.33

f
1:!)

, l P. I}:
hittiié
Qt

, an x: ‘g 3.
Lu mmmunmuumwmqu .Jura.m.
t< i. 3 .

a.. {fly uni. - .

ham.

.\
3 s. 1
«5i
hm:u‘ann_ .
.. éflwmnflnulr
it

‘
kl

.13.:
1

3a.. a l ‘
2%.... «IL .
1 xi unwxi...

x I}?! {I
.55. if...

IPA-lo 1:}.
! HIE???- :1

a :5»: . ‘
Lu‘g-s, ... . _ . .‘
L 55:? .
Luv
. . t5 .3 3h
...:,.-
.,

flaky as: ,
Lawn-.. ,
5.1.... U; x I‘Lo'i’o‘,
.. . .IL .
a. 5.1.. thug v

.5 . Ills???
v. :u’t.£.'s I

«1.4.6.6.. it»!

- l I

\ix‘K-etu
‘33:?! a
55.:‘80

 

.. ‘ 1.." .l
‘ry.\!.t {Ilat‘ .
It... ‘ Anil‘nh.‘

 

agwnwwwuig ;. a

 

THESIS

10”

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Descriptive Study of
Michigan Community College Presidents'
Approaches to Learning

presented by
Kathleen Eaton Guy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master gf Science degree in Agricultural &
Extension Education

Q

Major professor

[Date May 6, 2002

 

0.7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

P\iOV 3 O 2004

 

raw

7123214;

 

KW a sinus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c-JCIRC/DateDuapBS-p. 15

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS’
APPROACHES TO LEARNING

By

Kathleen Eaton Guy

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education
and Communications Systems

2002

ABSTRACT
A Descriptive Study of
Michigan Community College Presidents’
Approaches to Learning
By

Kathleen Eaton Guy

The study and practice of leadership in community colleges has evolved with the
growth and prominence of the colleges themselves. Each new generation of community
college leaders has faced a different set of challenges, from start-up in the 19608 and
1970s to building community in the 19803 and issues of technology and distance learning
in the 19903. College presidents are expected to navigate their colleges through unsettled
political, economic, technological and demographic environments.

The body of knowledge is ever-changing and the value of continuous learning to
the president is its importance to the vitality of the institution. An analysis of Michigan
community college presidents was conducted to determine what and how presidents
continue to learn on the job and whether characteristics of the presidents or their

institutions affect what and how they choose to learn.

Copyright by
Kathleen Eaton Guy

2002

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v
Chapter I, Introduction
The Context ................................................................................................................... l
The Problem .................................................................................................................. 3
Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 4
Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 5
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 5
Chapter II, Review of Literature
The Need for Learning .................................................................................................. 7
Skills and Information Required ................................................................................. 10
Chapter 111, Research Design and Methodology
Method ........................................................................................................................ 13
Population .................................................................................................................... 13
Research Design .......................................................................................................... 13
Instrument Development ............................................................................................. 14
Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 14
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 15
Chapter IV, Results
Participant Demographics ........................................................................................... 17
Institutional Demographics ......................................................................................... 19
Time Spent Taking Affirmative Steps to Learn .......................................................... 22
Money Spent Taking Affirmative Steps to Learn ....................................................... 23
Academic Enrollment as a Differentiating Factor ....................................................... 27
Years Served as a Differentiating Factor .................................................................... 31
First Presidency as a Differentiating Factor ................................................................ 34
Highest Degree Earned as a Differentiating Factor .................................................... 36
President’s Age as a Differentiating Factor ................................................................ 40
Sex as a Differentiating Factor .................................................................................... 43
Chapter V, Conclusions ................................................................................................. 45
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 56

Reference Materials
Appendix A: Questionnaire Mailed to Michigan’s 28 Community
College Presidents ....................................................................................................... 58

iv

List of Tables

Iii—bis .1229
1a Participant Demographics—Years Served and Age (Mean, Median, Mode) ............ 17
1b Participant Demographics—Ages of Presidents ........................................................ 18
1c Participant Demographics—Sex ................................................................................ 18
2 Participant Demographics—Highest Degree Earned ................................................. 19
3 Participant Demographics—First Presidency ............................................................ 19
4a Institutional Demographics—Academic Credit Enrollment, Non-credit

Enrollment and Annual General Fund Budget ........................................................... 20
4b Institutional Demographics—Academic Credit Enrollment by Category ................. 20
5 Time Spent and Money Spent Taking Affirmative Steps to Learn ............................ 21

6 Time Spent as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to Learning
Participation ............................................................................................................... 23

7 Money Spent as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to Leamin g
Participation .......................................................................................................... 25-26

8 Academic Enrollment as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to
Learning Participation ................................................................................................ 29

9 Years Served as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to Learning
Participation .......................................................................................................... 32-33

10 First Presidency as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to Learning
Participation ............................................................................................................... 36

11 Highest Degree Earned as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to

Leaming Participation ........................................................................................... 38-39
12 President’s Age as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to Learning

Participation ............................................................................................................... 42
13 Sex as a Differentiating Factor When Compared to Learning Participation ............. 44

Chapter I
Introduction
The Context

The study and practice of leadership in community colleges has evolved with the
growth and prominence of the colleges themselves. Each new generation of community
college leaders has faced a different set of challenges. In the 19603 and 19703
community colleges were created as higher education institutions of access and
opportunity. For a time during this period, new colleges were being developed at the rate
of one per week (Young, 1996).

In the 19803 community colleges were called upon to “build community” and
respond to workforce development needs to help reinvigorate a sagging economy. In the
19903 many community colleges experienced funding challenges as traditional sources of
revenue declined. Today community colleges are confronted with the implications of
information technology, distance education and a dramatically more competitive and
demanding marketplace.

For nearly 50 years, community colleges have demonstrated a remarkable ability
to respond and adapt. They have evolved multiple roles and created expectations as “can
do” institutions. Responding to community needs and adapting programs and services is
more challenging than ever before. College presidents are expected to navigate their
colleges through unsettled political, economic, technological and demographic

environments.

This period of turbulence is further complicated by unprecedented expectations
for accountability, more responsive and flexible “any place/any time” education,
consolidation to “flatten” the organization, greater emphasis on teaching and less on
administration, shared decision making, mass retirements due to an aging faculty, and the
need to vigorously pursue alternative forms of funding and collaboration.

The literature suggests that there are defined job objectives and tasks that
comprise community college presidents’ information and work profile. One of the most
recent efforts to define this profile was undertaken by the 21St Century Education Leader
Project (Campbell and Leverty, 1997) to compile a list of eight job objectives and tasks
for community college presidents. Listed in order of importance, they are: Planning,
Motivating, Assessing/Evaluating, Implementing/Coordinating, Leaming/Researching,
Public Relations (PR)/Developing Relationships, Problem Solving/Designing, and
Deciding. These objectives and tasks, which can be used in leadership development and
selection, were identified as priorities by a group of presidents, trustees, faculty, chief
instructional officers and business officers who participated in the 21St Century Education
Leader Project.

Campbell and Leverty’s objectives and tasks are typical of the literature that
describes the prescriptive nature of skills and abilities needed by community college
presidents. This is further illustrated in Roe and Baker’s (1989) roles and competencies
of community college CEOs and the North Carolina Community College System’s
Executive Management Leadership Institute modules (1992).

The job objectives and tasks prescribed are suggested by the environment in

which the president operates. Each area suggests catalysts in the internal or external

college environment that could act upon the institution. For example, Assessing/
Evaluating is important in demonstrating the college’s accountability to accrediting
bodies, funding agencies and consumers (students and employers).

There are two areas not explicitly included in Campbell and Leverty’s job
objectives and tasks but typical of the expectations of today’s presidents: Teamwork and
Scholarship. Bensimon and Newmann (1993) and Baker (1995) have studied teamwork
and its value to the higher education enterprise. Templin (1991); Cross (1990); and
Rouche, Baker and Rose (1989) have documented the value of scholarship to the
president in terms of gaining credibility, creating institutional climate and fostering
presidential renewal. For the purposes of this study, Teamwork and Scholarship have
been added to the list of eight job objectives and tasks developed by the 21“ Century
Education Leader Project to comprise the ten-item Key Areas of Knowledge list.

The body of knowledge is ever-changing, and the value of formal and non-formal
learning to the president is its importance to the institution’s continued vitality and ability

to adapt to changes in the environment.

The Problem
We do not know enough about community college presidents in regard to the
factors that relate to their competence, success and role fulfillment. The purpose of this

study is to:

(1) determine the extent to which presidents take Affirrnative Steps to Learn about Key
Areas of Knowledge,
(2) determine presidents’ level of personal commitment to learning through professional
development,
(3) identify the factors that positively or negatively affect presidents’ engaging in
professional development and
(4) identify the personal and professional characteristics of presidents that positively or
negatively affect engaging in professional development.

Within the scope of this descriptive research approach, there are not specific
hypotheses. The intent is to allow for the potential to develop additional insights and
learn more about the amount and intensity of presidential effort in areas relating to their

learning through professional development.

Definitions

For the purposes of this study, the following definitions apply.

The study will investigate the degree to which presidents take Affirmative Steps
to Learn about Key Areas of Knowledge. These Key Areas of Knowledge are defined as
Planning, Motivating, Assessing/Evaluating, Implementing, Learning/Researching,
Public Relations (PR)/Developing Relationships, Problem Solving/Designing, Deciding,
Team Building and Scholarship.

The personal characteristics of presidents are defined as age, sex, length of time

in office, formal educational preparation and previous presidential position(s).

The term professional development is defined as any method of learning that is
not directly related to or a part of formal degree-based learning. Examples include
Membership in Professional Organizations; Attendance at Workshops, Symposia or
Seminars; and Using the World Wide Web to learn about new approaches, methods and

best practices in leading institutions.

Wis

The assumptions for this study are:
1. The extent of professional development engaged in by community college presidents is
measurable.
2. The Key Areas of Knowledge are an appropriate set of classifications within which to
measure presidents’ professional development.
3. The examples of Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn, as described in the questionnaire,

are recognizable by presidents without further definition.

Limitations
The results of this study of Michigan community college presidents may not be
readily generalized to the population of presidents of community and technical colleges
nationwide. The Key Areas of Knowledge defined may limit the responses by presidents
who have undertaken learning activities for Key Areas of Knowledge not specifically
defined in this study. Further limitations are the willingness of the respondents to

participate and the integrity of the respondents.

Significance of the Study

The study will provide Michigan community college presidents with a sample
profile of professional development that could serve as a source of information about
how their peers seek learning through professional development. The data analysis will
create a profile of Michigan community colleges’ and their presidents’ patterns of
learning by topic, method and resources expended.

The data analysis explored relationships that may exist between circumstances in
the internal or external environments and the pursuit of professional development.

The study investigated relationships that might exist between characteristics of the
presidents and the pursuit of professional development.

The results of this study could offer an institutional profile for Michigan
community colleges that suggests factors relating to professional development decisions
by presidents as they evaluate needs for resource allocation, staffing and time for
personal and institutional learning.

For professional organizations, the data from this study may be helpful in
focusing on topics and defining target markets for their publications, meetings and
seminars. Vendors offering legitimate professional development experiences may find
the data from this study useful as a way to make their programs and services available to

the most receptive audiences.

Chapter II
Review of Literature
The purpose of this chapter is to review research and literature that relates to the
expected skills and information required of community college presidents and the nature

of formal and non-formal learning on the job.

The Need for Lem

The rapid development of community and technical colleges throughout the
United States has occurred in the last 40 to 50 years. In the early 19603 the need became
apparent for community college presidents who could operate successfully in a complex
higher education environment characterized by functions broadened to accommodate an
increasingly heterogeneous enrollment. “The emerging public two-year colleges required
of administrators a mentality and set of skills different than those of either public school
or university administrators” (Young, 1996).

To accommodate the demand for community college presidents, the number of
university higher education programs expanded. The number of universities and colleges
offering professional graduate work in higher education expanded from 27 in 1945 to 87
in 1962—63, according to Ewing and Stickler (cited in Young, 1996). Philanthropic
foundations like the WK. Kellogg Foundation played a major role in the expansion of
higher education programs that specialized in community college education and

leadership.

By the end of the 19603 most community college governing boards were requiring
a doctorate as the minimum educational criterion for individuals seeking administrative
positions (Young, 1996). Advice given to those applying for community college
presidencies today includes the need to earn a doctoral degree (Vaughn, 1989).

As community and technical colleges have evolved and matured since the
burgeoning growth of the 19603, presidents have experienced changes in technology,
politics and legislation, demographics, the economy, competition and the marketplace
that significantly impact their institutions. “The problem of preparing for and keeping up
with the real world is not unique to the field of community college education. However,
it is of immediate import to two-year college educators, who must respond to continual
changes in the social, demographic, and economic conditions of their local service
districts. Just as the lights in the classroom building shine for our students at all hours of
the day and night, those who administer programs in these buildings require regular
rejuvenation or enlightenment” (Hankin,1996).

Many formal programs in higher education leadership exist in universities
throughout the US. today. While these programs have their own distinctive curriculum
sequences, their courses can be classified in one or more of the following conceptual
areas: introductory/foundation, theory, application, clinical/intemship experiences,
synthesis, research skills, dissertation research, continuing professional and lifelong
learning (Fife, 1991).

The challenge of leading community and technical colleges today is more

complex than ever before; “. . .the task of preparing administrative leadership cannot be

accomplished once and for all with a one-shot infusion of funds and attention (Young,
1996).

Implicit in a review of community college publications (Community College
Times, AACC Journal, CommunitLCollege Week, NCOE Workplfl, CRD Dis atch is
that community colleges are heterogeneous. “While they share a commitment to open
access, comprehensiveness and responsiveness to local needs, community colleges are a
diverse group of institutions” (Katsinas 1996). This diversity is reflected in geography,
demography, governance, size and economic environment. The community colleges’
diversity of culture, demography and environment affect the roles played by community
college presidents and impact their ability to serve successfully in those roles. Katsinas
(1996) speaks to the need to educate community college leaders in areas related to
heterogeneity: variations in governance and administration; finance, physical plant and
economic development; student characteristics; and teaching and learning issues.

Successful community college leaders today must not only possess the formal
academic preparation expected by their governing boards, but also develop a means to
continue learning on the job. Roe and Baker urge presidents to assess themselves as
leaders and identify and provide for the training of future leaders through planned
mentoring and professional development (1989). Senge advocates building operating
environments for learning through attention to learning infrastructure. CEOs “. . .will
increasingly come to realize that in a world of rapid change and increasing
interdependence, learning is too important to be left to chance” (Senge, 1998). By
extension, this also applies to the college presidents themselves. Societal forces are

impinging on higher education institutions, and the institutions must respond effectively

to them. Typical of these societal forces are the rising expectations of customer service
and convenience by students, the imposition of accountability measures by funding and
accrediting agencies, and the implications of embracing technology as a teaching and
learning tool.

Leadership skills are necessary for presidents who direct these institutions today
and in the future. To survive in this period of rapid change, higher education leaders
“. . .should understand and appreciate their own capacity for personal growth and
acknowledge the importance of life cycle stages in academic and administrative life”

(Murrell and Davis, 1991).

Skills and Information Required

Kubala’s (1999) study of 52 U. S. community college presidents appointed to
their positions between 1995 and 1997 indicates a self-reported need to understand
modern governance and transformation topics. Quality and team building (Baker, 1995)
and leadership and “followership” (Roe and Baker, 1989) are continuing themes in the
community college culture. Weisman and Vaughan (1997) speak to the importance of
board-president relationships in effective leadership of the community college.
Multiculturalism, technology and distance education, learning communities, learning
organizations and learning colleges are also issues to which community college leaders
must relate (Gallego, Green, O’Banion, Lever-Duffy and Lemke, 1996).

What does the current thinking suggest that current presidents should be
knowledgeable about? The 21St Century Leadership Project undertaken in 1995 by the

Institute of Higher Education at the University of Florida (Campbell and Leverty, 1997)

10

reflects a broad range of opinion. Further, it brings together in one place much of the
thinking of other contemporary writers and academics.

The purpose of the project was to identify the attributes of 21st century
community college leaders, providing a work profile for community college presidents.
A panel of community college experts including trustees, presidents, chief instructional
officers, chief financial officers and faculty constructed a work profile of the community
college leader at the dawn of the new millennium. Les Krieger, a consultant with Saville
and Holdsworth, Ltd., worked with the panel to construct the job objectives and tasks
which were segmented into specific general activities. Participants then ranked the job
objectives and tasks by the proportionate amount of time presidents should spend on each
activity.

The eight job objectives and tasks developed by the 21St Century Education
Leader Project are defined in the Definitions section of this document (Chapter 1). The
job objectives and tasks are confirmed within the sequence of modules developed by the
Kentucky Leadership Academy Model (Edwards, 1992), the North Carolina Community
College System’s Executive Management Leadership Institute (1992) and the Profile of
Kansas Community College Presidents (Parker and Parker, 1983).

Further, for the purposes of this questionnaire design, two Areas of Knowledge
were added to Campbell and Leverty’s list of job objectives and tasks. Teamwork and
Scholarship were not explicitly included in Campbell and Leverty’s list of job objectives
and tasks but are typical of the expectations of today’s presidents. Much has been written
about teamwork (Bensimon and Newmann, 1993; Baker, 1995) and its value to the

higher education enterprise. Presidents need to learn how to find and bring together

11

diverse minds and perspectives to contribute to problem solving and decision making.
Likewise, the value of scholarship to the president is well documented (T emplin, 1991;
Cross, 1990; Silber, 1988; Rouche, Baker and Rose, 1989) in gaining credibility, creating
institutional climate, focusing on core institutional values, and fostering presidential
renewal and revitalization.

For the purposes of this study, Teamwork and Scholarship have been added to the
list of eight job objectives and tasks developed by the 21S“ Century Education Leader
Project as the list of skills and information required by community college presidents.

Of particular interest is not only what presidents learn about but, more pointedly,
how much they invest (time, effort, and resources) in learning and whether there are
characteristics of the institutions or the presidents themselves which relate to these

investments in learning.

12

Chapter 111
MM
This chapter describes the survey procedures and research methods used in this
study. The following specific topics are described: (a) population, (b) design, (c)

instrumentation, ((1) data collection and (e) data analysis.

Population

The population studied was a census of Michigan public community college

presidents (n=28) as identified by the Michigan Department of Education.

Resegrch Design

The variables of interest in this descriptive study were characteristics of the
institutions and characteristics of the presidents that might relate to their taking
Affirmative Steps to Learn while on the job. These characteristics included enrollment
size and general fund budget as well as the age, gender and length of service of the
presidents. These variables—characteristics of the institutions and their presidents—were
examined to determine whether there was any relationship between the characteristics
and the presidents’ pursuit of learning on the job. Through the questionnaire, respondents
were provided an opportunity to quantify the amount of time and financial resources

devoted to learning.

13

Instrument Development

The questionnaire was developed to include the Key Areas of Knowledge,
circumstances in the internal and external environment and characteristics of the
presidents using a combination of checklists and closed-ended and open-ended questions
(see Appendix A). The survey questionnaire included a matrix with the Key Areas of
Knowledge and the Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn (methods of learning through
professional development) identified. Participants were asked to check each Key Area of
Knowledge they had pursued in the past year and by what Affirmative Steps they had
pursued them. Respondents were also asked to quantify the amount of time (in days)
spent learning.

The questionnaire was field tested with six Michigan community college
administrators to test for face validity. Each administrator was asked to complete the
questionnaire and identify any areas that required clarification or further definition (e.g.,
questionnaire instructions, terms used) and to report the amount of time it took to
complete the questionnaire. Results of the field test were used to refine and finalize the

questionnaire.

Dataf Collection
The questionnaire mailing included a cover letter, the questionnaire and a stamped
return envelope. Ten days after the initial mailing a postcard was sent to non-respondents
to encourage them to complete and return the questionnaire. A second follow-up was sent
21 days after the initial mailing. This included a cover letter, another copy of the

questionnaire and a stamped return envelope.

14

Data Anglvsis

The investment of time and resources in learning by presidents was totaled in
terms of days per year spent engaged in Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn and total
dollars spent. The Key Areas of Knowledge and Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn were
analyzed to determine in what areas presidents actively pursued learning and by what
methods. Cross-tabulations were performed between the Key Areas of Knowledge,
Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn and the variables of interest—characteristics of the
president and characteristics of the institution—to determine the relationships between
them. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

Based on the amount of time spent, money spent, academic enrollment, years
served as president, age of president, and highest degree earned, respondents were
organized into three groups for the purpose of analysis of each of these characteristics.
For example, time-spent responses were organized by respondents who spent more than
24 days, respondents who spent 13-24 days and respondents who spent fewer than 13
days taking Affirmative Steps to Learn. Money-spent responses were organized by
respondents who spent more than $7,000 per year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn,
respondents who spent from $4,001 to $7,000 per year and respondents who spent under
$4,000 per year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn.

The chi square was used to describe where important differences existed with
regard to what and how the Michigan community college presidents chose to learn when
compared to their institutional characteristics (e. g., enrollment size and budget size), their

personal characteristics (sex, years served and highest degree earned), time spent learning

15

and money spent learning. Since the chi square test is a measure of statistical
significance when the sample is randomly selected and the population in this study was a
census of all Michigan community college presidents (not randomly selected), the chi
square test results were described in terms of important differences rather than

statistically significant differences.

l6

Chapter IV
Results

The purpose of this chapter is to present the analysis of data from the Michigan
community college presidents’ questionnaire. Tables 1a-5 present information about the
demographics of the presidents and their institutions. Tables 6—13 show the significant
associations (at or below the .05 level), those that did not occur by chance, when
Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn were compared with Key Areas of Knowledge in terms
of the characteristics of the presidents and the characteristics of their institutions. The
percentages shown in Tables 6-13 represent the affirmative responses by category of
respondent for each characteristic.

Questionnaires were sent to a total of 28 public community college presidents in
the State of Michigan. This represents all of the public community college presidents
currently serving. Of this group, a total of 22 (73 percent) responded. It is this group of
22 that was used for the analyses presented in this chapter.

Tables la-lc show the survey participant demographics in terms of years served

as president, age of presidents and sex of presidents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years Served Ag
Valid N 21 .0000 21 .00
Missing 1 .0000 l .00
Mean 7.8786 58.76
Median 5.5000 60.00
Mode 1.0000 58.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table la: Participant Demographics—Years Served and Age (Mean, Median, Mode)

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Frequency Percent

Valid 48 1 4.5
49 l 4.5

52 l 4.5

55 l 4.5

56 l 4.5

58 4 18.2

59 l 4.5

60 2 9.1

61 4 18.2

62 1 4.5

64 3 13.6

65 1 4.5

Total Valid 21 95.5
Missing 1 4.5
Total 22 22 100.0

 

Table 1b: Participant Demographics—Ages of Presidents

As shown in Table la, respondents’ mean years of service as president is 7.87
years. Years of service range from 2 months to 21 years. Mean age is 58.76 years.

As illustrated in Table 1b, the youngest president is 48 years old and the oldest is

65 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Female 4 18.2
Male 18 81.8
Total 22 100.0

 

 

 

Table 1c: Participant Demographics—Sex

More than three-quarters (81.8 percent) of all Michigan public community college

are male and 18.2 percent are female.

Table 2 shows the highest formal degree earned of all Michigan public

community college presidents.

l8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
M.A.IM.S. 4 1 8.2
Ed.D. 5 22.7
Ph.D. 13 59. 1
Total 22 100.0

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Participant Demographics—Highest Degree Earned

As shown in Table 2, 81.8 percent of Michigan community college presidents
held doctorate degrees (Ph.D., 59.1 percent; Ed.D., 22.7 percent) followed by 18.2
percent with M.A.IMS. degrees. No president held less than a master’s degree.

Table 3 shows the number of Michigan community college presidents serving in

their first presidency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 72.7
No 5 22.7

Missing 1 4.5
Total 22 100.0

 

Table 3: Participant Demographics—First Presidency

Table 3 shows that the majority of Michigan community college presidents are
first—time presidents. A total of 72.7 percent are serving in their first presidency.

Table 4 shows institutional demographic data of academic credit enrollment, non-

credit enrollment and annual general fund budget.

19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Non-credit
Enrollment Enrollment Budget
Valid 20 20 21
Missing 2 2 1
Mean 7,878.1 5,999.8 34,757,142.86
Median 4,100.0 2,250.0 24,000,00000
Mode 1,200.0 1,500.0 10,000,000.00
Minimum 1,200.0 150.0 7,000,000.00
Maximum 25,000.0 35,000.0 120,000,000.00

 

Table 4a: Institutional Demographics—Academic Credit Enrollment, Non-credit Enrollment and

Annual General Fund Budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent

Valid 1,200—3,600 8 36.4
3,601—8,800 5 22.7
8,801-25,000 7 31.8

Total 20 90.9

MissinL 2 9. 1
Total 22 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4b: Institutional Demographics—Academic Credit Enrollment by Category

The mean academic credit enrollment at respondents’ colleges in the past year
was 7,878 students. Academic credit enrollment ranged from 1,200 students in academic

credit courses to 25,000 students in academic credit courses. Thirty-six and four-tenths

percent of the responding presidents represented institutions with 3,600 and fewer

students, 22.7 percent reported enrollment of 3,601-8,800 students and 31.8 percent

reported enrollments above 8,800. The mean non-credit enrollment at respondents’

colleges was nearly 6,000 students. Non-credit enrollment ranged from 150 to 35,000

students.

The mean annual general fund budget is $34,757,000. General fund budgets

ranged from $7 million to $120 million. A total of 52.4 percent of the colleges reported

their annual general fund budgets as $24 million or less.

20

 

Table 5 shows time spent taking Affirmative Steps to Learn and money spent

taking Affirmative Steps to Learn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Spent (Days) Money Spent

N Valid 19 20
Missing 3 2

Mean 21.58 $9,150
Median 20.00 $5,000
Mode 20.00 $5,000
Minimum 6.00 $2,500
Maximum 67.00 $35,000
Percentiles 25 l 1.00 $4,250
50 20.00 $5,000

75 25.00 $10,750

 

Table 5: Time Spent and Money Spent Taking Affirmative Steps to Learn

The mean time spent taking Affirmative Steps to Learn was 21.58 days. Time
spent taking Affirmative Steps to Learn while on the job in the past year varied from a
low of 6 days to a high of 67 days. Three.quarters of presidents spent 6-25 days per year
taking Affirmative Steps to Learn.

The mean money spent taking Affirmative Steps to Learn while on the job was
$9,150. Money spent taking Affirmative Steps to Learn while on the job in the past year
varied from a low of $2,500 to a high of $35,000. Half of the respondents spent $2,500-
5,000 and half spent over $5,000.

Presidents were asked which Key Areas of Knowledge and which Affirmative
Step3 were taken to learn during the past year. They were asked to indicate all Key Areas
of Knowledge and Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn that applied. For example, a

president could indicate that Planning was a Key Area of Knowledge that he learned

21

about and Affirmative Steps were taken to learn by Attending Workshops, Talking with
Other Presidents and Using the World Wide Web.

When applying the chi square analysis to the data sets for this question, several
areas were found to show important differences with regard to Key Areas of Knowledge
and Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn when considering the variables of time spent,
money spent, college academic enrollment, years served as president, first presidency,
age, sex and highest degree earned. For clarity of presentation only those cells that
showed important differences are presented. Percentages shown in the cells represent the
total number of affirmative responses for each response sub-category; therefore the
percentages shown will not equal 100.

Table 6 shows the important differences when Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn
are compared with Key Areas of Knowledge in terms of time spent. The important
differences as related to time spent occurred between Assessing/Evaluating and Talking
with Other Presidents; between Scholarship and using the World Wide Web; and between

Scholarship and Attending Meetings, Conferences, Symposia and Workshops.

22

5.33933.— ufifig 8 69.2530 55$ .389.— wczassuoba a ma 2.on oEw—nle 033—.

 

o\oo
can F
#5

n —v
3:9.
VNA

$3.
#6
$8

n _.v
vmé —
«NA

3:82 58.8% a 3:598 9.5558 .0 men
5 5 282885 is: .cSmgzaa .2 acailazesocom

 

v.8; mv262.8 22505 2 98.8
new 326338 3.5% 5509. mc_mc_5|u£u__=m 83..

 

8389a mcsmséoaemvlgfiooo

 

58850 masoaé
65283 2 225.8 5155323528 5032..

 

icicfieucadsxaoam ganglanzacozsom 230.325....

 

$255 5 2.2%
so: ESESESU no 282% acamoxluczeaomumac.53..

 

8:26.08 9:88
@8582 9:823 .926 2 8:2. oc_.8o__mlu:=coeo_ae_

 

$8 n v
*8 3.9
$8.. 35

222888589 5 .mmzfieogm
.282 26: .o 8:353 381532222333‘

 

8285382 96:228....
.Eam Emma 9538 52.9808 acaezoocwimczgzo:

 

82:89 E 82.25 gm .3553 06221555

 

an

991M PIJOM aux Bursn

 

A1 anuserarul
‘aauaiajuoaajaj

amazes ur Buriedrorued

 

sadej,

orpnwoapm Barman
asrnoo

ripen-non e u! Bumorua

asmoo

83099199143
anus B "l Bummua

mm turn 60mm
paroiuau Bugag
33261363 15019an

 

 

 

 

 

sdousxroM

‘egsoduMs ‘saouarajuoo

 

‘sbugraaw Burpuauv

 

uogrezgu'e' bro

leuogssajord

e lo raqmaw e Bugaa

 

 

 

53.. 2 :93... 305 o>=aE.._t<

 

33.265. .0 «33 >3.

 

 

23

As seen in Table 6, presidents who spent more than 24 days in the past year
taking Affirmative Steps to Learn were more inclined to Attend Meetings, Conferences
and Symposia; to Talk with Other Presidents; and to Use the World Wide Web than those
who spent fewer than 24 days in the past year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn.

Table 7 shows the important differences that exist when Affirmative Steps Taken
to Learn are compared with Key Areas of Knowledge in terms of money spent. The
important differences as related to money spent occurred between Motivating and Using
the World Wide Web; between Motivating and Attending Retreats; between
Assessing/Evaluating and Talking with Other Presidents; between PR/Developing
Relationships and Being Mentored; between Team Building and Attending Retreats; and

between Team Building and Being Mentored.

24

53:589.!— mEans— S 69:2.an :25? 33a..— u==a_.=o..oE: a ma 2.on 852'» 033—.

 

$8 83v
$3 805.83
$8 88.?

83282 8:88 238
Ins-88.53. 8.8.33»...

 

8059: 8 m8?»
8: £88288 8 .828
m=_8o¥lac_cenoaoEac_Ea3

 

885.88 metamco
.8988. 888.8 .88
2 8:8 acamoenlucacusoaé

 

 

 

 

$8 83v 88885889 8
$2 82483 89888 .282 38 8 88296
$8 8»? 881582885383
8 83v 8 83v 88888: 988888
$9 8583 $8 8:83 .88 .82 9588 88888
$3 88? $8 8N? 85228585850:
82:82 .2 8:88 9.28
.8888 28888588
n i d M i n. m. .m. v 0 33.265.
W. mT m w m m W W W m m m m be 23.3 >3.
m o m m m M m. w w. w m. .. w
o w. W M W W 5 5 WM W N
M m M D. W O a m. m. r n O m
o 0 .l. m a B m m u
W m u V W w. W W 0 w. u M
W. M W m. . u w. u. 5 m...
P O W. m. d .r H 0 .1 2
m u m u. m w m m m a
m w m p w m w m.
M W M 0 m 8
w m m.
ml.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53.. 2 :93... 38m gas—SF?

 

 

 

25

 

 

. [358.
$838.0 3 .9»?on 9.35:8
.o men an 5 289583 6.55
.8333 .2 235122238

 

$8 8v? $2. 83v
$9 85483 $8 85.83

{as 282.8 28:63
2 $8.8 2m @8828 85%
8588 u=_u=EIu=_u__=m E8»

 

3:. 82% $8. 82%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53.. 3 :93... 305 gauge:

 

8988
233583315289
.6585»
acseqfi .3285 2 225.8
315589838 5.32m
m 1 d M u E m. o onto—305.
m. m. M w m m W m m. WW w m. .0 «3.2 >3.
I. U D. u u U.
m ..u W 5 5 W m. u u M. m. B
a M M W m. .D m. m. s! B W W
m Run D. O U W W M W W m
w .n m. m m w m m 9 mm m
m m m m a m w w u m m.
P m m. d nu .m .1 B
m mm m m. m m s m. m
m. 0 O 9 a nu: I.
M A w m o m m.

 

 

.6..§3 b 2.3

26

As seen in Table 7, presidents who spent more than $7,000 in the past year taking
Affirmative Steps to Learn about Motivating were more inclined to attend retreats and
Use the World Wide Web than presidents who spent less than $7,000 in the past year
taking Affirmative Steps to Learn about Motivating.

Presidents who spent $4,001-$7,000 and presidents who spent more than $7,000
in the past year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn about Assessing/Evaluating were more
inclined to talk with other presidents than presidents who spent less than $4,000 in the
past year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn about Assessing/Evaluating.

Presidents who spent more than $7,000 in the past year taking Affirmative Steps
to Learn about PR/Developing Relationships were more inclined to Be Mentored than
presidents who spent less than $7,000 in the past year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn
about PR/Developing Relationships.

Presidents who spent more than $7,000 in the past year taking Affirmative Steps
to Learn about Team Building were more inclined to attend retreats and be mentored than
presidents who spent less than $7,000 in the past year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn
about Team Building.

Table 8 shows where important differences existed with regard to Affirmative
Steps Taken to Learn when compared to Key Areas of Knowledge in terms of academic
enrollment size. The differences related to academic enrollment occurred between
Planning and Participating in Satellite Teleconferences or Interactive TV; between
Implementing and Talking with Other Presidents; between Problem Solving/Designing
and Attending Meetings, Conferences, Symposia, Workshops; between Problem

Solving/Designing and Talking with Other Presidents; between Team Building and

27

Participating in Satellite Teleconferences or Interactive TV; and between Scholarship and

Attending meetings, Conferences, Symposia or Workshops.

28

5:36:55:— uEana 8 3.2.8.5 3:3 .32...— mezazaoeota a ma Eng—8:”.— u_=.o_.3<|m 033—.

 

 

 

:5 59V
$8 $8.58
3o 8»?

9.282 58.3% .o .320me 9.55:8 .0 men an
s 22.858... in... £88.33 .2 mafiangum

 

58v
83.88
88A

*6
*9.
3o

£2, «38:8 28:9. 0. $8.8
can “098328 8.6% 5582 chcEIoEESm Eco...

 

838% age-usesmomclussooa

 

$2 58v
$8.. 88.38
*8 88A

$8 58v
*8. 88.38
$m~ 83A

356% masoafi
.3285 2 28:6” guisesoooaszom .539...

 

smfifica 928% ganglamzucefioflcagoém

 

2559: do «52%.... 39.
£888.98 .o 2.39% acaomlczenonomBsfiafi

 

$8 Somv
$09 88.58
$3 88A

Sans—=08 9.525 68582
2:826 .228 2 $26 acumoofiluczcosoaé

 

23%:3882 5 .moémsogm
.982 go: .o coamagm _8_moTu=_fi=_n>Eac_»8nm<

 

833388 96:998....
.Eam Ema. 8:88 626388 @5858colusfi503

 

3o 88v
*6 88.38
$9 88A

89:82 .2 8:55 9.29. 65:53 05231553....

 

(19M

°PlM PIJOM em Bum

 

M. armament]

‘oauuquooom
curious 0! Summarised

M21

orpnwoopm fiuwm

 

 

mermaid

mm mm 60mm

 

powwow Bursa

 

mu Burpuenv

whoa

upon-non e u! Bumorug

 

 

wnoo

two a U! Bummer

 

sdoumoM

‘egsodurks ‘saaumaguoa

‘sfiunoow Burpueuv

uouazgucmo

 

leuogssogord

a to requiem e Bursa

 

 

53.. 2 :93... 38m gas—Ea:

 

332265. ho «no.2 >3.

 

 

29

As seen in Table 8, presidents of colleges with academic enrollments of over
8,800 students in the past year who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Planning were
more inclined to Participate in Satellite Teleconferences or Interactive TV than presidents
of colleges with academic enrollments below 8,800 students in the past year.

Presidents of colleges with academic enrollments of 3,601-8,800 in the past year
who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Implementing were more inclined to Talk
with Other Presidents than presidents of colleges with academic enrollments below 3,600
and academic enrollments above 8,800 students in the past year.

Presidents of colleges with academic enrollments of 3,601-8,800 in the past year
who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Problem Solving/Designing were more
inclined to Attend Meetings, Conferences, Symposia, or Workshops than presidents of
colleges with academic enrollments below 3,600 and academic enrollments above 8,800
students in the past year.

Presidents of colleges with academic enrollments from 1,200-3,600 and academic
enrollments from 3,601-8,800 in the past year who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about
Problem Solving/Designing were more inclined to talk with other presidents than those
with academic enrollments above 8,800 in the past year.

Presidents of colleges with academic enrollments of 3,601-8,800 in the past year
who took Affirmative Steps to Learn were more inclined to learn about Team Building by
Participating in Satellite Teleconferences or Interactive TV than presidents of colleges
with academic enrollments below 3,601 in the past year and presidents of colleges with

academic enrollments above 8,800 students in the past year.

30

Presidents of colleges with academic enrollments of 3,601—8,800 in the past year
who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Scholarship were more inclined to Attend
Meetings, Conferences, Symposia or Workshops than presidents of colleges with
academic enrollments below 3,601 in the past year and presidents of colleges with
academic enrollments above 8,800 students in the past year.

Table 9 shows where important differences existed when Affirmative Steps Taken
to Learn are compared with Key Areas of Knowledge with regard to years served as
president. The important differences as related to years served as president occurred
between Motivating and Being Mentored; between Planning and Being Mentored;
between PR/Developing Relationships and Being a Member of a Professional
Organization; between Deciding and Attending Retreats; between Team Building and
Attending Retreats; and between Scholarship and Being a Member of a Professional

Organization.

31

eczfiggtam "553‘— 8 69.2.an 55$ .33...— wfieazcflota a an Per—om 9.254 93:...

 

at 8.?
35m 33” $383 923-83.815293
8c wk

 

 

EcoBEmlmcseaé .mEozoa
2 22.28 socluc_=u_8oac_>_om .532;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Nov mcfisuca 6%.me

x m 2% gaalazaoié 8.8.053...

3559: 6 «E29,? 39. £558.28

.o 1.69% 8581:2288135584

coam=§o8d=§mco .m8.=o§=a§__m

.926 2 83% m=a8o=mluczcoeoa§

28852589 8 .moémemgm «$2 32.

Co Susana _8_mon=_§_a>maso83<

fin 5.? «9:858? Engage: .Eam Ema.

Hm. foam 9583 52.9268 959:8..158502

*3 va 82:32 .2

”mp foam 3:53 9.23 65:53 2a2§1=.=§£

mm mmmu um WM m W 9% mum. kmw Mum... out¢§0c¥3ma€<>¢¥

a.u 089W dm. mu Wm nm wuo Wu
6 m a u w. u M u m u n... H u H d u. u m B
m w m w d .w 5 w w o m. a m. o m w .m a
a 9.. m m mm m m mm. m. mum mun
m Mm .w m o u w w w .mm m m m m
W s” m. V m M. N 0 O W N.
n a m w. m. u w
w m. I. . u w. m Io.
” O N a B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53.. 3 :oxah 38m Qua-Eu:

 

 

 

32

Table 9 (cont’d).

 

am
0pm worn out Bum

 

Al GAMBJOIUI
‘oouomuooolol

curious u! Windowed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

work

 

soda],
orpnwoopm 60mm
E momma
3 «mowfiumu
.J
9..
5 powwow Butoa
x
u
1|—
a
Q
3 32 32 32
1m 23 8 3
n, my Burpueuv Q
s as.
a 3? $5 ‘3
g- whoa
1< upon-noun; Bummua
wnoo
upon a u! Bummer
sdoqmpoM
‘egsoduMs ‘soouoioiuoo
‘sfiugoow Bugpuouv
BEE—95
uonezguemo '5 to
[ammonia a? .—
2 J0 Joqtuow a Bugoa co 5 g.
A «S v
33’
0) .
o ->
a 2 E g;
'6 g - E m
2 ‘5 8 =1?
3 8 E 8 a
as; a:
g as. a s
- ‘éf; E“:
o -- .-
m 8% 2’ § E
a i :a 5 §
2 % i5 3
< % w .. "’ E
>, ..-. g .c: g 8
o a a g :3 u
3‘ 5 § '6 § §
3 2 A: 13
I— 8. (3 g. 3

 

 

U)
U)

As seen in Table 9, presidents who had the least number of years served as
president, 02-30 years, and who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Motivating were
more inclined to Be Mentored than those who had served from 301-800 years as
president and those who had served more than 8 years as president. Presidents who had
the least number of years served as president, 02-30 years, and who took Affirmative
Steps to Learn about Planning were also more inclined to Be Mentored than those who
had served from 301-800 years as president and those who had served more than 8 years
as president.

Also in Table 9, presidents who had served 3.01—8.00 years as president and who
learned about PR/Developing Relationships were more inclined to Be Members of a
Professional Organization than those who had served from 02-30 years as president and
those who had served more than 8 years as president.

Presidents who had served from 0.2-3.0 years and 3.01-8.00 years as president
and learned about Deciding were more inclined to Attend Retreats than those who had
served more than 8 years as president.

Presidents who had served from 02-30 years and 301-800 years as president
and learned about Team Building were more inclined to Attend Retreats than those who
had served more than 8 years as president.

Presidents who had served 3.01-8.00 years as president and learned about
Scholarship were more inclined to Be Members of a Professional Organization than those
who had served from 02-30 years as president and those who had served more than 8

years as president.

34

Table 10 shows where important differences existed when Affirmative Steps
Taken to Learn are compared with Key Areas of Knowledge with regard to first
presidency. The important differences as related to first presidency occurred between
Planning and Attending Retreats; between Planning and Using the World Wide Web;
between Problem Solving/Designing and Talking with Other Presidents; and between

Deciding and Attending Retreats.

35

Table 9 (cont’d).

 

cI’M
aI’IM PHOM all} 6“I'll

 

A1 °WN°WI
‘oouuowooom

outlaws u: Boundiawsd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oodol
cipnwoopm 60mm
5 momma
3 moo tum Bunnu
.l
2
5 powwow Buioa
x
a
l-
to
Q
3 as as as
c, macs Buipusnv
a “is
a 3‘3 35 ‘5’
lg: oomoo
< upoaoouou o u! Bumowg
ounoo
IIPOJO 9 u! Willow!
sdoqmpoM
‘ogoodmlls ‘ooouoioiuoa
‘oBunoom Bulpuouv
SEE
uonozguoBJo .— IO
|euogssomd a? .—
2 go Joquiow o Bugoa co :5 g
A «S v
3’
o .
o -’
a 8 E '3;
'D g g E ‘1’
35¢ g3
E— o—v '5 a
g 3 5:3 g {a
=§§ 38
x "’ o as.—
3%; 53
a E 2% g g 3"
I c
212 23
<§§ 22
> g _> E :2 a
3‘ E § '7'; c 8
39 ‘33
t— 8. 13 a 3

work

 

 

 

DJ
0\

As seen in Table 10, presidents serving in their first presidency who took
Affirmative Steps to Learn about Planning in the past year were more inclined to Attend
Retreats than non-first-time presidents. Presidents serving in their first presidency who
took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Planning were also more inclined to Use the World
Wide Web than non-first—time presidents.

Also as seen in Table 10, presidents serving in their first presidency who took
Affirmative Steps to Learn about Problem Solving/Designing in the past year were more
inclined to Talk with Other Presidents than non-first-time presidents. Presidents serving
in their first presidency who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Deciding in the past
year were more inclined to Attend Retreats than non-first-time presidents.

Table 11 shows the important differences that occur when Affirmative Steps
Taken to Learn are compared with Key Areas of Knowledge with regard to the
president’s highest degree earned. The important differences as related to highest degree
earned occurred between Planning and Attending Meetings, Conferences, Symposia,
Workshops; between Planning and Being Mentored; between Motivating and Talking
with Other Presidents; between Motivating and Being Mentored; between PR/Developing
Relationships and Enrolling in a Non-credit Course; and between Deciding and Viewing

Video/Audio Tapes.

37

522—32.!— wEana 8 69:35.5 55$ .82...— u=za3=ouo=5 a an .553— oouuo: 3235': 03:.

 

EcoBEWmcsqu .mswzeq
o. 8828 seizisnou‘aciouéozoi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53.. 2 :93... 2.8m o>za§E<

 

$8. 3.2:
*3 Cum 9.7.3.22
$8. 95 .9283 ganglazucoanam 2.3.28»:—
mcoSoE 5 mega? 39. £55398
.o .823 mcaumxluczeaoooEuEEafi
8:26.08 9:35 @8582
95823 .83.. 9 8:3. acamoofilucacoeoafi
28885882 6 326526 .802
to: .o 5:93;. _8_mo_lu£fi=_a>m3£$oua<
$2: wig). $8. mg
38 ca *8 ca asaosaza: 322285 is
88. of $8? of 88. 9588 688808 83885155350:
*2: 9222 *9: mg:
$3 cum $9. com 89:89
*2: oi $2: and .8 8:53 9.58 .9553 Ragnamlucacnt
n 1 d M 1 v o a M o v d onto—305. no «no.2 >3.
m mm m m m m mm m com mm
5 m. u m 5 m. w m m w W W. m5
m w. m M w m .w m w m m. m
m mm p m m a m. w. a m n m m
w ..... m. m m w w u o .k. w o a
I n o I. u m J
M W W P m u m. m B a o
m” o m m. d n u .m .8 u N.
M w. u. m. W m. m M
a p flu n c 0
a. O M W w u
M

 

 

38

 

3:89 58.8%
.o .3393. 32:80 3 men an 5 232535
8.35 52.9333 .8 mcailazesocow

 

{o3 938:8 m§___o& 2 35.2 new
830838 3.96 Esomo. acactnluszsm E3...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53.. 8 :93... «35 gags—Ea.

{coowwzzz
$8 9m.
$8? of. mommmooa maimEéngovlusEoco
M NH M m. m W m. m: mww mm mafia—Bocx ho ma8< >3.
a?» w wwwwwmmmum .
mmm m anmmmummme
e a m m. B m. m. «min on
mm.” moaww.»wm.m
w mm. m m w m u 3 Wm. mm
M I n a m w w mu
I. m. D. J . 5 8m...
9 8m m. d 3 nu “.8 W!
W WW 9 W. nu m .1 o
q a m m m m u
m. m

 

 

 

528v : 93.;

39

As seen in Table 11, presidents whose highest degree earned was a Ph.D. and who
took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Planning were more inclined to Attend Meetings,
Conferences, Symposia and Workshops than presidents whose highest degree earned was
an Ed.D. or M.A.lM.S.

Presidents whose highest degree earned was an M.A.IM.S. and who took
Affirmative Steps to Learn about Planning were more inclined to Be Mentored than those
whose Highest Degree‘eamed was an Ed.D. or Ph.D.

Presidents whose highest degree earned was a Ph.D. and who took Affirmative
Steps to Learn about Motivating were more inclined to Talk with Other Presidents than
those whose highest degree earned is an Ed.D. or M.A.IM.S.

Presidents whose highest degree earned was an M.A.IM.S. and who took
Affirmative Steps to Learn about Motivating were more inclined to Be Mentored than
those whose highest degree earned was an Ed.D. or Ph.D.

Presidents whose highest degree earned was an M.A.IM.S. and who took
Affirmative Steps to Learn about PR/Developing Relationships were more inclined to
Enroll in a Non-credit Course than those whose highest degree earned was an Ed.D. or
Ph.D.

Presidents whose highest degree earned was an M.A.IM.S. and who took
Affirmative Steps to Learn about Deciding were more inclined to View Video/Audio
Tapes than those whose highest degree earned was an Ed.D. or Ph.D.

Table 12 shows the important differences when Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn
are compared with Key Areas of Knowledge with regard to president’s age. The

important differences as related to president’s age occurred between

40

Assessing/Evaluating and Being Mentored; between Implementing and Using the World
Wide Web; between PR/Developing Relationships and Being Mentored; and between

Team Building and Using the World Wide Web.

41

.832.

3......— «5:8

 

«A 8 8.2.5.5 855 .83....— wazfifiououa a 8 uu< mucuEmohmlfi 033—.

 

 

 

 

9.208. 583.83 8 .ofimfiflfléEB .o 88
8 5 885885 6.65 528252. .9 8283:8228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$8 3v
$o 8.3 etc; 2828 o§___o& 2 38.8
$o 8A new 88898 88% 8582 8581525 E8...
885828878583
58650 839mg
58.8.... 9 88:8 815888528 .832“.
$8 3v
$0 8.3
$o 8A 885.22 .8388 28:35:28.8 8.8.2503“.
8o£oE .o ween? 8:
£888.98 .0 .828 8381:2288Euse84
$8 3v
$3 8.3 88588 8888 89:89
$o 8A 888.? .88 2 8:8 8382158835.
$8 3v
$o 8.3 88885589 6 82888
$o 8A .882 8: .o 88296 .mgmoTaczuagmasmaonna.
mm>aoe88cgu8§8§
88 89 8:85 689088 8858:15858
«858m. .2 888358 .8385 oaegmHgacuE
MM. IWMWJWW mm m m Mm. mm mmm .mmm auum_iocxhouufi<>ox
a pmMsu.mu a m mm mm. wow m»...
m .u: d 5 a B W m. u o u u. W m. w. B
a mom. mmm. m a m. m. «as Mow
m M w nun P o 8 w w s a W w W. m
w .m m. w m w w N o .w. m M
W M m. m nu. w. m .w .0...
w m m. m u m ... ..
fl nu um.
58.. 2 :93... 2.8m gauge:

 

 

 

42

As seen in Table 12, the youngest presidents (those under age 57) who took
Affirmative Steps to Learn about Assessing/Evaluating in the past year were more
inclined to Be Mentored than presidents age 57-60 and presidents age 61-65.

Presidents under age 57 who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Implementing
in the past year were more inclined to Use the World Wide Web than presidents above
age 57-60 and presidents age 61-65.

Presidents under age 57 who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about
PR/Developing Relationships in the past year were more inclined to Be Mentored than
presidents age 57-60 and presidents age 61-65.

Presidents under age 57 who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about Team
Building in the past year were more inclined to Use the World Wide Web than presidents
age 57-60 and presidents age 61-65.

Table 13 shows the important differences that exist when Affirmative Steps
Taken to Learn are compared with Key Areas of Knowledge with regard to president’s
sex. The important difference as related to president’s sex occurred between

PR/Developing Relationships and Attending Retreats.

43

5.39.98...— uEEaQ— 3 8.2.5.5 855 38a..— u:..a..=o..u.=.a a 8 8min— 03a...

 

48.58. 8288 .o 8.896 3.8.2.8 .o 88 8
c. m§m.=m8a 5.8. £88.38 a. 8....sl.....aa.o..om

 

to; 828:8 98.8. o. 38.3
.8 8.8828 88>... 8588. 8.8.5l8.u..=m E8...

 

8889m§m$=2m8ulmsauoo

 

. 58.05%..398.
58.29.. 2 again 8158893528 832m

 

$3 288“.

$8

8.32

8.8.8:. .8288 3.82.85.58 8.8.838.

 

«858. 8 28.98 38
£88288 8 885m 8381:...88835584

 

8852088888 @858.
8.80.8 .88 o. 8...... 8..moo__u|8..88.ae_

 

8o..885889 8 8288.8
.88. 38 .0 88.88 .8.8.|8.fi=_a>m.8.o88<

 

88838858288:
8.8 E8. 8.88 52.988 8.8588I885o:

 

«8.8. 8. 888888 8.8m... 0.8.8ml8...8_..

 

99M

091M puom an: Bum

 

____

soda;

A1 01¢me
ownwoeput 50mm

‘aouaiaiuoaom

outlaws u! Bumdtawcd

—7

 

 

 

momma

mm um fiumu

 

powwow Bung

 

mama 5'1!me

 

081003

upon-non a u; Bumomg

 

«moo

was I U! Buulwua

 

sdoqsiqu

‘egsoduMs ‘muamuoo

“saunas" Bugpuauv

uonezguefiio

 

ueuogssamd

e {O mute" a Bugea

 

 

58.. 8 coo—a... 2.3m gamete:

 

888.265. no «no.3 >3.

 

 

44

As seen in Table 13, female presidents who took Affirmative Steps to Learn about
PR/Developing Relationships in the past year were more inclined to Attend Retreats than

male presidents.

45

Chapter V
Conclusions
The data collected and analyzed in this study draw upon a broad range of
elements that relate to Affirmative Steps taken by Michigan community college
presidents to learn and pursue personal professional development. These data can be
confusing. In order to bring the results of the study into sharper focus, the data and
related analysis are queried from a series of distinct perspectives that are outlined below.
Each distinct perspective is followed by conclusions and observations supported by the

data and analysis.

Learning on the Job: Chagcteristics MRelate to What and How

Analysis of the Michigan community college presidents’ approaches to learning
suggest that a number of relationships exist between personal and institutional
characteristics and what and how presidents choose to learn on the job. Not surprisingly
the data confirm that, even though presidents may hold advanced formal academic
degrees, they continue to pursue additional learning on the job. Certain personal
characteristics of the president—age, sex, length of time as president, first presidency and
highest degree eamed—appear to have a connection to what and how presidents choose
to learn. Those who are serving in their first presidency are more inclined to Attend
Retreats and Use the World Wide Web than are non-first-time presidents. Those who
have the least number of years served as president are more inclined to Be Mentored than

those who have served for more than 3.01 years as president.

46

Characteristics of the institution—enrollments and annual general fund budgets—
also appear to have a connection to what and how presidents choose to learn. Presidents
of colleges who enroll 3,601-8800 students are more inclined to talk with other presidents
when learning about Implementing and Problem Solving/Designing. Presidents who
spend more than $7,001 annually on Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn are more inclined
to Attend Retreats and Use the World Wide Web when learning about Motivating.
Presidential investment, as measured by the amount of time engaged in learning and
budget spent on learning, appears to have an important connection with how presidents

choose to learn.

Learning on the Job: What
Using the Campbell and Leverty taxonomy (1997), the top three Key Areas of
Knowledge cited by Michigan community college presidents as topics they engaged in
learning about in the past year were: Leaming/Researching and keeping abreast of new
systems or methods; Planning, strategic planning, setting priorities for resources; and

Assessing/Evaluating new ideas, alternatives or recommendations.

gaming on the Job: Whv
It is possible that interest in these three Key Areas of Knowledge—Leaming/
Researching, Planning, and Assessing/Evaluating—is a direct reflection of the pace of
change in the external environment and the associated demands experienced by
presidents. Increased competition, heightened expectations for accountability and limited

financial resources have resulted in increased uncertainty for community colleges and

47

their leaders. It is not surprising that staying abreast of contemporary issues in higher
education, management in the face of scarce resources and acquiring new tools for

strategic planning are paramount in the minds of presidents.

Michigan Communitv College Presidential Profile
Versus the Ngtional Profile

When considering the usefulness of this study, it is interesting to note that the
demographic profile of Michigan community college presidents is similar to college and
university presidents nationwide (Ross and Green, 2000). First, presidents are primarily
male with an average age in their late 505. Further, Michigan community college
presidents typically have a slightly longer tenure in their positions than their college and
university peers. The mean is 8 years for Michigan community college presidents and 7
for US. college and university presidents. It appears that when Michigan community
college presidents are appointed, they tend to stay. Michigan community college
presidents hold doctoral degrees at about the same percentage as their US. college and
university counterparts. Eighty-two percent of Michigan community college presidents

hold Ph.D.s or Ed.D.s versus 81 percent of US. college and university presidents.

Affirmative Steps Eken to Learn: World Wide Web
When examining the statistically significant associations among Affirmative
Steps Taken to Learn, the following pattern emerges in relation to Using the World Wide
Web. Presidents under age 60 are significantly more likely to Use the Web to learn.

Likewise, first-time presidents are significantly more likely to Use the Web to learn. No

48

presidents over age 60 selected this method when identifying Affirmative Steps Taken to

Learn.

World Wide Web Use: Why

The under-age-60 and first-time presidents’ use of the World Wide Web is an area
for further investigation. Is there simply a generation gap or are there other, more
important factors at work? This item offers food for thought. Many older computer
users, those age 60 and above, are some of the most capable and committed Web surfers
(Tapscott, 1998). Frequently, however, these reports on Web users focus on those who
have retired and who use the Web to maintain an important “window on the world”—as
opposed to fully engaged senior presidents at the height of their influence.

These preliminary findings may lead one to speculate that younger presidents are
more computer literate or have more experience with searching and gleaning information
from the Web than older presidents. Alternatively, it may be that older presidents do not
consider the Web a reliable source of information and a resource for learning.

Surfing the Web can be a time-consuming experience and, according to this
survey, those who spend more days per year learning are more likely to use the Web.
Thus, it may be that younger presidents are more inclined, through enculturation and peer
pressure, to invest time and effort in exploring and using the Web and/or are willing to
spend more time on their learning.

Presidents who spend more money per year learning are more likely to use the
Web. This could be a result of having more budget to spend on computer hardware,

software and “anywhere/anytime” intemet connectivity. These investments alone might

49

account for an increased tendency to use this method of learning. In summary, Web use

and presidential on-the-job learning deserves further investigation.

Personaflonnections MW

Personal relationships, both peer and mentor, appear to play an important role in
on-the—job learning for presidents. Cross-tabulation of questionnaire responses revealed
the strong statistical significance of the categories Being Mentored and Talking with
Other Presidents. Questions abound with regard to these learning strategies in which
presidents rely on other presidents and mentors. This study suggests some preliminary
answers.

First, what is the profile of a president who is more likely to seek the advice and
counsel of other presidents when taking Affirmative Steps to Learn? Apparently, he—
there are more male than female presidents—is a relatively younger president and a first-
time president. As Marlene Ross, principal author of the report of the most recent (2000)
American Council on Education survey of college and university presidents, notes,
“People think that women and minorities are getting all the jobs, but the data do not
support that.” Further, the study of Michigan community college presidents’ approaches
to learning also suggests that these presidents typically spend more time and money
learning and they lead institutions with enrollments of 3,600-8,800 students.

Second, what is the case with longer-tenured presidents? The assumption is that
more experienced presidents are being called upon to share their insight and knowledge.

Apparently their less experienced colleagues consider them important resources.

50

On the surface, this is not a surprise because there is a universal tradition of
placing value on knowledge and wisdom gained through experience. However,
according to the American Council on Education study of presidents (2000), most new
presidents report that they believe they are well prepared for the position. Apparently

this is not always true in practice.

Clearly, looking at the presidential chair and occupying the chair are different
experiences. Colleagues frequently comment on the tendency of a new president to put
off decisions or demonstrate a pattern of “protracted hesitancy” in decision-making. It is
possible that the advice and counsel of seasoned presidents is both a comfort and a

stimulus to new presidents as they chart their course.

Community colleges may be perceived as straightforward, even provincial, local
institutions. The truth of the matter, however, is that they have evolved into dynamic,
complex and, most importantly, extremely flat organizations. Presidents exercise little
direct authority based on the model of the military chain of command. Instead most
presidents must look elsewhere for leadership strategies. They must impart authority
based on the more sophisticated exercise of manipulating myths and symbols or gaining
positive influence through strategies derived from political science—coalition building,

strategic positioning and successful negotiation with various stakeholders.

Profile of Presidents Who Seek Mentors for Leaming
Presidents who seek mentors for learning are younger, have fewer than three
years on the job, have less formal education and tend to spend more than $7,000 annually

on their learning. They seek advice and counsel from others who are presumably more

51

experienced and in whom they have confidence. These mentors are not necessarily other
presidents and may not even be associated with higher education. A more detailed
investigation of community college presidents’ mentor/”mentee” relationships may be

warranted.

Approaches Used by Presidents Who flke Affirmative Steps to Learl

What are the steps they take? From this study it is evident that presidents who
spend more time to learn do so by electing to Use the World Wide Web, Attend Meetings
and Conferences and Talk with Other Presidents. This information, while definitive only
for Michigan community college presidents, suggests implications for those who want to
encourage community college presidents to engage in professional development. There
appears to be an emphasis on more self—directed learning (Using the Web, Talking with
Other Presidents, Being Mentored) than on other-directed learning such as Attending
Meetings and Conferences, Being a Member of a Professional Organization or Enrolling
in a Course. This apparent emphasis on self-directed learning could be a result of
presidents’ desire to take responsibility for and manage their own learning, less-than-
satisfactory formal learning experiences or issues of time and convenience. Further
investigation of presidents’ motivation toward self-directed learning may yield additional
insights.

Consultants who provide facilitation services should note that Attending Retreats
is a preferred method for learning among first-time presidents, female presidents,

experienced presidents and those who spend more than $7,000 per year on learning.

Despite the continued public—sector emphasis on satellite teleconferencing,
interactive TV, video/audio production and other technologically mediated learning—
with the exception of using the Web—few important differences are associated with
Affirmative Steps Taken to Learn and Key Areas of Knowledge. It appears that those
who choose to learn via technology are more likely to be Using the Web rather than
Viewing Satellite TV or Video/Audio Tapes.

Based on this study of Michigan community college presidents and their
preferences for learning, it is safe to say that these presidents are willing to take steps to
learn on the job. They are self-directed, are learning about issues that extend beyond
day-to-day events and tend to focus on the future of their colleges.

The fact that Michigan presidents rely on Talking with Other Presidents could be
both a help and a hindrance. On the positive side, seasoned presidents represent the voice
of the “tried and true,” an experienced perspective and an understanding of practical
approaches to issues. On the negative side, the tendency to seek counsel from other
presidents might offer a limited perspective—one circumscribed by past experience and
events. The “tried and true” can inform but can also limit options and perspective.
Again, it is clear that additional investigation is needed in order to speak with assurance

about the nature and extent of counsel solicited and received by presidents.

Summary Advice for Presidents
It is recommended that presidents establish a broad-based network of professional
colleagues, including respected presidents and others in professional arenas. They should

confer with trusted presidents regularly. They should attend conferences and professional

53

meetings in order to stay current with useful management strategies and contemporary
issues affecting higher education and community colleges. They should get on the
Web—seek referrals for useful Web sites, learn how to use the various search engines
and stay up-to-date with access technology.

The results of this study suggest that opportunities for real-time interaction with
other presidents, trusted advisors and other professionals could be a valuable
enhancement for presidential learning. Although increased peer-to-peer interaction time
may be beneficial, what do presidents talk about? Does Mentoring or Talking with Other
Presidents include dialog in the areas of most concern or does it focus on areas of
commonality? Are topics deep and fundamental or superficial and marginal? The Key
Areas of Knowledge are subject to interpretation. Each could be pulled apart to
determine the major issues suggested within Planning, Motivating, Deciding and so on.
The substance and content of mentoring and presidential conversations is a topic of

personal interest to this researcher and indicates an area for further study.

Summary Advice for those Attempting to Influence Presidents
The prevalence of self—directed learning preferences suggests increased
customization of information and learning formats. Individual learning such as Using the
Web, Being Mentored, Talking with Other Presidents and made-to-order group learning
such as Attending Retreats appear to be preferred methods of learning by Michigan
community college presidents. While generalizations to the population of community
college presidents are not suggested, segmented marketing to target presidential

audiences (i.e. those who have fewer than three years on the job, those who spend more

54

than $7,000 per year taking Affirmative Steps to Learn) may be an effective way to
encourage presidents to direct their professional development resources. In particular,
this study provides insight into the importance of peer and mentor relationships to
presidents—word of mouth and targeted written communication—and their potential as

presidential communication tools.

55

Bibliography

Baker, GA. (1995). '_l"e_am Building for Quality: Transitions in the
Americzm Community College. Washington, DC: American Association of
Community Colleges and National Center for Higher Education.

Beaumont, R.F., eta]. (1996). Leadership Abstragta. League for Innovation
in the Community College, 9, No. 1-12.

Bensimon, EM. and Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigping Collegiate
Leadership. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Campbell, DP. and Leverty, L.H. (1997 February/March). Developing
leaders for the 21st century. Community College Journal, 91, 34-36.

Edwards, AC. (1992, September). Preparing the next generation: The
Kentucky leadership academy model. Greenwood, SC: Southern Association of

Community and Junior Colleges. Occasional paper,
Vol. 10, No. 2.

Fife, J .D. (1991). Course offerings in higher education doctoral programs.
New Directions for Higher Education—Administration as a Profession. No. 76,
78.

Hankin, J .N. (1996). The door that never closes: continuing education
needs of community college leaders. New Directions for Community Colleges—
Graduate and Continuing Education for Community College Leags: What_l_t
Means Today. No. 95, 38.

Katsinas, 8.6. (1996). Preparing leaders for diverse institutional settings.
New Directions in Community Colleges—Graduate and Continuing Education for
Community College Leaders: What It Means Today; No. 95, 15.

Kubala, TS. (1999, March). A national study on the community college
presidency. Community college Journal of Resegclflnd Practice, E, No. 2, 183-
192.

Murrell, RH. and Davis, TM. (1991). Visions and priorities: The future of
higher education doctoral programs. New Directions for Community Colleges—
Administgttion as a Profession. No. 76, 106.

North Carolina Division of Planning and Research Services. (1992).

Executive management leadership institute: Research Results. Vol. I. Raleigh,
NC: North Carolina State Department of Community Colleges.

56

Parker, P.W. and Parker, P. (1983). Focus: Profile of Kansas community
college presidents. Pittsburg State University, Kansas. Department of
Curriculum and Administration. Research Report.

Roe, M. and Baker, GA. (1989). The development of community college
leaders: A challenge for our future. Community College Joumzfi, No. 4, 5-16.

Ross, M and Green, M.F. (2000). The American College President: 2000 Edition.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Senge, P. (1998). Leading Learning Organizations. In W.E. Rosenbach and
R.L. Taylor (Eds), Contemporary Issues in Leadership. (p. 176). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. New York: McGraw Hill.

Templin, R.G., et.al., (1991). New Directions for Community Colleges—
Enhancing Teaching and Administration Through Scholarship. No. 76.

Vaughn, GB. (1989). Advice for those who would be president.
Charlottesville, VA: Southern Association of Community and Junior Colleges.
Occasional paper, Vol. 7, No. l.

Vaughan, GB. and Weisman, I.M. (1997). Selected characteristics of
community college trustees and presidents. New Directions for Community
Colleges—Presidents and Trustees in Partnership: New Roles raid Leadership
Challenges. No. 98, 12.

Young, RJ. (1996). Legacy of the post-WWII growth years for community college
leadership programs. New Directions for Community Colleges—Graduate and
Continuing Education for Community College Leaders: What It Means Today;
No. 95, 13.

S7

 

gfifiofim .
52:... 58. . .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:28..
m=.:m.mou\m=.>.om
E030...
£222.28
w:...o.o>o.$.n. . ....
we ..xy.»
.9,»
5888:»...an4 .A
33580.9... V
..o. w
s
.m=.m>o\w:.mmomm< we
959:2).
FEES... m
. o
M .
I 1. S 8 3 a 3 S 0 d I
% wmm m mm a N... mm mm. Amw mmm m.
u mmw w on. m. m We .....m mam wad a...
H o s . ... H ...l.. I. I. s
P m w. m. w ..w m m o m a m mew w n m. m
M A 9 n M 9 m 9 9 B is U 1. 0 Q
m.. 9 w m.. r. u r m. w . o m m. w m...
I! 1. S
9 I. w o u. o a l. I. M 0 B u Id
A ad 19 l. u u o u 1' .I.
M r e w 9 u 3 mm. a u
9 M U1 D.- 0 My. S ....
q s m n. w w. m
s .s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E3 3 macaw o>fl¢nflh§

 

 

a... 5.53.... 8 .....m 3.3... 33 .— ...... 85m ESE—6.0.5.. 35.89.95 ... vowauzo ...: 0...... ...... .... $.35. 3...
«stems...» Mia «92.0 .23— .. ...... 35m 5:852... 2:... ...... HmESm o>..aE..Ea 5...... ...... o .5355. ..e no... 3. 5...... 88...... 8.3...
...... o... ..e ......o. 8 ...—QB 3.355.. .0 9:3.— .. ...... mOmU owe—.8 ......aEEeu ...... auto—32... .... m3... ..2. ..o ”5%.. a m. ”532.8 2.... .—

u...E8.. 35%»... 82.5 E5555 5&5... ... ......m <
< ....Eo....<

58

2. How much time have you spent engaged in any form of professional development
within the past year (since July 1, 1999)?

1-10 days
11-20 days
21+ days

3. How much would you estimate that have you spent in institutional funds

(including fees to attend, materials, travel, lodging, meals, consultant fees, etc.)?

_$ 1 DOG-$4,999
_$5 DOG-$9,999
__$ 10,000-$ 19,999
__$20,000-$49,999
_$50,000-$75 ,OOO
_$76,000+

4. What periodicals do you read?

 

 

 

59

5. Please indicate which circumstances have been present on your campus within
the past year (since July 1, 1999). Check all that apply.

_Staff reorganization

_Merging of campuses

_Adding a campus or satellite operation

_Increase or decrease in enrollment (5% or more)
_Change in CEO

______Change in board composition

_Change in board leadership

_Bond or millage election

_Faculty/staff retirements (10% or more of workforce)

Technology implementation (administrative or instructional)

6. Please indicate which circumstances have been present in your district or service

area within the past year (since July 1, 1999). Check all that apply.

_Increase or decrease in state aid or local property tax revenue (5% or more)
_Accreditation visit or report

_‘_Unemployment of 10%+

_Population increase/decrease (5%+)

Industry moving in/out

7. Please indicate your length of time in your current role:
0-2 years
3—5 years

6-9 years

10+ years

60

8. Is this your first presidency?
Yes No

9. Please indicate your highest earned degree:
M.A.IM.S. Ed.D. Ph.D. Other

10. Please indicate your age category:
30-40 46-50 51-55

_56-60 ___60+

11. What is your gender?

Female Male

61

WIlTill311111111117l