<%BANNER%>

Baseline Development to Streamline Executive Search

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022720/00001

Material Information

Title: Baseline Development to Streamline Executive Search
Physical Description: 1 online resource (64 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Berry, James
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, community, fit, interview, leadership, organization, personality, profile, selection
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, M.A.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Community college leadership teams are currently in a state of high turnover. Selecting the right people to replace those that helped build the nation?s community college systems will be a daunting task. The selection of new leaders in a tight labor market will be a critical test for all community colleges. This study is an exploratory examination of the potential usefulness of utilizing work style profiling to build role specific baselines to be used in strengthening current selection practices. Results showed that work style profiles can be useful in developing role baselines that could be useful in building job profiles and informing the development of structured interview processes. Two groups of archetypal leaders representing community college business officers and workforce development officers were profiled and baselines developed showing each group had distinct work styles from the general professional public but also from each other. This determination is a first step toward the development of a program to utilize psychometric testing to strengthen leadership selection processes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James Berry.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.E.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022720:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022720/00001

Material Information

Title: Baseline Development to Streamline Executive Search
Physical Description: 1 online resource (64 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Berry, James
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, community, fit, interview, leadership, organization, personality, profile, selection
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, M.A.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Community college leadership teams are currently in a state of high turnover. Selecting the right people to replace those that helped build the nation?s community college systems will be a daunting task. The selection of new leaders in a tight labor market will be a critical test for all community colleges. This study is an exploratory examination of the potential usefulness of utilizing work style profiling to build role specific baselines to be used in strengthening current selection practices. Results showed that work style profiles can be useful in developing role baselines that could be useful in building job profiles and informing the development of structured interview processes. Two groups of archetypal leaders representing community college business officers and workforce development officers were profiled and baselines developed showing each group had distinct work styles from the general professional public but also from each other. This determination is a first step toward the development of a program to utilize psychometric testing to strengthen leadership selection processes.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James Berry.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.E.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022720:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





BASELINE DEVELOPMENT TO STREAMLINE EXECUTIVE SELECTION


By

JAMES WILLIAM BERRY


















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































2008 James William Berry




























To Dr. Dale Campbell, my mentor; Shannon, my partner, and Parker, my inspiration









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank and acknowledge the guidance and support I have received on this project

from my chair, Dr. Dale F. Campbell. I also wish to thank Dr. David Honeyman for his patience,

as well as Dr. Matthew Basham and soon to be Dr. Tina O'Daniels for their friendship and

support. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Shannon, for supporting me in this process.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TABLES ......... ........... ..............................................7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

ABSTRAC T .........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION .......................................................................... .. ... .... 10

State ent of the Problem .................. ...................................... ................. 10
P u rp o s e ................... ............................................................. ................ 1 1
D definition of T erm s ...... .... ................................ ...................... .......... .. ............. 13
L im itatio n s ................... ...................1...................3..........
Significance of Study ....................................................... .. ........... .. ............14

2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W ......................................................................... ........................ 16

L e a d e rsh ip G a p .......................................................................................................................1 6
Person Environm ent Fit .................. .................. ................. ........... .. ............ 19
P personnel Selection M ethods......................................................................... ...................23
S u m m a ry ................... ............................................................ ................ 2 5

3 RE SEA R CH M ETH O D O LO G Y ........................................ ............................................28

Purpose of the Study ............... ..................................................... 28
R research P rob lem .............................................................................2 8
R e search Q u e stio n s........................................................................................................... 2 9
Research Hypothesis............. ..... .. ............................ ............29
R e se a rc h D e sig n ............................................................................................................... 3 0
R research Instrum ent ................................................................ .... ............. 30
Instrum ent R liability .................. .................. ................. ....... .. ............ 32
D ata C o lle ctio n ................................................................................................. .. .. ..3 3
P o p u latio n ................... ...................3...................3..........
D ata A n a ly sis .................................................................................................................... 3 4

4 R E S U L T S ..............................................................................................4 0

R research H hypothesis 1...............................................................40
R research H hypothesis 2.........................................................42









5 DISCUSSION ......... ...... .................................. ............... 52

Discussion of the Results ............................................ ............................. 52
R research H hypothesis 1 .............................................. .. .. ....... .... ....... 52
R research H hypothesis 2 .......................... .............. ................. .... ....... 54
Suggestions for Future R research .................................................. .............................. 57
C on clu sion .............. ....................................................... ...........................5 8

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... .. ............... ............................................................................60

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................ ......... ................... ...........................64











































6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Validity of common personnel selection measures ................................. ............... 27

3-1 Cluster, section, and dimension categories ............................ ........ ............. .................. 36

3-2 Reliability summary for Saville Consulting WAVE. Alternate form normative,
ipsative, and combined (N = 153). Normative test-retest reliability on invited access.....38

3-3 Single dim ension and com posite validities................................... ......................... 39

4-1 Overall scale means and one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 for each
group .........................................44

4-2 CCBO on sections of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research
h y p o th e sis 1 ................................................................4 4

4-3 CCBO on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for
research hypothesis 1 ....................... .. ............................ .... ......... .. ............. 45

4-4 CCBO on categories of the competency potential profile, one sample t-test results for
research hypothesis 1 ....................... .. ............................ .... ......... .. ............. 46

4-5 NCCET on sections of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for
research hypothesis 1 ....................... .. ............................ .... ......... .. ............. 46

4-6 NCCET on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for
research hypothesis 1 ....................... .. ............................ .... ......... .. ............. 47

4-7 NCCET on categories of the competency potential profile, one sample t-test results
for research hypothesis 1 ....................................... .. .............. .... ...... ...... 48

4-8 CCBO and NCCET overall scale means contrasted, one-way ANOVA results for
research hypothesis 2 ................... .... .... ...................... .. .. ...... ............... 48

4-9 CCBO and NCCET contrasted on sections of the psychometric profile, one-way
ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2.............................................. ............... 48

4-10 CCBO and NCCET contrasted on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one-way
ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2.............................................. ............... 49

4-11 CCBO and NCCET contrasted on categories of the competency potential profile,
one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2............................................... 50









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pe

2-1 Attraction-Selection-A ttrition cycle ........................................ ........................... 26

2-2 Person-Organization fit relationship to job performance................................................26

2-3 Person-Job fit factors and relation to outcome measures........................................27

3-1 The theoretical model of the WAVE ............. ... ........ ....................... 35

3-2 Clusters and aligned sections of WAVE model...... ....................... ...........35

3-3 Example of the types of questions asked on the WAVE .............................................37

3-4 Predicted culture/environment fit factor relationships ......................................................37

4-1 Psychometric profile's section means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph ..............50

4-2 Psychometric profile's dimension means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph..........51

4-3 Competency potential profile's category means for both CCBO and NCCET, line
g ra p h ......................................................................................... . 5 1









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education

BASELINE DEVELOPMENT TO STREAMLINE EXECUTIVE SELECTION

By

James William Berry

August 2008

Chair: Dale F. Campbell
Cochair: David Honeyman
Major: Educational Leadership

Community college leadership teams are currently in a state of high turnover. Selecting the

right people to replace those that helped build the nation's community college systems will be a

daunting task. The selection of new leaders in a tight labor market will be a critical test for all

community colleges. This study is an exploratory examination of the potential usefulness of

utilizing work style profiling to build role specific baselines to be used in strengthening current

selection practices.

Results showed that work style profiles can be useful in developing role baselines that

could be useful in building job profiles and informing the development of structured interview

processes. Two groups of archetypal leaders representing community college business officers

and workforce development officers were profiled and baselines developed showing each group

had distinct work styles from the general professional public but also from each other. This

determination is a first step toward the development of a program to utilize psychometric testing

to strengthen leadership selection processes.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This chapter highlights the purpose and provides an overview of this study. The statement

of the problem, definitions, study limitations and the significance of this study are also covered

in this chapter.

Statement of the Problem

The United States is facing a tight labor market in the coming decades and community

colleges are not going to be immune from the effects. According to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, educational jobs are expected to grow at almost double the overall national industrial

average through 2016. This growth in needed staffing comes at a time when community colleges

are also facing a leadership gap (Campbell & Associates, 2002; Campbell, 2006; Shults, 2001),

particularly with specialized senior administrators. With a glut of these core administrators set to

retire, community colleges will be forced to compete to hire the best talent into these positions.

The combination of a constricting overall labor market with anticipated increasing demand

for educational leaders is compounded by the current retirement cycle of the baby boomer

generation. Community colleges will be faced with trying to replace large numbers of senior

leaders over the next five to ten years. More that 50% of college presidents in their positions as

of 2006 are looking to retire before 2012 (Weisman & Vaughan, 2007). While this issue has

received significant attention, the crisis in replacing the next level of senior administrators has

just begun to receive interest (Campbell, 2006; Patton, 2004).

If, as author Jim Collins stated in his 2002 bestseller "Good to Great" the key for

organizational success is in getting the right people on the bus, how can community colleges get

the right people into the ranks of their leadership? A key concern for community colleges is

where are the leaders of tomorrow going to come from: internal or external sources? With the









increased pressure on the labor pool, a community college is going to be hard pressed to find

qualified people to fill their needs. This could increase the time it might take and the cost

incurred to hire someone, particularly for a specialized position. The 28 community colleges in

Florida paid over 1.15 billion dollars in personnel cost in 2006 and over 12% of that staff was

considered non-instructional professional staff (Florida Community College System 2007 Fact

Book). It is currently estimated that for a community college to fill a salaried position at $75,000

might cost an institution upwards of $25,000 (Park, 2007). While this cost is significant, the need

for making the right choice with senior hires is even more so. The cost of making a wrong choice

is, at best, having to redo the search and doubling your cost; at worst, a poor hire could cost a

community college millions of dollars (Campbell & Associates, 2002).

Hiring the right people into community colleges' leadership roles is one of the key issues

facing community colleges over the next five to ten years. There is no way to guarantee that a

selection process is going to identify the best candidate to fit the position and the needs of the

particular community college. However, there are things that can be done to increase the

likelihood of making an appropriate hire.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the possibility of utilizing work styles profiling

personality tests in building baseline profiles for specific administrator categories. Profiles of this

type could be used to inform hiring personnel about the common work styles that successful

professionals in specific roles possess. If potential hires take the same instrument, these

baselines could be utilized as a comparative data set. Additionally, having access to this type of

data set could shorten the job analysis process and help in directing structured interviews and

hiring a candidate of best fit.









The theoretical foundation for developing these baselines is based on the person-

environment fit paradigm. The validity of personnel measures in predicting overall job

performance has shown work samples, personality testing and structured interviews as some of

the most valid personnel measures available (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). A work style profile

integrates aspects of what environment a person prefers to work in, what type of work behavior

they prefer to focus on with some more general personality trait measures. This information

generated by a group of archetypal exemplars representing a particular leadership role category

could be used to directly screen participants, or more appropriately, used to direct the

development of structured interview questions and follow-ups.

Research Questions

Psychological measures have been utilized in personnel selection going back decades.

Two of the most widely used have been cognitive and personality tests. However more recently

work style instruments are being used to match individuals with jobs and organizations; yet there

is ongoing debate as to their practical utility. Most of the debate has been focused on whether the

information gleaned from such tests is broad enough to encompass social and environmental

factors that can interact with personality factors or traits in determining an individual's

likelihood of success in a particular role (Kwaske, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). The first

research question is to explore the applicability of these combined factors:

Research Question 1: Will groups of archetypal leaders drawn from community college
oversight boards representing two common leadership roles display similar strengths and
weaknesses when compared with their peers in the same roles against the general population?

This question will be looked at with from a within group analysis. The literature finds fault with

the usage of many personality tests in the hiring process because most positions are not

exclusively filled with one personality type or another (Hough & Oswald, 2005; Murphy &

Dzieweczynski, 2005). However, if commonalities exist between peers within each role's









archetypal group, how can these be utilized to aid in personnel selection? The second research

question will look at whether a work styles profile will be able to discriminate between two

archetypal groups to be useful in personnel selection.

Research Question 2: What are the differences between the two archetypal groups that may
be a help in the selection process?

This is a between group analysis to help support the development of job type baselines.

Definition of Terms

Several terms are used throughout this study, to aid in the understanding of these terms

they will be defined below.

Business officer: senior administrator responsible for the business operations of an
institution; duties may include responsibilities for internal and external financial control, as
well as other business relationship duties.

Community colleges: institutions of higher learning primarily focused on local or regional
needs, often classified as 2 year institutions or junior colleges.

Community College Business Officers (CCBO): the professional organization
supporting the professional staff with business operations responsibility for community
colleges in the United States and Canada.

National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET): the professional
organization representing community college professionals who work in continuing
education, workforce development and community services.

WAVE Professional Styles (WAVE): the work styles profile instrument utilized in this
study, developed by Saville Consulting.

Work Styles Profile: an assessment tool for identifying behavioral and competency
preferences of an individual in an employment environment; these instruments draw
heavily on personality factors and are generally based on both trait and state measures.

Workforce director: senior administrator with responsibility for vocational training
programs and often continuing education efforts.

Limitations

As an exploratory study, this study is only interested in showing that utilizing a

standardized and validated work styles instrument, in this case the WAVE, two groups of









community college leaders would exhibit commonalities within their own group and distinct

difference between the groups. This study is limited to creating baselines for Business Officers

and Workforce Development Officers positions. This study assumes that the leadership of the

national associations representing each type of officer (CCBO and NCCET) is comprised of a

range of highly successful practitioners.

Another limitation is that the instrument's developer states that data generated from the

instrument is not stable over a person's life. The time frame of the data collection from both

groups was well within the stated useful parameters, but future use of this particular data for

benchmarking purposes would be discouraged.

Significance of Study

If archetypal baselines can be developed for specific community college leadership

positions, these baselines could be used to augment hiring procedures, such as job profiling and

developing structured interviews. Many top leadership jobs at community colleges are highly

specialized administrative positions and no clear career paths exists for natural succession

processes for many of these positions (Campbell, 2006). This means that many of the applicants

for these positions will be coming from outside of the position's direct reporting structure. With

a wide variety of applicants, selection committees are more often placed in a position of

evaluating candidates who come from outside the direct organizational structure. This places a

premium of fit to the culture of the organization and style of work for that specific position.

If these leadership positions are truly highly specialized roles within community college

administrations, there should be commonalities that define or support that specialty. Sampling a

group of highly successful individuals currently in these roles should yield unique profiles for

these roles. These unique profiles could then be used as a type of benchmark for highlighting key

factors in helping an individual be successful in this specialized role. This type of benchmarking









could assist individual colleges in completing a job analysis in preparing for the opening of a

position and help those on the selection committee know what type of person they should be

looking for to fill the role. These shortcuts will hopefully save community colleges many

thousands of dollars in direct costs and in the end, provide for a more stable predictor of

candidates' fit in the role and ultimately performance in the new position.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews literature that supports the foundations of this study. The chapter will

be divided into three sections. The first section focuses on the staffing problem facing

community colleges known as the leadership gap and the potential related costs to community

colleges. The second section outlines the theoretical foundations for this research study by

reviewing the literature supporting the importance person-environment fit with respect to

personnel selection. In the third section, a brief overview of the general literature on personnel

selection methods will be outlined concluding with a review of how specifically the use of work

styles/personality testing can be utilized as a tool in the selection process.

Leadership Gap

In 2008, the first wave of the baby boomer generation will be hitting eligibility for social

security. While many indications are that not all of these 76 million workers will be leaving the

workforce completely, data analyzed by the AARP over the last fifty years actually shows a

downward trend of the age of retirement (Korczyk, 2004). This could compound the factors

facing a tight labor market over the next twenty years. Even if older workers stay in the job

market longer, they most likely will not be looking to work in jobs with defined benefits plans

nor working full time. This will impact public sector management jobs the hardest (Hollon,

2007).

This issue compounds on community college leadership positions as higher rates of

retirements coincide with increasing demand for skilled workers. Information from the United

States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) shows that the staffing needs in education will almost

double the pace of the rest of the job market over the next ten years. This staffing crunch has

been building since the unprecedented growth of community college systems in the late 1960's









and 1970's created a wave of new employment. Those who responded to that staffing growth

have for the last decade occupied the leadership positions in our community colleges and as they

look to leave, a new wave of leaders must step to the forefront (Campbell & Associates, 2002;

Shultz, 2001).

Most of the research pertaining to this retirement boom for community colleges has

focused at the chief executive level (Campbell & Associates, 2002; Shultz, 2001; Weisman &

Vaughn, 2007). Dr. Dale Campbell in 2006 highlighted that this anticipated turnover is not just

an issue with community college presidents but extends down the leadership through highly

specialized administrator positions. This work forecasts problems with the turnover of

administrative positions in academic affairs, student affairs and business affairs. A survey of

community college presidents shows the anticipated turnover of these types of leadership

positions with respondents highlighting that in the short time window between 2006 and 2010

half of the presidents surveyed anticipate losing between ten and fifty percent of their senior

leadership in these three areas (Campbell, 2006).

Many of these positions are highly specialized administrative roles, requiring not only

general management and leadership skills but highly contextualized knowledge of college

systems and state and federal requirements. Some of these positions are not supported by natural

career ladders and those currently in the succession line are likely to be retiring soon as well

(Campbell & Associates, 2002; Campbell, 2006; Shultz, 2001). The number of those seeking

advanced degrees in community college administration has been declining over the past two

decades (Patton, 2004) and thus the lower number of internally qualified candidates will ensure

that community colleges must open their applicant pools to those from outside the traditional

career progression ladders.









This combination of factors of massive retirement, increased demand, specialized roles

and shrinking qualified graduates creates a perfect storm of the current and impending leadership

gap being faced by community colleges. This situation will make the stakes for hiring

community college leaders more important as the gap widens over the next decade. The

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) recognizes "...that choosing the right

person for the job is the most important decision a leader or an organization can make." (AACC,

2007: 1)

The importance of making the right hiring decision has significant impact on an

organization's success. Replacing staff can be costly in terms of dollars but also in terms of time

and expended energy. The AACC, recognizing these issues, offers an executive search service

for community colleges. Their literature puts the cost of hiring a private consultant to assist with

an executive search at approximately one third of that executive annual salary. Thus, engaging a

private firm to help a community college replace one leader making $75000 a year would on

average cost the institution $25000. (Park, 2007) These costs do not even cover the entire

process of hiring an executive.

Even if an executive search firm is engaged, there are still soft costs to be accounted for

such as selection committee time and the inefficiencies of running a community college with key

leadership positions vacant. Colleges routinely utilize selection committees as part of the hiring

process (Murray, 1999). While this structure offers more diverse input into the hiring process, it

also increases the staff time consumed by the process. This diversion of staff time from the

selection committee members' primary responsibilities might lower productivity and increases

pressure on often already overstressed faculty and administrators. Additionally, if the

administrator role is of high importance to the operation of the school, the absence of that leader









could have an impact through lost opportunities or even negatively impacting the morale of the

team normally reporting to that vacated position.

The cost in making the hire is eclipsed by the potential cost of making a poor hiring

choice. At the very least, making a poor choice might necessitate a second hiring process, if the

initial hire is let go or leaves after only a short time. A bad hire could be more costly if the new

executive stays, as community college executives are often in positions to make financial and

relationship decisions that have long reaching effects for a college. Two of these most significant

roles are a college's chief financial officer and the chief workforce officer. Each of these leaders

can significantly affect the long term performance of a college, through their controls of the

institution's financial systems and leadership in developing and maintaining relationships with

the local business population. Making a bad hire or "... choosing the wrong person is the most

important mistake a leader or an organization can make." (AACC, 2007: 1)

Community colleges are always struggling to make-do with less and are often struggling

for funding (Gleazer, 1998). The risks associated with making a poor hire at the executive

leadership level of community colleges are exacerbated in this tight financial environment. The

combinations of tight labor markets, high numbers of retirees, increasing demands for services

and financial constraints ensure that community colleges need to be efficient and effective at

finding and hiring the next wave of leaders.

Person Environment Fit

The hiring process is an exercise of selection where both employer and employee are

attempting to find the best fit in the other. An employment agreement is a contract between an

individual and an organization wherein both parties are creating reciprocal demands of one

another. The better aligned those demands with the desires and capabilities of each party the

better fit there will be between a hire and their employer.









Person environment (P-E) fit can be defined "...as the compatibility between an

individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched."

(Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005: 281). More explicitly, it often refers to the

extent of the match between the needs and capabilities of an individual and the requirements,

demands and rewards afforded by an environment. P-E fit is a general term that is used to

encompass many different kinds of person environment fit such as: person-vocation (P-V) fit,

person-organization (P-O) fit, and person-job (P-J) fit (Kristof-Brown, et al., 2005). However,

across all of these levels, there is a central assumption supported by a wealth of empirical

evidence that fit is an important predictor of job satisfaction, commitment and tenure; all

important measures of work outcomes (Taris & Feij, 2001).

P-E fit theory and research is often traced to roots initiated by Parsons (1909) whose

work in vocational decision-making is often quoted:

In the wise choice of a vocation there are three broad factors: (1) a clear understanding of
yourself, your aptitudes, abilities, interests, ambitions, resources, limitations, and their
causes; (2) a knowledge of the requirements and conditions of success, advantages and
disadvantages, compensation, opportunities, and prospects in different lines of work; (3)
true reasoning on the relations of these two groups of facts (Parsons, 1909: 5).

These broad factors outline one of the major areas of fit in the arena of matching demands and

abilities. This type of work influenced the development of many vocational tests geared to

helping identify vocations where an individual may have interest and ability. These types of tests

are some of the oldest psychological instruments with the Strong Vocational Interest Bank dating

back to 1927 (Gregory, 2007). At a broad level these vocational tests were early attempts at

assessing P-V fit. Since then, measuring fit has been an aspiration for many industrial

psychologists and organizational scholars.









Kurt Lewin (1935, 1951) took fit theory to the next step with introducing the hypothesis

that behavior is a function of person and environment. He developed the formula B =f(P, E) to

represent this theoretical relationship. While Lewin did not expressly specify the exact nature of

the relationship between person-environment and behavior, this formula has had significance for

its wider impact of P-E fit research and theory. Feeding off of this original formula, Benjamin

Schneider's attraction-selection-attrition (A-S-A) theory (1987) realigned this formula into E =f

(P, B). This is commonly expressed as an environment is a function of the people and their

behavior in that environment. One of the key propositions in building the A-S-A theory is that

"People are not randomly assigned to real organizations; people select themselves into and out of

real organizations" (Schneider, 1987: 440). The A-S-A is a cycle in which fit plays a part in all

the stages, from what companies orjobs a person applies for, to whom gets, selected for a

position, or to whom leaves one job for another. This model in Figure 2-1 shows how a proper

decision on fit can affect not only the applicant pool an organization has to select from, but also

how long that new hire will stay before the cycle has to begin again. The A-S-A theory shows

this cycle revolving around the goals of the organization. Because the organization is central in

this model, Schneider's (1987) theory is that these organizational goals will be a driving force in

the give and take of fit relationships.

This concept that people select themselves into and choose to remain in organizations

within which they fit can have significant implications for the hiring process. There has been

much investigation about how P-E fit relates to performance and turnover at the organizational

level. A meta-analysis conducted in 2006 found significant relationships, shown below in Figure

2-2, between person-organization fit and job performance, mediated by job satisfaction,









organizational commitment, and less intention to turnover (Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike,

2006).

This meta-analysis found stronger relations between P-O fit and turnover than direct job

performance, but one has to be on the job to even be able to perform. Combined with the tight

labor market discussed earlier, the turnover of one executive could affect the performance of

entire teams and those tasked with finding a replacement. The retention of key employees is a

key factor in organizational success and the importance of P-E fit plays a factor in a person

electing to join or leave an organization (Schneider, 1987, 2001).

Utilized in selection, P-E fit includes but also goes beyond just matching a potential

employee's knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) with the technical requirements of a job

(Werbel & Johnson, 2001). It can be utilized to look at how that person would fit in with the type

of work, style of work, and even other employees. Combining P-J fit, the focus on matching

KSAs to the demand of the jobs (Edwards, 1991), with the broader P-O fit, similarity of

personality, values, processes and culture between the prospective employee and the hiring

organization, expands the hiring criteria for both sides of the relationship. There is a two way fit

factor at play. The individual, as well as the organization, are looking to match fit criteria. Some

of the factors that need to be considered are outlined in Figure 2-3, showing a simplified model

originally outlined by Edwards (1991: 285).

The level to which an applicant perceives fit with the organization will affect their choice

to accept or reject a job offer (Cable & Judge, 1996). However, falsely presenting a work

situation, job demands or organizational life may lead to a poor decision by either party, and in

the end potentially expose the misfit of the match affecting the work outcomes. There is

consistent evidence that providing prospective employees with realistic job previews during









recruitment reduces the rate of turnover in a wide variety of organizations (Wanous, 1977).

Providing and receiving truthful and adequate information is a key factor in assessing the level of

fit between a potential employee and the hiring organization. This is the ultimate goal of the

hiring process.

Personnel Selection Methods

Assessing fit in a hiring situation is a two step process and requires evaluating both the

applicant and the job/organization. Evaluating a job environment and a job candidate are two

distinct processes in assessing fit for personnel selection. Traditionally, job analysis is used for

assessing and developing ajob profile. Ajob profile might be built through task analysis or

position analysis questionnaires (Morgeson, 2007), or in the case of an existing position utilizing

the current job description and verifying its accuracy. The job analysis is useful in providing a

fixed starting point for the enumeration of the organization's side of the fit equation (Robertson

& Smith, 2001).

However, fit researchers believe that more must be done to evaluate the broader work

environment beyond the basics of educational requirements, work task lists and performance

goals. In order to properly gage fit, one must also look at broader characteristics of the job and

the organization (Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). "Matching persons to work must often take into

account more than just the job itself; it may have to consider the group and organizational

contexts in which the person needs to function" (Chan, 2005). This is even more important when

the demands of the job may be dynamic (Robertson & Smith, 2001), as in the case of most senior

executives roles. In looking to expand the organizations capabilities in understanding and

communicating their fit requirements, analysis of the broader role and organizational

relationships are required.









Particular jobs and roles within an organization may have specific requirements of work

and management style for those occupying that job or role to be successful (Robertson & Smith,

2001). Benchmarking against currently successful actors in those roles or similar jobs would be a

method of strengthening the predictive validity of any type of selection measure (Nunnally,

1978). By identifying what specific criterion are important for success in a specific position, the

selection processes can focus on those criterion as more discriminate in seeking fit (Hough &

Oswald, 2005). This type of information can be utilized to focus selection techniques, such as

personality tests (Hough & Oswald, 2005; Landy & Shankster, 1994) and structured interviewing

(Cable & DeRue, 2002; Hough & Oswald, 2000; Judge, Higgins, & Cable, 2000; Krell, 2005;

Murray, 1999).

Schmidt and Hunter (1998) evaluated the validity of 19 different selection procedures for

predictive validity. They stated that, "...the most important property of a personality assessment

method is predictive validity: the ability to predict future job performance" (Schmidt & Hunter,

1987:262). This meta-meta-analysis showed correlations between cognitive ability tests, work

sample tests, cognitive tests and structured interviews as having the highest predictive validity.

Excerpts from some of the common personnel selection measure's validities are shown in Table

2-1 (Robertson & Smith, 2001: 443).

With respect to these measures, understanding the specific requirements or characteristics

of a job or role may increase the validity of work sample tests, structured interviews, and

personality tests (Hough & Oswald, 2005). Knowing what facets of a job are most important and

what the characteristics are of successful archetypes already in these roles enhances the focus of

any evaluation of fit. Ensuring that the selection process includes examination of fit on the

benchmarked data could increase the validity of these selection measures. "In economic terms,









the gains from increasing the validity of hiring methods can amount overtime to literally millions

of dollars" (Schmidt & Hunter, 1987: 273).

Summary

With the current and ongoing leadership gap with respect to community college

executives, any improvement in selection and retention of key employees should show great

returns for those organizations taking advantage of them. The literature and government analysis

indicate hard times ahead for hiring the next wave of community college leaders. The

combination of massive retirements, shrinking labor pool and specialized needs ensure that

community colleges must make the most out of every new hiring situation. Utilizing P-E fit to

build a better understanding of job requirements and the match between a prospective employee

and their new role, should help maximize the outcomes of these hiring decisions. Creating

benchmarks for specific roles may help current selection methods be even better predictors of

future job performance. If one of the most important decisions a leader can make is who to hire,

then making the best choice will be paramount to the success of community colleges through this

trying time.













Attraction


Selection



Figure 2-1. Attraction-Selection-Attrition cycle


Figure 2-2. Person-Organization fit relationship to job performance


Attrition










The Person
* Desires
o Needs
o Goals
o Values
o Interests
o Preferences
* Abilities
o Aptitudes
o Experience
o Education


The Job
* Supplies
o Occupational
characteristics
o Organizational
attributes
o Job attributes
* Demands
o Workload
o Performance
requirements
o Instrumental
activities


Outcomes
* Job satisfaction
* Psychological and
physical health
* Coping and
adaptation
* Motivation
* Performance
* Absenteeism
* Turnover
* Vocational choice


Figure 2-3. Person-Job fit factors and relation to outcome measures


Table 2-1. Validity of common personnel selection measures


Personnel measures


Validity (r)


Cognitive ability tests .56
Work Sample tests .54
Cognitive tests .51
Structured interviews .51
Personality tests .40
Interview Unstructured .35
Years of job experience .18









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research methodology used in this study. The purpose for

conducting this study is explained and supported by statements of the research problem,

questions, and hypothesis. The research design outlines the instrument to be utilized and its

relevance and reliability as well as data collection method, population to be examined and

concluding with the data analysis description.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine if work styles profiling instruments can be used

to build baselines for specific career track leadership positions in community colleges. This study

analyzed the profiles of archetypal leaders within two common leadership positions for which

similar educational and work related experiences are often required. This examination could lead

toward baseline profiles for use in helping to determine personnel fit for specific leadership

positions.

Research Problem

Community college leaderships are facing extremely high rates of turnover in the next

five years. These institutions will be engaging in recruiting and hiring new personnel for these

leadership positions almost in mass in the next five years. Without necessary preparation and

development of internal candidates, community colleges will have to draw from outside the

education ranks to fill these vital roles. How are these institutions going to ensure these outside

candidates are a good fit for their new role? With the massive rates of turnover expected,

colleges would do well to hire the right person the first time and begin to establish a new stability

of leadership. (Campbell & Associates, 2002; Evelyn, 2001; Leubsdorf, 2006).









Research Questions

Psychological measures have been utilized in personnel selection going back decades.

Two of the most widely used have been cognitive and personality tests. More recently work style

instruments are being used to match individuals with jobs and organizations. However, there is

ongoing debate as to their validity in predicting workplace success. Most of the debate has been

focused on whether the information gleaned from such tests, is broad enough to encompass

social and environmental factors that can interact with personality factors or traits in determining

an individual's likelihood of success in a particular role (Kwaske, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter

1998). The first research question is to explore the applicability of these combined factors:

Research Question 1: Will groups of archetypal leaders drawn from community college
oversight boards representing two common leadership roles display similar strengths and
weaknesses when compared with their peers in the same roles against the general population?

This question will be looked at with from a within group analysis. The literature finds fault with

the usage of many psychological tests in the hiring process because most positions are not

exclusively filled with one personality type or another (Hough & Oswald, 2005; Murphy &

Dzieweczynski, 2005). However, if commonalities exist between peers within each roles

archetypal group, how can these be utilized to aid in personnel selection?

Research Question 2: What are the differences between the two archetypal groups that may
be a help in the selection process?

This is a between group analysis to help support the development of job type baselines.

Research Hypothesis

This study will first look at within group similarities to distinguish from the general

population. The first set of hypothesis is:

* HO: The two archetypal groups will exhibit no significant similarities.

* HI: Archetypal groups of community college leaders representing common leadership
positions will share some distinct characteristics on the items of their WAVE profiles.









The study then will look at the between group differences to distinguish between the two

roles. The second set of hypothesis is:

* HO: The two archetypal groups will exhibit no significant differences.

* H2: The archetypal groups will exhibit significant differences in work profile items that
can be directly tied back to the types of roles the groups play in community college
administrations.

Research Design

This study was based on survey data collected through the administration of an online

questionnaire to measure community college leaders' personality characteristics. The results of

this questionnaire was statistically analyzed to determine if there was congruency within each

archetypal group representing a particular role within community college leadership and if this

type of information could be utilized to distinguish between roles.

Research Instrument

The WAVE personality test is the next generation of assessments developed by Saville

Consulting, Ltd. This assessment is designed to measure an individual's personality as it relates

to the Big Five giving scores at 4 levels of granularity: Cluster (4 scales), Section (12 scales),

Dimension(36 scales) and Facet Level (108 items) shown in Figure 3-1. A further break down of

the Clusters and Sections is outlined in Figure 3-2.

Not only does this assessment align with the Five Factors Model of personality, it also

evaluates an individual's motivation, competency and culture. This type of assessment focuses

on not just the variables of personality but how those traits work within the social and

environmental factors of the workplace to provide a more comprehensive profile for use in

employee selection processes. The developers of the WAVE suggest the instrument takes

approximately 35 minutes to complete. The questionnaire is only available through online

delivery but can be administered in an invited (unsupervised) mode or supervised mode. A









sample of the normative and ipsative question types included in this instrument can be found in

the example below, taken from the WAVE's guide document sent to individuals before they take

the instrument.

The WAVE also differentiates itself from other personality tests in its use of both

Normative and Ipsative questions. The WAVE uses normative scales to assess the 108 facets

using 9-point Likert scale items (very strongly disagree, strongly disagree, disagree, slightly

disagree, unsure, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree, very strongly agree). This type of rating

has its advantages in data interpretation but it also allows significant bias into the questionnaire.

The WAVE attempts to control for this bias by supporting the Normative questions with Ipsative

Forced Choice questions to minimize any normative response distortions. The WAVE

questionnaire benefits from the use of technology, by allowing for a real-time adjustment and

application of Ipsative choices to clarify an individual's normative responses, due to the online

nature of the test administration (Saville, 2006).

Once a questionnaire is complete, several reports can be generated, depending on the

levels of detail needed. The most concise report is the personal report. The personal report

outlines a profile chart graphically outlining the individual's scores on the 4 clusters and 12

sections. Narrative statements outline the related dimensions and facets. This report is a high

level summary of results based on the individual's responses and is intended for non-expert

users.

The expert report is designed for trained users and provides much more detailed

information. The expert report is broken down into four main sections: executive summary

profile; psychometric profile overview; predicted culture/ environment fit; and competency

potential profile. The executive summary profile is a single page graphical outline of the twelve









sections (vision, judgment, evaluation, leadership, impact, communication, support, resilience,

flexibility, structure, drive and implementation) of the profile within their four cluster groupings.

The psychometric profile overview breaks down these section scores into their component

dimensions, each section having three dimensions, as listed in Table 3-1.

The predicted culture/environment fit report outlines those aspects of a culture or work

environment that may positively or negatively affect an individual's ability to be successful. This

report is developed utilizing the 108 facets but also the individual's scores on motivation and

talent criteria. This two to three page report lists factors that may be performance enhancers or

performance inhibitors in the individual being successful. This relationship is shown in the

Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 (Saville, 2006).

The competency potential profile is a one page report outlining how the individual's 108

facets relate to an independent data set of 1154 professionals. This report shows how individuals

rank against a predefined baseline.

Instrument Reliability

The WAVE has a Test-Retest mean reliability of 0.79, the minimum 0.71 and maximum

of 0.91 as shown in Table 3-2. These results were based on a sample size of 112 with a retest

period of one month. The Alternative Form Normative, Ipsative and Combined were based on a

sample size of 1153 (Saville, 2006).

The validity of the WAVE instrument and dimensions is based on validation centric

development, where items are selected for inclusion in the instrument based on their validity in

predicting external job performance criteria (Saville, 2006). The WAVE instrument has also

been correlated against the 16PF, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, the Gordon Personal Profile,

and the DISC. Results of construct validation studies suggest the WAVE is valid and measures

what it is intending to measure (Saville, 2006).









Data Collection

As part of an ongoing national initiative to demonstrate the applicability of utilizing the

WAVE in personnel selection and development for community college leaders, several national

organizations were invited to participate in taking the WAVE. The leadership teams of both

Community College Business Officers (CCBO) and the National Council for Continuing

Education and Training (NCCET) were asked to take the WAVE between June and December of

2006. Each participant received a personal report and the organizations received an initial

breakdown of the group's data (Campbell, 2006). Individuals were assured anonymity for the

purposes of this research and their data was communicated only as members of a larger group or

board.

Population

The Community College Business Officers is an organization representing personnel

from community college business operations offices. Its members include chief executive

officers, chief business officers, controllers/accountants, administrative services officers,

purchasing personnel, information technology personnel, and auxiliary services officers. The

majority of their leadership was represented by senior community college officers, a group

identified as future critical leadership gap for community colleges (Campbell, 2006). This group

consists of thirty-five total members completing WAVE profiles. This includes fifteen active

board members and twenty CCBO Academy members identified for their leadership potential

within the organization.

The National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET) group consisted

of nineteen current and former board members and directors. This organization provides

leadership in the areas of continuing education, community services, workforce development,

and distance learning. Workforce development and continuing education are both core aspects in









the missions of most community colleges. The individuals selected to run these programs are

often part of a college's leadership team at the highest levels. Directors of these programs were

also identified as key positions to fill in the coming leadership gap (Campbell, 2006).

Data Analysis

The first hypothesis was analyzed within each organization's group, one sample being the

CCBO group and the other being the NCCET group. The WAVE data from the psychometric

profile was analyzed for each group in all 12 sections and 36 dimensions as well as the 12

categories from the competency potential profile. Descriptive data analysis was generated and

means will be compared via a t-test with the WAVE standardized mean. Categories showing

significant difference from the standardized mean would be considered as important criteria

pertaining to this leadership group.

The second hypothesis was tested by comparing the two sample groups utilizing a two-

way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Scores compared were the 12 sections and 36 dimensions

from the psychometric profile as well as the 12 categories of the competency potential profile.

This data helped to differentiate the psychometric and competency strengths of the two analyzed

leadership positions.





















1- ScCiioni.



36 Dimensions



108 Facets


Figure 3-1. The theoretical model of the WAVE



thought

T
WI^Mn JHUfP-Bh EW--B


Figure 3-2. Clusters and aligned sections of WAVE model


bubn..


redniabyu muw~a~









Table 3-1. Cluster, section, and dimension categories
Cluster Section
Thought Vision



Judgment


Evaluation


Leadership


Directing



Empowering


Adaptability


Support


Resilience



Flexibility


Structure


Drive



Implementation


Dimension
Inventive
Abstract
Strategic
Insightful
Practically Minded
Learning Oriented
Analytical
Factual
Rational
Purposeful
Directing
Empowering
Convincing
Challenging
Articulate
Self-Promoting
Interactive
Engaging
Involving
Attentive
Accepting
Resolving
Self-Assured
Composed
Receptive
Positive
Change Oriented
Organized
Principled
Activity Oriented
Dynamic
Striving
Enterprising
Meticulous
Reliable
Compliant


Influence


Delivery





















It is iportant to me to know how wll I have done

I am an optimit

I am good at generating ideas

Using techndogy Isone of my strong points

I am good at understanding howothersfeel

I am someone who is confident when meeting new people


Very stongly csagree SaIghly
Story Dsaee Disagree
isagree

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0
O OO O



O OO O

OOOO

0 0 00

O OO O


unsure SIOtly
Agree

O O
a 0


O 0
0 0


0 0
O 0


Agee Srongly
Agree

0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0
O 0


In the example, the respondent has indicated that Inen

very strongly agree that It i Important to know how wel they have done
very strongly agree ira they are an optimist
disagree that they are good at generating Ideas
are unsure whether or not technology i one of their strong points
strongly agree that they are good at understanding how others feel
strongly agree that they are someone who is confident when meeting new people
Mst Least
it is iportant o me t knowhow well Ihave done 0

I am an optimnlt 0

I am good at understanding how others feel

I am someone who is oofident when meeting new people 0


Because the respondent has given the same rating to two pairs of statements, these ar presented again, and the respondent i asked to
indicate which statement is most ike them and which statement is least hke them.



Figure 3-3. Example of the types of questions asked on the WAVE






Performance Enhancers
(Culture, job & Environment)


Individual
Motives.



Individual
Ialents


Work
Competency


Performance Inhibitors
ICulture, Job & Enviro.nment)


Figure 3-4. Predicted culture/environment fit factor relationships









Table 3-2. Reliability summary for Saville Consulting WAVE. Alternate form normative,
ipsative, and combined (N = 153). Normative test-retest reliability on invited access


(N = 112)
Profession Styles
Dimension

Inventive
Abstract
Strategic
Insightful
Pragmatic
Learning Oriented
Analytical
Factual
Rational
Purposeful
Directing
Empowering
Convincing
Challenging
Articulate
Self-promoting
Interactive
Engaging
Involving
Attentive
Accepting
Resolving
Self-assured
Composed
Receptive
Positive
Change Oriented
Organized
Principled
Activity Oriented
Dynamic
Striving
Enterprising
Meticulous
Reliable
Compliant


Alternate
Form
Normative
0.91
0.85
0.84
0.82
0.85
0.86
0.85
0.79
0.91
0.87
0.89
0.90
0.85
0.86
0.91
0.89
0.90
0.87
0.79
0.83
0.78
0.88
0.86
0.90
0.81
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.81
0.90
0.87
0.86
0.93
0.87
0.89
0.89


Test-Rest
Normative


Alternate
Form
Ipsative
0.87
0.77
0.79
0.72
0.83
0.84
0.79
0.79
0.88
0.80
0.84
0.85
0.78
0.81
0.86
0.84
0.85
0.83
0.81
0.85
0.82
0.84
0.78
0.84
0.73
0.81
0.82
0.88
0.77
0.86
0.81
0.79
0.89
0.87
0.89
0.90


Alternate
Form
Combined
0.91
0.83
0.84
0.79
0.86
0.87
0.84
0.81
0.92
0.87
0.89
0.89
0.84
0.86
0.91
0.89
0.90
0.87
0.81
0.86
0.81
0.88
0.85
0.89
0.78
0.85
0.86
0.88
0.81
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.93
0.89
0.91
0.91


0.88
0.76
0.73
0.76
0.81
0.78
0.73
0.77
0.82
0.71
0.83
0.80
0.74
0.86
0.86
0.80
0.89
0.79
0.74
0.71
0.75
0.80
0.76
0.72
0.80
0.82
0.76
0.77
0.80
0.78
0.78
0.80
0.91
0.80
0.83
0.83










Table 3-3. Single dimension and composite validities
Criterion Single Single Cross Cross
Dimension Dimension Validated Validated
Validity Validity Composite Composite
IA SA Validity IA Validity SA
Generating Ideas 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.41
Exploring Possibilities 0.21 0.36 0.44 0.47
Developing Strategies 0.54 0.56 0.68 0.68
Providing Insights NS 0.20 0.42 0.38
Implementing Practical Solutions NS NS 0.09 0.29
Developing Expertise 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.38
Analyzing Situations 0.26 0.34 0.30 0.36
Documenting Facts 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.27
Interpreting Data 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.62
Making Decisions 0.48 0.50 0.64 0.64
Leading People 0.68 0.66 0.77 0.70
Providing Inspiration 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.64
Convincing People 0.26 0.26 0.56 0.60
Challenging Ideas 0.47 0.49 0.45 0.47
Articulating Information 0.66 0.60 0.68 0.68
Impressing People 0.32 0.30 0.56 0.45
Developing Relationships 0.42 0.50 0.64 0.66
Establishing Rapport 0.63 0.57 0.71 0.67
Team Working 0.32 0.32 0.46 0.40
Understanding People 0.35 0.31 0.47 0.40
Valuing Individuals 0.34 0.28 0.46 0.44
Resolving Conflict 0.38 0.38 0.48 0.40
Conveying Self-Confidence 0.40 0.34 0.66 0.78
Coping with Pressure 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30
Inviting Feedback 0.26 0.22 0.40 0.32
Thinking Positively 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.48
Embracing Change 0.42 0.48 0.42 0.34
Organizing Resources 0.32 0.38 0.22 0.42
Upholding Standards 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.16
Completing Tasks 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.41
Taking Action 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.54
Pursuing Goals 0.28 0.42 0.44 0.46
Tackling Business Challenges 0.42 0.38 0.48 0.45
Checking Details 0.39 0.31 0.24 0.23
Meeting Timescales 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.43
Following Procedures 0.26 0.24 0.44 0.14
NS-not scored. Dimension validity is the correlation between a single Professional Styles scale dimension (weighted
combination of ipsative and normative scores) with the matched work performance criterion. Total sample matched
is N = 556-658 (sample size varied due to no evidence option on criterion ratings). Cross validated is the correlation
of the composite regression equation from initial sample on hold out sample based on a hold out sample of N = 252-
316. All validities correlated for attenuation based on the reliability of the criteria (based on 236 pairs of criterion
ratings). No further correlations were applied (e. g., restriction of range, predictor unreliability). The composite
validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in relation to overall job proficiency is 0.34 and 0.42 (N = 325).
The composite validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in establishing external ratings of potential for
promotion is 0.54 and 0.64 (N = 324) (Saville, 2006).









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

In this chapter, the results of the collected data and the subsequent analysis are reviewed.

We examined results of the analysis of both hypotheses. Each hypothesis was analyzed using

two sets of data: the psychometric profile and the competency profile. A discussion of the results

and their potential implications will be the focus of chapter 5.

Data was collected from thirty five members of the Community College Business

Officers (CCBO) leadership team, consisting of board members and academy members, as well

as, nineteen current and former board members and directors of the National Council for

Continuing Education and Training (NCCET). The work styles profile was completed by all

participants. Data was analyzed from the WAVE's psychometric profile's 12 sections and 36

dimensions as well as the competency potential profile's 12 categories for each group. These

scores are reported on a sten-scale (M=5.5, SD =2) with values from one to ten and are based on

a norm sample (N=1153).

Research Hypothesis 1

This hypothesis forms the basis of whether the WAVE work styles instrument can be

utilized to identify a particular group of professionals from the general population of

professionals. Research Question 1 explores the applicability of these combined factors.

Research Question 1: Will groups of archetypal leaders drawn from community college
oversight boards representing two common leadership roles display similar strengths and
weaknesses when compared with their peers in the same roles against the general population?

This question will be looked at with from a within group analysis and is formally hypothesized in

hypothesis 1.

* HO: They will exhibit no significant similarities.

* HI: Archetypal groups of community college leaders representing common leadership
positions will share some distinct characteristics on the items of their WAVE profiles.









Each sample was compared against the standardized norms of the sten scale. Analysis was

conducted at two levels of granularity on the psychometric profile and one level on the

competency potential profile. Data from both groups appear to be normally distributed within

acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis. All data analysis was conducted with SPSS version

15.0 and all significance testing was conducted with a two-tailed alpha of 0.01 to partially

compensate for the large number of items being analyzed and the small sample size.

Using one-sample t-tests, each groups' responses were compared to the standardized

norms. At the most macro level, comparing each group's means on each of the three scales

against the population mean of the instrument showed that both groups were significantly

different from the norm sample (M=5.5, SD =2). Table 4-1 shows these results and the

robustness of the findings with all but one of the six being significant below the 0.01 level. These

results support hypothesis 1.

Looking into the differences at lower levels of granularity, the archetypal group from the

CCBO (N=35) was significantly different from the normed population in seven of the twelve

sections as shown in Table 4-2 and on eighteen of the thirty-six dimensions from the

psychometric profile as shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-4 shows that the CCBO archetypal group

significantly differed from the normed populations on eight of the twelve categories on the

competency potential profile. These results support hypothesis 1.

Table 4-5 shows that the archetypal group from NCCET was significantly different from

the normed population in three of the twelve sections; while Table 4-6 shows that the NCCET

group had significant differences on thirteen of the thirty-six dimensions of the psychometric

profile. Table 4-7 shows that the NCCET archetypal group differed significantly from the









normed population on six of the twelve categories on the competency potential profile. These

results, while not as numerous as for the CCBO group, support our hypothesis 1.

Research Hypothesis 2

This hypothesis centers on the issue of whether a work styles profile like the WAVE can

distinguish significant differences between archetypal groups from two closely related

community college leadership roles. Research question 2 is useful to explore if the WAVE could

be useful in building baselines for specific role positions for use in personnel selection.

Research Question 2: What are the differences between the two archetypal groups that may
be a help in the selection process?

This question will be looked at from a between group analysis and yields hypothesis 2.

* HO: The two archetypal groups will exhibit no significant differences.

* H2: The archetypal groups will exhibit significant differences in work profile items that
can be directly tied back to the types of roles the groups play in community college
administrations.

Using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the CCBO (N=35) and NCCET (N=19)

WAVE results were compared to the others to find on what, if any items, the two groups could

be differentiated. Because the groups are comprised of different numbers of study participants,

particular attention was paid to Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance. Four out of the sixty

WAVE items were found to have significant Levene statistics. To ensure that these potential

threats to homogeneity did not skew any analysis, all significant results were compared to the

results of a Mann-Whitney U test with a Monte Carlo Simulation on ten thousand replications

and all significant ANOVA findings were supported beyond the 0.01 level of significance.

At the most macro level shown in Table 4-8, the one-way ANOVA does not show any

significant differences between the groups. Moving into more granularity of scale level,

differences begin to emerge between the two archetypal groups which support our hypothesis 2.









Table 4-9 shows that three of the twelve psychometric sections were significant with Figure 4-1

showing a line graph of the section means. Significant differences between the CCBO and

NCCET groups are seen on eight of the thirty-six psychometric dimensions in Table 4-10, with

Figure 4-2 showing a line graph of the dimension means. Finally, Table 4-11 shows two of

twelve categories of the competency potential profile indicating significant differences between

the two groups, with Figure 4-3 showing a line graph of the category means. Analysis of this

data indicates that the groups differ significantly on over twenty percent of the analyzed items

from the WAVE, supporting hypothesis 2.









Table 4-1. Overall scale means and one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 for each
group
Group Scale N Mean SD t P
CCBO Psychometric Sections 35 6.129 0.753 4.938 0.000**
CCBO Psychometric Dimensions 35 6.051 0.570 5.718 0.000**
CCBO Competency Categories 35 6.362 0.989 5.157 0.000**

NCCET Psychometric Sections 19 6.061 0.901 2.715 0.014
NCCET Psychometric Dimensions 19 5.988 0.675 3.155 0.005*
NCCET Competency Categories 19 6.443 1.293 3.180 0.005*
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)

Table 4-2. CCBO on sections of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research
hypothesis 1
Section Mean SD t P
Vision 6.63 1.664 4.012 0.000**
Judgment 6.91 1.541 5.429 0.000**
Evaluation 7.66 1.211 10.536 0.000**
Leadership 6.34 1.571 3.175 0.003*
Impact 5.63 2.016 0.377 0.708
Communication 4.11 1.795 -4.567 0.000**
Support 5.06 1.984 -1.320 0.196
Resilience 5.69 1.891 0.581 0.565
Flexibility 5.94 1.846 1.419 0.165
Structure 7.00 1.815 4.889 0.000**
Drive 6.06 1.552 2.124 0.041
Implementation 6.51 1.669 3.595 0.001*
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)










Table 4-3. CCBO on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for


research hypothesis 1
Section Dimension


Vision


Judgment


Evaluation


Leadership


Impact


Communication


Support


Resilience


Flexibility


Structure


Drive


Implementation


Inventive
Abstract
Strategic
Insightful
Pragmatic
Learning Oriented
Analytical
Factual
Rational
Purposeful
Directing
Empowering
Convincing
Challenging
Articulate
Self-promoting
Interactive
Engaging
Involving
Attentive
Accepting
Resolving
Self-assured
Composed
Receptive
Positive
Change Oriented
Organized
Principled
Activity Oriented
Dynamic
Striving
Enterprising
Meticulous
Reliable
Compliant


Mean
5.80
6.91
6.83
7.03
6.40
6.26
7.69
6.86
7.34
6.29
6.69
5.63
5.54
5.54
5.77
4.23
4.83
4.20
5.46
4.86
5.40
5.23
6.23
5.54
5.94
5.34
6.40
6.37
7.17
6.29
6.60
6.86
5.03
6.83
6.09
6.37


SD
1.795
1.560
1.723
1.424
1.735
1.559
1.762
1.683
1.187
1.637
1.530
1.555
1.788
1.990
1.926
1.942
1.902
1.812
1.961
1.881
1.866
1.497
1.610
1.788
1.970
2.086
1.499
1.848
1.485
1.840
2.032
1.574
1.505
1.524
1.869
1.880


t
0.989
5.363
4.561
6.349
3.068
2.872
7.339
4.771
9.187
2.839
4.586
0.489
0.142
0.127
0.834
-3.874
-2.089
-4.245
-0.129
-2.022
-0.317
-1.073
2.677
0.142
1.330
-0.446
3.552
2.789
6.659
2.526
3.202
5.099
-1.854
5.157
1.854
2.742


(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)


P
0.330
0.000**
0.000**
0.000**
0.004*
0.007*
0.000**
0.000**
0.000**
0.008*
0.000**
0.628
0.888
0.899
0.410
0.000**
0.044
0.000**
0.898
0.051
0.753
0.291
0.011
0.888
0.192
0.659
0.001*
0.009*
0.000**
0.016
0.003*
0.000**
0.072
0.000**
0.072
0.010









Table 4-4. CCBO on categories of the competency potential profile, one sample t-test results for
research hypothesis 1


Category
Achieving Success
Adjusting to Change
Communicating with People
Creating Innovation
Evaluating Problems
Executing Assignments
Making Judgments
Presenting Information
Projecting Confidence
Providing Leadership
Providing Support
Structuring Tasks


Mean SD
6.46 1.521
6.26 1.651
4.31 1.811
6.71 1.742
8.11 1.183
6.49 1.772
7.34 1.371
6.11 1.728
6.11 1.982
6.43 1.539
5.14 2.017
6.86 1.942


(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)


Table 4-5. NCCET on sections of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research
hypothesis 1
Section Mean SD t P
Vision 7.16 1.642 4.401 0.000**
Judgment 6.26 1.628 2.044 0.056
Evaluation 5.42 2.116 -0.163 0.873
Leadership 6.79 2.097 2.680 0.015
Impact 5.16 1.573 -0.948 0.356
Communication 5.32 2.056 -0.390 0.701
Support 4.74 2.156 -1.543 0.140
Resilience 5.58 2.434 0.141 0.889
Flexibility 6.47 2.342 1.812 0.087
Structure 6.95 1.715 3.678 0.002*
Drive 7.89 1.823 5.727 0.000**
Implementation 5.00 1.764 -1.236 0.232
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)


3.722
2.713
-3.873
4.125
13.079
3.291
7.954
2.103
1.834
3.569
-1.048
4.133


P
0.001*
0.010
0.000**
0.000**
0.000**
0.002*
0.000**
0.043
0.075
0.001*
0.302
0.000**










Table 4-6. NCCET on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for


research hypothesis 1
Section Dimension


Vision


Judgment


Evaluation


Leadership


Impact


Communication


Support


Resilience


Flexibility


Structure


Drive


Implementation


Inventive
Abstract
Strategic
Insightful
Pragmatic
Learning Oriented
Analytical
Factual
Rational
Purposeful
Directing
Empowering
Convincing
Challenging
Articulate
Self-promoting
Interactive
Engaging
Involving
Attentive
Accepting
Resolving
Self-assured
Composed
Receptive
Positive
Change Oriented
Organized
Principled
Activity Oriented
Dynamic
Striving
Enterprising
Meticulous
Reliable
Compliant


Mean
7.00
5.84
7.53
7.11
5.53
5.89
6.11
5.42
5.05
6.63
7.11
6.16
5.11
3.84
6.63
5.47
5.63
4.84
4.89
4.26
6.00
4.11
7.16
5.58
5.58
6.37
6.58
6.53
7.26
6.16
7.68
8.05
7.11
5.05
5.79
4.53


SD
1.826
1.259
2.318
1.524
2.010
1.761
1.912
2.009
2.094
1.461
2.307
2.007
1.997
1.167
1.606
2.091
1.978
2.292
2.105
2.130
1.599
1.629
1.463
2.194
2.143
2.266
2.009
1.679
1.408
1.803
1.668
1.268
1.997
2.121
1.619
2.038


t
3.581
1.185
3.810
4.592
0.057
0.977
1.380
-0.171
-0.931
3.376
3.033
1.429
-0.862
-6.191
3.071
-0.055
0.290
-1.251
-1.253
-2.531
1.363
-3.731
4.940
0.157
0.161
1.671
2.341
2.665
5.458
1.590
5.706
8.774
3.504
-0.920
0.780
-2.083


(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)


P
0.002*
0.252
0.001*
0.000**
0.955
0.341
0.184
0.866
0.364
0.003*
0.007*
0.170
0.400
0.000**
0.007*
0.957
0.775
0.227
0.226
0.021
0.190
0.002*
0.000**
0.877
0.874
0.112
0.031
0.016
0.000**
0.129
0.000**
0.000**
0.003*
0.370
0.446
0.052









Table 4-7. NCCET on categories of the competency potential profile, one sample t-test results
for research hypothesis 1


Category
Achieving success
Adjusting to change
Communicating with people
Creating innovation
Evaluating problems
Executing assignments
Making judgments
Presenting information
Projecting confidence
Providing leadership
Providing support
Structuring tasks
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)


Mean
8.00
7.11
5.68
7.16
5.95
5.16
7.00
6.05
6.16
7.11
4.95
7.00


SD
1.886
2.355
2.187
1.642
1.649
1.803
1.563
1.747
2.267
2.208
2.121
1.764


5.779
2.972
0.367
4.401
1.183
-0.827
4.182
1.379
1.265
3.168
-1.136
3.707


P
0.000**
0.008*
0.718
0.000**
0.252
0.419
0.001*
0.185
0.222
0.005*
0.271
0.002*


Table 4-8. CCBO and NCCET overall scale means contrasted, one-way ANOVA results for
research hypothesis 2
Scale CCBO CCBO NCCET NCCET F(1, 52) p
Mean SD Mean SD
Psychometric Sections 6.129 0.753 6.061 0.901 0.085 0.772
Psychometric Dimensions 6.051 0.570 5.988 0.675 0.130 0.720
Competency Categories 6.362 0.989 6.443 1.293 0.066 0.798
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)


Table 4-9. CCBO and NCCET contrasted on sections of the psychometric profile, one-way
ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2
Section CCBO CCBO NCCET NCCET Mean F (1, 52) p
Mean SD Mean SD Diff
Vision 6.63 1.664 7.16 1.642 -0.53 1.257 0.267
Judgment 6.91 1.541 6.26 1.628 0.65 2.114 0.152
Evaluation 7.66 1.211 5.42 2.116 2.24 24.533 0.000**
Leadership 6.34 1.571 6.79 2.097 -0.45 0.783 0.380
Impact 5.63 2.016 5.16 1.573 0.47 0.777 0.382
Communication 4.11 1.795 5.32 2.056 -1.21 4.980 0.030
Support 5.06 1.984 4.74 2.156 0.32 0.302 0.585
Resilience 5.69 1.891 5.58 2.434 0.11 0.032 0.859
Flexibility 5.94 1.846 6.47 2.342 -0.53 0.841 0.363
Structure 7.00 1.815 6.95 1.715 0.05 0.011 0.918
Drive 6.06 1.552 7.89 1.823 -1.83 15.263 0.000**
Implementation 6.51 1.669 5.00 1.764 1.51 9.741 0.003*
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)









Table 4-10. CCBO and NCCET contrasted on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one-way
ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2
Section Dimension Mean Diff F (1, 52) P
(CCBO-NCCET)
Vision Inventive -1.20 5.437 0.024
Abstract 1.07 6.616 0.013
Strategic -0.70 1.577 0.215
Judgment Insightful -0.08 0.034 0.854
Pragmatic 0.87 2.791 0.101
Learning Oriented 0.37 0.607 0.439
Evaluation Analytical 1.58 9.336 0.004*
Factual 1.44 7.818 0.007*
Rational 2.34 26.482 0.000**
Leadership Purposeful -0.34 0.591 0.445
Directing -0.42 0.643 0.426
Empowering -0.53 1.160 0.286
Impact Convincing 0.43 0.679 0.414
Challenging 1.70 11.634 0.001*
Articulate -0.86 2.745 0.104
Communication Self-promoting -1.24 4.798 0.033
Interactive -0.80 2.135 0.150
Engaging -0.64 1.281 0.263
Support Involving 0.57 0.962 0.331
Attentive 0.60 1.119 0.295
Accepting -0.60 1.402 0.242
Resilience Resolving 1.12 6.518 0.014
Self-assured -0.93 4.365 0.042
Composed -0.04 0.004 0.948
Flexibility Receptive 0.36 0.395 0.532
Positive -1.03 2.803 0.100
Change Oriented -0.18 0.138 0.712
Structure Organized -0.16 0.092 0.763
Principled -0.09 0.049 0.826
Activity Oriented 0.13 0.060 0.807
Drive Dynamic -1.08 3.951 0.052
Striving -1.19 8.083 0.006*
Enterprising -2.08 18.565 0.000**
Implementation Meticulous 1.78 12.630 0.001*
Reliable 0.30 0.339 0.563
Compliant 1.84 11.185 0.002*
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)










Table 4-11. CCBO and NCCET contrasted on categories of the competency potential profile,
one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2
Category Mean Diff F (1, 52) P
(CCBO-NCCET)
Achieving success -1.54 10.683 0.002*
Adjusting to change -0.85 2.393 0.128
Communicating with people -1.37 6.080 0.017
Creating innovation -0.45 0.831 0.366
Evaluating problems 2.16 31.163 0.000**
Executing assignments 1.33 6.832 0.012
Making judgments 0.34 0.698 0.407
Presenting information 0.06 0.016 0.901
Projecting confidence -0.05 0.005 0.942
Providing leadership -0.68 1.742 0.193
Providing support 0.19 0.112 0.740
Structuring tasks -0.14 0.071 0.791
(*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)



9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00 CCB
5.50
5.00 NCCET
4.50
4.00 ,



-0 ko CE



Figure 4-1. Psychometric profile's section means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph











8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00 CBO
3.50 I NCCET

Fg U re ; u -0syh tc p io m e a s t3 rt -h CB an N3 CE l g r ap h
> C W "" E" EW O WE CE
-w ) <=> > -n .
p- 00 0 E r u

Wu
Figur 4 C
4* iw- U, (V '
US u 5 U
u CU



Figure 4-2. Psychometric profile's dimension means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph


Figure 4-3. Competency potential profile's category means for both CCBO and NCCET, line
graph


9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00


S--CCBOET









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

In this study, the use of work styles profiling in employee selection has been explored

from a foundation in the academic literature and in an empirical study. This chapter will cover a

discussion of this study's results, suggestions for future research and will conclude with a

discussion on the implications this may have on community college leader selection processes.

Discussion of the Results

Research Hypothesis 1

The usefulness in psychological profiling for job selection has often been debated

(Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) as the literature often does not find most positions to be filled with

exclusively one personality type or another (Hough & Oswald, 2005; Murphy & Dzieweczynski,

2005). With hypothesis one, the goal was to empirically show that the WAVE instrument could

be used to identify two archetypal groups of community college leaders from the general

professional population. At all levels of granularity both of the archetypal groups have been

distinguished from the general professional population. These distinctions show similar strengths

and weaknesses for members of the leadership of both the CCBO and NCCET.

At the most macro total scale level, the CCBO scored significantly higher than the

WAVE normed scores on all three scales and the NCCET scored significantly higher on two of

the three scales. While the WAVE was designed for professionals and administrators, the

archetypal groups selected represent senior leadership members who may be more successful and

experienced than the average professional and this may account for the overall higher average

scores. This might be troubling if the lower level data analysis supported a solely positive bias in

findings, but it does not, as both groups show some factors with mean scores below the WAVE









normed means. Overall the CCBO group's scores showed more significant differences than the

NCCET group, but analytically with more participants they had greater statistical power.

Both groups were found to be significantly higher than the average professional on

psychometric sections of Vision and Structure. CCBO also showed significantly higher scores on

Judgment, Evaluation, Leadership, and Implementation and significantly lower scores on

Communication. While the NCCET results indicated a higher level of Drive. The highest and

lowest means were found on the psychometric dimensions for the NCCET group with

Challenging (M = 3.84, SD = 1.17) being the lowest score and the only mean below 4 and

Striving (M = 8.05, SD = 1.27) being over 8. As the psychometric dimensions are more granular

components of psychometric sections scores, it was good to see that both groups differed from

the normed population on more than 35% of the items.

Both groups were found to be significantly higher than the average professional on the

WAVE competency potential profile categories of Achieving Success, Creating Innovation,

Making Judgments, Providing Leadership, and Structuring Tasks. The CCBO group also showed

significantly higher scores on Evaluating Problems, and Executing Assignments but significantly

lower scores on Communicating with People. The NCCET group showed additional higher

scores on Adjusting to Change.

In all of the scales, both groups displayed a number of significant similarities to others in

their leadership group that are significantly different than the general professional population.

All of these strong scores, support the earlier contention that as senior leaders these archetypal

groups would probably tend to have more significant strengths than the average professional.

Even the consistent significant low scores for the CCBO group on communication support that

the archetypal groups are more similar in work styles than chance would suggest. This would









suggest that while not all business officers and workforce development officers in community

college are exactly the same, there are significant similarities as shown by the archetypal groups

to suggest common profiles for successful members of these groups.

These significant similarities are important to developing working profiles that can serve

as baselines that can help focus the use of these types of instruments as a valid selection tool

(Hough & Oswald, 2005; Landy & Shankster, 1994) and as a way to target structured interviews

(Cable & DeRue, 2002; Hough & Oswald, 2000; Judge, Higgins, & Cable, 2000; Krell, 2005;

Murray, 1999). Additionally, these knowing that these baselines can be developed utilizing work

styles instruments may allow researchers and practitioners to short-cut the normally lengthy job

analysis process (Morgeson, 2007)..

Research Hypothesis 2

Now that we have shown that profiles can be used to distinguish two senior community

college leadership groups from the general professional population, can these profiles be utilized

to distinguish between the two more similar groups for use in personnel selection? As Schmidt &

Hunter (1998) have shown that structured interviews and personality tests are some of the more

reliable tools for personnel selection and utilizing benchmarking can help to increase the

predictive validity of these psychological profiles (Nunnally, 1978). Exploring hypothesis two is

useful in discovering if work style profiling can be discriminate enough to be used to provide

role benchmarks and thereby potentially improve the validity of personnel selection within the

scope of community college leadership roles.

Focusing on community college business officers and workforce development officers

was done on purpose to rigorously test the potential of work style profiling. These two roles are

closely related in that leaders are often required to have similar educational background, with a

business focus and both are more likely than their executive team counterparts to have









experience outside of academia. Contrasting a group of academic officers with either of the

selected groups, one could assume some major significant differences. That is why contrasting

two groups representing roles that often have overlapping hiring requirements was seen as a

more stringent test of work style profiling.

The non-significant findings at the most macro scale level, in comparing the two

archetypal groups on scale means, suggests that while both groups may be more senior and

experienced than the average professional, both groups are overall not significantly different

from each other with respect to these issues. This allows for an examination of the more granular

level items to determine what area of the work styles profile could be useful in distinguishing

between these two roles. In reviewing the results of the one-way ANOVAs for each scale's items

will be found to be significant but even more, items found significant will indicate one group is

higher than the other in a statistically significant amount.

There were three significant differences on the psychometric profile sections, with the

CCBO groups scoring higher on Evaluation and Implementation and the NCCET group scoring

higher on Drive. These areas fit with our common perceptions of a business officer needed

strong evaluation and implementation skills to handle the budgetary duties of a community

college. Likewise, a community college leader often tasked with the duties of maintaining

relationship with local business leaders and establishing new contacts for the college would be

expected to have a strong drive.

At the dimension level of the psychometric profile there were thirteen items found to

contrast significantly between the two groups. The CCBO group scored significantly higher on

dimensions of Abstract, Analytical, Factual, Rational, Meticulous, and Compliant. While the

NCCET group scored significantly higher on dimensions of Striving and Enterprising, even at









this level, the differences align with the CCBO group representing leaders responsible for

handling numbers and justifying budgets; where the NCCET group represents leaders tasked

with taking a lead role in establishing relationships and cooperative ventures with business

leaders.

The competency potential profile ANOVA results showed two significantly different

items. The CCBO group scored significantly higher on Evaluating Problems and the NCCET

group scored significantly higher on Achieving Success. These results are in line with those from

the psychometric profile and potentially highlight the discrete nature of many tasks often

undertaken by business officers and the sales type tasks often required of workforce development

officers. Additionally, though not significant across the board another note was that on both the

psychometric and competency profile business officers were heavily skewed toward the lower

end of the scale.

Combining the results of the within group and between group analysis, benchmarks for

areas key to identifying potentially successful business officers would be in the areas of

Evaluation including Analytical, Factual, and Rational Dimensions, as well as Implementation

with attention on Meticulous and Compliant dimensions. Benchmarks key for a workforce

development officer would highlight the area of Drive, including dimensions of Striving and

Enterprising, as well as the competency for Achieving Success.

Both community college business officers and workforce development officers in

leadership roles for community colleges work in an academic environment and are more often

than many other educational leaders to be business focused, and even still the WAVE work

styles profiles identified common profiles and discriminate areas of strength for both roles. This

type of information could be very useful in benchmarking these types of roles and distinguishing









specific skills and abilities that are common in leaders in these areas. The benchmarks could be

used to directly compare potential applicant's results on similar instruments or even to focus the

questions asked during structure interviews.

Support for hypothesis 2 has significant implications for personnel selection as a whole

and higher education specifically. Personnel selection is essentially about the fit between an

employee and their work environment. The ability of the WAVE and other work style profiles to

be able to discern differences between two closely related groups indicates a tool of high

precision. As discussed in the literature review, higher education executive teams and senior

administration positions are an area most likely to be under the dual stresses of increased

turnover, through retirement, and increasing demand through job growth. This puts higher

education at a critical threshold of needing to improve selection techniques.

Suggestions for Future Research

Now that it has been shown that benchmarks can be developed from work style profiles,

there are several suggestion for further research that could extend this exploratory work. As the

work by Schmidt & Hunter (1998) showed, the current levels of predictive validity for many

common selection processes with respect to job performance, many of these processes can still

be improved upon. The first hypothesis showed the potential that work styles profiles can be

used to build distinct profiles of how personnel in one role differ from the general professional

population and the second hypothesis more specifically highlighted the discrimination potential

in closely related fields.

The first suggestion for extending this line of research is to move from exploratory

investigation to empirically testing the results in the selection process. This would entail building

robust profiles for specific roles and testing position applicants empirically test the predictive

capability of these profiles. Measuring the effectiveness of those selected into the roles will









necessitate evaluation of selected employees' performance over time. This type of empirical

testing should be undertaken in a wide variety of industries and roles to most broadly test the

potential benefits of these profiles. Additional research should be done with groups of

community college leaders to develop additional baseline profiles for archetypes in other specific

leadership roles.

From a fit perspective, balancing the additional research on baseline development

research should be focused into utilizing work style profiling to enhance the development of job

profiles. Much criticism of psychometric tools in the selection process is that they don't capture

the complexities and intricacies of a role. Work in utilizing work study profiles and baselines

could offer a tool to enhance the ability of employers to build realistic job profiles and improve

person-job fit.

If work styles can be used to build baseline baselines for archetypal leaders, can these

same baselines be used for employee development? Can these benchmarks and work style

profiles be effectively utilized in career development strategies? If so, potentially these tools

could help develop as well as find new successful leaders (Campbell, 2006). Now that it has been

shown that baselines can be built, it remains to be seen how and if they can be utilized

effectively.

Conclusion

If having the best leaders is so critically important to the future of community colleges,

then we need the best tools to ensure that we can hire and retain the best employees. With the

impending leadership gap occurring at the same time that the broader labor pool is shrinking, it

should be readily apparent that community colleges can ill afford to lose out on hiring the best

leaders available and even more so need to work to avoid the potential disastrous consequences

of hiring the wrong person. This is why this line of research is so critically important to









community colleges and the overall development of effective selection processes. As the AACC

states, "...choosing the right person for the job is the most important decision a leader or

organization can make" (AACC, 2007: 1). Having shown the potential for utilizing work style

profiles for building baseline benchmarks for specific roles, the task is left to confirm the

usefulness of these baselines in predicting job performance and thus validating their use in

personnel selection.









LIST OF REFERENCES


AACC 2007. The risk you should not take. http://www.performancesearch.com/AACC/pages
/about us.2.html, first accessed November 2007.

Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. 2006. The use of person-organization fit
in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(4): 786-801.

Berry, L. H., Hammons, J. O., & Denny, G. S. 2001. Faculty retirement turnover in community
colleges: A real or imagined problem? Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 25: 123-136.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Monthly Labor Review. http://www.bls.gov/emp/home.htm
first accessed December 2007.

Cable, D. M. & DeRue, D. S. 2002. The convergent and discriminant validity of subject fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5): 875-884.

Cable, D. M. & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3):
294-311.

Campbell, D. F. 2006. The new leadership gap: Shortages in administrative positions.
Community College Journal, 76: 10-14.

Campbell, D. F. & Associates. 2002. The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies For Leadership
Development. Washington: Community College Press.

Chan, D. 2005. Current directions in personnel selection research. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14(4):220-223.

Collins, J. 2005. From Good to Great And The Social Sector: Why Business Thinking Is Not
The Answer. Collins Press.

Edwards, J. R. 1999. Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review
of industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6: 283-357. West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Evelyn, J. 2001. Community colleges face a crisis of leadership. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 47 (30): A36.

Florida Community College System. 2007. Fact book. http://www.fldoe.org/arm/cctcmis/pubs/
factbook/fb2007/fb2007.pdf, first accessed November 2007.

Gleazer, E. J. 1998. The Community College: Values, Vision & Vitality. Washington,
Community College Press.









Gregory, R. J. 2007. Psychological Testing (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Hollon, John. 2007. Silencing the alarmists. Workforce Management, 86 (14): 58.

Hough, L. M. & Oswald, F. L. 2005. They're right, well.. mostly right: Research evidence and
an agenda to rescue personality testing from 1960's insights. Human Performance, 18(4):
373-387.

Hough, L. M. & Oswald, F. L. 2000. Personnel selection: Looking toward the future -
remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 631-664.

Judge, T. A. & Higgins, C. A., & Cable, D. M. 2000. The employment interview: A review of
recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management
Review, 10(4): 383-406.

Korczyk, S. M. 2004. Is early retirement ending? http://www.aarp.org/research/work/retirement
/is_early_retirementending.html, first accessed in November 2007.

Krell, E. 2005. Personality counts: personality assessments are being used in new ways through
the employee life cycle. HR Magazine, 50(11), 46-53.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals'
fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-
supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.

Kwaske, I. H. 2004. Individual assessments for personnel selection: An update on a rarely
researched but avidly practiced practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 56(3): 186-195.

Landy, F. J. & Shankster, L. J. 1994. Personnel selection and placement. Annual Review of
Psychology, 45, 216-296.

Leubsdorf, B. 2006. Boomers' retirement may create talent squeeze. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53(2): A51.

Lewin, K. 1935. Dynamic Theory ofPersonality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.

Morgeson, F. 2007. Job Analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 377-380. London: Sage.

Murphy, K. R. & Dzieweczynski, J. L. 2005. Why don't measures of broad dimensions of
personality perform better as predictors of job performance. Human Performance, 18(4),
343-357.

Murray, J. P. 1999. Interviewing to hire competent community college faculty. Community
College Review, 27(1): 41-57.









Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.


Park, D. G. 2007 The Community College Leadership Crisis and Executive Search. AACC
Executive Search. Washington: AACC. http://www.performancesearch.com/AACC/
pages/aboutus.2.html, first accessed November 2007.

Parsons. F. 1909. Choosing a Vocation. Boston: Houghton.

Patton, M. 2004. Initiative seeks to inform and prepare new leaders. Community College Times,
Washington: AACC. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/ContentGroups/CC_Times/
January_20041/Initiative_SeeksToInform_andPrepareNew Leaders.htm, first
accessed October 2007.

Robertson, I. T. & Smith, M. 2001. Personnel Selection. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 441-472.

Sanford, J. 2005. Making cents out of the hiring process. Strategic Finance: 41-45.

Saville. 2006. Saville Consulting WAVE Technical Document. Unpublished report, Surrey, UK.

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.

Schneider, B. 2001. Fits about fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1): 141-
152.

Shults, C. 2001. The critical impact of impending retirements of community college leadership.
Research BriefLeadership Series, no. 1, AACC-RB-01-5. Washington: AACC.
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/ContentGroups/ResearchBriefs2/LeadershipBrief.rev
2.pdf, first accessed October 2007.

Taris, R. & Feij, J. A. 2001. Longitudinal examination of the relationship between supplies-
values fit and work outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1): 52-
80.

Wanous, J. P. 1977. Organizational entry: newcomers moving from outside to inside.
Psychological Bulletin, 84(4): 601-618.

Weisman, I. M. & Vaughan, G. B. 2007. The community college presidency: 2006.
www2.aacc.nche.edu/PDFS/presidency brief.pdf, first accessed November 2007.

Werbel, J. D. & Gilliland, S. W. 1999. Person-environment fit in the selection process. Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 17,: 209-243.









Werbel, J. D. & Johnson, D. J. 2001. The use of person-group fit for employment selection: A
missing link in person-environment fit. Human Resource Management, 40(3): 227-240.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

James William Berry received his bachelor's degree in philosophy from the College of

William and Mary in Virginia in 1993. He came to the University of Florida in 1996 to coach

swimming and study sport psychology. Jim returned to the University as part of a leadership

development cohort from St. Petersburg College. Working as a project manager the National

Terrorism Preparedness Institute at St. Petersburg College, Jim wrote and produced educational

materials for first responders and military to respond to new threats. During his time studying at

the University of Florida, Jim also was one of the founding managers in starting the

Collaborative Labs, a facility dedicated to helping business, industry, public, and private groups

solve complex problems through facilitation. Jim is now looking to complete a PhD at the

University of North Carolina in organizational behavior.





PAGE 1

1 BASELINE DEVELOPMENT TO STRE AMLINE EXECUTIVE SELECTION By JAMES WILLIAM BERRY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 James William Berry

PAGE 3

3 To Dr. Dale Campbell, my mentor; Shannon, my partner, and Parker, my inspiration

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank and acknowledge the guidance and support I have received on this project from my chair, Dr. Dale F. Campbell. I also wi sh to thank Dr. David Honeyman for his patience, as well as Dr. Matthew Basham and soon to be Dr. Tina ODaniels fo r their friendship and support. Finally, I would like to thank my wi fe, Shannon, for supporting me in this process.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 10Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... ..10Purpose ....................................................................................................................... ............11Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................13Limitations ................................................................................................................... ...........13Significance of Study ..............................................................................................................142 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................16Leadership Gap ................................................................................................................ .......16Person Environment Fit ........................................................................................................ ..19Personnel Selection Methods .................................................................................................. 23Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........253 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................28Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... .....28Research Problem ...................................................................................................................28Research Questions ............................................................................................................ .....29Research Hypothesis ...............................................................................................................29Research Design .....................................................................................................................30Research Instrument ........................................................................................................ 30Instrument Reliability ...................................................................................................... 32Data Collection .......................................................................................................................33Population .................................................................................................................... ...........33Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................344 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........40Research Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................................40Research Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................................................42

PAGE 6

6 5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... .....52 Discussion of the Results ..................................................................................................... ...52Research Hypothesis 1 ....................................................................................................52Research Hypothesis 2 ....................................................................................................54Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................................ 57Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........58LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................60BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................64

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Validity of common pers onnel selection m easures ...........................................................273-1 Cluster, section, and dimension categories ........................................................................ 363-2 Reliability summary for Saville Cons ulting WAVE. Alternate form normative, ipsative, and combined (N = 153). Normative test-retest reliability on invited access ..... 383-3 Single dimension and composite validities ........................................................................ 394-1 Overall scale means and one sample t-te st results for research hypothesis 1 for each group ......................................................................................................................... .........444-2 CCBO on sections of the psychometric profil e, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 .......................................................................................................................444-3 CCBO on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 .........................................................................................................454-4 CCBO on categories of the competency potenti al profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 .........................................................................................................464-5 NCCET on sections of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 .........................................................................................................464-6 NCCET on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 .........................................................................................................474-7 NCCET on categories of the competency poten tial profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 ................................................................................................... 484-8 CCBO and NCCET overall scale means contrasted, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 .........................................................................................................484-9 CCBO and NCCET contrasted on sections of the psychometric profile, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 .........................................................................484-10 CCBO and NCCET contrasted on dimensions of the psyc hometric profile, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 .........................................................................494-11 CCBO and NCCET contrasted on categorie s of the competency potential profile, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 ..........................................................50

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 AttractionSelectionAttrition cycle ................................................................................. 262-2 Person-Organization fit rela tionship to job performance ................................................... 262-3 Person-Job fit factors and re lation to outcome measures ...................................................273-1 The theoretical model of the WAVE ................................................................................. 353-2 Clusters and aligned s ections of WAVE model ................................................................. 353-3 Example of the types of questions asked on the WAVE ................................................... 373-4 Predicted culture/environment fit factor re lationships ....................................................... 374-1 Psychometric profiles section mean s for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph ...............504-2 Psychometric profiles dimension mean s for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph ..........514-3 Competency potential profiles category means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph ......................................................................................................................... .........51

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education BASELINE DEVELOPMENT TO STRE AMLINE EXECUTIVE SELECTION By James William Berry August 2008 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Cochair: David Honeyman Major: Educational Leadership Community college leadership teams are currently in a state of high turnover. Selecting the right people to replace those that helped build the nations community college systems will be a daunting task. The selection of new leaders in a tight labor market will be a critical test for all community colleges. This study is an explorat ory examination of the potential usefulness of utilizing work style profiling to bu ild role specific baselines to be used in strengthening current selection practices. Results showed that work style profiles can be useful in developing role baselines that could be useful in building job profiles and informing the development of structured interview processes. Two groups of arch etypal leaders representing comm unity college business officers and workforce development officers were prof iled and baselines developed showing each group had distinct work styles from the general prof essional public but also from each other. This determination is a first step toward the development of a program to utilize psychometric testing to strengthen leadership selection processes.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter highlights the purpose and provide s an overview of this study. The statem ent of the problem, definitions, study limitations and th e significance of this study are also covered in this chapter. Statement of the Problem The United States is facing a tigh t labor market in the coming decades and community colleges are not going to be immune from the e ffects. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, educational jobs are expected to grow at almost double the ov erall national industrial average through 2016. This growth in needed staffi ng comes at a time when community colleges are also facing a leadership gap (Campbell & Associates, 2002; Campbell, 2006; Shults, 2001), particularly with specialized senior administrators. With a glut of these core administrators set to retire, community colleges will be forced to compet e to hire the best talent into these positions. The combination of a constricting overall labo r market with anticipated increasing demand for educational leaders is compounded by the current retirement cycl e of the baby boomer generation. Community colleges will be faced with trying to replace large numbers of senior leaders over the next five to ten years. More that 50% of college presidents in their positions as of 2006 are looking to retire before 2012 (W eisman & Vaughan, 2007). While this issue has received significant attention, the crisis in replacing the next leve l of senior administrators has just begun to receive interest (Campbell, 2006; Patton, 2004). If, as author Jim Collins stated in his 2002 bestseller Good to Great the key for organizational success is in ge tting the right people on the bus, how can community colleges get the right people into the ranks of their lead ership? A key concern for community colleges is where are the leaders of tomorrow going to come from: internal or external sources? With the

PAGE 11

11 increased pressure on the labor pool, a community college is goi ng to be hard pressed to find qualified people to fill their needs. This coul d increase the time it mi ght take and the cost incurred to hire someone, particularly for a specialized position. The 28 community colleges in Florida paid over 1.15 billion dollars in personnel cost in 2006 and over 12 % of that staff was considered non-instruc tional professional staff (Florida Community College System 2007 Fact Book). It is currently estimated that for a comm unity college to fill a salaried position at $75,000 might cost an institution upwards of $25,000 (Park, 2007). While this cost is significant, the need for making the right choice with se nior hires is even more so. The cost of making a wrong choice is, at best, having to redo the search and doubling your cost; at wo rst, a poor hire could cost a community college millions of dolla rs (Campbell & Associates, 2002). Hiring the right people into comm unity colleges leadership roles is one of the key issues facing community colleges over the next five to ten years. There is no way to guarantee that a selection process is going to identify the best can didate to fit the positi on and the needs of the particular community college. However, there ar e things that can be done to increase the likelihood of making an appropriate hire. Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore the possibility of utilizing work styles profiling personality tests in building baseli ne profiles for specific adm inistra tor categories. Profiles of this type could be used to inform hiring personnel about the common work styles that successful professionals in specific role s possess. If potential hires take the same instrument, these baselines could be utilized as a comparative data set. Additionally, having access to this type of data set could shorten the job an alysis process and help in dir ecting structured interviews and hiring a candidate of best fit.

PAGE 12

12 The theoretical foundation for developing these baselines is based on the personenvironment fit paradigm. The validity of pe rsonnel measures in predicting overall job performance has shown work samples, personality testing and structured in terviews as some of the most valid personnel measures available (S chmidt & Hunter, 1998). A work style profile integrates aspects of what environment a person pr efers to work in, what type of work behavior they prefer to focus on with some more genera l personality trait measures. This information generated by a group of archetypal exemplars repr esenting a particular leadership role category could be used to directly screen participants, or more appropriately, used to direct the development of structured inte rview questions and follow-ups. Research Questions Psychological measures have been utilized in personnel selection going back decades. Two of the most widely used have been cognitiv e and personality tests. However more recently work style instruments are being used to match i ndividuals with jobs and organizations; yet there is ongoing debate as to their practical utility. Most of the debate has been focused on whether the information gleaned from such tests is broa d enough to encompass social and environmental factors that can interact with personality factors or traits in determining an individuals likelihood of success in a particular role ( Kwaske, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). The first research question is to explore the app licability of these combined factors: Research Question 1: Will groups of archetypal leaders drawn from community college oversight boards representing two common lead ership roles display similar strengths and weaknesses when compared with their peers in the same roles against the general population? This question will be looked at w ith from a within group analysis. The literature finds fault with the usage of many personality tests in the hiring process because most positions are not exclusively filled with one pe rsonality type or another (Hough & Oswald, 2005; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005). However, if commonalities exist between peers w ithin each roles

PAGE 13

13 archetypal group, how can these be utilized to ai d in personnel selection? The second research question will look at whether a work styles prof ile will be able to di scriminate between two archetypal groups to be usef ul in personnel selection. Research Question 2: What are the differences between the two archetypal groups that may be a help in the se lection process? This is a between group analysis to help s upport the development of job type baselines. Definition of Terms Several term s are used throughout this study, to aid in the understanding of these terms they will be defined below. Business officer: senior administrator responsible for the business operations of an institution; duties may include re sponsibilities for internal and external financial control, as well as other business relationship duties. Community colleges: institutions of higher learning primarily focused on local or regional needs, often classified as 2 year institutions or junior colleges. Community College Business Officers (CCBO): the professional organization supporting the professional staff with busine ss operations responsibility for community colleges in the United States and Canada. National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET): the professional organization representing community college professionals who work in continuing education, workforce development and community services. WAVE Professional Styles (WAVE): the work styles profile instrument utilized in this study, developed by Saville Consulting. Work Styles Profile: an assessment tool for identif ying behavioral and competency preferences of an individual in an employment environment; these instruments draw heavily on personality factors and are genera lly based on both trait and state measures. Workforce director: senior administrator with res ponsibility for vocational training programs and often continuing education efforts. Limitations As an exploratory study, this study is only interested in showing that utilizing a standardized and validated work styles inst rum ent, in this case the WAVE, two groups of

PAGE 14

14 community college leaders would exhibit commo nalities within their own group and distinct difference between the groups. This study is limite d to creating baselines for Business Officers and Workforce Development Officer s positions. This study assumes that the leadership of the national associations representing each type of officer (CCBO and NCC ET) is comprised of a range of highly succes sful practitioners. Another limitation is that the instruments de veloper states that da ta generated from the instrument is not stable over a persons life. The time frame of the da ta collection from both groups was well within the stated useful parameters but future use of this particular data for benchmarking purposes w ould be discouraged. Significance of Study If archetypal baselines can be developed for specif ic community college leadership positions, these baselines could be used to augment hiring procedures, such as job profiling and developing structured interviews Many top leadership jobs at community colleges are highly specialized administrative positions and no clea r career paths exists for natural succession processes for many of these positions (Campbell, 2006). This means that many of the applicants for these positions will be coming from outside of the positions direct reporting structure. With a wide variety of applicants, selection comm ittees are more often placed in a position of evaluating candidates who come from outside the di rect organizational stru cture. This places a premium of fit to the culture of the organization and style of work for th at specific position. If these leadership positions are truly highl y specialized roles within community college administrations, there should be commonalities that define or support that specialty. Sampling a group of highly successful individuals currently in these roles should yield unique profiles for these roles. These unique profiles could then be used as a type of benchmark for highlighting key factors in helping an individual be successful in this specialized role. This type of benchmarking

PAGE 15

15 could assist individual colleges in completing a job analysis in preparing for the opening of a position and help those on the selection committ ee know what type of person they should be looking for to fill the role. These shortcuts will hopefully save community colleges many thousands of dollars in direct costs and in the end, provide fo r a more stable predictor of candidates' fit in the role and ultima tely performance in the new position.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews literature that s upports the foundations of this study. The chapter will be divided into three sections. The first se ction focuses on the staffing problem facing community colleges known as the leadership ga p and the potential related costs to community colleges. The second section outlines the theoretical foundations for this research study by reviewing the literatu re supporting the importance person-en vironment fit with respect to personnel selection. In the third section, a brief overview of th e general literature on personnel selection methods will be outlined concluding with a review of how specifi cally the use of work styles/personality testing can be utilized as a tool in the selection process. Leadership Gap In 2008, the first wave of the baby boomer gene ration will be hitting eligibility for social security. While many indications are that not all of these 76 million workers will be leaving the workforce completely, data analyzed by the AAR P over the last fifty years actually shows a downward trend of the age of retirement (Korczyk, 2004). This could compound the factors facing a tight labor market over the next twenty years. Even if older wo rkers stay in the job market longer, they most likely wi ll not be looking to work in j obs with defined benefits plans nor working full time. This will impact public sector management jobs the hardest (Hollon, 2007). This issue compounds on community college le adership positions as higher rates of retirements coincide with increasing demand for skilled workers. Information from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) shows that the staffing needs in education will almost double the pace of the rest of the job market over the next ten years. This staffing crunch has been building since the unprecedented growth of community college systems in the late 1960s

PAGE 17

17 and 1970s created a wave of new employment. Those who responded to that staffing growth have for the last decade occupied the leadership positions in our community colleges and as they look to leave, a new wave of leaders must st ep to the forefront (Campbell & Associates, 2002; Shultz, 2001). Most of the research pertaining to this retirement boom for community colleges has focused at the chief executiv e level (Campbell & Associates 2002; Shultz, 2001; Weisman & Vaughn, 2007). Dr. Dale Campbell in 2006 highlighted that this anticipated turnover is not just an issue with community college presidents but extends down the leadership through highly specialized administrator posit ions. This work forecasts pr oblems with the turnover of administrative positions in academic affairs, stud ent affairs and business affairs. A survey of community college presidents shows the antici pated turnover of these types of leadership positions with respondents highlighting that in the short time window between 2006 and 2010 half of the presidents surveyed anticipate losi ng between ten and fifty pe rcent of their senior leadership in these thre e areas (Campbell, 2006). Many of these positions are highly specialized administra tive roles, requ iring not only general management and leadership skills but highly contextualized knowledge of college systems and state and federal requirements. Some of these positions are not supported by natural career ladders and those currently in the succession line are likely to be retiring soon as well (Campbell & Associates, 2002; Campbell, 2006; Shultz, 2001). The number of those seeking advanced degrees in community college admini stration has been declining over the past two decades (Patton, 2004) and thus the lower number of internally qualified candidates will ensure that community colleges must open their applican t pools to those from outside the traditional career progression ladders.

PAGE 18

18 This combination of factors of massive re tirement, increased demand, specialized roles and shrinking qualified graduates creates a perfec t storm of the current and impending leadership gap being faced by community colleges. This situation will make the stakes for hiring community college leaders more important as the gap widens over the next decade. The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) recognizes th at choosing the right person for the job is the most important decision a leader or an organization can make. (AACC, 2007: 1) The importance of making the right hiri ng decision has significant impact on an organizations success. Repl acing staff can be costly in terms of dollars but also in terms of time and expended energy. The AACC, re cognizing these issues, offers an executive search service for community colleges. Their literature puts the cost of hiring a private cons ultant to assist with an executive search at approxima tely one third of that executiv e annual salary. Thus, engaging a private firm to help a community college re place one leader maki ng $75000 a year would on average cost the institution $25000. (Park, 2007) These costs do not ev en cover the entire process of hiring an executive. Even if an executive search firm is engaged, there are still soft costs to be accounted for such as selection committee time and the ineffici encies of running a community college with key leadership positions vacant. Colleges routinely utilize selection committees as part of the hiring process (Murray, 1999). While this st ructure offers more diverse i nput into the hiring process, it also increases the staff time consumed by the pr ocess. This diversion of staff time from the selection committee members primary responsibilities might lower productivity and increases pressure on often already overstressed faculty and administrators. Additionally, if the administrator role is of high impor tance to the operation of the sc hool, the absence of that leader

PAGE 19

19 could have an impact through lost opportunities or even negatively impacting the morale of the team normally reporting to that vacated position. The cost in making the hire is eclipsed by the potential cost of making a poor hiring choice. At the very least, making a poor choice might necessitate a second hiring process, if the initial hire is let go or leaves after only a short time. A bad hire could be more costly if the new executive stays, as community college executive s are often in positions to make financial and relationship decisions that have long reaching eff ects for a college. Two of these most significant roles are a colleges chief financial officer and th e chief workforce officer. Each of these leaders can significantly affect the l ong term performance of a college through their controls of the institutions financial systems a nd leadership in developing and maintaining relationships with the local business population. Making a bad hire or choosing the wrong person is the most important mistake a leader or an orga nization can make. (AACC, 2007: 1) Community colleges are always struggling to make-do with less and are often struggling for funding (Gleazer, 1998). The risks associated with making a poor hire at the executive leadership level of community co lleges are exacerbated in this ti ght financial environment. The combinations of tight labor markets, high numbe rs of retirees, increasing demands for services and financial constraints ensure that community colleges need to be efficient and effective at finding and hiring the next wave of leaders. Person Environment Fit The hiring process is an exercise of se lection where both employer and employee are attempting to find the best fit in the other. An employment agreement is a contract between an individual and an organization wherein both parties are creating reciprocal demands of one another. The better aligned those demands with the desires and capabilities of each party the better fit there will be between a hire and their employer.

PAGE 20

20 Person environment (P-E) fit can be defi ned as the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched. (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005: 281). More explicitly, it often refers to the extent of the match between the needs and capab ilities of an individua l and the requirements, demands and rewards afforded by an environment. P-E fit is a general term that is used to encompass many different kinds of person enviro nment fit such as: pers on-vocation (P-V) fit, person-organization (P-O) fit, and person-job (P-J ) fit (Kristof-Brown, et al., 2005). However, across all of these levels, there is a central assumption supported by a wealth of empirical evidence that fit is an importa nt predictor of job satisfacti on, commitment and tenure; all important measures of work outcomes (Taris & Feij, 2001). P-E fit theory and research is often traced to roots initiated by Parsons (1909) whose work in vocational decision-making is often quoted: In the wise choice of a vocati on there are three broad factors: (1) a clear u nderstanding of yourself, your aptitudes, abilities, interests, ambitions, resources, limitations, and their causes; (2) a knowledge of the requirements and conditions of success, advantages and disadvantages, compensation, opport unities, and prospects in di fferent lines of work; (3) true reasoning on the relations of these two groups of facts (Parsons, 1909: 5). These broad factors outline one of the major areas of fit in the arena of matching demands and abilities. This type of work influenced the development of many voca tional tests geared to helping identify vocations where an individual may have interest a nd ability. These types of tests are some of the oldest psychol ogical instruments with the Str ong Vocational Interest Bank dating back to 1927 (Gregory, 2007). At a broad level th ese vocational tests were early attempts at assessing P-V fit. Since then, measuring fit has been an aspiration for many industrial psychologists and organizational scholars.

PAGE 21

21 Kurt Lewin (1935, 1951) took fit theory to th e next step with introducing the hypothesis that behavior is a function of person and environment. He developed the formula B = f (P, E) to represent this theoretical relationship. While Lewi n did not expressly specif y the exact nature of the relationship between person-environment and behavior, this formula has had significance for its wider impact of P-E fit research and theory. Feeding off of this original formula, Benjamin Schneiders attraction-selection-at trition (A-S-A) theory (1987) re aligned this formula into E = f (P, B). This is commonly expressed as an envi ronment is a function of the people and their behavior in that environment. One of the key pr opositions in building the A-S-A theory is that People are not randomly assigned to real organizations; people sel ect themselves into and out of real organizations (Schneider, 1987 : 440). The A-S-A is a cycle in which fit plays a part in all the stages, from what companies or jobs a person applies for, to whom gets, selected for a position, or to whom leaves one job for another. This model in Figure 2-1 shows how a proper decision on fit can affect not only the applicant pool an organizati on has to select from, but also how long that new hire will stay before the cy cle has to begin again. The A-S-A theory shows this cycle revolving around the goa ls of the organization. Because the organization is central in this model, Schneiders (1987) theory is that th ese organizational goals will be a driving force in the give and take of fit relationships. This concept that people select themselves into and choose to remain in organizations within which they fit can have significant imp lications for the hiring process. There has been much investigation about how PE fit relates to performance a nd turnover at the organizational level. A meta-analysis conducte d in 2006 found significant relations hips, shown below in Figure 2-2, between person-organization fit and job performance, mediated by job satisfaction,

PAGE 22

22 organizational commitment, and less intention to turnover (Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006). This meta-analysis found stronger relations between P-O fit and tur nover than direct job performance, but one has to be on the job to even be able to perform. Combined with the tight labor market discussed earlier, the turnover of one executive c ould affect the performance of entire teams and those tasked with finding a replacement. The retention of key employees is a key factor in organizational su ccess and the importance of P-E fit plays a factor in a person electing to join or leave an organization (Schneider, 1987, 2001). Utilized in selection, P-E f it includes but also goes beyond just matching a potential employees knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) with the technical requirements of a job (Werbel & Johnson, 2001). It can be u tilized to look at how that person would fit in with the type of work, style of work, and even other empl oyees. Combining P-J fit, the focus on matching KSAs to the demand of the jobs (Edwards, 1991) with the broader P-O fit, similarity of personality, values, processes and culture be tween the prospective employee and the hiring organization, expands the hiring criteria for both si des of the relationship. There is a two way fit factor at play. The individual, as well as the organization, are looking to match fit criteria. Some of the factors that need to be considered ar e outlined in Figure 2-3, showing a simplified model originally outlined by Edwards (1991: 285). The level to which an applicant perceives fit with the organization will affect their choice to accept or reject a job offer (Cable & Judge 1996). However, falsely presenting a work situation, job demands or organizat ional life may lead to a poor decision by either party, and in the end potentially expose the misfit of the ma tch affecting the work outcomes. There is consistent evidence that providing prospective employees with realistic job previews during

PAGE 23

23 recruitment reduces the rate of turnover in a wide variety of organizations (Wanous, 1977). Providing and receiving truthful and adequate information is a key f actor in assessing the level of fit between a potential employee and the hiring or ganization. This is the ultimate goal of the hiring process. Personnel Selection Methods Assessing f it in a hiring situation is a two st ep process and require s evaluating both the applicant and the job/organization. Evaluating a job environment and a job candidate are two distinct processes in assessing f it for personnel selection. Traditiona lly, job analysis is used for assessing and developing a job profile. A job pr ofile might be built through task analysis or position analysis questionnaires (M orgeson, 2007), or in the case of an existing position utilizing the current job description and verifying its accur acy. The job analysis is useful in providing a fixed starting point for the enumeration of the or ganizations side of the fit equation (Robertson & Smith, 2001). However, fit researchers believe that more must be done to evaluate the broader work environment beyond the basics of educational re quirements, work task lists and performance goals. In order to properly gage fit, one must al so look at broader characteristics of the job and the organization (Werbel & Gilliland, 1999). Match ing persons to work must often take into account more than just the job itself; it may have to consider the group and organizational contexts in which the person needs to function (Chan, 2005). This is even more important when the demands of the job may be dynamic (Robertson & Smith, 2001), as in the case of most senior executives roles. In looking to expand the organizations capabilities in understanding and communicating their fit requirements, analysis of the broader role and organizational relationships are required.

PAGE 24

24 Particular jobs and roles within an organi zation may have specific requirements of work and management style for those occupying that j ob or role to be successful (Robertson & Smith, 2001). Benchmarking against currently successful actor s in those roles or similar jobs would be a method of strengthening the predictive validity of any type of selec tion measure (Nunnally, 1978). By identifying what specific criterion are important for success in a specific position, the selection processes can focus on those criterion as more discriminate in seeking fit (Hough & Oswald, 2005). This type of information can be ut ilized to focus selecti on techniques, such as personality tests (Hough & Oswal d, 2005; Landy & Shankster, 1994) and structured interviewing (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Hough & Oswald, 2000; Judge, Higgins, & Cable, 2000; Krell, 2005; Murray, 1999). Schmidt and Hunter (1998) evaluated the validi ty of 19 different sele ction procedures for predictive validity. They stated that, the most important property of a personality assessment method is predictive validity: the ability to pr edict future job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1987:262). This meta-meta-analysis showed correlations between cognitive ability tests, work sample tests, cognitive tests and structured interviews as havi ng the highest predictive validity. Excerpts from some of the common personnel sel ection measures validities are shown in Table 2-1 (Robertson & Smith, 2001: 443). With respect to these measures, understandi ng the specific requirements or characteristics of a job or role may increase the validity of wo rk sample tests, structured interviews, and personality tests (Hough & Oswald, 2005). Knowing wh at facets of a job are most important and what the characteristics are of successful archetyp es already in these roles enhances the focus of any evaluation of fit. Ensuring that the selection process includes examination of fit on the benchmarked data could increase the validity of these selection measures. In economic terms,

PAGE 25

25 the gains from increasing the validity of hiring methods can amount overtime to literally millions of dollars (Schmidt & Hunter, 1987: 273). Summary W ith the current and ongoing leadership gap with respect to community college executives, any improvement in selection and retention of key employees should show great returns for those organizations taking advantage of them. The literature and government analysis indicate hard times ahead for hiring the next wave of community college leaders. The combination of massive retirements, shrinking labor pool and specialized needs ensure that community colleges must make the most out of every new hiring situation. Utilizing P-E fit to build a better understandi ng of job requirements and the matc h between a prospective employee and their new role, should help maximize the outcomes of these hiring decisions. Creating benchmarks for specific roles may help current se lection methods be even better predictors of future job performance. If one of the most importa nt decisions a leader ca n make is who to hire, then making the best choice will be paramount to the success of community colleges through this trying time.

PAGE 26

26 Figure 2-1. AttractionSelectionAttrition cycle Figure 2-2. Person-Organization fit relationship to job performance Job Satisfaction Org Commitment Turnover Intention Job Performance P-O Fit Attraction Selection Attrition Org. Goals

PAGE 27

27 Figure 2-3. Person-Job fit factors an d relation to outcome measures Table 2-1. Validity of common personnel selection measures Personnel measures Validity (r) Cognitive ability tests .56 Work Sample tests .54 Cognitive tests .51 Structured interviews .51 Personality tests .40 Interview Unstructured .35 Years of job experience .18 The Person Desires o Needs o Goals o Values o Interests o Preferences Abilities o Aptitudes o Experience o Education The Job Supplies o Occupational characteristics o Organizational attributes o Job attributes Demands o Workload o Performance requirements o Instrumental activities Outcomes Job satisfaction Psychological and physical health Coping and adaptation Motivation Performance Absenteeism Turnover Vocational choice

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the research me thodology used in this study. The purpose for conducting this study is explaine d and supported by statements of the research problem, questions, and hypothesis. The research design outlin es the instrument to be utilized and its relevance and reliability as well as data co llection method, population to be examined and concluding with the data analysis description. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine if work styles profiling instruments can be used to build baselines for specific career track lead ership positions in community colleges. This study analyzed the profiles of archetypal leaders w ithin two common leadership positions for which similar educational and work rela ted experiences are often required. This examination could lead toward baseline profiles for use in helping to determine personnel fit for specific leadership positions. Research Problem Community college leaderships are facing extr emely high rates of turnover in the next five years. These institutions will be engagi ng in recruiting and hiring new personnel for these leadership positions almost in mass in the next five year s. Without necessary preparation and development of internal candida tes, community colleges will have to draw from outside the education ranks to fill these vital roles. How are these institutions going to ensure these outside candidates are a good fit for thei r new role? With the massive rates of turnover expected, colleges would do well to hire the right person the first time and begi n to establish a new stability of leadership ( Campbell & Associates, 2002; Evelyn, 2001; Leubsdorf, 2006).

PAGE 29

29 Research Questions Psychological measures have been utilized in personnel selection going back decades. Two of the most widely used ha ve been cognitive and personality tests. More recently work style instruments are being used to ma tch individuals with jobs and organizations. However, there is ongoing debate as to their validity in predicting workplace success. Most of the debate has been focused on whether the information gleaned from such tests, is broad enough to encompass social and environmental factors that can in teract with personality factors or traits in determining an individuals likelihood of su ccess in a particular role (Kwaske, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter 1998). The first research question is to explore the applicabilit y of these combined factors: Research Question 1: Will groups of archetypal leaders drawn from community college oversight boards representing two common lead ership roles display similar strengths and weaknesses when compared with their peers in the same roles against the general population? This question will be looked at w ith from a within group analysis. The literature finds fault with the usage of many psychological tests in the hiring process because most positions are not exclusively filled with one pe rsonality type or another (Hough & Oswald, 2005; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005). However, if commonalities exist between peers within each roles archetypal group, how can these be utilized to aid in personnel selection? Research Question 2: What are the differences between the two archetypal groups that may be a help in the se lection process? This is a between group analysis to help s upport the development of job type baselines. Research Hypothesis This study will firs t look at within group sim ilarities to distinguish from the general population. The first se t of hypothesis is: H0: The two archetypal groups will exhibit no significant similarities. H1: Archetypal groups of community colleg e leaders representing common leadership positions will share some distinct characteri stics on the items of their WAVE profiles.

PAGE 30

30 The study then will look at the between group di fferences to distinguish between the two roles. The second set of hypothesis is: H0: The two archetypal groups will exhibit no significant differences. H2: The archetypal groups will exhibit significant differences in work profile items that can be directly tied back to the types of roles the groups play in community college administrations. Research Design This study was based on survey data coll ected through the administration of an online questionnaire to measure community college leader s personality characteristics. The results of this questionnaire was statistica lly analyzed to determine if there was congruency within each archetypal group representing a partic ular role within community college leadership and if this type of information could be utili zed to distinguish between roles. Research Instrument The W AVE personality test is the next ge neration of assessments developed by Saville Consulting, Ltd. This assessment is designed to m easure an individuals personality as it relates to the Big Five giving scores at 4 levels of granularity: Cluster (4 scales), Section (12 scales), Dimension(36 scales) and Facet Le vel (108 items) shown in Figure 3-1. A further break down of the Clusters and Sections is outlined in Figure 3-2. Not only does this assessment align with the Five Factors Model of personality, it also evaluates an individual s motivation, competency and culture This type of assessment focuses on not just the variables of personality but how those traits work within the social and environmental factors of the workplace to prov ide a more comprehensive profile for use in employee selection processes. The developers of the WAVE suggest the instrument takes approximately 35 minutes to complete. The questionnaire is only available through online delivery but can be administered in an invited (unsupervised) mode or supervised mode. A

PAGE 31

31 sample of the normative and ipsative question type s included in this instrument can be found in the example below, taken from the WAVEs guide document sent to individuals before they take the instrument. The WAVE also differentiates itself from other personality tests in its use of both Normative and Ipsative questions. The WAVE uses normative scales to assess the 108 facets using 9-point Likert scale items (very strongly disagree, strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, unsure, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree, very strongly agree). This type of rating has its advantages in data interp retation but it also allows signifi cant bias into the questionnaire. The WAVE attempts to control for this bias by supporting the Normative questions with Ipsative Forced Choice questions to minimize any normative response distortions. The WAVE questionnaire benefits from the use of technology, by allowing for a real-time adjustment and application of Ipsative choices to clarify an individuals normativ e responses, due to the online nature of the test admini stration (Savi lle, 2006). Once a questionnaire is complete, several reports can be generated, depending on the levels of detail needed. The most concise repor t is the personal repo rt. The personal report outlines a profile chart graphically outlining th e individuals scores on the 4 clusters and 12 sections. Narrative statements outline the related dimensions and facets. This report is a high level summary of results based on the individu als responses and is intended for non-expert users. The expert report is designed for traine d users and provides much more detailed information. The expert report is broken down into four main sections: executive summary profile; psychometric profile overview; predicted culture/ environment fit; and competency potential profile. The executive summary profile is a single page graphical outline of the twelve

PAGE 32

32 sections (vision, judgment, evaluation, leadersh ip, impact, communication, support, resilience, flexibility, structure, drive and implementation) of the profile within thei r four cluster groupings. The psychometric profile overview breaks down these section scores in to their component dimensions, each section having three di mensions, as listed in Table 3-1. The predicted culture/environment fit report out lines those aspects of a culture or work environment that may positively or negatively affect an individuals ability to be successful. This report is developed utilizing the 108 facets but al so the individuals scores on motivation and talent criteria. This two to three page report li sts factors that may be performance enhancers or performance inhibitors in the in dividual being successful. This relationship is shown in the Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 (Saville, 2006). The competency potential profile is a one page report outlining how the individuals 108 facets relate to an independent data set of 1154 professionals. This report shows how individuals rank against a predefined baseline. Instrument Reliability The WAVE has a Test-Retes t mean reliability of 0.79, the minimum 0.71 and maximum of 0.91 as shown in Table 3-2. These results were based on a sample size of 112 with a retest period of one month. The Alterna tive Form Normative, Ipsative and Combined were based on a sample size of 1153 (Saville, 2006). The validity of the WAVE instrument and dimensions is based on validation centric development, where items are selected for inclusion in the instrument based on their validity in predicting external job performance criteria (Saville, 2006). The WAVE instrument has also been correlated against the 16PF, the Myers Brig gs Type Indicator, the Gordon Personal Profile, and the DISC. Results of construct validation studies suggest the WAVE is valid and measures what it is intending to measure (Saville, 2006).

PAGE 33

33 Data Collection As part of an ongoing national initiative to demonstrate the applicability of utilizing the WAVE in personnel selection and development fo r community college lead ers, several national organizations were invited to participate in taking the WAVE. The leadership teams of both Community College Business Officers (CCBO ) and the National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET) were asked to take the WAVE between June and December of 2006. Each participant received a personal report and the organi zations receive d an initial breakdown of the groups data (Campbell, 2006). Individuals were assured anonymity for the purposes of this research and their data was communicated only as members of a larger group or board. Population The Community College Business Officers is an organization representing personnel from community college business operations offices. Its members include chief executive officers, chief business officers, controllers/ accountants, administrativ e services officers, purchasing personnel, information technology pers onnel, and auxiliary services officers. The majority of their leadership was represente d by senior community college officers, a group identified as future critical le adership gap for community colleg es (Campbell, 2006). This group consists of thirty-five total members completing WAVE profiles. This includes fifteen active board members and twenty CCBO Academy member s identified for their leadership potential within the organization. The National Council for Continuing Educa tion and Training (NCCET) group consisted of nineteen current and former board member s and directors. This organization provides leadership in the areas of continuing educati on, community services, workforce development, and distance learning. Workforce development and continuing education ar e both core aspects in

PAGE 34

34 the missions of most community colleges. The i ndividuals selected to run these programs are often part of a colleges leadersh ip team at the highest levels. Di rectors of these programs were also identified as key positions to fill in the coming leadership gap (Campbell, 2006). Data Analysis The first hypothesis was analyzed within ea ch organizations group, one sample being the CCBO group and the other being the NCCET group. The WAVE data from the psychometric profile was analyzed for each group in all 12 se ctions and 36 dimensions as well as the 12 categories from the competency potential profile. Descriptive data analysis was generated and means will be compared via a t-test with th e WAVE standardized mean. Categories showing significant difference from the standardized mean would be considered as important criteria pertaining to this leadership group. The second hypothesis was tested by compar ing the two sample groups utilizing a twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA). Scores comp ared were the 12 sections and 36 dimensions from the psychometric profile as well as the 12 categories of the competency potential profile. This data helped to differentiate the psychometri c and competency strengths of the two analyzed leadership positions.

PAGE 35

35 Clusters 4 12 Sections 36 Dimensions 108 Facets Figure 3-1. The theoretical model of the WAVE Figure 3-2. Clusters and aligne d sections of WAVE model

PAGE 36

36 Table 3-1. Cluster, section, and dimension categories Cluster Section Dimension Thought Vision Inventive Abstract Strategic Judgment Insightful Practically Minded Learning Oriented Evaluation Analytical Factual Rational Influence Leadership Purposeful Directing Empowering Directing Convincing Challenging Articulate Empowering Self-Promoting Interactive Engaging Adaptability Support Involving Attentive Accepting Resilience Resolving Self-Assured Composed Flexibility Receptive Positive Change Oriented Delivery Structure Organized Principled Activity Oriented Drive Dynamic Striving Enterprising Implementation Meticulous Reliable Compliant

PAGE 37

37 Figure 3-3. Example of the types of questions asked on the WAVE Figure 3-4. Predicted culture/environ ment fit factor relationships

PAGE 38

38 Table 3-2. Reliability summary for Saville Consulting WAVE. Alternate form normative, ipsative, and combined (N = 153). Normativ e test-retest reliabili ty on invited access (N = 112) Profession Styles Alternate Alternate Alternate Test-Rest Dimension Form Form Form Normative Normative Ipsative Combined Inventive 0.91 0.87 0.91 0.88 Abstract 0.85 0.77 0.83 0.76 Strategic 0.84 0.79 0.84 0.73 Insightful 0.82 0.72 0.79 0.76 Pragmatic 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.81 Learning Oriented 0.86 0.84 0.87 0.78 Analytical 0.85 0.79 0.84 0.73 Factual 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.77 Rational 0.91 0.88 0.92 0.82 Purposeful 0.87 0.80 0.87 0.71 Directing 0.89 0.84 0.89 0.83 Empowering 0.90 0.85 0.89 0.80 Convincing 0.85 0.78 0.84 0.74 Challenging 0.86 0.81 0.86 0.86 Articulate 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.86 Self-promoting 0.89 0.84 0.89 0.80 Interactive 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.89 Engaging 0.87 0.83 0.87 0.79 Involving 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.74 Attentive 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.71 Accepting 0.78 0.82 0.81 0.75 Resolving 0.88 0.84 0.88 0.80 Self-assured 0.86 0.78 0.85 0.76 Composed 0.90 0.84 0.89 0.72 Receptive 0.81 0.73 0.78 0.80 Positive 0.85 0.81 0.85 0.82 Change Oriented 0.85 0.82 0.86 0.76 Organized 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.77 Principled 0.81 0.77 0.81 0.80 Activity Oriented 0.90 0.86 0.89 0.78 Dynamic 0.87 0.81 0.87 0.78 Striving 0.86 0.79 0.85 0.80 Enterprising 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.91 Meticulous 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.80 Reliable 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.83 Compliant 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.83

PAGE 39

39 Table 3-3. Single dimensi on and composite validities Criterion Single Single Cross Cross Dimension Dimension Validated Validated Validity Validity Composite Composite IA SA Validity IA Validity SA Generating Ideas 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.41 Exploring Possibilities 0.21 0.36 0.44 0.47 Developing Strategies 0.54 0.56 0.68 0.68 Providing Insights NS 0.20 0.42 0.38 Implementing Practical Solutions NS NS 0.09 0.29 Developing Expertise 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.38 Analyzing Situations 0.26 0.34 0.30 0.36 Documenting Facts 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.27 Interpreting Data 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.62 Making Decisions 0.48 0.50 0.64 0.64 Leading People 0.68 0.66 0.77 0.70 Providing Inspiration 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.64 Convincing People 0.26 0.26 0.56 0.60 Challenging Ideas 0.47 0.49 0.45 0.47 Articulating Information 0.66 0.60 0.68 0.68 Impressing People 0.32 0.30 0.56 0.45 Developing Relationships 0.42 0.50 0.64 0.66 Establishing Rapport 0.63 0.57 0.71 0.67 Team Working 0.32 0.32 0.46 0.40 Understanding People 0.35 0.31 0.47 0.40 Valuing Individuals 0.34 0.28 0.46 0.44 Resolving Conflict 0.38 0.38 0.48 0.40 Conveying Self-Confidence 0.40 0.34 0.66 0.78 Coping with Pressure 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30 Inviting Feedback 0.26 0.22 0.40 0.32 Thinking Positively 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.48 Embracing Change 0.42 0.48 0.42 0.34 Organizing Resources 0.32 0.38 0.22 0.42 Upholding Standards 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.16 Completing Tasks 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.41 Taking Action 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.54 Pursuing Goals 0.28 0.42 0.44 0.46 Tackling Business Challenges 0.42 0.38 0.48 0.45 Checking Details 0.39 0.31 0.24 0.23 Meeting Timescales 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.43 Following Procedures 0.26 0.24 0.44 0.14 NS-not scored. Dimension validity is the correlation between a single Professional Styles scale dimension (weighted combination of ipsative and normative scores) with the matched work performance criterion. Total sample matched is N = 556-658 (sample size varied due to no evidence option on criterion ratings). Cross validated is the correlation of the composite regression equation from initial sample on hold out sample based on a hold out sample of N = 252316. All validities correlated for attenuation based on the re liability of the criteria (based on 236 pairs of criterion ratings). No further correlations were applied (e. g., restriction of range, predictor unreliability). The composite validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in rela tion to overall job proficiency is 0.34 and 0.42 (N = 325). The composite validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in establishing external ratings of potential for promotion is 0.54 and 0.64 (N = 324) (Saville, 2006).

PAGE 40

40 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In this chapter, the results of the collected data and the s ubsequent analysis are reviewed. We examined results of the analysis of bot h hypotheses. Each hypothesis was analyzed using two sets of data: the psychometr ic profile and the competency pr ofile. A discussion of the results and their potential implications will be the focus of chapter 5. Data was collected from thirty five members of the Community College Business Officers (CCBO) leadership team, consisting of board members and academy members, as well as, nineteen current and former board members and directors of the National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET). The work styles profile was completed by all participants. Data was analyzed from the WAVE s psychometric profil es 12 sections and 36 dimensions as well as the competency potential profiles 12 categories for each group. These scores are reported on a sten-scale (M=5.5, SD =2) w ith values from one to ten and are based on a norm sample (N=1153). Research Hypothesis 1 This hypothesis forms the basis of whether the WAVE work styles instrument can be utilized to identify a partic ular group of professionals fr om the general population of professionals. Research Question 1 explores the applicability of these combined factors. Research Question 1: Will groups of archetypal leaders drawn from community college oversight boards representing two common lead ership roles display similar strengths and weaknesses when compared with their peers in the same roles against the general population? This question will be looked at with from a within group analysis and is formally hypothesized in hypothesis 1. H0: They will exhibit no si gnificant similarities. H1: Archetypal groups of community colleg e leaders representing common leadership positions will share some distinct characteri stics on the items of their WAVE profiles.

PAGE 41

41 Each sample was compared against the standard ized norms of the sten scale. Analysis was conducted at two levels of granularity on th e psychometric profile and one level on the competency potential profile. Da ta from both groups appear to be normally distributed within acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis. All data analysis was conducted with SPSS version 15.0 and all significance testing was conducted with a two-tailed alpha of 0.01 to partially compensate for the large number of items being analyzed and the small sample size. Using one-sample t-tests, each groups respon ses were compared to the standardized norms. At the most macro level, comparing e ach groups means on each of the three scales against the population mean of the instrument showed that both groups were significantly different from the norm sample (M=5.5, SD =2 ). Table 4-1 shows these results and the robustness of the findings with al l but one of the six being signif icant below the 0.01 level. These results support hypothesis 1. Looking into the differences at lower levels of granularity, the ar chetypal group from the CCBO (N=35) was significantly different from the normed population in seven of the twelve sections as shown in Table 4-2 and on eighteen of the thirty-six dimensions from the psychometric profile as shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-4 shows that the CCBO archetypal group significantly differed from the normed populations on eight of the twelve categories on the competency potential profile. Th ese results support hypothesis 1. Table 4-5 shows that the archetypal group fr om NCCET was significan tly different from the normed population in three of the twelve se ctions; while Table 4-6 shows that the NCCET group had significant differences on thirteen of th e thirty-six dimensions of the psychometric profile. Table 4-7 shows that the NCCET archetypal group di ffered significantly from the

PAGE 42

42 normed population on six of the twelve categorie s on the competency potential profile. These results, while not as numerous as for the CCBO group, support our hypothesis 1. Research Hypothesis 2 This hypothesis centers on the i ssue of whether a work styles profile like the WAVE can distinguish significant differences between archetypal groups from two closely related community college leadership roles. Research ques tion 2 is useful to expl ore if the WAVE could be useful in building baselines for specific role positions for use in personnel selection. Research Question 2: What are the differences between the two archetypal groups that may be a help in the se lection process? This question will be looked at from a betw een group analysis and yields hypothesis 2. H0: The two archetypal groups will exhibit no significant differences. H2: The archetypal groups will exhibit significant differences in work profile items that can be directly tied back to the types of roles the groups play in community college administrations. Using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the CCBO (N=35) and NCCET (N=19) WAVE results were compared to the others to find on what, if any items, the two groups could be differentiated. Because the groups are comprised of different numbers of study participants, particular attention was paid to Levenes Test of Homogeneity of Variance Four out of the sixty WAVE items were found to have significant Levene statistics. To ensure that these potential threats to homogeneity did not skew any analysis all significant results were compared to the results of a Mann-Whitney U test with a Mont e Carlo Simulation on ten thousand replications and all significant ANOVA findings were suppo rted beyond the 0.01 level of significance. At the most macro level shown in Table 4-8, the one-way ANOVA does not show any significant differences between the groups. Movi ng into more granularity of scale level, differences begin to emerge between the two archetypal groups which support our hypothesis 2.

PAGE 43

43 Table 4-9 shows that three of th e twelve psychometric sections were significant with Figure 4-1 showing a line graph of the section means. Significant differences between the CCBO and NCCET groups are seen on eight of the thirty-six psychometric dimensions in Table 4-10, with Figure 4-2 showing a line graph of the dimension means. Finally, Table 4-11 shows two of twelve categories of the competency potential profile indicating signifi cant differences between the two groups, with Figure 4-3 showing a line graph of the category means. Analysis of this data indicates that the groups differ significantly on over twenty percent of the analyzed items from the WAVE, suppo rting hypothesis 2.

PAGE 44

44 Table 4-1. Overall scale means and one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 for each group Group Scale N Mean SD t CCBO Psychometric Sections 35 6.129 0.753 4.938 0.000** CCBO Psychometric Dimensions 35 6.051 0.570 5.718 0.000** CCBO Competency Categories 35 6.362 0.989 5.157 0.000** NCCET Psychometric Sections 19 6.061 0.901 2.715 0.014 NCCET Psychometric Dimensions 19 5.988 0.675 3.155 0.005* NCCET Competency Categories 19 6.443 1.293 3.180 0.005* (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001) Table 4-2. CCBO on sections of th e psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 Section Mean SD t Vision 6.63 1.664 4.012 0.000** Judgment 6.91 1.541 5.429 0.000** Evaluation 7.66 1.211 10.536 0.000** Leadership 6.34 1.571 3.175 0.003* Impact 5.63 2.016 0.377 0.708 Communication 4.11 1.795 -4.567 0.000** Support 5.06 1.984 -1.320 0.196 Resilience 5.69 1.891 0.581 0.565 Flexibility 5.94 1.846 1.419 0.165 Structure 7.00 1.815 4.889 0.000** Drive 6.06 1.552 2.124 0.041 Implementation 6.51 1.669 3.595 0.001* (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)

PAGE 45

45 Table 4-3. CCBO on dimensions of the psychomet ric profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 Section Dimension Mean SD t Vision Inventive 5.80 1.795 0.989 0.330 Abstract 6.91 1.560 5.363 0.000** Strategic 6.83 1.723 4.561 0.000** Judgment Insightful 7.03 1.424 6.349 0.000** Pragmatic 6.40 1.735 3.068 0.004* Learning Oriented 6.26 1.559 2.872 0.007* Evaluation Analytical 7.69 1.762 7.339 0.000** Factual 6.86 1.683 4.771 0.000** Rational 7.34 1.187 9.187 0.000** Leadership Purposeful 6.29 1.637 2.839 0.008* Directing 6.69 1.530 4.586 0.000** Empowering 5.63 1.555 0.489 0.628 Impact Convincing 5.54 1.788 0.142 0.888 Challenging 5.54 1.990 0.127 0.899 Articulate 5.77 1.926 0.834 0.410 Communication Self-promoting 4.23 1.942 -3.874 0.000** Interactive 4.83 1.902 -2.089 0.044 Engaging 4.20 1.812 -4.245 0.000** Support Involving 5.46 1.961 -0.129 0.898 Attentive 4.86 1.881 -2.022 0.051 Accepting 5.40 1.866 -0.317 0.753 Resilience Resolving 5.23 1.497 -1.073 0.291 Self-assured 6.23 1.610 2.677 0.011 Composed 5.54 1.788 0.142 0.888 Flexibility Receptive 5.94 1.970 1.330 0.192 Positive 5.34 2.086 -0.446 0.659 Change Oriented 6.40 1.499 3.552 0.001* Structure Organized 6.37 1.848 2.789 0.009* Principled 7.17 1.485 6.659 0.000** Activity Oriented 6.29 1.840 2.526 0.016 Drive Dynamic 6.60 2.032 3.202 0.003* Striving 6.86 1.574 5.099 0.000** Enterprising 5.03 1.505 -1.854 0.072 Implementation Meticulous 6.83 1.524 5.157 0.000** Reliable 6.09 1.869 1.854 0.072 Com pliant 6.37 1.880 2.742 0.010 (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)

PAGE 46

46 Table 4-4. CCBO on categories of the competency pot ential profile, one samp le t-test results for research hypothesis 1 Category Mean SD t Achieving Success 6.46 1.521 3.722 0.001* Adjusting to Change 6.26 1.651 2.713 0.010 Communicating with People 4.31 1.811 -3.873 0.000** Creating Innovation 6.71 1.742 4.125 0.000** Evaluating Problems 8.11 1.183 13.079 0.000** Executing Assignments 6.49 1.772 3.291 0.002* Making Judgments 7.34 1.371 7.954 0.000** Presenting Information 6.11 1.728 2.103 0.043 Projecting Confidence 6.11 1.982 1.834 0.075 Providing Leadership 6.43 1.539 3.569 0.001* Providing Support 5.14 2.017 -1.048 0.302 Structuring Tasks 6.86 1.942 4.133 0.000** (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001) Table 4-5. NCCET on sections of the psychometric profile, one samp le t-test results for research hypothesis 1 Section Mean SD t Vision 7.16 1.642 4.401 0.000** Judgment 6.26 1.628 2.044 0.056 Evaluation 5.42 2.116 -0.163 0.873 Leadership 6.79 2.097 2.680 0.015 Impact 5.16 1.573 -0.948 0.356 Communication 5.32 2.056 -0.390 0.701 Support 4.74 2.156 -1.543 0.140 Resilience 5.58 2.434 0.141 0.889 Flexibility 6.47 2.342 1.812 0.087 Structure 6.95 1.715 3.678 0.002* Drive 7.89 1.823 5.727 0.000** Implementation 5.00 1.764 -1.236 0.232 (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)

PAGE 47

47 Table 4-6. NCCET on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 Section Dimension Mean SD t Vision Inventive 7.00 1.826 3.581 0.002* Abstract 5.84 1.259 1.185 0.252 Strategic 7.53 2.318 3.810 0.001* Judgment Insightful 7.11 1.524 4.592 0.000** Pragmatic 5.53 2.010 0.057 0.955 Learning Oriented 5.89 1.761 0.977 0.341 Evaluation Analytical 6.11 1.912 1.380 0.184 Factual 5.42 2.009 -0.171 0.866 Rational 5.05 2.094 -0.931 0.364 Leadership Purposeful 6.63 1.461 3.376 0.003* Directing 7.11 2.307 3.033 0.007* Empowering 6.16 2.007 1.429 0.170 Impact Convincing 5.11 1.997 -0.862 0.400 Challenging 3.84 1.167 -6.191 0.000** Articulate 6.63 1.606 3.071 0.007* Communication Self-promoting 5.47 2.091 -0.055 0.957 Interactive 5.63 1.978 0.290 0.775 Engaging 4.84 2.292 -1.251 0.227 Support Involving 4.89 2.105 -1.253 0.226 Attentive 4.26 2.130 -2.531 0.021 Accepting 6.00 1.599 1.363 0.190 Resilience Resolving 4.11 1.629 -3.731 0.002* Self-assured 7.16 1.463 4.940 0.000** Composed 5.58 2.194 0.157 0.877 Flexibility Receptive 5.58 2.143 0.161 0.874 Positive 6.37 2.266 1.671 0.112 Change Oriented 6.58 2.009 2.341 0.031 Structure Organized 6.53 1.679 2.665 0.016 Principled 7.26 1.408 5.458 0.000** Activity Oriented 6.16 1.803 1.590 0.129 Drive Dynamic 7.68 1.668 5.706 0.000** Striving 8.05 1.268 8.774 0.000** Enterprising 7.11 1.997 3.504 0.003* Implementation Meticulous 5.05 2.121 -0.920 0.370 Reliable 5.79 1.619 0.780 0.446 Com pliant 4.53 2.038 -2.083 0.052 (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)

PAGE 48

48 Table 4-7. NCCET on categories of the competency potential profile, one sample t-test results for research hypothesis 1 Category Mean SD t Achieving success 8.00 1.886 5.779 0.000** Adjusting to change 7.11 2.355 2.972 0.008* Communicating with people 5.68 2.187 0.367 0.718 Creating innovation 7.16 1.642 4.401 0.000** Evaluating problems 5.95 1.649 1.183 0.252 Executing assignments 5.16 1.803 -0.827 0.419 Making judgments 7.00 1.563 4.182 0.001* Presenting information 6.05 1.747 1.379 0.185 Projecting confidence 6.16 2.267 1.265 0.222 Providing leadership 7.11 2.208 3.168 0.005* Providing support 4.95 2.121 -1.136 0.271 Structuring tasks 7.00 1.764 3.707 0.002* (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001) Table 4-8. CCBO and NCCET ove rall scale means contrasted, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 Scale CCBO Mean CCBO SD NCCET Mean NCCET SD F(1, 52) Psychometric Sections 6.129 0.753 6.061 0.901 0.085 0.772 Psychometric Dimensions 6.051 0.570 5.988 0.675 0.130 0.720 Competency Categories 6.362 0.989 6.443 1.293 0.066 0.798 (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001) Table 4-9. CCBO and NCCET cont rasted on sections of the psychometric profile, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 Section CCBO Mea n CCBO SD NCCET Mea n NCCET SD Mean Diff F (1, 52) Vision 6.63 1.664 7.16 1.642 -0.53 1.257 0.267 Judgment 6.91 1.541 6.26 1.628 0.65 2.114 0.152 Evaluation 7.66 1.211 5.42 2.116 2.24 24.533 0.000** Leadership 6.34 1.571 6.79 2.097 -0.45 0.783 0.380 Impact 5.63 2.016 5.16 1.573 0.47 0.777 0.382 Communication 4.11 1.795 5.32 2.056 -1.21 4.980 0.030 Support 5.06 1.984 4.74 2.156 0.32 0.302 0.585 Resilience 5.69 1.891 5.58 2.434 0.11 0.032 0.859 Flexibility 5.94 1.846 6.47 2.342 -0.53 0.841 0.363 Structure 7.00 1.815 6.95 1.715 0.05 0.011 0.918 Drive 6.06 1.552 7.89 1.823 -1.83 15.263 0.000** Implementation 6.51 1.669 5.00 1.764 1.51 9.741 0.003* (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)

PAGE 49

49 Table 4-10. CCBO and NCCET cont rasted on dimensions of the psychometric profile, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 Section Dimension Mean Diff ( CCBO-NCCET ) F (1, 52) Vision Inventive -1.20 5.437 0.024 Abstract 1.07 6.616 0.013 Strategic -0.70 1.577 0.215 Judgment Insightful -0.08 0.034 0.854 Pragmatic 0.87 2.791 0.101 Learning Oriented 0.37 0.607 0.439 Evaluation Analytical 1.58 9.336 0.004* Factual 1.44 7.818 0.007* Rational 2.34 26.482 0.000** Leadership Purposeful -0.34 0.591 0.445 Directing -0.42 0.643 0.426 Empowering -0.53 1.160 0.286 Impact Convincing 0.43 0.679 0.414 Challenging 1.70 11.634 0.001* Articulate -0.86 2.745 0.104 Communication Self-promoting -1.24 4.798 0.033 Interactive -0.80 2.135 0.150 Engaging -0.64 1.281 0.263 Support Involving 0.57 0.962 0.331 Attentive 0.60 1.119 0.295 Accepting -0.60 1.402 0.242 Resilience Resolving 1.12 6.518 0.014 Self-assured -0.93 4.365 0.042 Composed -0.04 0.004 0.948 Flexibility Receptive 0.36 0.395 0.532 Positive -1.03 2.803 0.100 Change Oriented -0.18 0.138 0.712 Structure Organized -0.16 0.092 0.763 Principled -0.09 0.049 0.826 Activity Oriented 0.13 0.060 0.807 Drive Dynamic -1.08 3.951 0.052 Striving -1.19 8.083 0.006* Enterprising -2.08 18.565 0.000** Implementation Meticulous 1.78 12.630 0.001* Reliable 0.30 0.339 0.563 Com pliant 1.84 11.185 0.002* (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001)

PAGE 50

50 Table 4-11. CCBO and NCCET cont rasted on categories of the co mpetency potential profile, one-way ANOVA results for research hypothesis 2 Category Mean Diff ( CCBO-NCCET ) F (1, 52) Achieving success -1.54 10.683 0.002* Adjusting to change -0.85 2.393 0.128 Communicating with people -1.37 6.080 0.017 Creating innovation -0.45 0.831 0.366 Evaluating problems 2.16 31.163 0.000** Executing assignments 1.33 6.832 0.012 Making judgments 0.34 0.698 0.407 Presenting information 0.06 0.016 0.901 Projecting confidence -0.05 0.005 0.942 Providing leadership -0.68 1.742 0.193 Providing support 0.19 0.112 0.740 Structuring tasks -0.14 0.071 0.791 (*p < 0.01, **p < 0.001) Figure 4-1. Psychometric profiles section means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph

PAGE 51

51 Figure 4-2. Psychometric profiles dimension means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph Figure 4-3. Competency potential profiles category means for both CCBO and NCCET, line graph

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION In this study, the use of work styles prof iling in employee selecti on has been explored from a foundation in the academic literature and in an empirical study. This chapter will cover a discussion of this studys results, suggestions fo r future research and will conclude with a discussion on the implications this may have on community college leader selection processes. Discussion of the Results Research Hypothesis 1 The usefulness in psychological profiling for job selection has often been debated (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) as the li terature often does not find most positions to be filled with exclusively one personality ty pe or another (Hough & Oswal d, 2005; Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005). With hypothesis one, the goal was to empiri cally show that the WAVE instrument could be used to identify two arch etypal groups of community co llege leaders from the general professional population. At all levels of granularity both of the archetypal groups have been distinguished from the general professional population. These distin ctions show similar strengths and weaknesses for members of the lead ership of both the CCBO and NCCET. At the most macro total scale level, the CCBO scored signific antly higher than the WAVE normed scores on all three scales and th e NCCET scored signific antly higher on two of the three scales. While the WAVE was designed for professionals and administrators, the archetypal groups selected represen t senior leadership members who may be more successful and experienced than the average professional and this may account for the overall higher average scores. This might be troubling if the lower level data analysis supported a solely positive bias in findings, but it does not, as both groups show so me factors with mean scores below the WAVE

PAGE 53

53 normed means. Overall the CCBO groups scores s howed more significant differences than the NCCET group, but analytically with more participants they ha d greater statistical power. Both groups were found to be significan tly higher than the average professional on psychometric sections of Vision and Structure. CCBO also showed significantly higher scores on Judgment, Evaluation, Leadership, and Implem entation and significantly lower scores on Communication. While the NCCET results indicated a higher level of Dr ive. The highest and lowest means were found on the psychometri c dimensions for the NCCET group with Challenging (M = 3.84, SD = 1.17) being the lo west score and the only mean below 4 and Striving (M = 8.05, SD = 1.27) being over 8. As the psychometric dimensions are more granular components of psychometric sections scores, it was good to see that both groups differed from the normed population on more than 35% of the items. Both groups were found to be significantly higher than the average professional on the WAVE competency potential profile categories of Achiev ing Success, Creating Innovation, Making Judgments, Providing Lead ership, and Structuring Tasks. The CCBO group also showed significantly higher scores on Evaluating Problems, and Executing Assignments but significantly lower scores on Communicating with People. The NCCET group showed additional higher scores on Adjusting to Change. In all of the scales, both groups displayed a number of significa nt similarities to others in their leadership group that are significantly different than th e general profe ssional population. All of these strong scores, suppor t the earlier contention that as senior leaders these archetypal groups would probably tend to have more significant strengths th an the average professional. Even the consistent signifi cant low scores for the CCBO gr oup on communication support that the archetypal groups are more similar in work styles than chance w ould suggest. This would

PAGE 54

54 suggest that while not all busin ess officers and workforce deve lopment officers in community college are exactly the same, there are significant similarities as shown by the archetypal groups to suggest common profiles for succe ssful members of these groups. These significant similarities are important to developing working profiles that can serve as baselines that can help focus the use of thes e types of instruments as a valid selection tool (Hough & Oswald, 2005; Landy & Shankster, 1994) and as a way to target structured interviews (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Hough & Oswald, 2000; Judge, Higgins, & Cable, 2000; Krell, 2005; Murray, 1999). Additionally, these knowing that these baselines can be developed utilizing work styles instruments may allow researchers and pr actitioners to short-cu t the normally lengthy job analysis process (Morgeson, 2007). Research Hypothesis 2 Now that we have shown that profiles can be used to distinguish two senior comm unity college leadership groups from the general professional population, can these profiles be utilized to distinguish between the two mo re similar groups for use in pe rsonnel selection? As Schmidt & Hunter (1998) have shown that st ructured interviews and personali ty tests are some of the more reliable tools for personnel selection and ut ilizing benchmarking can help to increase the predictive validity of these psychological profiles (Nunnally, 1978). Exploring hypothesis two is useful in discovering if work st yle profiling can be discriminate enough to be used to provide role benchmarks and thereby poten tially improve the validity of personnel selection within the scope of community college leadership roles. Focusing on community college business o fficers and workforce development officers was done on purpose to rigorously test the potentia l of work style profiling. These two roles are closely related in that leaders are often require d to have similar educational background, with a business focus and both are more likely than their executive team c ounterparts to have

PAGE 55

55 experience outside of academia. Contrasting a gr oup of academic officers with either of the selected groups, one could assume some major significant differences. That is why contrasting two groups representing roles that often have overlapping hiring requirements was seen as a more stringent test of work style profiling. The non-significant findings at the most macro scale level, in comparing the two archetypal groups on scale means, suggests that while both groups may be more senior and experienced than the average pr ofessional, both groups are overall not significantly different from each other with respect to these issues. This allows for an examination of the more granular level items to determine what area of the work st yles profile could be useful in distinguishing between these two roles. In reviewing the resu lts of the one-way ANOVAs for each scales items will be found to be significant but even more, items found significant will indicate one group is higher than the other in a statistically significant amount. There were three significant differences on the psychometric profile sections, with the CCBO groups scoring higher on Evaluation and Implementation and the NCCET group scoring higher on Drive. These areas fit with our comm on perceptions of a bus iness officer needed strong evaluation and implementation skills to handle the budgetary duties of a community college. Likewise, a community college leader of ten tasked with the duties of maintaining relationship with local business leaders and esta blishing new contacts for the college would be expected to have a strong drive. At the dimension level of the psychometric profile there were th irteen items found to contrast significantly between the two groups The CCBO group scored significantly higher on dimensions of Abstract, Analytical, Factual, Rational, Meticulous, and Compliant. While the NCCET group scored significantly higher on dimensions of Strivi ng and Enterprising, even at

PAGE 56

56 this level, the differences align with the CCBO group representing leaders responsible for handling numbers and justifying budgets; where the NCCET group represents leaders tasked with taking a lead role in establishing relati onships and cooperative ventures with business leaders. The competency potential profile ANOVA resu lts showed two significantly different items. The CCBO group scored significantly higher on Evaluating Problems and the NCCET group scored significantly higher on Achieving Success. These results are in line with those from the psychometric profile and poten tially highlight the discrete nature of many tasks often undertaken by business officers and the sales type tasks often required of workforce development officers. Additionally, though not significant acro ss the board another note was that on both the psychometric and competency profile business o fficers were heavily skewed toward the lower end of the scale. Combining the results of the within group and between group analysis, benchmarks for areas key to identifying potentially successful business officers would be in the areas of Evaluation including Analytical, F actual, and Rational Dimensions as well as Implementation with attention on Meticulous and Compliant dimensions. Benchmarks key for a workforce development officer would highlight the area of Drive, including dimensions of Striving and Enterprising, as well as the competency for Achieving Success. Both community college business officers and workforce development officers in leadership roles for community colleges work in an academic environment and are more often than many other educational leaders to be bus iness focused, and even still the WAVE work styles profiles identified common profiles and discriminate areas of strength for both roles. This type of information could be very useful in benchmarking these types of roles and distinguishing

PAGE 57

57 specific skills and abilities that are common in leaders in these areas. The benchmarks could be used to directly compare potential applicants re sults on similar instruments or even to focus the questions asked during structure interviews. Support for hypothesis 2 has significant impli cations for personnel selection as a whole and higher education specificall y. Personnel selection is essentia lly about the fit between an employee and their work environment. The ability of the WAVE and other work style profiles to be able to discern differences between two cl osely related groups indicates a tool of high precision. As discussed in the literature review higher education executive teams and senior administration positions are an area most likely to be under the dual stresses of increased turnover, through retirement, and increasing demand through job growth. This puts higher education at a critical threshold of n eeding to improve se lection techniques. Suggestions for Future Research Now that it has been shown that benchmarks can be developed from work style profiles, there are several suggestion for further research that could extend this ex ploratory work. As the work by Schmidt & Hunter (1998) showed, the cu rrent levels of predic tive validity for many common selection processes with respect to job performance, many of these processes can still be improved upon. The first hypothesis showed the pot ential that work styl es profiles can be used to build distinct profiles of how personnel in one role differ from the general professional population and the second hypothesis more specifical ly highlighted the discrimination potential in closely related fields. The first suggestion for exte nding this line of re search is to move from exploratory investigation to empirically testi ng the results in the selection pr ocess. This would entail building robust profiles for specific roles and testing positi on applicants empirically test the predictive capability of these profiles. Measuring the effectiveness of those selected into the roles will

PAGE 58

58 necessitate evaluation of selected employees performance over time. This type of empirical testing should be undertaken in a wide variety of industries and roles to most broadly test the potential benefits of these profiles. Additional research sh ould be done with groups of community college leaders to develop additional ba seline profiles for archet ypes in other specific leadership roles. From a fit perspective, balancing the a dditional research on baseline development research should be focused into utilizing work style profiling to enhance the development of job profiles. Much criticism of psychometric tools in the selection process is that they dont capture the complexities and intricacies of a role. Work in utilizing work study profiles and baselines could offer a tool to enhance the ability of empl oyers to build realistic job profiles and improve person-job fit. If work styles can be used to build baselin e baselines for archetypal leaders, can these same baselines be used for employee developm ent? Can these benchmarks and work style profiles be effectively ut ilized in career development strategi es? If so, potentially these tools could help develop as well as find new successful leaders (Campbell, 2006). Now that it has been shown that baselines can be built, it remains to be seen how and if they can be utilized effectively. Conclusion If having the best leaders is so critically im portant to the future of comm unity colleges, then we need the best tools to ensure that we can hire and retain the best employees. With the impending leadership gap occurri ng at the same time that the br oader labor pool is shrinking, it should be readily apparent that community colleges can ill afford to lose out on hiring the best leaders available and even more so need to work to avoid the potential disastrous consequences of hiring the wrong person. This is why this line of research is so cr itically important to

PAGE 59

59 community colleges and the overall development of effective selection processes. As the AACC states, choosing the right pers on for the job is the most im portant decision a leader or organization can make (AACC, 2007: 1). Having shown the potential for utilizing work style profiles for building baseline benchmarks for speci fic roles, the task is left to confirm the usefulness of these baselines in predicting j ob performance and thus validating their use in personnel selection.

PAGE 60

60 LIST OF REFERENCES AACC 2007. The risk you should not take. http://www.performancesearch.com/AACC/pages /about_us.2.htm l, first accessed November 2007. Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Dovers pike, D. 2006. The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An asse ssment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 786-801. Berry, L. H., Hammons, J. O., & Denny, G. S. 20 01. Faculty retirement turnover in community colleges: A real or imagined problem? Community College Journal of Research and Practice 25 : 123-136. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Monthly Labor Review. http://www.bls.gov/emp/home.htm first accessed Decem ber 2007. Cable, D. M. & DeRue, D. S. 2002. The convergen t and discriminant validity of subject fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(5): 875-884. Cable, D. M. & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(3): 294-311. Campbell, D. F. 2006. The new leadership ga p: Shortages in admi nistrative positions. Community College Journal 76: 10-14. Campbell, D. F. & Associates. 2002. The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies For Leadership Development. Washington: Community College Press. Chan, D. 2005. Current directions in personnel selection research. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14(4):220-223. Collins, J. 2005. From Good to Great And The Social Sector: Why Business Thinking Is Not The Answer. Collins Press. Edwards, J. R. 1999. Person-job fit: A concep tual integration, lit erature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Co oper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of industrial and Organizational Psychology 6: 283-357. West Sussex, England: Wiley. Evelyn, J. 2001. Community colleges face a crisis of leadership. The Chronicle of Higher Education 47 (30): A36. Florida Community College System. 2007. Fact book. http://www.fldoe.org/arm/cctcmis/pubs/ factbook/fb2007/fb2007.pdf first accessed November 2007. Gleazer, E. J. 1998. The Community College: Va lues, Vision & Vitality Washington, Community College Press.

PAGE 61

61 Gregory, R. J. 2007. Psychological Testing (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Hollon, John. 2007. Silencing the alarmists. Workforce Management 86 (14): 58. Hough, L. M. & Oswald, F. L. 2005. Theyre right wellmostly right: Research evidence and an agenda to rescue personality testing from 1960s insights. Human Performance, 18 (4): 373-387. Hough, L. M. & Oswald, F. L. 2000. Personnel selection: Looking toward the future remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 631-664. Judge, T. A. & Higgins, C. A., & Cable, D. M. 2000. The employment interview: A review of recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review 10(4): 383-406. Korczyk, S. M. 2004. Is ear ly retirement ending? http://www.aarp.org/res earch/work/retirem ent /is_early_retirement_ending.html first accessed in Nove mber 2007. Krell, E. 2005. Personality counts: personality assessments are being used in new ways through the employee life cycle. HR Magazine 50(11), 46-53. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & J ohnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-j ob, person-organization, person-group, and personsupervisor fit. Personnel Psychology 58: 281-342. Kwaske, I. H. 2004. Individual assessments for personnel selection: An update on a rarely researched but avidly practiced practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 56(3): 186-195. Landy, F. J. & Shankster, L. J. 1994. Personnel selection and placement. Annual Review of Psychology 45, 216-296. Leubsdorf, B. 2006. Boomers retire ment may create talent squeeze. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53(2): A51. Lewin, K. 1935. Dynamic Theory of Personality New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science New York: Harper. Morgeson, F. 2007. Job Analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1, 377-380. London: Sage. Murphy, K. R. & Dzieweczynski, J. L. 2005. Wh y dont measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as pr edictors of job performance. Human Performance 18 (4), 343-357. Murray, J. P. 1999. Interviewing to hire competent community college faculty. Community College Review 27(1): 41-57.

PAGE 62

62 Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Park, D. G. 2007 The Community College Lead ership Crisis and Executive Search. AACC Executive Search. Washington: AACC. http://www.performancesearch.com/AACC/ pages/about_us.2.htm l first accessed November 2007. Parsons. F. 1909. Choosing a Vocation Boston: Houghton. Patton, M. 2004. Initiative seeks to inform and prepare new leaders. Community College Times Washington: AACC. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Conten t/ContentGroups/CC_Ti mes/ January_20041/Initiative_Seeks_To_Inf orm_and_Prepare_New_Leaders.htm first accessed October 2007. Robertson, I. T. & Smith, M. 2001. Personnel Selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74, 441-472. Sanford, J. 2005. Making cents out of the hiring process. Strategic Finance : 41-45. Saville. 2006. Saville Consulting WAVE Techni cal Document. Unpublished report, Surrey, UK. Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theo retical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin 124(2), 262-274. Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology 40: 437-453. Schneider, B. 2001. Fits about fit. Applied Psychology: An International Review 50(1): 141152. Shults, C. 2001. The critical impact of impending retirements of community college leadership. Research Brief Leade rship Series, no. 1, AACC-RB-01-5. Wash ington: AACC. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/ContentGroups/Research_Briefs2/LeadershipBrief.rev 2.pdf first accessed October 2007. Taris, R. & Feij, J. A. 2001. Longitudinal ex amination of the relationship between suppliesvalues fit and work outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review 50(1): 5280. Wanous, J. P. 1977. Organizational entry: newc omers moving from outside to inside. Psychological Bulletin 84(4): 601-618. Weisman, I. M. & Vaughan, G. B. 2007. The community college presidency: 2006. www2.aacc.nche.edu/PDFS/presidency_brief.pdf first accessed Novem ber 2007. Werbel, J. D. & Gilliland, S. W. 1999. Personenvironment fit in the selection process. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 17,: 209-243.

PAGE 63

63 Werbel, J. D. & Johnson, D. J. 2001. The use of person-group fit for employment selection: A missing link in person-environment fit. Human Resource Management 40(3): 227-240.

PAGE 64

64 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jam es William Berry received his bachelors degree in philosophy from the College of William and Mary in Virginia in 1993. He came to the University of Florida in 1996 to coach swimming and study sport psychology. Jim returned to the University as part of a leadership development cohort from St. Petersburg College Working as a project manager the National Terrorism Preparedness Institute at St. Peters burg College, Jim wrote and produced educational materials for first responders and military to respond to new threats. During his time studying at the University of Florida, Jim also was one of the founding managers in starting the Collaborative Labs, a facility de dicated to helping business, i ndustry, public, and private groups solve complex problems through facilitation. Jim is now looking to complete a PhD at the University of North Carolina in organizational behavior.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101222_AAAABA INGEST_TIME 2010-12-22T13:15:14Z PACKAGE UFE0022720_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25271604 DFID F20101222_AAASKK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH berry_j_Page_57.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d5020892616fa288eb84b9a456c75111
SHA-1
c66620034e0cfb156311650ca008a4d663909fb1
71372 F20101222_AAASFN berry_j_Page_34.jpg
98616e0f277a22dc52fb0716c9326144
d71a8558e1007b7cca0118e4047a652cef77b8c0
31152 F20101222_AAASPH berry_j_Page_40.QC.jpg
b7a8f701f3cb9cefdde769339964af20
2523394f84917b221e0f0f9dadbff6a382bb6715
F20101222_AAASKL berry_j_Page_58.tif
44eaed9e771304e0ebed51e259130588
fa0a08c3e8f00f70b8ada78c5144c8da07ad681b
82122 F20101222_AAASFO berry_j_Page_38.jpg
ee053a048b1585efbcdbb3f2db4389a4
5ccaa334e81ce6801a53f2d319bc343091c9eec6
8657 F20101222_AAASPI berry_j_Page_57thm.jpg
64b54421fd88415b17808774111e5fa6
875d830ad1a6c94ed41d35785e0e68f61aa0e773
F20101222_AAASKM berry_j_Page_60.tif
06cb9c090ca915d94256f1f38a3cc040
2ce74673d828426a42b34cd8d91dce7164b8424a
108572 F20101222_AAASFP berry_j_Page_39.jpg
2ff0c4d91b395ace88dee0df70f62988
92d86544f6379853181f090245b98de1409bd1c7
5548 F20101222_AAASPJ berry_j_Page_27thm.jpg
ff406dbd8f6cfbd02b290220e3fa0cdf
145f2b8fa907c00bdb179f2c24add5335b42cfe0
F20101222_AAASKN berry_j_Page_61.tif
464b7e8ce73fdc9f3e07626431ffac4f
0f1ca91e990d34eed5485d9aa5aa0da1637eb378
102326 F20101222_AAASFQ berry_j_Page_40.jpg
4b5a4b271f5bdb0c5892a11e3463739e
b06ebba448b538ab638e9575c3f63b27b1a9ca33
8754 F20101222_AAASPK berry_j_Page_55thm.jpg
3d8f446b78e5643baaa972729393566a
ec4f611a47c3f004a76f89354f7d577c79f0fce3
F20101222_AAASKO berry_j_Page_62.tif
3e9bbdb0cd62df265219b058bf2aea4d
080579f0e0e716ce6b506c5dbd34058f8d85ac21
104064 F20101222_AAASFR berry_j_Page_41.jpg
77729e4d7af11c092129cb3df60bb562
4ac7213ff3ee783cde596ec74c66f17a60e45089
5324 F20101222_AAASPL berry_j_Page_05thm.jpg
5cb2132a83f39c5e5594ac4f5b8fe5c4
d4e9b7cb0f086cbe3ad9a9123c35446ead70e4bd
F20101222_AAASKP berry_j_Page_63.tif
11b0b817aa99c157d908382b9dfc401a
bc6d5aa6c2e36d1ba6cb551b8503e58e05524e1a
40415 F20101222_AAASFS berry_j_Page_43.jpg
c18577b0117597d47897786041587e07
e40d26c5e548ebf2ef1307dba84c3eb4e7b7a0bd
24285 F20101222_AAASPM berry_j_Page_38.QC.jpg
f46d36f402de1ca62aa5dab95d7fb59c
010a86174fba2ae064e495f9b9714c1fc206e33f
88770 F20101222_AAASFT berry_j_Page_45.jpg
6d175eeb9521c3daa05d5933670a10ef
4faa11d541fc9c6dfeb1d84951fed559485613cb
6108 F20101222_AAASPN berry_j_Page_34thm.jpg
3cc093d5b6033d8b0234c84a5112946a
7adf211ca5330b9844589d4ec0953fc5d01257d0
F20101222_AAASKQ berry_j_Page_64.tif
7618df2da3c0d5890b5304c0b6196a86
24c50ac241975a8aae0d24b7b609e36037cd1bfa
76380 F20101222_AAASFU berry_j_Page_46.jpg
29a662ee31025275c57399c3228407dc
64b00ba538afbc3d357712ebf7c8a18c363f3b1b
8930 F20101222_AAASPO berry_j_Page_15.QC.jpg
f9c01227def253186706ed71017f97ab
c25ab312365cd3020fd50f0dcf9c3a83e58aba2b
2365 F20101222_AAASKR berry_j_Page_03.pro
c8e976a278029a69b69dc87b57d094a3
97bc7290e689e904cfc8d326aa033820193fe6dd
88135 F20101222_AAASFV berry_j_Page_47.jpg
9f0a19f9ff533d999ea1b80f37c75359
12e63b3ec8731fa266f56ddefff15cd127a845f6
33431 F20101222_AAASPP berry_j_Page_10.QC.jpg
d73e3d5b9ad1fadc5be6931b9ff973a5
b1a209d053d65444cef3294b61384b78ecf0f642
10251 F20101222_AAASKS berry_j_Page_04.pro
d46efdcd283f175a62641926b0498bfa
7b7bbe135faa77287c739a233079b015d6133b72
111897 F20101222_AAASFW berry_j_Page_48.jpg
b93b97bb73e570945a597c8d8bec0e26
65c7d96938145e6a68a1dc4dd1a1ad9be5f1e3fe
8429 F20101222_AAASPQ berry_j_Page_32thm.jpg
341c13d9baf02e2498f6a8793e0e9012
e4469f28d016d7f927f8236acea1c20087fcb364
24520 F20101222_AAASKT berry_j_Page_06.pro
6ee875e578d71ada5d5fda4dde637969
92e3513ab01a843a094dc33cf5de1402d68030ae
80460 F20101222_AAASFX berry_j_Page_49.jpg
cd01ce00e269ba9565eafa4002d4e045
0dbaec9dce06752e95949601ae1913f34d00b095
6885 F20101222_AAASPR berry_j_Page_45thm.jpg
870310cfaf87f6734487acbb2f979d9f
10edf209244666eeeda88c227fe2d13b6df33849
70488 F20101222_AAASKU berry_j_Page_07.pro
92b73b99c35b35db5423f9823983fc48
cfb6fb8d52214599542ec59158e801721dbe9a3a
34273 F20101222_AAASPS berry_j_Page_07.QC.jpg
5fb03cd81651f86d41c858693a70397a
5192a4ba7f25e516085d16e881656f6de68e9309
31685 F20101222_AAASKV berry_j_Page_08.pro
8051de31e86091975f9ccafd9bc06011
bc82b350c96cd75bbfee41d4e9f48c23128a7cde
45227 F20101222_AAASDA berry_j_Page_28.pro
e34a3f196e22f638195fefa928df83b1
5e28ccec7f33b0dffb882cd1a4446ea26206653b
75506 F20101222_AAASFY berry_j_Page_50.jpg
b82ca962e079e3c6b4714b00a89470e6
26e1604a7df1b63202412ca583a0ddc35daf0f9f
8313 F20101222_AAASPT berry_j_Page_13thm.jpg
28b15ea8e75d8ef53f30187ab407f177
d2bde703f19df6f6bb230a7ee92ae8a4e3286cdc
38352 F20101222_AAASKW berry_j_Page_09.pro
5e8253cab126fbc3df6aeee90348ce19
60564bd1c6167fd0d8d7b7fdb5c6c4afc1154f9d
63322 F20101222_AAASDB berry_j_Page_37.jpg
ea35e6b3d52bda26218202bfd09716ab
f3f5f5bdb0318310a6788b92a7f13bd2b2501c77
81075 F20101222_AAASFZ berry_j_Page_51.jpg
6da2ea539ef675fb781fed9f81551199
79709cc9846aa4260b2ee60b4d1c7a1777f76608
33447 F20101222_AAASPU berry_j_Page_33.QC.jpg
68437592bdaaec1e03168efc725781af
d3449627c17f89c35880f59710695d0fc01b32a0
50792 F20101222_AAASKX berry_j_Page_10.pro
82695fafb305554858cf8541316fb0b2
a168aabe10b98fed581c7d4b87299e038de58a24
2003 F20101222_AAASDC berry_j_Page_23.txt
6eb823f288ee72f07ea5ab4b9d79672d
22a9cf95b694bf1a0f05e2a0e62625efe44c4860
8195 F20101222_AAASPV berry_j_Page_30thm.jpg
c2604e879279db71e33ba8366f30e215
00e1162028641e8c9dc3193f146e598d7268f67f
52344 F20101222_AAASKY berry_j_Page_11.pro
f188cd68e9c7b98d976a7281b96324e4
f28d2d70b4fc38f9ff2015ed3319da15f52c8eab
35884 F20101222_AAASPW berry_j_Page_60.QC.jpg
16454075518b41514f612a683e2d9ab1
e2cbfd9ee9f6da44be145fddfc3850b3a55cc4c8
974872 F20101222_AAASIA berry_j_Page_51.jp2
bc762c9bf6983a0c3699d12dc4c3b43c
91e50e79ae577222c114ae0e1980118821593e03
57698 F20101222_AAASKZ berry_j_Page_12.pro
3050f3d9e063a4f59cfa5fcac76bf7eb
c7c6ef1e1cb7431f5c7a3d49842db0ab0af5d800
834813 F20101222_AAASDD berry_j_Page_49.jp2
f132769f088c31ac7815edbf2c501c23
3631418887a03527ae481048afd06059a6b489be
8812 F20101222_AAASPX berry_j_Page_54thm.jpg
39d057743aa8f297d6a959ff333a36bb
d8d1568503045b02805dde8883f3de8073e88467
1051985 F20101222_AAASIB berry_j_Page_52.jp2
e687b598c4d2b414bb6b70af855be997
1ec3aa8d4ab4f8735a1312d5e40908af30d6ca79
34126 F20101222_AAASDE berry_j_Page_41.QC.jpg
31d8173368f904892e749f37c76f8894
336a4a9fb0bd5eed21bf18bc956b9acc95015e72
8708 F20101222_AAASPY berry_j_Page_19thm.jpg
ad8ffdc0c3ef924e5fddaf99fc366402
343089b60820fc36d784068731aecae3278b1668
1051969 F20101222_AAASIC berry_j_Page_54.jp2
4754df1930f3cc6a666c682a26f1b7ca
6e1a19999c91b6c7ed224404751d9b599c757fca
F20101222_AAASDF berry_j_Page_30.tif
8261caa1e31fedfeb53d8556817a8425
b0aa819a5c60cdbb4785ee438f3cfe19dbcb3e05
2218 F20101222_AAASNA berry_j_Page_14.txt
c2b8d1d398bbae41e1e3962126da880b
5a314199ec9db237f3e046130020801f5ddef385
3594 F20101222_AAASPZ berry_j_Page_26thm.jpg
3a4aa40e95e4568a686b1f1d3efa1b8f
79f0a016cc0f38a81d0ad2e2396b375872365de2
1051984 F20101222_AAASID berry_j_Page_55.jp2
ea86f0098e6b811a4b0378ad6df37fee
aaf687a745f20b81ef1cf2a115223109824212de
F20101222_AAASDG berry_j_Page_32.tif
0fb5387288415cc45a7d7517fb34f4c4
6c06119f76566758136db0a41d6966444bbf72a9
473 F20101222_AAASNB berry_j_Page_15.txt
82a1cb9e94ba0aa4f4e5953281cc8fe6
1494165e433dc55c6b5d151127d3e772b7a26a79
1051920 F20101222_AAASIE berry_j_Page_56.jp2
34d5c31ff534337a9a52ade929d96fd6
490c441c109ad6342f66e45b70f3c3aa111e6709
5127 F20101222_AAASDH berry_j_Page_44thm.jpg
8207518417f3e57fadb2e377881ee08b
86cf052b319a5510eff86a0056d12a5c2b086c4c
33390 F20101222_AAASSA berry_j_Page_48.QC.jpg
39ba46a7ad46781db1d6ba40815e3cb1
1f2cb21e9ce6d61e2d523ec361bffdefba425fed
2028 F20101222_AAASNC berry_j_Page_17.txt
77c51821431562be9c47ef45192a7cef
eeb96d516bada7b08aa1b48000339cf0daeda80f
1051933 F20101222_AAASIF berry_j_Page_58.jp2
d9f310d69c78f6bf46b3636a2f9d82a2
5c59df8d3b8d1ec96f22a3b9a3e99753ffadb94c
1051957 F20101222_AAASDI berry_j_Page_42.jp2
7186d777a5e7aacf4a8da8a91856e7f4
c90387a310c2975381cc77efc607142996cffc65
23356 F20101222_AAASSB berry_j_Page_49.QC.jpg
4df698c918749bc2d2dce756722b8d41
d7cb6e6a1a42cfd08a19c460760a35ddf7d46dcc
2096 F20101222_AAASND berry_j_Page_18.txt
eeeb1d0eff1e77a689b574400f10b6e9
44626fb503d7bfde2529b7320595d2759b300e21
295863 F20101222_AAASIG berry_j_Page_59.jp2
40bb91052bbdab41e2480a259b5e335c
3f443686456dfe3a59eccd4275f43b2eecfb60d8
108738 F20101222_AAASDJ berry_j_Page_19.jpg
c629f9ab535a102736aba6384058f592
b3746ef816aed478944f9aec0f88ba153324d2b1
24399 F20101222_AAASSC berry_j_Page_50.QC.jpg
546dc6bae4fbe16be4f582aba5e58ee0
90a7bd77a4f3d9d52aedc7c229d0013eacc794b8
2121 F20101222_AAASNE berry_j_Page_21.txt
9d9bd6da0c2b8d325a167ec0467de194
b0802afc8a1f81368171cdb236947ebca78146b2
1051981 F20101222_AAASIH berry_j_Page_60.jp2
ac99b7e66707f9d804046efd01a3c426
b9ab898a20601869a92e964d1ee6b62ad87ad252
2399 F20101222_AAASDK berry_j_Page_61.txt
7282853b4e5a801566c38ec73ac9cb94
bf4ddd927860c79e05045ed74bbdfe0353a3f0ae
6841 F20101222_AAASSD berry_j_Page_50thm.jpg
f8fc76d501a7f0fc623399d11e44f2f7
28f52668efad94efc90b46882bd06b5453e0cb09
2090 F20101222_AAASNF berry_j_Page_22.txt
cf4112d511e7f8c9d1cc8c797d470791
1af66871038e067775dd21eb0a8f5fc455752512
1051976 F20101222_AAASII berry_j_Page_61.jp2
82b74cf9d56d9ad1e3e80d2ab7d98d66
397241bef79fba5a19e33940ce026993202eedb1
8700 F20101222_AAASDL berry_j_Page_22thm.jpg
e6723d5a592291e17d55bedaf6e25081
1247425c69318fa7da99715554e29a6b09c4c987
25799 F20101222_AAASSE berry_j_Page_51.QC.jpg
ea5f40506047c092d34a38084804bae2
441a745ed8420fabf8c14a8acb0d5e18380c5a4e
2133 F20101222_AAASNG berry_j_Page_24.txt
8a770554ad0e69041fe2141cfa97a96c
c546a9b6b24cb0d1243144b893afd3f6f5a4b6bc
1051948 F20101222_AAASIJ berry_j_Page_62.jp2
98eeb5209cb42819a2f128a5b84504c7
f1c89cef08c852df6155b7608f578686159e23c9
8160 F20101222_AAASDM berry_j_Page_52thm.jpg
febe121e8133a4f001378b5230fbfa8b
0f6c83bce704becbfea21c7c82c9666f125bd2aa
1274 F20101222_AAASNH berry_j_Page_25.txt
bbfceadd76a0dbe31b47b8da0fb8b341
2faa694e771284d2e27e08e1e861c8ba5a296929
118016 F20101222_AAASIK berry_j_Page_63.jp2
0ec9e0d5e066a67602000c5d68d02860
84380380eceb7b518099d6c9019a6ae0735b1d54
82425 F20101222_AAASDN berry_j_Page_09.jpg
d9a49c5233b4901648589663dfc451cf
2738a48fce76342ca566bce62eb2af50ae4e0e58
7390 F20101222_AAASSF berry_j_Page_51thm.jpg
ddc9f3523c477d92ccdeec6f31a74fec
30251f6c5a4064e28d4cd4adb46f2fbdcf58904b
216 F20101222_AAASNI berry_j_Page_26.txt
c4879e7d5465bb8ac9832fb4c9f342a6
3edf075e26ebf95f787e16ba5d9ac7241b511bce
F20101222_AAASIL berry_j_Page_02.tif
ecfb0f3f47422d51310cda453f735d91
948051b04c9bd0c683d811de1cc3c48c03227344
89928 F20101222_AAASDO berry_j_Page_05.pro
cb0757b535348b531b17c1689a358d76
f81ea133b0f8e0e1beaff05b033e7172a33af637
35902 F20101222_AAASSG berry_j_Page_53.QC.jpg
6d5a9aa813e7b91b5fe0126f197eb648
8dbf5eb5e2459187f769777099984d3df46f836a
1273 F20101222_AAASNJ berry_j_Page_27.txt
3a33ce65c38014675063b8e4bcef6973
edf8902fb0ffec1cee80e21290c18810e095a213
F20101222_AAASIM berry_j_Page_04.tif
1c7225aaa17b6730636005948bb00160
97ec1337ea259ea4d85f584cf8e171462659e3c7
703989 F20101222_AAASDP berry_j_Page_25.jp2
0972b41eff56861ce52b72096dffb4c2
3a3310db1310847c331f703b7dea1c0f0ad2302d
34950 F20101222_AAASSH berry_j_Page_55.QC.jpg
0c8a8ba02727620b51a616ceb5d5014b
05bad594646a26fa78658cca33faef78c60724d8
1937 F20101222_AAASNK berry_j_Page_28.txt
c786f2d976c57e602aea79ea9905c1c8
27bfb01745c638f69580ca7ad4f8208d9195e04d
F20101222_AAASIN berry_j_Page_05.tif
a25339ba6a71c5b9e6d3dc137841018f
f411588498e2310c3f585b91abdb6a4e8d0a68ee
37761 F20101222_AAASDQ berry_j_Page_44.pro
946e0ac024750ddd743a23647343e016
f2e102f150186f7ee9500908e57b9a4daaa30251
34585 F20101222_AAASSI berry_j_Page_56.QC.jpg
29e5c507fa84c98defdc833326e0e3eb
909471234f51a3595ea74216613dd0d278cd3f10
2279 F20101222_AAASNL berry_j_Page_29.txt
c5922195b2f5b5c6cbf558c19016982c
128405cf4ac6a20b5511f67d6d8da99ef9b6569e
F20101222_AAASIO berry_j_Page_06.tif
a98b6cd5271b95a4ef790568bc7f84b2
9d82c374213e10cff4c2656f749703b6f87c3e62
6281 F20101222_AAASDR berry_j_Page_38thm.jpg
58e818ed1b49b7e66565b6eb4d34d389
682879dd56e801682221f64345ceeb9e9dade5db
8750 F20101222_AAASSJ berry_j_Page_56thm.jpg
362e58bb183c5a849392c8c4f36b87be
1ed7f54845ce670101ddc46b050b53055587718e
F20101222_AAASIP berry_j_Page_07.tif
98a17620343ccddd637a5cec1ccb544a
eff34673d35582104c0ea7940f9c2bd0e5052c1a
963 F20101222_AAASDS berry_j_Page_02.pro
817070b03f5760b49a79ce3221a64e41
f1202ab5847ce7e6303b54c0f626d3474a719423
2095 F20101222_AAASNM berry_j_Page_30.txt
9600e526cc168d2323630f8ea2244a04
79b0a75d6b8a0c9a7293571a504f17ea5b0ea55a
36661 F20101222_AAASSK berry_j_Page_57.QC.jpg
389fb90e9dd5cfe55e2308b889f03ea2
042878612fb9585470ab87c165b828b4d9994155
F20101222_AAASIQ berry_j_Page_08.tif
0e620872e213dcd358a85df224d5e006
3add0d545cbb8630a0815142115f2269b8d75bbb
24119 F20101222_AAASDT berry_j_Page_34.QC.jpg
65090f4782f636c98f36de730dbb6430
14fef9c4d24629f8335b58bc92bb027e3eb1c83e
2025 F20101222_AAASNN berry_j_Page_31.txt
e4909eb0c4030bb2cb31d040d8aad005
91ca29048305c25ee85694d006e8aafef9f23818
8738 F20101222_AAASSL berry_j_Page_58thm.jpg
99860e43d48d53b8786dd480818eadee
0361a7408b962a85f24505dab70d9c4179533b31
F20101222_AAASIR berry_j_Page_09.tif
26ed9a7f23a56d9a30caaafe52f620cb
244ea45131bc7f5aa9d67f670477616f30053092
634 F20101222_AAASDU berry_j_Page_02thm.jpg
f5b1a7b216c3161cc35503588dbfdead
f080099abe9879324bacc48c6f4645547158ebca
2048 F20101222_AAASNO berry_j_Page_33.txt
9eef00fc6ede8b2f4629ef8adf764601
e64f404a856bb9b2eb497db7d8e4ed6e75311f3a
9823 F20101222_AAASSM berry_j_Page_59.QC.jpg
6eb12c4cb2ef4c44035bd8aa8d827f84
2cff2cc1ebc7b38d82351e1fabb335afd05601b3
F20101222_AAASIS berry_j_Page_10.tif
de9c42d55747d3ac0f90535867d64e10
78d382e7865af3dd4a16de49ac1b1b3844c61ada
119628 F20101222_AAASDV berry_j_Page_60.jpg
f4c7d3c93dc29a39aa22db59ec547740
89a4a7fcca56c485e8e60e3240b0fdcde8ff54a5
1368 F20101222_AAASNP berry_j_Page_34.txt
b419abf0a83677fc812ec5372081588c
a23d4b91fd219ebca85a80f423ac440c37dc7160
2423 F20101222_AAASSN berry_j_Page_59thm.jpg
8c26867b23a8a36ae5edb1495a8f83c8
2208cc94f1b82a1ce3f9b269b0fb87dc4d7a1958
F20101222_AAASIT berry_j_Page_11.tif
8473f4e2015b2ff4fe009b41c4e43d10
962f83be8783472913057e859eb4ab98048903ca
354 F20101222_AAASNQ berry_j_Page_35.txt
1c02031153fabd8a1195b755325d4ac2
c89a10bca95a5561813286116742dc026a390d03
9376 F20101222_AAASSO berry_j_Page_60thm.jpg
3862e53a0a3d48a38a3e1fc2dda40529
cea0c29c72845b6dba310316800da56ceecb0bc3
F20101222_AAASIU berry_j_Page_12.tif
bdb19b908e7e7456f907db5753163530
ed089df391b68175b300640c92b3c142dfe07502
40787 F20101222_AAASDW berry_j_Page_38.pro
15bfcdec5489535b93eeac865d69adf1
97e98a8775f758f13ed441d9a7be87454c0c69de
857 F20101222_AAASNR berry_j_Page_36.txt
2f7ee01f96e725d6605bd7e1a5195c69
3356bac9a16efcfabfcafc8f134349ad9854e2b8
37075 F20101222_AAASSP berry_j_Page_61.QC.jpg
64179bec3a85b0a8f71a5bb3204bfa86
51ff37002ff05dfcc68dce341edced2690d5a1d1
F20101222_AAASIV berry_j_Page_13.tif
28dca8ececc20a81cc15930b0c4ba7dd
1d5a1eb6a6cb2d154902d10aa1cc91ed3ec7377e
43576 F20101222_AAASDX berry_j_Page_36.jpg
9c2c0d82f1cead6f011864e7c7ff293a
cb4b8ddddcb58b54bd6049504867d065d66ba2b9
2349 F20101222_AAASNS berry_j_Page_37.txt
c51173c642f7c55f20d80ef5a6318458
877b4cf7336b17c3ab26f12e8b0a9eb370191f74
9648 F20101222_AAASSQ berry_j_Page_61thm.jpg
7cebaecebc65873830d253282f8ad1ec
893037de818784d4db2bc4018bd3651f25fd5f14
F20101222_AAASIW berry_j_Page_14.tif
33b46a8d09a7d39d4419d291856508e7
0065955b3b62097b5d1f5a48650153c30d02a7b6
2187 F20101222_AAASDY berry_j_Page_20.txt
0dd24ed6cd355abe918f340411a682a6
437ff4a0c7e296d79542fe65acd54455e67965ee
4891 F20101222_AAASNT berry_j_Page_39.txt
ef3707fab4eceac749b52ca972031371
6e8294bf808e626695b031a19e0bd0603375783d
9145 F20101222_AAASSR berry_j_Page_62thm.jpg
46118152ed113af9a0e6cc382201d887
b2c785f6c365be3f56bebf83ef1374adc8c53388
F20101222_AAASIX berry_j_Page_15.tif
4bd8218273a06a8d596baddfee97133c
5a3a525e80da790c7925d8a6858452adcb9019ed
60060 F20101222_AAASDZ berry_j_Page_27.jpg
4d23b9c7b156179d6fb7c11e8e788853
3f13060304c3f668587eee07eb01e5d8b6870da1
2134 F20101222_AAASNU berry_j_Page_40.txt
9497a16551f41862c7b0f0773860624e
2cf5ec759f37470aed19faaac8d6b12e03f4ec49
4221 F20101222_AAASSS berry_j_Page_63.QC.jpg
cbb72088667fa1a173b0756594b7d9d6
e6813387e4e4679529e15fa04d5e77c071971c8b
F20101222_AAASIY berry_j_Page_16.tif
000d7d2da5c8884b482326368e358f06
a5bd3bf4c0278d25c515cb22cde9296b1287c9b5
1993 F20101222_AAASNV berry_j_Page_41.txt
51d74181b0f6f51f4015009d7ddba737
7a5931cd21ea61cb563694bf463080a10695e275
1026 F20101222_AAASST berry_j_Page_63thm.jpg
d88e2e9ccf692c797dee3b023b6339de
e70e749d7448647258fd63cf965f7b6c6c411b72
F20101222_AAASIZ berry_j_Page_17.tif
7d6c1debc134489555035cbaf2d0844f
cbcde0680755d20e7e9f30f4e29804594b2e67c3
2196 F20101222_AAASNW berry_j_Page_42.txt
0cdc0036f8c33440ed652fd2f4d0c2f1
b07f27e84d169f6f21381ae7d72aba9b875f5413
99613 F20101222_AAASGA berry_j_Page_52.jpg
d397bc2cee146506207f3af5bc9aaea4
535a3295bc1ec4a85ae17aec9736c4384434e190
17474 F20101222_AAASSU berry_j_Page_64.QC.jpg
da82968bfdf45aba3d59d33fe3e74aaf
db5c49d699b9eec03cf5e013764f3a1c74f38788
730 F20101222_AAASNX berry_j_Page_43.txt
b6af233d4a1dc2ff56abb60cd446052e
1f5ab525e74048c917be9beb5fc4f0f25078f017
109511 F20101222_AAASGB berry_j_Page_53.jpg
cd5fc8bfd3a175411084220fd4d2897e
2d40168213cb43c5dab34ab0d8e984362a9ae0e3
4143 F20101222_AAASSV berry_j_Page_64thm.jpg
00e30b2bb1da2b9119f842d1a710dc8b
a38951796c612a42453f5dc8ea157e68fc867939
1917 F20101222_AAASNY berry_j_Page_44.txt
6128f045ddab45c5fe0322ff83b45d52
d1c79bf12c6e69063eb0c1454db46be391aadce1
112242 F20101222_AAASGC berry_j_Page_54.jpg
cc395b7831d461b78a34e3a3f644aac8
1916e4b8bfc219667ec8b4d8229909aa3d964ab9
55770 F20101222_AAASLA berry_j_Page_13.pro
62737c6564204f76f4068995a944cf70
c381390a44e44ad7f606ca34382b78b9dbbbd88a
1862 F20101222_AAASNZ berry_j_Page_45.txt
b41bcc91f3319e7e52d8e1449c99cdce
e38246e407cc41e617333054abec854509aeccd9
107326 F20101222_AAASGD berry_j_Page_55.jpg
eb2faf6e19bb986c7d7e2c0a7a75c750
72d4aa257b0e1fbefecfcbc45e396997238659c3
11889 F20101222_AAASLB berry_j_Page_15.pro
1fff6a8662d3ae8a73b82f2d097ed06d
9486075e23fdc0fb5ab514e1beac6a7ca78fc2a7
104716 F20101222_AAASGE berry_j_Page_56.jpg
e3611d5a12e55cfa70026e5c75f60a57
b57a8546f92abb2707602c20eca7df0a48314d78
97533 F20101222_AAASQA UFE0022720_00001.xml FULL
2c566dc5487484980f87054a06060887
f64ee1dc5e8415f3131d54beb91da1a88630faf7
50606 F20101222_AAASLC berry_j_Page_16.pro
cb4220224dcdda997fd08c23c7b6297c
7da5a2ccb977039055d334b72fa8e56c015b367c
111213 F20101222_AAASGF berry_j_Page_57.jpg
afd12d0d8173792e740edb4629c72825
4da6b12aca213abea24122261305915e93d57b34
7668 F20101222_AAASQB berry_j_Page_01.QC.jpg
466f76781e7244c34eeccb9067502d76
a0449db81e4c219e3ffcc68cbb8a8f19810072bd
51420 F20101222_AAASLD berry_j_Page_17.pro
e161f71834156a1e2551b6c7e73255cb
aecfbfeb64ab599d2ec0cadda04f196e168b6267
102542 F20101222_AAASGG berry_j_Page_58.jpg
9d85b62a64754a8ea0fab76bdb471b4b
f59579aa6bb2be010a37ee02537bc6ab385e36a4
1242 F20101222_AAASQC berry_j_Page_02.QC.jpg
fbd17344571babcf5c6bc440b8672c0c
a34fc442bda7f7ee25320a9e5ecfd309902864a9
53132 F20101222_AAASLE berry_j_Page_18.pro
0338a9683edb1090624e601760a3cb53
66f6b8a6e0d206018a788f123627c147db031a01
28781 F20101222_AAASGH berry_j_Page_59.jpg
28eb5cdcdac2e444572dad6c13fc944d
5a2b9ff9962e4a57c4409dab4092d602c7f5f0dd
102607 F20101222_AAASBL berry_j_Page_31.jpg
9d43423ab72c32faa455f98bf72c20da
539339c64080d92a8f49006a87c4899ec0255c0e
54473 F20101222_AAASLF berry_j_Page_19.pro
78b4233773164f7502d3b6d306ed1b73
0c484b708d74e3c232a237b636d5533d2795242b
127032 F20101222_AAASGI berry_j_Page_62.jpg
bd666aa27bddaf3564b26c3965334143
c724431f307b8513a1312adb92d291b19fffe018
F20101222_AAASQD berry_j_Page_03thm.jpg
a0b594289f5d9285e5ee74a4fceef2c5
9d40978c4683ddbe0bd8a09f810fb81b28c41742
17577 F20101222_AAASBM berry_j_Page_08.QC.jpg
b27c49ef0db205ff95b0e36f14eb38ea
2118b1cbed6af278d09e50d9bf7565a990092c77
52966 F20101222_AAASLG berry_j_Page_22.pro
ecd722d413fb0c6523c361761cd6c20d
35b847f4a5ced454d3f753959015292b40f78cdf
13255 F20101222_AAASGJ berry_j_Page_63.jpg
a3316b77fabf14785dffffb9e3577df8
04bf2659b2a5d46484568b15c6cdd01f0ccd27bf
8046 F20101222_AAASQE berry_j_Page_04.QC.jpg
3ab0990d478ef15ced18bdb225ea2425
be87af5428548c16a2d6c2cde501391c6bf3e217
1674 F20101222_AAASBN berry_j_Page_38.txt
374bd0fcce29c2ef41dfa2f7f4cd93b7
0404f1a9a0c197e74bb0c8dacbbd2f232c2962ce
49895 F20101222_AAASLH berry_j_Page_23.pro
40f6421f5135a7f9a94c2a5351de2bb0
ca20f2d7ba0744489effd51c2a385b40a671176f
52499 F20101222_AAASGK berry_j_Page_64.jpg
ddb064793d191f3c88dcb5ebb8432fae
d55ddc080fe1bb9190e04dcd853c0dde4fdcf5c7
1994 F20101222_AAASQF berry_j_Page_04thm.jpg
b6cb2c73258e7b569adbd14337cb43f4
eb360e2daf3c53e6594ed24d91ec930c23804518
33076 F20101222_AAASBO berry_j_Page_52.QC.jpg
2023ab55db67f801a9ea26486303e43f
998e3f6036cb315e81fa8ca7fa2338b01e2589cb
54106 F20101222_AAASLI berry_j_Page_24.pro
dd398942670c89d090964bb3bfd8b90f
974a3b64017df2df3fadd8d2fd22eb40f8187dfa
229595 F20101222_AAASGL berry_j_Page_01.jp2
cab8803f72c3310a91ffecec54939f26
68c0a198462ee25c25d4f685fdcf917105470005
20889 F20101222_AAASQG berry_j_Page_05.QC.jpg
3a24b8a04dc7e90824d5545a2943a590
814590dcc001d869158036a017946cd133392e7f
2103 F20101222_AAASBP berry_j_Page_11.txt
b666c20dad841422117e1aac92d8d387
38632d4eb314457a05f5032d1d8b5f257af69589
30864 F20101222_AAASLJ berry_j_Page_25.pro
9241b491a2111cbe91ced32055b92de4
2089d57078eaec9f31cfeedf5d94cd2234907883
59390 F20101222_AAASGM berry_j_Page_03.jp2
b36d8a8f928d44cd0638fbcd937f3c7c
729c6bab461275c88c23a816d2bcaf9b046533d1
7522 F20101222_AAASQH berry_j_Page_06.QC.jpg
faa64ac193bb93f67ea7b27f0fdd90da
b784eda421873394d5886c19967fe78501d26943
7707 F20101222_AAASBQ berry_j_Page_01.pro
75e6b63100618d69a418fe4d5fdead83
f0ea3ecd51c0a6eb8b7c912b3e432ea92c6358aa
4356 F20101222_AAASLK berry_j_Page_26.pro
83cca664bd2a314c626a3cb41799b86d
15bf51c75b87482cfb4b7e63274903556ff27964
241369 F20101222_AAASGN berry_j_Page_04.jp2
95be67a143174e78f8661b6c92aba2e3
97325b0ef6a407fb0bbf616e36b82a53c31c5113
2179 F20101222_AAASBR berry_j_Page_19.txt
c0a1a9b9b34e721c0ef04c1e08977253
1164766b13dedb073d31fd244fb219809f957c6c
26129 F20101222_AAASLL berry_j_Page_27.pro
76f931579bd08f163923aef0ecb339ed
881aaca3d5f64d3393f1d16a599754b3d4208662
1051980 F20101222_AAASGO berry_j_Page_05.jp2
e767961001eeb7f603f3282415f85995
dd7c95c09f922dc6d1d6b2a0071d12bd7efa837c
2046 F20101222_AAASQI berry_j_Page_06thm.jpg
7ec19316a1600346d00fc6461994a394
5967c9dec9a1dd48be9ad0e1575e82c8d2706a60
517 F20101222_AAASBS berry_j_Page_59.txt
77d2bce236d217504aa56b0661dfaf01
7863058cdbdb67336d90487a8de6535edf0eb8ac
55610 F20101222_AAASLM berry_j_Page_29.pro
beb378663f12fecbd2e8f344c0b4e135
c4a036e4552599c088fd78ab15aef0f4bd0c586b
553644 F20101222_AAASGP berry_j_Page_06.jp2
4eee26b9cdda9fad0272205363252225
7a88a4e0dbe69857d115f65c5ad69413385e7b90
8641 F20101222_AAASQJ berry_j_Page_07thm.jpg
0f1bfb0789bcc9983803e2d26161b2aa
3f82399cd943cc7e73487bb3863b53a02fdb7523
53862 F20101222_AAASBT berry_j_Page_21.pro
6cd2106ef9713f977cd8c6d86e8ff922
aa18b16161b6067a9d3cd4e62902fc536834edbe
51633 F20101222_AAASLN berry_j_Page_30.pro
a277f33c85e8ef2032e1f187df5501c9
db397bcdca6261a90ef52634dd3a34a6d61c7a77
1051968 F20101222_AAASGQ berry_j_Page_07.jp2
a5f8b2c42284fbf67368b465bfd57f23
a139867030c68d0a563ae3603c9f771849c8d481
25195 F20101222_AAASQK berry_j_Page_09.QC.jpg
abe6950c7a414ffad3f95de0b4732b2e
85fd63186d8c06fdabd7cf419d686da656e084a8
51257 F20101222_AAASLO berry_j_Page_31.pro
6c9c0b5b69f75268a0f44c52e27e1719
61c91dc72667748bafacc5fb4c09f8841348cb07
F20101222_AAASGR berry_j_Page_08.jp2
9267bd7eaea348f927e833a62b650945
e4c1dd9bbdf2eb586e6331622e675ff32a80cbad
6756 F20101222_AAASQL berry_j_Page_09thm.jpg
0741cd613e164944b702601f0c2f941d
ee48fca08a9ef2219f1ac98075ca0d1d5476e517
54726 F20101222_AAASBU berry_j_Page_20.pro
46f80a7a8908a98e4566ecedf110c787
a29e333656b3e5f0f8a94db960c6922cd2423ad3
51779 F20101222_AAASLP berry_j_Page_32.pro
0d74c8375b1a9ce1719d63bc43e0bfb6
b7f9bfa43b61deca393c4d7978e3c62c01e98cdb
876729 F20101222_AAASGS berry_j_Page_09.jp2
09953d85acb422f5a2cb3e092d788c1f
e9e0ce150386f7ca9e6b489cdd3007f45cb2012d
F20101222_AAASQM berry_j_Page_10thm.jpg
c51ac0a19e79a71e04dc4de3110bb3d6
674e13e93fba9bc0ed678996f144312fa08ba2fe
55616 F20101222_AAASBV berry_j_Page_14.pro
2dfaa7a0eecbca830dbe26c68bfb46df
91e63f635015d68d99a979bf2290b8ba5cce5274
49863 F20101222_AAASLQ berry_j_Page_33.pro
e55ffab68d7ad5b773601af114205032
4d8e7bbca875e64898665abdd443b49b51f2cba9
1051923 F20101222_AAASGT berry_j_Page_10.jp2
8b8b2df7d447166f3f685ef370602f0a
9c78aa3156e4aa77a8355e939d4bd2a3d06936a8
33663 F20101222_AAASQN berry_j_Page_11.QC.jpg
7bbf1f7932ba9f46974315b72846ee52
021bce861aa4e40e7dcceb862337a69c688bc254
F20101222_AAASBW berry_j_Page_01.tif
eea2730c6a7800db868179cbde8a4296
74cac6f7decf4637f749527fcb0a274e6e27f206
33115 F20101222_AAASLR berry_j_Page_34.pro
6ad33509dd7323722a7d1dd7b598dd46
b269434009cd411039bce9322f5f49f64ba8449a
F20101222_AAASGU berry_j_Page_11.jp2
bf11552db66361e5e640b08c9d865d22
e2eaacd7d7e3feaefaff3ef553a2401b26eb23ac
8555 F20101222_AAASQO berry_j_Page_11thm.jpg
984b0e58c08398ee317e98c7b9fb273d
2749ece109ce2bcb7c6b6c226142291c9f586b95
65535 F20101222_AAASBX berry_j_Page_44.jpg
1733d24c7072028b89eb8aebe4797c2f
5f1b7f598cc20f78210fdbd9d5c30b74e33fd141
5950 F20101222_AAASLS berry_j_Page_35.pro
41f48bfbd6d3de66d972b0885894ad5d
52b64881474b8562722179148043c8307c636bc1
1051918 F20101222_AAASGV berry_j_Page_12.jp2
5a4a91cbbff005883b43bfd7381df407
9025d7fd676fa876bbc1dc2a8ad437ca5c88d88c
8936 F20101222_AAASQP berry_j_Page_12thm.jpg
d0efab2653a475db978ab5d494e05e8d
85286921fce891ae64099d009b1824d571f5a886
4461 F20101222_AAASBY berry_j_Page_08thm.jpg
82e5e111e706eabca8888e75b37f9337
aeeb687b12072c3ee0124c4e1053667f60a47486
18745 F20101222_AAASLT berry_j_Page_36.pro
6a7da204538aa7ffa5a590e19932812f
34f5859549957269f913c37da405ce5b84919039
1051963 F20101222_AAASGW berry_j_Page_13.jp2
fd372851ec7503fbf852fc660b8487c8
02acf05b6145346900a4656e27cf63c0832d0322
8847 F20101222_AAASQQ berry_j_Page_14thm.jpg
02740517ec4b21bf3f6f836f296283c5
80d98442a3c998a49367933586ae2cef4c9a319d
F20101222_AAASBZ berry_j_Page_03.tif
fb924cc6f265d7aaa7f9bf29196145c3
ece64f6235902fcda73ed2c917132bb0f7abb1c2
44042 F20101222_AAASLU berry_j_Page_37.pro
cfc86e2205824cf722f518e05d90a5fc
9168c9ad49a5c057894755d3d9ca8c2ff9367dbf
1051942 F20101222_AAASGX berry_j_Page_14.jp2
4028015ed0ecce46fc693cd2a2aeefd6
643899ccc837b5f212e0158e73a1f636c99565b8
32540 F20101222_AAASQR berry_j_Page_16.QC.jpg
933cb59c1c672c58930c039f26c331f9
aefc5a75317a0aac7e1a45d405f3dfcadaeb138f
94579 F20101222_AAASLV berry_j_Page_39.pro
f384f16c7d0640c56cb5596173539923
331450f712faeaf12b3fb666df1bed43a27c542a
267687 F20101222_AAASGY berry_j_Page_15.jp2
33134c33b1ec4a1ed6193f1c965cd90f
86a4aa463140131722fb95f8f7f9bac71c688795
8324 F20101222_AAASQS berry_j_Page_16thm.jpg
5170b0723286be52ff7976db9031ba18
060577f01b9dc46ccabb92808612b6cb60849666
50317 F20101222_AAASLW berry_j_Page_41.pro
257c91ad59afb03fe83f1abe6816f15b
18d5b16658c7dd8086336e43db91a33ec48f5984
427534 F20101222_AAASEA berry_j_Page_43.jp2
6dd968d99372b6d4e34dda91b20271a0
8e69ce79bdf1ca319369c8ce47bb6bb1cb691812
34250 F20101222_AAASQT berry_j_Page_17.QC.jpg
69c7ba2cd8bc4926b28e5a7bb6a6c0c4
9af94633d822a0975f4d0d5869c595f1249015bf
54217 F20101222_AAASLX berry_j_Page_42.pro
b973e62961a21699055202333b67d21d
23d99d49066e2e5f2cba8117fc56874a03df25cd
1713 F20101222_AAASEB berry_j_Page_09.txt
df556173420337b4b1e309cd1b51e4f8
13430691e5f98cf91ac341c57002deccb645431a
1051970 F20101222_AAASGZ berry_j_Page_16.jp2
c06d032795c355cc5a34f79ad011c289
5aeb88566d3ecae0c708effc7e922ab0f6c87577
8529 F20101222_AAASQU berry_j_Page_17thm.jpg
4508086e532db498e8389f70e4f9789c
dade95d5f59fa390f95ce694c2ad66af4e0182e2
18382 F20101222_AAASLY berry_j_Page_43.pro
cb196f7aed93d2a8bd86dfea95466b21
8f512d08384adade59c4171216a33b4596242b9e
1051979 F20101222_AAASEC berry_j_Page_19.jp2
726bd533020bdfc92a90a8f4983be5a6
82534d084ab73b89932ce072153819fa3e16ab6d
34310 F20101222_AAASQV berry_j_Page_18.QC.jpg
0051d28d4ebcf91f9e699e4d497243dd
7f2db3e62caaa849fbcc4ff232eb551e5a4e2377
44624 F20101222_AAASLZ berry_j_Page_45.pro
2e3e671431d921155f749a315aa6c421
a08d3a9a54ed4af6b234d4c099c5eb08f13b92af
8220 F20101222_AAASED berry_j_Page_20thm.jpg
6ddd7134f5d0a84354f49f6177a3230e
214fb0528b090529569d2a11382073dce395e66d
35514 F20101222_AAASQW berry_j_Page_19.QC.jpg
0a53a49584c42c12dd50aa84ac831aaf
3d2302ac0675801daf6898427715c4935fbd9503
F20101222_AAASJA berry_j_Page_18.tif
3c437c3c2c86840d84dfd40d54b4e86f
4ac9127109b5d18a4b39997e667d511907631e9a
33389 F20101222_AAASQX berry_j_Page_20.QC.jpg
a686dab9b573856bb562f745d3c2c9f2
1f7392270338f7edebfc2978994161cdd5e61c3a
111554 F20101222_AAASEE berry_j_Page_42.jpg
ffc57fea0b8c8c3b7c524e57b593bcd5
36e5a11ac050595f8088a68ac766827cce302066
F20101222_AAASJB berry_j_Page_19.tif
cd18278e8fc4c69d129ec819b5dcd48f
a4032bdebc987c5d2a1ee550df2705720bf39ee6
36197 F20101222_AAASQY berry_j_Page_21.QC.jpg
4177009d3ba11a606e0413064bb98680
ab73369b0fff55641637b3bd9d1d3943839f5376
50692 F20101222_AAASEF berry_j_Page_40.pro
d31b2c6e03377d41e7dac57e95c8d9dd
9d820715fb3b63ee93236f4ec7861e8627307b1a
2040 F20101222_AAASOA berry_j_Page_46.txt
939e7293a5c50ab32bdef18db9e106ae
def9a3d88eae4c9a8627d8cded6ca93e3cdab7d3
F20101222_AAASJC berry_j_Page_20.tif
c30b074111017f4ea48b7565b65466d8
0b0b3e52ba013f2167880543018e6612eb4e89d3
8743 F20101222_AAASQZ berry_j_Page_21thm.jpg
128bf68b47ca8036ebf9a2325ab5cdcc
bf416e262088abfcfe4dbe79a97d01ff02662bd5
111787 F20101222_AAASEG berry_j_Page_29.jpg
9157e6bb36aac589632252d92bbb64e5
7f38566f7e201349356c5672355463e2602a1a62
F20101222_AAASJD berry_j_Page_21.tif
de4acc79b526466df04df342cb04b060
572127b755a9bc1f29e6b9c6016c2e7e7bfdc331
11419 F20101222_AAASEH berry_j_Page_26.QC.jpg
ecca5c436373f84e1ecd800efa483728
120ec5abba53b4f44d07cf198ce6d2f3f8f81350
1854 F20101222_AAASOB berry_j_Page_47.txt
b2a0542c5aaf86b18df75944cd5e0729
4bdc44292c62583a7034480d196046c761aec727
F20101222_AAASJE berry_j_Page_22.tif
7beebe140e67f32f53786455f001d25d
5d3f4c6726a82cbcb55c97bd220be9bdf7c92ef1
880696 F20101222_AAASEI berry_j_Page_38.jp2
345cb7becc91ba54fd2278dc2f5fb215
8702af0c89f89a0129c9c1ffbe2aed218a333896
2509 F20101222_AAASOC berry_j_Page_48.txt
c7c60803fd8b4bdcf85e46d159816bef
4317040711e935b9386669aa781441f50eb4b507
F20101222_AAASJF berry_j_Page_23.tif
4708482242098689937a2b3e02a1cb18
fcfa0e6da619852e36520272bc349d93891fd6d0
34298 F20101222_AAASEJ berry_j_Page_35.jpg
27812873b8af7a07b64034ffdcfe597e
d1ee30fdb09de7e0c7c0288a0b06eb2e6b593496
3198 F20101222_AAASOD berry_j_Page_49.txt
89dda7d9b3da22975665c23db4800573
479597f7df927b0984ecb72ce41b895837852bf7
F20101222_AAASJG berry_j_Page_24.tif
0eab8600fe5e8ff074acaa1cdce69ad1
3ea0088d42c8fccde5f82527f8257cf9b2cd3f48
37236 F20101222_AAASEK berry_j_Page_12.QC.jpg
0a0089180a3dd6d9e0c77dad701415fa
4f2a425388c20c07ceee5a9908abde606f18810a
1654 F20101222_AAASOE berry_j_Page_50.txt
df388df7da3f85f8c98e60edb65c75f1
32ad13b5ff1917608c8ce947e0240121d222d507
F20101222_AAASJH berry_j_Page_25.tif
4a0f316a2e80fd02942522398486607b
bd9d53e4d9da722909b7c7e570f84a2e2c6c04dc
75696 F20101222_AAASEL UFE0022720_00001.mets
e8ed2d6507946b7e0c41398e84492751
30ac01d5fed1926728c63e6f03f6558bdde9bdab
1052 F20101222_AAASOF berry_j_Page_51.txt
9170f90c8992ac4ddbbb94afa938d432
fd9688b00cb9894e6b8c6d6f606961139740e98f
F20101222_AAASJI berry_j_Page_26.tif
e3c2c3dc4133bab8902f35138bfdd964
a4548b9770a2767d7f2da11baedb4278c318d501
2009 F20101222_AAASOG berry_j_Page_52.txt
1eb995254196806502d345b996e3524f
96291896cc5852c798841c5db70f484440a4042c
F20101222_AAASJJ berry_j_Page_27.tif
22e06e16b56d95f6d1833be28c5eca5a
d4ee03124d24c528a4c59f8d1505ab1bc3617f89
F20101222_AAASOH berry_j_Page_53.txt
c3a63eb0d5e4db19f0128d15f3360d4e
3a6aaf676314b3cba4cbcf604bcd52ea470ccc1a
F20101222_AAASJK berry_j_Page_28.tif
89104d1185548791efadd5d491aaee30
fb293a908fae7a4bb16e38f6d39ddaeefddc8bfc
24202 F20101222_AAASEO berry_j_Page_01.jpg
f0d14734481175da1e38ab2cb3390b06
be95104a466eb074a00c0a30ec67e977c6c19caa
2150 F20101222_AAASOI berry_j_Page_54.txt
abedc2bf1b8f6e21bf0a5a0f372f0731
98fa076322ade35ddd99e8ba57a20445392f6237
F20101222_AAASJL berry_j_Page_29.tif
7131b9861821345342651a3d1a82079f
1337899df6914d6ec9d902a009d7e69672b56924
4145 F20101222_AAASEP berry_j_Page_02.jpg
2752aa458022d7ba94222e54f72a8765
74977f379ccefed0d9d6a4971e2922a2dd852602
2077 F20101222_AAASOJ berry_j_Page_55.txt
348651335494e04ad9e2f29fdee178a1
6f3e1db219c5c23cee188c5c5e967fc02d25b321
F20101222_AAASJM berry_j_Page_31.tif
d0d95364ef3db07083782064cb3fd4ef
7ff6a5274bd46a37c20f0f8482f754d1fd0deb5d
7198 F20101222_AAASEQ berry_j_Page_03.jpg
c0338365bc7875f6924b0d8bd7460112
7d41a66a7237ac74d9c371815b5f50a5f2fae715
2012 F20101222_AAASOK berry_j_Page_56.txt
d965c4fb030508d85cea046e515f99ea
a5cdb9dda528cd1be9e784ed811f94545067c5ed
F20101222_AAASJN berry_j_Page_33.tif
498032993ee13ee31c3fb7775aa9cabe
41f05e1642ae22e78bff4d8b1390cf58b7d531a9
25084 F20101222_AAASER berry_j_Page_04.jpg
0e57786e6ddeb8f57a0aef4e2c7010cc
a1b058912c8543370fbe561fe8a8ec500bd0392d
2197 F20101222_AAASOL berry_j_Page_57.txt
b8515cafe2fcf4e26e5feff435b16930
41b1be2220486d5d76633aa145525d61ba813cf5
F20101222_AAASJO berry_j_Page_35.tif
5070c80f04a7b3b6f3e0e54d6514c370
77fdb799abfee884e17199d8a77d018c447d0a9b
97748 F20101222_AAASES berry_j_Page_05.jpg
e84723448dd00cfd2d559d46eb01b740
d460818677f636dd0f4afb5cce531b86615c0740
2076 F20101222_AAASOM berry_j_Page_58.txt
23c14a99757e85e05543f8672e9588b4
66cb68825858a7f73c5bfdcb8554b51ebbc9faba
F20101222_AAASJP berry_j_Page_36.tif
3d1428b37fe128f12d7493147ce92708
9caffb1486014495f55fe87bdcea4cac83ff4bbd
32997 F20101222_AAASET berry_j_Page_06.jpg
65f10676e74db180f7eb223fa1c03cb7
9e63e2eb7c629f0abe5532248d0e4ba1ae762fd8
2324 F20101222_AAASON berry_j_Page_60.txt
e56133e12dc95b29ac1bca9d8fcc0564
670f80d0b21773f476b73bd157f2f6564a379a72
F20101222_AAASJQ berry_j_Page_37.tif
997b79c1709923b91c10fede827b81b8
a53114ef1357a59c579750541c845eabd2b4263e
125226 F20101222_AAASEU berry_j_Page_07.jpg
570aca52789331bddead8fc95e6a8698
af585ea1516130b4b5d1b195266e5fb4a3088e5e
2374 F20101222_AAASOO berry_j_Page_62.txt
1e986f1734da82d80ef6597e1435c546
16667a9c12d8ccc3729171dee3862947dec57835
F20101222_AAASJR berry_j_Page_38.tif
047c9f62457d6aba87b4053ba340fd2d
196bc055108d985e02c8ae350e4fdde7666a462d
103161 F20101222_AAASEV berry_j_Page_11.jpg
0abcfc3ed3dc9ed061ea43b2878c2703
21bc9ffe9c3592840f39339b5776c10aa6bacf62
198 F20101222_AAASOP berry_j_Page_63.txt
448b5c3832733db2a7affe41e019fbea
0839d2ac6be2d2012c901d0a6df5cf57020381d6
F20101222_AAASJS berry_j_Page_39.tif
0f6bd49074c43c7cfe3736bc6a4cabd0
d738e363d62b294b7ea568a7fc25e8da68853306
116622 F20101222_AAASEW berry_j_Page_12.jpg
e1e20bbe5fdc214c0ad1ae4ad5be2d15
8ea45d2d71caad63e0636baefa7eb438a04c929e
987 F20101222_AAASOQ berry_j_Page_64.txt
5cfac610f2deda7a0f704eba52e02569
4aa6e4b82ef1bfe218ff14421446ab9ce7a4b5af
F20101222_AAASJT berry_j_Page_40.tif
1421165498e844bcdd7b4addead4f1c1
be62e1136d16fa22632c65be93994f3a040a63a6
2039 F20101222_AAASOR berry_j_Page_01thm.jpg
b65f6c09a406ddbf2f2d0ae472fd6af0
0c7c7ac73d80c88ed58ee03c0f91d1e33f959b9c
F20101222_AAASJU berry_j_Page_41.tif
5e0ba9ec366243a78519372d4c468b27
68b8714f1a624a7ef0f8b193b4d3426c76a885c8
559690 F20101222_AAASOS berry_j.pdf
a051bd772652ee6371ecffbe1f670047
d922c7f52650871e49a8d2155898969594bd48e4
F20101222_AAASJV berry_j_Page_42.tif
6be618342362809e995f49e3bad7b2eb
f19b1da9e6f71e0125796779135f2aa265f2a261
110261 F20101222_AAASEX berry_j_Page_13.jpg
999613f9149c0a805cdeb114e11c6fa5
735c50d09e8b0d774cd5f171b0b121cdc4774708
3840 F20101222_AAASOT berry_j_Page_36thm.jpg
019fcefa7d796f6aa568821c0206ac3f
a8a75e0911869b5fd28c400c3a43577df70e9662
F20101222_AAASJW berry_j_Page_43.tif
0231bb09be045b8c1272c5b2616957dd
4c91d036b00695488f25555bc8ae6dd61ff2c0c4
F20101222_AAASCA berry_j_Page_59.tif
b1acaa8c11ff6cfd234a517b94cfafa7
93ee922052061393c087e3606d9aea25def4fcf8
112748 F20101222_AAASEY berry_j_Page_14.jpg
7ae60fb105dbc685e09fa8742b04d3c7
153d301392e414e8aad2f2b90280d32749588b52
35543 F20101222_AAASOU berry_j_Page_24.QC.jpg
b86018fbd74196ebdf1a21476edaa8d9
c542433f1793a14882ed9ced44cc238b37a44d1d
F20101222_AAASJX berry_j_Page_44.tif
1939775c6c6beb4798d8d80343ef41dc
09cc46f537666e9b95ac94b623d3aa0e46805256
51729 F20101222_AAASCB berry_j_Page_58.pro
97cd94ef2d9192dcd7f6a7b8a1459660
2709cbd583a8e7d37d2dc46f1721695918868ffa
26534 F20101222_AAASEZ berry_j_Page_15.jpg
55701423116e00ccea448657d81bb2ce
b9b3277c6da3477433852e1f36840213e120586a
36220 F20101222_AAASOV berry_j_Page_14.QC.jpg
67c86e25661337cc84bc4f74f6216608
fca4d90eeb26084ec3db78de342f3bb592c00f09
F20101222_AAASJY berry_j_Page_45.tif
a9bc3fd8251b124aa1ceeac0dd8649eb
a1cca5b23e0272409e8a13d71998cd45b715c45d
2106 F20101222_AAASCC berry_j_Page_16.txt
d495c771f3deb4484b7e46db73ead90a
517d2c2cce494ec3c530c8cbaa0f545edb6f26c0
2219 F20101222_AAASOW berry_j_Page_15thm.jpg
91733df9c7ab778f087c7aa5b2660730
4986bc97f5021719b9a946292341ba476869fe6a
1051954 F20101222_AAASHA berry_j_Page_17.jp2
2c0fb2ca68f5844c9711476c2dc3b8c8
7d572cf5a280a2102c547feeee2c7cc21dfc398a
F20101222_AAASJZ berry_j_Page_46.tif
94331d513c075e3ef6122986f5577103
7fd3dac1c08528e90fec8da04c8f1856de1e9aa0
8342 F20101222_AAASCD berry_j_Page_48thm.jpg
b7c5a31284b83635cca9768e6e78c5ed
f1c920adf776f699747547524f1ff53d82a73aee
34216 F20101222_AAASOX berry_j_Page_13.QC.jpg
5990c315674800cf0485513b155ab019
f304fdcab33a21dd42f737cc6299e374b5cd330f
1051973 F20101222_AAASHB berry_j_Page_18.jp2
5550cdc4f84c0894e812c6ea2865d734
3b75c880c3a83a1492f3dad7b6e89360e64e1b0a
54561 F20101222_AAASCE berry_j_Page_54.pro
50876d56b390a22134dc0528e777d4ce
8afc3ff86a82d3df71d9dccf4357f45ff0bf7afa
6490 F20101222_AAASOY berry_j_Page_49thm.jpg
9e971c096e62e3f299b8c08302453572
a5fb542f3c64635ca6dd3eba1ba36acc1599bcfe
F20101222_AAASHC berry_j_Page_20.jp2
3fa4d7e9275bbc9ea83162fcd1a3596f
cd6c7fa187c76676886e11c7871771343c34698a
2050 F20101222_AAASCF berry_j_Page_32.txt
ea0cf7e84c5130f72926fcd79d7b4d28
d15b4d08b44f8479ecb6b04023daf62d445170e3
34118 F20101222_AAASOZ berry_j_Page_58.QC.jpg
149d00b71d12bd15ce6fa523c1d39d87
b42cd86df5556e09d1637bff81ceb7a9114a643b
1051975 F20101222_AAASHD berry_j_Page_21.jp2
d2fe7799f6ce7acbe4199db4c637b9f2
b1af04185fee73ee335d9947f690fd1cfd5162b2
52192 F20101222_AAASCG berry_j_Page_49.pro
5dfe23254240fdabf0578589becb0750
2fd395fd6dd07234b367df94d463168a95698cec
42074 F20101222_AAASMA berry_j_Page_46.pro
15454099b5f2653eddd99547bebcb17c
9933b327e59fd5aa81a436c1a1c498aa1e2ae7f7
1051919 F20101222_AAASHE berry_j_Page_22.jp2
2e999a65592d5b68cac833b19db04202
9b7c3469e26d8c2985ed2ce55859db3009e322ef
104112 F20101222_AAASCH berry_j_Page_10.jpg
0b3a72365c5d2e30fa1cdbe92e9408d4
671e6bd18bd685045cbe77ff8183f8c7ff450903
44418 F20101222_AAASMB berry_j_Page_47.pro
c6519f9698e6aad54750efce2aad88d4
a31c7d106be7cb9aefdd707fbf84e038610db717
33134 F20101222_AAASRA berry_j_Page_23.QC.jpg
e0161a164fa9fa943596ded73192842b
c56a1d2c06bf8252305ac7df1dec19b25cddcd6a
1051978 F20101222_AAASHF berry_j_Page_23.jp2
aa864ad9bccceb155c22c5bb405c48da
89519ea608661876a224631dbd2357346126fad3
1051983 F20101222_AAASCI berry_j_Page_57.jp2
9cc5fa32d53dab4ae29b7ec06dcffa06
b968078785bda3d3948862d4891c84f73cd77965
56088 F20101222_AAASMC berry_j_Page_48.pro
e9d9b224d938dff888ebea3408647ebc
558cd1b389fe4444a3fa9384e3b2fb27940bc964
9143 F20101222_AAASRB berry_j_Page_24thm.jpg
df7a3f15e6620d25d5f687f18bc03141
844064427263eb7dbbc6cab004a64676be9a49d3
F20101222_AAASHG berry_j_Page_24.jp2
c7b98800c7eda45a31121f2775bbac80
260a4231a4db9c5981f1fe9052f230766f956cac
F20101222_AAASCJ berry_j_Page_34.tif
73fd9cc4393ba079878725326f997608
47940f2480c69aaca5fd86544c651bc2d5990bfb
31506 F20101222_AAASMD berry_j_Page_50.pro
fee61c64be0b0c24c84d1ba66b0d5d85
b89f58be5b7fa64c5a9ba99d6492b8e2279e25af
21744 F20101222_AAASRC berry_j_Page_25.QC.jpg
aed402e69f23ee52393d6c90a07f55a4
b42a0231e328045308c2a451926c9bfab1c2ade4
292812 F20101222_AAASHH berry_j_Page_26.jp2
17d2693962d9a56ab873805494ab4b47
8eb79ef43ebe05580d2ca214b3dd121d1b5b8973
34395 F20101222_AAASCK berry_j_Page_22.QC.jpg
628d3c0b56ef503cbca369863d1c9211
73113d565e074526e98c85f3db6ec0939a800613
19910 F20101222_AAASME berry_j_Page_51.pro
915154f7e9486441f3a5258315da9b4b
8ddb43f92549da100b6a424e566e687d7ac3009f
5493 F20101222_AAASRD berry_j_Page_25thm.jpg
045b2aac2551e8b7c01af1116957b3b0
776e0aa95c1b920a7871ab04904260bbbdc5c25c
581343 F20101222_AAASHI berry_j_Page_27.jp2
c0560141c1b1f13e479eab6962edce16
35d0261015be85d8607605607c403340b00c1110
5699 F20101222_AAASCL berry_j_Page_37thm.jpg
1bec335d450f48edc71946e8b298a1fb
e03e88ac97dcde0b6624c99023c901067d6aa21e
47965 F20101222_AAASMF berry_j_Page_52.pro
1fc86abb83096ff89eb5300ad4ed0ffe
56f190075d7c3f0825df81650a6669a326a1f8f7
1020293 F20101222_AAASHJ berry_j_Page_28.jp2
8e2878c21f56b7294bea0c2ccc8d592c
3feb543889fb5d8e9f602356c22dec66320a0565
65874 F20101222_AAASCM berry_j_Page_25.jpg
eae1638d090b152fc19405bf259f4fba
3a783728be29f854a2fb9511000201ce2a628368
52987 F20101222_AAASMG berry_j_Page_53.pro
ec0b66b3ef689cebe907eddc986152b6
3d3e33373ac313a10ece521af49af298289e2b6b
30582 F20101222_AAASRE berry_j_Page_28.QC.jpg
7c76b85ef05696dbd87b40cf79d78e06
278db676dc0cf6e89b4b52047b4ac792c9825e60
1051965 F20101222_AAASHK berry_j_Page_29.jp2
191f62484b42f1c53d071dc78f76b1cb
4c06a4498c35d62daea52ee8cf78e396504bd050
551883 F20101222_AAASCN berry_j_Page_64.jp2
816f13e06488b8e35ee0d67d3f485b37
d1cdb0bed4fec970a9cf75a6b16deece066b5e79
52618 F20101222_AAASMH berry_j_Page_55.pro
8896c64cde8316f215eed0f2ff2c5ca7
928e84bf843b41cbb977d47d9250d662f9ed47a4
7929 F20101222_AAASRF berry_j_Page_28thm.jpg
99affb00de56aa1fd57406a924660fab
5f6421a56a0db115e348bcaf00340c702f3bb55a
F20101222_AAASHL berry_j_Page_30.jp2
786cfc27c9913480d38d5829202f2c13
10cd6461872bcc6cb536122e79cb15a73f02f0ff
28407 F20101222_AAASCO berry_j_Page_02.jp2
422034421021c5a0bc1231f845cd73b5
528620a6949b9f09ed4883e4c6ad52c2f987fc85
50958 F20101222_AAASMI berry_j_Page_56.pro
ebf040c9dc966b9c80cdbd52dc3c6564
fe23b441ce70d8541267748b28b03066427b1df1
8499 F20101222_AAASRG berry_j_Page_29thm.jpg
f89f38061809dfba840fb77a1f6e1d35
782fe7e7be905bc91fae769834bba47649cfb73e
1051952 F20101222_AAASHM berry_j_Page_32.jp2
d063a6ad8118b23f9ec37fee3b71d30e
b8217a100e3799b6343c651d8f91af33af3382b2
1051959 F20101222_AAASCP berry_j_Page_53.jp2
4bcc5f5313d220d0705c64bc2c53b581
b47c0f9e97fc78838e9b4af95f148d44688559aa
54963 F20101222_AAASMJ berry_j_Page_57.pro
6a2d740edbbe19572f482a5a154e4c36
833a021ff0460fd839858553ef1917fcdc035a3d
33596 F20101222_AAASRH berry_j_Page_30.QC.jpg
b4d78690c70be7e87289565956de92d2
8daa74f4d9b4880c0cd4b4c9fcee1fbcbd8e5df2
769793 F20101222_AAASHN berry_j_Page_34.jp2
a3f20c2c6072dbb66de1ed1ca5b881ca
f1050f1b89c16f609038efd94af525240ad2037b
1051986 F20101222_AAASCQ berry_j_Page_33.jp2
f8a7bf1cb9c6f94051a753523bb36c47
93be0fa19d60ddb9958ebd0bf23dd6eb0386bf14
12970 F20101222_AAASMK berry_j_Page_59.pro
cf0048db154b81e2e5c06a425e6b2eaf
4067fd560b5aad382b151f410704385926867baa
33299 F20101222_AAASRI berry_j_Page_31.QC.jpg
baecadfb03962130158eee70380abae9
1f02e3ce6a1be96f814a188586a6220944f55448
371873 F20101222_AAASHO berry_j_Page_35.jp2
a5af0112ea4457c6db3874fe740be882
928a8a3c08f25df7fdd61401ea7a4110d493c266
5358 F20101222_AAASCR berry_j_Page_46thm.jpg
2273632291c5b82f797ff267d4db415e
e2a1cb34ae8919a4c321a6402939a39b66fd1040
57417 F20101222_AAASML berry_j_Page_60.pro
5f50b50a57d2387f30e8e77708c1e66d
898e8dc8e408e8c462401fb9bf7347069013f340
8431 F20101222_AAASRJ berry_j_Page_31thm.jpg
6670afa27e0b7d15ddc53a362a6d6123
3b19e2e723bb14503ff28571238868e5f44d7075
434768 F20101222_AAASHP berry_j_Page_36.jp2
9527efc406544f4dd752287050c73135
d025596980928c18ed25a9c6c30adcab087e5a1d
446 F20101222_AAASCS berry_j_Page_04.txt
23ddd74b781d3535e5ef149e7debb368
c619a573bf6c681d5949fab9f96efa131c0efa96
59591 F20101222_AAASMM berry_j_Page_61.pro
d2165e902366a7028004dfa5d2f9216d
14b5465a8980b3b85e9bbc44109ce7467b61c679
33986 F20101222_AAASRK berry_j_Page_32.QC.jpg
963c1115947e7219bfec849bc25443e4
99acdeacef1f05fc00a4f6f581fea4031866a4c2
892942 F20101222_AAASHQ berry_j_Page_37.jp2
6d134f08653853b2b93c365ade11b5c5
048fd86b2980f99f12eb2adcd10f8315fdda291a
8183 F20101222_AAASCT berry_j_Page_23thm.jpg
d0d0cf78f84ef142fc2d6ccaf5a16fef
0d404ebf812271ab18408b81d3f3e9ef0ae6c7df
58858 F20101222_AAASMN berry_j_Page_62.pro
7a927112cc0e3c90aea698face7cc878
a889f662832f26fcba5111c9f6b2dc4e1d3f51f2
8069 F20101222_AAASRL berry_j_Page_33thm.jpg
274d8655f3944df291aa9b9dec86e7cc
7ff273cd938863240249c6c621ff47da2539b7d3
1051925 F20101222_AAASHR berry_j_Page_39.jp2
e87613a72dcf9d524889dc533b1b1cc6
51313bb0c2a7e22248e4de5fc963d48d90c250bf
F20101222_AAASCU berry_j_Page_31.jp2
e19b5c99d3dfcad0863a4db7b5777d56
93e47c25729343c06f130e17a022442398870890
4850 F20101222_AAASMO berry_j_Page_63.pro
644c4e4cee5ad45c3baf207c686933df
d8e0e00fdda67e2a3c331267d762d4f637b55585
13121 F20101222_AAASRM berry_j_Page_35.QC.jpg
9d71abb6989239b26a516d9cda6e85c9
3fb577a6e72cda5b8b9f3e985fe1a025cd010577
1051953 F20101222_AAASHS berry_j_Page_40.jp2
4bd1cd2a0108d0426138ae43f6a6ce0b
97961699cf43e46c073edfaf246034ad0c49ad89
23888 F20101222_AAASMP berry_j_Page_64.pro
1a78149971d036716fca6c49dad1e993
e101f0c0de353f4c89467da948739e9c9a5a1768
4554 F20101222_AAASRN berry_j_Page_35thm.jpg
7fe3ee5b1f83b0956e16d7448a463fef
469b37ef0e7297f80af838540162ef64c1cb56b3
F20101222_AAASHT berry_j_Page_41.jp2
029855e19d0b38e9096efbb155b058df
902aee6ed5950934db02ed4e4382f0af672d0281
37462 F20101222_AAASCV berry_j_Page_62.QC.jpg
9650a9f8ca3169e25c9e0a45a5668fe3
71fae3c2037469e9a67775041010cddcbd8f2198
425 F20101222_AAASMQ berry_j_Page_01.txt
62c8f85187e2f3f38186e0cdb7c3f27f
9022aac532e20b07f2e6d4eab68db949edbe0039
28029 F20101222_AAASRO berry_j_Page_39.QC.jpg
cf5d7d30367ad3ffa14fe844bc105676
0697e0671972212a6af430e1d7fd9460b1a3bd9d
122627 F20101222_AAASCW berry_j_Page_61.jpg
cbe5d6812f8fe86f369a9aace02edd8e
ecf3777480d41a8f0b563383376e90404ac985de
95 F20101222_AAASMR berry_j_Page_02.txt
5cd90143d415a2b0b50647855d7008e0
98217dd192481cfebd52579db23303ad2a7b3c41
671992 F20101222_AAASHU berry_j_Page_44.jp2
5c3f446b77f9e251100091893f8569c0
d30636c4ba8ad2ad1e41091d2cba39adefc63d84
7039 F20101222_AAASRP berry_j_Page_39thm.jpg
2d5367c92892bdbaa5d80c7c20dc7b7c
a39da762d25c82c0c4dc2eb0659a77fdac8f7f6f
59897 F20101222_AAASCX berry_j_Page_08.jpg
77f01da994142a2a02a579e9dba7b126
7f944fd5ff1279b110aa76aa1077e42665307b4f
135 F20101222_AAASMS berry_j_Page_03.txt
555430c2215728df51a5eebc68ca6c9f
27b8c53197738a048de88266326a584f34f1a9d8
933654 F20101222_AAASHV berry_j_Page_45.jp2
0c0718b1bbe4313dc4861fbb7dec26c7
e30a6fdba2fdd0750714f9891a5987451cd4a5d2
8361 F20101222_AAASRQ berry_j_Page_41thm.jpg
77c13e7693a11ef560b21b4472adc03d
ab21c89afccb330368c2ba66bf64823b4cf86979
8589 F20101222_AAASCY berry_j_Page_18thm.jpg
6f30183e14f5301bb87e566272d56d84
8a64789b801e0531c6d4f3381bd9fdd2b8d59344
3639 F20101222_AAASMT berry_j_Page_05.txt
d21fdfd77646e1019e70c5a32f390ed3
5960fde3896c00f33b26ca4d85aef66af3ec6a35
776157 F20101222_AAASHW berry_j_Page_46.jp2
537557618549d1f696d5af2486c62d63
abfb18f4d3933c1ef2edc9de8f8cf6412ed82fe6
36628 F20101222_AAASRR berry_j_Page_42.QC.jpg
9f802a84b9fafe41fdbfd0c311b5b2f7
67ecbaa7d8df9665a143526440ad3e0c695ab1be
36310 F20101222_AAASCZ berry_j_Page_54.QC.jpg
85a8696ea2eb50d9fb495350e428d262
3415e4385d146844615db5aba7eb8cebdb5fec28
1117 F20101222_AAASMU berry_j_Page_06.txt
fcc15aac9aaff831bcfbb26bfe34420d
6ab7fa66870c74f58f04e1096d879d2e749e1b5f
918782 F20101222_AAASHX berry_j_Page_47.jp2
42c8f7f6ceaca815c9cdd2609d6b7592
911242bfcf610c8ed0a48f5f35a5d3687529e113
8946 F20101222_AAASRS berry_j_Page_42thm.jpg
0fdf284e81a2f38f9467592bbcd59de9
c3c84cf176dd95cbcd55cce1bece7939b8c42558
2876 F20101222_AAASMV berry_j_Page_07.txt
b58935fee7024abeb908268313cc1e2f
8a4767c616816ec61c5bb399f6632173f84031a5
1051941 F20101222_AAASHY berry_j_Page_48.jp2
89f0771b6325c2b1a72518a97cc15b5b
1923a95d938d48562f64e19c46b27fbfd647a480
13927 F20101222_AAASRT berry_j_Page_43.QC.jpg
c5dce7401b407ae6ef28cf66feae960a
256243bc2afeb7c9a03b66ef33d8343969331ff8
1301 F20101222_AAASMW berry_j_Page_08.txt
35b3b3720124fbabcb154b78eea96bce
73a07971d3706c10f003cb9b8ed56993b98e80fb
102742 F20101222_AAASFA berry_j_Page_16.jpg
438b713387f525282d91be0ffcc733ec
4396169dd6c3d7cdf33e2081d80d274c3f3779c6
754819 F20101222_AAASHZ berry_j_Page_50.jp2
3580e12e58555a3d256ea603c4c30f0c
9e9e766ad37b375dc0d1867c50e3e17700f4f7dc
3412 F20101222_AAASRU berry_j_Page_43thm.jpg
c705f8f5376fd24ff4eadabe5b43f3a2
209052c3948578ff3998fd680f347005142069db
2118 F20101222_AAASMX berry_j_Page_10.txt
31e1cba64d3b63cb37d36eee5ef9c01e
07ce683f9d561d7124b18d0a7e3bb668907fe9db
105510 F20101222_AAASFB berry_j_Page_17.jpg
0d3956b7e4ce529f168fe2fa1169f974
0a548aa7f3bc9bfb74b7d83f6f95afa4148fa0fb
19845 F20101222_AAASRV berry_j_Page_44.QC.jpg
b0d54c7c2b754e2a163fa590a2efeb79
6e3f8f038a88e9485b12799506b9f4e14ec22719
2305 F20101222_AAASMY berry_j_Page_12.txt
898612fe0bdc570a9c945e37d5953000
580659747d56176b6dea45d5818154bcee68c42a
106731 F20101222_AAASFC berry_j_Page_18.jpg
5c732e0e0198d041b67b14d8ea473916
f52e2662a0caeac2e1f03715673cde809e4ca244
24956 F20101222_AAASRW berry_j_Page_45.QC.jpg
de7927d3a75d0129028ac20df5c501b2
240f8b15fe2c2492484e3934c7a94d4668571bc6
F20101222_AAASKA berry_j_Page_47.tif
49d1e570ae868303f84b4876f68d7c80
9c96eed1aa2a9c5a456c2d9dd427a4960105ef8a
2378 F20101222_AAASMZ berry_j_Page_13.txt
6a4fb94355d184e9d59a9f0057540b25
de7c184e2952d497ae5c7d57e4e4995aec86bf82
108627 F20101222_AAASFD berry_j_Page_20.jpg
a1ae626ecd15a86da9af48afe331987c
91450d1c6fe1f7b5730a5e48b2f0a17b0c11f474
21649 F20101222_AAASRX berry_j_Page_46.QC.jpg
7ac67e3b4eb5d3614c80e9ccf42de56f
9be59928a6507aba30013d05fa4169232ba650e8
F20101222_AAASKB berry_j_Page_48.tif
28ab132d1988216e6d0d5da0f3c01bb7
b7d852e8f4cd670e0c4781d75ffda1dda81f63ff
108725 F20101222_AAASFE berry_j_Page_21.jpg
ac24171c7b409b85af691228727006e8
83b47b9fbd3f7ae10c7a3b0aa3ff81c2ad1f833b
25909 F20101222_AAASRY berry_j_Page_47.QC.jpg
79ca848f7157d398eed624156590f544
dce28545565965c660bd3c76120fa97f9c5cc0d8
F20101222_AAASKC berry_j_Page_49.tif
ea42ac0f2c436f573c29b87186775f99
0df25ed149a363fe403b20d0121127935252bc1f
104966 F20101222_AAASFF berry_j_Page_22.jpg
6f3eb53f977792cae4f784585c5fcb4f
145636056cbaeb701806cd5f1f83f664e01c22eb
19617 F20101222_AAASPA berry_j_Page_37.QC.jpg
81adcdb313da7b44954c22290e7cab50
e06ad8dd84b258bfbd15dc464247163a139dc74f
6910 F20101222_AAASRZ berry_j_Page_47thm.jpg
fa7b5e86977969c5177f404181f120bc
7b120937e90bfd536e6eb118a5deccb76da348c4
F20101222_AAASKD berry_j_Page_50.tif
c63b0eefb0b5122cd71c8d134d711685
04519855f194fa584a7c8fa9b38ebdb959951f71
99893 F20101222_AAASFG berry_j_Page_23.jpg
850a57b5cf8aebd2627718955e3c23a3
7654ef4ffb34220e45db47a7b2f20f1234b54e9b
18868 F20101222_AAASPB berry_j_Page_27.QC.jpg
c4da26712943f7d39fbf9aa810d56a0b
bef91a40a44db6c91d056d4bf4b6acb1e292723a
F20101222_AAASKE berry_j_Page_51.tif
66efdf5e2e0f0348d10b51e6e5df8e38
b1dd294b90685d7d9ff16f06804ed404a5861977
108145 F20101222_AAASFH berry_j_Page_24.jpg
795985dc9e87f12dbc86208a6a4e8471
f51d96178d949faf9506bf0f7a14a6550dfd56de
F20101222_AAASKF berry_j_Page_52.tif
478dc3d303342eaaef5c551858cba5d3
271e7651e634a313c7f96243d894a971b2d72bcd
32317 F20101222_AAASFI berry_j_Page_26.jpg
fe6963f76047e84ecd867f4d015f6989
fb6bcf8220cd00a66605d856c2d074fb38042896
8129 F20101222_AAASPC berry_j_Page_40thm.jpg
60961019ee67cf98b525cbd34a821555
b8cfa3195de8ad6ef39f2d103bb39476ea0b47c5
F20101222_AAASKG berry_j_Page_53.tif
522c7a7404db83b0e834291d842b6cd0
0975af6235746b58cbe6719fa65fc20e50e5a8ec
95407 F20101222_AAASFJ berry_j_Page_28.jpg
5c3ba3712b6f85ec37f3da1b3348b957
c31287b691c42fc645568f81c03bd02896b9995e
12954 F20101222_AAASPD berry_j_Page_36.QC.jpg
32b252e0ead40d5d1afe07ad3baf722b
d1dc4b9addc507ccd907d60978ee2e60aa79baa0
F20101222_AAASKH berry_j_Page_54.tif
317ff662ec34a4c44543a198943d3df5
e4ff956be7ca2015380869bc7b40fbe6c48ceb4a
104947 F20101222_AAASFK berry_j_Page_30.jpg
82f8e682aa880bbb72de92e7d3829790
ebceb4c8e6757b10559bd9cf8cf8ff3f9f1646b7
34831 F20101222_AAASPE berry_j_Page_29.QC.jpg
5d504e1028719f2bed5397d93cd41ce2
522d767d438c06cdde43558ba79e1015ea19ac1d
F20101222_AAASKI berry_j_Page_55.tif
02469057d8603b014fef5a8f7b407f17
44bf4cbb2dc351477600d490f474a7be8d64e630
104411 F20101222_AAASFL berry_j_Page_32.jpg
009fcb5ad110083fab9f4ea1bf5e2bf8
025abfffa5f7515de46c14634f61e228226c9582
2201 F20101222_AAASPF berry_j_Page_03.QC.jpg
5fbeccdf2a347d01fa306c51017b4b41
c9b18b8cd45b8af1e8a73a31cea25979bbe3aac7
F20101222_AAASKJ berry_j_Page_56.tif
d45d2f840ac36d44871de50d5e1300e8
f94ec0607c05f4729793e46c3b2fd375fd00abe3
102084 F20101222_AAASFM berry_j_Page_33.jpg
af6799fd88435c1ff57f8393c3e8433a
203ab2079813705e8a92d832c69c93054a67a0e1
9137 F20101222_AAASPG berry_j_Page_53thm.jpg
2ba39b866c0437c691bea4479fe71061
10cacabe94b0776315540c1e3f0cadb4af3ff098