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

Summary of Results

Quantitative results suggested that participants perceived differently the location of decision making for the decision areas asked about on the survey. Differences in participant responses were noted at the decision-area and decision-item levels, though there was consistency in participant responses for some decision items explored in the previous chapter. Moreover, means calculated for each of the decision areas showed that participants perceived a minimal difference in the location of decision making for the three decision areas. The total mean value for the dataset suggested that across the

decision areas asked about on the survey, participants on average believed the location of decision making to lean more in the direction of the local college, but with some input from the state system. However, this finding was an average across all decision areas participants were asked about. Measures of dispersion, specifically the range, illustrated dispersion in participant responses across the scale, which reinforced differences in the perceived location of decision making noted in other descriptive analyses and calculations.
For qualitative findings, flexibility, alignment, governance structures, combined effort, and location of authority emerged. Participants pointed to flexibility in decision making to the extent of policy parameters in order to meet local need. Policy framing reinforced alignment such that system policy framed college policy, which was important to align goals and objectives. Furthermore, policy, which outlined processes and procedures, reinforced governance structures for decision making. Policy also outlined the location of authority for decision making, which was often attributed to the roles, responsibilities, and powers of particular positions or governance structures. However, even with specified locations of authority, analysis revealed a combined effort indicative of shared decision making that involved feedback and recommendations.
In addition, qualitative findings highlighted involvement and influence of internal and external agencies, including the KCTCS Board of Regents, boards of directors, CPE, and individual state legislators, in decision making. The influence of these agencies was either direct or indirect and depended on the scope of responsibilities and powers outlined in policy. Also, the influence of these agencies depended on the extent to which parts of the system and colleges were connected to one another for a given decision. Influences of
the boards necessitated ongoing communication, and presidents used feedback and recommendations of their respective boards to guide decision making.