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

Implications for Higher Education Policy, Governance, and Administration

Structural and human condition elements of governance theory are reflected in the presidential decision making in KCTCS, though with some degree of variability given the dual system and college structures and local differences among colleges. Regardless of policy and procedure, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities attributed to particular positions, presidential decision making reflects a particular approach to leadership. Given the size of the system, dual system and college structures, and bifurcated academic and administrative structures, a presidential orientation toward a combined effort in decision making reflective of inclusion and feedback can help ensure that decision making reflects a sense of systemness as defined by Zimpher (2013) so that as a whole, the system functions in a way that is more impactful than if the individual colleges were operating alone.

Despite the importance of a combined effort for decision making to achieve systemness, presidents must acknowledge and navigate local differences among colleges within a system, and further ensure that decisions address or reflect these differences.
Navigating these local differences means being collaborative, embracing feedback and recommendations, and demonstrating compromise and reconciliation as decisions in the KCTCS president’s leadership team are informed by the perspectives and agendas of the KCTCS president, KCTCS chancellor, KCTCS vice presidents, and each of the 16 college presidents.
Finally, the application of theory outlined by Birnbaum (1988) illustrates that presidential decision making in KCTCS reflects elements of the bureaucratic, political, collegial, and anarchical models. As Birnbaum (1988) argues, no one model is more
important or more effective than another, and organizations display elements of more than one model in any given moment. Because presidential decision making reflects elements of multiple models, presidential awareness of the presence and context of these models is imperative to effective decision making. Awareness of these models can lead to adaptability in approaches to leadership that are most relevant to the particular model(s) present.