<%BANNER%>

Gender in Community College Administration

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024411/00001

Material Information

Title: Gender in Community College Administration
Physical Description: 1 online resource (102 p.)
Language: english
Creator: O'Daniels, Kristina
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, community, development, gender, leadership, professional, studies
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: During the waves of turnover and attrition caused by the retirements of the baby boomers, this study of gender differences and relational leadership traits, characteristics, and competencies has contributed to the understanding of leadership selection and development. Identification of gender differences between male and female community college administrators can be used to support institutional leadership selection and development initiatives. The results of this study have confirmed the findings from other disciplines and extended the research into education and found there to be very few leadership trait differences between the genders. When leadership traits were analyzed for correlations, however, males were found to be more creative with innovation and evaluating problems. Females were found to be more principled and striving. Both genders were found to be more strategic. Implications for this study and directions for future research are also discussed.
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 Kristina O'Daniels.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024411:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024411/00001

Material Information

Title: Gender in Community College Administration
Physical Description: 1 online resource (102 p.)
Language: english
Creator: O'Daniels, Kristina
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: college, community, development, gender, leadership, professional, studies
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: During the waves of turnover and attrition caused by the retirements of the baby boomers, this study of gender differences and relational leadership traits, characteristics, and competencies has contributed to the understanding of leadership selection and development. Identification of gender differences between male and female community college administrators can be used to support institutional leadership selection and development initiatives. The results of this study have confirmed the findings from other disciplines and extended the research into education and found there to be very few leadership trait differences between the genders. When leadership traits were analyzed for correlations, however, males were found to be more creative with innovation and evaluating problems. Females were found to be more principled and striving. Both genders were found to be more strategic. Implications for this study and directions for future research are also discussed.
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 Kristina O'Daniels.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024411:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

GENDER IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION By TINA BARREIRO ODANIELS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Tina Barreiro ODaniels 2

PAGE 3

To my husband Dennis, and ch ildren Jacob and Nicholas 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS If it was not for the endless support of my fa mily, I would not be in the position to be earning a doctorate degree from the University of Florida. I wish to acknowledge my parents, husband, and brother who have whole-heartedly supported all of my educational endeavors. Over these years, their combined encouragement and support has allowed me to maintain my momentum and sustain my sanity. I also wish to acknowledge my dissertati on chair, Dr. Dale F. Campbell, for his inexorable tutelage throughout my doctoral program. Special thanks go to each of my committee members for not only serving on my committee, but for their sincere s upport, guidance, and learning opportunities. I thank Da vid S. Honeyman for sharing hi s critical thinking method to make me in fact suppose. I thank Lynn H. Leverty for shari ng her petite poetic punch. And I thank Bernard E. Olliver for his directions and suggestions. Many thanks to each of the awe-inspiring colleagues of my doctoral cohorts. Thanks for the engaging discussions and teaching me th e meaning of agree to disagree. Special acknowledgements go to Dr. Conferlete C. Carne y, my first Gator Classmate, for his sincere guidance and mentorship, and Dr. Matthew J. Basham, for his pitiless edits and statistical directions. We truly have b een stretched, by the best of the best of the best. Finally, I would like to acknowle dge Nick M. Billiris, Marion M. Barrett, and Eva Hefner for selecting me for my first po sition of a twenty-plus-year car eer in higher education. Thanks you for sharing with me your unconditional passion, commitment, and vision to do what is in the best interest of our students. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11 Statement of Problem .............................................................................................................13 Purpose of Study .....................................................................................................................14 Research Questions .................................................................................................................14 Research Hypotheses ..............................................................................................................15 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................15 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................15 Limitations of the Study .........................................................................................................16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................17 Changing Demographics ........................................................................................................17 Leadership ...............................................................................................................................18 Leadership Traits, Characteristics and Competencies .....................................................19 Leadership Development Initiatives ................................................................................21 Gender-Leadership Research ..................................................................................................22 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................25 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................31 Purpose of Study .....................................................................................................................31 Research Questions .................................................................................................................31 Research Hypotheses ..............................................................................................................31 Population ...............................................................................................................................32 Research Design .....................................................................................................................33 Research Instrument ...............................................................................................................33 Instrument Validity and Reliability .................................................................................35 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................35 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................35 5

PAGE 6

4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........39 Aggregate Data-Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................39Research Hypothesis One .......................................................................................................40Research Hypothesis Two ......................................................................................................405 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... ....73 Findings ..............................................................................Implications for Higher Education ....................................... DiscussionImplications for Higher Education........................ For Future Research ................................................................Conclusion ..............................................................................APPENDIX: THE SCALE DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................................82 The Thought Cluster ...........................................................................................................82Inventive Dimension .......................................................................................................82Abstract Dimension .........................................................................................................83Strategic Dimension ........................................................................................................83Insightful Dimension .......................................................................................................83Practically-Minded Dimension ........................................................................................84Learning Oriented Dimension .........................................................................................84Analytical Dimension ......................................................................................................84Factual Dimension ...........................................................................................................85Rational Dimension .........................................................................................................85Purposeful Dimension.....................................................................................................85Directing Dimension .......................................................................................................86Empowering Dimension ..................................................................................................86Convincing Dimension ....................................................................................................87Challenging Dimension...................................................................................................87Articulate Dimension .......................................................................................................87Self-Promoting Dimension ..............................................................................................88Interactive Dimension .....................................................................................................88Engaging Dimension.......................................................................................................88The Adaptability Cluster .....................................................................................................89Involving Dimension .......................................................................................................89Attentive Dimension ........................................................................................................89Accepting Dimension ......................................................................................................90Resolving Dimension ......................................................................................................90Self-Assured Dimension ..................................................................................................90Composed Dimension .....................................................................................................90Receptive Dimension .......................................................................................................91Positive Dimension ..........................................................................................................91Change Oriented Dimension ...........................................................................................91The Delivery Cluster ...........................................................................................................92 6

PAGE 7

Organized Dimension ......................................................................................................92 Principled Dimension ......................................................................................................92 Activity-Oriented Dimension ..........................................................................................92 Dynamic Dimension ........................................................................................................93 Striving Dimension ..........................................................................................................93 Enterprising Dimension...................................................................................................93 Meticulous Dimension .....................................................................................................94 Reliable Dimension .........................................................................................................94 Compliant Dimension ......................................................................................................94 REFERENCE LIST .......................................................................................................................98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................102 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Reliability summary for theSaville C onsulting WAVE. Alternate form normative, ipsative, and combined (N = 153). Normativ e test-retest reliabili ty on invited access (N = 112) ............................................................................................................................38 4-1 Leadership characteristics mean and St d. deviation for population, males and females ...42 4-2 Leadership competicies mean and Std. deviation for population, males and females .......43 4-3 Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 177) for leadership characteristics WAVE 36 dimensions ....................................................................................................44 4-4 Pearson correlations for the population (N = 177) for leadership competancies WAVE 12 divisions ........................................................................................................50 4-5 Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 81) for leadership characteristics for males WAVE 36 dimensions ..........................................................................................53 4-6 Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 81) for leadership competencies for males WAVE 12 divisions ..............................................................................................61 4-7 Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 96) for leadership characteristics for females WAVE 36 dimensions .......................................................................................62 4-8 Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 96) for leadership competencies for females WAVE 12 divisions ...........................................................................................70 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Summary of Desjardins Leadersh ip Competencies. Source: Leadership and Gender Issues in the Community College, Caro lyn Desjardins, (Hofmann & Julius, 1994, p.153). ................................................................................................................................272-2 Kachicks 2003 Study 21st Century Educational Leadership Profiles utilized the Occupational Personality Qu estionnaire (OPQ). Source: Cynthia Kachick, 2003, p. 63, 64..................................................................................................................................282-3 Summary of Desjardi ns Leadership Modes. Source: Leadership and Gender Issues in the Community College, Carolyn Desjardins, (Hofmann & Julius, 1994, p.150). ............303-1 Theoretical structure of the WAVE. ...............................................................................374-1 Barreiro ODaniels 2009 WAVE Study Gender in Community College Administration ...................................................................................................................715-1 Barreiro ODaniels (2009) ...................... A-1 The thought cluster, sect ions and dimensions. ...................................................................96A-2 The influence cluster, sections and dimensions. ................................................................96A-3 The adaptability cluster, sections and dimensions. ............................................................97A-4 The delivery cluster, sections and dimensions...................................................................97 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Education GENDER IN COMMUNITY COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION By Tina Barreiro ODaniels August 2009 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration During the waves of turnover and attriti on caused by the retirements of the baby boomers, this study of gender differences and rela tional leadership traits characteristics, and competencies has contributed to the understand ing of leadership selection and development. Identification of gender differences between male and female community college administrators can be used to support institutional leadership se lection and development initiatives. The results of this study have confirmed the findings from other disciplines and extended the research into education and found there to be very few leadersh ip trait differences between the genders. When leadership traits were analyzed for correlations however, males were found to be more creative with innovation and evaluating problems. Female s were found to be more principled and striving. Both genders were found to be more strate gic. Implications for this study and directions for future research are also discussed. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For quite some time companies such as Le vi Strauss, Kodak, Zenith, Firestone, Timex, Nestle, U.S. Steel, Polaroid, Sears, and IBM we re known leaders in thei r respective industries, but not so any more (Deutschman, 2007). Even though these companies had foreseen the eminent mass turnovers, to secure their futures they planned modest leadership development initiatives. The lack of foresight on leadership development contributed, in part, to their decline (Deutschman, 2007). When these phenomena were investigated more thoroughly the underlying leadership problems were found to stem from th e exodus and attrition of employees caused by retiring baby boomers. In turn, th is has brought the discussion of leadership development to the top of the strategic agenda of many industries. Our nations businesses, industries, schools, and the professions need to prepare themselves to be equipped to face the challenges and changes of the future by developing leaders who successfully transform their or ganizations into value enterp rises (Gardner, H., 2006, p. 1). Gardner states, this new style of leadership wi ll encourage individuals to become skilled at learning how to develop more car efully leaders equipped with th e cognitive abilities that will command a premium (Gardner, H., 2006, p. 2). Furthermore, he added, if we are going to thrive in the world during the eras to come leadership needs to cultivate the minds of their organization (Gardner, H., 2006, p. 4). Collectiv ely, by honing specific leadership skills, these new leaders should be more successful in th e new era and climate of business (Zook, 2007). Identification and development of the appropria te leadership traits, characteristics, and competencies are therefore essential in orde r for an organization to be successful. The turnover and attrition of admi nistrative leadership is not ex clusive to education but to all sectors of industry in the United States (L avigna & Hays, 2004). Higher education has also 11

PAGE 12

studied the possible effects of the retirements of the baby boomer generation administrators as well. Americas community colleges are facing the most significant transition of leadership in its history (Boggs, 2003, p. 15). Some of the reports supporting this statement included, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Refo rm, Wingspread Report; Tough Times or Tough Choices, Americas Perfect Storm: Three Forc es Changing Our Nations Future; The Coming Tsunami: Leadership Challenges for Community Colleges; and Winning: The Skills Race and Strengthening Americas Middle Class. As predicted by researchers, 75% of the baby boomer community college administrators are in the process of retiring before the year 2011 (Boggs, 2004; Boggs, 2002, Campbell & Associates, 2002; Campbell & Leverty, 1997). Competent and talented employees will be needed to lead the 21 st century through this turnover and the mandates calling for higher standards of account ability (Boggs, 2002). L eadership development initiatives are critical tools for breaking traditio ns and for facing the challenges of the future. The future economic position of our country de pends on investing in tomorrows leaders. As affirmed by Benjamin Frankli n, An investment in knowledge, pa ys the best in terest (Brainy Media, 2009). The ability of our nation to educ ate and train engaging, ex isting, entrepreneurial, and transitional workers is critical for America, its communities, and its business to stay globally competitive (Zeiss, 2005, p. 17). In summary, th ese reports predict and support the need for American higher education to reform and unify their missions. The data support the need for higher education to strategically focus limited re sources to actively and adequately sustain the workforce requirements of our country. For many years researchers have also investig ated a more narrowly focused issue within leadership development---is gender a variable when examining the differences and if 12

PAGE 13

relationships exist between the leadership traits, characteristics, and comp etencies between males and females in higher education? The gender issue has been researched using a va riety of perspectives. One perspective uses instruments created, in part for broader use in th e hiring and leadership development processes to determine best-fit, and person-environmentfit (Bain & Mabey, 1999). In some instances researchers have found using assessments for pres creening applicants for best-fit has reduced turnover and attrition rates by 60 % or more (K rell, 2005). Utilizing assessments support the process of identifying if relations hips exist within leadership tr aits and if differences exist between males and females. Such data can be used to support the needed di rection of leadership selection and development initiatives. Statement of Problem Hockaday and Hunter (2003) emphasize that eff ective leadership is displayed when the concern is the people, not the bu ildings and not the programs lead ers lead people. The role of community colleges preparing tomorrows workforce becomes an even more critical issue as the required skill level for employment increases. Th e Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000) documents that the percentage of workers needing some po stsecondary training will increase from 56 % in 1995 to 76 % by 2115 (Boggs, 2003, p. 17). Community colleges play an important role in our society (Vaughn, 2000). Their historical contributions have supported the economic de velopment of their local community (Yeager, 2006). To continue meeting their mission and to support the federal mandates of accountability, community colleges will need to develop successful leadership initiatives in order to wisely choose and develop their next generation of leaders (Lapovsky, 2006; Zeiss, 2005). If community colleges are going to uphold their inhe rited tradition of being responsive to the learning needs of their communities, they need to ensure that their new generation of leaders is 13

PAGE 14

the best possible fit for the mission, culture, and programmatic goals of the institution (Hockaday & Hunter, 2003; Lapovsky, 2006). With baby boomer retirements, the nation s 2009 presidential inauguration, recession challenges, decreasing resources, and the population of community college students becoming increasingly female-dominated, the question that has to be asked is, who is going to lead our institutions into the future? What personality tr aits, characteristics, and competencies exist in current community administration? Knowing this can we make predictions based upon current data of the skills needed for future leadership development? For many years research has pointed towards the imaginary barrier of glass ceilings for females in administration. The problem for this study is to determine if there are signifi cant differences between males and females with respect to the leadership traits, characteristics, and competencies. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of leadership traits between male and female community college administrators as suggested by the liter ature. If significant leadership trait differences exist between the ge nders, then can the research be used to support leadership selection and development initiatives? If so, then how can this research be applied to leadership development efforts during the cy cle of turnover and attrition caused by the retirements of the baby boomers? Based on leadersh ip characteristics and competencies, can it be determined as to which climates, cultures, or environments are better suite d for males or females, and when and why? How can this research be used to strengthen an institutions selection, leadership development, and succession planning processes? Research Questions 1. What is the relationship of leadership traits between male and female community college administrators in their le adership characteristics? 14

PAGE 15

2. What is the relationship of leadership traits between male and female community college administrators in their leadership competencies? Research Hypotheses H 1 : There are no differences between male and female community college administrators in their leadership characteristics and competencies. H 2 : There are no relationships within male a nd female community college administrators in their leadership characteristics and competencies. Definition of Terms COMMUNITY COLLEGE refers to a regionally accredit ed institution of higher education that offers the associate degree as its highest degree (Vaughn, 2000, p. 2). LEADERSHIP TRAIT refers to the global results from the instrument as presented in the Personal Report of the WAVE Instrument. The instrument has two sections---leadership char acteristics and leadership competencies. LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTIC refers to the 36 dimension ite ms in the Psychometric Profile section of the Personal Report of the WAVE Instrument. LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY refers to the 12 sections in the Competency Potential segment of the Personal Report of the WAVE Instrument. WAVE refers to instrument used for this research and based upon fourclusters, twelve-sections, and 36-dimensions within the 108facets. See Appendix for scale descriptions. Significance of the Study The findings of this study will support the cr itical selection and de velopment of future leaders who are needed to handle the complex environments of the 21 st Century (Boggs, 2003). More than 1,500 studies on a vari ety of industries have already been conducted on the critical issue of leadership turnover and attrition (Barrick & Zimmer man, 2005). This study will support the literature findings that in addition to business and industr y, community colleges are also encouraged to prioritize and engage their leader ship development activities in order to keep up with their missions promises to their community. 15

PAGE 16

While there have already been many studies on this general topic, this study, of gender differences and relational leadership traits, charac teristics, and competencies will contribute to the understanding of leadership selection and de velopment. This study was built upon the gender leadership trait research of Desjardins and Kach ik. The analysis of this research will provide a foundation for further gender and leadership studies. Identification of gend er differences between male and female community college administra tors can be used to support institutional leadership selection and development initiatives as part of their professional development. Limitations of the Study The research from this study will only be applicable to community college administration engaging in leadership development efforts. It wi ll not be applicable to leadership development initiatives in higher education, un iversities, nor K-12 administration. Furthermore, the results of this study cannot be generalized outside the Unit ed States or across other industry sectors. The population of this study is (N = 177) comm unity college administ rators, therefore the results may not be universally applicable. Th e cell sizes are slightly disproportionate. The population includes (N = 81) males and (N = 96) females. A p = 0.5 significance level was used in the statistical procedures. 16

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Mass retirements are requiring American comm unity college leaders to become more cognizant to the importance of lead ership development. If commun ity colleges plan to maintain their charge of being responsive to the learning n eeds of their communities, they need to ensure that their new generations of leaders are pr epared to lead the mi ssion, culture, and the programmatic goals of the institutio n. In this chapter a review of the relevant literature on the changing demographics of community colleges, leadership characte ristics, and gender issues in leadership are discussed. Changing Demographics The changing populations in America are being reflected in the community college student population. With more families needing two income s to stay economically and fiscally sound, or more families having only one head of househol d, presently more females have been entering higher education than at anytime in history. Females now comprise more than 57 % of the undergraduates attending college (Pollitt, 2006). This id entified gender gap is even wider at the associate degree and certificate levels (Klein feld, 2006). The increased number of females attending community colleges and the many community needs [being] voiced by women (Desjardins, 1994, p. 147) are reasons for institutional administrato rs to look more closely at gender composition of their administrative team. As more female voices are being heard on campuses and in surrounding communities, this shift has not yet been reflected in the admini strative community college ranks. In 1981, of the more than 1,200 community colleges, there we re only 50 female presidents, provosts, and campus directors (Desjardins, 1994, p. 147). In 1992, the number ha d increased to 179 administrators (Desjardins, 1994, p. 147), repres enting only 14.5 % of administrative positions. 17

PAGE 18

Weisman and Vaughs 2002 survey found that in the past 10 years, female presidential appointments increased from 11 to 28 % (Boggs, 2003, p. 15). This number continued to grow over the past decade. In 2003, AACC reported that 85 (45 %) of the 189 newly appointed presidents were female (Boggs, 2003, p.16). Unfort unately these numbers, during the wave of turnover and attrition, would star t to decline. As of January 2009, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) we bsite reports that of the 1, 096 chief executive officers or presidential members, there are 718 (72 %) ma les and 278 (28 %) females (AACC, 2009). With more than 57% of the student body being female and 28% of the leaders being female the literature thus shows a gap between the st udent composition and the community college employee composition. With the current tur nover and attrition rates of baby boomers approaching 80 %, and the combined declining numb ers of female leaders, now, more than ever, it is an opportune time to re-examine a multitude of leadership-related issues for community college administrators, including leadership and gender issues. Leadership Academicians and researchers in a variety of disciplines have argued whether leadership is a natural talent or whether it is something that can be learned or developed. The naturalists believe leadership is something that is inherited and, thus, is not something that can be learned. (Macleod, C. J., 2007). If the naturalist theories ar e correct, then there are literally thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in leadership programs wasting their money. Still other researchers tend to believe leadership is learna ble. The need for leadership development dates back to the beginning of history. Leadership greatness is not pre-packed in humans. In some individuals leadership gifts are well hidden until mature years; and even in the case of early bloomers, what shows itself early may offer no more than hints of wh at will emerge later. that all talents develop over many years through a series of inte rplays of native gifts on the one hand and 18

PAGE 19

opportunities and challenges on the other. As a result leader ship development calls for repeated assessment and repeated opportunity for training (Gardner, J., 1990, p. 171). Individuals can learn skills and acquire le adership knowledge (AACC, 2005; Collins, 2001; Gardner, J., 1990). Moreover, res earchers agree that na tural leadership apt itude and experience can be enhanced and supported with theoretical and practical info rmation (AACC, 2005). In this section the relevant literature on leadership trai ts and leadership development will be presented. Leadership Traits, Characte ristics and Competencies There has been a variety of research conducted on leadership traits characteristics, and competencies in both the corporate and community college realms. To support the identified national priority to develop future institutional leaders, the American Association of Community College (AACC) Board identified community co llege leadership competencies (AACC, 2005). AACC identified five essential leadership ch aracteristics for today s community college administrators: (1) understanding and implem enting the community college mission; (2) effective advocacy; (3) administrative skills; (4) community and economic development; (5) personal, interpersonal, and transformational sk ills (AACC, 2005). The competencies identify the top five leadership traits to assist in selecting the best-fit ad ministrators. In this section we will examine the leadership characteristics in the corporate realm identified by Drucker, Goleman, and Collins. The AACC leadership competencies closely ech o the findings of research of corporate leadership researchers, such as Drucker. Fo r example, the five emerging requirements for effective leadership in the corporate realm id entified were: (1) to think globally, (2) to appreciate cultural diversity, (3) to develop technical savvy, (4) to bui ld partnerships and alliances, and (5) to share lead ership (Executive Challenges, 2004). Tomorrows leaders will need to become adept at all five (p. 37). Furthermore, Drucker (2006) identified eight 19

PAGE 20

characteristics of effective and competent leader s: (1) They asked, What needs to be done?; (2) They asked, What is right for the enterprise?; (3) They developed actio n plans.; (4) They took responsibility for the decisions. ; (5) They took responsibility for communicating.; (6) They were focused on opportunities rath er than problems.; (7) They ran productive meetings.; and (8) They thought and said we rather than I. (Drucker, 2006, p. xi). Druckers views on effective leadership have been discussed and explored by Goleman who differentiates effective leadership from emotional intelligence. Similarly, Goleman added that truly effective leaders are distinguished by a high degree of emotional intelligence (2001). He said the chie f components of emotional intelligence are selfawareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, a nd social skill. In contrast, Goleman defined ideal leaders as those w ith the emphasized traits such as intelligence, toughness, determination, and vision (Goleman, 2001). Even though analytical and technical skills are essential for success, the research in general indi cates that emotional intelligence may be the key attribute for distinguishing outstandi ng leaders from average leaders. There are other researchers w ho have broader views on leader ship characteristics. In Good to Great (2001) Collins identified the keys to leadership of successful companies. He said, (1) the leaders will display a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will, (Collins, 2001, p.13), (2) leaders of good to great companies will also have no ego or self-interest because their ambition is first for the instituti on, and (3) great companies are led by great leaders who pick the right people for the bus. These are the three keys for successful companies. However, Collins adds a caveat, do whatever you can to get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people into the right seats (Collins, 2005, p. 14). Collins adds, people are not your most important asset. The right people are. . (Collins, 2005, p. 51). 20

PAGE 21

The right people depends on character traits a nd innate capabilities than with specific knowledge, background, or skills (Collins, 2005, p. 64). In brief, the success or failure of an organization is, in part, based upon the leadership traits of their lead ers and how leadership selects and develops employees. Once the right people have been id entified, the next step is to develop their leadership traits to aid in retention. Developing th e right people with the pride that they own it will positively permeate the entire instit ution (Rickover, 1982). Such values would include hard work, attention to detail, personal respon sibility, and determination (Rickover, 1982). In short, in the research discussed, some commonalities exist for the leadership traits in which effective leaders will need in the future. In this section the literature has sh own effective or ideal leaders to be humble, have little or no ego, and are driven hard workers. Additional leader ship traits that have been identified include detail-orien ted, good communicators, good at interpersonal relationships, visionary, culturally diverse, technically savvy, g ood decision makers, analytical, motivated, and empathetic. Leadership Development Initiatives Over the past 15 years, research of the baby boomer turnover has been a focus of the leadership development discussion (Campbell, 2006) The projection is the need for all industry sectors to prepare the future leaders of their organizations. Eighty million boomers are expected to retire over the next 25 years (Sacks, 2006). Various businesses, industry, and educational institutions have implemented leadership developm ent initiatives and strategies to prepare for the impeding impact of retirements. Traditionally, business and industry have been more proactive in ut ilizing and providing a variety of venues to create leadership opportuni ties for their employees. Executive coaching and mentoring programs have been around for along ti me, and for good reason: They work! (Zeiss, 21

PAGE 22

2005, p. 158). The team coaching model is also a l eadership development strategy used to form teams after corporate mergers (Ross, 2005.) Like industry, community colleges are prepar ing their leaders thr ough training programs, simulations, internships, and mentorship s (Boggs, 2003, p. 20). To support this talent identification in community colleges efforts be gan to develop future leaders by creating resources, forums, assemblies, and doctoral pr ograms (Campbell & Asso ciates, 2002). The next section discusses the gender differences in leadership characteristics. Gender-Leadership Research More definitive aspects of leadership en compass gender differences in leadership practitioners. The literature gene rally agrees that gender differe nces do exist between males and females, particularly in thinking styles (Bal kis & Isiker, 2005), learning differences (Baxter Magolda), moral orientation, and voice (Desjardin). In this section the li terature is reviewed specifically on the differences in leadership traits between males and females. Males and females, as described in literature possess different thinki ng styles, as defined by Sternberg, involves the representation and pr ocessing of information in the mind (1995). Sternberg (1992) defines thinki ng style as a preferred way of thinking (Balkis & Isiker, 2005, p. 285). Building upon Sternbergs an d Hollands studies, Balkis & Isikers research supports thinking styles acquire a diffe rent character according to gender and fields of study (2005, p. 291). Males tend to use a judicial and an exte rnal thinking style and females tend to use executive thinking styles (Balkis & Isiker, 2005, p. 292). Learning differences also exist between male s and females. Baxter Magolda has been conducting research in the area of learning differences between the genders for more than 16 years. It is hypothesized that her findings can be extended into the selection and development processes of community college administrators Baxter Magolda formed an epistemological 22

PAGE 23

reflection model based on the cognitive developm ent theories of Perry, Kohlberg, Gilligan, and Belenky (Severiens, Dam, & Nijenhuis, 1998). Ba xter Magoldas model of the five knowledge assumptions---four stages of knowing and two patte rns of reasoning---encom pass the majority of her leadership-gender research. Baxter Magolda identified a gender di stinction between the learning connection and autonomy/ separation within the patterns of reasoning (Severiens, Dam & Nijenhuis, 1998). Within each stage of knowledge developmen t Ba xter Magolda found two patterns of reasoning emerge when her findi ngs were framed within the five assumptions of knowledge. These patterns of reasoning identified and suppor ted that gender-related learning differences do exist between males and females. The two patt erns of reasoning also identified a gender distinction between connecti on and autonomy/separation. Baxter Magolda found females more often than ma les tended to be m ore relational learners and males more often tended to be individualistic learners. Female patterns for learning tended to be more focused on the perspectives of others. In contrast, the male pattern s for learning tended to be focused on their own perspectives (Severie ns et al., 1998, Theories on gender and cognitive development section, 4). Similarly to Baxter Magoldas work, Desjar dins 1994 research focuses on determining the leadership s tyles and competencies of community college presidents. Desjardin determined the competencies of 72 community college presidents representing an equal number of males and females. Desjardin identified the competences that are gender-related regarding their moral orientation or the way they view their world ar ound the manner in which they respond to moral dilemmas (Desjardins, 1994, p. 148). Desjardin id entifies in Figure 21 (Desjardins, 1994, p. 153) the leadership and gender is sues in community colleges. 23

PAGE 24

An extension of Desjardins work in commun ity colleges is Kachiks 2003 research study which consisted of participants from both man agerial personnel from pubic community colleges and business world (Kachik 2003, p. 62). Kachiks 2003 Study 21st Century Educational Leadership Profiles utilized the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ). OPQ is the second generation of the now WAVE. To iden tify interactions, six significant pair-wise combinations, MANOVA, were conducted. Kachiks study included 294 community college adm inistrators consisting of 141 (48%) females and 153 (52%) males. The private sector managers consisted of 296 with 142 (48%) females and 154 (52%) males. Kachiks findings included that when lead ership traits were combined a majority of the OPQ 31 characteristics did show gender-related differences (Kachik, 2003). Kachiks six pair-wise combinat ions included (1) comm unity college female administrators compared to community college male administrators; (2) community college female administrators compared to female co rporate managers; (3) community college female administrators compared to male corpor ate managers; (4) community college male administrators compared to female corporate managers; (5) community college male administrators compared to male corporate managers; and (6) female corporate managers compared to male corporate managers (Kach ik, 2003, p. 103). For each pair-wise combination see Figure 2-2 for a summary of the characteris tics Kachik found with the highest and lowest significance (p<0.0083). Gilligans research on morality orientation in le a dership found that the majority of males tend to have a justice/rights orientation wher eas the majority of females tend to have a care/connected orientation (Des jardins, 1994). Male moral orie ntation tendencies include fairness reasoning, objectivity, universality a nd values autonomy, and reciprocity. 24

PAGE 25

Reciprocitya trading of favors and support that maintains the larger system and provides a place to function with safety, power, and autonomyis a major method of interaction. This support that occurs between males has it s own value systems, often separated from issues of competency, and sometimes even from ethics. This ha d led to numerous misunderstandings between women and men (Hoffman and Julius, 1994, p. 148). Gilligans research concurs with Goldbergs rese arch th at females tend to be included in the care/connected moral orientation. Care/connected moral orientation includes attachment, care and concern for the needs of others. However, G illigans research articulated the addition of voice to the care/connected moral orientati on (Desjardins, 1994). Voice is another tongue speaking out of the life within this life, giving an additional dimension, additional knowledge (Desjardins, 1994, p. 161). The mora l injunction here is to be concerned with the needs of others and step forward to provide care (Hoffman and Julius, 1994, p.148). Desjardins research accentuates the importa nce of the need to understan d each moral orientation and that these perspec tives are essential in studying l eadership. These orientations are gender-related but not gender-specific (Desjardins, 1994, p. 149). Males and females fall into each orientation however the majority is gender-re lated. It is important for females and also for males to understand that caring and connection do not imply an image of self-sacrificing femininity that invites inequity, but rather an (feminine) image of strength (Desjardins, 1994, 160). Desjardins identifies in her 1994 study specific leadership modes. Figure 2-3 (Desjardins, 1994, 153) provides a summary of Desjardins findings. Conclusion Men are no longer the majority gender attending college. In 2 004, the U.S. Departm ent of Educations National Center for Education Statis tics reported that women students and graduates are now the representative majo rity (Manzo, 2004). Long gone ar e the days when males were the only hunters and warriors and females were honored for being secluded (Desjardins, 194, p. 147). The belief/theory that a growing population of females a ttending community college and 25

PAGE 26

subsequently entering the nations workforce has created a heightened awareness supports the need to understand the exis tence of gender differences. Over the past thirty years, there has been much discussion concerning lead ership differences between males and females. If gender differences do exist, then the question is which leadership characteristics and competencies are essential and need to be developed to support th e leadership of our nations future workforce needs? Leaders of business, industry, and institutio ns need to understand that gender learning, knowing, and moral orientation differences do exist between males and females. An understanding of gender differences is critical to the success of organizational leadership development initiatives. Community college practitioners mu st also therefore understand that gender learning differences do exist and further understanding is critical to develop their future leaders. 26

PAGE 27

Women Men 1. View selves objectively and laugh at absurdities. 1. Perceive selves at able to make important contributions to society. 2. Recover quickly from setbacks. 2. Prefer environments that are dynamic and open to change. 3. Take personal responsibility for things that go wrong at their institutions. 3. Enjoy challenges and seek them out. 4. Comfortably discuss their own strengths. 4. Move swiftly to take advantage of opportunities. 5. Set high standards for their own performances. 5. Set goals that are challenging but realistic. 6. Identify problems before they become critical. 6. Build behind-the-scenes support for positions. 7. Make unilateral decisions when the situation demands. 7. Exhibit a consis tent pattern of casual interaction with people a t their institutions. 8. Help people understand implications of policies and decisions. 8. Take time to get to know all members faculty. 9. Provide opportunities for subordinates to be in the spotlight. 10. Take peoples feelings into account when making decisions. Figure 2-1. Summary of Desjardins leadership competenci es. Source: Leadership and gender issues in the community college, (Desjardins 1994, p.153). 27

PAGE 28

Significant pair-wise combinations-MANOVA (p<0.0083) n=294 community college administrators n=141 females n=153 males n=296 private sector managers n=142 females n=154 males Community college female administrators compar ed to community college male administrators n=141 n=153 Highest significance Lowest significance practical behavioral competitiveness Community college female administrators compared to female corporate managers n=141 n=142 Highest significance Lowest significance controlling corporate independent practical democratic traditional caring behavioral change-oriented innovative forward planning critical active competitive achieving Community college female administrators compared to male corporate managers n=141 n=154 Highest significance Lowest significance controlling practical independent traditional democratic worrying caring competitive behavioral change-oriented innovative forward planning critical active competitive achieving Figure 2-2. Kachicks 2003 Study 21 st Century Educational Leadership Profiles utilized the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ). Source: Cynthia Kachick, 2003, p. 63, 64. 28

PAGE 29

Community college male administrators co mpared to female corporate managers n=153 n=142 Highest significance Lowest significance persuasive affiliate controlling traditional independent worrying modest democratic data rational change-oriented conceptual innovative forward planning relaxed tough-minded critical active competitive achieving decisive Community college male administrators compared to male corporate managers n=153 n=154 Highest significance Lowest significance independent traditional modest worrying democratic caring change-oriented forward planning relaxed critical achieving social desirability Female corporate mangers compared to male corporate managers. n=141 n=154 Highest significance Lowest significance caring persuasive data rational active competitive decisive Figure 2-2. Continued 29

PAGE 30

n = 72 Community College Presidents Males Females Highest Percentage Justice/Rights Care/Connected 50% 66% Lowest Percentage Care/connected Justice/Rights 28% 17% Figure 2-3. Summary of De sjardins leadership modes. Source : Leadership and Gender Issues in the Community College, (Desjardins, 1994, p.150). 30

PAGE 31

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research methodol ogy that was used in this study. In this chapter, the population, research design, research instrument, data collect ion, and data analysis methods are outlined. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of leadership traits between male and female community college administrators as suggested by the liter ature. If significant leadership trait differences exist between the ge nders, then can the research be used to support leadership selection and development initiatives? If so, then how can this research be applied to leadership development efforts during the wa ve of turnover and attrition caused by the retirements of the baby boomers? Based on leadersh ip characteristics and competencies, can it be determined which climates, cultures, or environments are better suited for males or females, and when and why? How can this research be used to strengthen an institutions selection, leadership development, and succession planning processes? Research Questions 1. What is the relationship of leadership traits between male and female community college administrators in their le adership characteristics? 2. What is the relationship of leadership traits between male and female community college administrators in their leadership competencies? Research Hypotheses H 1 : There are no differences between male and female community college administrators in their leadership characteristics and competencies. H 2 : There are no relationships within male and female community college administrators in their leadership characteristics and competencies. 31

PAGE 32

Population The data used for this research were pr e-collected, i.e. it was post-hoc data. The population includes community college administrato rs, including presidents senior leadership, and other administrative personnel. The data collected were the resu lts of a project to develop a United States norming database of community college administrators. Fifteen community colleges in twelve states were invited to par ticipate to take the WAVE assessment. Several community colleges and affiliate councils of the American Associate of Community Colleges (AACC) were also invited to pa rticipate. The population particip ants were treated in accordance with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association. The pa rticipants were also assured that the data w ould be kept anonymous. The final population ( N = 177) includes data from five community colleges in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, and North Carolina includi ng Ivy Technical, Guilford Technical, Central Arizona, and Southern Iowa. Also included in the final population are data from five AACC affiliate councils including the American A ssociation for Women in Community Colleges (AAWCC), National Council on Black American Affairs (NCBAA), National Community College Hispanic Council (NCCHC), Community College Business Officers (CCBO), National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET), and the American Associate of Collegiate Registrars and Admi ssions Officers (AACROA). The fi nal population also includes male ( N = 81) and female ( N = 96) administrators. Respondents answered the online WAVE personality assessment between August and December 2006 and were provided the results el ectronically in the WAVE Personal Report. Collective group reports were provided to each institution or affiliate council during 2006-2007. 32

PAGE 33

Research Design The design utilized previously collected da ta from a one-time administered personality assessment. The theoretical perspective supporting the methodology is Positivism grounded in the epistemology of Objectivitism (Creswell, 2008; Dooley, 2001; Beha r-Hornstein, 2007). The dependent variables, leadership characteristics, and leadership competencies are ordinal and categorical. The independent variable, gender, is nominal and categ orical (Cronk, 2006). Research Instrument The WAVE personality assessment was the in strument used for this research. The instrument was developed by Peter Saville of Saville Consulting, Ltd. utilizing more than 30 years of research and development in industrial-organizational psychology assessments. The WAVE instrument is proprieta ry and protected under copyright laws, both within the United States and internationally The assessment cannot be presented in its entirety in this paper. The theoretical constructs an d reporting mechanisms, however, can be presented. From a broader perspective, the WAVE is th e latest design of the newest generation of behavioral questionnaires. The WAVE is: an integrated suite of assessment tools offering sophisticated indi vidual and corporate diagnostics that allows you to get high defin ition quality, spot talent and potential more accurately, uncover leadership and team devel opment competencies, identity fresh insights in coaching feedback, enhance re tention by assessing person-job and culture fit, and do all of this quickly while reducing the risk of candidate chea ting (Saville, 2006). The WAVE is an assessment and not a test (Kreiger, 2008). There are no right or wrong answers (Kreiger, 2008). The structure of th e WAVE (see Figure 3-1) uses a nine-point Likert-type normative scale items to measure 108facets in the areas of personality, motivation, competency, and culture. The WAVE is base d upon four-clusters, twelve-sections, and 36dimensions within the 108facets. Each of these constructs are identifi ed in a reference table 33

PAGE 34

(Figure 3-1) Each facet is presented two or three times throughout the assessment to allow for the identification of self-reporting bias and acquiescence bias. On average, the assessment takes about 35 minutes to complete. Throughout the assessment the candidate is forced to rank their choices from the highest to the lowest, provided the responses are too similar to the previous asked six items. To achieve ranking for the six items, the prompts request the candidate to ra nk which items are most like them and which items are least like them. The responses are then weighted and compar ed to the normative database before being converted into a standardized ten, or STEN, score. STEN scores al low for the ordinal data to be interpreted utilizing the standardized bell curve scoring system where 68 % of the scores of the candidates fall within one standa rd deviation of the mean ( M = 5.0) (Kreiger, 2008). Any scores falling within the 1-2 or 9-10 range will be at le ast three standard deviations away from the mean. The results are tabulated and presented to the candidate in the WAVE Personal Report (Kreiger, 2008). The items in the Personal Report are divided in to 12 competencies and 36 characteristics. The 12 competency items are vision, judgment, evaluation, leadershi p, directing, empowering, support, resilience, flexibility, st ructure, drive, and implementa tion. The 36 characteristic items are inventive, abstract, strategi c, insightful, practically-minde d, learning-oriented, analytical, factual, rational, purposeful, directing, empowering, convincing, challenging, articulate, selfpromoting, interactive, engaging, involving, attentive, accepting, resolving, self-assured, composed, receptive, positive, change-oriented, organized, principled, activity-oriented, dynamic, striving, enterprising, meticulous, reliable, and compliant (Saville & Holdsworth, 1996). 34

PAGE 35

Instrument Validity and Reliability The validity and reliability of the WAVE has been substantiated in previous studies and correlated against other personality tests. Th e Saville WAVE personality assessment has been correlated against the 16PF, the Myers Briggs T ype Indicator, the Gordon Personal Profile, and the DISC (Basham, 2007). According to Sav ille, the results of th e construct validation studies support that the WAVE is a valid instrume nt and that it measures what it intends to measure (Saville, 2006.) The WAVE utilizes a Test-Rest procedure which produced a mean reliability of 0.79, with a corresponding minimum reliability of 0.71 and maximum reliability of 0.91. (Berry, 2008). The data in (Table 3-1) shows the re liability summary for the Saville Consulting WAVE. The reliability results were based on a sample size of 112 and included a one month retest period. The Alternative Fo rm, Ipsative, and Combined results were based on a sample size of 1153 (Saville, 2005). Data Collection This study utilized pre-collected data by Savill e Consulting, Ltd. In the interest of social science research, the purpose of co llecting was to create a United States norming database for senior executives and managers. Data Analysis Analysis of the data began by examining for any anomalies, skewness, or outliers. Since none existed, descriptive statisti cs and frequencies, including m eans, standard deviations, and skew were examined. The first hypothesis examined if differences between male and female community college administrators exist with respect to their l eadership characteristics and competencies. The WAVE Psychometric Profile data was tested using T-tests. 35

PAGE 36

The second hypothesis examined if relationshi ps within male and female community college administrators exist with respect to th eir leadership characteristic and competencies. Bivariant Pearsons correlation coefficients were also calculated for the (N = 177) population, the sample of (N = 81) male administrators, and the sample of (N = 96) female administrators. The ordinal data of leadership characteristics served as the dependent variable. The nominal data of gender served as an independent vari able. The significance level was set at = 0.05. 36

PAGE 37

4 12 Sections 36 Dimensions 108 Facets clusters (thought, influen ce, adaptability, delivery) 4 Clusters yields 12 sections : Thought ( vision, judgment, evaluation ) Influence ( leadership, impact, communication ) Adaptability ( support, resilience, flexibility ) Delivery ( structure, drive, implementation ) Figure 3-1. Theoretical st ructure of the WAVE. 37

PAGE 38

Table 3-1. Reliability summary for theSaville 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 Source: Saville Consulting, Ltd (2006) 38

PAGE 39

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results of the data analysis are presented in this chapter. The descriptive statistics, ttests, correlations, and regression results fo r both hypotheses are presented. For statistical analysis, the researcher used the statistical p ackage for the social sciences SPSS. The findings, discussion, implications for practitioners, and sugge stions for future research conclusions are presented in chapter 5. Aggregate Data-Descriptive Statistics For the population and sample groups the means and standard deviation are presented in Table 4-1. In this section the da ta for the aggregate population ( N = 177), for the female community college administrators sample ( N = 96), and for the male community college administrators sample ( N = 81) is presented. The data for the aggregate population ( N = 177) appears to be di stributed normally with no large deviations (see Table 4-1). The three highest mean scores of leadership traits for the population were strategic ( M = 7.54), principled ( M = 7.12), and creating innovation ( M = 7.07). The three lowest mean scores of leadership traits for the population were self-promoting ( M = 4.61), engaging ( M = 4.95), and challenging (M = 4.97). The data for the female community college administrators sample ( N = 96) appears to be distributed normally with no large deviations (see Table 4-1). The three highest mean scores of leadership traits for female community college administrators sample were strategic ( M = 7.36), principled ( M = 7.12), and striving ( M = 7.00). The three lowest mean scores of leadership traits for the females were self-promoting ( M = 4.53), challenging ( M = 4.79), and engaging (M = 5.04). 39

PAGE 40

The data for the male community college administrators sample ( N = 81) appears to be distributed normally with no large deviations (see Table 4-2). The three highest mean scores of leadership traits for male community college administrators sample were strategic ( M = 7.74), creating innovation (M = 7.43), and evaluating problems ( M = 7.26). The three lowest mean scores of leadership traits for male community college administrators sample were selfpromoting ( M = 4.70), engaging ( M = 4.84), and challenging ( M = 5.19). Research Hypothesis One Hypothesis one examined the differences in leadership characterist ics and competencies between female and male community college admi nistrators. This hypothesis was analyzed using T-tests. The T-test results (see Table 4-1) show that males are significantly higher than females on rational ( t (175) = 2.14, p > 0.03), inventive ( t (175) = 2.04, p > 0.04), and enterprising ( t (175) = 1.97, p > 0.05). Females were not statistically signif icantly higher than males on any leadership characteristics. T-test results (see Table 4-2) show that males are signifi cantly higher than females on creating innovation (t (175) = 2.65, p > 0.01) and evaluating problems ( t (175) = 1.99, p > 0.05). Females were not statistically significantly hi gher than males on any leadership competency. Research Hypothesis Two Hypothesis two examined the relationship of leadership characteris tics and competencies between female and male community college administrators. This hypothesis was a using bivariate correlations us ing Pearson Chi-Square. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the aggregate data (see Tables 4-3 and 4-4), males (see Tables 4-5 and 4-6) and females (see Tables 4-7 and 4-8). No strong positive correlations were found in the aggregate population or females. However, strong positive 40

PAGE 41

correlations were found for males between providing leadership and achieving success (r (177) = 0.68, p < 0.000), presenting information and adjusting to change ( r (177) = 0.65, p < 0.000), presenting information and creating innovation ( r (177) = 0.61, p < 0.000), and providing leadership and presenting information ( r (177) = 0.61, p < 0.000). The Pearson correlation coefficients were calcu lated for the aggregate data (see Table 4-3). Strong positive correlations were f ound between attentiv e and inventive ( r (177) = 0.64, p < 0.000) and reliable and organized ( r (177) = 0.62, p < 0.000. A strong positive strong correlation indicates that a significant lin ear relationship exists between two variables (Cronk, 2006). Next, the Pearson correlation coefficients were calcula ted for the males (see Table 4-5). Strong positive correlations were found between engaging and interactive ( r (177) = 0.63, p < 0.000) and enterprising and striving (r (177) = 0.62, p < 0.000). Pearson correlation coefficients for the females (see Table 4-7) showed strong positive correlations between reliable and organized ( r (177) = 0.69, p < 0.000), attentive and inventive ( r (177) = 0.65, p < 0.000), and inventive and strategic (r (177) = 0.64, p < 0.000). 41

PAGE 42

Table 4-1. Leadership characte ristics mean and Std. deviation for population, males and females Population Males Females two-tailed t-test 1 ( N = 177) ( N = 81) ( N = 96) males-females M SD M SD M SD t p Inventive 6.36 1.81 6.65 1.92 6.10 1.68 2.04 0.04# Abstract 6.37 1.81 6.64 1.75 6.14 1.83 1.87 0.06 Strategic 7.54 1.77 7.74 1.76 7.36 1.75 1.42 0.16 Insightful 6.86 1.58 6.80 1.66 6.92 1.51 -0.48 0.63 PracticallyMinded 5.76 1.94 5.62 1.98 5.88 1.92 -0.88 0.38 LearningOriented 6.11 1.75 5.88 1.74 6.30 1.74 -1.62 0.11 Analytical 6.73 2.02 6.88 1.91 6.60 2.11 0.89 0.37 Factual 6.33 1.95 6.91 2.15 6.45 1.76 -0.89 0.37 Rational 5.92 2.10 6.28 1.98 5.61 2.16 2.14 0.03# Purposeful 6.25 1.87 6.42 1.80 6.10 1.92 1.12 0.26 Directing 6.76 1.62 6.67 1.67 6.84 1.58 -0.72 0.47 Empowering 6.42 1.72 6.40 1.66 6.45 1.77 -0.20 0.84 Convincing 5.53 1.77 5.78 1.86 5.31 1.68 1.75 0.08 Challenging 4.97 1.80 5.19 1.66 4.79 1.91 1.45 0.15 Articulate 6.33 1.82 6.38 1.72 6.29 1.90 0.33 0.74 SelfPromoting 4.61 1.83 4.70 1.89 4.53 1.79 0.62 0.53 Interactive 5.45 1.80 5.38 1.85 5.51 1.77 -0.47 0.64 Engaging 4.95 1.88 4.84 1.86 5.04 1.90 -0.71 0.48 Involving 5.67 2.32 5.72 2.38 5.64 2.27 0.23 0.82 Attentive 5.34 1.95 5.28 1.89 5.40 2.01 -0.38 0.71 Accepting 5.92 1.77 5.93 1.93 5.92 1.63 0.04 0.97 Resolving 5.47 1.67 5.47 1.73 5.47 1.63 0.00 0.99 Self-Assured 6.49 1.55 6.40 1.62 6.56 1.50 -0.71 0.48 Composed 5.87 1.79 5.69 1.85 6.02 1.73 -1.22 0.22 Receptive 5.76 1.95 5.58 1.97 5.91 1.94 -1.11 0.27 Positive 6.03 1.83 5.88 1.91 6.16 1.76 -1.02 0.31 Change Oriented 6.31 1.74 6.41 1.76 6.22 1.74 0.72 0.48 Organized 6.45 1.83 6.38 1.81 6.50 1.86 -0.42 0.67 Principled 7.12 1.47 7.12 1.55 7.12 1.45 -0.01 0.99 Activity Oriented 5.95 1.75 5.70 1.70 6.17 1.78 -1.76 0.08 Dynamic 6.90 1.92 6.88 1.88 6.93 1.95 -0.17 0.86 Striving 6.99 1.73 6.98 1.86 7.00 1.62 -0.09 0.93 Enterprising 5.54 1.86 5.84 1.95 5.28 1.76 1.97 0.05# Meticulous 5.85 1.90 5.69 2.00 5.99 1.82 -1.04 0.30 Reliable 5.82 1.90 5.88 1.82 5.77 1.97 0.37 0.71 Compliant 5.50 1.86 5.26 1.74 5.70 1.94 -1.57 0.12 1 equal variances assumed, d.f. =177 42

PAGE 43

43 Table 4-2. Leadership competencies means and Std. deviations for population, males and females Population Males Females two-tailed t-test 1 (N = 177) ( N = 81) ( N = 96) males-females M SD M SD M SD t p Achieve Success 6.82 1.72 6.98 1.67 6.69 1.76 1.11 0.27 Adjust to Change 6.80 1.74 6.80 1.77 6.80 1.73 0.00 0.99 Communicate 5.39 1.92 5.35 2.01 5.43 1.85 -0.28 0.78 Creating Innovation 7.07 1.68 7.43 1.64 6.77 1.66 2.66 0.01$ Evaluate Problems 6.95 1.92 7.26 1.76 6.69 2.00 1.99 0.05# Executing Assignments 5.79 1.87 5.62 1.83 5.93 1.89 -1.10 0.27 Make Judgments 6.81 1.79 6.81 1.80 6.80 1.80 0.05 0.96 Presenting Information 6.37 1.53 6.52 1.54 6.24 1.52 1.21 0.23 Projecting Confidence 6.50 1.72 6.57 1.75 6.45 1.70 0.46 0.64 Providing Leadership 6.87 1.69 6.93 1.86 6.82 1.55 0.40 0.69 Providing Support 5.91 2.00 6.10 1.93 5.75 2.06 1.16 0.25 Structuring Tasks 6.84 1.85 6.84 1.79 6.84 1.91 -0.02 0.99 1 equal variances assumed, d.f. =177

PAGE 44

Table 4-3. Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 177) for leadership characteristics WAVE 36 dimensions In ab st in pm lo an fac rat pur dir emp Inventive 1.00 Abstract 0.32* 1.00 Strategic 0.59* 0.36* 1.00 Insightful 0.33* 0.22* 0.34* 1.00 Practically Minded -0.27* -0.10 -0.29* 0.13 1.00 Learning Oriented 0.13 0.45* 0.21* 0.22* -0.14 1.00 Analytical 0.23$ 0.43* 0.22* 0.39* 0.18$ 0.34* 1.00 Factual -0.01 0.36* 0.13 0.23* 0.13 0.32* 0.45* 1.00 Rational -0.05 0.26* -0.05 0.16# 0.35* 0.15 0.42* 0.27* 1.00 Purposeful 0.25* -0.01 0.23* 0.31* 0.06 0.07 0.13 -0.02 0.15 1.00 Directing 0.30* -0.03 0.35* 0.21$ 0.07 0.08 0.19* 0.03 -0.01 0.49* 1.00 Empowering 0.20$ 0.02 0.44* 0.07 -0.22* 0.11 -0.04 -0.05 -0.24* 0.05 0.36* 1.00 Convincing 0.18* 0.04 0.25* 0.23* 0.05 0.00 0.20$ 0.05 0.02 0.42* 0.36* 0.10 Challenging 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.16$ -0.01 0.10 0.23* 0.12 -0.01 0.29* 0.07 -0.06 Articulate 0.09 -0.07 0.19$ -0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 -0.09 0.05 0.32* 0.36* Self-Promoting 0.19* -0.14 0.04 0.01 -0.11 -0.09 -0.17# -0.20* -0.23* 0.07 0.18# 0.10 Interactive 0.15# -0.15# 0.14 -0.01 -0.03 0.01 -0.09 -0.16# -0.38* 0.07 0.20$ 0.27* Engaging -0.05 -0.34* 0.06 -0.08 0.08 -0.14 -0.11 -0.16# -0.27* -0.07 0.22$ 0.28* Involving -0.06 0.22* 0.20* -0.04 -0.19$ 0.12 0.06 0.13 -0.04 -0.27* -0.05 0.33* Attentive -0.01 0.20* 0.20* -0.09 -0.15# 0.15 0.01 0.11 -0.13 -0.28* -0.01 0.40* Accepting -0.12 0.00 0.02 -0.21* -0.01 0.02 -0.16# -0.02 -0.11 -0.27* -0.06 0.23* Resolving -0.04 0.11 0.15 0.05 -0.08 0.15# 0.13 0.16# -0.10 0.06 0.04 0.19* Self-Assured 0.10 -0.15 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.01 -0.12 -0.07 -0.05 0.24* 0.22* 0.08 Composed 0.10 -0.13 0.24* 0.11 -0.01 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.31* 0.28* 0.24* Receptive 0.03 0.28* 0.08 0.02 -0.03 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.27* -0.03 0.01 Positive 0.08 -0.19$ 0.10 -0.19* -0.14 0.04 -0.14 -0.16# -0.26* -0.10 0.06 0.19$ 44

PAGE 45

Table 4-3. Continued In ab st in pm lo an fac rat pur dir emp Change Oriented 0.30* 0.20* 0.38* 0.21* -0.19$ 0.25* 0.29* 0.08 0.09 0.18# 0.15 0.11 Organized -0.12 0.09 0.09 -0.03 0.23* -0.01 0.15$ 0.19$ 0.29* 0.11 0.15 -0.11 Principled -0.20* -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.16# 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.26* 0.06 0.10 0.01 Activity-Oriented 0.08 -0.04 0.03 0.27* 0.26* 0.21* 0.27* 0.04 0.14 0.37* 0.27* -0.07 Dynamic 0.37* -0.15# 0.30* 0.30* -0.03 -0.06 0.17# 0.01 -0.21$ 0.45* 0.45* 0.18# Striving 0.22* -0.16# 0.15# 0.17# 0.08 -0.02 0.18# -0.06 -0.03 0.36* 0.47* 0.11 Enterprising 0.24* -0.21$ 0.24* 0.14 -0.01 -0.17# 0.03 -0.25* -0.23* 0.31* 0.34* 0.12 Meticulous -0.28* 0.06 -0.15# 0.05 0.38* 0. 04 0.24* 0.22* 0.42* -0.03 0.05 -0.24* Reliable -0.26* -0.19$ -0.16# -0.09 0.33* -0.08 0.06 0.06 0.35* 0.03 0.06 -0.20$ Compliant -0.46* -0.02 -0.42* -0.03 0.47* -0.07 0.00 0.14 0.32* -0.11 -0.26* -0.32* 45

PAGE 46

Table 4-3. Continued conv chal art Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp Inven tive Abs tr act egic tful ded ical tual nal eful ting Strat Insigh Practically Min Learning Oriented Analyt Fac Ratio Purpos Direc Empowering Convincing 1.00 Challenging 0.53* 1.00 Articulate 0.22* -0.05 1.00 Self-Promoting 0.39* 0.27* 0.22* 1.00 Interactive 0.21* 0.17# 0.44* 0.43* 1.00 Engaging 0.06 -0.17# 0.51* 0.17# 0.52* 1.00 Involving -0.19$ -0.07 0.10 -0.13 -0.05 0.09 1.00 Attentive -0.18# -0.08 0.24* -0.02 0.19$ 0.26* 0.64* 1.00 Accepting -0.24* -0.21* 0.14 -0.02 0. 11 0.26* 0.48* 0.55* 1.00 Resolving 0.11 0.05 0.26* -0.15# 0.14 0.21* 0.24* 0.27* 0.21* 1.00 Self-Assured 0.15# 0.00 0.19$ 0.15# 0.23* 0.24* -0.15# -0.02 0.17# 0.12 1.00 Composed 0.15 0.00 0.38* -0.02 0.17# 0.17# -0.09 -0.02 0.03 0.24* 0.13 1.00 Receptive -0.13 0.11 0.06 0.14 -0.06 0.00 0.30* 0.24* 0.05 0.00 -0.07 -0.12 Positive -0.25* -0.24* 0.20$ 0.14 0.34* 0. 36* 0.00 0.17# 0.35* 0.14 0.35* 0.23* 46

PAGE 47

Table 4-3. Continued conv chal art Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp Change Oriented -0.10 -0.04 -0.04 0.22* -0.01 -0.06 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.05 -0.03 0.37* Organized 0.05 -0.16# 0.00 -0.32* -0.30* -0.03 -0.08 -0.25* -0.10 0.01 -0.13 0.07 Principled -0.06 -0.07 0.02 -0.28* -0.17# 0.06 0.05 -0.01 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.15# Activity-Oriented 0.04 0.07 -0.04 -0.07 0.07 0.02 -0.19$ -0.25* -0.23* -0.06 0.04 0.30* Dynamic 0.28* 0.15# 0.29* 0.30* 0.40* 0.20* -0.32* -0.25* -0.28* -0.01 0.27* 0.28* Striving 0.25* 0.15# 0.12 0.18$ 0.20* 0.24* -0.13 -0.15# -0.13 -0.11 0.21* 0.28* Enterprising 0.44* 0.17# 0.23* 0.44* 0.35* 0.30* -0.16# -0.12 -0.12 -0.10 0.23* 0.14 Meticulous -0.01 -0.02 -0.11 -0.27* -0.33* -0.05 -0.05 -0.20$ -0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.08 Reliable -0.09 -0.20$ -0.12 -0.27* -0.24* -0.02 -0.07 -0.23* 0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.09 Compliant -0.07 0.07 -0.20$ -0.18# -0.24* -0.18# -0.06 -0.15# -0.04 -0.10 -0.13 -0.14 47

PAGE 48

Table 4-3. Continued rec pos co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp 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 1.00 Positive 0.07 1.00 48

PAGE 49

Table 4-3. Continued rec pos co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp Change Oriented -0.01 0.27* 1.00 Organized -0.11 -0.19 -0.09 1.00 Principled -0.11 0.03 0.12 0.43* 1.00 Activity-Oriented -0.08 0.02 0.21* 0.21* 0.06 1.00 Dynamic -0.14 0.21* 0.21* -0.06 -0.12 0.35* 1.00 Striving 0.01 0.15# 0.17# 0.11 0.18# 0.37* 0.47* 1.00 Enterprising -0.03 0.05 -0.06 -0.09 -0.08 0.12 0.41* 0.52* 1.00 Meticulous 0.10 -0.21* -0.22* 0.52* 0.35* 0.23* -0.16# 0.17# -0.14 1.00 Reliable -0.15# -0.02 -0.06 0.62* 0.49* 0.18# -0.10 0.15 -0.07 0.56* 1.00 Compliant 0.18# -0.21* -0.40* 0.33* 0.18# 0.07 -0.40* -0.11 -0.26* 0.56* 0.41* 1.00 49

PAGE 50

Table 4-4. Continued Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp rec pos Self-Promoting 1.00 Interactive 0.43* 1.00 Engaging 0.17# 0.52* 1.00 Involving -0.13 -0.05 0.09 1.00 Attentive -0.02 0.19$ 0.26* 0.64* 1.00 Accepting -0.02 0.11 0.26* 0.48* 0.55* 1.00 Resolving -0.15# 0.14 0.21* 0.24* 0.27* 0.21* 1.00 Self-Assured 0.15# 0.23* 0.24* -0.15# -0.02 0.17# 0.12 1.00 Composed -0.02 0.17# 0.17# -0.09 -0.02 0.03 0.24* 0.13 1.00 Receptive 0.14 -0.06 0.00 0.30* 0.24* 0.05 0.00 -0.07 -0.12 1.00 Positive 0.14 0.34* 0.36* 0.00 0.17 # 0.35* 0.14 0.35* 0.23* 0.07 1.00 Change-Oriented -0.22* -0.01 -0.06 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.05 -0.03 0.37* -0.01 0.27* Organized -0.32* -0.30* -0.03 -0.08 -0.25* -0.10 0.01 -0.13 0.07 -0.11 -0.19 Principled -0.28* -0.17# 0.06 0.05 -0.01 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.15# -0.11 0.03 Activity-Oriented -0.07 0.07 0.02 -0.19$ -0.25* -0.23* -0.06 0.04 0.30* -0.08 0.02 Dynamic 0.30* 0.40* 0.20* -0.32* -0.25* -0.28* -0.01 0.27* 0.28* -0.14 0.21* Striving 0.18$ 0.20* 0.24* -0.13 -0.15# -0.13 -0.11 0.21* 0.28* 0.01 0.15# Enterprising 0.44* 0.35* 0.30* -0.16# -0.12 -0.12 -0.10 0.23* 0.14 -0.03 0.05 Meticulous -0.27* -0.33* -0.05 -0.05 -0.20$ -0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.08 0.10 -0.21* Reliable -0.27* -0.24* -0.02 -0.07 -0.23* 0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.09 -0.15# -0.02 Compliant -0.18# -0.24* -0.18# -0.06 -0.15# -0.04 -0.10 -0.13 -0.14 0.18# -0.21* 50

PAGE 51

Table 4-4. Continued co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp Self-Promoting Interactive Engaging Involving Attentive Accepting Resolving Self-Assured Composed Receptive Positive Change-Oriented 1.00 Organized -0.09 1.00 Principled 0.12 0.43* 1.00 Activity-Oriented 0.21* 0.21* 0.06 1.00 Dynamic 0.21* -0.06 -0.12 0.35* 1.00 Striving 0.17# 0.11 0.18# 0.37* 0.47* 1.00 Enterprising -0.06 -0.09 -0.08 0.12 0.41* 0.52* 1.00 Meticulous -0.22* 0.52* 0.35* 0.23* -0.16# 0.17# -0.14 1.00 Reliable -0.06 0.62* 0.49* 0.18# -0.10 0.15 -0.07 0.56* 1.00 Compliant -0.40* 0.33* 0.18# 0.07 -0.40* -0.11 -0.26* 0.56* 0.41* 1.00 two-tailed sig. at p < 0.000 $ two-tailed sig. at p < 0.01 # two-tailed sig. at p < 0.05 Very Strong 0.80-1.00 Strong 0.60-0.79 Moderate 0.40-0.59 Weak 0.20-0.39 Very Weak 0.00-0.19 (Salkind, 2009) 51

PAGE 52

Table 4-4. Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 177) for leadership competencies WAVE 12 divisions AS AC CO CRI EP EA MJ PI PC PL PS ST Achieve Success 1.00 Adjust to Change 0.45* 1.00 Communicate 0.49* 0.52* 1.00 Creating Innovation 0.40* 0.46* 0.12 1.00 Evaluate Problems 0.19$ 0.16# -0.11 0.50* 1.00 Executing Assignments -0.15 -0.32* -0.37* -0.10 0.29* 1.00 Make Judgments 0.38* 0.17# 0.04 0.38* 0.49* 0.14 1.00 Presenting Information 0.57* 0.42* 0.54* 0.42* 0.34* -0.15 0.33* 1.00 Projecting Confidence 0.42* 0.55* 0.37* 0.27* 0.22* -0.07 0.32* 0.53* 1.00 Providing Leadership 0.55* 0.47* 0.45* 0.31* 0.08 -0.21* 0.34* 0.57* 0.48* 1.00 Providing Support -0.02 0.41* 0.32* 0.15# 0.04 -0.09 -0.07 0.19$ 0.31* 0.11 1.00 Structuring Tasks 0.16# 0.20* 0.07 0.13 0.16# 0.35* 0.23* 0.08 0.20* 0.49* 0.11 1.00 two-tailed sig. at p < 0.000 $ two-tailed sig. at p < 0.01 # two-tailed sig. at p < 0.05 Very Strong 0.80-1.00 Strong 0.60-0.79 Moderate 0.40-0.59 Weak 0.20-0.39 Very Weak 0.00-0.19 (Salkind, 2009) 52

PAGE 53

Table 4-5. Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 81) for leadership characteris tics for males WAVE 36 dimensions In ab st in pm lo an fac rat pur dir emp Inventive 1.00 Abstract 0.32* 1.00 Strategic 0.53* 0.33* 1.00 Insightful 0.26$ 0.17 0.35* 1.00 Practically-Minded -0.18 -0.04 -0.13 0.29$ 1.00 Learning-Oriented 0.09 0.48* 0.18 0.14 0.01 1.00 Analytical 0.16 0.51* 0.21 0.32* 0.27$ 0.42* 1.00 Factual -0.01 0.46* 0.14 0.22# 0.13 0.32* 0.44* 1.00 Rational -0.11 0.30$ -0.03 0.23# 0.42* 0.16 0.34* 0.34* 1.00 Purposeful 0.19 -0.12 0.29$ 0.23 0.18 -0.08 -0.10 -0.12 0.17 1.00 Directing 0.25# -0.01 0.39* 0.20 0.26# 0.08 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.54* 1.00 Empowering 0.09 -0.04 0.43* 0.05 0.01 0.09 -0.07 -0.06 -0.29$ 0.17 0.47* 1.00 Convincing 0.17 -0.03 0.33* 0.38* 0.06 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.07 0.42* 0.43* 0.14 Challenging 0.15 0.09 -0.05 0.21 0.16 0.10 0.37* 0.16 0.19 0.13 0.10 -0.13 Articulate 0.06 -0.03 0.21 -0.04 0.08 0.09 -0.03 0.08 -0.17 0.16 0.33* 0.40* Self-Promoting 0.19 -0.14 -0.04 0.08 -0.08 -0.05 -0.13 -0.11 -0.13 0.14 0.11 0.09 Interactive 0.16 -0.14 0.12 -0.01 0.09 0.03 -0.04 -0.20 -0.30 0.12 0.27$ 0.32* Engaging 0.11 -0.24# 0.19 -0.04 0.17 -0.04 -0.06 -0.14 -0.28$ 0.06 0.33* 0.47* Involving -0.12 0.30$ 0.14 -0.01 -0.02 0.10 0.12 0.18 -0.07 -0.25# -0.13 0.20 Attentive -0.09 0.22# 0.11 -0.13 0.07 0.15 0.02 0.17 -0.06 -0.21 0.03 0.25# Accepting -0.24# 0.00 -0.05 -0.16 0.06 0.05 -0.12 0.02 -0.07 0.18 -0.10 0.17 Resolving -0.05 0.22# 0.27# 0.08 -0.12 0.12 0.20 0.22# -0.06 -0.05 0.08 0.18 Self-Assured 0.19 -0.18 0.16 0.13 0.23# -0.02 -0.15 -0.06 -0.07 0.25# 0.36* 0.20 Composed -0.04 -0.18 0.25# 0.02 0.12 -0.07 -0.16 -0.05 0.10 0.40* 0.20 0.22 Receptive 0.09 0.36* 0.03 0.09 -0.02 0.25 # 0.12 0.23# 0.09 -0.15 -0.02 -0.05 53

PAGE 54

Table 4-5. Continued In ab st in pm lo an fac rat pur dir emp Positive 0.14 -0.06 0.15 -0.20 -0.15 0.13 -0.17 -0.19 -0.26# -0.03 -0.02 0.25# Change-Oriented 0.22# 0.16 0.31* 0.11 -0.09 0.20 0.15 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.02 -0.03 Organized -0.21 0.10 0.16 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.24# 0.19 0.23# 0.18 0.16 0.03 Principled -0.24# 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.25# 0.08 0.23# 0.20 0.33* 0.08 0.13 0.16 Activity-Oriented 0.15 0.01 0.10 0.24# 0.37* 0.10 0.24# -0.02 0.15 0.36* 0.25# 0.02 Dynamic 0.34* -0.25# 0.27* 0.18 0.00 -0.13 -0.05 -0.15 -0.33* 0.43* 0.45* 0.30$ Striving 0.22# -0.13 0.20 0.19 0.19 -0.07 0.15 -0.11 -0.13 0.34* 0.47* 0.34* Enterprising 0.16 -0.27# 0.22# 0.15 -0.01 -0.28# -0.05 -0.32* -0.29$ 0.35* 0.40* 0.23# Meticulous -0.21 0.19 -0.03 0.22# 0.38* 0.14 0.42* 0.26# 0.34* -0.01 0.14 -0.09 Reliable -0.33* -0.15 -0.15 0.07 0.33* -0.09 0.09 -0.01 0.31$ 0.14 0.04 -0.12 Compliant -0.36* 0.04 -0.27# 0.18 0.46* 0.07 0.13 0.22# 0.38* -0.02 -0.12 -0.15 54

PAGE 55

Table 4-5. Continued conv chal art Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp Inventive Abstract Strategic Insightful Practically-Minded Learning-Oriented Analytical Factual Rational Purposeful Directing Empowering Convincing 1.00 Challenging 0.48* 1.00 Articulate 0.30$ 0.07 1.00 Self-Promoting 0.41* 0.35* 0.16 1.00 Interactive 0.26# 0.23# 0.51* 0.49* 1.00 Engaging 0.22# -0.04 0.49* 0.11 0.63* 1.00 Involving -0.24# -0.15 0.08 -0.16 -0.07 0.16 1.00 Attentive -0.27$ -0.23# 0.22# -0.06 0.09 0.30$ 0.63* 1.00 Accepting -0.29$ -0.32* 0.09 -0.16 0.08 0.32* 0.52* 0.52* 1.00 Resolving 0.06 0.00 0.27$ -0.18 0.02 0.28$ 0.31$ 0.21 0.20 1.00 Self-Assured 0.25# 0.03 0.28$ 0.18 0.35* 0.38* -0.26# -0.09 0.12 0.05 1.00 Composed 0.23# 0.02 0.31$ -0.12 0.09 0.17 -0.13 -0.12 -0.07 0.29$ 0.11 1.00 Receptive -0.14 0.28$ 0.04 0.12 0.01 -0. 07 0.31* 0.25# 0.04 0.15 -0.01 -0.16 55

PAGE 56

Table 4-5. Continued conv chal art Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp Positive -0.24# -0.21 0.10 0.00 0.34* 0 .28$ 0.02 0.20 0.41* 0.23# 0.30$ 0.13 Change-Oriented -0.14 -0.01 -0.08 -0.31$ -0 .06 -0.11 0.09 -0.05 -0.02 0.02 -0.17 0.29# Organized 0.16 -0.01 0.04 -0.39* -0.25# -0.04 0.00 -0.10 -0.03 0.23# -0.07 0.14 Principled 0.06 -0.01 0.06 -0.40* -0.18 0.08 0.07 -0.07 0.18 0.19 0.05 0.12 Activity-Oriented 0.07 0.25# -0.16 -0.06 0.10 -0.01 -0.19 -0.21 -0.25# -0.11 0.04 0.15 Dynamic 0.38* 0.26# 0.36* 0.37* 0.46* 0.27$ -0.35* -0.26# -0.32* -0.03 0.41* 0.17 Striving 0.38* 0.27# 0.11 0.23# 0.32* 0.26# -0.04 -0.01 -0.12 -0.10 0.30$ 0.11 Enterprising 0.52* 0.24# 0.18 0.43* 0.38* 0.32* -0.05 -0.04 -0.12 -0.02 0.31$ 0.01 Meticulous 0.13 0.16 -0.15 -0.29$ -0.25# -0.03 0.04 -0.11 0.06 0.25# -0.02 -0.02 Reliable -0.02 -0.10 -0.14 -0.38* -0.33* -0.11 -0.07 -0.17 0.12 0.20 0.06 0.09 Compliant -0.03 0.15 -0.18 -0.08 -0.18 -0.17 0.09 -0.02 0.10 -0.01 -0.14 -0.01 56

PAGE 57

Table 4-5. Continued rec pos co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp 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 1.00 57

PAGE 58

Table 4-5. Continued rec pos co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp Positive 0.10 1.00 Change-Oriented -0.01 0.26# 1.00 Organized -0.17 -0.17 -0.07 1.00 Principled -0.14 0.01 0.07 0.52* 1.00 Activity-Oriented 0.09 -0.13 0.10 0.23# -0.05 1.00 Dynamic -0.04 0.13 0.05 -0.13 -0.25# 0.26# 1.00 Striving 0.07 0.10 -0.01 0.05 0.10 0.30$ 0.47* 1.00 Enterprising -0.12 -0.08 -0.25# -0.08 -0.08 0.11 0.43* 0.62* 1.00 Meticulous 0.04 -0.20 -0.16 0.55* 0.42* 0.32* -0.16 0.14 -0.12 1.00 Reliable -0.14 -0.04 -0.06 0.53* 0.54* 0.12 -0.23# -0.02 -0.06 0.56* 1.00 Compliant 0.18 -0.15 -0.32* 0.27$ 0.35* 0.19 -0.38* -0.04 -0.18 0.55* 0.47* 1.00 58

PAGE 59

Table 4-5. Continued Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp rec pos Self-Promoting 1.00 Interactive 0.49* 1.00 Engaging 0.11 0.63* 1.00 Involving -0.16 -0.07 0.16 1.00 Attentive -0.06 0.09 0.30$ 0.63* 1.00 Accepting -0.16 0.08 0.32* 0.52* 0.52* 1.00 Resolving -0.18 0.02 0.28$ 0.31$ 0.21 0.20 1.00 Self-Assured 0.18 0.35* 0.38* -0.26# -0.09 0.12 0.05 1.00 Composed -0.12 0.09 0.17 -0.13 -0.12 -0.07 0.29$ 0.11 1.00 Receptive 0.12 0.01 -0.07 0.31* 0.25# 0.04 0.15 -0.01 -0.16 1.00 Positive 0.00 0.34* 0.28$ 0.02 0.20 0.41* 0.23# 0.30$ 0.13 0.10 1.00 Change-Oriented -0.31$ -0.06 -0.11 0.09 -0.05 -0.02 0.02 -0.17 0.29# -0.01 0.26# Organized -0.39* -0.25# -0.04 0.00 -0.10 -0.03 0.23# -0.07 0.14 -0.17 -0.17 Principled -0.40* -0.18 0.08 0.07 -0.07 0.18 0.19 0.05 0.12 -0.14 0.01 Activity-Oriented -0.06 0.10 -0.01 -0.19 -0.21 -0.25# -0.11 0.04 0.15 0.09 -0.13 Dynamic 0.37* 0.46* 0.27$ -0.35* -0.26# -0.32* -0.03 0.41* 0.17 -0.04 0.13 Striving 0.23# 0.32* 0.26# -0.04 -0.01 -0.12 -0.10 0.30$ 0.11 0.07 0.10 Enterprising 0.43* 0.38* 0.32* -0.05 -0.04 -0.12 -0.02 0.31$ 0.01 -0.12 -0.08 Meticulous -0.29$ -0.25# -0.03 0.04 -0.11 0.06 0.25# -0.02 -0.02 0.04 -0.20 Reliable -0.38* -0.33* -0.11 -0.07 -0.17 0.12 0.20 0.06 0.09 -0.14 -0.04 Compliant -0.08 -0.18 -0.17 0.09 -0.02 0.10 -0.01 -0.14 -0.01 0.18 -0.15 59

PAGE 60

Table 4-5. Continued co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp Self-Promoting Interactive Engaging Involving Attentive Accepting Resolving Self-Assured Composed Receptive Positive Change-Oriented 1.00 Organized -0.07 1.00 Principled 0.07 0.52* 1.00 Activity-Oriented 0.10 0.23# -0.05 1.00 Dynamic 0.05 -0.13 -0.25# 0.26# 1.00 Striving -0.01 0.05 0.10 0.30$ 0.47* 1.00 Enterprising -0.25# -0.08 -0.08 0.11 0.43* 0.62* 1.00 Meticulous -0.16 0.55* 0.42* 0.32* -0.16 0.14 -0.12 1.00 Reliable -0.06 0.53* 0.54* 0.12 -0.23# -0.02 -0.06 0.56* 1.00 Compliant -0.32* 0.27$ 0.35* 0.19 -0.38* -0.04 -0.18 0.55* 0.47* 1.00 two-tailed sig. at p < 0.000 $ two-tailed sig. at p < 0.01 # two-tailed sig. at p < 0.05 Very Strong 0.80-1.00 Strong 0.60-0.79 Moderate 0.40-0.59 Weak 0.20-0.39 Very Weak 0.00-0.19 (Salkind, 2009) 60

PAGE 61

Table 4-6. Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 81) for leadership competencies for males WAVE 12 divisions AS AC CO CRI EP EA MJ PI PC PL PS ST Achieve Success 1.00 Adjust to Change 0.41* 1.00 Communicate 0.52* 0.49* 1.00 Creating Innovation 0.29$ 0.43* 0.07 1.00 Evaluate Problems 0.00 0.17 -0.14 0.50* 1.00 Executing Assignments -0.16 -0.23# -0.39* -0.07 0.35* 1.00 Make Judgments 0.35* 0.20 0.12 0.37* 0.49* 0.18 1.00 Presenting Information 0.65* 0.42* 0.61* 0.38* 0.28$ -0.04 0.38* 1.00 Projecting Confidence 0.39* 0.55* 0.35* 0.22# 0.27$ 0.12 0.29$ 0.58* 1.00 Providing Leadership 0.68* 0.50* 0.58* 0.31$ 0.12 -0.13 0.48* 0.61* 0.50 1.00 Providing Support 0.10 0.44* 0.33* 0.13 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.28$ 0.15 1.00 Structuring Tasks 0.23# 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.28$ 0.44* 0.35* 0.18 0.33* 0.52* 0.20 1.00 two-tailed sig. at p < 0.000 $ two-tailed sig. at p < 0.01 # two-tailed sig. at p < 0.05 Very Strong 0.80-1.00 Strong 0.60-0.79 Moderate 0.40-0.59 Weak 0.20-0.39 Very Weak 0.00-0.19 (Salkind, 2009) 61

PAGE 62

Table 4-7. Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 96) for leadership characteris tics for females WAVE 36 dimensions In ab st in pm lo an fac rat pur dir emp Inventive 1.00 Abstract 0.28$ 1.00 Strategic 0.64* 0.36* 1.00 Insightful 0.42* 0.28$ 0.33* 1.00 Practically-Minded -0.34* -0.13 -0.41* -0.02 1.00 Learning-Oriented 0.20 0.47* 0.27$ 0.29* -0.28$ 1.00 Analytical 0.27$ 0.37* 0.22$ 0.47* 0.12 0.31* 1.00 Factual 0.02 0.31* 0.13 0.23$ 0.11 0.31* 0.49* 1.00 Rational -0.05 0.21# -0.11 0.12 0.32* 0.17 0.47* 0.26$ 1.00 Purposeful 0.29$ 0.05 0.17 0.39* -0.03 0.20# 0.29* 0.08 0.11 1.00 Directing 0.38* -0.03 0.33* 0.22$ -0.11 0.06 0.23# 0.00 -0.02 0.46* 1.00 Empowering 0.31* 0.06 0.45* 0.09 -0.41* 0.12 -0.01 -0.05 -0.20 -0.03 0.28* 1.00 Convincing 0.16 0.07 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.20 0.08 -0.06 0.41* 0.32* 0.08 Challenging 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.14 -0.13 0.13 0.12 0.10 -0.18 0.38* 0.07 -0.02 Articulate 0.10 0.11 0.17 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.07 0.06 -0.03 -0.02 0.32* 0.33* Self-Promoting 0.19 -0.15 0.11 -0.07 -0.14 -0.11 -0.21# -0.30* -0.33* 0.01 0.26$ 0.13 Interactive 0.16 -0.15 0.18 0.00 -0.15 0.00 -0.13 -0.12 -0.45* 0.03 0.12 0.22$ Engaging 0.03 -0.41* -0.03 -0.12 0.00 -0.23# -0.14 -0.18 -0.25$ -0.17 0.12 0.12 Involving -0.02 0.16 0.26$ -0.06 0.34* 0.14 0.00 0.08 -0.03 -0.29* 0.03 0.43* Attentive 0.07 0.19 0.29$ -0.06 -0.33* 0.14 0.00 0.04 -0.18 -0.32* -0.05 0.52* Accepting 0.01 0.00 0.02 -0.28$ -0.09 0.00 -0.20 -0.06 -0.16 -0.35* -0.03 0.30* Resolving -0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 -0.04 0.19 0.09 0.11 -0.14 0.16 0.01 0.21# Self-Assured 0.03 -0.11 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.02 -0.10 -0.08 -0.02 0.25$ 0.07 -0.02 Composed 0.27$ -0.06 0.26$ 0.21# -0.13 0.20# 0.20# 0.08 -0.01 0.25$ 0.34 0.26$ Receptive 0.00 0.25$ 0.15 -0.06 -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.12 0.04 -0.35* -0.05 0.06 62

PAGE 63

Table 4-7. Continued In ab st in pm lo an fac rat pur dir emp Positive 0.04 -0.29$ 0.07 -0.18 -0.14 -0.06 0.11 -0.15 0.25 -0.15 0.14 0.14 Change-Oriented 0.37* 0.23# 0.44* 0.32 -0. 27$ 0.32* 0.40* 0.13 0.03 0.20# 0.27$ 0.23# Organized -0.02 -0.04 0.03 0.08 0.30* -0.08 0.09 0.20 0.34* 0.06 0.13 -0.22# Principled -0.16 -0.14 -0.03 -0.03 0.08 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.21# 0.05 0.08 -0.11 Activity-Oriented 0.07 -0.05 -0.01 0.29* 0.16 0.27$ 0.31* 0.09 0.17 0.40* 0.28$ -0.14 Dynamic 0.40* -0.07 -0.33* 0.42* -0.05 0.00 0.33* 0.16 -0.12 0.47* 0.44* 0.08 Striving 0.22# -0.19 0.11 0.15 -0.03 0.03 0.21# 0.11 0.06 0.39* 0.47* -0.09 Enterprising 0.28* -0.20 0.24# 0.14 0.01 -0.04 0.07 -0.15 -0.23# 0.25$ 0.31* 0.04 Meticulous -0.33* -0.03 -0.24# -0.12 0.38* -0.07 0.11 0.16 0.53* -0.03 -0.05 -0.39* Reliable -0.22# -0.22# -0.18 -0.23# 0.33* -0.06 0.05 0.14 0.39* -0.06 0.08 -0.26$ Compliant -0.54* -0.04 -0.52* -0.22# 0.48* -0.21# 0.07 0.05 0.32* -0.16 -0.38* -0.45* 63

PAGE 64

Table 4-7. Continued conv chal art Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp Inven tive Abstract Strat egic tful tual onal eful ting Insigh Practically-Minded Learning-Oriented Analytical Fac Rati Purpos Direc Empowering Convincing 1.00 Challenging 0.56* 1.00 Articulate 0.16 -0.13 1.00 Self-Promoting 0.36* 0.20 0.27$ 1.00 Interactive 0.18 0.13 0.39* 0.39* 1.00 Engaging -0.07 -0.27$ 0.53* 0.23# 0.41* 1.00 Involving -0.15 -0.01 0.11 -0.10 -0.03 0.03 1.00 Attentive -0.09 0.03 0.26$ 0.02 0.26$ 0.23# 0.65* 1.00 Accepting -0.19 -0.13 0.19 0.13 0. 14 0.20# 0.43* 0.59* 1.00 Resolving 0.15 0.09 0.24# -0.12 0.26$ 0.16 0.17 0.31* 0.23# 1.00 Self-Assured 0.06 -0.02 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 -0.04 0.03 0.22# 0.18 1.00 Composed 0.09 0.00 0.45* 0.08 0.23# 0.17 -0.05 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.15 1.00 Receptive -0.09 0.00 0.09 0.18 -0.12 0.06 0.30* 0.22# 0.07 -0.14 -0.13 -0.11 64

PAGE 65

Table 4-7. Continued conv chal art Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp Positive -0.24# -0.26$ 0.28$ 0.28$ 0.33* 0.43* -0.02 0.14 0.28 0.05 0.38* 0.32* Change-Oriented -0.07 -0.07 -0.02 -0. 14 0.04 -0.02 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.46* Organized -0.05 -0.26$ -0.03 -0.25$ -0.32* -0.09 -0.14 -0.37* -0.17 -0.18 -0.20 0.00 Principled -0.18 -0.11 -0.01 -0.16 -0.17 0.04 0.04 -0.08 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.18 Activity-Oriented 0.05 -0.03 0.05 -0.07 0.04 0.03 -0.18 -0.30* -0.22# -0.02 0.03 0.41* Dynamic 0.20 0.08 0.24# 0.25$ 0.35* 0.15 -0.29* -0.25$ -0.26$ 0.00 0.14 0.38* Striving 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.22# -0.24# -0.28$ -0.14 -0.13 0.13 0.45* Enterprising 0.33* 0.09 0.28$ 0.45* 0.34* 0.31* -0.27$ -0.19 -0.12 -0.18 0.17 0.30* Meticulous -0.14 -0.15 -0.08 -0.25$ -0.42* -0.08 -0.13 -0.29$ -0.14 -0.24# -0.02 -0.15 Reliable -0.16 -0.27$ -0.10 -0.19 -0.17 0.05 -0.08 -0.28$ -0.03 -0.16 -0.12 0.10 Compliant -0.08 0.05 -0.21# -0.25# -0.31* -0.20 -0.17 -0.25$ -0.17 -0.17 -0.14 -0.27$ 65

PAGE 66

Table 4-7. Continued rec pos co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp Inventive Abstract Strat egic 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 1.00 66

PAGE 67

Table 4-7. Continued rec pos co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp Positive 0.03 1.00 Change-Oriented 0.01 0.30* 1.00 Organized -0.06 0.21# -0.10 1.00 Principled -0.09 0.05 0.17 0.36* 1.00 Activity-Oriented -0.24# 0.13 0.33* 0.19 0.16 1.00 Dynamic -0.22# 0.28$ 0.34* -0.01 -0.01 0.42* 1.00 Striving -0.06 0.21# 0.34* 0.17 0.26$ 0.45* 0.47* 1.00 Enterprising 0.08 0.21# 0.11 -0.09 -0.09 0.18 0.41* 0.43* 1.00 Meticulous 0.15 -0.23# -0.26$ 0.50* 0.28$ 0.13 -0.16 0.21# -0.13 1.00 Reliable -0.16 0.01 -0.06 0.69* 0.45* 0.23# -0.01 0.30* -0.09 0.57* 1.00 Compliant 0.17 -0.28# -0.46* 0.37* 0.06 -0.04 -0.41* -0.18 -0.29* 0.57* 0.37* 1.00 67

PAGE 68

Table 4-7. Continued Self inter eng inv atten acce res sa comp rec pos Self-Promoting 1.00 Interactive 0.39* 1.00 Engaging 0.23# 0.41* 1.00 Involving -0.10 -0.03 0.03 1.00 Attentive 0.02 0.26$ 0.23# 0.65* 1.00 Accepting 0.13 0.14 0.20# 0.43* 0.59* 1.00 Resolving -0.12 0.26$ 0.16 0.17 0.31* 0.23# 1.00 Self-Assured 0.12 0.11 0.12 -0.04 0.03 0.22# 0.18 1.00 Composed 0.08 0.23# 0.17 -0.05 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.15 1.00 Receptive 0.18 -0.12 0.06 0.30* 0.22# 0.07 -0.14 -0.13 -0.11 1.00 Positive 0.28$ 0.33* 0.43* -0.02 0. 14 0.28* 0.05 0.38* 0.32* 0.03 1.00 Change-Oriented -0.14 0.04 -0.02 0. 13 0.11 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.46* 0.01 0.30* Organized -0.25$ -0.32* -0.09 -0.14 -0.37* -0.17 -0.18 -0.20 0.00 -0.06 0.21# Principled -0.16 -0.17 0.04 0.04 -0.08 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.18 -0.09 0.05 Activity-Oriented -0.07 0.04 0.03 -0.18 -0.30* -0.22# -0.02 0.03 0.41* -0.24# 0.13 Dynamic 0.25$ 0.35* 0.15 -0.29* -0.25$ -0.26$ 0.00 0.14 0.38* -0.22# 0.28$ Striving 0.15 0.09 0.22# -0.24# -0.28$ -0.14 -0.13 0.13 0.45* -0.06 0.21# Enterprising 0.45* 0.34* 0.31* -0.27$ -0.19 -0.12 -0.18 0.17 0.30* 0.08 0.21# Meticulous -0.25$ -0.42* -0.08 -0.13 -0.29$ -0.14 -0.24# -0.02 -0.15 0.15 -0.23# Reliable -0.19 -0.17 0.05 -0.08 -0.28$ -0.03 -0.16 -0.12 0.10 -0.16 0.01 Compliant -0.25# -0.31* -0.20 -0.17 -0.25$ -0.17 -0.17 -0.14 -0.27$ 0.17 -0.28# 68

PAGE 69

Table 4-7. Continued co org prin ao Dyn Str Ent Met Rel Comp Self-Promoting Interactive Engaging Involving Attentive Accepting Resol ving ured ed Self-Ass os Comp Receptive Positive Change-Oriented 1.00 Organized -0.10 1.00 Principled 0.17 0.36* 1.00 Activity-Oriented 0.33* 0.19 0.16 1.00 Dynamic 0.34* -0.01 -0.01 0.42* 1.00 Striving 0.34* 0.17 0.26$ 0.45* 0.47* 1.00 Enterprising 0.11 -0.09 -0.09 0.18 0.41* 0.43* 1.00 Meticulous -0.26$ 0.50* 0.28$ 0.13 -0.16 0.21# -0.13 1.00 Reliable -0.06 0.69* 0.45* 0.23# -0.01 0.30* -0.09 0.57* 1.00 Compliant -0.46* 0.37* 0.06 -0.04 -0.41* -0.18 -0.29* 0.57* 0.37* 1.00 two-tailed sig. at p < 0.000 $ two-tailed sig. at p < 0.01 # two-tailed sig. at p < 0.05 Very Strong 0.80-1.00 Strong 0.60-0.79 Moderate 0.40-0.59 Weak 0.20-0.39 Very Weak 0.00-0.19 (Salkind, 2009) 69

PAGE 70

70 I P A J PI PC Table 4-8. Pearson correlations for the population ( N = 96) for leadership competencies for females WAVE 12 dimensions AS AC CO CR E E M PL PS ST Achieve Success 1.00 Adjust to Change 0.49* 1.00 0 0 0 00 # 9# 00 # 3* 1.00 3 9 2* 1.00 1 5 16 15 4.06 1.00 8 13 01 .10 460.05 1.00 Communicate 0.47* 0.55* 1.00 Creating Innovation 0.47* 0.50* 0.17 1.00 Evaluate Problems 0.31* 0.15 -0.08 0.48* 0 1.0 Executing Assignments -0.12 -0.40* -0.36* -0.1 0.28 $ 1.0 Make Judgments 0.41* 0.14 -0.04 0.39* 0.50 0.1 1. Presenting Information 0.51* 0.41* 0.48* 0.44* 0.37 8 -0.22 0.2 1. Projecting Confidence 0.44* 0.54* 0.40* 0.31* 0.1 -0.23 0.3 1 # 0.50 Providing Leadership 0.43* 0.45* 0.31* 0.31* 0.0 -0.29 0. 0.5 0.46 Providing Support -0.12 0.40* 0.33* 0.14 -0.0 -0.1 -0. 0. 0.3 0 Structuring Tasks 0.10 0.20 0.02 0.13 -0.0 0.28 0. -0. 0 0. two-tailed sig. at p < 0.000 $ two-tailed sig. at p < 0.01 # two-tailed sig. at p < 0.05 Very Strong 0.80-1.00 Strong 0.60-0.79 Moderate 0.40-0.59 Weak 0.20-0.39 Very Weak 0.00-0.19 (Salkind, 2009)

PAGE 71

Aggregate data-descriptive statistics summary Population (N = 177) Highest mean scores Lowest mean scores strategic (M = 7.54) self-promoting (M = 4.61) principled (M = 7.12) engaging (M = 4.95) creating (M = 7.07) challenging (M = 4.97) innovation Males Females (N=96) (N=81) Highest mean scores strategic (M = 7.74) strategic (M = 7.36) creating innovation (M = 7.43) principled (M = 7.12) evaluating problems (M = 7.26) striving (M = 7.0) Lowest mean scores self-promoting (M = 4.70) self-promoting (M = 4.53) engaging (M = 4.84) challenging (M = 4.79) challenging (M = 5.19) engaging (M = 5.04) Research hypothesis one data summary leadership characteristics Procedure Characteristics =found to have strong positive correlations t-test Males Females (None found to be ( t (175) = 2.14, p > 0.03), rational statistically significant) ( t (175) = 2.04, p > 0.04) inventive ( t (175) = 1.97, p > 0.05). enterprising Pearson correlation coefficient Population Males Females ( r (177) = 0.64, p < 0.000) attentive & inventive ( r (177) = 0.62, p < 0.000) reliable & organized ( r (177) = 0.63, p < 0.000) engaging & interactive ( r (177) = 0.62, p < 0.000). enterprising & striving ( r (177) = 0.69, p < 0.000), reliable & organized ( r (177) = 0.65, p < 0.000), attentive & inventive ( r (177) = 0.64, p < 0.000). inventive & strategic Figure 4-1. Barreiro O Daniels 2009 Study Gender in Community College Administration utilized the WAVE. 71

PAGE 72

Research hypothesis two data summary leadership competencies Procedure Characteristics found to have strong positive correlations t-test Males Females (None found to be ( t (175) = 2.65, p > 0.01) creating innovation statistically significant._ ( t (175) = 1.99, p > 0.05) evaluating problems Pearson correlation coefficient No strong positive correlations were found in the aggregate population or females. Males ( r (177) = 0.68, p < 0.000) providing leadership & achieving success ( r (177) = 0.65, p < 0.000) presenting information & adjusting to change ( r (177) = 0.61, p < 0.000) presenting information & creating innovation ( r (177) = 0.61, p < 0.000) providing leadership & presenting information Simple linear regression ( F (12, 164) = 1.58, p < 0.10) with an R 2 of 0.10 Not significant gender cannot be used to predict leadership characteristics. Figure 4-1. Continued 72

PAGE 73

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION With the current state of our nations econom y in the m idst of a recession forcing budget cuts at all levels of business, industry, and institutions, it is time to reaffirm our understanding of gender literature, to review our application of gender literature and to determine if genderspecific differences still exist. By understanding where the differences between the genders exist, if any, can help to strengthen the level of understanding of the huma n capital within the organization. If gender-specific differences are still f ound, as hypothesized, then this knowledge and understand ing will significantly aid leaders in creating more efficiently run organizations. "The bottom line: organizations with the best human cap ital practices provide re turns to shareholders that are three times greater than those of companies with weak human capital practices" ( Bassie & McMurrer, 2006). Furthermore, if gender-specifi c differences still exis t then cooperation and understanding between the genders is vital in helping organizations in working through the political changes, funding deficits, and contin uing recession. Desjardins emphasized a society pretending that gender differences do not exist it hurts both males and females. moreover, we are still a distance from truly understanding each other and from treating women equally in many areas, including education (D esjardins, 1994 p. 147). As the literature has shown, there are some skills and talents more prevalent for male ad ministrators and others that are more prevalent for female administrators (Desjardins, 1994; St ernberg, 1992; Balkis & Isiker, 2005; Severiens, Dam, & Nijenhuis, 1998; Kachik, 2003). Thus, th e first step in creating stronger and more efficient organizations is by understandi ng the human capital aspect hinges upon an understanding of first whether gender differences still exist. 73

PAGE 74

During the wave of turnover and attrition, sele cting the right person to match the desired outcomes is important in human capital develo pment. This study builds upon earlier works to investigate the relationship between the leadership traits, competencies, and the characteristics between male and female and community college administrators in order to help practitioners in both the hiring practices and prof essional development practices. In this chapter the general findings, discussion, implications for higher ed ucation, future research suggestions, and conclusions will be presented. Findings In a break from the traditional literature there seem s to be very few gender-specific differences in leadership characteristics and trai ts in community college administrators from the sample population. This is not to say there were not any differences, but there were only a few differences with males scoring significantly high er than females on a couple and vice versa. Those findings will be discussed in this section. In this study the data has shown males to be sim ilar to women on being strategic (see Figure 5-1). Males were found to rate higher for creating inno vation and evaluating problems than females. This does support the literature of Desjardin and others This does not follow Kachiks study showing behavioral as being the lo west characteristics of significance. Males and females both rated very high on being strategic. Females, on the other hand, were found in this study to rate higher than males on being principled and striving (see Figure 5-1). These two findings did follow the literature (Kachik, 2003; Desjardins, 1994). This m ay be a result of the changes going on in todays community college environments where the administrators have more responsibilities and fewer resources with which to work. The data also shows that females also tend to be better at being change agents whereas males do not (Kachik, 2003; Desjardins, 1994). 74

PAGE 75

These findings tend to fall in line somewhat w ith Desjardins work, but also tend to differ from the work of Kachik. As Desjardin found, fema les were found to not be as likely to rate themselves as being self-promoting (Desjard in, 1994). This may be something akin to community college administrators, since the overall population slightly tended to be less then the population (See Table 5-1). There may also be some causal inferences, since the studies conducted by Desjardin, Kachik, and this study o ccurred over the past twenty-five years. Since Desjardin and Kachik studied populations that were different (Kachik, 2003; Desjardin, 1994), perhaps a longitudinal study could more ad equately address causal inferences. From a broader perspective since there were so few differences noted between m ales and females the data from the study suggests there re ally is no overall diffe rence between males and females. Implications for Higher Education The findings of this study will support the cr itical selection and de velopment of future leaders who are needed to handle the complex environm ents of the 21st Century (Boggs, 2003). More than 1,500 studies on a vari ety of industries have already been conducted on the critical issue of leadership turnover and attrition (Barrick & Zimmer man, 2005). This study will support the literature findings that in addition to business and industr y, community colleges are also encouraged to prioritize and engage their leader ship development activities in order to keep up with the promises of their mission to their community. This data can be used to implement, tailo r, or modify lifelong learning program s in community colleges, workforce development, or corporate training branches. During the hiring process searches can use this data to help bett er establish interview questions or even to use assessments in the hiring process. Future st udies could establish the average or benchmark 75

PAGE 76

leadership characteristics and traits that tend to be able to predict success. Success would need to be determined in further studies. Building upon the gender leadersh ip trait research of Desj ardin (Desjardin, 1994) and Kachik (2003) this study of ge nder differences and relational lead ership traits, chara cteristics, and competencies will contribute to the understand ing of leadership selection and development. The analysis of this research will provide a foundation for further gender and leadership studies. Identification of gender differences between male and female community college administrators can be used to support institutional leadership selection and development initiatives. Discussion In the study of leadership the importance of gaining an awareness and understanding of gender cannot be overstated (Desjardin, 1994). The results of this study, which built upon the foundations set by earlier re searchers, can be used by practiti oners to better help select and develop talent, in a talent-thin ma rket, in their co mmunity college. In Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus Gray (1992) supports th e need to expand our understanding of gender differences in order to support communicative an d cooperative exchanges of males and females. Both genders need to better understand the differences [between]our relationships (Desjardin, 1994, p. 161). The WAVE assessment can assist the genders to better know themselves and know each other. The WAVE results of individuals can be used to support the leadership development of any organization. As Collins (2005) stated, do whatever you ca n to get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people into the right seats. (Collins, 2005, p. 14). Whether your bus" represents our earth, our nation, our state, our institution, or our service community, individuals who are w illing to become lifelong learne rs will become those right people on the bus. It is up to each bus leader to develop the traits, characteristics, and 76

PAGE 77

competencies of their constituents to ensure th at they are in the right seat (Collins, 2005). Leaders of today need to take responsibility for selecting and developing the leaders of tomorrow. What corporate America can learn from this study is that individuals are only going to seek advice if they know how to ask and where to find it to help in their curr ent responsibili ties and to aid in their career development. If our nation is going to prosper dur ing its new presidential changes and challenges, current leaders of all indu stries need to be equipped with the tools to become lifelong learners. Lifelong learners are leaders our nation needs to pursue for a positive global position. Drucker (2006) reminds us of how individuals are now outliving employing institutions. The average life expectancy of a succe ssful business is 30 years compared to that of the knowledge worker which is more than 50 y ears (Drucker, 2006, p. 20). For the first time in history, knowledge workers are outliving their employing organizations (Drucker, 2006, p. 20). Drucker states, And this means something to tally new and unprecedented: knowledge workers now have to take responsibility for managing themselves (Drucker, 2006, p. 123). For Future Research Future studies and research can replicate this study or extend the research by expanding the sample size and scope of geographical location. The respondents demographic data could be expanded to include age, ethnic ity, degrees earned, years of se rvice in higher education and industry. Another study could also compare the relationships between the genders and leadership traits between community college administrators and corporate administrators. More refined research could expand the database and narrow down the positions of study to include only community college presidents, deans, vice pres idents, or nearly any position in community college administration. It is important to note th at this study only assess ed leadership traits, characteristics, and competencies. An indivi dual possessing these quali ties cannot guarantee 77

PAGE 78

success, irrespective of gender. However, where no measures previously existed, this research is a step in the right direction towa rds researching as to which traits may tend to predict success, and perhaps being researched from the gender pe rspective. Finally, futu re studies could also replicate this study using a variet y of different assessment instrume nts to eliminate any potential instrument bias that may be present. Conclusion In this study we found that many of the leadersh ip traits, characteris tics, and competencies are shared by both males and females. John Rya n, President and CEO for the Center of Creative Leadership, advocates that during these times of crisis all orga nizations need to invest in leadership development activities (Ryan, 2009). Leader s need to be prepared to lead. Institutions of higher education need to provi de leadership development opportuni ties to their l eaders so that they can effectively lead their community college. Turnover and attrition are major issues for all industries; however, in this study the findings show that males and females possess slig htly different leadership characteristics and competencies. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of leadership traits between male and female community college administrators. Based on the results of this study and in the existing literature, th ere are very few leadership tr ait differences found between the genders. However, the correlations found significan ce when leadership traits were analyzed. Males were found to be more creative with innovation and evaluating problems. Females were found to be more principled and striving. Both genders were found to be more strategic. This research can be used to support leader ship selection and de velopment initiatives during the wave of turnover and attrition cause d by the retirements of the baby boomers. This research supports the use of the WAVE asse ssment to better determine which climates, cultures, or environments are be tter suited for the right individual. The results support that this 78

PAGE 79

WAVE data can be used to strengthen the se lection, leadership development, and succession planning processes of an institution. Turnover and attrition have been major issues for all industries. With the current state of our nations economy in the midst of a recession fo rcing budget cuts at all levels of business, industry, and institutions, it is time to reaffirm our understanding of gender literature, to review our application of gender literature and to dete rmine if gender-specific differences still exist. During the waves of turnover and attrition caused by the retirements of the baby boomers, this study of gender differences and rela tional leadership traits, characte ristics, and competencies has contributed to the understanding of leadership selection and development. By understanding where the differences between the genders exist, if any, can help to strengthen the level of understanding of the human cap ital within the orga nization. This study found relatively few differences, if any, still exist between the genders. The findings showed that males and females possessed slightly different leadership characte ristics and competencies. As community college administrators proceed through the recession engulfing the entire world, they can rest assure the best man for the position is not necessarily a man, since either should work just fine. 79

PAGE 80

Population (N = 177) Highest correlation Lowest correlation strategic self-promoting principled engaging creating challenging innovation Males Females (N=96) (N=81) Highest correlation strategic strategic creating innovation principled evaluating problems striving Lowest correlation self-promoting self-promoting engaging challenging challenging engaging Figure 5-1. Barreiro ODaniels (2009) WAVE Study Table 5-1. Three-way comparison of significant leadership traits. Desjardin (1994) Kachik (200 3) Barreiro ODaniels (2009) (N = 72 community (N = 294 community (N = 177 community college presidents) college administrators) college administrators) Males Females Males Females Males Females (N = 36) (N = 36) (N = 153) (N = 141) (N = 96) (N = 81) Highest Lowest Highest Highest Highest percentage significance si gnificance correlation correlation Justice/Rights Care/Conne cted behavioral practic al strategic strategic 50% 66% competcreating principled itiveness innovation striving evaluating problems Lowest percentage Lowest Lowest correlation correlation self-promoting self promoting Care/ Justice/Rights 80

PAGE 81

Table 5-1. Continued Connected engaging challenging 28% 17% challenging engaging 81

PAGE 82

APPENDIX THE SCALE DESCRIPTIONS Recall from Figure 3-1 the WAVE is composed of four clusters: thought, influence, adaptability, and delivery. Each of these clusters is divided into three sections, three dimensions per section, and three f acets per dimension yielding a total of 12 sections, 36 dimensions and 108 facets. The Thought Cluster The thought cluster (see Figure A-1) is composed of visi on, judgment, and evaluation sections and inventive, abstract, strategic, insightful, practically minded, learning oriented, analytical, factual, and rational dimensions. Inventive Dimension The inventive dimension is composed of the cr eative, original, and radical facets. Less than 40% of the benchmark group scored highly in the inventive dimension making this a less than usual attribute. High scorers for the inventiv e dimension are fluent in generating ideas, produce lots of ideas; are confident in their ability to genera te unusual ideas; favor radical solutions to problems; very much enjoy the creative process (Saville, 20 06). If someone scores high on the inventive dimension they are very like ly also to score highly on being strategic (r = 0.49), abstract (r = 0.44), and insi ghtful (r = 0.41) dimensions a nd are likely to score low on being compliant (r = -0.50). If so meone scores in the moderate range on the inventive dimension they are very likely to also score high on be ing change oriented (r = 0.36), empowering (r = 0.34), dynamic (r = 0.31), learning oriented (r = 0.31) convincing (r = 0.31), and analytical (r = 0.30) dimensions. 82

PAGE 83

Abstract Dimension The abstract dimension is composed of the conceptual, theoretical, and learning by thinking facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the abstract dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers enjoy thinking about and developing concepts; develop concepts well; apply theories a lot; li ke applying theories and believe they do this effectively; need to understand th e underlying principles to learn effectively (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the abstract dimension th ey are very likely to score highly on being learning oriented (r = 0.51) analytical (r = 0.48), and inventive (r = 0.33). Strategic Dimension The strategic dimension is composed of th e developing strategy, visionary, and forward thinking facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the strategic dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers a re good at developing eff ective strategies and derive real satisfaction from this; need to have, and feel able to create, an inspiring vision for the future; think long-term; are likely to be seen as visionary (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the strategic dimension they are very likely to score highly on being inventive (r = 0.49), insightful (r = 0.44), dynamic (r = 0.41), striving (r = 0.41), and empowering (r = 0.40) and are likely to be low on compliant (r = -0.38). Insightful Dimension The insightful dimension is composed of the discerning, seeking improvement, and intuitive facets. More than half of the benchm ark group scored highly in the insightful dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorers cons ider themselves very quick at getting to the core of a problem; have a constant need to improve things and be lieve they are good at identifying ways in which things can be improved; very much trust their intuition about whether 83

PAGE 84

things will work (Saville, 2006). If someone sc ores high on the insightful dimension they are very likely to score highly on stra tegic (r = 0.44) and i nventive (r = 0.41). Practically-Minded Dimension The practically minded dimension is composed of being practical, learning by doing, and common sense focused facets. More half of the benchmark group scored highly in the practically minded dimension making this a frequent attri bute. High scorers are ve ry oriented towards practical work; enjoy, and consider themselves good at, practical tasks; mu ch prefer to learn by doing; like to apply common sense (Saville, 2006). There are no correlations with other dimensions. Learning Oriented Dimension The learning oriented dimension is composed of open to learning, learning by reading, and quick learning facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the learning oriented dimension making this a frequent at tribute. High scorers are motivated by, and actively seek opportunities for learning new things; enjoy, and believe they learn a great deal through reading; consider themselves to be ve ry quick learners (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the learning orient ed dimension they are very likely to score highly on being abstract (r = 0.51). Younger peopl e tend to report higher scor es (Saville, 2006) on being learning oriented (SD diff 0.36). Analytical Dimension The analytical dimension is composed of problem solving, analyzing information, and probing facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in th e analytical dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorers see problem solving as one of their strengths; enjoy, and consider themselves good at, analyzing information; see themselves as having a great deal of curiosity; are good at asking probing que stions (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high 84

PAGE 85

on the analytical dimension they are very likely to score highly on bei ng rational (r = 0.50) and abstract (r = 0.48). Factual Dimension The factual dimension is composed of written communication, logical, and fact finding facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the factual dimension making this a frequent attribute. Hi gh scorers consider that they co mmunicate well in writing; readily understand the logic behind an argument; go to some lengths to ensure that they have all the relevant facts (Saville, 2006). There are no correlations with other dimensions. Rational Dimension The rational dimension is composed of numb er fluency, technology aware, and objective facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the rational dimension making this a frequent attribute. Hi gh scorers are very comfortable working with numerical data, are interested in, and regard themse lves as well versed in informa tion technology; rely heavily on facts and hard, objective data in making decisi ons (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the rational dimension they are very likely to score highly on bei ng analytical (r = 0.50). Males report higher scores than female s (SD diff = 0.58) (Saville, 2006). The Influence Cluster The influence cluster (see Figure A-2) is composed of leadership, impact, and communication sections and purposeful, dire cting, empowering, convincing, challenging, articulate, self promoting, inter active, and engaging dimensions. Purposeful Dimension The purposeful dimension is composed of deci sive, making decisions, and definite facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored hi ghly in the purposeful dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorers are very comfortable making quick decisions; relish the 85

PAGE 86

responsibility for, and are prepared to make, big decisions; hold definite opinions on most issues and rarely change their mind (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the purposeful dimension they are very likely to score highly on being dire cting (r = 0.50), convincing (r = 0.45), and dynamic (r = 0.45), likely to score low on being involving (r = 0.30), and very likely to score low on being compliant (r = -0.40). Males (SD diff = 0.47) and older people (SD diff = 0.31) report higher scores (Saville, 2006). Directing Dimension The directing dimension is composed of leadership oriented, control seeking, and coordinating people facets. About half of the be nchmark group scored highly in the directing dimension making this a common attribute. High sc orers definitely want to take the lead and see leadership as one of their ke y strengths; are very much inclin ed to take control of things; enjoy, and believe they are good at, coordinating people (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the directing dimension they are very likely to score highly on be ing empowering (r = 0.55), purposeful (r = 0.50), dynamic (r = 0.47), convincing (r = 0.42), and enterprising (r = 0.40), but moderately likely to score lo w on being compliant (r = -0.31). Empowering Dimension The empowering dimension is composed of mo tivating others, inspiring, and encouraging facets. Less than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the empowering dimension making this a less usual attrib ute. High scorers attach importa nce to being able to motivate other people and consider themselves adept at finding ways to do this; want, and believe they are able to, to be inspirational to others; go out of their way to encourage others (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the empowering dimension th ey are very likely to score highly on being directing (r = 0.55) and strategi c (r = 0.40), likely to score low on being compliant (r = -0.30). 86

PAGE 87

Convincing Dimension The convincing dimension is composed of pe rsuasive, negotiative, and asserting views facets. About half of the benchmark group scor ed highly in the convincing dimension making this a common attribute. High sc orers are eager to bring peopl e round to their point of view and see themselves as very persuasive; want to ge t the best deal and believe they negotiate well; are determined to make people listen to their vi ews and put their point across forcibly (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the convincing dime nsion they are very likely to score highly on challenging (r = 0.55), enterprising (r = 0.47), pur poseful (r = 0.45), and directing (r = 0.42), but are moderately likely to score low on be ing compliant (r = -0.30). Males report higher scores (SD diff = 0.39) (Saville, 2006). Challenging Dimension The challenging dimension is composed of ch allenging ideas, prepared to disagree, and argumentative facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the challenging dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers frequently challenge other peoples ideas; want people to know when they di sagree with them and are open in voicing disagreements; really enjoy arguing with peopl e and regularly get involved in arguments (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the ch allenging dimension they are moderately likely to score low on being co mpliant (r = -0.31). Articulate Dimension The articulate dimension is composed of giving presentations, el oquent, and socially confident facets. More than half of the be nchmark group scored highly in the articulate dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorers enjoy, and believe they are good at, giving presentations; enjoy explaining things and consider that they do this well; enjoy meeting 87

PAGE 88

and are confident with new people (Saville, 2006). There are no correlations with other dimensions. Self-Promoting Dimension The self-promoting dimension is composed of immodest, attention seeking, and praise seeking facets. About half of the benchmar k group scored highly in the self-promoting dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers want people to know about their successes and go to some lengths to bring their achievements to othe rs attention; like to be, and often find themselves, the center of attention; have a strong need for praise and seek praise when they have done well (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the self-promoting dimension they are very likely to score highly on bei ng interactive (r = 0.43). Ov erall there is a low average self-rating on self-promoti ng. This indicates that in gene ral this is not seen as a particularly desirable charac teristic (Saville, 2006). Interactive Dimension The interactive dimension is composed of networking, talkative, and lively facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the interactive dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorers attach a hi gh degree of importance to networking and believe they network very well; are extremely talkative; c onsider themselves to be very lively (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the interactive di mension they are very likely to score highly on engaging (r = 0.58) and self-promoting (r = 0.43). Engaging Dimension The engaging dimension is composed of establishing rapport, fr iendship seeking, and initial impression facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the engaging dimension making this a common attribute. Hi gh scorers very quickly establish rapport with people; have limited interest in making new frie nds; are unlikely to make strong first impression 88

PAGE 89

(Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the en gaging dimension they are very likely to score highly on interactive (r = 0.58). The Adaptability Cluster The adaptability cluster (see Figure A-3) is co mposed of support, resilience, and flexibility sections and involving, attentiv e, accepting, resolving, self assured, composed, receptive, positive, and change oriented dimensions. Involving Dimension The involving dimension is composed of team oriented, democratic, and decision sharing facets. More than half of the benchmark group sc ored highly in the involving dimension making this a frequent attribut e. High scorers believe they work we ll, and enjoy being in a team; take full account of other peoples view s; go to considerable lengths to include others in the final decision (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the involving dimension they are very likely to score highly on accepting (r = 0.53) and attentiv e (r = 0.51), but moderately likely to score low on being purposeful (r = -0.30). Attentive Dimension The attentive dimension is composed of empathic, listening, and psychologically-minded facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the attentive dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers attach importance to, and believe they are good at, understanding how others are feeling; regard themselves as good lis teners; are interested in, and consider themselves adept at, understanding why people behave as they do (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the attentive dimension they are very likely to score highly on being accepting (r = 0.53), involving (r = 0.51), and resolv ing (r = 0.46). Females report higher scores than males (SD diff = 0.45) (Saville, 2006). 89

PAGE 90

Accepting Dimension The accepting dimension is composed of trusti ng, tolerant, and considerate facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the accepting dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers are very trusting of people; are tolerant; place great emphasis on being considerate towards other people (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the accepting dimension they are very likely to score highly on being involvi ng (r = 0.53) and attentive (r = 0.52). Resolving Dimension The resolving dimension is composed of c onflict resolution, handling angry people, and handling upset people facets. About half of th e benchmark group scored highly in the resolving dimension making this a common attribute. Hi gh scorers quickly re solve disagreements; consider themselves effective at calming angry people down; believe they cope well with people who are upset (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the resolving dimension they are very likely to score highly on being attentive (r = 0.46). Self-Assured Dimension The self-assured dimension is composed of self-confident, self-val uing, and self-directing facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the inventive dimension making this a frequent a ttribute. High scorers are self-confident; feel very positive about themselves; have a strong sense of their own worth; feel in control of their own future (Saville, 2006). There are no correlations with other dimensions. Composed Dimension The composed dimension is composed of calm, poised, and copes with pressure facets. About half of the benchmark group scored high ly in the composed dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers are calm; see little point in worrying, before important 90

PAGE 91

events; rarely get anxious during important even ts; work well under pressure (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the composed dimension th ey are very likely to score highly on being change oriented (r = 0.43) and moderately likely to score lo w on being compliant (r = -0.39). Males report higher scores than females (SD diff 0.34) (Saville, 2006). Receptive Dimension The receptive dimension is composed of receptive to feedback, open to criticism, and feedback-seeking facets. More than half of th e benchmark group scored highly in the receptive dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorers respond well to feedback from others; encourage people to criticize thei r approach; actively s eek feedback on their performance (Saville, 2006). There are no correla tions with other dimensions. Younger people report higher scores (SD diff 0.32) (Saville, 2006). Positive Dimension The positive dimension is composed of optimis tic, cheerful, and buoyant facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the positive dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers are optimistic; are very cheerful; recover quickly from setbacks (Saville, 2006). There are no correlations with other dimensions. Change Oriented Dimension The change oriented dimension is composed of accepting challenges, accepting change, and tolerant of uncertainty f acets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the change oriented dimension making this a common attribute. Hi gh scorers enjoy new challenges and adapt readily to new situations; are positive about and co pe well with change; cope well with uncertainty (S aville, 2006). If someone scores high on the change oriented dimension they are very likely to score highly on being composed (r = 0.43). 91

PAGE 92

The Delivery Cluster The delivery cluster (see Figure A-4) is composed of struct ure, drive and implementation sections and organized, principl ed, activity oriented, dynamic, striving, enterprising, meticulous, reliable, and compliant dimensions. Organized Dimension The organized dimension is composed of self organized, planning, a nd prioritizing facets. Less than half of the benchmark group scored hi ghly in the organized dimension making this a less usual attribute. High scor ers are well organized; attach importance to planning; make effective plans; establish clear priorities (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the organized dimension they are very likely to score highly on being reliable (r = 0.60), meticulous (r = 0.50), and compliant (r = 0.42). Principled Dimension The principled dimension is composed of proper, discreet, and honoring commitments facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the principled dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers are concerned with ethical matters and believe they behave in an ethical fashion; consider maintaining c onfidentiality to be among their key strengths and can be relied upon to be discreet; view themse lves as honoring the commitments they have agreed to (Saville, 2006). There are no correlat ions with other dimensions. There is a high average self-rating on principled. This indicates people generally consider this as a highly desirable characteristic (Saville, 2006). Activity-Oriented Dimension The activity oriented dimension is composed of quick working, busy, and multi-tasking facets. About half of the benchmark group scor ed highly in the activity oriented dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers wor k at a fast pace; work well when busy; cope 92

PAGE 93

well with multi-tasking (Savil le, 2006). There are no correla tions with other dimensions. Females report higher scores than males (SD diff = 0.51) (Saville, 2006). Dynamic Dimension The dynamic dimension is composed of energe tic, initiating, and action oriented facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the dynamic dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorer s consider themselves to be very energetic; see themselves as impatient to get things started and good at starting things o ff; are focused on making things happen (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the dynamic dimension they are very likely to score highly on being directing (r = 0.47), purposeful (r = 0.45), striving (r = 0.42), enterprising (r = 0.42), and strategic (r = 0.41), but moderately likely to be low on compliant (r = -0.37). Striving Dimension The striving dimension is composed of ambiti ous, results driven, and perservering facets. More than half of the benchmark group scored highly in the striving dimension making this a frequent attribute. High scorers see themselves as very ambitious and want to be successful; attach great importance to achieving outstanding results and believe they do so; are very persevering and keep going no matter what (Sav ille, 2006). If someone scores high on the striving dimension they are very likely to sc ore highly on being enterprising (r = 0.53), dynamic (r = 0.42), and strategic (r = 0.41). Males report higher scores (S D diff = 0.39) (Saville, 2006). Enterprising Dimension The enterprising oriented dimension is compos ed of competitive facets About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the enterprising dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers regard themselves as highly competit ive, with a strong need to win; believe they are good at, and derive real satisfaction from, identifying business opportun ities; see themselves 93

PAGE 94

as very sales oriented (Saville, 2006). If so meone scores high on the enterprising dimension they are very likely to score highly on stri ving (r = 0.53), convincing (r = 0.47), dynamic (r = 0.42), and directing (r = 0.40), and moderately likely to score low on compliant (r = -0.30). Males score more highly than fe males (SD diff = 0.70) (Saville, 2006). Meticulous Dimension The meticulous dimension is composed of qua lity oriented, thorough, and detailed facets. Less than half of the benchmark group scored hi ghly in the meticulous dimension making this a less usual attribute. High scorers regard themse lves as perfectionists; ensure a high level of quality; want things done properly and consider themselves very thorough in their approach; see themselves as highly attentive to detail (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the meticulous dimension they are very likely to score highly on being organized (r = 0.50), reliable (r = 0.48), and compliant (r = 0.42). Reliable Dimension The reliable dimension is composed of mee ting deadlines, finishing tasks, and punctual facets. About half of the benchmark group scored highly in the reliable dimension making this a common attribute. High scorers are conscien tious about meeting deadlines; believe they rarely leave things unfinished; consider themselves highly punct ual (Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the reliable dimension they are very likely to score highly on being organized (r = 0.60), meticulous (r = 0.48), and compliant (r = 0.47). Compliant Dimension The compliant dimension is composed of rule bound, following procedures, and risk averse facets. Less than half of the benchmar k group scored highly in the change oriented dimension making this a less usual attribute. High scorers need to have rules and adhere strictly to them; like to follow set procedures; an d regard themselves as decidedly risk averse 94

PAGE 95

(Saville, 2006). If someone scores high on the comp liant dimension they are very likely to score highly on being reliable (r = 0.43), organized (r = 0.42), and meticul ous (r = 0.42) and moderately likely to score low on being compos ed (r = -0.39), strategi c (r = -0.38), dynamic (r = -0.37), directing (r = -0.31), ch allenging (r = -0.31), empowering (r = -0.30), convincing (r = 0.30), and enterprising (r = -0.30). Females report higher scores than males (SD diff = 0.40) (Saville, 2006). 95

PAGE 96

Cluster Section Dimension Facet Inventive Creative, original, radical Vision Abstract Conceptual, theoretical, learning by thinking Strategic Developing strategy, visionary, forward thinking Insightful Discerning, seeking improvement, intuitive Thought Judgment Practically Minded Practical, learning by doing common sense focused Learning Oriented Open to learning, learning by reading, quick learning Analytical Problem solving, analyzing information, probing Evaluation Factual Written communication, logical, fact finding Rational Number fluency, technology aware, objective Figure A-1 The thought cluster, sections and dimensions. Cluster Section Dimension Facets Purposeful Decisive, making decisions definite Leadership Directing Leadership oriented, control seeking, coordinating people Empowering Motivating others, inspiring, encouraging Convincing Persuasive, negotiative, asserting views Influence Impact Challenging Challenging ideas, prepared to disagree, argumentative Articulate Giving presentations, eloquent, socially confident Self promoting Immodest, attention seeking, praise seeking Communication Interactive Networking, talkative, lively Engaging Establishing rapport, friendship seeking, initial impression Figure A-2. The influence cluste r, sections and dimensions. 96

PAGE 97

Cluster Section Dimension Facets Involving Team oriented, democratic, decision sharing Support Attentive Empathic, listening, psychologically minded Accepting Trusting, tolerant, considerate Resolving Conflict resolution, handling angry and upset people Adaptability Resilience Self assured Self-confident, self-valuing, self-directing Composed Calm, poised, copes with pressure Receptive Receptive to feedback, open to criticism, feedback seeking Flexibility Positive Optimistic, cheerful, buoyant Change oriented Accepting challenges, accepting change, tolerant of uncertainty Figure A-3. The adaptability clus ter, sections and dimensions. Cluster Section Dimension Facets Organized Self organized, planning, prioritizing Structure Principled Proper, discreet, honoring commitments Activity oriented Quick working, busy, multi-tasking Dynamic Energetic, initiating, action oriented Delivery Drive Striving Ambitious, results driven, perservering Enterprising Competitive, enterpreurial, selling Meticulous Quality oriented, thorough, detailed Implementation Reliable Meeting deadlines, finishing Tasks, punctual Compliant Rule bound, following Procedures, risk averse Figure A-4. The delivery cluste r, sections and dimensions. 97

PAGE 98

REFERENCE LIST American Association of Community Colleges. (2009, January 17). CO E characteristics. Retrieved January 17, 2009 from http://www3.aacc.nche.edu/projects/Visual Mining_AACC/FacultyStaff/CEOPage.jsp Bain, N., & Mabey, B. (1999). The people advant age: Improving results through better selection and performance. London: MacMillan Press. Balkis, M., & Isiker, G. B. (2005). The relatio nship between thinking st yles and personality types. Social Behavior and Personality 33, 283-294. Basham, M. J. (2007). A cognitive applica tion of personality testing: Measuring entrepreneurialism in Americas community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2007). UF Online Dissertations. Bassie, L., & McMurrer, D. (Jan. 4, 2009). Why you should you invest in leadership development during times of crisis. Quote posted to http://www.ccl.org/lead ership/landing/InvestInLeadership.aspx Barrick, M. R., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2005). Reducing voluntary, avoi dable turnover through selection. Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 159-166. Retrieved November 2, 2006 from APA PsychArticles Database. Behar-Horenstein, L. (2006, September). Research Design in Educ ational Administration Lecture. Gainesville, FL. Berry, J. W. (2008). Baseline development to st reamline executive selection (Masters thesis, University of Florida, 2008). UF Online Dissertations. Brainy Media (2009). Brainy Quotes Retrieved June 28, 2009 from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a uthors/b/benjamin_franklin.html Boggs, G. R. (2004). Community colleges in a perfect storm. Change 6-11. Retrieved August 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database. Boggs, G. R. (2003). Leadership context for the twentyfirst century. New directions for community colleges. 123, 15-25. Retrieved October 30, 2008 from EBSCO Publishing. Boggs, G. R. (2002). Foreword. In D.F. Campbell and Associates (2002), The leadership gap: Model strategies for leadership development. Washington, DC: Community College Press. Campbell, D. F. (2006, February-March). The new leadership gap: Shortages in administrative positions. Community College Journal, 76 10-14. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database. Campbell, D. F., & Associates (2002). The leadership gap: Model st rategies for leadership 98

PAGE 99

development. Washington, DC: Community College Press. Campbell, D. F., & Leverty, L. H. (1997). Devel oping and selecting leaders for the 21st Century. Community College Journal 67, 34-36. Retrieved May 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database. Collins, J. (2005). From good to great and the social sect or: Why business thinking is not the answer. New York, NY: Collins Press. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Cronk, B. C. (2006). How to use SPSS: A step-by-st ep guide to analysis and interpretation (4th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak. Desjardins, C. (1994). Leadership and gender i ssues in the community college. In A. M. Hoffman & D. J. Julius (Eds.), Managing community and junior colleges: Perspectives for the next century (147-161). Washington, DC: The College and University Personnel Association. Deutschman, A. (2007). Change or die! New York: Fast Company. Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Drucker, P. F., & Maciariello, J. A. (2006). The effective executive in action: A journal for getting the right thing done. New York: HarperCollins. Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership New York: Free Press. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships New York: Harper Collins. Goleman, D. (2001). What makes a leader? In Harvard business review on what makes a leader? (1-26). Boston, MA. Harvard Business School Publishing Hockaday, J., & Hunter, D. (2003, September 12). St. Petersburg College Leadership Seminar. Kachik, C. J. (2003). The five-factor model and Hollands theory: Community college and corporate leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003). UF Online Dissertations. Kleinfeld, J. (2006). University of Alaska ge nder gaps ranks second in nation; More women seek degrees [Electronic version]. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 22 (24),10. 99

PAGE 100

Krieger, L. (2008, January). WAVE assessmen t interpretation. Trai ning. Jacksonville, FL. Krell, E. (2005, November). Personality counts: Personality assessments are being used in new ways through the employee life cycle. HR Magazine, 50(11), 46-53. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from InfoTrac OneFile Database. Lapovky, L. (2006, January/February). The best laid succession plans: Most colleges resist the corporate practice of grooming the chief ex ecutives successor. But some are trying. AGB Trusteeship 14(1), 20-24. Lavigna, R. J., & Hays, S. W. (2004). Recrui tment and selection of public workers: An international compendium of modern trends and practices. Public Personnel Management 33(3), 237-253. Retrieved August 10, 2006 from Business Source Premier Database. Macleod, C. J. (2007, October 11). Towards an unde rstanding of cultural in tegrity for leadership in developing nations: A beginning. ACEL/ASCD Conference October 11, 2007. Sydney, AU Manzo, K.K. (2004). Men no longer majority of college students graduates. Black Issues in Higher Education. 21 (23), 7. Pew Research Center. (2008, August 25). A paradox in public attitudes. Men or women: Whos the better leader? A Social & Demographic Trends Report. Pollitt, K. (2006). Girls against boys[Electronic version]? Nation. 282, 10. Ross, J. (2005, November). How to be the best coach for your team. Harvard Management Update 1-5. Ryan, J. (2009, January 4). Why you should you invest in leade rship development during times of crisis. A special message from John Ryan pr esident and CEO, Center for Creative Leadership. Audio message posted to http://www.ccl.org/lead ership/landing/InvestInLeadership.aspx Sacks, D. (2006, January/February). S cenes from the ;) culture clash. Fast Company, 102 73-78. Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (t hink they) hate statistics (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Saville, P. & Holdsworth, R. (2006). Technical Document. Unpublished report. Saville, P. (2006, October 19). An historical perspective of personality testing. Presentation at the Assessment Information Group Meeting, Jacksonville, Florida. 100

PAGE 101

Severiens, S., Dam, G. T., & Nijenhuis, E. (1998) Ways of knowing and patterns of reasoning: Women and men in adult secondary education [Electronic version]. Gender & Education. 10(3), 327-342. Sternberg, R. J. (1995). In search of the human mind Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Vaughan, G. B. (2000). The community college story (2 nd ed.). Washington, DC: Community College Press. Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation, Inc. Yeager, K. (2006). Workforce Development Be nchmark Project. Johnson County Community College Center for Business and Technology. Zeiss, T. (2005). Getem while theyre hot: How to attract, develop, and retain peak performers in the coming labor shortage. Nashville, TN: Nelson Business. Zook, C. (2007). Unstoppable: Finding hidden assets to renew the core and fuel potential growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 101

PAGE 102

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tina Barreiro ODaniels received her associate degree from St Petersburg Junior College in May 1989. She then earned her baccalaureat e degree from St. Leo College in January 1992. She continued to attend St. Leo College to earn a Masters Degree in Business Administration in January 1996. While attending coll ege, ODaniels was employed by a college. For more than 23 years, she has strategically and passionately supported the community college mission. During her tenure at now named, St. Petersburg Colle ge, she graduated with her doctorate in Higher Education Administration from the University of Florida in August 2009. She is associate provost at the Tarpon Springs Campus of St. Petersburg College, St. Petersburg, Florida. 102