Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Community College Presidency

Amey and Twombly (1992) reference a few scholars that have contributed to the field of community college leadership. One of these scholars is George Vaughan, who published the first study on the community college presidency in 1986 and has since been considered a national expert on this role. This study examined the personal and professional characteristics of community college presidents using the Career and Lifestyle Survey (CLS) administered to 838 community college presidents, of which 71 percent responded. The CLS survey was administered to community college presidents again in 1991, 1996, and 2001, providing data for assessing how the presidency has changed over time. Based on the 1996 national study of community college presidents, Vaughan and Weisman (1998) examine presidents’ personal and professional characteristics. The CLS survey was administered to 926 community college presidents, with a response rate of 73 percent. In addition, interviews with 13 community college presidents provide narrative data that further reveals particular challenges that presidents face.

Of particular interest is internal and external threats to the mission of the community college that interview participates reference. Though participants point to decreased funding that affects the mission of open access, one participant highlights the correlation between funding and efficiency: “There is a sense that colleges have waste and duplication, [sic] that business and industry were required to downsize and colleges never did. To a great extent, we have invited the scrutiny that comes from legislatures who have decided that they don’t really need to put more money into higher education; they just need to reshuffle what is there” (p. 91-92). The same participant alludes to demands for efficiency and effectiveness that have resulted in alternative structures and ways of doing business. This narrative reinforces the history and evolution of higher education systems outlined by McGuinness (2013). As higher education systems have evolved, McGuinness highlights trends toward centralization as a result of increasing demand for accountability, efficiency, and the desire for community colleges to serve state needs. Still, interview participants highlight that the legislature and state level board have placed restrictions on the colleges that interfere with their ability to meet the needs of their communities.
Using interview data, Vaughan and Weisman (1998) further examine challenges facing the community college presidency in the 21^st century. Participants address leadership and governance as a challenge facing the presidency. Patterns in the narrative data allude to the need for “adequate leadership” that provides a supportive and motivating environment and solid academic experiences for students (p. 140). Though, adequate leadership is ambiguous and subject to variations in the organizational structure and people assuming leadership positions. One participant identified the need for a
system of governance that includes faculty and staff as partners in the decision making process, which alludes to shared decision making. Contrary to images of the “great man” style of leadership that Amey and Twombly (1992) identify in the discourse on community college leadership, shared governance implies the contributions of many to the decision making process. Another participant feared the involvement of trustees in college management would cause “the line between policy and administration to become blurred” (p. 140), reinforcing the external threats identified by participants. As a result, community college presidents face criticism and demands from multiple constituencies.
When asked what skills and traits are most important for the community college presidency in the 21^st century, one participant discusses the expectation for shared governance: “I think one thing that is and will continue to be important is the ability to involve other people successfully in the governance of the college” (p. 150). Three additional participants describe participatory management as an important characteristic of presidents to maximize the talent and resources of everyone in the institution. Another participant references the ability to work in groups and create a team environment, which echoes shared governance and decision making. These characteristics, though identified from the perspective of individual community college presidents, resonates strongly for community college systems where system and campus leaders must work together to achieve institutional goals.
The narrative that Vaughan and Weisman (1998) collect helps generate an image of the community college presidency that has characteristically evolved from the “great man” style of leadership identified by Amey and Twombly (1992). Still, literature on community college leadership is framed from the perspective of a single president within
the context of their individual college. The perspective of leaders from a system of community colleges provides data that is relevant to current organizational structures of community colleges. Though participant narratives echo the use of shared governance and decision making, and participatory management as key presidential skills, there is little evidence of what shared decision making resembles in a community college system. Leadership in Higher Education Systems
In addition to skills and abilities that community college presidents identify as essential to leadership, several professional organizations have outlined competencies for community college leaders vital to the success of institutions. McNair and Phelan (2012) examine perceptions and reflections of six community college chief executive officers (five presidents and one chancellor) on the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) competencies (2005). Specifically, McNair and Phelan aim to understand how participants acquired and developed the competencies, how they were integrated into professional practice, and any components missing from the framework. The results point to organizational strategy as one of the most useful competencies, which the AACC (2005) defines as leaders who “strategically improve the quality of the institution, protect the long-term health of the organization, promote the success of all students, and sustains the community college mission, based on knowledge of the organization, its environment, and future trends” (p. 3). This competency alludes to structural approaches such that participants cite organizational strategy as useful for allowing them to operate effectively, access and receive information, and allocate resources to enhance productivity. Additionally, presidents cited a systems perspective as a missing competency. A systems perspective helps see connections, which runs counter
to transitions in the structures of higher education and the prevalence of higher education systems.
The contributions of system board members and their chairs, system chief executives, and campus chief executives to the leadership of higher education systems highlight principles and strategies that are of critical importance to system effectiveness. The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), the National Association of System Heads (NASH), and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) (2009) outline key principles for leadership effectiveness in higher education systems. These principles include “providing a collective and unified voice; building interdependent support; balancing central authority with institutional differentiation, autonomy, and creativity; strategic planning and direction; and, performance assessment” (p. 4). Within each of these principles, the national associations outline the roles of the system board, system chief executive, and campus executives, altogether underscoring the different roles and contributions of these leaders to system effectiveness.