A STUDY OF NORMATIVE AND EMERGING FUNCTIONS OF THE . COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT Dissertation for the. Degree at Ph, D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOSEPH MARTINMEGO. 1973 7.1“”:th LIBRARY Michigan State University w v This is to certify that the thesis entitled ’ A STUDY OF NORMATIVE AND EMERGING FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT presented by Joseph Martin Mego has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Department of Admin— istration and Higher Education 73; Z Z: .3: Major professor Date 2% 2% /773 0-7639 Implant» um & “'8' 800K BINDERY INC. i LIBRARY amosns gunmen}. menu- “any JIIZI'YQiEi ABSTRACT A STUDY OF NORMATIVE AND EMERGING FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT BY Joseph Martin Mego The purpose of this study was to examine the per— ceptions of community college development officers toward the normative and emerging functions of the development officer position, a relatively new addition to the com- munity college president's cabinet. Three questions were answered by the research: (1) Are there significant dif- ferences in the chief responsibility attached to the major function categories of the community college development officer position? (2) Are there significant differences expected in the chief responsibility attached to function categories a few years from now compared to present practices? (3) Are there significant differences in function emphasis or change expected in the next few years? The instrument designed to measure community col- 1ege development officer perceptions was a mail question— naire containing fifty task statements grouped under seven Joseph Martin Mego selected development officer functions. A pretest was employed to obtain information on the two—year public college develOpment officer which served as a major source of information for the development of the main question— naire. The questionnaire was mailed to thirtyvtwo com— munity college development administrators in a seven-state population which included Maryland, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Twenty— five questionnaires were returned, all usable, for a 78.1 per cent response. For the pretest data, a rank order subjective analysis was employed. The questionnaire data were sta— tistically tested to determine null hypotheses differences among seven selected development officer functions, function differences between now and 1975, and inter~ action between time and function change. -The statistical model used for testing significance was the two—way fixed analysis of variance. The decision rule followed was to reject the null hypothesis at a = .05 level of confidence. The Tukey Post Hoc Procedure was administered to find specific differences between functions. The findings of the study were: 1. There are statistically significant differences perceived by development officers in the chief responsibility attached to the major function categories of the community college development office. Joseph Martin Mego There are statistically significant differences perceived by development officers in the chief responsibility attached to development officer function categories by 1975. No statistically significant differences were perceived in function emphasis or change by 1975 by community college development officers. Major conclusions of the study were: The Master Planning Function was perceived by the community college development officers as a chief responsibility significantly more than most of the other functions. The Master Planning, Capital Facilities, and Grants Procurement Functions were viewed as relatively equal in primary responsibility by the development officers. Statistically significant differences were found between the Public Relations Function and five other functions indicating the respondents per- ceived the Public Relations Function as relatively less of a primary responsibility for this adminis- trator than the functions of Master Planning, Capital Facilities Development, Capital Budget— ing and Systems Management. Relatively equal importance or primary responsibility was attached to the Public Relations and Institutional Research Functions by the respondents. Josepthartin Mego Functions viewed as relatively equal in primary responsibility by the develOpment officers were Capital Facilities Development, Grants Procure- ment, Capital Budgeting, and Systems Management. Institutional Research was included in this group except in comparison with Capital Facilities Development which was perceived as significantly more of a primary responsibility than Insti- tutional Research. The development officers perceived a greater degree of primary responsibility for the function categories by 1975. Implications of the study included the following: The emergence of the community college development officer in the last decade had resulted from the burgeoning administrative needs of the two—year public institutions complicated by its growing size and complexity and the necessarily increased emphasis on institutional pIanning brought about by the greater demands for more efficient stewardship. A community college development officer function model was developed based on the study and the investigator's experience. It included the functions of Master Planning, Capital Facilities Joseph Martin Mego Development, Grants Procurement, Capital Budget— ing, Systems Management, and Institutional Research. The Public Relations Function was not regarded as a primary responsibility of the development officer but more properly belonged directly under the president's office. A key to the preparation of community college development officers is futurevorientation, generating images of the futurev-on jobs, problems, organizational structures, and ' educational facilities. The need for multi—learning experiences is indicated and approaches would include inservice programs, internships, and graduate programs. A STUDY OF NORMATIVE AND EMERGING FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT BY Joseph Martin Mego A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 {$3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Professor Max R. Raines, chairman of the doctoral committee and dissertation advisor, goes a special note of thanks for his assistance and expert guidance that made this study possible. Appreciation is also extended to committee members Drs. Van Johnson, Richard L. Featherstone, and James B. McKee and to Dr. David A. Groth who so ably substituted at the orals. Special assistance has come from many others during the course of this research but I would like especially to express my thanks to the following: the community college development administrators who responded to the questionnaire; Steve Olejnik for his assistance in determining statistical procedures; Virginia Wiseman of the graduate office for the help accorded in many ways; and Anne Schumann, my most pro- ficient secretary at the college for her special help. To my wife, Ruth, the dedication of this dissertation only begins to express the appreciation she deserves for her sacrifices and her support including the typing of the drafts of this study. ii Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . Introduction and Background Need for the Study . . . Purpose of the Study . . Definition of Terms. . . Methodology . . . . Organization of the Study. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . The Development Officer . . . . Decision Making and Administration-— Management Theory . . . . . Group Decision Making . . . . . Management Techniques . . . . . O O O O O C Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) . . . . . . Critical Path Method (CPM) . . Planning Programming Budgeting Systems (PPBS) . . . Management Information System (M18) and Computer Simulation . . Management by Objectives (MBO) . Training Community College Adminis— trators. . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . Population and Sample . . . . . DeveloPment of the Questionnaire . iii 0 O O O O O Page 13 13 13 24 28 31 35 38 39 42 44 51 61 64 64 65 66 Chapter The Pre—Test Survey . . . . . . Pre—Test Procedures . . . . . . Use of the Pre-Test Data . . . . Presentation of Pre-Test Data Analysis . . . . . . . . The Questionnaire. . . . . . . Collection of the Data . . . . . . Treatment of the Data . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . Summary........... IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . Methodology. . . . . . . . . . Comparisons Between Functions. . . . Restatement of Hypothesis 1 . . . Tukey Post Hoc Procedure . . . . Findings. . . . . . . . . . Comparisons of Functions by Time, Now ,and 1975 O I O O O O O O O O C Restatement of Hypothesis 2 . . . Findings. 0 0 o o o o 0 0 Q Comparisons of Interaction Between Time and Development Officer Functions . Restatement of Hypothesis 3 . . . Findings. . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . Findings. . . . . . Discussion of Findings . . Implications of the Study . iv 0 O O I Page 66 67 68 69 86 87 88 89 89 90 92 94 94 94 96 96 96 99 100 101 101 101 102 102 102 105 105 108 109 115 Chapter ~ Page Statement of a Model—vThe Community College DevelOpment Officer Function . . . . . . . . . . 116 Training Implication . . . . . . . 122 Implications for Future Research . . . . 123 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . 125 APPENDICES Appendix A. Pre-Test Survey and Tabulated Responses, Correspondence and Mailing List . . . . 135 B. Questionnaire and Tabulated Responses, Correspondence, and Mailing List . . . . 149 C. Community College Development Officer Job Description Model . . . . . . . . . 162 Table 2.1. 3.1. 3.4. LIST OF TABLES Page Twenty statements of behavior and average percent degree of participation from all size institutions of ninety—nine development officers in suggested internal tasks (40:45) . . . . . . . 19 Part I organizational patterns—~A summary of responses on organizational patterns by nineteen selected community college development administrators. . . . . . 71 Part II behavioral competencies-—In rank order degree of competency required as perceived by nineteen selected community college development administrators . . . 76 Part II behavioral competencies-—Self—per- ceived competency requirements of development officer compared to other administrators . . . . . . . . . 77 Part III research and interpretive materials produced--In rank order of responsibility for producing materials as indicated by nineteen selected community college development officers. . . . . . . . 81 Part IV learning experiences—-In rank order, sources of training for development officer competency as suggested by nine— teen community college development administrators. . . . . . . . . . 85 F test comparison: Significance of dif- ferences; among seven development officer functions, by time between now and 1975, and by interaction of time and function . 97 Tukey's Post Hoc Analysis for identifying differences between community college development officer perceived functions . 98 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1. Cybernetic system of training . . . . . . 59 2.2. Basic system of training . . . . . . . 59 2.3. A hierarchy of training objectives . . . . 60 5.1. Self-perceived statistically significant dif- ferences in the chief responsibility attached to seven selected functions by twenty-five community college development officers . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5.2. Graph reflecting chief responsibility dif- ferences of functions between now and 1975 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1].]. vii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction and Background This study, descriptive in nature, will seek to extend the investigation of studies concerned with admin- istrative behavioral competencies for members of the com- munity college presidential cabinet. Representative studies of similar concern have been completed by T. G. Davies (26), who examined the general competencies needed by the junior college presidential cabinet, and by W. J. Lynam (62), who developed the competencies needed by the community college academic dean. The cabinet member and subject of this research is the community college development officer. The traditional concept of the chief development officer in higher education is that of a fund raiser and public relations man. Much of the literature and Studies reviewed concerns itself primarily with these two areas and to a lesser extent the publications and alumni areas. However, recent studies indicate his institutional role is expanding. Carl M. Halvarson in a survey of ninety-nine higher education chief development officers concludes, "Although fund raising remains the chief assignment of the development officer, new research indicates he has internal identity as a chief policy officer with.major responsibility in planning and implementation for insti— tutional advancement" (40:44). Francis C. Pray states, "The times demand the evolution of a whole new concept of development which I shall call, for want of a better phrase, 'total resource development'" (81:28). Shultz and Winstead point out the role of the educational development officer has emerged which " . . . deals with the problems of bringing about constructive change, the management of change" (91:23). Research dealing with community college adminis— tration offers little on the development officer per se but the area of institutional development is recognized as one of the major administrative divisions of the two- year institutions. Ayers and Russel conducted a study of the internal structures of institutions of higher edu- cation. In the public community college, they concluded there were four major administrative areas most commonly designated as second in command to the president: (1) academic affairs area, (2) student services area, (3) business management area, and (4) institutional develop— ment area (10). Davies (26) includes as a member of the presidential cabinet the person with responsibilities in areas of institutional development and research. Rarig, who surveyed community college administrative practices in institutional long-range planning, concludes "long- range planning as a major administrative function, and the position of Director of Planning (or another title but performing this function) as a position of increas— ingly major importance" (85:124). Because of limited published material on the com— munity college development officer, the use of a pretest questionnaire was necessary to obtain information vital to the development of this study. The results are pre- sented in Chapter III but it may be appropriate in the introduction of the study to briefly introduce information relating to the titles and areas of responsibilities reported by the selected sample of nineteen public com- munity college development administrators. A variety of titles was reported but in most instances development or planning appears in the title. For the purposes of this study, the title Development Officer is used to denote a top—level administrator with institutional development responsibilities. In areas of responsibilities, the two—year public practitioner shares a similar role with his four-year colleague in responsibility for fund raising and public relations. The difference in fund raising activity is one of emphasis with the two-year administrator more involved in seeking federal and state grant support rather than private or foundation support. In addition, major areas of responsibility reported by 50 per cent or more of the survey respondents include: facilities plan— ning, coordination of building program, institutional research, and publications. Approximately one—third also listed capital budget, computer center, and alumni relations within their areas of responsibility. Need for the Study The need for this study is based on three consid— erations: (1) there is very little published material available on the community college development officer or his role; (2) there is need for more research and information on ways to cope with the ever—increasing complexities of higher education management; and (3) there is a need for more research on training programs for higher education administrators. Although the need for more research on community college administration is generally recognized, this need appears particularly critical in the area of institutional development. Studies in this area have been few and pub- lished material on the role of the community college development officer is extremely limited if nonexistent. Representative studies concerning institutional development areas have been completed by Rarig (85), who examined administrative practices in institutional long-range planning, and Van Istendal (106), who sur- veyed institutional research programs within selected community colleges. While these and other similar studies have provided helpful information, their concerns were more from the standpoint of administrative practices rather than administrative competencies, the concern of this study. There is an appalling lack of research and literature on the role of the community college develop- ment officer. A series of publications by ERIC on com- munity college development has provided some basic infor— mation on planning, research, and grants; but there is little information on the dean level development adminis- trator who may have overall responsibilities in these areas. Related literature available on the four-year college and university development officer and his expanding role in these institutions indicate the increasing importance of this administrative role in higher education. A case in point illustrating the critical need for more information and research in this area and perhaps its contribution and potential appli- cation to community college administration is made by Francis C. Pray, Chairman of Frantzreb and Pray Associates of New York City who issued this challenge: I see a new and expanding role for the develOpment officer who is big enough, courageous enough, educationally oriented enough, trustworthy enough, and professionally competent enough to lead the task of mobilizing the effort to maximize the resources. Furthermore, I see him as a new kind of staff organizer for a new concept of team approach which will involve the whole institution and its entire leadership in the program to build growing strength of the organization. (81:29) There is a tremendous need for more research and literature relating to management techniques for dealing with the kinds of problems brought about by change in higher education administration today and in the future. Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock, states in an article "Learning to Live with Future Shock" that "In an accelerated society where transient problems, oppor- tunities and relationships will be commonplace, slow methodical organizations cannot cope" (102:56). He further suggests that present bureaucratic college organizations patterned on the practices and values of the industrial age are no longer valid and that the developing age he calls super—industrialism based on technological change will require ad hoc forms of organizations to cope with accelerating change (102). An indication of the development officer‘s role as a catalyst and his contribution to management in a changing higher education world is found in the statement by Shultz and Winstead from their study, "The Educational Development Officer: A Catalyst for Change in Higher Education." The Educational Development Officer represents a senior-level highly professionalized role in higher education. He deals with the problems of bringing about constructive change, the management of change, and ways to COpe with the ever increasing complexi- ties of institutions of higher education. As a catalyst for institutional advancement, the BBQ helps establish a climate conducive to maximum pro— ductivity by all those engaged in the administration and educational processes on campus. (91:23) There is also a great need for more research and information on training programs for prospective higher education administrators as well as information that would help working administrators evaluate their own role and competencies. The training programs for future community college administrators during the 1960's was initiated by the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges (formerly AAJC) and funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foun— dation. It made a vital and important contribution in filling the great general need for administrators in that decade of tremendous community college growth. But the changing conditions demand new techniques and new approaches to administration and consequently new approaches to training programs. Previous studies by Davies (26) and Lynam (62) associated learning experiences with administrative competencies stated in behavioral terms thus providing a somewhat different approach for developing administration training programs. This research will use the same approach in the study of the community college develOpment officer functions and may contribute information helpful to the development of training experiences for this administrative officer, at least in their implications for competency development. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to examine the norma- tive and possibly emerging functions of the community college development officer in his role as a member of the president's cabinet. The research seeks to answer the following three questions: Question 1: Are there significant differences in the chief responsibility attached to the major function cate— gories of the two-year public college development officer as perceived by community college adminis- trators in development and planning positions? Question 2: Are there significant differences in the chief responsibility attached to function categories a few years from now compared to the present as per- ceived by community college development officers? Qpestion 3: Are there significant differences in function emphasis or change in the next few years as per- ceived by community college development officers? Definition of Terms Development Officer.--For the purpose of this study, the term, DevelOpment Officer, is used to denote the administrative position in a public community college responsible for functions which are institutional in nature. Other titles considered interchangeable with Development Officer in this study include: Dean or Director of Planning and Development, Director of Public Information and Planning, Director of Resources and Development, or Vice-President of Educational Services. In this study, he is the administrator who supervises and/or is directly responsible for three or more of the following functions: institutional development and plan- ning including physical facilities, capital program, coordination of building program, grants, public relations, publications, institutional research, systems management and computer center. He is a member of the president's cabinet and holds equal status with other deans of the institution on the formal organization chart. Community College.--The term Community College (sometimes called junior college) refers to a public, state and locally supported, two-year college offering transfer, career, and other educational programs and services. It basically serves the community at large that supports it. Development Officer Function.--A development officer function is defined as a number of critical tasks characteristic of and related to a special administrative responsibility performed by the development officer and for which he is held accountable. 10 Administrative Task.~«An assigned duty or piece of work essential to the performance of a function. Learning Experiences.--Learning experiences refer to those experiences which may assist in training pro— grams designed to help acquire competencies for a development officer position and may include graduate courses, role-playing situations or simulation, field work and internships, independent study, graduate semi- nars and workshops, and professional conferences, meetings, and seminars. Methodology The following procedure was used to accomplish the purpose of this study: 1. The literature and research were reviewed con— centrating in areas directly related to the basic elements of the dissertation, i.e., the role of the community college development officer, and administration and management theory and practice. This would include literature and research studies pertinent to the develOpment officer, community college administration, group decision-making, systems management techniques, and training pro- 1 grams for administrators. 2. 11 A pretest information survey was mailed to a selected sample of twenty—eight community college development administrators. The instrument was designed to provide a reality test base in four areas: Part I concerned organizational patterns and responsibilities of the development adminis- trator in a community college; Part II contained statements of behavioral competencies and attempted to identify those statements most relevant to the development administrator; Part III related to the materials produced in a development office; and Part IV was concerned with the importance of learning experiences as perceived by development administrators that may assist in training programs for development officers. The main questionnaire, developed from the pre— test survey, was mailed to thirty-two community college development administrators located in a seven-state population. The collected data were tabulated and tested for significance. The statistical model selected was the two-way fixed analysis of variance. The Tukey Post Hoc Procedure was employed to determine specific differences. 12 Organization of the Study Chapter I, the first of five chapters, has been described and includes the introduction, need for study, purpose of the study, definition of terms, methodology, and organization of the following four chapters. Chapter II encompasses the review of literature. The primary areas of interest are intended to be (1) the higher education develOpment officer, (2) administration theory and concepts particularly as related to group decision—making and systems management, (3) behavioral theories in learning and research relevant to adminis— trative training programs of concern to this study. Chapter III contains the design of the study and the methodology used in carrying out the purposes of this study. This includes the development of the instrument used, description of the sample, and statistical treatment of data employed. In Chapter IV, analysis of the data and findings are presented. Chapter V contains the summary, conclusions including implications for competency development, and suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction In this chapter, a review of the literature and research related to this study is presented. There are three main areas of investigation of primary interest to the study. First, because of the lack of information published on the community college develOpment officer, a search of the literature is made on the college and university development officer that may have a bearing on this study. The second area of interest is concerned with administration and behavioral concepts related to group decision making and management systems. And finally, material is reviewed which may be helpful in relating the community college development officer competencies to training and learning experiences. A summary is presented at the end of the chapter. The Development Officer A search of the literature revealed no apparent specific articles or research on the community college development officer. The difficulty in finding such 13 14 information possibly may have been due to the relative newness of this position in two-year organizations and the employment of the administrative officer on the public two-year college administrative team. .A review of familiar books on the community college by Fields, Blocker, and Mayhew revealed little information on the develOpment office or the development officers in the junior college administrative structure. A search of dissertation abstracts and the professional journals such as Junior College Journal, College & Uni- versity Business, and College Management was equally disappointing. A few studies would indicate that the emergence of the community college development officer in the last decade had resulted from the administrative needs of the growing size and complexity of the two-year institutions and the increased emphasis on institutional planning. Institutional planning and development had been histori- cally the administrative task of the junior college president but more recently the task has become so demand- ing, especially with increasing state requirements, that this critical function can no longer be completed by the president alone. Ayers and Russel in their study of higher education internal structures reported: Increasingly, colleges and universities are selecting directors of institutional development who are given responsibility and authority for the administrative 15 coordination of all segments in this area. Size and complexity of institutions have made it impossible for the president to direct and coordinate these within his own span of control. (10:82) They further recommended in their model administrative organization that this specialized area of responsibility be assigned to a major administrator and state: The model administrative design . . . calls for a major line officer--a director of institutional development—-as one of the four arms of the president. (10:82) Rarig in his dissertation on "Administrative Practices on Institutional Long—Range Planning" found in interviews with community college presidents that although they recognized the long—range planning job as the president's responsibility, it was a job the president cannot do himself and some one individual must be in charge of planning. Rarig concluded: The position of Director of Planning, or if by another name yet performing this function, is assuming a role of major importance; relatively few people possess the necessary qualifications for the position; when a skilled planner is found, he stays only a short time and then moves into the deanship or the presidency; planning is now recog- nized as a major administrative task. (85:78—79) The community college president's cabinet was defined in Tim Davies' dissertation as those adminis- trators designated by the president as being second in line or second in command. He included the person responsible for institutional development as a member of the president's cabinet (26:22). 16 Articles on community college state board systems provided information that would indicate greater demands by the state for institutional development and planning data from the colleges. Stuckman and Wattenburger in the Junior College Journal, reporting on the development of state boards during the past fifteen years, found state legislators realized planning and coordination were essential if a state's education and occupational needs were to be met and community college development was to be orderly. They recommended that " . . . to achieve more effective and statewide and institutional planning, each junior college should be required to develop a master plan for campus development and for program development which includes provisions for all assigned programs such as transfer, occupational, adult, guided studies, community service" (97:43-44). Alfred C. O'Connell, Executive Director of the Maryland State Board for Community Colleges, suggested that in order for the colleges to properly support their capital requests and provide the necessary information, a full-time specialist in planning and development was a necessity. He saw the task as one the president does not have time to devote to and the job as too critical for half-way measures (76). Although there was an appalling lack of published information on the community college development officer, 17 a review of the related literature on four—year college and university develOpment officers suggested there were administrative competencies which both may have in common with respect to their institutional roles. One of the articles having particular significance for this study was by Carl M. Halvarson in College & Uni— versity Journal (40). It was reviewed here in some detail because of its behavioral statement implications for the community college development officer. The Halvarson study was designed (1) to determine the scope of the internal institutional role of the chief develOpment officer through an analysis of his functions and behavior in selected colleges and universities; (2) to discover if the chief development officer had acquired a new internal role as a chief administrator with major responsibility for institutional policy and planning. Data were obtained from ninety-nine chief development officers indicating the degree of participation in thirty-six suggested internal task statements of behavior adapted, in part, from American College Public Relations Association principles and pronouncements since 1958 concerning the emerging advancement administrator (40:44). The Halvarson study revealed that most develop- ment officers function in a complex but effective external—internal institutional role. Half of the development officers performed 50 per cent of thirty-six 18 suggested behavioral tasks in areas of policy formulation, decision-making, and serious participation in the internal administration of the school. They scored above average in such key administrative tasks as: shaping insti- tutional policy—~78 per cent; functioning as a catalyst with a voice and participation in decision-making——84 per cent; and sharing in major policy decisions—-78 per cent. Also, 81 per cent interpreted development programs to faculty and staff; 78 per cent maintained close communi— cation with the faculty; 61 per cent attended faculty meetings regularly; and 46 per cent included faculty on develOpment committees. Halvarson concluded that fund- raising continued to be the major external thrust of a chief develOpment officer 76 per cent of the time but within the institution he had clearly emerged as a chief policy officer. He stated that: . . . If the data of this research is reasonably valid, a chief development officer can function as an external coordinator and internal catalyst in his institution. He has a role identity as a fund raiser, policy officer, institutional planner, internal communicator, and not least of all, education. (40:47) Twenty of the thirty—six statements of behavior developed by Halvarson which appear more pertinent to this research are listed on the next page under Table l. A number of other articles written about the four-year development officer contributed in varying degrees to sources of information covering role, 19 TABLE 2.1.-~Twenty statements of behavior and average per— cent degree of participation from all size institutions of ninety-nine development officers in suggested internal tasks (40:45) Average Statements of Behavior % 1. Serve on the president's administrative council 80 2. Serve as a line and staff officer respon— sible only to the president of the school 89 3. Engage in long—range planning with out- side consultants in education and/or fund raising 81 4. Fulfill a role as an educator as well as a fund raiser and public relations practitioner 39 5. Help shape the internal administrative and academic policies of the institution 70 6. Function as an overview officer to identify problems and help achieve institutional unity 55 7. Plan development programs within the educational/academic context of the school 81 8. Function as an effective catalyst and coordinator with voice and partici— pation in the policy making of the institution 73 9. Help prepare or edit institutional self— study reports 42 10. Coordinate internal tasks to make it possible for the president to devote more time to educational duties and less time to administration 40 11. Prepare annual reports for the Board of Trustees 68 20 TABLE 2.1.e-Continued Statements of Behavior Avegage 12. COOperate with institutional research personnel 64 13. Share in the major policy—making decisions 71 14. Interpret development or advancement concepts and programs to faculty and staff 81 15. Participate in trustee/regent board meetings 67 16. Help evaluate fiscal policies and procedures 51 17. Function externally as a primary interpreter of the institution and internally as a unifier, mediator, and communicator 50 18. Include faculty members on the institutional development council or committee 46 19. Accept major responsibility for internal institutional communication and understanding 37 20. Exercise authority as well as responsibility in key administrative decisions 56 21 characteristics, qualities, and function of the develop- ment officer. Shultz and Winstead wrote that the role of the educational development officer was not only a source of change but was one of major potential for planned change-—anticipatory change, management sponsored, from within the institution. They felt the educational development officer represented a senior-level, highly professionalized role in higher education and had a role similar to one in industry and government, that is, he attempted to insure that decisions being made were based on the best research and knowledge available (91). Fred Alexander, institutional development consul- tant, suggested the Development Officer's job was highly specialized, a task which demanded know-how in a great number of different fields. He did not think there were enough qualified people to go around " . . . probably because the basic attribute is a quality which may well be a non-transferable skill.” He was referring to empathy, a special trait not possessed by everyone, which he said, " . . . enables one person to virtually step into the shoes of another and identify with him, see things from his point of view." In listing the char— acteristics a development officer should possess, Alexander stated: A develOpment officer should be so many things and have so many skills that it is probable the perfect and complete answer to all these require- ments could never be found in one man. 22 Primarily, he should have experience in public relations and have at least some of the skills required for this field. He should have executive ability and experience as a working executive. He should be a team worker and not a "loner." The development officer should have an understanding of systems management and some practical skills related to that field. He should be adept at communicating with peOple and be personally appealing in both one-to—one and public situations. (2:3) Noel Johnston, President of Defiance College, listed twelve major qualities he wants in a development officer. Heading the list was compatibility, " . . . a man who can get along with me . . . and they must respect one another." Other qualities included creativeness, courage and integrity, respect for scholarship, imagi— nation, optimism, adaptability, judgment, scope, self— lessness, tact, and personality. "The president wants eXpert analysis, competent planning and good execution of a fund raising and public relations program." Admitv ting his view of a development man was idealistic, he nevertheless felt the list was sound and concluded: . . . The development officer should probably be the best man on the staff—-and often he is. If he's best, why not make him president? Maybe he will be, if he isn't too smart. I think the training is perfect for the job. (50:9) Ketchum, writing in College & University Journal, likened the duties of the development officer with that of the professional guide in the north woods or in Africa who was employed by the amateur hunter or fisherman whom he was expected to lead (56). On the other hand, Francis 23 C. Pray saw the development officer as a new kind of staff organizer for a new concept of team approach involving the whole institution and its entire leader- ship (81). Alexander would agree that at the helm of every institution there should be a team of executives who were the administrative arms of the president which he called the management team. As a respected and valued member of top management, he saw the development officer as a talented, functioning executive who participated in policy making at the highest level (3). In College & University Business, Paul H. McWilliams stated the Advancement Office should combine management technique with knowledge of education and would cover four activities: public relations, fund raising, alumni, and publications (72). In another article, "Development Officer Inter— prets Plans, Should Help Make Them," Cushman wrote that the development officer should definitely be a partici- pant in policy determination which precedes number and dollars both in academic planning and as the key officer for capital campaigns necessitated by the academic blue— print (109:38). In a conference paper, "The Development Office and The Development Officer" presented by Billy O. Wireman, it was suggested that the development officer's prime responsibility, in its broadest sense, was to 24 influence favorable public policy and attitudes toward higher education. The development officer interpreted the college and its purposes to the business community and general public and in dealing with the public, " . . . the Development Officer should View himself less as a salesman . . . more as an educational entrepreneur or statesman." Qualifications of the development officer offered by Wireman included being articulate and a self- starter, speaking authoritatively, showing initiative, keeping abreast of latest developments, and exhibiting qualities of honesty, integrity, compassion, and tolerance (113:1—17). There would appear, then, to be fairly good evidence from the literature that the four—year develop- ment officer had a major administrative institutional role in policy formulation, decision making, planning, fund raising, public relations, and institutional change. It would also appear that his two-year counterpart, the community college development officer, was emerging in the junior college organization in a similar role and as will be developed in Chapter III has many common characteristics. Decision Making and Administration-— Management Theory The concept of Administration in the community colleges was variously described as "a questionable 25 science" by Richardson (87:16) and conversely by Blocker, Plumer, and Richardson as " . .‘. providing both structure and function necessary for the systematic operation of an organization" (17:171). The limited research in com- munity college administration noted in recent disser- tations by Davies (26), Lynam (62), Stanbury (95), and others while of consequence to this study did not neces- sarily adversely affect the approach taken here in determining administrative competencies of the community college development officer. A search of the literature was made with the view towards investigating higher education administrative concepts that would have general as well as specific relevance for this administrator. Although administrative theories vary widely along the continuum from the traditional through systems management to Toffler's future "Ad—Hocracy," it was generally agreed that decision making appeared basic to all administration theories. According to Griffiths: "The specific function of administration is to develop and regulate the decision—making process in the most effective manner possible" (37:73). Griffiths also made the assumption that " . . . it is the function of the executive to see to it that the decision process pro- ceeds in an effective manner," that is, one which results in the accomplishment of a stated objective and " . . . 26 if the executive is personally making decisions this means that there exists a malfunctioning in the decision process" (37:73). Herbert A. Simon underscored the importance of the decision-making process as rather organizational decision making and not individual decision making and stated: The organization . . . takes from the individual some of his decisional autonomy, and substitutes for it an organization decision-making process. The decisions which the organization makes for the individual ordinarily (1) specify his function, that is, the general scope and nature of his duties; (2) allocate authority, that is, determine who in the organization is to have power to make further decisions for the individual; and (3) set such other limits to his choice as are needed to coordinate the activities of several individuals in the organization. (93:8) Administration is concerned with the total functioning of the organization rather than with each decision. As Barnard stated in Functions of the Executive, "Executive work is not that of the organization but the specialized work of maintaining the organization in operation" (12:215). He reinforced Griffith's theory that the function of the executive was to promote the decision-making process by pointing out, "The executive is primarily concerned with decisions which facilitate or hinder in the effective or efficient operation of the organization" (12:211). The process of decision making becomes of paramount importance if "decision stress“ explained by Alvin Toffler 27 in Future Shock was to be circumvented. Toffler contended that the " . . . accelerative thrust and its psychological counterpart, transience, force us to quicken the tempo of private and public decision making. New needs, novel emergencies and crises demand rapid response." This very newness of circumstances and rapidity of responses brought about a revolutionary change in the nature of decision making and " . . . upsets the delicate balance of 'programmed' and 'nonprogrammed' decisions in our organizations and our private lives" (101:355). Simon defined the difference between these two kinds of decisions-~programmed decision was one that was repeti- tive, routine and easy to make while nonprogrammed decisions were novel, unstructured, and consequential (92:6). Toffler claimed that decisions that were non— programmed were high in psychic cost forcing the indi- vidual to make one-time or first—time decisions that would establish new habits and behavioral procedures. If the mix of the two was too high in programmed decisions, there was no challenge and life became boring. But if the mix was too high in nonprogrammed decisions where programming became impossible, life became dis— organized, exhausting, and anxiety filled. "Pushed to its extreme, the end-point is psychosis“ (101:356). Bertram M. Gross suggested that to achieve a prOper decision mix balance routinization was necessary. 28 Gross states: Rational Behavior always includes an intricate com— bination of routinization and creativity. Routine is essential because it frees creative energies for dealing with the more baffling array of new problems for which routinization is an irrational approach. (38:250) The key concept in a discussion of administration, said Griffiths, " . . . is that of directing and con— trolling the decision—making process." He continued, "It is not only central in the sense that it is more important than other functions . . . it is also central in that all other functions of administration can best be interpreted in terms of the decision—making process" (37:74). Griffiths, Simon, and others generally recog- nized decision making as the heart of the organization and the process of administration. Davies, in his dissertation on the administrative competencies of the community college presidential cabinet concluded " . . . the major responsibility of the presidential cabinet is this decision—making process" (26:16). A review of that process with emphasis on concepts that might have particular significance for the Development Officer might now be appropriate. Group Decision Making Many of the administrative competencies needed by the Development Officer in directing and controlling the decision-making process were basically the same as that 29 required of other cabinet members and had their basis in the concepts of shared or group decision making. Also, the administrative framework within which the process took place might have an important effect on the quality of the decision making. Much of the research on participation in decision making had been shown to be related to morale, produc- tivity, job satisfaction, and interpersonal behavior. A significant study conducted over a period of several years and one often quoted was that of the Western Electric Company at their Hawthorne plant in Chicago (88). The study showed that such variables as temperature, variations in illumination, higher pay, mid-morning meals, and spaced rest periods were not directly related to increased production. However, the researchers concluded that increased productivity was a function of morale or human relations which appeared to be related to the improved manner of supervision, the attention focused upon the experimental group, and the satisfaction derived from participating in decisions through manage— ment's willingness to listen to their individual problems, opinions, and suggestions (88:19—186). In a study by Maier, it was shown that partici- pation in group decision making resulted not only in more acceptance of decisions and willingness to carry them out but encouraged creativity, thereby improving 30 the quality of the group thinking (66:155—74). The advantages of shared decision making were also shown in a study conducted by Morse and Reimer of four parallel divisions of clerical workers. The authors found that individual satisfaction increased significantly in the two divisions which had participated in decision making and decreased significantly in the two autocratically conducted divisions (75:120'29). Marcus and Cafagna writing in Public Administration Review indicated that group decision making resulted in greater productivity, higher morale, and a more effective organization. They also found that it was no longer possible for the chief executive to have expertise in all areas and today's organizations required more dele— gation of control to those organization members who were in a better position to influence the decision process related to their specialties (68:127-37). Tim Davies in his dissertation found support for the junior college president's cabinet as a group decision-making body as opposed to the president commanding all decision-making power and summarized: There seems to be strong arguments in favor of group decision—making process both in administrative theory and practice. There is also indication that junior college presidents are requesting and accepting decision—making help from their cabinets. (26:53-54) Although research suggested that group decision making was basic to the productive and efficient 31 functioning of today's complex organizations, the manage- ment technique within which the decision—making process operates might also have an important bearing on the quality of decisions produced by the organization's management team. Thus, a review of the literature related to management techniques might be of consequence in examining the develOpment officer administrative com— petencies. Management Techniques Everywhere one turns in education today he hears the term accountability. If he happens to be in the management arena, he more than hears the term, he lives with it. Chief administrators in community colleges in particular are being called upon to justify the expenditures of their institution in terms of value received. The concept of steward— ship is not new, however, the demand today involves more than simple stewardship; it involves proving in very specific terms that one is accountable for the goals of the institution and that the insti- tution's expenditures relate in terms of outputs to these goals. (69) This Opening statement in a paper delivered by Harold D. McAninch, President of Joliet Junior College, at the National Conference on MBO in Higher Education reflected the climate prevalent today in higher education circles. "The demand for a brand of accountability that must be proven in objective terms leaves college administrators with a need to better define institutional objectives and better communicate these objectives to the various publics" (69). 32 In a College Management article by Grassel, "The President Needs Training in Management," it was suggested that for too long the terms "management" and "manager" referring to higher education administration and admin— istrators had been dirty words. The chief executive officers (and major administrators) today must be pro— fessional managers. Grassel stated that: Today‘s academic leaders must have more than scholarship. They must have an appreciation of the complex factors which enter into administrative decision making and the formulation of academic policy. They must understand the basic principles of management by objectives, administrative effi- ciency and effectiveness, and personal leadership, and be able to apply these concepts with prudence and candor toward meeting the unique needs of each particular institution and of the distinctive enterprise of American higher education in general. (35:28) An informal survey of twenty-three Trustees responding to concerns on their campuses stated their uppermost concerns were finances, a more meaningful assumption of responsibilities, authority and the decision—making process, and legislative relations. To the question-~what particular strengths do you believe persons in your area of responsibility should develop—- the one most often cited by the Trustees was greater administration skills (management, technology, fiscal) (1:4). Featherstone, summarizing a group of forecasters projecting their ideas on what the 1970's will mean to educational facility planners, wrote that the authors 33 indicated " . . . the solutions to complex problems of the next decade will require managers of planning . . . they may become the skillful managers of teams of specialists who attempt to solve education-social problems . . . they may become the first 'Educational Planners'" (32:20). Since institutional development and planning were a major function of the development officer, perhaps no administrative competency was more valuable and basic to the management skill and administrative competency of the development officer than competency in systems analysis. Alexander stated that the development officer " . . . should have an understanding of systems manage- ment and some practical skill related to that field" (2:3). The systems approach technique had implications for the development officer in many areas but, certainly in capital program management, the systems concepts had important significance. Featherstone suggested that in the next ten years the planner of educational facilities will be involved in more change than ever before in» history and the "complexity" encountered in educational facilities planning might require the planner " . . . to construct a new set of 'principals of economy'" (32:20). McGuffey, writing about "Accountability in Planning Facilities," stated that: 34 The use of systems analysis in planning requires that the total process be understood from the start and that alternative choices be known to the planner. The planner should identify the alternatives available and evaluate cost and potential outcomes so that the most viable choice can be made. A final choice would be made based upon the most desirable cost-effective alternative within the constraints surrounding the project. (71:5) Article after article appearing in the professional journals attempted to deal with the problems of manage- ment accountability by means of systems techniques. Those systems which appeared to be receiving the most attention in the literature were: Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT), Critical Path Method (CPM), Program Planning Budgeting System (PPBS), Management by Objectives (M80), and simulation and computerized systems such as Management Information System (M18) and National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). A review of the literature concerning these "systems" had important implications for the development officer in terms of management techniques applicable to his function responsibilities and administrative competency development. In the Educational Facilities Laboratories pub- lication, Systems, a statement was made that: In broad terms, a systems approach simply means that a problem will be solved in an orderly process that will define the goals, analyze the means of achiev- ing them, and then carefully organize the actual achievement. In construction, the systems approach necessitates an improvement in building technology, but it demands a revolution in management techniques. (36:8) 35 Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) One of the earlier management techniques applied to school construction was PERT which stands for Program Evaluation Review Technique. A detailed article in School Management by John E. Justus (53) described PERT as an efficient way to plan and keep track of any edu— cational project that must achieve certain objectives within a specific amount of time. PERT was a set of principles, methods, and techniques that establishes a sound basis for effective scheduling, cost estimating, controlling and pre-planning in the management of pro- grams and provides a graphic network picture of arrows, numbered circles, time, cost estimates, and dates. The "critical path" in the sequence of events and activities visualized the entire project on paper. Justus listed the five basic steps as: (1) Identify and organize objectives; (2) Plan the project; (3) Schedule the project (convert to calendar dates and time estimates); (4) Get regular reports, once the project is under- way, and evaluate the project continuously; (5) Recycle as necessary. 36 He suggested that although its application potential was enormous " . . . construction is a natural for PERT because it entails all of the necessary elements: time, construction deadlines and a complex of jobs, some depen— dent on others, some independent." Justus stated: We had seen that PERT's value in planning is, indeed, considerable. There had been no question that PERT is management's answer to planning and coordinating mammoth projects, involving thousands of separate steps and stringent time requirements. But we saw that PERT can also be a boon to even relatively simple projects. . . . we had developed a base for effective management decisions. . . . We had, with PERT, drawn an advance picture of an edu- cational project before it took its first steps. In a sense, we had simulated the project. (53:24-29) Other approaches to facilities development appear- ing in the literature using a systems technique might be found (among others) in such publications as the pre- viously mentioned EFL Systems (36), CEFP Journal (33), (27), (32), and H.E.W. Building Information Circular (116). Based on the premise that all school buildings require about the same basic components--floors, structure, walls, roof, and a method of controlling environmental con- ditions--various systems approaches and building systems had been applied to physical facilities development. Some of these which had received considerable attention in the literature were: (1) School Construction Systems Development (SCSD), California; 37 (2) Study of Educational Facilities (SEF), Toronto, Canada; (3) Research in School Facilities (RAS), Montreal, Canada; (4) Schoolhouse Systems Project (SSP), Florida; (5) Academic Building Systems (ABS), Indiana-~ California; (6) Construction Systems Program (CSP), Michigan. A review of these systems techniques might have impli- cations for this study from the behavioral aspects which characterize the steps in developing the "systems." Ehrenkrantz suggested the general steps were: .statement of objectives .problem analysis and base line data gathering .development of performance criteria .generation of alternative solutions .evaluation and selection of alternatives based on previously defined performance criteria (27:5) Another study which might have administrative competency implications for the development officer is Fast—Track, prepared by the architectural firm, Caudill Rowlett Scott for the State University Construction Fund of New York. Through management scheduling techniques and procedures, this management contracting system purported to control the project delivery process. The conclusions reached by the study were that: 38 Substantial reductions in project delivery time (25%) can be achieved with fast-track scheduling. Remarkable savings (45%) if a pre-selected systems approach is integrated into the process. If the continual delivery process were fully operative, the whole notion of project time would need to be re-thought since, as classically defined, the project delivery time could be reduced to less than a year. (22:40) Baas in an ERIC publication on educational manage— ment ”Systems Building Techniques," concluded: Systems building programs for school construction have shown that it is possible to analyze a behavioral process such as education and determine the performance required of the physical facilities to house that process. . . . However, much work remains to be done by legislators and educators to facilitate legal and political aspects of systems building programs. The future holds great promise; the machinery has been refined and all that remains is the active commitment of schoolmen to a new way of thinking about building. (11:10) Critical Path Method (CPM) Another systems approach which had implications for the development officer was the Critical Path Method (CPM). It was similar to PERT in that both were essen- tially network types of analysis but according to Justus CPM used only one time estimate while PERT used three: "optimistic," "most likely," and "pessimistic" times that each activity might take (53:25). Gene M. Anderson suggested the use of the Critical Path Method had appli- cations for college and university fund raising. The modular concept specified separately designed programs complete in their own function. With CPM " . . . a clear view of activities is given from which the working 39 relationships for staff, volunteers and supporting ser- vices can be easily deduced . . . also provides an objec- tive standard for program review and improvement" (7:12). Planning Programming Budgeting Systems (PPBSY "Among the new ideas now firmly established in modern practical management technology (and appearing with increasing frequency in educational journals) is a concept of the manager's role expressed through a set of administrative systems and procedures called program management or program budgeting-~a technic best known for its application in the Department of Defense under former Secretary Robert S. McNamara" (29:55). Etherington and Vancil discussed the application of PPBS to the management of educational institutions which in broad terms created a new "primary" administrative system for the university. They did not see PPBS as a "total" or "integrated" management system but rather as "the glue that holds together a set of inter-related, existing administrative systems" (29:55—56). Andrew and Robertson suggested the introduction of PPBS into the management of higher education " . . . has been tedious and almost as evolutionary as the development of man." Their study of PPBS in higher education appearing in Educational Record indicated that even though about half of the fifty states made 40 the decision to implement PPBS following federal leader— ship when Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the system for all government agencies in 1965, seldom had the states followed the decision with meaningful action. Two years after President Johnson ordered PPBS in federal agencies, -1itt1e was learned other than the use of PPBS was man- datory in twenty—two agencies and encouraged in seventeen. The authors suggested that " . . . scanty evidence available indicates the extent of PPBS implementation in higher education is about equal to or slightly less than that in government agencies." They concluded: Perhaps the delay in instituting PPBS in higher education, as well as in government agencies, has not been a matter of technique in identifying costs per unit, setting objectives, or defining and measuring outputs, but a matter of basic rationale for PPBS which, with the euphemisms boiled out, means comparing the effectiveness of one program with another and determining which program shall receive the majority, if not all, of the available resources. (8:63) The authors wrote, however, that despite criticism and delay in implementation, program budgeting had not lost its magic for administrators and legislatures. They suggested that: The appeal of PPBS lies in its concept of (l) selecting specific objectives and systematically analyzing, in terms of costs and benefits, various courses of action to attain those objectives-— planning; (2) deciding on specific courses of action (programs) and providing for review and control--programming; and (3) translating planning and program decisions into specific financial plans--budgeting. (8:60) 41 Edward Wheatley explained PPBS as a modern manage- ment technique that involved the develOpment of long-range objectives for specifically defined areas of activity, identified the programs necessary to meet these objec- tives, detailed the resources or inputs necessary to support the programs and the anticipated accomplishments or outputs of the programs. A PPBS matched resources to objectives and permitted managerial control based upon progress toward objectives rather than organizational and functional expenditures. Wheatley listed the several steps involved as: 1. Development of objectives for the entity con— cerned. 2. Planning, i.e. identifying and considering the alternative courses of action available as means for objective achievement. 3. Programming, i.e. assembling the units neces- sary to carry out the.plan into specific pro— grams and determining the manpower, materials and facilities necessary for accomplishing the program. 4. Analyzing the costs of alternative programs over the extended time span (5 to 10 years) and selecting the most appropriate alternative. 5. Progress reporting and continued revue, analysis and revision to modify programs in light of changing objectives. (110:56—57) No attempt was made in this study to present other than an overview of PPBS in its beginning emergence as a higher education management tool. Its implications for the development officer and indeed the entire presi- dent's cabinet was one of seeking to improve the adminis— trator's decision—making capabilities and quality of administrative accountability. In this context, two 42 other management techniques with competency development implications should also be mentioned which were appear- ing in the literature as new tools of management, that is Management Information Systems (MIS) and computer simulation. Management Information System (MIS) and Computer Simulation Wheatley described MIS as a system which " . . . captures, processes, analyzes and disseminates the infor- mation vital to decision making to the proper decision points on a timely basis" (103:57). He suggested the objective of this management tool was to provide execu— tives with the proper information base for decision making. Wheatley contended that MIS, as well as the systems approach in general, did not necessarily require the use of a computer although the complexities character- istic of most systems problems render the computer a valuable tool. However, " . . . as the scope and the complexity of the system increases, the computer becomes a necessity for meaningful analysis and control" (100:57). Computer simulation, according to Etherington and Vancil, was really nothing more than a calculating device for permitting iterative examination of a complex process under alternative conditions (29). Wheatley quoted McMillan and Gonzalez definition of simulation as: 43 "Simulation is a dynamic representation achieved by building a model and moving it through time" (110:58). Etherington and Vancil contended that: "A long- range plan, in one sense, is really a model reflecting the input-output relationships by which an organization is expected to Operate into the future, with the net results summarized year-by-year in traditional terms such as operating statistics and financial statements" (29:60). They would suggest further that the greatest benefit derived from model—building did not come from the end product model but rather from the process itself, the continual planning and modeling which encouraged constant analysis, reappraisal, and questioning of assumptions. They saw the planning model as a device by which the decision-makers through simulation could explore the implications of alternative courses of action in more detail, and for more alternatives, than would otherwise be feasible (29:60). Wheatley reported that simulation had only recently been used as a problem-solving technique in higher education administration and was being implemented at Yale, Michigan State, and University of Toronto. He felt there was a promising future for simulation in the college and university setting. One development of simulation techniques was CAMPUS (Comprehensive Analytical Method for Planning in the University Sphere). Wheatley explained that: 44 The simulation model represents only one ingre— dient in the ultimate CAMPUS system. Although there are several ingredients in the system the three major components are: an integrated information system (MIS), the CAMPUS simulation model, and a program planning and budgeting system (PPBS). The information system provides the data base for the simulation model and includes the areas of personnel, facilities and finance. The PPBS and the simulation model are interacting subsystems of the over-all campus approach. The information system is also vital to the PPBS, which is equally dependent upon accurate and reliable data for both current control and long-range planning. (110:59) The simulation model was constructed around functional sectors for each activity being modeled and Wheatley listed these to include: 1. Activity formulation——the objectives sought by the activity being modeled. 2. Resource, utilization and planning decisions-— the nature of the resources needed, their planned utilization, and the decision sets which establish the specific resource applications. 3. Generation of resource requirements—~the specific amounts of money, manpower and facilities required. 4. Budget and report preparation-vcontrol and planning documents are prepared which reflect steps 1 through 3. (110:59) Campus models developed by Systems Research Groups, Toronto, according to Wheatley, have been adapted to community colleges and were in operation at three and were being implemented in another seventeen. Management by Objectives (MBO) George S. Odiorne in Management by Objectives observed there was a new look in management and the climate of the 1960's set the stage for the development 45 of the manager of the future——the “manager of situations." He stated: . . . the changing economic and social milieu has brought into existence a new type of manager. The ability to organize, get results, and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances will be the primary criterion for executive success in the future. The manager may be a Specialist in his own field, but as a manager he will use his analytical ability at the corporate helm, and he will allocate responsibilities among his subordinates. (77:12) The important implications of MBO for this study were two-fold. One area of interest was competency development for the development officer. MBO's orien- tation towards goals and results through behavioral objectives or performance objectives was thought to have implications for competency development. Odiorne stated it as follows: Management by objectives provides for the maintenance and orderly growth of the organization by means of statements of what is expected for everyone involved, and measurement of what is actually achieved. It assigns risks to all responsible leaders and makes their progress--even their tenure—-dependent upon their producing results. It stresses the ability and achievements of leaders rather than their personality. (77:54) The second implication for this study was that MBO was getting increasing attention from higher education as an important management tool. The literature indicated that more and more colleges were considering and adapting MBO to their needs. Thus, a review of the literature on MBO would appear to have relevancy for the development 46 officer in its systems management application to com— munity college management and this administrator's function responsibilities. One of the most important sources of information on M80 is Management by Objectives by George S. Odiorne, published in 1965, and considered a landmark book in the field of management. Odiorne considered the major pre- mises of management by objectives to be as follows: A. Business management takes place within an economic system that provides the environmental situation for the individual firm. This environ- ment, which has changed drastically over the past 30 years, imposes new requirements on companies and on individual managers. B. Management by objectives is a way of managing aimed at meeting these new requirements. It presumes that the first step in management is to identify, by one means or another, the goals of the organization. All other management methods and sub-systems follow this preliminary step. C. Once organizational goals have been iden— tified, orderly procedures for distributing respon— sibilities among individual managers are set up in such a way that their combined efforts are directed toward achieving those goals. D. Management by objectives assumes that mana— gerial behavior is more important than manager personality, and that this behavior should be defined in terms of results measured against established goals, rather than in terms of common goals for all managers, or common methods of man— aging. E. It also presumes that while participation is highly desirable in goal—setting and decision making, its principal merit lies in its social and political values rather than in its effects on production, though even here it may have a favorable impact, and in any case seldom hurts. F. It regards the successful manager as a manager of situations, most of which are best defined by identifying the purpose of the organi— zation and the managerial behavior best calculated 47 to achieve that purpose. This means that there is no one best pattern of management, since all manage- ment behavior is discriminatory, being related to specific goals and shaped by the larger economic system within which it operates. (77:VII-VIII) Odiorne believed management by objectives was a system that made the hierarchy organizational form work and brought more vitality and personal involvement of the people in the hierarchy. He briefly defined the system of management by objectives as " . . . a process whereby the superior and subordinate managers of an organization jointly identify its common goals, define each indi— vidual's major areas of responsibility in terms of the results expected of him, and use these measures as guides for Operating the unit and assessing the contribution of each of its members" (77:55-56). In a College and Uni- versity Journal article, Odiorne described MBO in system terms as " . . . a system which begins by defining out- puts and applies these (output statements) as criteria to judge the quality of activity (behavior) and to govern the release and effectiveness of the inputs" (78:14). The system of management by objectives was a cycle and the key points were outlined by Odiorne as follows: 1. Identify organization's common goals stated in terms of the measures of organization per- formance you intend to apply at the end of the period. 2. Revisions in organization structure if goal changes require changes in individual areas of responsibility and authority. 3. Superior and subordinate set down objectives for next year. 48 4. Joint agreement on subordinates' goals. (Feed— back and change interaction with organization's common goals). 5. Feedback of interim results against milestones. 5a. New inputs 5b. Knockout of inappropriate goals 6. Cumulative periodic review of subordinate results against targets. . Review of organization performance 1. Cycle starts again. (77:68'79) One of the many articles appearing in the literature examining the application of MBO to higher education management of value to this study was by Robert E. Lahti, President of Harper College. The article in College & University Business discussed the pro's and con's of Harper College's experience with M80 and provided some practical aspects in its use as a management tool. Lahti suggested MBO was most effec- tive when used as a total approach to management and that according to management experts MBO served four managerial needs: planning, improved communication, motivation of employees, and coordination of systems. He and others writing about MBO considered it essential to the success of the system to provide managerial development prior to or concomitant with MBO imple— mentation. Yielding positive results in Harper's second year of MBO implementation at the time the article was published in 1971, Lahti stated: At Harper, this training is provided in an administrative development program through which administrators are sensitized to the field of management, exposed to professional business management, and educated in effective decision 49 making, personnel interviewing and selection, per- formance appraisal and coaching, delegation of authority, utilization of time, motivation and boss-secretary relationships. This program includes background on MBO process, the central purpose and function of the institution, the purpose of the sub-unit in which they are employed and how it is integrated into the over—all structure, and their individual role within the institution. (57:32) Lahti pointed out that writing major performance objectives was the most difficult and complicated part of the M80 process but the formulating of precise objectives was crucial to the success of the MEG system. Basically, objectives are defined as: (l) routine--a repetitive, commonplace, but necessary goal to which an effort is directed; (2) problem- solvingv-a performance modification which leads to the correction of a discrepancy or deficiency in the level of current performance; (3) creative- developmental--a new and different approach which may lead to improved or expanded results; and (4) personal--an individual effort which leads toward the improvement of professional or mana- gerial skills and the enhancement of career growth. A good objective is measurable, limited in time, realistic, a commitment between the employe and his supervisor, integrated into the organi- zation, and specific. (57:32) McConkey (70), McAninch and Connellan (69), Lahti (57), Harvey (42), and others writing about MBO generally agreed MBO was a tough, demanding management system that was not easy to implement, required hard work and commitment and highly competent managers to operate it. Utilized correctly it offered and yielded many benefits to the organization, the superior, and the subordinate. Odiorne's statements on what MBO should accomplish might summarize these benefits: 50 l. A natural tendency toward "Goal Displacement" will be alleviated. . . . MBO from the top management perspective is a direct attempt to build into management systems an unremitting attention to purpose. 2. It should clarify role conflict and ambiguity between individual managers and subordinates. . . . MBO attacks directly the gap of expec- tations and directly defines "success" in specific output terms. 3. MBO should be causally associated with over-all success of the organization. . . . Thus, MBO should improve overall organization performance and increase the level of participation. 4. When an individual is clear upon his own job objectives, his performance improves over where he is not Clear. . . . MBO should achieve such individual improvement and growth. (78:14) As with any system of management, MBO was not without limitations. Some of MBO limitations listed by McConkey, Lahti, Harvey, and Odiorne were summarized as follows: Odiorne: Presumes supervisor and subordinate will together establish objectives, implies supervisor understands his limitations, stresses results and doesn't provide for methods of achieving them. (77) Lahti: Difficult to implement, process must be taught and continually reinforced through leader- ship training, some managers unable to learn to manage with objectives, over-lapping objectives difficult to set, attain and evaluate. (57) Harvey: Quantification is difficult, takes three to four years before it will operate efficiently, can become an intellectual exercise in paper shuffling. (42) McConkey: Requires highly competent managers to operate. (70) McConkey's statement might well serve to intro- duce the third investigative area of interest to this study, that is, a review of material that might contribute in relating the community college development officer competencies to training and learning experiences. 51 Training Community College Administrators Odiorne observed that employees of the modern firm might count on a steady return to school, either in company classes, in man-to-man coaching, tuition refund support for adult education, or guided experience on their jobs, for the rest of their working lives. He found this was not only true of mechanics and salesmen but staff experts and company presidents as well. Odiorne believed the field of manager education was especially crucial for the company training staff at this time because so many conflicting theories of management were being promulgated as being the prOper style for the manager of the future to adopt (79). Lahti would agree that community college administration had similar needs for training: "There is a crucial need for trained, efficient administrators who can use management systems which maximize the resources at their disposal in order to cope with contemporary problems" (57:33). The need for preparing people specifically for jobs in community colleges was made dramatically clear in a report by the National Advisory Council on Education .rofessions Development who estimated that two-year colleges would need some 9,370 new staff members each year during the next decade. The article, appearing in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Larry A. Van Dyne, suggested that 52 emerging community college training programs were either so few in number or so limited in content that the train- ing gap was not likely to be closed soon. What was offered now by some 100 institutions too often consisted of a single survey course on the junior college grafted onto the regular program. More fully develOped prepar— ation, the report continued, should include internships in community colleges as well as courses on their history, mission, and philosophy. Also courses on learning theory, teaching techniques, testing, instructional media, and characteristics of students. It was anticipated that for some time " . . . most community college people will come to their jobs as they do now-~without adequate training." Therefore, the report said, " . . . the highest priority for the next decade should be placed on comprehensive, year-round 'inservice' training for existing staff, including institutes, workshops, retreats, seminars, encounter groups, conventions, visitations, and apprenticeships" (104:1—4). The need for community college administrator training programs appeared quite clear but the literature was not nearly as clear in providing information on the types of training programs currently being offered for training junior college administrators. Some evidence of a trend back toward a more sophisticated version of the old professional-apprentice system of training may 53 be developing in the internship program in specific fields. Alexander, prognosticating about the future and tomorrow's development man, stated: Correlary to an educational program would be an internship program in the particular type of institution desired by the graduate student. . . . The nearest contemporary type perhaps is the hospital administrator who is trained and interns specifically for the management of a hospital. (4:3) Higher Education and National Affairs reported a new law school to be established in Washington, D.C. by Antioch College modeled after the clinical method employed in medical schools. The Urban Law Institute would serve the law school as a teaching law firm just as many major hospitals serve medical schools as teaching hospitals. "Students are eXpected to use their experiences and training, supervised closely by the law school faculty as a springboard for examining legal concepts and pro— viding the kind of professional training that leading lawyers and jurists admit most law schools fail to provide" (9:6). Another approach being taken in training school administrators was one under a federally funded program called National Program of Educational Leadership (NPEL). Men and women from diverse fields were being trained as high-level educational executives. The two—year program offered no degree but it did offer a range of educational experiences. The main qualification for NPEL was the 54 person's proven ability in the previous career. The premise of this program which had some implication for development officer training was an attempt to bring in fresh innovative thinking to education from other pro— fessional and business experiences (112:1A—15A). Toffler's Future Shock suggested still another approach in training which was future oriented and per- haps had some relationship to the development officer's long-range planning role. The technology of tomorrow requires not millions of lightly lettered men, ready to work in unison at endlessly repetitious jobs, it requires not men who take orders in unblinking fashion, aware that the price of bread is mechanical submission to authority, but men who can make critical judgments, who can weave their way through novel environments, who are quick to spot new relationships in the rapidly changing reality. It requires men who, in C. P. Snow's compelling term, "have the future in their bones." (101:402—03) To help avert future shock, Toffler would create a super- industrial education system which would shift our time— bias forward and would require generating images of the future-~assumptions on the kinds of jobs, human and family relationships, kinds of problems, and kinds of technology surrounding us and organizational structures with which we must mesh. He saw new skills needed in three crucial areas: learning, relating, and choosing. The constant changes occurring placed an enormous pre— mium on learning efficiency. Students must learn how to learn, unlearn, and relearn. If life pace continued 55 its acceleration, education would have to teach us to relate in a high rate of people turnover in our lives and perhaps find new ways to accelerate friendship formation. In the third crucial area, choosing, Toffler assumed that the shift toward supervindustrialism would multiply the kinds and complexities of decisions facing the individual and " . . . that education must address the issue of overchoice directly.“ His curriculum of tomorrow would: . . . include not only an extremely wide range of data-oriented courses, but a strong emphasis on future-relevant behavioral skills. It must combine variety of factual content with universal training in what might be termed "life know—how." It must find ways to do both at the same time, transmitting one in circumstances or environments that produce the other. (101:418) An important aSpect of Toffler's super-industrial edu- cation system with the most implications for the develop— ment officer planning competency was the concept of shift- ing the time-bias of the individual to the future. Toffler maintained that regardless of the problem faced, performance improved when the individual knew what to expect next. He was able to adapt better when provided with advance information presumably because the mental processing of the advance data cuts down processing and reaction time during the actual period of adaptation. However, Toffler suggested even more important than advance information was the habit of anticipation. 56 This conditioned ability to look ahead plays a key role in adaptation. Indeed, one of the hidden clues to successful coping may well lie in the indi— vidual's sense of the future. The peOple among us who keep up with change, who manage to adapt well, seem to have a richer, better developed sense of what lies ahead than those who cope poorly. Antici- pating the future has become a habit with them. The chess player who anticipates the moves of his oppo— nent, the executive who thinks in long—range terms, the student who takes a quick glance at the table of contents before starting to read page one, all seem to fare better. (101:419) Raines and Myran writing about "Community Services: Goals for 1980" suggested the establishment of a futuristics center. Its purpose was to help orient the community college programs to implications for the future rather than the past and planning for related institutional renewal and change (84). Toffler believed we need to make speculation about the future respectable to soften the impact of future shock. Not deride the "crystal- ball gazer" but encourage " . . . from childhood on, to speculate freely, even fancifully, not merely about what next week holds in store for them but about what the next generation holds in store for the entire human race" (101:424). For the development officer, projecting what the future holds for the institution, his competency in sensing the future and anticipating the future have most important implications for the organization. One of the current approaches to training which may have a bearing on this study was a systems approach training concept which had its emphasis on verifiable 57 objectives called behavioral objectives. A major task of this study was to examine development officer com- petency development and related learning experiences. Thus, a valuable source of information for this study might be books and literature on various types of sys- tems type training programs. One such source was a book by the MBO expert George S. Odiorne, Training By Objec- tives (79). He stated, " . . . the basis for training should be changing job behavior. Behavior is activity that can be seen or measured for which the company rewards the man." Odiorne believed only those proven techniques should be used and suggested: There are certain techniques of training that have been proved effective in changing behavior. Such methods should be applied, and other methods for which no research evidence exists that shows behavior is changed should be avoided. Among the methods that have proved effective are lecture- discussion, role playing, case method, management games, programmed instruction, and the incident process. (79:13—14) Odiorne questioned the practice of training supervisors and managers in motivational training and suggested " . . . the attempt to teach motivation has been a not—too useful attempt to teach explanations of behavior, and it was perhaps time to quit teaching the explanations and focus on changing management behavior itself and the stimuli that shaped it. If we cannot identify what behavior we want to change, we cannot change it." He also attacked sensitivity training and 58 the T-group concept and stated that not a single con- clusive piece of research had been reported that sensi— tivity training changed behavior of trainees overtly back on the job. Odiorne referred to a study by Lowrey and House that, "After 13 years or more of laboratory training . . . researchers find that not a single bit of proof exists in published form that laboratory training changes behavior" (79:53). Johnson, Kast, and Rosenzweig in The Theory of Management of Systems explained systems very simply as: "The system concept is primarily a way of thinking about the job of managing" (49). Odiorne would say that " . . . system provides an integrated plan for the whole that goes from one place to another in regular fashion and by which progress and achievement can be measured" (79:74—75). He stated the cybernetic system of training is perhaps the most common form of system in use in advanced training departments. It presumed organizational needs would be identified, training pro- cesses would meet the needs, evaluation would measure the effects and organizational performance restored to ideal levels through changing behavior that required modifying. Pictured schematically, it looked something like the following: (79) 59 Training Need -———#> Training Effort Evaluation [h Feedback Fig. 2.1.-—Cybernetic system of training Odiorne suggested three major ingredients comprise the training system where training was being managed by objec- tives: inputs, activities, and outputs. Diagrammed below, it began (a) with a definition of outputs or results that would occur as a result of training taking place. Following the definition of results, the actual training effort, (b) activity, was planned and carried on. This calls for certain resources, (c) inputSwv budgets, staff time, facilitieSv'to be devoted to the training (79:99v100). (c) Release (b) Conduct (a) Define INPUTS> ACTIVITIES> OUTPUTS > Training Department //’/////;7 Fig. 2.2.--Basic system of training 60 Odiorne offered three classes of objectives which comprised an ascending scale of excellence in training administrators, as shown in Figure 2.3 (79:106). High <9— (3) INNOVATIVE TRAINING OBJECTIVES (2) PROBLEM—SOLVING TRAINING OBJECTIVES <5 (1) REGULAR TRAINING OBJECTIVES Low Classes of Training Objectives Fig. 2.3.-—A hierarchy of training objectives Odiorne concluded that training " . . . should serve as a change agent to improve the already satisfactory, to make breakthroughs to newer levels of performance, and to have improving and innovating effects in the organi' zation through enlarging and altering the behavior of people in the organization" (79:106). Another source of information of value to this study and contributing to the concepts of behavioral objectives was Mager's Preparigg Instructional Objectives (65). Mager opted for instructional objectives that could be verified by learner performance. He proposed that the learner's learning should be evident to both teacher and learner, mutually understood, and concretely defined. He also asked that the definition included clear 61 statements describing the conditions under which the performance would occur and a precise description of the standard or acceptable level of performance. And finally, Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives provided information on behavioral statements, their classification and identification (18). Arranged in hierarchical order, the six major classes of edu- cational objectives were: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The source was of value to this study in helping to identify and relate educational objectives and behavior to the development officer administrative competencies. Summary Although no specific articles or research on the community college development officer appeared to have been published, there was good indication from the research on the four-year development officer and other related studies that both development officers had a major administrative institutional role in policy formu— lation, decision making, planning, fund raising, public relations, and institutional change. There was some evidence that group decision making promoted more effective organizations in terms of morale and worker satisfaction but the literature was showing more concern with administration management accountability and management techniques in dealing with 62 the increasing complexity of administrative problems. The various systems techniques were reviewed and had implications for the development officer in relation to his administrative competencies and the behavioral concepts of those competencies. Several articles and studies on Management By Objectives indicated a growing interest in what Odiorne called a new look in management and there was evidence that MBO could work and did work for the community college. But it was also shown that MBO was difficult to implement and required highly com— petent managers to operate successfully. The evidence from the literature suggested preparation of community college administrators was inadequate and high priority should be given to "in- service" training for existing staff. Toffler's approach to education was a future-oriented system and its impli- cation for the development officer was in its concept of the individual's sense of the future, his habit of anticipation. However, the training approach which appeared to be directly related to this study was a systems technique called training by objectives. It had its emphasis on behavioral objectives which could be measured and its concept that "the basis for training should be changing job behavior." In the next chapter, the design of the study and methodology employed in carrying out the purposes of 63 this study is described. This would include the design of the instrument used, the selection of the sample, and treatment of the data obtained. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The intended purpose of the research design is to provide information and quantitative data for subjec— tive and statistical analysis which would serve to test: (1) chief responsibility differences between seven selected community college development officer functions; (2) chief responsibility differences of these functions between now and 1975; and (3) interaction between time and develOpment officer functions to determine function change or emphasis. The basis for this investigation was a mail questionnaire to a selected sample of community college development administrators included in a seven—state popu— lation. In developing the questionnaire, a pretest mail survey was employed. This chapter contains a description of the population, the development of the pretest survey and the main questionnaire, use of the pretest data, collection of the questionnaire data, statistical treat- ment of the data, null hypotheses to be tested, and limi- tations of the study. A summary is presented also. 64 65 Population and Sample The population included the public community and junior colleges in the seven states of Maryland, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Florida. The basis for selection was geographical and required that at least one community college in the state list a development administrator in its organization. The reference publication used to identify the sample sub- jects for the pretest survey was the Education Directory 1970-71: Higher Education (117). For the main question- naire, the Education Directory 1972-73: Higher Education (118) was used. The Community and Junior College Directory was not used because only the president was listed in this publication (120). The survey did not include all of the public junior colleges in the United States because a prelimi— nary visual observation of the Education Directory revealed that in many states the community college organization did not list a development administrator. Thus, a regional approach was determined to offer more efficiency for the study and those states east of an arbitrary line represented by the Mississippi River with a community college listing a development administrator were selected. The seven-state population resulted. For the pretest, a scrutiny of the 174 public two-year colleges listed in the 1970—71 Education 66 Directory for the seven-state population revealed twenty— eight colleges listed a development administrator. They became the selected sample receiving the pretest survey in May, 1971. The same seven-state population was used for the selection of the second sample. Of the 198 community colleges listed, there were thirty—two colleges with a development administrator and they received the main questionnaire in May of 1973. Eighteen of these adminis- trators were the same persons who had previously received the pretest. This study will be generalizable to other popu- lations only to the extent that other populations are similar in characteristics to the population used in this study. Development of the Questionnaire The Pre-Test Survey As previously stated, there was very little pub- lished data found on the community college development officer. The purpose of the pretest survey was to fill an information void about the community college develop- ment Officer and specifically to obtain data on the functions and related tasks currently in practice by the public two—year college development administrator. 67 The pretest survey contained fifty—eight state— ments grouped into the following four areas: (1) organi— zational patterns and responsibilities of community college development officers, (2) task competencies related to this administrator, (3) written material pro— duced by this development officer, and (4) identification of learning experiences related to the development officer position. Each group of statements was preceded by directions which attempted to explain clearly what the respondent was being asked to do. A four-point scale of alternate choices was used to distinguish the degree of choice open, that is, (1) minor, (2) moderate, (3) con— siderable, and (4) maximum. Each of the choices was defined in order to give the respondents a common frame of reference. A reproduction of the survey questions appears in Appendix A. Pre-Test Procedures The constrUction of the pretest survey as well as the main questionnaire was developed through readings of Thorndike and Hagen (100), Hennessy (44), Borg (l9), Likert (60), and others; and its format was suggested and adapted from a questionnaire used by Malik in his dissertation on "Faculty Participation in Decision- Making" (67). The validity of the instrument was appraised by what Thorndike and Hagen have called " . . . rational 68 analysis or professional judgment" (100:109). Content validity was established by consultation with professional colleagues and from the experience of the investigator. The reliability for this instrument was not tested as it had not been intended as a measurement instrument. The pretest questionnaire (Appendix A), accompanied by a cover letter and return postage, was mailed to a selected sample of twenty—eight community college develop- ment administrators (Appendix A) on May 4, 1971. Approxi— mately two weeks later, a second letter was sent to those who had not responded and after another two weeks, a third follow-up letter was sent. There were twenty—eight questionnaires distributed and twenty-six or 92.8 per cent were returned. Seven of those returned were incomplete or could not be used because the development officer position at that college was not filled at the time or it was stated the college did not have one specific person in this position. Thus, the nineteen remaining questionnaires represented a 67.8 per cent usable return. Use of the Pre-Test Data The pretest survey had originally been intended to provide the data for this study. However, after analysis of the returns and consultation with the chairman of the committee who also served as advisor for this study, it was determined that there was a need 69 to gather more specific data that individualized the administrative tasks and would capture the flavor of the development officer function specialization. Thus, the first survey was designated as a pretest and served as the basis for the development of the main questionnaire. The pretest data were organized in rank order and summarized in various tables for scrutiny and sub— jective analysis. Analysis was made in terms of a top score, middle score, and bottom score framework to judge the task statement score for its importance and value implications. Since the pretest data were used as one of the major sources for the development of the questionnaire, the results of the analysis were presented in this chapter as part of the design of the study. Presentation of Pre-Test Data AnaIysfs I77 There were four parts to the pretest question- naire. Part I attempted to obtain basic information on organizational patterns and responsibilities of the com- munity college development administrator. Parts II, III, and IV contained statements concerning behavioral com— petencies, production of written materials, and learning experiences related to the develOpment officer position. Part I-vOrganizational Patterns.v—The community college develOpment officer was identified as a major 70 level administrator, reporting directly to the president, and with responsibility in areas that included grants, institutional research, facilities planning, coordi- nation of building program, public relations, and pub— lications. In Table 3.1 on the following page the responses of nineteen community college development officers on organizational patterns are summarized. A majority of the respondents (58%) reported the development office as a major administrative division or department of the college and all nineteen administrators reported directly to the president. The number of professional and classi— fied personnel employed in the development office ranged from two to nineteen with one office reporting sixty—seven. Most employed one to three professionals and one to three classified employees. Administrative budgets for more than half were over $50,000 with six reporting annual budgets of over $100,000. The level of formal education reported indicated the development administrator tended to be oriented towards a doctor's degree with 70 per cent possessing a doctor's degree or doctoral candidate status. The problem of identifying title with responsi- bilities was found to some extent in the responses of the development administrators by the number of variations received to the question, "What is the title of the chief 71 TABLE 3.l.--Part I organizational patterns——A summary of responses on organizational patterns by nineteen selected community college develOpment administrators . . Responses Questionnaire Item (N-l9) (1) Administrative level of development office in organization 1. Major administrative division (line officer) 6 2. Administrative department (director level) 5 3. Staff function 8 (2) Name by which development office is identified ‘ 1. Office of Institutional Development ~ 5 2. Planning and Development 3. Other (write in) 8 (3) Title of chief development officer 1. Development Officer 2 2. Dean of Administrative Services 2 3. Director of Development 1 4. Other (write in) 14 (4) Development administrator reports to: 1. President 19 2. Dean of Administration -- 3. Other (write in) i -- (5) Functions checked as responsibilities of development office in rank order 1. Federal and private foundation grants l8 2. Institutional research 16 3. Facilities planning 14 4.5 Coordination of building program 11 4.5 Public relations 11 6. Publications 10 7.5 Preparation of capital budget 7 7.5 Alumni relations 7 9. Computer center (write in) 6 10. Various other (write in) 7 72 TABLE 3.1.——Continued Questionnaire Item Responses (N-l9) (6) (7) (8) (9) Number of personnel in development office 1. Professional employees 1 to 3 4 to 6 26 Classified employees 1 to 3 4 to 14 41 Yearly development office budget including salaries U'hbbJNH L 1 2 3. U135 To $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 $75,000 to $100,000 Over $100,000 evel of formal education Bachelor's degree Master's degree Educational Specialist or professional degree Doctoral candidate Doctor's degree Level of participation (shared governance) generally practiced in executing the functions of the development office 1. Major participation including forv mally organized policies and pro— cedures involving administrators, faculty, and students Some formally organized participation but does not necessarily involve faculty and/or students Very little participation other than major administrators 11 7 l memN l—Iw mo 12 73 develOpment officer?" Only five respondents checked the titles suggested by the questionnaire while fourteen used the "write—in" category. Most titles included the words "planning" and/or "development." Some examples of the "write-in" titles were: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Dean of Planning and Development; Director of Planning and Development; Director of Public Information and Planning; Vice—President for Administration; Director of Institutional Research and Development; Public Relations, Research and Development Officer; Dean of Administration; Director of Resources and Development; Assistant to the President for Facilities Planning. Information of particular value to this study was the functions the development administrators checked as responsibilities of that office. Listed in rank order, the function checked by 95 per cent of the respondents was that of federal and private grants suggesting a ‘strong relationship to the four-year college and uni- versity development officer in fund-raising responsibility. Six of the eight functions listed in the questionnaire 74 were checked by 50 per cent or more of the respondents and besides the grants area included institutional research (84%), facilities planning (74%), coordination of build— ing program (58%), public relations (58%), and publi— cations (53%). Both preparation of capital budget and alumni relations were checked by 37 per cent of the administrators as included in their area of responsi- bility. Most written—in function was the computer center, indicated by 30 per cent of the respondents. There is evidence of a high degree of partici— pation with others in the execution of the functions of the development office with 90 per cent indicating at least some formally organized participation and of these a strong 63 per cent suggested this participation as major. The information obtained on organizational patterns, though limited, indicated that the community college development officer had strong institutional role responsibilities in planning, fund raising, public relations, and institutional research. Part II Behavioral Competencies.--The directions for Part II requested that the development officers make two judgments in relation to a list of statements of behavioral task competencies. First, they were asked to 75 indicate the degree each was required to exercise the competency at their institution by one of the following four choices: (1) Minor—-little or none required; (2) Moderate——occasionally required; (3) Considerable——extensively called upon; (4) Maximum—~assume leadership in this area. The second judgment requested was to check one of three options (less, same, more) for each competency the development officer was expected to possess compared to the other cabinet members. The results were tabulated and weighted, then listed in rank order as shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 on the next two pages. A top score (76), middle (47), and bottom score (19) were included for subjective analysis and comparison purposes. According to the perceptions of the nineteen sampled development officers, long-range planning ranked as the number one competency they felt was required of them at their institutions, compared to other adminis- trators. It also had the highest maximum choices checked (63%) suggesting most of the respondents "assume leadership in this area." Fund raising and public relations, ranked second and sixth, continued to appear as important to the development operation but competencies required in man- agement skills also showed up strongly appearing in six 76 TABLE 3.2.--Part II behavioral competencies-—In rank order degree of competency required as perceived by nineteen selected community college develOpment administrators Rank State— Analysis Item Questionnaire Statement Order ment Score No Paraphrased Score ' l 66 76 (12) Long-range planning (top) 63 (27) Fund raising 3.5 59 (17) Administrative problem solv- ing 3.5 59 (18) Inter-personal relations 5 58 (16) Analysis and evaluation 6.5 56 (26) Public relations 6.5 56 (19) Determine master plan 8 54 (ll) Abstracting information 9 52 (10) Initiate goals and objec— tives 10.5 50 (14) Legislative analysis 10.5 50 (22) Determine educational Specifications for new facilities 12 49 (21) Coordinate new building projects 13 48 (23) Maintain information news bureau 15 47 (25) Promote communication with internal and external publics 15 47 (28) Develop and use systems techniques 15 47 47 (20) Formulate capital program (middle) 17 44 (13) Problem identification and analysis in decision— making system 18 43 (24) Create or SUpervise college publications 19 38 19 (15) Collective bargaining (bottom) 77 TABLE 3.3.-—Part II behavioral competencies——Self—perceived competency requirements of develOpment officer compared to other administrators Rank State- Analysis Item Questionnaire Statement ment Order S Score No. Paraphrased core 1 51 57 (16) Analysis and evaluation (tep) 2 48 (27) Fund raising 3 47 (12) Long-range planning 4.5 45 (28) Develop and use systems techniques 4.5 45 (ll) Abstracting information 7 44 (14) Legislative analysis 7 44 (10) Initiate goals and objec- tives 7 44 (13) Problem identification and analysis in decision making 9.5 42 (26) Public relations 9.5 42 (19) Determine master plan 11.5 42 (17) Administrative problem solving 11.5 42 (18) Inter—personal relations 13 41 (25) Promote communication with internal and external publics 14 40 (15) Collective bargaining 15 39 (23) Maintain information news bureau 16 38 38 (20) Formulate capital program (middle) 18 37 (21) Coordinate new building projects 18 37 (22) Determine educational specifications for new facilities 18 37 19 (24) Create or supervise college (bottom) publications 78 of the first ten rankings and well above the middle analysis score. They included: administrative problem solving, inter-personal relations, analysis and evalu— ation, abstracting information, initiate goals and objec- tives, and legislative analysis. This suggested support for the conclusions indicated by the literature that the community college development officer has a major admin- istrative role in decision making and policy formulation. It may also have suggested the respondents' recognition of the importance of management skills in dealing with the functions of the development office. Behavioral competencies dealing with the building program were perceived as more important for development officers than others in degree of competency required. This was indicated by rankings which scored above the middle score area of 47 such as determine master plan—— 56, determine educational specifications for new facili— ties--50, and coordinate new building projects-—49. In Table 3.3, the competency statements were ranked by the respondents on their expected possession in relation to that of other cabinet members. As expected, the competencies which appeared to be most related to development office functions ranked high in the development officer's expected possession, such as, fund raising, institutional long-range planning, and public relations. However, the administrator respondents ' . . p: (1 t‘ 79 ranked in first place "analysis and evaluation of analytical reports" which normally would be assumed as applying equally to all cabinet members. In the middle rank score area and slightly above were statements concerned with the capital program indi- cating moderate strength for this function and somewhat consistent with its rankings in Part I. Although the responding administrators in Table 3.2 ranked "develop and use systems techniques" as fifteenth in degree of competency required as a development officer at their institution, they apparently felt it was a competency they were expected to possess to a higher degree compared to other cabinet members by ranking it fourth in rank order of expected possession in Table 3.3. Part III Materials Produced.--This part of the questionnaire contained statements related to the pro- duction of written materials by the development office. Its purpose was an attempt to provide evidence of a task being performed which could be identified and observed. The develOpment administrator was asked to indicate the degree of responsibility for its production among the following choices: (1) Not produced at this date; (2) Minor—-little responsibility; 8O (3) Moderate—-assist in its production; (4) Considerable——extensive responsibility indi- vidually or with others; (5) Maximumv-assume full responsibility for its production. Table 3.4 on the next pages lists the findings in rank order. Producing the development office projected operating budget for next year ranked highest with fifteen respondents checking "maximum" and the other four "con— siderable" in their responsibility, accounting for the expected high statement rank score. A consistency may be observed in the ranking of responsibility for materials produced and the behavioral competencies ranked in Table 3.2, Part II. For example, producing proposals for grants and the fund-raising competency were both ranked second. The research materials necessary for long-range planning such as research studies, inventory reports, and enrollment pro- jection ranking 3, 4, and 5 respectively suggested a strong relationship with the number one ranked long-range planning competency. Public relations competency, ranked sixth was close to the eighth ranking of materials that communicate with the publics as well as brochures and other promotional materials ranked ninth. It may also be noted that responsibility for pro- ducing materials relating to the capital program were 81 TABLE 3.4.--Part III research and interpretive materials produced-—In rank order of responsibility for producing materials as indicated by nineteen selected community college development officers Rank State- Analysis Item Questionnaire Statement ment Order S Score No. Paraphrased core 1 91 95 (35) Projected development office (top) operating budget 2 79 (34) Proposals for federal, state and private grants 3 72 (43) Studies such as parking, space utilization, etc. 4 69 (39) Facilities inventory reports 5 67 (40) Enrollment projections, 1-5-10 years 6.5 66 (33) Applications for state capital funding assistance 6.5 66 (36) Campus master plan 8 65 (46) Newsletters and other pub- lications to communicate with internal and external publics 9 63 (45) Brochures, promotional materials, press releases, advertising 10.5 61 (30) Written statement of college goals, Objectives, pur— poses 10.5 61 (31) Next year capital budget and five—year projection 12.5 59 (38) Projected facility needs 82 TABLE 3.4.«—Continued Rank State- Analysis Item Questionnaire Statement Order ment Score No Paraphrased Score ' 12.5 59 (29) written statement of college ' philosophy 14 58 (37) Written educational specifications 15.5 55 57 (44) College catalog (middle) 15.5 55 (32) Formulation of next fiscal operating budget 17 54 (41) Academic program pro- jections, 1-5-10 years 18 49 19 (42) Staffing projections, (bottom). l-Sle years 83 ranked highly by the administrators. For example, facil- ities reports ranked fourth, campus master plan 6.5, applications for state capital funding assistance 6.5, and preparing next year's capital budget and five—year projection ranked 10.5. All were well above the middle ranked score of 57 with projecting facility needs and written educational Specifications scoring just above the middle score. Formulation of next fiscal operating budget, academic program projections, and staffing projections were on the weak side of the middle score suggesting responsibility for producing these materials were per- ceived as that of other administrators rather than development officers. Part IV Learning Experiences.——This part of the questionnaire attempted to capitalize on the experiences of practicing development administrators to determine how important they felt various learning experiences were in acquiring development officer task competencies. The degrees of importance were defined as follows: (1) Minor-—of some importance but probably has lowest priority in relation to others; (2) Moderate--should have some learning experience in this area; 84 (3) Considerablee—very important in acquiring comv petency; (4) Maximum——excellent and Should be required. The findings were ranked in order of importance in Table 3.5 on the next page. ~Field work or internship with a community college ranked number one in importance as a learning experience to acquire development adminis~ trator competencies according to the respondents. This learning experience received the strongest endorsement of the respondents, in that, 68 per cent judged it was of maximum importance while the next highest, courses in higher education administration, ranked second and received only 47 per cent maximum importance support. It was suggested there was need still for formal course work as indicated above by the second ranked adminis- tration courses. The respondents also indicated that courses in business and finance plus research and sta— tistics were very important in acquiring development officer competencies by ranking them third and fourth. Ranked fifth and Sixth respectively were short seminars and workshops in community college topics, and pro- fessional conferences and meetings. Rated below the middle score were simulation and role playing and also student personnel courses. A general analysis of Table 3.5 would suggest that, although course work still shows up as a desired 85 TABLE 3.5.——Part IV learning experiences——In rank order, sources of training for develOpment officer competency as suggested by nineteen community college development administrators Rank SEZEE- Analysis Item Questionnaire Statement Order S Score No. Paraphrased core 1 67 76 (55) Field work or internship (top) with a community college 2 63 (48) Courses in higher education administration 3 62 (51) Courses in business and finance 4 60 (53) Courses in research and statistics 5 57 (57) Short seminars and workshops on community college topics 6 55 (58) Professional conferences and meetings 7 52 (52) Courses in communication and public relations 8.5 51 (47) Background courses in higher education 8.5 51 (50) Related courses in Sociology 10 48 48 (56) Related independent study (middle) 11 46 (54) Simulation and role playing 12 39 19 (49) Courses in student person- (bottom) nel and counseling 86 learning experience, other types of learning experiences were indicated. The number one ranked field work exper— iences and the highly ranked workshops and professional conferences suggested interesting implications for the types of training that may be indicated for acquiring development officer competencies. The Questionnaire The main questionnaire was designed for a dual purpose, that is, to collect quantitative data on the individualized normative functions of the development Officer and to identify those functions which may be emerging as a chief responsibility of the community college development administrator by 1975. There were fifty task statements grouped under seven major development functions which the respondents were asked to judge on two counts. For each statement, they were asked to check one of three degrees of responsibility they had for the task NOW and then to make a second judgment for this same task in degree of responsibility they will have by 1975. The three degrees of choices were defined as follows: P — Primary-~This task chiefly a development officer responsibility either supervisory or directly. (Check column P) 87 S — Secondary—vMay contribute or participate in per— formance of task but chief responsibility is not the development officer's. (Check column S) N — None—~Development officer not involved or has little responsibility for task. (Check column N) The seven functions were established primarily from the pretest data responses and from the investi— gator's job description which served as a reality test model for this study (see Appendix C). The task state- ments were developed from several sources including the pretest analysis, the literature in Chapter II, community college development officer job descriptions, discussions with colleagues, and from the experience of this inves- tigator. The fifty task statements were pretested with some of the Maryland development officers before the general mailing. As a result, wording of some of the task statements was modified slightly for clarity, but in general there was agreement with the seven functions and the related tasks as being specific responsibilities of the community college development officer. Collection of the Data The questionnaire with cover letter and return postage was mailed to a selected sample of thirty—two community college development administrators on May 11, 88 1973. About two weeks later, a follow—up letter was mailed to each person who had not responded requesting the return of the completed questionnaire. Of the total of thirtyvtwo questionnaires mailed, there were twentyvfive returns, all usable, for a 78.1 per cent return. The questionnaire and list of the sample subjects are found in Appendix B. Treatment of the Data After the questionnaires were returned, the data were manually recorded and tabulated for each of the fifty statements contained in the questionnaire. The statistical measure employed was developed by applying a weighted numerical scale to the three alternative response choices for each statement, then multiplied and summed to get a statement score. For example, the statement offered three alternative choices-—primary, secondary, and none. The alternatives were weighted three, two, and one respectively. The total number of responses tabulated for each alternative choice was then multiplied by its weighted number and the sum of the three multiplications established a score for that statement. 89 HypOtheses The following null hypotheses were tested to determine chief responsibility differences among com- munity college development officer functiOns, function differences between now and 1975, and interaction between time and functions: Null Hypothesis 1: No chief responsibility differences will be found among the seven selected community college develop- ment Officer functions. Null Hypothesis 2: No chief responsibility differences will be found for these functions between now and in 1975. Null Hypothesis 3: No interaction will be found between function and time. Analysis The statistical technique employed to test the hypotheses was the two-way fixed analysis of variance. Tukey's Post Hoc Procedure was used for analysis for identifying specific differences between the development officer functions. The formula is statistically stated as: w t qJ. IJ (n—l) MSe In 90 Limitations of the Study The nature of the mail questionnaire and its use as a research instrument for this study presented certain concerns which should be noted. The decision to use a questionnaire was made after a preliminary review of the literature in preparing the proposal for this study revealed no published material could be found on the community college development Officer. Two alternative methods for collecting data were considered--mail questionnaires or the taped inter- view. A major factor in selecting the mail questionnaire was economy and efficiency. The small sample was scattered over a large geographical area making the interview method costly, excessively time consuming, and difficult to organize efficiently. It was believed, too, that the questionnaire could be designed to provide satisfactorily the data for the study. Consideration was still given to the possi- bility of employing some interviewing if deemed necessary to the collection of sufficient data. The problems sometimes related to small samples were of some concern for this study but analysis would indicate a certain matching of subjects on the variables being studied, that is, the functions for which develop- :ment administrators were held responsible. Borg suggested that under conditions where there were very close matching 91 of subjects on the critical variables concerned, " . . . small sampling studies often yield the information sought more efficiently than large sampling studies" (19:174). There was the usual misgiving with regard to whether or not a good percentage return of the question- naires would be obtained but this did not appear to be a difficult problem for this study. The return of 92.8 per cent in the first survey and 78.1 per cent in the second survey was considered good and was sufficient to yield the data.in the numbers needed to permit a statis-' tical analysis. Another concern which could possibly influence the results of the study was the so'called "halo—effect" (19:241). Considered a way of ego—boosting, a halo- effect could inadverdently be created when something was described in such a manner that it might influence the respondent to inflate his response, thus exaggerating his status or skills. In an attempt to avoid or minimize this, the questionnaire statements were worded in behavioral language which would require the respondents to make judgments on the basis of specific behavior for which he could be held accountable. In retrospect, it Should be noted that the instru- ment used in this study did not turn out to be what could be thought of as one which was a true measure, in that, it did not contain negative items. It was more of an 92 idealized model which was submitted to colleagues for endorsement and evaluation of which task or function Should receive the greatest or least endorsement. To this extent, this study was considered a normative study. Summary The intent of this chapter was to present the design of the study and the methodology. The design plan employed a pretest mail survey and a related mail questionnaire distributed to a selected sample of com- munity college development administrators. The pretest survey, mailed to twenty—eight Of these administrators in May, 1971, achieved a 67.8 per cent usable return. The questionnaire, distributed to thirty—two development administrators in May, 1973, obtained a 78.1 per cent usable return. For the pretest data, a rank order subjective analysis was employed. The questionnaire data were sta— tistically tested to determine null hypotheses' dif— ferences among the seven selected development officer functions, function differences between now and 1975, and interaction between time and function. A two-way fixed analysis of variance was used to test the null hypotheses. Tukey's Post Hoc Analysis was used for identifying Significant differences between functions. 93 Limitations in the use of a mail questionnaire were noted. The limitation of the instrument itself was acknowledged as characteristic of a normative study. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Introduction The analysis and findings generated from the data collected are presented in this chapter. The purpose for this research is to determine whether responses from community college develOpment administrators indicated significant chief responsibility differences for the following: (1) comparisons among seven selected develop— ment officer functions, (2) functions compared by time between now and 1975, and (3) interaction between time and development officer function. The chapter is organized to first describe the statistical methodology employed and then to present the findings in three sections in the order of the previously stated hypotheses, that is, by functions, by time, by interaction of time and function. A summary of the chapter is also presented. Methodology The method used for testing Significance was the fixed two-way analysis of variance. The statistical 94 95 model was appropriate for this study because one of the independent variables (development officer functions) had several levels. It was also appropriate because the analysis called for comparing two independent variables at one time (functiOn and time). The assumptions for analysis of variance was independence, normality, and homoscedasticity or equal variances. Independence was assumed because of the low probability of interaction between sample respondents who were located in scattered geographical areas. Since there were equal cell Sizes and fixed independent variables of both time and functions, the assumption of normality and homoscedasticity were robust. The decision rule followed for testing Significance was to reject the null hypotheses at d = .05 level of confidence. If the null hypothesis was rejected, the Tukey Post Hoc Procedure was used to find out where the spe— cific differences between functions were. The Tukey method was selected because of its appropriateness for pair-wise contrasts. This allowed for comparison of one function with each of the other functions. Tables were used to summarize the appropriate information. 96 Comparisons Between Functions The community college development officer position was relatively new to the two—year public college admin- istrative organization. Thus, it might be expected that this administrator's role may vary in function responsi- bilities at different institutions. In this section, the seven development officer functions selected for this study were tested for Significance of difference. Restatement of Hypothesis 1 The null hypothesis under consideration was stated as follows: Null Hypothesis 1: No chief responsibility differences will be found among the seven selected functions of the community college development officer. 'The null hypothesis of no differences among functions should be rejected if F > 2.25 with d = .05. As shown in Table 4.1 on the next page, the calculated F ratio equals 10.3, thus Ho was rejected. Tpkey Post Hoc Procedure ’The analysis of variance test has indicated there were significant differences among the functions. Tukey's Post Hoc Analysis was administered to determine Specific differences between functions as perceived by the sampled development administrators. The decision 97 rule applied was that if the confidence interval included the 0 point, then no significant differences could be identified between the corresponding functions. Con— versely, if the confidence interval as determined by the Tukey technique did not include 0, then significant dif- ferences would be identified. Table 4.2, on the follow- ing page, summarized the calculations performed for each of the possible paired function mean differences to establish a set of Simultaneous confidence intervals by the Tukey method. Significant differences were indi— cated by an asterisk. TABLE 4.l.—-F test comparison: Significance of differences; among seven development officer functions, by time between now and 1975, and by interaction of time and function Reject Sources SS d.f. M.S. E if F Columns (Functions) 1390 6 232 10.3 > 2.25 Rows (Time) 290 l 290 12.9 > 4.00 R X C (Interaction) 44 6 6.3 .3 > 2.25 Error 1575 70 22.5 Total 3299 83 98 TABLE 4.2.-vTukey's Post Hoc Analysis for identifying dif- ferences between community college development officer per- ceived functions MS + f. - r. ' w I qJ, IJ (n-l) e _ 9 */NS ’ ’ IE“ r1 - r2 3.83 I 5.91 ( 9.74, -2.08) Ns f1 — f3 5.91 I 5.91 (11.82, 0 ) NS f1 - £4 6.58 I 5.91 (12.49, .67) * f1 - f5 7.41 I 5.91 (13.32, 1.50) * f1 — f6 10.16 I 5.91 (16.07, 4.25) * f1 — f7 13.75 I 5.91 (19.66, 7.84) * f2 - 53 2.08 I 5.91 ( 7.99, -3.83) NS f2 — f4 2.75 I 5.91 ( 8.66, -3.16) NS £2 — f5 3.58 I 5.91 ( 9.49, —2.33) NS f2 — f5 6.33 I 5.91 (12.24, .42) * f2 — r7 9.92 I 5.91 (15.83, 4.01) * f3 - f4 .67 I 5.91 ( 6.58, -5.24) NS f3 — f5 1.50 I 5.91 ( 7.41, -4.41) NS f3 - f6 4.25 I 5.91 (10.16, -1.66) NS r4 - f5 .83 I 5.91 ( 6.74, -5.08) NS r4 — f6 3.58 I 5.91 ( 9.49, -2.33) NS r4 - f7 7.17 I 5.91 (13.08, 1.26) * f5 - f6 2.75 t 5.91 ( 8.66, —3.16) NS r5 - f7 6.34 I 5.91 (12.25, .43) * £6 - £7 3.59 I 5.91 ( 9.50, —2.32) NS Function Means Master Planning Function (f1) 60.33 Capital Facilities Development Function (f2) 56.50 Grants Procurement Function (f3) 54.42 Capital Budgeting Function (f4) 53.75 Systems Management Function (f5) 52.92 Institutional Research Function (f6) 50.17 Public Relations Function (f7) 46.58 LY 99 Findings The analysis indicated that the sampled develop- ment administrators perceived their functions in varying degrees of importance or chief responsibility. The Master Planning Function, Capital Facilities Development Function, and Grants Procurement Function showed no significant differences and so were relatively equal in perceived importance. But differences were noted in comparing Master Planning (fl) with the other four functions indicating Master Planning was viewed as more important in terms of chief responsibility than Capital Budgeting, Systems Management, Institutional Research, and Public Relations. Comparison of the Capital Facilities Development Function (£2) with the other functions revealed it was considered as relatively equal in chief responsibility with the Grants Procurement Function, Capital Budgeting Function, and Systems Management Function but more important as a chief responsibility than the functions of Institutional Research and Public Relations, according to the respondents. The Grants Procurement Function (f3) was per— ceived as statistically equal in chief responsibility to Capital Budgeting, Systems Management, and Insti— tutional Research but more important as a primary responsibility than Public Relations. 100 The sampled development officers indicated that the Capital Budgeting Function (f4) was equal in chief responsibility to Systems Management and Institutional Research but more important in terms of chief responsi- bility than the Public Relations Function. No differences were shown in comparing Systems Management (£5) with Institutional Research suggesting they were equally perceived as chief responsibilities, but Significant differences were noted when compared with the Public Relations Function indicating Systems Management was viewed at least statistically as more of a chief responsibility for development officers than the Public Relations Function. The last possible pair-wise comparison of the Institutional Research Function (£6) with the Public Relations Function (f7) showed no significant differences indicating equal stature indicated in terms of chief responsibility. Comparisons of Functions by Time, Now, and 1975 The study was concerned with measuring not only the community college development officer's perception of the normative functions but also with the emerging aspects of these functions. In this section, the development officer functions were tested for Signifi— cant differences by time, comparing now and 1975. 101 Restatement of Hypothesis 2 The null hypothesis under consideration was stated as follows: Nul l Hypothesis 2: No chief responsibility differences will be found for the community college development officer functions between now and 1975. The null hypothesis of no difference between functions now and 1975 should be rejected if F > 4.00 with a = .05. As Shown in Table 4.1, the calculated F ratio equalled 12.9, thus Ho was rejected. Findings The fixed two-way analysis of variance test had indicated there were significant differences of functions between now and 1975. By interpretation in comparing the row means, there was indication that the community college development officers who were surveyed per- ceived increased chief responsibility for the functions as a whole by 1975. The extent of this difference was not statistically evident but is graphically shown in Figure 5.2 in Chapter V. Comparisons of Interaction Between Time and Deyelopment OffiCer Functions It was expected that the development officer would, as a relatively new member of the president's 102 cabinet and community college organization, experience some experimentation and change in function emphasis or assigned function responsibility. In this section, the seven development officer functions were tested for sig- nificant differences of interaction of function and time. Restatement of Hypothesis 3: The null hypothesis under consideration was stated as follows: Null Hypothesis 3: No differences will be found between interaction of community college development officer functions now and 1975. The null hypothesis of no difference between interaction of functions and time should be rejected if F > 2.25 with a = .05. Table 4.1 Showed the calculated F ratio equalled .3, thus failing to reject Ho. Findings The analysis of variance test has indicated there were no significant statistical differences in the inter- action of the two independent variables, time and functions. Summary The statistical model used for testing signif— icance was the fixed two-way analysis of variance. The decision rule followed was to reject the null hypothesis 103 at a = .05 level of confidence. If the null hypothesis was rejected, the Tukey Post Hoc Procedure was admin— istered to find specific differences between functions. If the confidence interval as determined by the Tukey technique did not include 0, then significant differences would be identified among the functions. The first null hypothesis of no differences among the seven selected functions of the community college development officer should be rejected if F > 2.25 .with a = .05. The calculated F ratio equalled 10.3, thus Ho was rejected. The application of Tukey's Post Hoc Analysis to determine specific differences between functions revealed that the development administrator respondents perceived the seven functions in varying degrees of chief responsibility. No significant dif— ferences were noted between Master Planning, Capital Facilities DevelOpment, and Grants Procurement indi— cating equal chief responsibility. Significant dif— ferences were noted comparing Master Planning with the other four functions indicating a higher degree of chief responsibility was perceived for Master Planning than Capital Budgeting, Systems Management, Institutional Research, and Public Relations. Public Relations was statistically less a chief responsibility than other functions when compared to the other six functions. 104 The second null hypothesis of no differences between functions now and 1975 should be rejected if F > 4.00 with a = .05. The calculated F ratio equalled 12.9, thus Ho was rejected indicating there were Sig- nificant differences of functions between now and 1975. The third null hypothesis of no differences between interaction of functions and time Should be rejected if F > 2.25 with o = .05. The calculated F ratio equalled .3, thus failing to reject Ho. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the per- ceptions of community college development officers toward the normative and emerging functions of the development officer position, a relatively new addition to the com— munity college president's cabinet. Three questions were answered by the research: (1) Are there significant differences in the chief responsibility attached to the major function categories of the community college development officer position? (2) Are there Significant differences expected in the chief responsibility attached to function categories a few years from now compared to present practices? (3) Are there significant differences in function emphasis or change expected in the next few years? Although no published articles or research on the community college development officer were found, the literature on four—year development officers and other related studies indicated that the two—year development 105 106 administrators had a major institutional role in policy formulation, decision making, planning, fund raising, public relations, and as catalysts for institutional change. One of the most important responsibilities noted was planning. Community college presidents recog— nized the long-range planning job as the president's responsibility, but they felt it was a job they no longer could do themselves and that some one individual must be in charge of planning. The literature draws attention to the increased concern with administration management accountability and management techniques in dealing with the complexities of management problems. Systems management techniques, especially management by objectives, were found to have implications for the development officer relative to his administrative competency and in the performance of his function responsibilities. It was also suggested in the literature that preparation for community college administrators was inadequate and high priority should be given to "inservice" training for existing staff. Future—oriented education systems have implications for training development officers in the concept of the individual's sense of the future, his habit of anticipation. Another approach 'to training reviewed in this study was a systems technique (bf training by objectives which had its emphasis on 107 behavioral objectives which could be measured. Its con— cept was that the basis for training should be changing job behavior. The instrument designed to measure the community college development officer perceptions was a mail questionnaire containing fifty task statements grouped under seven selected development officer functions. A pretest was employed to obtain information on the two- year public college development administrator which served as a major source of information for the develop— ment of the main questionnaire. The questionnaire was mailed to thirty-two community college develOpment administrators in a seven-state population which included Maryland, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Twenty—five questionnaires were returned, all usable, for a 78.1 per cent response. For the pretest data, a rank order subjective analysis was employed. The questionnaire data were sta— tistically tested to determine null hypotheses' dif— ferences among seven selected development officer functions, function differences between now and 1975, and interaction between time and function change. The statistical model used for testing significance was the two—way fixed analysis of variance. The decision rule followed was to reject the null hypothesis at a = .05 level of confidence. The Tukey Post Hoc Procedure was 108 administered to find Significant differences between functions. If the confidence interval as determined by the Tukey technique did not include 0, then significant differences were identified. Findings An analysis of the data supports the following conclusions: 1.0 1.4 There were statistically significant differences perceived by development officers in the chief reSponsibility attached to the major function categories of the community college development office. Development officers perceived the Master Plan- ning Function as a chief responsibility Signifi— cantly more than that perceived for Capital Budgeting, Systems Management, Institutional Research, and Public Relations Functions. The Master Planning Function, Capital Facilities Development Function, and Grants Procurement Function were viewed as relatively equal as chief responsibilities. The Capital Facilities Development Function was perceived as equal in chief responsibility with Grants Procurement, Capital Budgeting and Sys- tems Management Functions but was statistically more Significant as a chief responsibility than the functions of Institutional Research and Public Relations. The Grants Procurement Function was considered relatively equal as a chief responsibility when compared to the functions of Capital Budgeting, Systems Management, and Institutional Research but significantly more a chief responsibility than the Public Relations Function. 109 1.5 The develOpment administrators indicated Capital Budgeting, Systems Management, and Institutional Research were equal as chief responsibilities but Capital Budgeting was perceived by the respondents as a chief responsibility more than Public Relations. 1.6 The Systems Management Function and the Insti— tutional Research Function were viewed as rela— tively equal as a chief responsibility of the development officer but in comparison with the Public Relations Function, Systems Management was viewed as significantly more a chief respon- sibility. 1.7 No significant statistical differences in chief responsibility were perceived between the Public Relations Function and the Institutional Research Function. 2.0 There were statistically significant differences perceived by development officers in the primary or chief responsibility attached to development officer function categories between now and 1975. 2.1 Development officers perceived the seven develop— ment office functions as significantly more a chief responsibility by 1975. 3.0 No statistically significant differences were found in function emphasis or function change by 1975 as perceived by community college development officers. Discussion of Findings A chart, visually showing the statistically Sig- nificant differences perceived by the development officers in the chief responsibility attached to the development office function, is presented in Figure 5.1 on page 110 and Figure 5.2 on page 111. Their purpose 110 950.."qu unofimoHo>oo voodoo humans—Eco o>auuxucosu .3 253056. owuowaow 552. on nonoouum huwgnuusomnou no.3". on» 5.. moonouwumwv usage—3n Sangumaumun co>aouuomnuaomilad .mwm ) \ \ 2.5 H95 \ \ \ \ an on m ”530 .w mac." HO 04....» an 0« Ham no“ How one 3.6 m5 m>m\_ and mu .3 m\ .Hnn 3n jun 0“: A \ \ \ nuumumom \ Noam .. \ mm on.“ moan m can m m: and a: an Hucofiu an: .u sou mom am ”In no OK no... 2 one L559; :5 .um: :0“ HQ an \ n: m3 :05 noon mcoAumHom nuumomom nonmemom uzoewmmcmz ucofioomcmz \u: mm: 3“ my Y uwanam Macawusuwufli Hm:0wu=u..3m:H mEuum>m mEoum>w new W SL use OH on \ a .u Hon 0.3600952 mafiuompzm unoEommcmz wcwuompsm unwuommfim m: on“. 00.." U \ mEoumam Haywamo mEOuwxm Guano Hmuwmao as... U \ unasmoHo>oo «a: m mowuomvsm ucufiouzgum acosou500um mwsuazomm ucwfiausgum acofiouzooum u % 25.300 mucmuo mucuuo acuwdmo mucmuu mucuuu m 0 IS DCUEQOHO>OQ ucwfiaoH0>oo acmemodoawon 1. I nouawmwm unofiousooum moduwzumm mwwuwawomm manna—Ede mam—33d nowumawuum M w Manama—Suwanee" mucmuu Hmuwmuu Huuwmau umumu: wound: Hauammu H n... I 82.533560 MD $85.53 mumm A5558 2.255 5553 «went: 111 DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FUNCTIONS MP CFD GP CB SM IR PR PRIMARY A) U1 2.0 SECONDARY H UI Key: ~——~——- Now 0-0-0 1975 Fig. 5.2.--Graph reflecting chief responsibility differences of functions between now and 1975 112 is to help clarify the perceived chief responsibility comparisons made in the findings. It was not surprising to find the Master Planning Function perceived by the development officers as a Significantly more important function than most of the other functions. Its importance as a chief responsibility was reinforced by other studies which indicated that long— range planning had become a major and important activity of the community college, particularly for facilities, and that direction for the program should be centralized in one person. The increasing demands of state agencies for long-range planning data had also contributed to more presidents' decisions to delegate the planning job to one person, usually designated as the development and planning officer. On the other hand, it was somewhat surprising to find the Public Relations Function perceived as being less a chief responsibility than most of the other functions. This might suggest that not all of the four-year develop— ment officer functions were being carried over into the two-year development office. It might also suggest that develOpment office orientation is moving in the direction of planning and research rather than public relations. This is supported somewhat by the results obtained in the pretest survey where 58 per cent indicated public relations responsibility compared to 74 per cent for facilities planning and 84 per cent for institutional research. 113 Further scrutiny of Figure 5.1 indicated that the Other five functions for the most part show, in relation to each other, no statistical significant differences. This would imply relative equality in terms of chief responsibility as perceived by the development officers. However, some discrimination might be assumed for the Capital Facilities Development Function and the Grants Procurement Function by virtue of being perceived by the development officers as relatively equal in chief respon' sibility with the Master Planning Function. This would coincide with the expectations suggested in the literature and in the pretest survey where 95 per cent of the respondents indicated responsibility for the Grants Procurement Function. Research had indicated that fund raising was still the major thrust of the four-year chief development officer 76 per cent of the time and it was expected the two-year develOpment administrator would also have similar responsibilities in this area but with emphasis primarily in seeking federal and state grant support. No statistically significant differences were per- ceived in chief responsibility between Capital Facilities Development, Grants Procurement, Capital Budgeting, and Systems Management. This would indicate the development officers perceived them as relatively the same in terms of their chief responsibility for these functions. 114 Although these function activities were not indicated to be as strong in chief responsibility as in Master Planning, it was found to a greater degree among the development officers than Institutional Research and Public Relations. As indicated by the graph in Figure 5.2, the degree of development officer responsibility for the seven functions was perceived as being greater by 1975 than presently. This might suggest that the seven development officer functions were perceived as having increased relevance for dealing with the future problems facing community college administration. The Systems Management Function in particular shows the largest increase compared to the other functions in degree of chief responsibility expected by 1975. This is a sub— jective inference, however, since no statistically sig— nificance differences in function emphasis or change were found. Capital Budgeting and Institutional Research Functions also Show a relatively greater increase expected in chief responsibility than some of the other functions. The Master Planning Function was still per- ceived by more development officers as a chief responsi- bility by 1975 than any other function. That no statistically significant differences were found in function emphasis or change by 1975 was dis— appointing. It is understandable, however, in that the 115 emphasis for this research was on a normative study and the design of the study did not call for the kind of data which might indicate such change. Implications of the Study In education today, the times demand an evolution of new concepts in administration management, a need for leadership in the task of mobilizing efforts to maximize the resources, and the implementation of techniques for dealing with the kinds of problems brought about by change. As a result, community college organizations are being challenged as never before to move into new admin- istrative practices and provide the kinds of accounta— bility demanded by legislators, officials, and taxpayers. The emergence of the community college development offiCer in the last decade has resulted largely from these burgeoning administrative needs of the two—year public institutions complicated by its growing size and com- plexity and the necessarily increased emphasis on instiv tutional planning brought about by the greater demands for more efficient stewardship. The study revealed that the community college development officer is still evolving. Difficulty was experienced in finding a large number of two—year public colleges employing a development administrator for the sample. The variety of titles by which this administrator 116 is identified would also suggest the role of this admin- istrator would more likely vary by institution than other administrators. However, most titles included the words "planning" and/or "development.“ The study did reveal that most development officers had the chief responsi- bility in their institution for the Master Planning, Facilities Development, and Grants Procurement Functions. More than half either supervised or had direct responsi- bility for Capital Budgeting, Systems Management, Insti- tutional Research, and Public Relations Functions. Statement of a Model--The Community College Develop- ment OffIEer Function The development of this study was an attempt to meet one small part of the enormous challenge facing community college administrators by examining one aspect of the administrative process, that is, the functions of the development officer. The statistically significant findings of the study have been described and the conclusions discussed. But the functions of the community college development officer may have greater implications for the institution than revealed by the statistical analysis. At the suggestion of the doctoral committee, a development officer function model was developed which was based on the study and the writer's own experience. Thus, the 117 implications which have emerged are stated in terms of a recommended function model for the community college development officer. 1.0 Master Planning Functiop.v—A function critical to the total college commitment of purpose and objectives in terms of facilities, educational programs, and student and community services. The critical tasks of the development officer include: 1.1 Define, develop, coordinate, and periodically up—date a campus master plan to include facili— ties, program, and services projected to capacity enrollment. 1.2 Report and advise president on planning matters and coordinate activities of long-range planning committee. 1.3 Determine capital program for next five and ten years. 1.4 Evaluate community demographic data for impli- cations on master planning. 2.0 Capital Facilities Development Function.v—A major activity on many two-year college campuses, this function is vital to the orderly process of the building program in providing for the facility needs of the college 118 and the administration liason with local and state agen— cies. The critical tasks of the develOpment officer include: 2.1 Acts as chief advisor to president and cabinet members in matters of capital facilities develop- ment. 2.2 Interpret and implement state guidelines and procedures in planning and development of facilities. 2.3 Monitor and coordinate activity of architect, contractor, and college personnel in relation to project construction. 2.4 Advise and coordinate activities of Standing Building or Planning Committee and individual project committees. 3.0 Grants Procurement Function.vahere is a need for financing programs of a specialized or innovative nature and to supplement local funds in career program development. More effort is required for obtaining such funds and critical tasks for the development officer include: 3.1 Develop or supervise a program for obtaining grant assistance and support for financing desirable programs from federal, state, and private sources. 3.3 3.4 119 Maintain and interpret up—to-date information on grant support programs of interest to the college. Advise faculty and administration on grant opportunities and availabilities. Develop and write grant proposals. 4.0 Capital Budgeting Function.vvCommunity colleges are being called upon to justify the expenditures of their institutions in terms of value received. Accountability for millions of dollars in capital expenditures has major responsibility implications. The critical tasks of the development officer include: 4.1 Analyze, develop, and prepare the capital program cost estimates for the next budget year and a five- to ten-year long-range forecast in terms of architect/engineering fees, construction, site development, and movable equipment. Advise president on all matters of the capital budget and assist in interpretation of capital program to Board of Trustees, state and local officials, and other individuals or agencies. Serve as presidents representative in capital budget matters with local and state agencies. 120 Prepare material and exhibits for submission to local and state board regarding requests for approval of capital expenditures. Develop resolutions for state funding assistance and requests for local allocation of funds. Monitor input for capital accounting program for monthly statement printvout. 5.0 Systems Management Function.—-There is a great need for more sophisticated management tools and techniques to cope with the complex problems of today's society. Article after article attempts to deal with the problem through systems techniques. Systems approaches are beginning to be employed by community colleges. The development officer's critical tasks in this area include: 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Develop information on management systems techniques for study and institutional con— sideration. Use Management by Objectives techniques when establishing mutual goals and objectives with president and with subordinates. Develop and implement systems approaches for development office functions. Develop and implement a management system such as Simulation for long—range planning. 121 6.0 Institutional Research Function.——Decision making Should be based on the best information and data possible. The institution is better able to serve the student if information is obtained and easily retrieved. The critical task for the develOpment officer for this function includes: 6.1 Direct or supervise a program of institutional research. 6.2 Develop and maintain an information storage and retrieval system. 6.3 Search out and develop research projects in response to institution's needs. 6.4 In COOperation with others, establish and coordinate research policies and procedures for institution. The Public Relations Function was not included as a function of the model because of its questionable status as a development office function. The study indicated public relations was not regarded as a primary responsi— bility to the extent attached to the other functions. The responses of the sampled develOpment officers showed less than half indicated chief responsibility in this area. The investigator would generally agree with those who contend that public relations properly belongs directly with the president's office under his supervision. 122 The exception might be made where the development officer has particular expertise in this area and the president is willing to delegate its supervision. Training Implication According to Alvin Toffler, the technology of tomorrow would require men " . . . who can make critical judgments, who can weave their way through novel environ— ments, who are quick to spot new relationships in the rapidly changing reality . . . men who, in C. P. Snow's compelling term, 'have the future in their bones'" (95:402-03). (This would also describe the qualities needed by the development officer. A key to the preparation of community college development officers may be what Toffler suggests as "habit of anticipation." Such educational programs would shift the time-bias forward and would require generating images of the future--on jobs, problems, organizational structures, and educational facilities. Speculation about the future should be encouraged. The study and development of ESP (extra sensory per- ception) may be required for tomorrow's development officer! The need for multi—learning experiences is indicated and several approaches are suggested: 123 Inservice programs: A high priority Should be placed on inservice training for present develop— ment officers including institutes, workshops, retreats, seminars, and professional conventions and meetings. Internships: A professional—apprentice type of internship is suggested Similar to a hospital administrator who interns specifically for man— agement of a hospital. Graduategprograms: The theoretical background obtained from formal course work is required to meet the basic need of the position, that is, an educator working in an education setting. Implications for Future Research ' Based on the development of this study, some further college 1. possibilities for investigation of the community development officer are suggested. Another study similar to this one might be developed with one important modification. A second group, consisting of the presidents, Should be added to the sample to obtain the presidents' perception of the development officer function in addition to that of the development officer's. 2. 124 A pilot program for competency training of com- munity college development officers based on a systems technique of training by objectives with emphasis on systems analysis might be a research development possibility. No discrimination of trends in functions were found in this study. A study might be developed which would try to determine changes in functions that will take place in the future. SELECTED BI BL IOG RAP HY 1. 2. 10. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY "ACPRA Trustees Assess Mood on Their Campus.” ACPRA News, II, No. 2 (February, 1972). Alexander, Fred. "Empathy-eA Must for Development Officers." Give and Take, III, No. 3 (January- February, 1971), 3. 4"? . "Management Must Properly Know the Development Function." Give and Take, IV, No. 1 (September-October, 1971), 3. . "Tomorrow's Development Man--Cause and Effect." Give and Take, IV, No. 1 (November- _ December, 1971), 3. "F ' Alioto, Robert F., and Jungherr, J. A. "Using PPBS to Overcome Taxpayers' Resistance." Phi Delta Kappan, November, 1969: PP. 138-41. Anderson, Donald J. "Not Everyone's Happy with Their Planning Offices." College & University Business, LIV, No. 1 (January, 1973), 24-25. Anderson, Gene M. "Arrows Point to Increased Giv- ing." College & University Businese, LIV, NO. 1 (January, 1973), 12—16. Andrew, Lloyd D., and Robertson, Leon. "PPBS in Higher Education: A Case Study." Education Record, LIV, No. 1 (Winter, 1973), 60-67.‘ "Antioch to Go Ahead with D.C. Law School." Higher Education and National Affairs, washington, D.C., XX, No. 44 (December 10, 1971). Ayers, A. R., and Russel, John H. "Internal Structure: Organization and Administration of Institutions of Higher Education." washington, D.C., USGPO, 1962. 125 ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 126 Baas, Alan M. "Systems Building Technique." ERIC Clearinghouse on Education Management. Uni- versity of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, July, 1972, pp. 1'13. Barnard, Chester 1. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Berg, Ivar. "Higher Education's Crisis of Purpose." Society for College and University Planning and Educational Facilities Laboratories, I, No. 3:5/5 (December, 1972), 4. Blau, Peter M., and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler PubliShing Co.,41962. Blocker, Clyde E., and Richardson, Richard C. "Human Relations Are Important." J.C.J., XXXIV, No. 7 (April, 1964), 19-24. Blocker, Clyde E. "The Role of the Administrator in Community College Plant Planning." J.C.J., XXXI (February, 1961). ; Plummer, Robert H.; and Richardson, Richard C. The Two—Year College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrentiCe Hall, Inc., 1965. Bloom, Benjamin 8., ed. Taxonomygof Educational Objectives. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1956. 11 Borg, Walter R. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963.Ifi Bushnell, David S. "Community College: Organizing for Change." New Teaching New Learning. Edited by G. Kerry Smith. washington, D.C.{F Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1971. Canfield, Albert A. "Objectives, Motivations, and Achievements." ERIC Junior College Research Review, V, No. 9 (May, 1971), 698. I Caudill, Rowlett Scott. "A General Study of Design and Construction Management." Fast—Track, New York, November, 1969, pp. 5-40. Cock, L., and French, J. R. P., Jr. "Overcoming Resistance to Change." Human Relations, 1948, pp. 512-320 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 127 Corson, John J. \Governance of Colleges and Uni- versities. Nefi York: McGraw—Hill Bock Co., Inc., 1960. . "New Developments in Governance." New TeacHipg New Learning. Edited by Kerry Smith. washington,‘D.C.: Jossey—Bass, Inc., 1971. Davies, T. G. "Proposed Behavioral Competencies for Members of the Junior College Presidential Cabinet." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Ehrenkrantz, Ezra D. "The System to Systems.” CEFP Journal, VIII, No. 6 (November—December, 1970) I 4.70?— Enich, Arnold F. Long'Range Planning for Colleges and Universities. Chicago: Booz, AIlen, and Hanilton, 1958. Etherington, Edwin D., and Vancil, Richard F. "Sys- tems and Simulations: New Technology Goes to Work on Decision—Making." College & University Business, XLVI, No. 3 (March, 1969f, 55—62. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Prentice- Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1964. Eurich, Alvin C. "Plan or Perish." College & Uni- ’ versity Journal, IX, No. 3 (Summer, 1970f, 18-22. Featherstone, Richard L. "Analyzing Detroit's Initial Systems Project." CEFP Journal, x, No; 6 (November—December, 1972i, 8-11. "Florida Systems Schools." CEFP Journal, Special _ Report 2, VIII, No. l (January-February, 197OY, ‘9-16. . Frantzreb, Arthur C. "Governing Boards: Eight Operating Imperatives Can Help Trustees Avert 'Future Shock' in the 70's." College & Uni- versity Business, XLVII, No. 5 TNovember,TI969), 22-36. Grassel, Milton E. "The President Needs Training in Management." College Management, VI, No. 8 (August, 1971), 28-29. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 128 Griffin, C. W., Jr. "Systems: An Approach to School Construction." Educational Facilities Laboratories, Library of Congress Catalog No. 78-154625, February, 1971. Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theopy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,71959. Gross, Bertram M. "The State of the Nation: Social Systems Accounting." Paper published in Social Indicators. Edited by Raymond A. Bauer. Cam- bridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1966. Hall, John S. "Models for Rational Decision Making." ERIC Clearing—house on Educational Administration, University of Oregon, September, 1970. Halvarson, Carl M. "Surveys and Opinion." Colle e & University Journal, VIII, No. 2 (Spring, 1969), 44-47 0 Harlacher, Ervin L., and Roberts, Eleanor. "Accounta- bility for Student Learning." J.C.J., XLI, No. 6 (March, 1971), 27-30. Harvey, James. "Administration by Objectives in Student Personnel Programs." Journal of College Student Personnel (July, 1972), 293-96. Horn, Francis H.; King, Jonathan; and Morisseau, ' James J. "Facilities and Learning: An Overview of Developments." Higher Education: Some Newer Developments. Edited by Samuel BaSkin. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965. Hennessy, Bernard C. Public Opinion. Belmont, Calif.: wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1965. Hungate, Thad L. Management in Higher Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Cqumbia University, 1964. Jacobson, Robert L. "New Ways of Learning Seen Altering Many Collegiate Traditions." The Chronicle of Higher Education, VI, No. IO— TNovember 29, 1971), 4. Johnson, Gary R. "About Program Budgeting." College Management, VIII, No. 1 (January, 1973). 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 129 Johnson, Gary R. "Computer As a Management Tool." College Management, VII, No. 4 (April, 1972), 18-19. Johnson, R.; Kast, F. E.; and Rosenzweig, J. E. The Theory of Management Systems. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1963. Johnston, Noel. "A President Looks at Development." College & University Journal, X, No. 4 (September, 1971), 7-9. Jones, Rober W. "The Model As a Decision Maker's Dilemma." Public Administration Review, XXIV, No. 3 (September, 1964), 158-60. Jordan, Bennett. "Educational Accountability: A Crucial Question." J.C.J., XLI, No. 6 (March, Justus, John E. "PERT: A Management Tool You Can Use." School Management, XI, No. 12 (December, 1967), 24-29. Kelly, Joe. Organizational Behavior. Georgetown, Ontario: Irwin-Dorsey, Ltd., 1969. Kerr, Clark. "Administration in an Era of Change and Conflict." Educational Record, LIV, No. 1 (Winter, 1973), 38-46. Ketchum, David 8. "Implementing the Plan." Colle e & Universipy Journal, IX, No. 3 (Summer, 1970), 23-27. Lahti, Robert E. "Management by Objectives." College & University Business, July, 1971, pp. 31- 33. . "MBO: Learning to Manage Your Objectives." College & University Journal, LII, No. 2 (Feb- ruary, 1972), 43-46. Levine, J., and Butler, J. "Lecture vs Group Decision in Changing Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVI (1952), 29-33. Likert, Rensis. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes." Archives of Psyehology. Edited by R. S. WOodworth. New York: Columbia University Press, No. 140, June, 1932, pp. 5-55. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 130 Liston, Edward J. "Management Problems of Higher Education in the Year 2000." Colle e & Uni— versity Journal, II, No. 3 (May,’I9 2), 23-24. Lynam, William J. "A Study of the Administrative Competencies Needed by the Community College Academic Dean and a Model of Their Translation into Behavioral Statements Related to Adminis- trative Training Experiences.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Maccoby, Michael. "A Psychoanalytic View of Learn- ing." Change, III, No. 8 (Winter, 1971-72), 32-38. MacRoy, Charles R. "Surveys and Opinions." Colle e & University Journal, X, No. 2 (March, 1971), 31-33. Mager, Robert F. Prepeging Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon PubliShers, 1962. Maier, N. R. F. "The Quality of Group Decisions as Influenced by the Discussion Leaders." Human Relations, III (1950), 155-74. Malik, J. A. "Faculty Participation in Decision— Making in Oregon Community Colleges." Unpub- lished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1968. Marcus, Philip M., and Cafagna, Dora. "Control in Modern Organizations." Public Administration Review, XXV (June, 1965), 121—28. McAninch, Harold D., and Connellan, Thomas. "Accountability Through Management by Objec- tives." Paper delivered at National Conference on MBO in Higher Education, Washington, D.C., November 9-10, 1972. McConkey, Dale D. "20 ways to Kill Management by Objectives." Management Review, October, 1972, pp. 4-13. McGuffey, C. W. "Accountability in Planning Facilities." CEFP Journal, X, No. 2 (April, 1972)] 4-60 McWilliams, Paul A. "Institutional Development." College & University Business, XLVII, No. 5 (NOvember, 1969), 16—20. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 131 Mensel, Frank R. "Federal Report.“ J.C.J., XLII (November, 1971), 7. Morrell, L. R. "A Look at Program Budgeting." Educational Record, L, No. 3 (Summer, 1969), 286-89. Morse, N. C., and Reimer, E. "The Experimental Change of a Major Organizational Variable." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LII—h (1956i, 120#29. O'Connell, Alfred C. Interview with Dr. O'Connell, Executive Director, Maryland State Board for Community Colleges, Annapolis, Md., January, 1972. Odiorne, George S. Management by Objectives. New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1965. . "Management by Objectives." Colle e & Universitngournal, X, No. 2 (March, 1971), 13-15. . Training py Objectives. New York: THe Macmillan Company, 1970. Ohm, Robert E. "Organizational Goals--A Systems Approach." Paper presented at Annual National Conference of Professors of Educational Adminis— tration, Indiana University, August 25, 1966. -Pray, Francis C. "Man Outranks Systems and Tech— nology." College & University Journal, IX, No. 3 (Summer, 1970), 28—29. "Programming Effective Communication and Financial Support." College & Universipy Journal, X, No. 5 (November, 1971), 39—49. T Purrington, Gordon. "Administrative Competencies and Organizational Effectiveness." Paper pre— sented at the annual meeting of American Edu- cational Research Association, Chicago, February, 1968, EDO 26742. Raines, Max R., and Myran, Gunder A. "Community Services: Goals for 1980." J.C.J., XLII, No. 7 (April, 1972), 12-16. Rarig, Emory W., Jr. "Administrative Practices in Institutional Long-Range Planning in Community and Junior Colleges." Unpublished Ed.D. disser- tation, Columbia University, 1968. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 132 Rathbun, Daniel, and Stein, Herb. "Management Methods Make Your Budget WOrk for You." College Management, IV, No. 5 (May, 1969), 6I+65. CWT Richardson, Richard C. "Needed: New Directions in Administration." J.C.J., XL, No. 6 (March, 1970), 16'23. Roethlesberger, F. J., and Dickson, William J. Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. _ Sachs, Benjamin M. Educational Administration, A Behavioral Approach. Boston: Houghtonir Mifflin Co., 1966. Schleh, Edward C. Management by Results. New York: McGraw—Hill, 196i} Shultz, James M., and Winstead, Philip C. "The Educational Development Officer: A Catalyst for Change in Higher Education." College & Uni- versity Journal, X, No. 4 (September, 1971), 23. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The MacmiIIan Co., 1950. . The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Singer, Donald L., and Grande, John A. "Emerging Patterns of Governance: Promise or Peril." J.C.J., XLI, No. 6 (March, 1971), 38-42. Standbury, Donald E. "A Study of the Administration of Michigan Junior Colleges." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Stone, Donald C. "Guide Lines for Training Development Administrators." Journal of Admin— istration Overseae. n.d. "7 Stuckman, Jeffrey A., and wattenburger, James L. "Coordination within the State System." J.C.J., XLI, No. 6 (March, 1971), 43-45. Sylvester, John J. "The Budget: Management by Objectives." Techniques, ACPRA, VII, No. 5 (December, 197')} 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 133 Tannenbaum, Robert, and Massarik, Fred. "Sharing DecisionvMaking." Human Relations in Adminis- tration. Edited byTRObert Dubin. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1961. Thorndike, Robert L., and Hagen, Elizabeth. Measurement and Evaluation in Psyehology and EdUcation. New York: John WiIey and Sons, Inc., I959. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Random House, Inc., 1970. . "Learning to Live with Future Shock. " ColIege & University Business, LI, No. 3 (Septem- ber, 1971), 55— 57. Umbeck, Sharvey. "Impediments to Good Management." College & Universipy Journal, IX, No. 4 (Fall, 1970). 16-18. I Van Dyne, Larry A. "Big Effort Urged to Train Staff for Nation's Community Colleges." $22. Chronicle of Higher Education, VII, No. 4 (October 16, 1972). . "Study of 2-Year Colleges Reveals Many Tasks Are Unfinished. The Chronicle of Higher Education, VI, No. 22 (March 6,1972), 5. Van Istendal, Theodore. "A Study of Community College Institutions Research." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Walker, Harold E. "The VPs: Growing in Number, They Bring Presidency within Range of One Man's Ability." College & University Business, XLVII, No. 3 (September, 1969), 73—78. Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. "Internal Decision Pro- cess of the University." Educational Record, LII, NO. 3 (Summer, 1971), 240-43. "What Goes into Academic Planning." College & University Business, XLVII, No. 2 (August, 1969), 31-40. Wheatley, Edward. "Putting Management Techniques to Work for Education." College & University Busi— ness, XLVIII, No. 4 (April, 1970), 55'59. 134 111. Wilson, Logan. “Changing University Governance." Educational Record, L, No. 4 (Fall, 1969), 388-404. 112. Wilson, M. J. "Schools Find Need to Train Adminis- trators." The News American, Baltimore, Md., Special Report, March 22, 1972, p. l. 113. Wireman, Billy O. ”The Development Office and the Development Officer." Paper presented to Annual Summer WOrkshop of the Council for the Advance- ment of Small Colleges, Santa Fe, New Mexico, August, 1968. 114. WOodbury, Kenneth B., Jr. "Systems Approach to Western Civilization." J.C.J., XLI, No. 6 (March, 1971), 72-80. 115. Ziegler, Jerome. "Retraining Engineers into Urban Specialists." Change, III, No. 8 (Winter, 1971- 72), 18-20. 116. "Academic Building System (ABS)—-Higher Education." Building Information Circular No. 3A, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Facilities Engineering and Construction Agency, washington, D.C., 1971, pp. 1-42. 117. Education Directory 1970-71: Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing OffiCe, December, 1970. 118. Education Directory 1972-73: Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing OffiEe, December, 1972. 119. "Special CEFP Journal Report: Projection for the Seventies." CEFP Journal, VII, No. 4 (August, 1969), 9-20. 120. The Community and Junior College Directory 1971. Washington: American Association of Community Junior Colleges, 1971. 121. The Community and Junior College Directory 1973. Washington: American Association of Community Junior Colleges, 1973. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PRE-TEST SURVEY AND TABULATED RESPONSES,. CORRESPONDENCE AND MAILING LIST APP END IX A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY College of Education, Erickson Hall East Lansing, Michigan 48823 To selected development administrators of community colleges. The questionnaire that follows is designed to gather information for a study of administrative behavioral competencies required of community college development administrators. It is designed to take as little of your time as possible. Please answer every question. When you have finished please fold the questionnaire in half and staple or tape the ends together before mailing. Postage has been properly applied for your convenience. Please return the completed questionnaire by May 21, 1971 . Your cooperation is most assuredly appreciated. Sincerely. Joseph M. Mego Doctoral candidate Max R. Raines, Chairman Guidance Committee Name of person completing form Title Institution 135 136 Part I Organizational Patterns DIRECTIONS: The following questions relate to the organizational patterns and responsibilities of the development office at your institution. Please check the most applicable response for each question. (I) (2) (3) Please indicate the administrative level of the development office in your organization. l. E Major administrative division (line Officer) 2. 5‘ Administrative department (director level) 3. 9 Staff function By what name is the development office identified? I. 47- Office of Institutional Development 2. g: Planning and Development 3. 3 Other (write in) What is the title of the chief development officer? 1. 3k Development Officer 2. 61 Dean of Administrative Services 3. ) Director of Development 4. ’4' Other (write in) (4) To whom does the development administrator report? (5) I. ’7 President 2. “' Dean of Administration 3. "' " Other (write in) Please check the functions which are the responsibilities of the development office. l. 1 Preparation of capital budget 2. [ft Facilities planning 3. [[ Coordination of building program 4. (( Public relations 5. [0 Publications 6. [8 Federal and private foundation grants (6) (7) (8) (9) 137 7. 2 Alumni relations 8. [2 Institutional research 9. Q Other (write in) 10. Z Other (write in) Please indicate the number of personnel working in the development Office. l. "3.2 Number of professionals including development Officer 2. I‘V'l Number of classified employees Please check dollar category closest to your total yearly development Office administrative budget including salaries. l. a To $25,000 2. 9 $25,000 to $50,000 3. it $50,000 to $75,000 4. 1 $75,000 to $l00,000 5. £3 Over $lO0.000 Please indicate level of formal education 1. C) Bachelor's degree 2. Q Master's degree 3. (2 Educational specialist or professional degree 4. 45‘ Doctoral candidate 5. 8 Doctor's degree Please indicate level of participation (shared governance) generally practised in executing the functions of the development office. I. [5; Major participation including formally organized policies and procedures involving administrators. faculty, and students. 2. 45’ Some formally organized participation but does not necessarily involve faculty and/0r students. 3. A Very little participation other than major administrators. 138 Part II Behavioral Competencies DIRECTIONS: This part of the questionnaire contains statements of behavioral competencies typically associated with members of a community college president's cabinet. For each statement,please circle the number in the left hand column indicating the degree you as development officer are required to exercise this competency at your institution. Please note that the four degrees of choices are defined to assist you in your judgment. In the right hand column please check one of the three options you think most appropriate for the development officer's expected possession of this competency in relation to the other cabinet members. Definition of Choices Degree l. Minor - Little or none required Expected to Required 2. Moderate - Occasionally required Possess 3. Considerable - Extensively called upon 4. Maximum - Assume leadership in this area cu 25 (U 8 a; E L e .2 a Z. 2 U 2' _l V) Z l 2 3 4 ___ ___ (circle one) (Check one) 1 .5’ 3 4- l 2 3 41 (IO) Initiate or modify goals and objectives of institution _/_ i Z I :3 .13 l 2 3 4 (ll)Abstract information from studies. printed materials. _4_ 15 _Z and discussions pertinent to given issues and problems. 0 3 4 12. l 2 3 4 (l2) Long range planning in anticipation of institutions _9 L01 - future growth and needs. 0 7 x 4 l 2 3 4 (l3) Problem identification and analysis in decision making _4_ [3 46; system to resolve institution's problems. , 4 6 3» 7 l 2 3 4 (l4) Legislative analysis of local and state laws and pro- 25:.jl _E: cfidures Effectigg community college control. philoso- p y, un ing an operation. 7 (. 5’ I l 2 3 4 (l5) Legal considerations in relation to collective bar- ff: jz_ fa gaining and understanding of due process of law. I 3 y (. . l 2 4 (16) Analysis and evaluation of analytical reports. __0_ _é _/_: o 4- 9 l 2 3 k (17) Contribute to administrative problem solving through _0_ [ff understanding of sound administrative concepts and principles. 0 6‘ 7 7 l 2 3 4 (18) Perceives self and that of other cabinet members in £2_ [3?' 5 proper perspective in inter-action over cabinet issues. I V 9 .5" l 2 3 4 (l9) Determine master plan for campus development. _1_ 1:? ;§ Degree Required Q) E .8 t 5 «5‘0: 6 S '5 .E CUCX EESE l 2 3 4 (circle one) 9954 l 2 3 4 534-7 l 2 3 4 9‘ 3 12M 73/? l 2 3 4 [0/17 I 2 3 4 5'6‘66‘ l 2 3 4 [5‘75 l 2 3 4 134,4” l 2 3 4 944954 l 2 3 4 wa—J (20) .139 Definition of Choices Minor - Little or none required Expected to Moderate - Occasionally required Possess Considerable - Extensively called upon Maximum - Assume leadership in this area Less Same More (EheEk'ofiE) Formulation of capital budget year and long range 5 Z é: capital program. Coordination and supervision of new building projects §:_ §:_ Coordination and supervision of determining educa- .fizf j: tional specifications for new or remodeled buildings. maintaining information and news service of excellence and arrangements for release through the mass media. I9 N EDI“ Initiate or supervise programs and procedures for .5; .éi Create or supervise the content. form, scope. and distribution of college publications of a promotional character. Ht |°o IV Develop means for promoting strong bond of loyalty, friendship and communication between institution and its alumni. students. parents of students, faculty. staff and other special interested groups. to lso Ix) Promote and interpret institution's programs and needs __ to college community, sponsors of the institution. local and state officals. |\ Promote interest of institution before agencies with 41 pi? resources for financing grants of desirable programs. such as those in federal government, private founda- tions, business and industry. '3 (on Develop or utilize a pert chart. PPBS, critical path _JL movement chart or some similar systems analysis in- strument. L140 Part 111 Materials Produced DIRECTIONS: This part of the questionnaire contains statements relating to various types of materials which may be produced by a development office. For each statement, please circle the number in the right hand column which indicates the degree you have been responsible for its production. Please note that the choice numbered 1 should be circled if this material is not produced at your institution at this time. Definition of Choices Not produced at this date Minor - Little responsibility Moderate - Assist in its production Considerable - Extensive responsibility individually or with others Maximum - Assume full responsibility for its production #WN-d 01 (29) Written statement of college philosophy. (30) Written statement of college objectives, goals. purposes. (3l) Formulation of next capital budget year and 5 to 10 year projections. (32) Formulation of next fiscal year operating budget. (33) Applications for state funding assistance of capital pro- grams. (34) Proposals for federal and private foundation grants. (35) Projected develOpment office operating budget for next fiscal year. (36) Campus master plan. (37) Written educational specifications for each building project. (38) Projected facility needs for next academic year. (39) Facilities inventory reports. (40) Enrollment projections (l-5 or 10 years). (41) Academic program projections (l-S or l0 years) (42) Staffing projections (l-5 or 10 years) WQ “@“9 @@ W “@‘WModerate dG—ngdedgd@ “@‘© @‘(33 @‘Q WQHNM Produced NSN®N©VQN®© ”@Q ”@N@ ”@Na) N@\l®\>®~>Minor (43) Various studies such as parking, space utilization. etc. A®A®a®amb® h®>® @ag a®e® AW©J> Considerable m®¢©¢h®tfi®~fl®°fi® 01% U®fi© 0‘@J‘@ m@WIQUTSUTMaXimum 141 Definition of Choices 1. Not produced at this date 2. Minor - Little responsibility 3. Moderate - Assist in its production 4. Considerable - Extensive responsibility individually or with others 5. Maximum - Assume full responsibility for its production (44) College catalogue. (45) Curriculum brochures, promotional materials, press releases. advertising. (46) Newsletters, bulletions or similar publications to communicate with internal and external publics. as) aW—aNot Produced N9 N®N®NMTHOF oo® 00%“ Moderate 4:9 A®A®>Considerable 01$ QOgmMaximum .142 Part IV Learning Experiences DIRECTIONS: This part of the questionnaire contains statements relating to learning experiences that might be suggested to assist graduate students in the acquiring of competencies required for a development officer position. For each statement. please circle the number in the right hand column which indicates the degree of importance you feel the learning experience has for a development administrator competency. #00 (47) (48) (49) (50) (5)) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) Definition of Choices Minor - Of some importance but probably has lowest priority in relation to others Moderate - Should have some learning experience in this area Considerable - Very important in acquiring competency Maximum - Excellent and should be required Background courses in higher education such as History and Theory. Purpose & Policies, Curriculum & Instruction. Courses in higher education administration such as Admini- strative Theory and Practice, Community College Administra- tion. Organization & Administration of Higher Education Courses in student personnel and counseling such as Princi- ples of Guidance and Personnel Services. Group Procedures in Guidance, Individual Analysis. Courses in Sociology such as Sociology of Education, Con- temporary Communities. Complex Organizations. Courses in business and finance such as Financial Admini- stration of Higher Education, State and Local Finance. Educational Promotion and Fund Raising. Communications and public relation courses such as Public Relations in Community Colleges, Public Opinion & Propaganda. Research courses such as Educational Research Methods. Evalua- tion of Higher Education. Statistics. Simulated situations or role playing where student assumes one of administrative positions. Field work or internship with a community college. Independent study in-depth on a single aspect of community college administration. Short seminars and workshops on community college topics usually of two weeks duration. Attendance of professional association conference sessions such as Council of Educational Facility Planners and American Association of Junior Colleges. .3 to S a :1! IE £2 )2 5L. ‘7 12 (D :3 12 53 I3! 12 I7 12 c) a. 12 at 12 I C) 12 {,I 2 l l 12 I? It 03 12 4' 9F 12 0) 25 E S S ..- E 2 'Q .3 :2 3 4 .5‘ :r‘ 3 4 7? 3 4 4L / 3 4 8' :3 3 4 m7 3 4 5.. 3 4 I3J' 3 4 ma. 3 4 4‘ 7C? 3 4 ‘7 3 3 4 IE3 .3 3 4 wit 3 4 143 1