<%BANNER%>

Leadership Attributes of Enrollment Managers in Higher Education Institutions in the United States

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042773/00001

Material Information

Title: Leadership Attributes of Enrollment Managers in Higher Education Institutions in the United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (165 p.)
Language: english
Creator: PRESSWOOD,KRISTY R
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ENROLLMENT -- GAP -- LEADERSHIP -- MANAGEMENT -- REGISTRAR -- SUCCESSION
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES OF ENROLLMENT MANAGERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES By Kristy Robertson Presswood May 2011 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration Literature documents the ever growing need for new leaders with newly defined leadership skills in nearly every industry. Corporate and higher education leaders must be prepared to adapt to the changing workforce and to address the leadership skills gaps that exist. Identifying the leadership attributes necessary for each position within an organization will be important as organizations struggle to meet the demand of a dwindling trained leadership base. Leadership demands in higher education are being created in academic affairs, student affairs and business affairs due to a domino effect of vacancies being filled. One purpose of this report was to identify the leadership attributes for enrollment managers in higher education institutions and to help build a basis for future research on the development of a leadership training program. This study built upon previous research to draw stronger conclusions regarding the leadership attributes of enrollment managers. Enrollment management leaders who do not hold the position of registrar exhibited stronger communication skills and ability to impact decision making than their registrar colleagues, while enrollment management leaders from doctoral granting institutions exhibited more vision than their counterparts from non-doctoral granting institutions. These factors are small in comparison to the full array of leadership attributes reviewed. Registrar/enrollment managers, overall, do not differ in their leadership attributes when compared by institution type, institutional size, position and gender. The findings support the leadership attributes identified by AACRAO as necessary job qualities for the future enrollment manager/registrar. This further supports the need for future studies examining the need for leadership development within the area of enrollment management. Senior student affairs officer positions are typically filled from within the institution and the current non-registrar enrollment manager, having the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position, may likely be promoted to this position and will create the domino effect for leadership in their current role (Amey, 2002; Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2005). Results from this research study provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes of mid-level higher education administrators and can be used to support leadership selection and development initiatives for future enrollment managers as the domino effect from turnover begins to unravel. Discovering what leadership attributes are needed to be successful will assist in determining the best candidate.
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 KRISTY R PRESSWOOD.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042773:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042773/00001

Material Information

Title: Leadership Attributes of Enrollment Managers in Higher Education Institutions in the United States
Physical Description: 1 online resource (165 p.)
Language: english
Creator: PRESSWOOD,KRISTY R
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: ENROLLMENT -- GAP -- LEADERSHIP -- MANAGEMENT -- REGISTRAR -- SUCCESSION
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES OF ENROLLMENT MANAGERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES By Kristy Robertson Presswood May 2011 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration Literature documents the ever growing need for new leaders with newly defined leadership skills in nearly every industry. Corporate and higher education leaders must be prepared to adapt to the changing workforce and to address the leadership skills gaps that exist. Identifying the leadership attributes necessary for each position within an organization will be important as organizations struggle to meet the demand of a dwindling trained leadership base. Leadership demands in higher education are being created in academic affairs, student affairs and business affairs due to a domino effect of vacancies being filled. One purpose of this report was to identify the leadership attributes for enrollment managers in higher education institutions and to help build a basis for future research on the development of a leadership training program. This study built upon previous research to draw stronger conclusions regarding the leadership attributes of enrollment managers. Enrollment management leaders who do not hold the position of registrar exhibited stronger communication skills and ability to impact decision making than their registrar colleagues, while enrollment management leaders from doctoral granting institutions exhibited more vision than their counterparts from non-doctoral granting institutions. These factors are small in comparison to the full array of leadership attributes reviewed. Registrar/enrollment managers, overall, do not differ in their leadership attributes when compared by institution type, institutional size, position and gender. The findings support the leadership attributes identified by AACRAO as necessary job qualities for the future enrollment manager/registrar. This further supports the need for future studies examining the need for leadership development within the area of enrollment management. Senior student affairs officer positions are typically filled from within the institution and the current non-registrar enrollment manager, having the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position, may likely be promoted to this position and will create the domino effect for leadership in their current role (Amey, 2002; Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2005). Results from this research study provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes of mid-level higher education administrators and can be used to support leadership selection and development initiatives for future enrollment managers as the domino effect from turnover begins to unravel. Discovering what leadership attributes are needed to be successful will assist in determining the best candidate.
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 KRISTY R PRESSWOOD.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Campbell, Dale F.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042773:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES OF ENROLLMENT MANAGERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES By KRISTY ROBERTSON PRESSWOOD A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Kristy Robertson Presswood

PAGE 3

3 To my husband, Clay

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my husband, Clay, he is my greatest supporter and best friend. Without him, none of this would be possible for we live a busy life with many obstacles. As for obstacles, I also wish to acknowledge to my beautiful children. Although there were many days when I did not write a word because of a sore throat, field trip or times of just wanting to be mom, the end result is worth every minute. I took full advantage of the time to complete my degree because my family is important to me and I did not want to sacrifice time with my children. Emily, Samantha and Trevor all made sacrifices to allow me to complete this project and I will spend the rest of my life making every second with each of them an important one. I thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Dale F. Campbell, for his continued support and patience throughout my course of study. To my supervisory committee, Dr. David S. Honeyman, Dr. Bernard Oliver and Dr. Lynn Leverty, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for their persistence and guidance. Lastly, I am grateful for my extended family at Daytona State College. Daytona State College understands the importance of leadership development and invests in its future leaders. Thank you for investing in me.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ........................................................................... 11 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 11 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 14 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 17 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 17 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................. 18 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 22 Summary ................................................................................................................ 23 2 A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY ................................................................................... 24 The Problem ........................................................................................................... 24 Changing Workforce ............................................................................................... 25 Aging Workforce ............................................................................................... 25 Generational Differences .................................................................................. 27 Impact of Technological Advances ................................................................... 29 Leadership .............................................................................................................. 32 Gender in Leadership ....................................................................................... 36 Talent Management ................................................................................................ 37 Leadership Development .................................................................................. 38 Succession Planning ........................................................................................ 41 Role of the Registrar ............................................................................................... 45 Closing the Gap .................................................................................................... 47 Summary ................................................................................................................ 49 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 52 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 52 Research Problem .................................................................................................. 53 Research Hypothesis .............................................................................................. 54 Research Design .................................................................................................... 55 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 55 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 56

PAGE 6

6 The Population ........................................................................................................ 59 Procedure for Data Collection ................................................................................. 60 Analysis of Data ...................................................................................................... 60 Research Instrument ............................................................................................... 62 Summary ................................................................................................................ 63 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 69 Aggregate DataDescrip tive Statistics ..................................................................... 69 Research Hypothesis One ...................................................................................... 70 Research Hypothesis Two ...................................................................................... 74 Research Hypothesis Three ................................................................................... 77 Research Hypothesis Four ..................................................................................... 81 Summary ................................................................................................................ 84 5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIO NS AND CONCLUSOIN ..................................... 86 Summary of Results ................................................................................................ 87 Research Quest ion 1 ........................................................................................ 87 Research Question 2 ........................................................................................ 89 Research Question 3 ........................................................................................ 89 Research Question 4 ........................................................................................ 92 Recommendations for Further Study ...................................................................... 94 Implications for Higher Education Administrators ................................................... 97 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 97 APPENDIX A CLUSTER DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................. 100 B DATA FOR THE REGISTRAR SUBCATEGORY ................................................. 104 C DATA FOR THE DOCTORAL GRANTING SUBCATEGORY .............................. 116 E DATA FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL SIZE SUBCATEGORY .................................. 128 F DATA FOR THE GENDER SUBCATEGORY ....................................................... 140 G BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ...................................................................... 152 H LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES ................................................................................ 154 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 158 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 165

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Leadership gap/deficit summary ......................................................................... 51 3 1 Single dimension & com p validities Saville Consulting WAVE Assessment, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 64 3 2 Reliability summary Saville Consulting WAVE Assessment, 2009 ................... 65 3 3 WAVE attribute links in other research ............................................................... 67 4 1 Mean, standard deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis of the aggregate population ........................................................................................................... 70 4 2 Kolmogorov Smirnova and ShapiroWilk: aggregate population ....................... 70 4 3 Mean scores and standard deviations for the registrar and nonregistrar groups (0=nonregistrar; 1=registrar) .................................................................. 72 4 4 Summary ANOVA for the registrar and nonregistrar groups for each of the four constructs .................................................................................................... 73 4 5 Mean scores and standard deviations for the doctoral and nondoctoral granting institution groups (0=nondoctoral granting; 1=doctoral granting) ......... 76 4 6 Summary ANOVA for the doctoral granting and nondoctoral granting groups for each of the four constructs ............................................................................ 76 4 7 Mean scores and standard deviations by institutional size (0=less than 10,000 enrollments; 1=10,000 or more enrollments) .......................................... 79 4 8 Summary ANOVA by institutional size for each of the four constructs ............... 80 4 9 Mean scores and standard deviations by gender (0=male, 1=female) ............... 82 4 10 Summary ANOVA by gender for each of the four constructs ............................. 83 4 11 Hypotheses Summary ........................................................................................ 85

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Population summary of enrollment management positions (HEP) ...................... 19 3 1 Theoretical structure of Saville WAVE Assessment, 2009 ................................. 66 3 2 Cluster section chart ........................................................................................... 66 4 1 Psychometric profiles cluster and section means for both registrar and other enrollment manager line graph ........................................................................... 72 4 2 Hypothesis test summary for registrar group ...................................................... 73 4 3 Psychometric profiles cluster and section means for both doctoral granting and nondoctoral granting institutions line graph ................................................ 75 4 4 Hypothesis test summary for doctoral granting group ........................................ 77 4 5 Psychometric profiles cluster and section means for institutions with enrollment of 10,000 or more and institutions with enrollments of less than 10,000 line graph ................................................................................................ 79 4 6 Hypothesis test summary for institutional size group .......................................... 80 4 7 Psychometric profiles cluster and section means for both females and males line graph ............................................................................................................ 82 4 8 Hypothesis test summary for gender group ........................................................ 83 A 1 The thought cluster, sections, and dimensions ................................................. 100 A 2 The influence cluster, sections, and dimensions .............................................. 101 A 3 The adaptability cluster, sections, and dimensions ........................................... 102 A 4 The delivery cluster, sections, and dimensions ................................................ 103

PAGE 9

9 Abstract o f Dissertation Presented to t he Graduate School o f t he University o f Florida i n Partial Fulfillment of t he Require ments for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES OF ENROLLMENT MANAGERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES By Kristy Robertson Presswood May 2011 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration L iterature documents the ever growing need for new leaders with newly defined leadership skills in nearly every industry Corporate and higher education leaders must be prepared to adapt to the changing workforce and t o address the leadership skills gaps that exist. Identifying the leadership attributes necessar y for each position within an organization will be important as organizations struggle to meet the demand of a dwindling trained leadership base. Leadership demands in higher education are being created in academic affairs, student affairs and business af fairs due to a domino effect of vacancies being filled. One purpose of this report was to identify the leadership attributes for enrollment managers in higher education institutions and to help build a basis for future research on the development of a leadership training program. This study built upon previous research to draw stronger conclusions regarding the leadership attributes of enrollment managers. E nrollment management leaders who do not hold the position of registrar exhibited stronger communication skills and ability to impact decision making than t heir registrar colleagues while enrollment management leaders from doctoral granting institutions exhibited more vision than their counterparts from nondoctoral granting institutions T hese factors are small in comparison to the full

PAGE 10

10 array of leadership attributes reviewed. Registrar/enrollment managers, overall, do not differ in their leadership attributes when compared by institution type, institutional size, position and gender. The findings support the leadership attributes identified by the Americ an Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers ( AACRAO ) as necessary job qualities for the future enrollment manager/registrar. This further supports the need for future studies examining the need for leadership development within the area of enrollment management. Senior student affairs officer positions are typically filled from within the institution and the current nonregistrar enrollment manager, having the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position, may likely be promoted to this position and will create the domino effect for leadership in their current role (Amey, 2002; Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2006 ). Results from this research study provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes of midlevel higher education administrators and can be used to support leadership selection and development initiatives for future enrollment managers as the domino effect from turnover begins to unravel. Discovering what leadership attributes are needed to be successful will assist in de termining the best candidate.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND OF THE ST UDY This chapter will introduce the issues that contri bute to the increased demand for leaders in key higher education positions, where the vacancies are expected to have the great est impact, the i mportance of leadership training and the need for succession planning. In addition, it will address questions related to individual and institutional similarities. The chapter will define the research problem and will describe the purpose and significance of the study. Finally, the chapter will conclude with the overall organization of the study. Statement of the Problem The changing demographics of todays workforce is impacting the numbers of qualified leaders and changing the skills necessary for leaders to succeed (Jackson, 2010; Br u ck, 2010; Weinstein, 2010). The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) reports that the unemployment rate for individuals aged fifty five or older declined from October 2010 to January 2011 and that almost half of the employees between the ages of 45 70 plan to work into their seventies due to the current economic environment ( Jackson, 2010; Flecke, 2011). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the numbers of individuals employed in nonseasonal positions forty five years of age or older in the fourth quarter of 2010 was 61,408 or 44% of the employed population. In the fourth quarter of 1996, however, the number of employed individuals meeting the same criteria was 59,907 or 41% of the employed population ( Appendix F ) The overall workforce, due to the economic crisis, is declining, but the numbers indicate that those forty five or older represent nearly half of the workforce in the United States.

PAGE 12

12 In the next few years, unprecedented numbers of employees will retire and take with them a wealth of knowledge and history (Jackson, 2010). Additionally, the leadership traits necessary for future leaders is changing. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and AARP have identified the issue of filling the retirement void not as one of too few people, but of too few skilled people (Jackson, 2010). The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) conducted a survey in 2009 in response to growing concern that organizations are reporting talent deficiencies within their employment base (Leslie, 2009). CCL identified the seven leadership skills viewed as important for future leaders as leading employees, strategic planning, inspiring commitment, managing change, resourcefulness, bei ng a quick learner, and doing whatever it takes (Leslie, 2009). They went on to note that leaders lack the skills they need to be effective and that resourcefulness defined as working effectivel y with top management, was the only skill that was found to be a top ten current skill and a top ten needed skill. When comparing this attribute with those in the Saville WAVE instrument, it most closely correlates with the cluster to thought (Figure A 1) CCL refers to th is leadership skill s disparity as a leadership deficit (Leslie, 2009). Leaders in higher education are also feeling the impact of an aging workforce in positions at every level. Charles Shults (2001) conducted research for the American Association of Community Colleges that found that retir ements of top level administrators in community colleges posed a critical problem for the leadership of the future. Additionally, a follow up study conducted in 2005 revealed that a domino effect of presidential vacancies was creating leadership gaps in k ey administrative positions of institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars, directors of financial

PAGE 13

13 aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors of human resources (Campbell, 2006). In 2007, the American Co uncil on Education (ACE) released the latest version of the American College President Study. According to this study, the average age of presidents grew from fifty two in the 1986 study to sixty one in the 2007 study. Additionally, the percentage of pr esidents over the age of sixty one grew from fourteen percent in 1986 to forty nine percent in 2007 (ACE, 2007). Impending retirements of administrative/professionals in higher education continues to impact the need for additional training and leadershi p preparation. In 2006, the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), the National Council for Student Development (NCSD) and the Council for Resource Development (CRD) joined in a FuturesLeaders Administrative Work Pr ofiling Session. During this session, they restated the growing need for effectively trained administrators and identified the r egistrar position within enrollment management as the one key position whose nature of work had changed the most dramatically. The registrar position had evolved from one of legal implementation of student policies and student privacy to one providing strategic planning and decision making. The participants in the work profiling session agreed that the registrar position should be retitled as dean/director of enrollment management and registrar ( FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling, 2006 ). The participants of the FuturesLeaders Administrative Work Profil ing Session expressed concern regarding the lack of a structured career path for individuals serving in the position of registrar. The dean/director of enrollment management and registrar position should serve as a natural succession to fill the senior student affairs vacancy.

PAGE 14

14 Student affairs officers are typically promoted from within the same college and tend to remain at the same institution for more than ten years (Amey, 2002). As the number of senior student affairs positions become vacant, it is criti cal that the candidates ready to move into these positions are trained and well prepared. Additionally, it is imperative that the successors to those being promoted are duly prepared for their new roles. The registrar/enrollment managers of today will need to ensure they appropriately train and transfer knowledge to their successors. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine if enrollment managers from differing institutions, holding different positions within enrollment management had common leadership attributes. The study buil t upon the previous research of Kachik (2003), Campbell (2006), Basham (2007), Tunks (2007), Berry (2008) and ODaniels (2009) in identifying leadership attributes of college leaders and in determining the s trength of leadership development and effective job selection. As noted earlier, the next positions that are to be in the most demand and in a critical shortage are institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars, directors of financial aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors of human resources. This study focused specifically on the growing need for registrars and directors of admissions. Registrars rank among the highest of the top positions in which the turnover will occur (Campbell, 2006). As stated earlier, most individuals have a career path that is closely aligned to a chosen education track, but there is not an educational degree for registrar or admissions directors. In a 2002 study, fifty thr ee percent of senior college administrators held only a masters degree. An additional thirty eight percent had earned a doctorate degree. Of those, the majority of the senior

PAGE 15

15 respondents with doctoral degrees were either presidents or chief academic off icers (Amey, 2002). Selecting the right person for the job is of utmost importance in todays demanding environment. Selecting an individual for a career that does not have an education path can be even more difficult. Discovering what leadership attri butes are needed by the successful enrollment manager candidate will assist in determining the best candidate. Leadership attributes reviewed in this study are presented in Appendix G Although the attributes of each study were not exact matches, the res earcher created cross walk c orrelations between each studys indicators and descriptions and matched them to the leadership attributes used in the research instrument (Appendix G ). The nonprofit sector began experiencing a leadership gap in 2006 and comm issioned the Bridgespan Report in response. Although the report does not indicate specific leadership attributes desired for future non profit leaders, Spillett does list key descriptors that would make the new leader successful (Spillett, 2006). These descriptors have been matched to the leadership attributes defined in this study for further examination. Kachiks 2003 study compared the leadership attributes of corporate leaders to community college administrators utilizing the Occupational Personali ty Questionnaire (OPQ) as the research instrument. She identified variances in the leadership attributes of corporate leaders in comparison to community college administrators based on their gender. Research regarding gender and leadership attributes was also conducted on a group of community college administrators from the United States (ODaniels, 2009). This study will build upon this research of defining leadership attributes and analyzing data to

PAGE 16

16 determine if leadership attributes are different for female registrars as compared to male registrars. A study describing the leadership attributes of community college presidents in 1997 found that the leadership attributes of the current community college president was very similar to those attributes env isioned for the 21st century community college president (Campbell and Leverty, 1997). This study also used the OPQ as its research. Building upon the findings from the community college presidents study, additional research has been conducted examining cohorts of higher education doctoral students, chief business officers, national council for continuing education and training members, and other community college administrators or board members (Tunks, 2007; Basham, 2007; Berry, 2008; ODaniels, 2009). T his study built upon the previous research conducted on leadership attributes in the business sector, nonprofit sector and in higher education and will continue the trend of further examination of leadership attributes in higher education to the midle vel manager s. Specifically, the overall leadership attributes of enrollment managers in higher education institutions within the United States. This study helped to identify the traits necessary for the new work profile of a successful registrar and may help to drive trainings targeted at preparing future registrars for the position. Research on the importance of leadership development and succession planning wil l also be extended through this study. Results from this research study will provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes of midlevel higher education administrators. This study examined the leadership attributes of successful f uture enrollment management administrators by examining the following: if leadership attributes of

PAGE 17

17 administrators differ by type of institution; if leadership traits of administrators differ by size of institution; and if leadership traits of administrators differ by gender In addition, it is hoped that trainings could be developed to help better prepare and equip new candidates for these career opportunities. Research Questions This study will provide some insight into the attributes most desired in quality candidates. Specifically, the researcher will address the following questions: 1) Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals? 2) Is there a significant relationship between type of institution as defined by doctoral granting versus nondoctoral granting and leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions? 3) Is there a significant relationship between size of institution and the l eadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions? 4) Is there a significant relationship between the leadership attributes for males versus females for individuals in enrollment management positions? Significance of the Study The chang ing/aging workforce is creating a need for a new set of highly skilled leaders. While the cost is significant, the need for making the right choice with senior hires is more important than ever. The cost of making the wrong selection could cost colleges millions (Campbell & Associates, 2002). Technology advancements have also significantly impacted the workforce. The methods of knowledge exchange and information sharing are constantly changing and evolving (GCN, 2011). Technology has moved beyond local data storage to global network transparency. Companies must be prepared to adapt their security training and employee development to the emerging services that are making their way into enterprise (G C N, 2011).

PAGE 18

18 D ue to these changes, t he leadership attributes new leaders should have need to be defined. Studies have been conducted by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM), Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), Boston Consulting Group and American Management Association (AMA) to address the changing workforce demographics of the aging society and the technological advancements ( Leslie 2009; BNA, 2010; Jackson, 2010; Minter, 2010). These studies indicate leadership skills gaps exist in nearly every industry and offer guidance on how industri es should begin to address these gaps. This study provided baseline data on specific higher education positions that can help aid in the development of leadership training programs, succession planning and can augment the hiring processes. Many higher education positions are specialized administrative roles with no clear career paths (Campbell, 2006). The results of this data, combined with previous research may help to better define career paths within institutions. This study buil t upon the previous research of Kachik (2003) Campbell (2006) Basham (2007) Tunks (2007), Berry (2008) and ODaniels (2009) in identifying leadership attributes of college leaders and in determining the strength of leadership development and effective job selection. This study continued the trend of further examination of leadership attributes in higher education to the midlevel manager. Specifically, the overall leadership attributes of enrollment managers in higher education institutions within the United States. Defin ition of Terms The Higher Education Publication directory (HEP) defines the responsibilities of the registrar as student registration, scheduling of classes, examinations and classroom facilities, student records and related matters. The admissions direct or responsibilities

PAGE 19

19 are described as recruitment, selection and admission of students; while the enrollment manager responsibilities include planning, developing and implementing strategies to sustain enrollment; supervision of admissions and financial aid operations (HEP, 2010). For the purposes of this study, r egistrar refers to a person whose duties include the areas of college records, registration and student services. Individual respondents in this study who did not indicate their position as regist rar will be identified as other positions w ithin enrollment management These positions would include directors of admission, directors of enrollment management or directors of associations whose interests involve enrollment management. Figure 11 displays information provided by the Higher Education Publications website (HEP, 2010) on the numbers of registrars, directors of admission and directors of enrollment management working in higher education institutions in the United States by institutional size and institution type (doctoral granting versus nondoctoral granting). Figure 1 1 Population summary of enrollment management positions (HEP) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 443 2526 684 2285 430 2370 660 2140 331 1214 424 1120 Director of Enrollment Management Director of Admission Registrar

PAGE 20

20 Doctoral granting institutions are those identified as offering a doctorate degree or a specialist degree as the highest degree conferred. Those identified as nondoctoral granting institutions are those institutions identified as conferring any degree other than a doctorate or a specialist degree. Small colleges are those institutions identified with enrollments of less than five thousand. Moderate colleges are those institutions identified with enrollments of between five thousand and ten thousand. Medium colleges are those institutions identified with enrollments of between ten thousand and twenty thousand. Lastly, large institutions are those identified with enrollments of greater than twenty thousand. For the purposes of this study, the institutions have been categorized into small/moderate sized institutions and medium/large siz ed institutions. The enrollment benchmarks for size are in relation to the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) membership dues schedule. The WAVE refers to the personality test and correlating reports, the Executi ve Summary, the Psychometric Profile, the Entrepreneurial Potential Summary, and the Entrepreneurial Profile, developed by Saville Holdings, Ltd. Thought Construct refers to the cluster of thought within the Saville WAVE profile. This cluster contains the sections of vision, judgment and evaluation. Respondents scoring high in the cluster of thought may be considered inventive, abstract thinkers with the ability to develop effective strategies, the concepts within the vision section. They may also be qui ck learners who are able to identify the core of a problem and enjoy practical work, the concepts within the judgment section. Lastly, respondents scoring high in the cluster of thought may enjoy solving problems, are

PAGE 21

21 strong communicators and are comfortable working with numerical data, the concepts within the section of evaluation. Influence Construct refers to the cluster of influence within the Saville WAVE profile. The cluster contains the sections of leadership, impact and communication. Respondents scoring high in the cluster of influence are comfortable making quick decisions, want to take the lead and attach importance to their ability to motivate others, the concepts within the section of leadership. They are also eager to bring others to their point of view, frequently change others ideas and enjoy giving presentations, the concepts within the section of impact. Lastly, respondents scoring high on the cluster of influence want others to know about their successes, attach a high degree of impor tance to networking and are quick to establish rapport with people, the concepts within the section of communication. Adaptability Construct refers to the cluster of adaptability within the Saville WAVE profile. The cluster contains the sections of suppor t, resilience and flexibility. Respondents scoring high in the cluster of adaptability believe they work well on a team, understand how others feel and are very tolerant of people, the concepts within the section of support. They are also quick to resolv e disagreements, are self confident and are calm under pressure, the concepts within the section of resilience. Lastly, respondents scoring high on the cluster of adaptability respond well to feedback, are optimistic and enjoy new challenges, the concepts within the section of flexibility. Delivery Cluster refers to the cluster of delivery within the Saville WAVE profile. The cluster contains the sections of structure, drive and implementation. Respondents scoring high in the cluster of delivery are well organized, are concerned with ethical

PAGE 22

22 matters and work at a fast pace, the concepts within the section of structure. They also consider themselves to be very energetic, ambitious and highly competitive, the concepts within the section of drive. Lastly, respondents scoring high on the construct of delivery regard may regard themselves as perfectionists, are conscientious about meeting deadlines and need to have rules and adhere strictly to them, concepts within the section of implementation. Leadership at tributes for the purpose of this study refers to concepts defining effective leaders. The attributes examined are relative to the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery as defined above. Additionally, Appendix G displays how these at tributes relate to the attributes defined in other research. Limitations Data collected at the 2006 AACRAO State and Regional Leadership Workshop represents a small group of national enrollment management leaders and therefore does not represent all enroll ment managers at every type of institution. This study included respondents at institutions within the United States and may not be generalized for other international institutions. The respondents of this study did not st ate their ages for study review based on generational differences. The respondents are volunteers and are expected to have provided honest answers to their own leadership style. Due to the nature of the response, some bias may be present. Additionally, the instrument is computer based and is administered in an unsupervised environment. Assumptions have been made that the respondents concentrated on the instrument during the administration of the test.

PAGE 23

23 Summary This first chapter has provided an introduction to the importance of leaders hip development and succession planning in an ever changing workforce demographic. A comprehensive review of literature pertinent to this study is presented in Chapter 2. The research methodology of the study is described in Chapter 3, which includes the study population, the definition of terms, the data collection, the instrumentation and the methods of analyzing the data. In Chapter 4, the results of the data analyses are presented. The study is completed in Chapter 5 with a summary including a set of conclusions, recommendations for future study and implications in higher education.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY This chapter presents a literature review of leadership attributes, leadership development and succession planning in businesses and higher education. Results from this research study will provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes of mid level higher education administrators. This chapters is divided into five sections: (a) statement of problem (b) ch anging workforce, (c) leadership, (d) talent management and (e) role of the registrar. The chapter will conclude with a summary linking these areas together to set a research rationale for the present study. The Problem Selecting the right person for the job is of utmost importance in todays demanding environment. Selecting an individual for a career that does not have an education path can be even more difficult. Businesses are facing a changing workforce demographic that is creating a leadership skil ls gap (Smith, 2010). The changing workforce and the impact of technological advances on daily business activities are creating a current leadership crisis (Smith, 2010). According to a study conducted by Campbell in 2006 higher education is not immune to this crisis. The next positions that are to be in the most demand and in a critical shortage for higher education are institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars, directors of financial aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors of human resources. Supporting the findings of the CCL study (2009) a group of community college presidents stated in a FuturesLeaders Administrative Work Profiling session in 2006, that even though they were satisfied with the job performance of their current registrar, they would not rehire that individual if the position were to become vacated

PAGE 25

25 (FuturesLeaders ATG, 2006). They determined that the current registrar skills do not match the skills needed for the future regis trar/enrollment manager. The need for a better equipped leader combined with the impending shortages has colleges concerned about their future leadership. This study focused on the role of the registrar as one of the highest demand positions. The regist rar position was traditionally the policy interpreter and enforcer for a college. This individual would implement the procedures for which policies would be adhered to and disseminate the information appropriately. Strong logic and communication skills w ere critical in this role (Stewart & Wright, 1997). As enrollment growth has expanded, so has the role of the registrar. Many registrar positions today also hold responsibilities in enrollment management. These individuals remain responsible for the pol icy implementation, but they are also involved in the development and decision making of the policies. They now must interpret entering student trends and the technological needs for their staff in order to continue to provide effective services. Todays registrar must have strong logic and communication skills, but may also need numeric reasoning and complex decision making skills (FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling, 2006). The leadership attributes for this position have clearly evolved, however, these new traits may not be the same for all types of colleges. Changing Workforce Aging Workforce Marie Von Ebner Eschenbach said: "in youth we learn; in age we understand. This statement holds the key to the fear many business leaders have regarding an agi ng workforce (Jackson, 2010). Baby boomers, individuals born between 1946 and 1964, currently represent nearly onehalf of the workforce in the United States (Arnone,

PAGE 26

26 2006). There are 76 million boomers and they are turning 65 at the rate of one every eight seconds (Minter, 2010). In 2006, approximately 36 million people were 65 years or older. By 2030, that number will represent nearly 20% of the population or one in every five Americans (Arnone, 2006). The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) reports that almost half of the employees between the ages of 4570 will work into their seventies due to the current economic environment (Jackson, 2010). Jackson feels this will lessen the talent gap for many companies who have not begun to prepare for the mass exodus of knowledge. However, others feel that the delay may only prove to magnify the ill effect when it comes to fruition (Br u ck, 2010). As noted earlier, unprecedented numbers of employees will retire and take with them a wealth of k nowledge and history in the next five years (Jackson, 2010). In addition to the rapid pace in which individuals will be leaving the workforce, the decline of well prepared new workers is creating a leadership skills gap. The Center for Creative Leadershi p (CCL) conducted a study of more than 2,200 from companies all over the world ( Leslie 2009). This study revealed the seven competencies for success as leading people, strategic planning, managing change, inspiring commitment, resourcefulness, the abili ty to do whatever it takes and the quality of being a quick learner (Weinstein, 2010). The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and AARP are working together to promote awareness of the aging workforce. They identify the issue of filling the ret irement void not as one of too few people, but of too few skilled people (Jackson, 2010). The entering workforce is fewer in number than the baby boomers exiting and they lack the skills employers require (Jackson, 2010). CCL

PAGE 27

27 refers to the gap between t he skills needed and the current skill level as the current leadership crisis (Smith, 2010). In 2007, the American Council on Education (ACE) released the latest version of the American College President Study. According to this study, the average age of presidents grew from fifty two in the 1986 study to sixty one in the 2007 study. Additionally, the percentage of presidents over the age of sixty one grew from fourteen percent in 1986 to forty nine percent in 2007 (ACE, 2007). These impending retire ments are paving the way for current administrators to take on the presidential roles (Campb ell & Kachik 2002). A follow up study conducted in 2005 revealed that a domino effect of presidential vacancies was creating leadership gaps in key administrative positions of institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars, directors of financial aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors of human resources (Campbell, 2006). Generational Differences Generational dif ferences are also leading towards a change in the workforce dynamic. Todays organizations include four different generations with varying ideas of job desires and expectations (Jackson, 2010). Although the date ranges for each of these generational clas sifications are reported differently, the four categories in the workforce are the Traditionalists, the Boomers, the Xers and the Millennials (Clare, 2009). The Traditionalists (19221945) and many of the Boomers (19461963) are typically the current leaders within the organization and are retiring or nearing retirement age. They hold a great deal of organizational knowledge and the importance of organizations to ignite the knowledge transfer is evident.

PAGE 28

28 The Xers (1964 1976) are the next in line to receive the leadership positions, but are they prepared? These individuals were raised using technology, are able to multi task and are self reliant (Simons, 2010). These leaders will value a casual, friendly work environment with flexibility and freedom. These leaders will need to be prepared to mentor the next generation of leaders, the millennials (Simons, 2010). The Millennials (1977 1998) are much more social than their predecessors. They care about much more than money and enjoy balance between their work and social lives (Fallon, 2009). This new population of employee was raised with continual communication, made to feel special, were provided instant gratification and are extremely competitive (Fallon, 2009; Clare, 2009; Tyler, 2007). Technology has afforded them the opportunity to never be truly alone and this has hindered their decision making ability (Tyler, 2007). Unlike the Xers, the millennial employees value interactive relationships and consider their family as friends (Smith, 2010). The helicopter parent of the millennial employee has transitioned from the college campus to the workplace. They seek advice and input from their parents on even the smallest decisions (Tyler, 2007). The Traditionalists and the Boomers desired independenc e and have difficulty understanding the need for parental connectivity the Millennials desire (Tyler, 2007). The Xers also struggle with this concept as they were raised as latchkey kids and are closer to their friends than their family (Smith, 2010). The Xers will need to mentor the Millennials in a structured, supportive work environment with personalized work (Smith, 2010). In addition to the change in mentoring style, feedback is important to the Millennial. Employers who provide regular feedback on their progress will find more

PAGE 29

29 success in the Millennial employees and will provide them with more job satisfaction, even more than a pay raise would provide (Fallon, 2010). Identifying the reasons why each generation chooses to stay and work in certain positions can help bridge the communication gaps. Understanding the needs and traits of each will be critical if we are to engage and motivate these employees and empower them to strengthen the corporate culture (Jackson, 2010). Mentoring is a common theme among writers discussing the growth of the Millennial employee (Clare, 2009; Fallon, 2010; Buchanan, 2010). Mentoring can also help with the knowledge transfer that will need to occur as the Traditionalists and Boomers leave the workforce. The fu ture of succession planning may well include a move from meeting promotion needs to meeting knowledge transfer needs (Rothwell, 2010). Impact of Technological Advances Technological advances are also changing the look of the workforce and consumer expect ations. In his opening statements to the House Science and Technology Committee in April 2009, Bart Gordon stated that information technology is a major driver of economic growth and that advances in the field have the potential to dramatically influence all aspects of our lives from manufacturing and healthcare to education and entertainment (Gordon, 2009). Businesses are changing the way they conduct everyday activities because of these advances. A company with 20 to 49 employees will spend an average of $88,000 a year on technology if they want to stay up to date with the latest advances (Hall, 2000). Technology life spans are short and companies willing to keep current with the latest trends need to develop technology plans that are compatible with their employees and their customers (Hall, 2000). The healthcare industry discovered the impact of technology on their industry when George

PAGE 30

30 W. Bush worked with the 109th Congress to debate whether to improve the quality and efficiency of care (Braller, 20 10). The health IT industry became united at creating the necessary tools. These tools are now being challenged by President Obama and the 111th Congress to drive the changes in health care spending and policy (Braller, 2010). These technological changes have impacted how everyone within the healthcare industry conducts daily business. Technology has impacted every aspect of business operations. Even the recruitment of new employees has been changed by technology. In 2011, UBM Studios Unicruit offered a virtual career fair for bringing college students, alumni and employers together in an online platform for career exploration opportunities. Some of the companies participating in the virtual career fair included: Intel, ABC Supply, Secret Service, Department of Treasury, Vanguard, IBM, Amazon, GEICO and Walgreens (Closeup Media, 2011). In 1997, social networking was at its infancy with the introduction of web communities like classmates.com and sixdegrees.com. Social networks are defined as "web based services that allow individuals to (a) construct a public or semi public profile within a bounded system, (b) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (c) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system" (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). From 20022004, however, social networking blossomed with the creation of Friendster.com, Linkedin, MySpace and the most popular, Facebook. The creation of these sites and the technological evolution that they have spawned has created a change in the way students view education. It is interesting that the phenomenon that educators are now embracing to enhance student engagement actually began on a campus. Facebook, with more than 150 million users,

PAGE 31

31 was originally launched as a student project on the Harvard campus and remained campus based for it s first two years (Nickson, 2009). In addition to the plethora of social networking sites, there are also hundreds of mediums in which to view them. Darla Jackson has stated that 2010 was the Year of the iPad. Recent technological advancements and products introduced include the Sony Reader, Amazons ereader, the Kindle, and Apples iPad (Jackson, 2010). Technology is changing how our students learn and how our employees work. This change is also impacting how leaders must lead the new technological ly acute employee (Fallon, 2009). EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) conducted a study in 2007 on undergraduate students and information technology. The study found that the students owned more technology than the students in the previous two s tudies. Additionally, the students usage patterns of these technologies had changed ( Borreson & Salaway, 2007). More than eighty percent of the respondents in the study were engaged in social networking ( Borreson & Salaway, 2007). These technologies al low students to have access to information wherever they are and is changing the face of education. Technology has begun to change the look of colleges and the roles of registrars. The new generation of student is more technically adept than their predecessors. During the first major role change for registrars, in the 1970s, mainframe computers were the budding technology. Mainframe systems were internally controlled and allowed for internal efficiencies and effective data collection (Stewart & Wright, 1997). As described earlier, data is everywhere and regulating and monitoring its access is becoming increasingly more difficult.

PAGE 32

32 Technology plays a crucial role in the job responsibilities of a registrar. Simply, the registrar is the keeper of student data and the gatekeeper to accessing this information. Rapidly changing technology makes it challenging to keep abreast of the pri vacy, security, and management of information and identities (McConahay, West, Hanson & Woodbeck, 2009). A registrar must understand how a student will want to receive information and then communicate that need to the technological staff who can deliver the product. Leadership Leadership is a word that is often used to describe the characteristics of the top managers, however, it is the application of these characteristics that exhibits the true meaning. Literature contains many examples of leadership characteristics. The seven attributes essential to leadership, according to Bennis, are technical competence, conceptual skills, track record, people skills, taste, judgment and character (Bennis, 1989). Furthermore, he describes the three characteristic s most prevalent in leaders are drive, competence and integrity. Morley and Eadie observed that leadership is not well defined and is more of an art than a science (Morley & Eadie, 2001). So what makes an effective leader? Identifying the crucial leader ship attributes for a given job helps make this determination. Leadership attributes differ in their definition, description and in their importance in the position they are needed. Stogills research in 1948 compared the common traits and skills shared between leaders and experts (Stogill, 1948, 1974 (as cited in Germaine, 2008). The common skills and traits were identified as ambitious, able to judge/assess, outgoing, self confident/self assured, knowledge, problem solving skills, intuitive, able to deduce, able to improve, charisma and drive (Germaine, 2008). These

PAGE 33

33 skills identified in 1948 closely mirror the skills described as needed for todays businesses in the 2009 study by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). The skills described by CCL as necessary for the future business leaders are leading people, strategic planning, inspiring commitment, managing change, resourcefulness, participative management, being a quick learner, employee development, doing whatever it takes and balancing personal life and work (Leslie 2009). These competencies compliment the emergent themes of leadership competencies identified by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). These themes are organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, advocacy and professionalism (Campbell, Syed and Morris, 2010). The key leadership attributes of the new nonprofit leader, however, differ somewhat in their trait descriptions. These attributes are described as future focused, passionate c ommunication, relationship building, accountability, organizational skills and team building (Spillett, 2006). The differences between the leadership attribute description of the corporate leader and that of the nonprofit leader may be key to the job expectations. Research indicates that position plays a role in determining what leadership attributes are important for a given position (Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Campbell & Leverty, 2007; Berry, 2008; ODaniels, 2009). Determining how closely the higher education leaders mirror the business leader or the nonprofit leader can help to determine their most effective leadership attributes. A study of college of union directors found that these leaders were transformational leaders and exhibited leadership attr ibutes of influence and motivation (Mironack, 2003). A study describing the leadership attributes of community college

PAGE 34

34 presidents in 1997 found that the leadership attributes of the current community college president was very similar to those attributes envisioned for the 21st century community college president (Campbell and Leverty, 1997). In a 2008 study of community college business officers and workforce development officers and national continuing education trainers, Berry found that each group had distinct work styles from one another and that developing a program for identifying the job attributes was beneficial (Berry, 2008). The leadership attributes of the community college presidents and those of the chief business officers share some similar ities, but are not a perfect match as the job requirements call for differing leadership attributes. The skills needed to be an effective student affairs administrator were reviewed by Lovell and Kosten (2000) and it was found that there are skills, knowl edge bases and personal traits that help define the role. Specifically, the knowledge of student development theory and functional area responsibilities and the personal traits of integrity and cooperation are necessary to a successful student affairs off icer (Lovell & Kosten, 2000). The traditional effective student affairs practitioner is a strong communicator and good listener who can motivate others, plan, implement and deal with conflict and crisis situations (Kleinglass, 2005). Student affairs leader qualities are often associated with student feelings (Lovell & Kosten, 2000). As leaders they, influence the thoughts, behaviors, and/or feelings of others (Gardner & Larkin, 1996). Leadership is any attempt to influence the behavior of another individual or group (Hershey & Blanchard, 2007). Leadership is a shared, interactive, culturally framed activity (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993 ). These qualities

PAGE 35

35 match those identified by Lovell and Kosten for the student affairs administrator in that they exhibit integrity and cooperation (Lovell & Kosten, 2000). The registrar position can be defined as a midlevel administrative position in higher education. The Higher Education Publication directory (HEP) defines the responsibilities of the registrar as student registration, scheduling of classes, examinations and classroom facilities, student records and related matters. The admissions director responsibilities are described as recruitment, selection and admission of students; while the enrollment m anager responsibilities include planning, developing and implementing strategies to sustain enrollment; supervision of admissions and financial aid operations (HEP, 2010). Comparing the leadership attributes of individuals within these positions will help to build careers paths and leadership training opportunities. The American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) worked with the FuturesLeaders ATG group to define the important attributes for the new registrar/enrollment m anager as strong communication, numeric reasoning and logic (FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling, 2006). The changing workforce demographics and the innovation of technology are redefining the job responsibilities of many positions in every industry. The new responsibilities these changes are placing on the new registrar/enrollment manager can impact the success of the institution. As a component of the person specific review and job description development for the new registrar/enrollment manager, the obj ective to champion technology and utilize it to project trends appropriately, maintaining student privacy as required was described as a necessary attribute. Additionally, three of the

PAGE 36

36 nine stated job objectives dealt directly with the use, collection and dissemination of data (FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling, 2006). Gender in Leadership Literature supports the theory that leadership attributes between males and females differ, however, they are not in agreement as to what the strongest leadership attributes are for women (Powell, 1988). In a 1995 study by Gibson, found that many leadership behaviors and styles did not vary across gender. (Gibson, 1995 (as cited in Kachik, 2003). However, Balkis and Isiker indicate that gender differences do exist bet ween males and females in terms of thinking styles (Balkis and Isiker, 2005 (as cited in ODaniels, 2009). Kachiks 2003 study specifically focused on gender as a variable in the relationships between personality testing and the managerial environment. The study was comprised of male and female leaders from community college administration and private sector business. The study concluded that there were differences in the characteristics males and females, however, they were not as prevalent in every co nstruct. The detail conscious attribute showed to be the most significant with females being more precise and accurate than their male counterparts. The greatest significance was found between male community college administrators and female corporate leaders (Kachik, 2003). The study also compared the leadership attributes of female corporate leaders with those of female community college leaders and found that female community college leaders are more detail conscious and that the leadership attributes of the female corporate leader was more comparable to those of the male community college administrator. Further research on gender leadership attributes by ODaniels found that females were more principled and striving than their

PAGE 37

37 male counterparts in that they are more discreet in work situations and are ambitious (ODaniels, 2009). Talent Management Businesses have concentrated on talent management for years. More than just human resource management, talent management includes, workforce planning, talent gap analysis, recruiting, staffing, education and development, retention, talent reviews, succession planning, and evaluation (McCauley & Wakefield, 2006). Identifying the employees who have the aspiration and engagement to succeed in leadership roles will be the key to the future success of businesses (Minter, 2010). Talent management will be the most important aspect for human resource divisions in this growing environment. Leadingedge companies are increasingly adopting sophisticated methods of analyzing employee data to enhance their competitive advantage (Davenport, Harris & Shapiro, 2010). Companies such as Google, P&G, Royal Bank of Scotland and Intel have all established analytics groups to gather more insight into their people practices. In 2009, Harrahs Entertainment used organizational psychologists to cr eate predictive assessments for candidates in an external sales force. The results of the hiring from these assessments helped reverse a decline in sales (Davenport, Harris & Shapiro, 2010). Generational factors and job desire match is another component to talent management that is allowing companies to begin to revamp their industries. As mentioned earlier, the Millennial employee values giving back (Fallon, 2009). An employer who can recognize this trait could allow employees to modify their work sch edules in order for them to become engaged within a particular cause. These types of changes could enhance employee engagement and employee satisfaction for

PAGE 38

38 business. Absenteeism and turnover rates go down, while employee satisfaction improves when emplo yees are given the opportunity to negotiate their work schedules with others (Bruck, 2010). Additionally, the ability to create a flexible work schedule is appealing to the older employee who may be interested in continuing to work, but are not interested in maintaining the long hours (Jackson, 2010). This could be helpful in slowing the leadership exodus and allowing for more time for knowledge transfer. Leadership Development Turnover has been a focus of the leadership development discussion for the pas t 15 years (Campbell, 2006). An aging workforce combined with the decreasing numbers of college graduates has created a great demand of leadership development. All industries will need to prepare the future leaders of their organizations. As noted earlier one of every five Americans is expected to be 65 years of age or older by 2030 (Arnone, 2006). Additionally, eighty million workers are expected to retire over the next 25 years (Sacks, 2006). The infusion of leadership development initiatives and strat egies within all levels of business, industry, and educational institutions will help to prepare for the impeding impact of retirements. Although business and industry have traditionally been more proactive in utilizing and providing a variety of venues t o create leadership opportunities for their employees they too are experiencing growing pains. A survey on CEO succession planning conducted in 2010 found that although 69% of the respondents felt that they needed to have someone ready to step into the position now, only 54% were actually grooming someone to take the helm (Hei drick & Struggles, 2010). The survey also noted that nearly half of the respondents could not identify an internal CEO candidate if the current CEO were to leave (Hei drick & Struggl es, 2010). Still others like Hewlett Packard (HP)

PAGE 39

39 have found ways to grow their own leaders. HP narrowed the search for a new CEO down to three internal candidates in 2010 (Ricadela & Brady, 2010). Some businesses are recognizing these issues, however, and are beginning to train a new class of leaders. W.R. Grace, a chemical manufacturing company, recognized the impending leadership gap and developed a manufacturing leadership program in 2002 (Minter, 2010). This program allows recent college graduates the opportunity to work within the organization for twoyears, rotating between different sites and different locations. The program is designed to allow participants to determine which areas of the organization they like best and to help them hone thei r skills to be key candidates when leadership openings occur (Minter, 2010). Like industry, colleges have gone through cycles of preparing future leaders and are currently on an upward trend of recognizing the need. The importance of succession planning in higher education has continued to grow since the late 1990s. Magner has claimed, succession planning is going to change higher education (Magner, 2009). Many colleges are embracing the concept of succession planning and creating programs within their own institutions. The approaches to these programs may be different, but they are all seeking to build the leaders for tomorrows higher education institutions. Kennesaw State University offers a program that focuses on addressing core leadership competencies through a variety of interactive classroom sessions, field trips and social activities. The program participants are able to learn more about the mission and strategic goals of Kennesaw State while gaining exposure to leadership roles at the in stitution (Davis, 2011). The University of California at Riverside offers employees the

PAGE 40

40 opportunity to enhance their current skills for future leadership positions through the Management Skills Assessment Program (MSAP). This program is designed to allow employees to enhance their effectiveness in their current role and become more competitive within the workforce (Davis, 2011). Daytona State College began the Leadership Development Institute (LDI) in 2003 (Carroll & Phillips, 2004). The LDI program is a year long program that employees of all levels are eligible to attend. The program enrollment is limited and employees must apply to participate. LDI offers a full agenda of leadership training, assessments, mentoring and formal education opportunities. LDI is one component of the Colleges succession plan (Carroll & Phillips, 2004). In 2002, the presidents of all community colleges in Massachusetts also recognized the impending problems of future retirements and became the official sponsors of the Comm unity College Leadership Academy (CCLA) (Crosson, Douglas, OMeara & Sperling, 2005). This program provides a year long experience for senior and middle management and faculty from throughout community colleges in Massachusetts. The program features day long monthly seminars, required readings and writings, and activities. The program is designed to help hone leadership skills (Crosson, Douglas, OMeara & Sperling, 2005). Each of these programs offer exposure to leadership concepts and current campus l eaders for the participants, but do not seem to be fulfilling the noticeable gap in leadership. Leaders seem caught in the currency of leadership succession patterns, still assuming traditional paths into senior administrative positions (Amey, 2002).

PAGE 41

41 Rothwell (2010) explained that even succession planning is an ever changing process. The future of succession planning must be focused not on meeting promotional needs, but on the need for transfer of knowledge. Additionally, there should be an increase i n the integration of succession planning and career development (Rothwell, 2010). The idea of creating a technical succession plan versus a management succession plan ensures that individuals nearing retirement with specific technical abilities will have transferred the knowledge to others prior to their departure. National organizations have also developed programs specific to their niche of employee to help train leaders for the new college leadership roles. Some of these programs include Future Leaders Institute, Institute for Aspiring Senior Student Affairs Officer, Millenium Leadership Initiative, Womens Leadership Institute and HERS Summer Institute (ACE, 2011). Each of these programs is designed specifically for select higher education populatio ns and is focused on creating leaders for the impending vacancies. Additionally, they provide a networking and mentoring opportunity for participants in the same field. One trend that colleges and industry must focus on, however, is the idea that more tra ining does not always lead to more qualified candidates (Bos, 2007). Effective participant selection and program evaluation must accompany any leadership development program in order to truly yield positive results (Harrison, McKinnon & Terry, 2006). Succession Planning Succession planning began in the middleages as a transfer of land and authority to an heir and has grown to a concept of focusing talent (Hartley, 2008). The current, talent age, is one in which succession is not just defined for leader ship, but is an

PAGE 42

42 inclusive strategy for everyone within an organization (Hartley, 2008). Succession planning is integral to business success and can be defined, a systematic process of developing individuals to fill an organizations key roles. (Harrison, McKinnon & Terry, 2006). Growing talent within an organization can provide stability and can maintain historical knowledge (Smith, 2010). During a time when the workforce is aging and the number of qualified candidates is declining, the need for succ ession planning in business is great. Due to the aging workforce, technological advances and potential gaps in leadership, business and industry have also recognized the need to transcend succession planning beyond the top positions within the organization and are now focusing on the lower levels (Bos, 2007). Organizations positioned to succeed will need to recognize that leadership gaps will occur at every level and will be prepared to address them. Ernst & Young conducted a survey in 2006 with the Human Capital Leadership Institute to determine how organizations are responding to the aging workforce. (Arnone, 2006). The study found that few employers are undertaking programs aimed at retaining older workers (Arnone, 2006). If efforts are not focused on retaining an older workforce, then there must be a rising group of leaders ready to fill the roles. In response to this, Boston Consulting Group and the world Federation of People Management Associations, released a report in 2010 on the importance of companies focusing their efforts on managing talent (BNA, 2010). The report found that fifty six percent of the survey respondents mentioned the existence of a critical talent gap for senior managers successors (BNA, 2010). Another study released by Bridgespan in 2009 found that there would be a need to hire 640,000 senior level nonprofit managers

PAGE 43

43 by 2016. Additionally, between June 2007 and December 2008, seventy seven thousand nonprofit management jobs were opened and one out of every four (25%) was filled internally (Josyln, 2009). If homegrown talent is the most effective to assume leadership within the company, why is it that more than half of the executive positions are filled from outside candidates? (BNA, 2010). The educational level of applicants has also been reviewed. A report by Spellings in 2006, however, indicated that higher education was in need of reform and that the numbers of graduates was declining. Additionally, this report called for the business community to become directly involved with higher education leaders in developing the strategies to improve the system (Spellings, 2006). To further complicate the problem for community colleges, t he number of individuals seeking advanced degrees in community college administrat ion has been declining over the past two decades (Patton, 2004). Corporations with effective succession management plans are poised for the crisis. Google has created a talent value model of succession planning that helps identify why employees choose to stay with the company and creates a distribution curve based on employee performance. The plan helps individuals who might be misplaced or poorly managed by identifying the lowest five percent of performers and infusing an active plan for improvement ( Davenport, Harris & Shapiro, 2010). C ompanies like Disney and GE also embraced this concept early and were able to handpick successors for their top positions (Barden 2006). The answer lies in the design of the succession plan and in the leadership development tied to the plan. Studies indicate that comprehensive succession planning

PAGE 44

44 and dedication of senior management to talent development yield better corporate success (Minter, 2010). The American Management Association (AMA) conducted a study on global leadership development and found significant statistical correlation between market performance and the firms with global leadership development programs (Minter, 2010). Higher education institutions have recognized this trend and are seeking ways to ensure a viable workforce is available. Growing demand for college leadership and a gap in the leadership talent available makes succession planning and leadership development a priority for higher education (Campbell, 2006). Talent management including these concepts is the key to this transformation. Leadership style and behavior can be modified through specific training or educational programs to better equip the leaders of the future (Tunks, 2007). Community colleges are leading the way for higher education in the concept of leadership development and succession planning (Dembicki, 2006). In 2006, sixteen community colleges, two community college districts and five state system leadership development programs were examined and similar approaches wer e highlighted. These successful approaches included involvement of upper administration in the program development and implementation, flexible curriculum, program delivery that includes team building and mentoring and evaluation for continual program growth (Dembicki, 2006). Leadership development and succession planning may help to address the need. Colleges and universities, however, have hiring practices that indicate a need for leadership evolution (Barden, 2006). Colleges and universities are imm une to fashions and trends, they are stable and well defined. This high level of consistency has led

PAGE 45

45 some college leaders to the notion that only real change can occur with the hiring of outside leadership, causing the leadership evolution (Barden, 2006). However, promotions within education tend to be based upon an individuals academic success and not necessarily on the best fit for the institution (Yieldler and Codling, 2004). Role of the Registrar The rapid changes in workforce demands, student needs and technology are also forcing a change in the required attributes of a registrar. The new registrar/enrollment management leaders will need to adapt to this change and continue to be at the forefront of effective student communication. The first registra r was appointed at Oxford in 1446 and remained a part time position in the United States until the early 1900s (Stewart & Wright, 1997). Early job duties included record keeping, registering students, scheduling high school visits, admitting students, awarding financial aid and conducting research. In 1974, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was signed into law and thus created a new definition of registrar (USDOE, www.ed.gov). The new registrars were now expected to be more data oriented, be able to respond to new legislative mandates, provide good customer service and keep up with the growing enrollments (Pelham, Presswood & Roof, 2006). This was the beginning of the concept of enrollment management. Enrollment management can be def ined as a comprehensive process designed to help an institution achieve and maintain the optimum recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of students, where optimum is defined within the academic context of the institution (Dolence, 1993). Current job duties of registrars vary between institutions, but most contain the following, as described in a 2010 State University of New York human resources job posting may include:

PAGE 46

46 overall responsibility for initiating and maintaining the permanent academic r ecord of each student and for the registration of all students; work with the academic staff in coordinating the time schedule for classes including the assignment of classroom space; maintains accurate records of all college courses and curriculum requirements; has the responsibility for planning for and supervising all pre registration and registration for classes; preparation and printing of all registration material and forms for each registration period; initiation and maintenance of all student academ ic records including the collection of grades, reporting of grades, preparation of grade reports and transcripts, deficiency reports, preparation of an honors list, probation status reports, class ranking, and microfilming/imaging of student records; must have a thorough awareness of the continually increasing application of computerization and computer technology on all phases of registrar operations; works closely with institutional research and computer staff in compiling statistical data required for various college class size, faculty load and enrollment reports; is responsible for working with campus departments, divisions and schools to determine eligibility of students for graduation; maintains close liaison with the student accounting office in determining eligibility for registration and graduation; is responsible for all the administrative affairs of the registrar's office. (SUNY, 2010) Registrars are a hybrid between the student affairs administrator and the academic officer. Some institutions have reporting structures where the registrar is housed with student affairs; such as Seminole State College in Florida or California State Polytechnic University in Pomona, California (Seminole State College, 2010; California State Polytechnic University 2010). Other institutions, however, have structures that have the registrar report through the division of academic affairs; such as Rhode Island College in Providence, RI or Slippery Rock University in Slippery Rock, PA (Rhode Island College, 2010; Sli ppery Rock University, 2010). As the job duties of the registrar range from student advocate to interpreter of academic policy, it is easy to see why the position could exist in either realm. Kendra Hamilton (2004) explored the traditional pathways to t he college/university presidency and found that student affairs professionals are beginning to break new ground and are finding ways to move into the top job. Her study agreed with Ameys

PAGE 47

47 study in 2002 that indicated the traditional path to the presidency is through academic affairs, however, her study went on to state that student affairs leaders who have a Ph.D., teach, publish and participate in their academic discipline are more likely to be promoted to a presidency. The driving question is in what field should the student affairs administrator earn their Ph.D.? (Hamilton, 2004). As many succession plans involve the development of employees through the advancement of degrees, this question is at the heart of the issues of student affairs officers. The traditional route to the presidency, chief academic officer, has an academic discipline and field in which to focus. The student affairs officer could study student counseling, student development or higher education and stay on top of their own field w hile working to progress. The registrar position, however, is a hybrid of academic and student affairs. This position does not have a traditional educational route and therefore, a succession plan for a registrar must be developed. Closing the Gap Hir ing the right person for the job is becoming more important as the numbers of vacancies grows. Tools that can identify the best personjob fit will help reduce turnover and help companies keep their hiring costs lower. Business and industry are utilizing personality questionnaires and simulations during the interview process to identify person matches. Forty percent of mediansized companies are using personality questionnaires and an additional thirty two percent use simulations during the interview process (Campbell, 2009). Colleges, conversely, are not utilizing these tools in identifying candidates with only four percent of community college leaders indicating they use these tools (Campbell, 2009). Hiring the right person at the outset for any admi nistrative position is crucial to the future of a college (Campbell 2009).

PAGE 48

48 In 1997, the 21st Century Education Leadership Profiles Project was created to assist in developing and selecting professionals to address the leadership gap (Campbell, Syed & Morris, 2010). The project focused on the leadership attributes and work styles of successful college presidents. The Profiles Project and additional research conducted at the University of Florida, have recognized the Occupational Personality Questionnair e (OPQ) as contributing to the translation of work styles and confirm that it can be used to assess managerial, professional, entrepreneurial and personal qualities (Campbell, Syed & Morris, 2010). Additionally, research conducted by ODaniels and Basham have further indicated that the Saville WAVE instrument accurately measures what it is designed to measure (ODaniels, 2009 & Basham, 2007). The WAVE instrument is designed to measure motives, talents and preferred culture of respondents for use in select ing and training (Saville, 2006). The changing demographics of the workforce, the dynamics of technology, the new millennial employee and student have created a need for a newly defined registrar. The American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Adm ission Officers (AACRAO) worked with Saville Consulting in 2007 to develop a person specification and a job description for the newly title dean/director of enrollment and registrar. As a component of the person specific review and job description develop ment, the objective to champion technology and utilize it to project trends appropriately, maintaining student privacy as required was described as a necessary attribute. Additionally, three of the nine stated job objectives dealt directly with the use, collection and dissemination of data (FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling, 2006).

PAGE 49

49 Summary The changing workforce is creating leadership skills gaps in all industries, including higher education. The changing face of college campuses through the advancement of technology, the aging population, the lack of prepared college graduates and the impending retirements will change the roles of the new administrators. These changes have created a demand for a new work profile of the registrar/enrollment manager within higher education. The registrar is a key position in higher education administration and this position will face dramatic changes. The registrar must be knowledgeable in the field of technology and in their ability to bridge the gap between the needs of students, employees and information technology professionals. The lack of an educational career path for this field is making it more difficult to determine the potential leadership pool. This study built upon the leadership attributes identified in other senior college administration positions from previous research and in the research indicating the importance of leadership development and succession planning. This study identified the traits necessary for the new work profile of a successful registrar and may help to drive trainings targeted at preparing future registrars for the position. This chapter has provided a literature review of the changing workforce demographic, leadership attributes, talent management (leadership development and succession planning) and specific job responsibilities of the higher education registrar. Table 21 summarizes the leadership gap that exists in every industry and states possible solutions that have been provided i n this chapter. The research methodology of the study is described in the next chapter, which includes the study population, the data collection, the

PAGE 50

50 instrumentation and the methods of analyzing the data to address the research questions.

PAGE 51

51 Table 2 1 Leadership gap/deficit summary Business Sector Research to support Proposed solutions International businesses Center for creative leadership (2009) Smith (2010) Communicate specific behaviors and skills desired Assess leaders on key skills Create training programs Expose current managers to the needed skills Support learning Encourage managers to have career goals Develop succession plan Evaluate and measure program success American corporations Kachik (2003) Leslie (CCL 2009) Smith (2010) American Association of Retired Persons (AARP ) 2009 Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM ) 2009 Communicate specific behaviors and skills desired Assess leaders on key skills Create training programs Expose current managers to the needed skills Support learning Encourage managers to have career goals Develop succession plan Evaluate and measure program success Create flexible schedules and other incentives to maintain and recruit the older employee Non profit leadership Spillett, et. al (Bridgespan report 2006) Provide development opportunities in budgeting, working with trustees and fundraising/development Modify compensation and benefit packages to make the positions more appealing Community college leadership Campbell & Leverty (1997) Shults (2001) Kachik (2003) Campbell (2006) American Council on Education (2007) Basham (2007) Tunks (2007) Berry (2008) ODaniels (2009) Leadership development programs Succession planning Identify specific skills needed Assess leaders on key skills Higher education leadership Lovell & Kosten (2000) Tunks (2007) Berry (2008) Middlehurst (2008) Mann (2010) Leadership development Building leadership legitimacy through track record of success Mentoring and coaching Peer collaboration

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter defines the research methodology used in the research study. The purpose of the study and the design are detailed. The research problem is defined in detail. The study sample, research instrument and data coll ection method are described. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to determine if enrollment managers from differing institutions, holding different positions within enrollment management had common leadership attributes. The study buil t upon the previous research of Kachik (2003), Campbell (2006), Basham (2007), Tunks (2007), Berry (2008) and ODaniels (2009) in identifying leadership attributes of college leaders and in determining the strength of leadership development and effect ive job selection. As noted earlier, the next positions that are to be in the most demand and in a critical shortage are institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars, directors of financial aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors of human resources. This study focused specifically on the growing need for registrars and directors of admissions. Registrars rank among the highest of the top positions in which the turnover will occur (Campbell, 2006). As stated earlier, mos t individuals have a career path that is closely aligned to a chosen education track, but there is not an educational degree for registrar or admissions directors. Selecting the right person for the job is of utmost importance in todays demanding environment. Discovering what leadership attributes are needed by the successful enrollment manager candidate will assist in determining the best candidate.

PAGE 53

53 This study continued the trend of further examination of leadership attributes in higher education to t he mid level manager. Specifically, the overall leadership attributes of enrollment managers in higher education institutions within the United States. This study examined the leadership attributes of successful future enrollment management administrator s by examining the following: if leadership attributes of administrators differ by type of institution; if leadership traits of administrators differ by size of institution; and if leadership traits of administrators differ by gender. Results from this r esearch study will provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes of mid level higher education administrators. Research Problem Critical shortages in administrative positions in higher education across the United States are expected in the next five years. In 2005, a group of c ommunity college presidents were asked to project retirements within their institutions. As noted earlier, this study indicated that student affairs administrators are among the highest in which this turnover will occur (Campbell, 2006). Some of the presidents within this group also indicated that, even though they were satisfied with the job performance of their current r egistrar, they would not rehire that individual if the position were to become vacated. The registrar position was traditionally the policy interpreter and enforcer for a college. This individual would implement the procedures for which policies would be adhered to and disseminate the information appropriately. Strong logic and communicat ion skills were critical in this role (Stewart & Wright, 1997) As enrollment growth has expanded, so has the role of the registrar. Many registrar positions today also hold responsibilities in enrollment management. These individuals remain responsible for the policy implementation, but they are also involved in the development

PAGE 54

54 and decision making of the policies. They now must interpret entering student trends and the technological needs for their staff in order to continue to provide effective services. Todays registrar must have strong logic and communication skills, but may also need numeric reasoning and complex decision making skills (FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling, 2006) The leadership attributes for this position have clearly evolved, however, these new traits may not be the same for all types of colleges. This study provided some insight into the attributes most desired in quality candidates. Specifically, the researcher addressed the following questions: 1) Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals? 2) Is there a significant relationship between type of institution as defined by doctoral granting versus nondoctoral granting and leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions? 3) I s there a significant relationship between size of institution and the leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions? 4) Do female enrollment management profess ions at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as male enrollment management professionals? Research Hypothesis H01: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts. H1: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will exhibit significant difference on the construct s of thought influence, adaptabili ty or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts. H02: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the construct s of thought influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at nondoctoral granting institutions. H2: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will exhibit significant differenc e on the constructs

PAGE 55

55 of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at nondoctoral granting institutions. H03: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the construct s of thought influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution. H3: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution. H04: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts. H4: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts. Research Design Survey research w as conducted to analyze the leadership attributes of admission, registrar and enrollment managers at varying educational institutions throughout the United States that are members of the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admission Officers, hereto throughout r eferred to as AACRAO. Statistical analysis, including analysis of variance and descriptive statistics w as used to determine if there is a relationship between leadership attributes among individuals in similar positions at differing institutions, if these attributes remain the same if the institution type changes, if these attributes remain the same if the institution size changes and if the WAVE is a suitable tool for determining these attributes. Methodology To explore the research questions, a leader ship inventory was selected and distributed to a diverse population of admissions officers, registrars and enrollment

PAGE 56

56 managers throughout the United States. The diversity is defined by location of institution, type of institution, type of position and siz e of institution. The leadership inventory selected w as the Saville Consulting WAVE assessment. As data from the WAVE was collected in December 2006, through collaboration between the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers, AACRAO, and Saville Consulting for a diverse group of admissions, registrar and enrollment managers, the researcher request ed access to this data to address the research questions. The data analysis summarized the individual responses into four distinct categories. The categories are gender of leader, size of institution, type of institution and type of position. The gender is defined as either male or female and is self reported in the inventory survey The size of the institution is defined by either small/moderate schools with enrollments of less than 10,000 in the Fall 2009 integrated postsecondary data system ( IPEDS) report or medium/large schools with enrollments of 10,000 or greater in the Fall 2009 IPEDS report. The type of institution is defi ned by either doctoral degree granting or nondoctoral degree granting as defined by the National Center for Educational Statistics website. ( http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/ ). The types of positions are r e gistrars or o ther e nrollment m anagement or a dmissions p rofessional as a self identified component of the survey instrument. Instrumentation The instrument used for this research, WAVE, is a behavioral questionnaire developed for use in selecting, develop ing and establish career paths in businesses (Saville & Holdsworth LTD., 1996(as cited in Campbel & Kachik, 2002 and Basham, 2007). The WAVE is a personality test based upon four clusters, including thought,

PAGE 57

57 influence, adaptability and delivery. See Appendix A. Each of the four clusters contains three sections, each of the three sections contains three dimensions and each of the three dimensions contains three facets. Overall, there are 108 facets. Each facet is presented two to three times throughout the questionnaire. This study focused specifically at comparing each group defined above within each cluster. The cluster of thought contains the sections of vision, judgment and evaluation. The cluster of influence contains the sections of leadership, impact and communication. The cluster of adaptability contains the sections of support, resilience and flexibility. The cluster of delivery contains the sections of structure, drive and implementation. Each of these clusters is further display in Appe ndi x A. The WAVE is validation centric. It is designed to reveal personality characteristics of an individual, assesses the individual s leadership potential and describes the environments in which the individual will work best or in which they should not work (Saville, 2006). The questionnaire takes about 3545 minutes to complete. Respondents can receive a wide variety of reports from the test. The respondents in this study received the Types report and the Expert report. The Types report outlines the typical approach the respondent would have in their work setting towards people and tasks. A respondent could be identified as an a daptor, t ransformer, i ndividualist or i nfluencer in regards to people and a t hinker, t ransactor, p reserver or d oer in relation to accomplishing tasks. The two traits combined help to describe the respondents leadership style. One example may be that the respondents results indicate that they are an i nfluencer t ransactor. This type of leadership style is indicative of someone who is capable of leading people to deliver impressive results. They create a compelling

PAGE 58

58 vision and use assertive approaches to get people to buy into their plans. They know exactly where they are going and focus on getting results. This singleminded pursuit of a clear direction can at times lead to an autocratic leadership style (Saville, 2006). The e xpert report provides the respondent with an executive summary of their results, grouped under the four major cluster headings of t hought, i nfluence, a daptability and d elivery. Under each of the four major clusters, the sten score for each is displayed for all 36 dimensions. The report also defines the response summary and rates the respondents acquiescence when answering questions, consistency of rankings, the motive talent agreement and the normativeipsative agreement. Scale descriptions of these can be found in the 2005 Saville Consulting Technical Document. Saville Consultings extensive research indicates the best predictor of performance at work is generally the score indicated by the sten marker (combined Normativeipsative). Information is also provided on subtle differences highlighted by the profiler: facet range, motivetalent split and normativeipsative split. (Saville, 2006) Result s from the WAVE testretest were based on a sample size of 112 with a retest period of one month. The alternative form normative, ipsative and combined were based on a sample size of 1153 Results indicate a mean reliability of 0.79, the minimum 0.71 and m aximum of 0.91 as shown in Table 32. (Saville, 2006). The validity of the WAVE instrument and dimensions, as mentioned earlier, is based on validation centric development, where items are selected for inclusion in the instrument based on their validity i n predicting external job performance criteria (Saville, 2006). The WAVE instrument has also been correlated against the 16PF, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, the Gordon Personal Profile,and the DISC. Results of construct validation studies suggest the WA VE is valid and measures what it is intending to measure (Saville, 2006). Additionally, previous studies utilizing the WAVE and its base

PAGE 59

59 prediction inventory, the OPQ have been conducted to confirm that the instrument is valid, reliable, and does measur e what it intends to measure (Basham, 2007). The Population The population for this study consist ed of members of AACRAO in admissions officer, registrar and enrollment manager positions at institutions of higher education in the United States. The population of seventy individuals represents fifty four institutions from twenty nine states. Thirty seven (54%) of the population is made up of individuals from doctoral degree granting institutions. Thirty (42%) of the population are males. The institution size will be segmented into two distinct categories; small/moderate and medium/large. Small colleges are those institutions who enroll less than five thousand students. Moderate colleges are those institutions who enroll between five thousand and ten thousand students. Medium colleges are those institutions who enroll between ten thousand and twenty thousand students. Lastly, large colleges are those institutions who enroll more than twenty thousand students. There are sixteen individuals from small institutions, fifteen from moderate institutions, eleven from medium institutions and twenty six from large institutions. Combined into the two segments, there are thirty one small/moderate institutions and thirty seven medium/large institutions. The position types will be segmented into two distinct categories; registrar and other enrollment management/admissions professionals. The population consists of thirty two registrars and thirty five other enrollment management/admissions professionals. Two individuals are not associated with a specific institution and one individual cannot be classified into one of the three defined positions, however, all have a direct relationship with enrollment management functions.

PAGE 60

60 Procedure for Data Collection In December 2006, AACRAO held its annual State and Regional Leadership workshop. This workshop is comprised of registrars, admissions officers or enrollment managers from institutions throughout the United States. These individuals were selected to attend the work shop as a part of their leadership in their state or r egional a ssociations. Attendees were invited to participate in the online questionnaire between October and December 2006. The participants were assured of anonymity in the reporting and were treated in accordance with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association. Saville Consulting, Ltd., agreed to release a small subset of the collected data for the dissertation research in return for first right of viewing after defense. Analysis of Data Parametric statistical tests rely on two key and fundamental assumptions. First, these tests are based on the assumption that the frequency of the data are normally distributed for both the sample population and for the total population from whic h the sample is taken. Secondly, they rely on the assumption of equal variance between the test populations. When these parameters cannot be assumed, n onparametric statistical test s should be per formed to make statistically reliable inferences based on the test datasets. Non parametric tests are also well suited for analyses that are based on relative small sample and cell sizes. The researcher used both the Kolmogorov Smirnova and the ShapiroWilk tests to examine the normality of the construct data f or the total and test populations. These same tests were used to determine the degree of normality for these data in the sample populations as well.

PAGE 61

61 The first hypothesis w as analyzed by grouping those respondents in the sample who are identified as r egis trars from those in the sample identified as an other enrollment management/admissions professional and comparing them to one another with respect to the specific construct s of thought influence, adaptability and delivery in the WAVE instrument. A twowa y mixed measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) w as used between the means for the group of r egistrars and those from the group of enrollment management/admissions professionals using data from the executive summary, psychometric profile and expert reports. The second hypothesis w as analyzed by grouping those respondents in the sample who are identified as leaders from doctoral degree granting institutions from those in the sample identified as leaders from nondoctoral degree granting institutions and comparing them to one another with respect to the specific constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery, respectively, in the WAVE instrument. A twoway mixed measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) w as used between the means for the group from doctoral degree granting institutions and those from nondoctoral degree granting institutions using data from the executive summary, psychometric profile and expert reports. The third hypothesis w as analyzed by grouping those respondents in the sample who are identified as leaders from a large/medium sized institution from those in the sample identified as leaders from a small/moderate sized institution and comparing them to one another with respect to the specific constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery, respectively, in the WAVE instrument. A twoway mixed measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) w as used between the means for the group

PAGE 62

62 from the large/medium sized institutions and those from the small/moderate sized institutions using data from the executive summary, psychometric profile and expert reports. Lastly, the fourth hypothesis w as analyzed by grouping those respondents in the sample who are identified as females from those in the sample identified as males and comparing them to one another with respect to the specific constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery, respectively, in the WAVE instrument. A twoway mixed measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used between the means for the group of females and those from the group of males using data from the executive summary, psychometric profile and expert reports. Research Instrument The Saville Consulting Wave Professional Styles questionnaires use a validation centric development approach to maximize the validity of the instrument. This validation method determines the validity of the item among other criteria. The average validity of one Professional Styles scale in relationship to its work performance criterion is 0.39 and the composite validity of more than one Professional Styles scale across criteria is 0.46 (Saville Consulting Wave, 2006 ). Figure 31 shows the structure of the WAVE with four clusters, twelve sections and thirty six dimensions. This study focus ed on the four clusters in all c omparative data analysis. As displayed in Table 31 and as provided by the Saville Consulting Wave research, there are 36 dimensions of the Wave instrument. As displayed in Table 32, these dimensions have a combined score (ipsative and normative) of 0.86 in reliability with a minimum of 0.78 and a maximum of 0.93 (Saville Consulting Wave, 2006 ).

PAGE 63

63 Summary This chapter has provided an explanation of the research methodology used in the research study, including, the study population, the WAVE questi onnaire characteristics, the data collection and the methods of analyz ing the data. The next chapter will present the results of the research questions in examining the leadership attributes of registrar/enrollment managers throughout the United States.

PAGE 64

64 T able 3 1 Single d imension & c omp validities Saville Consulting WAVE Assessment, 2009 Criterion Single Dimension* Validity IA Single Dimension* Validity SA Cross Validated** Composite Validity IA Cross Validated** Composite Validity SA Generating Ideas .42 .44 .44 .41 Exploring Possibilities .21 .36 .44 .47 Developing Strategies .54 .56 .68 .68 Providing Insights NS .20 .42 .38 Implementing Practical Solutions NS NS .09 .29 Developing Expertise .19 .19 .35 .38 Analyzing Situations .26 .34 .30 .36 Documenting Facts .29 .27 .29 .27 Interpreting Data .46 .42 .44 .62 Making Decisions .48 .50 .64 .64 Leading People .68 .66 .70 .70 Providing Inspirations .62 .64 .64 .64 Convincing People .26 .26 .56 .60 Challenging Ideas .47 .49 .45 .47 Articulating Information .66 .60 .68 .68 Impressing People .32 .30 .56 .45 Developing Relationships .42 .50 .64 .66 Establishing Rapport .63 .57 .71 .67 Team Working .32 .32 .46 .40 Understanding People .35 .31 .47 .40 Valuing Individuals .34 .28 .46 .44 Resolving Conflict .38 .38 .48 .40 Conveying Self Confidence .40 .34 .66 .78 Coping with Pressure .36 .34 .32 .30 Inviting Feedback .26 .22 .40 .32 Thinking Positively .40 .38 .42 .48 Embracing Change .42 .48 .42 .34 Organizing Resources .32 .38 .22 .42 Upholding Standards .21 .21 .20 .16 Completing Tasks .26 .31 .34 .41 Taking Action .54 .56 .56 .54 Pursuing Goals .28 .42 .44 .46 Tackling Business Challenges .42 .38 .48 .45 Checking Details .39 .31 .24 .23 Meeting Timescales .45 .43 .41 .43 Following Procedures .26 .24 .44 .14 Key: SA = Supervised Access Form IA = Invited Access Form *Dimension validity is the correlation between a single Professional Styles scale dimension (weighted combination of ipsative and normative scores) with the matched work performance criterion. Total sample matched is N=556 658 (sample size varied due to no evidence option on criterion ratings). **Cross validated is the correlation of the composite regression equation from initial sample on hold out s ample based on a hold out sample of N=252 316. All validities are corrected for attenuation based on reliability of the criteria (based on 236 pairs of criterion ratings). No further corrections were applied (e.g. restriction of range, predictor unreliabi lity). The composite validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in relation to overall job proficiency is 0.34 and 0.42 (N=325). The composite validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in establishing external ratings of potential for promotion is 0.54 and 0.64 (N=324).

PAGE 65

65 Table 3 2. Reliability summary S aville Consulting WAVE Assessment, 2009 Professional Styles Dimension Alternate Form Normative Alternate Form Ipsative Alternate Form Combined Test Retest Normative 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 0.86 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 Alternate Form Normative, Ipsative and Combined (all based on N = 1153) Normative Test Re-Test reliability on Invited Access Normative N = 112.

PAGE 66

66 4 clusters 12 sections 36 dimensions 108 facets 4 Clusters Yields 12 sections : Thought ( vision, judgment, evaluation ) Influence ( leadership, impact, communication ) Adaptability ( support, resilience, flexibility ) Delivery ( structure, drive, implementation ) SAVILLE CONSULTING W AVE ASSESSMENT, 200 9 Figure 31 T heoretical structure of Saville WAVE Assessment, 2009 Figure 3 2 Cluster section chart

PAGE 67

67 Table 3 3 W AVE attribute links in other research Attribute Business/ Corporate Community College President College Chief Business Officer (CCBO) National Council for Continuing Education Trainers (NCCET) Other higher educati on admin. Student Affairs Officers Registrar/ enrollment manager Thought Vision (inventive, abstract, strategic) Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997) Berry (2008) Berry (2008) Tunks (2007) ODaniels (2009) Judgment (insightful, practically minded, learning oriented) Kachik (2003) Berry (2008) Kachik (2003) ODaniels (2009) Lovell & Kosten (2000) Evaluation (analytical, factual, rational) Kachik (2003 Campbell & Leverty (1997) Berry (2008) Kachik (2003) Tunks (2007) ODaniels (2009) Lovell & Kosten (2000) Saville (2007) Influence Leadership (purposeful, directing, empowering) Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997) Berry (2008) Tunks (2007) ODaniels (2009) Impact (convincing, challenging, articulate) Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997) Tunks (2007) ODaniels (2009) Lovell & Kosten (2000) Saville (2007)

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 3. Continued Attribute Business/ Corporate Community College President College Chief Business Officer (CCBO) National Council for Continuing Education Trainers (NCCET) Other higher education admin. Student Affairs Officers Registrar/ enrollment manager Adaptability Support (involving, attentive, accepting) Spillett (2006) Campbell & Leverty (1997) Tunks (2007) Lovell & Kosten (2000) Resilience (resolving, self assured, composed) Campbell & Leverty (1997) ODaniels (2009) Flexibility (receptive, positive, change oriented) Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997) Tunks (2007) ODaniels (2009) Delivery Structure (organized, principled, activity oriented) Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997) Berry (2008) Berry (2008) ODaniels (2009) Lovell & Kosten (2000) Saville (2007) Drive (dynamic, striving, enterprising) Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997) Berry (2008) Tunks (2007) ODaniels (2009) Saville (2007) Implementation (meticulous, reliable, compliant) Spillett (2006) Tunks (2007) Lovell & Kosten (2000)

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The primary purpose of this study was to determine if enrollment managers from differing institutions, holding different positions within enrollment management had common leadership attributes. All results of this study including analysis of variance and descriptive statistics will be described in this chapter. These findings answered the four research questions posed in Chapter 1 and contained the statistical analysis described in Chapter 3. This chapter presents the results of the research questions in examining the leadership attributes of registrar/enrollment managers throughout the United States. The results for each of the hypothesis will be shown in order. Chapter five will present a discussion of the findings and recommendations on how to further expand upon this research. Aggregate DataDescriptive Statistics The aggregate group the mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and test of normality (Kolmogorov Smirnova and ShapiroWilk) are presented in Table 41 and Table 42 The aggregate data appears to be distributed normally for all but the construct of adaptability with no large deviations for skewness or kurtosis. The data also suggests the respondents are overall slightly more positive in self ratings in the construct of thought (M=6.459, SD=1.251) than the constructs of i nfluence, d elivery and a daptability. The results of these tests for the total population are posted in Tables 4 1 and 4 2 suggest that the distribution is sufficiently normal for the constructs of i n fluence and d elivery, but are not sufficiently normal for the constructs of t hought and a daptability. Furthermore, the tests for normality indicate that the constructs are not sufficiently

PAGE 70

70 normal for all comparison groups as it relates to each construct ( see Figures 42 4 4 4 6 and 48 respectively). Based on the results of the normality tests, the researcher decided to employ both parametric and nonparametric statistical analysis. The parametric tests were used because of their relative statistical power; while, nonparametric tests provided a secondary level of analysis that allows the results to withstand the scrutiny of the highest standards of statistical practice. Table 41 Mean, standard deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis of the aggregate population Aggregate Data Mean SD Rank Skewness Kurtosis Thought 6.45 1.25 1 0.68 0.21 Influence 5.49 0.94 4 0.06 0.08 Delivery 5.86 0.98 2 0.30 0.33 Adaptability 5.80 1.08 3 1.07 1.10 Table 4 2 Kolmogorov Smirnova and ShapiroWilk : aggregate population Kolmogorov Smirnova Shapiro Wilk Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig. Thought .115 70 .023 .963 70 .038 Influence .069 70 .200 .988 70 .773 Delivery .082 70 .200 .984 70 .537 Adaptability .177 70 .000 .921 70 .000 Research Hypothesis One This hypothes is centered on the general research question of whether or not registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership

PAGE 71

71 a ttributes as other enrollment management professionals. The specific attributes considered are the cons tructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery1H01: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts. H1: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts. The dataset was divided into two sampl es, one containing those individuals who indicated their position as a registrar (n = 32) and those who indicated a position other than registrar (n = 38). A twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded a significant effect for the registrar subcategory i n the construct of influence, F(1, 68) = 4.539, p = .037<.05 significance level, such that respondents indicating they were not registrars was slightly higher in the construct of influence (M=5.71, SD=.868) than for registrars (M=5.24, SD=.979). The const ruct of thought, F(1, 68) = 2.535, p = .116, adaptability, F(1, 68) = .319, p= .574, and delivery, F(1,68) = 1.446, p= .233 were not significant between the registrar and nonregistrar respondents. Additionally, a nonparametric test of the hypothesis for each construct was run and indicated the same significance results with a significance factor of .027 for influence. The psychometric profiles cluster and section means are displayed graphically for both groups in Figure 41. The registrar group descri ptive data indicating the means and standard deviations for each where 0=nonregistar and 1=registrar can be found in Table 43 T he registrar group ANOVA data indicating the significance of the construct of influence can be found in Table 44 T he nonp arametric data for the registrar group is displayed in Figure 42 1 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Communication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 1 Psychometric profiles cluster and section means for both registrar and other enrollment manager line graph Table 4 3 Mean scores and standard deviations for the registrar and nonregistrar groups (0=nonregistrar; 1=registrar) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .00 38 6.24 1.24 .20 5.83 6.65 3.33 8.88 1.00 32 6.71 1.22 .21 6.27 7.15 3.00 8.44 Total 70 6.45 1.25 .14 6.16 6.75 3.00 8.88 Influence .00 38 5.71 .86 .14 5.42 5.99 3.11 7.66 1.00 32 5.24 .97 .17 4.89 5.59 3.22 7.55 Total 70 5.49 .94 .11 5.27 5.72 3.11 7.66 Adaptability .00 38 5.73 1.15 .18 5.35 6.11 2.33 7.66 1.00 32 5.88 1.01 .17 5.51 6.24 3.44 7.22 Total 70 5.80 1.08 .12 5.54 6.06 2.33 7.66 Delivery .00 38 5.99 .92 .158 5.67 6.31 3.88 7.77 1.00 32 5.70 .98 .17 5.35 6.06 3.44 7.33 Total 70 5.86 .98 .11 5.62 6.09 3.44 7.77 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Non Registrar

PAGE 73

73 Table 44 Summary ANOVA for the registrar and nonregistrar groups for each of the four constructs Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 3.880 1 3.880 2.535 .116 Within Groups 104.069 68 1.530 Total 107.949 69 Influence Between Groups 3.844 1 3.844 4.539 .037 Within Groups 57.582 68 .847 Total 61.426 69 Adaptability Between Groups .381 1 .381 .319 .574 Within Groups 81.197 68 1.194 Total 81.578 69 Delivery Between Groups 1.390 1 1.390 1.446 .233 Within Groups 65.386 68 .962 Total 66.776 69 Figure 42 Hypothesis test summary for registrar group

PAGE 74

74 Research Hypothesis Two This hypothesis centered on the general research question of whether or not enrollment managers at doctoral granting institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals at nondoctoral grant ing institutions. The specific attributes considered are the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery. 2H02: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at nondoctoral granting institutions. H2: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at nondoctoral granting institutions. The dataset was divided into two sam ples, one containing those individuals whose institution confers doctoral degrees (n = 43) and those whose institutions do not confer doctoral degrees (n = 25). A twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded a significant effect for the doctoral granting subcategory in the construct of thought, F(1, 66) = 7.477, p= .008<.05 significance, such that respondents indicating they were from doctoral granting institutions was significantly higher in the construct of thought (M=6.76, SD=1.11) than for those from nondoctoral granting institutions (M=5.93, SD=1.37). The constructs of influence, F(1, 66) = 1.626, p= .207, adaptability, F(1, 66) = .713, p=.401 and delivery, F(1,66) = .724, p=.398 did not show significance between the doctoral granting institution res pondents and nondoctoral granting respondents. 2 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Communication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

PAGE 75

75 Additionally, a nonparametric test of the hypothesis for each construct was run and indicat ed the same significance results with a significance factor of p= .016 for thought. The psychometric profiles clus ter and section means are displayed graphically for both groups in Figure 43. The doctoral granting group descriptive data indicating the means and standard deviations for each where 0=nondoctoral granting and 1=doctoral granting can be found in Table 45 the doctoral granting group ANOVA data indicating the significance of the construct of influence can be found in Table 46 The nonparametric data for the doctoral group is displayed in Figure 44 Figure 4 3 Psychometric profiles cluster and s ection means for both doctoral granting and nondoctoral granting institutions line graph 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 Doc Non

PAGE 76

76 Table 45 Mean scores and standard deviations for the doctoral and nondoctoral granting institution groups (0= n ond octoral g ranting; 1= d octoral g ranting) N Mean Std. Deviati on Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .00 25 5.92 1.37 .27 5.36 6.49 3.00 7.88 1.00 43 6.76 1.10 .16 6.42 7.10 4.44 8.88 Total 68 6.45 1.26 .15 6.14 6.76 3.00 8.88 Influence .00 25 5.29 .90 .18 4.92 5.66 3.22 7.00 1.00 43 5.60 .97 .14 5.30 5.90 3.11 7.66 Total 68 5.49 .95 .11 5.25 5.72 3.11 7.66 Adaptability .00 25 5.64 1.04 .20 5.21 6.08 2.33 7.00 1.00 43 5.88 1.13 .17 5.53 6.23 3.00 7.66 Total 68 5.79 1.10 .13 5.53 6.06 2.33 7.66 Delivery .00 25 6.02 1.11 .22 5.56 6.48 3.44 7.77 1.00 43 5.81 .89 .13 5.54 6.09 3.88 7.66 Total 68 5.89 .98 .11 5.65 6.13 3.44 7.77 Table 46 Summary ANOVA for the doctoral granting and nondoctoral granting groups for each of the four constructs Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 10.980 1 10.980 7.477 .008 Within Groups 96.925 66 1.469 Total 107.905 67 Influence Between Groups 1.464 1 1.464 1.626 .207 Within Groups 59.406 66 .900 Total 60.870 67 Adaptability Between Groups .872 1 .872 .713 .401 Within Groups 80.658 66 1.222 Total 81.529 67 Delivery Between Groups .698 1 .698 .724 .398 Within Groups 63.658 66 .965 Total 64.356 67

PAGE 77

77 Figure 44 Hypothesis test summary for doctoral granting group Research Hypothesis Three This hypothesis centered on the general research question of whether or not enrollment managers at large/medium sized (10,000 or more enrollments) institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management profes sionals at small/moderate sized (less than 10,000 enrollments)

PAGE 78

78 granting institutions. The specific attributes considered are the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery.3H03: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution. H3: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small /moderate sized institution. The dataset was divided into two samples, one containing those individuals whose institutions have yearly enrollments of 10,000 or more (n = 37) and those whose institutions have less than 10,000 yearly enrollments (n = 31). A two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded no significant effect for respondents in the institutional size subcategory in the constructs of thought, F(1,66) = 2.855, p =.096, influence, F(1, 66) = .281, p=.598, adaptability, F(1, 66) = .985, p=.325, or delivery, F(1,66) = 1.200, p=.277 between the respondents from institutions with small/medium enrollments of less than 10,000 and those at moderate/large institutions with enrollments of 10,000 or greater. Additionally, a nonparametric test of the hypothesis for each construct was run and indicated the similar significance results. The psychometric profiles cluster and section means are displayed graphically for both groups in Figure 45. The institution size group descriptive data indicating no signif icance in any construct can be found in Table 4 7 The institution size group ANOVA data can be found in Table 48 T he nonparametric data for the institution size is displayed in Figure 46 3 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Communication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 5 Psychometric profiles cluster and section means for institutions with enrollment of 10,000 or more and institutions with enrollments of less than 10,000 line graph Table 47 Mean scores and standard deviations by institutional size (0= l ess than 10,000 enrollments; 1=10,000 or more enrollments) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .0 0 31 6.17 1.21 .21 5.73 6.62 3.33 8.00 10.00 37 6.69 1.28 .21 6.26 7.11 3.00 8.88 Total 68 6.45 1.26 .15 6.14 6.76 3.00 8.88 Influence .00 31 5.42 .93 .16 5.07 5.76 3.11 7.22 10.00 37 5.54 .97 .16 5.22 5.87 3.22 7.66 Total 68 5.49 .95 .11 5.25 5.72 3.11 7.66 Adaptability .00 31 5.65 1.29 .23 5.17 6.12 2.33 7.66 10.00 37 5.91 .90 .14 5.61 6.22 3.44 7.22 Total 68 5.79 1.10 .13 5.53 6.06 2.33 7.66 Delivery .00 31 6.03 1.15 .20 5.61 6.45 3.44 7.77 10.00 37 5.77 .80 .13 5.50 6.04 4.11 7.33 Total 68 5.89 .98 .11 5.65 6.13 3.44 7.77 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7Thought Vision Judgment Evaluation Influence Leadership Impact Communication Adaptability Support Resilience Flexibility Delivery Structure Drive Implementation 10+ LT10

PAGE 80

80 Table 48 Summary ANOVA by institutional size for each of the four constructs Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 4.475 1 4.475 2.855 .096 Within Groups 103.430 66 1.567 Total 107.905 67 Influence Between Groups .258 1 .258 .281 .598 Within Groups 60.612 66 .918 Total 60.870 67 Adaptability Between Groups 1.199 1 1.199 .985 .325 Within Groups 80.331 66 1.217 Total 81.529 67 Delivery Between Groups 1.150 1 1.150 1.200 .277 Within Groups 63.207 66 .958 Total 64.356 67 Figure 46 Hypothesis test summary for institutional size group

PAGE 81

81 Research Hypothesis Four This hypothesis centered on the general research question of whether or not female enrollment managers at institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as male enrollment management professionals. The specific attributes considered are the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery.4H04: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and deli very than their male enrollment management counterparts. H4: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts. The dataset was divided into two samples, one containing the responses of the female respondents (n = 40) and one containing the responses of the male respondents (n = 30). A twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded no significant effect for respondents in the gender subcategory in the constructs of thought, F(1,68) = 1.023, p=.315, influence, F(1, 68) = .073, p=.788, adaptability, F(1, 68) = .812, p=.371, or delivery, F(1,68) = 2.626, p=.110, between the male and female respondents. The psychometric profiles cluster and section means are displayed graphically for both groups in Figure 47. Additionally, a nonparametric test of the hypothesis for each construct was run and indicated the similar significance results. The gender group descriptive dat a indicating no significance in any construct can be found in Table 49 T he gender group ANOVA data can be found in Table 410. The nonparametric data for the gender group is displayed in Figure 48 4 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Comm unication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

PAGE 82

82 Figure 47 Psychometric profiles cluster and section means for both females and males line graph Table 49 Mean scores and standard deviations by gender (0=m ale, 1= f emale) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .00 30 6.63 1.30 .23 6.14 7.11 3.55 8.88 1.00 40 6.32 1.21 .19 5.94 6.71 3.00 8.44 Total 70 6.45 1.25 .14 6.16 6.75 3.00 8.88 Influence .00 30 5.46 .90 .16 5.12 5.80 3.22 7.66 1.00 40 5.52 .98 .15 5.21 5.83 3.11 7.55 Total 70 5.49 .94 .11 5.27 5.72 3.11 7.66 Adaptability .00 30 5.93 1.03 .18 5.54 6.32 3.44 7.66 1.00 40 5.69 1.12 .17 5.34 6.05 2.33 7.22 Total 70 5.80 1.08 .12 5.54 6.06 2.33 7.66 Delivery .00 30 5.64 1.13 .20 5.22 6.06 3.44 7.77 1.00 40 6.02 .83 .13 5.75 6.29 4.11 7.55 Total 70 5.86 .98 .11 5.62 6.09 3.44 7.77 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5Thought Vision Judgment Evaluation Influence Leadership Impact Communication Adaptability Support Resilience Flexibility Delivery Structure Drive Implementation F M

PAGE 83

83 Table 410. Summary ANOVA by gender for each of the four constructs Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 1.601 1 1.601 1.023 .315 Within Groups 106.348 68 1.564 Total 107.949 69 Influence Between Groups .066 1 .066 .073 .788 Within Groups 61.360 68 .902 Total 61.426 69 Adaptability Between Groups .963 1 .963 .812 .371 Within Groups 80.614 68 1.186 Total 81.578 69 Delivery Between Groups 2.483 1 2.483 2.626 .110 Within Groups 64.294 68 .945 Total 66.776 69 Figure 48 Hypothesis test summary for gender group

PAGE 84

84 Summary In this chapter the results of this study including analysis of variance and descriptive statistics were presented. A summary of the hypotheses results can be found in Table 411. T he analyses needed to answer the research questions in Chapter 3 were also p resented. Chapter 5 will discuss these results in detail and use them to answer the proposed research questions.

PAGE 85

85 Table 4 11. Hypotheses Summary Hypothesis Description Result H1 Those leaders identified in registrar positions will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts. Differences in the construct of influence, F(1, 68) = 4.539, p = .037<.05 significance level Non -registrar enrollment mangers yielded higher scores H 2 Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at nondoctoral granting institutions. Differences in the construct of thought, F(1, 66) = 7.477, p= .008<.05 significance Enrollment managers at nondoctoral granting institutions yielder higher scores H 3 Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution. Fail to reject the null hypothesis H 4 Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts. Fail to reject the null hypothesis

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDAT IONS AND CONCLUSOIN This chapter presents additional analyses and conclusions based on the results from the previous chapter, while comparing the findings to literature. This chapter also presents recommendations for further research and implications for higher education. The purpose of this study was to compare leadership attributes of registrar/enrollment managers in the United States to determine if there were common attributes based on the type of institution, the size of institution, their position or their gender. Another purpose of this study was the further explore the research of leadership attributes and to provide a base framework for future studies of midlevel higher education administrators. Specifically, t his study provided some insight into the attributes most desired in quality candidates and addressed the following questions: 1) Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals? 2) Is there a significant relationship between size of institution and the leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions? 3) Is there a significant relationship between type of institution as defined by doctoral granting versus nondoctoral grant ing and leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions? 4) Is there a significant relationship between the leadership attributes for males versus females for individuals in enrollment management positions? The next four sections will focus on the findings from the previous chapter and answer each of these questions. These sections will resolve the research questions by comparing the leadership attributes of the population in respect to

PAGE 87

87 the constructs of thought, influence, adaptabili ty and delivery in respect to their position, institutional size, type of institution and gender. Summary of Results Research Question 1 Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enroll ment management professionals? The results indicate that enrollment managers, whether they are registrars or leaders from another area within enrollment management do not have differing leadership attributes. The construct of influence was the only cluster, of the four within the WAVE, that showed variability in the responses between those who indicated their position as registrar and those who were in other enrollment management roles. The influence cluster is further defined by the sections of leadership, impact and communication. There are also nine dimensions, three for each section, within the cluster of influence (Appendix A). When reviewing the data to the section and dimension levels, the section of communication was the only section of the three within the cluster of influence that showed significant. Additionally, all three of the dimensions within the section of communication indicated significance. Comparing the means f or the registrar and the nonregistrars within each of these dimensions shows that those that indicated they were not registrars ranked themselves higher in all three of the dimensions within the section of communication (s elf promoting, interaction and engaging dimensions )

PAGE 88

88 The results of the analysis of the data indicate that registrars and other enrollment managers do not differ in their leadership attributes However, those nonregistrar enrollment managers consider themselves to be better communicator s than their registrar colleagues. This finding is consistent with the findings of the previous research. The studies of nonprofit leaders, community college presidents, college chief business officers, student affairs officers and other higher education administrators all propose that communication is a key leadership attribute for the future leader ( Table 33 ). The leadership attribute of communication includes the skills of networking, establishing rapport and giving a good first impression (Appendix G). The CCL leadership study did not indicate communication, as defined in this study, as one of the top ten attributes needed for the future leader, but it is w ithin the top twenty ( Leslie, 2009). The finding is also consistent with the job description profiling of the new registrar/enrollment manager attributes defined in the job description developed in the FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling session with AACRAO in 2006. That session found that the new registrar must have strong logic and communicatio n skills (FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling session, 2006). Additionally, Kleinglass noted that the qualities of the senior student affairs officers include strong communication (Kleinglass, 2005). This further supports the concepts that student affairs administrators are typically promoted from within and that the current nonregistrar enrollment manager has the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position and will

PAGE 89

89 create the domino effect for leadership in their current role (Amey, 2002; Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2006 ). Research Question 2 Is there a significant relationship between type of institution, as defined by doctoral granting versus nondoctoral granting, and leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management pos itions? The results indicate that enrollment managers, whether they are from doctoral granting institutions or nondoctoral granting institutions tend to not differ in their leadership attributes. The construct of thought was the only cluster, of the four within the WAVE, that showed variability in the responses between those who indicated they worked at a doctoral degree granting institution and those whose institutions do not confer doctoral degrees. As described earlier and displayed in Appendix A, the cluster of thought has three sections (vision, judgment and evaluation) and each of these sections has three dimensions. Further examination of the results of the data indicate that respondents from doctoral granting institutions rated themselves higher in the section of evaluation and the dimensions of abstract (thought cluster/vision section), learning oriented (thought cluster/judgment section) and change oriented (adaptability cluster/flexibility section). The results of the analysis of this data indicate that individuals from doctoral granting institutions are problem solvers who enjoy thinking about and developing concepts, are motivated by learning new things, are strong communicators and enjoy new challenges. In comparing with other leaders spec ific to doctoral granting institutions, this is consistent with Mironacks 2003

PAGE 90

90 study of college union directors. His study found that these leaders were transformational leaders and exhibited behaviors of influence and motivation. The previous research of nonprofit leaders and corporate leaders support this finding as a key leadership attribute for the new leader (Spillett, 2006; Kachik, 2003; Leslie, 2009). Each of these studies indicates attributes within the thought cluster as critical for the future leader. Only the CCL study, however, also identifies the attribute of flexibility as a key future leader attribute (Leslie, 2009). Higher education and community college studies find importance in the leadership attributes of the thought cluster, even though the majority of respondents are from nondoctoral granting institutions (Campbell & Leverty, 1997; Kachik, 2003; Tunk, 2007; Berry, 2008, ODaniels, 2009). This further supports the idea that the leadership attribute is job specific within the organization and that individuals fulfilling different responsibilities will have a need for differing leadership attributes. Respondents from non doctoral granting institutions, in contrast, show stronger significance in the section of implementation(meticulous, reliable, compliant) and the dimensions of principled (delivery cluster/structure section) and compliant (delivery cluster/implementation section). All of these attributes are within the delivery cluster. This indicates that these individuals need structure and are pleased with following set requirements. These results are consistent with the WAVE scale in that they indicate that individuals scoring high on compliant are very likely to score low on change oriented (Saville, 2005). All previous studies displayed in Table 33 indicate structure as a key leadership

PAGE 91

91 attribute for the future leader. Compliant, however, is only supported by the research on the leadership attributes of nonprofit leaders, student affairs officers and other higher educati on administrators (Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Spillett, 2006; Tunks, 2007). This further supports the concept that leadership attributes are position driven. Nonprofit leaders and student affairs officers likely must comply to state policies, government regulations or funding provider limitations and a strong leader will understand the need for compliance. Overall, those respondents from the doctoral granting institutions are more change oriented while those from the nondoctoral granting institutions are m ore compliant. Research Question 3 Is there a significant relationship between size of institution and the leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions? The results indicate that enrollment managers, regardless of the size of institution in which they work do not differ in their leadership attributes. For each of the four clusters examined, there are three sections and three dimensions. When reviewing the data to the section and dimension levels none of the twelve sections sh owed significance. In the cluster of thought the three sections are vision, judgment and evaluation. In the section of evaluation there are three dimensions (analytical, factual and rational). Comparing the means for the small/medium institutions to the moderate/large institutions shows that those enrollment managers working at moderate/large institutions ranked themselves higher in the dimension of analytical. The results of the analysis of the data indicate that enrollment managers from different size institutions do not differ in their leadership attributes.

PAGE 92

92 Enrollment managers at moderate/large institutions consider themselves to be more analytical than those respondents from small/medium sized institutions. Analytical, for the purposes of this study, indicates an individual is a good problem solver, probing and effective at analyzing information. Previous studies of corporate leaders, college chief business officers, student affairs officers and other higher education administrators indicate that analytical is a key leadership attribute for the future leader (Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Kachik, 2003; Berry, 2008; ODaniel, 2009). The nonprofit leader of the future and the international leaders in the CCL study both indicate that analytical is not a key attribute for future leaders in their industry (Spillett, 2006; Leslie, 2009). These differing concepts regarding the attribute of analytical support the concept that leadership attributes are position specific and that organizations need to define the attributes for each position in order to effectively identify the best candidate. Research Question 4 Is there a significant relationship between the leadership attributes for males versus females for individuals in enrollment management positions? The res ults indicate that enrollment managers, whether they are male or female do not differ in their leadership attributes. There were no significant differences between the leadership attributes of males or females in any of the four constructs. When reviewin g the data to the section and dimension levels, the section of structure was the only one that showed significant with a p=.007. The dimension of activity oriented (delivery cluster/drive section) also showed significant with a p=.009 indicating that females tend to rank themselves higher in this category. Structure, for the purposes of this study, the leader exhibiting this

PAGE 93

93 attribute is organized, principled and activity oriented. The results of the analysis of the data indicate that female respondents t end to find importance in planning, work at a fast pace, cope well with multi tasking and like to follow set procedures at higher levels than their male counterparts. These factors are comparable to Kachiks 2003 study in the aspect of detail conscious. That study found that female administrators are more detail conscious and precise than male administrators. A direct conclusion that females are more detail conscious cannot be drawn, however, without further examination of the differences in the populations. The Kachik study compared community college administrators with corporate leaders. Further examination of the data revealed that the dimension of rational (thought cluster/evaluation section) showed significant with a p=.021. This finding indicat es that the male respondents tend to rank themselves higher in this category For the purposes of this study, rational refers to number fluency, technology aware and objective. The data also shows that the male respondents tend to see problems solving as one of their strengths, are comfortable working with numerical data and are highly competitive at higher levels than their female counterparts. This is particularly important for the future role of the registrar. The leadership attributes defined by AACRAO at the FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling session in 2006 listed numeric reasoning and complex decision making as two of the desired attributes for future registrar/enrollment managers (FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling, 2006). Overall, t his data shows t hat

PAGE 94

94 enrollment managers tend to not have differing leadership attributes r egardless of their gender. Recommendations for Further Study As the literature reviewed demonstrated, leadership styles can be defined ( Bennis, 19 8 9; Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Kachik, 2003; ODaniels, 2009) learned ( Tunks, 2007), and the WAVE instrument is a valid instrum ent in building job profiles and informing the development of a structured candidate selection process ( Basham, 2007; Berry, 2008). T here is little research, however, on the specific leadership attributes of enrollment managers and, even less with specific focus on registrars. This study built upon to the leadership research from other positions and has added some focus to the area of enrollment management The American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) worked with the FuturesLeaders ATG Group in 2006 to develop a new job description for registrars. The first important component of this job description was to rename the position to d ean/ d irector of e nrollment and r egistrar. The key factors in making this distinction was that the position now requires more strategic planning and decision making (Campbell, 2006). Given this information and the fact that enrollment managers tend to not differ in their leadership attributes, with a few exceptions, further examination of the data could help to confirm the attributes described by AACRAO and better define the specific attributes that make an effective registrar. F urther examination could also assist in the creation of training programs specifically suited for enrollment managers.

PAGE 95

95 Another area where this study could be expanded is in the idea of succession planning and its link to the economy Economy has had an impact on the speed in which predicted retirements have occurred (Jackson, 2010). Studies have been reporting on the looming leadership gap since early 2000 and yet the workforce is still aging and nearing retirement (Jackson, 2010) In higher education, the turnover rate has progressed slower than originally projected as well. The economy may be the factor that has slowed retirements. Ameys study (2002) indicated that student affairs officers tended to remain at the same institution longer and tended to be promoted from within the same institution. The review of labor statistics found that, despit e the aging workforce, the percentage of the workforce forty five years of age or older has increased by 4% between 2006 and 2010. Many attribute this to the economy and the need for individuals to remain employed, but how is this change impacting succession planning? Further research as to how the economy impacts succession planning and the continued funding of leadership development programs should be reviewed. As indicated by Rothwell in 2010, succession planning is also an evolving process and must be reviewed (Rothwell, 2010). Review of the labor statistics highlights the growing His panic population, as well as the declining white population. These changes, combined with the demographic changes noted earlier lead to the question of cultural awareness requirements for the new registrar/enrollment manager. Further research on the cult ural awareness necessary for the new leader and how the generational

PAGE 96

96 differences impact the definition of culture will provide a great framework for identifying new leadership attributes. Doctoral granting institutions versus nondoctoral granting institut ions were a part of this study and the leadership attributes of leaders within each of these types of institutions should be further examined. Further research is needed to determine if the organizational structure of enrollment management differs between doctoral granting and nondoctoral granting institutions and if this impacts the differences noted in the leadership attributes. Further research could also examine if the culture at these differing types of institutions contributes to the differences in leadership attributes. Research also indicated that the chief academic officers are the highest percentage of positions that progress towards the presidency and the attrition of these leaders is low at an average of only 4.7 years on the job (Mann, 2010) If knowledge transfer is the key to the next phases of succession planning, then an administrator willing to remain with an organization may be more appealing (Rothwell, 2010). As indicated earlier, Ameys study (2002) indicated that student affairs of ficers tended to remain at the same institution longer and tended to be promoted from within the same institution. Further examination of the subset of senior student affairs officers who later become presidents and of what type of institution they were promoted from (doctoral versus nondoctoral) and what their institutions organizational structure was (enrollment management within academic affairs or student affairs) could help to colleges prepare stronger career paths for enrollment management professionals. Furthermore, the

PAGE 97

97 comparison and regression analysis of enrollment manager leadership data with other leadership groups within higher education could be segmented by institution type, size, location and other factors that may draw more conclusive lin ks between where the enrollment managers of today need to grow in their leadership skills in order to remain competitive for the role of president Implications for Higher Education Administrators The data collected will help to establish baseline information on leadership attributes of individuals working in admission, registrar and enrollment management positions. The data can be subcategorized by type of institution, size of institution and position level and compared to other position groups so that position related trainings specific to small community colleges, large universities, mid level admissions staff and other targeted groups could be developed. Higher education administrators will need to understand the vital role enrollment managers will c ontinue to play in the daily operations of each institution and will need to help prepare for the vacancies that are looming. The new enrollment manager is technically adept and understands the technological abilities of the incoming freshmen. In addition to strong leadership and communication skills, the new registrar/enrollment managers should be connected to all aspects of college administration with an understanding of operations, finance, student relations, technology and academics. Conclusion Corp orate and higher education leaders must be prepared to adapt to the changing workforce and the address the leadership skills gaps that exist.

PAGE 98

98 Identifying the leadership attributes necessary for each position within an organization will be important as organizations struggle to meet the demand of a dwindling trained leadership base. One purpose of this report was to identify the leadership attributes for enrollment managers in higher education institutions and to help build a basis for future research on t he development of a leadership training program. This study built upon previous research to draw stronger conclusions regarding the leadership attributes of enrollment managers. The study found that enrollment management leaders who do not hold the positi on of registrar exhibited stronger communication skills and ability to impact decision making than their registrar colleagues while enrollment management leaders from doctoral granting institutions exhibited more vision than their counterparts from nondoctoral granting institutions T hese factors are small in comparison to the full array of leadership attributes reviewed. Registrar/enrollment managers, overall, do not differ in their leadership attributes. The findings support the leadership attributes identified by AACRAO as necessary job qualities for the future enrollment manager/registrar. Further research should be conducted to determine the need for leadership development within the area of enrollment management. Senior student affairs officer positions are typically filled from within the institution and the current nonregistrar enrollment manager, having the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position, may likely be promoted to this position and will create the domino eff ect for leadership in their current role (Amey, 2002; Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2006 ).

PAGE 99

99 Results from this research study provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes of midlevel higher education administrators and can be used to support leadership selection and development initiatives for future enrollment managers as the domino effect from turnover begins to unravel. Discovering what leadership attributes are needed to be successful will assist in determining the best candidate.

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX A CLUSTER DESCRIPTIONS Recall from Figure 31 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 facets per dimension yielding a total of 12 sections, 36 dimensions and 108 facets. Thought Cluster The thought cluster (see Figure A 1) is composed of vision, judgment, and evaluation sections and inventive, abstract, strategic, insightful, practically minded, learning oriented, analytical, factual, and rational dimensions. Cluster Section Dimension Facets 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 Learni ng 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

PAGE 101

101 Influence Cluster The influence cluster (see Figure A 2) is composed of leadership, impact, and communication sections and purposeful, directing, empowering, convincing, challenging, articulate, self promoting, interactive, and engaging dimensions. Cluster Section Dimension Facets Purposeful Decisive, making d ecisions 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 cluster, sections, and dimensions

PAGE 102

102 Adaptability Cluster The adaptability cluster (see Figure A 3) is composed of support, resilience, and flexibility sections and involving, attentive, accepting, resolving, self assured, composed, receptive, positive, and change oriented dimensions. Cluster Section Dimension Facets Involving Team oriented, democratic, decision sharing Support Attentive Empathic, listening, psychologically minded Accepting Trusting, tolerant,c onsiderate 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 cluster, sections, and dimensions

PAGE 103

103 Delivery Cluster The delivery cluster (see Figure A 4) is composed of structur e, drive and implementation sections and organized, principled, activity oriented, dynamic, striving, enterprising, meticulous, reliable, and compliant 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 cluster, sections, and dimensions

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX B DATA FOR THE REGISTRAR SUBCATEGORY 1 Registrar; 0 Non Registrar N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .00 38 6.242690079 1.2474479016 .2023627714 5.832664157 6.652716001 3.3333333 8.8888890 1.00 32 6.715277769 1.2246432636 .2164883891 6.273746788 7.156808749 3.0000000 8.4444450 Total 70 6.458730166 1.2507891790 .1494979011 6.160490013 6.756970318 3.0000000 8.8888890 Visi on .00 38 6.008771926 1.8510395320 .3002782635 5.400350372 6.617193481 1.6666666 9.3333330 1.00 32 6.812500006 1.3005030935 .2298986391 6.343618640 7.281381372 3.6666667 8.6666670 Tot al 70 6.376190477 1.6612679990 .1985595040 5.980075105 6.772305849 1.6666666 9.3333330 Inventive .00 38 5.658 2.2212 .3603 4.928 6.388 2.0 10.0 1.0 0 32 6.250 1.5658 .2768 5.685 6.815 4.0 9.0 Total 70 5.929 1.9584 .2341 5.462 6.396 2.0 10.0 Abst ract .00 38 5.763 2.2110 .3587 5.036 6.490 1.0 10.0 1.00 32 7.125 1.8622 .3292 6.454 7.796 3.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.386 2.1555 .2576 5.872 6.900 1.0 10.0 Stra tegic .00 38 6.605 2.1877 .3549 5.886 7.324 1.0 10.0 1.00 32 7.063 1.8826 .3328 6.384 7.741 3.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.814 2.0522 .2453 6.325 7.304 1.0 10.0 Judgment .00 38 6.377192974 1.1654976005 .1890686771 5.994103445 6.760282502 3.3333333 8.0000000 1.0 0 32 6.583333309 1.3333333014 .2357022548 6.102615391 7.064051227 3.6666667 9.0000000 Total 70 6.471428556 1.2400883527 .1482189077 6.175739925 6.767117186 3.3333333 9.0000000 Insi ghtful .00 38 6.421 1.8691 .3032 5.807 7.035 3.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.813 1.7309 .3060 6.188 7.437 3.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.600 1.8050 .2157 6.170 7.030 3.0 10.0

PAGE 105

105 Practically minded .00 38 6.211 1.7730 .2876 5.628 6.793 2.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.063 1.9166 .3388 5.371 6.754 3.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.143 1.8280 .2185 5.707 6.579 2.0 10.0 Learning oriented .00 38 6.500 1.8270 .2964 5.899 7.101 3.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.875 2.1365 .3777 6.105 7.645 1.0 10.0 Total 70 6.671 1.9688 .2353 6.202 7.141 1.0 10.0 Eval uation .00 38 6.342105211 1.5663250861 .2540914814 5.827266966 6.856943455 3.0000000 9.3333330 1.00 32 6.749999994 1.6805870801 .2970886302 6.144083738 7.355916250 1.6666666 9.6666670 Tot al 70 6.528571397 1.6206128531 .1937002847 6.142149902 6.914992892 1.6666666 9.6666670 Analytical .00 38 6.421 1.8691 .3032 5.807 7.035 2.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.969 1.9258 .3404 6.274 7.663 1.0 10.0 Total 70 6.671 1.9013 .2273 6.218 7.125 1.0 10.0 Fact ual .00 38 6.737 1.7962 .2914 6.146 7.327 3.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.813 2.0389 .3604 6.077 7.548 2.0 10.0 Total 70 6.771 1.8971 .2268 6.319 7.224 2.0 10.0 Rati onal .00 38 5.868 1.9888 .3226 5.215 6.522 2.0 9.0 1.00 32 6.469 1.9341 .3419 5.771 7.166 2.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.143 1.9729 .2358 5.672 6.613 2.0 10.0 Influence .00 38 5.713450289 .8678560633 .1407848439 5.428193100 5.998707479 3.1111112 7.6666665 1.00 32 5.243055537 .9790466561 .1730726324 4.890071577 5.596039498 3.2222223 7.5555553 Total 70 5.498412689 .9435190348 .1127720944 5.273438516 5.723386861 3.1111112 7.6666665 Leadership .00 38 6.052631532 1.4633178403 .2373814996 5.571650926 6.533612137 3.0000000 9.3333330 1.00 32 6.145833334 1.2866490774 .2274495719 5.681946874 6.609719795 3.3333333 8.3333330 Total 70 6.095238070 1.3762920480 .1644983631 5.767072815 6.423403325 3.0000000 9.3333330 Purp oseful .00 38 5.711 2.1423 .3475 5.006 6.415 1.0 9.0 1.00 32 5.750 2.0791 .3675 5.000 6.500 1.0 10.0 Tot al 70 5.729 2.0985 .2508 5.228 6.229 1.0 10.0

PAGE 106

106 Directing .00 38 6.263 1.9821 .3215 5.612 6.915 1.0 9.0 1.00 32 6.500 1.2700 .2245 6.042 6.958 4.0 9.0 Total 70 6.371 1.6869 .2016 5.969 6.774 1.0 9.0 Empo wering .00 38 6.184 1.9708 .3197 5.536 6.832 3.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.188 1.6152 .2855 5.605 6.770 2.0 9.0 Tot al 70 6.186 1.8041 .2156 5.756 6.616 2.0 10.0 Impact .00 38 5.552631571 1.0347601457 .1678602614 5.212514375 5.892748767 2.6666667 7.6666665 1.00 32 5.125000003 1.2999862185 .2298072676 4.656304991 5.593695016 2.6666667 8.0000000 Tot al 70 5.357142854 1.1745029011 .1403799469 5.077092523 5.637193186 2.6666667 8.0000000 Convincing .00 38 4.921 1.6665 .2703 4.373 5.469 2.0 8.0 1.00 32 4.469 1.7036 .3012 3.855 5.083 1.0 8.0 Total 70 4.714 1.6866 .2016 4.312 5.116 1.0 8.0 Chal lenging .00 38 5.105 1.8276 .2965 4.505 5.706 2.0 9.0 1.00 32 4.375 1.7735 .3135 3.736 5.014 2.0 9.0 Tot al 70 4.771 1.8271 .2184 4.336 5.207 2.0 9.0 Articulate .00 38 6.632 1.8515 .3004 6.023 7.240 2.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.531 1.7410 .3078 5.904 7.159 1.0 10.0 Total 70 6.586 1.7896 .2139 6.159 7.012 1.0 10.0 Comm unication .00 38 5.535087695 1.2143770085 .1969979641 5.135931905 5.934243485 3.0000000 8.3333330 1.00 32 4.458333325 1.3326611445 .2355834331 3.977857745 4.938808905 1.0000000 7.3333335 Total 70 5.042857126 1.3713439801 .1639069558 4.715871696 5.369842556 1.0000000 8.3333330 Self promoting .00 38 5.026 1.9100 .3098 4.399 5.654 2.0 10.0 1.00 32 4.156 1.6086 .2844 3.576 4.736 1.0 8.0 Tot al 70 4.629 1.8192 .2174 4.195 5.062 1.0 10.0 Interactive .00 38 6.237 1.6347 .2652 5.700 6.774 2.0 9.0 1.00 32 4.813 1.6932 .2993 4.202 5.423 1.0 9.0 Total 70 5.586 1.7977 .2149 5.157 6.014 1.0 9.0

PAGE 107

107 Enga ging .00 38 5.342 1.5117 .2452 4.845 5.839 2.0 9.0 1.00 32 4.406 1.9321 .3415 3.710 5.103 1.0 8.0 Tot al 70 4.914 1.7672 .2112 4.493 5.336 1.0 9.0 Adaptability .00 38 5.733918126 1.1525427167 .1869671174 5.355086762 6.112749490 2.3333333 7.6666665 1.00 32 5.881944419 1.0167601380 .1797394971 5.515363298 6.248525540 3.4444444 7.2222223 Tot al 70 5.801587289 1.0873288632 .1299606565 5.542322873 6.060851704 2.3333333 7.6666665 Support .00 38 5.754385953 1.7530482845 .2843819840 5.178173320 6.330598585 2.0000000 9.0000000 1.00 32 6.041666625 1.5969280036 .2822996551 5.465912682 6.617420568 2.6666667 8.3333330 Total 70 5.885714260 1.6776312423 .2005152857 5.485697210 6.285731310 2.0000000 9.0000000 Involving .00 38 5.895 2.3572 .3824 5.120 6.670 1.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.156 2.2734 .4019 5.337 6.976 2.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.014 2.3062 .2756 5.464 6.564 1.0 10.0 Attentive .00 38 5.237 2.1864 .3547 4.518 5.955 1.0 10.0 1.00 32 5.375 2.0280 .3585 4.644 6.106 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.300 2.1014 .2512 4.799 5.801 1.0 10.0 Accepting .00 38 6.132 1.8035 .2926 5.539 6.724 3.0 9.0 1.00 32 6.594 1.5629 .2763 6.030 7.157 3.0 9.0 Total 70 6.343 1.7015 .2034 5.937 6.749 3.0 9.0 Resi lience .00 38 5.754385947 1.1719550744 .1901162177 5.369173900 6.139597995 2.3333333 7.6666665 1.00 32 5.812500025 .9310937094 .1645956690 5.476804945 6.148195105 3.3333333 7.0000000 Tot al 70 5.780952383 1.0615300669 .1268771106 5.527839473 6.034065293 2.3333333 7.6666665 Resolving .00 38 5.447 1.8556 .3010 4.837 6.057 2.0 10.0 1.00 32 5.313 2.0547 .3632 4.572 6.053 1.0 10.0 Total 70 5.386 1.9359 .2314 4.924 5.847 1.0 10.0 Self -assured .00 38 5.947 1.8151 .2944 5.351 6.544 2.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.313 1.6740 .2959 5.709 6.916 3.0 9.0 Total 70 6.114 1.7491 .2091 5.697 6.531 2.0 10.0

PAGE 108

108 Comp osed .00 38 5.868 1.6953 .2750 5.311 6.426 1.0 9.0 1.00 32 5.813 1.4906 .2635 5.275 6.350 3.0 8.0 Tot al 70 5.843 1.5938 .1905 5.463 6.223 1.0 9.0 Flexibility .00 38 5.692982463 1.3542981970 .2196961782 5.247835723 6.138129203 1.3333334 7.6666665 1.00 32 5.791666631 1.4731770887 .2604233773 5.260529651 6.322803611 2.6666667 8.3333330 Total 70 5.738095226 1.4003597830 .1673750076 5.404191222 6.071999230 1.3333334 8.3333330 Rece ptive .00 38 5.553 1.9270 .3126 4.919 6.186 1.0 10.0 1.00 32 5.219 2.0278 .3585 4.488 5.950 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.400 1.9664 .2350 4.931 5.869 1.0 10.0 Posi tive .00 38 5.658 1.6810 .2727 5.105 6.210 2.0 8.0 1.00 32 5.656 1.8597 .3288 4.986 6.327 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.657 1.7519 .2094 5.239 6.075 1.0 9.0 Change Oriented .00 38 5.868 1.9888 .3226 5.215 6.522 1.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.500 2.0791 .3675 5.750 7.250 1.0 10.0 Total 70 6.157 2.0404 .2439 5.671 6.644 1.0 10.0 Delivery .00 38 5.991228047 .9749554962 .1581586661 5.670768150 6.311687945 3.8888888 7.7777777 1.00 32 5.708333363 .9872746849 .1745271561 5.352382881 6.064283844 3.4444444 7.3333335 Tot al 70 5.861904763 .9837534567 .1175810276 5.627337031 6.096472495 3.4444444 7.7777777 Structure .00 38 6.236842111 1.2942652642 .2099575505 5.811427704 6.662256517 3.6666667 8.6666670 1.00 32 6.260416638 1.3486602278 .2384116981 5.774172773 6.746660502 2.6666667 8.0000000 Tot al 70 6.247619037 1.3097992228 .1565509504 5.935308437 6.559929638 2.6666667 8.6666670 Organized .00 38 6.105 1.8569 .3012 5.495 6.716 2.0 10.0 1.00 32 6.156 1.9026 .3363 5.470 6.842 1.0 9.0 Total 70 6.129 1.8644 .2228 5.684 6.573 1.0 10.0 Prin cipled .00 38 6.342 1.6154 .2621 5.811 6.873 3.0 9.0 1.00 32 6.813 1.5332 .2710 6.260 7.365 3.0 9.0 Tot al 70 6.557 1.5847 .1894 6.179 6.935 3.0 9.0

PAGE 109

109 Activity Oriented .00 38 6.263 1.7810 .2889 5.678 6.849 1.0 9.0 1.00 32 5.813 1.6932 .2993 5.202 6.423 1.0 8.0 Total 70 6.057 1.7436 .2084 5.641 6.473 1.0 9.0 Driv e .00 38 6.026315779 1.5253248774 .2474403693 5.524953968 6.527677590 3.6666667 9.0000000 1.00 32 5.354166678 1.1971815217 .2116337931 4.922536711 5.785796645 2.6666667 8.3333330 Tot al 70 5.719047619 1.4160748131 .1692533130 5.381396498 6.056698739 2.6666667 9.0000000 Dyna mic .00 38 6.526 1.9692 .3194 5.879 7.174 3.0 10.0 1.00 32 5.688 1.9250 .3403 4.993 6.382 2.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.143 1.9802 .2367 5.671 6.615 2.0 10.0 Striving .00 38 6.500 1.7359 .2816 5.929 7.071 3.0 9.0 1.00 32 6.438 1.5850 .2802 5.866 7.009 3.0 9.0 Total 70 6.471 1.6570 .1980 6.076 6.867 3.0 9.0 Enterprising .00 38 5.053 1.7850 .2896 4.466 5.639 2.0 9.0 1.00 32 3.938 1.4128 .2497 3.428 4.447 1.0 6.0 Tot al 70 4.543 1.7083 .2042 4.136 4.950 1.0 9.0 Impl ementation .00 38 5.710526318 1.5347253057 .2489653201 5.206074663 6.214977974 3.0000000 8.6666670 1.00 32 5.510416684 1.5356792972 .2714723112 4.956745255 6.064088113 2.3333333 8.3333330 Tot al 70 5.619047629 1.5272993236 .1825471847 5.254875960 5.983219298 2.3333333 8.6666670 Meticulous .00 38 5.553 1.7351 .2815 4.982 6.123 2.0 8.0 1.00 32 5.625 1.8622 .3292 4.954 6.296 2.0 9.0 Total 70 5.586 1.7815 .2129 5.161 6.010 2.0 9.0 Reli able .00 38 5.474 2.1275 .3451 4.774 6.173 2.0 9.0 1.00 32 5.313 2.3478 .4150 4.466 6.159 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.400 2.2159 .2648 4.872 5.928 1.0 9.0 Compliant .00 38 6.105 1.8127 .2941 5.509 6.701 2.0 9.0 1.0 0 32 5.594 1.6822 .2974 4.987 6.200 2.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.871 1.7604 .2104 5.452 6.291 2.0 9.0

PAGE 110

110 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 3.880 1 3.880 2.535 .116 Within Groups 104.069 68 1.530 Total 107.949 69 Vision Between Groups 11.222 1 11.222 4.258 .043 Within Groups 179.205 68 2.635 Total 190.427 69 Inventive Between Groups 6.090 1 6.090 1.602 .210 Within Groups 258.553 68 3.802 Total 264.643 69 Abstract Between Groups 32.217 1 32.217 7.597 .007 Within Groups 288.368 68 4.241 Total 320.586 69 Strategic Between Groups 3.632 1 3.632 .861 .357 Within Groups 286.954 68 4.220 Total 290.586 69 Judgment Between Groups .738 1 .738 .476 .492 Within Groups 105.371 68 1.550 Total 106.110 69 Insightful Between Groups 2.662 1 2.662 .815 .370 Within Groups 222.138 68 3.267 Total 224.800 69 Practically minded Between Groups .381 1 .381 .112 .738 Within Groups 230.191 68 3.385 Total 230.571 69

PAGE 111

111 Learning oriented Between Groups 2.443 1 2.443 .627 .431 Within Groups 265.000 68 3.897 Total 267.443 69 Evaluation Between Groups 2.890 1 2.890 1.102 .298 Within Groups 178.330 68 2.623 Total 181.221 69 Analytical Between Groups 5.211 1 5.211 1.451 .233 Within Groups 244.232 68 3.592 Total 249.443 69 Factual Between Groups .099 1 .099 .027 .869 Within Groups 248.243 68 3.651 Total 248.343 69 Rational Between Groups 6.261 1 6.261 1.623 .207 Within Groups 262.311 68 3.858 Total 268.571 69 Influence Between Groups 3.844 1 3.844 4.539 .037 Within Groups 57.582 68 .847 Total 61.426 69 Leadership Between Groups .151 1 .151 .079 .780 Within Groups 130.548 68 1.920 Total 130.698 69 Purposeful Between Groups .027 1 .027 .006 .938 Within Groups 303.816 68 4.468 Total 303.843 69 Directing Between Groups .974 1 .974 .339 .562 Within Groups 195.368 68 2.873 Total 196.343 69

PAGE 112

112 Empowering Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .994 Within Groups 224.586 68 3.303 Total 224.586 69 Impact Between Groups 3.177 1 3.177 2.348 .130 Within Groups 92.006 68 1.353 Total 95.183 69 Convincing Between Groups 3.554 1 3.554 1.254 .267 Within Groups 192.732 68 2.834 Total 196.286 69 Challenging Between Groups 9.264 1 9.264 2.849 .096 Within Groups 221.079 68 3.251 Total 230.343 69 Articulate Between Groups .175 1 .175 .054 .817 Within Groups 220.811 68 3.247 Total 220.986 69 Communication Between Groups 20.140 1 20.140 12.494 .001 Within Groups 109.620 68 1.612 Total 129.760 69 Self promoting Between Groups 13.150 1 13.150 4.155 .045 Within Groups 215.192 68 3.165 Total 228.343 69 Interactive Between Groups 35.242 1 35.242 12.765 .001 Within Groups 187.743 68 2.761 Total 222.986 69 Engaging Between Groups 15.214 1 15.214 5.166 .026 Within Groups 200.271 68 2.945 Total 215.486 69

PAGE 113

113 Adaptability Between Groups .381 1 .381 .319 .574 Within Groups 81.197 68 1.194 Total 81.578 69 Support Between Groups 1.434 1 1.434 .506 .479 Within Groups 192.763 68 2.835 Total 194.197 69 Involving Between Groups 1.188 1 1.188 .221 .640 Within Groups 365.798 68 5.379 Total 366.986 69 Attentive Between Groups .332 1 .332 .074 .786 Within Groups 304.368 68 4.476 Total 304.700 69 Accepting Between Groups 3.711 1 3.711 1.287 .261 Within Groups 196.061 68 2.883 Total 199.771 69 Resilience Between Groups .059 1 .059 .051 .821 Within Groups 77.694 68 1.143 Total 77.752 69 Resolving Between Groups .316 1 .316 .083 .774 Within Groups 258.270 68 3.798 Total 258.586 69 Self -assured Between Groups 2.316 1 2.316 .754 .388 Within Groups 208.770 68 3.070 Total 211.086 69 Composed Between Groups .054 1 .054 .021 .885 Within Groups 175.217 68 2.577 Total 175.271 69

PAGE 114

114 Flexibility Between Groups .169 1 .169 .085 .771 Within Groups 135.140 68 1.987 Total 135.310 69 Receptive Between Groups 1.937 1 1.937 .497 .483 Within Groups 264.863 68 3.895 Total 266.800 69 Positive Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .997 Within Groups 211.771 68 3.114 Total 211.771 69 Change Oriented Between Groups 6.929 1 6.929 1.681 .199 Within Groups 280.342 68 4.123 Total 287.271 69 Delivery Between Groups 1.390 1 1.390 1.446 .233 Within Groups 65.386 68 .962 Total 66.776 69 Structure Between Groups .010 1 .010 .006 .941 Within Groups 118.365 68 1.741 Total 118.375 69 Organized Between Groups .045 1 .045 .013 .910 Within Groups 239.798 68 3.526 Total 239.843 69 Principled Between Groups 3.844 1 3.844 1.543 .218 Within Groups 169.428 68 2.492 Total 173.271 69 Activity Oriented Between Groups 3.528 1 3.528 1.163 .285 Within Groups 206.243 68 3.033 Total 209.771 69

PAGE 115

115 Drive Between Groups 7.848 1 7.848 4.089 .047 Within Groups 130.515 68 1.919 Total 138.363 69 Dynamic Between Groups 12.223 1 12.223 3.217 .077 Within Groups 258.349 68 3.799 Total 270.571 69 Striving Between Groups .068 1 .068 .024 .876 Within Groups 189.375 68 2.785 Total 189.443 69 Enterprising Between Groups 21.602 1 21.602 8.171 .006 Within Groups 179.770 68 2.644 Total 201.371 69 Implementation Between Groups .696 1 .696 .295 .589 Within Groups 160.257 68 2.357 Total 160.952 69 Meticulous Between Groups .091 1 .091 .028 .867 Within Groups 218.895 68 3.219 Total 218.986 69 Reliable Between Groups .451 1 .451 .091 .764 Within Groups 338.349 68 4.976 Total 338.800 69 Compliant Between Groups 4.545 1 4.545 1.477 .228 Within Groups 209.298 68 3.078 Total 213.843 69

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX C DATA FOR THE DOCTORAL GRANTING SUBCATEGORY 0 = Non Doctoral Granting; 1=Doctoral Granting N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .00 25 5.928888892 1.3732002789 .2746400558 5.362059676 6.495718108 3.0000000 7.8888890 1.00 43 6.762273909 1.1091467726 .1691432971 6.420928916 7.103618902 4.4444447 8.8888890 Total 68 6.455882359 1.2690617246 .1538963393 6.148703980 6.763060738 3.0000000 8.8888890 Visi on .00 25 5.866666728 1.6969471904 .3393894381 5.166201355 6.567132101 1.6666666 8.6666670 1.00 43 6.682170516 1.6199050908 .2470332104 6.183637314 7.180703718 3.6666667 9.3333330 Tot al 68 6.382352947 1.6832653110 .2041259022 5.974915941 6.789789953 1.6666666 9.3333330 Inventive .00 25 5.680 1.8868 .3774 4.901 6.459 2.0 9.0 1.0 0 43 6.093 1.9738 .3010 5.486 6.700 3.0 10.0 Total 68 5.941 1.9385 .2351 5.472 6.410 2.0 10.0 Abst ract .00 25 5.640 2.0992 .4198 4.773 6.507 1.0 10.0 1.00 43 6.791 2.1332 .3253 6.134 7.447 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.368 2.1779 .2641 5.840 6.895 1.0 10.0 Stra tegic .00 25 6.280 2.2642 .4528 5.345 7.215 1.0 10.0 1.00 43 7.163 1.9140 .2919 6.574 7.752 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.838 2.0777 .2520 6.335 7.341 1.0 10.0 Judgment .00 25 6.079999976 1.5039453612 .3007890722 5.459201842 6.700798110 3.3333333 8.3333330 1.0 0 43 6.682170523 1.0388065216 .1584165094 6.362473064 7.001867982 4.3333335 9.0000000 Total 68 6.460784293 1.2538886656 .1520563356 6.157278576 6.764290009 3.3333333 9.0000000 Insi ghtful .00 25 6.320 1.7963 .3593 5.579 7.061 3.0 10.0 1.00 43 6.721 1.8429 .2810 6.154 7.288 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.574 1.8229 .2211 6.132 7.015 3.0 10.0

PAGE 117

117 Practically minded .00 25 5.920 2.0396 .4079 5.078 6.762 2.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.256 1.7195 .2622 5.727 6.785 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.132 1.8358 .2226 5.688 6.577 2.0 10.0 Learning oriented .00 25 6.000 2.3094 .4619 5.047 6.953 1.0 10.0 1.00 43 7.070 1.6959 .2586 6.548 7.592 3.0 10.0 Total 68 6.676 1.9958 .2420 6.193 7.160 1.0 10.0 Eval uation .00 25 5.839999952 1.7403703184 .3480740637 5.121610393 6.558389511 1.6666666 8.0000000 1.00 43 6.922480593 1.4617471842 .2229143558 6.472621210 7.372339976 4.6666665 9.6666670 Tot al 68 6.524509769 1.6434362926 .1992959242 6.126713439 6.922306099 1.6666666 9.6666670 Analytical .00 25 5.760 2.0058 .4012 4.932 6.588 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 7.209 1.6841 .2568 6.691 7.728 4.0 10.0 Total 68 6.676 1.9273 .2337 6.210 7.143 1.0 10.0 Fact ual .00 25 5.920 1.9562 .3912 5.113 6.727 2.0 9.0 1.00 43 7.186 1.7218 .2626 6.656 7.716 4.0 10.0 Total 68 6.721 1.8993 .2303 6.261 7.180 2.0 10.0 Rational .00 25 5.840 1.8412 .3682 5.080 6.600 2.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.372 2.0589 .3140 5.738 7.006 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.176 1.9846 .2407 5.696 6.657 2.0 10.0 Influence .00 25 5.297777812 .9013706339 .1802741268 4.925710301 5.669845323 3.2222223 7.0000000 1.00 43 5.602067142 .9747646149 .1486502102 5.302078873 5.902055411 3.1111112 7.6666665 Total 68 5.490196065 .9531565884 .1155872145 5.259483019 5.720909110 3.1111112 7.6666665 Leadership .00 25 5.906666648 1.4159147907 .2831829581 5.322205748 6.491127548 3.3333333 8.3333330 1.00 43 6.286821674 1.3185316946 .2010741984 5.881037514 6.692605835 3.0000000 9.3333330 Tot al 68 6.147058797 1.3572266202 .1645879033 5.818539967 6.475577627 3.0000000 9.3333330 Purp oseful .00 25 5.520 2.1432 .4286 4.635 6.405 1.0 10.0 1.00 43 5.884 2.0841 .3178 5.242 6.525 1.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.750 2.0974 .2544 5.242 6.258 1.0 10.0

PAGE 118

118 Directing .00 25 6.080 1.4697 .2939 5.473 6.687 4.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.674 1.7004 .2593 6.151 7.198 1.0 9.0 Total 68 6.456 1.6339 .1981 6.060 6.851 1.0 9.0 Empo wering .00 25 6.120 2.0478 .4096 5.275 6.965 2.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.302 1.6695 .2546 5.789 6.816 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.235 1.8048 .2189 5.798 6.672 2.0 10.0 Impact .00 25 5.160000020 1.2878348237 .2575669647 4.628407932 5.691592108 2.6666667 7.6666665 1.00 43 5.441860449 1.1167813779 .1703075635 5.098165871 5.785555027 2.6666667 8.0000000 Tot al 68 5.338235291 1.1809609588 .1432125521 5.052381841 5.624088742 2.6666667 8.0000000 Convincing .00 25 4.360 1.9122 .3824 3.571 5.149 1.0 8.0 1.00 43 4.907 1.5708 .2395 4.424 5.390 3.0 8.0 Total 68 4.706 1.7109 .2075 4.292 5.120 1.0 8.0 Chal lenging .00 25 4.880 1.7870 .3574 4.142 5.618 2.0 9.0 1.00 43 4.744 1.8528 .2826 4.174 5.314 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 4.794 1.8167 .2203 4.354 5.234 2.0 9.0 Articulate .00 25 6.240 1.9425 .3885 5.438 7.042 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.674 1.6579 .2528 6.164 7.185 2.0 10.0 Total 68 6.515 1.7661 .2142 6.087 6.942 1.0 10.0 Comm unication .00 25 4.826666640 1.0720351542 .2144070308 4.384152277 5.269181003 3.0000000 7.3333335 1.00 43 5.077519379 1.4617471733 .2229143541 4.627660000 5.527378758 1.0000000 7.6666665 Total 68 4.985294107 1.3288904014 .1611516321 4.663634104 5.306954111 1.0000000 7.6666665 Self promoting .00 25 4.480 1.8055 .3611 3.735 5.225 2.0 10.0 1.00 43 4.674 1.7958 .2739 4.122 5.227 1.0 9.0 Tot al 68 4.603 1.7884 .2169 4.170 5.036 1.0 10.0 Interactive .00 25 5.360 1.5242 .3048 4.731 5.989 3.0 9.0 1.00 43 5.605 1.9166 .2923 5.015 6.194 1.0 9.0 Total 68 5.515 1.7746 .2152 5.085 5.944 1.0 9.0

PAGE 119

119 Enga ging .00 25 4.640 1.3808 .2762 4.070 5.210 1.0 7.0 1.00 43 4.953 1.8892 .2881 4.372 5.535 1.0 8.0 Tot al 68 4.838 1.7157 .2081 4.423 5.254 1.0 8.0 Adaptability .00 25 5.648888880 1.0485537703 .2097107541 5.216067156 6.081710604 2.3333333 7.0000000 1.00 43 5.883720912 1.1367293865 .1733496063 5.533887243 6.233554580 3.0000000 7.6666665 Tot al 68 5.797385606 1.1031123557 .1337720223 5.530375532 6.064395680 2.3333333 7.6666665 Support .00 25 5.826666620 1.4437604859 .2887520972 5.230711582 6.422621658 3.3333333 8.3333330 1.00 43 5.922480598 1.8485475075 .2819008521 5.353581646 6.491379549 2.0000000 9.0000000 Tot al 68 5.887254871 1.7002684840 .2061878397 5.475702220 6.298807521 2.0000000 9.0000000 Involving .00 25 6.120 1.6411 .3282 5.443 6.797 3.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.116 2.5468 .3884 5.332 6.900 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.118 2.2429 .2720 5.575 6.661 2.0 10.0 Attentive .00 25 4.960 1.9035 .3807 4.174 5.746 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 5.372 2.1715 .3311 4.704 6.040 1.0 10.0 Tot al 68 5.221 2.0722 .2513 4.719 5.722 1.0 10.0 Accepting .00 25 6.400 1.8257 .3651 5.646 7.154 3.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.279 1.6666 .2541 5.766 6.792 3.0 9.0 Total 68 6.324 1.7142 .2079 5.909 6.738 3.0 9.0 Resi lience .00 25 5.653333352 1.0907014140 .2181402828 5.203113936 6.103552768 2.3333333 7.3333335 1.00 43 5.798449605 1.0341766602 .1577104621 5.480177007 6.116722203 3.3333333 7.6666665 Tot al 68 5.745098041 1.0495480249 .1272763931 5.491053297 5.999142785 2.3333333 7.6666665 Resolving .00 25 5.240 1.6401 .3280 4.563 5.917 1.0 8.0 1.00 43 5.326 2.0086 .3063 4.707 5.944 1.0 10.0 Total 68 5.294 1.8693 .2267 4.842 5.747 1.0 10.0 Self -assured .00 25 5.960 1.8592 .3718 5.193 6.727 2.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.163 1.6752 .2555 5.647 6.678 3.0 10.0 Total 68 6.088 1.7341 .2103 5.668 6.508 2.0 10.0

PAGE 120

120 Comp osed .00 25 5.760 1.6902 .3380 5.062 6.458 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 5.907 1.5555 .2372 5.428 6.386 3.0 8.0 Tot al 68 5.853 1.5954 .1935 5.467 6.239 1.0 9.0 Flexibility .00 25 5.466666664 1.4529662998 .2905932600 4.866911653 6.066421675 1.3333334 7.6666665 1.00 43 5.930232540 1.3792838467 .2103388147 5.505751626 6.354713453 2.6666667 8.3333330 Total 68 5.759803909 1.4140324538 .1714766225 5.417535138 6.102072680 1.3333334 8.3333330 Rece ptive .00 25 5.600 2.1409 .4282 4.716 6.484 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 5.395 1.8405 .2807 4.829 5.962 1.0 10.0 Tot al 68 5.471 1.9430 .2356 5.000 5.941 1.0 10.0 Posi tive .00 25 5.360 1.9339 .3868 4.562 6.158 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 5.744 1.6343 .2492 5.241 6.247 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.603 1.7461 .2117 5.180 6.026 1.0 9.0 Change Oriented .00 25 5.440 2.0429 .4086 4.597 6.283 1.0 8.0 1.00 43 6.651 1.9381 .2956 6.055 7.248 2.0 10.0 Total 68 6.206 2.0484 .2484 5.710 6.702 1.0 10.0 Delivery .00 25 6.026666692 1.1163211401 .2232642280 5.565871973 6.487461411 3.4444444 7.7777777 1.00 43 5.816537458 .8964242817 .1367034214 5.540658785 6.092416132 3.8888888 7.6666665 Tot al 68 5.893790853 .9800730209 .1188513114 5.656562643 6.131019063 3.4444444 7.7777777 Structure .00 25 6.373333336 1.6139438907 .3227887781 5.707130041 7.039536631 2.6666667 8.6666670 1.00 43 6.240310063 1.1063204315 .1687122841 5.899834889 6.580785236 3.6666667 8.0000000 Tot al 68 6.289215678 1.3055620566 .1583226547 5.973202336 6.605229019 2.6666667 8.6666670 Organized .00 25 6.360 2.2338 .4468 5.438 7.282 1.0 10.0 1.00 43 6.093 1.6156 .2464 5.596 6.590 2.0 9.0 Total 68 6.191 1.8549 .2249 5.742 6.640 1.0 10.0 Prin cipled .00 25 7.160 1.5460 .3092 6.522 7.798 5.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.302 1.5045 .2294 5.839 6.765 3.0 9.0 Tot al 68 6.618 1.5648 .1898 6.239 6.996 3.0 9.0

PAGE 121

121 Activity Oriented .00 25 5.600 2.3274 .4655 4.639 6.561 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.326 1.2858 .1961 5.930 6.721 3.0 8.0 Total 68 6.059 1.7610 .2135 5.633 6.485 1.0 9.0 Driv e .00 25 5.400000016 1.2397729304 .2479545861 4.888246902 5.911753130 3.0000000 8.3333330 1.00 43 5.961240300 1.4910833372 .2273880772 5.502352582 6.420128018 2.6666667 9.0000000 Total 68 5.754901960 1.4207857692 .1722955823 5.410998539 6.098805382 2.6666667 9.0000000 Dyna mic .00 25 5.960 1.8367 .3673 5.202 6.718 3.0 10.0 1.00 43 6.279 2.1081 .3215 5.630 6.928 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.162 2.0045 .2431 5.677 6.647 2.0 10.0 Striving .00 25 6.160 1.5727 .3145 5.511 6.809 3.0 9.0 1.00 43 6.767 1.6306 .2487 6.266 7.269 3.0 9.0 Total 68 6.544 1.6248 .1970 6.151 6.937 3.0 9.0 Enterprising .00 25 4.080 1.4697 .2939 3.473 4.687 2.0 7.0 1.00 43 4.837 1.8248 .2783 4.276 5.399 1.0 9.0 Tot al 68 4.559 1.7310 .2099 4.140 4.978 1.0 9.0 Impl ementation .00 25 6.306666708 1.5089854270 .3017970854 5.683788138 6.929545278 3.3333333 8.6666670 1.00 43 5.248062007 1.4458351503 .2204877934 4.803099626 5.693024388 2.3333333 8.0000000 Tot al 68 5.637254912 1.5461237045 .1874950395 5.263013247 6.011496577 2.3333333 8.6666670 Meticulous .00 25 6.040 1.6452 .3290 5.361 6.719 2.0 9.0 1.00 43 5.349 1.8630 .2841 4.775 5.922 2.0 9.0 Total 68 5.603 1.8050 .2189 5.166 6.040 2.0 9.0 Reli able .00 25 6.080 2.4651 .4930 5.062 7.098 1.0 9.0 1.00 43 5.047 1.9634 .2994 4.442 5.651 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.426 2.2012 .2669 4.894 5.959 1.0 9.0 Compliant .00 25 6.800 1.4434 .2887 6.204 7.396 4.0 9.0 1.0 0 43 5.349 1.6745 .2554 4.833 5.864 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.882 1.7323 .2101 5.463 6.302 2.0 9.0

PAGE 122

122 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 10.980 1 10.980 7.477 .008 Within Groups 96.925 66 1.469 Total 107.905 67 Vision Between Groups 10.514 1 10.514 3.870 .053 Within Groups 179.323 66 2.717 Total 189.837 67 Inventive Between Groups 2.697 1 2.697 .715 .401 Within Groups 249.068 66 3.774 Total 251.765 67 Abstract Between Groups 20.933 1 20.933 4.654 .035 Within Groups 296.876 66 4.498 Total 317.809 67 Strategic Between Groups 12.320 1 12.320 2.937 .091 Within Groups 276.900 66 4.195 Total 289.221 67 Judgment Between Groups 5.732 1 5.732 3.798 .056 Within Groups 99.607 66 1.509 Total 105.340 67 Insightful Between Groups 2.541 1 2.541 .762 .386 Within Groups 220.091 66 3.335 Total 222.632 67 Practically minded Between Groups 1.783 1 1.783 .525 .471 Within Groups 224.026 66 3.394 Total 225.809 67 Learning oriented Between Groups 18.092 1 18.092 4.799 .032

PAGE 123

123 Within Groups 248.791 66 3.770 Total 266.882 67 Evaluation Between Groups 18.524 1 18.524 7.527 .008 Within Groups 162.435 66 2.461 Total 180.959 67 Analytical Between Groups 33.206 1 33.206 10.162 .002 Within Groups 215.676 66 3.268 Total 248.882 67 Factual Between Groups 25.340 1 25.340 7.730 .007 Within Groups 216.352 66 3.278 Total 241.691 67 Rational Between Groups 4.476 1 4.476 1.139 .290 Within Groups 259.407 66 3.930 Total 263.882 67 Influence Between Groups 1.464 1 1.464 1.626 .207 Within Groups 59.406 66 .900 Total 60.870 67 Leadership Between Groups 2.285 1 2.285 1.245 .269 Within Groups 121.134 66 1.835 Total 123.418 67 Purposeful Between Groups 2.091 1 2.091 .472 .495 Within Groups 292.659 66 4.434 Total 294.750 67 Directing Between Groups 5.586 1 5.586 2.128 .149 Within Groups 173.282 66 2.625 Total 178.868 67 Empowering Between Groups .526 1 .526 .159 .691

PAGE 124

124 Within Groups 217.710 66 3.299 Total 218.235 67 Impact Between Groups 1.256 1 1.256 .899 .346 Within Groups 92.187 66 1.397 Total 93.443 67 Convincing Between Groups 4.730 1 4.730 1.631 .206 Within Groups 191.388 66 2.900 Total 196.118 67 Challenging Between Groups .292 1 .292 .087 .769 Within Groups 220.826 66 3.346 Total 221.118 67 Articulate Between Groups 2.983 1 2.983 .956 .332 Within Groups 206.002 66 3.121 Total 208.985 67 Communication Between Groups .995 1 .995 .560 .457 Within Groups 117.324 66 1.778 Total 118.319 67 Self promoting Between Groups .598 1 .598 .185 .669 Within Groups 213.682 66 3.238 Total 214.279 67 Interactive Between Groups .946 1 .946 .297 .587 Within Groups 210.039 66 3.182 Total 210.985 67 Engaging Between Groups 1.554 1 1.554 .524 .472 Within Groups 195.667 66 2.965 Total 197.221 67 Adaptability Between Groups .872 1 .872 .713 .401

PAGE 125

125 Within Groups 80.658 66 1.222 Total 81.529 67 Support Between Groups .145 1 .145 .049 .825 Within Groups 193.546 66 2.933 Total 193.691 67 Involving Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .995 Within Groups 337.059 66 5.107 Total 337.059 67 Attentive Between Groups 2.685 1 2.685 .622 .433 Within Groups 285.007 66 4.318 Total 287.691 67 Accepting Between Groups .231 1 .231 .078 .781 Within Groups 196.651 66 2.980 Total 196.882 67 Resilience Between Groups .333 1 .333 .299 .586 Within Groups 73.471 66 1.113 Total 73.804 67 Resolving Between Groups .116 1 .116 .033 .857 Within Groups 234.002 66 3.545 Total 234.118 67 Self -assured Between Groups .650 1 .650 .214 .645 Within Groups 200.820 66 3.043 Total 201.471 67 Composed Between Groups .342 1 .342 .132 .717 Within Groups 170.188 66 2.579 Total 170.529 67 Flexibility Between Groups 3.397 1 3.397 1.717 .195

PAGE 126

126 Within Groups 130.568 66 1.978 Total 133.966 67 Receptive Between Groups .662 1 .662 .173 .679 Within Groups 252.279 66 3.822 Total 252.941 67 Positive Between Groups 2.333 1 2.333 .763 .386 Within Groups 201.946 66 3.060 Total 204.279 67 Change Oriented Between Groups 23.190 1 23.190 5.934 .018 Within Groups 257.927 66 3.908 Total 281.118 67 Delivery Between Groups .698 1 .698 .724 .398 Within Groups 63.658 66 .965 Total 64.356 67 Structure Between Groups .280 1 .280 .162 .689 Within Groups 113.921 66 1.726 Total 114.201 67 Organized Between Groups 1.127 1 1.127 .324 .571 Within Groups 229.388 66 3.476 Total 230.515 67 Principled Between Groups 11.629 1 11.629 5.035 .028 Within Groups 152.430 66 2.310 Total 164.059 67 Activity Oriented Between Groups 8.323 1 8.323 2.754 .102 Within Groups 199.442 66 3.022 Total 207.765 67 Drive Between Groups 4.980 1 4.980 2.523 .117

PAGE 127

127 Within Groups 130.269 66 1.974 Total 135.248 67 Dynamic Between Groups 1.609 1 1.609 .397 .531 Within Groups 267.611 66 4.055 Total 269.221 67 Striving Between Groups 5.833 1 5.833 2.251 .138 Within Groups 171.034 66 2.591 Total 176.868 67 Enterprising Between Groups 9.064 1 9.064 3.121 .082 Within Groups 191.700 66 2.905 Total 200.765 67 Implementation Between Groups 17.716 1 17.716 8.208 .006 Within Groups 142.447 66 2.158 Total 160.163 67 Meticulous Between Groups 7.552 1 7.552 2.365 .129 Within Groups 210.727 66 3.193 Total 218.279 67 Reliable Between Groups 16.885 1 16.885 3.621 .061 Within Groups 307.747 66 4.663 Total 324.632 67 Compliant Between Groups 33.291 1 33.291 13.097 .001 Within Groups 167.767 66 2.542 Total 201.059 67

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX D DATA FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL SIZE SUBCATEGORY 0 = Less than 10,000 enrollments; 10=10,000 or more enrollments N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .00 31 6.175627226 1.2140379347 .2180476499 5.730314516 6.620939935 3.3333333 8.0000000 10.00 37 6.690690714 1.2825020608 .2108420400 6.263083237 7.118298190 3.0000000 8.8888890 Total 68 6.455882359 1.2690617246 .1538963393 6.148703980 6.763060738 3.0000000 8.8888890 Visi on .00 31 6.000000055 1.7659327920 .3171708925 5.352250677 6.647749432 1.6666666 8.6666670 10.00 37 6.702702668 1.5630450226 .2569630188 6.181557511 7.223847825 3.6666667 9.3333330 Tot al 68 6.382352947 1.6832653110 .2041259022 5.974915941 6.789789953 1.6666666 9.3333330 Inventive .00 31 5.645 1.9244 .3456 4.939 6.351 2.0 9.0 10. 00 37 6.189 1.9413 .3192 5.542 6.836 3.0 10.0 Total 68 5.941 1.9385 .2351 5.472 6.410 2.0 10.0 Abst ract .00 31 5.871 2.3628 .4244 5.004 6.738 1.0 10.0 10.00 37 6.784 1.9456 .3199 6.135 7.432 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.368 2.1779 .2641 5.840 6.895 1.0 10.0 Stra tegic .00 31 6.484 2.1583 .3876 5.692 7.276 1.0 10.0 10.00 37 7.135 1.9883 .3269 6.472 7.798 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.838 2.0777 .2520 6.335 7.341 1.0 10.0 Judgment .00 31 6.344086016 1.2779725047 .2295306377 5.875321917 6.812850115 3.3333333 8.3333330 10. 00 37 6.558558524 1.2423942748 .2042483606 6.144323649 6.972793399 3.6666667 9.0000000 Total 68 6.460784293 1.2538886656 .1520563356 6.157278576 6.764290009 3.3333333 9.0000000 Insi ghtful .00 31 6.387 1.6058 .2884 5.798 6.976 3.0 9.0 10.00 37 6.730 1.9951 .3280 6.065 7.395 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.574 1.8229 .2211 6.132 7.015 3.0 10.0

PAGE 129

129 Practically minded .00 31 6.065 2.0645 .3708 5.307 6.822 2.0 10.0 10. 00 37 6.189 1.6472 .2708 5.640 6.738 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.132 1.8358 .2226 5.688 6.577 2.0 10.0 Learning oriented .00 31 6.581 1.9455 .3494 5.867 7.294 3.0 10.0 10. 00 37 6.757 2.0603 .3387 6.070 7.444 1.0 10.0 Total 68 6.676 1.9958 .2420 6.193 7.160 1.0 10.0 Eval uation .00 31 6.182795629 1.4111689582 .2534534269 5.665174676 6.700416582 3.0000000 9.0000000 10.00 37 6.810810805 1.7839139577 .2932736481 6.216024279 7.405597332 1.6666666 9.6666670 Tot al 68 6.524509769 1.6434362926 .1992959242 6.126713439 6.922306099 1.6666666 9.6666670 Analytical .00 31 6.194 1.7401 .3125 5.555 6.832 2.0 10.0 10. 00 37 7.081 2.0052 .3297 6.412 7.750 1.0 10.0 Total 68 6.676 1.9273 .2337 6.210 7.143 1.0 10.0 Fact ual .00 31 6.419 1.5226 .2735 5.861 6.978 3.0 10.0 10. 00 37 6.973 2.1536 .3541 6.255 7.691 2.0 10.0 Total 68 6.721 1.8993 .2303 6.261 7.180 2.0 10.0 Rati onal .00 31 5.935 1.8962 .3406 5.240 6.631 3.0 9.0 10.00 37 6.378 2.0595 .3386 5.692 7.065 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.176 1.9846 .2407 5.696 6.657 2.0 10.0 Influence .00 31 5.422939094 .9386178345 .1685807396 5.078651292 5.767226895 3.1111112 7.2222223 10. 00 37 5.546546500 .9744254840 .1601945628 5.221656868 5.871436132 3.2222223 7.6666665 Total 68 5.490196065 .9531565884 .1155872145 5.259483019 5.720909110 3.1111112 7.6666665 Leadership .00 31 5.999999968 1.4375905359 .2581988824 5.472687502 6.527312433 3.0000000 8.3333330 10.00 37 6.270270249 1.2929959136 .2125672188 5.839163947 6.701376550 3.6666667 9.3333330 Tot al 68 6.147058797 1.3572266202 .1645879033 5.818539967 6.475577627 3.0000000 9.3333330 Purp oseful .00 31 5.677 2.3436 .4209 4.818 6.537 1.0 10.0 10.00 37 5.811 1.8979 .3120 5.178 6.444 1.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.750 2.0974 .2544 5.242 6.258 1.0 10.0

PAGE 130

130 Directing .00 31 6.065 1.8246 .3277 5.395 6.734 1.0 9.0 10. 00 37 6.784 1.3971 .2297 6.318 7.250 4.0 9.0 Total 68 6.456 1.6339 .1981 6.060 6.851 1.0 9.0 Empo wering .00 31 6.258 1.9827 .3561 5.531 6.985 3.0 9.0 10.00 37 6.216 1.6689 .2744 5.660 6.773 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.235 1.8048 .2189 5.798 6.672 2.0 10.0 Impact .00 31 5.236559148 1.2388571176 .2225053068 4.782142689 5.690975608 2.6666667 7.6666665 10. 00 37 5.423423411 1.1403071124 .1874653345 5.043226091 5.803620731 2.6666667 8.0000000 Tot al 68 5.338235291 1.1809609588 .1432125521 5.052381841 5.624088742 2.6666667 8.0000000 Convincing .00 31 4.581 1.7659 .3172 3.933 5.228 1.0 8.0 10. 00 37 4.811 1.6806 .2763 4.250 5.371 1.0 8.0 Total 68 4.706 1.7109 .2075 4.292 5.120 1.0 8.0 Chal lenging .00 31 5.000 1.9664 .3532 4.279 5.721 2.0 9.0 10.00 37 4.622 1.6890 .2777 4.058 5.185 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 4.794 1.8167 .2203 4.354 5.234 2.0 9.0 Articulate .00 31 6.129 1.7271 .3102 5.496 6.763 2.0 9.0 10. 00 37 6.838 1.7562 .2887 6.252 7.423 1.0 10.0 Total 68 6.515 1.7661 .2142 6.087 6.942 1.0 10.0 Comm unication .00 31 5.032258061 1.1749069272 .2110195135 4.601298721 5.463217401 2.3333333 7.3333335 10. 00 37 4.945945930 1.4604107192 .2400900433 4.459020753 5.432871106 1.0000000 7.6666665 Total 68 4.985294107 1.3288904014 .1611516321 4.663634104 5.306954111 1.0000000 7.6666665 Self promoting .00 31 4.516 1.8774 .3372 3.827 5.205 1.0 10.0 10.00 37 4.676 1.7329 .2849 4.098 5.253 1.0 9.0 Tot al 68 4.603 1.7884 .2169 4.170 5.036 1.0 10.0 Interactive .00 31 5.613 1.8381 .3301 4.939 6.287 2.0 9.0 10. 00 37 5.432 1.7407 .2862 4.852 6.013 1.0 9.0 Total 68 5.515 1.7746 .2152 5.085 5.944 1.0 9.0

PAGE 131

131 Enga ging .00 31 4.968 1.4488 .2602 4.436 5.499 2.0 8.0 10.00 37 4.730 1.9242 .3163 4.088 5.371 1.0 8.0 Tot al 68 4.838 1.7157 .2081 4.423 5.254 1.0 8.0 Adaptability .00 31 5.652329752 1.2991741444 .2333385646 5.175788828 6.128870675 2.3333333 7.6666665 10.00 37 5.918918889 .9082190563 .1493102931 5.616103579 6.221734199 3.4444444 7.2222223 Tot al 68 5.797385606 1.1031123557 .1337720223 5.530375532 6.064395680 2.3333333 7.6666665 Support .00 31 5.526881694 1.8273116823 .3281948666 4.856618357 6.197145030 2.0000000 9.0000000 10. 00 37 6.189189154 1.5466820472 .2542729623 5.673499685 6.704878623 2.6666667 8.3333330 Total 68 5.887254871 1.7002684840 .2061878397 5.475702220 6.298807521 2.0000000 9.0000000 Involving .00 31 5.839 2.0992 .3770 5.069 6.609 2.0 10.0 10.00 37 6.351 2.3596 .3879 5.565 7.138 2.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.118 2.2429 .2720 5.575 6.661 2.0 10.0 Attentive .00 31 4.774 2.3052 .4140 3.929 5.620 1.0 10.0 10. 00 37 5.595 1.8022 .2963 4.994 6.195 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.221 2.0722 .2513 4.719 5.722 1.0 10.0 Accepting .00 31 5.968 1.9914 .3577 5.237 6.698 3.0 9.0 10. 00 37 6.622 1.4014 .2304 6.154 7.089 4.0 9.0 Total 68 6.324 1.7142 .2079 5.909 6.738 3.0 9.0 Resi lience .00 31 5.698924726 1.1622291263 .2087425132 5.272615641 6.125233811 2.3333333 7.6666665 10.00 37 5.783783792 .9597331744 .1577791620 5.463792820 6.103774764 3.3333333 7.0000000 Tot al 68 5.745098041 1.0495480249 .1272763931 5.491053297 5.999142785 2.3333333 7.6666665 Resolving .00 31 5.323 1.8688 .3356 4.637 6.008 1.0 10.0 10. 00 37 5.270 1.8951 .3116 4.638 5.902 1.0 10.0 Total 68 5.294 1.8693 .2267 4.842 5.747 1.0 10.0 Self -assured .00 31 5.806 1.7208 .3091 5.175 6.438 2.0 10.0 10. 00 37 6.324 1.7329 .2849 5.747 6.902 3.0 9.0 Total 68 6.088 1.7341 .2103 5.668 6.508 2.0 10.0

PAGE 132

132 Comp osed .00 31 5.968 1.7413 .3128 5.329 6.606 1.0 9.0 10.00 37 5.757 1.4796 .2432 5.263 6.250 3.0 8.0 Tot al 68 5.853 1.5954 .1935 5.467 6.239 1.0 9.0 Flexibility .00 31 5.731182810 1.5333800662 .2754031899 5.168734461 6.293631159 1.3333334 7.6666665 10. 00 37 5.783783749 1.3268737073 .2181366938 5.341382029 6.226185469 2.6666667 8.3333330 Total 68 5.759803909 1.4140324538 .1714766225 5.417535138 6.102072680 1.3333334 8.3333330 Rece ptive .00 31 5.484 2.0796 .3735 4.721 6.247 1.0 9.0 10.00 37 5.459 1.8498 .3041 4.843 6.076 1.0 10.0 Tot al 68 5.471 1.9430 .2356 5.000 5.941 1.0 10.0 Posi tive .00 31 5.548 2.0630 .3705 4.792 6.305 1.0 9.0 10.00 37 5.649 1.4571 .2395 5.163 6.134 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.603 1.7461 .2117 5.180 6.026 1.0 9.0 Change Oriented .00 31 6.161 2.0672 .3713 5.403 6.920 1.0 10.0 10. 00 37 6.243 2.0603 .3387 5.556 6.930 1.0 10.0 Total 68 6.206 2.0484 .2484 5.710 6.702 1.0 10.0 Delivery .00 31 6.035842294 1.1537689442 .2072230197 5.612636428 6.459048159 3.4444444 7.7777777 10.00 37 5.774774781 .8040050901 .1321776226 5.506706138 6.042843425 4.1111110 7.3333335 Tot al 68 5.893790853 .9800730209 .1188513114 5.656562643 6.131019063 3.4444444 7.7777777 Structure .00 31 6.408602181 1.6071822347 .2886584507 5.819082978 6.998121384 2.6666667 8.6666670 10. 00 37 6.189189149 .9985809008 .1641656888 5.856245700 6.522132597 4.0000000 8.0000000 Tot al 68 6.289215678 1.3055620566 .1583226547 5.973202336 6.605229019 2.6666667 8.6666670 Organized .00 31 6.290 2.2685 .4074 5.458 7.122 1.0 10.0 10. 00 37 6.108 1.4488 .2382 5.625 6.591 2.0 8.0 Total 68 6.191 1.8549 .2249 5.742 6.640 1.0 10.0 Prin cipled .00 31 6.710 1.5747 .2828 6.132 7.287 4.0 9.0 10.00 37 6.541 1.5740 .2588 6.016 7.065 3.0 9.0 Tot al 68 6.618 1.5648 .1898 6.239 6.996 3.0 9.0

PAGE 133

133 Activity Oriented .00 31 6.226 2.1089 .3788 5.452 6.999 1.0 9.0 10. 00 37 5.919 1.4216 .2337 5.445 6.393 1.0 8.0 Total 68 6.059 1.7610 .2135 5.633 6.485 1.0 9.0 Driv e .00 31 5.688172032 1.3359292894 .2399399835 5.198149213 6.178194852 3.0000000 8.3333330 10. 00 37 5.810810819 1.5041927657 .2472877674 5.309287981 6.312333656 2.6666667 9.0000000 Total 68 5.754901960 1.4207857692 .1722955823 5.410998539 6.098805382 2.6666667 9.0000000 Dyna mic .00 31 6.290 2.1165 .3801 5.514 7.067 2.0 10.0 10.00 37 6.054 1.9285 .3170 5.411 6.697 3.0 10.0 Tot al 68 6.162 2.0045 .2431 5.677 6.647 2.0 10.0 Striving .00 31 6.355 1.4271 .2563 5.831 6.878 3.0 9.0 10. 00 37 6.703 1.7774 .2922 6.110 7.295 3.0 9.0 Total 68 6.544 1.6248 .1970 6.151 6.937 3.0 9.0 Enterprising .00 31 4.419 1.4782 .2655 3.877 4.962 2.0 8.0 10.00 37 4.676 1.9301 .3173 4.032 5.319 1.0 9.0 Tot al 68 4.559 1.7310 .2099 4.140 4.978 1.0 9.0 Impl ementation .00 31 6.010752697 1.6089653490 .2889787075 5.420579442 6.600925951 3.3333333 8.6666670 10.00 37 5.324324335 1.4390636585 .2365806081 4.844516623 5.804132047 2.3333333 8.3333330 Tot al 68 5.637254912 1.5461237045 .1874950395 5.263013247 6.011496577 2.3333333 8.6666670 Meticulous .00 31 5.935 1.8246 .3277 5.266 6.605 2.0 9.0 10. 00 37 5.324 1.7647 .2901 4.736 5.913 2.0 9.0 Total 68 5.603 1.8050 .2189 5.166 6.040 2.0 9.0 Reli able .00 31 5.903 2.5736 .4622 4.959 6.847 1.0 9.0 10.00 37 5.027 1.7715 .2912 4.436 5.618 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.426 2.2012 .2669 4.894 5.959 1.0 9.0 Compliant .00 31 6.194 1.6817 .3020 5.577 6.810 2.0 9.0 10. 00 37 5.622 1.7536 .2883 5.037 6.206 2.0 9.0 Tot al 68 5.882 1.7323 .2101 5.463 6.302 2.0 9.0

PAGE 134

134 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 4.475 1 4.475 2.855 .096 Within Groups 103.430 66 1.567 Total 107.905 67 Vision Between Groups 8.329 1 8.329 3.029 .086 Within Groups 181.508 66 2.750 Total 189.837 67 Inventive Between Groups 4.992 1 4.992 1.335 .252 Within Groups 246.772 66 3.739 Total 251.765 67 Abstract Between Groups 14.055 1 14.055 3.054 .085 Within Groups 303.754 66 4.602 Total 317.809 67 Strategic Between Groups 7.154 1 7.154 1.674 .200 Within Groups 282.066 66 4.274 Total 289.221 67 Judgment Between Groups .776 1 .776 .490 .487 Within Groups 104.564 66 1.584 Total 105.340 67 Insightful Between Groups 1.980 1 1.980 .592 .444 Within Groups 220.652 66 3.343 Total 222.632 67 Practically minded Between Groups .262 1 .262 .077 .783 Within Groups 225.547 66 3.417 Total 225.809 67 Learning oriented Between Groups .523 1 .523 .130 .720

PAGE 135

135 Within Groups 266.359 66 4.036 Total 266.882 67 Evaluation Between Groups 6.653 1 6.653 2.519 .117 Within Groups 174.306 66 2.641 Total 180.959 67 Analytical Between Groups 13.287 1 13.287 3.722 .058 Within Groups 235.595 66 3.570 Total 248.882 67 Factual Between Groups 5.170 1 5.170 1.443 .234 Within Groups 236.521 66 3.584 Total 241.691 67 Rational Between Groups 3.309 1 3.309 .838 .363 Within Groups 260.574 66 3.948 Total 263.882 67 Influence Between Groups .258 1 .258 .281 .598 Within Groups 60.612 66 .918 Total 60.870 67 Leadership Between Groups 1.232 1 1.232 .666 .418 Within Groups 122.186 66 1.851 Total 123.418 67 Purposeful Between Groups .300 1 .300 .067 .796 Within Groups 294.450 66 4.461 Total 294.750 67 Directing Between Groups 8.726 1 8.726 3.385 .070 Within Groups 170.141 66 2.578 Total 178.868 67 Empowering Between Groups .030 1 .030 .009 .925

PAGE 136

136 Within Groups 218.206 66 3.306 Total 218.235 67 Impact Between Groups .589 1 .589 .419 .520 Within Groups 92.854 66 1.407 Total 93.443 67 Convincing Between Groups .894 1 .894 .302 .584 Within Groups 195.224 66 2.958 Total 196.118 67 Challenging Between Groups 2.415 1 2.415 .729 .396 Within Groups 218.703 66 3.314 Total 221.118 67 Articulate Between Groups 8.474 1 8.474 2.789 .100 Within Groups 200.511 66 3.038 Total 208.985 67 Communication Between Groups .126 1 .126 .070 .792 Within Groups 118.193 66 1.791 Total 118.319 67 Self promoting Between Groups .429 1 .429 .133 .717 Within Groups 213.850 66 3.240 Total 214.279 67 Interactive Between Groups .549 1 .549 .172 .679 Within Groups 210.436 66 3.188 Total 210.985 67 Engaging Between Groups .956 1 .956 .321 .573 Within Groups 196.265 66 2.974 Total 197.221 67 Adaptability Between Groups 1.199 1 1.199 .985 .325

PAGE 137

137 Within Groups 80.331 66 1.217 Total 81.529 67 Support Between Groups 7.399 1 7.399 2.621 .110 Within Groups 186.292 66 2.823 Total 193.691 67 Involving Between Groups 4.433 1 4.433 .880 .352 Within Groups 332.626 66 5.040 Total 337.059 67 Attentive Between Groups 11.353 1 11.353 2.712 .104 Within Groups 276.338 66 4.187 Total 287.691 67 Accepting Between Groups 7.212 1 7.212 2.510 .118 Within Groups 189.670 66 2.874 Total 196.882 67 Resilience Between Groups .121 1 .121 .109 .743 Within Groups 73.682 66 1.116 Total 73.804 67 Resolving Between Groups .046 1 .046 .013 .910 Within Groups 234.071 66 3.547 Total 234.118 67 Self -assured Between Groups 4.524 1 4.524 1.516 .223 Within Groups 196.947 66 2.984 Total 201.471 67 Composed Between Groups .751 1 .751 .292 .591 Within Groups 169.779 66 2.572 Total 170.529 67 Flexibility Between Groups .047 1 .047 .023 .880

PAGE 138

138 Within Groups 133.919 66 2.029 Total 133.966 67 Receptive Between Groups .010 1 .010 .003 .959 Within Groups 252.931 66 3.832 Total 252.941 67 Positive Between Groups .170 1 .170 .055 .816 Within Groups 204.110 66 3.093 Total 204.279 67 Change Oriented Between Groups .113 1 .113 .027 .871 Within Groups 281.004 66 4.258 Total 281.118 67 Delivery Between Groups 1.150 1 1.150 1.200 .277 Within Groups 63.207 66 .958 Total 64.356 67 Structure Between Groups .812 1 .812 .473 .494 Within Groups 113.389 66 1.718 Total 114.201 67 Organized Between Groups .560 1 .560 .161 .690 Within Groups 229.955 66 3.484 Total 230.515 67 Principled Between Groups .483 1 .483 .195 .660 Within Groups 163.576 66 2.478 Total 164.059 67 Activity Oriented Between Groups 1.589 1 1.589 .509 .478 Within Groups 206.176 66 3.124 Total 207.765 67 Drive Between Groups .254 1 .254 .124 .726

PAGE 139

139 Within Groups 134.995 66 2.045 Total 135.248 67 Dynamic Between Groups .942 1 .942 .232 .632 Within Groups 268.279 66 4.065 Total 269.221 67 Striving Between Groups 2.041 1 2.041 .771 .383 Within Groups 174.827 66 2.649 Total 176.868 67 Enterprising Between Groups 1.108 1 1.108 .366 .547 Within Groups 199.656 66 3.025 Total 200.765 67 Implementation Between Groups 7.948 1 7.948 3.446 .068 Within Groups 152.216 66 2.306 Total 160.163 67 Meticulous Between Groups 6.300 1 6.300 1.962 .166 Within Groups 211.979 66 3.212 Total 218.279 67 Reliable Between Groups 12.950 1 12.950 2.742 .102 Within Groups 311.683 66 4.722 Total 324.632 67 Compliant Between Groups 5.517 1 5.517 1.862 .177 Within Groups 195.541 66 2.963 Total 201.059 67

PAGE 140

140 APPENDIX E DATA FOR THE GENDER SUBCATEGORY 0 = Male; 1=Female N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Thought .00 30 6.633333323 1.3000802144 .2373610867 6.147875393 7.118791254 3.5555556 8.8888890 1.00 40 6.327777798 1.2124577625 .1917064048 5.940014993 6.715540602 3.0000000 8.4444450 Total 70 6.458730166 1.2507891790 .1494979011 6.160490013 6.756970318 3.0000000 8.8888890 Visi on .00 30 6.599999977 1.7668726906 .3225853430 5.940238871 7.259761082 1.6666666 9.3333330 1.00 40 6.208333353 1.5792231843 .2496971098 5.703273276 6.713393429 3.6666667 9.0000000 Tot al 70 6.376190477 1.6612679990 .1985595040 5.980075105 6.772305849 1.6666666 9.3333330 Inventive .00 30 6.133 1.9429 .3547 5.408 6.859 2.0 10.0 1.0 0 40 5.775 1.9805 .3131 5.142 6.408 2.0 9.0 Total 70 5.929 1.9584 .2341 5.462 6.396 2.0 10.0 Abst ract .00 30 6.567 2.2846 .4171 5.714 7.420 1.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.250 2.0724 .3277 5.587 6.913 2.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.386 2.1555 .2576 5.872 6.900 1.0 10.0 Stra tegic .00 30 7.100 2.1066 .3846 6.313 7.887 2.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.600 2.0102 .3178 5.957 7.243 1.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.814 2.0522 .2453 6.325 7.304 1.0 10.0 Judgment .00 30 6.399999963 1.3544307497 .2472840914 5.894247210 6.905752717 3.6666667 9.0000000 1.0 0 40 6.525000000 1.1618030321 .1836971887 6.153437364 6.896562636 3.3333333 8.3333330 Total 70 6.471428556 1.2400883527 .1482189077 6.175739925 6.767117186 3.3333333 9.0000000 Insi ghtful .00 30 6.767 1.8696 .3413 6.069 7.465 3.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.475 1.7685 .2796 5.909 7.041 3.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.600 1.8050 .2157 6.170 7.030 3.0 10.0

PAGE 141

141 Practically minded .00 30 5.933 2.1324 .3893 5.137 6.730 2.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.300 1.5722 .2486 5.797 6.803 3.0 9.0 Tot al 70 6.143 1.8280 .2185 5.707 6.579 2.0 10.0 Learning oriented .00 30 6.500 2.1132 .3858 5.711 7.289 2.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.800 1.8701 .2957 6.202 7.398 1.0 10.0 Total 70 6.671 1.9688 .2353 6.202 7.141 1.0 10.0 Eval uation .00 30 6.899999983 1.5416316868 .2814621501 6.324345251 7.475654716 3.3333333 9.3333330 1.00 40 6.249999957 1.6412593520 .2595058892 5.725099752 6.774900163 1.6666666 9.6666670 Total 70 6.528571397 1.6206128531 .1937002847 6.142149902 6.914992892 1.6666666 9.6666670 Analytical .00 30 7.167 1.6626 .3036 6.546 7.788 3.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.300 2.0026 .3166 5.660 6.940 1.0 10.0 Total 70 6.671 1.9013 .2273 6.218 7.125 1.0 10.0 Fact ual .00 30 6.767 2.1445 .3915 5.966 7.567 3.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.775 1.7170 .2715 6.226 7.324 2.0 10.0 Total 70 6.771 1.8971 .2268 6.319 7.224 2.0 10.0 Rati onal .00 30 6.767 1.6543 .3020 6.149 7.384 4.0 9.0 1.00 40 5.675 2.0803 .3289 5.010 6.340 2.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.143 1.9729 .2358 5.672 6.613 2.0 10.0 Influence .00 30 5.462962917 .9064750915 .1654989518 5.124479555 5.801446279 3.2222223 7.6666665 1.00 40 5.525000018 .9809800434 .1551065638 5.211267379 5.838732656 3.1111112 7.5555553 Total 70 5.498412689 .9435190348 .1127720944 5.273438516 5.723386861 3.1111112 7.6666665 Leadership .00 30 6.055555500 1.4676154540 .2679486966 5.507538883 6.603572117 3.3333333 9.3333330 1.00 40 6.124999998 1.3219330806 .2090159725 5.702225288 6.547774707 3.0000000 8.3333330 Tot al 70 6.095238070 1.3762920480 .1644983631 5.767072815 6.423403325 3.0000000 9.3333330 Purp oseful .00 30 5.833 2.2756 .4155 4.984 6.683 1.0 10.0 1.00 40 5.650 1.9813 .3133 5.016 6.284 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.729 2.0985 .2508 5.228 6.229 1.0 10.0

PAGE 142

142 Directing .00 30 6.567 1.5687 .2864 5.981 7.152 4.0 9.0 1.00 40 6.225 1.7757 .2808 5.657 6.793 1.0 9.0 Total 70 6.371 1.6869 .2016 5.969 6.774 1.0 9.0 Empo wering .00 30 5.767 1.9772 .3610 5.028 6.505 2.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.500 1.6172 .2557 5.983 7.017 3.0 9.0 Tot al 70 6.186 1.8041 .2156 5.756 6.616 2.0 10.0 Impact .00 30 5.333333340 1.1447029239 .2089932043 4.905894243 5.760772437 2.6666667 8.0000000 1.00 40 5.374999990 1.2105601252 .1914063620 4.987844080 5.762155900 2.6666667 7.6666665 Tot al 70 5.357142854 1.1745029011 .1403799469 5.077092523 5.637193186 2.6666667 8.0000000 Convincing .00 30 4.767 1.8323 .3345 4.082 5.451 1.0 8.0 1.00 40 4.675 1.5914 .2516 4.166 5.184 2.0 8.0 Total 70 4.714 1.6866 .2016 4.312 5.116 1.0 8.0 Chal lenging .00 30 4.800 1.6897 .3085 4.169 5.431 2.0 9.0 1.00 40 4.750 1.9447 .3075 4.128 5.372 2.0 9.0 Tot al 70 4.771 1.8271 .2184 4.336 5.207 2.0 9.0 Articulate .00 30 6.433 1.8134 .3311 5.756 7.110 1.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.700 1.7860 .2824 6.129 7.271 2.0 9.0 Total 70 6.586 1.7896 .2139 6.159 7.012 1.0 10.0 Comm unication .00 30 4.999999957 1.1580138820 .2114234417 4.567590467 5.432409447 3.0000000 7.3333335 1.00 40 5.075000003 1.5256356427 .2412241755 4.587078053 5.562921952 1.0000000 8.3333330 Total 70 5.042857126 1.3713439801 .1639069558 4.715871696 5.369842556 1.0000000 8.3333330 Self promoting .00 30 4.733 1.5742 .2874 4.146 5.321 2.0 9.0 1.00 40 4.550 1.9994 .3161 3.911 5.189 1.0 10.0 Tot al 70 4.629 1.8192 .2174 4.195 5.062 1.0 10.0 Interactive .00 30 5.633 1.6291 .2974 5.025 6.242 3.0 9.0 1.00 40 5.550 1.9342 .3058 4.931 6.169 1.0 9.0 Total 70 5.586 1.7977 .2149 5.157 6.014 1.0 9.0

PAGE 143

143 Enga ging .00 30 4.633 1.8096 .3304 3.958 5.309 1.0 8.0 1.00 40 5.125 1.7274 .2731 4.573 5.677 1.0 9.0 Total 70 4.914 1.7672 .2112 4.493 5.336 1.0 9.0 Adaptability .00 30 5.937037033 1.0380923825 .1895288715 5.549406967 6.324667099 3.4444444 7.6666665 1.00 40 5.699999980 1.1250408953 .1778845845 5.340194446 6.059805514 2.3333333 7.2222223 Tot al 70 5.801587289 1.0873288632 .1299606565 5.542322873 6.060851704 2.3333333 7.6666665 Support .00 30 5.811111080 1.8459509606 .3370229937 5.121821663 6.500400497 2.0000000 9.0000000 1.00 40 5.941666645 1.5614433250 .2468858672 5.442292843 6.441040447 2.0000000 8.3333330 Total 70 5.885714260 1.6776312423 .2005152857 5.485697210 6.285731310 2.0000000 9.0000000 Involving .00 30 6.200 2.3547 .4299 5.321 7.079 2.0 10.0 1.00 40 5.875 2.2892 .3620 5.143 6.607 1.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.014 2.3062 .2756 5.464 6.564 1.0 10.0 Attentive .00 30 4.767 2.0957 .3826 3.984 5.549 1.0 10.0 1.00 40 5.700 2.0406 .3226 5.047 6.353 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.300 2.1014 .2512 4.799 5.801 1.0 10.0 Accepting .00 30 6.467 1.8520 .3381 5.775 7.158 3.0 9.0 1.00 40 6.250 1.5973 .2526 5.739 6.761 3.0 9.0 Total 70 6.343 1.7015 .2034 5.937 6.749 3.0 9.0 Resi lience .00 30 6.022222250 .9302631324 .1698420340 5.674856288 6.369588212 4.3333335 7.6666665 1.00 40 5.599999983 1.1277388205 .1783111639 5.239331610 5.960668355 2.3333333 7.6666665 Tot al 70 5.780952383 1.0615300669 .1268771106 5.527839473 6.034065293 2.3333333 7.6666665 Resolving .00 30 5.633 1.8473 .3373 4.944 6.323 1.0 10.0 1.00 40 5.200 2.0026 .3166 4.560 5.840 1.0 10.0 Total 70 5.386 1.9359 .2314 4.924 5.847 1.0 10.0 Self -assured .00 30 6.367 1.6914 .3088 5.735 6.998 3.0 9.0 1.00 40 5.925 1.7887 .2828 5.353 6.497 2.0 10.0 Total 70 6.114 1.7491 .2091 5.697 6.531 2.0 10.0

PAGE 144

144 Comp osed .00 30 6.067 1.4368 .2623 5.530 6.603 4.0 9.0 1.00 40 5.675 1.7005 .2689 5.131 6.219 1.0 8.0 Tot al 70 5.843 1.5938 .1905 5.463 6.223 1.0 9.0 Flexibility .00 30 5.977777763 1.3531099741 .2470429519 5.472518195 6.483037331 2.6666667 8.3333330 1.00 40 5.558333323 1.4250256166 .2253163336 5.102588020 6.014078625 1.3333334 7.6666665 Total 70 5.738095226 1.4003597830 .1673750076 5.404191222 6.071999230 1.3333334 8.3333330 Rece ptive .00 30 5.733 1.9989 .3649 4.987 6.480 1.0 10.0 1.00 40 5.150 1.9289 .3050 4.533 5.767 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.400 1.9664 .2350 4.931 5.869 1.0 10.0 Posi tive .00 30 5.633 1.7117 .3125 4.994 6.272 2.0 9.0 1.00 40 5.675 1.8030 .2851 5.098 6.252 1.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.657 1.7519 .2094 5.239 6.075 1.0 9.0 Change Oriented .00 30 6.567 1.9772 .3610 5.828 7.305 1.0 10.0 1.00 40 5.850 2.0575 .3253 5.192 6.508 1.0 10.0 Total 70 6.157 2.0404 .2439 5.671 6.644 1.0 10.0 Delivery .00 30 5.644444450 1.1347673283 .2071792211 5.220715366 6.068173534 3.4444444 7.7777777 1.00 40 6.024999998 .8312842696 .1314375838 5.759142390 6.290857605 4.1111110 7.5555553 Tot al 70 5.861904763 .9837534567 .1175810276 5.627337031 6.096472495 3.4444444 7.7777777 Structure .00 30 5.766666653 1.4833688720 .2708248641 5.212767613 6.320565693 2.6666667 8.6666670 1.00 40 6.608333325 1.0429180636 .1648998247 6.274791947 6.941874703 4.3333335 8.6666670 Total 70 6.247619037 1.3097992228 .1565509504 5.935308437 6.559929638 2.6666667 8.6666670 Organized .00 30 5.633 2.1251 .3880 4.840 6.427 1.0 9.0 1.00 40 6.500 1.5689 .2481 5.998 7.002 3.0 10.0 Total 70 6.129 1.8644 .2228 5.684 6.573 1.0 10.0 Prin cipled .00 30 6.233 1.6543 .3020 5.616 6.851 3.0 9.0 1.00 40 6.800 1.5055 .2380 6.319 7.281 3.0 9.0 Tot al 70 6.557 1.5847 .1894 6.179 6.935 3.0 9.0

PAGE 145

145 Activity Oriented .00 30 5.433 2.0625 .3766 4.663 6.203 1.0 9.0 1.00 40 6.525 1.3006 .2056 6.109 6.941 2.0 9.0 Total 70 6.057 1.7436 .2084 5.641 6.473 1.0 9.0 Driv e .00 30 5.888888880 1.4915684040 .2723218870 5.331928085 6.445849675 3.6666667 9.0000000 1.00 40 5.591666673 1.3618478473 .2153270512 5.156126601 6.027206744 2.6666667 8.6666670 Total 70 5.719047619 1.4160748131 .1692533130 5.381396498 6.056698739 2.6666667 9.0000000 Dyna mic .00 30 6.067 2.1485 .3923 5.264 6.869 2.0 10.0 1.00 40 6.200 1.8701 .2957 5.602 6.798 3.0 10.0 Tot al 70 6.143 1.9802 .2367 5.671 6.615 2.0 10.0 Striving .00 30 6.600 1.8118 .3308 5.923 7.277 3.0 9.0 1.00 40 6.375 1.5473 .2447 5.880 6.870 3.0 9.0 Total 70 6.471 1.6570 .1980 6.076 6.867 3.0 9.0 Enterprising .00 30 5.000 1.6815 .3070 4.372 5.628 2.0 9.0 1.00 40 4.200 1.6672 .2636 3.667 4.733 1.0 8.0 Tot al 70 4.543 1.7083 .2042 4.136 4.950 1.0 9.0 Impl ementation .00 30 5.277777813 1.6794529194 .3066247494 4.650659787 5.904895840 2.3333333 8.6666670 1.00 40 5.874999990 1.3685259170 .2163829467 5.437324168 6.312675812 3.3333333 8.3333330 Tot al 70 5.619047629 1.5272993236 .1825471847 5.254875960 5.983219298 2.3333333 8.6666670 Meticulous .00 30 5.233 1.8696 .3413 4.535 5.931 2.0 9.0 1.00 40 5.850 1.6878 .2669 5.310 6.390 2.0 9.0 Total 70 5.586 1.7815 .2129 5.161 6.010 2.0 9.0 Reli able .00 30 5.200 2.4691 .4508 4.278 6.122 1.0 9.0 1.00 40 5.550 2.0248 .3202 4.902 6.198 2.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.400 2.2159 .2648 4.872 5.928 1.0 9.0 Compliant .00 30 5.400 1.6733 .3055 4.775 6.025 2.0 9.0 1.0 0 40 6.225 1.7612 .2785 5.662 6.788 3.0 9.0 Tot al 70 5.871 1.7604 .2104 5.452 6.291 2.0 9.0

PAGE 146

146 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Thought Between Groups 1.601 1 1.601 1.023 .315 Within Groups 106.348 68 1.564 Total 107.949 69 Vision Between Groups 2.630 1 2.630 .952 .333 Within Groups 187.797 68 2.762 Total 190.427 69 Inventive Between Groups 2.201 1 2.201 .570 .453 Within Groups 262.442 68 3.859 Total 264.643 69 Abstract Between Groups 1.719 1 1.719 .367 .547 Within Groups 318.867 68 4.689 Total 320.586 69 Strategic Between Groups 4.286 1 4.286 1.018 .317 Within Groups 286.300 68 4.210 Total 290.586 69 Judgment Between Groups .268 1 .268 .172 .680 Within Groups 105.842 68 1.556 Total 106.110 69 Insightful Between Groups 1.458 1 1.458 .444 .507 Within Groups 223.342 68 3.284 Total 224.800 69 Practically minded Between Groups 2.305 1 2.305 .687 .410

PAGE 147

147 Within Groups 228.267 68 3.357 Total 230.571 69 Learning oriented Between Groups 1.543 1 1.543 .395 .532 Within Groups 265.900 68 3.910 Total 267.443 69 Evaluation Between Groups 7.243 1 7.243 2.831 .097 Within Groups 173.978 68 2.558 Total 181.221 69 Analytical Between Groups 12.876 1 12.876 3.701 .059 Within Groups 236.567 68 3.479 Total 249.443 69 Factual Between Groups .001 1 .001 .000 .986 Within Groups 248.342 68 3.652 Total 248.343 69 Rational Between Groups 20.430 1 20.430 5.599 .021 Within Groups 248.142 68 3.649 Total 268.571 69 Influence Between Groups .066 1 .066 .073 .788 Within Groups 61.360 68 .902 Total 61.426 69 Leadership Between Groups .083 1 .083 .043 .836 Within Groups 130.616 68 1.921 Total 130.698 69 Purposeful Between Groups .576 1 .576 .129 .720 Within Groups 303.267 68 4.460 Total 303.843 69 Directing Between Groups 2.001 1 2.001 .700 .406

PAGE 148

148 Within Groups 194.342 68 2.858 Total 196.343 69 Empowering Between Groups 9.219 1 9.219 2.911 .093 Within Groups 215.367 68 3.167 Total 224.586 69 Impact Between Groups .030 1 .030 .021 .884 Within Groups 95.153 68 1.399 Total 95.183 69 Convincing Between Groups .144 1 .144 .050 .824 Within Groups 196.142 68 2.884 Total 196.286 69 Challenging Between Groups .043 1 .043 .013 .911 Within Groups 230.300 68 3.387 Total 230.343 69 Articulate Between Groups 1.219 1 1.219 .377 .541 Within Groups 219.767 68 3.232 Total 220.986 69 Communication Between Groups .096 1 .096 .051 .823 Within Groups 129.664 68 1.907 Total 129.760 69 Self promoting Between Groups .576 1 .576 .172 .680 Within Groups 227.767 68 3.350 Total 228.343 69 Interactive Between Groups .119 1 .119 .036 .849 Within Groups 222.867 68 3.277 Total 222.986 69 Engaging Between Groups 4.144 1 4.144 1.333 .252

PAGE 149

149 Within Groups 211.342 68 3.108 Total 215.486 69 Adaptability Between Groups .963 1 .963 .812 .371 Within Groups 80.614 68 1.186 Total 81.578 69 Support Between Groups .292 1 .292 .102 .750 Within Groups 193.905 68 2.852 Total 194.197 69 Involving Between Groups 1.811 1 1.811 .337 .563 Within Groups 365.175 68 5.370 Total 366.986 69 Attentive Between Groups 14.933 1 14.933 3.504 .066 Within Groups 289.767 68 4.261 Total 304.700 69 Accepting Between Groups .805 1 .805 .275 .602 Within Groups 198.967 68 2.926 Total 199.771 69 Resilience Between Groups 3.056 1 3.056 2.782 .100 Within Groups 74.696 68 1.098 Total 77.752 69 Resolving Between Groups 3.219 1 3.219 .857 .358 Within Groups 255.367 68 3.755 Total 258.586 69 Self -assured Between Groups 3.344 1 3.344 1.095 .299 Within Groups 207.742 68 3.055 Total 211.086 69 Composed Between Groups 2.630 1 2.630 1.036 .312

PAGE 150

150 Within Groups 172.642 68 2.539 Total 175.271 69 Flexibility Between Groups 3.016 1 3.016 1.550 .217 Within Groups 132.294 68 1.945 Total 135.310 69 Receptive Between Groups 5.833 1 5.833 1.520 .222 Within Groups 260.967 68 3.838 Total 266.800 69 Positive Between Groups .030 1 .030 .010 .922 Within Groups 211.742 68 3.114 Total 211.771 69 Change Oriented Between Groups 8.805 1 8.805 2.150 .147 Within Groups 278.467 68 4.095 Total 287.271 69 Delivery Between Groups 2.483 1 2.483 2.626 .110 Within Groups 64.294 68 .945 Total 66.776 69 Structure Between Groups 12.144 1 12.144 7.774 .007 Within Groups 106.231 68 1.562 Total 118.375 69 Organized Between Groups 12.876 1 12.876 3.858 .054 Within Groups 226.967 68 3.338 Total 239.843 69 Principled Between Groups 5.505 1 5.505 2.231 .140 Within Groups 167.767 68 2.467 Total 173.271 69 Activity Oriented Between Groups 20.430 1 20.430 7.337 .009

PAGE 151

151 Within Groups 189.342 68 2.784 Total 209.771 69 Drive Between Groups 1.514 1 1.514 .753 .389 Within Groups 136.849 68 2.012 Total 138.363 69 Dynamic Between Groups .305 1 .305 .077 .783 Within Groups 270.267 68 3.975 Total 270.571 69 Striving Between Groups .868 1 .868 .313 .578 Within Groups 188.575 68 2.773 Total 189.443 69 Enterprising Between Groups 10.971 1 10.971 3.918 .052 Within Groups 190.400 68 2.800 Total 201.371 69 Implementation Between Groups 6.114 1 6.114 2.685 .106 Within Groups 154.838 68 2.277 Total 160.952 69 Meticulous Between Groups 6.519 1 6.519 2.086 .153 Within Groups 212.467 68 3.125 Total 218.986 69 Reliable Between Groups 2.100 1 2.100 .424 .517 Within Groups 336.700 68 4.951 Total 338.800 69 Compliant Between Groups 11.668 1 11.668 3.924 .052 Within Groups 202.175 68 2.973 Total 213.843 69

PAGE 152

152 APPENDIX F BUREAU OF LABOR STAT ISTIC Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey Original Data Value Series Id: LNU02000000Q Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over Years: 2000 to 2010 Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual 2000 135485 137175 137289 137613 2001 136638 137293 137295 136508 2002 135059 136548 137389 136945 2003 136374 137820 138124 138625 2004 137333 139051 140189 140435 2005 139180 141662 143001 143075 2006 142083 144221 145332 146073 2007 144692 146039 146723 146731 2008 144755 146166 146029 144500 2009 140125 140592 140069 138724 2010 137332 139561 139922 139441 Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey Original Data Value Series Id: LNU02024230Q Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level 55 yrs. & over Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 55 years and over Years: 2000 to 2010 Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual 2000 18009 18125 18171 18418

PAGE 153

153 2001 18532 18799 18941 19319 2002 19415 19825 20131 20548 2003 20896 21041 21096 21794 2004 21867 21878 22159 22696 2005 22768 23380 23548 24077 2006 24149 24605 24721 25380 2007 25178 25572 25832 26306 2008 26489 26664 26764 27248 2009 27006 27115 27030 27378 2010 27505 27975 27975 28163 Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey Original Data Value Series Id: LNU02000093Q Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level 45 54 yrs. Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 45 to 54 years Years: 2000 to 2010 Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual 2000 30055 30231 30183 30770 2001 30880 31043 31052 31168 2002 31128 31129 31302 31567 2003 31568 31893 31925 32270 2004 32223 32353 32545 32756 2005 32818 33160 33330 33521 2006 33686 33942 34053 34527 2007 34370 34521 34520 34839 2008 34549 34563 34499 34508 2009 33728 33696 33408 33621 2010 33158 33281 33080 33245

PAGE 154

154 APPENDIX G LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES Saville WAVE Dimension WAVE description OPQ OPQ high level attribute Inventive (Thought/Vision) Creative, original, radical Artistic Innovative Shows artistic appreciation Enjoys creating novel solutions Abstract (Thought/Vision) Conceptual, theoretical, learning by thinking Conceptual Enjoys working with theory Strategic (Thought/Vision) Developing strategy, visionary, forward thinking Forward Planning Enjoys forming short & long term plans Insightful (Thought/Judgment) Discer ning, seeking improvement, intuitive Decisive Likes to make quick decisions Practically minded (Thought/Judgment) Practical, learning by doing, common sense focused Practical Enjoys repairing things Learning oriented (Thought/Judgment) Analytical (Thought/Evaluation) Problem solving, analyzing information, probing Critical Critically evaluates ideas Factual (Thought/Evaluation) Written communication, logical, fact finding Detail Conscious Is concerned about details Rational (Thought/Evaluation) Number fluency, technology aware, objective Data Rational Judges on basis of data/logic Purposeful (Influence/Leadership Decisive, making decision, definite Decisive Likes to make quick decisions

PAGE 155

155 Directing (Influence/Leadership) Leadership oriented, con trol seeking, coordinating people Controlling Prefers to direct or take control Empowering (Influence/Leadership) Motivating others, inspiring, encouraging Persuasive Can sell and be persuasive Convincing (Influence/Impact) Persuasive, negotiative, asserting views Persuasive Independent Can sell and be persuasive Argues strongly for opinions Challenging (Influence/Impact) Challenging ideas, prepared to disagree, argumentative Independent Tough Minded Argues strongly for opinions Does not suffer hurt feelings Articulate (Influence/Impact) Giving presentations, eloquent, socially confident Socially Confident Is confident with people Self promoting Interactive (Influence/Communicat ion) Networking, talkative, lively Outgoing Socially Confident Is talkative and outgoing Is confident with people Engaging (Influence/Communicat ion) Establishing rapport, friendship seeking, initial impression Socially Confident Is confident with people Involving (Adaptability/Support) Team oriented, demo cratic, decision sharing Affiliative Democratic Likes to work with groups/teams Consults others before deciding Attentive (Adaptability/Support) Empathetic, listening, psychologically minded Caring Is empathetic and tolerant Likes analyzing others

PAGE 156

156 Behavioral behaviors Accepting (Adaptability/Support) Trusting, tolerant, considerate Caring Is empathetic and tolerant Resolving Self assured (Adaptability/Resilienc e) Self confident, self valuing, self directing Optimistic Keeps optim istic outlook Composed (Adaptability/Resilienc e) Calm, poised, copes with pressure Relaxed Can switch off work pressures Receptive (Adaptability/Flexibility) Receptive to feedback, open to criticism, feedback seeking Tough Minded Does not suffer hurt feelings Positive (Adaptability/Flexibility) Optimistic, cheerful, buoyant Optimistic Keeps optimistic outlook Change oriented (Adaptability/Flexibility) Accepting challenges, accepting change, tolerant of uncertainty Change Oriented Seeks change/variety in work Organized (Delivery/Structure) Self organized, planning, prioritizing Forward Planning Enjoys forming short & long term plans Principled Activity oriented (Delivery/Structure) Quick working, busy, multi tasking Active Enjoys active jobs/activities Dynamic (Delivery/Drive) Energetic, initiating, action oriented Active Enjoys active jobs/activities Striving (Delivery/Drive) Ambitious, results driven, persevering Achieving Is ambitious for success Enterprising (Delivery/Drive) Competitive, entrepreneurial, selling Competitive Likes to compete and win Meticulous (Delivery/Implementati Quality oriented, thorough, detailed Detail Conscious Is concerned about details

PAGE 157

157 on) Reliable (Delivery/Implementati on) Meeting deadlines, finishing tasks, punctual Conscientious See routine tasks through Compliant (Delivery/Implementati on) Rule bound, following procedures, risk averse Traditional Follow conventional approach

PAGE 158

158 LIST OF REFERENCES American Association of Collegiat e Registrar and Admission Officers (AACRAO) Online dues schedule. (2010). AACRAO. http://www.aacrao.org/membership/join/webins.pdf American Council on Education Study. (2007). The American College President. ACE Publications. http://store.acenet.edu/showItem.aspx?product=311940&session=CAE29684BB 84406EA7E4AC0630CF330E Amey, M. J. & Van Der Linden, K. E. (2002). Career paths for community college leaders. AACC Research Briefs, No. 2 Retrieved November 18, 2009 from ERIC database #465400. Amey, M. J., Van Der Linden, K. E., & Brown, D. F. (2002). Perspectives on community college leadership: Twenty years in the making. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 573589. Retrieved November 18, 2009 from Academic Se arch Premier Database. Arnone, W. (2006). Are employers prepared for the aging U.S. workforce? Benefits Quarterly. Fourth quarter 2006, pp 712. Balkis, M., & Isiker, G. B. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and personality types. Social Behavior and Personality 33, 283294. Barden, D. (2006). The internal heir apparent. Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol 52, Issue 28, pp23. Retrieved November 29, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database. Basham, M. (2007). A Cognitive Application of Personality Testing: Measuring Entrepreneurialism in Americas Community Colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2007). UF Online Dissertations Bennis, Warren (1989). On becoming a leader Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Benis om, E., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams and teamwork in higher education Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Berry, J. (2008). Baseline Development to Streamline Executive Selection (Masters thesis, University of Florida, 2008). UF Online Thesis BNA (2010). HR faces growing leadership development deficits, study says. HR Focus 87: no 11. ISSN: 10596038. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from Wilson Web.

PAGE 159

159 Borreson, J. and Salaway, G. (2007). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2007. EDUCAUSE. www.educause.edu/ecar/ Bos, J. (2007). Top trends in training and leadership development. Workforce Management. www.workforce.com. Pp 3538. Retrieved March 10, 2008. Boyd, D. M. and Ellison, N. B. (2008), Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13: 210 230. Braller, D. (2010). Perspective: presidential leadership and health i nformation technology. Retrieved March 13, 2011: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=8&sid=f92d5121dc 724be18214cfd844cd8687%40sessionmgr14&vid=8 Bruck, L. (2010). The workforce talent drain. EHS Today: Distributor Focus A1 A4. ISSN: 1945 9599. Buchanan, L. (2010). Meet the millennials. INC. pp 166. ISSN: 01628968. California State Polytechnical University. (2010). http://www.csupomona.edu/ Campbell, D. F. (2006). The new leadership gap: Shortages in administrative positions. Community College Journal, 76, 1014. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from Academic Search Premier Database. Campbell, D. F. ( 2009). Your next leader: piecing together the executive search process. Community College Journal, 3435. Campbell, D. F. & Associates (2002). The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies For Leadershi p Development. Washington: Community College Press. Campbell, D. F. & Kachik, C. (2002). Leadership profile research and consortium. In Campbell, D. F. & Associates, The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies For Leadership Development. Washington: Community College Press. Campbell, D. F. & Leverty, L. H. (1997). Developing & selecting leaders for the 21st century. Community College Journal, Vol 67, no. 4. Campbell, D. F.; Syed, S., & Morris, P. (2010). Minding the gap: filling a void in community coll ege leadership development. In New Directions for Community Colleges Wiley InterScience. www.interscience.wiley.com Carroll, C. & Phillips, L. (2004). Succession Planning: Daytona Beach Community College Prepares Tomorrows Leaders. The Bottomline Newsletter of Community College Business Officers Summer 2004.

PAGE 160

160 Clare, C. ( 2009). Generational differences turning challenges into opportunities. J Prop Manage. 74 no 5: 4143. www.irem.org/jpm Retrieved February 17, 2011 from Wilson Web. Closeup Media (2011). UBM Studios unicruit names Intel as platinum sponsor for veterans. http://financial.tmcnet.com//ne ws/2011/02/16/5315945.htm Crosson, P., Douglas, K., OMeara, K. and Sperlin, Charmian (2005). A Community College Leadership Academy: Developing Leaders for Massachuttes. Community College Review, Vol 33 Issue 2, 4563. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from Ac ademic Search Premier. Davenport, T.; Harris, J. & Shapiro, J. (2010). Competing on talent analytics. Harvard Business Review 5259. Retrieved on February 17, 2011 from Academic Search Premier Database. Davis, G. P. (2011) Preparing leaders for the future: a toolkit for developing administrators in higher education. www.acenet.edu. Dembicki, M. (2006). Hot issues: report highlights leadership program practices. AACC website. http://www.aacc.nche.edu. Retrieved October 6, 2006. Dolence, M. (1993) Strategic enrollment management: a primer for campus administrators. AACRAO Guide Publication Fallon, T. (2009). Retain and motivate the next generation: 7 ways to get the most out of your millennial workers. Supervision. 70 no 5: 47. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web. FuturesLeaders ATG Work Profiling Session (2006). Dean/Director Enrollment and R egistrar. Unpublished document. GCN (2011). Technology vs. experience: the changing workforce. http://gcn.com/articles/2011/01/28/Commentary next genmobile w orkers.aspx?p=1 Gardner, H. & Larkin, E. (1996). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Harper Collins. Germain, M. L. (2008). Traits and skills theory as the nexus between leadership and expertise: reality or fallacy? St. Thomas Univer sity Dissertation retrieved January 15, 2011. Gibson, C. B. (1995). An investigation of gender differences in leadership across four countries. Journal of International Business Studies. 26, 255275.

PAGE 161

161 Gordon, B. (2009). Congressional testimony: opening statement to the House Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved February 19, 2011 from MasterFIlE Premier, access number 32Y3403614931. Hall, A. ( 2000). Taming the techno beast: technology is running wild, learn to manage change, or youll get eaten alive. Business Week. 3042. Hamilton, K. (2004) A pathway to the presidency. Black Issues in Higher Education. 21, 20, p3841. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from Academic Search Premier.. Harrison, M., McKinnon, T, and Terry, P. (Oct 2006). Effective succession planning: how to design and implement a successful succession plan. TD pp 2223. Hartley, L. (2008). Succession planning through the ages. Workforce Management. 87 no 14. Ret rieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web. Heidrick & Struggles (2010). New CEO and board research reveals serious gaps in CEO succession planning. Boardmember.com http://www.boardmember.com/New CEO andBoardResearchReveals Serious Gaps in CEO Succession Planning.aspx Retrieved February 15, 2011. Hershey, P. & Blanchard, K. (2007). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources Prentice Hall. Higher Education Publications (2010). Select administrators and characteristics. http://www.hepinc.com/admin_charact_select.php Retrieved February 15, 2011. Jackson, D. (2010). 2010: The year of the iPad? Law Library Journal. Vol 102:3, pp 513520. Jackson, H. G. (2010). HR, the boomer, exodus and preparing for whats next. HR Magazine. 55 no 10 p II IV. ISSN: 10473149. Joslyn, H. (2009). A growing leadership gap. The Chronicle on Philanthropy 21: no 13. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web. Kachik, C. J. (2003). The fivefactor model and Hollands theory: Community college and corporate leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003). UF Online Dissertations. Kleinglass, N. (2005). Who is driving the changing landscape in student affairs? New Directions for Student Services, 112, 2538. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from Academic Search Premier. Krieger, L. (2008) WAVE assessment interpretation. Training. Jacksonville, FL.

PAGE 162

162 Leslie, J. (2009). The leadership gap. Center for Creative Leadership. http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/l eadershipGap.pdf Lovell, C. & Kosten, L. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary for success as a student affairs administrator: A metaanalysis of thirty years of research. NAPSA Journal. Vol 37, No. 4, pp 553572. Magner, D. (2009). The leadership pipeline. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mann, T. (2010). Attrition among chief academic officers threatens strategic plans. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web. McCauley, C. and Wakefi eld, M. (2006). Talent management in the 21st century. The Journal for Quality and Participation. Winter 2006, pp 47. McConahay, M., West, A., Hanson, K. and Woodbeck, D. (2009). The electronic FERPA: access in the digital age. College & University. Vol 84, No. 3. Middlehurst, R. (2008). Not enough science or not enough learning? Exploring the gaps between leadership and theory. Higher Education Quarterly. Vol 62, no 4, pp322339. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Academic Search P remier. Minter, S. (2010). Identifying your future leaders. IW 24 26. www.industryweek.com ISSN: 0039 0895. Mironack, M. (2003). Leadership Behaviors Among College Union Directors at Doctoral research Universities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003). UF Online Dissertations Morley, J. & Eadie, D. (2001). Moving from manager to leader. NACUBO Business Officer, 34(12), 2225. National Center for Educational Statistics ( 2010). http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/ Nickson, C. (2009). The history of social networking. Digital Trends. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the history of social networking/ ODaniels, T. (2009). Gender in Community College Administration (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2009). UF Online Dissertations. Patton, M. ( 2004) Initiative seeks to inform and prepare new leaders. Community College Times ,Washington: AACC. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/ContentGroups/CC_Times/January_20041/Ini tiative_Seeks_To_Inform_and_Prepare_New_Leaders.htm, firstaccessed February 2010.

PAGE 163

163 Pelham, D., Roof, J., & Presswood, K. (2006). The changing role of the community college registrar would your president rehire you? AACRAO Annual Conference Presentation. Powell, G.N. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rhode Island College. (2010). http://www.ric.edu/ Ricadela, A. & Brady, D.(2010) HP said to be near decision on Mark Hurds successor. Bloomberg Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/news/20100917/hpsaid to benear decisiononmark hurdssuccessor.html Retrieved on February 15, 2011. Rothwell, W. (2010). The Future of Succession Planning. T+D American Society for Training and Development. P 51 54. Sacks, D. (2006). Scenes from the ;) culture clash. Fast Company 102, 7378. Saville (2006). Technical Document. Unpublished report. Saville, P. & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 219238. Retrieved May 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database. Seminole State College (2010). http://www.seminolestate.edu/ Shults, Christoper. (2001). The Critical Impact of Impending Retirements on Community College Leadership. American Association of Community Colleges, Research Brief, No. 1 Leadership Series, 2001. Simons, N. (2010). Leveraing generational work styles to meet business objectives. Information Management 2833. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from Academic Search Premier Database. Slippery Rock University. (2010). http://www.sru.edu/index/pages/home.aspx Smith, D. (2010). A leadership skills gap? T&D. 1617. Spellings, M. (2006). Report commissioned by Secretary of Education. A te st of leadership: charting the future of U.S. higher education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html Retrieved March 5, 2007.

PAGE 164

164 Spillett, R. (2006). It begins with leadership and discipline of the board. The Nonprofits Sector Leadership Deficit. Bridgespan Report. http://www.bridgespan.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIde ntifier=id&ItemID=936 Stewart & Wright (1997) The registrar, a view of the profession. SACRAO Journal. SUNY Rockland Community College. (2010) Registrar job description. http://www.sunyrockland.edu/Members/inewhem/jobdescription Tunks, L. (2007). Comparison of the Outcomes of Leadership Behaviors of community Collge Administrators (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2007). UF Online Dissertations Tyler, K. (2007). The tethered generation. HR Magazine. 52, no 5: 4146. USDOE (2010) FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html Weinstein, M. (2010). Missing something? Training Magazine. 47 no 1. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from Wilson Web. Yielder, J. & Codling, A. (2004). Management and leadership in the contemporary university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 315328. Retrieved Oct 18, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.

PAGE 165

165 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kristy Robertson Pressw ood was born in Daytona Beach, Florida in 1971. The sixth of seven children, she grew up in Daytona Beach, graduating from Mainland High School in 1989. She is an alum of Daytona State College and earned a B achelor of Science degree in Business Administration and a Masters of Business Administration f rom the University of Central Florida (UCF) in 1997 and 1999, respectively. Kristy began working fulltime at Daytona State College in 1992. During her tenure at Daytona State, she graduated with her doctorate in Higher Education Administration from the University of Florida in 2011. Kristy has worked in nearly every area of the College giving her a better perspective of the big picture and how the departments relate. She feels communication is the key to ensuring successful program implementation and continual growth. Kristy is the Associate Vice President of the College of Education at Daytona State College. She has been married to James Clayton Presswood nearly 15 years. They have three children: Emily, age 12; Samantha, age 10; and Trevor, age 7.