INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo­
graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy
submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter
face, while others may be from a computer printer.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will
be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to
be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­
produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper
left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal
sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available
as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and white photographic print for an additional charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been
reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or
6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for
any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

■UM-I
A ccessing th e World’s Information since 1938

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Order Number 8900012

Perceived effects of participation in the financial planning and
budgeting processes on selected Michigan community colleges
Bliesath, William James, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1988

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark

1.

Glossy photographs or p ag es_____

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3.

Photographs with dark background_____

4.

Illustrations are poor copy______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy______

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages _

8.

Print exceeds margin requirem ents______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11.

Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

Page(s)___________ seem to b e missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages num bered

14.

Curling and wrinkled p ag es______

15.

Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received_________

16.

Other_______________________________________________________________________

. Text follows.

UMI

PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FINANCIAL
PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESSES ON SELECTED
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
By
William James BU esath

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S ta te U niv ersity
in p a r t i a l f u lf i l l m e n t o f th e requirem ents
f o r th e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Educational A dm inistration

ABSTRACT
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FINANCIAL
PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESSES ON SELECTED
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
By
Will 1am James B lie s a th

This study had th r e e c e n tr a l

purposes:

(a)

t o examine the

e f f e c t o f t h e p l a n n i n g / b u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s on community c o l l e g e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s , (b) to examine th e e f f e c t o f s e le c te d elements o f the
p lan ning/budgeting

process

on c o lle g e

e f f e c ti v e n e s s ,

and

examine th e e f f e c t o f p a r t i c i p a t i v e management on th e

(c)

to

p lan n in g /

budgeting process and on s e le c te d elements o f th e p ro cess.
A q u e s tio n n a ire was used in combination with campus v i s i t s to
c o lle c t

th e d a ta f o r t h i s

study.

The f i r s t

two p a r ts

of

the

q u e s tio n n a ire were developed t o c o l l e c t d a ta about (a) th e perceived
e f f e c t iv e n e s s of community c o lle g e o p e ra tio n s and (b) th e e f f e c t of
s e le c te d planning/budgeting elements on e f f e c t i v e n e s s , as perceived
by

th e

respondents.

The t h i r d

part

of

th e

q u e s tio n n a ire

was

L i k e r t ’ s P r o f i le o f O rganizational C h a r a c te r i s t i c s (POC), which was
used to measure th e e x te n t to which p a r t i c i p a t i v e management e x is te d
in th e community c o lle g e s involved in t h i s study.

William James B lie sa th
The d ata a n a ly s is Ind icated t h a t a p o s it i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p did
e x ist

between p e r c e i v e d

e ffe c tiv e n e ss

and each o f t h e

planning/budgeting elements s e le c te d f o r use 1n t h i s
r e l a t io n s h ip s were s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e

.01

lev el.

seven

study.

The

The p lan n in g /

budgeting elements were as follow s:
1. Level o f formal planning
2. P a r tic ip a tio n in th e planning/budgeting process
3.

A llocation o f s p e c i f i c funds to support th e p lan ning /
budgeting process

4.

Existence o f p r i o r i t y l i s t s f o r resource a llo c a tio n

5. Existence o f y e a r ly performance o b je c tiv e s
6. P resident a c tiv e ly involved 1n th e planning/budgeting
process
7.

Long-range versus sh o rt-ran g e planning/budgeting process

The d ata a n a ly s is a ls o showed a p o s it iv e and s i g n i f i c a n t (.01
le v e l)

r e l a t io n s h i p

between

th e

perceived

i n s t i t u t i o n and scores on L lk e r t ’ s POC.
showed a

p o s itiv e

r e l a t io n s h i p

e f f e c tiv e n e s s

of

the

In a d d itio n , th e a n a ly s is

between

scores

on

th e

POC and

th e lev el o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n th e planning/budgeting p rocess.
The study a lso compared scores f o r a d m in is tra to rs (dean lev el
and above), managers, and f a c u lty .
th e most

underused,

unhappy with
process.

th e ir

le a st

The manager group appeared to be

involved,

s itu a tio n

as

most

regards

fru strated ,
th e

and

most

planning/budgeting

To
Margaret L ., Meg, and Will B liesath
f o r a ll they mean to me.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The support o f f rie n d s and family i s c r i t i c a l to th e successful
completion o f a p r o je c t such as t h i s .

T heir s a c r i f i c e w ill always

be remembered.
There were also several o th e rs w ithout whom t h i s p r o je c t may
very well have ended in f a i l u r e .

Dr. Louis Hekhuis stepped in to

re p la c e my o r ig in a l chairman, who r e t i r e d .
reviewing th e many d r a f t s

His time and e f f o r t in

helped me become a b e t t e r w r i t e r and

r e s e a rc h e r, and h is encouragement was a big f a c t o r in th e u ltim a te
completion o f t h i s p r o je c t , as w ell.
Drs. Martha Hesse, Howard Hickey, and Max Raines were th e o th e r
committee members, who helped me bring a c l e a r focus to t h i s p r o je c t
and to whom I w ill always owe a debt o f g r a t i t u d e .
Gerri Brotherton and Susan Cooley a re a ls o high on th e l i s t o f
persons who made t h i s p r o je c t p o s s ib le .

As t r u e p r o f e s s io n a ls , they

were able not only to read my w ritin g , but a ls o to e d i t th e document
and ensure t h a t th e f in a l product was o f a q u a l i t y worthy o f my
committee and Michigan S ta te U n iv ersity .

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES

............................................................................................

ix

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................

xv11

Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION

................................................................................

Background o f th e Study .......................................................
In tro d u ctio n .......................................................................
Importance o f Planning a t th e CommunityCollege .
Aspects o f Planning and R ationale f o r Focusing
on the Financial Planning and Budgeting
Process ................................................................................
Importance o f P a r tic ip a tio n 1n th e Financial
Planning/Budgeting Process ......................................
Statement o f th e Problem and Purposes o f th e
S t u d y ................................................................................
7
Importance o f th e Research ..............................................
Assumptions ................................................................................
L im itatio ns and D elim itatio ns o f th e Study . . . .
Lim itations ............................................................................
D elim itatio ns .......................................................................
D e fin itio n s o f Terms ...........................................................
13
O v e r v i e w ............................................................................
II.

1
1
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
9
10
11

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................

15

Community College Planning ..............................................
I n t r o d u c t i o n .............................
S tr a t e g i c Planning Defined ..........................................
A pplication o f S tr a te g ic Planning t o the
Community College S e ttin g .....................
Budgeting and th e Community College.... ............................
The Macro View o f Community College Budgeting . .
A Micro View o f Community College Budgeting . . .
P a r ti c i p a t i o n 1n the Planning/Budgeting Process . .
Community College E ffectiv en ess ......................................

15
15
17

v1

20
27
28
32
41
48

Page
III.

IV.

V.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

................................................................

51

Research Design ........................................................................
The Study V ariab les ....................................................... .
Research Questions ................................................................
S e le c tio n o f th e Sample .......................................................
The Survey Q u estio nn aire ...................................................
Data-Gathering Techniques ...................................................
D is tr ib u tio n o f th e Q u estionnaire ..............................
Campus V i s i t s ........................................................................
Data-Analysis Procedures ...................................................

51
52
55
56
58
60
60
62
62

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ................................................................

64

Survey R esu lts .
................................................................
Perceived E ffe c tiv e n e ss o f th e Planning/
Budgeting Process ............................................................
D escrip tio n o f th e Planning/Budgeting Process
Being U s e d ........................................................................
Findings on L l k e r t ’ s P r o f i le o f O rganizational
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ................................................................
R esults o f Data Analyses f o r th e Research
Q u e s t i o n s .................................................................................
Summary o f Survey R esults ...............................................
R esults o f Campus V i s i t s ...................................................
E ffe c tiv e n e ss ........................................................................
Formal Planning Process ...................................................
P a r t i c i p a t i o n ........................................................................
P r i o r i t y L i s t s ....................................................................
Yearly Performance O bjectives ......................................
P r e s id e n t’ s Active Involvement ..................................
A llo catio n o f S p e c if ic Funds .......................................
Long- Versus Short-Range Planning ..............................
P a r t i c i p a t i v e Management ...............................................

64

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
ACTION, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . .
Summary.......................................................
Purposes o f th e Study .......................................................
Review o f th e L i t e r a t u r e ...............................................
M etho do lo gy .............................................................................
Conclusions Regarding Research Questions .................
Summary o f Conclusions ...................................................
Recommendations f o r Future Action ..................................
Suggestions f o r F u rth er Research ..................................

vii

65
67
80
84
99
101
102
102
104
105
105
106
107
107
108
110
110
110
110
Ill
Ill
123
124
126

Page
APPENDICES
A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE .........................................................................
B.

128

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND LETTER OF APPROVAL
FROM UCRIHS.....................................................................................

138

C. FREQUENCY TABLESFOR EACH SURVEY QUESTION .........................

140

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.................................................................................................

vi 11

201

LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1

Page
Funding o f Michigan Community C olleg es, 1967 and
1984 ......................................................................................................

31

3.1

Number o f Items 1n Each Section o f th e Q u estionnaire . .

60

3 .2

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses From th e Five Community
C o l l e g e s .......................................................................................

4.1
4 .2
4.3
4 .4
4 .5

4 .6

4 .7
4 .8

4 .9

Summary o f Responses to Items Related to Perceived
E ffe c tiv e n e ss o f th e Planning/Budgeting Process

61

. . .

66

Summary o f Responses to Items Related to Formal Versus
Informal Planning/Budgeting Process ..................................

69

Summary o f Responses to Items Related to P a r ti c i p a t i o n
in th e Planning/Budgeting Process .......................................

71

Summary o f Responses to Items Related to th e Use o f
P r i o r i t y L is ts 1n th e Planning/Budgeting Process . . .

73

Summary o f Responses to Items Related to th e Use o f
Yearly Performance O bjectives 1n th e P lanning/
Budgeting Process ........................................................................

75

Summary o f Responses t o Items R elated to th e Involvement o f th e P re sid e n t 1n th e Planning/Budgeting
P r o c e s s .......................................................................................

76

Summary o f Responses t o Items R elated to th e A llo c a tio n
o f S p e c ific Funds f o r th e Planning/Budgeting Process .

78

Summary o f Responses to Items Related to th e Use o f
Long- Versus Short-Range Approach to th e P lanning/
Budgeting Process ........................................................................

80

Summary o f Responses t o Items In L l k e r t ’s P r o f i l e o f
O rg anizational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ...............................................

82

1x

Page
Summary o f Findings f o r Research Question 1: Impact
o f Formalized Planning/Budgeting on Perceived
E ffectiv en ess .......................................................................

85

Summary o f Findings f o r Research Question 2: Impact
o f P a r tic ip a tio n on Perceived E ffectiv en ess . . .

87

Summary o f Findings f o r Research Question 3: Impact
o f A llocation o f S p e c ific Funds on Perceived
E ffectiv en ess .......................................................................

88

Summary o f Findings f o r Research Question 4: Impact
o f Existence and Use o f P r i o r i t y L i s t s on Perceived
E ffectiv en ess .......................................................................

90

Summary o f Findings fo r Research Question 5: Impact
o f Yearly Performance O bjectives on Perceived
E ffectiv en ess .......................................................................

92

Summary o f Findings f o r Research Question 6: Impact
o f P r e s id e n t's Active Involvement on Perceived
E ffectiv en ess .......................................................................

93

Summary o f Findings fo r Research Question 7: Impact
o f Longer-Range Planning/Budgeting Process on
Perceived E ffectiv en ess ...................................................

95

Summary o f Findings fo r Research Question 8: Impact
o f Leadership on Perceived E ffectiv en ess .................

96

Summary o f Findings f o r Research Question 9: Impact
o f Leadership on Perceived Part1c1pat1veness . . .

98

Regression and C o rrelatio n S t a t i s t i c s : R elation ship
o f Planning/Budgeting Elements and Perceived
E ffectiv en ess .......................................................................

100

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Have th e Financial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Been E ffe c tiv e 1n Terms o f Your Under­
standing o f th e Purpose and D irectio n o f th e
College? ....................................................................................

140

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Have th e Financial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Been E ffe c tiv e 1n Terms o f A llocating
Resources Where Most Needed? ..........................................

141

x

Page
C.3

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Have th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Been E ffe c tiv e In Terms o f Creating a
B e tte r Awareness o f Where Your Individual E ffo rts
Should Be D irected? ...............................................................

142

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Have th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Been E ffe c tiv e in Terms o f Making Funds
A vailable to Adequately Carry Out th e Plans o f
Action f o r S p e c ific Units o r In d iv id u als? .................

143

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question:
To What
Extent Have th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Had a P o s itiv e Impact on th e College
as a W h o l e ? ................................................................................

144

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question:
To What
Extent Have th e Financial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Had a P o s itiv e Impact on Your P resent
P o sitio n In th e College? .......................................................

145

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question:
To What
Extent Have th e Financial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Had a P o s itiv e Impact on th e Current
Financial P o sitio n ? ...............................................................

146

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question:
To What
Extent Have th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Had a P o s itiv e Impact on th e A v a ila b il­
i t y o f S ervices Needed o r Desired by S tu d en ts/
Community?....................................................................................

147

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question:
To What
Extent Have th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Had a P o s itiv e Impact on th e Image o f
th e College 1n th e Community? ..........................................

148

C.10 D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question:
To What
Extent Have th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Had a P o s itiv e Impact on P reparatory
Programs f o r T ran sfer to th e Four-Year College
o r U n iversity?
...............................................................

149

C.4

C.5

C.6

C.7

C.8

C.9

C .ll

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question:
To What
Extent Have th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Processes Had a P o s itiv e Impact on O ccupational/
Vocational Education Currlculums? ..................................

xl

150

Page
C.12

C.13

C.14

C.15

C.16

C.17

C.18

C.19

C.20

C.21

C.22

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
Assumptions o f This O rganization Known t o You? . . .

151

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are th e F orecasts f o r This O rganization
Adequate In Terms o f T heir Use In th e Planning
P r o c e s s ? ........................................................................................

152

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are O rganizational Goals 1n This Organiza­
tio n Measurable and Time Referenced? ..............................

153

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are O rganizational Goals I d e n t if i e d With
Plans o f Action 1n This Organization? ..........................

154

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: Does
Your Organization Have a Yearly Calendar Which
O u tlines th e Dates on Which Each Step 1n th e
Planning Process Must Be Completed? ..............................

155

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: Does Your
Organization Have W ritten Planning Steps and
P r o c e d u r e s ? ................................................................................

156

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: Does Your
O rganization I d e n tif y S p e c ific Persons Who Are
Responsible fo r Each Phase o f th e Planning
P r o c e s s ? ........................................................................................

157

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are You Aware o f th e O f fic ia l Annual Budget
Policy o f This Organization? ...............................................

158

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are You Aware o f th e Financial Condition
o f This Organization? ...........................................................

159

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are th e Budget Plans That Are to Be Imple­
mented f o r This O rganization Made Known t o You? . .

160

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are Reports o f Progress on This Organiza­
t i o n ’ s Overall Budget f o r th e Year Made Known
to Y o u ? ........................................................................................

161

x11

Page
D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Are You Aware o f th e Long-Range O bjectives
o f This O rganization 1n R elation to I t s Key
Functional Area? ........................................................................

162

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Are You Aware o f th e S p e c if ic Goals That
Your O rganizational Department Is Attempting t o
A c h i e v e ? .........................................................................................

163

D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Do You P a r t i c i p a t e 1n S e ttin g Goals f o r
Your O rganizational Department? ......................................

164

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Have You Been Encouraged to P a r t i c i p a t e 1n
th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting Processes a t
Your College? ............................................................................

165

D is tr ib u tio n
Extent Are
P rio ritie s
O ffered by

o f Responses to th e Question: To What
You Involved In th e Development o f
f o r Programs and S erv ices to Be
th e College as a Whole? ..................................

166

D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Are th e Control T o tals (Budget Balancing
Amounts) Known by You as You Prepare Your Budgets? .

167

D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are Program P r i o r i t i e s I d e n t if i e d In This
O rganization a t th e Time Resources Are A llocated ?

.

168

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are Program P r i o r i t i e s Known During Times
o f Financial Growth? ................................................................

169

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Are Program P r i o r i t i e s Known During Times
o f F in ancial C r is is ? ...........................................................

170

.

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Are Performance O bjectives Developed f o r
th e R e s p o n s ib ilitie s o f Each Employee In th e
O rganization? ............................................................................

171

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Are In dividual Performance O b jectives
I d e n t if i e d With th e Action Plans o f th e O rgani­
z a tio n ? .........................................................................................

172

x111

Page
C.34

C.35

C.36

C.37

C.38

C.39

C.40

D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Are Performance O bjectives Developed f o r
Each Unit o f th e O rganization? ...........................................

173

D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Does th e O rganization as a Whole Use
Performance O bjectives as a Means o f Accomplishing
I t s Mission and Goals? ............................................................

174

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
E xtent Is th e O rganization as a Whole Evaluated
Based Upon Progress on o r Completion o f Perform­
ance O b j e c t i v e s ? ........................................................................

175

D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Is th e P re sid e n t o f th e College A ctiv ely
Involved In th e Financial Planning and Budgeting
P r o c e s s e s ? .....................................................................................

176

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Does th e P resid en t Meet With Top Adminis­
t r a t o r s Regarding th e F inancial Planning and
Budgeting P r o c e s s e s ? ............................................................ .

177

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
E xtent Does th e P re sid e n t Meet With th e Management
Group Regarding th e F inancial Planning and Budget­
ing P r o c e s s e s ? .............................................................................

178

D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Does th e P re sid e n t Meet With Faculty
Regarding th e F inancial Planning and Budgeting
P r o c e s s e s ? .....................................................................................

179

C.41 D i s tr ib u tio n o f Responses t o th e Question: To What
Extent Are Funds Budgeted S p e c if ic a l ly f o r th e
F in an cial Planning and Budgeting Processes? . . . .
C.42

D is tr i b u t i o n o f Responses t o th e Question: I f Funds
Are Budgeted S p e c i f i c a l l y f o r th e F in ancial P lan­
ning and Budgeting P rocesses, t o What Extent Are
th e Funds S u f f i c i e n t t o Ensure That th e Process
Is Completed and 1n a Manner S a t i s f a c t o r y to Those
Involved In I t ? ........................................................................

C.43 D i s tr ib u tio n o f
Extent Do th e
th e Financial
C ro ss-S ectio n

Responses t o th e Question: To What
Budgeted Funds Permit Involvement In
Planning and Budgeting Process by a
o f College Personnel? ..............................

x1v

180

181

182

Page
C.44

C.4S

C.46

C.47

C.48

C.49

C.50

C.51
C.52
C.53
C.54
C.55

C.56

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Does Your I n s t i t u t i o n Engage 1n Long-Range
(Three o r More Years Into th e Future) Financial
P l a n n i n g ? ....................................................................................

183

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: To What
Extent Does This O rganization Focus on Short-Term
Goals Versus Long-Term Goals 1n th e Planning
P r o c e s s ? ........................................................................................

184

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How
Much Confidence and T ru st Is Shown 1n Subordi­
n ates? ............................................................................................

185

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How Free
Do They (Subordinates) Feel t o Talk t o Superiors
About Their Work? ...................................................................

186

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How Often
Are Subordinates* Ideas Sought and Used Con­
s tr u c t i v e l y ? ................................................................................

187

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: Is Pre­
dominant Use Made o f (1) Fear, (2) T h reats,
(3) Punishments, (4) Rewards, (5) Involvement? . . .

188

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: Where
Is R e s p o n s ib ility F e lt f o r Achieving High
Performance? ................................................................................

189

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How Much
Cooperative Teamwork E x ists? ...............................................

190

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: What Is
th e Usual D irectio n o f Information Flow? .....................

191

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How Is
Downward Communication Accepted? ......................................

192

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How
Accurate Is Upward Communication? ....................

193

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How
Well Do Superiors Know Problems Faced by Subor­
d in a te s ? ........................................................................................

194

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: At What
Level Are Decisions Made? ...................................................

195

xv

Page
C.57

C.58

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How
Often Are Subordinates Involved In Decisions
Related to T heir Work? ...........................................................

196

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How Is
Goal S e ttin g Usually Done? ...................................................

197

C.59

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How Much
Do Subordinates S tr iv e t o Achieve th e Organiza­
t i o n ’ s G o a l s ? ..............................................................
198

C.60

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: How
Concentrated Are Review and Control Functions? . . .

C.61

D is tr ib u tio n o f Responses to th e Question: What
Are Cost, P r o d u c tiv ity , and Control Data UsedFor?

xv1

199
.

200

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

2.1

The

Basic Community

College Budgeting Process ........

33

3.1

The

Research Design...... ...............................................................

53

xvii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background o f th e Study
In tro du ctio n
Planning a t th e community co lleg e 1s a v i t a l fu n c tio n .
w ith

a ll

o rg a n iz a tio n s,

s e le c tin g

and

im plem entin g

But, as
th e

most

ap p ro p ria te planning process cause a d m in istra to rs re sp o n sib le fo r
planning th e g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y .

It

is

p a rtic u la rly

hard

for

community c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o s e l e c t a p la n n in g p r o c e s s
because o f th e m u ltifaceted r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s assumed by th e c o lle g e
and th e freq uen t changes th ese r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s r e q u ir e .
(1980)

d e s c rip tio n

o f th e

community c o lle g e

helps

c la rify

K err’ s
th is

situ a tio n :
There are many w ithin the community c o lle g e movement and
o u t s i d e o b s e r v e r s o f i t who b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s e c o l l e g e s
already have as many fu nctio ns as they can handle or have too
many; t h a t they should cut back t o t h e i r e s s e n t i a l m issions;
t h a t they should stop adding and begin s u b tr a c tin g .
This is
not my view o f where they stand in th e process o f t h e i r
h i s t o r i c ev o lu tio n .
I consider them as s t i l l being in a
dynamic and n o t y e t e n t e r i n g a s t a t i c p h ase o f t h e i r
development.
I view them as th e most p ro te an , th e most
p l a s t i c , th e most mobile o f a l l th e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher
education.
They comprise th e l e a s t immutable, th e l e a s t
immobile, the l e a s t riv e te d o f th e s e c to r s .
T heir f u tu r e
course i s th e l e a s t s e t t l e d in terms o f r o le s to be performed.
They are s t i l l evolving in th e womb o f tim e. (p. 26)
McMullen (1985) expressed another p o in t o f view in "The *Wei 1 Futured’

College:

Reading f o r Tomorrow--Today."

1

He s ta te d

th a t

community c o lle g e s o f f e r th e most promising p o te n tia l f o r advanced
f u tu r e p r a c t i c e .

Their sp ecial h i s t o r i e s and r e l a t i v e value system

provide th e n atio n with a ready-made network capable o f helping
stu d e n ts meet th e demands o f th e tw e n t y - f i r s t cen tu ry .

Both Kerr

and McMullen voiced th e need fo r and d i f f i c u l t y o f developing a
planning process t h a t w ill meet th e needs o f a d iv e rse population
In to th e next century.
Importance o f Planning a t
th e Coimnunltv College
E d u c a tio n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e s t r u g g l i n g

t o overcome t h e

e f f e c t s o f a "now-oriented" atmosphere, which has held most schools
and c o lle g e s spellbound f o r more than two decades (McMullen, 1985).
The challenge 1s to develop an e f f e c t i v e

and e f f i c i e n t

response

to th e economic and market demand o f th e next f iv e y ears (Bracher,
1980).
A former community co lleg e t r u s t e e s ta te d t h a t th e g r e a t e s t
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y th ese c o lle g e s now face Is to th in k about where they
are go1ng--to th in k about th e f u tu re (G leaser, 1980).

The f u tu r e

w ill mean change, and to be able to make th e n ecessary changes,
c o lle g e s must be prepared.

Lahti (1974) commented t h a t t o r e t a i n

th e managerial h a b its and p r a c tic e s o f th e p a st w ill only extend and
I n te n s if y th e confidence and fin a n c ia l c r i s e s t h a t a s s a u l t h igher
education today.
The need f o r planning w ill continue and can be expected to
In crease.

As T o f f le r (1970) a s se rte d 1n Future Shock, th e world 1s

co n s ta n tly changing,

and th e r a t e o f change 1s quickening.

The

3

planning process

used by community c o lle g e s

must be capable

of

d ealin g e f f e c t i v e l y w ith t h i s change.
I f th e r e t e n tio n o f p re se n t managerial
w ill

In te n sify

th e

problem o f

h a b its and p r a c tic e s

co p in g w ith

change,

th en

th e

a l t e r n a t i v e 1s to a l t e r th e s e h a b its and p r a c t i c e s .

Babbldge (1965)

drew a

no

s im i l a r

conclusion

when

he

s ta t e d

th a t

educational

I n s t i t u t i o n 1s to be spared th e e f f e c t o f change 1n th e y e a rs ahead,
and even th o se most determined to r e s i s t change w ill
r e c a l l L e n in 's admonition to "read th e o p p o s itio n ."

do well

to

The only people

who do not have t o plan f o r th e f u tu r e a re tho se who do not c a re .
As Babbldge s t a t e d , th e community c o lle g e must change, th e key p o in t
being t h a t In te n tio n a l change must be accomplished through planning.
Other w r i te r s have drawn s im il a r co n clu sio n s.

Snyder (1971)

commented t h a t planning 1s c r i t i c a l to hig her education because no
I n s t i t u t i o n can p o s sib ly do a l l th e th in g s t h a t a re expected o f i t
w ithout plan n ing .

In t h i s e r a o f lim ite d re s o u rc e s , i t 1s e s s e n t ia l

t h a t th e community c o lle g e employ a sy stem atic process t o ensure
t h a t community p r i o r i t i e s are r e f l e c t e d 1n th e g o als and o b je c tiv e s
o f th e c o lle g e I t s e l f .
As a r e s u l t o f h is re se a rc h on community c o lle g e p lan n in g , Van
Ausdle (1979) concluded t h a t (a) th e f u tu r e o f many c o lle g e s l i e s
p rim a rily 1n th e a b i l i t y to e x e rc is e s e l f - c o n t r o l and to adapt to
p re se n t and f u tu r e c o n d itio n s ,
emerging as an e s s e n t i a l

and (b) comprehensive planning

is

a d m in is tr a tiv e process f o r in c re a sin g or

m aintaining I n s t i t u t i o n a l v i t a l i t y in th e 1980s.

4

Aspects o f Planning and R ationale
f o r Focusing on th e Financial
Planning and Budgeting Process
The t o t a l

planning process a t a community c o lle g e comprises

many elem ents, which Landsburg (1975) d escribed as being d ivided
In to th e follow ing th re e asp ects:
c o n s is ts

(a) f a c i l i t i e s planning, which

o f planning th e development o f b u ild in g s ,

grounds,

and

o th e r aspects o f th e physical p la n t t h a t th e I n s t i t u t i o n needs; (b)
f in a n c ia l planning, which 1s concerned with planning f u tu r e revenues
and expenditures o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n ; and (c) program planning, which
encom passes p la n n in g o c c u p a t i o n a l ,

career,

c o lle g e

tra n sfe r,

community s e rv ic e s , stu d en t s e rv ic e s , and o th e r forms o f c u r r i c u l a r
and e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r programs th e i n s t i t u t i o n might o f f e r .

Program

p la n n in g I n c l u d e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f need s f o r such e d u c a t i o n a l
reso u rces as f a c u l t y , media equipment, and le a rn in g m a t e r ia ls .
Although

all

th re e

asp ects

of

planning

are

Im portant,

examine each one was beyond th e scope o f t h i s study.

to

The w r ite r

decided t o focus on th e fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting process f o r
several

reason s.

F irst,

fa c ilitie s

planning

is

not c u r r e n t l y

major focus o f a c t i v i t y

a t most community c o lle g e s ,

o ccu rs,

and a d m in istra to rs

facu lty ,

sta ff,

a re

a

but when 1t

high ly

Involved.

Second, f a c u l t y , s t a f f , and a d m in istra to rs are a lso highly Involved
in program planning.

T hird, fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting i s th e

most "sacred" and p ro te cted area o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

By measuring th e

degree o f p a r t ic ip a t i o n by various le v e ls o f f a c u l t y ,

sta ff,

and

a d m in is tr a to rs , the re se a rc h e r intended t o d isc o v e r th e amount o f

5
p a r t i c i p a t i v e management a t th e community c o lle g e s involved in th e
study.
Importance o f P a r ti c i p a ti o n in th e
Financial Planning/Budgeting Process
NcCune (1986) a s s e r te d t h a t th e planning process 1s more than
j u s t a mechanical s e t o f procedures.

The power o r p o te n tia l

of

planning l i e s in i t s cap acity to c r e a te dissonance in people, upset
old

views,

P la n n in g

id en tify
is

new p o s s i b i l i t i e s ,

th erefo re

and pose

a management p r o c e s s

transform ing o r g a n iz a tio n s .

new q u e s tio n s .

f o r c h a n g in g

and

Such a process w ill be e f f e c t i v e only

i f th e r e i s f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n by o rg a n iz a tio n members.
S t e t s o n (1980) b e l i e v e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o r
a d m in is tr a tiv e u n its should d eriv e t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s from th e
o v e ra ll i n s t i t u t i o n a l g o a ls .

R e s p o n s ib ilitie s f o r goal achievement

o fte n o v erlap , in e f f e c t becoming group g o a ls .

E f f o r ts to c r e a te a

more p a r t i c i p a t i v e and I n te g ra tiv e approach w ill s im p lify th e move
t o more system atic and a c tio n - o rie n te d planning.
supported t h i s
group g o a l,

view,

sta tin g

Horwitz (1984)

t h a t when a member f u l l y accep ts a

h e/she i s more l i k e l y to

be involved

in e f f o r t s

to

a t t a i n t h a t g o a l.
In a study o f planning/budgeting s t r a t e g i e s ,

Poulton

(1980)

noted t h a t a t Stanford U niv ersity e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c ip a t i o n

in the

budgeting process b u i l t confidence in th e process and increased the
acceptance o f p o s itiv e as well as adverse s i t u a t i o n s and d e c is io n s .
The e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f budget planning a t Stanford depended as much on

6
th e

p r in c ip le s

of

a d m in istratio n

(p a rtic ip a tio n ,

communication,

le a d e rs h ip , and so on) as on th e techniques o f budget planning.
P a r ti c i p a t i o n ,

th en ,

can be seen

e f f e c t i v e planning ( I s h l e r , 1979).

as th e

ste p

toward

But perhaps th e most compelling

reason f o r emphasizing th e p a r t i c i p a t i v e
Shoemaker (1978).

firs t

approach was s ta te d

He said t h a t one o f th e foundational

by

and most

v aluable resources o f a co lleg e 1s th e I n te ll ig e n c e and c r e a ti v e
a b i l i t y o f I t s human reso u rces.

Hence a planning process should be

designed to make the b est use o f t h i s reso urce and not suppress i t .
In stitu tio n al

d a ta

a v a ila b le through th e S ta te

p e r ta in only to budget f ig u r e s .
which to measure I n s t i t u t i o n a l
attem pting

to

p a rtic ip a tio n

determine th e
in

th e

o f Michigan

No ev alu atio n c r i t e r i a e x i s t with
e f fe c tiv e n e s s uniform ly.

e f fe c tiv e n e s s

p la n n in g

process

of
in

v ario u s
M ichigan

Thus, 1n
le v e l s

of

community

c o lle g e s , t h i s w r i te r focused on th e p ercep tio n s o f f a c u l ty , s t a f f ,
and a d m in is tra to rs .
Landsburg (1975) s ta te d t h a t th e m ajo rity o f th e l i t e r a t u r e on
comprehensive planning appears to contain lim ite d em pirical

d a ta ;

very few o f th e recommendations have been research t e s t e d .

The

apparent

need

1n higher education

1s

for

p ractical,

d ata-based

suggestions t h a t can be used by a d m in istra to rs 1n d ev isin g e f f e c t i v e
planning systems.

As Landsburg wrote, a d m in istra to rs need help 1n

developing a planning system t h a t w ill work f o r them.
see

th at

Increased

p a r t i c i p a ti o n in

process w ill make 1t more e f f e c t i v e .

th e

planning

They need to
and budgeting

7
Statement o f th e Problem and Purposes o f th e Study
The l a c k o f an e f f e c t i v e p la n n in g p r o c e s s
p a rtic ip a tio n

by an a p p ro p riate c r o s s - s e c tio n

th a t

of

I n c lu d e s

a d m in is tra to rs ,

managers, and f a c u lty 1s a problem faced by community c o lle g e s ,
Including th ose 1n Michigan.
In an attem pt to address t h a t problem, th e w r i te r had th re e
primary purposes In conducting t h i s study.

The f i r s t was to examine

th e e f f e c t o f th e planning/budgeting process on community c o lle g e
effectiv en ess.

The second was to examine th e e f f e c t o f s e le c te d

elements o f th e planning/budgeting
effectiv en ess.

The t h i r d

process

on community c o lle g e

purpose was to examine th e e f f e c t o f

p a r t i c i p a t i v e management on the planning/budgeting process and on
s e le c te d elements o f th e process.
Importance o f th e Research
One o f

th e

most

Important

f e a tu re s

of

th is

study

1s

th e

Inform ation t h a t was gathered on what s e le c te d Michigan community
c o lle g e s are doing in terms o f planning.

Knowledge o f th e types o f

planning employed a t th e f iv e community c o lle g e s

involved 1n th e

study and th e e f f e c t s o f such planning should help community c o lle g e
a d m in is tra to rs ev alu ate t h e i r planning process and encourage g r e a t e r
emphasis on planning as

a means o f enhancing community c o lle g e

o p e ra tio n s.
The fin d in g s o f t h i s study should also help provide community
c o lle g e a d m in istra to rs with the b a s is f o r designing and developing
improved planning systems t h a t w ill b e t t e r meet th e p a r t i c u l a r needs

8
o f each community c o lle g e .

The study 1s a ls o Important because th e

w r i t e r (a) I d e n t if i e d a l t e r n a t i v e approaches to th e planning process
f o r use by community c o lle g e a d m in is tr a to rs ,

(b) provided a d a ta

base t h a t community c o lle g e a d m in is tr a to rs can use 1n e v a lu a tin g
v ario us

planning

v ario u s

le a d e rs h ip

p ro c e ss e s,
approaches

and
on

(c)
th e

Id e n tifie d
planning

u ltim a te In flu en ce on c o lle g e e f f e c t iv e n e s s .

th e

e ffects

process

and

of
th e

The fin d in g s might

a ls o Increase d ialog ue among Michigan community c o lle g e s about th e
planning process and how I t might be Improved.
Assumptions
The r e s e a rc h e r made th e

follow ing assumptions

1n conducting

t h i s study.
1.

I n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education

in Michigan were being

t r e a t e d comparably by th e s t a t e ’ s method o f fin a n cin g h ig h er educa­
tio n .
2.

The f in a n c ia l d i f f i c u l t i e s facin g Michigan community c o l ­

leg es had d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on each c o lle g e as a r e s u l t

o f the

le a d e r s h ip approaches used in th e re s p e c tiv e c o lle g e s .
3.

Some community c o l l e g e s were e x p e r i e n c i n g t h e n e g a t i v e

e f f e c t o f ta s k - o r ie n te d

le a d e rsh ip

c lim a te s

in

th e

form o f

low

morale, d i s t r u s t , poor communication, high l e v e l s o f union a c t i v i t y ,
and l i t t l e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in and /or feedback from e x i s t i n g planning
ac tiv itie s.

9
4.

Levels o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n In th e planning process and the

means o f such p a r t i c i p a t i o n varied among c o lle g e s and r e f l e c t e d th e
le a d e rsh ip approaches c u r r e n tly being used 1n tho se c o lle g e s .
5.

P a r tic ip a tio n

1n and feedback from th e planning process

were viewed favorably by f a c u lty and s t a f f .
6.

Planning processes used by th e community c o lle g e r e f l e c te d

th e s it u a t i o n a l f a c to r s p resen t 1n both th e In te rn a l

and external

environments.
7.

The community c o lle g e f a c u lty , managers, and a d m in istra to rs

could provide e x c e lle n t and accu rate inform ation about th e co lleg e
and th e n atu re o f i t s performance.
8.

F o rm alized f i n a n c i a l p l a n n i n g / b u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s e s were

being used a t the Michigan community c o lle g e s s e le c te d f o r study.
9.

Data from one campus o f each multi-campus community c o lle g e

a c c u ra te ly r e f le c t e d th e community c o lle g e as a whole.
L im itations and D elim itatio ns o f th e Study
L im itations
1.

Respondents’ p erceptio ns o f th e e f f e c t s o f p a r t ic i p a ti o n in

th e fin a n c ia l planning/budgeting process were used to determine th e
e f fe c tiv e n e s s o f each r e s p e c tiv e community c o lle g e .

This s u b je c tiv e

measure was used because no o b je c tiv e ev alu atio n c r i t e r i a e x i s t with
which to measure i n s t i t u t i o n a l e f f e c tiv e n e s s .

10
2.

The e f f e c t o f c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g ag reem en ts on t h e

responses could not be measured and may have caused v a r i a t io n s In
responses.
3.

In conducting t h i s study, a b u i l t - i n b ia s e x is te d because

th e re s e a rc h e r assumed t h a t I f th e r e 1s member Involvement an I n s t i ­
tu t io n w ill be e f f e c t i v e .
4.

The community

c o lle g e s had few a d m in is tra tiv e personnel,

r e q u irin g th e s e le c tio n o f s p e c i f i c employees f o r th e
th e r e b y

lim itin g

th e

p o p u latio n

s iz e

and

th e

study and

randomness

of

s e le c t io n .
5.

V ariatio n s in th e S ta te o f Michigan funding formula f o r

each community c o lle g e , and th e e f f e c t s o f o th e r sources o f funds on
perceived e f f e c ti v e n e s s , could not be measured o r c o n tr o lle d .
6.

The fin d in g s o f th e study are g e n e r a liz a b le only t o commu­

n i t y c o lle g e s having c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s im ila r to those o f th e f iv e
i n s t i t u t i o n s included 1n th e study.
7.

The research

surveys were d i s t r i b u t e d

over a six-month

p erio d , which Included th e budget adjustm ents made during October
1987.

The e f f e c t o f th e s e changes and o th e r co n d itio n s Influ en cing

th e responses could not be fa c to re d out.
8.

The r e s e a r c h e r t r i e d

t o m inim ize t h e e f f e c t s

o f th e

personal v i s i t s with respondents, but i t 1s expected t h a t a p o rtio n
o f th e responses was a f fe c te d .
D elim itations
1.
c o lle g e s .

The study was d e lim ite d to f iv e suburban D e tr o it community
For multi-campus c o lle g e s , j u s t one campus was Included.

11
F u rth er, only p u b lic ly supported community c o lle g e s were s e le c te d
f o r study.
2.

The study was f u r t h e r d elim ited to an examination o f th e

f in a n c ia l planning/budgeting process.
3.

The le a d e rsh ip qu estio ns on th e survey were d elim ited to

items contained 1n L i k e r t ’ s (1978) P r o f i l e o f O rganizational Char­
ac te ristic s.
D e finitions o f Terms
The following key terms are defined In th e con text In which
they are used 1n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .
A d m in istra to rs.

Community co lleg e employees a t o r above the

le v e l o f dean or o th e r p o s itio n s of s im ila r s t a t u r e .
Community

c o lle g e .

A tw o -y e a r

p u b lic

co lle g e

w ith

a

comprehensive m ission, such as to encourage and f a c i l i t a t e l i f e l o n g
le a r n in g , with community as process and product.
E f f e c tiv e n e s s .

The degree to which o rg an izatio n al o b je c tiv e s

are met, as perceived by a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u l ty .
F a c u lty .

Tenured employees whose job d e s c rip tio n s

include

f u l l - t i m e I n s t r u c t i o n w ith o p t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h and community
s e rv ic e .
Financial planning/budgeting p ro c e ss .

Procedure concerned with

planning f o r th e i n s t i t u t i o n ’ s fu tu re revenues and ex p en d itu res.
Formalized planning p ro c e ss .

An o peratio n t h a t has d efined

o b je c tiv e s , completion d a te s , and assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

12
Long-ranae planning.
y ears

in to

th e

f u tu r e

An a c t i v i t y t h a t p r o je c ts a t l e a s t th re e
and

includes

in te llig e n t

and

system atic

concern f o r th e f u tu re im p licatio n s o f d e c is io n s .
Managers.

Employees below th e le v e l o f dean who li n k f a c u lty

with a d m in istra tio n .
Multi-camous community c o ll e g e .

A community c o lle g e with more

than one lo c a tio n , each o f which provides af u l l range
f o r s tu d e n ts , has a s ep arate a d m in istra tiv e

o f se rv ic e s

s t a f f and budget,

and

cooperates with but i s independent o f th e o th e r campuses.
P a rtic ip a tio n .
a lte rn a tiv e s,

S h a r in g

in

th e

d isc u s s io n

of

p ro b le m s,

and d e c isio n s by i n te r e s t e d , concerned, o r a ffe c te d

persons f o r purposes o f in creasin g confidence and t r u s t .
P erform an ce

o b je c tiv e s.

G oals

e s ta b li s h in g th e d i r e c t io n o f e f f o r t
p e rio d ic measurement.

and
in

o b je c tiv e s

an o rg an izatio n

used

1n

and i t s

The purpose o f performance o b je c tiv e s i s to

key th e e f f o r t s o f each individual and u n it in th e o rg an izatio n to
th e g oals and o b je c tiv e s

e s ta b lis h e d

f o r th e

o rg an izatio n

as

a

whole.
P lan .

A fin a l

document t h a t

o b je c tiv e s o f th e c o lle g e

se ts

and s p e c i f i c

f o r th th e g o als

programs

and courses

and
of

actio n designed to achieve them.
Planning p ro c e ss .
th e

p la n

w ill

be

Planning system.
defined tim e ta b le .

The "plan f o r plan nin g," which d escrib es how

d e v e lo p e d .
A procedure f o r a s e r i e s o f a c t i v i t i e s with a
The planning

system i s

an

i n s titu tio n - w id e ,

p ro a c tiv e process t h a t e s ta b li s h e s th e intended outcomes to which

13

av ailab le

reso u rces

w ill

be committed

1f

e x te rn a l

and

In te rn a l

c o n d itio n s occur as p re d ic te d .
P rocess.

The a c t i v i t i e s ,

I n t e r a c t i o n s , and r e l a t i o n s h i p s

necessary to complete a ta s k .
R ep resen tativ e sample.

A sample f o r which a l l members o f th e

pop ulatio n have an equal chance o f being s e le c te d .
S h ort-ranae p lan n in g .
months

In to

th e

f u tu r e

and

An a c t i v i t y
includes

th a t

p r o je c t s

In te llig e n t

and

up to

12

system atic

concern f o r th e f u tu r e im p lic a tio n s o f d e c is io n s .
S tra te g ic

p lan n in g .

The

m atch in g

of

th e

d istin c tiv e

competencies o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n with th e t h r e a t s and o p p o r tu n itie s
of

th e

ex te rn a l

en v iro n m e n t

for

th e

p u rp o s e

of

a ssistin g

a d m in is tr a to rs in accomplishing th e long-range g o als and o b je c tiv e s
o f t h e i r o r g a n iz a tio n .
System 1 / 2 .

An environment with e x p l o i ti v e and benevolent-

a u t o c r a t i c le a d e rs h ip approaches ( L ik e r t, 1977).
System 3 / 4 .

An environment with c o n s u ltiv e and p a r t i c i p a t i v e -

dem ocratic le a d e rs h ip approaches ( L ik e r t, 1977).
Overview
Chapter I included a background o f th e study, a d isc u s s io n o f
th e

importance

planning

of

planning

and

and budgeting process

p a rtic ip a tin g
at

th e

in

th e

f in a n c ia l

community c o lle g e ,

statem ent o f th e problem and purposes o f th e study.

and a

The importance

o f th e study was d isc u sse d , assumptions were l i s t e d , l i m i t a ti o n s and
d e lim ita tio n s were s e t f o r t h , and key terms were d efin ed .

14

Chapter I I 1s a review o f l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o th e c u r r e n t
In v estig atio n .
p lan n in g ,

Topics o f primary I n t e r e s t are community c o lle g e

b u d g e tin g and t h e

management

1n

community

community c o l l e g e ,

c o lle g e s,

and

p a rtic ip a tiv e

community

co lle g e

e ffectiv en ess.

The research design and methodology a re d escrib ed 1n

Chapter I I I .

Chapter IV co n tain s a d isc u s s io n o f th e

f in d in g s .

research

A summary o f th e study, co n clu sio n s, recommendations f o r

f u tu r e a c tio n , and suggestions f o r f u r t h e r research a re Included 1n
Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

The review o f r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e i s divided In to fo u r major
s e c tio n s
p lan n in g ,

d ealin g with

th e

following

b u d g e tin g and t h e

to p ic s :

community co lleg e

community c o l l e g e ,

p a rtic ip a tiv e

management 1n community c o lle g e s , and community c o lle g e e f f e c t i v e ­
ness.
Community College Planning
This sectio n begins with a b r i e f in tro d u c tio n to th e re c e n t use
o f planning a t th e community c o lle g e .

S t r a t e g i c planning i s then

d efin ed, followed by a d iscu ssio n o f how s t r a t e g i c planning can be
applied in th e community c o lle g e s e t t i n g .
Introduction
During th e l a s t h a l f o f the 1970s, whether in response t o th e
changing environment o r in reco g n itio n o f th e need fo r a c l e a r l y
s ta te d mission and g o a ls ,

a number o f community c o lle g e s became

involved 1n p la n n 1 n g --s p e c ific a lly , comprehensive, sy stem atic, and
long-range planning.

I t was s tr e s s e d t h a t having c l e a r l y s ta te d

goals would enhance c o l l e g e s ’ assessment o f t h e i r mission and goals
in terms o f th e population and th e a b i l i t y to a t t a i n them.

15

16
F ed e ra lly

s p o n so re d

su p p o rt

th ro u g h

th e

S tre n g th e n in g

Developing I n s t i t u t i o n s Program (SDIP) provided th e Impetus f o r such
p la n n in g a c t i v i t y .

The SDIP was t h e m ajo r s o u r c e o f d i r e c t

f in a n c ia l support to higher education and 1n 1965 was autho rized to
aid I n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t were s tru g g lin g f o r su rv iv al and were I s o la te d
from th e mainstream o f academic l i f e .

By th e e a r ly 1970s, th e U.S.

O ffice o f Education, which was re sp o n sib le f o r adm inisterin g th e
SDIP,

recognized t h a t

effectiv e

simply making g ra n ts would not ensure

and e f f i c i e n t

use o f funds.

It

was decided

th at

an
a

s i g n i f i c a n t p o rtio n o f th e funds should be d ir e c te d toward helping
Improve long-range a d m in is tra tiv e c a p a b i l i t i e s , with a focus on th e
implementation o f comprehensive planning, management, and ev alu atio n
(PME) systems.

Such PME systems were req u ired f o r funding, which

added co n sid erab le Impetus to development.
Because th e
because

of

th e

a ctiv ity
fed eral

was

new and o fte n

requirem ent,

a

was

number

of

Included

only

in stitu tio n s,

in clud ing community c o lle g e s , co n tracted with o u ts id e agencies to
help them develop a planning system In co rp o ratin g th e "closed-loop"
system

req u ired

by th e

O ffice

of

Education.

The closed

loop

r e f e r r e d to th e r e s u l t s o f ev alu atio n being In corporated In to th e
subsequent planning c y c le .
McManis and A ssociates a s s i s te d th e Department o f Education and
a ls o helped c o lle g e s put t h e i r plans to g e th e r .

The r e s u l t s

are

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f what Klnneson (1979) d escribed as system atic as
opposed to sporadic planning.
attem pts

to

plan

whenever th e

Whereas spo radic planning Involves
need

becomes

so g r e a t

th a t

Its

17

Im p o rta n c e o u tw eig h s w h a te v e r o t h e r I s s u e s a r e com peting f o r
a t t e n t i o n , system atic planning I s Incorporated as a normal p a r t o f
th e I n s t i t u t i o n ’ s way o f l i f e .

Procedures are stan d a rd ized so t h a t

q u estio n s regarding f u tu r e d i r e c t i o n s , d e c is io n s , and a c tio n s can be
re so lv e d

ro u tin e ly

w ith

p a rtic ip a tio n

according to a p redefined pro cess.

by a p p r o p r i a t e

p e o p le

This approach Is c a lle d a "plan

f o r planning" (Klnneson, 1978).
Kennedy (1980) emphasized th e Importance o f planning, s t a t i n g
t h a t as community c o lle g e s and o th e r two-year I n s t i t u t i o n s move Into
th e f i n a n c i a l ly tu r b u le n t 1980s, Increased p ressu re w ill be placed
on I n s t i t u t i o n a l

researchers

s t r a t e g i c planning.

to

produce d a t a

th a t

re la te

to

I t I s becoming ev iden t t h a t th e top executives

1n th e se c o lle g e s need to plan much f u r t h e r ahead than they had to
In th e p a s t.
Kennedy’ s

statem ent

Illu s tra te s

th e

tra n sitio n

between

the

concept o f long-range planning and th e emergence o f what has come to
be c a lle d s t r a t e g i c planning.

In long-range planning, 1t Is assumed

t h a t th e ex tern al environment w ill remain c o n sta n t and th e emphasis
w ill

be on In te rn a l

f a c to r s

1n making d e c is io n s .

In s t r a t e g i c

planning, th e f u tu r e focus 1s th e same, but th e emphasis Is on the
ex tern al environment (Bean, 1984).
S t r a t e g i c Planning Defined
The word

" s tra te g y "

comes

meaning "the a r t o f th e g e n e r a l."

from

th e

Greek word

stra te o o s.

According to Bracher (1980), the

development o f s tr a t e g y as a concept in management th eory and in

18

p r a c t ic e

is

re la tiv e ly

r e c e n t,

and w r i te r s

have

been l e s s

than

unanimous reg ardin g i t s purpose.
Chandler (1962) d efin ed s tr a t e g y as th e d eterm in a tio n o f th e
b a s i c l o n g - t e r m g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
adoption o f courses o f a c tio n ,

and th e

necessary f o r c a rry in g out th e s e g o a ls .

allo catio n

of

resou rces

Bracher (1980) was one of

th e f i r s t to see s tr a t e g y as th e answer t o two q u e s tio n s :
our business? and What should i t be?

th e

What 1s

He pointed out t h a t s tr a te g y

addresses a s p e c i f i c s e t o f d e c is io n s t h a t determ ine th e p o s itio n of
th e

o rg a n iz a tio n

environmental

w ith in

p o s itio n

its

in flu en c es

e n v ir o n m e n t.
th e

In

o r g a n i z a t i o n 's

tu rn ,
a b ility

th is
to

compete and th e r e f o r e i t s a b i l i t y to achieve i t s d e s ir e d o b je c tiv e s .
Again,

th e c o n tr a s t

between th e planning

focus o f th e p a s t and

s tr a t e g y , with i t s environmental emphasis, can be noted.
Looking a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e another way, Menke (1979) noted t h a t
th e Stanford Research I n s t i t u t e d efined planning as th e network o f
d e c is io n s t h a t d i r e c t s th e

in t e n ti o n , guides th e p re p a ra tio n f o r

change, and programs a c tio n designed to produce s p e c if ie d r e s u l t s .
Bracher (1980) a lso d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between planning and s t r a t e g y by
s t a t i n g t h a t planning i s only one way o f making s t r a t e g i c d e c is io n s .
The focus i s on d e c is io n s because o f th e view t h a t u n c e r ta in ty in
s t r a t e g i c planning can be t r e a t e d more e f f e c t i v e l y i f th e s t r e s s is
on th e major d e c is io n s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e th e s t r a t e g i c p lan .
S h irle y (1979) saw s tr a te g y as a s e r i e s o f d e c is io n s r e f l e c t i n g
th e determ in atio n o f b a sic b u sin ess o b je c tiv e s and th e use o f s k i l l s

19
and reso u rces to a t t a i n th e se g o a ls.

He I s one o f th e few w r ite r s

who have defin ed s tr a t e g y f o r c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s .

S h irle y

d escrib ed fo u r elements to co n sid e r 1n s t r a t e g i c planning w ith in the
o rg a n iz a tio n as follow s:
1.

S t r a t e g i c deve1opment--mak1ng a s p e c i f i c s e t o f d e c is io n s .

2.

S t r a t e g i c d e c 1 s 1 o n s - -d e f 1 n 1 n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and t h e

environment.
3.

O rg an izatio n ’ s comparative ad v an tag e--d e fin in g th e o rg a n i­

z a t i o n ’ s environmental p o s it i o n .
4.

Degree o f comparative advantage--determ ining th e o rg a n iz a ­

t i o n ’ s a b i l i t y to c r e a t e th e f u tu r e i t d e s ir e s .
C o l l i e r (1981) l i s t e d th e follow ing s ix s t r a t e g i c d e c is io n s as
a p p ro p ria te f o r c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s :
1.

M ission --statem ent o f o rg a n iz a tio n a l purpose.

2.

Programs t o be offered--W hat bu siness w ill I be 1n?

How do

I compete?
3.

C l i e n t e l e t o be served--What w ill our markets be, now and

in th e fu tu re ?
4.

F a c u l t y and r e s o u r c e m ix--A key i s s u e due t o

la b o r-

in te n s iv e b u sin e ss; te n u re makes d e c is io n s long term , and p a r t time
g iv es f l e x i b i l i t y .
5.

Geographic scope o f a c t1 v itie s - - T h e area to be served as

well as how c o lle g e s w ill compete.
6.

Comparative

advantage

so u g h t--p r1 ce,

uniqueness,

b e tte r

s e r v ic e , p r e s t i g e ; a ls o to answer how th e o rg a n iz a tio n w ill compete.

20
These s t r a t e g i c d e c is io n s , when in te g ra te d using synergy as th e
c rite rio n ,

c o n stitu te

o rg a n iz a tio n .

a

u n ifie d

s tra te g ic

th ru st

for

th e

Rothchild ( c ite d in C o l l i e r , 1980) noted t h a t t h i s

s t r a t e g i c t h r u s t has t h e f o llo w in g e le m e n ts :
stra te g y --th e

p rio ritie s

for

investment

in

(a )

in v e s tm e n t

f in a n c ia l

and

human

re so u rc e s, (b) management strategy--how th e investment s tr a t e g y w ill
be met,

and

(c)

implementation

stra te g y --th e

fu n ctio n s

in

th e

o rg an izatio n t h a t w ill be c a lle d upon, and in what ways, to ca rry
out th e management and investment s t r a t e g i e s .
The movement

in

th in k in g

toward

an

environmental

view

is

f u r t h e r exem plified by what Morrison (1986) c a lle d th e s t r a t e g i c
planning cy cle.

B rie f ly s ta t e d , i t has four fu n c tio n s :

(a) monitor

tre n d s o f i n t e r e s t , (b) f o r e c a s t th e f u tu r e o f th ose tr e n d s , (c) s e t
o rg an izatio n al goals in response to th e f o r e c a s t, and (d) implement
o peratin g plans based on g o a ls .
lim ite d

by f a i l u r e

to

Morrison believed t h a t planning i s

e v a lu a te

th e

e x tern al

e n v iro n m e n t

and

th e r e f o r e r e ly in g on both the p ast and th e p re s e n t.
Ado! ic a t i o n o f S t r a t e g i c Planning
t o th e Community College S etting
C itin g th e tre n d s in flu en c in g th e f u tu r e o f higher education,
in 1985 a w r ite r f o r th e Chronicle o f Higher Education ( c i te d in
Clugston, 1986) p re d ic te d t h a t in response t o enrollm ent p re ss u re s ,
campus o f f i c i a l s w i l l
tech niq ues.
growing.

The

tu rn

in te re st

in c r e a s in g ly to s tr a te g ic - p la n n in g
1n

s tra te g ic

planning

is

d e fin ite ly

According to Keinath (1985), th e l i t e r a t u r e on s tr a te g y in

21
h igher education has burgeoned from fewer than s ix a r t i c l e s In 1978
to 1,267 c i t a t i o n s In 1985.
Clugston
matching th e
ex tern al

(1986) saw s t r a t e g i c

planning

as

th e

t h r e a t s ando p p o rtu n itie s o f th e p re se n t

p rocess

of

and f u tu r e

en v iro n m e n t w ith t h e d i s t i n c t i v e c o m p e te n c ie s o f an

o rg a n iz a tio n 1n such a way as t o develop a d i f f e r e n t i a l advantage.
The purpose o f s t r a t e g i c planning 1s to carve out a niche 1n th e
ex tern al
compete

environment
and

In which th e o rg an izatio n

Improve I t s

performance.

can

s u c c e s s fu lly

The p o p u la rity

of

th is

approach stems from th e promise t h a t I t w ill help d e c is io n makers
s t e e r a b e t t e r course 1n a changing ex tern al environment.

Such a

focus on th e ex tern al environment helps p o in t to what a community
c o lle g e might do.

The a n a ly s is o f th e In te rn a l environment p o in ts

t o what th e c o lle g e can and cannot do 1n a q u a lity fash io n .
Clugston I d e n tif i e d f iv e common step s o f s t r a t e g i c planning.
They are included here because they are stra ig h tfo rw a rd and r e l a t e
to the educational pro cess.
1.

Academic managers look a t key tre n d s in th e environment and

as se s s th e t h r e a t s and o p p o r tu n itie s th e se tre n d s pose.
2.

They assess t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n ’ s s tre n g th s and weaknesses.

3.

Based on t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n ’ s mission and th e f i t

between

t h e i r o p p o r tu n itie s and s tr e n g th s , they s e t a s t r a t e g i c d i r e c t i o n .
4.

Program p r i o r i t i e s are s e t .

5.

R eso u rces

p r i o r i t y programs.

are re a llo c a te d

from l o w - p r i o r i t y t o

h ig h -

22
The

preceding s te p s not only r e q u ire an

but a ls o
w ill

ex te rn a l o r i e n ta tio n

d e t a i l an e la b o ra te means by which

be stu d ied and ev alu ated .

th e ex te rn a l environment

The c u r re n t focus on Incremental

budgets and heavy r e lia n c e on h is to r y do l i t t l e to g en erate th e d a ta
needed on th e proper o r i e n t a ti o n .

In a d d itio n , Clugston s ta t e d t h a t

1f a s tr a t e g y 1s developed t h a t 1s based on a mission sta te m e n t(s)
th at

1s " a ll

th in g s to

measuring th e value o r

all

p eop le,"

s e le c tio n

1t 1s

o f th e

of l i t t l e

s tr a t e g y .

value

1n

U ltim ately ,

program p r i o r i t i e s and resource a llo c a tio n w ill a lso be n eg ativ ely
a f fe c te d .
S t r a t e g i c d i r e c t i o n , o fte n c a lle d mid-range g o a ls , comes from
th e

f i t between

th e

m is s io n

and

both t h e

( s tr e n g th s and weaknesses) and th e ex tern al
o p p o r tu n i t ie s ) .

In te rn a l

a n a ly s is

a n a ly s is

( t h r e a t s and

T herefore, a c l e a r mission Is c r i t i c a l .

According

to S h irle y (1978), s t r a t e g i c d i r e c tio n re q u ire s th e growth o f some
programs and th e d e c lin e o f o th e r s .
examine t h e program s o f f e r e d
p rio ritie s

re fle c ts

College a d m in is tra to rs must

and t h e i r

p rio rity .

th e match with th e ex tern al

Choice o f

environment

provides th e opp ortun ity to c r e a te a d i f f e r e n t i a l advantage.
again,

a

key

element

1n

th is

r e l a t io n s h i p to th e m ission.
se ttin g

p rio ritie s

Impossible.

d iffic u lt

p rio rity -s e tt1 n g

process

and
Once

1s

th e

The la c k o f a c l e a r mission makes
an d ,

from

a

p ra c tic a l

Daugherty (1981) suggested two a d d itio n a l

being Important f o r s t r a t e g i c planning:

sense,

f a c t o r s as

(a) s tre n g th o f f a c u lty and

curriculum and (b) e x te n t o f f u tu r e demand f o r research and s e rv ic e
1n th e area.

23
C h a ffe e
d iffe re n tly ,

(1983)

loo ked

at

s tra te g ic

p la n n in g

using th e term "adaptive s t r a t e g i c

plan n in g ."

defin ed t h i s as th e balance between a focus on In te rn a l
based) and ex tern al
p rio ritie s,

I.e .,

(market based) c r i t e r i a

somewhat
She

(mission

1n assign ing program

th e o r g a n iz a tio n ’ s reso urce g e n e r a tio n -- g ra n ts ,

c o n tr a c ts , enrollm ents, and workloads, versus th e market approach 1n
which each department 1s a f a i r l y Independent p r o f i t c e n te r w ith a
budget t h a t depends on th e reso urces 1t tak es 1n.

However, In most

c o lle g e s some u n its su b sid ize o th e r s , and th e p r i o r i t y o f a u n it Is
not d i r e c t l y t i e d to i t s market performance.
C lu g sto n (1986) i d e n t i f i e d f i v e f a c t o r s t h a t p r e v e n t t h e
emergence o f an adaptive s tr a te g y .

These f a c to r s help explain the

gap between what 1s p o s sib le and what o fte n occurs.
1.

Ambiguous and highly co n teste d g o a l s .

Baldridge (1978)

s ta t e d t h a t c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s have vague, ambiguous goals
and must b u ild d ecisio n s tr u c tu r e s t h a t grapple with u n c e rta in ty and
c o n flic t

over

th e se

g o a ls.

C lu g s to n

(1986)

d e scrib ed

th e

o rg an izatio n as o peratin g on the b a s is o f a v a r i e t y o f in c o n s is te n t
and i l l - d e f i n e d p re fe re n c e s, and Cohen and March (1974) d escribed
th e process as a loose c o lle c tio n o f Ideas r a t h e r than a coherent
stru c tu re .

The o rg an izatio n disco vers p referen ces through a c tio n

more than 1t a c ts on th e b a s is o f p referen ce.
Community c o lle g e s have many stak e h o ld e rs and,
many p re fe re n c e s.
and th e

re su lta n t

as a r e s u l t ,

When a s so rte d bargaining u n i t s , p ro fessio n alism ,
governance

Issues

are

Included,

th e

mission

statem ent and goals are d ilu te d to mean a l l th in g s to a l l people.

24

2.

Unclear technology.

A d m inistrators do not know e x a c tly

what f a c u l ty are doing and whether they a re doing I t w e ll.

They

cannot d e s c rib e uniform ly what good teach in g 1s o r how to measure
1 t t n o r do t h e y know what l e a r n i n g
s ta n d a rd s

1s d e l e g a t e d

to

th e

d i s c i p l i n e , not th e I n s t i t u t i o n .

1s.

S e ttin g

p ro fessio n al

p erfo rm a n c e

community o f t h e

Many b argaining agreements t h a t

e x i s t 1n community c o lle g e s r e s t r i c t th e e v a lu a tio n process even
f u r t h e r and make I t d i f f i c u l t f o r both f a c u l ty and a d m in is tr a to rs to
d e fin e what th e s tan d a rd s should be and to en force them with any
degree o f su ccess.

I f standards do e x i s t ,

they a re uniform and

minimal, f u r t h e r compounding th e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .
3.

Organizational complexity.

dominant a t th e u n i v e r s it y ,
number o f la y e r s
ag en cies,

This f a c t o r i s much more p re ­

but th e community c o lle g e a ls o has a

o f evaluat1on--from th e s t a t e

a c c r e d itin g bo dies,

c o lle g e

a d m in is tr a tiv e support s t a f f ,

and th e

v ario u s

le v e ls.

Another

facto r

board,

lic e n s in g

board o f t r u s t e e s ,

c e n tr a l

academic a d m in is tr a to rs

c o n tr ib u tin g

complexity 1s p ro fessio n alism (B aldridge, 1978).

to

o rg a n iz a tio n a l

Where p ro fe ssio n a l

In flu en ce 1s high and a number o f p ro fe ssio n a l groups e x i s t ,
o rg a n iz a tio n w ill

be s p l i t

at

by p r o f e s s i o n a l 1sm.

th e

C o ll e g e s and

u n i v e r s i t i e s are f r a c tu r e d by e x p e rtn e ss , not u n ifie d by I t .
4.

Academic freedom and f l u i d p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

demic freedom p r o te c t

f a c u lty

Tenure and aca­

members from a d m in is tr a tiv e

fla t.

C o lle c tiv e -b a rg a in in g agreements provide th e same ty pe o f safeguard.
But th e se f a c t o r s a ls o i n s u l a t e f a c u lty members from th e s t r a t e g i c

25
p la n s o f t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

F a c u l ty w i l l

n o t know o r be

concerned about th e d ir e c t io n o f th e c o lle g e , I t s d i f f i c u l t i e s , o r
th e demands o f th e s t a t e .
f a c u l t y p a r t ic i p a t i o n ,

Governance allows many o p p o rtu n itie s f o r

but th e conclusions reached by one s e t o f

In d iv id u als cannot be counted on to p e r s i s t with a new group who
have d i f f e r i n g view points.

Thus, 1t may be d i f f i c u l t to plan with

f a c u l t y members, but 1t 1s a l l but Impossible to Implement w ithout
them.
5.

Disconnection between planning and budgeting and a f a i l u r e

o f previous attem pts to li n k th e two.

Tierney (1981) pointed to th e

problems o f lin k in g th e planning and budgeting processes through
such ap p ro a c h e s as management by o b j e c t i v e s

(MBO), z e r o - b a s e d

budgeting, and planning, programming, budgeting systems (PPBS).
problem

w ith

th e se

more

c o n v e n tio n a l

a p p ro a c h e s

to

One

U n k in g

p r i o r i t i e s and measuring d e c is io n s i s th e f a i l u r e to co nsid er soclopsychological

In centives

in

th e

p rocess.

The

Idea

of

program

p r i o r i t i e s i s an anathema to most f a c u lty .
T ie r n e y

d escrib ed

p ia n n ln g /g o a l-s e ttin g
education.

He s ta te d

what

process

he

saw

as

in American

t h a t th e

confused world with very l i t t l e

th e

re a lity

In stitu tio n s

image t h a t emerges
o rg a n iz a tio n a l

is

of

th e

o f higher
one o f a

c o o rd in atio n

and

c e n tr a l goal making, where planning and budgeting are disconnected
and where a d m in istra to rs can e x e rc ise only lim ite d c e n tr a l control
because a u th o r ity i s d i f f u s e , d ecisio n processes are a r b i t r a r y and
influenced by who 1s p re se n t and p e r s i s t s , and d e c isio n makers are
1n c o n f l i c t .

26
The fo rce f o r change In th e 1970s and 1980s Increased th e
amount o f s t r a t e g i c planning across th e country, but c o lle g e s have
somehow avoided t h i s phenomenon.

One reason f o r t h i s avoidance 1s

f a c u l t y r e j e c t i o n o f th e marketing approach, re g a rd le s s o f economic
c o n d itio n s.

The en v iro n m e n t t h a t

c o u n ts

for

fa c u lty

1s t h e

"d isc1 p l1 n e"--a focus on s c h o la rs h ip , re se a rc h , and s e rv ic e .
In a d d itio n , p r lv a te - s e c t o r s t r a t e g i c planning does not work
because th e focus 1n a c o lle g e Is not on ra p id ad ap tatio n to a
change In th e environment to achieve a p r o f i t .

Vlhat 1s needed,

however, Is the cap acity and re so ly e o f d e c isio n makers to agree on
what q u a l i ty 1s and how to b u ild 1 t.
C lu g sto n o b s e rv e d t h a t p o s s i b l y t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e
perhaps

most d e s ir a b le

response

of

a

c o lle g e

to

and

environmental

c o n s tr a in t 1s paying a tt e n t i o n to i t s q u a l it y and not I t s markets.
This comment

Is

c ritic a l

because

1t

suggests

th a t

an

( q u a lity ) versus e x te rn a l (markets) focus may be b e s t.

In te rn a l
S trateg ic

planning 1s an ex tern al focus, and perhaps Clugston was questio nin g
th e process and I t s value f o r higher ed ucation.
Is s t r a t e g i c planning r e s t r i c t e d to helping a c o lle g e deal with
th e ex tern al environment, o r can 1t be used e f f e c t i v e l y to deal with
such In te rn a l issu es as q u a lity ?

S tr a t e g i c planning, as describ ed

on page 5 by McCune (1986), has th e p o te n tia l to deal not only with
th e ex tern al

environment, but th e in te rn a l

environment,

as w e ll.

Therefore, s t r a t e g i c planning Is a ls o (a) a management process f o r
ch an g in g

and

tra n sfo rm in g

o rg a n iz a tio n s,

(b)

a

management

philosophy, (c) a way o f th in k in g about and solving problems, (d) an

27

educational

experience

and a staff-developm ent

a c tiv ity ,

(e)

an

organizational-developm ent experience, and ( f ) a community education
and Involvement p ro cess.
McCune describ ed

tran sfo rm atio n

as

th e process

of

s h iftin g

b asic assumptions and reorgan izin g views o f th e world, g o a ls , and
behaviors.

S t r a t e g ic planning helps In carry ing out t h i s process o f

re-exam ination and Invention.

S t r a t e g i c planning can a ls o generate

a high lev el o f p o s it i v e f e e lin g s and excitem ent.

Those who become

Involved In th e process r e o r i e n t t h e i r assumptions about th e world,
th e r o le

o f sc h o o ls ,

and t h e i r own b e h a v i o r .

They s e e new

p o s s i b i l i t i e s and a common d ir e c tio n f o r o rg a n iz a tio n a l growth and
achievement.
S t r a t e g ic planning a lso provides a framework f o r Improving and
r e s t r u c t u r i n g programs, management, c o lla b o r a tio n , and e v a lu a tio n of
th e

o rg a n iz a tio n a l

p ro cess.

The u ltim a te

outcome

1s

stra te g ic

management, whereby In d iv id u als learn to In co rp o rate th e planning
process Into t h e i r d a lly behavior.
Budgeting and th e Community College
In t h i s

se c tio n

th e community c o lle g e budgeting

process

1s

examined, f i r s t from th e macro view, followed by a d isc u ssio n of
community co lleg e budgeting on th e micro l e v e l.

28
The Macro View o f Community
College Budgeting
The budgeting process f o r th e community c o lle g e and education
as a whole begins a t th e s t a t e l e v e l .

S tate-w ide co o rd in atio n Is

g e n e ra lly viewed as fav o rab le; most b eliev e 1 t 1s e s s e n t i a l (Glenny,
1985).

The b ig g est c r i t i c o f s t a t e coo rdin atio n o f budgets 1s th e

research

u n iv e r s ity ,

which

1s

1n

th e

best

p o s itio n

to

g arner

resou rces and views s t a t e coo rdination as an in tr u s io n .
S tate-w ide coo rd in atio n o f educational budgets gained Impetus
a f t e r 1929.

The Montana s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e , l i k e many o th e r s , was

being s tra n g le d by Intense educational lobbying supporting th e b e st
I n t e r e s t s o f th e various s t a t e teaching u n i t s .

Chairs o f Important

committees could ensure more funding f o r th ose u n i t s In t h e i r own
d istric t

and

a llo cate

little ,

whereas

tho se

areas

with

little

In flu en ce were poorly funded.
A fte r World War I I , with s i g n i f i c a n t In creases 1n th e number o f
s tu d e n ts wishing t o a tte n d c o lle g e , the c o lle g e s themselves expanded
r a p id ly 1n both enrollm ent and number o f programs.

The q uestio n was

no longer whether s ta te -w id e coord ination should be attem pted, but
what form o f o rg an izatio n and s e t o f powers would be necessary to
g e t th e job done.
There are two b asic approaches to s t a t e governing boards.
th e f i r s t

and most powerful, th e p re sid e n ts o f a l l

u n iv ersities

r e p o r t to

e n t i r e system.

a s in g le

p re sid e n t

In

c o lle g e s and

o r c h a n c e llo r o f the

The second c a l l s f o r co o rd in atin g boards s it u a te d

between th e governing board o f each i n s t i t u t i o n and th e p o l i t i c a l
lawmakers (Glenny, 1985).

29
As reg ard s th e budgeting p ro cess,

such c o o rd in a tin g agencies

have c o n trib u te d much t o th e achievement o f e q u ita b le funding, while
reco gn izin g th e d if f e r e n c e s among systems, types o f I n s t i t u t i o n s ,
and le v e l s o f programs.
of s ta te

In a d d itio n , th e c o n f l i c t over " f a i r share"

a p p ro p ria tio n s has been s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced,

a c c u ra te e n ro llm e n t in fo rm a tio n , u n i t c o s tin g ,

b e t t e r program

d e f i n i t i o n , and formula funding have been r e a l i z e d .
th is

pro cess

is

th at

re g u la to ry

agencies

and

and more

A drawback o f

th e

in stitu tio n s

themselves tend t o manage too much d e t a i l - - t o become b u re a u c ra tic
" d a t a m anagers"

and

in

so d o in g

fa il

to

m eet t h e

s ta te

or

i n s t i t u t i o n a l needs f o r ag g ressiv e planning and le a d e rs h ip (Glenny,
1985).
Formula funding a t th e s t a t e lev el has been im portant because
it

has

s ig n ific a n tly

re d u c e d

income

flu c tu a tio n s

i n s t i t u t i o n s a b a s is f o r sound academic planning.

and

g iv e n

Such funding has

provided th e s t a t e a measure f o r a s se s sin g th e adequacy o f s t a t e
funding ( L e s lie , 1985).
f u n d in g .

Formulas provide a good measure o f f a ir n e s s

and e q u i t y

in

D uring b u d g et c u tb a c k s

en ro llm en t,

a c o l l e g e ’ s funds may be reduced

by th e

or drops

in

percentage

d e c lin e in en ro llm en ts, but such re d u c tio n s are g e n e r a lly fa c to re d
in over sev eral y e a rs t o minimize th e e f f e c t .

However, i t cannot be

expected t h a t , as enrollm ents in c r e a s e , budgets w ill a ls o in c r e a s e .
Formula budgeting has been used almost e x c lu s iv e ly by la r g e
governing b od ies,

such as a t th e s t a t e l e v e l .

H eisin g e r (1984)

defined formula budgeting as a procedure f o r e s tim a tin g resou rce

30
r e q u ir e m e n ts th ro u g h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between
program demand
mathematical
d a ta

and

c o s t.

F r e q u e n t ly

expressed

by

form ulation, th e formula may be based on h i s t o r i c a l

or p ro je c te d

d e sire d

program

le v e ls

tre n d s with
of

n eg otiated

f u n d in g .

H ost

param eters

f o rm u la s

en ro llm e n t/stu d e n t-c re d 1 t-h o u r p ro d u c tiv ity d a ta .

are

to

produce

based

on

D if fe r e n t e l e ­

ments o f th e formula p e r ta in to th e d i s t i n c t fu n ctio n a l areas o f
I n s t i t u t i o n a l o p eratio n .
I t Is not uncommon f o r th e formula to g enerate a demand fo r
fun ds

th a t

ex ceed s t h e

b udget

av a ila b le .

The fo rm u la

1s

then modified or a percentage o f th e formula amount 1s a llo c a te d .
This a re a ,

o f course, causes some concern a t th e c o lle g e l e v e l .

Applying th e formula does not n e c e s s a r ily mean t h a t th e p ro je c te d
funds w ill be receiv ed .
Another problem with th e formula 1s t h a t 1t discourages new
programs while encouraging homogeneity and m ed iocrity.

The formula

rewards schools 1n a growth mode because support c o s ts are l e s s on a
p e r-co n tact-h o u r b a s is .
may be f e l t .

In y ears o f d e c lin e ,

the o p p o site e f f e c t

Once in p la c e , th e formula 1s d i f f i c u l t to change so

as to perm it adjustment fo r

such co n d itio n s because e x p e c ta tio n s

have been s o l i d i f i e d .
Michigan community c o lle g e s are unique In t h a t they receiv e
lo cal support as well as s t a t e a id , t u i t i o n , and m iscellaneous o th e r
Income (Wattenbarger, 1985).
e n t i r e l y a t th e lo cal

le v e l.

Capital Improvements a re a ls o paid f o r
As shown 1n Table 2 .1 , th e r e l a t i v e

31
c o n trib u tio n s to funding have been s ta b l e throughout th e 17 y ears
Included In N attenbarger’ s comparison.

Table 2 . 1 .--Funding o f Michigan community c o lle g e s , 1967 and 1984
(1n p e rc e n t).
Source o f Funding

1967

1984

S ta te aid
Local tax es
T u itio n /f e e s
Federal support
Other

36
26
29
2
7

37
26
32
0
5

100

100

Total

W a tte n b a rg e r a l s o

i d e n t i f i e d t h e f o llo w i n g t r e n d s in t h e

funding o f community c o lle g e s in th e United S ta te s :
1.

The le v e l s o f funding are inadequate to support th e t o t a l

community co lleg e

program.

Some lim it a tio n s / r e d u c ti o n s

w ill

be

re q u ire d .
2.

Final budget a llo c a tio n s are based on f u ll - t i m e equivalency

(FTE), with lim i t a tio n s being placed on FTE.
3.

A th re e -y e a r average f o r budget a l l o c a t i o n s w ill be used

more o fte n to so ften th e e f f e c t o f d e c lin in g enrollm ents.
The Western I n t e r s t a t e Commission f o r Higher Education (NICHE,
1985) i d e n t i f i e d th e following tre n d s in funding community c o lle g e s :
1.

There has been a general d r i f t toward more r e l ia n c e on

s t a t e funds ( t h i s does not seem to be t r u e f o r Michigan), which
could f u r t h e r impede i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n i t i a t i v e and f l e x i b i l i t y .

32

2.

Support l e v e l s and expenditure p a tte r n s 1n community c o l ­

leg es vary from s t a t e to s t a t e .
3.

Community c o lle g e t u i t i o n and fe e s have r is e n sh arp ly 1n

many s t a t e s .

This has engendered debate over th e d iff e r e n c e s in

charges between two- and fo u r-y e a r c o lle g e s .

The qu estion being

asked i s whether o r not both types o f i n s t i t u t i o n s a re needed i f
c o s ts are equal.
4.

Federal and o th e r sources o f support to community co lleg es

have become in c re a sin g ly lim ite d in re c e n t y e a r s .
5.

The fin a n c ia l outlook f o r community c o lle g e s i s d i r e c t l y

lin k ed to s t a t e budgetary co n d itio n s and p o l i t i c a l c lim a te s .
A Micro View o f Community
College Budgeting
Each Michigan community c o lle g e operates w ith in th e parameters
of th e s ta te

f u n d in g p r o c e s s .

Given t h o s e

p a ra m e te rs,

each

community c o l l e g e has t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e v e lo p a b u d g e tin g
process to meet i t s own needs.

The following paragraphs contain a

d isc u ssio n o f th e b a sic budgeting p rocess, i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the
planning p rocess, and recommendations concerning how planning and
budgeting can and should be b e t t e r in te g ra te d in th e f u tu r e .
S te v e n so n

(1980)

id e n tifie d

th e b a sic

budgeting process as d ep icted in Figure 2 .1 .

community c o l l e g e
In r e a l i t y , however,

when programs are c u t, as many programs with p o s it iv e reveniie-toc o s t r a t i o s as tho se with n egativ e r a t i o s are e lim in a te d .

Thus,

Stevenson concluded t h a t th e d e s ir e f o r a comprehensive program i s

stro n g e r

(more convenient)

than th e

d e s ir e

for

a comprehensive

r a t i n g o f programs.

Board o f Trustees
P resident
Deans
Budget Unit Manager
Program/Servi ce Evaluation

X

O bject1v e /S u b je c ti ve
Rating o f Performance

F inancial P ro jec tio n

Figure 2 . 1 . --The b a sic community c o lle g e budgeting p rocess.

Other f a c t o r s , to o , prevent th e budgeting process from being
o b j e c t i v e / r a ti o n a l

(Stevenson,

1980).

These a re

bargaining s e n io r it y retrenchment p o lic y ,

(b)

(a)

verbal

co llectiv eand w r itte n

inp ut from co lleg e a s s o c ia tio n s or s t a f f , (c) budget council in p u t,
(d)

e s ta b lis h e d t r a d i t i o n s

c o lle g e

needs,

and

(f)

o f th e c o lle g e ,

program e v alu atio n

(e)

perceived

systems

not

f u tu r e
fittin g

support s e rv ic e s .
M eisinger (1984) saw th e a c to rs

in th e budget p ro cess,

th e

tim ing o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and th e sequence o f events in th e
budget cycle as being remarkably s im ila r from one I n s t i t u t i o n to
an o th er.

He noted t h a t the b asic process

is

ta ilo re d

f o r each

34
In stitu tio n

by various

p artic ip a tio n ,

tru st,

f a c to r s

such as

In stitu tio n a l

openness o f th e p ro cess,

c h a r a c te r ,

cen tra liz a tio n

of

a u th o r ity , and demand f o r Inform ation.
The budget 1s a lso a ffe c te d by th e overlapping n atu re o f th e
budgeting p rocess.
process
budget.

The step s to be followed 1n th e p re se n t budget

overlap with

th o se

In most cases,

followed

1n developing

next

year’s

the c u rre n t budget d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s next

y e a r 's budget as a r e s u l t o f th e h i s t o r i c o r Incremental budgeting
p rocess, thereby p r o te c tin g th e I n te g r i t y o f p a s t a c t i v i t i e s

and

minimizing u n c e rta in ty and ambiguity.
The lev el o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n th e budgeting process 1s a ffe c te d
by th e le a d e rsh ip o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n , as well as by th e governance
facto r.

Me1singer (1984) pointed out t h a t a t Princeton U n iv ersity

th e P r i o r i t i e s Committee 1s used by f a c u l ty , s t a f f , and s tu d e n ts to
I n te r a c t with th e budgeting process a t a number o f p o in ts .

Active

Involvement, as opposed t o "rubber stamp" p a r t i c i p a t i o n , I s sought
In achieving consensus among th e groups.
C e n tr a liz a tio n o f a u th o r ity over th e budget and th e budgeting
process r e s u l t s from th e p r o f e s s io n a liz a tio n o f th e s t a f f . Meisinger
found t h a t , a t both th e s t a t e and co lleg e l e v e l s , 1f p r o fe s s io n a ls
with budgeting e x p e r tis e are h ire d , c o lle g e s w ill tend to use them
1n developing th e budget.

The more ex p erts o r s p e c i a l i s t s

c o lle g e employs, th e more d e c isio n s they w ill tend to make.

th e

Since

t h i s s i t u a t i o n Is both c re a te d and supported by top management, 1t
means t h a t th ose In th e academic program w ill
Involvement 1n th e budget d ecisio n process.

have l i t t l e

o r no

35

The general budget process o u tlin e d below 1s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f
most c o lle g e s .

O p p o rtu n itie s e x i s t f o r e x te n siv e p a r t i c i p a t i o n a t

a ll lev els.
1.

Framework ( I n s t r u c t i o n s ) f o r Budget Requests ( F a ll)
. Process by which re q u e s ts may be p resented and defended
. P a r a m e t e r s /r e s t r ic t io n s r e : I n f l a t i o n f a c t o r

2.

Assembling Requests (30 days)
. Usually c h a i r s speak to t h e i r budgets

3.

Review o f Budget Requests (October-January)
. I n fo rm a lly --to encourage r e a l i s t i c re q u e s ts (what v ic e p r e s id e n t can l i v e w ith, according t o deans)
. Formally--by ch airp erso n
. Rework r e q u e s ts to match budget c o n s tr a i n ts
. A d m in istrativ e budgets submitted and reviewed sim ul­
taneou sly

4.

P rep aratio n o f D etailed Budget (January-May)
. Formal budget presented to board
. D etail prepared upon approval

5.

Implementation

6.

Closing Out th e F iscal Year

The general budget process o u tlin e d above 1s u s u a lly c a lle d a
h i s t o r i c Incremental budget.

Such budgets b u ild on th e p a s t and are

ad ju sted each y e a r by i n f l a t i o n an d/o r th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f funds.
At w o rst, th ey promote m aintaining th e s t a t u s quo, which r e s t r i c t s
th e growth o f new programs and th e phasing out o f outdated programs
o f marginal v alu e.
c o n t r o ll a b l e ,

At b e s t, such budgets a re sim ple, easy t o apply,

fle x ib le ,

and

a d a p ta b le ,

a ll

of

which

a ttrib u te s

b e n e f it a b u r e a u c ra tic s t r u c t u r e .
Several o th e r budgeting forms have been t r i e d , but w ith l i t t l e
su ccess.

One such process i s th e p lanning, programming, budgeting

system (PPBS).

I t s purpose i s s y s te m a tic a lly t o l i n k th e planning

36

process

to

th e

a llo catio n

of

re so u rc e s.

The

PPBS focuses

c e n t r a l iz e d d e c is io n making and has a long-range o r i e n t a ti o n .

on
It

c o n s is ts o f a system atic a n a ly s is o f a l t e r n a t i v e program cho ices 1n
terms o f c o s ts and b e n e f i t s .
The PPBS i s g e n e r a lly viewed as being more appealing on paper
than in p r a c t i c e .
1 96 0s.

With

The Department o f Defense used th e process in th e

regard

to

h ig h e r

ed u catio n ,

PPBS has

sev eral

l i m i t a t i o n s (M eisinger, 1984):
1.

I t assumes a stro n g c e n tr a l a d m in is tra tio n with stro n g cen­

t r a l i z e d knowledge.
2.

This does not work in h igh er ed u catio n .

Higher education i s

not e n t i r e l y

organized

by programs.

Many are j o i n t , with overlap in several d is c ip lin e s /d e p a r tm e n ts .
3.

PPBS r e q u ire s accounting by program, which would be a r b i ­

t r a r y a t b e s t in a community c o lle g e .
4.
re su lts.

It

is

very expensive

to

c o lle c t

inform ation

on

c o s ts /

U n fo rtun ately, t h i s i s one reason (and a wrong one) why

th e incremental budget i s used.
Another approach i s c a lle d zero-based budgeting, which assumes
no budget from previous y e a r s .

Each budget i s prepared as though i t

were f o r a new p ro g ra m /p r o je c t/u n it.

Full

ju stific a tio n

must be

made with s ta t e d outcomes, along with an e v a lu a tio n o f th e b e n e f its
versus c o s ts involved.

Because th e ev a lu a tio n 1s tim e consuming and

expensive, zero-based budgeting, l i k e PPBS, i s not o fte n used.
The planning and budgeting pro cesses can ta k e many forms, but
in th e f in a l a n a ly s is th e two processes should be in te g r a te d in to a

37
s in g le o p e ra tio n .

This process must be more than an a l lo c a tio n

system; moreover,

I t should r e f l e c t th e c o lle g e ’ s examination o f

what 1s, 1n th e context o f what ought to be.

The planning/budgeting

process should r e f l e c t th e values th e co lleg e upholds and reveal
choices about th e f u tu r e d i r e c t io n th e c o lle g e might tak e (Campbell,
1985).
The planning/budgeting

process cannot

be s t a t i c ;

plans

and

budgets cannot be c reated and then d isregarded u n t il th e process 1s
repeated next y e a r.
v isio n

as

Leaders must s t a t e and r e s t a t e th e c o lle g e

change o ccurs.

An I n te r a c t iv e

process

is

re q u ire d ,

involving d iv e rse in d iv id u a ls who defin e t h i s v isio n and ensure t h a t
goals are r e a l i s t i c , as well as those who have t o c a rry out those
g o a ls.
Leaders must be w illin g to d isc u ss and c l a r i f y o rg a n iz a tio n a l
purposes

and accept th e

risk

th a t

sp ecial-in terest

groups

w ill

emerge quickly when th e r e i s a perceived t h r e a t to th e comfortable
way business

is

p re s e n tly

conducted.

If

th is

approach

is

not

followed and d ir e c tio n i s s e t in a s o l i t a r y fash io n , th e r e w ill be
no support.

I f no d ir e c t io n i s s e t a t a l l , th e c o lle g e w ill be l e f t

t o d r i f t and decay.
S e le c tin g an e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t process through which to
plan and a l lo c a t e resou rces i s c r u c i a l .

The process should include

th e follow ing elements (Campbell, 1985):

y e a r.

1.

There should be a simple format and a d e f i n i t e schedule.

2.

There should be a way to look beyond th e bounds o f next

38
3.

The process should be simple and c a l l f o r b r i e f p eriod s o f

In te n se a c t i v i t y .
4.

The process

should be d i r e c t l y

lin k ed

to

In stitu tio n al

d ecisio n making.
5.

Planning should be viewed as p r e r e q u i s i te t o th e a l l o c a tio n

o r r e a ll o c a t i o n o f re so u rc e s.
6.

S tre s s must be placed on an on-going process o f In te rn a l

and ex tern al assessm ent.
In

a study

of

th e

planning/budgeting

process

at

Stanford

U n iv e rsity , Chaffee (1983) found t h a t most o f th e elements Campbell
d e s c r i b e d were used and were found t o be c r i t i c a l .
discovered t h a t th e c r i t e r i a

C h a ffe e

used f o r e v a lu a tin g budget req u ests

r e f l e c t e d th e core values o f th e u n i v e r s it y .

Faculty and s t a f f

b elieved t h a t th e budget d e c is io n s r e f l e c t e d t h e i r view points, and
as a r e s u l t th ey s tro n g ly supported th ose d e c is io n s .
Chaffee a ls o found t h a t re q u e sts in v a ria b ly exceeded th e funds
av a ila b le .

T h is s i t u a t i o n

co n d itio n was handled a t

is

n o t u n u s u a l,

Stanford

is

b u t t h e way t h i s

unique.

The v ice-p ro v o st

responded to t h i s c o n d itio n , not by saying, "We don’ t have enough
money," but r a t h e r by saying, "We have l o t s o f money.
to be answered i s :

The question

Is t h i s item high enough on th e p r i o r i t y l i s t to

be funded a t t h i s time?"
Another asp ect o f th e S tanford model i s t h a t a f t e r th e l a s t
y e a r ’s process i s reviewed, a planned research and a n a ly s is i s used
to

re v ise

th e

a lte rn a tiv e s,

lo n g -ran g e
p ro p o sals,

fin a n c ia l

fo recast

o r p ro b le m s .

A fte r

and

to

general

ex p lo re
b udget

39

m eetings, t h i s f o re c a s t 1s reviewed with th e board o f t r u s t e e s and,
very Important, th e f a c u lty s en ate.

The p r o je c t ev alu atio n f o r what

1s to be funded 1s based on an updated ex te rn a l assessment and a
review o f th e

In te rn a l

core values

o f th e

In stitu tio n .

These

c e n tr a l values can emerge only through th e dialogue t h a t occurs as
r e p r e s e n ta tiv e u n its d is c u s s th e p r o je c t s .

As th e Inform ation 1s

shared, an understanding o f how th e budget was c o n stru cted and why
p r o je c ts were or were not funded 1s achieved.
In stitu tio n s

t h a t want to e x e rc ise

some con trol

over t h e i r

f u tu r e s w ill need to make a conscious e f f o r t t o ensure t h a t , as a t
S tanford U n iv ersity , planning becomes more e f f e c t i v e and Is apparent
In th e r e s u l t i n g budgets.

S t r a t e g i c planning must guide o p eratio n al

planning, which In tu rn guides th e a llo c a tio n and r e a l l o c a t io n o f
reso urces (Caruthers & Orwlg, 1979).
on an understanding

of

th e

Colleges need d e c is io n s based

ex tern al

environment

and

an

honest

assessment o f In te rn a l s tr e n g th s and weaknesses (Cope, 1981).
Campbell
c e rta in

(1985) s u g g e s te d t h a t

b a rrie rs

a llo catio n .

when t r y i n g

to

le a d e rs

lin k

sh o u ld a n t i c i p a t e

p la n n in g

and

resource

Several o f th e more f re q u e n tly observed b a r r i e r s are

f e a r o f change, lack o f time to plan , p ro te c tio n o f t e r r i t o r y , bad
a t t i t u d e s based on previous planning e f f o r t s , c o l l e c t i v e bargainin g,
com petition,

lack o f commitment,

la c k

of

sk ill

in

e s ta b li s h in g

p r i o r i t i e s , d ecreasing re so u rc e s, and apathy.
The s t r a t e g y
I n te r e s te d p a r t i e s

fo r reso lv in g

such c o n f l i c t s

1n th e planning p ro cess,

Is

to

I n c lu d e

as suggested by the

40
S ta n f o r d

U n iv ersity

model.

All

In te re s t

g ro u p s

sh o u ld

rep resen ted in key elements o f th e planning/budgeting p ro cess.

be
The

follow ing th re e f a c t o r s should be presen t (Campbell, 1985):
1.

The r e p re s e n ta tiv e planning council

s tr u c t u r e s an annual

review o f th e c o ll e g e ’ s philosophy, m ission, g o a ls, assumptions, and
g u id e lin e s .
2.

The council o r t a s k fo rce examines th e c r i t i c a l Issu es f a c ­

ing th e c o lle g e .

They should review th e completed s tu d ie s

and

develop/update th e s t r a t e g i c plan.
3.
w ill

All u n its should be Involved 1n developing th e plans they

implement.

Using th e g u id e lin e s

th ro u g h an i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s ,

o f th e

th e u n its

planning

co u n cil,

sh o u ld a d d r e s s t h e

follow ing:
a.
y e a r.

A summary o f achievements o r r e s u l t s f o r th e c u r re n t
This can serve as an ev alu atio n o f whether th e u n it did

what i t said i t would do.
b.

A statem ent o f d e s ir a b le outcomes f o r th e coming y e a r,

so as t o be in l i n e with th e s t r a t e g i c d e c is io n s made by the
council about th e f u tu r e .
c.

A s t a f f i n g and fin a n c ia l summary updated to r e f l e c t th e

major Im plication s o f th e d e s ir a b le outcomes.
d.

Consolidated u n it plans dealing with perso nn el, c a p i t a l

equipment, and c a p ita l improvement p r o je c ts to develop p r i o r i ­
tie s.
The Intended outcome--agreement on p r1 o r1 tie s --c a n be achieved
w ithout s p e c i f i c refe re n c e to th e funds a v a ila b le .

There w ill never

41

be s u f f i c i e n t funds.

The key i s to reach agreement about th e b a sic

approach to how p r i o r i t i e s a re e s ta b lis h e d and t o s e l e c t p r o je c ts
u n til

th e

a v a ila b le

funds

have

been exhausted.

The e s s e n t i a l

c r i t e r i o n i s t h a t th e cho ices were based on p la n s.
E s ta b lish in g

consensus

regarding

th e

choice o f p r o je c t s

p o s s ib le because th e d e c is io n s a re based on a common p la n .
p lans a re reviewed,
b ased

on

th e

p rio ritie s.

in te ra c tio n

common
I f th e r e

e x i s t s t o r e s o lv e i t .

p la n n in g
is

is
When

o f persons a t th e u n it le v e l
a s s u m p tio n s ,

a c o n flic t,

g u id e lin e s,

is
and

a common s tr u c t u r e / p r o c e s s

Although consensus may be th e t a r g e t ,

if

p lans are on th e t a b l e and s u b je c t to s im i l a r assessm ents, th e focus
can be on th e f u tu r e w ith s p e c i f i c s te p s providing th e b rid ge to a
f a i r , e q u i ta b l e , and supported a l l o c a ti o n o f re so u rc e s.
The procedure describ ed by Campbell (1985) provides th e b a s is
f o r e s ta b li s h in g

a planning/budgeting p rocess t h a t w ill

meet the

c o l l e g e ’ s f u tu r e needs.

In te g ra tio n o f th e planning and budgeting

activ itie s

a p a rtic ip a tiv e ,

by means o f

in te ra c tiv e ,

consensus-

seeking process w ill b u ild on th e c o ll e g e ’ s s tr e n g t h s , minimize i t s
weaknesses, and put th e c o lle g e in a p ro a c tiv e p o s itio n w ith i t s
environment.
P a r tic ip a tio n in th e Planning/B udgeting Process
The tre n d toward more p a r t i c i p a t i o n in both th e planning and
budgeting p ro cesses was d iscu ssed in th e preceding s e c tio n s o f th e
l i t e r a t u r e review.

P a r t i c i p a t i o n was d escribed as a means through

which th e planning and budgeting processes could be in t e g r a te d .

In

42

t h i s s e c t io n , th e l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n th e s e two
p rocesses

1s examined and a s im i l a r conclusion

1s

r e a c h e d - -th a t

p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1s e s s e n t i a l f o r an e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t p la n n in g /
budgeting system.
W riters have d escrib ed th e tre n d toward p a r t i c i p a t i o n In many
ways, using variou s management te rm in o lo g ie s .

Smith (1985) examined

th e tre n d by focusing on c e n t r a l i z a t i o n versu s d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n .

He

d escrib ed th e a l l - c e n t r a l i z e d system as being a top-down form o f
management, with th e v i c e - p r e s l d e n t ( s ) and deans rubber-stam ping th e
w ill o f th e p r e s id e n t.
elements o f c o lle g e

Such a system, o f cou rse, would a f f e c t a l l
o p e ra tio n s .

Following a s h i f t

toward a more d e c e n tr a liz e d s t r u c t u r e ,
been given more autonomy ( a u t h o r i t y ) .

lo w er-level

in

c o lle g e s

employees have

Although many f a c u l t y members

are not i n t e r e s t e d 1n committing th e e x t r a time and e f f o r t ,

they

should be given time to l i v e and develop with th e system as p a r tn e rs
in th e academic and a d m in is tr a tiv e undertaking (Smith, 1985).
P e tre llo

(1986)

commented t h a t

long-range

planning

and

Its

re c e n t v a r i a t i o n , s t r a t e g i c planning, r e q u ir e th e development o f a
new way o f th in k in g on th e p a r t o f th e e n t i r e c o lle g e o r u n i v e r s i ty
community.

He d escrib ed t h i s new approach as a continuous e f f o r t to

communicate and keep a l l people Involved.
stra te g ic

K e lle r (1983) s t a t e d t h a t

planning and broad p a r t i c i p a t i o n

necessary f o r c o lle g e s

to

t h e i r academic s t r a t e g i e s .

1n such planning

stre n g th e n t h e i r management and

are

shape

43
I n s t i t u t i o n s are a ls o moving from go als and o b je c tiv e s toward
s t r a t e g l c - d e c l s l o n recommendations.

N orris (1984) r e f l e c t e d t h a t

planning seldom begins under textbook c o n d itio n s,
never proceeds with p e r f e c t p r e c is io n .

and 1 t

almost

As a r e s u l t , th e s h i f t from

long-range to s t r a t e g i c planning has been slowed, but th e change has
proceeded n e v e rth e le s s .
The e f f e c t o f th e new p a r t i c i p a t i v e approaches on th e frequency
with which planning 1s used i s a ls o worth n o tin g .

In a re c e n t study

o f 100 randomly s e le c te d c o lle g e s , N orris (1984) found t h a t 96% were
involved in some s o r t o f planning.

Of t h a t number, 33% o f th e

c o lle g e s had been Involved 1n planning f o r th r e e y ears o r l e s s , and
57% had been Involved f o r f iv e y ears o r l e s s .

The Increased use o f

planning in i t s c u r re n t form r e f l e c t s th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n element and
th e b e n e f its o f In corpo ratin g i t .
Cloud

(1986)

community c o lle g e ;

stu d ie d
h is

th e

study

use

of

re p re s e n ts

p a r t ic i p a ti o n process and i t s b e n e f i t s .
planning/budgeting

process

" q u a lity

sp e c ific a lly ,

another

c irc le s"

in

the

a sp ect

of

the

Cloud did not examine the
but

th e

philosophy

and

assumptions o f q u a li t y c i r c l e s apply eq u ally well to th e s t r a t e g i c
planning pro cess.

The assumptions he i d e n t i f i e d were as follow s:

1.

People want t o do a good jo b .

2.

Employees are in d iv id u a ls with i n t e l l i g e n c e t h a t should be

3.

Employees want t o p a r t i c i p a t e in d e c isio n making.

4.

Each employee has u n lim ited , untapped c a p a c ity .

used.

44
5.

The c o lle g e needs each p erson ’s help and r e s p e c ts each p e r ­

s o n 's Judgment.
6.

All employees ( a d m in is tra to r s , f a c u lt y , and s t a f f ) can make

th e c o lle g e a b e t t e r place to work.
To Implement th e q u a l i t y - c i r c l e concept 1n community c o lle g e s ,
S h i b a t a (1983) recommended seven p r i n c i p l e s .

In f a c t ,

th e se

p r in c ip le s are necessary f o r employee p a r t i c i p a t i o n in any element
o f c o lle g e o p e ra tio n s , including th e planning/budgeting p ro cess.
1.

C reativ e problem solving i s used.

2.

The purpose o f problem solving i s th e improvement o f prod­

u c t, p r o d u c tiv ity , q u a l i t y o f l i f e , c o lle g e , fam ily, community.
3.

Problem solv ing has p o s itiv e consequences f o r th e group and

i s f u tu r e o r ie n te d .
4.

Members o f th e group include r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f various

le v e ls w ithin th e c o lle g e .
5.

A c tiv itie s

and

p r o c e d u re s

of

th e

group

re fle c t

th e

s tr e n g th s and a b i l i t i e s o f group members and provide o p p o r tu n itie s
f o r them to e x e rc is e th e se s tre n g th s and a b i l i t i e s .
6.

A c t i v i t i e s and procedures give th e members o f th e group a

f e e lin g o f p rid e and I d e n t ity with th e school and a sense t h a t t h e i r
e f f o r t s are valued by th e c o lle g e as a whole.
7.

Members are given a share

in th e

achievement o f o th e r

groups in th e c o lle g e , a re aware o f t h e i r interdependence, and take
p rid e in th e achievements o f t h e i r group, as well as o th e r groups
throughout th e c o lle g e .

45
Several p a r t i c i p a t i v e planning models have emerged as a r e s u l t
o f th e s h i f t from long-range planning t o
stra te g ic

d ecisio n

McDowell,

1985;

making

N o rris,

( F ilu r in

1984).

et

This

stra te g ic

a l.,
is

1986;

planning and
K e lle r,

not t o

say

th a t

1983;
more

t r a d i t i o n a l planning forms are not fu n ction in g under th e g u ise o f
s t r a t e g i c planning,

but r a t h e r t h a t th e r e i s a tre n d toward and

growing acceptance o f increased p a r t ic i p a t i o n in planning.
For a p a r t i c i p a t i v e planing model to succeed, employees must be
tru ste d

to

meet

th e

p la n n in g

c h allen g e

w ith

m a tu rity ,

judgment, and a w illin g n e ss to work hard (McDowell, 1985).

good

The r i s k

in employing such a model i s t h a t re sp o n s ib le le a d e r s who encourage
p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a c c o u n ta b ility might not emerge.
In an a r t i c l e in Change magazine, Hesburgh ( c i te d in McDowell,
1985) emphasized th e requirement o f more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip .
He said i t i s im perative f o r those in high er education t o d isco ver
t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s ' i d e n t i t i e s and t h e i r f u tu r e s .
in th e uniqueness o f each i n s t i t u t i o n :

its

The answers l i e

h isto ry ,

tra d itio n ,

s tr e n g th s , weaknesses, c r e a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s , fin a n c ia l v i a b i l i t y ,
and morale.

These q u a l i t i e s a re f o r t i f i e d by stro n g a d m in is tra tiv e

le a d e rsh ip and f a c u lty c o lla b o r a tio n , working to g e th e r f o r a common
goal o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n .
Many i n s t i t u t i o n s

have

a p a tria rc h a l,

a u t h o r it a r i a n

sty le ;

although in d iv id u a ls may perform w e ll, they are In c lin e d t o have a
narrow concern f o r t h e i r own p o s itio n s and t h e i r own departments
(McDowell, 1985).

By c o n t r a s t , a p a r t i c i p a t i v e s t y l e encourages a

b r o a d e r co n c e rn f o r t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e t o t a l

in stitu tio n .

46

C o lla b o ra tiv e planning can lead t o consensus r a t h e r than f r i c t i o n
and to coo peration r a t h e r than in-f1 gh t1n g.

But, more im portant,

t h e p a r t i c i p a t i v e ap p ro ach p r o v id e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e f i n e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l uniqueness and to develop th e shared ownership o f t h a t
d e f i n i t i o n among c o n s tit u e n t groups.
In a study o f c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s , B aldridge, Ecker, and
R iley (1978) found c o n sid e rab le d is illu s io n m e n t with th e planning
p ro cess.

P a r ti c i p a n t s in t h e i r survey dubbed planning meaningless

and a waste o f tim e.
F ilu rin

et

a l.

(1986)

p a r t i c i p a t o r y planning a t
1985 m e e tin g

of

th e

d escrib ed

a d iffe re n t

Chicago City-Wide C ollege.

Illin o is

C ouncil

of

re su lt

of

At th e Fall

Community

C o lle g e

A d m in istra to rs, th e major in te r n a l Issu es i d e n t i f i e d were a la c k o f
consensus regard ing c o lle g e mission and d i r e c t i o n s and a concomitant
la c k o f i n t e r e s t on th e p a r t o f a d m in is tr a to rs and f a c u l t y in th e
achievement o f c o lle g e as opposed to personal g o a ls .
was what to do to re so lv e t h i s s i t u a t i o n .

The q u estio n

The Council decided to

e s t a b l i s h a p a r t i c i p a t i v e planning p ro cess.
In January 1986, aware o f th e problems and p i t f a l l s o f o th e r
planning

p ro c e ss e s,

Chicago City-Wide College

sta ff

reso lv ed

to

achieve i n s t i t u t i o n a l consensus during each phase o f th e s t r a t e g i c
planning p ro cess.

This process was extended to include in d iv id u al

performance p lans t i e d t o departm ental o b je c tiv e s and u ltim a te ly to
th e c o lle g e m ission (statem ent o f I d e n t i t y ) .

A planning committee

was e s ta b lis h e d to determ ine what changes in th e planning process

47
were

re q u ire d

and

how b e s t

to

implement

them.

comprised a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f th e c o lle g e s t a f f ,

The committee
Including upper-

le v e l and m1d-range a d m in is tr a to r s , f a c u l t y , and t e c h n i c a l / c l e r i c a l
support p erso n n el.

F a c u l t y / s t a f f meetings were held t o d is c u s s th e

m e rits o f planning and t o convince th o se 1n atten d an ce t h a t th e
u n ila te ra l

d e c i s io n - m a k in g

ap p ro ach

of

th e

past

would

be

d isc o n tin u e d .
F a c ilita to rs
groups.

were s e le c te d

and t r a in e d t o

le a d

th e

vario us

The newest employees were s e le c te d f o r t h i s because they

could be more o b je c tiv e and le a r n th e new approach more r e a d i l y than
lo n ger-term employees.

R e tre a ts were held to review th e mission

statem ent and d e c la r a tio n s o f d i r e c t io n f o r th e c o lle g e as a whole
and f o r each departm ent.

Statem ents f o r in d iv id u al departm ents were

reviewed to ensure c o n siste n c y .
The p r e s i d e n t and e x e c u t i v e

s ta ff

then

set

co lle g e -w id e

o b je c tiv e s on a consensus b a s is with u n i t heads and f a c u lt y c h a i r s .
Managers involved with th e process were tr a in e d t o w r ite o b j e c t iv e s ;
th e department heads and c h a ir s determined th e measurable c r i t e r i a
f o r th e o b je c tiv e s f o r which each u n it would be r e s p o n s ib le .
The planning

s te p s

stand ard planning p ro c e ss.

o u tlin e d

above

a re

c o n s is t e n t

with

th e

The noteworthy d i f f e r e n c e i s th e use o f

co nsen su s-g en eratin g methods t o

complete th e

colleg e-w id e support f o r i t s implementation.

plan

and

to

b u ild

48
Community College E ffectiv en ess
D eterm in in g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

o f a community c o l l e g e

is

important because any ev alu atio n o f th e e f f e c t s o f new p o l i c i e s ,
procedures,

le a d e rsh ip ,

or

o th e r

changes

must

have

a

standard

a g a in st which to measure th e in flu en c e o f th e se changes.
Landsburg (1975) i n v e s t i g a t e d lo n g - r a n g e p l a n n in g and i t s
perceived

e ffe c t.

He found

th at

f a c u lty

and

a d m in is tra to rs

in

o rg an izatio n s with a form alized program planning system were more
e f f e c t i v e than those in o rg an izatio n s t h a t did not employ such a
system.
In a study o f community co lleg e e f f e c ti v e n e s s , Rush (1987) used
52 items thought to be p o te n tia l

in d ic a to rs o f community co lleg e

o rg an izatio n al e f fe c tiv e n e s s and 23 items developed from in terview s
with community co lleg e
Rush

d efin ed

o rg an izatio n al

tru ste e s,

o rg a n iz a tio n a l
t r a n s a c t io n s ."

p r e s id e n ts ,

and a d m in is tr a to rs .

e ffe c tiv e n e ss
He i d e n t i f i e d

as

"su ccessfu l

nine dimensions

of

e f f e c tiv e n e s s ; each dimension included f iv e or more items from the
o rig in a l 75 survey q u e stio n s.

The nine dimensions o f e f f e c tiv e n e s s

and s e le c te d items f o r each are as follow s:
1.

Personnel R elation s
. Interdepartm ental r e l a t i o n s in th e c o lle g e
. Faculty p rid e 1n th e co lleg e
. General p a tte r n s of su pervision and co ntro l

2.

S t a f f Development
. Personnel p a r t i c ip a ti o n in t r a in i n g and development
. Emphasis on c r e a t i v i t y w ithin th e co lleg e

3.

Teaching/Learning Systems
. Faculty awareness o f c u r re n t teach in g methods
. Increase in communication, reasoning, and mathematical
s k i l l s among stu d en ts

49

4.

Community R elation s Programs
. Number o f p a rtn e rs h ip s with b u s in e s s /in d u s try
. Amount o f economic impact o f c o lle g e programs on c o l l e g e /
community r e l a t i o n s

5.

Student Outcomes
. Graduates placed In regional b u s in e s s /in d u s try
. Number o f s tu d e n ts meeting educational goals

6.

Trustee/Governance A c t iv i t ie s
. Board o f t r u s t e e s with a sense o f v isio n
. P o s itiv e r e l a tio n s h i p between t r u s t e e s and lo c a l commu­
n ity

7.

Evaluation o f Outcomes
. Degree o f q u a l i ty o f feedback to c o lle g e from community
. A c t i v i t i e s o u tsid e classroom designed t o in c re a se s t u ­
d e n t s ’ academic development

8.

O rganizational Climate
. Long-term planning and goal s e t t i n g
. Community p ercep tion s o f c o lle g e ’ s p rogram s/services

9.

P ro active Management S t r a te g ie s
. C o lle g e 's a b i l i t y t o cope with emergencies
. College personnel I n i t i a t e Improvements 1n work methods

In March 1987, th e Michigan Department o f Education conducted a
telephone survey o f 800 Michigan r e s id e n ts concerning t h e i r opinions
o f community c o lle g e s 1n th e s t a t e .
th a t

One fin d in g o f t h a t survey was

77% o f th e former community c o lle g e stu d en ts ra te d th e c o lle g e s

good to e x c e l l e n t .

The study r e f l e c t e d th e Michigan Department o f

Education’ s focus concerning e f f e c tiv e n e s s .
t a x p a y e r s be ask ed t o e v a l u a t e l o c a l
community c o lle g e ,

I t Is Important t h a t

se rv ic e s,

In c lu d in g

th e

but o th e r measures should a ls o be used.

The s t a t e ev a lu a te s c o lle g e s concerning t h e i r y e a r ly funding
a l l o c a t i o n based on an e la b o r a te formula t h a t , t o promote e q u ity ,
facto rs

1n th e types o f s e rv ic e s ,

p a r t i c u l a r c o lle g e .

programs, and s tu d e n ts o f any

But what o th e r c r i t e r i a

might be Included?

50

Rush’ s (1987) work may prove to be b e n e fic ia l 1 f th e e f fe c tiv e n e s s
c r i t e r i a he suggested are accepted.

In th e p re se n t study, however,

th e focus was lim ite d to employees’ p ercep tion s o f th e e f fe c tiv e n e s s
o f th e planning/budgeting process 1n t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s .

Such an

assessment 1s a s u b je c tiv e one, but 1t was made by th ose who know
th e c o lle g e b e s t.
The review o f l i t e r a t u r e presented 1n t h i s c h ap ter centered on
f o u r m ajor t o p i c s :
e f f e c t iv e n e s s .

p la n n in g ,

b u d g e ti n g ,

p a rtic ip a tio n ,

and

The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed f o r each to p ic was s e le c te d

f o r i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to th e community c o lle g e .

In Chapter I I I the

research methodology used in examining th e se to p ic s
community c o lle g e s i s d iscu ssed .

at

s e le c te d

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

T h is
procedures

ch ap ter
used

co n tain s
in

th is

a d isc u s s io n

s tu d y .

of

th e

The r e s e a r c h

v a r i a b l e s , and research q uestion s are s e t f o r t h .

m ethods
d e sig n ,

and

s tu d y

S e le c tio n o f th e

sample and th e q u e s tio n n a ire used to g ath er d ata f o r th e study are
d escrib ed .

In a d d i t i o n , t h e d a t a - g a t h e r i n g and d a t a - a n a l y s i s

procedures are d iscu ssed .
Research Design
The design o f th e research p r o je c t i s as much a r e f l e c t i o n o f
th e a v a i l a b i l i t y
asked.

o f d a ta

as

it

is

th e research qu estio ns

being

The b est approach would have been to assess th e types o f

planning being done by th e community c o lle g e s and to compare th e
r e s u l t s o f t h a t assessment with community co lleg e e v a lu a tio n s done
by th e Michigan Department o f Education to see what works b e s t.
However, sin ce Michigan community c o lle g e s are not evaluated by any
means

beyond

th a t

used

in

determining

th e

funding

formula,

a

d i f f e r e n t approach had t o be used.
The d ecisio n to develop and use a q u e stio n n a ire concerning th e
perceived e f f e c t o f planning was based,

in p a r t ,

on th e la c k o f

ev a lu a tiv e d a ta , as well as on th e assumption t h a t employees’ views

51

52
a re a good r e f l e c t i o n o f how well t h e i r r e s p e c tiv e community c o lle g e
1s o p e ra tin g .

The q u e stio n n a ire developed f o r t h i s study c o n s is te d

o f th re e s e c tio n s .

The f i r s t concerned what 1s going on a t th e

p re s e n t tim e -- th e type o f planning

and frequency and l e v e l s

Involvement by various groups o f employees.
th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f th e I n s t i t u t i o n .

of

The second p e rta in e d to

The t h i r d s e c tio n went beyond

a d e s c r i p ti o n o f th e planning process and concerned th e s t y l e of
le a d e rs h ip used most o fte n by top a d m in is tr a to rs .
The re s e a rc h e r believ ed th e q u e s tio n n a ire

approach would be

a p p ro p ria te In addressing th e th re e purposes o f th e study:

(a) to

examine th e e f f e c t o f th e planning/budgeting process on community
c o lle g e e ffe c tiv e n e s s ,
elements

o f th e

effectiv en ess,

(b) t o examine t h e e f f e c t o f s e l e c t e d

planning/budgeting

and

(c)

to

process

examine

th e

on community c o lle g e

effect

of

p a rtic ip a tiv e

management on t h e p l a n n i n g / b u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s and on s e l e c t e d
elements o f th e p ro c e ss.
Figure 3 .1 .

The research design I s

Illu s tra te d

1n

The v a r ia b le s Incorporated In th e design a re discussed

In th e follow ing s e c tio n .
The Study V ariab les
The f i r s t v a r ia b le was th e le a d e rsh ip s t y l e being e x h ib ite d in
th e f iv e community c o lle g e s included In th e study.
re se a rc h has been conducted on le a d e rs h ip and i t s

A g r e a t deal of
effe c ts.

The

r e s e a r c h e r Included t h i s v a r ia b le because o f h is stro ng commitment
to th e development o f b e t t e r le a d e r s .

B e tte r a d m in is tra tio n w ill

53
come about 1f more emphasis 1s placed on being an e f f e c t i v e le a d e r .
The question remains, however, what 1s needed to be e f f e c t i v e ?

PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
PLANNING VARIABLES

Leadership S ty le 1/2
A
M
F

Leadership St) fie 3/4
A

M

F

Formalized versus
Less Formalized
P a r t i c i p a t i v e versus
N o n p articip ativ e
P r i o r i t y L is t versus
No P r i o r i t y L is t
Yearly Performance
O bjectives versus No
Performance O bjectives

•

P resid en t Active
versus P resid ent
Not Active
S p e c ific Funds A llo ­
cated versus None
A llocated
Long-Range versus
Short-Range Planning
Note:

Leadership s ty l e 1/2 - benevolent a u to c r a tic
Leadership s t y l e 3/4 - p a r t i c i p a t i v e democratic
A - a d m in is tra to rs , M - managers, F - f a c u lty
Figure 3 . 1 . --The research desig n.

The Idea o f ev alu atin g th e r e la tio n s h ip between what a le a d e r
does and th e e f fe c tiv e n e s s o f th e o rg an izatio n

1s not new.

As

shown 1n the l i t e r a t u r e review, a m ultitude o f approaches have been

54

used to study t h i s r e l a t io n s h i p .
approaches

focusing

on

th e

The w r i te r concluded t h a t those

manner

1n which

th e

formal

le a d e r

(s u p e rv iso r, manager) b u i l t and maintained a r e la t io n s h ip with th e
formal work group were th e most l i k e l y to in d ic a te why one u n it
performed b e t t e r than another.
The second v a r ia b le was th e type o f planning being used 1n th e
community c o lle g e s .

This

re se a rc h e r

focused

planning/budgeting s e c to r because o f i t s
r o le in th e planning pro cess.
who p r e p a r e
(P e tre llo ,

th e

b u d g et

f in a n c ia l

continuous and c r i t i c a l

The l i t e r a t u r e suggested t h a t tho se

sh o u ld

1986; Smith, 1985).

on th e

also

be

in v o lv e d

in

p la n n in g

W riters have a lso in d ic a te d t h a t

c o lle g e departments can make changes in t h e i r o p e ra tio n , curriculum ,
and equipment, as well as minor changes in th e physical p l a n t , i f
th e budget remains th e same (Chaffee, 1985).

In o th e r words, they

can elim in a te something and rep lace 1t with something e l s e .

But to

plan f o r a major change t h a t re q u ire s a s i g n i f i c a n t a d d itio n to th e
budget,

o th e r approvals

are needed.

I f members* access to

th e

f in a n c ia l d ecisio n makers and th e op po rtu n ity t o in flu en c e t h e i r
d e c is io n s are not p a r t o f th e r e g u la r r o u tin e , th e importance o f a
budget re q u e st can e a s i l y be missed.

I t has a lso been suggested

t h a t as th e lev el o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c r e a s e s , b e t t e r id eas w ill be
generated and a college-w ide sense o f p r i o r i t i e s can be developed
and supported ( F il u r i n e t a l . , 1986; McDowell, 1985; N o rris , 1984).
The d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e was p e r c e iv e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
re s e a rc h e r

sought to

d isco v e r whether th e

a d m in is tra tiv e

The
s ty le ,

55
th e planning approach, o r both, Influenced how well th e community
c o lle g e operated.
The s t a t e board o f education and th e l e g i s l a t u r e lack s p e c i f i c
g u id e lin e s f o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Thus, th e b e st means o f examining

e f f e c t i v e n e s s was t o e l i c i t

t h e community c o l l e g e employees*

p ercep tio n s

c o lle g e

sp ecific
sta ff,

of

how well

in d ic e s .

th e

Questions

support s e rv ic e s

was

regarding

being

o p erated ,

adequacy o f

f o r f a c u lty and s tu d e n ts ,

using

facu lty

and

and community

s e rv ic e were used to determine e f fe c tiv e n e s s .
The re s e a rc h e r

compared th e

th r e e

study

groups*

(adm inis­

t r a t o r s , managers, f a c u lty ) p erceptions regarding e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

In

a d d itio n , he analyzed how the e v a lu atio n s varied in r e l a t i o n t o the
independent v a r ia b le s ( s t y l e o f le a d e rsh ip and type o f p lan n in g ).
In t h i s way th e e f f e c t s o f p a r t ic ip a ti o n and s t y l e o f le a d e rsh ip
could be measured as they were perceived by members a t various
le v e l s o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n .
Research Questions
The

follow ing

research

qu estio ns

were

posed

to

guide

the

c o l l e c t io n o f d a ta f o r th e study.
Research Question 1 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u lty
in I n s t i t u t i o n s having a more form alized f in a n c ia l p lan n in g /
budgeting process perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more
e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te rp a rts in i n s t i t u t i o n s having a
l e s s form alized process?
Research Question 2 : Do a d m in is tr a to rs , managers, and f a c u lty
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where th e r e Is a c tiv e p a r t ic i p a t i o n in th e
f in a n c ia l planning/budgeting process p erceive t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te rp a rts in
i n s t i t u t i o n s where th e r e i s l i t t l e o r no p a r t ic ip a tio n ?

56
Research Question 3 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u lty
1n I n s t i t u t i o n s where funds have been s p e c i f i c a l l y a llo c a te d
f o r th e fin a n c ia l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r
I n s t i t u t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te rp a rts
1n I n s t i t u t i o n s where such funds are not a llo c a te d ?
Research Question 4 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u lt y
1n I n s t i t u t i o n s where a p r i o r i t y l i s t o f programs and s e rv ic e s
has been c reated f o r expansion o r e lim in a tio n as c o lle g e fund­
ing grows o r 1s reduced perceive t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s as being
more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te rp a rts 1n I n s t i t u t i o n s w ith ­
out such a 11st o f p r i o r i t i e s ?
Research Question 5 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u l ty
1n i n s t i t u t i o n s where c o lle g e mission and goal statem ents
includ e y e a rly performance o b je c tiv e s perceive t h e i r I n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te rp a rts 1n
I n s t i t u t i o n s whose mission and goal statem ents do not Include
such o b je c tiv e s?
Research Question 6 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u l t y
1n I n s t i t u t i o n s whose p re sid e n ts are a c t i v e l y Involved 1n th e
f in a n c ia l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r I n s t i t u ­
ti o n s as being e f f e c ti v e ?
Research Question 7 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u lt y
1n I n s t i t u t i o n s having a long-range ( th r e e y ears o r more)
fin a n c ia l planning/budgeting process p erceiv e t h e i r I n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t iv e than do t h e i r c o u n te rp a rts 1n
i n s t i t u t i o n s having a sh o rt-ran g e (one y ear) fin a n c ia l p la n ­
ning/budgeting process?
Research Question 8 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u lty
1n i n s t i t u t i o n s receiv in g higher r a tin g s (5 to 8) on th e L ik ert
s c a le perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than
do t h e i r c o u n te rp a rts in i n s t i t u t i o n s re c e iv in g lower r a t in g s
(1 to 4) on t h a t scale?
Research Question 9 : Do a d m in is tra to rs , managers, and f a c u l t y
1n I n s t i t u t i o n s receiv in g higher r a t in g s (5 to 8) on th e L ik e rt
s c a le perceive the f in a n c ia l planning/budgeting process 1n
t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s as being more p a r t i c i p a t i v e than do t h e i r
co u n te rp a rts in i n s t i t u t i o n s re c e iv in g lower r a t in g s (1 to 4)
on t h a t scale?
S e le c tio n o f th e Sample
The f i v e

c o lle g e s

s e le c te d

m e t r o p o l i t a n community c o l l e g e s .

for

th e

study

were

a ll

la rg e

The r e s e a r c h e r ch ose t h e s e

57

c o lle g e s

to

ensure

a d m in is tr a to r s ,
a d d itio n ,

th a t

t h e r e would be a t

managers,

in c lu d in g

p o ssib ility

of

respondents

from

and

o n ly

from which

m e tro p o lita n

g eo g rap h ic
" lo c a l"

f a c u lt y

or

versus

f u r t h e r reduce th e p o s s i b i l i t y

le a st

c u ltu ra l

15 each o f

to

c o lle g e s

draw.

In

re d u c e d

th e

d ifferen ces

cosmopolitan

between

in stitu tio n s.

o f such d i f f e r e n c e s ,

a ll

To

o f th e

c o lle g e s s e le c te d were from th e g r e a t e r D e tr o it m etro p o litan a re a .
These c o lle g e s had s im i l a r i n d u s t r i a l bases and union com positions,
and t h e i r o rg a n iz a tio n a l ex p ectatio n s and p ast p r a c tic e s were a lso
expected to be s im il a r .
R ep resen tativ e samples o f a d m in is tr a to rs , managers, and f a c u l t y
were s e l e c t e d

to

p a rtic ip a te

in t h e

stu d y .

Where p o s s i b l e ,

employees with th r e e o r more y ears o f s e rv ic e were chosen.

The

a d m in is tr a to r group comprised employees who held th e p o s it i o n o f
dean o r above.

Managers included department c h a irp e rs o n s, program

d i r e c t o r s , and o th e r personnel below th e lev el o f dean who lin ked
f a c u l t y w ith a d m in is tra tio n .

The f a c u lty group comprised only f u l l ­

time tenured employees.
Sample s e le c t io n was based on a v a i l a b i l i t y o f personnel during
th e campus v i s i t s .

The d e s c r i p ti v e n a tu re o f th e study was not

dim inished

such

by using

rep resen tativ e

than

it

an approach,

would

sampling approach been used.

have

been

but th e
had

a

sample was
stand ard

less

random

58
The Survey Q uestionnaire
A q u e stio n n a ire

was c o n s t r u c t e d

to

m easure

asp ects o f s e le c te d Michigan community c o lle g e s :
effect

of

th e ir

fin a n c ia l

th re e

m ajo r

(a) th e perceived

p lan n in g /b u d g e tin g

process,

(b)

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i r f in a n c ia l planning/budgeting p ro c e sse s, and
(c) th e o rg a n iz a tio n a l environment as determined by L l k e r t 's P r o f i le
o f O rganizational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (POC).
A s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n n a ire with closed-ended Items was chosen
to f a c i l i t a t e t a b u la tio n and a n a ly s is o f resp o n ses.

Using such a

form Is a ls o a p p ro p ria te when th e response r a t e cannot be expected
to be 100%.

In t h i s

study th e response r a t e was Increased

by

p e rso n a lly d i s t r i b u t i n g th e q u e s tio n n a ire s t o p o t e n t ia l respondents
a t t h e i r r e s p e c tiv e campuses.

This was Important because th e number

o f a d m in is tra tiv e p o s itio n s a t th e f i v e c o lle g e s was lim ite d .
As a p r e t e s t ,

th e q u e s tio n n a ire was adm inistered t o s e le c te d

personnel a t Mott Community College In F l i n t , Michigan.
o f th e p r e t e s t ,

sev eral

As a r e s u l t

q u estio n s were reworded t o c l a r i f y t h e i r

meaning.

The most im portant r e s u l t o f th e p r e t e s t was t h a t th e

s ig n a tu re

l i n e was removed from t h e

In stru c tio n

sh e e t.

The

U n iv ersity Committee on Research Involving Human S u b jects (UCRIHS)
a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity had suggested having a s ig n a tu r e l i n e ,
but th e p r e t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s were r e l u c t a n t t o

sign t h e i r names.

Hence, s ig n a tu r e s were not requested on th e f i n a l

Instrum ent.

A

copy o f th e re v ise d q u e s tio n n a ir e , along with th e cover l e t t e r and
I n s t r u c t io n s h e e t, may be found 1n Appendix A.

A l e t t e r Introducing

th e re s e a r c h e r and th e study t o community c o lle g e a d m in is tr a to rs and

59

a le tte r

from UCRIHS giving

approval

to

conduct th e

study are

Included 1n Appendix B.
The f i r s t

s e c tio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire p e rta in e d

e f fe c tiv e n e s s o f th e f in a n c ia l

to

th e

planning/budgeting process a t th e

respo nd en ts’ r e s p e c tiv e c o lle g e s .

Seven elements o f th e fin a n c ia l

planning/budgeting process were th e focus o f th e second s e c tio n .
Those elements are as follow s:

fo rm ality o f th e planning/budgeting

pro cess, p a r t ic ip a ti o n In the process, e x iste n c e o f p r i o r i t y l i s t s ,
use o f y e a rly performance o b je c tiv e s , p r e s i d e n t ’ s a c tiv e involvement
1n th e p rocess, a llo c a tio n o f s p e c if ic funds f o r th e p ro cess, and
long- versus s h o rt-ran g e approach to th e p ro cess.
The t h i r d s e c tio n o f th e Instruments was th e 1 6 -item s h o rt form
o f L i k e r t ’s P r o f i l e o f O rganizational C h a r a c t e r i s ti c s (POC).

The

POC was used to assess th e lev el o f p a r t i c i p a t i v e management 1n th e
c o lle g e s included 1n th e study.
system.

The POC uses an e i g h t - p o i n t r a t in g

L ik ert observed t h a t r a t in g s from 1 to 4 r e f l e c t a more

a u t o c r a t i c s t y l e o f le a d e rsh ip (System 1 /2 ) , whereas r a t in g s from 5
t o 8 r e f l e c t a more p a r t i c i p a t i v e s ty l e (System 3 / 4 ) .
was s e l e c t e d

because,

management should be,

firs t,

1t

as described

c a l l e d " p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e m o c r a t i c ."

re fle c ts

This p r o f i l e

what p a r t i c i p a t i v e

by System 3 /4 ,

which

L ik ert

Second, t h e q u e s t i o n s a r e

r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t, s tra ig h tfo rw a rd , and easy t o answer.
The number o f Items 1n each major s e c tio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire
1s shown 1n Table 3 .1 .

60
Table 3 . 1 .--Number o f Items 1n each se c tio n o f th e q u e stio n n a ire .
Major Survey Section

Number o f Items

E ffectiv en ess o f th e Financial Planning/
Budgeting Process

11

Elements o f th e Financial Planning/
Budgeting Process

34

P r o f i l e o f O rganizational C h a r a c te r is tic s

16

Total

61

Data-Gatherlna Techniques
D is tr ib u tio n o f th e Q uestionnaire
The q u e stio n n a ire described above was used to e l i c i t th e d a ta
with

which

to

answer

contacted th e personnel

th e

research

q u e stio n s.

s e le c te d to p a r t i c i p a t e

The

re se a rc h e r

in th e study to

e s t a b l i s h a convenient time to adm inister th e q u e s tio n n a ire .

The

minimum s o c ia l am enities were exchanged before th e q u e s tio n n a ire was
adm inistered,

but o p p o rtu n itie s

o fte n

arose to d isc u ss

subjects*

views o f th e planning/budgeting process a f t e r they had completed th e
survey.
Not a l l q u e s tio n n a ire s were completed during th e r e s e a r c h e r 's
i n i t i a l campus v i s i t , but were retu rn ed l a t e r to a d esignated person
a t th e c o lle g e o r to the r e s e a r c h e r 's o f f i c e .

Most respondents who

completed t h e i r q u e stio n n a ire s following th e campus v i s i t seemed to
p r e f e r to mail them to th e re s e a rc h e r, perhaps f o r c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y .

61
D is tr ib u tio n o f q u e stio n n a ire s began 1n J u ly 1987 and continued
In to e a r ly 1988.

The delay was caused by an u n s e ttle d bargaining

agreement between f a c u l t y and ad m in istra tio n a t one o f th e o r i g i ­
n a lly s e le c te d c o lle g e s .

Because o f delays 1n c o n tr a c t s e ttle m e n t,

an a l t e r n a t i v e co lleg e with s im ila r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was chosen.
Of th e 182 q u e s tio n n a ire s d i s t r i b u t e d , 116 were completed and
re tu rn e d , f o r a response r a t e o f 64%.
were d i s c a r d e d .
a d m in istra to rs,

Of t h e

116 u s a b le

35 from m an ag ers,

Incomplete q u e s tio n n a ire s
resp o n ses,

47 were from

and 34 from f a c u l t y .

Hand

d e l i v e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s h e lp e d
Increase th e response r a t e .

In th ose Instan ces 1n which personal

c o n ta c t with an Ind iv idu al was not p o s s ib le , th e r e tu r n r a t e f e l l
o f f sh arp ly .

Table 3.2 shows th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f responses from

a d m in is tr a to rs , managers, and f a c u lty a t th e f iv e c o lle g e s Included
In th e study.

The c o lle g e s

are r e f e r r e d

to

here by number to

m aintain t h e i r anonymity.
Table 3 . 2 . - - D i s t r i b u t io n o f responses from the f iv e community
c o lle g e s .

College

No. o f
A d m inistrators
D ls t.

Ret.

No. o f
Managers

No. o f
Faculty

D ls t.

Ret.

D1st.

Ret.

1
2
3
4
5

10
12
12
14
18

8
7
9
10
13

12
10
9
9
14

9
7
5
6
8

13
10
14
10
15

9
5
6
5
9

Total

66

47

54

35

62

34

62
Campus V i s it s
The re s e a rc h e r v i s i t e d

th e f iv e community c o lle g e campuses,

both to d e li v e r th e instrum ents p e rso n a lly t o p o te n tia l respondents
and t o expand on o r c l a r i f y q u estio n n aire responses.
app roach ed

h e lp e d

q u e s tio n n a ire s .

e n s u re

a h ig h er r e tu r n

This personal

ra te

of

com pleted

In a d d itio n , conversation with respondents a f t e r

th e q u e s tio n n a ire s

had been com pleted

foundation f o r assessin g d iff e r e n c e s
g ro u p s o f r e s p o n d e n t s .

F in a lly ,

p ro v id e d

in r a tin g s

an e x c e l l e n t

among th e

t h e campus v i s i t s

th re e

gave t h e

re s e a rc h e r an o pp ortunity to meet numerous f a c u l t y and s t a f f and to
in crease h is awareness o f cu rre n t community c o lle g e o p e ra tio n s .
D ata-A nalvsis Procedures
The d a t a were a n a ly z e d

in

sev eral

ways.

The f i r s t

was

d e s c r i p t i v e in n a tu re , to provide an overview o f what th e community
c o lle g e s were doing in th e general area o f planning.

Also included

in t h i s segment o f th e a n a ly s is was a d e s c rip tio n o f th e le a d e rsh ip
s t y l e s and approaches and th e e f f e c ti v e r a t i n g s o f a d m in is tr a to rs ,
managers, and f a c u lty .
The d ata were analyzed as in te rn a l

sta tistic s;

in a d d itio n ,

means, medians, and modes were c a lc u la te d f o r comparison purposes.
P a r tic ip a n ts had responded to each item in th e f i r s t two p a r t s o f
th e survey using a f iv e - p o in t L ik e rt s c a le (1 - to a very l i t t l e
e x te n t; 5 - t o a very g r e a t e x te n t ) .

To a r r i v e a t a mean r a t in g fo r

each group on each item, th e re se a rc h e r divided th e t o t a l r a tin g fo r
each respondent group on each item by th e number o f respondents in

63
th e group.

Higher r a t in g s r e f l e c t e d g r e a t e r use o f a p a r t i c u l a r

element, whereas lower r a t i n g s r e f l e c t e d l e s s use o f th e elem ent.
In th e second phase o f th e d a ta a n a l y s is ,

Pearson p ro d u ct-

moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a lc u la te d f o r th e v a r ia b le s
a s s o c ia te d with each research q u estio n .
q u e s tio n n a ire were used to

address

The d a ta g ath ered from th e

Individual

q u e stio n s

and

to

g e n e ra te composite r a t i n g s .
The t h i r d phase o f th e d a ta a n a ly s is c o n s is te d o f a m u ltip le r e g re s s lo n

a n a ly s is

of

th e

d a ta

for

each

re se a rc h

q u e stio n

to

determ ine which f a c to r s accounted f o r th e g r e a t e s t p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of
th e dependent v a r i a b l e .
Respondents’ r a t i n g s o f t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s ’ use o f each element
o f th e f in a n c ia l planning/budgeting process were compared to t h e i r
ra tin g s o f In stitu tio n a l effectiv en ess.

This process was followed

In analyzing th e responses o f th e t o t a l sample as well as th o se of
each r e s p o n d e n t group ( a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , m a n a g e rs, and f a c u l t y ) .
U ltim a te ly , th e composite r a t i n g s f o r each v a r ia b le
each o t h e r ;

th e se r e l a t io n s h i p s

were compared to

were measured byc a l c u l a t i n g th e

lin e a r co rrelatio n c o e ffic ie n t.
In t h i s ch a p te r th e re s e a rc h e r has d iscu ssed th e methodology
used in conducting th e r e s e a r c h .

The research f in d in g s g enerated

a r e s u l t o f th e survey Instrum ent and campus v i s i t s

Chapter IV.

as

a re d iscu ssed in

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

The fin d in g s o f th e analyses o f d a ta g athered In th e study are
d iscu ssed

in t h i s

c h a p te r.

instrum ent are d isc u sse d .

F irst,

th e responses t o th e

survey

Next, each re se a rc h q u estio n i s r e s t a t e d ,

followed by th e fin d in g s p e r ta in in g to t h a t q u e s tio n .

F in a lly , th e

r e s u l t s o f th e campus v i s i t s are d iscu ssed .
Survey R esults
One hundred s ix te e n q u e s tio n n a ire s were completed and retu rn e d
t o th e r e s e a r c h e r .

Of t h a t number, 47 were from a d m in is tr a to r s , 35

from managers, and 34 from f a c u l t y .

The p r e s e n ta tio n o f th e survey

r e s u l t s begins with a d isc u s s io n o f th e fin d in g s f o r each item on
th e q u e s tio n n a ir e .
complete d a ta
organized
instru m ent:

Summary t a b l e s a re Included in th e t e x t ;

may be found

according
(a)

p lan n in g /b u d g etin g

to

th e

th e

in

th r e e

p erceived

process,

Appendix C.
major

The d isc u s s io n

s e c tio n s

e f f e c tiv e n e s s

(b ) d e s c r i p t i o n

of

of

th e

is

survey

th e

f in a n c ia l

o f th e

p la n n in g /

budgeting process being used by th e community c o l l e g e s ,
L i k e r t ’ s P r o f i l e o f O rg anizatio nal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (POC).

64

the

and

(c)

65
Perceived E ffectiv en ess o f th e
Planning/Budgeting Process
A dm in istrato rs, managers, and f a c u lty were asked 11 qu estion s
about what e f f e c t they thought th e planning/budgeting process had on
c o lle g e

o p e ra tio n s.

Respondents

used

a

f iv e - p o in t

L ik e rt-ty p e

r a t in g s c a le , ranging from 1 - to a very l i t t l e e x te n t to 5 - t o a
very g r e a t e x te n t.
Table 4.1 giv es an abbreviated form o f each item r e l a t e d to
e ffe c tiv e n e ss

and

th e

p e r c e n ta g e s

of

v ario u s

responses

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , m an agers, and f a c u l t y t o each q u e s t i o n .

by
For

d iscu ssio n purposes, th e percentages o f high r a tin g s (4 o r 5) were
combined to give a t o t a l
e x te n t" o r h ig h e r).

high r a t in g

(responses o f

"to a g r e a t

The percentages o f low r a t in g s (1 o r 2) were

combined to give a t o t a l

low r a t in g

(responses o f "to a l i t t l e

ex ten t" o r low er).
As a w h ole, r e s p o n d e n ts p e r c e i v e d th e p l a n n i n g / b u d g e t i n g
process

as

b e in g

e f f e c tiv e n e s s .

a

p o sitiv e

fa c to r

in

community

co lleg e

The average o f each group’ s mean r a t in g s on th e 11

items in t h i s s e c tio n i s as follow s:
A dm inistrators
Managers
Faculty

4.04
3.11
3.58

As shown in Table 4 .1 , a d m in istra to rs had more high r a t in g s (4
o r 5) than managers o r f a c u l ty on every Item in t h i s s e c tio n but
Item 10, which co n cern ed t h e
programs.

im pact o f p la n n in g

on t r a n s f e r

Faculty thought th e e f f e c t s were s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r than

a d m in is tra to rs d id .

With t h i s exception, a d m in istra to rs were much

66
Table 4 . 1 Summary of responses to Items related to perceived effectiveness
of the planning/budgeting process.
X of Responses
Summary Statement of Item

Group
1

2

3

4

5

1. Respondents* understanding of
purpose and direction of college

Adm1n1s.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 13 49 32
23 26 9 34 9
12 9 15 65 0

2. Allocation of resources where
most needed

Adm1n1s.
Managers
Faculty

0 0 17 57 26
23 26 26 26 0
21 9 26 35 9

3. Creating a b etter awareness of
where respondent's Individual
e ffo rts should be directed

Adm1n1s.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 32 43 19
23 9 43 26 0
21 21 38 12 18

4. Making funds available to carry
out plans of action

Adm1n1s.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 19 55 19
14 23 37 26 0
21 3 38 29 9

5. Positive Impact on the college
as a whole

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 0 13 49 38
0 20 57 8 14
0 0 23 59 18

6. Positive Impact on your present
position In the college

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 13 13 49 25
9 26 37 17 11
6 18 35 32 9

7. Positive Impact on current
financial position

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 0 6 43 51
0 17 43 40 0
0 9 24 50 17

8. Positive impact on a v a ila b ility
of services needed or desired
by students/community

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 13 6 70 11
17 0 57 26 0
0 3 47 29 21

9. Positive Impact on the Image of
college 1n the community

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 13 21 47 19
17 17 40 11 14
0 9 32 32 26

10. Positive Impact on preparatory
programs for tran sfer to the fouryear college or university

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 17 66 11
9 34 23 26 9
0 0 21 65 15

11. Positive Impact on occupational/
vocational education currlculums

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 0 6 62 32
9 17 11 51 11
9 0 3 65 23

Key:

1 - to a very l i t t l e extent
2 - to a l i t t l e extent

4 ■ to a great extent
5 ■ to a very great extent

67
more p o s i t i v e

th a n t h e o t h e r gro up s a b o u t t h e

im pact o f t h e

planning/budgeting process on co lleg e e f f e c tiv e n e s s .
Responses to two items were p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g .

Item 1

asked respondents about th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f th e planning/budgeting
process in terms o f t h e i r understanding o f th e purpose and d ir e c t io n
of

th e c o lle g e . This i s

an important fu n ctio n o f th e planning

p ro cess, so th e w r i te r considered high r a t in g s e s s e n t i a l .

Eighty-

one percent o f th e a d m in istra to rs gave high r a t in g s f o r t h i s item;
6% o f them gave low r a t i n g s .

In c o n t r a s t , 43% o f th e managers gave

high r a t i n g s , and 49% o f them gave low r a t i n g s .

Faculty r a t in g s

were s im ila r to those o f a d m in is tra to rs .
Item 2 asked respondents about how planning helped with th e
a llo c a tio n o f reso u rces.

E ig h ty -th ree p ercen t o f th e a d m in istra to rs

responded t h a t

helped

planning

to

a great

e x te n t.

Twenty-six

p ercen t o f th e managers gave high r a t in g s in t h i s a re a , whereas 49%
of

them gave low r a t i n g s .

ad m in istra to rs

and

This d i s p a r i t y

m anagers

was

between th e views o f

c o n s is te n t

th r o u g h o u t

th e

q u e stio n n a ire .
D escription o f th e Planning/
Budgeting Process Being Used
This

s e c tio n co n tain s

th e

fin d in g s

regarding th e presence

and/or use o f seven s e le c te d elements o f th e

planning/budgeting

process in th e f iv e c o lle g e s included in th e study.

These elements

were I d e n t if ie d in th e l i t e r a t u r e as being important f o r successful
planning/budgeting.

68
Formality o f th e plannina/budaetina pr o c e ss .

Table 4.2 i s a

summary o f responses t o th e seven items r e l a t e d t o t h e lev el
formal versus Informal planning a t th e f iv e c o ll e g e s .

of

The average

o f each group’ s mean r a t i n g s on th e seven items f o r t h i s element i s
as follows:
3.96
3.36
3.34

Administrators
Managers
Faculty

These f ig u r e s in d i c a t e t h a t a dm inist rators thought formal planning,
as measured by t h e s u r v e y i t e m s ,

e x iste d to a g re a t

extent.

Managers' and f a c u l t y ’s r a t i n g s were a ls o p o s i t i v e ; average r a t i n g s
were between t o some ex te n t and t o a g r e a t e x te n t.
Responses to several items r e q u i r e f u r t h e r d isc u s s io n .

Item 12

concerned th e e x t e n t to which the planning/budgeting assumptions
were known by t h e

respondents.

Because

knowledge o f

these

assumptions i s important i f the plans ar e t o be r e l e v a n t , as many
people in th e org an ization as pos sible should be aware o f them.
Eighty-seven percent o f th e

a d m in istr a to rs

gave

this

item high

r a t i n g s , but only 52% o f th e managers and 20 percent o f th e f a c u l t y
did so.
Item 13 concerned the adequacy o f the f o r e c a s t s used in th e
planning/budgeting process.

Eig hty-three percent o f th e adminis­

t r a t o r s thought the f o r e c a s t s were adequate, but only 26% o f the
managers gave t h i s

item high r a t i n g s .

thought th e f o r e c a s t s were adequate.

Only 18% o f th e f a c u l t y

69

Table 4 .2 .--Summary of responses to Items related to formal versus Informal
planning/budgeting process.
%

Summary Statement of Item

of Responses

Group
1

2

3

4

5

12. Extent to which planning/
budgeting assumptions are known

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 6 49 38
23 9 17 26 26
12 18 50 20 0

13. Adequacy of forecasts used 1n
the planning process

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 0 17 51 32
14 26 34 17 9
12 21 50 18 0

14. Extent to which organizational
goals are measurable and time
referenced

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

15. Extent to which organizational
goals are Identified with
plans of action

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 19 38 36
9 9 49 17 17
0 26 24 41 9

16. Existence of yearly calendar
with completion dates for steps
in the planning process

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6 13 26 40 15
23 9 26 40 3
12 12 29 29 18

17. Whether organization has written
planning steps and procedures

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6 2 36 43 13
6 26 37 23 8
3 0 47 38 12

18. Whether specific persons are
responsible for each phase of
the planning process

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6 0 13 51 30
0 17 43 26 14
0 0 20 62 18

Key:

1 ■ to a very l i t t l e extent
2 - to a l i t t l e extent
3 ■ to some extent

.

0 19 23 38 19
6 17 34 34 9
3 18 59 12 9

4 » to a great extent
5 - to a very great extent

70

Another important aspect of the planning process i s whether th e
goals o f the org an ization are measurable and time referenced (Item
14).

Fifty-sev en percent of th e a d m in is tr ators gave t h i s item high

ratings.

This low percentage was matched by 43% o f th e manager

group; j u s t 21% of the f a c u l t y gave t h i s aspect high r a t i n g s .
On the whole, the formal planning/budgeting process appears to
have been a s s im ilate d in t o the operation o f th e community coll eges
involved in the study.

During th e campus v i s i t s , t h i s finding was

confirmed.
P a r tic ip a tio n in th e D lannina/budaetina p ro c e ss .

The le v e l o f

p a r tic ip a tio n in th e planning/budgeting process is r e f le c te d by th e
average o f each g ro u p 's mean r a tin g s on th e
e v alu ate t h i s elem ent.

ten

item s

used

to

Those r a tin g s were as follow s:
4.33
3.43
3.40

Administrators
Managers
Faculty

The a d m inistrators were highly involved in the planning/budgeting
process.

Managers and f a c u l t y were also involved, but not nearly to

the same e x te n t .
The responses to s p e c i f i c items concerning p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Table
4.3) o f f e r ad ditional i n s i g h t .

Item 20 concerned th e re sp onde nts’

level of awareness about the fin a n c ia l
Ninety-four

percent

of

the

condition o f the co lle g e .

a d m in istr a to rs

r a t i n g s ; only 43% of the managers did so.

gave

this

item

high

Seventy-seven percent of

the f a c u l t y appeared t o know as much as they wanted t o know.

The

d i s p a r i t y between managers and the ot her two groups should be noted.

71

Table 4 .3 .--Summary of responses to Items related to participation 1n the
planning/budgeting process.
%

Summary Statement of Item

of Responses

Group
1

2

3

4

5

19. Awareness of o ffic ia l annual
budget policy

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 13 30 51
23 17 9 43 9
12 0 21 59 9

20. Awareness of financial condition
of organization

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0
31
12

0 6 43 51
0 26 29 14
0 12 68 9

21. Extent to which budget plans
to be Implemented for organiza­
tion are made known to respondent

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6
14
12

0 11 38 45
9 26 31 20
9 24 38 18

22. Extent to which reports on
overall budget are made known
to respondent

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6 0 6 43 45
31 9 26 17 17
21 12 29 38 0

23. Awareness of long-range objec­
tives of organization In rela­
tion to Its key functional area

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 6 11 53 30
6 26 26 29 14
12 9 59 21 0

24. Awareness of specific goals your
department is attempting to
achieve

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0
17
0

25. Extent of participation 1n s e t­
ting goals for your department

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

0 2 6 47 45
0 17 34 9 40
9 0 29 41 21

26. Extent of encouragement to
participate in financial
planning/budgeting process

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6 0 0 55 38
26 17 20 34 3
18 3 38 15 26

27. Extent of Involvement In devel­
opment of p rio ritie s for
programs and services to be
offered by college

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6 4 21 45 20
23 17 31 29 0
38 3 21 35 3

28. Extent to which control to ta ls
are known as you prepare budget

Admlnis.
Managers
Faculty

6 0 11 36 47
40 9 23 20 9
21 38 29 21 0

Key:

1 - to a very l i t t l e extent
2 - to a l i t t l e extent
3 - to some extent

0
9
3

4 - to a great extent
5 - to a very great extent

0 34 66
9 17 49
7 9 11

72
Item 24 concerned th e awareness o f the s p e c i f i c goals each
r e s p e c t i v e department was attempting to achieve.
important

and could

have

been

included

as

This item i s very

part

of

planning and ye arly performance o b je c tiv e s elements.
a d m i n i s tr a to r s gave t h i s item high r a t i n g s .

th e

formal

All o f the

S i x t y - s i x per cent of

th e managers gave i t high r a t i n g s , whereas only 20% o f th e f a c u l t y
did so.
Item 27 was concerned with the level

of involvement in th e

development o f p r i o r i t i e s f o r programs and s erv ices to be of fer ed by
the co l le g e .

Since changes

in p r i o r i t i e s

are r e f l e c t e d

funding, t h i s a c t i v i t y i s very important t o employees.

in the

Sixty-eight

perce nt o f the a d m in istr ato rs in dicated they were involved in t h i s
a c t i v i t y to a g r e a t e x t e n t .

Conversely, 29% o f th e managers and 38%

o f th e f a c u l t y were involved to a g r e a t e x t e n t .

Forty percent of

th e managers and 41% of the f a c u l t y gave t h i s item low r a t i n g s (to a
l i t t l e extent).
On th e whole, r a t i n g s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n were p o s i t i v e .

The

d i f f i c u l t y with mean r a t i n g s i s t h a t averages may not t e l l th e f u l l
story.

The items highlighted in t h i s di sc ussio n pointed to fewer

high r a t i n g s than d e s i r a b l e and more low r a t i n g s than d e s i r a b l e .
The average was not made up of many r a t i n g s in the middle.
Existence of p r i o r i t y l i s t s in th e planning/budgeting p r o c e s s .
E stablishing

p rio rities

planning/budgeting pr ocess.

is

another

im portant

element

of

the

This i ss u e was broached in Item 27, in

which respondents were asked about t h e i r involvement in e s t a b l i s h i n g
p r i o r i t i e s f o r programs and s e r v ic e s .

73

The t h r e e q ues ti ons

(Items

29,

30,

and 31)

concerning

the

ex i s t e n c e o f p r i o r i t y l i s t s generated s i m i l a r responses (see Table
4.4).

The average o f each group’ s mean r a t i n g s on th e t h r e e items

f o r t h i s element i s as follows:
Adm in istrato rs
Managers
Faculty

3.99
3.40
3.21

As expected, the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s believed t h a t p r i o r i t y l i s t s e x i s t e d
to a great extent.

Managers and f a c u l t y thought p r i o r i t y

lists

e x i s t e d t o some e x t e n t .

Table 4 . 4 . --Summary o f responses t o items r e l a t e d t o the use o f
p r i o r i t y l i s t s in th e planning/budgeting proce ss .
% o f Responses
Summary Statement of Item

Group
1

2

3

4

5

29. Extent t o which program p r i ­
o r i t i e s ar e i d e n t i f i e d a t the
time re so urc es ar e a l l o c a t e d

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

0
26
12

6
14
26

15
34
24

51
6
29

28
20
9

30. Extent t o which program p r i ­
o r i t i e s ar e known during
times o f f i n a n c i a l growth

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

0
40
12

0
3
21

30
31
38

64
11
29

6
14
0

31. Extent t o which program p r i ­
o r i t i e s ar e known during
times o f f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

0
26
18

0
3
3

25
37
21

60
14
56

15
20
3

Key: 1 ■ t o a very l i t t l e e x te n t
2 - to a l i t t l e extent
3 - t o some e x te n t

4 « t o a g r e a t e x ten t
5 * t o a very g r e a t e x te n t

74
Managers* r a t i n g s

f o r Items 29 and 30 r e f l e c t th e gap t h a t

e x i s t e d between managers and a d m in is tr a t o r s .
and 70% o f the

a d m in istr a to rs

gave the se

Seventy-nine percent
respective

items

high

r a t i n g s ; in comparison, 26% and 25% of th e managers gave th e s e same
questions high r a t i n g s .

J u s t 6% and 0% of the a d m in is tr a t o r s gave

these items low r a t i n g s , whereas 40% and 43% o f th e managers did so.
Thus, th e p r i o r i t y l i s t s e x i s t f o r a d m i n i s tr a to r s , but much l e s s so
f o r managers.
Use of vearlv performance o b je c ti v e s in the planning/budgeting
process.

The t h r e e groups’ use o f y e a r ly performance o b je c tiv e s was

s i m i l a r to t h e i r use of p r i o r i t y l i s t s .

The average of each group’ s

mean r a t i n g s on the f i v e items f o r t h i s element i s as follows:
Administrators
Managers
Faculty
As e v i d e n c e d by t h e s e

3.83
3.14
3.09

ratings,

adm inistrators

thought y e a r ly

performance o b je c tiv e s were used to a g r e a t e x t e n t .

Managers and

f a c u l t y members i n d ic ate d they used performance o b j e c t i v e s t o some
e x te n t.
On t h i s element, a l ar g e number of r a t i n g s were in th e middle
r an g e

(a

rating

o f 3)

(see

T able 4 . 5 ) .

The p e r c e n t a g e

ad m in is tr a to rs giving high r a t i n g s ranged from 47% t o 56%.

of

From 23%

t o 37% of the managers gave high r a t i n g s , compared t o 12% t o 38% of
the f a c u l t y .
The

use

survey items,

of

p e rfo rm ance

was not high.

r e sp o n d e d t h a t

objectives,

as

On Item 35,

49% o f th e managers

the organization

as

measured

by t h e

a whole used p er fo r m an ce

75
objectives to a l i t t l e extent.

Forty-seven per cent o f th e f a c u l t y

agreed.
Table 4 . 5 . --Summary o f responses to items r e l a t e d t o th e use of
y e a r l y performance o b je c tiv e s in the planning/budgeting
process.
%

Summary Statement o f Item

o f Responses

Group
1

2

3

4

5

32. Development of performance
o b j e c t i v e s f o r each employee

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
9
12

6
20
9

40
34
41

30
34
29

17
3
9

33. Individual performance o b jec­
t i v e s i d e n t i f i e d with ac tion
plans o f th e or ganization

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
26
12

11
29
18

30
23
29

32
23
41

21
0
0

34. Performance o b j e c t i v e s d e v e l ­
oped f o r each u n i t

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
9
9

0
23
21

38
40
59

26
20
12

30
9
0

35. Use o f performance o b j e c t i v e s
by o r g a n iz a tio n as a whole to
accomplish mission and goals

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
9
18

13
40
29

26
20
32

34
11
21

21
20
0

36. Organization as a whole e v a l ­
uated based on progress on or
completion of performance
objectives

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
17
18

4
26
18

36
31
26

38
20
20

15
6
18

Key: 1 ■ t o a very l i t t l e e x t e n t
2 - to a l i t t l e e x te n t
3 - t o some e x ten t
P re sid e n t's
process.

active

in v o lv e m e n t

4 - t o a g r e a t ex ten t
5 = t o a very g r e a t e x t e n t

in t h e p l a n n i n g / b u d g e t i n g

There i s l i t t l e doubt t h a t th e co l le g e p r e s i d e n t s were

a c t i v e l y involved in th e planning/budgeting pr oce ss .

As can be seen

by th e average of each gro u p 's mean r a t i n g s on th e f our items f o r
v

t h i s element, the r a t i n g s f o r a l l t h r e e groups were reasonably high.

76
Administrators
Managers
Faculty
The mean r a t i n g s do not,
picture.

On Item 37,

83% t o

4.19
3.58
3.94
however,

provide a f u l l y

93% o f th e

respondents

ac cur ate
said

th e

pr e s id e n t was involved in the planning/budgeting process t o a g r e a t
e x ten t

(see

in v o lv e m e n t

Table

4.6).

Item 38 asked

w ith

adm inistrators.

about

th e

From 88% t o

presidents’

100% o f

the

respondents in the th r e e groups said the p r e s i d e n t was involved in
t h i s area t o a g r e a t e x te n t.

Table 4 . 6 . --Summary of responses to items r e l a t e d to th e involvement
of th e p r e s id e n t in th e planning/budgeting pr ocess.
% o f Responses
Summary Statement of Item

Group
1

2

3

4

5

37. Extent of p r e s i d e n t ’ s a cti ve
involvement in the planning/
budgeting process

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

0
0
0

0
0
9

6
17
3

19
34
41

74
39
47

38. Extent to which p r e s id e n t
meets with top a d m in is tr a to rs
concerning the planning/
process

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

0
0
6

0
9
3

0
0
3

28
20
56

72
71
32

39. Extent to which p r e s id e n t meets
with middle managers concerning
the planning/budgeting process

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

0
17
0

6
29
3

30
23
29

40
23
38

23
9
29

40. Extent to which p r e s id e n t meets
with f a c u l t y concerning the
planning/budgeting process

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
31
6

11
34
26

51
17
29

19
17
38

13
0
0

Key: 1 23*

to a very l i t t l e e x ten t
to a l i t t l e ex te n t
to some ex tent

4 * t o a g r e a t ex tent
5 - t o a very g r e a t ex ten t

77
However, when respondents were asked about the ex te n t to which
the p r e s i d e n t met with managers and f a c u l t y ,
substantially.
president

On Item 39,

met w i th

them t o

the r a t i n g s changed

only 32% of th e managers
a great

extent;

yet

s aid

the

63% o f

the

a d m i n is tr a t o r s and 67% o f th e f a c u l t y claimed the p r e s id e n t met with
managers t o

a great extent.

Thus,

everyone

but th e

managers

themselves gave th e p r e s id e n t high r a t i n g s f o r working with middle
managers concerning th e planning/budgeting process.
There

was

little

disagreement

among

respondent

gr o u p s

concerning th e ex ten t t o which the p r esid en t met with f a c u l t y (Item
40).
w it h

T h i r t y - e ig h t percent of the f a c u l t y s a id th e p r e s id e n t met
them

to

a

great

extent.

Thirty-tw o

percent

of

the

a d m in is tr a t o r s and j u s t 17% of the managers shared t h a t perception.
The p r e s id e n ts of th e f i v e community c o lle g e s

seemed to

be

highly v i s i b l e and d i r e c t l y as so ci at ed with the planning/budgeting
pro ce ss .

They were a c t i v e l y involved with a d m in i s tr a to rs

in t h i s

process, but they were much l e s s involved with managers and f a c u l t y .
A llocation
process.

of

specific

funds

for

the

planning/budgeting

Responses to th e th r e e questions concerning th e a l l o c a t i o n

o f s p e c i f i c funds f o r th e planning/budgeting process ar e summarized
in Table 4 . 7 .

The average o f each group’ s mean r a t i n g s on th e t h r e e

items f o r t h i s element i s as follows:
Administrators
Managers
Faculty

3.45
2.69
3.45

The expected p a t t e r n was corroborated by the f in d i n g s .

Funds

were g e n e r a l ly not a l l o c a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the planning/budgeting

78

pr ocess, as evidenced by responses to Item 41, on which 4% o f the
ad m in is t r a t o rs and none o f the managers or f a c u l t y responded "to a
very g r e a t e x t e n t . "

However, 53% of the a d m i n ist r a t o rs did t h in k

s p e c i f i c funds were a l l o c a t e d t o a g r e a t e x t e n t , as did 52% o f th e
faculty.

Only 14% of the managers thought funds were a l l o c a t e d t o a

g r e a t e x t e n t , whereas 40% o f them sa id funds were a ll o c a t e d to a
very l i t t l e e x t e n t .

Table 4 . 7 . --Summary o f responses to items r e l a t e d to the a l l o c a t i o n
of s p e c i f i c funds f o r the planning/budgeting process.
% o f Responses
Summary Statement o f Item

Group
1

2

3

4

5

41. Extent to which s p e c i f i c
funds are a ll o c a t e d

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
40
3

13
17
9

23
29
35

53
14
53

4
0
0

42. Extent to which funds are
s u f f i c i e n t to complete the
planning/budgeting process
in a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
49
3

11
9
12

23
23
41

60
20
44

0
0
0

43. Extent to which funds are
s u f f i c i e n t t o permit involve­
ment by a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of
co ll eg e personnel

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
31
3

13
34
39

55
23
15

23
11
26

2
0
18

Key: 1 *
23-

t o a very l i t t l e e x ten t
to a l i t t l e e x te n t
to some extent

4 - t o a g r e a t e x ten t
5 - t o a very g r e a t extent

79
Interestingly,
respondents

th e responses f o r Item 42 in d i c a t e t h a t some

thought

the

funds

were

sufficient

to

complete

planning/budgeting process in a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner.

the

F i f t y - n in e

percent of the a d m i n ist r a t o rs thought t h a t , t o a g r e a t e x t e n t , the
funds were s u f f i c i e n t .

Forty -four percent of the f a c u l t y and 20% of

the managers shared t h i s perce ption .

The most dramatic r e j e c t i o n of

the adequacy of the funding was by managers.

F o r ty - eig h t percent of

them, as compared t o 6% o f the a d m in is tr a to rs and 2% of the f a c u l t y ,
sa id the funding was adequate only to a very l i t t l e e x te n t.
In Item 43, respondents were asked whether th e budgeted funds
were s u f f i c i e n t f o r a c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f the co lleg e t o be involved in
the planning/budgeting process.
was t r u e to a g r e a t e x t e n t .

Only 11% of th e managers said t h i s

Conversely, 25% o f th e a d m in is tr a t o r s

and 44% of th e f a c u l t y said t h i s
extent.
Sixty-five

statement was t r u e to a g r e a t

Equally dramatic was the numbers o f very low r a t i n g s .
percent

of

adequate to a l i t t l e

th e

managers

e x te n t;

stated

that

the

funds

were

40% of the f a c u l t y and 19% o f th e

a d m in istr a to rs shared t h i s per cep tion .
Long- versus
process.

sh o rt- ra n a e

approach

to

the

planning/budgeting

Two items were used f o r t h i s element; th e responses are

summarized in Table 4 . 8 .

The average o f each group’s mean r a t i n g s

f o r the two items f o r t h i s element i s as follows:
Administrators
Managers
Faculty

3.67
3.43
3.78

80
Table 4 . 8 . --Summary of responses to items r e l a t e d to the use of
long- versus sho rt-range approach t o the planning/
budgeting process.
%

Summary Statement of Item

o f Responses

Group
1

2

3

4

5

44. Extent to which i n s t i t u t i o n
engages in long-range f in a n ­
c i a l planning/budgeting

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

6
14
3

6
17
12

49
20
6

28
40
62

11
9
18

45. Extent to which I n s t i t u t i o n
focuses on s hort -te rm versus
long-term goals in th e f i n a n ­
c i a l planning/budgeting process

Adminis.
Managers
Faculty

0
6
3

0
26
18

30
17
21

64
51
50

6
0
9

Key: 1 ■
23=

to a very l i t t l e ex tent
to a l i t t l e ex te n t
t o some ex te nt

4 = t o a g r e a t ex tent
5 - t o a very g r e a t e x ten t

T h ir ty -n in e percent o f the a d m i n ist r a t o rs perceived t h a t t h e i r
i n s t i t u t i o n s engaged in long-range fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting
t o a g r e a t e x ten t (Item 44).

In c o n t r a s t , 49% o f the managers and

80% of the f a c u l t y shared t h i s perception.

These responses were

c o n s is t e n t with those f o r Item 45 concerning th e e x te n t t o which th e
i n s t i t u t i o n s focused on sh ort -te rm goals.
Findings on L i k e r t ’ s P r o f i l e of
Organizational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The POC uses an e i g h t - p o i n t r a t i n g system.

Li kert observed

t h a t r a t i n g s from 1 through 4 r e f l e c t a more a u t o c r a t i c s t y l e o f
leadership,
participative

whereas
style.

those

from 5 t h r o u g h

In examining

th e

8 reflect

results,

th e

a more

researcher

adopted t h i s breakdown o f r a t i n g s because th e POC s ectio n o f the

81

q u es tionnaire was intended to measure th e level

of participative

management in the f iv e co lleg es surveyed.
The average

of each group's mean r a t i n g s

on the

16

items

comprising t h i s se ct io n of the survey i s as follows:
5.93
4.72
6.08

Administrators
Managers
Faculty

All o f th e groups had averages above 4.0 , in d i c a ti n g t h a t some
p a r t i c i p a t i o n was occur rin g.

I t should also be noted t h a t f a c u l t y ’ s

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s were s i m i l a r , and they were much higher
than managers’ r a t i n g s .

This p a tte r n

of r a t i n g s

was c o n s is t e n t

throughout t h i s por tion of the study.
In th e

following

pages,

several

items

d i s c u s s e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e more c l e a r l y

from Table

4.9

the d if f e r e n c e s

are

in how

employee groups within the same i n s t i t u t i o n perceived the leadersh ip
style.

Item 46 is an important question and concerns the ex t e n t to

which le a d e r s show confidence and t r u s t in s ubor di nat es .

Eighty-

seven percent of th e a d m in istr a to rs gave responses of 5-8

(more

p a r t i c i p a t i v e ) , whereas 60% of the managers and 57% o f th e f a c u l t y
gave responses in t h i s range.

On Item 48, 87% of the ad m i n i s tr a to rs

said t h a t su b o rd in a te s ’ ideas were sought and used c o n s tr u c t i v e l y
(responses from 5- 8).
Item 51 concerned the level of cooper ative teamwork.

Ninety

per cent of th e a d m in i str a to rs gave responses o f 5-8, whereas 43% of
th e managers and 55% of the f a c u l t y responded in t h i s way.
o f de cis io n making (Item 56),

In terms

79% o f the ad m i n i s tr a to rs believed

T ab le 4 . 9 . — Summary o f r e s p o n s e s t o ite m s in L i k e r t ' s P r o f i l e o f O r g a n iz a tio n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Summary Statem ent o f Item

Group

^
1

2

3

Re s P°nses
4
5
6

7

8

46. Extent o f co nfiden ce and t r u s t shown
in s u b o r d i n a t e s

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
17
12

2
0
0

0
23
12

11
3
21

19
17
0

19
17
18

43
23
21

6
0
18

47. Whether s u b o r d i n a t e s f e e l f r e e t o t a l k
t o s u p e r i o r s about t h e i r work

Adminis.
Managers
Fac ul ty

0
6
0

0
20
0

2
0
0

17
23
12

6
9
26

38
17
18

23
26
24

13
0
21

48. How o f t e n s u b o r d i n a t e s ' id e a s a r e sought
and used c o n s t r u c t i v e l y

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
9
0

0
9
0

4
29
32

9
6
29

13
26
0

11
17
3

57
6
32

6
0
3

49. Whether predominant use i s made o f f e a r ,
t h r e a t s , re wards , o r involvement

Adminis.
Managers
F ac ulty

11
23
9

4
9
3

0
3
3

2
0
0

2
9
9

13
0
35

62
57
26

6
0
15

50. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f e l t f o r a ch ie v in g high
performance

Adminis.
Managers
F acult y

0
14
3

2
0
9

6
0
9

9
34
21

34
26
21

11
17
24

32
9
15

6
0
0

51. How much c o o p e r a t i v e teamwork e x i s t s

Adminis.
Managers
F ac ul ty

0
9
12

6
23
15

0
17
0

4
9
18

15
17
9

36
17
35

19
9
9

19
0
3

52. Usual d i r e c t i o n o f in fo rm ati on flow

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
11
24

6
29
0

2
9
21

11
0
9

6
17
9

30
9
18

45
26
15

0
0
6

53. How downward communication i s accepted

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
9
6

6
0
0

0
6
29

2
43
9

36
26
29

36
9
9

19
9
18

0
0
0

T ab le 4 . 9„— C on tin u ed .
%

Summary Statemen t o f Item

Group

54. Accuracy o f upward communication

o f Responses

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Adminis.
Managers
F ac ulty

4
6
0

6
3
3

0
6
6

11
9
29

21
34
18

13
34
24

32
9
21

13
0
0

55. How well s u p e r i o r s know problems faced
by s u b o rd in a te s

Adminis.
Managers
F ac ulty

0
9
3

6
26
26

6
23
12

26
9
26

6
17
3

49
9
3

6
9
24

0
0
3

56. At what l e v e l d e c i s i o n s a r e made

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
23
0

4
20
12

11
14
15

6
0
18

4
17
26

30
9
3

45
17
18

0
0
9

57. How o f t e n s u b o r d i n a t e s a r e involved in
d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r work

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
8
3

0
17
0

4
26
9

2
0
21

32
6
15

17
26
18

38
27
29

6
0
6

58. How goal s e t t i n g i s u s u a l l y done

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
11
15

0
11
0

11
17
0

6
9
18

15
0
21

17
26
15

45
26
32

6
0
0

59. How much s u b o r d i n a t e s s t r i v e t o ach iev e
t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s go als

Adminis.
Managers
F a c u lty

0
9
0

0
0
3

2
23
15

11
0
35

19
11
21

36
31
3

19
26
21

13
0
3

60. How c o n c e n t r a t e d a r e review and c o n t r o l

Adminis.
Managers
Facult y

2
9
12

0
26
3

6
6
3

17
17
35

21
14
15

28
20
6

19
9
21

6
0
6

61. What c o s t p r o d u c t i v i t y and o t h e r c o n tr o l
d a t a a r e used f o r

Adminis.
Managers
F aculty

0
9
12

0
9
3

6
17
9

4
0
18

4
31
18

26
9
3

53
26
38

6
0
0

Key:

Responses o f 1-4 = more a u t o c r a t i c l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e
Responses o f 5-8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e

84
t h a t th e dec isio ns were made across th e c o lle g e ; 43% of the managers
and 47% of the f a c u l t y gave responses of 5-8 to t h i s item.
The l a s t item on which t h e r e were some unusual responses was
Item 59, which concerned the e f f o r t s made by subordinates to achieve
the

o rg an izatio n ’s

ad m in is t r a t o rs

gave

goals.

Eighty-seven

responses

of

5-8,

managers and only 45% o f th e f a c u l t y .

percent

compared

to

of

68% o f

the
the

Faculty had a much lower

perception of support f o r th e o r g a n iz a tio n ’ s goals by subordinates
than did

the managers

and

a d m in istr ato rs

resp o n s ib le

for

those

su bordin ates .
Results of Data Analyses f o r th e Research Questions
In t h i s s e c tio n , each research question i s r e s t a t e d , followed
by th e r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l

analyses f o r t h a t q u es ti o n .

In

th e se analyses, th e .50 level was e s ta b li s h e d as t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r
s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n i f i c a n c e f o r the Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t and the .01 level f o r th e reg res sio n a n a l y s i s .
Research Question 1 : Do a d m i n is t r a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s having a more formalized f in a n c i a l plann in g/
budgeting process perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more
e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r co unte rpart s in i n s t i t u t i o n s having a
l e s s formalized process?
The

P ea rso n

product-moment

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u l a t e d f o r th e mean r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d t o th e f o rm a l ity
o f th e planning/budgeting process and the mean r a t i n g s f o r
related

to e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

items

This was done f o r each study group:

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y .

As shown in Table 4.10, a l l

c o r r e l a t i o n s were considered s i g n i f i c a n t because they exceeded .50.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p s were a l l p o s i t i v e , which seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t

85

respondents perceived t h a t

I n c r e a s e d form al

p l a n n i n g Improved

o r g a n iz a ti o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Table 4 . 1 0 . --Summary o f f in d in g s f o r Research Question 1: impact
o f formalized planning/budgeting on perceived e f f e c ­
tiveness.
Item

Administrators

Managers

Faculty

47
3.956
3.857
2.000
4.857
.63880
.52811
.2789

35
3.363
3.428
1.857
4.714
.79987
.73452
.5395

34
3.460
3.286
1.857
4.000
.49140
.56763
.3220

Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard d ev iatio n
Pearson c o r r . c o e f f .
Variance

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

R2

1
114
115

33.85
34.58
68.43

33.851
.303

111.59

.0001

.4946

E f f ectiv en ess mean - 3.53

A r e g re s s io n a n a l y s is was a ls o performed, with s i m i l a r r e s u l t s .
The F - r a t i o o f 111.59 was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0001 l e v e l .
Several o th e r f a c t o r s should a ls o be mentioned.
th e mean r a t i n g s .
alm o s t

all

cases

As was observed
managers

gave

The f i r s t is

in t h e frequency t a b l e s ,

lo w e r mean r a t i n g s

than

in
did

86

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or f a c u l t y .

The mean r a t i n g s

f o r formal

planning

a l s o followed t h i s p a t t e r n .
Second,

a

strik in g

pattern

is

the

higher

correlation

c o e f f i c i e n t f o r managers (.735) compared t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
and f a c u l t y ( .568).

(.528)

The managers, who perceived themselves as being

l e s s involved in th e planning/budgeting process than did th e o th e r
two groups, thought t h a t where a more formal process e x i s t e d the
c o l le g e was more e f f e c t i v e .

This p a t t e r n was a l s o seen in almost

a l l ca se s.
O verall,

the a n a ly sis

s u p p o r t e d t h e p r e m is e s u g g e s t e d

by

previous r e s e a r c h e r s (Chaffee, 1983; Clugston, 1986; Kennedy, 1980;
Kinneson, 1979).

Formal planning can and, in the view o f th e survey

r espondents , did have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e impact on th e e f f e c ­
t i v e n e s s o f th e planning/budgeting process.
Research Question 2 : Do a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where t h e r e i s a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the
f i n a n c i a l planning/budgeting process per ce ive t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in
i n s t i t u t i o n s where t h e r e i s l i t t l e o r no p a r t i c i p a t i o n ?
The answer t o t h i s questio n appears t o be a stro ng "Yes."
F - r a t i o o f 167.25 was s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e
4.11).

Respondents

did

per ce ive

that

.0001

The

lev el

(see Table

participation

positively

influenc ed th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e planning/budgeting pr oce ss .
The

P ear so n

product-mom ent

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u l a t e d f o r th e mean r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in th e planning/budgeting process and th e mean r a t i n g s f o r items
related to effectiveness.

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r managers

87
(.8936)

and f o r f a c u l t y

(.728)

were s i g n i f i c a n t .

The variance

accounted f o r by the p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r ia b l e was .7985 and .53 f o r
managers

and

a d m i n i s tr a to rs

faculty,

respectively.

The

correlation

(.38) was p o s i t i v e and moderately str ong,

for

but f o r

purposes o f t h i s study i t was not considered s i g n i f i c a n t because i t
was below .50.

Table 4 . 1 1 .--Summary o f findings f o r Research Question 2;
of p a r t i c i p a t i o n on perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Administrators

Item

47
4.33
4.50
2.10
5.00
.6076
.3797
.1440

Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard d ev ia tion
Pearson c o r r . co ef f.
Variance

impact

Managers

Faculty

35
3.43
3.40
1.50
4.60
.9012
.8936
.7985

34
3.40
3.40
1.80
4.20
.6025
.7280
.5300

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

Rz

1
114
115

40.69
27.736
68.429

40.69
.2433

167.25

.0001

.5947

Ef fectiveness mean > 3 . 5 3

The p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s
discussed in Chapter V.

f o r such v a r i a t i o n s

in

ratin g s

are

The a d m in istr a to rs had much higher r a t i n g s

88

than the o t h e r two groups.

As a group,

they were e i t h e r very

con fident about t h e i r s k i l l s or j u s t thought very p o s i t i v e l y .
Research Question 3 : Do a d m i n is t r a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where funds have been s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e d
f o r the f i n a n c i a l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r
i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te r p arts
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where such funds are not a llo c a te d ?
The e f f e c t i v e n e s s r a t i n g s were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the
degree to which the community c o lleg es s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e d funds
f o r the planning/budgeting process (see Table 4.12).

Table 4 . 1 2 . --Summary of fin dings f o r Research Question 3: impact of
a l l o c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c funds on perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Item

Administrators
47
3.45
3.67
1.00
4.30
.649
.4483
.200

Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard d eviation
Pearson c o r r . co ef f.
Variance

Managers

Faculty

35
2.69
2.67
1.00
4.00
1.045
.896
.803

34
3.45
3.67
1.00
4.30
.6856
.841
.707

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

Rz

1
114
115

36.66
31.77
68.43

36.66
.2787

131-55

-0001

*5357

E f f e c t iv e n e s s mean > 3 . 5 3

89
The

Pear son

product-moment

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u l a t e d f o r th e mean r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d to the a l l o c a t i o n
of sp e c ific

fu nds and t h e mean r a t i n g s

effectiveness.

for

ite m s r e l a t e d

The c o r r e l a t i o n was p o s i t i v e in a l l ca ses.

case of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s ,

th e c o r r e l a t i o n

to

In the

c o e f f i c i e n t was

.4483, which was moderately strong but did not meet th e c r i t e r i o n
for significance.

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r managers (.896)

and f a c u l t y (.841) were much s tr o n g e r and were s i g n i f i c a n t .
values

suggest

there

was

a strong

relationship

These

between

the

a l l o c a t i o n of s p e c i f i c funds to the planning/budgeting process and
the perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the i n s t i t u t i o n .
An a n a ly s is o f variance was a ls o performed, with a r e s u l t a n t
F - r a t i o o f 131.55.

This value was s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .0001 level

and indicated t h a t

respondents

specific

fu nds

to

the

perceived t h a t

planning/budgeting

th e

allocation

process

of

increased

in stitu tio n al effectiveness.
Another
disparity

point

that

between managers*

sh o u ld
ratings

be

and those

groups, which i s apparent in Table 4.12.
o f 2.69 was ne arly one point
ad m in is tr a to rs and f a c u l t y .

less

emphasized
of

concerns

the

the

two

other

The managers’ mean r a t i n g

than th e r a t i n g

o f 3.45 f o r

This d i s p a r i t y was noted e a r l i e r and i s

supported throughout the an alyses.

90
Research Question 4 : Do ad m i n is tr a to rs , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where a p r i o r i t y l i s t o f programs and s e rv i c e s
has been c r e a te d f o r expansion or e lim inati on as c o lleg e fund­
ing grows or i s reduced perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being
more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n ter p arts in i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith ­
out such a l i s t of p r i o r i t i e s ?
Although a l l t h r e e groups’ mean r a t i n g s were average or above
(see Table 4 .1 3 ),

there

was

sufficient

statistical

evidence

to

conclude t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x is te d between
the

existence

and

use

of

p rio rity

lists

and

the

perceived

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c o ll e g e o p erations.

Table 4 . 1 3 . --Summary of fin dings f o r Research Question 4: impact
o f ex iste n c e and use o f p r i o r i t y l i s t s on perceived
effectiveness.
Administrators

Item
Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard dev iat ion
Pearson c o r r . co ef f.
Variance

47
3.99
4.00
2.67
5.00
.523
.675
.456

Managers

Faculty

35
3.40
3.00
1.00
5.00
1.158
.7148
.511

34
3.21
3.33
1.33
4.00
.5787
.58021
.336

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares;

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

R2

1
114
115

42.97
25.45
68.43

42.97
.2233

192.46

.0001

.628

E ff e c t iv e n e s s mean - 3 . 5 3

91

The

Pearson

product-moment

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u l a t e d f o r the mean r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d t o th e e x is te n c e
and use o f p r i o r i t y l i s t s and th e mean r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d to
effectiveness.

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was strong f o r a l l t h r e e

groups (managers * .7148, a d m in i s tr a to r s * .675,
The

r e g r e s s io n a n a l y s i s y i e ld e d anF - r a t i o

f a c u l t y ■ .580).

o f 192.46,

which was

s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .0001 l e v e l .
The o v e r a ll r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t , but th e tr e nd i d e n t i f i e d
by the mean r a t i n g s should al s o be mentioned.

The a d m i n is tr a t o r s

perceived a much g r e a t e r use o f and b e n e f i t from p r i o r i t y l i s t s ,
whereas th e lower r a t i n g s by managers and f a c u l t y r e f l e c t e d t h e i r
r e s p e c t i v e d i s t a n c e from the top and apparent lack o f input i n t o the
development o f the l i s t s or t h e i r use.
Research Question 5 : Do a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where c o ll eg e mission and goal statements
include y e a r l y performance o b j e c t i v e s per ce iv e t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s in
i n s t i t u t i o n s whose mission and goal statements do not include
such o b je c tiv e s ?
The r e s u l t s

of the s t a t i s t i c a l

analyses

showed a s t r o n g

p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s
e x is t e n c e o f y e a r l y performance o b j e c t i v e s
The

Pearson

product-mom ent

and t h e

(see Table 4 . 1 4 ) .

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u l a t e d f o r the mean r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d t o th e ex iste n c e
o f y e a r l y performance o b j e c t i v e s
related

to

effectiveness.

and th e mean r a t i n g s

The c o r r e l a t i o n

t h r e e groups were p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t

coefficients

for
for

( a d m in i s t r a t o r s -

items
the
.696,

92
managers - .740, f a c u l t y - .764).

The reg res sio n a n a l y s is yielded

an F - r a t i o of 120.41, which was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .0001 l e v e l .

Table 4 . 1 4 . --Summary o f fin dings f o r Research Question 5: impact
o f ye a r l y performance o b je c ti v e s on perceived e f f e c ­
tiveness.
Item

Administrators

Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard dev iat ion
Pearson c o r r . co ef f.
Variance

47
3.83
4.00
1.00
5.00
.8405
.696
.480

Managers

Faculty

35
3.14
3.00
1.40
4.40
.9456
.740
.550

34
3.09
3.40
1.00
3.80
.6770
.764
.584

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

A
Rz

1
114
115

35.15
33.28
68.43

35.15
.292

- AA
12(M1

AAA,
-0001

*5137

Effec tive nes s mean = 3.53

93
Research Question 6 : Do a d m i n is tr a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s whose p re s id e n ts are a c t i v e l y involved in the
f in a n c i a l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being e f f e c t i v e ?
The best way to respond to t h i s ques tion i s f i r s t t o look a t
th e mean r a t in g s f o r each of the th r e e groups (see Table 4 . 1 5 ) .

The

r a t i n g s r e f l e c t the respondents ’ per ception t h a t the p r e s id e n t was
already involved in th e planning/budgeting process to a g r e a t e x t e n t
(a r a t i n g of 4 . 0 ) .

Because these r a t i n g s were high,

th e l i n e a r

c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was not high because th e r a t i n g s on the
e f f e c t i v e n e s s items were more normally d i s t r i b u t e d .
Table 4 . 1 5 . --Summary of findings f o r Research Question 6: impact
o f p r e s i d e n t ’ s a c t iv e involvement on perceived e f f e c ­
tiveness.
Item

Administrators

Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard de viation
Pearson c o r r . co ef f.
Variance

47
4.19
4.00
3.50
5.00
.519
.333

.111

Managers
35
3.58
3.50
2.25
4.75
.626
.648
.420

Faculty
34
3.94
4.00
2.75
4.50
.565
.452
.204

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

R2

1
114
115

27.00
41.42
68.43

27.00
.363

74.34

.0001

.3947

E f f e c t iv e n e s s mean * 3 .5 3

94

The

P ea rso n

product-moment

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u la t e d f o r th e mean r a t in g s f o r items r e l a t e d t o p r e s i d e n t ’ s
active

involvement

effectiveness.

and

th e

mean

ratings

for

items

related

to

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r managers (.648) was

s ta tis tic a lly significant.

C o e f f ic ie n ts f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (.334)

and f a c u l t y (.452) were p o s i t i v e but only moderately s tr o n g ; they
were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .
The F - r a t i o

of

74.34 was

significant

at

the

.0001

level.

Although such a s t a t i s t i c i s important, th e fre q u e n c ie s , means, and
c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s provide the strong base f o r understanding
why th e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s .

This t o p i c

is

addressed in

Chapter V.
Research Question 7 : Do a d m i n i s tr a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s having a long-range ( th r e e years or more)
f in a n c i a l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r ts in
i n s t i t u t i o n s having a s hort-range (one yea r) f in a n c i a l p l a n ­
ning/budgeting process?
The r e s u l t s o f the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is (see Table 4.16) were
statistically

significant;

answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y .
budgeting

process

was

therefore,

this

re se ar ch

ques tion

The l o n g e r - r a n g e f i n a n c i a l

perceived

to

have

a

positive

was

planning/
impact

on

organizational e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
The

P ea rso n

product-moment

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u l a t e d f o r th e mean r a t in g s f o r items r e l a t e d t o longer-term
p l a n n i n g / b u d g e t i n g and t h e mean r a t i n g s
effectiveness.
coefficient

for

ite m s r e l a t e d

to

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were s tr o n g ; only the

f o r a d m in is tr a to r s

(.49)

was s l i g h t l y

below th e

.50

95

c rite rio n established for significance.

The c o e f f i c i e n t s

for

managers (.6658) and f a c u l t y (.6868) were s i g n i f i c a n t and showed a
s o l i d r e l a t i o n s h i p , which was expected.
Results of th e reg res sio n a n a ly s is ( F - r a t i o ■ 56.07) were also
significant

at

the

.001

level.

This

finding

verifies

that

a

p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x is te d between longer-range f in a n c i a l
planning/budgeting and perceived i n s t i t u t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Table 4 . 1 6 . --Summary of fin dings f o r Research Question 7: impact
of longer-range planning/budgeting process on perceived
effectiveness.
Item

Administrators

Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard d eviation
Pearson c o r r . c o e f f.
Variance

47
3.67
3.50
2.50
5.00
.6678
.4900
.24

Managers

Faculty

35
3.43
3.50
1.00
4.50
.7607
.6658
.44

34
3.78
4.00
1.00
5.00
.7146
.6868
.47

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

1
114
115

22.56
45.87
68.43

22.56
.402

A,
56*07

AAA,
-0001

E f f e c t iv e n e s s mean * 3 .5 3

Rz
AOA_
*3297

96
Research Question 8 : Do a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s r eceiv in g higher r a t i n g s (5 t o 8) on t h e Li kert
s c ale perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than
do t h e i r c o u n te r p a rts in i n s t i t u t i o n s r e c e iv in g lower r a t i n g s
(1 t o 4) on t h a t scale?
The

P ea rso n

product-mom ent

correlation

coefficient

was

c a l c u l a t e d f o r the mean r a t i n g s f o r items on th e POC and th e mean
r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d t o e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

As shown in Table 4.17,

th e c o r r e l a t i o n between these mean r a t i n g s was s tr o n g but was not
sig n ifican t

for

adm inistrators

(.451).

The c o r r e l a t i o n

s i g n i f i c a n t f o r managers (.696) and f a c u l t y (.8257).

was

The F - r a t i o of

203.59 was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t - - a t th e .0001 l e v e l .
Table 4 . 1 7 . --Summary o f f in d in g s f o r Research Question 8:
o f l e a d e r s h i p on perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Administrators

Item
Number
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Standard d ev ia tio n
Pearson c o r r . c o e f f .
Variance

47
6.08
6.31
2.94
7.50
.922
.451
.20

impact

Managers

Faculty

35
5.05
5.44
1.00
6.69
1.428
.696
.48

34
5.45
5.31
2.25
7.13
1.440
.8257
.68

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

R2

1
114
115

43.87
24.56
68.43

43.866
.216

203.59

.0001

.6410

E f f e c t iv e n e s s mean - 3 . 5 3

97

The r a t i n g s

on i n d i v i d u a l

Items c o m p r is i n g t h e

discussed e a r l i e r in t h i s chapter.

POC were

Those r e s u l t s corresponded with

the mean r a t in g s f o r th e s e le c t e d elements.

The ad m in is t r a t o rs

gave the highest r a t i n g s ; managers’ r a t i n g s were the lowest.

The

d i s p a r i t y between administrators* perception s and those o f managers
and f a c u l t y caused the
ad m i n ist r a t o rs
ratin g s

for

than

correlation

the

ot her

adm inistrators

coefficient

two groups.
also

to

be lower

The g e n e r a l ly

h e lp e d

reduce

the

for
high

linear

r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e leadersh ip and e f f e c t i v e n e s s r a t i n g s .

The

c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r a d m in istr a to rs (.451) was not low, but
the r e s u l t s o f the frequency and reg re s sio n analyses indicated t h a t ,
in

all

ca se s,

lead er sh ip

did

have

a significant

impact on the

perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the i n s t i t u t i o n .
Research Question 9 ; Do a d m i n is tr a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s re ce iving higher r a t i n g s (5 t o 8) on the Liker t
s c a le perceive the fin a n c ia l planning/budgeting process in
t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more p a r t i c i p a t i v e than do t h e i r
co unterpart s in i n s t i t u t i o n s re ce iv in g lower r a t i n g s (1 to 4)
on t h a t scale?
The

Pear son

product-moment

correlation

coefficient

was

c a lc u l a te d f o r the mean r a t i n g s f o r items on th e POC and the mean
r a t i n g s f o r items r e l a t e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

As shown in Table 4.18,

a strong , p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between managers*
mean r a t i n g s

on th e

planning/budgeting
managers

( .8 1 2 7 )

POC and perceived
process.

participativeness

The c o r r e l a t i o n

was s i g n i f i c a n t .

of

the

coefficient

for

The f a c u l t y ’ s c o r r e l a t i o n

c o e f f i c i e n t (.4745) was strong but did not meet th e .50 c r i t e r i o n
for

significance.

98
In c o n t r a s t ,

the

(.1043) was very low.

correlation

coefficient

for

a d m in is tr a to rs

To address t h i s i s s u e , additional s t a t i s t i c s

were added t o Table 4.18.

I t can be seen t h a t a d m in is t r a to r s gave

very high r a t i n g s on th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n items.

Their mean r a t i n g on

th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n element o f the planning/budgeting was 4.33 out of
a p o s s ib le 5 .0.

Their minimum r a t i n g was 2. 1.

very skewed response on the

participation

The r e s u l t was a

items,

which did

not

c o r r e l a t e with the more normally d i s t r i b u t e d r a t i n g s on th e POC.
Table 4 . 1 8 . --Summary of fin dings f o r Research Question 9: impact
of le ad er sh ip on perceived p a r t i c i p a t i v e n e s s .
Administrators
(n = 47)

Managers
(n - 35)

Faculty
(n « 34)

Item

Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Std. dev.
Pearson
corr. coeff.
Variance

POC

P artici­
pation

POC

Participation

POC

P artici­
pation

4.90
6.30
2.94
7.50
1.066

4.33
4.50
2.10
5.00
.607

4.88
5.44
1.00
6.69
1.494

3.42
3.40
1.50
4.60
.901

5.10
5.12
2.25
7.13
1.586

3.40
3.40
1.80
4.20
.602

.1043
.0120

.8127
.6605

-

.4745
.2250

- - -

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source
Between groups
Within groups
Total

df

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

FRatio

FProb.

,
R*

1
114
115

44.48
64.76
109.24

44.480
.568

78.3

.0001

.4072

E ff e c t iv e n e s s mean - 3 . 5 3

99
Summary o f Survey R esu lts
The r egre ssi on and c o r r e l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c s

as they r e l a t e t o

e f f e c t i v e n e s s and the planning/budgeting elements ar e summarized in
Table 4.19.

The e f f e c t s of p a r t i c i p a t i v e lead er sh ip as rep re sen ted

by the s t a t i s t i c s f o r the POC are also included.
In b r i e f ,

the F - r a t i o s

f o r every element and th e

POC were

sig n ifican t;

thus,

research

answered

affirmatively.

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were p o s i t i v e and were

each

s i g n i f i c a n t in 41 o f 48 c a l c u l a t i o n s .
were

positive

and

moderately

question

was

The o th e r seven c o e f f i c i e n t s

strong;

all

seven

were

for

administrators’ ratings.
A multipi e - re g r e s s io n a n aly s is was also performed t o measure
th e impact of p a r t i c i p a t i v e lead er sh ip (as rep re sen ted on th e POC
items) with each planning/budgeting element t o determine what the
combined e f f e c t would be on the
institution.
but the

perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s

priority-1ists

element,

on which th e

explained

items.

by

the

lower

between th e r a t i n g s

This lower value,

F-ratio

of

192.46

Because the F - r a t i o was so high, t h i s

does not appear to be a noteworthy d ep ar tu re.

ad m in is t r a t o rs

th e

In t h i s a n a l y s is , the F - r a t i o increased in a l l cases

dropped to 190.01 ( - 2 . 4 5 ) .

may be

of

Part o f t h i s decrease

correlation
on the

coefficient

for

POC and e f f e c t i v e n e s s

as discussed e a r l i e r ,

i s most l i k e l y

r e l a t e d t o th e administrators* much higher r a t i n g s on items r e l a t e d
to p r io rity l i s t s .

Table 4 . 1 9 . —Regres sion and c o r r e l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c s :
and pe rce iv ed e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Element

F-Ratio

F-Ratio
w/POC

r e l a t i o n s h i p o f plan n i n g / b u d g e ti n g elements

C orrelation C oefficient
Change
Adm.

By Element
Man.
Fac.

Adm.

By POC
Man.

Fac.

Formal plan

111.59

150.95

+39.36

.5281

.7345

.5676

.5800

.7866

.8310

Participation

167.25

274.39

+ 7.14

.3792

.8936

.7280

.5282

.7362

.8479

S p e c i f i c funds

131.55

178.01

+46.46

.4483

.8961

.8410

.6006

.7395

.8208

P riority
1i s t s

192.46

190.01

- 2.45

.6748

.7148

.5802

.5741

.7474

.8030

Yearly
performance
objectives

120.41

134.31

+13.90

.6963

.7400

.7644

.6053

.8157

.8403

President
actively
involved

74.34

124.37

+50.03

.3334

.6484

.4520

.5990

.7847

.8406

Long- versus
short-range
goals

56.07

120.45

+64.38

.4906

.6658

.6868

.5519

.7712

.8134

203.59

203.59

.4507

.6956

.8257

.4507

.6956

.8257

POC

101

Overall,
leadership

th e
had

planning/budgeting
a

positive

and

elements

and

sig n ifican t

participative

im pact

on

the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of th e community co lleg es included in t h i s study, as
perceived by the in d iv id u als who completed the q u e s ti o n n a ir e s .
Results o f Campus V i s i t s
The r e s u l t s o f th e r e s e a r c h e r ’ s v i s i t s t o the f i v e community
co lleg e campuses are summarized in t h i s

s e c tio n .

o r i g i n a l l y had planned to conduct formal

The r esear ch er

interview s but discarded

t h a t idea a t the suggestion o f his study committee.

However, while

administering and c o l l e c t i n g the q u e s tio n n a i r e s , th e r e s e a r c h e r had
an op po rtu nity t o di sc uss the planning/budgeting process with some
respondents.
greater

In t h i s way he was able t o c l a r i f y o r / o r disc uss in

detail

their

responses

to

the

questionnaire.

The

a v a i l a b i l i t y and i n t e r e s t of the respondents v ar ie d ; some provided a
h a l f hour or more of i n s i g h t f u l comments, whereas o th e r s j u s t had
time f o r th e survey i t s e l f .
The w r i t e r decided t h a t the most appropri ate means of r e p o rtin g
what he learned from th e campus v i s i t s would be t o summarize th e
f i n d i n g s under each ele m e n t o f t h e p l a n n i n g / b u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s
s e le c te d f o r study.

Although th e following d iscu s s io n i s general in

n a t u r e , i t i s intended to incr ea se th e r e a d e r ' s understanding of the
e f f e c t s o f the planning/budgeting process on c o lle g e ope ra tions and
staff.

102
Effectiveness
In March 1987, the Michigan Department of Education published
the

results

of

a

Michigan C it iz ens

public

opinion

survey

entitled

About Community Colleges."

ge n e r a l ly p o s i t i v e ,

as noted in Chapter I I .

"Opinions

The r e s u l t s

of
were

The over all response

from v i s i t s t o the f i v e colleges was equally p o s i t i v e .
Respondents voiced concerns about i n te r n a l

relationships

and

op erations, but the overwhelming view o f the s t a f f a t a l l l e v e l s was
t h a t the r e s p e c ti v e community co lleg es were doing an e x c e l l e n t job
of meeting the needs o f the community.

In ad d iti o n , the s t a f f of

a ll f iv e co ll eg es seemed to be proud o f t h e i r a s s o c ia t io n with th e
i n s t i t u t i o n and looked forward to a continued and prosperous f u t u r e .
A number of interviewees showed the r e s e a r c h e r around t h e i r
buildings

or

other

areas

t e c h n o l o g i e s were b e in g
i n d i v i d u a l s ’ prid e

in

th e

where

u s ed.

innovative
Th is

colleges

c o l l e g e s were r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e

but

programs

reflected
al s o

not

how the

needs o f t h e i r

and/or

o n ly

the

community

students

and

communities.
Formal Planning Process
Various extremes of the formal planning process e x i s t e d in the
f iv e colle ges v i s i t e d in t h i s study.

One of th e colleges had been

exposed to formalized long-range planning 13 years ago.

The r e s u l t

was a two-volume s e t o f planning documents and procedures.

The

outcome of having th ese documents was too much t a l k i n g and not much
accomplishment.

This co lleg e had two campuses, and t h e r e was too

103
much overlap and competition between them.

The formal plan was a

nuisance and simply magnified the problem.

Then the campuses were

combined a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y ,

and the planning focus

shifted

toward

what was done on a day-to-day b a s is , using h i s t o r i c and procedural
g u id e lin e s t o permit a r e l a t i v e l y smooth operati on.
long-range planning process was disc ard ed .

The e la b o r a t e

At th e time of the

survey, a council of deans, to g e th e r with the p r e s id e n t and f iv e
v i c e - p r e s i d e n t s , c o n s t i t u t e d the planning group t h a t had a focus on
the whole d i s t r i c t .

Their mission was r e g u l a r l y t o evalua te what

c u r r e n t l y e x is t e d and t o seek recommendations f o r f u t u r e ac tio n .
A second co llege had a much more formal

planning

process.

Timetables were e s t a b l i s h e d , people knew t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and
a w r i tt e n document had been cr e a te d .

This plan was unique in i t s

use of th e Program Review f o r Occupational Education (PROE), which
r e q u ir e s f a c u l t y t o determine f iv e - y e a r goals f o r each vo cationaltechnical

program and t o

i d e n t i f y y e a r l y performance o b j e c t i v e s .

A fter the board o f t r u s t e e s and the p r e s i d e n t had determined what
funds were a v a i l a b l e , individual departments prepared a re quest f o r
what was needed, based on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e plan s.

The plan f o r each

department was based on the PROE r e p o r t s f o r each program in the
department.

If

th e

particular

item(s)

requested

documented in a PROE r e p o r t , the r eq u est was denied.

had

not

been

PROE r e p o r ts

were not required unless the department sought a dd it ional

funds.

Because t h i s i s us uall y th e case, departments were u s u all y w i l l i n g
t o complete t h e s e r e p o r t s .

104

By c o n t r a s t , another co llege had not defined a formal planning
process.

However, t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n seemed t o be one of th e best

operated and had a very low r a t i o o f a d m inistrators to s tu d e n ts .
Participation
The e f f e c t o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n was best i l l u s t r a t e d

a t the one

community co lleg e in th e study without a formal planning process.
A fter the r e se a r c h e r had determined t h a t formal planning was absent
but t h a t the co lle ge was q u it e e f f e c t i v e ,
interviews t o disco ve r why the
formal planning process.
were a c t i v e l y
direction.

involved

he conducted a dd it ional

co lleg e was e f f e c t i v e

The answer was p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
in

setting

without

a

The f a c u l t y

policy and determining

f u tu r e

A formal planning process had been replaced by a very

formal, s tr ong, and e f f e c t i v e f a c u l t y sena te.

I t would have been

d i f f i c u l t f o r even th e p r esid en t of t h a t c o lleg e t o implement a
po licy change without the concurrence of t h a t body.
most r ecen t North Central

Acc re ditation

report

In f a c t ,

the

expressed concern

about th e apparent power and a u t h o r it y given to th e f a c u l t y .

Thus,

a t t h i s c o lle g e , a formal process did e x i s t , but th e focus was on
the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of f a c u l t y r a t h e r than on planning per se.
Faculty p a r t i c i p a t i o n was a l s o strong a t another c o l l e g e .
top a d m in is t r a to r s t a t e d ,

"This co llege e x i s t s

for

One

i n s t r u c t i o n ."

The statement was supported by the f a c t t h a t budget a l l o c a t i o n s were
based on PROE r e p o r t s .

These r e p o r ts were prepared by f a c u l t y and

included f i v e - y e a r o b j e c t i v e s .

Reliance on these

reports

gives

105
strong evidence of genuine f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in th e planning

process.
Faculty o f the o th e r colle ges in t h i s study appa ren tly did not
participate

actively

in

th e

planning/budgeting

process.

Their

involvement was e s s e n t i a l l y a r e s u l t of the c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g
process.

They were kept informed on a need-to-know b a s is but were

not encouraged or re quire d t o p a r t i c i p a t e in th e process.
P r i o r i t y Lis ts
P rio rity

lists

community c o lle g e s

were

found

visited.

determined a t two l e v e l s .

At

at

only

that

one

college,

of

the

priorities

five
were

F i r s t , the v i c e - p r e s i d e n t s determined th e

p r i o r i t i e s within t h e i r areas of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and funds were made
a v a i l a b l e based on those needs.
reports,

the

faculty

had

Second,

determined

in prep aring th e

what

occupational program over th e next f i v e y e a r s .

was

needed

for

PROE
each

The area p r i o r i t i e s

of th e v i c e - p r e s i d e n t s and th e program p r i o r i t i e s o f f a c u l t y were
then merged, and a budget req ues t was submitted to the p r e s id e n t and
board of t r u s t e e s f o r approval.
The use o f p r i o r i t y l i s t s appeared t o be f a i r and e q u i t a b l e f o r
all

concerned.

Perhaps most

important,

everyone knew where the

funds were going and why.
Yearly Performance Objectives
The c l e a r e s t evidence o f performance o b j e c t i v e s a t lower l e v e l s
was th e use o f th e PROE r e p o r t , which r e q u ir e s f a c u l t y t o determine
f i v e - y e a r goals f o r each program and t o i d e n t i f y y e a r l y performance

106

objectives.

All

Michigan

community

colleges

r e q u ir e

th e

PROE

r e p o r t , but some colleges use i t more e f f e c t i v e l y than o t h e r s .
The a d m in istr a to rs a t one co llege had r e c e n t l y i n i t i a t e d a new
planning process
objectives.

that

tied

The f a c u l t y

the

bud get t o y e a r l y

of each department

p a r t i c i p a t e in th e o b j e c t i v e - s e t t i n g process.

p e r fo r m a n c e

had been asked to
Those o b j e c t i v e s and

th e accompanying budget were reviewed in terms o f p r i o r i t i e s

fo r

po s s i b le

and

in clu sio n

in

th e

new budget.

Both

instructional

support s t a f f s p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h i s new process.
All

five

objectives.
objectives

colleges

had

some form o f

yearly

p er fo r m an ce

I t was d i f f i c u l t to determine t o what ex ten t those
applied s p e c i f i c a l l y to the planning/budgeting process

and the s eri ousness with which they had been undertaken.
i s c l e a r , however:

One point

The use of ye a r ly performance o b j e c t i v e s and the

concern with t h e i r achievement were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o th e level
of

management.

The

use

of

p er fo r m an ce

objectives

by

top

a d m i n i s tr a to r s was c e r t a i n l y an accepted management p r a c t i c e in the
community c o ll e g e s in t h i s study.
P r e s i d e n t ’ s Active Involvement
I f th e importance o f planning can be measured by the level of
each community c o ll eg e p r e s i d e n t ’ s involvement in i t , th e plan ning/
b u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s must be very

im portant.

All

five

college

p r e s i d e n t s were a c t i v e l y involved in the planning process.

At the

community c o lleg e with a new planning process, the p r e s i d e n t chaired
th e s es sions a t which th e process was o u t lin e d and questions about

107

i t s implementation were answered.

The p r e s i d e n t ’ s involvement gave

s t a f f members much impetus t o p a r t i c i p a t e .
Apparently th e old approach o f having a lay o f f i c i a l

such as

th e v i c e - p r e s i d e n t administer the planning process was no longer
used.

The p r e s id e n ts had assumed t h i s important r o l e ; thereby the

planning process was incorporated

Into the mainstream o f co ll ege

a c t i v i t y - - s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n to the t r a d i t i o n a l budgeting process.
Allo cati on o f S pecific Funds
At the co lleg es v i s i t e d , funds were not a l l o c a te d s p e c i f i c a l l y
for

the

adm inistration

of

the

planning/budgeting

process.

The

co lleges had i n t e g r a te d t h e i r planning/budgeting process in to the
i n s t i t u t i o n as a whole.
by

various

planning

Res pon sib ility for the process was shared

committees,

with the

president

serving

as

chairperson or a t l e a s t keeping a watchful eye on the proceedings.
Although the funding of a s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y c a l l e d planning was not
observed, i t was ev ident t h a t planning was being supported and t h a t
the s t a f f were given adequate time to ensure a successful operatio n.
Long- Versus Short-Ranae Planning
All

but one of th e

f i v e colleges had

t h r e e - y e a r or longer

planning goals linked with the y e a r l y performance o b j e c t i v e s .
c o l le g e req uired f i v e - y e a r goals as the b a s is

f o r annual

One
budget

r e q u e s ts , but over all th e focus was on y e a r l y o b j e c t i v e s .
The prime focus remained the annual budget and th e a c t i v i t i e s
to

be funded by i t . A number o f f a c t o r s

may have led to such

108
behavior,

but conversations

with

staff

at

all

of

th e

coll eges

In dicated t h a t they had a co llege to run and one y e a r ’ s worth o f
fu nds w ith which t o do s o .

Lon g e r- ran g e p l a n n i n g ,

although

d e s i r a b l e , would have been a luxury.
P a r t i c i p a t i v e Management
As expected, the management approach of the top a d m i n ist r a t o rs
generated th e most e n e r g e tic

disc us sion

among the

in terviewees.

This t o p i c was c e r t a i n l y of more i n t e r e s t to them than th e planning/
budgeting process.
The s tu d y

f o cu sed

on v a r i o u s

elements

of

the

planning/

budgeting process and what e f f e c t v a r i a t i o n s in t h e se elements had
on th e perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s
observed

that

the

process, but in a l l

type

of

of the

process.

leadership

The r e s e a r c h e r

affected

the

planning

but one case the design of th e process i t s e l f

seemed to be the most i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r .
In one community c o lle g e , the s t y l e o f le ad er sh ip was combative
and caused undue r e s i s t a n c e to the planning/budgeting process.
r e s u l t , th e p o t e n t i a l success of the process was reduced.

As a

Another

co lleg e appeared t o have a much more p a r t i c i p a t i v e s t y l e , as per the
Likert-scale descriptors.
been

criticized

effectiveness

by

The level of involvement was high and had

o u ts id e

and e f f i c i e n c y

e v a lu a t o r s . However,
of

the

college’s

th e

apparent

op er at ion

should

l a r g e l y reduce the e f f e c t o f such c r i t i c i s m .
Respondents from t h e o t h e r c o l l e g e s were mixed
ev alu ations of th e le a d e r sh i p and i t s

effect.

in t h e i r

The c o lle g e s were

109
perceived as being e f f e c t i v e ,

but in t e r v i e w e e s ’ r e a c t i o n s t o the

type of l e a d e r s h ip were l e s s than p o s i t i v e .
viewed in

a f av ora ble

light,

The l e a d e r s h i p was not

but d iscu s s io n o f t h i s

f a c t o r was

l im it e d because o f what th e r e s e a r c h e r i n t e r p r e t e d as concern about
p o s s ib le r e p e rc u s sio n s .
This c h ap te r contained a d iscu s s io n o f th e r e s u l t s o f t h e data
analyses conducted f o r t h i s study, as well as o f t h e campus v i s i t s .
Chapter V co ntai ns a summary o f th e study, conclusions regarding the
research

questions,

recom mendations

suggestions f o r f u r t h e r r esear ch .

for

future

action,

and

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
ACTION, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Summary
Purposes of the Study
The w r i t e r had t h r e e ce ntral purposes in conducting t h i s study:
(a)

to examine th e

community co llege

effect

o f the

effectiveness,

planning/budgeting
(b)

to

examine

the

s e le c te d elements o f th e planning/budgeting process
college

effectiveness,

and

(c)

to

examine

process

on

effect

of

on community

the

effect

of

p a r t i c i p a t i v e management on th e planning/budgeting process and on
s e le c te d elements of th e process.
Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e
The l i t e r a t u r e

review concerned the

planning

and

budgeting

processes in the community c o lleg e because so much o f the planning
t h a t takes place i s done as p a r t of preparing th e budget.

Also

discussed were p a r t i c i p a t i v e management in community c o lle g e s
measures

of effectiveness

for

community c o l l e g e s .

This

and

review

provided th e b as is from which to examine how th e planning/budgeting
process and th e level o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h a t process a f f e c t e d the
oper ation o f f i v e s e le c t e d Michigan community c o lle g e s .

110

Ill
Methodology
A q u es ti onnair e was used in combination with campus v i s i t s to
collect

th e d a ta f o r t h i s

study.

The f i r s t

two p a r t s

of

the

q u es tionnaire were developed t o c o l l e c t d ata about (a) th e perceived
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f community co llege op er atio ns and (b) the e f f e c t of
s e le c te d planning/budgeting elements on e f f e c t i v e n e s s as perceived
by th e

respondents.

The t h i r d

part

of

th e

qu e s tio n n a ir e

was

L i k e r t ’ s P r o f i l e o f Organizational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (POC), which was
used t o measure the ex te n t t o which p a r t i c i p a t i v e management e x i ste d
in t h e

community c o l l e g e s

i n v o lv e d

in t h i s

study.

A fully

p a r t i c i p a t i v e or ganiz ati on would re ceive high r a t i n g s on the POC,
in d i c a t i n g a p a r t i c i p a t i v e - d e m o c r a t i c management s t y l e .

Ratings on

the POC were compared t o those on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s measures and the
planning/budgeting elements s e le c te d f o r the study.
The r e s e a r c h e r v i s i t e d the f i v e community co lleg e campuses t o
increase h i s awareness o f c u r re n t community co lleg e ope rat ions and
t o enhance th e qu e s ti o n n a ir e r e t u r n r a t e .
c o l l e c t i n g the instruments,

While ad ministering and

th e r e s e a r c h e r had an opportunity t o

d i sc u s s th e planning/budgeting process with some respondents.

Such

d isc u s s io n s ofte n helped t o c l a r i f y and amplify th e q u e s tio n n a ir e
responses.
Conclusions Regarding Research Questions
In t h i s s e c t io n , each research ques tion i s r e s t a t e d , followed
by th e conclusions drawn from th e fin dings f o r each qu es ti on.

112
Research Question 1 : Do a d m in is tr a to rs , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s having a more formalized f in a n c i a l planning/
budgeting process perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more
e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r co unte rpart s in i n s t i t u t i o n s having a
l e s s formalized process?
The r e l a t i o n s h i p
planning

and

between t h e

organizational

s ta tis tic a lly significant.

perceived

effectiveness

levels
was

o f formal

po sitiv e

and

When the planning process was evaluated

as being more formal, th e org an iza tion was also perceived as being
more e f f e c t i v e .
This r e l a t i o n s h i p was observed f o r each of th e t h r e e groups:
a d m i n i s tr a to r s ,

managers,

and f a c u l t y .

Although th e c o r r e l a t i o n

c o e f f i c i e n t was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r each g r o u p ,

p e r h a p s t h e most

i n t e r e s t i n g observation was the higher c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r
managers.

This may be explained,

in p a r t ,

by t h e i r

spread

in

r a t i n g s , which ranged from 1.857 to 4.714 on a s c a le from 1 to 5.
The standard d evia tion f o r managers was als o th e h ig h est (.79987).
The r e s e a r c h e r concluded, using the information gathered during the
campus v i s i t s , t h a t the managers viewed the formal planning process
and org an iza ti onal e f f e c t i v e n e s s as low when they were excluded from
the process and much higher when they were a c t i v e l y involved in i t .
Their

perceptions

were

strongly

affected

by t h e i r

level

of

involvement.
This re se ar ch ques tion a ls o concerned th e degree to which a
formal planning process had been incorporated in th e f i v e c o lle g e s .
In t h i s

study,

tim etables

and

th e t h r e e c r i t e r i a
forecasts,

(b)

f o r formal
form ally

planning were

w ritten

steps

(a)
and

procedures, and (c) s p e c i f i c persons resp onsible f o r each p a r t of

113

th e process.

Only one community co llege met a l l t h r e e c r i t e r i a f o r

formal planning.

The process was not c a l l e d formal planning, but i t

was r e l a t e d t o formulation of the annual budget common to community
c o l le g e s .
In response t o the survey items r e l a t e d t o formal planning, 83%
o f the a d m in istr a to rs s aid f o r e c a s t s were a v a i l a b l e and used t o a
g r e a t e x ten t (Table 4 . 2 ) .

Twenty-six percent o f th e managers and

18% of the f a c u l t y responded in t h i s way.
less

than

forecasts

a d m in is tr a t o r s ,

(Table

4.2).

Timetables were used much

Fift y-se ven

42% of the managers,

per cent

of

the

and 21% of th e f a c u l t y sa id

tim e ta b le s were used to a g r e a t e x t e n t .
The second c r i t e r i o n was w r itt e n ste ps and procedures.

Fifty-

s i x percent of the a d m i n ist r a t o rs said these were used t o a g r e a t
e x t e n t ; 50% o f the f a c u l t y concurred, but only 31% o f the managers
shared t h i s perception (Table 4 . 2 ) .
The t h i r d c r i t e r i o n was s p e c i f i c persons resp o n s ib le f o r the
planning/budgeting process.

Eighty-one pe rcent

o f th e

adminis­

t r a t o r s , 80% of the f a c u l t y , and 40% of the managers s aid t h i s was
t r u e t o a g r e a t e x te n t (Table 4 . 2 ) .
O ver all, the c o ll e g e s appeared t o be making use o f formalized
planning.

The actual term was not used, but th e process seemed to

have been incorporated
operations

and

in to th e mainstream o f community co lleg e

resulted

in

an

increase

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f community c o lleg e o p e r a t io n s .

in

the

perceived

114
Research Question 2: Do a d m i n i s tr a to rs , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where th e r e i s a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the
fi n a n c i a l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n ter p arts in
i n s t i t u t i o n s where t h e r e i s l i t t l e or no p a r t i c i p a t i o n ?
The d ata analyses f o r t h i s research question in dic ate d th e r e
was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of

the

organization

and

the

planning/budgeting process.

level

of

p articipation

Employees who were involved

in

the

in

the

planning/budgeting process saw the process as being more e f f e c t i v e
than those who were not involved.
In examining the r e s u l t s f o r each group, th e adm inistrators*
r a t i n g s were the only ones t h a t were not s i g n i f i c a n t ( c o r r e l a t i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t = .3797), but they did r e f l e c t a moderately strong and
positive

relationship.

literature

review,

As a r e s u l t

and

responses

to

of th e
other

campus v i s i t s ,
parts

of

the

the

survey

i n s t r u m e n t , t h e r e s e a r c h e r c oncluded t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s *
r a t i n g s were the r e s u l t of very high l e v e l s o f involvement in the
planning/budgeting process.

I f such r a t in g s do not vary to a g r e a t

ex ten t and i f th e r e are expected variances f o r the e f f e c t i v e n e s s
measures, th e c o r r e l a t i o n between these two v a r i a b l e s may not be
significant.
The r e s e a r c h e r had expected t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n would be hig hest
f o r a d m in is t r a to r s , followed by managers and then f a c u l t y having the
lowest level
managers

of participation.

perceived

themselves

planning/budgeting pro ce ss .
with t h e i r

level

of

Actually,
to

be th e

o f th e
least

three

involved

groups,
in

the

On the whole, f a c u l t y were s a t i s f i e d

involvement

in th e

pr oc es s.

As expected,

115

adm inistrators

were

highly

satisfied

with

th eir

level

of

participation.
In t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h s ,

several

o f t h e most ob vio us

d iscrepancies in the r a t i n g s are c i t e d t o help c l a r i f y th e f in d in g s .
Table 4.3 shows responses concerning awareness o f th e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s
o fficial

annual

budget p o l i c y .

Such p o l i c y

is

n o t t h e most

necessary information, but only 12% of th e f a c u l t y i n d ic ate d a low
level of awareness.

Perhaps they were s a t i s f i e d because they did

not need or care t o know what the budget policy was.
Managers c o n s t i t u t e the l a r g e s t supervisory group, and they also
tend t o be a s t a b i l i z i n g force because of the lack o f turnov er in
t h e i r ranks.

Forty percent of the managers in t h i s study in dic ate d

they did not know enough about the annual budget p o li c y .

These are

th e same managers who spend most of the money in the budget.
Responses to the item concerning how much encouragement was
given t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e f in a n c i a l planning/budgeting process
(Table

4.3)

provide

another

example

of

th e

unusual

between a d m in istr a to rs and t h e i r managerial personnel.

difference
N inety- three

percent of the a d m in istr a to rs

perceived they were encouraged t o

p artic ip a te to a great extent.

In c o n t r a s t , 37% o f th e managers and

41% of the f a c u l t y shared t h i s view.

J u s t 6% o f th e a d m i n i s tr a to r s

thought they were encouraged t o p a r t i c i p a t e t o a l i t t l e

or very

l i t t l e e x t e n t , whereas 43% o f the managers and 21% o f th e f a c u l t y
shared t h i s pe rception.

116
The r e se a r c h e r had expected t h a t f a c u l t y would i n d i c a t e a low
level

of participation,

management and l a b o r ,
faculty

indicated

p articipation
managers.

in p a r t because o f th e c o n f l i c t
as well

higher

as a la ck o f i n t e r e s t .

and

often

much

higher

Yet the
levels

in p a r t i c u l a r e le m e n ts o f t h e p r o c e s s

Also,

in

far

fewer cases

between

of

th a n d i d

than managers did

faculty

indicate l i t t l e participation.
O ver all, 34% o f the managers indicated l i t t l e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
the ten s e le c te d elements of the planning/budgeting process, and 39%
i n d icated

they

participated

to

a great

extent.

This

l ack

of

p a r t i c i p a t i o n by the l a r g e s t supervisory group i s f a r from i d e a l .
Research Question 3 : Do a d m in is tr a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where funds have been s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e d
f o r th e f in a n c ia l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r
i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te r p a rt s
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where such funds are not a ll o c a te d ?
Analysis

of

th e

d ata

for

this

question

in d icated

that

a

p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s te d between th e perceived
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e or ganization and th e a l l o c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c
funds f o r th e planning/budgeting process.
An examination o f the research f in dings suggested t h a t funds
were a l l o c a t e d f o r the planning/budgeting process and t h a t the funds
were perceived to be s u f f i c i e n t .
verified

that

although

budgeting pr ocess,

funds

The r e s u l t s o f th e campus v i s i t s
were

allocated

for

th e

plannin g/

th e money was not t a r g e t e d d i r e c t l y toward a

s p e c i f i c planning department or person.

The funds spent on the

planning process were d i s t r i b u t e d acr oss the c o ll e g e as s a l a r i e s f o r
a d m in is tr a t o r s who had planning r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

117

One co llege had a planning o f f i c e ,
and

Planning.

which was c a l l e d Research

A planning process wasbeing developed,

but

person in charge had been hired to do r e s e a r c h , not planning.
was

the
He

learning the planning process through books and seminars.
The e x i s t e n c e

definition.

of

specific

Although t h i s

fund s

is,

then,

a m atter

of

re se a r c h e r does not agree with t h e i r

viewpoint, the respondents perceived t h a t s p e c i f i c funds were being
a l l o c a t e d f o r planning/budgeting.
Research Question 4 : Do a d m i n is t r a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where a p r i o r i t y l i s t of programs and s e rv i c e s
has been c r eate d f o r expansion or elim in atio n as co lleg e fund­
ing grows or is reduced perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being
more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n ter p arts in i n s t i t u t i o n s w it h ­
out such a l i s t o f p r i o r i t i e s ?
The fin ding s i n d icated t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d
between the perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s
ex is te n c e of p r i o r i t y l i s t s .

of th e or ganization

I t appears t h a t when p r i o r i t y l i s t s

were used as p a r t o f th e planning/budgeting pr ocess,
personnel

and the

th e co lleg e

perceived t h a t they were b e t t e r prepared to deal

changes in the f in a n c i a l

p o s iti o n of the co lle g e ,

with

r e s u l t i n g in a

p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on i t s operation.
A d m in istr a to rs ’ use

of p r io rity

lists

during per iods of growth as well as d e c l i n e .

appeared

to

be

high

Application of thes e

l i s t s dropped s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r managers and was not much b e t t e r f o r
faculty.

Seventy-nine per cent o f the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

38% o f the

f a c u l t y , and 25% o f th e managers in dicated they used p r i o r i t y l i s t s
t o a g r e a t or very g r e a t e x ten t (Table 4 . 4 ) .

118
The campus v i s i t s pointed to the use of p r i o r i t y l i s t s based on
PROE r e p o r ts in one co lle g e .
l im it e d

to the annual

Otherwise, th e use o f such l i s t s was

budget

process,

in which s o - c a l l e d

"wish

l i s t s " are submitted and p r i o r i t i e s ar e u l t i m a t e l y e s t a b l i s h e d to
deal with them.
Research Question 5 : Do a d m in is tr a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s where co ll ege mission and goal statements
include ye a r ly performance o b j e c t iv e s perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n te r p a rt s in
i n s t i t u t i o n s whose mission and goal statements do not include
such o b je c ti v e s?
The r e s u l t s of v i s i t s to the colleges p a r t i c i p a t i n g
research

indicated

e s ta b li s h e d
levels.

f o r most,

that

yearly

if

not a l l ,

Faculty were involved

e valuation e f f o r t s .

p er fo r m an ce

in t h i s

objectives

were

management and a d m i n i s tr a tiv e

in t h i s

process through

program-

The data generated by q u e s ti o n n a ir e responses

a ls o confirmed the exis te nc e of y e a r ly performance o b j e c t i v e s and
i n d icated t h e r e was a p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between
t h i s o b j e c t i v e - s e t t i n g process and the perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s of
th e organization.
The actual use o f y e a r ly performance o b j e c t i v e s va r ie d g r e a t l y
from th e

number t h a t

were

developed.

Departmental

goals

were

c l o s e l y monitored, and top a d m i n ist r a t o rs were knowledgeable about
what each department was t o do.

However,

the e valuation o f the

department based on the o b je c tiv e s has found li m it e d use.
o n ly

36% o f

even

the

adm inistrators

indicated

performance o b j e c t iv e s were used t o a g r e a t e x t e n t .

that

In f a c t ,
yearly

In p r a c t i c e ,

119
performance o b j e c t i v e s were f a r d i f f e r e n t from e i t h e r departmental
or ind ividual o b j e c t i v e s (Table 4 . 5 ) .
Research Question 6 : Do a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s whose p r e s i d e n t s are a c t i v e l y involved in th e
f in a n c i a l planning/budgeting process per ce iv e t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being e f f e c t i v e ?
The

effect

of the

president’s

in v o l v e m e n t

in

the

planning/budgeting process on c o lleg e ope rat ions was p o s i t i v e and
significant.
The

However, se ve ral

significance

was based

a d d itio n a l comments ar e necessary.
on

s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .0001 l e v e l .

an

F-ratio of

74.34,

which was

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the

managers was .648, but i t was only .330 f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and .452
for faculty.
As noted e a r l i e r , th e perceived e f f e c t was influenced by
relative

position

of

each

group

involved

in

this

study.

the
The

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were very involved with th e p r e s i d e n t on an on-going
b a s i s , as r e f l e c t e d by t h e i r high mean score o f 4.19 out o f 5.0.
There was l i t t l e va ria nce in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , r e g a r d l e s s o f the
perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e c o l l e g e .

In t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ’ s view,

th e low c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s was th e r e s u l t of
t h i s ste ady , on-going r e l a t i o n s h i p .
As evidenced throughout th e
involved with th e p r e s i d e n t .

study,

th e managers were

least

As a r e s u l t , they appeared t o place a

high value on those occasions in which they were involved with the
president.

The managers had not taken th e p r e s i d e n t ’ s involvement

f o r gran ted and s t r o n g ly believ ed t h a t th e p r e s i d e n t ’ s involvement

120
in the planning/budgeting process would have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on
c o lle g e o p e r a t io n s .
There was no evidence t h a t th e p r e s i d e n t was anything l e s s than
fully

involved throughout th e

entire

planning/budgeting

process.

The types o f planning processes v a r ie d , o f course, but r e g a r d l e s s of
th eir

design,

the

presidents

were

at

the

forefront

during

implementation.
However, when respondents were asked t o d e s c r ib e how o f te n the
p r e s i d e n t met with various groups, th e following p i c t u r e emerged.
When asked how o f te n

th e

p r e s id e n t

met with

top

administrators

concerning th e planning/budgeting process, 99% o f th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
responded t o a g r e a t or very g r e a t e x t e n t .

Ninety-one percent of

th e managers and 78% o f th e f a c u l t y supported t h i s view (Table 4 . 6 ) .
But when p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked how of te n th e p r e s i d e n t met
with managerial s t a f f , th e r a t i n g s dropped s u b s t a n t i a l l y .
three

percent

of

the

adm inistrators

said

the

Seventy-

president

met

with managers to a g r e a t e x t e n t , whereas only 30% o f th e managers
shared t h i s pe rcepti on.

Sixty-seven per ce nt o f th e f a c u l t y thought

th e p r e s i d e n t met with managers t o a g r e a t e x t e n t .

Thus,

there

seemed to be a g r e a t discrepancy between per ception and r e a l i t y .
Respondents in d ic a te d th e p r e s id e n t met with f a c u l t y even l e s s
frequently

th a n

they

did

with

m anager s.

Only

32% o f

the

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s thought th e p r e s i d e n t met with f a c u l t y t o a g r e a t
e x t e n t ; 17% o f the managers and 38% o f th e f a c u l t y concurred (Table
4.6).

121
Research Question 7 ; Do a d m in is t r a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s having a long-range ( t h r e e ye ar s o r more)
f in a n c i a l planning/budgeting process perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u ­
t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than do t h e i r c o u n ter p arts in
i n s t i t u t i o n s having a s hort -ra nge (one yea r) f i n a n c i a l p la n ­
ning/budgeting process?
Each of the t h r e e groups involved in the study perceived the
co ll e g e t o be more e f f e c t i v e when a longer-range planning/budgeting
process was used.
each group,

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r

as were th e

F-ratios.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p

between a

longer-range planning/budgeting process and perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s
was both p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t .
The overwhelming response on the survey was t h a t th e community
coll eges in t h i s
setting.

study focused on sho rt- ran g e planning and goal

Th ir ty -n in e percent o f th e ad m in is t r a t o rs believed t h i s to

be t r u e , whereas 49% of t h e managers and 80% o f th e f a c u l t y shared
t h i s pe rception.

Again th e perceptions of respondents who were most

involved in th e process va ried g r e a t l y from th e perceptions of those
who were not involved (Table 4 . 8 ) .
The d i f f i c u l t y
planning/budgeting

of

establishing

process

has

an

been

on-going,

well

long-range

documented.

The

respondents in t h i s study sa id t h a t perhaps th e e f f o r t is worthwhile
in

te r m s

of

im proving

the

operational

effectiveness

of

the

institution.
Research Question 8 : Do a d m i n is tr a t o r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s re ce iving higher r a t i n g s (5 to 8) on the Like rt
s c a le perceive t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more e f f e c t i v e than
do t h e i r c o u n te r p arts in i n s t i t u t i o n s re ce iving lower r a t i n g s
(1 t o 4) on t h a t sc ale?

122
As r e f l e c t e d by the P r o f i l e of Organizational C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
the level of p a r t i c i p a t i v e management had a p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t
effect

on the planning/budgeting process.

The Pearson

product-

moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r a d m in is t r a to r s was .451.

This

s t a t i s t i c per se was not s i g n i f i c a n t but was considered strong and
reflective

of

a po sitiv e

association.

More

im portant,

the

c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t increased t o .696 f o r managers and .826 f o r
faculty.
I t appears t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n was seen as having more e f f e c t by
respondents a t lower l e v e l s of the org a n iz a tio n .

The ad m in i s tr a to rs

p a r t i c i p a t e d to a g r e a t e x ten t because th e opportunity e x i s t e d and
because o f the enrichment such p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f f e r s .
and f a c u l t y ,

p articip atio n

was n o t

autom atic,

t h e r e f o r e b e t t e r able than ad m in is tr a to rs
being involved or not.

to

For managers

and t h e y were

see the e f f e c t s

of

The s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r managers

and f a c u l t y a t t e s t t o j u s t how important p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s .
Research Question 9 : Do a d m i n i s tr a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y
in i n s t i t u t i o n s r eceiv in g higher r a t i n g s (5 to 8) on th e Liker t
s c a le perceive th e f i n a n c i a l planning/budgeting process in
t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s as being more p a r t i c i p a t i v e than do t h e i r
c o u n ter p arts in i n s t i t u t i o n s rec eiving lower r a t i n g s (1 t o 4)
on t h a t scale?
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between responses on survey items r e l a t e d to
p a r t i c i p a t i o n and responses t o the POC was s i g n i f i c a n t only f o r the
managers.

The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .813 f o r managers, but i t

was only

.104 f o r

ad m in is tr a to rs

and

.475 f o r

faculty.

Taken

c o l l e c t i v e l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p was p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t a t the
.0001 l e v e l , based on an F - r a t i o of 78.3.

123
The managers' responses r e f l e c t e d a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e planning/budgeting process and r a t i n g s on the
POC.

The POC i s a measure of lea de rsh ip clim ate;

i n d i c a t e a more p a r t i c i p a t i v e or gan izational climate.
participation

by managers and t h e i r

higher scores
The lack o f

a p p recia tion when they were

involved were r e f l e c t e d in the high c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the
manager group.
The

responses

of

adm inistrators

reflected

a lm o st

no

r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e planning/budgeting process
and r a t i n g s on th e POC.

This r e s u l t i s not unusual, given th e f a c t

t h a t a d m in is tr a t o r s cr eated the clim ate and could be expected t o be
happy with

it.

Faculty

responses

reflected

a

strong

yet

not

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and r a t i n g s on th e
POC, which may be p a r t i a l l y a r e s u l t of t h e i r a b i l i t y to contro l
t h e i r involvement.
wanted t o be.

Most f a c u l t y appeared to be as involved as they

They would not view the

e f f e c t o f more o r l e s s

p a r t i c i p a t i o n as being as important as i t was for managers.
The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the t h r e e groups provided an
excellent

representation

o f the

level

of

participation

and

importance. The most d i s s a t i s f i e d group was the managers.

its
They

p a r t i c i p a t e d th e l e a s t and would value more p a r t i c i p a t i o n the most.
Summary of Conclusions
Study p a r t i c i p a n t s perceived the planning/budgeting process in
oper ation a t the community coll eges t o be e f f e c t i v e .
was not as formal

The procedure

as th e l i t e r a t u r e has suggested f o r plan ning/

124
budgeting

processes;

in to

c o l l e g e s ’ day-to-day

th e

rather,

planning/budgeting
o p e r a ti o n s.

was

Perhaps

Incorporated
th e

use

of

planning/budgeting r a t h e r than th e fo rm al it y o f th e process i s the
more important f a c t o r .

I f so, the e f f o r t s o f those who have pushed

f o r a planning process have been s u c c e ss fu l .
more of the
s h o u ld

be

The f in dings suggested

planning/budgeting elements discussed
incorporated

into

the

current

in t h i s

process.

study

If

more

p a r t i c i p a t i v e management can be included along with the increased
use

of

the

planning/budgeting

elements,

community

college

a d m i n is t r a to r s , managers, and f a c u l t y wi ll be able to make b e t t e r
use o f the planning/budgeting process as an i n te g r a l p a r t of t h e i r
e f f o r t s to meet f u tu r e challeng es .
Recommendations f o r Future Action
1.

P a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l s appeared t o be adequate f o r f a c u l t y

and a d m in is t r a to r s , who seemed to be s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r c u r r e n t
l e v e l s o f involvement.

However, managers perceived themselves to be

underused in the planning process.
"last

power"

p e o p le

as

a

They also saw themselves as the

result

of

more

p articipation

ad m in istr ati o n with o t h e r groups across th e c o l l e g e .

by

Ratings on

r e l a t e d items such as communication, l e a d e r s h ip , and motivation were
als o low.

Therefore, i t i s recommended t h a t every e f f o r t be made t o

improve th e level o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by managerial personnel.
2.

The elements of the planning/budgeting process included in

t h i s study were a l l p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

125
th e

Institution.

Therefore,

the use of each of th ese elements

should be expanded in the f i v e community colleg es s tu d ie d .
3.

Responses on th e POC helped in understanding variances in

the e f f e c t i v e n e s s measures.

According t o L i k e r t, th e p a r t i c i p a t i v e -

democratic leadersh ip approach i s the ideal model.

Experience with

the POC has shown t h a t employees also perceive such an environment
as

ideal.

This

researcher

co ncl uded

that

efforts

by

the

or ganizatio n to move toward a p a r t ic i p a t i v e - d e m o c r a t i c environment
w ill

improve t h e p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f community c o l l e g e

o p e r a tio n s.

Therefore,

it

i s recommended t h a t community co ll eges

a t t e m p t t o move toward what L i k e r t c a l l e d

the p a r t ic ip a ti v e -

democratic le adersh ip approach.
4.
the

The elements o f formal planning were being used in most of

community coll eges

s tu d ied .

T h e , e la b o r a t e

document of the p a s t had not seemed to work.
recommended t h a t the elements of
incorporated

into

the

formal

mainstre am

formal

The refore,

planning
of

planning
1t is

be more f u l l y

community

college

a d m in is t r a t io n , but not n e c e s s a r i l y i d e n t i f i e d as formal planning.
5.

It

is

recommended t h a t

priority

lists

be more c l e a r l y

recognized as such and t h a t personnel a t a l l l e v e l s of th e organiza­
t i o n p a r t i c i p a t e more eq ually in th e development o f such l i s t s .
Members a t a l l l e v e l s should understand the process and be involved
in i t .
6.

Performance o b je c t iv e s should be at tached to both d e p a r t ­

mental and individual annual l i s t s of go als.

E f f o r t s to accomplish

126
th e g oals should a ls o be Included In th e annual review and m e r itr a i s e p ro cess.
7.

Although th e c o lle g e p re s id e n ts were a c t i v e l y involved in

th e p lanning/budgeting p ro cess, t h i s involvement should be extended
to include spending more time with managers and f a c u l t y t o in c re a se
t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e p rocess.
8.

The process by which funds are a llo c a te d f o r planning/bud­

g e tin g seems a p p ro p ria te and has been reasonably well
in to th e mainstream o f c o lle g e

o p e ra tio n s .

Hence,

in te g ra te d

th is

process

should con tin ue as i t i s .
9.

A long-range ( th r e e years or more) v isio n should be c l e a r

in th e minds o f a l l community c o lle g e employees.

This v isio n should

be developed by le a d e r s h ip - o r ie n te d a d m in is tr a to rs , with th e a c tiv e
involvement o f a c r o s s - s e c t i o n

o f c o lle g e

p erso n n el.

A shared

v is io n with th e development o f a p a r t i c i p a t i v e annual p lan , based on
p rio ritie s

re la te d

to

th e v is io n ,

can provide d i r e c t i o n

w ithout

undue c o n s t r a i n t .
Suggestions f o r F urth er Research
1.
th is

study

The most obvious need f o r f u tu r e research t h a t emerged from
is

to

in v e s t i g a te

th e

reasons

managers in th e p lan ning/budgeting p ro cess.

fo r

th e

underuse

of

Every a sp ect o f the

study p oin ted d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y to t h i s la c k o f involvement.
The p o s it iv e in flu e n c e o f managers on th e planning process cannot be
o v e r s ta te d .

The underuse or misuse o f managers w ill have a n eg ative

127
Impact on both th e

e f fe c tiv e n e s s

and th e

e f f ic ie n c y

o f c o lle g e

o p e ra tio n s.
2.
related

Although formal planning was s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s iti v e l y
to

degree o f

e f f e c tiv e n e s s ,
fo rm ality

th e

considered

campus
useful

v isits
was

in d ic a te d
lower

th a t

than

th e

expected.

F urther research to examine th e b e n e f its o f a s s im ila tio n

o f the

planning process in to c o lle g e o p e ra tio n s, versus having a form alized
pro cess, would be worthwhile.
3.

There appeared t o be a major d iff e r e n c e between r o u tin e ly

s e t departmental o b je c tiv e s and performance o b je c tiv e s .

Perhaps th e

word "performance" had a d i f f e r e n t connotation to th e respondents,
but i t seemed t h a t departmental and performance o b je c tiv e s were not
th e same.
in c o rp o ra te
o p e ra tio n s.

F urther research i s warranted to determ ine how b e s t to
p erfo rm an ce

o b je c tiv e s

in to

community

co lleg e

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
THE QUESTIONNAIRE

128

SURVEY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE PLANNING
This questionnaire deals with the planning and
budgeting processes for the college and how you perceive
their impact on the institution as a whole.
The goal is
to identify the planning and budgeting processes as they
now exist, and to see whether these processes have a
positive impact on college operations. By asking faculty,
management, and administrators, it is felt that an
accurate picture of the college can be created and the
impact of the planning and budgeting processes measured.
The results of this questionnaire will be kept
strictly confidential, and no individual responses will be
specifically identified in the study, report, or any other
publication describing the study.
Please respond to all items as you presently perceive
the situation.
Do not discuss the questionnaire with
others.
The study depends on the sincerity with which
questions are answered. Your cooperation, a vital factor
for the success of the study, will be greatly appreciated.
William J. Bliesath
Faculty, Mott Community College
Ph.D . Candidate
Michigan State University

129

INSTRUCTIONS
1.

Please select from among the five responses provided
to the right of each question. If you do not find the
response that best reflects your view, select the one
that comes closest.

2.

Please answer all questions.

3.

Please fill in the whole area, erase completely if you
change your answer, and avoid any stray or extra
markings.

4.

As you complete the questionnaire, make additional
comments on the extra paper provided.
These comments
can be discussed during the interview.

5.

Your decision to complete this questionnaire is
acknowledgment of your consent, freely given, to
participate in this research.

6.

The results of this questionnaire will be kept
strictly confidential, and no individual responses
will be specifically identified either by name or
position.
A summary of the entire study will be
provided to each participating institution as a small
sign of appreciation for your time and effort.

7.

Completion of this questionnaire is voluntary, and you
may elect to cease participation at any time.

130

SURVEY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE PLANNING

This survey consists of three sections.
The first
section asks for your views regarding the financial
planning/budgeting processes as they now exist at your
college.
The second section asks you to describe the
effectiveness of your college, using a number of indices.
Space will be provided for you to add additional measures
which you feel also reflect the effectiveness of your
college, but were not included in the questionnaire.
The
third section consists of the 1978 edition of the Profile
of Organizational Characteristics developed by Rensis
Likert.
To maintain confidentiality, you are asked to
indicate only the name of your college and whether your
position is administrative, manager, or faculty.
Please
note that administrative includes those persons with the
title of dean or above.
Name of college:
Position:

Administrative

Manager

Faculty,

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

To
To
To
To
To

a very little extent
a little extent
some extent
a great extent
a very great extent

Bnployee perception of the impacts of the financial planning and
budgeting processes on institutional performance (effectiveness).
To what extent have the financial planning
and budgeting processes been effective in terms of:
1. Your understanding of the purpose
and direction of the college

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

2.

Allocating resources where most needed

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

3-

Creating a better awareness of where
your individual efforts should be directed

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Making funds available to adequately
carry out the plans of action for specific
units or individuals

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

4.

To what extent have the financial planning and
budgeting processes had a positive impact on:
5.

The college as a whole

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

6.

Your present position in the college

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

7.

Current financial position of the college

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

8.

Availability of services needed or
desired by students/community

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Image of college in the community

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Preparatory programs for transfer to
the four year college or university

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Occupational/Vocational Education
Curriculums

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

(1

(2) (3) (4) (5)

910.
11.

Please add other effectiveness measures here.
Be sure to select an answer for each item you add.

132
II.

Characteristics of the financial planning/budgeting processes.
12.

To what extent are the financial
planning/budgeting assumptions of this
organization known to you?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are the forecasts for
this organization adequate in terms of
their use in the planning process?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are organizational goals
in this organization measurable and time
referenced?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are organizational goals
identified with plans of action in this
organization?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Does your organization have a yearly
calendar which outlines the dates on
which each step in the planning process
must be completed?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

Does your organization have written
planning steps and procedures?

(2) (3 )

Does your organization identify specific
persons who are responsible for each
phase of the planning process?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are you aware of the
official annual budget policy of this
organization?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are you aware of the
financial condition of this organization?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are the budget plans
that are to be implemented for this
organization made known to you?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are reports of progress
on this organization's overall budget
for the year made known to you?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

23* To what extent are you aware of the
long range objectives of this organization
in relation to its key functional area?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

24. To what extent are you aware of the
specific goals that your organizational
department is attempting to achieve?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

(4) (5)

133
25.

26.

27*

28.

29.

To what extent do you participate in
setting goals for your organizational
department?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent have you teen encouraged
to participate in the financial planning
and budgeting processes at your college?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are you involved in the
development of priorities for programs
and services to be offered by the
college as a whole?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are the control totals
(Budget balancing amounts) known by you
as you prepare your budget?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are program priorities
identified in this organization at the
time resources are allocated?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are program priorities known
during times of:
30*

financial growth

(2) (3) (4) (5)

31.

financial crisis

(2) (3) (4) (5)

32.

To what extent are performance
objectives developed for the responsi­
bilities of each employee in the
organization?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are individual perform­
ance objectives identified with the
action plans of the organization?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent are performance
objectives developed for each unit of
the organization?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent does the organization
as a whole use performance objectives
as a means of accomplishing its mission
and goals?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent is the organization as a
whole evaluated based upon progress on
or completion of performance objectives?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent is the President of the
college actively involved in the financial
planning and budgeting processes?

(2) (3) (4) (5)

33*

34.

35.

36.

37.

134
To what extent does the President meet with
the following groups regarding the financial
planning and budgeting processes:
38.

Top administrators

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

39.

Management

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

40.

Faculty

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

41.

To what extent are funds budgeted
specifically for the financial planning
and budgeting processes?

( 1)

(2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 )

If funds are budgeted specifically for
the financial planning and budgeting
processes, to what extent are the funds
sufficient to ensure that the process
is completed and in a manner satis­
factory to those involved in it?

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent do the budgeted funds
permit involvement in the financial
planning and budgeting proces by a
cross-section of college personnel?

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent does your institution
engage in long-range (three or more
years into the future) financial
planning?

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

To what extent does this organization
focus on short term goals versus long
term goals in the planning process?

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5)

42.

43.

44.

45.

135

YOUR ORGANIZATION CODE

INSTRUCTIONS

@©®®®®®®®0
©O®®®®®©®©
®®®®®®®©®®
®®®®®®®®®®
®o®®®®®®®®

1. Please use a soft lead pencil (No. 2 or softer) and m ake heavy
black m arks th a t fill the circle completely. Please do not use ball
point or felt tip pens.
2. This form is designed for autom atic processing by a com puter,
so erase com pletely any an sw er you w ant to change and m ake no
stray marks on th e questionnaire.
3. Before starting, please en ter your organization code in these
boxes
........................................................................................................
Next to each box blacken the circle containing the sam e num ber.

4. For each question, first blacken th e circle on th e " N ” line w hich you feel describes your organization
a t th e PRESENT TIME (N=NOW). If, for example, on question 1 you feel th a t now there is "q u ite a
b it" of confidence, fill in 5 or 6 . Fill in S if you think th e situation is closer to "so m e ", 6 if you think
th e situation is closer to "a very g reat d eal."
5. Then, fill in the circle on th e "L " line w hich describes how you would LIKE your organization
to operate.

O R G W Z iT IO N A L
V A R iA B L iS

LEADERSHIP
©

Quite a bit
©
©

©

©

©
©

©

How free do they feel
to talk to superiors
about their work?

Some

®

©

©

©

Very little

How m uch confidence and
i N
trust is shown in
46.
subordinates?
2 L

A very great deal
©
©
©

©

Not very frae

Somewhat bee

3

N

©

©

©

©

4

L

©

©

©

©

How often are subordinates'
6N
ideas sought and used
4g
constructively?
e L

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

0

©

©

©

©

®

©

©

Quite tree

Very free
©

©

©

©

©

©

©

47,

©

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very frequently

136

©

W here is responsibility
felt fo r achieving
h igh p erfo rm an ce?

0

0

©

©

Moatty a t top
©

®

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

Top and middla
®

©

©
©

©

0

©

©

®

Quite a bit
©

©

©

®

©

Mostly downward
©
©
®

©

0

©
©

©

®

©

Usually
inaccurate
©
©

Occasionally
inaccurate
©
©

Often accurate
®
©

0

©

©

®

®

Somewhat
©

®

®

®

©

©

A great deal
of trust
©
©
©

©

©

©

©

Usually with
trust
®
©

©

©

©

Down, up,
and sideways
©
©
©

©

Often
with suspicion

©

53.

Almost always
accurate
©
©

54.

©

©

Moatty a t top

©

©

55.

Policy at top.
some delegation

©

©

®

©

©

©

©

©

56.

©

©

Genera! policy
at top. more
delegation
®
®

®

©

®

FuSy involved
©
©

©

©

Gena rally
consulted

©

©

©

©

Widespread
decision making
©
©

©

©

©

©

57.
©

Vary well
©

©

®

Occasionally
consulted
©

©

Quite well

©

©

©

©

©

©

Aknoet naver

involved in decisions
related to their work?

Down and up
©
©

52.

D ECISIO N S
A t w h a t level are
d ec isio n s m ad e?

A vary groat deal
©
©
0

©

©

Downward
©
©

Not wall
H ow w ell do su p e rio rs
k n o w p ro b lem s fa c e d by
s u b o rd in a te s?

©

51,

0

H ow a c c u ra te is u p w ard
co m m u n icatio n ?

At all levels
©

©

©

Soma

©

With distrust
H ow is d o w n w a rd
co m m u n icatio n a c c e p te d ?

©

©

©

©

COM M U N ICATION
W h at is th e usual
d irectio n o f infor­
m atio n flow ?

©

50.

Vary littla
H ow m u ch c o o p e ra tiv e
te a m w o rk ex ists?

Fairly wideapraad

©

4 and S. primarily
basad on group­
ed! goals

©

li predominant use made of
1
1) fear. 2) threats.
49.
3) punishment. 4) rewards,
(
5) involvement?

Mainly 4. with
some 3 and S

4. with
soma 3

©

1. 2. 3.
occasionally 4

0

MOTIVATION

137

©

©

®

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

®

©

©

©

©

©

©

Group guidance anc
problem solving

©

Reward, some
seHguidance

©

©

Reward and
punishment

Widely shared

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

o

Moderately
delegated at
lower levels

©

©

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THIS SURVEY.

Rensis Likert Associates, Inc.
3001 S. S ta te St.
S u ite 401 W olverine T ow er
Ann Arbor. Ml 4 8 1 0 4

©

0

61.

©

©

Policing.
punishment
W hat are c o s t, p ro d u c ­
tivity. an d o th er
c o n tro l d a ta u sed for?

Quite
concentrated
at top

A very great deal

©

©

60.

Quite a bit

©

©

H ow c o n c e n tra te d are
rev iew an d co n tro l
fu n ctio n s?

©

©
©

©

©

©

©

©

Some

©

Generally by
group discussion

©

©

Very
concentrated
at top

CONTROL

®

©

Very little
H ow m u c h d o s u b o rd in a te s
I
striv e to ach iev e th e
59.
o rg a n iz a tio n 's g oals?

®

©

©

L

0

26

®

After
discussion,
by orders

©

26 N

58.

Orders, some
comment*
invited

©

H ow i* g o al s e ttin g
usu ally d o n e ?

Orders issued
©
©

0

GOALS

APPENDIX B
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION AND LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM UCRIHS

138
May 6, 1987

Dear :
I am w ritin g t h is l e t t e r o f in tr o d u c tio n on b e h a lf o f Mr.
W illiam B lie s a th , C h a irp e rso n o f th e D iv iso n o f Business and
Management and d o c to ra l candidate a t Michigan S ta te U n iv ersity .
Mr. B lie s a th i s com pleting h i s d is s e r ta tio n in th e a re a of
community c o lleg e planning. The t i t l e of h i s d is s e r ta tio n i s the
"P e rc e iv e d Im pacts o f P a r t ic ip a t io n in th e Financial/B udgeting
Planning Processes of S elected Michigan Community C o lle g e s ." As
p a rt o f h is research, he would lik e t o adm inister a q uestionnaire
to th e P re sid e n t, V ice-P resident, Deans, se le c te d managers below
the le v e l o f Dean, and se le c te d fa c u lty .
I have review ed th e q u e s tio n n a ir e (c o p y a t t a c h e d ) and
b e lie v e th e in fo rm a tio n g e n e ra te d would be u se fu l fo r a l l con­
cerned.
Mr. B l i e s a t h h a s a s s u r e d me t h a t c o m p l e t e
c o n fid e n tia lity w ill be m aintained and th a t a re p o rt o f th e fin d ­
ings w ill be provided fo r th e P r e s id e n t o f each p a r t i c i p a t i n g
i n s titu tio n .
I hope you w ill take time from y o u r busy sc h e d u le t o meet
w ith Mr. B lie sa th . He a ssu res me th a t he w ill only need about 20
m inutes. I f he could make use o f a phone to f i n a l i z e a p p o in t­
ments w ith o th ers on your s t a f f i t would be most appreciated.
Tharik you fo r your a ssista n c e in t h is m atter.
S incerely,

David G. Moore
P resident
Attachment
/gb

139
MI CH IGA N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y
EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • U I2 4 I 0 4 6

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHSI
t i t AD M INISTRATIO N BUUOING

March 31, 1987

H P I 3 S S -2 1 B 6

Mr. William J . B liesath
8152 F a ir f ie ld C ircle
C larkston, Michigan 48016
Dear Mr. B liesa th :
Subject:

Proposal E n title d , "Perceived Impacts of P a rtic ip a tio n in
F inancial Planning/Budgeting Processes of Selected
__________Michigan Community Colleges"_____________________________
1 am pleased to advise th a t I concur w ith your evaluation th a t th is p ro je c t is
exempt from f u l l UCRIHS review, and approval i s herewith granted f o r conduct
of the p r o je c t.
You are reminded th a t UCRIHS approval i s v a lid fo r one calendar y e a r. I f you
plan to continue th is p ro je c t beyond one y ear, please make provisions fo r
obtaining ap p ro p riate UCRIHS approval p rio r to
Any changes in procedures Involving human su b je c ts must be reviewed by the
UCRIHS p r io r to i n i t i a t i o n of the change. UCRIHS must a lso be n o tifie d
promptly of any problems (unexpected side e f f e c ts , com plaints, e tc .)
involving human su b je c ts during the course of the work.
Thank you fo r bringing th is p ro je c t to my a tte n tio n .
h elp , p lease do not h e s ita te to l e t me know.

I f I can be of any fu tu re

S in cerely ,

Henry E. Bredeck, Ph.D
Chairman, UCRIHS
jms

MSL u on Affirm***** Action/Equsi Opportunity hutitution

APPENDIX C
FREQUENCY TABLES FOR EACH SURVEY QUESTION

140
Table C .l .- - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f responses to th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting pro ­
cesses been e f f e c ti v e in terms o f your understanding
o f th e purpose and d ir e c tio n o f th e co lleg e?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

6
5.17
12.77
42.86

23
19.83
48.94
40.35

15
12.93
31.91
83.33

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
66.67

9
7.76
25.71
60.00

3
2.59
8.57
21.43

12
10.34
34.29
21.05

3
2.59
8.57
16.67

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
33.33

3
2.59
8.82
20.00

5
4.31
14.71
35.71

22
18.97
64.71
38.60

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

12
10.34

15
12.93

14
12.07

57
49.14

18
15.52

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
*

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g re a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t extent

141
Table C.2 . - - D is tr i b u t i o n o f responses to th e q u estio n : To what
ex te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting p ro ­
cesses been e f f e c t i v e 1n terms o f a l l o c a tin g resources
where most needed?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

8
6.90
17.02
30.77

27
23.28
57.45
56.25

12
10.34
25.53
80.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
53.33

9
7.76
25.71
75.00

9
7.76
25.71
34.62

9
7.76
25.71
18.75

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

7
6.03
20.59
46.67

3
2.59
8.82
25.00

9
7.76
26.47
34.62

12
10.34
35.29
25.00

3
2.59
8.82
20.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

15
12.93

12
10.34

26
22.41

48
41.38

15
12.93

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

= To
*= To
= To
= To
* To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

142
Table C.3 . - - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to the q u estio n : To what
e x te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting pro­
cesses been e f f e c t i v e in terms o f c r e a tin g a b e t t e r
awareness o f where your individual e f f o r t s should
be d ire c te d ?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
30.00

15
12.93
31.91
34.88

20
17.24
42.55
60.61

9
7.76
19.15
60.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
53.33

3
2.59
8.57
30.00

15
12.93
42.86
34.88

9
7.76
25.71
27.27

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

7
6.03
20.59
46.67

4
3.45
11.76
40.00

13
11.21
38.24
30.23

4
3.45
11.76
12.12

6
5.17
17.65
40.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

15
12.93

10
8.62

43
37.07

33
28.45

15
12.93

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

143
Table C.4 . - - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to the question: To what
e x te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting pro ­
cesses been e f f e c t i v e in terms o f making funds a v a i l ­
ab le to adequately ca rry out the plans o f actio n f o r
s p e c i f ic u n its o r in d iv id u als?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
25.00

9
7.76
19.15
25.71

26
22.41
55.32
57.78

9
7.76
19.15
75.00

47
40.52

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
5
6.90
4.31
14.29 22.86
41.67 66.67

13
11.21
37.14
37.14

9
7.76
25.71
20.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

7
6.03
20.59
58.33

1
0.86
2.94
8.33

13
11.21
38.24
37.14

10
8.62
29.41
22.22

3
2.59
8.82
25.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

12
10.34

12
10.34

35
30.17

45
38.79

12
10.34

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g re a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

144
Table C.5 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f responses to th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes had a p o s it i v e impact on th e c o lle g e as a
whole?
Response
Group

Total
2

3

4

5

A J _ •^
Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
12.77
17.65

23
19.83
48.94
50.00

18
15.52
38.30
62.07

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

7
6.03
20.00
100.00

20
17.24
57.14
58.82

3
2.59
8.57
6.52

5
4.31
14.29
17.24

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

8
6.90
23.53
23.53

20
17.24
58.82
43.48

6
5.17
17.65
20.69

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

7
6.03

34
29.31

46
39.66

29
25.00

116
100.00

1

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t e x te n t

145
Table C.6 . - - D is tr ib u tio n o f
ex ten t have th e
processes had a
p o s itio n In th e

responses to th e q u estio n : To what
f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting
p o s itiv e Impact on your p resen t
co lleg e?
1Response

Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admi n .

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
12.77
28.57

6
5.17
12.77
19.35

23
19.83
48.94
57.50

12
10.34
25.53
63.16

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
60.00

9
7.76
25.71
42.86

13
11.21
37.14
41.94

6
5.17
17.14
15.00

4
3.45
11.43
21.05

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.88
40.00

6
5.17
17.65
28.57

12
10.34
35.29
38.71

11
9.48
32.35
27.50

3
2.59
8.82
15.79

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

5
4.31

21
18.10

31
26.72

40
34.48

19
16.38

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g re a t ex ten t

146
Table C.7 . - - D i s t r ib u t io n o f responses to the q uestion : To what
e x te n t have th e fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes had a p o s it i v e impact on th e c u rre n t
fin a n c ia l p o s itio n ?
Response
Total

Group
2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
11.54

20
17.24
42.55
39.22

24
20.69
51.06
80.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.14
66.67

15
12.93
42.86
57.69

14
12.07
40.00
27.45

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.82
33.33

8
6.90
23.53
30.77

17
14.66
50.00
33.33

6
5.17
17.65
20.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

9
7.76

26
22.41

51
43.97

30
25.86

116
100.00

1

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

147
Table C.8 . - - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to the q uestion : To what
e x te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes had a p o s itiv e impact on th e a v a i l a b i l i t y
o f s e rv ic e s needed or d e s ire d by students/community?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
12.77
85.71

3
2.59
6.38
7.69

33
28.45
70.21
63.46

5
4.31
10.64
41.67

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.14
100.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

20
17.24
57.14
51.28

9
7.76
25.71
17.31

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
16
0.86 13.79
2.94 47.06
14.29 41.03

10
8.62
29.41
19.23

7
6.03
20.59
58.33

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

6
5.17

7
39
6.03 33.62

52
44.83

12
10.34

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

*
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e ex ten t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t exten t

0
0.00
0.00
0.00 .

47
40.52

35
30.17

148
Table C.9 . - - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to the q uestion : To what
e x te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes had a p o s itiv e impact on th e image o f th e
c o lleg e in th e community?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
12.77
40.00

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.14
100.00

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

#

Key:

1
2
3
4

=
=
=
=
5 =

To
To
To
To
To

3

4

5

10
8.62
21.28
28.57

22
18.97
46.81
59.46

9
7.76
19.15
39.13

47
40.52

14
6
5.17 12.07
17.14 40.00
40.00 40.00

4
3.45
11.43
10.81

5
4.31
14.29
21.74

35
30.17

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
8.82
20.00

11
9.48
32.35
31.43

11
9.48
32.35
29.73

9
7.76
26.47
39.13

34
29.31

6
5.17

15
12.93

35
30.17

37
31.90

23
19.83

116
100.00

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g re a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t exten t

149
Table C.1 0 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e qu estio n: To what
e x te n t have th e fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes had a p o s itiv e impact on prep aratory
programs f o r t r a n s f e r to the fo u r-y ear co lleg e
or u n iv e rsity ?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

8
6.90
17.02
34.78

31
26.72
65.96
50.00

5
4.31
10.64
38.46

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
100.00

12
10.34
34.29
80.00

8
6.90
22.86
34.78

9
7.76
25.71
14.52

3
2.59
8.57
23.08

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

7
6.03
20.59
30.43

22
18.97
64.71
35.48

5
4.31
14.71
38.46

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

3
2.59

15
12.93

23
19.83

62
53.45

13
11.21

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

150
Table C.11.- - D i s t r i b u ti o n o f responses to th e q uestio n: To what
e x te n t have th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes had a p o s itiv e Impact on o c c u p a tio n a l/
vocational education curriculums?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
37.50

29
25.00
61.70
42.03

15
12.93
31.91
55.56

47
40.52

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
6
2.59
5.17
8.57 17.14
50.00 100.00

4
3.45
11.43
50.00

18
15.52
51.43
26.09

4
3.45
11.43
14.81

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

4
2.59
8.82
50.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
22
0.86 18.97
2.94 64.71
12.50 31.88

8
6.90
23.53
29.63

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

6
5.17

6
5.17

27
23.28

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

8
6.90

69
59.48

151
Table C .1 2 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f resp on ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are th e fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting
assum ptions o f t h i s o rg a n iz a tio n known to you?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
25.00

3
2.59
6.38
11.54

23
19.83
48.94
58.97

18
15.52
38.30
66.67

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
66.67

3
2.59
8.57
25.00

6
5.17
17.14
23.08

9
7.76
25.71
23.08

9
7.76
25.71
33.33

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
33.33

6
5.17
17.65
50.00

17
14.66
50.00
65.38

7
6.03
20.59
17.95

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

12
10.34

12
10.34

26
22.41

39
33.62

27
23.28

116
100.00

A

1

J -

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
■

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

152
Table C.1 3 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses t o th e question : To what
ex te n t are th e f o re c a s ts f o r t h i s o rg an izatio n
adequate in terms o f t h e i r use in th e planning
process?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

ij
Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

8
6.90
17.02
21.62

24
20.69
51.06
66.67

15
12.93
31.91
83.33

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

5
4.31
14.29
55.56

9
7.76
25.71
56.25

12
10.34
34.29
32.43

6
5.17
17.14
16.67

3
2.59
8.57
16.67

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
44.44

7
6.03
20.59
43.75

17
14.66
50.00
45.95

6
5.17
17.65
16.67

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

9
7.76

16
13.79

37
31.90

36
31.03

18
15.52

116
100.00

•

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

153
Table C.1 4 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e qu estio n: To what
e x te n t are o rg an izatio n al goals in t h i s o rg an izatio n
measurable and time referenced?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

9
7.76
19.15
42.86

11
9.48
23.40
25.58

18
15.52
38.30
52.94

9
7.76
19.15
60.00

47
40.52

Managers

P et.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.71
66.67

6
5.17
17.14
28.57

12
10.34
34.29
27.91

12
10.34
34.29
35.29

3
2.59
8.57
20.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
33.33

6
5.17
17.65
28.57

20
17.24
58.82
46.51

4
3.45
11.76
11.76

3
2.59
8.82
20.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

3
2.59

21
18.10

43
37.07

34
29.31

15
12.93

116
100.00

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

Admin.

Freq.

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

154
T able C .1 5 . - - D i s t r i b u t io n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are o r g a n iz a tio n a l g o a ls i d e n t i f i e d w ith p lan s
o f a c tio n in t h i s o rg a n iz a tio n ?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.39
20.00

9
7.76
19.15
26.47

18
15.52
38.30
47.37

17
14.66
36.17
65.38

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
100.00

3
2.59
8.57
20.00

17
14.66
48.57
50.00

6
5.17
17.14
15.79

6
5.17
17.14
23.08

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

9
7.76
26.47
60.00

8
6.90
23.53
23.53

14
12.07
41.18
36.84

3
2.59
8.82
11.54

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

3
2.59

15
12.93

34
29.31

38
32.76

26
22.41

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t e x te n t

155
Table C.1 6 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e qu estio n: Does your
o rg an izatio n have a y e a rly calendar which o u tlin e s the
d ates on which each step in the planning process must
be completed?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

6
5.17
12.77
46.15

12
10.34
25.53
38.71

19
16.38
40.43
44.19

7
6.03
14.89
50.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
53.33

3
2.59
8.57
23.08

9
7.76
25.71
29.03

14
12.07
40.00
32.56

1
0.86
2.86
7.14

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
26.67

4
3.45
11.76
30.77

10
8.62
29.41
32.26

10
8.62
29.41
23.26

6
5.17
17.65
42.86

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

15
12.93

13
11.21

31
26.72

43
37.07

14
12.07

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
-

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

156
Table C.1 7 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e q uestion : Does your
o rg an izatio n have w r itte n planning step s and procedures?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admi n .

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
50.00

1
0.86
2.13
10.00

17
14.66
36.17
36.96

20
17.24
42.55
48.78

6
5.17
12.77
46.15

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.71
33.33

9
7.76
25.71
90.00

13
11.21
37.14
28.26

8
6.90
22.86
19.51

3
2.59
8.57
23.08

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
16.67

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

16
13.79
47.06
34.78

13
11.21
38.24
31.71

4
3.45
11.76
30.77

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

6
5.17

10
8.62

46
39.66

41
35.34

13
11.21

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

157
Table C.1 8 .- - D is tr ib u tio n of responses to th e q u estio n : Does your
o rg an izatio n id e n tif y s p e c i f ic persons who are respon­
s i b l e fo r each phase o f th e planning process?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

3
2.59
6.38
100.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
12.77
21.43

24
20.69
51.06
44.44

14
12.07
29.79
56.00

47
40.52

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
6
0.00
5.17
0.00 17.14
0.00 100.00

15
12.93
42.86
53.57

9
7.76
25.71
16.67

5
4.31
14.29
20.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

7
6.03
20.59
25.00

21
18.10
61.76
38.89

6
5.17
17.65
24.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

3
2.59

6
5.17

28
24.14

54
46.55

25
21.55

116
100.00

A -1 __J _

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

158
T able C .1 9 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f re sp o n ses to th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are you aware o f th e o f f i c i a l annual budget
p o li c y o f t h i s o rg a n iz a tio n ?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admi n .

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
33.33

6
5.17
12.77
37.50

14
12.07
29.79
28.57

24
20.69
51.06
80.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
66.67

6
5.17
17.14
66.67

3
2.59
8.57
18.75

15
12.93
42.86
30.61

3
2.59
8.57
10.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
33.33

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

7
6.03
20.59
43.75

20
17.24
58.82
40.82

3
2.59
8.82
10.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

12
10.34

9
7.76

16
13.79

49
42.24

30
25.86

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

159
Table C .2 0 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f resp on ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are you aware o f th e f in a n c ia l c o n d itio n o f
t h i s o r g a n iza tio n ?
Response
Total

Group
1

iI

3

4

5

• _i_•„
Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
18.75

20
17.24
42.55
37.74

24
20.69
51.06
75.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

11
9.48
31.43
73.33

9
7.76
25.71
56.25

10
8.62
28.57
18.87

5
4.31
14.29
15.62

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
26.67

4
3.45
11.76
25.00

23
19.83
67.65
43.40

3
2.59
8.82
9.37

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

15
12.93

16
13.79

53
45.69

32
27.59

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

160
T able C .2 1 .- - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are th e budget p la n s th a t are t o be implemented
fo r t h i s o r g a n iz a tio n made known t o you?
Response
Group

Total
1

3

4

5

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

5
4.31
10.64
22.73

18
15.52
38.30
42.86

21
18.10
44.68
61.76

47
40.52

Admin.

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

5
4.31
14.29
41.67

3
2.59
8.57
50.00

9
7.76
25.71
40.91

11
9.484
31.73
26.19

7
6.03
20.00
20.59

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
33.33

3
8
2.59
6.90
8.82 23.51
50.00 36.36

13
11.21
38.24
30.95

6
5.17
17.65
17.65

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

12
10.34

42
36.21

34
29.31

116
100.00

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

3
2.59
6.38
25.00

2

6
5.17

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t e x te n t

22
18.97

161
Table C.2 2 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e q uestion : To what
e x te n t are r e p o rts o f progress on t h i s o rg a n iz a tio n ’ s
o v erall budget f o r th e y ear made known to you?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
14.29

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
13.64

20
17.24
42.55
51.28

21
18.10
44.68
77.78

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

11
9.48
31.43
52.38

3
2.59
8.57
42.86

9
7.76
25.71
40.91

6
5.17
17.14
15.38

6
5.17
17.14
22.22

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

7
6.03
20.59
33.33

4
3.45
11.76
57.14

10
8.62
29.41
45.45

13
11.21
38.24
33.33

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

21
18.10

7
6.03

22
18.97

39
33.62

27
23.28

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g re a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

162
Table C.2 3 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t are you aware o f th e long-range o b je c tiv e s of
t h i s o rg an izatio n in r e l a t i o n to i t s key fu nction al
area?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

5
4.31
10.64
14.71

25
21.55
53.19
59.52

14
12.07
29.79
73.68

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.71
33.33

9
7.76
25.71
60.00

9
7.76
25.71
26.47

10
8.62
28.57
23.81

5
4.31
14.29
26.32

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
66.67

3
2.59
8.82
20.00

20
17.24
58.82
58.82

7
6.03
20.59
16.67

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

6
5.17

15
12.93

34
29.31

42
36.21

19
16.38

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

163
Table C .2 4 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are you aware o f th e s p e c i f i c g o a ls th a t your
o r g a n iz a tio n a l department i s a ttem p tin g t o ach iev e?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

16
13.79
34.04
50.00

31
26.72
65.96
50.82

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.14
100.00

3
2.59
8.57
50.00

3
2.59
8.57
27.27

6
5.17
17.14
18.75

17
14.66
48.57
27.87

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
8.82
50.00

8
6.90
23.53
72.73

10
8.62
29.41
31.25

13
11.21
38.24
21.31

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

6
5.17

11
5.17

32
9.48

32
27.59

61
52.59

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

■
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

164
Table C .2 5 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f resp on ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t do you p a r t ic ip a t e In s e t t i n g g o a ls f o r your
o r g a n iz a tio n a l department?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
0.86
2.13
14.29

3
2.59
6.38
12.00

22
18.97
46.81
56.41

21
18.10
44.68
50.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
17.14
85.71

12
10.34
34.29
48.00

3
2.59
8.57
7.69

14
12.07
40.00
33.33

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.82
100.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

10
8.62
29.41
40.00

14
12.07
41.18
35.90

7
6.03
20.59
16.67

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

3
2.59

7
6.03

25
21.55

39
33.62

42
36.21

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

■
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t extent

165
Table C.2 6 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to the q uestion : To what
e x te n t have you been encouraged to p a r t i c ip a t e in
th e fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting processes a t
your co lleg e?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
16.67

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

26
22.41
55.32
60.47

18
15.52
38.30
64.29

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

9
7.76
25.71
50.00

6
5.17
17.14
85.71

7
6.03
20.00
35.00

12
10.34
34.29
27.91

1
0.86
2.86
3.57

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.65
33.33

1
13
0.86 11.21
2.94 38.24
14.29 65.00

5
4.31
14.71
11.63

9
7.76
26.47
32.14

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

18
15.52

43
37.07

28
24.14

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

7
6.03

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e ex ten t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t extent

20
17.24

166
Table C.2 7 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t are you involved in th e development o f p r i ­
o r i t i e s fo r programs and s e rv ic e s to be o ffered by
th e co lleg e as a whole?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
12.50

2
1.72
4.26
22.22

10
8.62
21.28
35.71

21
18.10
44.68
48.84

11
9.48
23.40
91.67

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
33.33

6
5.17
17.14
66.67

11
9.48
31.43
39.29

10
8.62
28.57
23.26

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

13
11.21
38.24
54.17

1
0.86
2.94

12
10.34
35.29
27.91

1
0.86
2.94
8.33

34
29.31

11.11

7
6.03
20.59
25.00

Freq.
Pet.

24
20.69

9
7.76

28
24.14

43
37.07

12
10.34

116
100.00

TOTAL

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

167
Table C.2 8 .- -D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e qu estion : To what
ex ten t are the control t o t a l s (budget balancing
amounts) known by you as you prepare your budget?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
12.50

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

5
4.31
10.64
21.74

17
14.66
36.17
60.71

22
18.97
46.81
88.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

14
12.07
40.00
58.33

3
2.59
8.57
18.75

8
6.90
22.86
34.78

7
6.03
20.00
25.00

3
2.59
8.57
12.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

7
13
6.03 11.21
20.59 38.24
29.17 81.25

10
8.62
29.41
43.48

4
3.45
11.76
14.29

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

24
20.69

23
19.83

28
24.14

25
21.55

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4

=
=
=
=
5 s

To
To
To
To
To

16
13.79

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

168
Table C .2 9 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are program p r i o r i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s
o r g a n iz a tio n a t th e tim e r e so u rces are a llo c a te d ?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
17.65

7
6.03
14.89
25.93

24
20.69
51.06
66.67

13
11.21
27.66
56.52

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

9
7.76
25.71
69.23

5
4.31
14.29
29.41

12
10.34
34.29
44.44

2
1.72
5.71
5.566

7
6.03
20.00
30.43

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
30.77

9
7.76
26.47
52.94

8
6.90
23.53
29.63

10
8.62
29.41
27.78

3
2.59
8.82
13.04

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

13
11.21

17
14.66

27
23.28

36
31.03

23
19.83

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
*
*

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

169
Table C.3 0 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses t o th e qu estio n: To what
e x te n t are program p r i o r i t i e s known during times of
fin a n c ia l growth?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admi n .

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

14
12.07
29.79
36.84

30
25.86
63.83
68.18

3
2.59
6.38
37.50

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

14
12.07
40.00
77.78

1
0.86
2.86
12.50

11
9.48
31.43
28.95

4
3.45
11.43
9.09

5
4.31
14.29
62.50

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
22.22

7
6.03
20.59
87.50

13
11.21
38.24
34.21

10
8.62
29.41
22.73

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

18
15.52

8
6.90

38
32.76

44
37.93

8
6.90

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g re a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

170
Table C.3 1.- - D is tr ib u ti o n o f responses to th e qu estio n: To what
ex ten t are program p r i o r i t i e s known during times of
fin a n c ia l c r i s i s ?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

12
10.34
25.53
37.50

28
24.14
59.57
53.85

7
6.03
14.89
46.67

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

9
7.76
25.71
60.00

1
0.86
2.86
50.00

13
11.21
37.14
40.62

5
4.31
14.29
9.62

7
6.03
20.00
46.67

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.65
40.00

1
0.86
2.94
50.00

7
6.03
20.59
21.87

19
16.38
55.88
36.54

1
0.86
2.94
6.67

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

15
12.93

2
1.72

32
27.59

52
44.83

15
12.93

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

*
*
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g re a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

171
Table C .3 2 . -- D is t r ib u t io n o f resp on ses to th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are performance o b j e c t iv e s developed f o r the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f each employee in th e o rg a n iz a tio n ?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admi n .

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
30.00

3
2.59
6.38
23.08

19
16.38
40.43
42.22

14
12.07
29.79
38.89

8
6.90
17.02
66.67

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
30.00

7
6.03
20.00
53.85

12
10.34
34.29
26.67

12
10.34
34.29
33.33

1
0.86
2.86
8.33

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
40.00

3
2.59
8.82
23.08

14
12.07
41.18
31.11

10
8.62
29.41
27.78

3
2.59
8.82
25.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

10
8.62

13
11.21

45
38.79

36
31.03

12
10.34

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g re a t ex ten t

172
Table C.3 3 . -- D is t r ib u t io n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t are in d iv id u a l performance o b j e c t iv e s i d e n t i ­
f i e d w ith th e a c tio n p lan s o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n ?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
18.75

5
4.31
10.64
23.81

14
12.07
29.79
43.75

15
10
12.93
8.62
31.91 21.28
40.54 100.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

9
7.76
25.71
56.25

10
8.62
28.57
47.62

8
6.90
22.86
25.00

8
6.90
22.86
21.62

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
25.00

6
5.17
17.65
28.57

10
8.62
29.41
31.25

14
12.07
41.18
37.84

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

16
13.79

21
18.10

32
27.59

37
31.90

10
8.62

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
-

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t exten t

4

5

173
Table C .3 4 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f resp o n ses to th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are performance o b j e c t iv e s d evelop ed f o r each
u n it o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n ?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
33.33

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

18
15.52
38.30
34.62

12
10.34
25.53
52.17

14
12.07
29.79
82.35

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
33.33

8
6.90
22.86
53.33

14
12.07
40.00
26.92

7
6.03
20.00
30.43

3
2.59
8.57
17.65

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.82
33.33

7
6.03
20.59
46.67

20
17.24
58.82
38.46

4
3.45
11.76
17.39

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

9
7.76

15
12.93

52
44.83

23
19.83

17
14.66

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
*
*
=
*

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

174
Table C.3 5 .- - D is tr i b u t i o n o f responses t o th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t does th e o rg an izatio n as a whole use perform­
ance o b je c tiv e s as a means o f accomplishing i t s
mission and goals?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
25.00

6
5.17
12.77
20.00

12
10.34
25.53
40.00

16
13.79
34.04
59.26

10
8.62
21.28
58.82

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
25.00

14
12.07
40.00
46.67

7
6.03
20.00
23.33

4
3.45
11.43
14.81

7
6.03
20.00
41.18

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.65
50.00

10
8.62
29.41
33.33

11
9.48
32.35
36.67

7
6.03
20.59
25.93

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

12
10.34

30
25.86

30
25.86

27
23.28

17
14.66

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
*
=
*

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

175
Table C.3 6 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t i s th e o rg an izatio n as a whole evaluated based
upon progress on o r completion o f performance o b je c ­
t iv e s ?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

17
2
1.72 14.66
4.26 36.17
11.76 45.95

18
15.52
38.20
56.25

7
6.03
14.89
46.67

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.14
40.00

9
7.76
25.71
52.94

11
9.48
31.43
29.73

7
6.03
20.00
21.87

2
1.72
5.71
13.33

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.65
40.00

6
5.17
17.65
35.29

9
7.76
26.47
24.32

7
6.03
20.59
21.87

6
5.17
17.65
40.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

15
12.93

17
14.66

37
31.90

32
27.59

15
12.93

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
*

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

176
Table C.3 7 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to the qu estion : To what
e x te n t is th e p re sid e n t o f th e c o lle g e a c tiv e ly
involved in th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

«j _•_
Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
30.00

9
7.76
19.15
25.71

35
30.17
74.47
51.47

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
17.14
60.00

12
10.34
34.29
34.29

17
14.66
48.57
25.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.82
100.00

1
0.86
2.94
10.00

14
12.07
41.18
40.00

16
13.79
47.06
23.53

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

3
2.59

10
8.62

35
30.17

68
58.62

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
-

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

177
Table C.3 8 . - - D i s t r i b u t io n o f responses to th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t does th e p re s id e n t meet with top a d m in istra ­
t o r s regardin g th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting
p rocesses?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

13
11.21
27.66
33.33

34
29.31
72.34
48.57

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
8.57
75.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

7
6.03
20.00
17.95

25
21.55
71.43
35.71

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.88
100.00

1
1
0.86
0.86
2.94
2.94
25.00 100.00

19
16.38
55.88
48.72

11
9.48
32.35
15.71

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

39
33.62

70
60.34

116
100.00

Key:

2
1.72

4
3.45

1 =Toa very l i t t l e e x te n t
2 =Toa l i t t l e e x te n t
3 * To some e x te n t
4 =Toa g r e a t e x te n t
5 =Toa very g r e a t e x te n t

1
0.86

178
Table C.3 9 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t does th e p re sid e n t meet with th e management
group regarding th e fin a n c ia l planning and budgeting
processes?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
21.43

14
12.07
29.79
43.75

19
16.38
40.43
47.50

11
9.48
23.40
45.83

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.14
100.00

10
8.62
28.57
71.43

8
6.90
22.86
25.00

8
6.90
22.86
20.00

3
2.59
8.57
12.50

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
0.86
2.94
7.14

10
8.62
29.41
31.25

13
11.21
38.24
32.50

10
8.62
29.41
41.67

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

6
5.17

14
12.07

32
27.59

40
34.48

24
20.69

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t ex ten t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

179
Table C.4 0 .- - D is tr i b u t i o n o f responses t o th e q u estio n : To what
e x te n t does th e p re s id e n t meet with f a c u lty regarding
th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting processes?
Response
Group

Total
4

5

1

2

3

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
18.75

5
4.31
10.64
19.23

24
20.69
51.06
60.00

9
6
7.76
5.17
19.15 12.77
32.14 100.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

11
9.48
31.43
68.75

12
10.34
34.29
46.15

6
5.17
17.14
15.00

6
5.17
17.14
21.43

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

2
9
7.76
1.72
5.88 26.47
12.50 34.62

10
8.62
29.41
25.00

13
11.21
38.24
46.43

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

16
13.79

40
34.48

28
24.14

6
5.17

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

26
22.41

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

180
Table C.4 1 .- - D i s t r i b u t io n o f resp on ses t o th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t are funds budgeted s p e c i f i c a l l y fo r th e f in a n ­
c i a l planning and budgeting p r o c e sse s?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

Admi n .

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
16.67

6
5.17
12.77
40.00

11
9.48
23.40
33.33

25
2
21.55
1.72
53.19
4.26
52.08 100.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

14
12.07
40.00
77.78

6
5.17
17.14
40.00

10
8.62
28.57
30.30

5
4.31
14.29
10.42

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
5.56

3
2.59
8.82
20.00

12
10.34
35.29
36.36

18
15.52
52.94
37.50

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

18
15.52

15
12.93

33
28.45

48
41.38

2
1.72

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some ex ten t
a g re a t ex ten t
a very g re a t ex ten t

4

5

181
Table C.4 2 .- - D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to th e q uestion : I f funds
are budgeted s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r th e fin a n c ia l planning
and budgeting pro cesses, to what e x te n t are th e funds
s u f f i c i e n t t o ensure t h a t the process is completed
and in a manner s a t i s f a c t o r y to those involved in i t ?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
14.29

5
4.31
10.64
41.67

11
9.48
23.40
33.33

28
24.14
59.57
56.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

17
14.66
48.57
80.95

3
2.59
8.57
25.00

8
6.90
22.86
24.24

7
6.03
20.00
14.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
4.76

4
3.45
11.76
33.33

14
12.07
41.18
42.42

15
12.93
44.12
30.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

21
18.10

12
10.34

33
28.45

50
43.10

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e ex ten t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

5

182
Table C.4 3 .- - D i s t r ib u ti o n o f responses to th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t do th e budgeted funds perm it Involvement In
th e f in a n c ia l planning and budgeting process by a
c r o s s - s e c tio n o f c o lle g e personnel?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

A -1-- »-k
Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

6
5.17
12.77
19.35

26
22.41
55.32
66.67

11
9.48
23.40
45.83

1
0.86
2.13
14.29

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

11
9.48
31.43
73.33

12
10.34
34.29
38.71

8
6.90
22.86
20.51

4
3.45
11.43
16.67

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
6.67

13
11.21
39.24
41.94

5
4.31
14.71
12.82

9
7.76
26.47
37.50

6
5.17
17.65
85.71

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

15
12.93

31
26.72

39
33.62

24
20.69

7
6.03

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e e x te n t
a l i t t l e e x te n t
some e x te n t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t e x te n t

183
Table C.4 4 .- -D is tr ib u tio n o f responses to the q uestion : To what
e x te n t does your i n s t i t u t i o n engage in long-range
(th re e or more y ears in to th e fu tu r e ) fin a n c ia l
planning?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
6.38
33.33

3
2.59
6.38
23.08

23
19.83
48.94
71.87

13
11.21
27.66
27.08

5
4.31
10.64
35.71

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

5
4.31
14.29
55.56

6
5.17
17.14
46.15

14
7
6.03 12.07
20.00 40.00
21.87 29.17

3
2.59
8.57
21.43

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

4
1
3.45
0.86
2.94 11.76
11.11 30.77

2
1.72
5.88
6.25

21
18.10
61.76
43.75

6
5.17
17.65
42.86

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
Pet.

13
11.21

32
27.59

48
41.38

14
12.07

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=
*

To
To
To
To
To

9
7.76

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e ex ten t
some ex ten t
a g re a t e x te n t
a very g r e a t ex ten t

184
Table C.4 5 . - - D is t r ib u t io n o f resp on ses to th e q u e stio n : To what
e x te n t does t h i s o rg a n iz a tio n fo cu s on sh o rt-term
g o a ls v ersu s lon g-term g o a ls in th e planning p ro cess?
Response
Total

Group
1

2

3

4

5

Admin.

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

14
12.07
29.79
51.85

30
25.86
63.83
46.15

3
2.59
6.38
50.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
Pet.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.71
66.67

9
7.76
25.71
60.00

6
5.17
17.14
22.22

18
15.52
51.43
27.59

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

35
30.17

Faculty

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
33.33

6
5.17
17.65
40.00

7
6.03
20.59
25.93

17
14.66
50.00
26.15

3
2.59
8.82
50.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P et.

3
2.59

15
12.93

27
23.28

65
56.03

6
5.17

116
100.00

Key:

1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

To
To
To
To
To

a very l i t t l e ex ten t
a l i t t l e ex ten t
some ex ten t
a g r e a t e x te n t
a very g re a t e x te n t

Table C.4 6 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e s tio n :
shown in s u b o rd in a te s ?

How much co n fid en ce and t r u s t i s

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

5
4.31
10.64
38.46

9
7.76
19.15
60.00

9
7.76
19.15
42.86

20
17.24
42.55
57.14

3
2.59
6 .3 8
33.33

47
40.52

Admi n .

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

6
5.17
17.14
60.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0 .0 0

8
6.90
22.86
66.67

1
0.86
2.86
7.69

6
5.17
17.14
40.00

6
5.17
17.14
28.57

8
6.90
22.86
22.86

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
40.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

4
3 .4 5
11.76
33.33

7
6.03
20.59
53.85

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

6
5.17
17.65
28.57

7
6.03
20.59
20.00

6
5.17
17.65
66.67

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

10
8.62

1
0.86

12
10.34

13
11.21

15
12.93

21
18.10

35
30.17

9
7.76

116
100.00

Key:

0
1
0.00
0 .86
0 .00
2.13
0 .00 100.00

R esponses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t i c le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

T able C .4 7 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o th e q u e s t io n : How f r e e do th e y ( s u b o r d in a te s )
f e e l t o t a l k t o s u p e r io r s about t h e i r work?
Response
Group

Total
1
0
0 .00
0.00
0 .00

2

4

5

6

7

8

8
6.90
17.02
40.00

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

18
15.52
38.30
60.00

11
9.48
23.40
39.29

6
5.17
12.77
46.15

47
40.52

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

8
6.90
22.86
40.00

3
2.59
8 .5 7
20.00

6
5.17
17.14
20.00

9
7.76
25.71
32.14

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

3

0
1
0 .0 0
0.86
0.00
2.13
0.00 100.00

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
P et.
Row %
Col. %

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

4
3.45
11.76
20.00

9
7.76
26.47
60.00

6
8
5.17 6.90
17.65 23.53
20.00 28.57

7
6.03
20.59
53.85

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

2
1.72

7
6.03

1
0.86

20
17.24

15
12.93

30
25.86

13
11.21

116
100.00

A

1

*

Key:

2
7
1.72
6.03
5.71 20.00
100.00 100.00

R esp on ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t i c le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp onses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

28
24.14

Table C.4 8 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e s tio n :
id e a s sought and used c o n s t r u c t i v e l y ?

How o f te n a r e s u b o r d in a t e s ’

Response
Group

Total
1

2

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
3
2.59
2.59
8.57
8.57
100.00 100.00

4

5

6

7

8

2
1.72
4.26
8.70

4
3.45
8.51
25.00

6
5.17
12.77
40.00

5
4.31
10.64
41.67

27
23.28
57.45
67.50

3
2.59
6 .38
75.00

47
40.52

10
8.62
28.57
43.48

2
1.72
5.71
12.50

9
7.76
25.71
60.00

6
5.17
17.14
50.00

2
1.72
5.71
5.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0 .00

35
30.17

3

A 1 *_

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

11
9 .4 8
32.35
47.83

10
8.62
29.41
62.50

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
0 .8 6
2 .9 4
8.33

11
9 .48
32.35
27.50

1
0 .8 6
2.94
25.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

3
2.59

3
2.59

23
19.83

16
13.79

15
12.93

12
10.34

40
34.48

4
3 .4 5

116
100.00

Key:

R espon ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t i c le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

T able C .4 9 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o t h e q u e s t io n : I s predom inant u se made o f
(1 ) f e a r , (2 ) t h r e a t s , (3 ) p u n ish m en ts, (4 ) rew a rd s, (5 ) in v o lv em en t?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

5
4.31
10.64
31.25

2
1.72
4 .2 6
33.33

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

8
6 .9 0
22.86
50.00

3
2.59
8.57
50.00

1
0.86
2.86
50.00

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.82
18.75

1
0.86
2.94
16.67

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

16
13.79

6
5.17

Key:

3

4

5

6

7

8

1
0.86
2.13
14.29

6
5.17
12.77
33.33

29
25.00
61.70
50.00

3
2.59
6.38
37.50

47
40.52

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
8.57
42.86

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

20
17.24
57.14
34.48

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

1
0.86
2.94
50.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
8.82
42.86

12
10.34
35.29
66.67

9
7.76
26.47
15.52

5
4.31
14.71
62.50

34
29.31

2
1.72

1
0.86

7
6.03

18
15.52

58
50.00

8
6 .90

116
100.00

0
1
0.00
0.86
0 .0 0
2.13
0.00 100.00

R esp on ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

T able C .5 0 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o th e q u e s t io n :
a c h ie v in g h ig h perform ance?

Where i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f e l t f o r

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
0.86
2.13
25.00

3
2.59
6.38
50.00

4
3.45
8 .5
17.39

16
13.79
34.04
50.00

5
4.31
10.64
26.32

15
3
12.93
2.59
6.38
31.91
65.22 100.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

5
4.31
14.29
83.33

0
0 .00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

12
10.34
34.29
52.17

9
7.76
25.71
28.12

6
5.17
17.14
31.58

3
2.59
8 .57
13.04

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
16.67

3
2.59
8.82
75.00

3
2.59
8.82
50.00

7
6.03
20.59
30.43

7
6.03
20.59
21.87

8
6.90
23.53
42.11

5
4.31
14.71
21.74

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

6
5.17

4
3.45

6
5.17

23
19.83

32
27.59

19
16.38

23
19.83

3
2.59

116
100.00

A _ 1 ___ • __

Key:

R esp on ses o f 1 - 4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 - 8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

7

8

T able C .5 1 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o t h e q u e s t io n :
ex.i s t s ?

How much c o o p e r a t iv e teamwork

Response
Group

Total
1

2

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
18.75

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

ji

j __ • ___

Key:

3

4

5

6

7

8

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

2
1.72
4.26
18.18

7
6.03
14.89
43.75

17
14.66
36.17
48.57

9
7.76
19.15
60.00

9
7.76
19.15
90.00

47
40.52

3
2.59
8.57
42.86

8
6
5.90
5.17
22.86 17.14
50.00 100.00

3
2.59
8.57
27.27

6
5.17
17.14
37.50

6
5.17
17.14
17.14

3
2.59
8 .5 7
20.00

0
0.0 0
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

4
3.45
11.76
57.14

5
4.31
14.71
31.25

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
17.65
54.55

3
2.59
8 .8 2
18.75

12
10.34
35.29
34.29

3
2.5 9
8 .8 2
20.00

1
0 .8 6
2 .9 4
10.00

34
29.31

7
6.03

16
13.79

6
5.17

11
9 .4 8

16
13.79

35
30.17

15
12.93

10
8.62

116
100.00

R espon ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp onses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

T ab le C .5 2 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o th e q u e s t io n :
in fo r m a tio n flo w ?

What i s t h e u su al d i r e c t i o n o f

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A J _• ^

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6 .3 8
23.08

1
0.86
2.13
9.09

5
4.31
10.64
62.50

3
2.59
6 .3 8
25.00

14
12.07
29.79
60.87

21
18.10
44.68
60.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.43
33.33

10
8.62
28.57
76.92

3
2.59
8.57
27.27

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
17.14
50.00

3
2 .59
8 .5 7
13.04

9
7.76
25.71
25.71

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
23.53
66.67

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

7
6.03
20.59
63.64

3
2.59
8.82
37.50

3
2.59
8 .8 2
25.00

6
5.17
17.65
26.09

5
2
1.72
4.31
5 .8 8
14.71
14.29 100.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

12
10.34

13
11.21

11
9.48

8
6.90

12
10.34

23
19.83

35
30.17

2
1.72

116
100.00

Key:

R espon ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp onses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

Table C .5 3 .- - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e s tio n :
accepted?

How i s downward communication

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3
0
0 .00
2.59
0 .0 0
6 .3 8
0 .0 0 100.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
0.86
2.13
5.26

17
14.66
36.17
47.22

17
14.66
36.17
73.91

9
7.76
19.15
50.00

47
40.52

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8 .5 7
60.00

0
0 .00
0 .00
0 .0 0

2
1.72
5.71
16.67

15
12.93
42.86
78.95

9
7.76
25.71
25.00

3
2.59
8.57
13.04

3
2.59
8.57
16.67

35
30.17

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.88
40.00

0
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0

10
8 .6 2
29.41
83.33

3
2.59
8.82
15.79

10
8.62
29.41
27.78

3
2.59
8 .8 2
13.04

6
5.17
17.65
33.33

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

5
4.31

3
2.59

12
10.34

19
16.38

36
31.03

23
19.83

18
15.52

116
100.00

Key:

R esp on ses o f 1 - 4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 - 8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

T able C .5 4 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o th e q u e s t io n :
t io n ?

How a c c u r a te i s upward communica­

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

Admi n .

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
4 .26
50.00

3
2.59
6 .3 8
60.00

0
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0

5
4.31
10.64
27.78

10
8.62
21.28
35.71

6
5.17
12.77
23.08

15
6
12.93
5.17
31.91 12.77
60.00 100.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

2
1.72
5.71
50.00

1
0 .8 6
2.86
20.00

2
1.72
5.71
50.00

3
2.59
8 .57
16.67

12
10.34
34.29
42.86

12
10.34
34.29
46.15

3
2.59
8 .57
12.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

1
0.86
2.94
20.00

2
1.72
5.88
50.00

10
8.62
29.41
55.56

6
5.17
17.65
21.43

8
6.90
23.53
30.77

7
6.03
20.59
28.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

34

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

4
3 .45

5
4.31

4
3 .4 5

18
15.52

28
24.14

26
22.41

25
21.55

6
5.17

116
100.00

Key:

R espon ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R espon ses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

7

8

Table C .5 5 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o t h e q u e s tio n :
problems faced by s u b o rd in a te s ?

How well do s u p e r i o r s know

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

3
2.59
6.38
14.29

3
2.59
6.38
20.00

12
10.34
25.53
50.00

3
2.59
6 .38
30.00

23
19.83
48.94
85.19

3
2.59
6 .3 8
21.43

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8 .57
75.00

9
7.76
25.71
42.86

8
6.90
22.86
53.33

3
2.59
8.57
12.50

6
5.17
17.14
60.00

3
2.59
8.57
11.11

3
2.59
8 .5 7
21.43

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.94
25.00

9
7.76
26.47
42.86

4
3.45
11.76
26.67

9
7.76
26.47
37.50

1
0.86
2 .94
10.00

1
0.86
2 .9 4
3.70

8
1
6.90
0 .86
2.94
23.53
57.14 100.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

4
3 .45

21
18.10

15
12.93

24
20.69

10
8.62

27
23.28

Key:

R esp on ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t i c le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 - 8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

14
12.07

8

1
0.86

116
100.00

T able C .5 6 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o th e q u e s t io n :

At what l e v e l a r e d e c i s i o n s made?

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0 .00

2
1.72
4.26
15.38

5
4.31
10.64
33.33

3
2.59
6 .3 8
33.33

2
1.72
4.26
11.76

14
12.07
29.79
77.78

21
18.10
4 4.68
63.64

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

8
6.90
22.86
100.00

7
6.03
20.00
53.85

5
4.31
14.29
33.33

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

6
5.17
17.14
35.29

3
2 .59
8 .57
16.67

6
5.17
17.14
18.18

0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0

35
30.17

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0 .00

4
3.45
11.76
30.77

5
4.31
14.71
33.33

6
5.17
17.65
66.67

9
7.76
26.47
52.94

1
0.86
2 .9 4
5.56

6
3
5.17
2.59
17.65
8 .82
18.18 100.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

8
6.90

13
11.21

15
12.93

9
7.76

17
14.66

18
15.52

Key:

R esponses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t i c le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esponses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

33
28.45

3
2 .59

116
100.00

Table C .5 7 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e s tio n : How o f te n a re s u b o rd in a te s
involved in d e c i s io n s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r work?
Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0 .0 0

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0 .0 0

2
1.72
4.26
14.29

1
0.86
2.13
12.50

15
12.93
31.91
68.18

8
6.90
17.02
34.78

18
15.52
38.30
52.94

3
2.59
6 .3 8
60.00

47
40.52

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

3
6
2.59
5.17
8 .57 17.14
75.00 100.00

9
7.76
25.71
64.29

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

2
1.72
5.71
9.09

9
7.76
25.71
39.13

6
5.17
17.14
17.65

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

1
0 .8 6
2.94
25.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0 .0 0

3
2.59
8.82
21.43

7
6.03
20.59
87.50

5
4.31
14.71
22.73

6
5.17
17.65
26.09

10
8 .62
29.41
29.41

2
1.72
5 .88
40.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

4
3 .4 5

6
5.17

14
12.07

8
6.90

22
18.97

23
19.83

34
29.31

5
4.31

116
100.00

Key:

R esp on ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t i c le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 - 8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

T able C .5 8 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o th e q u e s t io n :

How i s g o a l s e t t i n g u s u a l l y done?

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0

0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0.00

5
4.31
10.64
45.45

3
2.59
6 .3 8
25.00

7
6.03
14.89
50.00

8
6.90
17.02
36.36

21
3
18.10
2.59
44.68
6 .3 8
51.22 100.00

47
40.52

6
5.17
17.14
54.55

3
2.59
8.57
25.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

9
7.76
25.71
40.91

9
7.76
25.71
21.95

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

4
4
3 .45
3 .4 5
11.43 11.43
44.44 100.00

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

5
4.31
14.71
55.56

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

6
5.17
17.65
50.00

7
6.03
20.59
50.00

5
4.31
14.71
22.73

11
9.4 8
32.35
26.83

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

9
7.76

4
3.45

11
9 .4 8

12
10.34

14
12.07

22
18.97

41
35.34

3
2.59

116
100.00

•

■

■

Key:

R esponses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp onses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

T able C .5 9 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s t o t h e q u e s t io n :
t o a c h ie v e th e o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s g o a ls ?

How much do s u b o r d in a te s s t r i v e

Response
Group

Total
4

5

6

7

8

1
0.86
2.13
7.14

5
4.31
10.64
29.41

9
7.76
19.15
45.00

17
14.66
36.17
58.62

9
7.76
19.15
36.00

6
5.17
12.77
85.71

47
40.52

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

8
6.90
22.86
57.14

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

4
3.45
11.43
20.00

11
9.4 8
31.43
37.93

9
7.76
25.71
36.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

1
0
0 .0 0
0.86
0.00
2.94
0 .0 0 100.00

5
4.31
14.71
35.71

12
10.34
35.29
70.59

7
6.03
20.59
35.00

1
0.86
2 .9 4
3.45

7
6.03
20.59
28.00

1
0.86
2.94
14.29

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

3
2.59

1
0.86

14
12.07

17
14.66

20
17.24

29
25.00

25
21.55

7
6.03

116
100.00

1

2

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
100.00

AJ

_
•_

Key:

3

R esp on ses o f 1 - 4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp on ses o f 5 - 8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

Table C.6 0 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e s tio n :
c o n tro l f u n c tio n s ?

How c o n c e n tra te d a re review and

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

1
0.86
2.13
12.50

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

3
2.59
6 .3 8
50.00

8
6 .9 0
17.02
30.77

10
8 .6 2
21.28
50.00

13
11.21
27.66
59.09

9
7.76
19.15
47.37

3
2.59
6.38
60.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
37.50

9
7.76
25.71
90.00

2
1.72
5.71
33.33

6
5.17
17.14
23.08

5
4.31
14.29
25.00

7
6.03
20.00
31.82

3
2.59
8 .57
15.79

0
0 .00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F aculty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
50.00

1
0.86
2 .94
10.00

1
0.86
2.94
16.67

12
10.34
35.29
46.15

5
4.31
14.71
25.00

2
1.72
5 .8 8
9 .09

7
6.03
20.59
36.84

2
1.72
5 .88
40.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

8
6 .90

10
8.62

6
5.17

26
22.41

20
17.24

22
18.97

19
16.38

5
4.31

116
100.00

Key:

R espon ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t ic le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esponses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

Table C.6 1 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resp o n ses t o th e q u e s tio n :
c o n tr o l d a ta used fo r?

What a re c o s t , p r o d u c t i v i t y , and

Response
Group

Total
1

2

3

4

5

6

Admin.

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0 .0 0

3
2.59
6 .3 8
25.00

2
1.72
4.26
25.00

2
1.72
4.26
10.53

12
10.34
25.53
75.00

25
3
21.55
2.59
53.19
6 .38
53.19 100.00

47
40.52

Managers

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

3
2.59
8.57
42.86

3
2.59
8.57
75.00

6
5.17
17.14
50.00

0
0.00
0 .00
0 .0 0

11
9 .48
31.43
57.89

3
2.59
8.57
18.75

9
7.76
25.71
19.15

0
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00

35
30.17

F acu lty

Freq.
P e t.
Row %
Col. %

4
3.45
11.76
57.14

1
0.86
2.94
25.00

3
2.59
8.82
25.00

6
5.17
17.65
75.00

6
5.17
17.65
31.58

1
0.86
2.9 4
6.2 5

13
11.21
38.24
27.66

0
0.00
0 .00
0.00

34
29.31

TOTAL

Freq.
P e t.

7
6.03

4
3.45

12
10.34

8
6.90

19
16.38

16
13.79

47
40.52

3
2.59

116
100.00

AJ - . • ^

Key:

R espon ses o f 1 -4 = more a u t o c r a t i c le a d e r s h ip s t y l e
R esp onses o f 5 -8 = more p a r t i c i p a t i v e le a d e r s h ip s t y l e

7

8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Babbidge, Homer. "Design and Change in American Higher Education."
In Lona-Ranae Planning in Higher Education. Edited by Owen
Knorr. Boulder, C o l.: Western I n t e r s t a t e Commission f o r Higher
Education, 1965.
B aldridge, J . V.; Ecker, C u rtis G.; and R iley, A. L. P olicy Making
and E ffe c tiv e Leadership. San F rancisco: Jossey-B ass, 1978.
Bean, J . P ., and Kuh, G. D. "Typology o f Planning Problems."
Journal o f Higher Education 55 (1984): 35-55.
Bracher, J e f f r e y . "The H is to ric a l Development o f th e S t r a te g i c
Management Concept." Academy o f Management Review 5 (February
1980): 219.
Campbell, Dale F ., ed. Strengthening Financial Management.
Francisco: Jossey-B ass, 1985.

San

C aruthers, J . K., and Orwig, M. "Budgeting in Higher Education."
Research Report No. 3. Washington, D.C.: AAHE-ERIC, 1979.
Chaffee, E. E. "Turnaround Management S t r a t e g i e s , The Adaptive
Model and th e C onstructive Model." Paper p resented a t the
Annual Meeting o f ASHE, June 1983.
Cloud, Robert C. "Q uality C irc le s in th e Community College"
(Levelland, Texas, South P lain s C o lleg e). Bethesda, Md.:
Document Reproduction S ervice, ED 271 171, February 1986.

ERIC

Clugston, Richard M. " S tr a te g ic Planning in an Organized Anarchy:
The Emperor’s New Clothes?" Paper presented a t th e Annual
Meeting o f ASHE, June 1986.
Cohen, M., and March, J . Leadership and Ambiguity: The American
College P r e s id e n t. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
C o ll i e r , Douglas T. The Concept o f S tr a t e g i c Decision Making.
Boulder, C o l.: National Center f o r Higher Education Management
Systems, August 1981.
Cope, R. G. S t r a t e g i c Planning. Management, and Decision Making.
Washington, D.C.: American A ssociation o f Higher Education,
1981.

201

202
Daugherty, E. A. "Evaluating and D iscontinuing Programs." In
Challenges o f Retrenchment. Edited by J . R. Mingle. San
Francisco: Jossey-B ass, 1981.
Drucker, P e te r. "Long Range Planning." In Technology. Management,
and S o c ie ty . New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
F i l u r i n , E llen, and o th e r s . "Achieving I n s t i t u t i o n a l Consensus on
S tr a te g ic Planning." Paper presented a t the Annual Conference
o f th e Council f o r Advancement and Support o f Education,
A lexandria, V irg in ia , December 1986.
G leazer, Edmund J . Values. Vision, and V i t a l i t y . Washington, D.C.:
American A ssociation o f Community and Ju n io r C olleges, 1980.
Glenny, Lyman A. S ta te Coordination o f Higher Education: The
Modern Concent. Denver, C ol.: S ta te Higher Education Execu­
t i v e O ffic e rs A ssociation , 1985.
H alstead, K. D.
to n , D.C.:

Statew ide Planning in Higher Education.
Government P rin tin g O ffice, 1974.

Washing­

Henderson, L. G. "A Plan f o r Planning f o r a Community College
System." Unpublished paper, F lo rid a S ta te U n iv ersity , June
1973.
Horwitz, Murray. "The Recall o f In te rru p te d Group Tasks: An
Experimental Study o f Individual Motion in R elation to Group
Goals." Human R elatio ns 7 (1954): 3-37.
I s h l e r , Richard E. " I n s t i t u t i o n a l Planning f o r a Declining E n ro ll­
ment." Paper presented a t th e I n te rn a tio n a l Conference on
Improving Higher Education, London, England, J u ly 1979.
Keinath, Barbara J . "A Study o f th e S tr a te g ic Planning Processes o f
Six S ta te U n iv e r s itie s Using C haffee’s S trateg y Models." Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv ersity o f Minnesota, 1985.
K e lle r, George. Academic S trateg y . The Management Revolution in
American Higher Education. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins
U n iv ersity P ress, 1983.
Kennedy, William R. "Program Evaluation fo r S t r a te g ic Planning
in th e Two-Year C ollege." Paper presented a t th e Annual
Meeting o f th e North Central Region Educational Research
A sso ciatio n, Columbus, Ohio, J u ly 1980.
Kerr, C lark. "Changes and Challenges Ahead f o r Community C olleges."
Community and Ju n io r College Journal 50 (May 1980): 4-10.

203
K ie ft, R. N. Academic Planning: Four I n s t i t u t i o n a l Case S tu d ie s .
Boulder, C ol.: National Center f o r Higher Education Management
Kinneson, Charles J . Long and Short Range Planning f o r Community
C o lleges. Washington, D.C.: McManis and A sso ciates, 1979.
________ • Outcome Oriented Planning. Management, and E v alu atio n .
Washington, D.C.: McManis and A sso ciates, 1978.
K itabehi, G lo ria . " I n s t i t u t i o n a l Goals Survey: Im p licatio ns fo r
Planning a t an Urban Community C ollege." Paper presented a t
th e Mid-South Educational Research A sso ciatio n, New O rleans,
Louisiana, November 1984.
Knoell, Dorothy, and McIntyre, C harles. Pianino Colleges f o r the
Community. San Francisco: Jossey-B ass, 1974.
L ah ti, Robert. Innovative Colleges Management.
Jossey-B ass, 1974.

San F rancisco:

Landsburg, David Lee. "The Perceived Impact o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l LongRange Program Planning on Community C olleg es." Ph.D. d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , U niv ersity o f Michigan, 1975.
L e slie , Larry L ., and Brinkman, Paul T. Rates o f Return to Higher
Education: An In te n siv e Examination. Boulder, C ol.: National
Center f o r Higher Education Management Systems, 1985.
L ik e rt, Rensis. "Management S ty les and th e Human Component."
agement Review 66 (1977): 23-28.
Lindblom, C harles. The Policy Making P ro cess.
N .J .: P r e n tic e -H a ll, 1968.

Man­

Englewood C l i f f s ,

McClenney, B. N. Management fo r P ro d u c tiv ity . Washington, D.C.:
American A ssociation o f Community and Ju n io r C olleges, 1980.
McCune, S h irley D. Guide f o r S tr a te g ic Planning f o r Educators.
Alexandria, Va.: A ssociation f o r Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1986.
McDowell, E liz a b e th . "Planning: The P a r tic ip a to r y Process Model."
Paper presented a t th e AACJC Convention, San Diego, C a lif o rn ia ,
April 1985.
McMullen, Harold G. "The ’Well-Futured* College: Reaching f o r
Tomorrow-Today" (occasional paper, Southern A ssociation o f
Community and Ju n io r C o lleg es). Bethesda, Md.: ERIC
Document Reproduction S ervice, ED 257 488, J u ly 1985.

204
M eisinger, Richard J . , and Dubeck, Leroy W. College and Univer sity
Budgeting. Washington, D.C.: National A ssociation o f College
and U niv ersity Business O f fic e r s , 1984.
Menke, Michael. " S tra te g ic Planning in an Age o f U n certain ty ."
Long-Range Planning 12 (August 1979).
Michigan Department o f Education. "Opinions o f Michigan C itizen s
About Community C olleges." Lansing: Michigan Department o f
Education, March 1987.
Morrison, James C. " E stab lish in g a U niversity Scanning System to
Augment College and U niversity Planning." Paper presented a t
an Environmental Scanning Network B reakfast, San Diego, C a l i ­
f o r n i a , Ju ly 20, 1986.
N o rris, Donald. A Guide f o r New P lan ners. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
Society f o r College and U niversity Planning, 1984.
P e t r e l l o , George J . "An Analysis o f Formal Long-Range and S t r a t e g i c
Planning as a Guide f o r E ffe c tiv e Leadership." Paper presented
a t th e Annual Meeting o f the Society o f Educators and S cholars,
L o u is v ille , Kentucky, October, 1986.
P in n e ll, C harles, and Wacholder, Michael. G uidelines f o r Planning
in Colleges and U n iv e r s itie s : Vol. 1. Planning System.
College S ta tio n : Texas A & M U n iv e rsity , January 1968.
Poulton, Nick L. " S tra te g ie s o f Large U n i v e r s i t i e s ." In Improving
Academic Management: A Handbook o f Planning and I n s t i t u t i o n a l
Research. Edited by Paul Judamus, Marvin W. P eterson, and
a s s o c ia te s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
Rarig, Emory Webster, J r . "A dm inistrative P ra c tic e s in I n s t i t u ­
tio n a l Long-Range Planning in Community and Ju n io r C o lleges."
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Teachers College, Columbia U n iv ersity ,
1968.
Rush, P e te r. "Nine Dimensions o f Community College E f fe c tiv e n e s s ."
Advisor (N ew sletter o f th e A ssociation o f Community College
T rustees) 18 (March 1987): 3-5.
Schroeder, Roger. "An Approach f o r Improved Planning in C olleges."
Minneapolis: Center f o r A dm inistration Research, U n iversity o f
Minnesota, 1975.
S h ib ata, Kenneth E. "Q uality C ir c le s :
Roundtable, no. 32 (April 1983).

Solution o r S tra te g y ."

S h irle y , Robert C. "Estim ating Academic Program P r i o r i t i e s . "
Journal o f Higher Education 19 (1978).

205

, and Caruther, Kent J . " S tra te g ic Planning f o r Higher
Education." Paper presented a t th e Annual Meeting o f th e
American A ssociation o f Southern Colleges and U n i v e r s itie s ,
November 1979.
Shoemaker, William A. "Planning in Two-Year C o lleg es." Paper
presented a t the Annual Meeting o f th e National Center f o r
Research in Vocational Education, Columbus, Ohio, December
1978.
Skobjak, Bernadette L ., and McKee, Barbara. An Evaluation o f a
College-Wide Planning and Budgeting P rocess. Rochester, N.Y.:
National Technical I n s t i t u t e f o r th e Deaf, 1985.
Smith, Glenn D. "Changing Role R elatio nsh ip s as a U n iversity Moves
to D ecentralized A d m in istratio n ." Paper presented a t the
Annual Convention o f th e Southern Speech Communication Associa­
t i o n , April 1985.
Snyder, John W. "Long-Range Planing Is an E ffe c tiv e S ales Tool."
College and U niv ersity Business (May 1971).
S tetso n , Nancy. "R elationship Between Systematic Planning a t
Community Colleges and Goal Agreement" ( t h e s i s , Central
Washington U n iv e rsity ). Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Repro­
duction S ervice, ED 203 899, November 1980.
Stevenson, Mike, and W alleri, R. Dan. "Budget Analysis in an Era o f
Retrenchment." Paper presented a t th e Twentieth Annual A ssoci­
atio n f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research Forum, A tla n ta , Georgia, 1980.
S tu r tz , Alan J . "The S ta tu s o f Planning a t Community, Ju n io r and
Technical Colleges in th e N ortheast: R esults o f th e Survey."
New Haven, Conn.: O ffice o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research Planning
and Development, South Central Community College, August 1984.
Tierney, M. I . " P r i o r i t y S e ttin g and Resource A llo c a tio n ." In New
D irectio n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research. Evaluation o f Management
and Planning Systems. Edited l>y N. Poulton. San F rancisco:
Jossey-B ass, September 1981.
T o f f le r , Alvin. Future Shock.

New York:

Random House, 1970.

Van Ausdle, Steven L. Comprehensive I n s t i t u t i o n a l Planning in TwoYear C olleges: A Planning Process and Case Study. Columbus,
Ohio: National Center f o r Research in Vocational Education,
1979.
Waddell, William.

Overcoming Murphy*s Law.

New York:

Aura, 1981.

206
W attenbarger, James L ., and Mercer, Sherry L. "Financing Community
C o lleg es." G a in e s v ille : I n s t i t u t e o f Higher Education,
U n iv ersity o f F lo rid a , 1985.
Western I n t e r s t a t e Commission f o r Higher Education (WICHE). The
Financial Environment o f Community C o lleg es. Boulder, C o l.:
WICHE, 1985.