reported that they
were implementing strategic planning at least somewhat differently, and almost half
indicated that they were implementing strategic planning principles considerably to
dramatically differently. This was one of the units in which participants perceived

they had experienced substantial change in terms of implementation.

 

 

 

   

8 f—
7 F—
6 —
m
o—O
C
«a _
95
.2
Q—J
L
«3
a r—
‘5 4
L.
<y
3 _
z 3
2
j ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘
No Diff V, Little Somewhat ConSiderably Dramatically

Figure 4. Change in implementation of strategic planning.

72

ILendsinJmplementationmstLategmplanning. Most participants reported
forming a team to develop a mission statement and implement a strategic plan for
their department. These teams often consisted of faculty, other staff members
working directly with the department, and, for some, advisory committee members.
A common theme in their comments was that, as a result of faculty involvement and
"buy-in," the plan was actually being implemented rather than sitting on a shelf in the
chair’s office. One chair best summarized the teamwork approach by stating, "We
actually get together as a group, and we talk individually and we brainstorm ideas,
and we really ask ourselves what do we want to be doing. . . . And we throw out
what we did last year, with some exceptions." He went on to say, "I think it was the
Institute activity that really taught me that it was important to get feedback from
everybody and get ownership from everybody for the plan to have any value."

Other important trends also were identified in this unit. Almost all of the
participants reported developing a mission statement to guide their department in the
planning process. Some participants reported that they used strategic planning as
a tool for effectively communicating what was happening in their departments. One
chair commented that she had been able to move faculty in her department from
contributors to participants in the process.

Other participants indicated using outside forces such as governing boards,
state departments of education, or advisory committees to lay the groundwork for a
recognition of the necessity for planning to meet change. This helped establish an

environment in which planning was perceived as necessary and valuable.

73
Interviewees also articulated several times the concept of moving their departments
from reactive to proactive.

Finally, several participants related that now the budgeting process was tied
to strategic planning. This allowed resources to be applied according to established
pnonfies.

.99 9I '9 I'9 9 I-.I9‘ 'I 'II9‘II‘I'I9 (‘9' O-II'IQ.

Participants attributed the changes in implementing strategic planning primarily to
changes in their method of leading the process. These changes included increasing
involvement of faculty and others in the process, applying what they had learned at
the Institute through networking with others since the Institute, and creating an
environment in their departments for strategic planning to be successful.
Respondents cited the Institute experience as being a stimulus to develop their
leadership behaviors.
'I‘ 9919 ‘-.‘9 9 I-.I9‘ 'lIIO‘II‘l'l! 9‘9 Oqll'IQ. TWO
participants reported that little change had occurred. One said the faculty were not
ready for strategic planning (so implementation was not successful), and the other

reported that his department already had an effective planning process before the

Institute.

WW
_llll-A0 I-.I9.‘I. 9‘ -.I9I9 .' -.l10‘ -99Ii-I.Thechanges
the participants reported in their level of understanding in the behavioral category of

curriculum development are shown in Figure 5. As shown in the graph, most of the

74

partlcipants(11)understood curriculum development somewhat to well before the

 

Institute. Following the Institute, all 13 respondents reported understanding the unit
adequately to well. The chairs rated their understanding of this unit the highest of
all units before the Institute as well as at the conclusion of training. Three

participants did not perceive their level of understanding to have changed as a result

of the Institute experience.

 

Legend

N Before Institute
§ After Institute

 

 

 

3
.r
V

  
 

(4.;
I

l'\)

Level of Understandini

._\

1 I 5
Number of DartiCipants

Key: 5 = Understand Well
4 = Understand Adequately
3 = Understand Somewhat
2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

Figure 5: Change in understanding of curriculum development.

75
Irendsmundenstandmgjumculumjexelopment. A majority of the chairs

reported a high level of confidence in their knowledge and understanding of
curriculum development. Many of them had been actively involved in the
development of curricula at their institutions before attending the Institute. Before
assuming the role of chair, all participants had taught. As faculty members, they had
been actively involved in curriculum matters. Regardless of such previous

experience, however, a few trends emerged from their responses.
Perhaps the key trend identified through an analysis of participants’
comments was the chairs’ understanding that curriculum does not exist in isolation
but rather operates as an important part of the college and community. It is
important, therefore, for institutions to design a curriculum that meets the needs of
the community, using processes that continuously obtain input from the community
as well as the faculty. Interviewees generally understood that valid input from these

two groups lent additional credibility to the curriculum.

Respondents also identified the need to connect the curriculum to the
strategic plan of the department. This connection, they noted, made curriculum
more meaningful. Respondents agreed that, in general, the development of new
courses or programs of study helped the department accomplish its mission. The
need for continual review and updating, as well as a need for faculty and staff to
work together more effectively on curriculum matters, also emerged as common

themes in the interviewees’ comments.

76

.919 9I ' _ 'I9 9 I..I9_‘ 'I .I0‘ -.I9'I9 9 .'.,II 9' ‘ OOII‘I .
For many chairs, the Institute played a small role in changing their level of
understanding of curriculum development. The information broadened many
participants’ view of this topic, but they apparently acquired little new information.
Respondents explained this by pointing out that the chairmanship required continual
involvement in curriculum matters. Thus, many had learned simply by doing.
Experience rather than training was the real teacher for these participants.

.I‘ .919 ‘-.‘9 9 Iql!‘ 'I I0‘ -.I9'I9 '9i II" ‘OOII‘I
Some interviewees said that state mandates and transferability problems with new
courses limited, to some degree, their ability to implement significant curriculum
changes.

_IIII-.I 9 I-.I9.‘ 'I 'II9 ‘II‘I , '9I 9 ,'..II 9‘ ‘ 99II‘I . The
degree to which participants reported they were using their leadership skills in
curriculum development differently today as compared to before their participation
inthe Institute is shown in Figure 6. Almost all ofthe participants (12) reported some
degree of change in implementing curriculum development. Only two indicated they
had modified their implementation skills considerably to dramatically. Compared to
the other topical units, curriculum development had the least amount of reported
change in implementation by the study participants.

Irendsmimolementatlcnmucummelcpmem Overall. participants
noted little change in their implementation of curriculum development skills.

However, two trends did become evident upon analyzing the responses. First,

77
chairs began to tie curriculum changes to the strategic plans of both their
departments and their colleges. This connection process required input from a
number of sources, including faculty throughout the college, key administrators, and
appropriate community leaders. For some, the most significant change occurred in
soliciting input from the community. As one chair stated:
The difference that I’m doing is assessing the need of the community and
building our classes and programs on what the community is telling us they
need. Or not building one. For example, I have one right now that I may not
do because the community says, "I’m not sure we need that now." So, I’m

getting feedback from the community because that's who we serve, and I
may not go forward with that one.

J.» LII 03

Number of PartiCipants

LA.)

I'\)

 

 

       

No Diff V. Little Somewhat Considerably Dramatically

Figure 6: Change in implementation of curriculum development.

78

The second trend identified from respondents’ comments was an attempt to
involve full-time faculty more in the process of curriculum development. Afew chairs
accomplished this by selling the faculty on the necessary link between strategic
planning and curriculum development. Some used team-building techniques or
established committee structures to create processes that would encourage faculty
to work together. Many participants reported that change was more likely to occur
if the faculty were involved and "bought into" the process. Some viewed faculty
ownership of the curriculum as one of the most significant results of faculty
involvement in the process.

..9I9 9I '9 . 'I9 9 I-I9‘ 'I II9 ‘II‘I 'I9 _I ..II 9‘ ‘ 99II‘I.
Participants attributed the changes they made in implementing curriculum
development skills to a number of factors. Primarily, they referred to experience
and, as some said, the need to "just do it" as the primary reasons for any change in
implementation patterns. Some respondents identified networking during the formal
session of the Institute as a factor that encouraged a deviation from previous
practice. Few cited the Institute as playing a significant role in any change that
occurred. However, a few did refer again to the Institute as "sparking their interest"
in the topic.

0 I‘ .919 ‘ -. ‘9 9 I-.I9.‘ 'I 'II9 ‘II‘I 'I9 _'. II 9‘ ‘ 99II‘I.
Some interviewees said that state mandates and transferability problems with new
courses limited their ability to implement significant changes in curriculum

development.

79

glassmomfieseatch

Summamtcbangemmdetstandingclassmmmeamh. The change that
participants reported in their level of understanding in the behavioral category of
classroom research is shown in Figure 7. Nine participants reported understanding
classroom research a little or not at all before the Institute. However, almost all of
the chairs (12) indicated that they understood the unit adequately to well following
the Institute training. Respondents showed one of the highest increases in their

level of understanding from before to after the Institute in this topical unit.

 

Legend
Before Institute
After Institute

%I

 

 

 

I'\.) LA.) .I.

Level of Understanding

._s

 

 

Number of Participants

Understand Well
Understand Adequately
Understand Somewhat
Understand a Little
Understand Nothing

Key:

ANw-RUI
II II II II II

Figure 7: Change in understanding of classroom research.

80
ILendstmdeLstandingoLclassmmmrch. Many of the participants

revealed that they had a very limited knowledge of classroom research before the
Institute experience. This topical unit, therefore, provided most of the chairs with a
number of new concepts and methods for improving the learning process. These
included an emphasis on the importance of continuous feedback from students and
the acquisition of some new teaching tools to accomplish this goal. The idea of
involving students in the continuous assessment process required a major paradigm
shift for many of the chairs. However, most of them said they appreciated the
importance of tying this concept to the learning process to improve student learning.
One chair summarized this idea by stating:
I understand the need for mini and many evaluations throughout the course.
Always before, I did an end-of-semester evaluation and tried to make all my
changes for the next year based on the end-of-semester evaluations. From
the Institute, we had different little tools that we could use at the end of each
class period that only took like two minutes to do. Based on that, you could
come back the next class period and say, "Okay, someone didn’t understand.
. . and you would answer that question instantly and then take off again.
A few other themes emerged from an analysis of responses. First, some
chairs expressed a renewed excitement about teaching and assessment. They
discovered the usefulness of such new methods ortools and expressed enthusiasm
at the prospect of taking new ideas back to their colleges to share with faculty.

Second, respondents recognized a clear difference between formative and

summative student evaluation processes. This realization changed, in a dramatic

81

fashion, the attitude that some chairs had previously held toward the idea of using
student input to direct learning. Finally, many of the participants could see the
connection between the concepts in this unit and the total quality management and
strategic planning units covered in the Institute.

.9195 9I '9 'I9 9 I-_I9‘ 'I I9‘ -.I0'I0 -. 99II ‘ ‘.. I. Most
of the participants attributed their increased understanding of classroom research
to Institute training. As noted before, their level of understanding in this unit
increased substantially between the beginning and end of the Institute experience.
Many responded that the training was the major catalyst that prompted them to read
further on the topic, as well as to develop action plans for implementation of
classroom research activities on their campuses.

.l‘ 99:9 ‘-.‘9 9 I..I9‘ 'I _I9‘ elQ'I! -. 99II ‘ ‘-. . The
chairs identified no other factors related to changes in understanding classroom
research.

WED. The degree
to which participants reported they were using their leadership skills in relation to
classroom research differently today as compared to before their participation in the
Institute is shown in Figure 8.

As shown in the graph, most of the participants (10) disclosed that they were
implementing classroom research skills somewhat to dramatically differently today,

as compared to before the Institute. A majority (seven) responded that they were

82
implementing these skills considerably to dramatically differently. It follows, then,
that the participants believed they had changed more in terms of their degree of
implementation of the principles learned in this unit than in most of the other ones

covered in the Institute.

Number of PartiCipants

 
     
  

     

.,_.,,,.._.,. 7.
(r;4».9 /
«art-

 

u-

 

aw'wfeeavor
rerrarrrrrr'
meff ‘

   
 
 
    
  
  

 
  

appear
eerrrrrrr’r’rat

  

-.';~.-r»rl.l.»’e- .
’9I/fffli’liirr
we/«rrrerrrr(eu
, r -»r

  
   

3’;
“ff”fflff‘ff¢w

  
 
 
 

M f
fff’f’ffif’fl’h'
‘MWM

 
 
    

 

W
”MW rod-WW W »
w.‘~¢»~.-»r~r wwrmr’vawr . ,- ,'.'I . < 'r

 

No Diff V Little Somewhat ConSiderably Dramatically

igure 8. Change in implementation of classroom research.

WW. Most of the interviewees

implemented some form of classroom research after the Institute. The most
common response they gave to the question concerning degree of change in
implementation indicated that they shared a great deal of information on the subject

with faculty and chair colleagues when they returned to their colleges. In fact, these

83
participants advocated using these techniques continually, and a number of them
strongly encouraged faculty to use some of the techniques to enhance the learning
process. One chair stated:

Ithink when the Institute presented the information on classroom research it

really clicked with me, and gave me a lot of different kinds of ideas about how

to take and incorporate classroom research into the classroom. I have
shared that with faculty, and I’ve continued to use some of those strategies
with students all along, ever since being in this role.

Another respondent explained how she applied classroom research
techniques during an orientation session. She asked for and received student
feedback on learning expectations and used that feedback to modify her class
presentations. She commented, "It works. It’s just plain and simple. It works to
involve the learners in the design of your classes and looking for some measurement
in what they are learning, their input of what they would like to learn, [and] how they
learned this."

Finally, a number of chairs mentioned their effort to empower their faculty to
use classroom research techniques. These participants explained that once they
shared the concepts with the faculty, they then encouraged the interested ones to
move forward with the development of ideas for implementation. One respondent
noted: "Fine, go ahead and do it; not only for yourself, but to share what you’ve
learned with other people."

.919 9I '9.I9 9 I..I9‘ 'I'II9‘II‘I'I9 .. 99II ‘ ‘-. I. AS

noted regarding othertopical units, the Institute presentation on classroom research

appeared to have sparked the interest of most of the participants. As a result, they

84

expanded their discussions during the formal sessions. Many of the chairs added
that their exposure to the subject during the Institute spurred them to read numerous
books on classroom research and thus to extend their knowledge about it even
further.

'I‘ 9919 ‘9‘9 9 I..I9_‘ 'I "II9‘II‘II9 -. 99II ‘ ‘-_ I.

Interviewees identified no other factors that brought about changes in the

implementation of classroom research.

 
 

. The changes
that participants reported in their levels of understanding in the behavioral category
of conflict management are shown in Figure 9. As shown in the graph, a majority of
the participants (eight) said they understood little to nothing about conflict
management before the Institute. However, most of them (1 1) stated that, following
the training, they understood the unit adequately to well. The respondents reported
substantial increases in their levels of understanding in this behavioral category.
ILendsjufldeLstandmgmmnflicImanagemem. An analysis of responses
in this unit yielded a larger number of common themes than in other units of this
study. All of the participants admitted that conflict existed in their positions as chairs.
Whereas some reported experiencing more conflict than others, the consensus of
the group was that conflict is part of the job and that it does not go away. Therefore,

respondents recognized a need to address the issue.

85

 

Legend

Before Institute
§ After Institute

 

 

 

Lfl

{\J L...) A

Level of Understanding

_'b

 

 

O

 

2 1
Number of Part ic ipants

Key: 5 = Understand Well
4 = Understand Adequately
3 = Understand Somewhat
2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

Figure 9. Change in understanding of conflict management.

In general, participants conceded that as a result of the training they
understood better the need to become better listeners, more patient, flexible, and
tolerant, as well as the importance of reflecting more on conflict situations. As they
attempted to address the necessity of improving these skills, many also became
more aware of their nonverbal behavior and its importance while attempting to

handle conflict. One chair summed up the sentiments of a number of respondents

86
in stating, "I think I’m a lot more aware of the need to listen and to not be insensitive,
and to use body language that indicates that I’m willing to listen to you, rather than
body language that indicates I don’t believe a word you’re saying."

An analysis of the responses produced other common themes. Most
interviewees realized that others often can solve their own problems. Chairs,
therefore, no longer perceived themselves as the person who had to solve
everyone’s problems. Rather, they developed an understanding that, in most cases,
those complaining already knew the solutions to their problems; they just needed
help in uncovering the solution. One participant stated:

I think I had, before I went to the Institute, the idea that I had to settle all of

their problems. I had to come up with all the solutions. If I could come up

with solutions, maybe the problem would go away. I found out again through
the Institute that I don’t have to do that. They have their own solutions, so let
them find them. ljust help them discover their own solutions.

Other chairs considered conflict a positive experience because the end result
was often change. Thus, some even created conflict to force change. For most
respondents this was a very different approach, but it was viewed as effective in
many instances. Other participants noted that the Institute had not improved their
"comfort level" with conflict but that they did understand the necessity of developing
new methods of addressing these situations as a result of the training. One
participant said:

Nobody likes to deal with conflict, and they run away from it. I don’t like to

deal with conflict, and so I have made some decisions on how to deal with it,

and maybe some of my decisions are good and maybe some of them are

bad. But I’ve definitely made some decisions on how I’m going to deal with
it as a result of the Institute.

87

There is some controversy with respect to how females respond to conflict.
In this study, female respondents expressed more discomfort at managing conflict
than did males. However, the researcher was unable to determine whether the
gender differences were real orthe result of females being more willing to admit the
disoomforts. Most agreed that the training, at the least, had motivated them to seek
better ways of handling such situations.

Finally, by the end of the Institute experience, many of the interviewees were
able to tie conflict management to other units of the training. For example, a majority
of chairs developed a better understanding of the connection between conflict
management, behavioral styles, and total quality management. The recognition of
such a link among the topical units made the conflict management unit more
meaningful for them.

9919 9 ' . 'I9 9 I..I9‘ 'I _I9‘ -_I9'I9 9II9I II-_I-9‘II‘I .
Participants identified a number of factors that they viewed as contributing to
changes in understanding. Almost all mentioned that the journal writing required in
the practicum experience changed their level of awareness relating to conflict and
improved their ability to address the problem of discord more effectively. Some
chairs kept a conflict log during their practicum and said this activity had helped
significantly in changing their approach to handling conflict.

In addition, many respondents suggested that the opportunity to work with a
local mentor contributed in a major way to helping them better understand and
address antagonistic behavior. In many cases, these mentors acted as sounding

boards for participants. Chairs regarded as invaluable the mentors’ willingness to

88
listen and offer advice in situations in which some form of hostility had surfaced.
Only in the conflict management unit did participants include the mentor relationship
in the group of factors that had played a role in changing their level ofunderstanding.
O I‘ .919 ‘ .. ‘9 9 I..I9‘ 'I I9‘ ._I9'I9 9II'9i IIeI-J‘II‘I
Participants identified no other factors that contributed to changes in their

understanding of conflict management.

 

. The degree
to which participants indicated they were using their leadership skills in relation to
conflict management differently today as compared to before their participation in the
Institute is shown in Figure 10. Almost all of the respondents (12) perceived that
they were using these skills in conflict management differently today. A majority of
them (nine) stated that they were implementing these skills considerably to
dramatically differently. This represents one of the largest reported changes in
degree of implementation of all the topical units examined in this study.
WW- Almost all of the participants
reported some change in how they addressed conflict after the Institute experience.
An analysis of their responses revealed a number of trends regarding the manner
of change that occurred. Most interviewees commented that they had assumed a
more proactive approach to dealing with difficulties in personnel matters. They
recognized, for example, that effective conflict management required facing
problems immediately. When asked to explain what they were doing differently to
prevent problems from escalating, participants responded similarly, with comments

such as "facing [them] and not avoiding [them]" and "dealing with problems quicker."

89

Many respondents also consciously employed better listening skills as a result
of the training. One participant expressed the group’s sentiments with the
statement, "I’m being a better listener, and I think I’m a lot more aware of the need
to listen." On the whole, the interviewees indicated that by listening carefully, they
often made it possible for their colleagues to resolve their own difficulties by talking
them through. A chair demonstrated this general idea by stating, "I thought I had to
go take care of everybody. What I’ve learned is that I don’t have to do that. I can

let them take care of it for themselves. I will just be here for them if they need me."

Number of Participants
.1:

PO

 

 

   

fl
I

No Diff V, Little Somewhat Considerably Dramatically

Figure 10. Change in implementation of conflict management.

naih‘

A

 

 

the;
situz

they

cont

SEES

qua;

ac'c’i

olth

the L

 

90

Many participants believed that as a result of employing better listening skills,
they had also become more patient, flexible, and tolerant when involved in conflict
situations. "More reflective" was another descriptor that some used to describe how
they had changed their approach to dealing with conflict.

Afinal theme that emerged from the responses centered on the idea of using
conflict to create change. Many chairs found that they could take a potentially
negative situation and transform it into a positive argument for change. In a real
sense, they periodically were using the continuous-improvement principle of total
quality management to turn these negatives into positives. Taking this approach to
addressing conflict demanded a major paradigm shift for most respondents.

.919 9I '9 . 'I9 9 I-_I9‘ "III9 ‘II‘I I9 9II'91II-.I.9‘II‘I . Most
of the respondents attributed their change of behavior to the same factors noted in
the understanding section of this unit. These included reflective journal writing, the
use of conflict Iogs,and mentor relationships. As was the case in some of the other
units, the information presented at the formal session of the Institute appeared to
have been the catalyst that propelled many chairs to reflect seriously on the subject
of conflict. These participants reported that their reflecting resulted in significant
changes in terms of how they approached conflict situations. Some of the
interviewees also mentioned experience as a factor that helped them learn to use
more effective management skills.

.I‘ -.919 ‘-.‘9 9 I..I9‘ 'I'II9‘II‘II9 9II'91 II<I<Q‘II‘I.

Respondents included additional reading on the subject and attendance at sessions

 

on

 

l

lflCx

the,

that
pert
sai-c
ali'ti
unit

drar
ider
I88;
imp

evai

The

C0”?

 

the
fee:

0M6

91
on conflict management at professional conferences and workshops among the
motivating factors that led to changes in how they implemented conflict

management.

EenfonmancefitandaLds

Summamotchangeinundetstandingperfmmancestandards. The changes
that participants reported in their levels of understanding in the category of
performance standards are shown in Figure 11. Almost all of the participants (11)
said that, before the Institute, they understood performance standards somewhat to
a little. Eleven chairs again reported that, following the Institute, they understood the
unit adequately to somewhat. The increase in levels of understanding was not as
dramatic here, when compared to the other topical units of this study.

WW. Althoughfewertrends were
identified in this unit than in some of the other topical units of this study, several
response patterns did emerge. Most participants understood more clearly the
importance of communicating learning expectations to students through such means
as written learning outcomes. In addition, most respondents agreed that the
evaluation of learning should be tied directly to these expectations.

Another trend in participants’ responses pertained to learning assessment.
The process of evaluating learning, the participants contended, should reflect a
commitment to use the results for improvement. Furthermore, they pointed out, the
means of collecting the information should be as objective as possible. These chairs
recognized that effective evaluation systems required the use of valid, reliable, and

objective tools to analyze a student’s progress in the learning process. Many

 

 

 

Ke‘

 

 

39L

l0ri

 

92
participants appreciated the opportunity to examine a variety of these evaluation
tools during the Institute training, and a number described in detail how they used
them in a classroom setting. Not only that, many respondents had shared these

assessment tools with their faculty.

 

Legend

Ԥ Beforelnshtute
\\ After institute

 

 

 

w
1

A

/////////////.

Lu

' N

s

f\)

LeveloflJnderstarmhng

_A

 

 

s
. s
E

     

”WW/WW

 

_3
_)
U1

Number of Part IC ipa ntS

Key: 5 = Understand Well
4 = Understand Adequately
3 = Understand Somewhat
2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

Figure 11. Change in understanding of performance standards.

Finally, the value of some form of self-evaluation in the assessment process
appeared often in participants’ comments about performance standards. The

formative possibilities of using a self-evaluation instrument as well as its

 

l'lOlii

man

As i
of n
neti
Insti
Son

dea

Res

und

deg
rela

part

 

 

 

93
nonthreatening nature tied in well with the respondents' exposure to total quality
management principles in another unit.

«0106 9I '9 'I9 9 I-.I9‘ 'I 10‘ «IO'IQ 9‘I9 llel ‘ II<I~Q‘II‘I .
As was the case in a number of other topical units, the Institute sparked the interest
of many of the respondents. This new-found interest contributed to an increase in
networking and collaboration among the chairs during the formal session of the
Institute, as well as the motivation to read additional literature on the topic later.
Some participants even attended other conferences and workshops specifically
dealing with assessment.

.l‘ 9.0!. ‘2‘. 0 Iql" 'I _I0‘ (I'IQ.‘I.III1I. ol090.
Respondents identified no other factors that contributed to a change in their
understanding of performance standards.

.llllql 9 I-_I9‘ 'I 'II9 ‘II‘I -. 9I 9 9‘I9 II-.I ‘ -.I9-. 9. The
degree to which participants reported that they were using their leadership skills in
relation to conflict management differently today as compared to before their
participation in the Institute is shown in Figure 12. All 13 participants reported that
they were implementing performance standards at least somewhat differently, and
a majority of them (seven) indicated that they were implementing performance-
standards skills considerably to dramatically differently. Chairs rated the degree of
change in application of the skills acquired in this training unit greater than in any of

the other units of this study.

94

Number of Particrpants

. amrflwr}

 

 

 

0 I I
No Diff v. Little Somewhat Consrderably Dramatically

Figure 12. Change in implementation of performance standards.

WWW. Even though all respondents
reported that they were implementing skills in this unit differently as a result of the
Institute, the actual activities they pursued varied widely. As a result, the analysis
of interview comments showed few common themes. However, participants on the
whole did connect performance standards with other topical units covered in the
Institute. For example, many interviewees recognized the link between material
covered in the performance standards unit and the assessment component
described in the strategic planning section. Others indicated that they saw an
opportunity to use the principles in the section on performance standards to develop

evaluation tools they could use when implementing the continuous-improvement

95

concept that is central to application of the total quality management theory.
Virtually all of the respondents reported that, as a result of establishing these
connections, they had reconsidered their philosophical position on the assessment
process in general and were attempting to use more formative methods of
evaluation. To enhance this process so that improvement became a major goal,
participants noted that they had initiated the use of a greater variety of assessment
instruments, including student and self-evaluations, peer mentoring systems, and
teaching portfolios.

WWW. As noted regarding
other units of this study, chairs reported that the Institute experience had exposed
them to new information on the topic and had given them an opportunity to share
with each other some of the methods they had found to be successful in evaluating
both student and faculty performance. Again, the Institute served as the catalyst for
additional study of the topic and promoted information sharing between chairs and
their teaching staffs. Exposure to this unit, therefore, assisted the participants in
viewing the individual topical units as part of a whole training experience, rather than
as a series of isolated pieces of information.

WW. Respondents
identified no other factors that were related to changes in their implementation of

performance standards.

WW
.IIII9I 9 I-_I9‘ 'I .I9‘ «.IOIO. 9.. 9.._' II-.I..9.‘II‘I. The

changes that participants reported in their levels of understanding in the behavioral

96
category of total quality management (T QM) are shown in Figure 13. Most of the
respondents (11) reported understanding little to nothing about TQM before the
Institute. However, five respondents noted that, following the Institute training, they
understood the topic somewhat; the remaining eight chairs placed their new level of
understanding of the concept in the adequately to well range. Among the greatest
increases in level of comprehension between the period before and that after the

Institute occurred in this topical unit.

 

Legend

\V Before Institute
After Institute

 

 

 

   

   
    
     

 

         

_ e \‘ \ N \
'3” \\ \‘ \ \
a3 \\ N \\ § § \ X
.. N N N N N N N
s N N N N N N
~5_\ N N N N N
a N N N N N N N
“N N N N NN N
N N N N N N
3 3 2 2 1 1 1

Number of Pai'tICipantS

Key: 5 = Understand Well
4 = Understand Adequately
3 = Understand Somewhat
2 = Understand a Little
1 = Understand Nothing

Figure 13. Change in understanding of total quality management.

97
WW. Although chairs did report a substantial

increase in their degree of understanding of TOM, their responses indicated that this
change occurred more in terms of their exposure to the general theory of TOM rather
in the actual principles of TQM implementation. One respondent’s comment, "I find
the concept of total quality management a bit overwhelming," reflected the group
consensus on that point. Thus, the training did not produce a comprehensive
cognizance of TOM on the part of study participants.

Two themes emerged from the analysis of responses. First, most chairs
expressed some skepticism about applying the principles of TQM to instruction.
Many thought that the concepts were more appropriately related to the business
sector. For example, a number of respondents had difficulty thinking of students as
customers. Second, as a result of their introduction to TQM theory, many
participants realized that delegating responsibility to faculty and staff could benefit
not only the chair but the department as well. As a result, values like individual
empowerment and trust assumed greater importance in the chairs’ view of
requirements for the most efficient operation of the department.

W. A majority of the
respondents attributed their increased level of understanding of TQM at least
partially to the instruction they received at the Institute. They admitted that the
training had helped them develop a better understanding of the concepts of TQM,
but most of the interviewees thought the complexity of TQM limited the possibility of

covering the topic adequately in the time allotted for the presentation.

98

Some participants characterized the Institute as a catalyst for additional study
in this topic area, as well. Some pursued additional reading, whereas others
participated in conferences that focused on TQM. Both follow-up activities, they
agreed, developed out of the better (although not full) grasp of the subject that
Institution training had given them.

WWW. Five participants
reported that they had received additional training in TOM since the Institute. All of
them indicated that this experience had further enhanced their understanding of the
concept

W. The degree to which
participants reported they were using their leadership skills in relation to TQM
differently today as compared to before their participation in the Institute is shown
in Figure 14. All of the participants disclosed that they were implementing TQM
differently in the aftermath of the Institute experience. A majority of them (eight)
reported that they were using these skills somewhat to considerably differently as
a result of the Institute. The modification in implementation of TQM skills did not
occur as dramatically as it did in most of the other topical units.

Irendsjnimplememinglflm. All of the respondents revealed that they were
implementing parts of the TQM concept. However, as noted in the understanding
portion of this analysis, the complexity of the TOM unit overwhelmed most of the
participants. As a result, they implemented TQM skills in limited but useful ways.
For example, some of the interviewees used TQM methods successfully to conduct

more efficient and effective meetings. Others introduced team-building techniques

99
with positive results. Still others concentrated on applying the continuous-
lmprovement principle to everyday operations and gaining feedback from students
(customers) on an ongoing basis. None of the interviewees reported any major

effort to implement TOM principles in their departments.

1:. UT 0)
I

Number of Participants

LI.)

 

 

 

No Diff V. Little Somewhat ConSiderably Dramatically

Figure 14. Change in implementation of total quality management.

EactotsccmtibutingjochangeslnimplemenflnngM. Like othertopical units

of this study, the presentation on TQM sparked the interest of many of the
participants. As a result, some did incorporate TQM techniques into the classroom
and department functions. However, the difficulty of the subject and lack of sufficient
time to cover it reduced the likelihood that significant changes in implementation

would occur. Some participants took advantage of the opportunity to network at the

100

formal Institute sessions, which enabled them to discover how others had applied
TQM concepts at their institutions with some success. They also attended other
workshops related to TQM and read further on the subject. These activities
contributed to some of the change that participants reported in the incorporation of
TQM principles within their departments.

WWW. As noted in the
understanding section of this unit, five participants indicated that they had received
additional training in TOM since the Institute experience. They all stated that such
activities resulted in a number of alterations in the way they conducted business in

their departments.

Reseambfluestmz

In what ways did chairs perceive themselves to be more effective
leaders as a result of training?

During the interviews, the researcher asked all of the participants whether
they perceived themselves to be more effective leaders as a result of the Institute
training. As a follow-up to this initial question, the interviewer asked participants to
state why they did or did not view themselves as more effective leaders in the
aftermath of the Institute experience.

Twelve of the 13 participants replied "yes" when asked the preceding
question. The one participant who did not respond affirmatively nevertheless

described the experience as being the motivator that provided her with the desire to

change.

101
Anumber of common responses emerged as participants described why they
perceived themselves to be more effective in their leadership roles. These
responses pertained to (a) increased knowledge and understanding of leadership,
(b) growth in self-confidence as a leader, and (c) the value of networking. Other

individual responses also are included in this narrative summary.

IEII llllll'tlll'

Five participants talked at length about the lnstitute’s role in increasing both
their knowledge and understanding of leadership. It is noteworthy that three ofthese
individuals had held the position of chair for five or more years, whereas the other
two had served as chairs for less than one year. However, regardless of years of
leadership experience, all five chairs indicated that they perceived rather significant
changes in their levels of knowledge and understanding of leadership. One
participant explained:

I got a better understanding about my own style. Ithink we all recognize what
our own style is, but it’s not as clear cut as it is now. I got an understanding
about, and an acceptance of, the differences of others. Everyone doesn’t
march to the same drummer, so you have to learn this in order to get along
with other people. I think I definitely have learned that you have to recognize
that everyone is different.

Another respondent stated that she had never been exposed to any form of
leadership training, even though she had worked as a chair for more than five years.
She described her experience in the following way:

It has been an incredibly broadening experience for me because I was

introduced to things that I simply did not have any theoretical exposure to

because my degrees are all in an academic area—history. I haven’t had an
education class since I was an undergraduate. So I think, in terms of

leadership development, things that have been going on in the field of
academic leadership and postsecondary education, I hate to admit, I probably

102

just wasn’t aware of or didn’t have as good an understanding of as l have in
this position. 80 the Institute provided that function for me.

Another participant, who had been a department chair for eight years before
the Institute experience, recognized that she had gained much knowledge from
participating in the Institute’s training program. She stated:

Ithink it broadened my knowledge base in many, many areas, and, not only

people in my department, but also peOple in other departments would come

to me for information. ljust have the knowledge to give them now. It wasn’t
like I was just giving it to them before. ljust didn’t have it; ljust didn’t know.

The other two participants who referred specifically to the broadening of their
knowledge and understanding of leadership made similar comments. One thought
he had expanded his understanding of the importance of trying to be a

transformational leader; the other referred to learning about all of the different

components required for successful leadership.

lncneasedfielfztzonfldence
Seven of the participants contended that the Institute experience raised their
level of confidence in their ability to lead. They reported that the training helped
them see that they had performed well as leaders, and that they would be even more
effective leaders as a result of the training. One chair described this transformation
by stating:
I simply have a lot more confidence in myself. I know that I am able to do
things that make me an effective leader, although I think I was a good leader
before the Institute. I’m a heck of a lot better as a leader than I was then. I
think I’m also able to model that for others. People here have told me that l
have changed, and I think I’ve received some rewards from that.

Another chair commented that the Institute "helped to build my self-esteem

just working with people." Another indicated that the networking that occurred during

103

the Institute improved his sense of confidence. Learning that others had tried an
idea, process, or technique, he felt more self-assured trying new strategies at his
own institution. When the researcher asked this respondent why he believed he had
more faith in himself, he responded, "Knowing that other people have done
something and it worked. It gives you confidence to say, ’I’m in a similar situation,
maybe it will work here.’ So you go at it with confidence, rather than going at it kind
of holding back a little bit."

Yet another participant considered the Institute’s practicum experience a
major factor in encouraging greater self-confidence. She said, "I think my self-
confidence increased because I worked on thejournal and I really had to think about
all of these things." A fifth respondent, when asked whether she had become a
more effective leader as a result of the training, commented:

Yes, and probably mostly because of the self-confidence that the Institute

gave me. I have never had any administrative experience. I had come out

of a bad situation into the job, and so my self-confidence and the renewed
faith that others around the country have similar philosophies to mine. lcan’t
say enough about how much the Institute has renewed my faith that things

can change, that change isn’t bad, that life doesn’t have to go on as it has
before.

Finally, one chair noted, when the researcher asked whetherthe Institute had
increased his self-confidence as a leader and as a chair: "I am an incredibly self-
confident person to begin with. However, the Institute is the single greatest

professional impactor that l have had in my 23 years of education."

Hamming
A number of interviewees mentioned the importance of networking when they

were questioned about how the Institute experience had helped them develop into

104
more effective leaders. Participants established a number of professional contacts
with whom they shared experiences and ideas during the week-long formal Institute
' sessions, at the National Chairs and Deans Conference, and during the two
conference calls initiated bytheir Institute staff mentors. This networking experience
was a valuable component of the learning experience, according to some
respondents. One described it in the following way:

ljust believe the formal sessions we had at the Institute were great. I learned
a lot from that. I think an even greater value was the networking with
colleagues from around the country to learn about issues that they have, as
well as ways in which they were solving them. There was a real benefit to me
to find out that you’re not the only person in the pond. You’re not the only
duck out there. Networking--that it is an ambiguous role being a chair and a
leader in an institution. It’s learning from others. That was a real growing
experience for me.

Others expressed similar feelings about the value of the networking
opportunities. Their sentiments were best described by one chair, who stated:

I thought I was doing a good job, but I began to realize as I had an
opportunity to network and talk with other chairs that I really did have a high
level of skills in different areas. But there were other areas that I needed to
work on more also. It’s nice to bump up with some of the others and find out
that you really are doing a nice job.

Interviewees expressed other reasons for their evolution as leaders. One
chair actually discovered his leadership abilitiesthrough the Institute experience. He

commented:

I think through the experience of the Institute I had an opportunity to see and
discover some things about myself that I didn’t know were there. Perhaps
with the attention and focus that was given to the fact that part of the role of
being a division chair is to be a leader heightened that role in my own mind.
It put me in a situation of saying to myself, "Okay, if you're in a leadership
role, what are you going to do to lead?" So I think the Institute did play a
significant role in heightening awareness and providing me with some tools
to do these things.

105
Another participant identified the Institute experience as an instrument of
change for her. She attributed her improved capability as a leader to a willingness
to change and described the Institute as the motivating event that led her to begin

to do things differently.

Researchfluestionj

What individual components of the program did chairs perceive to be
most influential in contributing to their behavioral change?

As noted in Chapter I, the year-long Institute for Academic Leadership
Development on which this study focused included a number of components: two
week-long formal training sessions in Prescott, Arizona; a year-long practicum that
included the development of an individualized professional development plan
(IPDP), weekly reflectivejournal writing, a mentorship program, two conference
calls between participants and their Institute staff mentors, and a final report. The
researcher asked all of the interviewees to pinpoint the component or components
of the Institute that had contributed most to their behavioral change. Their

responses are discussed in the following pages.

I E II . . S .

The respondents all agreed that the formal sessions influenced their behavior
the most, resulting in notable change. All but one chair identified these formal
sessions as the most important and influential component of the Institute, largely
because of the networking that participants did during the sessions. This networking
was important, according to many respondents, because it gave them an opportunity

to meet and to exchange ideas with other academic leaders from all over the United

106
States and Canada. One participant described the networking experience as
"incredibly important to me. I would rate that very, very high." A number of chairs
also connected their increased self-confidence to the networking. Learning that
other chairs had successfully used leadership techniques similar to their own
reinforced the participants’ sense that what they were doing was acceptable and

right.

It"! IEE . ID I IEI

Only three of the participants regarded the IPDP as a component that exerted
a major influence on their behavioral change. All three described how developing
and implementing the plan forced them to focus on goals they had established. The
IPDP thus provided participants with the means to stay on track and complete the
lnstitute’s practicum requirement and gave them a model they could use to assist in

developing and fulfilling their professional goals as chairs.

B [I I' l I II! 'I'

A majority of the participants stated that the periodic practice of reflective
journal writing contributed significantly to their behavioral change. They agreed that
keeping ajournal had value because it made them think as well as write about what
was and was not working. F urtherrnore, it forced the interviewees to consider why
some actions had not proven effective and to devise new behaviors that might
succeed. Although most chairs commented that they had difficulty finding the time

to write in their journals, they did, nevertheless, recognize the benefits of the

107

practice. One chair admitted, "The journal, while it was a pain, was probably one of
those things that was the best." Another said:

I have to admit that the [journal writing] for me was very important because

it was a very personal kind of dialogue. . . . It really was a good opportunity

for me to analyze what I was doing and why I was doing it, and where I

needed to make some changes, and where l was doing good things.

In reading the journals, the researcher noticed that the respondents tended
to report weekly activities instead of how they perceived they were changing their
leadership behaviors. Participants found the journal-writing activity to be valuable.

However, the researcher determined that the contents of the journals did not add

any further insights into answering the research questions.

MentotshiiLELogLam

Fewerthan half ofthe respondents identified the mentoring process as having
influenced their behavior. Almost all mentioned that they had received little or no
feedback from their Institute mentors. A number expressed great frustration with this
lack of feedback and direction. Others, however, had experienced a successful
relationship with their college mentors. It appears that participants who were
fortunate enough to pick a mentor who had the time and interest to actively
participate tended to have a good experience. As one participant stated, "I was very
lucky in that my local mentor was wonderful and supportive and gave me some great
feedback." However, this type of relationship appeared to have been rare. A
majority of chairs thought they did not benefit much from the mentoring program,

primarily because they lacked the time to meet with their college mentors.

108

Interviewees also shared a general misunderstanding of the role the mentors were

supposed to play in the practicum experience, which limited its usefulness.

WM
Only one respondent mentioned the conference calls with other chairs and
his Institute staff mentor and characterized them as a waste of time. Therefore, the

conference calls played very little, if any, role in participants” behavioral changes.

EinaLBepods
No interviewee referred to the final report when asked what components of

the program had influenced behavioral change.

ENDNOTE

1The DISC is an instrument designed and distributed by the Carlson Learning
Company for the purpose of helping adults identify different behavioral styles. The
instrument is self-contained and separates individuals into four classic behavioral
styles. This Personal Profile System (DiSC) was used as the focal point of this unit
as a means of helping participants understand their work style. The instrument was
administered, scored, and interpreted as a part of this unit. The emphasis of the
exercise was to better understand differences in behavioral styles, thereby resulting
in more productive working environments.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine whether selected
community college department chairs perceived any changes in their leadership
behavior as a result of participating in a leadership training program. The Institute
for Academic Leadership Development, sponsored by the National Community
College Chair Academy, developed and implemented the training program on
which this study was focused. The year-long training program included the
following components: an introductory week-long leadership development
session, a two-semester practicum that required the development and
implementation ofan Individualized Professional Development Plan, a mentoring
program complemented by participants’ personal journals, and a concluding one-
week leadership development session. Successful completion of the Institute
program resulted in professional certification by the National Community College
Chair Academy.

Believing that the future of community and technical colleges depends on
the quality of leadership of chairs, deans, and other instructional leaders, Institute

planners established the program specifically to advance academic leadership.

109

110
From this mission emerged the lnstitute’s primary goal-to train academic leaders
in transformational leadership skills, enabling them to return to their colleges and
become change agents. Academy members believe that the development of
more effective academic leaders will result in students’ exposure to improved
educational programs, which will help them achieve academic excellence at the
community and technical college level.

The Institute experience begins with a week of structured as well as
unstructured leadership development activities designed to build a wide variety
of leadership skills. Many active and collaborative teaching and teaming
techniques are used in the program, including guest speakers, large-group
discussions, small-group breakout discussions and activities, role playing, case
studies, and informal discussions and dialogue.

In addition to these activities, Institute participants develop their own
Individualized Professional Development Plans (IPDP) to implement during the
two-semester practicum. Key elements of the IPDP include reflective practice
through weekly journal writing and occasional interaction with both college and
Institute mentors. Participants periodically share theirjournal entries with mentors
for feedback, encouragement, and advice. The Institute also encourages
participants to network, attend conferences and workshops, and do additional
reading to enhance the leadership skills they are developing during the course of

the training period.

111

Thirteen individuals, eight females and five males, all members of the first
Institute "class," participated in this study. Seven of them had held department
chair positions for five years or fewer; the remaining six had been chairs from 6
to 14 years. All of the study participants had risen to the position of department
chair from the faculty ranks. Most of them (10) served on a full-time basis; the
other three had some teaching responsibilities along with their duties as
department chairs. Nine respondents supervised teaching staffs of 1 1 to 20 full-
time faculty, whereas three had 21 to 30 full-time faculty. Only one participant
indicated that she had 10 or fewer full-time faculty members.

In an attempt to determine whether participants perceived any changes in
their leadership behavior as a result of the Institute training, the researcher posed
the following research questions:

1. What specific behaviors did chairs perceive to have been modified
as a result of their participation in the leadership training program?

2. In what ways did chairs perceive themselves to be more effective
leaders as a result of the training?

3. What individual components of the program did chairs perceive to
be most influential in contributing to their behavior change?

The researcher constructed the Leadership Self-Rating Scaleto determine
whether study participants believed that they had changed their leadership
behavior in the interval between the beginning of the Institute and the period after

its conclusion. On this rating scale, respondents designated their degree of

112

perceived change in terms of both level of understanding and extent of
implementation of the eight units covered during the first session of formal
training. The researcher also conducted one—hour interviews with each
respondent, which he guided according to each participant’s responses to the
Leadership Self-Rating Scale. The researcher then analyzed the interview
transcripts and noted any trends of behavior change that were evident in the
responses. To supplement the Rating Scale and interview data, he also read
each respondent’s journal and IPDP.

An analysis of the preceding data indicated that chairs did perceive that
they had changed their leadership behavior as a result of the training they
received in the Institute. In fact, participants reported that they experienced these
changes in a variety of ways. Specifically, almost all of the respondents stated
that they had increased both their level of understanding and degree of
implementation of all eight behavioral units of the study. Chairs described in
detail how their leadership skills had been altered. They attributed these changes
both directly and indirectly to the Institute. Participants often mentioned the
formal sessions and networking opportunities, both integral parts of the Institute
experience, as contributing to an improvement in their understanding of the eight
topical units and the success of their efforts to implement what they had learned
during the Institute. Many also termed the Institute experience a catalyst that

influenced them to study these topics further.

113

Some respondents modified their leadership skills as a result ofthetraining
more than others did. Such factors as amount of previous administrative or
leadership experience, breadth of additional reading on a topic, degree of
individual effort to network with other participants, and the extent of attendance
at other conferences and workshops on particular subjects explained these
differences in behavioral change. College or state mandates actually limited
some participants’ implementation of suggested strategies, even though the
individuals had expanded their understanding of a unit. This, then, also would
account for some variety in the extent of change experienced.

In general, study participants reacted positively to the Institute training
experience in terms of how they felt about their own leadership abilities after the
program’s conclusion. Geiger (1990) and Liebman (1990) reported similar
findings in their research on the effects of leadership training. In the case of
Institute participants, the formal sessions for the topical units and the
opportunities for networking constituted the most influential elements in the

leadership skill development program.

QQnslufiiQnfi
The researcher initiated this study to determine whether community college
department chairs became more effective leaders as a result of training. The
study was based 'on the perceptions of participants in the Institute for Academic
Leadership Development training program. Based on an analysis of the study

findings, the researcher drew the following conclusions.

114

1. Training can modify the leadership behavior of community college
chairs. The findings from this study indicated that participants often changed their
leadership behavior in specific ways. In virtually all cases, they were able to
describe in detail the type of behavior modification that resulted from the increase
in knowledge. This in itself indicated the degree to which they had incorporated
the new skills into their leadership roles. If this training model is effective for
community college chairs, it is likely that the model could enhance the skills of
those in other leadership roles both within and outside the field of education.

2. An increase in understanding does not always translate into a
change in behavior. In a number of instances in this study, significant increases
in a participant’s understanding of a unit of study did not result in major changes
in implementation. One might attribute this lack of change in part to restrictive
state mandates or the failure of administrative or faculty leaders to "buy in" to a
particular strategy for change. Strategic planning and total quality management
may be examples of areas in which faculty and administrative leaders fail to buy
in to a particular strategy for change.

3. The Institute for Academic Leadership Development did not have
an equal influence on all participants. However, all chairs did report some
modification in their leadership behavior. As noted previously, respondents
reported a variety of factors that influenced the lnstitute’s effect on the way they

fulfilled their leadership responsibilities.

115

4. The extent of participants' leadership experience was related to their
degree of growth as a result of the Institute training. Inexperienced chairs
increased their understanding and implementation of leadership behaviors more
than did those chairs with greater experience. This is not to say that chairs who
had served in leadership roles for some time did not enhance their leadership
skills as a result of the training experience. However, they did not report the
same rates of increase in either the level of understanding or the degree of
implementation as did those participants with less experience.

5. Training of this nature can result in participants perceiving
themselves to be more effective leaders. This was true of almost all of the chairs
in this study. Throughout the study, participants expressed increased confidence
in their ability to lead as a result of the training. It is possible that this training
model could produce similar increases in self-confidence among others in
leadership positions.

6. The Institute provided a stimulus for most participants to do further
study on many of the topical units presented during the Institute. Chairs
accomplished this study primarily through networking, pursuing additional
reading, and attending other conferences and workshops related to the training
topics. Again, this training model, used in other leadership settings, might spark

participants’ interest in expanding their leadership skills.

116
I I' l' E E I'

1. It has been estimated that department chairs make 80% of the
decisions at educational institutions. Correspondingly, as indicated in the review
of literature, colleges with weak department chairs face the potential for major
problems. It is logical, then, that strong leadership at the department level can
translate into academic success throughout the institution. If, as indicated in this
study, an individual can learn leadership skills, colleges should offer opportunities
for such training to those who fill leadership roles.

2. Those who assume the position of department chair often have had
little, if any, administrative or leadership training. Yet they are expected to
perform'a wide variety of management and leadership duties. Training may
shorten significantly the learning curve in developing transformational leadership
skills.

3. Community colleges have faced considerable difficulty in filling
department chair positions. Traditionally, the job has not appealed to many
faculty members for a variety of reasons. Perceptions of working longer hours for
the same pay, being caught between faculty and administrators, getting little
recognition, spending much of the day attending meetings, and generally being
the department’s caretaker contribute to the position’s holding little attraction for
most faculty members. If institutions offer to provide leadership training for new

chairs, however, faculty members’ interest in serving might increase.

1 17
lmnlicatinnsiQLEnEtbeLBeseamh

As is the case in most research projects, the findings from this study raised
a number of questions that other researchers could pursue.

1. The participants, all of whomcompleted the Institute training,
reported much of the information in this study, including the specific changes in
their leadership behaviors. An examination of the perceptions of those who have
interacted with department chairs both before and after such leadership training,
especially faculty and administrators to whom the chairs report, could enhance
the findings from this research. Do these groups perceive the same degree of
behavioral change reported by the study participants? If such data were
available, perhaps training programs could be refined even further to meet the
demands of the chairmanship.

2. If this model of training is effective for community college chairs,
could the same format be used with similar success with leaders at other levels
of education? Specifically, further research could be undertaken to determine the
applicability of this type of leadership training in K-12 systems, in four-year
colleges and universities, and among instructional leaders in other settings.

'3. What are the long-term effects of this form of training? Further
research could be conducted to determine whether the perceptions of the
participants in this study were short lived or long term. Did the training simply
create a short-term halo effect for participants, or did they continue to perform

more effectively? Data from research of this nature might be helpful in refining

118

the model used in this study. Such analyses could indicate whether periodic
training increases the effectiveness of leadership behavior over an extended
pefiod.

4. There were two possible methods to approach this study in terms
of determining how well participants understood topics before the Institute. Each
method had drawbacks. By doing a pretest, the researcher would have had to
assume that participants knew enough about each topical unit to accurately
assess their level of understanding. By waiting until after participants completed
the Institute to ask the same question, the researcher was relying on the accuracy
of their memory. The methodology the researcher selected was to ask these
questions following the total Institute experience. Further research could be
conducted using a pre-post methodology to further validate the results of this
study.

5. The mentoring experience had ambiguous results in this study. The
experience seemed to be valuable for some participants but not for others. This

practice or concept deserves further study.

Reflections
As noted in this study, I was a participant in the Institute for Academic
Leadership Development, the training that was the subject of this dissertation. As
an addendum to this study, I felt a need to share some of my reflections directed
to the Institute experience, as well as remarks of each participant when I asked

them at the end of the interview to generally rate the experience. I also

119

encouraged each participant to make general comments directed to the effect the
Institute experience had on them both personally and professionally. I believe
that portions of these responses need to be shared with the readers in order to
understand fully the effect the Institute had on the 13 subjects of this study.
The Institute was a powerful learning experience for me. In fact, the
experience changed my professional and personal lives in a number of ways.
First, I met and conversed with chairs and other instructional leaders from the
United States, Canada, and Guam. As a result, many close friendships were
developed and continue today. Second, I believe that I am a more effective
department chair as a result of the training. My leadership skills are different
today, and I attribute a great deal of that change to the Institute experience.
Third, 'I have had various opportunities professionally as a result of my
associations with the other participants. These include consulting, being asked
to present on various leadership topics at conferences and workshops, and
mentoring other department chairs. Fourth, I was selected to facilitate an Institute
for Academic Leadership Development at Guam Community College in 1994-95.
Finally, the Institute experience was the subject for my dissertation.
~ In summary, a feeling was developed among the participants of that first
Institute that is difficult to describe. I suppose the best description may be to say
that a sense of closeness was developed and that this sense remains today.
They were all good people, and perhaps what occurred was what normally

happens when good people gather for a common experience.

120

The 13 participants expressed similar thoughts when I asked them to rate
the Institute on a scale from 1 to 10 and then to make some general comments
about the overall experience. They generally rated the Institute very high. Many
also conveyed the effect the experience had on them. The following are
responses from each of the 13 participants to the preceding requests.

A 10—l would, truthfully. I think that it was an excellent experience for me.

. And I truly believe that the three of us have had an impact on

College. .

It would go pretty high. If 10 is perfect, it came pretty close. For a new

chair, the opportunity to go and meet people from across the country and

share different ideas. . . . I sound like I’m writing a commercial.

ldon’t like to use numbers. I would rate it as a turning point in my career.

. . . It’s been an extraordinary experience, and Ithink that it demonstrated

to me how much need there is for this kind of training.

I’m going to say a 10 because it was a very valuable learning experience-
not just only professionally, but personally as well.

I would give it an 8. I thought it was very good.

A 10; one of the best experiences of my life. I met some fantastic people.
« . . . I feel a bond there that I don’t think could ever be broken.

I would rate it at least an 8 or 9. Obviously, for me, the Institute was really
an important thing. It was probably a life-changing experience.

I would give it a 10 plus. I cannot say enough about the positive feelings
I have about the Institute.

For me, it was very positive and very good. From 1 to 10, the general
experience was a 10.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would give it about a 45. Really, though, I would
give it a 10. As I have said before, it’s just the richest, most impacting
experience that I have ever had professionally in my 23 years. . . . It was
just an invaluable experience for me as an educator.

121

I would probably say an 8 or 9. . . . lthought that it was a very positive

experience. . . . To see the people again and to talk with themto see what

had happened over the year.

I would say at least a 9. I think that it was a tremendously valuable

experience. . . . It certainly helped me in my own professional growth and

self-confidence in being a chair. . . . To be with a group of people who
were all pretty much in the same boat, to learn together, and to watch all
of us grow was a tremendous experience that I will never forget or regret.

I would give it a 7 as far as the experience. But keep in mind that I have

a tendency of being a very rigid type evaluator. . . . I feel very grateful that

I was able to participate.

From these responses, it is evident that the Institute had many of the same
effects on the participants of this study as it did on me. I believe these responses
are important to note.

In conclusion, I have been fortunate to have friends like this. They

cooperated to the fullest during this study, and for that I will always be deeply

grateful. They are truly special people and effective leaders.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE LEADERSHIP SELF-RATING SCALE

122

Leadership Self-Rating Scale
(Understanding)

Reflecting on the eight topical units covered during the first week of formal
leadership training in Prescott in July of 1992, how would you rate your
understanding of each unit before the Institute as compared to your
understanding of each unit after the Institute?

Rate each unit using a rating of 1 to 5, with 5 being high and 1 being low.

5 Understand Well --I could teach others this topic.

4 Understand Adequately --I am pretty clear on this topic.

3 Understand Somewhat --I understand enough about this

topic to get by.

2 Understand a Little -l have a very limited grasp of

the topic.

1 Understand Nothing --I have no grasp of this topic.
Before the After the
Institute Institute

( ) Understanding the Complex Role of the Chair ( )

( ) Understanding Leadership Styles ( )

( ) Understanding Strategic Planning ( )

( ) Understanding Curriculum Development ( )

( ) Understanding Classroom Research ()

( ) Understanding Conflict Management ( )

( ) Understanding Performance Standards ( )

( ) Understanding Total Quality Management _ ( )

123

Leadership Self-Rating Scale
(Implementation)

The following six units covered in Prescott during the first week of training (July
1992) all lend themselves to direct implementation. Reflecting on these units,
how differently are you implementing these leadership skills today compared to
before the Institute?
Rate each unit using a rating 'of 1 to 5, with 5 being high and 1 being low.

5 Dramatically Different

4 Considerably Different

3 Somewhat Different

2 Very Little Difference

1 No Difference

N/A Not Implementing

How differently are you implementing each of the following?

(Rating 1-5)
Strategic Planning Initiatives ()
Curriculum Development Initiatives ( )
Classroom Research Measures ( )
Conflict Management Methods ( )
Performance Standards for Instruction ( )

Total Quality Management Principles ( )

124

Other Events and/or Experiences

There may be events or experiences other than the Institute that have played a
role or been a factor in your understanding and implementing the above eight
topics. Therefore, in order to further clarify your responses, would you please
indicate below any factors that you think have had an effect on either your level of
understanding or degree of implementation. (Please use additional space if
necessary.)

Your Name

 

APPENDIX B

LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

 

orncs or
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committss on
m Involving
llamas sum:
(UCRIHS)

Michigan State University
225 Administration Building
East Lansung, Michigan
48824-1046

517/3552180

MSU is .In 4"»:er x1100
EON-ll iKtorvtwirv mshluliun

125

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

August 19, 1993

TO: James M. Still
Delta College
University Center, Ml 48710

RE: IRB 3:

93-356

TITLE: A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP TRAINING

AND BEHAVIORAL CHANGE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
CHAIRS

REVISION REQUESTED: N/A'
CATEGORY: I-C,D
APPROVAL DATE: August 19, 1993

The. University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appmpriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above. '

Renal:

Probluns/
Changes:

UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the-approval
date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year
must use the enclosed form to seek updated certification. There is a maximum of
four such expedited murals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review.

UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
toinitiationofthcchangc. Ifthisisdoneatthetimsofrenewal, pleascuscthe
enclosed form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year,
and your written request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and
rsfcrmcing the project's IRB I and title. Include in your request a description of
the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are
apphcable.thcyesr,pleaseoudinetheproposedrevisionsinalettcrtothe
Committee.

Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, investigators
must notify UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints,
etc) involving human subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the
protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355-2180 or FAX (517)

336-1171.

Sincerely,

UCRIHS Chair

DEW:pjm

   

David E. Wright, Ph.D.

cc: Dr. Lou Hekhuis

APPENDIX C

INITIAL LETTER TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS

I ,

126
July 27, 1994

Dear

 

You have been selected by a panel of experts to be a participant in my
dissertation study. The panel of experts was comprised of the Institute staff and
included Gary Filan, Ruth Guzley, Al Seagren, Dan Wheeler, and Mike
McHargue. Your selection was based on five criteria all concerned with the
quality of your work and thinking, and evidence of your commitment to changing
your leadership behaviors as department chairs. The purpose of this letter is to
request your participation in my study and to ask you to complete the enclosed
materials and return them to me.

The purpose of the study is to determine whether selected community college
department chairs perceived any changes in their leadership behaviors as a
result of participating in a training program. The training program is the Institute
for Academic Leadership Development that you completed in July of 1993. The
study is an attempt to determine, based on your perceptions, whether you are
behaving differently today as a leader in the eight topical units covered, as
compared to before the training program. And, if you perceive your leadership
behaviors to be different today, what caused you to change?

I will be using interviews to collect the data for this study. However, before I
interview you, I request that you fill out and return to me the enclosed
Leadership Self-Rating Scale. This scale is being used as an advance
organizer for the interview process. I will be asking you what you are doing
differently and why, based on your responses to the above scale.

I also would ask that you fill out the short demographic questionnaire, sign the
letter of consent, and send me a copy of your IPDP, Journal, and Final Report.
All of this information will assist me in explaining and interpreting the data from

the interviews. Please send the Rating Scale, Questionnaire, and Consent Form
in the envelope provided.

Please be assured that all information provided will remain in strict confidence. I
thank you for your willingness to participate in this study.

Sincerely,

Jim Still
Delta College

APPENDIX D

INFORMATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE

127
I II I' II] I’ .

Number of years you have been a department chair:

Before assuming the role of department chair, your experiences were
primarily:

Faculty experiences
Administrative experiences
Combination of the two

How many full-time and adjunct faculty members do you have in your
department?

F ulI-Time Adjunct

10 or fewer 10 or fewer
1 1-20 11-20
21-30 21-30

More than 30 More than 30

Is your role as a department chair:

Full time?
Approximately three-quarter time?
Approximately half-time?

__ Other

APPENDIX E

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

128

Letter of Consent

I, ,hereby agree to be a
participant in the dissertation study by James M. Still. I understand that this study
is being conducted through Michigan State University as partial fulfillment of a
doctorate degree in College and University Administration. I also understand that
my participation will require me to be interviewed by Mr. Still and to submit other
written materials pertaining to the leadership training in which I participated from
July 1992 to July 1993.

I further understand that all data provided by me for the study will be held in strict
confidence by Mr. Still. In addition, I understand that neither my name nor the
location of my institution will in any way be used in the study. Finally, I
understand that I can withdraw from participation in the study at any time without
any harmful consequences.

 

 

Participant’s signature Researcher’s signature

 

 

Date Date

APPENDIX F

PREINTERVIEW LETTER TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS

129

November 28, 1994

Dear

 

Thank you for returning all of the materials requested last August. I have
completed reading your IPDP, journal, and final report. I have also reviewed the
rating scale you completed, and I am now ready to proceed with the interview
process. I anticipate that I will be calling you within the next few weeks to
arrange a time with you for this purpose.

As a reminder, the purpose of my study is to determine whether community
college department chairs perceived any changes in their leadership behavior as
a result of participating in a leadership training program. Therefore, based on
your responses to the Leadership Self-Rating Scale and your perceptions of
the training program in general, I will be asking you to respond to the following
quesfions:

Understanding
1. What is it you understand better in each of the units?
2. To what do you attribute this increased understanding?

Implementing

3. What is it that you are doing differently in these six areas?
4. To what do you attribute this change of behavior?
General Questions

5. Do you perceive yourself to be a more effective leader as a result of the
training? Why or why not?

6. What component or components of the program do you perceive was most
influential in contributing to your behavior change?

I have included a copy of your Leadership Self-Rating Scale to assist you in
preparing responses for the interview. Thank you for your willingness to be a
participant in this study.

Sincerely,

Jim Still

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, D. D. (1981). Amksisotnemeixedtommionmjnd

I O O
|- no ., 0| 0 0‘ ‘00“ | s 0 on n. 0‘ 0| |

W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts.

Barker, J. A. (1992). W. New
York: William Morrow.

Bennett, J. B. (1983). W.
New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Bennett, J. B. (1985). Mammflheamdemcdemnmmanmgs.
New York: Harper & Row.

Bennett, J. B., & Figuli, D. J. (1990). Enhancingnenartmentaueadershin. New

York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
Bennis, W. (1989). W. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

BenniS. W.. & Nanus. 8- (1985). LeaderthestLategieuoLtakingchargr-i
New York: Harper 8. Row.

Bogue, J. P. (1950). Ihecommunitmollege. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Booth, D. B. (1982). Ihejenanmentchaicimtessionaldflemmhdmle
conflict (AAHE-ERlC/Higher Education Research Report No. 10). George
Washington University, American Association for Higher Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 226 689)

Brann. J.. &Emmet T A. (1972). IheacademfidenartmendeMsion
chaiLmaLAsomnlemle Detroit. MI: Balamp

Brenneman, D. W., &Nelson, S. C. (1981). W
W. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

130

131

Burke, M. L. (1985). IhemanagenaLmlesandactlvltiemLthejwmn

. o‘ OI' 01‘000‘Av OI I—. OIIII I 0 ‘0.‘ ‘II'..
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Burns, J. M. (1973). Leadership. New York: Harper&Row.

Cameron, K. S. &Ulrich, D. O. (1986). Transformational leadership in colleges

and universities. In J. C. Smart (Ed) Highemducanomjandbogm
WNOI. 2, pp. 1-42). New York: Agathon Press.

Cohen, A. M., &Brawer, F. B. (1989). W. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Covey, S. R. (1991). W. New York: Simon&
Schuster.

Creswell, J. w. (1985). Eacuflvreseamdpermmamnsjmimne
sciencesandsocialsciences (ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Report No.
4). Washington, DC. Association for the Study of Higher Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 267 677)

Creswell, J. W., and others. (1990). WWW
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Cusick, P. A. (1973). Insjdehighjcbgol. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Cusick, P. A. (1983). IheegalflanamdealjndjheAmencanhlghschooL
W. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.

Eble, K. E. (1990) Chairpersons and faculty development. an. B. Bennett&D.

J Figuli (EdS) EnhancingjeoadmentaUeadersdehemlesoflhe
Cha'lmflSQMpp. 99-106). New York: American Council on Education/
Macmillan.

Engbretson, C. J. (1986). WWWQD
chaimersonsinflmmingsommunimcolleges. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Wyoming.

Gardner, J. (1989). Leadership development. W13, 73.

Gehrke, N. (1991). Developing teachers’ leadership skills. EBLC_Qig_e_st.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 330 691)

132

Geiger, G. I. (1990). AussessmentnttheflistricmLColumbmmicschoolsl

aduflnistratorsfleadershiodrainingjcademx. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Glaser, B., &Strauss, A. L. (1970). Theoretical sampling In N. K. Densin (Ed.),
SociologicaLmethods(p. 106). Chicago: Aldine.

Gme'Ch. W H., &Bums J S (1991 April) W
W. Paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339 306)

Gmelch. W. H.. &Miskin.V. D. (1993). LeadershmkillsioLdeoadmenLchaILs.
Boston, MA: Anker Publishing.

Hammons, J. (1984, March). The department/division chairperson: Educational

leader? Commumtvandslumotfiollegeioumal. 5.4(6), 14—19.

Hammons, J. &Thomas, W. (1980). Performance appraisal of community

college department/division chairpersons. WJ
4149.

Jennerich, E. J. (1981). Competencies for department chairpersons: Myths and
realities. LiberaLEducation 51(1). 46-65.

Knight, W. H., 8 Holen, M. C. (1985). Leadership and the perceived

effectiveness of department chairpersons. .IQIJmaLQLHIQIJBLEducatiQD.
55. 677-689.

Koos, L. (1925). Juniouollegemovement. New York: AMS Press.

Liebman, A. M. (1990). Ineeflectsotalv'lsionamleadersbipnrainingmusenn
W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
maryland, College Park.

Lombardi, J. (1973). Ihejenadmenmllslonjmctutemnecommumir
college. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges, University
of California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085 051)

Lombardi, J. (1974). We
WW (National Institute of Education Paper No.
39). Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges, University of
California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 089 811)

133
McCarthy. B. I. (1986). Ccmoetencieeendcnesenniceflnsennicestefl

0‘ ‘OOII I I 0 9II“ I 0 ‘9‘ 0 0 III I I-. 9‘ 0| I I

CommonwealtthMessechusetts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts.

Michael, D. N. (1973). QnJeemngeclmndclehningJeleem. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Nanus, B. (1989). IDQJEEQWWQELSNDJM
tumuIQDIJIILQIIId. Chicago: Contemporary Books.

Nanus, B. (1992). Mislcnennleedenshjp. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pappas, E. J. (1989). The department chair in the 1990’s: Confessions,
concerns, and convictions. ACABuflefln. 6.8. 34-39.

Peltason, J. W. (1984). Foreword. lnA. Tucker (Ed) Qhainingtbe academic

Wand ed, p. xi). New York:
American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Playko, M. A. 8. Daresh, J. C. (1990, April 16-20). Ihejgumeyjmand
-. . or. 0‘ IO' {‘1 q, - o 0‘ o 0. -. a: Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston, MA.

Prucnal, J. R. (1982). Studyjojetenmmethenclecnthehusinesmiuslcn

..'o- or r I‘ II I0 , 0‘0 0' I0 o ‘0 ell“
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama.

Roach, J. H. L. (1976). The academic department chairperson: Roles and
responsibilities. EducaflsmaLBBCQnd. 51(1), 13-23.

Roueche, J., Baker, 6., 8. Rose, R. (1989). Shanedgusm. Washington, DC:
Community College Press.

Schmuck R. A. (1993). WWW
Wench. Eugene: Oregon School Study
Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 610)

Seagren, A. T., Creswell, J. W., &Wheeler, D. W. (1993). Ihidmaflmemmam.
W. Washington, DC: George

Washington University.

134

Seagren, A. T., 8. Filan, G. (1992). IhejmennetieneLcemmunjhncellegesunnev.
Mesa, AZ, and Lincoln, NB: National Community College Chair Academy,

Maricopa Community College, and Center for the Study of Higher and
Postsecondary Education, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Seagren, A. T., Wheeler, D. W., Mitchess, M., 8. Creswell, J. W. (1986).
" rou- 1.0: or .10 ._ . O'I‘nn 0' o: 00 .10
rioorr o -. “-00:11 .‘q‘rooorrir. '
(Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska- Lincoln, Department of
Educational Administration). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
276 387)

Tucker, A. (1992). W. New York: Macmillan.

Ury,W. (1993). GEEWMLWWWWQ
permeation. New York: Bantam Books.

Vomberg, J. A. (1992, April 20-24). Leedenshlcscmcetenciesjndoenceived
heinMgefiecteMeedcwscninciceunncnoxemenLcnoenam (Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 348 773)

Wenzel, N. J. (1987). Astudinctcnesemceendmsenucednemmgehddheln

WW. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Iowa.

Winner, C. N. (1989). IhenoleendhmctictnctthejenentmemeLcheincensenm
Delewanelechmcalehdfiemmumtvscllege Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Delaware.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leedenshicihcmehizetiens (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.