#1va

.l 613...?!) 1

’2.¥>H‘>.nuﬂ. 3‘
i. . .31.? Oh!

.SJF... ; F...

(4 .4
M5,...“

cf
V 23:5.
. fun} 9».

Ti... I3... -
1:) ;2..l.d

1:. ‘5.
1.11 9'7:
I... 1:16. I
3‘ is

 

L ‘ LIBRARIES
5’ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

INFORMAL FACULTY LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE: CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS, AREAS
OF INFLUENCE, AND CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCES

presented by

Kathleen Eaton Guy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources-Education
and Communications Systems

 

 

.2 8;. A94

Méjor'ProfessoN Signature

 

Mara 6. 1005
J .

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

-._.___--.—.—....

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05

 

.Indd-p.15

 

INFORMAL FACULTY LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE:
CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS, AREAS OF INFLUENCE, AND
CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCES
By

Kathleen Eaton Guy

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2005

ABSTRACT
INFORMAL FACULTY LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE:
CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS, AREAS OF INFLUENCE, AND
CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCES
By
Kathleen Eaton Guy
Leadership is a central theme, playing a pivotal role in theories of ongoing and
productive institutional transformation within higher education. The notion of leadership
and its role in organizational development iS evolving, becoming richer and more
inclusive and focusing attention on more than the role of a single hero as ultimate
visionary leader. While executive leadership is important, a model that excludes
consideration of the broad sweep of leadership roles is a model that is out of step with the
21“t Century community college. Issues of Shared governance, multiple missions,
institutional maturity and organizational complexity mitigate against single source
leadership. Leadership is distributed in many forms throughout the organization, which
suggests that leaders emerge in response to issues and challenges and that leadership is
potentially the role of everyone in the organization rather than a virtue vested in one
person or a small number of individuals.
Of Special interest to this research study were informal community college faculty

leaders who, without formal designation, exercise inﬂuence and attract followers.
The purpose of this research study was to develop an understanding of informal faculty
leadership in the community college from the perspective of informal faculty leaders

themselves. The research sought to answer these questions:

1. What characteristics and behaviors exemplify effective informal faculty leaders?

2. What factors contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders?

3. What issues tend to be inﬂuenced by informal faculty leaders, and do their peers

perceive this inﬂuence as positive or negative?

4. What circumstances tend to draw out or be associated with informal faculty

leaders in the exercise of informal leadership?

The population for this research study was informal faculty leaders from Michigan

community colleges. Six Michigan community colleges were selected and a purposive

sample was drawn through nominations of informal faculty leaders by department chairs

at each of the colleges. Informal faculty leaders were deﬁned as faculty without

recognized positional authority yet who inﬂuence others within the college either

consistently or in reference to speciﬁc issues or situations. Care was taken not to disclose

to the research participants that they themselves were considered informal leaders.

Key ﬁndings regarding the nature of informal faculty leadership from the perspective

of informal faculty leaders include:

Informal faculty leadership is generally associated with positive attributes.
Concern about issues, a feeling of personal responsibility and the opportunity
to contribute expertise cause informal leaders emerge.

Informal faculty leaders are perceived to have high levels of positive impact
on curriculum.

Informal faculty leaders are perceived differently by females than males, by
longer serving than newer faculty in higher education, by high length than low
length faculty at their current institution and by technical/occupational faculty

than liberal arts/ general studies faculty.

This book is dedicated to
Mark, Lindsey and Emily
for their love, generous understanding
and encouragement—every step of the way.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There has not been a Single step of this educational and personal growth journey
that has been taken alone. I have been blessed by birth, by circumstance and by
association to be connected with mentors, friends and colleagues who have stepped in,
each at the perfect moment, with care, advice, encouragement and sustenance for mind
soul and spirit:

To my parents, John and Mary Eaton, who have been lavish with their love and
faith in me. As exemplary lifelong learners and educators, they instilled in me from a
very early age the priceless gift of conﬁdence and the family value of education.

To my benefactor of insight and wisdom, Bill Craﬁ, as mentor, trusted colleague
and friend, he has challenged me to new accomplishment and Shared his Lake George
Camp as a retreat for writing, reﬂection and renewal.

To my committee chair, Joe Levine, whose belief in facilitating learning has been
demonstrated time and again through caring, guidance, patient encouragement and
exemplary responsiveness.

To my ﬁ'iends and colleagues at Northwestern Michigan College—particularly
Karen Anderson and the staff in College Relations and the Foundation—for contributing
generously to my peace of mind by stepping up and leading formally and informally.

To my colleagues and friends—Roberta Teahen, Charlene Lutes, Kari Kahler and
Marguerite Cotto—the MSU “cohort” from Traverse City—with whom I have traveled

this learning journey and Shared its triumphs and challenges.

To the faculty, Board of Trustees and Foundation Board at Northwestern
Michigan College for inspiring this research study through their remarkable
demonstrations of informal leadership.

To my friend in data, Dave Donovan, for his patient guidance as tutor and
interpretive guide.

To my ally in (Microsoﬁ)word Jan Neumann, whose expertise and calm presence
added immeasurably to the ﬂow of research mailings and the precision of every data

table.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER l—INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Background and Setting ........................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 10 ,
Deﬁnition of Terms ................................................................................................ 11
Faculty ........................................................................................................ 1 1
Effective Informal Faculty ......................................................................... 11
Inﬂuence .................................................................................................... 11
Leadership .................................................................................................. 12
Signiﬁcance of this Study ...................................................................................... 12
Limitations ............................................................................................................. 14
Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2—REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................... 16
Characteristics of Leadership ................................................................................. 20
Power and Leadership ............................................................................................ 27
Leaders and Followers ........................................................................................... 32
Leadership in Higher Education ............................................................................ 35
Leadership in Community Colleges ....................................................................... 38
CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 42
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 42
Population .............................................................................................................. 42
Selection of Sample ............................................................................................... 43
Research Instrument Design .................................................................................. 45
Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 48
Limitations ............................................................................................................. 50 -
CHAPTER 4—DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 51
Informal Faculty Leader Demographics ................................................................ 51
Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders .................................. 56
The Emergence of Informal Faculty Leaders ........................................................ 59
Factors That Deﬁne Effective Informal Faculty as Leaders .................................. 60
Inﬂuence of Informal Faculty Leaders .................................................................. 62
Circumstances in Which Faculty are Likely to .
Exercise Informal Leadership .................................................................... 65
Signiﬁcant Differences Shown by Gender of Respondents ................................... 67
Signiﬁcant Differences Shown by Years in Higher Education ............................. 77
Signiﬁcant Differences Shown by Years of Experience
at Current Institution .................................................................................. 90
Signiﬁcant Differences Shown by Academic Area of Faculty .............................. 99

vii

CHAPTER 5—SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 1 10
Purpose and Need for the Research Study ........................................................... 110
Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................... 114

Theme 1: Positive Attributes ................................................................... 115
Introduction .................................................................................. 1 15
Key Findings ................................................................................ 116
Conclusions .................................................................................. l 17
Theme 2: Peers and Expertise .................................................................. 118 '
Introduction .................................................................................. 1 18
Key Findings ................................................................................ 1 19
Conclusions .................................................................................. 1 19
Theme 3: Positive Impact on Curriculum and Assessment ..................... 120
Introduction .................................................................................. 121
Key Findings ................................................................................ 121
Conclusions .................................................................................. 123 ’
Theme 4: Gender Differences .................................................................. 124
Introduction .................................................................................. 124
Key Findings ................................................................................ 125
Conclusions .................................................................................. 126
Theme 5: The Effect Time Served on Informal
Leadership Perspective .................................................... 128
Introduction .................................................................................. 128
Key Findings ................................................................................ 129 .
Conclusions .................................................................................. 130
Theme 6: TechnicaWocational versus Liberal Arts/
General Studies Faculty ................................................... 133
Introduction .................................................................................. 133
Key Findings ................................................................................ 134
Conclusions .................................................................................. 135
Implications .......................................................................................................... 136
Informal Leaders—Points of Light .......................................................... 137 .
Informal Leadership—An Inconsistent Phenomenon .............................. 139
Informal Leadership—An Equal Opportunity Venture ........................... 140
Recommendations for Further Research .............................................................. 141
What do Others Think? ............................................................................ 141
From Perceptual Inventory to Case Studies ............................................. 143
The Informal Faculty Leader Typology
and Implications for Hiring .......................................................... 143
The Consequences of Informal Leadership for Informal Leaders ........... 144 .
The Effect of Informal Leaders Beyond Traditional
Areas of Faculty Inﬂuence ........................................................... 144
APPENDIX A: LETTER TO DEPARTMENT CHAIRS .............................................. 147
APPENDIX B: INFORMAL FACULTY LEADER NOMINATION FORM ............... 149

viii

APPENDIX C: INFORMAL FACULTY LEADER QUESTIONNAIRE ..................... 150 .

APPENDIX D: RESEARCH LETTER OF INVITATION ............................................ 158
APPENDIX E: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ..................................................... 160
APPENDIX F: BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 162

ix

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 11:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

LIST OF TABLES

Ten Qualities that Deﬁne Effective Leadership ............................................... 26
Response Rate .................................................................................................. 51
Gender of Respondents .................................................................................... 52
Frequencies and Mean for Years of Experience in Higher Education ............. 52
Frequencies and Mean for Years at Current Institution ................................... 54
Academic Area of Faculty Respondents .......................................................... 56 A

Mean Agreement Scores for Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal
Faculty Leaders ................................................................................................ 56

Mean Agreement Scores when Considering Factors that Contribute to the
Emergence of Informal Faculty Leaders .......................................................... 59

Mean Agreement Scores for Factors that Deﬁne Effective Informal
Faculty Leaders ................................................................................................ 61

Mean Agreement Scores for Area of Inﬂuence of Informal
Faculty Leaders ................................................................................................ 62

Mean Agreement Scores when Considering Circumstances in Which
Faculty are Likely to Exercise Informal Leadership ........................................ 65 .

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females when
Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders ....... 67

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females when
Considering Factors that Contribute to the Emergence of
Informal Faculty Leaders ................................................................................. 71

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females when
Considering Factors that Deﬁne Effective Informal Faculty Leaders ............. 73

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females when
Considering Circumstances in which Faculty are Likely to
Exercise Informal Leadership .......................................................................... 75

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

Table 20:

Table 21:

Table 22:

Table 23:

Table 24:

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer Serving
Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal
Faculty Leaders ................................................................................................ 77

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer Serving
Faculty when Considering Factors that Contribute to the Emergence of
Informal Faculty Leaders ................................................................................. 83 '

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer Serving
Faculty when Considering Areas of Inﬂuence of Informal
Faculty Leaders ................................................................................................ 85

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer Serving
Faculty when Considering Circumstances in which Faculty are
Likely to Exercise Informal Leadership .......................................................... 88 '

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of High Longevity Faculty and Low
Longevity Faculty at Current Institution when Considering
Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders ............................ 90

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of High Longevity and Low
Longevity Faculty at Current Institution when Considering Areas of .
Informal Faculty Leader Inﬂuence .................................................................. 96

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by Academic Area of Faculty
when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal
Faculty Leaders ................................................................................................ 99

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by Academic Area of Faculty
when Considering the Emergence of Informal Faculty Leaders ................... 104 _

Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by Academic Area of Faculty
when Considering Informal Faculty Leader Inﬂuence .................................. 106

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is a central theme, playing a pivotal role in theories of ongoing and
productive institutional transformation within higher education. The notion of leadership
and organizational development is emerging as a concept richer and more inclusive than
that of the Single hero as ultimate visionary (DePree, 2003; Green, 1988, 1994; Kelley,
1988; Piland & Wolf, 2003; Scott, 2003; Smith, 1996). “Instead of leadership being a
solo act, an aria sung by the CEO. . .it is a shared responsibility, more like a chorus of
diverse voices Singing in unison” (O’Toole in Bennis, Spreitzer and Cummings, Eds.,
2001, p.160). While effective executive leadership is important, the notion of an
omnipotent leader iS a model that is out of step with the 21St Century community college.
Issues of shared governance, institutional maturity and organizational complexity
mitigate against Single source leadership. In the 21St century, leadership is needed at
many levels and in many contexts. Thus, a valuable source of leadership will be
leadership behaviors exercised by those without the formal trappings of authority, power
or position.

The notion of capitalizing on leadership distributed throughout the organization
suggests that leaders emerge in response to issues and challenges, and that leadership is
potentially the responsibility of everyone in the organization rather than a virtue vested in
one person.

It borrows from Lave’s 1993 notion of “stretched across” suggesting that
leadership is stretched across different people and different artifacts,
within different contexts. This does not mean that leadership tasks are

merely delegated to multiple people, although that is one aspect of
distributed leadership. In his discussion of distributed cognition, Roy

Pea states that distributed cognition iS not about the end result being
more than the sum of the parts, it is about the end result of distributed
cognition being dr'ﬂerent than the sum of the parts (Sherer, 2004, p. 4).

This distribution of leadership opportunity, and perhaps expectation, imbues in
those without the formal trappings the leadership mantle “informal.” Informal leadership
is leadership that is exercised by those not in formal positions of leadership but those who '
are recognized as leaders nonetheless (Pielstick, 2000). Informal leadership has been
recognized as an important dynamic in organizational behavior. In a study comparing the
characteristics of informal versus formal leaders, Pielstick found that while both formal
and informal leaders develop shared visions, “informal leaders are more likely to include
a moral and inspiring purpose, provide for the common good, and create meaning”
(Pielstick, 2000, p. 111).

Increasingly in business and industry, employees at all levels are expected to
identify problems, contribute to their solution and help guide colleagues—~in Short
exercise leadership.

In addition to all people down the line who may properly be called leaders at their

level, there are in any vital organization or society a great many individuals who

share leadership tasks unofﬁcially, by behaving responsibly with respect to the
purposes of the group. Such individuals, who have been virtually ignored in the
leadership literature, are immensely important to the leader and to the group”

(Gardner, 1990 p. xiii).

Now, in the manner of business and industry, institutions of higher education are
becoming corporatized (Atlas, 2005). The challenges facing higher education echo those
of for-proﬁt businesses—limited resources, increased competition, demands for

accountability, and high expectations from constituents for service and ﬂexibility. Scarce

resources and ever-increasing expectations for performance and accountability are not

temporary maladies; instead, as is true with business and industry, these dynamics are
characteristic of the higher education operating environment. In today’s complex
organizations, formal leaders must nurture a notion of informal leadership that is applied
in day-to-day practice and guided by institutional values and Shared vision. The literature
tells us that the organizations that do this successfully learn together and become stronger
and more adaptable (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross and Smith,1994).

In the 21‘“t Century community college context there are more issues and
opportunities demanding special knowledge and contextual leadership than ever before.
The “missions” of community colleges have multiplied and expanded in response to
expectations ﬁ'om the communities they serve (Amey and VanDerLinden, 2002, Bailey
and Morest, 2004). They have become leaders in workforce development, community
convening, cultural programming and baccalaureate degree partnerships in addition to
their more traditional roles of transfer and career education, developmental education and
avocational learning. “The accretion of activities continues unabated” (Bailey and
Morest, 2004, p. 1). While performing more functions in response to community
expectations, the community college organizational hierarchy has become ﬂatter in order
to capitalize on specialized knowledge and expertise and adapt scarce ﬁnancial resources
to ever expanding programs and services. By necessity and, in some cases, by default,
community colleges can be found to grow increasingly reliant on informal leaders——
pe0ple who provide leadership that coalesces others and contributes purposeful behavior
that is not preordained or centrally planned.

In 1990, the Points of Light Foundation was established as a nonpartisan non-

proﬁt organization designed to recognize the achievements of volunteer heroes. The

Extra Mile award, Sponsored by the Points of Light Foundation, recognizes individuals
whose achievements have been made in the public interest; have had a positive effect on
a Signiﬁcant number of people; have been made while the person was acting as a private
citizen, not as an appointed or elected government ofﬁcial; and have been undertaken
outside of a person’s normal work assignment. Informal leaders in community colleges
are, in their context, points of light for their colleges and their colleagues.

The concept of Shared governance in higher education offers a construct in which
to view both distributed leadership and informal leadership. Amey and Twombly’s
(1994) review of leadership Skills in Shared governance highlights the advantages to this
approach to governance. “It allows leaders to draw upon the talents and expertise of
community college members for setting goals and objectives, solving problems, and
creating alternatives. It affords to members throughout the college a different level of
ownership, involvement, and commitment than many past approaches to governance”
(Amey and Twombly, 1994, p. 282).

It should be noted that in the context of this study Shared governance and the
notion of leadership emerging throughout the body of the organization were not
considered one and the same. In California, for example, Shared governance is a
statutory requirement for community colleges. In other states and community college
systems Shared governance is Semetimes an aspiration or rhetorical reference to efforts to
include faculty and staff in certain areas of institutional decision-making. In the context
of this study, the notion that leadership can emerge throughout the organization was not
predicated on state statute or generally shared aspirations. Rather it was based on a

growing body of literature that explicitly or implicitly Speaks to the emergence of leaders

without portfolio. These individuals, without the formal irnprimatur of leader, garner
followers, energize coalitions and inﬂuence day-to-day organizational events.

Informal leaders can act to reinforce established institutional polices and practices.
Informal leaders can lead the loyal opposition or even resistance movements that seek to
modify or redirect organizational policy and practice, and their emergence seems to be a
fact of life in contemporary organizations. This study sought a better understanding of
their behavior and related contextual inﬂuences.

Followers are the deﬁning characteristic for both formal and informal leaders.
Without followers, as Drucker notes (in Hesselbein, Goldsmith and Beckhard,
Eds.,l996), it is impossible to deﬁne leaders. Followers validate leaders. As interpreted
through the literature, the actions of followers are an important aspect of the leader-
follower relationship. A leader who understands the needs and values of followers and
effectively cultivates their aspirations and talents tends to optimize the leader-follower
relationship The leader/follower relationship, involving informal leaders distributed
throughout the organization, may involve situations in which leadership and followership
are no longer either/or propositions; as Smith describes (in Hesselbein, et.al., Eds.,l996),
they have become both/and imperatives. From hour to hour and day to day, members of
the organization are called upon to think and do, manage themselves and others, make
decisions and carry them into practice—and to know when each role is most appropriate.
As Kanter (1999) suggests, the long march of many throughout the organization trumps
the bold stroke of a few. Rather than a force to be submitted to, leadership is most
effective when it is embraced as an opportunity and modeled by all members of the

organization.

Background and Setting

This study focused on informal faculty leaders in the community college. The
evolution and growth of community and technical colleges throughout the United States
has occurred primarily within the last 40 to 50 years (Young in Palmer and Katsinas,
Eds., 1996). AS a sector of higher education, community Colleges have evolved as
organizations characterized by their open admissions policies; heterogeneous enrollment;
multiple and ever-expanding missions; adaptability to workforce, community and learner
needs; and accountability to the myriad demands of taxpayers, donors, students, funding
agencies and accrediting bodies. Community colleges manage a complex agenda Shaped
by multiple priorities in service to diverse constituencies. By their very nature,
community colleges are created of, by and for the people in discrete geographic areas.
Local dynamics of economy, culture, politics and demography are reﬂected in the
programs and services of the college and exhibited in active relationships between the
colleges and the communities they serve.

While connnunity college missions and priorities continue to multiply, traditional
operating revenues often do not keep pace. As state economies contract and the need for
public funding for education, health care, human services and corrections continue to
expand, budget requests are outpacing state revenues. This has been particularly evident
during the ﬁrst years of the 21St Century. The nation’s softening economy, September 11, h
2001 , the war in Iraq and increased foreign economic competition contributed to
uncertain ﬁnancial times, and concurrent reduction in state aid revenue as a percentage of

community colleges budgets began to occur.

Due to organizational culture and often exacerbated by limited ﬁnancial
resources, community colleges are characterized by ﬂat organizational structures. Formal
leadership hierarchies are lean, and conduct of the organization’s daily business is
distributed among formal leaders as well as faculty, para-professionals and others who
are not part of the formal leadership structure. Higher education is a labor-intensive
business, and it is not uncommon for community colleges to allocate a majority of their
operating revenues to personnel (Douglas and Harmening, 1999). When resources are
lean, personnel budgets become targets for reductions. Either through attrition
(resignations, retirements) or reductions in force (retrenchments, layoffs) fewer people
remain to perform the same amount of work. Lean hierarchies and complex missions
require leadership to be exercised throughout the organization.

While missions expand and budgets contract, community colleges are also facing
an unprecedented wave of retirements. The age of most of the nation’s community
colleges and the graying baby boom generation are converging, resulting in the
retirement of many career presidents, vice presidents, deans and faculty members during
the next ten years. F orty-ﬁve percent of the nation’s 1,200 presidents plan to retire by
2007 and 79% will retire by 2014. Paradoxically, the number of advanced degrees
conferred in community college administration decreased by 78% from 1982 to 1997, a
Signal that a sufﬁcient number of prospective new leaders are not in the traditional
leadership pipeline (Shults, 2001).

Although individual faculty members possess limited formal responsibility for the
overall direction of institutional affairs, they are perceived as having great inﬂuence over

matters that form the core or soul of the college—teaching, learning, and student success.

Collectively faculty are considered to have Signiﬁcant sway over the quality of the
institution. By tradition, these members of the academy place value on and persist in
seeking opportunities to Share their opinions through discourse and dialogue. The review
of academic matters, problem solving, and decision making often are diffused throughout
the organization’s academic divisions, departments and curriculum clusters resulting in a
form of leadership that is “rooted in systems, processes and culture” (O’Toole, in Bennis,
Spreitzer and Cummings, Eds., 2001, p. 160).

O’Banion and Kaplan (2004) state that the notion of placing learning ﬁrst as the
core business of the educational enterprise has been an emerging commitment of
community colleges Since the early 1990s. This approach has focused the attention of
hundreds of community colleges throughout the nation and led to a transformation that
emphasizes the importance of deﬁning how every program, policy, practice and budget
expenditure will affect student learning. Faculty are key players in this transformation to
learning-centered organizations as they “engage in redesigning the historical architecture
of education and creating innovative structures and practices to place learning front and
center” (O'Banion and Kaplan, 2004, p. 17). A more integrated, inclusive approach to
leadership has been ushered in with the learning-centered movement.

Leadership for learning involves making decisions, deﬁning values,

setting goals, and determining strategies designed to facilitate the core

work—learning—of the educational institution. In so doing, it moves

beyond traditional notions of leadership as an administrative or

management function. It is, instead, an integrated process that involves

administrators, faculty, and other college employees in a Shared effort to

ensure that learning occurs and is documented in meaningful formats for
the institution and the individual members of the institution (Wilson, 2002,

p.2).

Community colleges are complex organizations combining formal structures,
cultural myths and symbols and interactions that can best be viewed from a political
frame of reference involving coalitions and partisan behavior (Bolrnan and Deal, 2003).
Relationships are often stretched and sometimes strained between and among working
groups—faculty and administrators, faculty and faculty, administrators and
administrators, department chairs and faculty, support staff and administrators—as
members of the organization go about the daily business of teaching and learning while
supporting the academic infrastructure. Advocacy for a variety of causes can result in
daily political churn around topics as varied as new policies, curriculum changes,
assessment, budget allocations, workspace assignments, pay and parking. There are
formal processes for voicing opinions and garnering support and there are informal
processes based upon personal inﬂuence and persuasion networks.

Given their complex missions, ﬂat organizational structures, transformation to
learning-centered organizations, tendency to utilize Shared governance models, and
imminent wave of retirements, community colleges are called to consider a changing
leadership paradigm. In light of the demands to operate more like a business—creating
business plans for operational units, outsourcing services, developing a marketing
orientation for product, pricing and promotional strategies—formal leaders have their
hands full. Areas of specialization found in today’s community colleges including
enrollment management, strategic planning and market research, bespeak the language of
business. However, when it comes to innovation, transformation and implementation
much is dependent on the devolution of leadership throughout the organization. Leaders

without portfolio are needed—perhaps required—throughout the organization as never

before to ensure the vitality, viability and ultimate usefulness of community colleges in

the 21St Century.

P_ur;pose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of informal faculty

leadership in the community college—its characteristics, behaviors and impact on the
organization—through a descriptive quantitative study of informal faculty leaders at
selected Michigan community colleges. A research questionnaire was utilized to gather
perceptions about informal faculty leaders. Informal faculty leaders were chosen as the
focus of this study because of their direct involvement with matters central to the mission
of community colleges—teaching, learning and student success. Based on Nesselrode’s
(1996) study of leadership of individuals outside of top administrative positions in the
comrnmrity college and anecdotal evidence gained from a preliminary discussion group
conducted as part of this research study, there is reason to believe that informal faculty
leaders exist in community colleges and that they can be identiﬁed by others at their
institutions.

In some Situations they may be seen to have a positive impact and move the
organizational mission and vision forward; in other situations they may be seen as
working in opposition to efforts attempted by formal leaders. This study sought to gain a
preliminary understanding of the nature of informal faculty leadership in the community
college in order to provide institutions with a set of useﬁrl tools to mobilize informal

faculty leaders in the best interest of the organization. More Speciﬁcally, this study

10

explored the following questions from the perspective of faculty members identiﬁed by
their department chairs as effective informal faculty leaders:
1. What characteristics and behaviors exemplify effective informal faculty
leaders?
2. What factors contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders?
3. What issues tend to be inﬂuenced by informal faculty leaders and do their
peers perceive this inﬂuence as positive or negative?
4. What circumstances tend to draw out or be associated with informal

faculty leaders in the exercise of informal leadership?

Deﬁnition of Terms

F_acu_ltx

A full-time or part-tirne, regular or adjunct member of the liberal studies or
occupational/vocational instructional staff of the college.

Effective Informal F aculg Leaders

Those without recognized positional authority yet who inﬂuence others either
consistently or in reference to speciﬁc issues or situations. Those who have inﬂuenced
others within the college and, as a result, have exerted a positive or negative inﬂuence on
some aspect of the organization.

Inﬂuence

An interpersonal interaction in which one person acts intentionally to change the

behavior of another in a given direction (Katz and Kahn, 1966).

11

Leadership

“The process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership
team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or Shared by the leader and

his or her followers” (Gardner, 1990, p. 1).

Signiﬁcance of this Study

A commonly held assumption is that for an institution to be effective
administrators must be leaders. Evidence, however, suggests that all administrators are
not leaders and all leaders do not necessarily emerge from administrative ranks. DePree,
(2003), Green, (1988, 1994), Kelley, (1988), Pilestick, (2000), Scott, (2003) and Smith,
(1996) have articulated the contemporary view of leadership which suggests that
organizations are strengthened when leadership is exercised by individuals from
throughout the organization who are not part of the formal leadership hierarchy.

Within organizations, there are formal systems and structures for voicing opinions
and garnering support, and there are parallel informal systems for accomplishing the
same. The faculty is the largest group of players within this informal system. At the core
of this informal network lies the opportunity to shape and inﬂuence issues related not
only to teaching, learning and student success but also to issues related to every other
area of the institution—ﬁom planning and budgeting to policies and facilities. While
informal leadership has been recognized as an important organizational dynamic (Senge,
et.al., 1994; Cooper and Pagotto, 2003; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Komives, Lucas and
McMahon, 1998) there is a lack of research and information about the speciﬁc

phenomenon .of informal faculty leadership in the community college.

12

A qualitative study conducted nearly a decade ago (N esselrode, 1996) examined
leadership of individuals outside of top administrative positions at two community
colleges. Sixteen individuals, all faculty and mid-level administrators, were nominated
by two or more of their peers for inclusion in the study. Findings included that the
leaders outside of top administrative positions exert inﬂuence among their peers and
superiors, they have leadership attributes consistent with exemplary presidents and the
lack of positional authority is perceived by these leaders as an impairment. Pielstick
(2000) conducted a study of formal versus informal leading among graduates of the
James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership and found signiﬁcant differences
between formal and informal leaders in each of six areas of interest: Shared vision,
communication, relationships, community, guidance and character. Of 161 leadership
variables in each of the Six areas, 87 (54%) Showed a Signiﬁcant difference between
formal and informal leaders. Informal leaders were perceived as Showing higher levels of
leading than formal leaders overall, including more likely to include a moral and
inspiring purpose; to listen and seek to understand; and to be humble, fair and altruistic
(Pielstick, 2000).

Although they possess limited formal power or authority, faculty members are
perceived as having the greatest inﬂuence over matters at the heart of the college and
thereby the quality of the institution—teaching, learning, and student success. Faculty
are expected to play dual roles, as pedagogical professionals and specialists in a
discipline of study and as contributing members of the larger organization. Some assert
that acts of leadership performed by faculty members are intended to demonstrate their

formal leadership potential. From this perspective, faculty members who lead or

13

participate in service to the institution beyond their pedagogical/discipline are working in
quasi-administrative roles and are doing so because they aspire to formal leadership
positions. Others suggest that the motivation to lead is altruistic and that faculty who
assume leadership roles do so because they have expertise to contribute or a passion for
the cause, not because they are interested in advancing up the hierarchy.

It is understood (N esselrode, 1996) that informal faculty leaders perform
throughout the organization—without being selected, directed, empowered or evaluated
by the formal leadership hierarchy. In today’s complex operating environment,
community colleges need all the tools they can marshal in order to succeed.
Understanding and stimulating leadership behavior throughout the organization in more
systematic and deliberate ways may ttun these informal and perhaps sporadic faculty
leadership efforts into more high yield results that in the past. The more that can be
learned about informal leaders, the more likely formal leaders are to recognize their value
to the institution and to capitalize on their inﬂuence in the best interest of the
organization. With an improved understanding of informal faculty leaders, community
colleges will be able to identify factors that encourage, focus and bring cohesion to this
leadership resource while better understanding the ultimate gain or deﬁcit that results

from it.
Limitations

This study was conﬁned to a population of informal faculty leaders at Six

Michigan community colleges and utilized a purposive sampling procedure.

14

Therefore, the generalizability of the results to other settings is limited in scope. The
study had validity and reliability only to the particular population on which this study
focused.

Department chairs at each of Six Michigan community colleges were asked to
nominate faculty members from their institutions who they perceived as effective
informal faculty leaders, applying a deﬁnition furnished by the researcher. It is possible
that Department Chairs from the same institution may have had differing observations
and perspectives and therefore dissimilar interpretations of the “informal faculty leader”
label. Further, this study focused on informal faculty leaders—which excludes support
and technical staff, paraprofessionals or anyone else occupying a position without formal
authority from within the college. Therefore, the results of this study are not
generalizable to all informal faculty leaders or to informal leaders who are not faculty
members. Given that leadership can be situational and considering that respondents were
asked to reﬂect on their observation of informal faculty leaders at their colleges when
answering the research questionnaire, the results reported may not necessarily reﬂect the

characteristics of informal faculty leaders as a whole.

Assumptions

Although there was no direct control over the responses given by respondents to
the research questionnaire, it is assumed that respondents were able and willing to give
valid responses to all statements in the questionnaire. It is also assumed that respondents

were able and willing to give reliable responses to all statements in the questionnaire.

15

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Leadership is often conceived of as a process. Komives, Lucas and McMahon
(1998) view leadership as “a relational process of people together attempting to
accomplish change or make a difference to beneﬁt the common good” (p.11). DePree
(1989) describes leadership as an “art. . .liberating people to do what is required of them
in the most effective andhumane way possible” (p.xx). Gardner (1990) expresses
leadership as “the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership
team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and
his or her followers” (p. 1).

Others approach leadership as a characteristic or collection of characteristics
attributable to individuals. Wills (1994), for example, deﬁnes, “the leader is one who
mobilizes others toward a goal shared by leader and follower” (p.17). Bennis and Nanus
(1985) deﬁne a transformative leader as “one who commits people to action, who
converts followers into leaders, and who may convert leaders into agents of change”

(p. 3). Bennis, Cronin, Gardner and Rosenbach and Taylor (in Rosenbach & Taylor,
Eds., 1998) deﬁne leaders as managers of attention, meaning, trust and self. According
to Cronin, “Students of leadership develop their capacities for observation, reﬂection,
imagination, invention and judgment. They communicate and listen effectively, as
Cronin suggests “they squint with their ears” (in Rosenbach & Taylor, Eds., 1998, p. 2).
Maxwell (1993) distills the leadership deﬁnition to one word—inﬂuence—and says the

ability to attract followers is key to this deﬁnition.

16

Common to all of these deﬁnitions is the suggestion that leadership is not a solo
act that occurs in a vacuum. Leadership requires context and involves, may even depend
upon, interactions with other people—sometimes labeled as followers—those who
leaders attempt to guide, inﬂuence, convert, liberate, persuade and ﬁnally induce and
commit to action. Drucker’s deﬁnition of leadership (in Hesselbein, Goldsmith and
Beckhard, Eds., 1995) underscores the indispensable role of followers: “The only
deﬁnition of a leader is someone who has followers” (p. xii).

The art and science of leadership has been studied in business, government and
the non-proﬁt sector; popularized by the media; analyzed by academicians and
investigated by social scientists and organizational theorists. In both the technical and
popular literature, leadership emerges as a prized commodity, sometimes deemed a
heroic, larger-than-life attribute; sometimes considered the source of mischief and a
tendency to self-promotion.

More than 11,000 books and articles have been written about the topic of leaders
and leadership and some 850 deﬁnitions of leadership offered (Bennis and Nanus, 2003),
and still, an observation made by leadership scholar James MacGregor Burns more than a
quarter century ago is true today, “Leadership is one of the most observed and least
understood phenomena on earth” (Burns, 1978, p. 2). Leadership with its many facets
and its still-elusive qualities remains a subject of intense interest. The effort to corral its
skills, discipline and application continues.

Whether based in personality and natural attributes or skills learned, many of the
elements that shape leadership in practice can be attributed to the personal characteristics

of those who are considered leaders. In addition, there are organizational levers and

17

leadership tools available to individuals occupying formally recognized positions of
leadership. These leadership roles beneﬁt from sources of power and inﬂuence beyond
personal traits and acquired skills. Some of these additional sources of power and
inﬂuence can be exercised directly such as the ability to hire and ﬁre, set the
organizational agenda or assign or withhold scarce material or symbolic resources. Some
are derived from Shared expectations and perceptions of the organization’s “designated”
followers (Burns, 197 8). Although shared expectations and perceptions may be more
ephemeral than the formal elements of the organization, they are equally important in
deﬁning and empowering or confusing and limiting leadership.

Shared expectations and perceptions of the organization may be ill formed,
weakly fashioned or highly developed and palpable. Bolrnan and Deal (1997) offer four
major frames practitioners can use to “make sense” of organizations—the structural,
human resources, political and symbolic ﬁames. These frames serve both as “windows”
on the organization and “lenses” for bringing it into focus (pps. 12-15). From the
structural frame perspective of the organization, leadership is assigned to those holding
certain ofﬁcial titles. In higher education, for example, these titles may include dean,
department chair, vice president, provost or president. To the untrained eye, others
including faculty, staff, administrators and various support personnel might be considered .
followers—subordinates looking to the leaders for direction, inspiration, decisions and
solutions. In practice, nothing could be further ﬁ'om the truth. Leadership can emerge
from all levels and limiting one’s analysis to what appears to be the formal leadership

structure misses the rich and varied life of most organizations.

18

Kouzes and Posner (1993, in Komives, Lucas and McMahon, 1998) offer the term
“constituent” as an alternative to “follower.” “A constituent is someone who has an
active part in the process of running an organization and who authorizes another to act on
his or her behalf. A constituent confers authority on the leader, not the other way
around” (p. 12). Rost (1991, in Komives, et.al., 1998) encourages use of the term
“collaborator” due to the negative connotation of the word “follower” dating back to the
industrial worldview (p.13). Komives, et.al. (1998) suggest still another variation:
“participants” as involved in the leadership process, actively sharing leadership with
other group members. “Participants include the informal or formal positional leader in a
group as well as all active group members who seek to be involved in group change”

(p. 1 3).

Generally, and without the enhanced deﬁnitions such as those offered by Kouzes
and Posner; Rost; Konrives, Lucas and MacMahon, a less enlightened view of followers
would be their lack of the instincts, insight and ability to take on formal leadership roles.
The notion that leadership is exercised only by those who hold formal positions with
inherent status and power and the assumption that followers lack the ability or interest to
lead are among the common leadership myths (Gardner, 1990; Komives, et.al., 1998).
“Leaders are almost never as much in charge as they are pictured to be, followers almost
never as submissive as one might imagine” (Gardner, 1990, p. 23). Other leadership
myths purport that leaders are born not made, that charisma is a requirement of effective
leaders, that leadership is a rare Skill, that leadership exists only at the top of an
organization, and that leaders control, direct, prod and manipulate their followers (Bennis

and Nanus, 1985; Komives, et.al., 1998).

19

More contemporary views of leadership reﬂect the understanding that leadership
occurs throughout the organization and is not the result of the heroic personality of the
CEO or exclusive purview of those in formally recognized leadership positions (Senge,
et.al., 1994; Cooper and Pagotto, in Piland and Wolf, Eds., 2003). In business and in
education, the ability of organizations to cope with the expectations of their constituents
requires a more comprehensive consideration of where and how leadership can be
exercised throughout the organization. “If there was ever a moment in history when a
comprehensive strategic view of leadership was needed, not just by a few leaders in high
ofﬁce but by large numbers of leaders in every job. . .this is certainly it” (Bennis and
Nanus, 1985, p. 2).

Recognizing the importance of leadership throughout the organization, Komives,
Lucas and McMahon (1998) offer a deﬁnition of leadership that can be applied to
positional leaders or participants-collaborators-group members: “any person who
actively engages with others to accomplish change” (p.14). Using this deﬁnition, anyone

in the organization has the opportunity to exercise leadership.

C_hg_r_acteristicg of Leaggrship
The literature of leadership offers a number of insights into a more detailed look
at the characteristics of leaders including the traits, qualities and behaviors of leaders.
Perhaps the earliest theory of leadership was the “Great Man” or “Great Person” theory
that asserted that leaders possessed special qualities that enabled them to capture the
hearts and minds of the masses. Leaders were born, not made, and no amount of

“learning or yearning” could change this fate (Bennis and Nanus, 1985, p. 5). When this

20

perspective failed to explain all of leadership, it was suggested that events—factors of
timing, place and circumstance—made great leaders. The limitations of both “Great
Man” and “Big Bang” theories of leadership were their either/or nature—leadership was
either inherent within the person or a product of the Situational environment.

If the answer did not lie in who they were or the situations in which they found
themselves, perhaps the secret could be found in their behavior as leaders. Two primary
types of leadership behavior were identiﬁed: task/accomplishment and interpersonal
relationships. Those who exhibited high performance in both categories were perceived
by their peers as leaders. Those who performed high in task behavior but average in
relationships were sometimes considered leaders. Those who excelled in relationship
behavior only were less often perceived as leaders by their peers, and those who did not
perform well in either category were never considered leaders (Sashkin and Rosenbach in
Rosenbach and Taylor, Eds., 1998).

When considering gender roles in organizational settings, Eagly and J ohannesen-
Schmidt (2001) indicate that “the behavior of female leaders, compared with that of male
leaders, may be more interpersonally oriented, democratic, and transformational. In
contrast, the behavior of male leaders, compared with that of female leaders, may be
more task-oriented and autocratic” (pps. 787-788). However, Eagly and Johannesen-
Schmidt caution that “because of the constraining impact of leadership roles. . .any
differences between women and men who occupy the same role are unlikely to be large
in size” (p. 788).

Until recently, most of the research and literature on leadership focused primarily

on men. “The implicit, taken-for-granted assumption was that leadership was basically a

21

male activity. In the past decade or so however, there has been a surge of interest in
gender and leadership, stimulated by dramatic shifts in women’s roles and by the
accomplishments of individual women” (Bolrnan and Deal, 2003, p. 344-345). Questions
still abound: do men and women lead differently? Are they perceived of differently in
leadership roles? Bolrnan and Deal (1991, 1992a) found no differences between gender
with regard to leadership ﬁame issues of structural, human resource, political and
symbolic. “Eagly and Johnson (1990) found that women tended to be somewhat more
participative and less directive than men (in Bolrnan and Deal, 2003, p. 346). Generally
Speaking men and women in similar positions of leadership are perceived of as more
Similar than different by their subordinates (Carless, 1998; Komives, 1991; Morrison,
White and Van Velsor, 1987 in Bolrnan and Deal, 2003). When differences are
identiﬁed, they are usually in favor of women on issues of leadership and managerial
behavior (Bass, Avolio, and Atwater, 1996; Edwards, 1991; Hallinger, Bickrnan, and
Davis, 1990; Weddle, 1991; and Wilson and Wilson, 1991 in Bolrnan and Deal, 2003).
Amey and Twombley (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of the images, rhetoric
and organizational context of community college leadership found in the literature on the
evolution of the community college movement. A Short list of men is recognized for
their seminal role in shaping what is considered today’s comprehensive community
college. Predominant throughout the literature from the 19608 to the mid-19808 are
images of “commander” and “great man” as institutional leaders (Amey and Twombley,
1992, p. 139). AS community colleges evolved ﬁ'om the growth to maturation stage in
the late 19808 through the 1990s, the challenge for their leaders was to reclarify and/or

reinterpret the institutional mission (Hudgins,l990; Lorenzo, 1989), and, in the view of

22

some, to engage in all-out transformation (Roueche, et.al., 1989, in Amey and
Twombley, 1992). Transformational leadership behaviors were called for, according to
“mainstream” authors like Roueche, et.al., (1989) and leaders of these transforming
institutions were described as “blue-chippers” both terms, according to Amey and
Twombley, that supported “the traditional, elite imagery” of community college
leadership (1992, p. 141). Alternate voices (Eaton, 1988 and Desjardins, 1990, in Amey
and Twombley, 1992) called for a new style of leadership that was more cooperative and
collaborative than authoritative and hierarchical.

Stogdill (1958) studied the research relevant to leadership traits and found six that
were common in 15 or more of the studies he reviewed: intelligence, scholarship,
dependability, activity, social participation and socioeconomic status. His list of traits
expanded when he identiﬁed the commonalities of 10 or more of the studies: sociability,
initiative, persistence, knowing how to get things done, self-conﬁdence, alertness to and
insight into Situations, cooperativeness, popularity, adaptability and verbal facility.
Typology notwithstanding, Stogdill concluded that leaders could not possess these traits
alone and become successful leaders. The characteristics of leaders needed to “bear some
relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers” (Stogdill, in
Dean, 2002, p. 6). DePree (1992) echoes this perspective, pointing out that “one obvious
requirement” of leadership iS learning the perspective of followers. “Leaders cannot
ﬁrnction without the eyes and ears and minds and hearts of followers” (p. 200).

Cronin (1983) offers a tentative list of leadership qualities, which include self-
knowledge/self-conﬁdence; learning/renewal; coalition building; world mindedness/a

sense of history and breadth; and understanding the nature of power and authority. He

23

adds that “leadership consists of a spiral upwards, a spiral of self-improvement, self-
knowledge and seizing and creating opportunities so that a person can make things
happen that would not otherwise have occurr ” (pp. 15-16).

There does not appear to be a “one Size ﬁts all” or universally agreed-upon
taxonomy of leadership characteristics. “Deﬁnitions [of leadership] reﬂect fads,
fashions, political tides and academic trends” (Bennis and Nanus, 1985, p. 4). Jennings
(1961, in Dean, 2002, p. 6) asserts, “Fifty years of study have failed to produce one
personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate between leaders and
non leaders.” Perhaps leadership is “in the eye of the beholder” (Kouzes and Posner,
1996 in Rosenbach and Taylor, Eds., 1998).

The style of leaders was the focus of research conducted by Lewin and Lippitt
(l 93 8) when they attempted to classify leadership as democratic or autocratic and
identiﬁed three basic styles of leaders: democratic, laissez-faire and authoritarian.
Subsequent research (Lippitt, 1966) returned to the important inﬂuence of Situation and
the inappropriateness of stereotyping leaders without consideration of the environment in
which they were leading. Contemporary leadership theory underscores the notion that
leadership takes its form and is inﬂuenced by external circumstances (Hock, 2000),
personal experiences, the relationship of followers (Hock, 2000; Senge 1994; Seifter,
2001) and the understanding that organizations are living and sometimes unruly systems
(Wheatley, 1997; Zohar, 1997).

Drucker asserts (in Hesselbein, Goldsmith and Beckhard, Eds.,l995), “There may
be a few born leaders, but there are surely far too few for us to depend on them” and that

“leadership must be learned and can be learned” (p.xi). He offers a list of qualities he has

24

observed or experienced ﬁrst-hand with effective leaders: they have followers, they do
the right things, they are highly visible and they are responsible. Kouzes and Posner
(1996) surveyed more than 25,000 people around the globe in a range of organizations,
asking what they admired and looked for in their leaders. According to these data, people
want leaders who are honest, forward-looking, inspiring and competent. Three of these
four characteristics refer to “source credibility”—the believability of the communicator.
Kouzes and Posner (1996) assert that credibility is the most fundamental asset a leader
should possess (in Rosenbach and Taylor, Eds.,l998, p. 223).

Texaco CEO Alﬁ'ed C. Decrane, Jr. (1995) offers a “constitutional model” of
leadership (in Hesselbein, Goldsmith and Beckhard, Eds., 1995, p. 249), a defacto set of
core leadership competencies that can be adapted and applied to a variety of Situations as
conditions change and new challenges arise: character (humor and hunrility, self-aware,
inquisitive, open-minded, action-oriented), vision, behavior (act, create change, seize
opportunities, deploy people, seek consensus, communicate, be positive) and conﬁdence.
Covey (in Hesselbein, et.al., Eds.,l995) emphasizes the importance of leaders having a
passion for learning “. . .through listening, seeing emerging trends, sensing and
anticipating needs in the marketplace, evaluating past successes and mistakes, and
absorbing the lessons that conscience and principles teach us...” (p. 150).

Pielstick (2000) developed a comprehensive leader proﬁle in a meta-ethnographic
study emphasizing transformation leadership. This proﬁle, later articulated as authentic
leading, describes a pattern of evidence which deﬁnes leadership in terms of Six major
themes: Shared vision, communication, relationships, community, guidance and

character. Of these, Shared vision (the development and communication thereof) was

25

identiﬁed as the “most common distinguishing characteristic identiﬁed with leadership

overall, and authentic leadership speciﬁcally”

In 1996 the WK. Kellogg Foundation

(Pielstick, 2000, p. 100).

convened a panel of educators and

practitioners to examine the environment for leadership in higher education with an

emphasis on modeling new and more effective forms of leadership. Their report,

Leadership Reconsidered: Engaging Higher Education in Social Change (2000),

documented by the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of

Maryland, identiﬁes ﬁve “group qualities” and ﬁve “individual qualities” that deﬁne

effective leadership, as Shown in Table I below (Astin and Astin, 2000, pp.l l-13).

Table 1. Ten Qualities that Define Effective Leadership

 

Group Qualities

Individual Qualities

 

‘ Shared purpose - reﬂects the Shared aims values of

the group’s members; can take time to achieve

- mm- ._ .l

Commitment - the passion, intensity and

‘ persistence that supplies energy, motivates

individuals and drives group effort _.

 

Collaboratibn an approach that empowers
individuals, engenders trust, and capitalizes on
diverse talents

—_. w---—.~--_... -7-...- ”mu-o"--.

place; requires the cultivation and use of listening

. skills

 

«, Empathy- the capacity to put yourself In anOther s

 

. overall effort

Division of labor- -requires each member of the
group to make a signiﬁcant contribution to the

Competence— the knowledge, Skills and technical

. expertise required for successful completion on the
' transformation effort u

 

.- in an atmosphere of mutual trust

Disagreement with respect— recognizes that 7 A
disagreements are inevitable and should be handles

Hui-D‘W a.

I... ..._.._.

_ Authenticity— consistency between one ’s actions

and one ’s most deeply felt values and beliefs

 

 

 

 

A learning environment- allows members to see
the group as a place where they can learn and
acquire Skills

 

Self-knowledge- awareness of the beliefs, values

and emotions that motivate one to seek change

 

W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2000.

Most agree that personal characteristics are not the sole determinants of

leadership capability. Situation and environment, demonstrated behavior, and lessons

ﬁ'om the past are also important factors in considering the attributes of leadership. A

recurring theme emphasized in the literature is the importance of followers in the

leadership equation. To return to Drucker’s straightforward deﬁnition, leaders are those

26

 

who have followers. Followers legitimize leaders and, in order to be successful, leaders

must pay close attention to the characteristics and goals of followers.

Power and Leadership

The review of leadership literature would be incomplete without consideration of
the issues of power. Burns (1978) deﬁnes power “not as a property or entity or possession
but as a relationship in which two or more persons tap motivational bases in one another
and bring varying resources to bear in the process...” p. 15). He underscores the ubiquity
of power by saying, “it exists whether or not it is quested for”(p. 15). Identifying the
attributes of power for the purposes of generalization, Burns (1978) cites Robert Dahl’s
description of the three dimensions of the reach and magnitude of power: distribution,
scope and domain. Distribution is the concentration or dispersion of power among
persons of diverse inﬂuence in political, social and economic arenas. Scope iS the extent
to which power is generalized over a wide range or is specialized to a certain activity.
Power focused in one kind of activity may be relatively weak in another. Domain refers
to the number and nature of power respondents who are inﬂuenced by the person(s) in
power versus those who are not (Burns, 1978, p.16).

Prevalent in the literature of leadership since the early 1990s is the growing
emphasis on cultivating leaders at all levels of the organization and, as Heifetz (1994)
asserts, “giving the work back to the people” (p.128). “The scarcity of leadership from
people in authority, however, makes it all the more critical to the adaptive successes of a
polity that leadership be exercised by people without authority. These people—perceived

as entrepreneurs and deviants, organizers and troublemakers—provide the capacity

27

within the system to see through the blind spots of the dominant viewpoint” (Heifetz,
1994, p. 183).

Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1999) assert that change in learning
organizations relies on the consideration and cultivation of leaders throughout the
enterprise. “Organizations will enter a new domain of leadership development when we
stop thinking about preparing a few people for “the top” and start nurturing the potential
for leaders at all levels to participate in Shaping new realities. The core leadership
challenge of our era lies in addressing core issues for which hierarchical authority is
inadequate” (Senge, et.al., 1999, p. 568). Similarly, Badaracco (2002) encourages us to
look at leadership with a “wide-angle lens” (p. 5). He suggests that the majority of issues
are not resolved by a “swift, decisive stroke” ﬁom someone at the top. “What usually
matters are careful, thoughtful, small, practical efforts by people working far from the
limelight. In short, quiet leadership is what moves and changes the world” (Badaracco,
2002, p. 9).

Heifetz and Laurie (1997) urge the protection of leadership voices from below.
“People speaking beyond their authority usually feel self-conscious and sometimes have
to generate “too much” passion to get themselves geared up for speaking out. They pick
the wrong time and place, and often bypass proper channels of communication and lines
of authority. But buried inside a poorly packaged interjection may lie an important
intuition that needs to be teased out and considered” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997, p. 129).
To reject or ignore it, they caution, “is to lose potentially valuable information and

discourage a potential leader in the organization” (p. 130).

28

O’Toole (in Bennis, Spreitzer and Cummings, Eds., 2001) describes an emerging
pattern of collective leadership in corporations as observed in a 2001 study undertaken by
Booz Allen & Hamilton and the University of Southern California’s Center for Effective
Organizations for the World Economic Forum. The characteristic observed was more
rooted in the systems and culture of the organization than “cascading” leadership in
which a strong positional leader empowers other leaders down the organizational line.
More than an act of symbolic empowerment from positional leader to non-positional
leaders, they observed people at all levels of the organization behaving more like “owners
and entrepreneurs than employees or hired hands” (Bennis, et.al., Eds., p. 160).

Robbins (in Robbins and Zirinsky 1996) describes six bases of power, extending
beyond Etzioni’s categories of coercive, remunerative and normative organizations and
similar to French and Raven’s deﬁnitions of the bases of power as coercion, reward,
expertise, legitimacy and referent. All are helpful in examining the exercise of power
versus the practice of leadership. The bases of power include:

I Legitimate power—the authority granted by virtue of a position of formal
authority held in the hierarchy of an organization; legitimate power includes
coercive and rewarding power with the added leverage of rank; legitimate power
lies in position rather than relationships.

' Coercive power—the authority to punish as granted by legitimate authority,
including dismissal, suspension, demotion, the assignment of unpleasant work or
embarrassment; the potential or actual use of force (as in prisons and correctional

institutions).

29

- Reward power (extrinsic)—the ability to control and manipulate salary and
wages, commissions, working conditions and other perks.

' Reward power (intrinsic)—the ability to grant rewards such as recognition, new
responsibilities, professional accolades, etc.

' Expert power—the inﬂuence of expertise; may also derive from control of
information.

. Referent power—the inﬂuence of personal traits that others believe are desirable
and therefore admired; conferred by the organization and therefore can exist at
any level.

Formal leaders have the opportunity to exercise all Six bases of power while it would
appear that informal leaders would draw from the latter three: reward (intrinsic), expert
and referent power.

Morgan (1997), in his explication of organizations as political systems, examines
power from both the resource relationship—a commodity someone controls—and social
relationship “characterized by some kind of dependency (i.e. as an inﬂuence over
something or someone)” perspective (p. 171). He offers a list of the 14 most important
sources of power ranging from “formal authority” to “control of a decision processes” to
“control of boundaries” to “symbolism” and the “management of meaning” to the “power
one already has” (Morgan, 1997, p. 171). It appears that there are Similarities in concept
between Morgan’s sources of power and Robbins’ (1996) concept of power—coercive
and extrinsic reward relate to formal authority while referent power is analogous to the
power one already has. Sociologist Richard Emerson (1962, in Scott, 2003) supports the

notion of power as a values exchange relationship, viewing power as relational,

30

Situational and “at least potentially” reciprocal, reinforcing the concept that power is
more appropriately viewed as a social relationship than a characteristic of an individual
(p. 3 10).

The process of power in informal groups was studied in the 19508 (Sherif and
Sherif, 1953; Bales, 1952 in Scott, 2003), and the results identiﬁed how personal qualities
and social relationships became the basis for the sanctioning of leadership within these
groups. Further analysis by Homans and Blau (1961, 1964, in Scott, 2003) indicated that
the process of differentiation of group members was based on a series of exchanges, i.e.,
some members demonstrate their willingness to make greater contributions to goals—be
they individual or group goals. Power, then, becomes a product of unequal exchange
relationships that exist within the group based on the characteristics and behavior of
individuals. In contrast, positional power is attached to the person who occupies the
position, regardless of his or her personal qualities or performance.

The work of Burns (1978) led to the development of new perspectives on the
study of leadership and power, underscoring Max Weber’s (1947) distinction between
economic and non-economic sources of authority. Burns’ concept, subsequently labeled
as transformational leadership, appeals to followers beyond their self-interest.
Transformational leadership, according to Burns’ deﬁnition, “occurs when one or more
persons engage with others such that leaders and followers raise one another to higher
levels of motivation and morality,” leading to the transformation of leaders, followers and
the social system in which they function (Burns, 1978, p. 20). Weber called these non-
economic sources of authority or inﬂuence. This concept of leadership contrasted with

the earlier transactional or remunerative/reward approach.

31

Morgan (1997) observes, “hardly anyone will adrriit to having any real power.
Even chief executives often say that they feel highly constrained, that they have few
Signiﬁcant options in decision making, and that the power they wield is more apparent
than real” (p. 196). One reason, he offers, is that there is a Signiﬁcant difference
between what he labels “surface manifestations” and the “deep” structure of power,
suggesting that culture, history, econorrrics, class relationships and other deeply-rooted
factors are irnbedded in an organization. Another possible explanation Morgan offers is
that access to power is so highly distributed that the power “playing ﬁeld” is leveled.
While some may have positional power, others may have considerable personal power.
Posner and Kouzes (1998) tell uS, “Leaders cannot be appointed or anointed superiors.
Constituents determine where someone is ﬁt to lead. The trappings of power and
position may give someone the right to exercise authority, but we should never, ever
mistake position and authority for leadership” (p. 223).

The literature reveals that while positional power may be assigned, personal
power must be earned. Non-positional power is manifested in the byplay of social
relationships where the behavior, character and espoused commitment of certain
individuals are perceived to add value. Power can be conferred whether or not it is
sought. Key to the granting of power is the expectation and perception of the

organization’s “designated” followers.

Leaders and Followers

“Once you deﬁne leadership as the ability to get followers, you work backward

from that point of reference to ﬁgure out how to lead,” says Maxwell (1993, p. 2).

32

He asserts that most people identify leadership with position and therefore, pursue rank
and title to become recognized as leaders. As a result, some positional leaders are less
than effective because they rely exclusively on their authority in the exercise of
leadership rather than on cultivating followers. Conversely, those who lack positional
power often do not perceive of themselves as leaders and therefore, never develop their
leadership Skills (Maxwell, 1993, p. 2).

It has also become clear that leadership is often distinct from authority, although
authorities may be leaders. Weber (1947) likened authority to legitimacy and believed
that people would obey authority as long as they believed it was legitimate. Authority and
leadership are built upon voluntary obedience. If leaders lose legitimacy, they lose the
capacity to lead (Bolrnan and Deal, 2003).

Most agree that leaders cannot be leaders without followers. The quality of the
relationship between leader and follower is the crux of the matter. AS Chaleff (1997, in
Rosenbach and Taylor, Eds., 1998) explains, “it is the relationship between leaders and
followers all the way up and down the organization chart that makes programs, breaks
programs and makes or breaks careers” (p. 89).

Kelley (1998) reinforces the importance of the relationship between leaders and
followers in his description of ﬁve followership patterns. He suggests that there are two
underlying behavioral dimensions that predict follower performance. One dimension
measures the degree to which followers exercise independent, critical thinking and the
other ranks them on an active to passive scale. Low on both scales are “Sheep,” passive
and uncritical, and “Yes People” who are deferential to a fault. “Alienated Followers”

have settled into a pattern of “disgruntled acquiescence” because someone or something

33

turned them off at some point in the past. “Survivors” hunker down and ride out change.
“Effective Followers” are those who add value to the organization—often as much as
leaders do, Kelley says. They take initiative and succeed without the oversight of strong
formal leadership (Kelley, 1998, pps.143-l44).

Considering the efforts of more than a few (Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Rost, 1991
and Komives, Lucas and McMahon, 1998) to ﬁnd alternative designations for the term
“follower,” following suffers from an image problem as evidenced by Kelley’s
descriptions of “Sheep” and “Yes People.” Few have a burning desire to grow up to be
followers. Herein lies the organizational paradox, says Smith (in Hesselbein, Goldsmith
and Beckhard, Eds., 1996). While members of the organization—followers—are
expected to comply with orders from on high, they are also called upon to be leaders.
Many organizations declare, “people are our most important asset.” At least at the level
of theory espoused (Argyris & Schon, 1974), organizations expect and encourage
advancement up the ladder, admire risk taking and value entrepreneurial thinking.

In today’s complex organizations, it is important for leaders to understand that
occasionally they need to follow and often need to seek out and encourage followers to
become leaders. Smith refers to this as “both/and” performance (in Hesselbein,
Goldsmith and Beckhard, Eds., 1996). “Today, the people in an effective organization
must both think and do, both manage others and manage themselves, both make decisions
and do real work” (1996, p. 201). Smith emphasizes that leaders must be sensitive
enough to know when their most effective option is to follow, understanding that the
organization’s performance relies on the “capacities and insights of other people”

(p. 200).

34

Kanter (1999) asserts that the key to sustaining change within an organization is
not the “bold stroke” of leadership but the “long march—the independent, discretionary
and ongoing efforts of people throughout the organization” (p. 15). DePree (1989)
suggests that for an organization to be truly effective requires being open to “giants at all
levels” enabling uS to “think about being abandoned to the strengths of others, of
admitting that we cannot know or do everything” (p. 7).

An overall impression of the literature is that organizational vitality depends on
the “both/and” performance of everyone in the enterprise resulting in the whole becoming
greater than the sum of the parts. Formal leaders must encourage leadership behavior at
all levels, and followers must be permitted to exercise inﬂuence beyond their narrow
jurisdiction and to lead up. Unlike formal leaders, they do not have to take on the whole
organization at once. Their accession to informal leadership affords an element of
choice, an opportunity to be selective and the likelihood of gaining followers and

inﬂuencing events beyond the capacity of designated formal leaders.

Leadership in Higher Education
In the early history of the academy, the faculties did it all. Over time the

organization of knowledge led to specialization as did the differentiated stafﬁng that gave
rise to the role of administration. In the late 19th Century the United States began
building its system of higher learning which was inspired by distinguished European
universities, particularly German universities. Among the most recognized and some
might say “heroic” US. college and university leaders of this era were William Rainey

Harper at the University of Chicago and Charles Elliott at Harvard.

35

In their wake followed the development and expansion of an
administrative/managerial class that focused on technical and day-to-day operational
matters. After World War H, with the advent of the GI. Bill and rapid expansion of
public higher education, leaders like Clark Kerr at the University of California initiated
another great wave of building and development in higher education (Goodchild and
Wechsler, 1997). Since then higher education leaders have adopted many of the precepts
originally designed for and implemented in the business world. One of these precepts is
the quest for leadership as embodied in the “Great Man” or “Great Person” mystic—the
search for the heroic renaissance leader. Following the decade of the 19905 in which the
CEO was lionized as the wellspring of corporate vitality and Shareholder value, the
business world has reconsidered the presumed centrality of the CEO in creating and
sustaining fundamental business success.

Unlike many business practices applied to higher education, the Great Man/Great
Person theory of leadership has been met with skepticism. “It’s hard to imagine that the
heroic model of leadership was ever a particularly useful one for academe,” says
Madeline F. Green, Director of the Center of Leadership Development at the American
Council of Education (1994, p. 55). In the 19708, Cohen and March (1974) described the
academy as an “organized anarch)?’ in which the organization’s goals and purposes were
unclear and little direct power was ascribed to positional leaders (p. 1). Green (1994)
asserts that, given the realities of academia in which the balance of power constantly
shifts from interest group to interest group, “the traits of the leader become less important
than the complex interrelationships among leaders, followers, context and the tasks at

hand” (p. 56).

36

In a higher education leadership research project conducted in 1986 under the
auspices of the National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance, Bensimon
and Neurnann interviewed presidents and other positional leaders at 28 institutions to
determine how they interacted and communicated with one another, established goals,
transmitted values and developed an understanding of their campuses. “We were
intrigued with the idea of leadership as interactive, collaborative and Shared. It became
increasingly difﬁcult for us to think in terms of individual leaders without referring, at the
same time, to their interactions (intended or not) with those around them” (Bensimon and
Neumann, 1986, p. xiv). Bogue (1994) asserts that the most important task of today’s
formal leaders in higher education is the articulation of a philosophy—the values and
ideals that inspire the work of the organization. “An element of that philosophy will
surely be that leadership is not necessarily something that others do for or to us but
something we do together in shared ventures of purpose, persistence, and pleasure”
(Bogue, 1994, p. xv).

In the dawn of the 21St Century higher education is seen as much an engine of
economic development as the repository, embodiment and chief transmitter of our
collective culture and cannon. In the US. some exposure to higher education is
becoming more an expectation than an option—no longer an exclusive rite of passage
reserved for the wealthy or highly motivated. With open access to higher education
assured through the nation’s community colleges and growing pressure from new for-
proﬁt providers, higher education is facing an environment in which there are more
students, fewer public ﬁrnds and unprecedented expectations of accountability from every

constituency.

37

Leadership in Communig Colleges

The three decades following World War H signaled an era of rapid community
college establishment and growth. J. Eaton (interview, October 4, 2004) indicated that
founding presidents were generally considered pioneering leaders in this educational
movement. Often as the ﬁrst person hired, founding presidents had an advantage in
matters of power and control that few of their successors could match. They built their
colleges from the ground up—interpreting the mission of access and opportunity,
securing funding, building campuses, hiring faculty and developing programs.

Today, the community college sector has emerged as a positive, respected and
versatile force in higher education and society, educating nearly half of all
undergraduates in the nation and fully two-thirds of all minority students. “While they
share a commitment to open access, comprehensiveness and responsiveness to local
needs, community colleges are a set of diverse institutions” (Palmer and Katsinas, Eds.,
1996, p.4). This diversity is a result of their versatility--nimble local colleges able to
shape and transform themselves to meet community needs. The roles played by
community college leaders and the ability to serve successfully in these roles are
inﬂuenced directly by the growing complexity of the community college environment
and the evolution to a relatively ﬂat organizational hierarchy with many distributed
centers of inﬂuence and decision making.

Leadership now is in the hands of many. Piland and Wolf (2003) observe that
leadership “is exercised by members of the faculty, by key members of the support staff

and certainly by administrators and members of governing boards” (p. 1). They note that

38

the distributed nature of leadership is complex both in theory and in practice and, when
added to the multifaceted landscape of the community college, working successfully with
distributed leadership can be especially daunting. Cooper and Pagotto (in Piland and
Wolf, Eds., 2003) speak to the prevalence of faculty members as a source of informal
leadership, often feeling “the pull of leadership from the moment they enter community
colleges” (p. 29). They are called upon to serve in a variety of capacities beyond the
classroom including membership on budget and strategic planning committees,
curriculum committees, search teams for faculty and administrators and accreditation and
self-study committees. As faculty are visible and prominent in service to the college
mission beyond their prescribed teaching roles, so are members of the classiﬁed staff,
administrators, paraprofessionals and others not considered part of the formal leadership
hierarchy. “There is no place in today’s university where we can sit and watch the unmly
world go by” (Rarnsden, 1998, p. 231).

Informal leaders get things done as a result of their own individual efforts or by
inﬂuencing and inspiring others. They are referred to by Senge (2000) as “natural leaders
who emerge based on excellence of performance, clarity of vision or quality of the heart”
(p. 25). Given the prevalence of faculty and staff “followers” serving as leaders without
positional power, it appears that informal leadership can be observed on community
college campuses today—a brand of leadership that may be instrumental in inﬂuencing
the overall success of the institution.

In some cases the need for leadership from all corners of the institution is a
consequence of the Sheer volume of work that needs to be accomplished—there are more

initiatives to be addressed than the formal leaders can lead or manage. Occasionally, the

39

short-term reassignment of faculty and staff to projects “beyond the job description” is
the result of a call for new perspectives or speciﬁc expertise that can only come from
faculty, line administrators and support staff. Wei ghty issues that stir emotions such as a
breakdown of shared governance, program or service changes, modiﬁcations in the core
curriculum and establishing faculty load also may bring forth informal leaders. They
gather followers while playing roles of spokespersons, conveners, negotiators, agitators
or coalition builders.

Some have suggested that the increasing focus on and importance of informal
leaders signals a new organizational model for community colleges (Gould and Caldwell,
1998). “Like business and industry, the successful community colleges of the next
millemrium will radically alter their management models and foster organizational
synergy. These thriving institutions will create organizational cultures symbolized by
decentralized decision making, collaborative governance, alignment of structure and
systems with institutional values and goals...” (p. 350).

The forces that guide this research study are fourfold. Community colleges today
are grappling with multiple missions. They are characterized by ﬂat organizational
hierarchies with distributed and devolved centers of inﬂuence and control. They are
actively transforming themselves ﬁom a focus on input, teaching and resources, to a
focus on output, learning. They are drawing upon the talents of faculty and staff to
actively engage in every aspect of the development, design and delivery of positive
learning outcomes across the Spectrum of community college engagement with students

and the community. In some situations this engagement results ﬁom an expectation

40

inherent in the practice of Shared governance, in others it is the spontaneous exercise of
Situational leadership.

AS a result of these forces, it is important to the future of community colleges to
develop a better understanding of the full range of leadership in practice—including
leadership that is not traditionally or formally sanctioned through title or position and yet
is commonly observed as an existing phenomenon, particularly among faculty in
community colleges. Whether by design or by default, the devolution of leadership is
occurring. An aspect of this devolution is the inﬂuence of informal faculty leaders——a
phenomenon that has not been systematically investigated and as a result, is not well

understood.

41

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The purpose of this research was to develop an understanding of informal faculty
leadership in the community college from the perspective of informal faculty leaders
themselves. The research sought to answer the following questions:
1. What characteristics and behaviors exemplify effective informal faculty leaders?
2. What factors contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders?
3. What issues tend to be inﬂuenced by informal faculty leaders and do their peers
perceive this inﬂuence as positive or negative?
4. What circumstances tend to draw out or be associated with informal faculty
leaders in the exercise of informal leadership?
This chapter will include a description of the population, the sample used in the research,
the development of the survey instrument, the data collection procedures and the data

analysis procedures.

Population

Since the purpose of this research was to develop an understanding of informal
faculty leadership in the community college ﬁom the perspective of informal faculty
leaders themselves, the population for this research study was informal faculty leaders

from Six Michigan community colleges.

42

Selection of Sar__n_ple

Permission was sought and received from six Michigan community college
presidents to have faculty from their colleges participate in this study. Each of the Six
presidents was contacted by e—mail and asked to provide, via email, the names and
addresses of faculty department chairs that were subsequently invited to nominate
effective informal faculty leaders for this study. The guiding variable of the institutional
selection process was to include colleges of different enrolhnent Size, Since Size could
have a bearing on the organization’s structure, culture and, therefore, on the prevalence
and inﬂuence of informal leaders. Colleges with enrollment that ranged from a low of
2,000 students to a high of 14,000 students were selected to participate.

Department chairs were invited to offer nominations of effective informal faculty
leaders for this study because, in their formal leadership roles, department chairs are well
positioned to observe the characteristics and behaviors of faculty members. As
immediate supervisors of faculty members, department chairs are likely to have frequent
contact with faculty members in department meetings, on college committees, and in less
formal settings (e.g. hallway conversations), and witness their interactions with other
faculty and staff.

Upon receipt of the faculty department chair mailing lists from the presidents, a
total of 53 department chairs were sent a letter (see Appendix A) via US. mail asking
them to nominate faculty members whom they considered to be effective informal faculty -
leaders on their campuses. The letter explaining the purpose of the research and
requesting the nominations also included a nomination form (see Appendix B) and a self

addressed, stamped return envelope in which to return the nomination form.

43

The deﬁnition of informal faculty leaders provided to department chairs in the
letter of invitation to nominate was: faculty without recognized positional authority yet
who inﬂuence others within the college either consistently or in reference to Speciﬁc
issues or Situations. Effective informal faculty leaders were deﬁned as: those who have
inﬂuenced others within the college and, as a result, had either a positive or negative
inﬂuence on some aspect of the organization.

Department chairs were asked to provide the names and addresses of any and all
faculty members who met the aforementioned deﬁnitions of effective informal faculty
leaders without regard to any other qualifying criteria (i.e. teaching discipline, full-time
or part-time status, gender, years of service, etc.). Department chairs were assured that
their nominations would be conﬁdential, that they could submit them anonymously, that
their names would not be connected in any way with the survey, and the individuals they
nominated would not know the source of their nomination.

The unit of analysis for this study was individuals identiﬁed by nominators from
the same institution. This study incorporated the non-probability sampling technique of
purposive or judgment sampling (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 1996). Individuals who were _
judged by department chairs to be effective informal leaders, as deﬁned, were nominated
to participate.

Two weeks after the initial mailing was sent to department chairs asking for their
nominations of effective informal faculty leaders, an email reminder was sent to all 53
department chairs. The email was sent to all department chairs due to the fact that the
nominations were submitted anonymously and it was not possible to know which

department chairs had returned nomination forms ﬁ'om those who had not. A total of 93

faculty members, perceived as effective informal faculty leaders by their department
chairs, were nominated to participate in the research study.

It is noted that the purposive sampling technique utilized in this research study
had limitations that could affect the results of the study. The challenges of purposive
sampling are the extent to which judgment can be relied upon to arrive at a typical sample I
and that the individuals judged to be typical of the population will remain typical over
time (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 1996). The advantage of purposive sampling for this
study was the non-random selection of individuals judged to demonstrate the behaviors of

effective informal faculty leaders.

Research Inptrument Desigp

A quantitative research instrument was utilized to gather data on the topic. The
instrument was designed to explore the perceptions of informal faculty leaders with
regard to their observations of informal leaders in the community college. Five steps
were taken in the development of the research instrument, the Informal Faculty Leader
Questionnaire (IFLQ).

Step 1 - Comprehensive Literature Review - Initial research for the development
of the instrument was completed through a comprehensive literature review of topics
relating to leadership characteristics and behaviors, leadership and power, and leadership
and followership. Books, journal articles, dissertations and websites pertaining to
leadership in for-proﬁt and not-for-proﬁt organizations, including higher education, were
examined. The review of literature provided an analysis of leadership theory. An

analysis of the current literature on leadership enabled the researcher to accumulate the

45

information to form a baseline of accepted characteristics and behaviors of leaders, to
understand the implications of leading with and without formal authority, and to be
familiar with the role of followers in the leadership equation.

Step 2 — Pre-research Discussion - A group of Six faculty members from one of
the Six community colleges selected for the research study participated in a pre-research
discussion of effective informal faculty leadership and its related terminology. The
discussion was designed to identify informal faculty leader characteristics, behaviors and
issues to be explored in the research instrument and to ascertain terminology appropriate
to the topic and familiar to the population to be surveyed that could be used in the
instrument. Those selected for participation in Step 2 were not considered for later
participation in the research.

Step 3 — Development of the Informal Faculty Leader Questionnaire Instrument
(IFLQ) - Using the information gained in Steps 1 and 2, along with guidance ﬁ'om the
researcher’s Dissertation Committee, Step 3 focused on the development of the IFLQ.
Research instrument questions were developed using terminology appropriate to the topic
and familiar to the population to be surveyed. The design of the research instrument
followed recommendations cited by Creswell (1994), Alreck and Settle (1985) and Ary,
Jacobs and Razavieh (1996) for organizing and grouping items by topic, content and
scaling technique, composing scales and composing instructions.

Step 4 — Field Testing of the Instrument - The IFLQ was ﬁeld tested with six
informal faculty leaders—four of whom participated in the discussion noted in Step 2 and
two who had not participated in the discussion in Step 2. The purpose of ﬁeld testing the

IFLQ was to determine if the research instrument cover letter and instructions were

46

understandable, if any of the questions required clariﬁcation, if the order of the questions
was appropriate and if the estimated time required to complete the IF LQ was ten to
ﬁfteen minutes. None of the participants in this step of the research participated at later
stages of the research.

Step 5 — Instrument Revision - Using information ﬁom Step 4, above, the IFLQ
was revised and the ﬁnal instrument was developed (See Appendix C). Participants were
asked to reﬂect on their observation of informal faculty leaders at their colleges as they
responded to the IFLQ. Included in the IFLQ were questions on informal faculty leader
characteristics and behaviors, their inﬂuence on the institution, the ways in which
informal faculty leaders emerge within the institution, circumstances in which informal
faculty leaders are likely to exercise leadership, and the factors that deﬁne informal

faculty leaders.

Data Collection Procedures

Each of the 93 nominees was sent a letter of invitation (see Appendix D) to
participate in the research study, a copy of the Informal Faculty Leader Questionnaire
(see Appendix C), two copies of a Consent to Participate Form (see Appendix E), a self-
addressed stamped envelope for return of the completed research questionnaire and a
self-addressed stamped envelope for return of one copy of the signed Consent to
Participate Form. Care was taken in the letter of invitation to not disclose that the survey
participants themselves were considered informal leaders, since this might have affected

the outcome of the study. Instead, the 93 research study participants were told that they

47

had been invited to participate in the study for the purpose of providing a faculty
member’s perspective on informal faculty leadership within the community college.
Exactly two weeks after this initial packet was mailed, an identical packet was
mailed to all nominees who had not yet returned a signed Consent to Participate Form.
Within forty days of the initial mailing to the survey sample, a total of Sixty-two
completed IF LQS were received and an identical number of signed Consent to Participate
forms were received. IF LQS were date stamped the day of arrival, recorded by code

number and ﬁled according to code number for data entry at a later date.

Data Analysis

Response codes were created for each of the nine IF LQ questions. Responses
from individual research questionnaires were entered into SPSS, the software utilized to
analyze the data. Data were veriﬁed for accuracy following data entry by running test
descriptive and cross-tabulation comparisons.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data and to identify the mean
agreement/disagreement scores of the ﬁve multi-part questions in the IF LQ:
characteristics and behaviors of informal leaders, the ways in which informal leaders
emerge, factors that deﬁne informal leaders, the areas/degrees of inﬂuence on the
institution by informal leaders and circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise
informal leadership. For each of these ﬁve survey questions, respondents were asked to
assign numerical values to their level of agreement with each statement of these multi-

part questions using a ﬁve point Likert—like scale ranging from 5=strongly agree to

48

l=strongly disagree. For purposes of data interpretation, the mean
agreement/disagreement scores were categorized as follows:
Scores 2 4.0 were considered to represent high association
Scores 5 2.99 were considered to represent low association

The remaining four of the nine survey questions were demographic in nature and
analyzed ﬁrst using descriptive statistics, including frequencies and means. In order to
examine the affect of years of experience in higher education and years of experience at
their current institution, a subset of data were analyzed that was one standard deviation
away from the mean for Question 7 and Question 8. This allowed for comparing the
survey responses when highly experienced faculty were compared with those faculty who
had little experience.

Since the data available through this survey were means data, two-tailed t-tests, a
statistical method of assessing the Si gniﬁcance of differences between two mean values
for the same variable (Alreck and Settle, 1985), were used in the data analysis. T-tests
were used to analyze where important differences existed with regard to the demographic
information provided by respondents—male/female, newer/longer serving in higher
education, high longevity/low longevity at current institution and technical/occupational
or liberal arts/ general studies faculty—when considering every variable described in
Questions 1-5: informal leader characteristics and behaviors, how informal faculty
leaders emerge, factors that deﬁne effective informal faculty leaders, areas/degrees of
. inﬂuence on the institution and circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise

informal leadership. Level of signiﬁcance for all analyses was set at <05.

49

Limitations
Because of the small sample Size and the purposive, non-random selection of
institutions and individual participants, the results of this research cannot be generalized
to all community colleges. This research was exploratory in nature and the results Should
be treated as analyses that are grounded in systematically gathered data from a limited

number of respondents.

50

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

In the previous chapter the methodology for this study was explained in detail,
from the Informal Faculty Leader Questionnaire to the statistical procedures utilized in
analyzing the data.. This chapter presents the data that were collected together with an

analysis of the data.

Informal Faculty Leader Demoggphics

Response Rate

Table 2 Shows the number of Informal Faculty Leadership Questionnaires that
were mailed, the number and percent that were returned completed and the number and

percent used in the data analysis.

 

Table 2: Response Rate

IFLQS IFLQS IFLQS
Mailed Returned Used in
Completed Data

 

 

Analysis
Informal
Faculty 93 62 (67%) 62 (67%)
Leader

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Informal Faculty Leader Questionnaires were mailed to a total of 93 individuals
nominated as being informal faculty leaders at Six Michigan Community Colleges. Each
one of the 93 individuals was nominated to participate in the study by one or more
department chairs at their respective colleges. Sixty-two Questionnaires were returned
completed for a response rate of 67%. Sixty-two Questionnaires were used for data

analysis.

51

Gender of Respondents

Table 3 shows the gender of respondents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Gender of Respondents
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 32 51.6
Female 29 46.8
Total 61 98.4
Missing 1 A 1.6
Total 62 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

As Shown in Table 3, a total of 32 males (51.6%) and 29 females (46.8%) returned

completed Questionnaires. One respondent did not answer the gender question.

Xeprs of Experience in Higher Education
Table 4 Shows the frequency distribution and mean of respondents’ years of

experience in higher education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Frequencies and Mean for Years
of Experience in Higher Education

Years of experience Frequency Percent

In higher education
3 1 1.6
5 l 1.6
6 1 1.6
7 1 1.6
8 1 1.6
10 2 3.2
11 2 3.2
12 l 1.6
13 1 1.6

 

 

 

 

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 (continued): Frequencies and Mean for Years
of Experience in Higher Education
Years of experizrce Frequency Percent
in higher education

“- 1 l: I - l 1.6
7“ —‘15 “M 3 ‘u' 48
16 4 6.5
17 3 4.8
18 3 4.8
19 1 1.6

20 9 14.5
22 1 1.6
23 2 3.2
24 2 3.2
25 4 6.5
30 6 9.7
32 1 1.6
33 1 1.6
A 34 1 A r 1.6
35 l 1.6
36 7 ml 1.6
37 3 4.8

38 T 2 I 3.2 ‘-

40 1 1.6
Missing 1 1.6

Total 62 100.0

Mean Years of Experience 21.6
Std. Deviation 9.3

 

 

 

As shown in Table 4, respondents’ years in higher education ranged from a low of 3

years to a high of 40 years. Thirty-eight (62%) of the respondents had between 15 and 30

53

years of experience. One respondent did not answer the years in higher education
question. The mean of respondents’ years in higher education was 21.6 years. The
standard deviation was 9.3. In the examination of the effect that years in higher
education might have on the responses to IFLQ items, subsequent data analyses for the
years in higher education demographic compared newer and longer serving faculty and
included only those respondents whose years in higher education were at least one
standard deviation above the mean, 31 years or more, and compared them to those whose
years in higher education were at least one standard deviation below the mean, 12 years

or less.

Years of Experience at Current Institution
Table 5 shows the frequency distribution and mean of respondents’ years of

experience at their current institution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5: Frequencies and Mean for
Years at Current Institution
Years of experience at your Frequency Percent
current institution
' 3 1 7 1.6
A 4 1 1.6
T 5 7 1 7 1.6
6 l 1.6
7 3 4.8
8 l 1.6
9 1 1.6
10 2 3.2
11 4 6.5
12 2 3.2

 

 

 

 

54

6X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 (continued): Frequencies and Mean for
Years at Current Institution
Years of experience at your Frequency Percent
current institution
13 1 1.6
14‘ A 1 2 1 1L 3.2T
15 4 6.5
16 5 8.1
17 4 6.5
18 5 8.1
19 2 3.2
20 5 8.1
23 1 1.6
25 5 8.1
27 1 1.6
29 l 1.6
30 l 1.6
34 1 1.6
36 Al I 2 n x 3.2
37 2 3.2
38 u: 2 3 .2
Missing A L l 1.6
Total T 62 100.0
Mean 18.2
Std. Deviation 9.0

 

 

 

AS shown in Table 5, respondents’ years at their current institution ranged from a low of
3 years to a high of 38 years. Forty-two (69%) of the respondents had between 10 and 26
years of experience at their current institution. Subsequent data analyses for the years of

experience at current institution demographic compared high longevity and low longevity

55

faculty and included only those respondents whose years of experience at their current
institution were at least one standard deviation above the mean, 27 years or more, and
compared them to those whose years of experience were at least one standard deviation

below the mean, 9 years or less.

Technica_11_and Libergl Arts Faculty

Table 6 Shows the academic area of the college represented by respondents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6: Academic Area of Faculty Respondents
What area of the college do you represent? Frequency Percent
Technical/occupational 26 41.9
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 56.5
Missing 1 1.6
Total 62 100.0

 

 

 

 

AS Shown in Table 6, 35 respondents (56.5%) represented liberal arts/ general studies
areas and 26 respondents (41.9%) represented technical/occupational areas of the college.

One respondent did not answer the academic area question.

Characteristics apd Beh_aviors of Informal Faculg Leaders
Table 7 shows the mean agreement scores for statements describing the

characteristics and behaviors demonstrated by informal faculty leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7: Mean Agreement Scores for Characteristics
and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders
Informal faculty leaders... N Mean Standard
Deviation
. . . demonstrate concern for people/relationships. 61 4.43“ .59
. .. demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability. 60 4.38" .61
are self inspired to lead. 61 4.28“ .80

 

 

 

 

 

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7 (continued): Mean Agreement Scores for Characteristics
and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders
. Informal faculty leaders... N Mean Standard
Deviation
work behind the scenes. 62 4.18“ .76
. . are inspired to lead as a result of situations/events that occur. 61 4.15 "‘ .70
. . demonstrate networking ability. 61 4.15“ .68
.. demonstrate concern for tasks. .- 61 4.15“ .65
.. have a positive outlook. 62 4.02" .69
.. are able to inﬂuence up/down the college hierarchy. 62 3.92 .71
.. seek advice and counsel in forming their opinions. 61 3.92 .76
.. are conferred the "status" of informal leaders by others. 61 7 3.90 .62
.. teer to be deliberative in decision making. I M A 60 3.88 I ‘ AT :64
.. seek consensus. 62 3.84 .77
. . get others to agree with—”their ideask WATT ' 62 I 3.82 .67
.. are altruistic. A l 60 3.72 .78
.. are Systems thinkers. M ”T M I A i l A T #62 3.47 *-- ‘— .76
.. promote their own personal opinions. 61 3.34 .79
.. mainly inﬂuence their peer group. 61 3.23 .99
.. are humble. 62 3.21 .73
. . are highly visible, prominent. 61 3.18 .87
. . are motivated by self-interest. 61 3.15 1.05
.. are self appointed as informal leaders. 61 3.10 .89
.. are prideful. 62 2.97" .90
.. tend to be spontaneous in decision making. 61 2.54" .85
.. have a negative outlook 62 2.16" .73
.. have narrow insight. 62 1.95" .64

 

 

 

 

 

"‘ = high association
** = low association

A total of 26 statements describing characteristics and behaviors that might be ascribed to

informal faculty leaders were developed with the aid of a discussion group representing

57

community college faculty. Respondents to the IFLQ were presented with the 26
statements in the Questionnaire and asked to indicate on a ﬁve-point Likert-like scale the
degree to which they agreed or disagreed that each statement was typical of informal
faculty leaders. In the IF LQ the ﬁve point scale was structured as follows: strongly
agree=5, agree=4, neutral=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=l.

As noted by the eight items with an asterisk in Table 7 above, a mean score of 4.0
or higher on a 5.0 scale illustrates high association with these characteristics and
behaviors of informal faculty leaders. As seen in Table 7, respondents Show high
association with these statements about informal faculty leaders: “demonstrate concern
for pe0ple/relationships,” “demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability,” “are self inspired
to lead,” “work behind the scenes,” “are inspired to lead as a result of Situations/events
that occur,” “demonstrate networking ability,” “demonstrate concern for tasks,” and
“have a positive outlook.”

Conversely, as noted by the four items with a double asterisk in Table 7, a mean
score of 2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale illustrates low association with these characteristics
and behaviors of informal faculty leaders. As seen in Table 7, respondents Show low
association with these characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders: “are
prideful,” “tend to be spontaneous in decision making,” “have a negative outlook,” and
“have narrow insight.”

The characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders with high association
in Table 7 were those that were also characterized as favorable by the original discussion
group utilized in Step 2 of the IFLQ development—upbeat, positive and constructive-—

including a strong emphasis on interpersonal relationships: networking ability, concern

58

for people/relationships, seeking advice/counsel from others and ability to inﬂuence
people up/down the hierarchy—and the very practical aspects of getting the work done:
demonstrating knowledge/expertise and being task-oriented. At the opposite end of the
spectrum are the unfavorable attributeS-—negative outlook, narrow insight, prideful
behavior and less thoughtful or consultative decision making style. Respondents to this
survey associate informal faculty leaders with characteristics and behaviors that may be

considered favorable or positive.

The Emergence of Informal Faculty Leaders

Table 8 shows the mean agreement scores of responses to the question, “At your

college, how do informal faculty leaders emerge?”

 

Table 8: Mean Agreement Scores when Considering Factors that
Contribute to the Emergence of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

Informal faculty leaders step forward because they... N Mean Std. Deviation

 

 

 

.. are deeply concerned about the issue(s) at hand. 62 4.39“ .52
. . . feel a responsibility to lead. 62 4.05" .64
.. are encouraged by their peers. 61 3.97 .63

 

.. know something--their area of expertise is involved. 61 3.97 .60

 

.. are encouraged by formal leaders. 61 3.34 .87

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . are motivated by the exercise of inﬂuence and power. 62 2.50“ .90

 

* = high association
** = low association

Six statements describing how informal faculty leaders emerge were listed in the IFLQ.
Respondents were asked to indicate on a ﬁve-point Likert-like scale the degree to which
they agreed or. disagreed with each statement. The scale was structured as follows:

strongly agree=5, agreeﬁ, neutral=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=1.

59

As noted by the two items with an asterisk in Table 8 above, a mean score of 4.0
or higher on a 5.0 scale illustrates high association with these factors that contribute to
the emergence of informal faculty leaders. As seen in Table 8, respondents Show high
association with these statements: informal faculty leaders step forward because they
“are deeply concerned about the issue(s) at hand” and “feel a responsibility to lead.”

Conversely, as noted by the item with a double asterisk in Table 8 above, a mean
score of 2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale illustrates low association with one factor that
contributes to the emergence of informal faculty leaders. AS seen in Table 8, respondents
Show low association with the statement: informal faculty leaders step forward because
they “are motivated by the exercise of inﬂuence and power.”

Although the literature Speaks to the opportunity to exercise inﬂuence and power
as compelling factors for some leaders, the results presented above Show that respondents
to the IFLQ associate with different factors such as concern about an issue or feeling a
sense of personal responsibility. Respondents also showed agreement that inﬂuence, in
the form of peer encouragement; and pragmatism, when the opportunity to lead in their
area of expertise is presented, are factors that contribute to the emergence of informal
faculty leaders. In the opinion of respondents the rewards linked to the acquisition of
power and inﬂuence are not considered as important as other determining factors in the

informal leadership equation.
Factors That Deﬁne Effective Informal Faculty Leaders

Table 9 shows the mean agreement scores with statements describing the “factors

that deﬁne effective informal faculty leaders.”

60

 

Table 9: Mean Agreement Scores for Factors that
Define Effective Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effective inform] faculty leaders... N Mean Std.
Deviation
.. need to be effective communicators-oral and written. 62 4.47“ .62
.. transcend boundaries--they inﬂuence others beyond their department or ,,
. . . 62 4.31 .69
drscrphne.
. . communicate through dialogue and face-to-face interaction. 62 4.29"I .55
. . recognize and engage the talents of others. 62 4.23“ .61
.. are inﬂuential in shaping the college. 62 4.18“ .61
must ﬁrst be perceived as effective teachers/educators. 62 4.05“ .82
.. can emerge any where, any time-age, gender and experience are not 62 3 94 92
necessarily determining factors. ' °
are those with more experience and greater longevity in the institution. 62 3.26 1.10

 

 

 

 

* = high association

Eight descriptors that could deﬁne effective informal leaders were listed on the
questionnaire. Respondents were asked to indicate on a ﬁve-point Likert-like scale the
degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement as an accurate descriptor
for informal faculty leaders. The scale was structured as follows: strongly agree=5,
agree=4, neutral=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=1.

As noted by the Six items with an asterisk in Table 9 above, a mean score of 4.0 or
higher on a 5.0 scale illustrates high association with these factors that defrne effective
informal faculty leaders. As seen in Table 9, respondents Show high association with
these factors that deﬁne effective informal faculty leaders: “need to be effective

9’ ‘6

communicators—oral and written, transcend boundaries—they inﬂuence others

9’ 66 9’ 6‘

beyond their department or discipline, communicate through dialogue, recognize and

9’ 6‘

engage the talents of others, are inﬂuential in shaping the college,” and “must ﬁrst be

perceived as effective teachers.” Respondents did not Show low association with any of

61

 

the factors in Table 9 in that none of the statements received a mean agreement score of
2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale.

Although it might be expected that length of service, age, gender or master
teacher status would be factors predictive of informal faculty leaders, respondents
indicated high association with statements related to cultivating and nurturing followers
as deﬁning elements of informal faculty leaders. There is high association among
respondents with descriptors of informal faculty leaders as effective communicators—
oral, written and face-to-face; able to cultivate beyond their cubicles by transcending
narrow departmental boundaries; and adept at recognizing and engaging the talents of
others. Responses to the IFLQ Show that informal leaders may emerge anywhere, any
time. Regardless of the speciﬁc events at hand, what respondents are inclined to see as
the common thread involving informal faculty leaders is that they demonstrate and
communicate an interest in and concern for issues and people beyond their traditional,

even parochial, boundaries.

Inﬂuence of Informal Faculg Leaders
Table 10 Shows the mean positive and negative degrees of inﬂuence of informal

faculty leaders by area of inﬂuence.

 

Table 10: Mean Agreement Scores for Area of Inﬂuence of
Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Inﬂuence Positive or Negative Mean N
Curriculum Positive inﬂuence 4.00‘I 59
Curriculum 1 1 Negative inﬂuence 4.00“ 1 1
Assessment Positive inﬂuence 3.71 52
Assessment Negative inﬂuence , 2.67 9

 

 

 

 

62

 

 

Table 10 (continued): Mean Agreement Scores for Area of Inﬂuence of
Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area oflnfluer; A TuPositive or Negative ' Mean N
Compensation Positive inﬂuence 3.57 51
Compensation I r k if Negative inﬂuence if _ * 2.10 10
Shared Governance Positive inﬂuence 1 3.48 54

Shared Govefnanc; T _ r" Negative inﬂuence 2.33 6
Budget Positive inﬂuence 2.61 " 49
Budget Negative inﬂuence 2.09“ 11
* = high inﬂuence

""" = low inﬂuence

Respondents were asked to rate ﬁve possible Areas of Inﬂuence: Shared Governance,
Cuniculum, Budget, Compensation and Assessment in the IFLQ. For each Area of
Inﬂuence respondents were asked to give a positive rating or a negative rating to indicate
the direction of informal faculty leaders’ inﬂuence on each Area. For each Area of
Inﬂuence respondents were also asked to indicate on a ﬁve-point Likert-like scale the
degree to which informal faculty leaders have an impact on the Area of Inﬂuence. The
scale was structured as follows: very high=5, high=4, neutral=3, low=2, very low=1.
Responses to this question were analyzed in pairs to consider both positive and negative
mean ratings for each Area of Inﬂuence. Only those pairs that met the scoring threshold
of 4.0 or higher and 2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale are discussed below.

As noted by the item with an asterisk in Table 10, a mean score of 4.0 or higher
on a 5.0 scale illustrates high inﬂuence for this Areas of Inﬂuence. Respondents (n=59)
show high positive inﬂuence by informal faculty leaders on the Area of curriculum. One
respondent (n=1) showed high negative inﬂuence by informal faculty leaders on the Area

of curriculum.

63

 

Conversely, as noted by the item with a double asterisk in Table 10, a mean score
of 2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale illustrates low inﬂuence with this Area of inﬂuence. As
seen in Table 10, respondents (n=49) show low positive inﬂuence by informal faculty
leaders on the Area of budget, and low negative inﬂuence (n=1 1) by informal faculty
leaders on the Area of budget.

This particular question on the IFLQ gave respondents the opportunity to rate
each Area of Inﬂuence as “positive” or “negative” in addition giving each Area a high to
low score on the Likert-like scale. Although only one respondent indicated a negative
inﬂuence by informal faculty leaders on the Area of curriculum, it was a high inﬂuence
score at 4.0.

Not surprisingly, an Area in which faculty are traditionally perceived as having
signiﬁcant expertise and inﬂuence, curriculum, was given the high inﬂuence, positive
mean score when considering all ﬁve Areas of informal faculty leader inﬂuence tested.
Budget, an Area that has tended to be more the purview of formal administrative leaders,
was given low positive inﬂuence and low negative inﬂuence mean scores.

By design the IFLQ placed emphasis on informal faculty leadership. The Areas
of budget and compensation may fall more appropriately in the domain of a more formal
category of faculty leadership. In many institutions faculty are regularly engaged in
budget and compensation issues and this engagement tends to be represented in
sanctioned faculty leadership positions such as union or faculty association leader,
department chair, or planning/budget committee member. In any event, whether it is

budget and shared governance as substantive Areas or because these Areas are the

domain of more formally designated faculty leaders, respondents tended to regard

informal faculty leaders as less inﬂuential in Areas of budget and compensation.

Circumstances in Which Faculg are Liker to Exercise Informal Leadership

Table 11 shows the mean scores of agreement with statements describing

“circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership.”

 

Table 11: Mean Agreement Scores when Considering Circumstances in Which
Faculty are Likely to Exercise Informal Leadership

 

Faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership in order to N Mean Std. Deviation

 

offer perspective or opinion on an important/sensitive issue. 60 4.32" .54

 

"step up" and do their part: lead/serve on a committee, task force,

60 4.30"I .50
etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. inﬂuence formal leaders. 60 4.08* .65
.. inﬂuence followers. 60 3.78 .67
.. demonstrate participation in shared governance. 59 3.75 .78
.. fulﬁll "service to college mission" requirements. 60 3.58 .87
.. prepare for a formal leadership position. 60 3.27 .92

 

* = high association

Seven statements describing circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise
informal leadership were listed in the IFLQ. Respondents were asked to indicate on a
ﬁve-point Likert-like scale the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each
statement. The scale was constructed as follows: strongly agree=5, agree=4, neutral=3,
disagree=2, strongly disagree=1. As noted by the items marked with an asterisk in Table
11 above, a mean score of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale illustrates high association with
these circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership.

As seen in Table 11, respondents show high association with these statements

about circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership: in order

65

9’ ‘6

to “offer perspective or opinion on an important/sensitive issue, step up and do their
part: lead/serve on a committee, task force, etc.” and “inﬂuence formal leaders.”
Respondents did not show low association with any of the circumstances in Table 11
since none of the statements received a mean agreement score of 2.99 or lower on a 5.0
scale.

When indicating agreement with circumstances in which faculty are likely to
exercise informal leadership, respondents showed high agreement with statements
describing circumstances that offer the potential of inﬂuencing beyond the body of
faculty—by offering perspective or opinion on an important or sensitive issue and by
stepping up to lead or serve on a committee or task force. In both of these situations the
forum for leadership is likely to include more than faculty peers, although some
committees and task force initiatives could be intra-faculty activities. Based on these
responses, it appears that informal faculty leaders are more active on the boundaries of
their departments with other departments, beyond the boundaries of their departments
with the college as a whole, or beyond the boundaries of their departments and the
college with the external community. This idea is reinforced by respondents’ high
association with the statement “informal faculty leaders are likely to exercise informal
leadership in order to inﬂuence formal leaders.” Given these high association scores, it

appears that respondents concur that informal faculty leadership is a boundary-spanning

activity.

66

Sigm'frcant Differences Shown by Gender of Respondents

Table 12 shows the statements for which statistically signiﬁcant differences were found

between the mean agreement/disagreement scores of male and female respondents.

 

Table 12: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females
when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Informal faculty leaders . . . Gender N Mean Std. t-test for
Deviation Equality of
Means
Sig. (2-tailed)

. . . demonstrate knowledge/expertise Male 31 4.23"I .56 012""
ability.

Female 28 4.61“ .57 .012‘"
. . . demonstrate networking ability. Male 31 3.97 .55 .016‘"Ml

Female 29 4.38“ .73 .017""‘
. . . are motivated by self-interest. Male 31 2.84" 1.04 017*"

Female 29 3.48 .99 .017‘"
. . . are systems thinkers. Male 32 3.28 .77 .056

Female 29 3.66 .72 .055
. . . demonstrate concern for tasks. Male 31 4.26" .63 .125

Female 29 4.00“ .65 .126
. . . work behind the scenes. Male 32 4.03“ .65 .152

Female 29 4.31“ .85 .158
. . . tend to be spontaneous in decision- Male 31 2.39"“l .72 .172
making.

Female 29 2.69" .97 .177
. . . are conferred the "status" of informal Male 31 3.84 .52 .317
leaders by others.

Female 29 4.00" .71 .322
. . . have narrow insight. Male 32 1.88" .71 .338

Female 29 2.03" .57 .333
. . . are inspired to lead as a result of Male 31 4.23“ .67 .396
situations/events that occur.

Female 29 4.07“ .75 .398

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

 

 

Table 12 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females
when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Informal faculty leaders . . . Gender N Mean Std. t-tect for
Deviation Equality of
Means
Sig. (2-tailed)

. . . are able to inﬂuence up/down the Male 32 3.84 .63 .398
college hierarchy. ’

Female 29 4.00" .80 .404
. . . tend to be deliberative in decision- Male 30 3.83 .59 .429
making. ..

Female 29 3.97 .68 .430
. . . are self inspired to lead. Male 31 4.19“ .87 .469

Female 29 4.34“ .72 .466
. . . seek advice and counsel in forming their Male 31 3.87 .85 .514
opinions.

Female 29 4.00" .65 .510
. . . have a positive outlook. Male 32 3.97 .69 .578

Female 29 4.07‘ .70 .578
. . . get others to agree with their ideas. Male 32 3.84 .63 .616

Female 29 3.76 .69 .617
. . . have a negative outlook. Male 32 2.13" .61 .667

Female 29 2.21” .86 .673
. . . mainly inﬂuence their peer group. Male 31 3.26 .96 .742

Female 29 3.17 1.04 .742
. . . demonstrate concern for Male 31 4.45“ .62 .807
people/relationships.

Female 29 4.41“ .57 .807
. . . promote their own personal opinions. Male 31 3.35 .80 .831

Female 29 3.31 .81 .831
. . . are prideful. Male 32 2.97" .93 .872

Female 29 2.93" .88 .872

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females
when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders
Informal faculty leaders . . . Gender N Mean Std. t-test for
Deviation Equality of
Means
Sig. (2-tailed)
. . are altruistic. Male 31 3.74 .77 .894
Female 28 3.71 .81 .894
. . are self-appointed as informal leaders. Male 31 3.10 .87 .905
Female 29 3.07 .92 .905
. . seek consensus. Male 32 3.84 .81 .936
Female 29 3.83 .76 .936
. . are humble. Male 32 3.22 .71 .950
Female 29 3.21 .77 .951
. . are highly visible, prominent. Male 32 3.19 .78 .969
Female 28 3.18 .98 .969

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high association

** = low association

“* = signiﬁcant differences

A total of 26 statements of informal leader characteristics and behaviors were analyzed to
examine differences between male and female agreement ratings. Of these, three
statements, those marked with triple asterisks in Table 12, showed statistically signiﬁcant
differences between mean agreement ratings of males and females. Characteristics and
behaviors showing statistically signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test
score of .05 or less. The remaining 23 statements of informal leader characteristics and
behaviors did not show statistically signiﬁcant gender differences as deﬁned by a t-test

score of .05 or less. As seen in Table 12, female respondents, as compared to male

respondents, show high association with these characteristics and behaviors of informal

69

leaders: “demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability,” “demonstrate networking ability”
and “are motivated by self-interest.”

Not unexpectedly, two of these characteristics and behaviors are related to issues
of informal faculty leader performance: what they know—knowledge and expertise
ability, and who they know—their ability to network throughout the institution. High
association with know-how and relationship strength show that females believe these are
characteristics and behaviors that one would expect from an informal leader.
Surprisingly, the third statement of characteristics and behaviors in which a statistically
signiﬁcant difference was found between females’ and males’ mean scores is related to
personal gain. As shown in Table 12, females, more than males, associate self-interest as
a motivating factor for informal faculty leaders. Since self-aggrandizement is more a
gender stereotypic characteristic for males than for females in leadership roles, this
statistically signiﬁcant difference in association is of interest.

Of note in Table 12 are four other statements in which the mean agreement
scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for females and males, were different when
considering the high association score threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale. Female
respondents indicated high association with these characteristics and behaviors of

9’ 66

informal faculty leaders: “are conferred the status of informal leaders by others, are

99 66

able to inﬂuence up/down the college hierarchy, seek advice and counsel in forming
their opinions” and “have a positive outlook.” Male respondents’ mean scores did not

meet the high association threshold for these same four characteristics and behaviors.

70

Table 13 shows a statement for which a statistically signiﬁcant difference was
found between the mean agreement/disagreement ratings of male and female respondents

when considering factors that contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females
when Considering Factors that Contribute to the Emergence
of Informal Faculty Leaders
Informal leaders step forward because. . . t-test for
Std. Equality of
Gender N Mean Deviation Means
Sig. (2-tailed)
. . , _ Male 31 3.81 .60 034“"
. . . their area of expertise rs mvolved. ,
Female 29 4.14“ .58 .034’"
. _ . Male 32 3.97 .69 .209
. . . they feel a responsrbrlrty to lead. ,
Female 29 4.17“ .54 .204
. Male 31 3.90 .60 .430
. . . they are encouraged by their peers.
Female 29 4.03‘ .68 .432
. . . . they are motivated by the exercise of Male 32 2-41" -91 527
I ' .
1 "mm“ and ”W” Female 29 2.55" .87 .526
t
. . . they are deeply concerned about the Male 32 4-38“ ~55 776
' d.
' 185°C“) at ha“ Female 29 441* .50 .775
Male 31 3.35 .88 .846
. . . they are encouraged by formal leaders.
Female 29 3.31 .89 .846

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high association

** = low association

*** = signiﬁcant difference

A total of six factors that contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders were
analyzed to examine differences between male and female agreement ratings. Of these,
one statement, marked with triple asterisks in Table 13, showed a statistically signiﬁcant
difference between the mean agreement ratings of males and females. Factors showing

statistically signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05 or less.

The remaining ﬁve statements of factors that contribute to the emergence of informal

71

faculty leaders did not show statistically signiﬁcant gender differences as deﬁned by a t-
test score of .05 or less. As seen in Table 13, female respondents, as compared to male
respondents, show a statistically signiﬁcant difference in association ratings for,
“informal leaders step forward because their area of expertise is involved.”

Given normal circumstances and gender stereotypic tendencies, it is not
unexpected that women would emphasize expertise over other factors such as the
motivation of inﬂuence and power or feeling a personal responsibility to lead. It is
interesting that the factors that might suggest a more stereotypic female afﬁnity for
relationship issues—encouragement by peers or encouragement by formal leaders—did
not show statistically signiﬁcant differences between association scores for females and
males when the t-test was applied.

Of note in Table 13 are four other statements in which the mean agreement
scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for females and males, were different when
considering the high association threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale. Of the factors
listed that could contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders, female
respondents indicated high association with: “they feel a responsibility to lead” and “they
are encouraged by their peers. ” Male respondents’ mean agreement scores did not meet

the high association threshold for these same two factors.

Table 14 shows the statement for which a statistically signiﬁcant difference was

found between the mean agreement/disagreement ratings of male and female respondents

when considering factors that deﬁne effective informal faculty leaders.

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females
when Considering Factors that Define Effective Informal Faculty Leaders
Factors that Deﬁne Informal Faculty Gender N Mean Std. t-test for

Leaders . . . Deviation Equality of
Means
Sig. (2-tailed)

. . . need to be effective communicators-- Male 32 4.25“ .62 005“"
oral and written. ‘ '

Female 29 4.69‘ .54 .005‘"
. . . rrmst ﬁrst be perceived as effective Male 32 3.88 .75 .083
teachers/educators. ’ ' '

Female 29 4.24‘ .87 .086
. . . is conducted through dialogue and face- Male 32 4.19" .59 .114
to-face communication.

Female 29 4.41“ .50 .112
. . . transcend boundaries-«hey inﬂuence Male 32 4.19‘ .59 .204
others beyond their department or
discipline. Female 29 4.41 "' .78 .21 1
. . . age, gender and experience are not Male 32 4.03" .82 .316
necessarily determining factors.

Female 29 3.79 1.01 .321
. . . recognize and engage the talents of Male 32 4.22“ .55 .712
others.

Female 29 4.28‘ .65 .714
. . . are inﬂuential in shaping the college. Male 32 4.16* .51 .753

Female 29 4.21 " .73 .757
. . . are those with more experience and Male 32 3.22 1.07 .842
greater longevity in the institution.

Female 29 3.28 1.16 .843

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high association

** = low association

*** = signiﬁcant difference

A total of eight statements that deﬁne effective informal leaders were analyzed to
examine differences between male and female agreement ratings. Of these, one
statement, marked with triple asterisks in Table 14, showed a statistically signiﬁcant
difference between mean agreement ratings of males and females. Characteristics and

behaviors showing statistically signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test

score of .05 or less.

73

The remaining seven statements that deﬁne effective informal leaders did not show
statistically signiﬁcant gender differences as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less.

As seen in Table 14, female respondents, as compared to male respondents, show a
signiﬁcant difference in association rating with “ effective informal faculty leaders need
to be effective communicators—oral and written.”

While this ﬁnding is interesting, the comprehensive nature of the statement, “need
to be effective communicators—oral and written” makes it difﬁcult to determine what
may have led to the difference in association scores between females and males. A
disaggregation of oral and written communication techniques and approaches might be
helpful in creating a more complete understanding of this issue. Is it more important in
the minds of female respondents that informal faculty leaders be strong on oratorical
skills—effective, clear, persuasive and compelling on their feet in front of large and small
audiences of peers and formal leaders? Or is it more important in the minds of female
respondents for informal faculty leaders to be strong writers who can compose articulate,
well-reasoned and convincing messages and convey them in a handwritten note, email,
memo or position paper? The topic of communication, oral, written and perhaps even
non-verbal communication, is one deserving of further explication.

Of note in Table 14 are two other statements for which the mean agreement
scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for females and males, were different when
considering the high association threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale. Female
respondents indicated high association with “must ﬁrst be perceived as effective
teachers/educators” as a factor that deﬁnes effective informal faculty leaders. Male

respondents’ mean score did not meet the high association threshold for this same factor.

74

Male respondents indicated high association with “age, gender and experience are not
necessarily determining factors.” Female respondents’ mean score did not meet the high

association threshold for this same statement.

Table 15 shows a statement for which a statistically signiﬁcant difference was
found between the agreement/disagreement ratings of male and female respondents when

considering circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Males and Females when
Considering Circumstances in which Faculty are Likely
to Exercise Informal Leadership
Circumstances - Faculty who exercise Gender N Mean Std. t-test for Equality
informal leadership are likely to . . . Deviation of Means
Sig.
(2-talled)

. . . "step up" and do their part: lead/serve Male 31 4.16“ .45 .024‘"
on a cormnittee, task force, etc.

Female 29 4.45‘ .51 025“"
. . . demonstrate participation in shared Male 31 3.61 .56 .170
governance.

Female 28 3.89 .96 .183
. . . oﬁ‘er perspective or opinion on an Male 31 4.23‘ .50 .177
important/sensitive issue.

Female 29 4.41" .57 .179
. . . inﬂuence followers. Male 31 3.68 .65 .206

Female 29 3.90 .67 .206
. . . fulﬁll "service to college mission" Male 31 3.45 .77 .228
requirements.

Female 29 3.72 .96 .232
. . . prepare for a formal leadership Male 31 3.19 .87 .528
position. ‘ "

Female 29 3.34 .97 .530
. . . inﬂuence forrml leaders. Male 31 4.13” .50 .575

Female 29 4.03" .78 .581

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"' = high association
** = low association
*** = signiﬁcant difference

75

A total of seven statements of factors that contribute to the emergence of informal faculty
leaders were analyzed to examine differences between male and female mean agreement
ratings. Of these, one statement, marked with triple asterisks in Table 15, showed a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between mean agreement ratings of males and females.
Factors showing signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05 or
less. The remaining six statements of factors that contribute to the emergence of informal
faculty leaders did not show statistically signiﬁcant gender differences as deﬁned by a t-
test score of .05 or less. There were no other statements for which the non-statistically
signiﬁcant mean agreement scores for females and males were different when
considering the high association score threshold.

As seen in Table 15, female respondents, as compared to male respondents, show
a signiﬁcant difference in association ratings with the factor, “faculty who exercise
informal leadership are likely to step up and do their part: lead/serve on a committee, task
force, etc.”

Given that this single statement stands out as statistically different and given the
relative isolation of this statement, it is difﬁcult to determine its ﬁrll implication. It does,
however, seem to be consistent with previous research on the perspective of women who
are preparing for formal leadership positions as compared to men who are preparing for
formal leadership positions. While women’s needs are similar to men’s needs in those
areas generally regarded as competencies for formal leadership—taking initiative,
working well with people, understanding signiﬁcant issues, problem solving, etc—the

tendency of women is often to feel compelled to be “hyper-qualiﬁed” so that others will

76

view them as equals when compared to their male counterparts in equivalent formal
leadership positions (Shavlik and Touchton, 1988).

If one were to make the assumption that, in general, the skills and experiences
required for formal leadership positions are in some ways analogous to the skills and
experiences required for informal leadership, it may offer insight into the statistically
signiﬁcant difference evidenced in this situation. The difference could be attributable to
the notion that women, more than men, feel a greater need to exhibit leader competence
to others. Leading or serving on a committee or task force would qualify as a
“noticeable” act of faculty leader behavior.

There were no statistically signiﬁcant differences between the mean agreement
scores of male and female respondents when considering “areas of informal faculty

leader inﬂuence.”

Signiﬁcant Differences Shown by Years in Higher Education

Table 16 shows the statement for which a statistically signiﬁcant differences was
found between the agreement/disagreement ratings of newer and longer serving faculty

respondents when considering characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer
Serving Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors
of Informal Faculty Leaders

Characteristics and Behaviors - Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for

informal faculty leaders . . . experience in Deviation Equality of
higher education. Means
Sig.

(2-tailed)
. . . are altruistic. 12 years or less 7 3.00 .58 .010‘"
3 lor more years 11 4.00" .77 .007'"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

 

Table 16 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer
Serving Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors
of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics and Behaviors - Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
informal faculty leaders . . . experience in Deviation Equality of
higher education. Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
. . . are inspired to lead as a result of 12 years or less 7 3.43 .98 .028
situations/events that occur. ” w m ‘-
3 lot more years 11 4.36“ .67 .052
. . . are motivated by self-interest. 12 years or less 7 3.86 1.07 .050
3 lor more years 1 1 2.82“ .98 .060
. . work behind the scenes. 12 years or less 7 4.57“ .53 .083
3 lor more years 11 4.09“ .54 .087
. . demonstrate concern for tasks. 12 years or less 7 4.00“ .82 .101
3lor more years 11 4.55“ .52 .149
. . seek consensus. 12 years or less 7 3.57 .79 .118
3lor more years 11 4.18“ .75 .127
. . get others to agree with their ideas. 12 years or less 7 4.14“ .38 .145
3lor more years 11 3.73 .65 .105
. . . seek advice and counsel in forming 12 years or less 7 3.57 1.13 .163
their opinions.
3 lor more years 10 4.20“ .63 .218
. . . are conferred the "status" of 12 years or less 7 4.14“ .38 .170
informal leaders by others.
3 lor more years 10 3.90 .32 .190
. . . are self-appointed as informal 12 years or less 7 3.57 .53 .226
leaders.
3lor more years 10 3.10 .88 .189
. . . are self inspired to lead. 12 years or less 7 4.00" 1.00 .268
3 lor more years 11 4.45“ .69 .317
. . . demonstrate knowledge/expertise 12 years or less 7 4.57" .53 .324
ability. '
3lor more years 11 4.27“ .65 .305
. . . promote their own personal 12 years or less 7 3.57 .53 .390
opinions.
3lor more years 10 3.30 .67 .371

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

 

 

Table 16 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer
Serving Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Informal Faculty Leaders
Characteristics and Behaviors — Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
informal faculty leaders . . . experience in Deviation Equality of
higher education. Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)

. . . demonstrate concern for 12 years or less 7 4.29" .49 .399
people/relationships.

3 lor more years 11 4.55“ .69 .363
. . . are highly visible, prominent. 12 years or less 7 3.29 1.11 .423

3 lor more years 1 1 2.91 " .83 .459
. . . have a negative outlook. 12 years or less 7 2.00" .5 8 .490

3 lor more years 11 2.27" .90 .446
. . . are able to inﬂuence up/down the 12 years or less 7 4.00“ .58 .535
college hierarchy. '

3 lor more years 11 4.18"“ .60 .533
. . . tend to be spontaneous in decision- 12 years or less 7 2.43" .53 .575

l . g. , A , , 7 7

3 lor more years 10 2.70" 1.16 .528
. . . have narrow insight. 12 years or less 7 1.86" .69 .725

310r more years 11 1.73" .79 .718
. . . tend to be deliberative in decision- 12 years or less 7 4.14"I .69 .834
making. *

3 lor more years 10 4.20“ .42 .850
. . . are systems thinkers. 12 years or less 7 3.57 .79 .869

3 lor more years 11 3.64 .81 .868
. . . demonstrate networking ability. 12 years or less 7 4.14"I .38 .881

3 lor more years 11 4.18" .60 .868
. . . mainly inﬂuence their peer group. 12 years or less 7 3.29 1.25 .887

3 lor more years 11 3.36 1.03 .893
. . . are humble. 12 years or less 7 3.14 .69 .901

3 lor more years 11 3.18 .60 .905

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer
Serving Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors
of Informal Faculty Leaders
Characteristics and Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
Behaviors - informal experience in higher Deviation Equality of
faculty leaders . . . education. Means
Sig.
(2-talled)
. . . are prideful. 12 years or less 7 2.86" .90 .922
3 lor more years 1 1 2.82" .75 .926
. . . have a positive outlook. 12 years or less 7 4.29‘ .76 .964
3 lor more years 11 4.27" .47 .968

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high association
** = low association
*** = signiﬁcant difference

A total of 26 statements of informal leader characteristics and behaviors were analyzed to
examine differences between newer and longer serving faculty mean agreement ratings.
Of these, one statement, marked with triple asterisks in Table 16, showed a statistically
signiﬁcant difference between newer and longer serving faculty. Characteristics and
behaviors showing statistically signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test
score of .05 or less. The remaining 25 statements of informal leader characteristics and
behaviors did not show statistically signiﬁcant differences between newer and longer
serving faculty as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less. As seen in .Table 16, faculty
with 31 years or more in higher education, as compared to faculty with 12 years or less in
higher education, showed a statistically signiﬁcant different association rating with this
characteristic and behavior, “informal faculty leaders are altruistic.”

Faculty with extended experience in higher education have seen the ebb and ﬂow
of the organizations in which they have spent their careers. Given the long tenure of

faculty in this research study—in higher education and at their current institutions—it

80

could be assumed that they have gained a perspective on the culture and the challenges of
the organization that their newer serving counterparts have not yet achieved. One could
observe that long faculty tenure tends to bring out one of two “extreme” sentiments——
either the individual becomes more deeply committed to the enterprise and its mission
with each passing year or the individual becomes more cynical and less enthusiastic
about the organization with each passing year. The resulting behaviors could generally
be categorized as “model” on the part of those more deeply committed and “critic” on the
part of those who become cynical.

Given the statistically signiﬁcant difference in this particular characteristic of
informal faculty leaders, it suggests that at least among respondents to this research
questionnaire, longer serving faculty are more models than critics. Longer serving
faculty have devoted their careers to higher education, demonstrating a commitment to
the mission and to learners. While these faculty might have chosen at some point to
“chase the action” outside of higher education—move on in search of more lucrative
positions—they have not. With this perspective in mind, it is not surprising that longer
serving faculty in higher education show high association with the statement that
informal leaders are “altruistic” while newer serving faculty do not show high association
with this same statement.

Of note in Table 16 are seven other statements in which the mean agreement
scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for newer and longer serving faculty, were
different when considering the high association threshold of 4.0 and higher on a 5.0 scale
and the low association threshold of 2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale. Longer serving faculty

indicated high association with these characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty

81

9’ G6

leaders: “are inspired to lead as a result of situations/events that occur, seek
consensus,” and “seek advice and counsel in forming their opinions.” Newer serving
faculty mean scores did not meet the high association threshold for these same three
characteristics and behaviors.

Newer serving faculty indicated high association with these characteristics and
behaviors of informal faculty leaders: “get others to agree with their ideas” and “are
conferred the status of informal leaders by others.” Longer serving faculty mean scores
did not meet the high association threshold for these same two characteristics and
behaviors.

In the opposite direction, longer serving faculty indicated low association with
these characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders: “are motivated by self-

interest” and “are highly visible, prominent.” Newer serving faculty mean scores did not

meet the low association threshold for these same items.

Table 17 shows the statements for which statistically signiﬁcant differences were
found between the mean agreement/disagreement ratings of newer and longer serving
faculty when considering factors that contribute to the emergence of informal faculty

leaders.

82

 

Table 17: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer Serving
Faculty when Considering Factors that Contribute to the Emergence

of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Informal Faculty Leaders step Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
forward because . . . experience in Deviatio Equality
higher n of Means
education. Sig.
(2-ta1led)

. . . they are deeply concerned about the 12 years or less 7 4.14" .38 .042’“
issue(s) at hand.

3 lor more years 11 4.64‘ .50 032""
. . . their area of expertise is involved. 12 years or less 7 3.86 .90 .517

3lor more years 10 3.60 .70 .539
. . . they are encouraged by their peers. 12 years or less 7 3.71 .76 .656

3 1 or more years 10 3.90 .88 .648
. . . they are encouraged by formal 12 years or less 7 3.14 .69 .418
leaders.

3lor more years 10 2.80" .92 .394
. . . they are motivated by the exercise of 12 years or less 7 2.57" .79 .655
inﬂuence and power.

3 lor more years 11 2.36” 1.03 .635
. . . they feel a responsibility to lead. 12 years or less 7 3.86 .38 .108

3 lor more years 1 l 4.18"“ .40 .107

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high association
** = low association
*** = signiﬁcant difference

A total of six statements describing factors that contribute to the emergence of informal

faculty leaders were analyzed to examine differences between newer and longer serving

faculty mean agreement ratings. Of these, one statement, marked with triple asterisks in

Table 17, showed a statistically signiﬁcant difference between mean agreement ratings of

newer and longer serving faculty. Characteristics and behaviors showing signiﬁcant

differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05 or less. The remaining ﬁve

statements describing factors that contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders

did not show statistically signiﬁcant differences between newer and longer serving

83

 

faculty as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less. As seen in Table 17, respondents who
have 31 years or more in higher education, as compared to respondents with 12 years or
less in higher education, show a statistically signiﬁcant difference in association rating
with the statement, “informal leaders step forward because they are deeply concerned
about the issue(s) at hand.”

This difference is interesting, but not surprising. Perhaps this response is
attributable to the fact that faculty who have 31 years or more in higher education may
feel that they have already proven their professional pedagogical worth and feel conﬁdent
in fuming some of their attention to issues outside of the classroom. Those with 12 years
or less in higher education may still be primarily focused on their teaching and learning
responsibilities. While the statement does not indicate whether the “issue(s) at hand” are
related to the department, to faculty speciﬁcally, or to the organization as a whole, one
could give longer serving faculty the beneﬁt of the doubt by assuming that the “issues”
transcend parochial “what’s in it for me” interests. On the other hand, the reverse could
be true. Longer serving faculty respondents have observed higher education
organizations in all of their political, cultural and symbolic splendor over more than three
decades. Given this experience, they may perceive of informal faculty leaders emerging
for reasons of enlightened self-interest—to make certain that the faculty position is well
represented, given appropriate deference and shrewdly protected.

Of note in Table 17 are two other statements for which the mean agreement
scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for newer and longer serving faculty, were
different when considering the high association threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale

and 2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale. Longer serving faculty respondents indicated high

84

association with “they feel a responsibility to lead” as a factor that contributes to the
emergence of informal faculty leaders. Newer serving faculty mean scores did not meet
the high association threshold for this same factor. At the opposite end of the scale,
longer serving faculty respondents indicated low association with “they are encouraged
by formal leaders” as a factor that contributes to the emergence of informal faculty
leaders. Newer serving faculty mean scores did not meet the low association threshold

for this same factor.

Table 18 shows the statement for which a signiﬁcant difference was found
between the mean hi gh/low ratings of newer and longer serving respondents when

considering informal faculty leader inﬂuence.

 

Table 18: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer
and Longer Serving Faculty when Considering Areas of Inﬂuence
of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Positive Your years of N Mean Std. Deviation t-test for Equality of
Inﬂuence experience in higher Means
education Sig. (2-tailed)

Shared 12 years or less 7 3.00 .82 025""
Governance

31 years or more 10 4.00" .82 027*"
Curriculum 12 years or less 7 3.71 .49 .165

31 years or more 11 4.18“ .75 .129
Assessment 12 years or less 4 4.25“ .96 .174

31 years or more 10 3.50 .85 .230
Compensation 12 years or less 7 3.29 .95 .301

31 years or more 10 3.90 1.29 .276
Budget 12 years or less 6 2.50" .55 .413

31 years or more 9 2.78" .67 .395

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high inﬂuence
** = low inﬂuence
*** = signiﬁcant difference

85

A total of ﬁve Areas of informal faculty leader inﬂuence were analyzed to examine
differences between newer and longer serving faculty agreement ratings. Of these, one
Area, marked with triple asterisks in Table 18, showed a statistically signiﬁcant
difference between the mean agreement ratings of newer and longer serving faculty.
Areas of Inﬂuence showing signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test score
of .05 or less. The remaining four Areas of Inﬂuence of informal faculty leaders did not
show statistically signiﬁcant differences between newer and longer serving faculty as
deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less. As seen in Table 18, respondents who have 31
years or more in higher education, as compared to respondents who have 12 years or less
in higher education, indicated high inﬂuence in a positive direction by informal faculty
leaders on “Shared Governance.”

In this instance, longer serving faculty appear to be demonstrating support for the
role of faculty in shared governance by indicating that informal faculty leaders have a
high level of positive inﬂuence in this arena. These results are in keeping with the notion
that faculty with longer experience often demonstrate a willingness to work within the
system—the “models” as opposed to the “critics” as described earlier in this chapter.
They are not hell raisers or interested in leading a cabal. Instead they appear amenable to
the notion that informal faculty leaders participate in the prevailing myths, symbols and
substance of shared governance and believe that this participation yields positive results.

Although the deﬁnition and practice of shared governance varies from institution
to institution, informal faculty leader participation does not appear to suggest a quasi-
administrative role. Instead, it may imply that faculty participation in shared

governance—in what could be considered as fairly benign leadership roles—

86

demonstrates an effort to be part of the institutional team—a “modeling” behavior. That
is to say, because shared governance is, to a greater or lesser extent, an accepted
organizational practice, informal faculty leaders can participate without offending the
culture of the faculty or the culture of the administration. Given the many issues related
to shared governance because of its centrality to discourse and decision-making on many
community college campuses, this topic would be of interest for further study as it relates
to informal faculty leadership.

Of note in Table 18 are two Areas of Inﬂuence in which the mean agreement
scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for newer and longer serving faculty, were
different when considering the high inﬂuence threshold of 4.0 and above on a 5.0 scale.
Longer serving faculty indicated a high level of positive inﬂuence by informal faculty
leaders on the Area of Curriculum. Newer serving faculty mean scores were below the
high inﬂuence threshold. Newer serving faculty indicated a high level of positive
inﬂuence by informal faculty leaders on the Area of Assessment. Longer serving faculty
mean scores did not meet the high inﬂuence threshold for this same Area of Inﬂuence.
There were no Areas of Inﬂuence in which the mean agreement scores for newer and
longer serving faculty were different when considering mean scores that met the low

inﬂuence threshold.

Table 19 shows the statement for which a signiﬁcant difference was found
between the mean agreement/disagreement rating of newer and longer serving

respondents for circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership.

87

 

Table 19: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of Newer and Longer Serving
Faculty when Considering Circumstances in which Faculty are Likely

to Exercise Informal Leadership

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circumstances - Faculty who Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
exercise informal leadership experience in Deviation Equality of
are likely to . . . higher education. Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)

. . . fulﬁll "service to college 12 years or less 7 2.86" .90 .037‘"
mission" requirements. ' '

3lor more years 10 3.80 .79 045“"
. . . inﬂuence followers. 12 years or less 7 4.14‘ .38 .139

3 lor more years 10 3.70 .67 .106
. . . prepare for a formal 12 years or less 7 3.00 1.15 .420
leadership position.

3lor more years 10 2.60" .84 .452
. . . demonstrate participation in 12 years or less 7 3.57 .79 .435
shared governance.

3lor more years 9 3.89 .78 .436
. . . "step up" and do their part: 12 years or less 7 4.14" .38 .484
lead/serve on a committee, task
force, etci 3101' more years 10 4.30. .48 .464
. . . inﬂuence formal leaders. 12 years or less 7 4.14“ .38 .587

3 lor more years 10 4.30" .67 .550
. . . offer perspective or opinion 12 years or less 7 4.29“ .49 .963
on an important/sensitive issue.

3lor more years 10 4.30“ .67 .960

 

 

 

 

 

 

"' = high association
** = low association

*** = signiﬁcant difference

A total of seven statements describing circumstances in which faculty are likely to

exercise informal leadership were analyzed to examine differences between newer and

longer serving faculty agreement ratings. Of these, one statement, marked with triple

asterisks in Table 19, showed a statistically signiﬁcant difference between mean

agreement ratings of newer and longer serving faculty. Circumstances showing

statistically signiﬁcant differences in which faculty are likely to exercise informal

leadership are deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05 or less. The remaining six

88

 

statements of circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership
did not show signiﬁcant differences between newer and longer serving faculty as deﬁned
by a t-test score of .05 or less. As seen in Table 19, respondents who have 12 years or
less in higher education, as compared to respondents who have 31 years or more in higher
education, showed a signiﬁcant difference in association rating with the statement, “to
fulﬁll ‘service to college mission’ requirement.”

Upon analysis of these results, there are some interpretation issues that could
either cast a positive light or a less-than positive light on newer serving faculty when
comparing results with those of their longer serving counterparts. If one assumes “to
fulﬁll service to mission requirements” suggests that this is something that informal
faculty leaders do because they are self-motivated to contribute to the good of the whole,
then the newer serving faculty’s low association with this item would not be laudable. If
one assumes that this is something informal faculty leaders do because they are fulﬁlling
a requirement it suggests an obligatory “check the box on the evaluation” mentality that
is more perfunctory than praiseworthy.

Given these two interpretations, the response to this item given by newer serving
faculty could be due to their as yet undeveloped understanding of contributing to the
“greater good” as integral to the faculty role or due to their perception that service to
mission is a proforma faculty service requirement and therefore not as meaningful or
signiﬁcant. Either way, newer faculty did not strongly support “service to mission” as a
compelling prompt for the exercise of informal faculty leadership. Before offering
further analysis, it would be important to know more about how respondents interpreted

this item.

89

Of note in Table 19 are two statements in which the mean agreement scores,
though not statistically signiﬁcant for newer and longer serving faculty, were different
when considering the high association threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale and the
low association threshold of 2.99 or lower on a 5.0 scale. Newer serving faculty
indicated high association with “to inﬂuence followers” as a circumstance in which
faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership. Longer serving faculty scores did not
meet the high association threshold for this same statement. Longer serving faculty
indicated low association with “to prepare for a formal leadership position” as a
circumstance in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership. Newer serving
faculty mean scores did not meet the low association threshold for this same statement.

There were no signiﬁcant differences, as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or below,
between the mean agreement scores of newer and longer serving faculty respondents

when considering “factors that deﬁne effective informal faculty leaders.”

Sigrpﬁcant Differences Shown by Years of Experience at Current Institution

Table 20 shows the statements for which statistically signiﬁcant differences were
found between the mean agreement/disagreement ratings of high longevity and low

longevity faculty for characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders.

 

Table 20: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of High Longevity
Faculty and Low Longevity Faculty at Current Institution when
Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics and Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
Behaviors - Informal experience at your Deviation Equality of
faculty leaders . . . current Means
institution. Sig. (2-tailed)
. . . are inspired to lead as a 9 years or less 9 3.78 .83 018""
result of situations/events
that occur. 27 or more years 10 4.60“ .52 ' 024*”

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

 

Table 20 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of High Longevity
Faculty and Low Longevity Faculty at Current Institution when
Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics and Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
Behaviors — Informal experience at your Deviation Equality of
faculty leaders . . . current Means

institution. Sig. (2-tailed)

. . . demonstrate 9 years or less 9 4.78“ .44 036“"
knowledge/expertise ‘
ability. 27 or more years 10 4.20‘ .63 .033’"
. . . are conferred the 9 years or less 9 4.22“ .44 .048‘"
”status" of informal leaders
by others. 27 or more years 9 3.78 .44 048"”
. . . are motivated by self- 9 years or less 9 3.67 1.00 .093
interest.

27 or more years 10 2.90" .88 .096
. . . work behind the scenes. 9 years or less 9 4.67“ .50 .095

27 or more years 10 4.20“ .63 .091
. . . demonstrate concern for 9 years or less 9 4.00“ .71 .096
tasks.

27 or more years 10 4.50“ .53 .104
. . . are self-appointed as 9 years or less 9 3.44 .73 .207
informal leaders.

27 or more years 9 3.00 .71 .207
. . . promote their own 9 years or less 9 3.56 .53 .257
personal opinions.

27 or more years 9 3.22 .67 .257
. . . are prideful. 9 years or less 9 2.78" .83 .272

27 or more years 10 3.20 .79 .274
. . . demonstrate networking 9 years or less 9 4.11“ .60 .275
ability.

27 or more years 10 4.40"“ .52 .280
. . . are humble. 9 years or less 9 2.89" .60 .288

27 or more years 10 3.20 .63 .287
. . . are highly visible, 9 years or less 9 3.22 1.09 .311
prominent.

27 or more years 10 2.80" .63 .329
. . . have a negative 9 years or less 9 2.00" .71 .450
outlook.

27 or more years 10 2.30""I .95 .443
. . . get others to agree with 9 years or less 9 3.78 .67 .478
their ideas.

27 or more years 10 4.00““ .67 .478

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

 

 

Table 20 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of High Longevity
Faculty and Low Longevity Faculty at Current Institution when
Considering Characteristics and Behaviors of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics and Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for
Behaviors — Informal experience at your Deviation Equality of
faculty leaders . . . current Means

institution. Sig. (2-tailed)
. . . seek consensus. 9 years or less 9 3.78 .67 .478
27 or more years 10 4.00“ .67 .478
. . . are able to inﬂuence 9 years or less 9 3.89 .60 .506
up/down the college
hierarchy. 27 or more years 10 4.10' .74 .502
. . . seek advice and cormsel 9 years or less 9 3.89 .93 .555
in forming their opinions.
27 or more years 9 4.11“ .60 .556
. . . tend to be deliberative 9 years or less 9 4.11“ .60 .661
in decision-making.
27 or more years 9 4.22" .44 .661
. . are systems thinkers. 9 years or less 9 3.56 .73 .692
27 or more years 10 3.70 .82 .690
. . are altruistic. 9 years or less 9 3.44 .88 .720
27 or more years 10 3.60 .97 .718
. . have narrow insight. 9 years or less 9 1.89" .60 .788
27 or more years 10 1.80" .79 .785
. . are self inspired to lead. 9 years or less 9 4.11“ .93 .808
27 or more years 10 4.20" .63 .813
. . . tend to be spontaneous 9 years or less 9 2.67" .71 .814
in decision-making.
27 or more years 9 2.78" 1.20 .815
. . . demonstrate concern for 9 years or less 9 4.33“ .50 .816
people/relationships. ' “ '
27 or more years 10 4.40“ .70 .813
. . . mainly inﬂuence their 9 years or less 9 3.33 1.12 .896
eer o .
p gr up 27 or more years 10 3.40 1.07 .896
. . . have a positive outlook. 9 years or less 9 4.22‘ .83 .948
27 or more years 10 4.20" .63 .949

 

 

 

 

 

 

"‘ = high association
*"‘ = low association

*** = signiﬁcant differences

92

 

A total of 26 statements of informal leader characteristics and behaviors were analyzed to
examine differences between high longevity and low longevity faculty agreement ratings.
Of these, three statements, those marked with triple asterisks in Table 20, showed
statistically signiﬁcant differences between mean agreement ratings of high longevity and
low longevity faculty. Characteristics and behaviors showing statistically signiﬁcant
differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05 or less. The-remaining 23
statements of informal leader characteristics and behaviors did not show statistically
signiﬁcant differences between high longevity and low longevity faculty as deﬁned by a
t-test score of .05 or less.

As seen in Table 20, respondents with 27 years or more at their current institution,
as compared to respondents with 9 years or less at their current institution, show a
signiﬁcant difference in association rating with the characteristic and behavior, “inspired
to lead as a result of situations/events that occur.” Respondents with 9 years or less at
their current institution, as compared to respondents with 27 years or more at their current .
institution, show a signiﬁcant difference in association rating with “informal faculty
leaders are conferred the ‘status’ of informal leaders by others” as a characteristic and
behavior of informal faculty leaders. While respondents with 9 years or less and 27 years
or more indicated high association with the characteristic and behavior “informal faculty
leaders demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability,” the difference in their mean scores was
statistically signiﬁcant.

The mean agreement scores for low longevity and high longevity faculty for
“informal faculty leaders demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability” are somewhat of an

anomaly in that both categories of respondents scored this item above the high

93

association threshold. This suggests, perhaps, that in the academic environment
knowledge and expertise are universally valued commodities that are recognized and
appreciated by all faculty—independent of time or on-the-job experience. With this
assumption in mind, perhaps low longevity faculty believe that a characteristic of
informal faculty leaders is their demonstration of knowledge and expertise—since this is
a characteristic that could apply to them as low longevity faculty and therefore allow
them to be perceived of as leaders or exercise informal faculty leader roles.

Referring back to Table 9, the mean agreement score for all respondents did not
meet the high association score threshold for “more experience and greater longevity in
the institution” as a factor that deﬁnes effective informal faculty leaders. When
comparing these results with the results shown in Table 20, it is interesting that low
longevity faculty, as compared to high longevity faculty, showed high association with
the characteristic and behavior that informal leaders must be conferred with this status by
others. Respondents to this research questionnaire did not consider longevity as a strong
determinant of informal faculty leadership. Low longevity faculty believe that the
“status” of informal leader is conferred by others. Therefore, these results support the
notion that behaviors noticed and recognized by others are more cause for conferral of
informal faculty leader status than longevity. This “behaviors” notion also reinforces the
assertion by Drucker (1996) and others that leadership is not self-proclaimed; it must be
recognized, bestowed and conﬁrmed by followers. Even though longevity and
experience are not perceived of as strong determinants of informal faculty leadership by
respondents overall, one could speculate that high longevity faculty still believe that it

has something to do with being an elder in the institutional culture.

94

Not surprisingly, the elders—high longevity faculty, as compared to low
longevity faculty—showed high association with the statement that the inspiration to lead
comes about “as a result of situations or events that occur.” Those who have experienced
the woof and the warp of the institutional fabric over time have likely witnessed some of
the organization’s most important lessons. They have experienced trends and events that
relate to transfer mission, technical/occupational mission, cultural mission, workforce
development mission, community service mission, and so on. Issues related to these
trends and events—and the institution’s role in anticipating or reacting to them—have
been the substance of discussion, debate, deliberation and decision—offering multiple
Opportunities for the exercise of informal faculty leadership. Time and again, high
longevity faculty, more so than their low longevity peers, have witnessed these
opportunities as “inspiration” to exercise informal leadership.

Of note in Table 20 are eight other statements in which the mean agreement
scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for high longevity faculty and low longevity
faculty, were different when considering the high association score threshold of 4.0 or
higher on a 5.0 scale and the low association score threshold of 2.99 or lower on a 5.0
scale. High longevity faculty indicated a high association with these informal faculty

leader characteristics and behaviors: “seek advice and counsel in forming their

9, 66 ’9 ‘6

opinions, are able to inﬂuence up/down the college hierarchy, seek consensus” and
“get others to agree with their ideas.” Low longevity faculty mean scores did not meet
the high association threshold for these same characteristics and behaviors. High
longevity faculty indicated low association with these informal faculty leader

characteristics and behaviors: “are highly visible, prominent” and “are motivated by self-

95

interest.” Low longevity faculty mean scores did not meet the low association threshold
for these same characteristics and behaviors. Low longevity faculty indicated low
association with two informal leader characteristics and behaviors: “are humble” and
“are prideful.” High longevity faculty mean scores did not meet the low association

threshold for these same characteristics and behaviors.

Table 21 shows the statements for which statistically signiﬁcant differences were
found between the hi gh/low inﬂuence ratings of high longevity and low longevity faculty

for informal faculty leader Areas of Inﬂuence.

 

Table 21: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores of High Longevity
and Low Longevity Faculty at Current Institution
when Considering Areas of Informal Faculty Leader Inﬂuence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Your years of N Mean Std. t-test for Equality of
Positive experience at your Deviation Means
Inﬂuence current institution. Sig. (2-tailed)
Shared 9 years or less 8 2.88" .64 014""
Governance
27 or more years 10 3.90 .88 .01 1"”
1 Budget 9 years or less 6 2.33” .52 037"”
27 or more years 8 3.00 .53 038*”
Assessment 9 years or less 5 4.20“ .84 .095
27 or more years 9 3.33 .87 .101
Curriculum 9 years or less 9 3.78 .67 .176
27 or more years 9 4.22"‘ .67 .176
Compensation 9 years or less 8 3.50 1.07 .195
27 or more years 9 4.1 1" .78 .207

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high inﬂuence

** = low inﬂuence

*** = signiﬁcant differences

A total of ﬁve Areas of informal leader inﬂuence were analyzed to examine differences

between high longevity and low longevity faculty agreement ratings. Of these, two areas,

96

marked with triple asterisks in Table 21, showed statistically signiﬁcant differences
between mean agreement ratings of high longevity and low longevity faculty. Areas
showing statistically signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05
or less. The remaining three areas of informal leader inﬂuence did not show statistically
signiﬁcant differences between high longevity and low longevity faculty as deﬁned by a
t-test score of .05 or less.

As seen in Table 21, respondents with 9 years or less at their current institution, as
compared to respondents who have 27 years or more at their current institution, show a
signiﬁcant difference in association ratings for “degree of positive inﬂuence of informal
faculty leaders on shared governance” and “degree of positive inﬂuence of informal
faculty leaders on budget.” Of the remaining three areas of “informal faculty leader
inﬂuence” there were no statistically signiﬁcant differences shown between respondents
with 9 years or less at their current institution and respondents with 27 years or more at
their current institution as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less.

It is not surprising that respondents with low longevity in the institution, as
compared to high longevity respondents, would indicate that informal faculty leaders
have a low, positive inﬂuence on shared governance and budget. Having less experience
with the ebb and ﬂow of the organization, low longevity faculty may not yet have
acquired important lessons about the culture of the organization. Generally speaking,
they may not know the idiosyncrasies of the formal and informal systems, be familiar
with the networks of the institution or know who and what the inﬂuencers are. They do
not perceive of shared governance as a generally accepted forum in which to exercise

both practical and symbolic informal faculty leader leadership and inﬂuence.

97

Low longevity faculty also ascribe low inﬂuence to informal faculty leader
inﬂuence on issues of budget. It is not clear from these results if the budget is being
interpreted by respondents as particular to the departmental budget, the overall
institutional budget or somewhere in between. Perhaps by virtue of less experience at
their current institution, they are not personally knowledgeable about the budget, how it
is constructed, and where the push points are, and as a result may perceive of informal
faculty leaders as less inﬂuential on budget matters. While faculty may have some
inﬂuence on budget matters, these issues are more traditionally perceived to be within the
administrative/management purview. Before offering further analysis, it would be
important to know more about how respondents interpreted the word “budget.”

Of note in Table 21 are three Areas of Inﬂuence for which the mean agreement
scores for high longevity and low longevity faculty were different when considering the
high agreement score threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale. Low longevity faculty
showed a high level of positive inﬂuence by informal faculty leaders on the Area of
Assessment. The high longevity faculty mean score for assessment did not meet the high
inﬂuence threshold for assessment. On the other hand, high longevity faculty indicated
high, positive inﬂuence by informal faculty leaders on the Areas of curriculum and
compensation. The low longevity faculty mean scores for curriculum and compensation
did not meet the high inﬂuence threshold.

There were no statistically signiﬁcant differences, as deﬁned by a t-test score of
.05 or below, between how high longevity and low longevity faculty rated their

agreement with statements regarding “how informal faculty leaders emerge,” “factors

98

that deﬁne effective informal faculty leaders” or “circumstances in which faculty are

likely to exercise informal leadership.”

Srgmﬁcant Differences Shown by Academic Area of Faculgy

Table 22 shows the statements for which statistically signiﬁcant differences were

found between the mean agreement/disagreement ratings of technical/occupational and

liberal arts/ general studies faculty for characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty

leaders.

 

Table 22: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by Academic Area
of Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Informal Faculty Leaders
Characteristics and Behaviors What area of the college do N Mean Std. t-test for
- Informal faculty leaders . . . you represent? Deviation Equality
of Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
. . . tend to be deliberative in Technical/occupational 25 3.64 .76 006""
decision making.
Liberal arts/general studies 34 4.09“ .45 .012‘”
. . . demonstrate concern for Technical/occupational 25 3.92 .70 030‘“
tasks.
Liberal arts/general studies 35 4.29‘ .57 .037‘“
. . . seek consensus. Technical/occupational 26 3.62 .85 .056
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 4.00“ .69 .065
. . . seek advice and counsel in Technical/occupational 26 3.73 .72 .069
forming their opinions. -
Liberal arts/general studies 34 4.09" .75 .068
. . . are humble. Technical/occupational 26 3.38 .75 .116
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 3.09 .70 .120
i . . . are motivated by self- Technical/occupational 25 3.40 1.19 .122
interest.
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 2.97” .92 .139
. . . demonstrate Technical/occupational 25 4.28“ .54 .159
knowledge/expertise ability.
Liberal arts/ general studies 34 4.50‘ .62 .151

 

99

 

 

Table 22 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by Academic Area
of Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors

of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics and Behaviors What area of the college do N Mean Std. t-test for
- Informal faculty leaders . . . you represent? Deviation Equality
of Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
. . . have a positive outlook Technical/occupational 26 3.88 .77 .204
Liberal arts/general studies 35 4.11“ .63 .219
. . . are highly visible, Technical/occupational 26 3.35 .89 .209
prominent.
Liberal arts/general studies 34 3.06 .85 .213
. . . tend to be spontaneous in Technical/occupational 26 2.69"I .84 .210
decision-making. ‘
Liberal arts/general studies 34 2.41” .86 .208
. . . get others to agree with their Technical/occupational 26 3.92 .56 .220
ideas. ' '
Liberal arts/general studies 35 3.71 .71 .204
. . . promote their own personal Technical/occupational 26 3.19 .80 .233
opinions. ' '
Liberal arts/general studies 34 3.44 .79 .235
. . . are inspired to lead as a Technical/occupational 25 4.04" .84 .314
result of situations/events that . .
occur. Liberal arts/general studies 35 4.23“ .60 .342
. . . have narrow insight. Technical/occupational 26 2.04" .72 .364
Liberal arts/general studies 35 1.89" .58 .379
. . . demonstrate concern for Technical/occupational 25 4.36" .57 .423
people/relationships.
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 4.49‘ .61 .417
. . . demonstrate networking Technical/occupational 25 4.24“ .72 .477
abili .
ty Liberal arts/ general studies 35 4.1 1* .63 .488
. . . mainly inﬂuence their peer Technical/occupational 25 3.32 1.03 .500
on .
gr p Liberal arts/ general studies 35 3.14 .97 .505
. . . are systems thinkers. Technical/occupational 26 3.38 .75 .517
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 3.51 .78 .515
. . . are self-appointed as Technical/occupational 26 3.00 .75 .530
informal leaders. *‘ * **‘
Liberal arts/general studies 34 3.15 .99 .515

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

 

 

Table 22 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by Academic Area
of Faculty when Considering Characteristics and Behaviors

of Informal Faculty Leaders

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics and Behaviors What area of the college do N Mean Std. t-test for
— Informal faculty leaders . . . you represent? Deviation Equality
of Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
. . . are conferred the "sta " of Technical/occupational 26 3.96 .53 .627
informal leaders by others.
Liberal arts/ general studies 34 3.88 .69 .615
. . . are altruistic. Technical/occupational 25 3.68 .69 .685
Liberal arts/general studies 34 3.76 .85 .676
. . . are prideful. Technical/occupational 26 3.00 1.10 .717
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 2.91" .74 .732
. . . are able to inﬂuence Technical/occupational 26 3.88 .65 .756
up/down the college hierarchy. ‘ ’
Liberal arts/general studies 35 3.94 .76 .750
. . . have a negative outlook. Technical/occupational 26 2.19" .63 .797
Liberal arts/ general studies 35 2.14" .81 .790
. . . work behind the scenes. Technical/occupational 26 4.19“ .80 .803
Liberal arts/general studies 35 4.14“ .73 .806
. . . are self inspired to lead. Technical/occupational 25 4.28“ .68 .914
Liberal arts/general studies 35 4.26‘ .89 .910

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high association
** = low association

*** = signiﬁcant differences

A total of 26 statements of informal leader characteristics and behaviors were analyzed to

examine differences between technical/occupational faculty and liberal arts/general

studies faculty mean agreement ratings. Of these, two statements, those marked with

triple asterisks in Table 22, showed statistically signiﬁcant differences between mean

agreement ratings of technical/occupational faculty and liberal arts/ general studies

faculty. Characteristics and behaviors showing statistically signiﬁcant differences are

101

 

deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05 or less. The remaining 24 statements of
informal leader characteristics and behaviors did not show statistically signiﬁcant
differences between technical/occupational faculty and liberal arts/ general studies faculty
as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less. As seen in Table 22, liberal arts/general studies
faculty respondents, as compared to technical/occupational faculty respondents, show a
signiﬁcant difference in association ratings with the statements, “informal faculty leaders
demonstrate concern for tasks” and “informal faculty leaders tend to be deliberative in
decision making.”

Though it might have been expected that the data would have shown
technical faculty with high agreement that informal leaders demonstrate “task” behavior,
the opposite was true. These results tend to confuse rather than clarify. Given the
stereotypic tendencies of technical faculty, they get the job done and they focus on results
and right answers. There is little tolerance for ambiguity when learning to ﬂy an
airplane, mill a machine tool or administer medication. Technical faculty are focused on
moving students through a progression of courses that build skills and competencies with
the end goal of placing students in jobs.

Alternatively the stereotypic tendencies of liberal arts faculty to conduct
themselves in a more philosophical manner, discussing, questioning and exploring the
black and white of an issue as well as all the shades of gray, suggest that a stronger
agreement with “task” behavior among this group is counter intuitive. For these same
reasons, the mean scores for “deliberative in decision making” seem right on target with
liberal arts faculty, as compared to vocational faculty, showing high association with this

as a characteristic of informal faculty leaders.

102

That said one possible explanation for these results might be due to liberal arts
faculty origins and evolution as the “ﬁrst faculty” in the community college. These
faculty may feel as if their leadership stature is established. Technical faculty may still
be striving for comparable leadership recognition. If one is willing to go along with this
as a possible explanation for ‘ k” behavior being more strongly afﬁrmed by liberal arts
faculty, perhaps it is because they have moved beyond dealing with the question of
recognition as informal leaders to a more focused set of substantive issues and tasks that
need attention.

Of additional interest is that liberal arts faculty respondents outnumbered
technical faculty respondents to this study by nearly 57 percent to 42 percent. While this
raises more questions than can be answered about who is considered a leader versus who
was nominated to participate versus who completed the research questionnaire, it does
suggest an area to be further explored.

Of note in Table 22 are ﬁve characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty
leaders for which the mean agreement scores, though not statistically signiﬁcant for
technical and liberal arts faculty, were different when considering the high association
threshold of 4.0 and above on a 5.0 scale and the low association threshold of 2.99 and
below on a 5.0 scale. Liberal arts faculty respondents indicated high association with
these characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders: “have a positive outlook,”
“seek advice and counsel in forming their opinions” and “seek consensus.” Technical
faculty mean scores did not meet the high association threshold for these same
characteristics and behaviors. Liberal arts faculty respondents indicated low association

with these characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders: “are motivated by

103

self-interest” and “are prideful.” Technical faculty mean scores did not meet the low

association threshold for these same characteristics and behaviors.

Table 23 shows the statement for which a statistically signiﬁcant difference was

found between the mean agreement/disagreement ratings of technical/occupational and

liberal arts/ general studies faculty when considering factors that contribute to the

emergence of informal faculty leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 23: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by Academic Area of Faculty
when Considering the Emergence of Informal Faculty Leaders
Informal faculty leaders What area of the college do N Mean Std. t-test for
step forward because . . . you represent. Deviation Equality
of Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
. . . they are encouraged by Technical/occupational 26 3.62 .75 .028‘“
formal leaders. '
Liberal arts/general studies 34 3.12 .91 .024‘"
. . . they are deeply concerned Technical/occupational 26 4.27" .45 .112
about the issue(s) at hand.
Liberal arts/general studies 35 4.49“ .56 .101
. . . they feel a responsibility Technical/occupational 26 3.96 .53 .269
to lead. '
Liberal arts/general studies 35 4.14“ .69 .250
. . . they are motivated by the Technical/occupational 26 2.38" .80 .495
exercise of inﬂuence and '
power. Liberal arts/general studies 35 2.54“ .95 .485
. . . their area of expertise is Technical/occupational 26 3.96 .66 .955
involved.
Liberal arts/general studies 34 3.97 .58 .956
. . . they are encouraged by Technical/occupational 26 3.96 .60 .957
their peers.
Liberal arts/general studies 34 3.97 .67 .956

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = high association
** = low association

*** = signiﬁcant difference

 

A total of six statements describing how informal faculty leaders emerge were analyzed

to examine differences between technical/occupational faculty and liberal arts/general

104

studies faculty mean agreement ratings. Of these, one statement, marked with triple
asterisks in Table 23, showed a statistically signiﬁcant difference between mean
agreement ratings of technical/occupational faculty and liberal arts/ general studies
faculty. Statements showing signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test
score of .05 or less. The remaining ﬁve statements describing how informal faculty
leaders emerge did not show signiﬁcant differences between vocational/occupational
faculty and liberal arts/ general studies faculty as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less.
As seen in Table 23, there was a statistically signiﬁcant difference in mean scores for the
statement, “informal leaders step forward because they are encouraged by formal
leaders,” yet neither technical faculty nor liberal arts faculty association ratings met the
high association threshold.

Given the hierarchical and sometimes autocratic nature of many of the career
ﬁelds represented by the technical faculty—health care, hospitality/culinary, law
enforcement—technical faculty respondents, as compared to liberal arts faculty, might
have been expected to show high association with the statement that “informal leaders
step forward because they are encouraged by formal leaders.” Perhaps as a result of their
experience in these career ﬁelds prior to or concurrent with their teaching careers,
technical faculty may tend more toward a hierarchical view of the organization in which
leadership must be called forth by formal leaders rather than conferred by peers or self-
initiated. While there may be differences from the vantage point of technical faculty and
liberal arts faculty, neither group registers high association with the notion of formal

leaders providing the impetus for informal leaders.

105

Of note in Table 23 is one statement for which the mean agreement score for
liberal arts faculty and technical faculty was different when considering the high
association score threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0 scale. Liberal arts faculty
respondents indicated high association with informal faculty leaders emerging as a result
of “feeling a responsibility to lead.” The technical faculty mean score did not meet the

high association threshold for “feeling a responsibility to lead.”

Table 24 shows the statement for which a statistically signiﬁcant difference was
found between the mean high/low inﬂuence ratings of technical/occupational faculty
respondents and liberal arts/ general studies faculty respondents when considering Areas

of informal faculty leader inﬂuence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 24: Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by
Academic Area of Faculty when Considering Informal
Faculty Leader Inﬂuence
Area of What area of the N Mean Std. t-test for
Positive college do you Deviation Equality of
Inﬂuence represent? Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
C°mpensaﬁ°n Tecmc?” 22 3.05 1.33 007*"
occupational
”be.“ "ts/gene“! 28 400* 1.05 .009":-
studies
Sham" “chm?" 25 3.20 1.00 .069
Governance occupational
“bird “ts/general 28 3.71 1.01 .069
studres
Budget “Mic?" 23 2.48" 1.08 .303
occupational
”be.“ “ti/general 25 2.76” .78 .310
studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

 

Table 24 (continued): Comparing Mean Agreement Scores by
Academic Areas of Faculty when Considering Informal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faculty Leader Inﬂuence
Area of What area of the N Mean Std. t-test for
Positive college do you Deviation Equality of
Inﬂuence represent? Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
0mm“ “mm?" 25 3.96 .89 .853
occupational
”be?“ Wm“ 33 400* .75 .857
studies
Ams‘mem “chm?" 25 3.72 .94 .918
occupational
“be.“ ”ts/general 26 3.69 .97 .918
studres
* = high inﬂuence

** = low inﬂuence
*" = signiﬁcant difference

A total of ﬁve areas of informal leader inﬂuence were analyzed to examine differences
between technical/occupational faculty and liberal arts/ general studies faculty mean
agreement ratings. Of these, one statement, marked with triple asterisks in Table 24,
showed a statistically signiﬁcant difference between mean agreement ratings of
technical/occupational faculty and liberal arts/ general studies faculty. Areas of inﬂuence
showing signiﬁcant differences are deﬁned as those with a t-test score of .05 or less.

The remaining four areas of informal leader inﬂuence did not show signiﬁcant
differences between mean agreement ratings of technical/occupational faculty and liberal
arts/general studies faculty as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or less. As seen in Table 24,
liberal arts/ general studies faculty respondents, as compared to technical/occupational
faculty respondents, show high, positive inﬂuence by informal faculty leaders on the

Area of compensation.

107

Generally speaking, issues of faculty compensation are steeped in tradition, bound
by union or other contracts and inﬂuenced by peer benchmarks, the vitality of revenues,
cost of living indices and issues of evaluation and performance. In most cases, faculty
compensation is applied equitably, through some combination of step and scale, in
recognition of longevity, level of education and job performance. Assuming this
scenario, it might be expected that there would not be a statistically signiﬁcant difference
in the mean agreement scores of technical and liberal arts faculty with regard to the level
of informal faculty leader inﬂuence on issues of compensation.

Perhaps one explanation for the difference in response is due to the fact that in
some commtmity colleges, compensation for hard-to-fill faculty positions in
technical/occupational ﬁelds, such as information technology and nursing, may be
indexed to the occupational career ﬁeld instead of the traditional faculty scale. Since
liberal arts faculty would have had less experience with these exceptions to the
compensation pattern of practice, they may feel a greater sense of inﬂuence over
compensation issues than do their technical faculty peers. Other explanations for this
difference are not immediately apparent which suggests that this is another area that may
need to be further explored.

Of note in Table 24 is one Area of Inﬂuence in which the mean agreement scores,
though not statistically signiﬁcant for technical faculty and liberal arts faculty, were
different when considering the high association score threshold of 4.0 or higher on a 5.0
scale. Liberal arts faculty members showed high, positive inﬂuence by informal faculty
leaders on the Area of curriculum. The technical faculty mean score did not meet the

high association threshold for the Area of curriculum.

108

There were no signiﬁcant differences, as deﬁned by a t-test score of .05 or below,
between the mean agreement scores of technical/occupational faculty and liberal
arts/ general studies faculty with regard to “factors that deﬁne effective informal faculty

leaders” or “circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal leadership.”

109

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter includes a summary of the purpose and need for this research study,
a discussion of the key ﬁndings and conclusions drawn ﬁ'om research results, related

implications and recommendations for further study.

Pp_rpose and Need for Lhe Restarch Study
The purpose of this research study was to develop an understanding of informal
faculty leadership in the community college—characteristics and behaviors of informal
leaders, their inﬂuence on the organization, how informal leaders emerge, and
circumstances in which informal leadership is likely to be exercised. More speciﬁcally,
the following research questions were explored:
1. What characteristics and behaviors exemplify effective informal faculty leaders?
2. What factors contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leaders?
3. What issues tend to be inﬂuenced by informal faculty leaders, and do their peers
perceive this inﬂuence as positive or negative?
4. What circumstances tend to draw out or be associated with informal faculty
leaders in the exercise of informal leadership?
Leadership is a current theme in higher education playing a central role in theories '
of organizational change and institutional transformation. The interesting thing about

leadership is that the more it is studied the richer and more inclusive the concept of

110

leadership becomes. It is no longer limited to the “traditional notions of the solitary,
heroic leader” (Bohnan and Deal, 1997 p. 296).

It is true that leaders make things happen, but things also make leaders happen.
Context inﬂuences both what leaders must do and what they can do. “No single formula
is possible or advisable for the great range of situations that potential leaders encounter”
(Bolrnan and Deal, 1997, p. 296). The single hero as ultimate visionary and the general
notion of leadership are explored in DePree (2003); Green (1988, 1994); Kelley (1988);
Piland and Wolf (2003); Scott (2003); and Smith (1996).

While effective, formally designated executive leadership is important, the notion
of an omnipotent, top-down executive model of leadership seems out of step with the 21“t
Century community college. In recent decades the comprehensive community college
mission has become many missions. The community college portfolio of programs and
services has evolved, mostly through addition, expanding in response to expectations
from the communities and constituencies they serve (Bailey and Morest, 2004).
Community colleges have become a collection of many substantially different things
camouﬂaged in a single comprehensive concept. Scratch the surface and revealed is a
wide variety of programs and services operating on highly individual and program
speciﬁc schedules with personnel and other resources often separate and distinct from
one another.

This evolutionary period of four or more decades has spawned issues of shared
governance, encouraged organizational complexity and resulted in a uniquely,
substantially North American institution. The American community college has passed

through its emerging stages, survived its early phases of dramatic grth and entered a

111

period of maturity as an established enterprise, still adding to its mission and rarely, if
ever, culling. Organizational complexity, concern that decisions reﬂect special
knowledge gained from those closest to the student/leamer/client, and expectations that
commitment to the organization can be enhanced through participation all mitigate
against a single focus on highly concentrated top-down leadership. As community
colleges perform more ﬁmctions, the conﬁguration of leadership and inﬂuence has
perforce become more diffused throughout the organization. The result is that the overall
organizational structure has become ﬂatter as community colleges respond to widely
varying student and community needs, seek out specialized knowledge and expertise,
manage scarce ﬁnancial resources and capitalize on potential new revenue streams.

Increasingly in business and industry employees at all levels are expected to
identify problems, contribute to their solution and help guide colleagues in carrying out
the organization mission. In short, employees at all levels are encouraged to exercise
leadership. Now, in the manner of business and industry, institutions of higher education
are becoming corporatized (Atlas, 2005) as the challenges facing higher education echo
those of for-proﬁt businesses—limited resources, increased competition, demands for
accountability and high constituent expectations for service and ﬂexibility.

In the 21“ Century community college context there are more issues and
opportunities demanding special lmowledge and contextual leadership than ever before.
By necessity, and in some cases by default, community colleges are becoming
increasingly reliant on informal leaders. Pielstick (2000) deﬁnes informal leaders as those .
who exercise leadership but who do not occupy formal positions of leadership. Informal

leadership has been recognized as an important dynamic in organizational behavior

112

(Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kanter, 1999; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith, 1994;
Cooper and Pagotto, 2003).

It is understood that informal faculty leaders perform throughout the community
college organization (N esselrode, 1996) without being selected, directed, empowered or
evaluated by the formal leadership hierarchy. In today’s complex operating environment,
community colleges need all the tools they can marshal in order to succeed. Although
faculty members possess limited formal authority or responsibility for the overall
direction of the institution and the business plans of its multiple missions, faculty are
perceived as having great inﬂuence over matters that form the soul of the college—
teaching, learning and student success.

Since the early 1990s, the notion of placing learning ﬁrst as the core business of
the community college (O’Banion and Kaplan, 2004) has led to the transformation of
many community colleges to learning-centered organizations. This shift in focus has
placed faculty squarely in the center of this transformation. A more integrated and
inclusive approach to leadership has been ushered in with the learning-centered
movement (Wilson, 2002), which suggests a renewed emphasis on faculty roles and
responsibilities. The learning college emphasizes the links between decision-making and
the collective institutional effort to ensure student learning, irrespective of program,
service or delivery system.

Understanding and stimulating leadership behavior throughout the organization in
more systematic and deliberate ways may turn these informal and perhaps sporadic
faculty leadership efforts into more high yield assets for the future. The more that can be

learned about informal faculty leaders, the more likely formal leaders are to recognize

113

their value to the institution and to capitalize on their inﬂuence in the best interest of the
organization. With an improved understanding of informal faculty leaders, community
colleges will be able to identify factors that encourage, focus and bring cohesion to this

leadership source while better understanding the ultimate gains that may result.

Findings and Conclusions

In this section, key ﬁndings are listed and discussed in detail along with related
conclusions. This research study of informal faculty leadership in the community college
sought to examine the phenomenon of leadership exercised by faculty members without
recognized positional authority yet who inﬂuence others either consistently or in
reference to speciﬁc issues or situations.

Effective informal faculty leaders, for the purpose of this study, are deﬁned as
those faculty members who have inﬂuenced others within the community college and, as
a result, have exerted a signiﬁcant inﬂuence, positive or negative, on some aspect of the
organization. The study explored issues related to informal faculty leadership ﬁom the
perspective of faculty members nominated by their department chairs to participate in the
study. Each department chair was asked to nominate only those faculty members who
they, as department chairs, considered met the deﬁnition of informal faculty leader.

Key ﬁndings regarding the nature of informal faculty leadership from the
perspective of informal faculty leaders have been organized around six major themes.

I Informal faculty leadership is generally associated with positive attributes.
- Concern about issues, a feeling of personal responsibility and the opportunity to

contribute expertise cause informal leaders to emerge.

114

I Informal faculty leaders are perceived to have high levels of positive impact on
curriculum and assessment.

' Informal faculty leaders are perceived differently by females than by males.

' Informal faculty leaders are perceived differently by longer serving and newer
faculty in higher education and by high and low length of employment at their
current institution.

' Informal faculty leaders are perceived differently by technical/occupational

faculty and liberal arts/ general studies faculty.

Theme l—Positive Attributes

Informal faculty leadership is generally associated with positive attributes.

Introduction

A review of the literature on leadership suggests that there is not a “one size ﬁts
all” or turiversally agreed-upon taxonomy of leadership characteristics. Bennis and
Nanus (1985) state that deﬁnitions of leadership are inﬂuenced by fads, political tides and
academic trends. Jennings (1961, in Dean, 2002) asserts that there is not a deﬁnitive set
of qualities that can be used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders. Kouzes
and Posner (1996, in Rosenbach and Taylor, Eds., 1998) offer that leadership is in the eye
of the beholder.

Stogdill (195 8) tells us that characteristics of leaders need to bear some
relationship to the goals and characteristics of followers. A recurring theme emphasized

in the literature (Drucker in Hesselbein, Goldsmith and Beckhard, Eds., 1995; Burns,

115

1978; Rost, 1991; Kouzes and Posner, 1993) is the importance of followers in the
leadership equation. Most agree that personal characteristics are not the sole determinants
of leadership and that situations and environments, together with demonstrated behavior
and lessons ﬁom the past, are also important factors when considering the attributes of
leadership. In general, the literature of leadership correlates the characteristics of

leadership with qualities that are perceived to be positive and desirable.

Key Findings

This research study sought to identify the level of agreement or disagreement with
the perception of leadership characteristics and behaviors demonstrated in the community
college setting by informal faculty leaders. The characteristics and behaviors included in
the Informal Faculty Leadership Questionnaire were those gleaned from the literature and
augmented by characteristics and behaviors suggested by a discussion group of informal
faculty leaders ﬁom one community college.

Of the 26 statements offered, the highest mean agreement scores of all
respondents tended to align with characteristics and behaviors that could be considered
positive:

I concern for people and relationships,

I demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability,

I self-inspired to lead,

I work behind the scenes,

I lead as a result of situations or events that occur,

I demonstrate networking ability, and

116

I have a positive outlook.
Conversely, the lowest mean agreement scores of all respondents tended to align with
characteristics and behaviors that could be considered negative:

I have narrow insight,

I have a negative outlook,

I tend to be spontaneous in decision making, and

I are prideful.

Agreement scores for the positive attributes of informal faculty leaders give
support for leadership as described by Cronin (1984) that “consists of a spiral upwards, a
spiral of self-improvement, self-knowledge and seizing and creating opportunities so that
a person can make things happen that would not otherwise have occurr ” (p. 15-16) and
to Senge’s (2000) description of natural leaders “who emerge based on excellence of

performance, clarity of vision or quality of the heart” (p.25).

Conclusions

This tendency to ascribe informal faculty leadership with positive characteristics
and behaviors is not necessarily self-reverential, since respondents, informal faculty
leaders, did not know the basis upon which they were chosen to participate in the study,
other than the fact that they were current members of the faculty at a community college.
This ﬁnding afﬁrms Baker’s (1990) premise of teachers as leaders and Hines’ (1992)
assertion that “good community college leaders possess the characteristics of master
teachers, mentors, agents for change and community builders”(in Nesselrode 1996,

p.139). The tendency to ascribe positive attributes was further supported by the assertion

117

of informal faculty leaders who participated in the group discussion conducted prior to
development of the questionnaire—that informal faculty leaders must ﬁrst be considered
“good teachers” before they can be considered “good leaders.” Good teachers who have
achieved informal faculty leader status are likely to be cast in a favorable light. Since
respondents to this research study were asked to reﬂect on their personal observations of
informal faculty leaders at their college as they completed the questionnaire, it is not
surprising that the “eye of the beholder” responses yielded higher mean agreement scores
for positive characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders than for negative

characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders.

Theme 2—Peers pnd Expertise
Interaction with peers and the opportunity to contribute expertise are areas in

which informal faculty leaders have similar positive views.

Introduction

Prevalent in the literature of leadership since the early 1990s is the growing
emphasis on cultivating leaders at all levels of the organization (Heifetz, 1994 and Senge,
Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, and Smith, 1999). These are assumed to be people without
authority who “provide the capacity within the system to see through the blind spots of
the dominant view” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 183). Badaracco (2002) suggests this is the “wide
angle lens” perspective on leadership (p. 5), and Senge, et.al., (1999) asserts that “the
core leadership challenge of our era lies in addressing issues for which hierarchical

authority is inadequate” (p. 568).

118

Key Findings
Informal leaders are those without recognized positional authority yet who
inﬂuence others either consistently or in reference to speciﬁc issues or situations. This
research study sought to identify the factors that contribute to the emergence of informal
faculty leaders within the six community colleges studied. In general, greater agreement
was found with faculty leaders stepping forward for these reasons:
I they have a feeling of personal responsibility,
I they are concerned about issues, and
I they have expertise to contribute.
The highest mean agreement scores among all respondents were for the above stated
reasons. Peer encouragement was also an inducement. Least likely to contribute to the
emergence of informal faculty leaders were:
I the opportunity to exercise inﬂuence and power, and
I encouragement by formal leaders.
It appears that informal leaders who participated in this study believe in the selﬂessness

of informal leadership more strongly than self-aggrandizement.

Conclusions

These strong agreement scores—feeling a personal responsibility to lead, because
their area of expertise is involved and encouragement to lead by their peers—reinforce
the ﬁndings of Sherif and Sherif, 1953 and Bales, 1952 (in Scott, 2003) who determined

that personal qualities and social relationships become the basis for the sanctioning of

119

leadership within informal groups. Further analyzed by Homans and Blau (1961, 1964,
in Scott, 2003) the process of differentiation of group members was based on a series of
exchanges, i.e., willingness by some to make greater contributions to goals. Power, then,
becomes a product of unequal exchange relationships that exist within the group based on
the characteristics and behavior of individuals and the expertise that they possess rather
than on positional power that is attached to the person who occupies a position of formal
authority. While positional power may be assigned, personal power must be earned and
expert power must be demonstrated.

This also suggests that informal leaders are less likely to meet the pure deﬁnition
of informal leaders if they are encouraged to lead by formal leaders. Informal leaders
who become “sanctioned” by formal leaders may be perceived to lose their informal
status since endorsement by a formal leader may tend to carry with it an expectation that
the informal leader will begin to behave like a formal leader with the trappings of formal
leadership—legitimate power and authority. Plante (in Green, 1988) suggests that one
thing formal leaders should never do is to promote faculty leadership. “To insist that
someone “lead” is about as reasonable as to insist that someone be charming. Leadership

supposes self-propulsion” (p. 81).
Theme 3—Positive Impact on Curricultun and Assessment

Informal faculty leaders are perceived to have high levels of positive impact on

curriculum and assessment.

120

Introduction

Although individual faculty members possess limited formal responsibility for the
overall direction of the institution, they are perceived as having signiﬁcant inﬂuence over
matters that form the core or soul of the college—teaching, learning and student success.
As a result faculty are collectively considered to have signiﬁcant sway over the quality of
the institution. This is especially true as hundreds of community colleges across the US.
have undergone the transformation to learning-centered organizations (O’Banion and
Kaplan, 2004). This transformation carries with it the implicit, and in a growing number
of institutions explicit, understanding that decisions about every program, policy, practice
and budget expenditure are held to the test of “how will this decision affect student

learning?”

Key Findings
Not surprisingly, this research study found that informal faculty leaders are
perceived to have the highest level of positive inﬂuence on issues related to:
I curriculum, and
I assessment.
Faculty exercise signiﬁcant inﬂuence over issues of teaching, learning and student
success—issues that are subsumed within the areas of curriculum and assessment.
Traditionally, faculty members have been charged with the overall responsibility for
developing and revising the curriculum by creating courses and contributing to decisions
about new courses and programs of study, by participating in subject area or departmental

meetings and by serving on curriculum committees.

121

Community college faculty typically have considerable latitude over the
implementation of the curriculum from the selection of textbooks and other instructional
materials to methods of instructional delivery and student assessment. Learning
outcomes assessment of student learning has been elevated to a major topic of concern by
accrediting agencies and funding organizations. At the institutional level faculty have
played a key, often leading, role in addressing the issue of assessment in practice—
identifying student learning outcomes, communicating with students, specifying selected
artifacts to demonstrate student learning, evaluating student performance against stated
outcomes and modifying curricular or pedagogical approaches in order to enhance
student learning.

The inﬂuence of faculty over curriculum and assessment are supported by the
results of this study. That said, it is worth noting that the highest negative mean
agreement score given by respondents was for informal faculty leader inﬂuence on
assessment, leaving one to speculate that there may have been a negative experience with
assessment at one or more of the six institutions participating in this study or that
assessment initiatives lead or participated in by informal faculty leaders had not matched
hoped-for expectations.

There is less strength of agreement about the perceived positive inﬂuence of
informal faculty leadership on issues of:

I compensation,
I shared governance, and

I budget.

122

These results suggest that if the issues are not within the traditional purview of faculty, as
in the case of curriculum and assessment, those issues that relate to the institution as a

whole are perceived to be less positively inﬂuenced by informal faculty leaders.

Conclusions

The concept of shared governance is portrayed as an organizational climate and
culture issue rather than an organizational structure issue (Amey and Twombley, 1994).
While differences of opinion persist about whether shared governance means an equal
voice or an equal vote, advocates of shared or participative governance “begin from the
premise that leaders are found throughout the organization, not just in traditional
positions of authority” (Amey and Twombley, 1994, p. 270). Shared governance
bespeaks a culture of involving organizational members in some aspects of decision
making which pervade virtually every area of the college from institutional planning and
budgeting to policy making.

“Plante points out the importance of including faculty in decisions that affect all
aspects of institutional life and not simply those areas deemed to be the traditional
purview of the faculty” (Oster in Green, 1988 p. 89). “The development of meaningful
faculty leadership requires exposing faculty to all aspects of the institution and having
them as full partners” (Oster in Green, 1988, p. 91). In this research study, the fact that
informal faculty leader inﬂuence on shared governance, compensation and budget is
perceived as less strongly positive and, in fact, issues of budget and compensation have

the highest ﬁequency scores for negative faculty leader inﬂuence, n=11 and n=lO,

123

respectively, suggests that informal faculty leaders are not achieving their desired level of

“full partner” inﬂuence with regard to these larger institutional issues.

Theme 4—Gender Differences

Informal faculty leaders are perceived differently by females than by males.

Introduction

Eagly and Johnson (1990, in Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001) reviewed
studies that compared men and women on task and interpersonal styles and democratic
and autocratic styles. Since the studies included in this meta analysis included laboratory
experiments, which compared the styles of male and female leaders of laboratory groups;
assessments studies, which compared the leadership styles of people not selected for
leadership roles (e.g. non-managerial employees) and organizational studies which
compared male and female leadership styles for managers who occupied the same
organizational role (e. g. school principal), Eagly and Johnson divided the studies into
these three types to analyze and compare the results.

They found a “signiﬁcant relation between the social context of the research and
the extent to which leadership styles were gender-stereotypic. Speciﬁcally, in the
laboratory and assessment settings, the tendency for participants to have gender-
stereotypic styles—women interpersonally oriented and men task-oriented—was stronger
than it was in the organizational settings” (Eagly and Johnson, 1990, in Eagly and
J ohannesen-Schmidt 2001, p. 789). Because constraining managerial roles were not a

factor in the laboratory experiments or assessment studies, male and female approaches

124

to leadership tended toward gender stereotypic differences with males perceived as
speaking assertively, inﬂuencing others, competing for attention, initiating activity
directed to assigned tasks and making problem-focused suggestions and females
perceived as speaking tentatively, not drawing attention to themselves, accepting others’
direction, supporting and soothing others and contributing to the solution of relational
and interpersonal problems. In the organizational studies that compared males and
females who occupied the same organizational role, “the gender stereotypic tendencies in
task and interpersonal style were eliminated, presumably because gender became merely
a background inﬂuence as the managerial role took precedence. The tendency for women
to be more participative and democratic than men, however, was intact in all three classes

of studies” (Eagly and Johnson, 1990, in Eagly and J ohannesen-Schmidt. 2001, p. 789).

Key Findings
In this study of informal faculty leaders in the community college, six areas of
gender difference were found in which females agreed more so than their male
counterparts with issues related to informal faculty leaders. Speciﬁcally, females had
higher mean agreement scores with these statements about the characteristics and
behaviors of informal faculty leaders in that they:
I demonstrate networking ability,
I demonstrate knowledge and expertise ability and
I are motivated by self-interest.
These ﬁndings suggest inconsistency with the Eagly-Johnson meta-analysis in which the

organizational leadership role context eliminated stereotypic gender differences in task

125

and interpersonal style. Rather, female respondents in this study of informal faculty
leaders agreed more so than male respondents that informal faculty leaders:

I are effective communicators—both orally and in written form,

I step forward because their area of expertise is involved, and

I step up and do their part by leading/serving on a committee or task force.

Conclusions

When considering all of the demographic variables tested in this study. males
versus females, newer versus longer serving faculty and vocational versus liberal arts
faculty, the gender issue evidenced the greatest number of statistically signiﬁcant
differences in mean agreement scores than any other demographic comparison studied—
and in each case where differences were found, females demonstrated higher mean
agreement than did males. This study is more similar in nature to the organizational
study described by Eagly and Johnson (1990), which compared leadership styles for
males and females occupying the same managerial roles in the organizational
environment as opposed to a laboratory or assessment setting. Given that respondents to
this study were nominated to participate because they were perceived by their department
chairs as informal faculty leaders, the organizational setting, has not “dampened” the
effect of stereotypic gender differences that were found to be more typical of studies
conducted in laboratory and assessment settings than in organizational settings when the
leaders being studied were considered formal leaders.

Most of the areas of agreement among female respondents related to issues more

typically associated with male characteristics and abilities than with female

126

characteristics and abilities. The exceptions to this observation are the high mean
agreement scores related to networking and communication characteristics of informal
faculty leaders. There is a prevailing perception that women who seek formal leadership
positions need to be “extremely well qualiﬁed, have proven records of accomplishment
and be over prepared for their positions” (Shavlik and Touchton, in Green, Ed., 1988,

p. 101). Rather than appreciate their unique differences “which recently been
rediscovered and celebrated as the new directions or discoveries of management

gurus. . .quality circles, attention to each person’s unique contribution to the whole,
recognition of diversity as a way to increase productivity, intuition as a trusted tool for
leaders/managers, and caring and nurturance as essential characteristics of successful
leaders” (Shavlik and Touchton, in Green, Ed., 1988, p. 107) the tendency of women is to
try and change themselves by conforming to gender stereotypic notions of leadership that
are more typically associated with men.

One can conclude from the gender differentiated results of this study—and from
those results that did not reﬂect gender differences—that the issue of role prejudice is still
prevalent in today’s community college environment. For example, it is interesting that
the some of the factors that might have suggested a more female stereotypic afﬁnity for
relationship issues—recognizing and encouraging the talents of others, emerging as
informal leaders due to encouragement by peers or by formal leaders—did not show
signiﬁcant differences in mean agreement scores between males and females. Based on
the ﬁndings of this study, it appears that in the statistically signiﬁcant cases, the lens
through which women view the characteristics and behaviors of informal faculty leaders

tend more toward stereotypic male attributes than stereotypic female attributes.

127

Theme 5—The Effect of Time Served on InformaL Leadership Perspective
Informal faculty leaders are perceived differently by longer serving and newer
faculty in higher education and by high longevity and low longevity faculty at their

current institution.

Introduction

Bolrnan and Deal (1997, 2003) point out the ﬂames of reference—structural,
human resource, political and symbolic—that can be used to view organizations and
interpret organizational behaviors. Institutions of higher education, by tradition and by
design, have evolved powerful cultures calculated to shape values and beliefs. These
cultures impose standards for learners as well as for faculty and staff, formally through
testing, assessment and evaluation, and informally through peer pressure and expected
compliance with organizational values and beliefs. Organizational culture inﬂuences a
wide range of behaviors through implicit and explicit standards ﬁ'om language and public
decorum to interpersonal interaction and service to the institution.

Historically the culture of higher education has adhered to the concept of
leadership as associated with a particular person or a particular role (president, vice
president, dean). Those outside of that role did not consider themselves leaders because
they did not see themselves as possessing the abilities and characteristics of leaders or
occupying formal administration positions. This culture is now changing. “More recent
conceptions of leadership reﬂect the understanding that it is not an individual trait but is
manifest throughout an educational community. Thus, leadership can be understood as
separate form any particular role or person and providing opportunities for all

organizational members” (Cooper and Pagotto in Piland and Wolf, Eds., 2003, p. 28).

128

While the negative perceptions and consequences of formal leadership roles in the
higher education mitigate against turning the faculty, wholesale, into aspiring
administrative leaders, (Cooper and Pagotto in Piland and Wolf, Eds., 2003; Bennett,
1988; Plante, 1988) the opportunity exists for faculty to exercise leadership by moving in
and out of informal leadership roles—spanning the traditional, parochial boundaries of

faculty and departments.

Key Findings
Respondents with longer careers in higher education and longer association with
their current institutions offer perspectives on informal leaders that differ signiﬁcantly
from respondents with shorter careers in higher education and shorter associations with
their current institutions. Speciﬁcally, those with 31 years or more in higher education
show higher mean agreement than their counterparts with 12 years or less in higher
education with these characteristics and behaviors:
I Informal faculty leaders are altruistic,
I Informal faculty leaders step forward to lead because they are deeply
concerned about the issue at hand,
I Informal faculty leaders have a positive inﬂuence on shared governance,
and
I Informal faculty leaders are likely to exercise leadership in order to fulﬁll

service to mission requirements.

129

These results suggest that faculty members with 12 years or less in higher education have
yet to coalesce or unite strongly on many of the characteristics of informal leadership
tested.

Those with 27 years or more experience at their current institution responded with
higher mean agreement scores than their counterparts with 9 years or less at their current
institution that:

I Informal faculty leaders are inspired to lead as a result of situations/events
that occur, and

I Informal faculty leaders have a positive inﬂuence on shared governance
and budgets.

Those with 9 years or less experience at their current institution responded with
higher mean agreement scores than their counterparts with 27 years or more experience at
their current institution that:

I Informal faculty leaders demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability, and
I Informal faculty leaders are conferred the “status” of informal leaders by

others.

Conclusions

By virtue of their length of service and experience within higher education, longer
serving faculty are likely to have a different view of the organization and their role within
it than newer faculty. Longer serving faculty have seen formal leaders come and go over

time and witnessed the dramatic evolution of the comprehensive community college

130

mission, a mostly additive process. This process has seen the progressive renegotiation
of the balance and relative centrality accorded:

I The transfer mission

I The technical/occupational and career education mission

I The workforce development mission

I The cultural mission

I The lifelong learning mission

I The community service mission, and

I The economic development mission.

With more years “in the trenches,” longer serving respondents have experienced
more than half of the typical lifespan of most community colleges in the US. They are
keepers of institutional memory and capable of offering a seasoned perspective on the
institution that only time and experience can provide. They are likely to have been hired
when there were fewer faculty and staff members on campus, a time when faculty were
called upon to pitch in beyond the classroom in order to help sustain the enterprise by
playing dual roles such as administrator and teacher, business manager and teacher or
counselor and teacher.

Perhaps this is why those with 31 years or more of experience in higher education
responded with higher mean agreement scores than their peers with 12 years or less of
experience in higher education that informal leaders are altruistic and that they exercise
leadership for the good of the whole—to fulﬁll service to mission requirements. It may
also be a factor for faculty with 27 years or more at their current institution whose higher

mean agreement scores than their peers with 9 years or less at their current institution

131

indicated that informal leaders have a positive impact on shared governance and budget
issues.

Conversely, faculty with shorter associations, those with 9 years or less at their
current institution, as compared to their longer serving counterparts, responded with
higher mean agreement scores that informal leaders demonstrate knowledge and expertise
ability and are conferred the status of informal leader by others. This could be
attributable to length of service and career stage-related issues. One could assume that
newer faculty with fewer years of teaching experience and fewer years in the community
college organizational environment have spent more time focused on developing their
subject matter expertise, their pedagogical methods and their ability to navigate the
organizational systems within which they operate. As a result, faculty with shorter
associations may have had less time to venture beyond the classroom or their departments
and less opportunity to contribute as members of the college in service to mission.

Given this scenario, it is not surprising that faculty with shorter associations
would agree more so than their longer serving peers that informal leaders demonstrate
knowledge/expertise ability—they have a “leg up” on something that not everyone else
does and that this expertise suggests a rationale for stepping forward to lead informally—
and that they are conferred the status of informal leaders by others—their legitimacy
comes, in part, because others believe in them. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the
higher mean agreement scores of longer serving faculty show that informal leaders lead
because it is the right thing to do, when issues or situations warrant and that informal
faculty leaders positively impact issues that affect the enterprise—speciﬁcally shared

governance and budget.

132

Perhaps those with longer service to higher education and to their institutions
view informal leaders as those who have seized a new and welcome challenge—offering
a greater decision-making or at least a more likely decision-inﬂuencing role within the
institution that transcends their traditional boundaries. They have weathered the tough
times, experienced the good times and feel a commitment to the organization and its
learners, as reﬂected in their perspective of informal leaders: altruistic members of the
organization, inspired by emerging issues and events and providing service to the mission

beyond the classroom walls.

lh_e_me 6—Technicja_lNocational vs. Liberal Arts/General Studies Faculty
Informal faculty leaders are perceived differently by technical/occupational

faculty and liberal arts/ general studies faculty.

Introduction

Ideological differences between technical and liberal arts faculty have been a
subject of ongoing discussion for as long as faculty from these two broadly deﬁned areas
of instruction have coexisted in the community college. Cohen and Brawer (1982)
describe the “contrasting modes of teaching” in the liberal arts and occupational courses.
Liberal arts instructors place great value on the interaction between instructor and student
as well as on individual student reading and reﬂection. Occupational faculty need
laboratories, equipment and partnerships with business and industry. Their students learn
by doing, not by talking about doing. “These variant attitudes stem from the different

ways that the career and collegiate functions were taught before they came into the

133

colleges” (Cohen and Brawer, 1982, p. 299). Career preparation descended from
apprenticeships in practical work settings while “the liberal arts were the province of a
group inclined toward contemplation” (1982, p. 299).

Even as early as the burgeoning growth of community colleges, this was a topic
of interest. In a study of faculty opinion about the general purposes of two-year colleges
(Medsker, 1960), 97% of respondents agreed that junior colleges should offer two
primary educational programs: liberal arts and “terminal” vocational education. When
responses of liberal arts faculty and vocational faculty were compared, the relative
importance conferred on liberal arts versus vocational education was divided along
faculty lines. A higher percentage of liberal arts faculty thought the transfer function was
very important and the opposite was true in their rating of the terminal function.
Conversely, a higher percentage of vocational faculty rated vocational education as more
important than the transfer function.

While many thought that the “divide” between liberal arts and vocational faculty
had narrowed, it is interesting to note that the more current study suggests that some of

these basic issues continue to characterize the two distinct faculty areas.

Key Findings

Respondents who teach in liberal arts/ general studies offer perspectives on
informal leaders that differ signiﬁcantly ﬁ'om respondents who teach in
technical/vocational areas. Speciﬁcally, those who teach in liberal arts/general studies
responded with higher mean agreement scores than their counterparts in

technical/vocational ﬁelds that informal faculty leaders:

134

I demonstrate concern for tasks,

I tend to be deliberative in decision making, and

I positively inﬂuence compensation issues.
On the other hand, respondents who teach in technical/vocational ﬁelds, as compared to
their counterparts in liberal arts/ general studies, responded with a higher mean agreement
score to the statement that informal faculty leaders step forward because:

I they are encouraged by formal leaders.

Conclusions

“The politics of campus is like the politics of a small town” (March and Weiner in
Piland and Wolf, Eds., 2003, p. 5). This “two worlds divide” could be said of the
politics of technical/vocational and liberal arts/ general studies faculty on commmrity
college campuses. Through the years, these broad academic areas of the institution have
differed on issues of centrality to mission, educational philosophy and budget priorities.
Similarly, the academic areas of the college represented by respondents to this study are
also a differentiating factor when considering perspectives on informal faculty leadership.

The signiﬁcant differences in response by faculty teaching in liberal arts/general
studies vs. faculty teaching in technical/occupational areas are reminiscent of the issues
that have cropped up between these faculty since the early days of the community
college. Generally, these faculty have tended to view education through different lenses:
liberal arts/ general studies faculty have been inclined to assert that education is important
because it creates a more well-informed citizenry and prepares learners to be critical

thinkers, able communicators and culturally conscious. Technical/occupational faculty

135

have tended to assert that education—and naining—-should be focused on gaining
specialized skills for employment.

A review of the college instructional areas represented by the
technical/occupational faculty participants in this study points to the hierarchical and
sometimes autocratic nature of the career ﬁelds for which they are preparing students:
health care where physicians are strong leaders, aviation where the captain is in
command, construction trades where general contractors direct work ﬂow and culinary
arts where managing chefs preside. Perhaps as a result of their experience in these
career ﬁelds prior to or concurrent with their teaching careers, technical/vocational
faculty have a more toward a hierarchical view of the organization in which leadership
must be recognized and called forth by formal leaders rather than conferred by peers or
self-inspired.

Clearly, community college faculty are not “all of a piece.” They have differing
individual perspectives about informal leadership and, as this study shows, issues of
gender, length of service in higher education and at their current institution and the area

of the college in which they teach inﬂuence these perspectives.

Implications

The results of this study of informal faculty leadership should not be considered
without a broader understanding of faculty perspectives on formal hierarchical
leadership. In general, the academy has historically devalued administration and deemed
aspiration to formal administrative positions as unseemly (Green, 1988). Generally

speaking, faculty prefer to be left alone and, unless the organization is in legitimate peril,

136

their solidarity with this position is legendary. As Green (1988) points out, higher
education has been characterized as an “organized anarchy” where institutions are vague
and confused about their goals and leadership is harnstrung by the resulting blur. “Other
models are less extreme, acknowledging real limitations on leadership in academe, but
also allowing for the exercise of leadership within the constraints of external regulation,
as well as traditions of faculty autonomy, shared governance and decentralized decision
making” (Green, 1988, p.14).

With its tradition of collegiality and civility, higher education is characterized by
power that resides in many different areas of the institution with different individuals.
Since decision-making and leadership are decentralized formal leaders must rely on
legitimate power, which is rooted in shared values and aspirations, which means they are

dependent upon the acceptance of followers in order to be effective.

Informal Leaders—Point; of Light

In the context of this research study, the phenomenon of informal faculty
leadership in the community college setting has been examined. These informal faculty
leaders are deﬁned as those without recognized positional authority yet who inﬂuence
followers either consistently or in reference to speciﬁc issues or situations and, as a
result, exert a positive or negative inﬂuence on some aspect of the organization. If
faculty tend to eye formal leaders with suspicion, they feel the opposite about informal
faculty leaders.

Based on the results of this study, faculty perceive informal faculty leadership as a

positive application of leadership. In certain areas, informal faculty leaders have a

137

signiﬁcant, positive effect on the institution. In fact, informal leaders possess many of the
characteristics sought after in formal leaders: they are effective communicators—oral and
written as well as face-to-face, they exert inﬂuence, they recognize and engage the talents
of others, they demonstrate a concern for people and relationships, they demonstrate
knowledge/expertise ability and they know how to network.

The differences appear to lie in the informal nature of this category of leadership
and in the fact that informal faculty leaders are of, by and for the faculty. Unofﬁcially
and unceremoniously, informal faculty leaders emerge—either through concern about an
issue, through a sense of personal responsibility or through the encouragement of their
peers. Informal faculty leaders know what needs to be done, and they do it. No one
explicitly tells them to act or deﬁnes a course of action. Whether through insight,
intuition, know-how or providence, they put their values and beliefs into action.
Recalling the criteria for the Points of Light Foundation “Extra Mile” award, there are
striking similarities: efforts are made in the public interest, have a positive effect on a '
signiﬁcant number of people, are performed by a person acting as a private citizen, not as
an appointed or elected ofﬁcial, and are undertaken outside of a normal work assignment.

How, then, can community colleges capitalize on this positive internal source of
leadership? Are there internal organizational cultural shifts that can be facilitated to
encourage informal faculty leaders to emerge? Given what has been learned in this study
and what is understood about the nature of the faculty’s relationship to administration,
few faculty approach the role of informal faculty leadership with the intention of
becoming part of the formal leadership hierarchy. Once an informal leader emerges,

formal leaders may be tempted to reach in and “help” by providing rewards or

138

inducements that come in the form of additional leadership opportunities and assignments
or professional development experiences. Leadership opportunities for faculty do not
necessarily portend opportunities for them to become quasi-administrators. Formal
leaders may be better advised to trust these “Points of Light,” while exercising tolerance
and acceptance of the ambiguity and lack of control that accompanies informal faculty
leadership. Given that informal leaders also have the potential to lead the loyal
opposition or even resistance movements that seek to modify or redirect organizational
policy and practice, the added challenge for formal leaders is knowing when to step in or
fall back.

While being sensitive to these cautions, formal leaders can take steps to foster a
culture that encourages the involvement and development of people in a climate of
responsibility, trust and respect. O’Toole (in Bennis, Spreitzer and Cummings, Eds.,
2001) describes this as an emerging model of collective leadership that is rooted in the
systems and culture of the organization rather than in gestures of symbolic empowerment
from positional leader to non-positional leaders. The result is demonstrated by individuals
at all levels of the organization “behaving more like owners and entrepreneurs than

employees or hired hands” (in Bennis, et.al., Eds., p. 160).

Inform_al LeadershitAn Inconsistent Phenomenon

Informal leaders emerge within an organization, but can you always count on
them? Faculty who provide informal leadership coalesce others and contribute
purposeful behavior that is not preordained or centrally planned. When inspired, they

swing into action, akin to Superman or Superwoman. At other times, they leave their

139

capes behind and go about the important work of teaching. Frequently, informal
leadership occurs because it is inspired by a cause or because the informal leader has
particular knowledge or expertise to contribute. Institutions that become dependent on
informal faculty leaders to “pick up the slack” or to ﬁll the leadership gap that occurs
when there are more good ideas or challenging issues than there are formal leaders to go
around, may be disappointed.

Informal leadership should not be counted on to be timely or convenient. There
may be periods within the life cycle of the community college in which informal leaders
are more prevalent. This can be a factor of issues to be dealt with, of personal passion for
a cause, or some combination thereof. However, given the episodic nature of informal
leadership, community colleges should not become dependent on them as “bench
strength” for keeping the faculty “in line” or to serve the agenda of formal leadership

endeavors.

Informal Leadership—An M Opportunig Venture

The results of this study offer perspectives on informal leaders that differ
signiﬁcantly among respondents with longer careers in higher education and longer
associations with their current institutions from those of respondents with shorter careers
in higher education and shorter associations with their current institutions. Longer
serving faculty agree more so than shorter serving faculty that informal leaders are
altruistic, step forward because they care deeply about the issue at hand, and exercise

informal leadership in order to fulﬁll service to mission requirements.

140

While their perspective about the characteristics and behaviors of informal
leadership may differ, all respondents to this research study, regardless of length of
service, agree that experience and greater longevity in the institution are not prerequisites
for informal leadership. Personal characteristics such as a concern for people and

relationships, networking ability and a positive outlook, coupled with knowledge and

 

expertise and inspired by situations/events that occur, are more likely to be factors that
I
contribute to the emergence of informal faculty leadership. Given the impending wave of I

1.
faculty retirements, this is good news. 1

Recommendations for Further Research

By systematically gathering and analyzing perceptions about informal faculty
leaders, contributed by those considered as informal faculty leaders, this study adds to a
growing body of research in the area of community colleges. This study focused on a
population that is still emerging in the literature with few research studies addressing the
topic directly or in depth.

When approached, department chairs at six community colleges felt conﬁdent in
their ability to recognize those members of the college’s faculty who ﬁt the deﬁnition of
informal faculty leaders. The certitude with which these individuals were able to
recognize informal faculty leaders lends credence the conventional wisdom that these
leaders exist, they are recognizable and their inﬂuence is being felt.

Although informal faculty leadership may sill reside at the fringes of higher
education leadership study, continuing to develop a deeper understanding of the role,

inﬂuence and motivating factors that contribute to the behavior and contributions of

141

informal leaders will shed light on yet one more dimension of the many forces at work in
shaping and transforming community colleges. This study focused attention on an aspect
of institutional leadership involving a population consisting of informal faculty leaders—
a category of leadership that has received only limited research attention. As a result,

there are numerous opportunities for further useful research.

What Do Others Think?

This study looked at the population of informal faculty leaders based on the
perceptions of those presumed to be drawn from the population under study. The effort
was made to gather a sample of recognized informal leaders as determined by local
experts—department chairs—at the six community colleges involved in the study. It was
assumed going into the study that a more reﬁned notion of the informal faculty leader
was a necessary ﬁrst step in better deﬁning the population for future research. To
accomplish this ﬁrst step, this study has engaged those believed most likely to have the
keenest insight into the informal faculty leader, speciﬁcally those individuals considered
to be members of the population of informal faculty leaders.

Given the preliminary proﬁle that has emerged from this study, one offered by a
sample drawn from inside the population of informal faculty leaders, it would be
interesting to repeat the study using 1) the general population of community college
faculty, 2) the general population of community college administrators and 3) the general
population of community college trustees in order to determine the level of congruence,
or lack thereof, between the perceptual proﬁle offered by the informal faculty leaders and

these three populations. An additional variable to consider in subsequent studies would

142

be the effect of labor unions on informal leadership. This suggests bifurcating the
population to be studied between colleges in which employee labor unions are present

and colleges in which employee labor unions are not present.

From Perceptual Inventory to Case Studies

This descriptive study has yielded a perceptual inventory of informal faculty
leader characteristics and behaviors, factors that deﬁne effective informal faculty leaders,
situations in which informal faculty leaders emerge, areas in which informal faculty
leaders exert inﬂuence and circumstances in which faculty are likely to exercise informal
leadership. The results of this study present a “mile high” view; the results do not
investigate the informal faculty leader in action addressing speciﬁc situations and dealing
with speciﬁc issues. Through the case study approach, further exploration of actual
situations in which informal faculty leadership has been exercised would provide
additional insight about the behaviors of individual faculty leaders themselves and the
resulting effect on their institutions. Preliminary ﬁeld investigations with accompanying
case studies would broaden understanding of the still rather abstract notion of informal
faculty leaders through depth study of the issues and actions, accompanying successes

and possible disappointments in the real world of informal faculty leaders in action.

The Informal Faculty Leader Typology and Implications for Hiring

The results of this study point to certain characteristics and behaviors of informal
leaders. If informal faculty leadership is a leadership phenomenon to be embraced and a

practice to be encouraged within the community college, the opportunity to create faculty

143

proﬁles that include these characteristics and behaviors and the possibility of
emphasizing them in hiring decisions could be signiﬁcant. A study that examines the
prevalence of faculty members who possess the characteristics and behaviors attributed to
informal faculty leaders and the prevalence of informal leadership among this population

could have important implications for faculty hiring.

The Consequences of Informal Leadership for Informal Leaders

Little is known about the consequences of informal leadership for informal
leaders themselves. Are they more or less likely to seek formal leadership positions as a
result of their informal leadership experience? As they emerge, how are informal leaders
treated by formal leaders? Do informal leaders consistently serve in this role, always
ﬁnding an issue or a cause, or do they appear, disappear and then remerge when
situations arise? Do informal leaders burn out or are they energized by their role? Case
studies could help to investigate the personal costs and beneﬁts experienced by informal

faculty leaders.

The Effect of Informal Leaders Beyond Traditional Areas of Faculty Inﬂuence

The results of this study support the notion of the positive inﬂuence of informal
faculty leaders on areas within the traditional purview of the faculty, namely curriculum
and assessment. For other areas of the college including budget, shared governance and
compensation the inﬂuence of informal faculty leaders is not perceived of as strongly
inﬂuential. Additional study is warranted to determine if shared governance and the

movement to transform community colleges to learning-centered organizations will

144

enable informal faculty leaders to have a more prominent effect on these areas of the

college.

145

APPENDICES

146

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

Date

Title, ﬁrst name, last name
Job title

College name

Address

City, state, zip

Dear [title, last name]:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. For the past few years I have been
working on my Ph.D., and part of my studies includes completion of a dissertation. The
topic of my dissertation is Informal Faculty Leadership in Community Colleges.

The focus of this dissertation research project is to study informal faculty leadership in
the community college setting from the perspective of the informal faculty leaders
themselves.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your help in the identiﬁcation of the survey
participants. Speciﬁcally, I am seeking your conﬁdential “nomination” of effective
informal faculty leaders at your institution. Your name will not be connected in any way
with the survey, and the individuals you nominate will not know the source of their
nomination.

Informal faculty leaders are defined as those without recognized positional authority
yet who inﬂuence others within the college either consistently or in reference to
specific issues or situations. Effective informal faculty leaders are defined as those
who have inﬂuenced others within the college and, as a result, had either a positive
or negative inﬂuence on some aspect of the organization.

Throughout the survey the identities of individual respondents will remain conﬁdential,
and reports of research ﬁndings will not permit associating subjects or institutions with
speciﬁc responses. Findings from this survey will form the basis for my dissertation and
related presentations.

Would you please take a few minutes to identify the effective informal faculty leaders at

your college and return their names on the nomination form provided via fax
(231.938.3104) or in the postage paid envelope provided?

147

Your response by January 10, 2005 will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Cordially,

Kathleen E. Guy

7894 Peaceful Valley
Williarnsburg, Ml 49690
231.938.3102
katguy@chartermi.net

Enclosures (2)

148

APPENDIX B

INFORMAL FACULTY LEADER NOMINATION FORM

Informal Faculty Leader Nomination Form
for

A Conﬁdential Survey of Informal Faculty Leaders in the Community College

Please list below the names/ofﬁce addresses of informal faculty leaders at your
institution. Informal faculty leaders are deﬁned as those without recognized
positional authority yet who inﬂuence others within the college either consistently or
in reference to specific issues or situations. Effective informal faculty leaders are
defined as those who have inﬂuenced others within the college and, as a result, had
either a positive or negative inﬂuence on some aspect of the organization.

List all that come to mind (please PRINT). My nominees are:

NAME ADDRESS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

APPENDD( C

INFORMAL FACULTY LEADER QUESTIONNAIRE

A Conﬁdential Survey of Informal Faculty Leaders in the Community College

Contemporary views of leadership include the understanding that leadership is not the
exclusive purview of those in formal leadership positions. Leadership is frequently
distributed throughout organizations, demonstrated by individuals at all levels occupying
a wide variety of roles.

The purpose of this research project is to study informal faculty leadership in the
community college setting.

Informal faculty leaders are those without recognized positional authority yet who
inﬂuence others either consistently or in reference to specific issues or situations.
Effective informal faculty leaders are deﬁned as those who have inﬂuenced others
within the college and, as a result, have exerted a positive or negative inﬂuence on
some aspect of the organization.
Please reﬂect on your observation of informal faculty leaders at your college as you
consider the following questions.

Please respond to all questions beginning on the next page.

When ﬁnished, return your survey in the white postage paid envelope provided.

Thank you!

150

1. Please indicate the degree to which informal leaders demonstrate the characteristics
and behaviors identiﬁed below. For each descriptor, circle the number that best
represents your observation of informal faculty leaders. For example, if you strongly
agree that informal faculty leaders demonstrate a concern for people/relationships, circle
the number 5.

la. Informal faculty leaders demonstrate concern for people/relationships
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

1b. Informal faculty leaders demonstrate concern for tasks.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

1c. Informal faculty leaders are self-inspired to lead.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

1d. Informal faculty leaders are inspired to lead as a result of situations/events that occur.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

1e. Informal faculty leaders demonstrate networking ability.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

1f. Informal faculty leaders demonstrate knowledge/expertise ability.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

lg. Informal faculty leaders are motivated by self-interest.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

1h. Informal faculty leaders are altruistic.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2

1i. Informal faculty leaders mainly inﬂuence their peer group.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 l

151

1 j. Informal faculty leaders are able to inﬂuence up/down the college hierarchy.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral
5 4 3

Disagree

2

1k. Informal faculty leaders get others to agree with their ideas.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral
5 4 3

ll. Informal faculty leaders seek consensus.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

1m. Informal faculty leaders work behind the scenes.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

1n. Informal faculty leaders are highly visible, prominent.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

lo. Informal faculty leaders have narrow insight.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

1p. Informal faculty leaders are systems thinkers.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

lq. Informal faculty leaders are humble.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

lr.Informal faculty leaders are prideful.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

ls. Informal faculty leaders have a positive outlook.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

1t. Informal faculty leaders have a negative outlook.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

152

Disagree

2

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

2

Disagree
2

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree

1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

 

lu. Informal faculty leaders are self appointed as informal leaders.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

IV. Informal faculty leaders are conferred the “status” of informal leader by others.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

1w. Informal faculty leaders seek advice and counsel in forming their opinions.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

1x. Informal faculty leaders promote their own personal opinions.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

1y. Informal faculty leaders tend to be deliberative in decision making.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 l

12. Informal faculty leaders tend to be spontaneous in decision making.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

2. At your college, how do informal leaders emerge? For each descriptor, circle the
number that best represents your view of how informal faculty leaders emerge at your
institution. For example, if you strongly agree that informal faculty leaders are
encouraged by formal (positional) leaders, circle the number 5.

2a. Informal leaders step forward because they are encouraged by formal leaders.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

2b. Informal leaders step forward because they are encouraged by their peers.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

2c. Informal leaders step forward because their area of expertise is involved.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 l

153

 

2d. Informal leaders step forward because they feel a responsibility to lead.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2

2e. Informal leaders step forward because they are deeply concerned about the issue(s) at
hand.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 - 1

2f. Informal leaders step forward because they are motivated by the exercise of inﬂuence

and power.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

3. To what extent to you agree or disagree with the following statements?

3a. Effective informal faculty leaders must ﬁrst be perceived as effective

teachers/educators.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1
3b. Effective informal faculty leaders are those with more experience and greater

longevity in the institution.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

3c. Any faculty member can emerge as an effective informal leader—age, gender and

experience are not necessarily determining factors.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 . 1

3d. Effective informal faculty leaders recognize and engage the talents of others.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

3e. Effective informal faculty leaders are inﬂuential in shaping the college.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 l

154

3f. Effective informal faculty leadership is conducted through dialogue and face-to-face

communication.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1
3g. Effective informal faculty leaders need to be effective communicators—oral and
written.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

3h. Effective informal faculty leaders transcend boundaries—they inﬂuence others

beyond their department or discipline.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5 4 3 2 1

4. Please indicate areas in which informal leaders have been inﬂuential in shaping your
college. Rank each area in terms of the degree of inﬂuence (1=low inﬂuence and 5=high

inﬂuence) and indicate whether each area/situation was positive or negative (P=positive

 

and N=negative).

Area of Inﬂuence Positive/Negative Degree of Inﬂuence
(circle one) (circle one)

4a. Shared Governance P N 5 4 3 2 1

4b. Curriculum P N 5 4 3 2 1

4c. Budget P N 5 4 3 2 1

4d. Compensation P N 5 4 3 2 1

4e. Assessment P N 5 4 3 2 1

4f. Other P N 5 4 3 2 l

 

155

5. Under what circumstances have informal faculty leaders been likely to exercise
informal leadership at your college? For each circumstance, circle the number that most
closely represents your observation. For example, if you strongly agree that informal

faculty leaders have been likely to exercise informal leadership to prepare for a formal

leadership position, circle number 5.

5a. To prepare for a formal leadership position.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

Disagree
2

Strongly Disagree
1

5b. To “step up” and do their part: lead/serve on a committee, task force, etc.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral
5 4 3

5c. To offer perspective or opinion on an important/sensitive issue.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

5d. To inﬂuence followers.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

5e. To inﬂuence formal leaders.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

5f. To demonstrate participation in shared governance.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral

5 4 3

5g. To fulﬁll “service to college mission” requirements.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral
5 4 3

156

Disagree
2

Disagree
2

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
2

Disagree
2

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

Strongly Disagree
1

6. What is your gender?

Female Male

7. Please indicate your years of experience in higher education.

Years

8. Please indicate your years of experience at your current institution.

Years

9. What area of the college do you represent?
Technical/occupational

Liberal arts/ general studies

Thank you for completing this survey.
Please return it in the white postage paid envelope provided.

157

APPENDIX D

RESEARCH LETTER OF INVITATION

Date

Title, ﬁrst name, last name
Job title

College name

Address

City, state, zip

Dear [title, last name]:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University and a career community college
professional. For the past few years I have been working on my Ph.D., and part of my
studies includes completion of a dissertation. I am writing to invite your participation in
a survey that will form the basis of my dissertation research.

The topic of my dissertation is Informal Faculty Leadership in Community Colleges.
Contemporary views of leadership include the understanding that leadership is not the
exclusive purview of those in formal leadership positions. Leadership is ﬁ'equently
distributed throughout organizations, demonstrated by individuals at all levels occupying
a wide variety of roles.

The purpose of this dissertation research project is to study informal faculty leadership in
the community college setting from the perspective of the faculty.

Informal faculty leaders are defined as those without recognized positional authority
yet who inﬂuence others within the college either consistently or in reference to
specific issues or situations. Effective informal faculty leaders are defined as those
who have inﬂuenced others within the college and, as a result, had either a positive
or negative inﬂuence on some aspect of the organization.

I am seeking your response to the enclosed survey which should take no more than 15
minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is strictly voluntary.

You can be assured that the identities of individual respondents will remain conﬁdential.
Reports of research ﬁndings will not permit associating subjects or their colleges with
speciﬁc responses. Findings from this survey will form the basis for my dissertation and
related presentations.

158

If you agree to participate, please:
1. Sign the enclosed consent forms; keep one for your records and return one in the
GREEN postage paid envelope provided and
2. Complete the enclosed questionnaire and retum it in the WHITE postage paid
envelope provided.

Your response by February 4, 2005 will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your
assistance.

Cordially,

Kathleen E. Guy

7894 Peaceful Valley
Williarnsburg, MI 49690
231.938.3102
katguy@chartermi.net

Enclosures (5)

159

APPENDIX E

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

A Study of Informal Faculty Leadership in the Community College

Statement of Informed Consent

You are being asked to participate in this research study of informal faculty leadership in
the community college by completing a questionnaire. The questionnaire should take
approximately 15 minutes to complete. In doing so, you should be aware that:

O

0

You will not encounter any procedures which are experimental,

You will return the completed questionnaire in the white postage paid enveloped
provided and no return address is required,

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law and your
identity and responses will be conﬁdential,

Reports of research ﬁndings will not permit associating your name or your
college with speciﬁc responses or ﬁndings,

You will not encounter any foreseeable risks or discomforts,

The beneﬁts of this study will be to provide Michigan community college faculty
with information about informal faculty leadership characteristics and behaviors,
the circumstances in which informal faculty leaders emerge and the areas in
which informal faculty leaders are inﬂuential and the degree of inﬂuence that
informal faculty leaders have on their institutions; the beneﬁt for formal leaders
will be a sample proﬁle of informal faculty leadership characteristics and
behaviors that could serve as a source of information for the identiﬁcation of
informal faculty leaders in the community college,

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator (S.
Joseph Levine, Ph.D., 1962 Pawnee Trail, Okemos, MI 48864; 517-349-6623;
Levine@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you
may contact — anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the

160

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by
phone: 517-355-2180, fax: 517-4324503, email: ucrihs@msu.edu. or regular
mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824 and

0 Your participation in this study is voluntary and that you may refuse to
participate at any time without penalty or loss of beneﬁts to which you are

otherwise entitled.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

Your Name

 

 

Signature Date

Please keep one copy of this form for yourself and return the other copy of this form in
the GREEN postage paid envelope to:

Kathleen E. Guy
7 894 Peaceful Valley Road
Williarnsburg, MI 49690

161

APPENDIX F

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acebo, SC. (1994). A paradigm shift to team leadership in the community college. In
G.A. Baker (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: its history,
mission, and management (pp. 580-588). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Alreck, P.L. & Settle, RB. (1985). The survey research handbook. Homewood, IL:
Irwin.

Amey, M.J. & Twombly, SB. (1992). Re—visioning leadership in community colleges.
The Review of Higher Education, 15(2), 125-150.

Amey, M.J. & Twombly, SB. (1994). Leadership skills for participative governance. In
G.A. Baker (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: its history,
mission, and management (pp. 268-283). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Amey, M.K. & VanDerLinden, KB (2002). The institutional context of community
college administration. American Association of Community Colleges Leadership
Series, 4. Annapolis Junction, MD: Community College Press.

Argyris, C. & Schon, DA. (1974). Theory in practice: increasing professional
eﬂectiveness. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Astin, A.W. & Astin, HS. (2000). Leadership reconsidered. Battle Creek, MI: WK.
Kellogg Foundation.

Atlas, J. (2005, February 27). The battle behind the battle at Harvard New York T imes,
p. 14.

Badaracco, J .L. (2002). Leading quietly: an unorthodox guide to doing the right thing.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bailey, T.R. & Morest,V.S. (2004). The organizational eﬁ‘iciency of multiple missions for
community colleges. New York: Columbia University Research Center.

Bennett, J .B. (1988). Department chairs: leadership in the trenches. In M.F. Green (Ed),

Leadership for a New Era (pp. 57-73). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

162

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: strategies for taking charge. New York:
HarperCollins.

Bennis, W.S., Spreitzer, G.M. & Cummings, T.G. (Eds.). (2001). The future of
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership:
teams and teamwork in higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Blau, RM. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bogue, E.G. (1994). Leadership by design: strengthening integrity in higher education.
San Francisco: J ossey—Bass.

Bolrnan, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1997). Reframing organizations (2"d ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Bolrnan, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Bolt, J .F . (1996). Developing three-dimensional leaders. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith,
& R. Beckhard, (Eds). The leader of the future. (pp. 161-174). San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.

Browne, C.G. & Cohn, TS. (1958). The study of leadership. Danville, IL: The
Interstate.

Burns, J .M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chaleff, I. (1997). Learn the art of followership. Government Executive, 29(2), 51.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1982). The American community college. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, J .E. & Pagotto, L. (2003). Developing community college faculty as leaders. In
W.E. Piland & D.B.Wolf, (Eds). Help wanted: preparing community college
leaders in a new century (pp. 27-3 8). New Directions for Community Colleges,
123. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J .W. (1994). Research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

163

Cronin, T.E. (1984). Reﬂections on leadership. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 14(1).
Retrieved February 8, 2005, from
http://wwwnt.cnwvv.miVols/reﬂectionsﬁon leadershiphtm

DeCrane, A.C., Jr. (1996). A constitutional model of leadership. In F. Hesselbein, M.
Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds). The leader of the future. (pp. 249-256) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an Art. New York: Dell Publishing.
DePree, M. (1992). Leadership Jazz. New York: Currency Doubleday.
DePree, M. (2003). Leading Without Power. San Francisco: J ossey—Bass.

Douglas, B. & Harmening, T. (1999). Comparative ﬁnancial statistics for public two-
year colleges: Fiscal Year 1998. Washington, DC: National Association of
College and University Business Ofﬁcers.

Eagly, A.H. & J ohannesen-Schmidt, MC. (2001). The leadership styles of women and
men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781-797.

Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.J. & vanEngen, ML. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing
women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.

Emerson, RM. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review,
27(1), 31-41.

Gardner, J .W. (1986). The tasks of leadership. Washington, DC: The Independent
Sector.

Gardner, J .W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Goodchild, L.F. & Wechsler, H.S. (Eds). (1997). The history ofhigher education (2"d
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

Gould, E.G. & Caldwell, PF. (1998). Tomorrow’s essentials in management:
decentralization, collaboration, and ownership. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 22, 349-362. Retrieved February 18, 2005 from
Academic Search Premier.

Green, M.F. (1988). Leaders for a new era. New York: ACE/MacMillan.

Green, M.F. (1994). Not for wimps or cowards: leadership in the post-heroic age.
Educational Record, 55-60.

164

Heifetz, RA. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Heifetz, R.A., & Laurie, D.L. (1998). The work of leadership. In Harvard Business
Review on Leadership (pp. 171-222). Boston: Harvard Business School
Publishing.

Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R., (Eds). (1996). The leader of the future.
San Francisco: J ossey—Bass

Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, Inc.

Jennings, BE. (1960). The anatomy of leadership: princes, heroes, and supermen. New
York: Harper & Brothers.

Kanter, RM. (1999). The enduring skills of change leaders. Leader to Leader, 13, 15-22.

Kanter, RM. (2001). Creating the culture for innovation. In F. Hesselbein, M.Goldsmith
& I. Somerville (Eds), Leading for innovation (pp. 73-85). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Katz, D. & Kahn, C. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.

Kelley, RE. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Komives, S.R., Nance, L.& McMahon, TR. (1998). Exploring leadership: for college
students who want to make a diﬂerence (1St ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kotter, J .P. (1998). What leaders really do. In Harvard Business Review on Leadership.
(pp. 37-60) Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Kouzes, J .M. & Posner, B..Z (1996). Ten lessons for leaders and leadership developers.
The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 3-10 ’

Lewin, K. & Lippitt, R. (1938) in Dean, P.J., (Ed.). (2002). Leadership, leaders and
leading: part one. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(1), 5-10.

March, J .G. & Weiner, SS. (2003). Leadership blues. In W.E. Piland & D.B. Wolf
(Eds). Help wanted: preparing community college leaders in a new century (pp.
5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, J .C. (1993). Developing the leader within you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers.

165

Medsker, LL. (1960). The junior college: progress and prospect. New York: McGraw
Hill.

Mintzberg, H. (2002). Managing to innovate. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith & I.
Somerville, (Eds). Leading for innovation (pp.l4l-152). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Nesselrode, G. (1996). Leadership of individuals outside top administrative positions in
two community colleges. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas, 1996).
UMI 9637333.

O'Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

O’Banion, T. & Kaplan, J. (2004). Making good on the promise. Community College
Journal, 74(5), 16-19.

Oster, R. (1988). Developing faculty leadership: a faculty perspective. In M. F. Green
(Ed.), Leaders for a new era (pp. 87-97). New York: Macmillan Publishing

Company.

Palmer, J .C. & Katsinas, S.G. (Eds). (1996). Graduate and continuing education for
community college leaders: what it means today. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Pielstick, CD. (2000). Formal vs. informal leading: a comparative analysis. The Journal
of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 99-114.

Piland, W.E., & Wolf, D.B. (Eds). (2003). Help wanted: preparing community college
leaders in a new century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Plante, RR. (1988). In support of faculty leadership: an administrator's perspective. In M.
F. Green (Ed), Leaders for a new era (pp.74-86). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.

Posner, J .M. & Kouzes, B.Z. (2003). Credibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. New York: Routledge.

Robbins, B. & Zirinsky, D. (1996). Growing into leadership: Proﬁles from a ‘good’
department. English Journal, 85(5), 34-39.

Rosenbach, W.E. & Taylor, R.L. (Eds). (1998). Contemporary issues in leadership (4th
ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

166

Rost, J .C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-ﬁrst century. New York: Praeger.

Scott, W.R. (2003). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems (5‘h ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Senge, RM. (2000). Lessons for change leaders. Leader to Leader, 18, 21-27.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. & Smith, B. (1994). The ﬁfth discipline
ﬁeldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York:
Doubleday.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of
change. New York: Doubleday.

Shavlik, D.L., & Touchton, J .G. (1988). Women as leaders. In M.F. Green (Ed), Leaders
for a new era (pp. 98-117). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Sherer, J .2. (2004, April). Distributed leadership practice: the subject matters.
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Sherif, M. & Sherif, CW. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper &
Brothers.

Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college
leadership. American Association of Community Colleges Leadership Series, 1.
Annapolis Junction, MD: Community College Press.

Smith, D.K. (1996). The following part of leading. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith & R.
Beckhard, (Eds). The leader of the future (pp. 199-208). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Stogdill, R. (1958). Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature.
In C. Browne & T. Cohn (Eds). The study of leadership (pp.50-61). Danville, IL:
Interstate.

The Extra Mile. (2005). The extra mile points of light volunteer pathway. Retrieved
February 28, 2005 from httn://www.extramile.u§/nomina_t£/

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A.M. Henderson, &
T. Parsons, Trans). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wills, G. (1994). Certain trumpets: the nature of leadership. New York: Touchstone.

Wilson, C. (2002). Leadership for learning. Learning Abstracts, 5(7), l-4.

167

Young, R. J. (1996). Legacy of the post-WWII growth years for community college
leadership programs. In J .C. Palmer & S.G. Katsinas (Eds). Graduate and
continuing education for community college leaders: what it means today
(pp. 5-10). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

168