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

Political Elements

To a lesser extent than the bureaucratic model, presidential decision making in KCTCS reflects elements of the political model. Birnbaum (1988) asserts that the interdependence of elements within a system results in politics and power: “it is only when individuals must rely on others for some of their necessary resources that they become concerned about or interested in the activities or behaviors of others” (p. 132). Thus, the interdependence of the system and colleges, coupled with the interdependence of the system and colleges with internal and external agencies evidenced in analysis results in politics and power. Power is clearly visible in KCTCS, but this power is primarily ascribed to the KCTCS Board of Regents because of their authority delineated in statute and policy. However, Birnbaum (1988) argues that legal delegation to trustees is not the sole source of authority, and presumably, power is concentrated at the colleges or among the college presidents because policy outlines a number of presidential decisions to be made without delegation.

In addition, KCTCS is comprised of 16 colleges, each of which reflect multiple, often competing, interests and agendas. Reflected in qualitative findings was local differences among colleges that resulted in challenges to alignment. These local differences reflect different interests and agendas for the colleges that may not necessarily align with the system or align with one another. Moreover, the authority of
the KCTCS Board of Regents and CPE reflects yet additional agendas that the KCTCS president and college presidents must navigate. Altogether, the dynamics of presidential decision making in KCTCS reflect multiple, often competing, interests that must be evaluated and considered in light of differences in their histories, traditions, and geographic locations.
According to Birnbaum (1988), conflict in political organizations is inevitable because of competition for resources. Qualitative findings highlight a politically driven decision making process for decisions requiring funding or involving external stakeholders. Participants explained the involvement of multiple stakeholders, such as the judge executive, superintendent, local legislators, and community members in establishing or closing a campus, which characterized the decision making process as politically driven. As such, decisions closely linked to budget, funding, and resources, such as establishing or closing a campus location, or decisions that affect resources provided by others, become part of the political arena.
Whereas coalitions emerge from a process of negotiation in political organizations (Birnbaum, 1988), this process of negotiation emerged as a combined effort in presidential decision making in KCTCS. For instance, according to documents, facilities planning is a shared responsibility that involves prioritization of building and construction across the system using ranking criteria approved by the KCTCS president’s leadership team. Thus, the ranking criteria is a symbol of the negotiation process among colleges for facilities planning, and use of the criteria facilitates the shared responsibility of facilities planning reinforced in policy. In this manner, the shared responsibility
outlined in policy helps remove facilities planning from the political process of deciding who receives allocations for capital construction.