An investigation of the roles of community college chief executive officers

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An investigation of the roles of community college chief executive officers a comparison of selected multi-campus and multi-institution public community college districts
Physical Description:
xi, 197 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Buckner, Richard Gale, 1944-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College administrators -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Community colleges -- Administration -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 193-196).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Richard G. Buckner, Jr.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000163514
notis - AAS9871
oclc - 02752651
System ID:
AA00003931:00001

Full Text
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ROLES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED MULTI-CAMPUS AND MULTI-INSTITUTION PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS
By
RICHARD G. BUCKNER, JR.
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1975


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer wishes to express gratitude to the many persons whose assistance and support have made this study possible. To the Chairman of the Supervisory Committee, Dr. James L, Wattenbarger, sincere appreciation is expressed for his guidance and encouragement throughout the development and completion of this study. Appreciation is also extended to the other members of the committee, Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough and Dr. Victor A. Thompson.
To the many people who participated in the study at Mi ami-Dade Community College and at the Dallas County Community College District, the writer wishes to express his gratitude.
The writer wishes to express his deepest appreciation to his wife, Susan, for all her unselfish years of encouragement, assistance, and devoted love, without which this study would not have been possible.
To his children Stephanie, Stephen, and Jason, thank you for waiting and trying to understand when Daddy had to work instead of play.
Finally, the writer wishes to thank his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Richard G. Buckner, Sr., for their continued guidance and love during his formative years.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................... ii
LIST OF TABLES.......................... vi i
LIST OF FIGURES......................... 111
ABSTRACT............................. ix
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ...................... 1
The Problem...................... 4
Statement of the Problem .............. 4
Delimitations.................... 5
Limitations..................... 6
Justification for the Study............. 7
Definition of Terms.................. 9
Procedures...................... 10
Sample Selection .................. 10
Development of the Instrument............ 11
Collection of Data................. 16
Data Treatment................... 17
Organization of the Remainder of the Research Report 18
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............. 20
Review of Pertinent Theories of Organization and
Administration ................... 20
Review of Research Studies and Pertinent Literature
on Multi-Unit Community College Districts...... 27
Review of Research Studies and Pertinent Literature
on Community College Chief Executive Officers. ... 37
III MIAMI-DADE: THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AT A MULTI-CAMPUS INSTITUTION............. 50
i i i


CHAPTER Page
Environmental Setting............... 50
Legal Structure of Governance........... 55
Findings of the Questionnaire and Structured
Interviews................... 56
Planning..................... 63
Finance..................... 64
Legitimization .................. 65
External Relations ................ 65
Educational Leadership .............. 66
Evaluation.................... 67
Planning..................... 71
Finance..................... 75
Legitimization .................. 75
External Relations ................ 76
Educational Leadership .............. 76
Evaluation.................... 77
Summation and General Observations on Functions
of the Executive................. 94
IV DALLAS: THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AT A
MULTI-INSTITUTION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ..... 97
Environmental Setting............... 97
History and Development of the District...... 98
Legal Structure of Governance........... 102
Findings of the Questionnaire and Structured
Interviews................... 104
Planning..................... Ill
Finance..................... 112
Legitimization .................. 112
External Relations ................ 113
Educational Leadership .............. 114
Evaluation.................... 115
Planning..................... 120
Finance..................... 120
Legitimization................... 124
External Relations................ 125
Educational Leadership .............. 125
Evaluation.................... 126
Summation and General Observations on the Functions
of the Chancellor................. 142
V COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE SELECTED
DISTRICTS....................... 145
iv


CHAPTER Page Actual and Perceived Role of the President
of Miami-Dade Community College...........146
Perceived Importance of Administrative Categories. 146
Perceived Direct and Delegated Functions ..... 147
Perceived Overall Role of the President......148
Actual and Perceived Role of the Chancellor of the
Dallas County Community College District ...... 149
Perceived Importance of Administrative Categories. 149
Perceived Direct and Delegated Functions ..... 151
Perceived Overall Role of the Chancellor.....151
Comparison of the Perceived Roles of the Chief Executive Officers in the Districts Studied.....152
Perceived Importance of Administrative Categories. 152
Perceived Direct and Delegated Functions ..... 153
Perceived Overall Role of the Chief Executive. 154
Accuracy of Perceptions.............. 154
Summation and General Observations .......... 155
VI GENERAL SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER STUDY....................156
General Summary....................156
Miami-Dade Community College ............ 157
Dallas County Community College District ...... 158
Commonalities and Differences of the Districts
Studied...................... 159
Perceived Importance of Administrative Categories. 160
Perceived Direct and Delegated Functions ...... 160
Perceived Overall Role of the Chief Executive. ... 161
Accuracy of Perceptions............... 162
Response to Major Questions Posed by the Study .162
Conclusions......................164
Recommendations for Further Study...........167
APPENDICES............................. 169
APPENDIX
A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE ................ 170
B QUESTIONNAIRE....................... 175
v


APPENDIX
C COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT................184
D COLLEGE ORGANIZATION CHART ................ 186
E CHART II-A THE DISTRICT OFFICE..............188
F CHANCELLOR ..... ................... 190
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................193
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................ 197
vi


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 RANKING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORIES AT MIAMI-DADE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE.................... 58
2 FUNCTIONS RANKED WITHIN CATEGORIES AT MIAMI-DADE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE.................... 59
3 PERCENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S TIME SPENT IN EACH
CATEGORY AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ........ 70
4 PERCENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S TIME SPENT ON FUNCTIONS
WITHIN CATEGORIES AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE. ... 72
5 DEGREE OF EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN SELECTED FUNCTIONS AT
MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE .............. 79
6 STRUCTURED INTERVIEW: FIVE MOST FREQUENT RESPONSES AT
MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE .............. 86
7 RANKING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORIES AT DALLAS COUNTY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ............... 106
8 FUNCTIONS RANKED WITHIN CATEGORIES AT DALLAS COUNTY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ............... 107
9 PERCENT OF CHANCELLOR'S TIME SPENT IN EACH CATEGORY AT
DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ........ 117
10 PERCENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S TIME SPENT ON FUNCTIONS
WITHIN CATEGORIES AT DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT........................ 121
11 DEGREE OF EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN SELECTED FUNCTIONS AT
DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ........ 128
12 STRUCTURED INTERVIEW: FIVE MOST FREQUENT RESPONSES AT
DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ........ 134
VI 1


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES Page
1 Percent of Responses Per Category within Enlarged
Intervals....................... 69
2 Total Frequencies of the Top Five Components...... 93
3 Percent of Responses Per Category within Enlarged
Intervals....................... 119
4 Total Frequencies of the Top Five Components...... 141
5 Rank Order of Administrative Categories by Median Rank
of Participant Perceptions .............. 146
6 Rank Order of Administrative Categories by Median Rank
of Participant Perceptions .............. 149
7 A Comparative Rank Ordering of Administrative Categories
by Median Rank.................... 153
vi i i


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ROLES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED MULTI-CAMPUS AND .-.JLTI-INSTITUTION PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS
By
Richard G. Buckner, Jr.
August, 1975
Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration
The purpose of this study was to investigate the roles of chief executive officers in selected multi-campus, as compared to multi-institution community college districts. Specifically, the study was designed to answer the following questions:
1. What is the assigned and perceived role of the district chief executive officer in the selected multi-campus district as compared to the assigned and perceived role of the district chief executive officer in the selected multi-institution district?
2. What is the functional relationship of the chief executive officer of individual campuses of a multi-campus district to the chief executive officer of the college?
3. What is the functional relationship of the chief executive officer of individual colleges of a multi-institution district to the chief executive officer of the district?
ix


The two districts were selected on the basis of their particular organizational pattern and history of multi-unit operation, size, and willingness to participate. The individual participants at each district were selected at random from position categories within the institutional environment. The following techniques of data gathering were used at each district: a questionnaire, a structured interview guide, a review of district documents, and general observations. The data were collected through on-site visitations and personal interviews
The results of the analysis of each district, plus a comparison of the commonalities and differences, were presented in separate chapters. From these analyses the following conclusions were formulated:
1. Differences exist in the perceived meanings attributed to the concept of "executive leadership," between the chief executive officer of the multi-unit district and the various other components of the community college environment.
2. Large urban multi-unit community college districts tend to become similar in style and method of operation due to the similarity of their environments, not necessarily because of their formal organizational patterns.
3. Since no universally successful and acceptable organizational patterns seem to exist, multi-unit organizational schemes must be tailor-made to fit the circumstances of each particular situation.
4. Urban multi-unit community college districts tend to require increasingly more central coordination, not increasingly more individua unit autonomy.


5. The degree of centralization of multi-unit districts is influenced by many factors, not solely by the organizational pattern of the district.
6. The chief executive officer in urban multi-unit community college districts tends to be involved more with matters external to the actual operation of the college or district than to matters concerned with the day-to-day operation of the district. Areas of specific executive involvement include relations with the Board of Trustees, interaction with community influentials, and overall planning for the total district.
7. The accuracy of participants' perceptions regarding specifi executive roles tends to decrease as the participants' contact and familiarity with the chief executive position decreases.
xi


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The American two-year college is one of the fastest growing and most dynamic segments of all American education. The growth of two-year colleges, especially public community and junior colleges, has been phenomenal since the turn of the century.
In 1968 there were 739 public community colleges in America with a total enrollment of 1.8 million students. The 1975 Community, Junior, and Technical College Directory (American Association of Community Junior Colleges) reported that there are now 981 public two-year institutions, enrolling over 3.3 million students. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education estimated that by 1980, 3.6 to 4.3 million students will be enrolled in public community colleges (Medsker & Tillery, 1971, p. 13). Some more recent data indicated that the community colleges in the United States should be serving a minimum of 4.7 million students by 1980 if they attain the level of service of some exemplary colleges (Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974, p. 8). According to the data gathered by Wattenbarger and Cage, (1974, p. 8), the total number of students served could reach as high as 12 million people by 1980.
The rapid growth of public community colleges may be due in great part, to their usual convenience of location, program
1


diversification, relatively low tuition, and the attributed quality of instruction. These factors, coupled with the basic philosophy of increasing post-secondary educational opportunity to more people, has led logically to major expansion of community colleges in the urban centers of America. The urban oriented community college has seen great surges in enrollments over the past five years. The overall size, multiplicity of educational needs within an area, employment and general economic conditions, and the geographic expansiveness of many metropolitan areas have dictated that the community college grow and expand to more than one campus or institution in order to meet increasing demands for educational services. This situation is illustrated by the growth in the number of multi-campus community college districts. Kintzer, Jensen, and Hansen (1969, p. 2) reported that only ten multi-junior college districts were in existence in 1964, but by 1968 the number had already grown to forty. The evolution and actualization of the philosophy of public community colleges, centered around increasing educational opportunities and overall accessibility, will likely mean the urban centers of our country will continue to see the greatest increases in two-year public community college enrollments and program diversification. As urban community college districts become larger, more diversified, and more geographically dispersed, the need for effective coordination and planning will become more and more crucial.
The urban community college district generally takes the organizational form of either a multi-college or a multi-campus


3
network. The multi-college configuration usually contains two or more separate colleges that ban together under some type of district structure. The multi-campus district, on the other hand, is composed of one institution which operates two or more campuses or branches of the one community college.
The increasing complexity of providing post-secondary educational services to large metropolitan areas presents many new and rather unique problems in decision-making for public community college administrators. The coordination of decision-making and responsibility for the areas of instruction, personnel, development, budgeting, etc., must be carefully and clearly planned. The role of the executive administrative officials at both the institution and district levels must be clarified.
The governance of urban community college districts has tended to reflect several organizational configurations, most of which are of a unique and untested nature. The role of central administration, institutional administration, and the general decision-making process are all in need of more empirical study. Several studies have been undertaken to extract empirically useable data from these urban districts. McCluskey (1972), in his doctoral dissertation, made a study of the formal decision-making procedure for student personnel services in the multi-campus community college. Holcombe (1974) did a doctoral study on the formal decision-making for curriculum and instruction in multi-campus community colleges. Bielen (1974), in his doctoral dissertation, reported the findings of his study of budget administration in multi-campus community colleges.


The study presented here adds further to the empirical data already accumulated on multi-campus districts. However, the focus of this study is the assigned and perceived roles of chief executive administrative officers. Empirical data were obtained to identify or clarify the roles these administrators fulfill in multi-campus districts as compared to multi-institution districts.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
The problem in this study was two-fold. First, to identify the assigned and perceived roles of the chief executive administrative officers in selected multi-campus and multi-institution community college districts. Secondly, to compare the roles of chief executive officers in multi-campus districts with the roles of chief executive officers in multi-institution districts. Answers to the following questions were sought:
1. What is the assigned and perceived role of the district chief executive officer in the selected multi-campus district as compared to the assigned and perceived role of the district chief executive officer in the selected multi-institution district?
2. What is the functional relationship of the chief executive officer of individual campuses of a multi-campus district to the chief executive officer of the college?
3. What is the functional relationship of the chief executive officer of individual colleges of a multi-institution district to the chief executive officer of the district?


Del imitations
The following delimitations were observed in conducting this study:
1. The investigation of executive roles was limited to one multi-campus community college district and one multi-institution community college district.
2. The data collection was limited to an examination of district and institution documents, general observations, responses to a priority ranking of functions instrument, and responses to the structured personal interview.
3. Only the following classifications of individuals were asked to complete a priority ranking of functions and participate in a structured personal interview:
a. Chancellor/President of the community college district.
b. President/chief executive administrator of each campus or institution within the selected district.
c. The chairperson and one other randomly selected member of the Board of Trustees of each selected community college district.
d. Two randomly selected members of the district office staff from each selected community college district.
e. Two randomly selected members of the administrative staff from each campus of the selected community college districts.


f. At least two members of the teaching faculty from each campus of the selected community college districts.
g. Two classified or career service employees from each of the campuses of the selected community college districts.
h. Two full-time students from each campus of the selected community college districts.
4. The interviews were limited to ascertaining the perceptions and interpretations of those interviewed and are not official or necessarily accurate as defined by policy or practice.
5. The list of executive functions for priority ranking by the interviewee was drawn from the literature.
6. The selected districts must have had a minimum of five continuous years of operation as a multi-campus or multi-institution community college district.
Limitations
The following factors posed limitations to this study:
1. All generalizations drawn applied only to the two districts studied, and any inferences drawn to other multi-campus or multi-institution community college districts are speculative.
2. The list of executive functions and the interview guide used in this study were of no tested validity.
3. Only the acknowledged perceptions of those interviewed were recorded, the general social milieu of possible external environmental influences was not studied.


As the demand for expanded access to post-secondary education
has increased, as evidenced by steadily rising enrollments at
community colleges, the challenge to the community college to
provide necessary programs and facilities has become greater.
In response to these increasing demands, community colleges have
grown in size, number of program offerings, and number of campuses.
As decisions are made in response to demands, community college
administrators must base them on realisite and accurate information
The need for empirical data pertaining to community colleges is
illustrated in the following statement:
I would tend to feel from personal observation that current practice represents a hodgepodge of ideas garnered from business, secondary schools, and four-year universities without the benefit of much analysis as to how well their ideas relate to the kinds of problems currently being encountered by the administrative organizations of two-year colleges (Richardson, 1970, p. 18).
One frequent specific response to increasing demand for
educational services has been the formation of large mult-campus
and multi-institution community college districts. The growth
in the number of large community college districts has been
expecially significant over the past two years. From 1972 to
1973, the number of community colleges enrolling over 10,000
students grew from 56 to 66, and those with over 15,000 grew from
21 to 29 (AACJC Directory, 1974, p. 90). Throughout the United
States, particularly in large urban areas, community colleges have


grown into large multi-institution or multi-campus districts. In
1964, there were only ten multi-unit community college districts
in the United States; in 1967, thirty-one were operating; and by
1968, there were forty (Kintzer, et al, 1969, p.2).
This study is an attempt to provide information on current
chief executive roles in multi-campus and multi-institution
community college districts. The need for empirical research
pertaining to the administration of multi-unit community college
districts is acknowledged in the following statement:
While answers are seldom if ever absolute, many decisions related to leadership and authority must be made if the educational enterprise is to operate in the best interests of students decisions clarifying the relationships between the district office and the colleges (Kintzer,et al 1969, p. 2).
The need for research concerning multi-unit community college districts is further evidenced by the following statement by Kintzer:
If the junior college movement is to retain in the years ahead the vigor for which it has been noted in the past, important decisions will have to be made about the future organization and administration of two or more campuses (1969, p. 2).
The trend toward urbanization seems to be quite strong and the trend of community colleges expanding' physical facilities throughout the urban area also seems to be firmly established. This study adds to the empirical research concerning the urban community college district, specifically the role of the chief executive officer in the multi-campus as compared to the multi-institution district governance structures.


This study is the fourth in a planned series of research projects at the University of Florida concerning the administration of multi-unit community college districts. It was preceded by McCluskey's (1972) study of student personnel services, Holcombe's (1974) study of curriculum and instruction, and Bielen's (1974) research on budget administration. There is a need for further empirical research dealing with urban community college districts and their patterns of governance so that a data base can be established to assist community college officials in the effective administration of multi-unit community college systems.
Definition of Terms
Community college. A public post-secondary educational institution providing a definable community or geographic area with programs and courses of instruction in areas such as two-year credit programs for transfer, non-credit community service or continuing education, and occupational education.
Multi-campus district. A public community college organizational pattern which consists of one legal institution operating more than one branch or campus in a legally specified and defined district or jurisdiction.
Multi-institution district. A public community college organizational pattern that consists of more than one separately designated and created institution in one geographically definable area or community college district. The terms multi-college and multi-institution are used synonymously in this study.


10
Multi-unit community college district. A term used broadly to describe a district operating two or more community college sites. It is used to encompass both multi-campus and multi-institution districts.
Chief executive officer. A term used to designate the legally designated chief administrator for a particular community college district. For the purpose of this study ther term chief executive officer isused synonymously with the terms chancellor and district president. For clarity, this study refers to the chief executive officer of an individual campus or institution within a community college district as the institution executive officer.
Procedures
The procedures used in this study are divided into four parts. The first part deals with the method of sample selection. The second part focuses on the development of the instruments used in the study. In part three the methods of data collection are explained. The final part deals with the treatment and analysis of the data after collection. Sample Selection
This study utilized information obtained through personal interviews in two urban community college districts. The selection of one multi-campus district and one multi-institution district observed the following criteria:
1. The district had been multi-campus or multi-institutional for a minimum of five calendar years.


11
2. Each selected district had a minimum student enrollment of 10,000 (head count).
3. Willingness of district officers and institutional officers to participate in the study.
Within each district selected, the following officials or positions were selected as participants:
1. The chief executive officer for the district (chancellor/ president).
2. The chief executive officer for each campus or institution in the district.
3. Chairperson and one other member of the district Board of Trustees.
4. Two members of each district office staff.
5. Two administrative staff members from each campus of each district.
6. A minimum of two members of the teaching faculty from each campus of each district.
7. Two classified or career service employees from each campus of each district.
8. Two full-time students from each campus of each district. Development of the Instrument
The collection of data for this study required the construction of two instruments by the author. The first instrument was a questionnaire used to record the participants' perceived functions of the district chancellor or president. This questionnaire consisted of two main parts.


Part I. Requested the participants to rank order six categories of administrative activities and to also rank order the list of five to six specific activities listed within each category.
Part II. Requested the participants to estimate the percent of time they believed the chancellor or president spent with each of the six designated general administrative categories. They were also asked to estimate the percent of time they believed the district chief executive spend on each of the specific executive activities listed within each administrative category.
The second instrument constructed for use in this study was a "structured interview guide." The interview guide consisted of two parts.
Part I. Each participant was asked twenty-four questions concerning the degree of direct executive involvement in various executive activities. They were asked to respond to each statement or question by using one or more of the following three response categories:
1. The activity is personally performed by the district chancellor or president.
2. The activity is personally delegated by the chancellor or president of the district.
3. The activity is not a direct responsibility of the district chancellor or president.
Part II. Each participant was asked to respond to six open-ended type questions aimed at allowing the respondents to discuss


the perceptions they held concerning the roles and functions of the district chief executive officer.
The review of research and literature provided much valuable input to the development of the instruments used in this study. The studies conducted by Millett (1974), LaVire (1961), and VanTrease (1972) contributed substantially to the conceptualization, as well as the specific content of these instruments.
Millett's (1974) categorization of "techniques of direction" for organizations was used as the basic conceptual framework for the development of the instrument for priority ranking executive functions used in this study. According to Millett, the college enterprise, like all enterprises, requires various input resources and techniques of direction if the stated purposes are to be accomplished and if the designated programs are to be operated. The input resources identified by Millett include the generally recognized inputs of people, physical plant, supplies and equipment, and services. Millett's "techniques of direction" are similar to principles of administration put forth by Fayol (1930) and Gulick (1937).
Millett defined his ten techniques of direction as follows:
1. PIanning--formulation of general purposes (policy planning), and the development of programs to accomplish the purpose (program planning).
2. Organizingthe allocation of roles and the differentiation of activity among individuals and groups of persons in accordance with purposes and program outputs.


3. Programmingthe determination of activity units needed to achieve desired purposes, the calculation of desired outputs of program units, the determination of the required production technology, and the calculation of the needed inputs in terms of staffing, plant, supplies and equipment, services, and time.
4. Budgetingthe allocation of income resources to approved programs and their constituent organizational units.
5. Staffingjob specification, recruitment, appointment, compensation, work evaluation, promotion, consideration of grievances, and separation of personnel required to perform the primary and support programs.
6. Communicatingefforts to achieve a shared understanding of the shared purpose of all persons comprising the enterprise.
7. Coordinatingthe process of motivating people to work together in those areas where activities are interrelated or comprise only a part of a program objective.
8. Cultivating external supportthe process of
seeking out those interested in and concerned with the enterprise, and especially those with influence or power to provide support for the enterprise.
9. Reportingthe distribution of information on a factual and timely basis to all who are interested in the policies, programs, and performance of the enterprise.
10. Evaluatingthe determination of the effectiveness and the efficiency of the enterprise.(Millett, 1974, pp. 10-11)
The study by LaVire (1961) also provided valuable input to the
development of the questionnaire used in this study. LaVire
identified the following eight administrative task areas for


junior college administrators that his study found to be of critical importance.
1. Instruction and curriculum development
2. Student personnel
3. Community-Junior college leadership
4. Staff personnel
5. Physical plant
6. Junior college organization and structure
7. Junior college finance and business
management
8. Human relations,(LaVire, 1961, p. 117)
The findings of the LaVire study contributed greatly to the formation of the six categories of administrative functions used in this study.
The VanTrease (1972) study helped to provide a structure for the
individual administrative categories used in this study. In the
VanTrease study multi-campus community college administrators were
asked to indicate their perception of district participation in
nine selected functions. The general accord in perception of all
the participants regarding the authority relationships in the
district were as follows:
I. Responsibilities Shared between District and Campus
1. Physical facilities planning
2. Responsibility relative to educational planning
3. Publicity
4. Budget development and administration
5. Maintenance of building and grounds


16
II. Responsibilities of the District
1. Administrative data processing
2. Purchasing
3. Accounting
4. Warehousing and supplies (VanTrease, 1972, p. 53). From VanTrease's (1972) data on administrative perceptions of
decision making responsibility, several specific functional areas were identified that were useful in constructing the ranking instrument used in this study.
Graham's (1965) study of the perceived performance of community college presidents in five selected areas of administration provided this study with valuable input regarding category specifications on the questionnaire, as well as the specific twenty-four items used in the structured interview guide. The interview guide used in the present study incorporated the listing of twenty-four items that Graham found to be the functions most performed and delegated by the 182 junior college presidents in his study. Although the present study altered the response categories for each item to accommodate the nature of the study, the intent of the items was not changed. Collection of Data
The collection of the data used in this study was accomplished through on-site visits to the two multi-unit districts selected. During these visitations the author visited every campus or college of each district and carried out two main data gathering tasks.
1. Conducting scheduled personal interviews with each of the participants selected for the study.


2. Examining district and college documents relevant to executive role identification in that district.
Each of the personal interviews lasted between thirty and seventy-five minutes with the administration of the questionnaire taking approximately the first fifteen minutes. All participants were provided the opportunity to ask for clarification of any item and to add any items they believed should be included that were not present. Data Treatment
Examination of the data accumulated during the visits to the two selected community college districts enabled the author to identify the functions of the chief executive officer of each district as perceived by the participants from that district. This information is presented in the chapters on each of the districts.
The two data gathering instruments developed for use in this study yielded a large quantity of valuable raw data. In order to be able to accurately interpret and analyze the raw data the following calculations were made on the data.
1. Frequency tabulations were calculated on all items in both parts of the questionnaire and on all items and categories of responses in the personal interview guide.
2. A percentage of the total universe of responses per item were calculated for all items in both parts of the questionnaire and on all items and categories of responses of the personal interview guide.


3. The statistical mean, median, and mode were calculated for each of the items in Part I of the questionnaire (i.e., those items dealing with the ranking of administrative categories and the specific activities within those categories).
The calculated data were arranged and presented in the form of a series of tables. These tables made interpretation and comparison possible for not only the items within a particular category, but also between the community college districts. The results of the calculations in each of the tables is discussed in the remaining chapters by individual item and in collective or group form.
The final analysis of the data is a determination of the degree of concurrence between the executive roles perceived at the two selected districts, as well as a comparison of these perceptions with the stated functions of the chief executive officer.
Organization of the Remainder of the Research Report
The review of related literature consists of three sections and is presented in Chapter II. The two multi-unit community college districts studied are each presented separately in Chapters III and IV. Each district is described relative to its individual environmental setting, history and development, and legal governance structure. Analysis and discussion of the executive roles and functions identified through the use of official documents, questionnaire responses, interviews, and general observations follow. A brief summary is provided at the end of each of these chapters.


19
Chapter V provides a comparative analysis of the perceived and legal roles and functions of the chief executive officers of the two districts studied. The similarities and differences are discussed and a composit executive role is developed.
The final chapter provides a general summary of the study, a summary of the results of the study, and some conclusions and implications based on the results of the study. Recommendations for further related research are offered in concluding the chapter.


CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The review of related literature for this study is presented in three sections. The first section is a review of pertinent theories of organization and administration. The second section is a review of the research studies and pertinent literature on multi-unit community college districts. The third section consists of research studies and pertinent literature on community college executive officers.
Review of Pertinent Theories of Organization and Administration
As the complexities of formal organizations increase, so also
do the requirements for more effective methods and techniques of
administration. The executive function has become exceedingly
difficult, as well as more crucial to the successful operation of
the organization. Writing in 1938, Barnard perceptively pinpointed
one of the major difficulties that persists today in attempting to
study and clarify executive functions. He observed that,
...the difficulties of appraising the executive functions or the relative merits of executives lies in the fact that there is little direct opportunity to observe the essential operations of decision. It is a perplexing fact that most executive decisions produce no direct evidence of themselves and that knowledge of them can
20


only be derived from the cumulation of indirect evidence. They must largely be inferred from general results in which they are merely one factor, and from symptomatic indications of roundabout character (Barnard, 1938, pp. 192-193).
Whereas many administrative theorists sought to describe executive functions and the principles governing the administrative process, Barnard concluded that executive functions can only be understood or analyzed as part of the totality of an organization or system. He stated that,
...(executive functions) have no separate concrete existence. They are parts or aspects of a process of organization as a whole.... The means utilized are to a considerable extent concrete acts logically determined; but the essential aspect of the process is the sensing of the organization as a whole and the total situation relevant to it. It transcends the capacity of merely intellectual methods, and the techniques of discriminating the factors of the situation. The terms pertinent to it are "feeling," "judgment," "sense," "proportion," "balance," "appropriateness." It is a matter of art rather than science, and is aesthetic rather than logical. For this reason it is recognized rather than described and is known by its effects rather than by analysis. All that I can hope to do is to state why this is so rather than to specify of what the executive process consists (Barnard, 1938, p. 235).
In clarifying his view of executive functions, Barnard noted
that,
...the function of executives is to serve as channels of communication so far as communications must pass through central positions. But since the object of the communication system is coordination of all aspects of organization, it follows that the functions of executives relate to all the work essential to the vitality and endurance of an organization, so far, at least, as it must be accomplished through formal coordination (Barnard, 1938, p. 215).


More specifically Barnard identified the basic essential executive functions as,
1. Providing the organization with a system of communication, with centers of communication.
2. Promoting and securing of the essential efforts necessary to effective and efficient organizational operation.
3. Formulating and defining organizational purposes (Barnard, 1938, p. 217).
In 1945 Herbert A. Simon published Administrative Behavior, which not only expanded on the work of Barnard, but also elaborated the need for more study of the decision-making process in organizations. Simon (1945, p. 1) noted that, "A general theory of administration must include principles of organization that will insure correct decision-making, just as it must include principles that will insure effective action." Simon's major concern was for the clarification and efficiency of the patterns of action within the organization. He examined the nature of decision-making and set forth his belief that rationality is the key to effective and efficient executive or administrative decision-making. Illustrating rational patterns of specialized decision-making, Simon clarified the role of the chief executive noting that,
A properly managed organization can carry on the routine of its day-to-day activity without the constant involvement of its chief executive. His main responsibility to the organization is not for its routine operation, but for its modification to meet changing demands and opportunities in its
environment____ The chief executive's task is more
than this (adaption and growth)--it is to provide for genuine innovative change in the organization's programs (in Marlick and Van Ness, 1962, p. 66).


23
Getzels and Guba (1958) developed a model for explaining social
behavior that has been the stimulus for much writing and analysis
by administrative theorists. The model is built upon the assumption
that the process of administration deals basically with social
behavior in a hierarchical setting (Morphet, Johns, & Reller, 1967,
p. 67). Getzels states,
...we may conceive of administration structurally as the hierarchy of subordinate-superordinate relationships within a social system. Functionally, this hierarchy of relationships is the locus for allocating and integrating roles and facilities in order to achieve the goals of the social system (Getzels, 1958, p. 151).
Getzels (1958) conceived of organizations as having tv/o independent yet interactive dimensions both of which must be recognized and dealt with appropriately if the organization is to operate effectively. He contended that,
...social behavior may be understood as a function of these major elements: institution, role, and expectation, which together constitute what we shall call the nomothetic or normative dimension of activity in a social system, and individual, personality, and need-disposition, which together constitute the ideographic or personal dimension of activity in a social system (Getzels, 1958, p. 152).
The model and theory developed by Getzels and Guba has helped to focus the attention of executives toward the necessity for dealing with not only the organization and its environment, but the internal individual or personal dimension of the organization environment as well.
Etzioni formulated a theory of organization based on the assumption that the exercise of power involved individual compliance


24
and that all organizations could be classified according to their compliance structures. He defined compliance as "a relation in which an actor behaves in accordance with a directive supported by another actor's power, and the orientation of the subordinated actor to the power applied" (Etzioni, 1961, p. 3). Etzioni assumed that power is exercised in organizations to secure individual rewards and deprivations and different types of power may be necessary depending upon a person's perception of the legitimacy of the exercise of power by his superordinate and the need disposition of his subordinate (Morphet, Reller, & Johns, 1967, p. 70). He identified three sources of organizational control available to the administrator: coercion, economic assets, and normative values (Etzioni, 1961, p. 12). The type power exercised by an executive, according to this theory, then becomes important to the organization insofar as it becomes a factor in determining the individuals degree of positive or negative involvement in the organization.
Presthus (1962) developed a theory of organization based on the individual's reaction or accommodation to the organization within which he operates. Presthus (1962) theorized that the psychological and sociological consequences of the organizational structure on the individual are very substantial. He further theorized that organizations tend to pursue only the organizational or manifest goals and to neglect the individual or latent goals (Presthus, 1962, p. 6). The result, according to Presthus, is individual behavior adaptation or accommodation to the organizational


milieu. Some of these adaptations may be dysfunctional to the accomplishment of the organizational goals. Presthus' concern for the motivations and goals of the individual within the organization is similar to the Getzels and Guba model with two dimensions of organizational activity.
Argyris developed (1962) a theory of organization that is similar to the Presthus and Getzels and Guba models in that he too stressed the human factor. According to Argyris (1962), conflicts arise between the healthy human personality, with its goal of self-fulfillment and independence, and the organizational bureaucratic structure with its formal rules and subordination of the individual. Argyris concluded that a reduction in the degree of dependence and subordination of the individual to rigid organizational structures would have a positive effect on the organizations total effectiveness (Hack, 1965, p. 182).
The chief executive officer of an organization is generally expected to exert some type of leadership within that organization. The leadership style utilized and its relative effectiveness are the result of the interplay of many variables. Thompson (1961) related the complexity of the leadership concept theorizing that although an executive may be placed at the top of a bureaucratic organization chart he may not be the true leader of the organization. He contended that headship and leadership are incompatible and that they are rarely held by the same person at the same time. Thompson (1965, p. 6) illustrated the leadership dilemma noting the growing


26
gap he perceived between decision makers and specialists within organizations. He further contended that, "this situation produces tensions and strains the willingness to cooperate" (Thompson, 1965, p. 6). Thompson issued a warning to executives against becoming bureaupathic, relating that, "The growing imbalance (between the right to decide and the power to do) generates tensions and insecurities in the system of authority.... Attempts to reduce such insecurity often take the form of behavior patterns which are dysfunctional (bureaupathic) from the point of view of the organization, although functional enough from that of the insecure official" (Thompson, 1965, pp. 23-24).
Research studies concerning organizational and community power structures have yielded much data that is of great value to executive officers in large organizations. Perhaps the most relevant realization arising from such studies has been findings supporting the theory that within any social system there exists both formal and informal centers of power (Hunter, 1953). It has further been found that the power structures of social systems differ from one another and that they are a critical element in the operation and effectiveness of a given organization (Nunnery & Kimbroughj 1971, p. 11). Kimbrough (1964) has researched the influence of the informal power structure on decision-making at most all levels of educational organization. The general conclusion reached by Kimbrough and Nunnery (1971, p. 8), that influence is unequally distributed within


social organizations or settings, has major implications for the
chief executive that is charged with the responsibility of
administering an organization.
Review of Research Studies and Pertinent Literature on Multi-Unit Community College Districts
The research studies and literature presented in this section are arranged chronologically.
A study by Erickson (1964) summarizes the experience of the Chicago City Junior College as a case history in the development and operation of a big-city, multi-campus, public junior college. In his discussion Erickson examined the factors he believes have promoted the trend toward urban and multi-campus community junior colleges.
Several factors lie behind the recent development of junior colleges in big cities and the almost simultaneous trend toward multi-campus operations.
First, the rural-to-urban shift of population, resulting from the mechanization of rural farming and the growth of urban industry, is producing rapid concentration of population in urban centers. In Illinois, for example, it is estimated that by 1980, ninety-one percent of college age youth will reside in eight metropolitan areas.
Second, selective population migrations are increasing the need for public educational services in big cities. Families of greater economic competence and fewer children leave the city for the suburbs, while rural and foreign-born families with lower economic status, more children, and lower educational attainment enter the city.
Third, the high birthrate of the postwar years is producing a rapid increase in the college age population.


28
Fourth, rapid changes in technology and consequent changes in the employment market in big cities are placing a premium on functional education for young people and continuing education for adults.
Fifth, administrators and boards of senior colleges and universities are coming to understand more and more the role of the "open-door" junior college in the world of higher education. They recognize the importance of the junior college as a means of conserving and developing the human resources of the big city and of enabling the senior colleges and universities to devote more attention to upper division and graduate programs (Erickson, 1964, pp. 17-18).
Noting that these demands have given impetus not only to the
general growth of urban junior colleges, Erickson stated that they
have also led to the particular development of multi-campus colleges.
The multi-campus, public junior college, with an effective "open-door" admission policy, is uniquely able to provide educational services that are physically accessible to all the city's residents and that meet the varied needs of the many elements of the complex, big-city community (Erickson, 1964, p. 18).
Although optimistic regarding the tremendous potential of a multi-campus community college for providing effectively accessible educational opportunities to all segments of an urban area, Erickson (1964) clearly pinpoints certain problems inherent in such operations. The problems of administrative organization, faculty organization, and the development of varied educational programs are all cited as critical. But the overriding challenge facing multi-campus organizations is expressed by Erickson in regard to administrative structure. "The goal of the administrative organization...is to foster the


creativity and flexibility of each campus, establishing unity in the multi-campus college without rigid conformity" (Erickson, 1964, p. 19).
Jensen (1965) conducted a study to examine the role of both the central office and individual campuses of multi-campus community college districts. The study involved a survey of ten urban multi-campus community college districts in six different states and sought specifically to identify the reasons for multi-campus districts, the type of organization used in such districts, and the major administrative policies and practices followed in six selected areas of administration (Jensen, 1965, p. 8). The principl reasons Jensen identified for the emergence and growth of multi-campus community college organization were:
1. To compensate for district geographical size which prohibited one campus from servicing the district adequately.
2. To equalize educational opportunities through effective accessibility of the college to the residents of the district.
3. To meet the differing educational needs of the various communities within the district.
4. To accommodate applicants after the district's only campus had reached its maximum capacity.
5. To keep each campus to a reasonable and functional size.(Jensen, 1965, p. 8)
As a source for data collection in his case studies, Jensen
(1965) utilized interviews with district and campus staff members,
members of college boards of trustees, and local citizens from each
district. He also surveyed official documents and reports, as well


30
as historical information on each district in the study. Of the ten districts surveyed, Jensen classified two of them as multi-college districts, five as multi-campus districts and three as multi-program districts. The definitions derived by Jensen for use in categorizing multi-unit community college districts are,
1. Multi-college district a district operating two or more individual comprehensive colleges.
2. Multi-branch (multi-campus) district a district operating a single legal institution with two or more comprehensive campuses.
3. Multi-program district a district similar in organization to multi-branch districts except that each branch (or campus) offers a different educational program; for example, a technical and vocational program on one campus, and arts and sciences on another (Jensen, 1965, p. 9).
The findings of the Jensen study have broad applicability to
multi-unit community college districts and have provided impetus
for many other research studies. The major findings Jensen reports
regarding multi-unit districts are,
1. The ten districts in the study can be grouped as either multicollege, multibranch, or
multiprogram.
2. There is a definite trend toward the multi-college organizational pattern in the districts in the study.
3. Administrators, faculty members, and students on individual campuses favor the trend toward the multicollege scheme with its increase in local autonomy.
4. No district has fixed internal geographical boundaries for any of its individual units or campuses.


5. Five districts in the study have central office positions in business and/or instruction which rank higher than the chief campus administrators.
6. Chief campus administrators in seven of the ten districts in the study are titled "dean" or "director," whereas all chief campus administrators in the multicollege district are titled "president."
7. Central offices are located on one of the individual campuses in seven of the eight multibranch and multiprogram districts, which often gives rise to dissension, jealousies, divergent loyalties within the district.(Jensen, 1965, p. 9)
In regard to the centralized-decentralized issue in the organization and administration of multi-unit community college districts, Jensen concludes his study with the following perceptive forecast,
Multicampus junior college districts are here to stay; and even though there are problems, the numbers of such districts will increase. As they progress through their developmental cycle the campuses will tend to become more independent and the majority of multicampus districts will eventually become multicollege districts (Jensen, 1965, p. 13).
Masiko (1966) wrote an article that illustrates how to develop
a multi-campus organization for a metropolitan community college.
Using Miami-Dade Community College as the example, Masiko outlined
the legal structure within which the college must operate and
warned against any universally acceptable scheme of organization.
...While it may be possible to describe an ideal organizational pattern, this must be tempered by the realities of the legal and historical situations in which particular metropolitan community junior


00 _/ (_
colleges find themselves.... Different organizational patterns may be needed at the various stages of growth and development of the multi-campus complex (Masiko, 1966, p. 23).
Bogart (1968) conducted a research study of Tarrant County Junior College District. The study had the two-fold purpose of providing a documented account of the initial development of a multi-campus junior college district, and formulating a set of multi-campus development guidelines. Using interviews, news articles, published materials, letters and various district documents as sources of data, Bogart concluded that only minor differences existed between guidelines used in developing single and multi-campus junior colleges.
Jones (1968) conducted a study of multi-unit community college districts with the purpose of identifying trends in organizational structure and general administration. From his survey of trends toward the multi-unit organizational pattern, Jones identified a continuum that can be used to illustrate the development from centralized to decentralized authority. The major finding in the Jones study concerns the concept of centralized or decentralized authority relationships within community college districts. Specifically, Jones noted that institutions tend to develop longitudinally toward more autonomous operations. In illustration he notes that as a college moves from being small and less complex into the stage of large multi-unit operation, less centralized control is desired in favor of a more autonomous component


33
relationship. Jones further clarified his position stating that,
...The central office provides leadership and much service at the beginning. As the units can meet their own service requirements locally, fewer services should be located centrally. Multi-campus organization should be constantly evolving from strong central control when units are small and weak to much autonomy as the unit demonstrates their ability (Jones, 1968, p. 35).
In 1969, Kintzer, Jensen, and Hansen conducted an entensive study of forty-five multi-unit junior college districts (Kintzer, Jensen, & Hansen, 1969). The districts studied represented seventeen states and included a wide diversity of economic and demographic characteristics. Although Kintzer and his associates concluded that there was no universally "best" organizational scheme for multi-unit districts, they did suggest a categorization of administrative functions that were termed district guidelines. Guidelines suggested for assigning central office functions were,
That a chancellor represent the board of trustees and be responsible for general administration of the entire district.
That the central office have at least three administrative positions besides the chief administrator (chancellor), specifically in the areas of business affairs, instructional programs, and semi-professional education.
That the central office be located completely away from all campuses, preferably at a location central to the entire district.
That no one at the central office, other than the chief administrative officer of the district, be at a level higher than that of the chief campus administrators.(Kintzer, Jensen, & Hansen, 1969, pp. 51-52)
2.
3.


Guidelines suggested for assigning administrative functions to individual colleges were,
1. That each campus have as much autonomy as possible.
2. That experimentation on the campus level be encouraged and supported.
3. That each campus be allowed to hire its own personnel.
4. That the people hired for the positions of chief administrators on the campuses agree with the philosophy of the organization as decided by the board of trustees.
5. That the right type of chairman be chosen for a department within the college.
6. That teachers and administrators have mutual respect for each other's responsibilities and competencies.
7. That leadership is a crucial factor in the success or failure of a district system. (Kintzer, Jensen, & Hansen, 1969, p. 53)
The study by Kintzer, Jensen, and Hansen (1969) identified
many characteristics of multi-unit organizational structures.
Although the authors of the study conclude that multi-campus
junior college districts are here to stay and will continue to
increase in number and size, they also identified some of the major
criticisms and possible disadvantages of this type organization.
Some of these are,
1. Insensitive to particular service areas within the district.
2. Size and complexity of the institution make it not well suited to change and innovation.


3. Community identification with the institution is more difficult to achieve.
4. Central office personnel tend to become too directive.
5. Operating costs are greater especially during the first few years.
6. Dysfunctional competition among the campuses in the district.
7. One campus may become oriented toward vocational or "blue collar" programs and another campus toward only college transfer programs, thereby promoting possible social stigmas.(Kintzer, Jensen, & Hansen, 1969, p. 30).
Block wrote an article in 1970 in which he explored the issue of centralization and decentralization of administrative functions in multi-unit community college districts (Block, 1970). In the article, Block concluded that patterns of multi-unit organization in community college districts are quite varied, thereby making it extremely difficult to identify a set formula which would fit each district's peculiarities. The choice between a centralized multi-campus system and a decentralized multi-college system is a difficult one and usually rests with the board of control of the district. In order to clarify the decision alternatives available, Block identified a list of thirteen questions that must be answered in arriving at an appropriate organizational scheme. In conclusion, Block noted that despite the desired autonomy of local units in a multi-unit district, there are still important areas that require a high degree of uniformity among the colleges in the district.


36
In Governance for the Two-Year College, Richardson, Blocker, and Bender present a comprehensive analysis of the governance structures of two-year colleges. In their description of administrative organizations they present some important concepts regarding multi-institution districts. Noting the trend for urban districts to develop multiple campuses, the authors comment on the degree of centralization stating,
Regardless of the degree of decentralization, there are significant differences between free standing institutions and one that is a part of a system. There is little possibility that the degree of autonomy afforded can ever approach the level that is desired by the constituents of a campus. Even in districts that have sought to provide maximum autonomy to campus units by calling them colleges and by providing the chief executive with the title of president, there is still a constant tension accompanied by the ever-present realization that the needs and priorities of the system take priority over the aspirations of the individual units (Richardson, Blocker, & Bender, 1972, p. 125).
Favoring the participational mode of administration, Richardson,
Blocker, and Bender note that,
...all of the problems that can be attributed to the bureaucratic structure as an organizational form for the individual college are raised to the nth power in a multi-institutional district with n representing the number of campuses. If the multi-institutional district is to remain responsive to the needs of each locality it serves, the concepts of the participative model assume increased importance (Richardson, Blocker, & Bender, 1972, p. 126).
According to these authors, as urban multi-institution districts
increase in size and complexity they also increase the probability
of becoming remote from the needs of their constituencies and


impervious to organizational change (Richardson, Blocker, & Bender, 1972, p. 126). As an alternative to this fate they suggest the use of the participative model concluding that the need for such a model of governance may be greater for multi-institution districts than for a single unit system.
There are many specific areas of multi-unit community college organization and governance that are in need of empirical study. Some studies have been undertaken in several areas to identify empirically useable data from these urban districts. McCluskey (1972) made a study of the formal decision-making procedure for student personnel services in multi-campus community colleges. Holcombe (1974) did a research study on the formal decisionmaking for curriculum and instruction in multi-campus districts. And Bielen (1974), in his doctoral dissertation, reported the findings of his study of budget administration in multi-campus community colleges.
Review of Research Studies and Pertinent Literature on Community College Chief Executive Officers
There has been a great deal of research conducted concerning the role and function of executive officers in various organizational settings. Much of the research pertinent to this study is concerned with business organization, and to some lesser extent, with college chief executives in general. The specific role of the community college chief executive officer has been explored in a much more limited number of research studies. The role of chief


executive officers in multi-unit districts is severely neglected in the research and literature.
The most frequent observation made in studies of community college chief executives is that their role has changed significantly over the past two decades. The following comment well illustrates the situation as it currently exists.
The responsibilities of two-year college presidents have increased and become more complex as the two-year college has assumed a larger and larger share of post-high school education during the past twenty years. These changes are the results of increasing size and complexity which will continue to expand the functions and problems of the college president in the future (Blocker, Plummer, & Richardson, 1965, p. 185).
In 1961, LaVire conducted a research study of the critical task areas for public junior college administrators. LaVire (1961) gathered data for his study from three groups: (1) a panel composed of seven public junior college chief administrators in a selected state; (2) a sample consisting of eighty-two public junior college chief administrators in the nation; and (3) a jury of seven public junior college chief administrators. In his study, LaVire identified five operational areas, or critical task areas of public junior college administration. Within these five areas, he identified forty-nine more specific critical tasks. LaVire (1961, pp. 18-50) lists the critical task areas and critical tasks as follows,
A. Instruction and Curriculum Development
1. Providing for the formulation of curriculum objective.
2. Providing for the determination of curriculum content and organization.


39
3. Relating the desired curriculum to available time, physical facilities, and personnel.
4. Providing for materials, resources, and equipment for the instructional program.
5. Providing for the supervision of instruction.
6. Providing for in-service education of instructional personnel.
B. Student Personnel
1. Providing for initiating and maintaining a system of student accounting and attendance.
2. Providing measures for the orientation of students.
3. Providing counseling services.
4. Providing student health services.
5. Providing for individual student inventory service.
6. Providing for occupational and educational service.
7. Providing for placement and follow-up services for students.
8. Arranging for continual assessment and interpretation of student growth.
9. Providing for means of dealing with student irregularities 10. Providing student activity programs.
C. Physical Plant
1. Determining the physical plant needs of the community and the resources available to meet those needs.
2. Providing leadership in developing a comprehensive plan for the orderly growth and improvement of plant facilities.


3. Initiating and implementing plans for the orderly growth and improvement of plant facilities.
4. Developing an efficient program of operation and maintenance of the physical plant.
Staff Personnel
1. Providing for the formulation of staff personnel policies.
2. Providing for the recruitment of staff personnel.
3. Selecting and assigning staff personnel.
4. Promote the general welfare of the staff.
5. Developing a system of staff personnel records.
6. Stimulating and providing opportunities for professional growth of staff personnel.
Junior College Finance and Business Management
1. Providing for recruiting and organizing the business staff.
2. Obtaining college revenues.
3. Working with the governing board in formulating a salary schedule.
4. Preparing the college budget.
5. Administering capital outlay expenditures and debt service.
6. Administering college purchasing.
7. Accounting for college monies.
8. Accounting for college property.


41
9. Providing for a college insurance program. 10. Providing for a system of internal accounting.
Although the LaVire study did not deal directly with the role of the junior college president, it did provide much empirical data concerning general administrative tasks in public community junior colleges. LaVire's study contributed greatly to the development of the questionnaire used in this study.
In 1962, Shannon investigated the role of public community junior college presidents (Shannon, 1962). In his study Shannon undertook the purpose of analyzing the role of community college presidents as it was perceived by presidents themselves. He placed emphasis on comparisons of actual and preferred frequencies of personal involvement by the president in twelve broad areas of administration. General biographical data was also gathered concerning the community college president, such as; sources, previous experience, and educational backgrounds of these administrators. The major source of data for the Shannon study was a questionnaire mailed to 312 community college presidents. From the results of the study, Shannon (1962, pp. 104-113) reached the following general conclusions concerning the role of the public community college president,
1. Community college administration is sufficiently different from other areas of administration to warrant special professional study and attention.
2. Presidents believe that community colleges should be autonomous and under the jurisdiction of independent boards of control.


3. Most presidents are now drawn from the fields of higher education rather than from secondary education as was the case a decade ago.
4. Fifty-five percent of the presidents hold master's degrees while forty-three percent hold doctorates, indicating no change in percentages since the 1950's.
5. Presidents spend most time on matters relating to (1) staff, (2) public relations, (3) finances, and (4) students. They would prefer to spend their time in the areas of (1) staff, (2) curriculum development, (3) public relations, and (4) students, in that order.
6. Presidents list these areas as most neglected or unattended, in rank order, (1) alumni, (2) legislation, (3) students, and (4) professional activities.
7. Presidents believe their role is that of educational leader both in the community and on the campus. Accordingly, they feel a responsibility to involve themselves in community affairs and to help formulate policy and remain close to the areas of curriculum development, staff and faculty supervision, student personnel work and instruction.
In conclusion, Shannon (1962, pp. 104-113) identified several major implications that are drawn from his findings.
1. Administrators in the field of community college administration must be prepared to handle the multiple responsibilities of autonomous institutions, to understand the special mission of the community college and to interpret this mission broadly to lay and professional persons.


2. Programs of administrator preparation should stress the social setting of the community college and should broaden the administrator's understanding of educational theory, sociology, and modern technology.
3. The personal orientation of the community college president should be rooted in a desire to further the democratization of higher education.
Graham (1965) conducted a study to determine how three variables -school size, geographic location, and reporting authority affected the perceived performance by the presidents of certain acts divided into five areas of administration, and how each president perceived these acts to be. The responses to a questionnaire were also analyzed by the following five administrative processes: planning, organizing, leading, controlling, and assessing. The Graham (1965, pp. 93-100) study produced three findings pertinent to this review,
1. Size class of the school showed an inverse relationship between the size class and the importance attached to the various items concerning administrative activity of presidents.
2. Except in the Mountain West, the farther west the location the higher the indicated mean response concerning the importance of an activity.
3. All class sizes of colleges and all geographic locations indicated assessing as the most important administrative process undertaken by the community college presidents.


DeLoache (1966) used the questionnaire method in his study to test whether or not faculty members and presidents attach importance to the same aspects of the functions of junior college presidents. The findings of his study revealed the following,
1. The difference between the faculty members and the presidents were in the degree of importance each attributed the statements to the office of president.
2. The results of the Chi-square test of significance indicated that there were significant statistical differences between rural and urban colleges on only four of thirty-four statements applicable to the use of the Chi-square test.
3. The presidents indicated greater expectations of the office of president than did the faculty members on forty-two of fifty-seven statements of the questionnaire.
4. Rural institutions had a greater expectation of the office of president on forty-eight of fifty-seven statements of the questionnaire.
Simon wrote an article in 1967 in which he described the job of a college president (Simon, 1967). The major functions of the chief executive officer according to Simon are,
1. Raising money.
2. Balancing the budget.
3. Participating in the establishment of institutional goals.
4. Working with faculty to create an environment that encourages learning.


5. Recruiting and maintaining a high quality of faculty.(Simon, 1967, pp. 68-78)
In the article Simon (1967) draws a parallel between the responsibilities of the college president and those of top executives in other types of organizations. Although the functions he enumerates are not intended specifically for the community college president, they do provide accurate representation of generally applicable functions discussed in much of the literature.
Morrissey, in a 1967 article, presented his view that multi-unit community college districts should be decentralized in administrative structure.
I recommend that in complex community college systems each college established be called a college, with the privilege of naming the school reserved for the college professionals and interested citizens of the region to be served. The word "campus" calls forth the mumified ghost of higher educational mistakes; the word "college" describes what the institution is in fact (Morrissey, 1967, p. 40).
In regard to the chief administrative officer of the district,
Morrissey offered the following statement as to his role in a multi-
unit district,
Most existing systems do not pretend in their own retreats that the nominal head of a multi-unit college system actually makes the controlling decisions affecting the operations of the specific schools (Morrissey, 1967, p. 39).
Morrissey believes that the community college chief executive
officer is too far removed from his counterparts at the individual
campuses or institutions to actually make any controlling decisions.
Instead, Morrissey contended, the district or college president


must foster local autonomy so that the local campuses can provide the leadership needed at that particular location.
In summary, Morrissey presented a list of daily responsibilities for which the multi-unit college president should be held accountable,
1. Supervision of physical growth.
2. Long-range planning.
3. Relationship with the board of trustees.
4. Acquisition of financial resources.
5. Interpretation of board goals and policies.
6. Strengthen the recruiting process (Morrissey, 1967, p. 39).
Upton (1969) conducted a research study of the role expectations of faculty and trustee groups for the community junior college president. From the findings of his study, Upton (1969, pp. 184-187) presented the following conclusions that are pertinent to this review,
1. In specifying the behavior expected of the president, faculty members differed significantly with board members.
2. Differences between board and faculty groups in their expectations reflected consistent differences in position regarding certain types of behavior.
3. Greatest differences between board and faculty groups centered around how primary responsibility for decision-making should be divided within the college.
Osborne (1969) conducted a study of the community college presidency with the major purpose of determining the behavioral


47
characteristics deemed critical to the president's effectiveness. In the study, Osborne (1969, pp. 129-132) also sought to compare various groups of respondents in order to determine if they perceived these critical requirements in the same manner. The study was carried out using the critical incident technique and a questionnaire derived from the critical incidence results. Based on the results of the study, the following major conclusions were presented,
1. While the critical requirements of the junior college presidency are few in number, they touch primarily the area of human relations.
2. Because the critical requirements of the presidency are viewed essentially the same way by all groups in the college community, they represent a sound foundation for the development of highly efficient administrative procedure.
3. The overall behavior of the junior college president is effective, but his relationship to his faculty and administrative staff needs strengthening.
4. Although the development of an atmosphere of academic freedom is a critical requirement of the presidency it is not a profound issue on the junior college campus today.
5. The trustees are apparently more passive in their view of the presidency than any other group within the junior college community.


A monograph by Cohen and Roueche, published in 1969, examined educational leadership from the standpoint of the junior college presidency. Specifically, their investigation sought to determine whether the junior college president is assigned responsibility for educational leadership by his board of trustees, and whether the president actually addresses himself to such matters. In examining board policy manuals, presidential job descriptions, and presidential reports, the authors concluded that, "In general, the junior college president is neither assigned responsibility nor held accountable for educational leadership" (Cohen & Roueche, 1969, p. 18). The responsibilities found to be typically assigned to the president were; campus development, implementation of board policy, control of fiscal affairs, supervision of administrative and teaching staff, and campus law and order.
VanTrease (1972) conducted a study of authority relationships between chief district administrators and chief campus administrators in multi-campus junior college districts. The major purpose of the study was to determine whether there was a difference in the perceptions of authority relationships existing in their schools between the two groups of administrators used in the study. Using the semantic differential as the measuring device, VanTrease sent questionnaires to forty-three chief district administrators and one hundred sixteen chief campus administrators. Administrators were asked to indicate their perception of current district participation


in the following functions,
1. Textbook selection.
2. Recruitment of new staff members.
3. In-service training.
4. Physical facility planning.
5. Budget preparation.
6. Public information services.
7. Student personnel services.
8. Curriculum development.
9. Community service development,(VanTrease, 1972, pp. 167-172)
VanTrease found that of the nine functional areas used in his study, general accord in perception between the two groups of administrators was found only on central office participation in textbook selection and recruitment of new staff members. In view of the findings, VanTrease recommended that communications between the central office and the campuses be improved, and that policies and responsibilities be more clearly defined.
The review of the literature and research related to community college chief executive officers provided the author of this study with valuable insights into college executive functions and added greatly to the structural development of this study.


CHAPTER III
MIAMI-DADE: THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AT A MULTI-CAMPUS INSTITUTION
Mi ami-Dade Community College served as the multi-campus community college district sample in this study. This chapter is a discussion of the functions and role, legal and perceived, of the chief executive officer (President) of Mi ami-Dade Community College.
The first section describes the environmental setting of the college within the district. Section two is a description of the history and development of the college with emphasis on the present conditions that exist. In section three the basic legal structure of governance is outlined and the role of the chief executive officer (President) is discussed. Section four presents the findings of the questionnaire and structured interviews held at the college. The chapter is concluded with a brief summation and discussion of some general observations about the functions of the President of the Col lege.
Environmental Setting
Mi ami-Dade Community College is located in Metropolitan Dade County, an area of the southeastern coast of Florida that comprises approximately 2,015 square miles of land area (Institutional Self
50


51
Study, 1974, p. 1). The county contains twenty-six separate municipalities; the city of Miami being the largest with a population of over 350,000 people (The World Almanac, 1975, p. 628). All of the county's municipalities are part of a metropolitan form of government. The county experienced a 36 percent growth rate in population between 1960 and 1970, from 322,745 to 1,392,300 people (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 1). Overall, Dade ranks twenty-fourth in size among the nation's metropolitan areas (The World Almanac, 1975, p. 628). The following is a listing of some of the significant characteristics of the citizenry of Dade County (Institutional Self Study, 1974, pp. 1-2).
1. The age group over 65 years old represents 13.6 percent of the total population.
2. Dade County is twelfth nationally in the age group of 18 years old and under.
3. The County maintains the sixth largest public school system in the country.
4. The median educational attainment level of the residents 25 years and older is 12.1 years.
5. In 1972, 23.6 percent of the 1.3 million people in the County were Spanish-speaking, which represents the largest ethnic minority group in the country. The County was declared an official bilingual County in 1973.
6. Approximately 15 percent of the population are members of the Black race.


7. The median family annual income is $9,245.
8. Approximately 11 percent of the population are considered to be living below the defined poverty level.
The economy of the county is built primarily around trade and service industries geared to tourism and the provision of goods and services to an expanding population. The largest employer in the county is the Dade County public school system (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 2). It is generally acknowledged that further diversification is desirable in the county to aid in stabilizing the economy and to provide increased employment opportunities. History and Development of the College
Mi ami-Dade Community College began operation in temporary facilities on September 6, 1960, under the name of the Dade County Junior College (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 3). It was established as part of the Florida system of junior colleges and was jointly supported by state and local funds.
By the end of the second year of operation the college had doubled its original enrollment of 1,428 and was serving 3,544 students at the two initial centers (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 3). The growth was continued and rapid, so that by May 4, 1969, the college had awarded over ten thousand associate in arts degrees (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 4).
In the fall of 1962 the college moved to its first permanent campus, now designated the North Campus, with a first year


enrollment of 6,138 students (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 4). It was during the first year at the North Campus, in the Spring of 1963, that the name of the college was officially changed to Miami-Dade Junior College.
The South Campus began operations in temporary facilities in the fall of 1965 with an enrollment of 1,942 of the total college enrollment of 16,981 (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 5). In early 1967 the South Campus began operations at the current permanent site.
The rapid growth of the college is well illustrated by the following facts,
1. Mi ami-Dade Community College enrolls more full-time equivalent students than any other community college in the nation,
2. By the fall of 1967, Mi ami-Dade Junior College had the largest enrollment of any institution of higher education in Florida with a student population of 23,341.
3. The 100,000th student was registered on August 25, 1969.
4. By 1971 there were seven off-campus centers operating as extensions of the three major campuses (Institutional Self Study, 1974, pp. 1-7).
The Downtown Campus became the college's third campus when it opened in the fall of 1970 in temporary facilities. By the fall of 1973 when the permanent campus was opened, the Downtown Campus enrollment had climbed from 1,021 to 5,407 students (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 7).


54
The Medical Center Campus was originally operated as an off-campus site, but in the fall of 1974 it began operations in temporary facilities at the Mount Sinai Hospital complex. This campus primarily houses the Allied Health Studies programs with a total enrollment of approximately 2,000 students. Permanent facilities are expected to be completed by the fall of 1976.
With the continued expansion of educational services at multiple centers and campuses, Mi ami-Dade has moved steadily toward the realization of a truly community college. With this development in mind, on July 1, 1973, the District Board of Trustees formally changed the name of the college to Miami-Dade Community College (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 8).
The enrollment figures for Mi ami-Dade as of the fall term
of 1974 serve well to illustrate the envoivement of the college
in attempting to meet the educational needs of the district.
Total College Enrollment (1974-75)
"(Office of Informational Services, 1974-75)
Credit students = 31,663 Non-credit students = 10,659
Total 42,322
Campus Enrollment (1974-75)
(Office of Informational Services, 1974-75)
North Campus = 20,433
South Campus = 15,550
Downtown Campus = 6,339
Medical Center Campus unofficial estimate by college
officials of 2,000.


Legal Structure of Governance
At Miami-Dade Community College a multi-campus administrative system is set up where the central college administrator assumes the role of providing support of instruction and the provision of services such as admission, registration, budgeting, purchasing, personnel, institutional research, library acquisitions, instructional resources, facilities, planning, and the overall college planning and program coordination (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 6). The officer legally responsible for the operation of the college is the President, who is appointed by the Board of Trustees. His responsibilities are specified in both the Department of Education Regulations arid the college Manual of Policy. The position description of the college President provides a summary of the President's basic responsibilities (see Appendix C: Community College President).
The chief administrative officer for each campus is designated as a college vice-president and is appointed by the President (see Appendix D: College Organization Chart). Although the President is responsible by law for the administration of the total college, at Miami-Dade he delegates considerable authority to the campus vice-presidents for the day-to-day internal operation of each campus (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 6).
The first President of the college was Dr. Kenneth R. Williams, who served from 1960 to July 1, 1962. Upon this date, Dr. Peter Masiko, Jr. became the second President of Miami-Dade and currently serves in that capacity.


On July 1, 1968, upon action by the Florida Legislature, each college in the Florida system of junior and community colleges became a separate legal entity (Institutional Self Study, 1974, p. 6). From this date, Miami-Dade Community College, as well as all the other colleges in the state system, have been governed by a local District Board of Trustees (consisting of five members) appointed by the Governor of the State. The Board of Trustees is granted legal authority to operate the college within the broad framework of state regulations promulgated by the Florida Board of Education.
Findings of the Questionnaire and Structured Interviews
The two instruments used to gather data for this study provided the researcher with a great amount of information concerning the perceptions of the selected participants at Miami-Dade Community College (see Appendix B). All of the information was obtained during scheduled personal interviews with each of the participants. The first fifteen minutes were usually used for the participant to complete the questionnaire. If any questions were raised by the participant about the questionnaire they were answered immediately by the researcher. Upon completion of the questionnaire the structured interview guide was used to carry out'the remainder of the interview, which usually lasted another fifteen to thirty minutes. All participants were very cooperative and were very willing to discuss their perceptions with the researcher.


The findings of the questionnaire and the structured interview were calculated and arranged into table form and are presented in Tables 1-6. The data contained in each of the six tables are discussed in the following pages.
In Part I of the questionnaire the respondent was instructed to rank order a list of six administrative categories according to the importance they attributed to each of them as an executive function (see Table 1). They were then instructed to rank order the specific activities listed within each of the categories (see Table 2). Space was also designated for any activities the respondents wanted to add to the questionnaire.
Planning was seen as the most important administrative category by 34.2 percent of the participants, thereby ranking it number one among the six categories. The importance attributed to planning as an executive function was more clearly demonstrated by the fact that 59.9 percent of the participants ranked it as number one or two, and 85.6 percent ranked it within the top three categories. The category also received the highest mean (2.34) and median (1.77) rankings.
The administrative category of finance was ranked second with 40 percent of the participants selecting it as one of the top two categories. Although this category was ranked highly compared to the other four categories, its mean response of 2.88 and median ranking of 2.33 are significantly lower than the number one ranked category of planning. It is also important to recognize that 51.3


TABLE 1
RANKING OF ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORIES AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Administrative Category Rank Positions Mean Response Median Mode
1 2 3 4 5 6
f % f % f % f % f % f %
PI anning 12 34 2 9 25. 7 9 25.7 2 5.7 1 2.8 2 5.7 2.34 1.77 1
Finance 7 20 0 7 20. 0 8 22.8 10 28.5 2 5.7 1 2.8 2.88 2.33 4
Legitimization 1 2 8 10 28. 5 6 17.1 10 28.5 5 14.2 3 8.5 3.48 4.04 2, 4
External Relations 7 20 0 3 8. 5 3 8.5 5 14.2 5 14.2 12 34.2 3.97 3.80 6
Educational Leadership 7 20 0 2 5. 7 7 20.0 1 2.8 11 31.4 7 20.0 3.80 4.04 5
Evaluation 1 2 8 4 11 4 2 5.7 7 20.0 10 28.5 11 31 .4 4.85 4.35 6
Note.f = frequency.


V
TABLE 2
FUNCTIONS RANKED WITHIN CATEGORIES AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Administrative Category Rank Positions 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Response Median Mode
f % f % f % f % f %
Planning Specific Functions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 12 34.2 5 14.2 2 5.7 16 45.7 0 8 22.8 11 31.4 9 25.7 7 20.0 0 5 14.2 14 40.0 11 31.4 5 14.2 0 10 28.5 5 14.2 13 37.1 7 20.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.37 2.54 3.00 2.08 2.70 3.14 3.65 2.16 1 3 4 1
Finance Specific Functions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 10 28.5 3 8.5 2 5.7 20 57.1 0 0 8 22.8 5 14.2 13 37.1 8 22.8 1 100.0 14 40.0 2 5.7 15 42.8 4 11.4 0 3 8.5 24 68.5 5 14.2 3 8.5 0 0 0 1 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 2.28 3.42 2.66 1.71 2 2.90 3.39 3.19 1 2 3 4 3 1 2

en


TABLE 2
- CONTINUED
Legitimization
Specific Functions:
(a) 6 16.6 13 36. 1 8 22.2 9 25.0 0 0 2.51 2.95 L
(b) 11 30.5 9 25. 0 11 30.5 5 13.8 0 0 2.28 2.80 1,3
(c) 7 19.4 6 16. 6 12 33.3 11 30.5 0 0 2.75 3.45
(d) 12 34.2 7 20. 0 5 14.2 10 28.5 1 2. 8 2.46 2.77 1
(e) 0 0 1 100. 0 2 2 2
External Relations
Specific Functions:
(a) 6 16.6 9 25 0 2 5.5 8 22.2 11 30. 5 3.25 4.13 5
(b) 13 36.1 10 27. 7 8 22.2 2 5.5 3 8. 3 2.22 2.50 1
(c) 10 27.7 6 16 6 10 27.7 9 25.0 1 2. 7 2.58 3.20 1,3
(d) 4 11.1 8 22. 2 7 20.0 14 38.8 3 8. 3 3.11 3.85 4
(e) 3 9.3 3 9. 3 10 31.2 3 9.3 13 40. 6 3.63 4.00 5
en o


TABLE 2 CONTINUED
Educational Leadership
Specific Functions:
(a) 16 45.7 5 14 2 5 14.2 9 25 7 0 2.22 2 30 1
(b) 9 25.7 13 37 1 10 28.5 3 8 5 0 2.22 2 66 2
(c) 9 25.7 11 31 4 12 34.2 3 8 5 0 2.26 2 76 3
(d) 1 2.8 5 14 2 7 20.0 21 60 0 1 2.8 3.46 4 22 4
(e) 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 2 2 2
Evaluation
Specific Functions:
(a) 6 17.6 9 26 4 7 20.5 6 17 6 6 17.6 2.91 3 15 2
(b) 4 11.7 8 23 5 11 32.3 9 26 4 2 5.8 2.91 3 48 3
(c) 4 11.7 2 5 8 4 11.7 8 23 4 16 47.0 3.88 4 89 5
(d) 8 23.5 11 32 3 9 26.4 3 8 8 3 8.8 2.47 2 82 0 L.
(e) 12 36.3 4 12 1 2 6.0 8 24 2 7 21.1 2.82 3 25 1
(f) 0 0 0 0 0
Note.--See Appendix B for Specific Functions.


percent of the participants ranked finance as either third or fourth, within the middle-range, in importance.
Legitimization of the institutions' policies and decisions was ranked third among the categories with 74.1 percent of the respondents placing it within the second, third, or fourth positions. Although this category received significantly less number one rankings than the fourth and fifth ranked categories, 2.8 compared to 20 percent, the number two ranking by 28.5 percent of the respondents was the highest in that position. The middle-range ranking is more clearly illustrated by its mean response of 3.48 and median ranking of 4.04. This category also produced the only bi-modal distribution with 28.5 percent of the respondents ranking it second and 28.5 percent ranking it fourth.
The fourth ranked category of educational leadership and the fifth ranked category of external relations were ranked very closely with mean responses of 3.80 and 3.97, respectively. This closeness is also illustrated by the fact that 45.7 of the participants ranked educational leadership within the top three in importance, as compared to 37 percent for the fourth ranked category of external relations. Most significant in the ranking of these two categories was the finding that 51.4 percent of the participants ranked educational leadership as either fifth or sixth in importance. The category of external relations fared somewhat better with a 48.4 percent ranking in these two positions. The most frequent ranking for the category


of educational leadership was fifth (31.4 percent), while the external relations category suffered the greatest percentage of sixth place rankings with 34.2 percent.
Evaluation was ranked last in importance among the six categories with 59.9 percent of the respondents placing it within the fifth or sixth position. Only 19.9 percent of the respondents ranked it within the top three categories, as the categories mean response of 4.85 would seem to reflect. Its lack of perceived importance is further illustrated by the fact that it has the lowest median ranking of the six categories with 4.35, and is second in having the greatest percentage of last place rankings with 31.4 percent.
The results of the rank ordering of the specific activities listed within each administrative category are presented in Table 2. The following discussion of these results is presented under the activities corresponding category heading. Planning
Activity "d" (setting operational priorities) and "a" (future or long-range planning) were ranked a close first and second with mean responses of 2.08 and 2.37, respectively. Activity "d" was ranked first by 45.7 percent of the respondents, compared to 34.2 percent for "a."
Activity "b" (program expansion) was ranked as either second or third in importance by 71.4 percent of the respondents and had a


mean response of 2.54. The median response for "b" was 3.14, which more accurately exemplifies the mode response of three.
Activity "c" (planning of physical facilities) was ranked the lowest of the four activities with 68.5 percent of the respondents placing it as either third or fourth. The median response for "c" was 3.65 which indicates its relative low ranking. Finance
Activity "d" (priority ranking of resource allocation levels) was by far the highest ranked activity in the category with 79.9 percent of the respondents placing it as number one or two in importance. The mean response of 1.71 is reflective of the 57.1 percent number one ranking.
The activity ranked second was "a" (budget preparation) with 51.3 percent of the respondents ranking it as either number one or two in importance. However, the largest single ranking of the activity was 40 percent in the third position. This large third place ranking contributed greatly toward bringing the mean response down to 2.28 and the median ranking to 2.90.
Activity "c" (district budget administration) was ranked third with 79.9 percent of the respondents placing it as either second or third in importance. The most frequent ranking was third (42.8 percent), although the mean response was a little higher at 2.66.
By far the lowest ranked activity was "b" (fund raising) with 68.5 percent of the respondents placing it an number four. The mean response (3.42 reflects the large fourth place ranking.


Legitimization
Activities "b" (constituent participation in governance) and "d" (improvement of institutional communication network) were ranked closely at first and second with mean responses of 2.28 and 2.46, respectively. Although activity "d" led in first place rankings, 34.2 to 30.5 percent, activity "b" maintained the overall edge in percentage of ranking in the top two places by 55.5 to 54.2 percent.
Activity "a" (openness in the decision-making process) ranked third among the four activities with 52.7 percent of the respondents giving it a ranking of first or second. However, the activity was ranked third or fourth by 47.2 percent of the participants, thereby raising the mean response to 2.51 and the median ranking to 2.95.
The last place ranking in this category was activity "c" (improving human relations and district morale) with 63.8 percent. Although the most frequent ranking was third (33.3 percent), the median ranking of 3.45 is reflective of the 30.5 percent last place ranking.
External Relations
Activity "b" (involvement with state agencies and leaders) was clearly ranked the highest with 63.8 percent of the respondents placing it in first or second in importance. The 2.22 mean response and 2.50 median ranking of activity "b" also place it far above the other four activities in its perceived importance to the respondents
Activity "c11 (involvement with community groups) was ranked second with 44.3 percent of the respondents placing it in either


66
first or second place. It is significant to note, however, that 44.3 percent also ranked it as either second or third in importance. This phenomena is due to the bi-modal distribution of the rankings. The mean response of 2.58 and median ranking of 3.20 make this activity a solid second in its importance as perceived by the respondents.
Activities "d" (involvement with federal agencies and leaders) and "a" (involvement with accrediting agencies) were ranked closely at third and fourth with mean responses of 3.11 and 3.25 percent, respectively. Although "a" led in combined first and second place rankings, 41.6 to 33.3 percent, "d" maintained a small edge in median ranking, 3.85 to 4.13. This result is due chiefly to the large (30.5 percent) fifth place ranking received by activity "a."
Activity "e" (involvement with professional associations) was by far the least important activity in this category in the perception of the respondents. Although the median response was 3.63, 40.6 percent of the respondents ranked the activity in last place. The median ranking (4.00) is the most accurate in the description of the ranking of this activity. Educational Leadership
Activities "a" (presenting policy recommendations to the board), "b" (initiation of educational policy), and "c" (providing motivational leadership to faculty and staff) are all close in the top three rankings with mean responses of 2.22, 2.22, and 2.26, respectively. Although activity "a" had the largest number of


first place rankings with 45.7 percent, activity "b" had a greater percentage of combined first and second place rankings with 62.8. The median rankings of these three categories is reflective of the closeness of their attributed importance. It is significant to note that activity "a" also had the second greatest percentage of last place rankings with 25.7.
Activity "d" (activities with students) was ranked last by 60 percent of the respondents with a median ranking of 4.22 percent. The 3.46 mean response also illustrates the negatively skewed distribution of this activity as perceived by the respondents. Evaluation
Activity "d" (assessment of problems) received the highest overall ranking in this category with 55.8 percent of the respondents placing it either first or second. Although "e" (making judgments concerning external forces) received a greater number of first place rankings with 36.3 percent, the combined first and second place ranking was only 48.4. The fourth and fifth place rankings of activity "e" were also high with a combined percentage of 45.4. The greater dispersion of rankings in activity "e" as compared to "d" are reflected in their mean responses of 2.47 (in "d") and 2.82 (in "e"), as well as their median rankings of 2.82 and 3.25, respectively.
Activities "a" (evaluative judgments regarding institutional progress) and "b" (judgments on institutional efficiency) were


ranked a very close first and second with identical mean responses of 2.91 and median rankings of 3.15 and 3.48, respectively. The close rankings of these activities is further illustrated by the combined first, second, and third rankings in which activity "b" holds a slight edge with 67.5 to 64.5 percent.
Activity "c" (judgments on personnel matters) was ranked last by 47 percent of the respondents with this increasing to 70.4 percent when combined with the fourth place ranking.
In Part II of the questionnaire the respondents were instructed to estimate the percent of time they believed the President spends dealing with matters within each of the six administrative categories (see Table 3). The participants were further instructed to estimate what percent of the President's time is spent dealing with each of the specific functions listed within each category (see Table 4). For clarification, the respondents were told that the total amount of time spent in all of the activities within any category was equal to 100 percent of the executive's time spent in that category. In order to make interpretation of the time estimates more comparable, they are recorded in Tables 3 and 4 within intervals of ten percent each.
The respondents' estimates of the amount of time spend by the President in matters relating to each of the six categories can clearly be understood by placing them in enlarged time intervals (see Figure 1).


1-30%
Category Percent
Finance 100
Legitimization 100
Planning 96.9
Evaluation 90.2
External Relations 87.7
Educational
Leadership 85.6
11-30%
Category Percent
Planning 76.4
Finance 71.8
Legitimization 60.5
External Relations 51.4
Educational
Leadership 42.8
Evaluation 25.5
1-20%
Category Percent
Evaluation 87.0
Legitimization 84.7
Finance 84.3
Educational
Leadership 79.9
Planning 79.3
External Relations 63.5
Figure 1. Percent of Responses Per Category within Enlarged Intervals.


TABLE 3
PERCENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S TIME SPENT IN EACH CATEGORY AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Administrative Category
Percent of Time Intervals
0 1 -10 11 -20 21 -30 31 -40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %
Planning 1 20.5 20 58.8 6 17.6 1 2.9
Finance 9 28.1 18 56.2 5 15.6
Legitimization 13 39.3 15 45.4 5 15.1
External Relations 12 36.3 9 27.2 8 24.2 2 6.0 1 3.0 1 3.0
Educational Leadership 15 42.8 13 37.1 2 5.7 3 8.5 2 5.7
Eva!uation 2 6.4 20 64.5 7 22.5 1 3.2 1 3.2


Figure 1 clearly shows that 85.6-100 percent of all responses in each of the six categories are within the 1-30 percent estimation interval. It also shows that a great majority (63.5-87 percent) of all responses were within the 1-20 percent interval. Only three majority estimates were achieved among all the intervals of all the categories. These were: planning, with 58.8 percent within the 11-20 percent interval; finance, with 56.2 percent within the 11-20 percent interval; and evaluation, with 64.5 percent within the 1-10 percent interval. Based on the enlarged interval of 21 percent and over, the following perceived category time rankings emerge from Table 3 (in descending order of estimated time),
1. External Relations 36.2%
2. Planning 20.5%
3. Educational Leadership 19.9%
4. Finance 15.6%
5. Legitimization 15.1%
6. Evaluation 6.4%
In order to clearly understand the findings presented in Table 4, each administrative category is discussed separately. In the discussion of each category each specific activity will be ranked according to the two or more consecutive intervals that must be grouped to obtain a majority of estimates for that particular activity.
Planning (See Table 4)
Activity "d" (setting operational priorities) was ranked highest with 55.8 percent of the estimates falling within the 21-40 percent


TABLE 4
PERCENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S TIME SPENT ON FUNCTIONS WITHIN CATEGORIES AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Administrative Category Percent of Time Intervals
0 i-lO 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %
Planning Functions : (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 6 17.6 4 11.7 14 41.1 3 8.8 2 50.0 11 32.3 16 47.0 13 38.2 5 14.7 2 50.0 8 23.5 11 32.3 3 8.8 13 38.2 6 17.6 2 5.8 4 11.7 6 17.6 2 5.8 1 2.9 5 14.7 1 2.9 1 2.9 1 2.9
Finance Functions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 3 8.5 9 25.7 16 45.7 5 14.2 2 5.7 4 57.1 5 14.2 10 28.5 13 37.1 7 20.0 2 28.5 13 37.1 3 8.5 12 34.2 9 25.7 5 14.2 2 5.7 3 8.5 9 25.7 1 14.2 2 5.7 1 2.8 2 5.7 6 17.1 1 2.8 2 5.7
si
INJ


Legitimization Functions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1 2.8 1 2.8 11 31.4 4 11.4 5 14.2 3 8.5 3 75.0 7 20.0 10 28.5 18 51.4 12 34.2 TABLE 12 34.2 10 28.5 10 28.5 11 31.4 4 CONTIT 3 8.5 5 14.2 2 5.7 5 14.2 HJED 1 2.8 4 11 .4 2 5.7 1 2.8 1 2.8 1 25.0 1 2.8
External Relations Functions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 2 5.7 1 2.8 22 62.8 4 11 .4 7 20.0 14 40.0 14 40.0 2 100.0 8 22.8 13 37.1 12 34.2 10 28.5 9 25.7 2 5.7 9 25.7 13 37.1 8 22.8 5 14.2 2 5.7 4 11 .4 2 5.7 1 2.8 4 11.4 1 2.8 2 5.7 2 5.7 2 5.7 1 2.8 1 2.8


TABLE 4 CONTINUED
Educational Leadership Functions : (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
2.8 2.8
3 8.5 2 5 7 13 37.1 7 20.0
4 11.4 7 20 0 20 57.1 3 8.5
6 17.1 15 42 8 8 22.8 3 8.5
24 68.5 9 25 7 1 2.8
3 50.0 1 16 6 1 16.6
7 20.0 15 42 8 9 25.7 3 8.5
8 22.8 16 45 7 8 22.8 3 8.5
20 57.1 12 34 2 3 8.5
9 25.7 15 42 8 8 22.8 3 8.5
8 22.8 10 28 5 9 25.7 5 14.2
1 100.0
7 20.0 1 2.8 1 2.8
2 5.7 1 2.8
1 2.8
1 16.6
Eva!uation Functions : (a)
1 2.8
1 2.8
5.7
Note.--See Appendix B for Specific Functions.
\


75
interval. Activities "b" (program expansion) and "a" (future or long-range planning) both fell within the 11-30 percent interval and were ranked a close second and third with 79.3 and 55.8 percent, respectively. Activity "c" (planning of physical facilities) was ranked last with 79.3 percent of the estimates lying within the 1-20 percent interval. Finance (See Table 4)
Activities "d" (priority ranking of resource allocation ranking) and "a" (budget preparation) were ranked a very close first and second. Both activities had the majority of their responses fall within the 21-40 percent interval with "d" receiving 51.4 and "a" receiving 51.3 percent. However, activity "d" had 22.8 percent of its estimates fall within the 41-60 percent interval to only 8.5 percent for activity "a." Activity "c" (district budget administration) was third with 71.3 percent of its estimates within the 11-30 percent interval. Activity "b" (fund raising) was ranked last with 74.2 percent of its estimates falling within the 1-20 percent interval. Legitimization (See Table 4)
Activities "b" (constituent participation in governance) and "d" (improvement of institutional communication network) were ranked close at first and second, both having a majority (57 to 65.6 percent) of their estimates fall within the 11-30 percent interval. Activity "b" holds a slightly higher ranking than "d" in the 31-100 percent interval (28.4 to 25.5). Activities "a" (openness in the decision-


76
making process) and "c" (improving human relations and district morale) are also closely ranked with both having majorities (54.2 to 51.4) in the 11-30 percent interval. Activity "a" is ranked third, ahead of activity "c," due to its higher ranking (11.3 to 5.7) in the 31-50 percent interval. External Relations (See Table 4)
Activities "b" (involvement with state agencies and leaders) and "c" (involvement with community groups) are ranked very close in the number one and two positions, both having majorities in the 11-30 percent interval with 62.8 and 71.3 percent, respectively. Activity "b" has a slight advantage in the intervals over 31 percent with 26.5 percent, compared to 8.5 for activity "c." Activity "d" (involvement with federal agencies and leaders) is solidly in third place with 51.3 percent of its responses falling within the 11-30 percent interval. This activity also had a high ranking (40 percent) 1n the 1-10 percent interval. Activity "e" (involvement with professional associations) was fourth, followed closely by "a" (involvement with accrediting agencies). Both activities had large majorities in the 1-10 percent interval with "a" having 85.6 percent and activity "e" recording 65.7 percent. Educational Leadership (See Table 4)
Activity "a" (presenting policy recommendations to the board) was given the highest ranking by the respondents with 57.1 percent of the responses with the 21-40 percent interval. Also significant


is the fact that 28.5 of the respondents ranked :'a" within the 41-70 percent interval. Activity "b" (initiation of educational policy) was ranked second with 57.1 percent of the responses falling within the 21-30 percent interval and 11.3 percent within the 31-50 percent interval. Activity "c" (providing motivational leadership to faculty and staff) was in third place in the ranking with 65.6 percent of its responses within the 11-30 percent interval. The most frequently chosen interval for activity "c" was the 11-20 percent interval with a 42.8 percent response rate. Activity "d" (activities with students) was placed last in the category with 68.5 percent of the responses falling within the 1-10 percent interval. Evaluation (See Table 4)
Activities "a" (evaluative judgments regarding institutional progress) and "b" (judgments on institutional efficiency) ranked a close first and second, both receiving 68.5 percent of their responses in the 11-30 percent interval. However, activity "a" was ranked slightly higher with a 9.3 to 8.5 percent edge over "b" in the 31 percent and over intervals. Activities "e" (making judgments concerning external forces) and "d" (assessment of problems) were likewise ranked very closely with both majority responses falling within the 11-30 percent interval, although activity "d" led in percentage of responses with 65.6 to 54.2 for activity "e." However, activity "e" was given the third place ranking and "d" the fourth based on its higher percentage (19.9


to 18.5) of responses above the 31 percent interval. Activity "c" (judgments on personnel matters) produced a solid last place ranking with 57.1 percent of its response falling within the 1-10 percent interval.
In Part II of the "Structured Interview Guide" each participant was read a list of twenty-four items, each item representing one functional role that is frequently sited as applicable to community college chief executive officers (see Appendix A). In regard to their perceptions of the role of the President at Miami-Dade Community College, each participant was asked to respond to each item by indicating one or more of the following,
Personal involvement by the President
2. Directly delegated by the President
3. Not a direct responsibility of the President
4. Not applicable.
In order to present the findings of Table 5 as clearly as possibl each of the twenty-four items are discussed separately. The findings are presented in terms of whether they show the item as being perceived as a direct function of the President or one that is delegated.
Item 1: Determine the library needs within the district.
This function was clearly perceived as delegated, as evidenced by the 68.5 percent frequency of response for choice number 3. No participants perceived this item as a function of the President.
Item 2: Attend state and national educational organization meetings and conferences.
This item did not present a clear majority of responses for any


79
TABLE 5
DEGREE OF EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN SELECTED FUNCTIONS AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Response Categories
1 1 and 2 2 2 and 3 3 All 3
Question
Number f % f % f % f % f % f %
1 0 0 9 25.7 2 5.7 24 68.5 0
2 13 37.1 10 28.5 10 28.5 0 2 5.7 0
3 21 60.0 8 22.8 5 14.2 0 0 1 2.8
4 5 14.2 8 22.8 21 60.0 1 2.8 0 0
5 0 0 6 17.1 3 8.5 26 74.2 0
6 1 2.8 1 2.8 26 74.2 1 2.8 5 14.2 1 2.8
7 4 11.4 3 8.5 14 40.0 3 8.5 11 31 .4 0
8 13 38.2 9 26.4 9 26.4 2 5.8 1 2.9 0
9 12 34.2 5 14.2 14 40.0 0 4 11.4 0
10 1 2.8 2 5.7 23 65.7 4 11.4 5 14.2 0
11 4 11.4 6 17.1 21 60.0 1 2.8 3 8.5 0
12 2 5.7 1 2.8 16 45.7 2 5.7 14 40.0 0
13 3 8.5 4 11.4 23 65.7 0 5 14.2 0
14 0 1 2.8 16 45.7 3 8.5 15 42.8 0
15 12 34.2 9 25.7 9 25.7 1 2.8 3 8.5 1 2.8
16 0 0 11 31.4 1 2.8 23 65.7 0
17 18 51.4 10 28.5 4 11.4 0 2 5.7 1 2.8
18 0 1 2.8 16 45.7 2 5.7 16 47.5 0
19 0 1 2.8 18 51.4 3 8.5 13 37.1 0
20 18 51.4 11 31.4 3 8.5 0 2 5.7 1 2.8
21 7 20.0 3 8.5 16 45.7 1 2.8 8 22.8 0
22 8 22.8 1 2.8 18 51.4 4 11.4 4 11.4 0
23 2 5.8 1 2.9 21 61.7 1 2.9 9 26.4 0
24 6 17.6 1 2.9 21 61.7 1 2.9 5 14.7 0
Note.-- See Appendix A for Questions.


of the three choices. Instead, 37.1 percent of the respondents perceived this item as a function of the President while 28.5 percent believed it was a delegated responsibility. However, 28.5 percent also believed that it was both the President's responsibility yet it was also delegated by him.
Item 3: Have individual meetings with persons in the community who are considered influential in helping the district secure its objectives. A clear majority, 60 percent, of the respondents perceived this item as a direct Presidential function, while 22.8 percent recognized it as both a direct and a delegated function of the President.
Item 4: Determine what educational services the district should render to the community.
A majority of 60 percent perceived this item as delegated. However, 14.2 percent did claim the function was directly Presidential. An even larger percent (22.8) perceived the item as both direct and delegated.
Item 5: Provide materials and equipment for the instructional programs of the district.
None of the respondents perceived this as a direct Presidential function. The great majority (74.2 percent) of the responses to this item indicated that it was not associated with direct Presidential functions.


Item 6: Prepare accreditation materials.
This item was clearly perceived as a delegated function with 74.2 percent of the respondents choosing the number two response. The second greatest frequency of choice was number 3 with only 14.2 percent.
Item 7: Provide opportunities for staff members to
participate in various community activities. This item was perceived as a direct Presidential function by only 11.4 percent of the respondents. The majority of the responses were within the combined choices of directly delegated (40 percent) and number 3 (31.4 percent).
Item 8: Explain the board policy to college and district staff.
Although no absolute majority was achieved in any of the choice categories, the direct responsibility choice was the highest with 38.2 percent. Another 26.4 percent believed the item was both a direct and delegated function. The percent of respondents tending to view the item as a Presidential function is off-set somewhat by the aggregate percent (35.1) of those not seeing it as a function.
Item 9_ : De fend faculty members to the board when appropriate or necessary.
The responses to this item were rather dispersed with 34.2 percent of the respondents ranking it as a direct function, 40 percent as a delegated function, and 14.2 percent as both.


Item 10: Develop and supervise a program which fosters and ensures a desirable climate for working relations within the district. This was clearly ranked as a delegated function with 65.7 percent of the responses. Only 8.5 percent of the respondents viewed this as any direct concern to the president.
Item 11: Develop a program of coordination with four-year colleges.
A majority (60 percent) of the responses placed this as a directly delegated function with 28.4 percent of the respondents perceiving it as a direct or shared Presidential function.
Item 12: Provide supervision of instruction within the district.
Item 13: Make cost analysis of curricula.
Item 14: Develop purchasing plans for the district.
These three items were all ranked similarly with a great majority of the respondents perceiving the function as not of direct concern to the President. The combined delegated/not responsible choices are 91.4, 79.9, and 97 percent, respectively.
Item 15: Give speeches to local civic organizations.
The responses to this item were skewed toward the direct President function choice, although only 34.2 percent of the respondents ranked the function as directly Presidential. The responses indicating the function as a delegated one totaled 25.7 percent, and another 25.7 percent for combined direct and delegated.


83
Item 16: Compile requests for supplies and equipment for budgetary consideration.
This function was not perceived as a direct Presidential responsibility by any of the participants. Although almost a third (31.4 percent) of them ranked the function as delegated, the majority of 65.7 percent placed it far removed from the President's functions.
Item 17: Formulate community college policy for the district.
This function produced one of three distributions within which the function was designated as Presidential by a majority (51.4 percent) of the participants. This perception is strengthened by the 28.5 percent that designated the function as both direct and delegated.
Item 18: Design a program of counseling and guidance for the district.
Item 19: Develop publicity materials for the district.
These items were similar in that neither produced any responses in the category of direct Presidential responsibility. Instead, both functions were ranked as either directly delegated (45.7 and 51.4 percent, respectively) or of little concern to the President.
Item 20: Determine what community pressures affect the educational program of the district.
This was clearly perceived to be a Presidential function with 51.4 percent choosing it as a direct function and another 31.4 percent as both direct and delegated.


84
Item 21 : Encourage col 1ege/district staff to participate
in community councils and projects. Only 28.5 percent of the participants view the President as being involved with this function. In contrast, 45.7 percent see the function as delegated, and 22.8 percent perceive it as far removed from his basic responsibilities.
Item 22: Develop a program for faculty participation in
college and district decision-making. Item 23: Develop a system of internal accounting for the district.
Item 24: Administer debt service programs.
The majority of the respondents in all three of these items ranked this function as directly delegated, with 51.4, 61.7, and 61.7 percent, respectively. However, in Item 22 there were 25.6 percent of the participants that saw the President as either directly involved in the function or both direct and delegated involvement.
In Part III of the "Structured Interview Guide" each participant was asked seven discussion type questions concerning their perceptions of the roles and functions of the President at Miami-Dade Community College. The participants were encouraged to speak openly about their perceptions and to ask for clarification or explanation if necessary. The researcher received complete cooperation from all of the participants.


The results of the seven discussion questions are presented in Table 6. Under each question the responses are arranged according to their frequency, with the five most frequent answers being tabulated by percent of frequency. The following discussion of the results of Table 6 are presented question by question.
Question 1. In a brief phrase, how would you best describe the overall role of the President of this district? This question did not produce a majority response for any single answer, although 88.3 percent of the responses could be grouped into one of three answers (see Table 6). The greatest frequency answers were,
1. Chief executive/Administrator: facilitate the efficient and effective operation of the college by managing its activities (44.2 percent).
2. Politician: a manipulator to gain needed support and resources for the college (23 percent).
3. Educational leader: provides motivation and institutional direction by being aware of needs and problem solutions (21.1 percent).
One important response area pertained to the President's functioning with the Board of Trustees. Although fourth in frequency, only 7.6 percent of the respondents perceived this relationship as descriptive of the Presidents' overall role.
Question 2. What, in your opinion, is the most important function the President now performs? This question failed to achieve a majority response on any of the answers, although 59.9


TABLE 6
STRUCTURED INTERVIEW: FIVE MOST FREQUENT RESPONSES AT MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Questions
In a brief phrase, how would you best describe the overall role of the President of this district?
4. 5.
Response
Five Most Frequent Responses
Frequency
Chief Executive/Administrator: facilitate the efficient and effective operation of the college by managing its activities.
Politician: a manipulator to gain needed support and resources for the college.
Educational Leader: provides motivation and institutional direction by being aware of needs and problem solutions.
Liason between the college and the board of trustees.
Chief public relations man to the community.
23
12
11
Percent of Universs 44.2
23.0
21 .1
7.6 3.8


TABLE 6 CONTINUED
2. What, in your opinion, is the most important function the President now performs? 1. Chief Executive/Administrator: oversee operation of the institution and implement board policy. 13 37. 1
2. Educational Leader of the institution: provide direction and set the climate for the governance of the college. 8 22. 8
3. Liason/communication link between the board and college and the community at large. 6 17. 1
4. Politician: Gather support and resources for the college. 5 14. 2
5. Planning: setting priorities for achieving present and future institutional goals, as well as the acquisition of resources to carry out college objectives. 3 8. 5
3. In your opinion, upon what basis does the President exercise his various functions and responsibilities? 1. 2. Board of Trustees. State Goverment: State regulations, statutes and legislature. 28 21 57. 42. 1 9


TABLE 6 CONTINUED
4. In your opinion, are the functions 1. and responsibilities of the President specifically and clearly enumerated, or are they broad and general in 2. nature?
Broad and general with a high degree 19 of executive discretion.
Specifically stated, but in terms of 16 broad areas of responsibility.
54.2
45.8
5. Are there some elements cr components of the community college experience in this district (i.e. Board, President, Administration, faculty, community, etc.) that you believe contribute more than other components toward the successful accomplishments of the district? If yes, then could you rank them?
Totals of Top 5
1. President
2. Faculty
3. Board of Trustees
4. General Administration
5. Community
1st Most Important
President 8
Faculty 6
Community Leaders 5
Board 2
General Administration 1
2nd Most Important
Board of Trustees 7
President 5
General Administration 5
Faculty 4
21 23.3
18 20.0
15 16.6
14 15.5
7 7.7


TABLE 6 CONTINUED
3rd Most Important
President 6
General Administration 6
Faculty 3
Board 3
Community 1
4th Most Important
Faculty 5
Board 3
General Administration 2
President 2
Community 1
All and components are interdependent inseparable. 15 16 6
6. In your opinion, is the 1. Both: centralized decision making 11 61 1
governance structure of the on college policy, and decentralized
district centralized or administration for implementation of
decentralized? Please policy.
clarify your definition
and use of the terms 2. Decentralized: allows individual 5 27 7
centralized and dcen- campus flexibility.
trai ized.
3. Centralized: control of policy and 2 11 1
implementation rests in the
President's office.