Leadership Competencies of Community College Senior Student Affairs Officers in the United States

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Leadership Competencies of Community College Senior Student Affairs Officers in the United States
Physical Description:
1 online resource (189 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Rodkin,Daniel M
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ed.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Higher Education Administration, Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education
Committee Chair:
Campbell, Dale F
Committee Members:
Honeyman, David S
Oliver, Bernard
Barfield, Carl S

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
affairs -- college -- community -- competencies -- development -- leadership -- mentoring -- officer -- rodkin -- senior -- student
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to assess community college senior student affairs officers (CCSSAOs) demographics, educational backgrounds, and leadership development experiences, as related to their mastery of the leadership skills outlined in the American Association of Community Colleges Competencies for Community College Leaders (AACC Competencies) (2005), and to determine which of these leadership skills is deemed most critical for CCSSAOs to perform their jobs effectively. Furthermore, this study examined CCSSAOs? perceptions of their preparedness for the AACC Competencies, and explored a variety of methods for providing leadership development. The population for this study was CCSSAOs in the United States as listed in the 2011 Higher Education Directory or the 2010 National Council for Student Development Membership Directory. A total of 308 CCSSAOs responded to The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Survey. Findings reveal that: (a) overall, CCSSAOs rated the leadership skills identified by the AACC Competencies as important or very important; (b) CCSSAOs rated their preparedness for the AACC Competencies significantly lower than they rated the leadership skills? importance; (c) earning an EdD and participating in mentoring relationships as a prot?g? both played a significant role in helping CCSSAOs feel more prepared for the senior-level position; (d) participating in leadership development programs did not result in CCSSAOs reporting a significantly higher level of preparedness for the AACC Competencies; and (e) institutional characteristics had a minimal impact on CCSSAOs perceptions of the importance of the AACC Competencies. This study provides new knowledge about applying the AACC Competencies to the training, development, and selection of CCSSAOs. The findings may be used by professional organizations, state associations, university graduate programs, and community college student affairs divisions to inform how these groups provide training and professional development for student affairs professionals. Additionally, community college student affairs professionals whom aspire to serve as senior-level administrators could use these findings to guide their professional development. Finally, college presidents charged with hiring CCSSAOs may benefit from using the list of competencies to determine desired competencies in candidates.
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 Daniel M Rodkin.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ed.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:
UFE0043221:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 LEADERSHIP CO MPETENC I ES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE S ENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS IN THE UNITED STATES By DANIEL MICHAEL RODKIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Daniel Michael Rodkin

PAGE 3

3 The dissertation is dedicated to my first son, Noah Jacob Rodkin, whose loss inspired me to begin the journey toward a doctoral degree. While I miss you greatly, my memories of our brief time together have kept me moving during this long journey.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I need to thank my wonderful wife, Christy, for her patience over the past seven years while I attended class, wrote papers, and disappeared for hours at a time to work on this dissertation Know that I am aware of and appreciate the sacrifices you have made so that I could finish this degree. I appreciate you and love you eternally. I need to thank my two children, Ben and Delaney, for not complaining (too much) when I missed story time, bedtime, and playtime because of my academic responsibilities. Even more than you, I am looking forward to spending that time with you a nd not my co mputer! I love you guys. I also t hank my supervisors at Santa Fe College D ug Jones and Dr. Portia Taylor f or being understanding and flexible with my work requirements when classes were scheduled. It was always a relief to know that you were okay with me working odd hours to accommodate an y oddly timed class es Without your support, I would not have been able to complete the program. A special note of appreciation goes to Santa Fe College President Dr. Jackson Sasser for his continued support of my pu rsuit of a doctoral degree, in addition to providing financial and emotional support for Santa Fe College employees who are seeking additional degrees. I would be remiss if I did not mention my coworkers in Student Life and Student Affairs at Santa Fe College for their support and for leaving me alone those last few days when I was holed up in my office writing! Many of these coworkers are pursuing degrees, and this document is proof that the juggling act of work, school, and family is possible! Keep the balls in the air it can be done I need to acknowledge my former advisors at the University of Florida, Norb Dunkel and Diane Porter Roberts for introducing me to the field of student affairs and for providing encouragement to explore this career. Y ou helped me realize the power of student development

PAGE 5

5 the value of allowing students to learn from their mistakes, and the institutional benefits of providing students with a safe venue to develop leadership, interpersonal, and professional skills. I app reciate all you did for me, and I continue to value our professional relationship s Much appreciation goes to Cynthia Garvan at the University of Florida Office of Educational Research for her assistance with the statistical analysis portions of this docum ent. A true teacher, she helped me understand what questions I really was trying to a sk and how to apply statistical tools to find the answers. Finally, I thank Dr. Dale Campbell Dr. David Honeyman Dr. Bernard Oliver, and Dr. Carl Barfield for believi ng in me and for helping me navigate the waters to wards the completion of this dissertation.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13 Backgr ound Information and Significance of the Study ................................ ........................ 13 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 18 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 18 Methodolog y ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 Organization of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 23 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ........................ 24 The Community College System ................................ ................................ ............................ 25 An Overview of Student Affairs ................................ ................................ ............................. 29 Composition of a Modern Student Affairs Department ................................ .................. 32 Community College Student Affairs ................................ ................................ ............... 34 Primary Issues Facing Community College Student Affairs ................................ .......... 36 Student Affairs Leadership ................................ ................................ .............................. 39 Competencies ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 41 General Competencies in Student Affairs ................................ ................................ ....... 45 Competencies for Community College Leaders ................................ .............................. 49 American Association of Community Colleges Competencies for Community College Leaders ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 53 Leadership Development for Community College Student Affairs ................................ ....... 55 University Based Graduate Programs ................................ ................................ ............. 56 Leadership Development Programs ................................ ................................ ................ 58 Mentoring ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 61 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 64 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ .. 66 Statement of Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 66 Instrument Development ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 67 Endorsement of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 68 Research Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 69

PAGE 7

7 Survey I nstrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 70 Administration of Survey Instrument ................................ ................................ ..................... 72 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 74 Data Analysis Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 74 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 77 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 79 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 79 General Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 79 Educational Backgrounds ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 Career Pathways ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 81 Leadership Development Experie nces ................................ ................................ ............ 83 Professional Activities and Community Leadership Experiences ................................ ... 85 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 86 Leader ship Skills ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 86 Internal Consistency of AACC Competency Domains ................................ ................... 93 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 95 Research Question Four ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 98 Mentor ing Relationship ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 98 Leadership Development Programs ................................ ................................ .............. 102 Research Question Five ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 104 Institutional Size ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 105 Institutional Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 107 Institutional Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 108 Rese arch Question Six ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 110 Most Valuable Leadership Development Experience ................................ ................... 110 What They Wish They Had Done Differently ................................ .............................. 112 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 113 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS OF CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 127 Discussion of Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 128 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................................ 128 Resear ch Question Two ................................ ................................ ................................ 132 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ............................... 137 Research Question Four ................................ ................................ ................................ 138 Research Question Five ................................ ................................ ................................ 140 Research Question Six ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 142 Implic ations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 145 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ................................ ................ 147 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 150

PAGE 8

8 APPENDIX A AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES COMPETENCIES FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEADERS ................................ ................................ ......... 151 B THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICER: DEMOGRAPHICS AND LEADERSHIP SURVEY ................................ ........................... 154 C PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS ................................ ................................ ........ 167 D CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS STUDIED IN ARTICLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 168 E COMPETENCIES AND SKILLS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS ................................ ................................ ............................. 169 F CH ALLENGES, ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES, AND COMPETENCIES FOR THE FUTURE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 170 G COMPETENCIES AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FUTURE COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS ................................ ................................ ......... 171 H CATEGORIES OF SKILLS, AREAS OF EXPERTISE, AND SKILLS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEADERS ................................ ................................ ............... 172 I LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 174 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 175 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 189

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF T ABLES Table page 3 1 Eligible sample for The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Survey ................................ ................................ .............. 78 3 2 Response rate for The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Survey ................................ ................................ .............. 78 4 1 Demographics of CCSSAO sample ................................ ................................ ................. 115 4 2 Educational backgrounds of CCSSAO sample ................................ ................................ 115 4 3 Career pathways of CCSSAO sample Part 1 ................................ ................................ 116 4 4 Career pathways of CCSSAO sample Part 2 ................................ ................................ 116 4 5 mportance in preparing for CCSSAO position ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 117 4 6 Leadership development experiences of CCSSAO sample ................................ ............. 118 4 7 Professional and community experiences of CCSSAO sample ................................ ....... 118 4 8 AACC Competencies CCSSAO perceptions of preparation and levels of importance ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 119 4 9 Level of preparedness for first CCSSAO position ................................ ........................... 121 4 10 Internal consistency analysis of AACC Competencies domains ................................ ..... 121 4 11 Paired sample t tests for AACC Competencies domains ................................ ................. 121 4 12 One way ANOVA of preparedness for leadership competencies of CCSSAO sample by highest degree earned ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 122 4 13 Tukey post hoc tests conducted on significant ANOVA findings regarding highest degree earned ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 122 4 14 T tests of preparedness for leadership competencies of CCSSAO sample by participation in a mentoring relationship as a protg ................................ ..................... 122 4 15 One way ANOVA of preparedness for leadership competencies of CCSSAO sample by mentor gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 123 4 16 Tukey post hoc tests conducted on significant ANOVA findings regarding mentor gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 123

PAGE 10

10 4 17 T tests of preparedness for leadership competencies of CCSSAO sample by participation in formal leadership development programs ................................ .............. 123 4 18 Community college institutional characteristics of CCSSAO sample ............................. 124 4 19 One way ANOVA of importance for leadership competencies of CCSSAO sample by institutional size ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 124 4 20 Tukey post hoc tests conducted on significant ANOVA findings regarding CCSSAO ................................ ................................ ................................ 125 4.21 One way ANOVA of importance of leadership competencies of CCSSAO sample by institutional settings ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 125 4 22 Tukey post hoc tests conducted on significant ANOVA findings regarding CCSSAO ................................ ................................ .......................... 125 4 23 T tests of importance for leadership competencies of CCSSAO sample by institutional structure ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 126 4 24 Most effective leadership experiences of CCSSAO sample ................................ ............ 126 4 25 How CCSSAO survey respondents wish they had prepared for first senior level positions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 126

PAGE 11

11 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 Education LEADERSHIP CO MPETEN C I ES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE S ENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS IN THE UNITED STATE S By Daniel M ichael Rodkin August 2011 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration demographics, educational backgrounds, and leadership devel opment experiences as related to their mastery of the leadership skills outlined in the A merican A ssociation of C ommunity C olleges Competencies for Community College Leaders ( AACC Competencies ) (2005), and to determine which of these leadership skills is deemed most critical for community college senior student affairs officers to perform their jobs effectively. Furthermore th is study examine d perceptions of their preparedness for the AACC Competencies and explore d a variety of me thods for providing leadership development. The population for this study w as community college senior student affairs officers in the United States who were either l isted in the 2011 Higher Education Directory or the 2010 National Council for Student Development Membership Directory A total of 308 community college senior student affairs officers responded to The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Dem ographics and Leadership Survey Findings reveal that: ( a ) overall, community college senior student affairs officers rate d the leadership skills identified by the AACC Competencies as important or very important; ( b ) community college senior student affa irs officers rate d their preparedness for the AACC Competencies significantly lower than

PAGE 12

12 they rate d the importance; ( c ) earning an EdD and participating in mentoring relationships as a protg both play ed a significant role in helping co mmunity college senior student affairs officers feel more prepared for the senior level position; ( d ) participating in leadership development programs did not result in community college senior student affairs officers reporting a significantly higher level of preparedness for the AACC Competencies ; and ( e ) institutional characteristics had a minimal impact on community college senior student affairs of ficers perception s of the importance of the AACC Competencies. This study provides new knowledge about the application of the AACC Competencies to the training and development of community college senior student affairs officers. The findings can be used by professional organizations, state associations, university graduate programs, and community college student affairs divisions to inform how the se groups provide training and professional development for student affairs professionals Additionally, co mmunity college student affairs professionals who aspire to serve as senior level administrators could use this results to guide their professional development. Specifically, these individuals should obtain an EdD, develop at least one mentoring r elationship, and experience a broad perspective of student affairs at the community college level

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The focus of this study was to examine community college senior student affairs leadership competencies and leadership development. In light of the economy at the time this study was conducted the need for community college graduates and the s hortage of well prepared community college leaders in higher education literature has focused more on leadership development. This chapter explains the purpose and significan ce of the study, introduces the research questions and methodology, and defines k ey terms Background Information and Significance of the Study The concept of college administrators focused on student welfare existed prior to 1901, when Joliet Junior College (2010) then, the c ommunity college system has grown in size and complexity, and today enrolls almost half of all U.S. undergraduates. For the fall 2007 semester, 6.6 million students (or 42% of all undergraduates) were enrolled at over 1,200 U.S. community colleges ( The Ch ronicle of Higher Education 2009). Community college enrollment has grown 29.9% over the previous ten year period, whereas undergraduate enrollment at four year institutions has increased by only 25.8%. orkforce looks to community colleges to provide job training. In the midst of the economic recession, President Barack Obama (2009) called 2 1st century job training centers, working with local businesses to he lp workers learn the skills they need to fill the jobs of the future President Obama set the goal of five million additional graduates from community colleges over a ten year period and offered $12 billion in federal aid over those same ten years to improve programs, courses, and facilities (Hebel, 2009). The federal government community colleges, and the federa l funding proposed for them, was unprecedented and underscore d the link

PAGE 14

14 between the community college and local workforce developm ent needs (Parry & Fischer, 2009). college s across the country reaffirmed their commitment to help students persist until graduation to increas e access and to maintain t he highest quality levels (Mullin, 2010). strengthening the U.S. economy by equipping students with the leadership and workforce skills Skenk, 2010, p. 12), it has never been more important to have qualified, competent community college leaders (Cohen & Brawer, 2008 ; Watts & Hammons, 2002). While much of the research on community col lege leadership focuses on the executive level (Boggs, 2003; Campbell & Associates, 2002; Hammons & Keller, 1990; Hockaday & Puyear, 2008; Townsend & Bassoppo Moyo, 1997; Weisman & Vaughn, 2002), when specifically examining what helps students graduate, Sa ndeen (1991) emphasized the critical roles administrative functions functions that typically fall with in senior student scope s of responsibility view was supported by Tinto (1993), who report ed that a key element of s of the programs and services. In addition, a of class experiences and student learning and persistence (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associ ates, 1991). Astin (1993) suggested that Bogart and Hirshberg (1993) argue d that among contributing factors of college success quality orientation programs help student understanding of the institutional culture and a f irst year

PAGE 15

15 experience study skills or survival class. Administrative responsibility for programs, services, out of class experiences, involvement with peer groups, orientation, and first year experience study skills classes all fall under the purview of student affairs operati ons (Sandeen, 1996). To ensure that community colleges can meet graduation goals, the se students must persis t in completing their programs of study This expectation of accountability is not new to community colleges as nu merous reports have been written over the past 30 years that call for greater accountability in all of higher education ( The College Board, 2008; National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education, 2005; National Commission on Excellence in Educatio n, 1983; Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1993) ; this accountability also applies to student affairs in general (American College Personnel Association [ACPA] 199 6 ; National Association of Student Personnel Administrators [NASPA] & A CPA 2004). Lead forward in some posit T o adhere to the mandates of higher standards of accountability and achieve the desired outcome s community colleges need com petent and talented lead ers (Boggs, 200 4 ). So who are the leaders of student affairs within the U.S. community college system? As retir e by 2011 (Boggs, 2004 ; Campb ell & Associates, 200 2; Campbell & Leverty, 1997 ; Hockaday & Puyear, 2008 ). (2006) follow up research found that similar vacancies will exist in student affairs senior administrative positions, including the r egistrar, f inancial a id director a nd others With these vacancies, one m ight wonder w ho will provide leadership for community college student affairs? How will the se individuals be prepare d? What do they need to know?

PAGE 16

16 To help answer the la st question two organizations ACPA and NASPA collaborated to define competencies for student affairs practitioners. After a year of analyzing 19 documents previously published by ACPA, NASPA, and the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Educa tion, ACPA and NASPA created the Profession al Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners (2010) a comprehensive document with ten competencies, which are: Advising and helping ; Assessment, evaluation, and research ; Equity, diversity, and inclusion ; Ethical professional practice ; History, p hilosophy, and values ; Human and organizational resources ; Law, policy, and governance ; Leadership ; Personal foundations ; and Student learning and development (pp. 6 2 7) Each competency is explained with a list of knowledge, skills, or attitudes that pra ctitioners should demonstrate. Then, e ach competency is divided into basic, intermediate, or advanced levels which demonstrate s the expected professional growth that occur s throughout a student affairs practitioner The authors explain that the Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners should be used (a) to aid with curriculum design for student affairs graduate programs ; (b) to a ssist with in the design of professional development opportunities ; and (c) to provide a tool for practitioners to conduct self assessment s, as a means to evaluate and direct their professional development (ACPA & NASPA, 2010). However, the student affairs work environment differ s between community college s and four year universit ies (Laws, 2011). Since the majority of community colleges enroll less than 5,000 students ( Provasnik & Planty, 2008 ), the size of a student affairs department and pace of the work is markedly different than at larger institutions (Hirt, 2006). While the functions performed are similar to other colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2008 ), the roles and responsibilities of

PAGE 17

17 the student affairs staff, including senior student affairs officers vary considera bly (Hirt, 2006; Laws, 2011). To accommodate these dif ferences, studies that focus on community college leadership may be examined to determine the competencies for community college senior student affairs officers (CCSSAOs) Among such studies is Leading Forward, an American Association of Community College s (AACC) project started in 2003 with the support of the Kellogg Foundation (AACC, 2005). Over a two year period, following a series of leadership summits and a survey, the Leading Forward Advisory Panel determined universal support for the six primary c ompetencies that would become the domains for the Competencies for Community College Leaders (AACC Competencies ) : organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism (AACC, 2005). The six competency domains were further explained by 45 individual leadership competencies, which formed the core o f the document (Appendix A) Statement of the Problem The problem addressed within this study is the lack of a designated set of leadership competencies necessary to be an effective senior student affairs officer at a community college in the United States A literature review revealed that numerous papers (a) discuss the functions, responsibilities, and background s of CCSSAOs (Apraku Amankwaatia, 2004; Edwards, 2005; Holloway, 2003; Keim, 2008; Mattox & Creamer, 1998; Smith, 2002; Tull & Freeman, 2008 ; Wa de, 1993) ; and (b) describe the leadership skills needed for community college executive 2 009; Duncan & Harlacher, 1991; Duree, 2007; Hammons & Keller, 1990; Vincent, 2004) However, minimal research addresses the leadership competencies needed to serve in student affairs at the community college.

PAGE 18

18 Purpose of Study As previously stated, individuals with adequate community college leadership preparation are needed to fill antici pated vacancies in CCSSAO positions. But first, the skills required in those positions must be identified. Therefore, t he purpose of this study was to assess CCSSAOs demographics, educational backgrounds, and leadership development experiences as relat ed to the mastery of the AACC Competencies and to determine which competencies are deemed most critical for CCSSAOs to effectively perform their jobs. Furthermore the study examine d CCSSAOs Competencies and explore d a variety of me thods for providing leadership development. Research Questions Six research questions were asked in this study: 1. What are the general demographic characteristics, professional backgrounds and leadership experiences of current community college senior student affairs officers in the United States ? 2. perceptions of importance of the leadership skills include d in the AACC Competencies and their perception of their preparedness for those skills when they assumed thei r first community college senior student affairs officer position? 3. To what extent do the highest degrees earned by community college senior student affairs officers influence how they rate their preparedness on the leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies when they assumed their first community college s enior student affairs officer position? 4. To what extent do the differences in leadership preparation outside of formal education influence how they rate their preparedness on the leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies when they assumed their first community college senior student affairs officer position? 5. To what extent do differ ences in institutional characteristics (specifically, institution size, setting, structure, and highest degree offering) affect the reported importance of the AACC Competencies ? 6. Which leadership experiences do current community college senior student affai rs officers believe best prepared them to serve in this capacity, and what do they wish they had done

PAGE 19

19 differently to prepare for their first community college senior student affairs officer position? Methodology A quantitative survey was design ed to address the research questions. The instrument was adapted from an existing survey developed by Duree (2007) for community college presidents. The new instrument, The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Surve y was reviewed by a panel of leading researchers in the community college field and juried by a group of 10 current CCSSAOs ( Appendix B ) During the spring 2011 semester, t he survey instrument was e mail ed to all CCSSAOs listed in the 2011 Higher Education Directory or in the 2010 National Council on Student Development Membership Directory. The instrument was available through a W eb based application and respondents entered all responses electronically. The types of inventories utilized to measure the i tems on the survey instrument were categorical responses (for demographic data), dichotomous responses (i.e. yes and no ), numerical scales, and four point Likert type scales (e.g., not important to very important ; not prepared to very prepared ). C CSSAOs w ere asked to rate the importance of as well as their level of preparedness for 45 individual leadership competencies connected to organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism. Data collected by this section of the instrument was used to assess overall preparedness. The preparedness level was then used to identify competencies where greater effort should be made to prepar e future CCSSAOs Individual demographic data collected included age, gender, and race/ethnicity. The institutional demographics explored institution size, setting, structure, and the typ es of degrees offered. Professional information included title and educational background (highest degree

PAGE 20

20 earned and major field of study in that degree). Career pathways information included the number of student affairs positions held, the number of ye ars in the current position, the total number of years work ed in student affairs, the position held prior to the current position the number of years work ed in various college/university career tracks other positions (held both inside and outside of educ ation) teaching experience s and career aspiration s Leadership preparation information in cluded participation in formal leadership development programs and mentoring relationships. Two o pen ended questions were added to provide an opportuni ty for study participants to expand on their earlier responses or to provide new information. The first question asked CCSSAOs to reflect on the leadership development experiences b est prepared them to serve in th at capacity. Secondly, they were asked to explain how it they could do it again, they would have prepared differently for their first CCSSAO position s Statistical analyses were performed to determine what leadership competencies respondents ranked highest Analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were performed to determine the relationship between highest degree earned, participation in leadership development programs and mentoring relationships on the self perception of preparedness for the AACC Compete n ci es A combination of t tests and ANOVA procedures were conducted to detect significant differences in importance of the AACC Competencies based on each institutional characteristic group. Content analysis was performed to determine the types of experi ences CCSSAOs found most valuable in prepar ing for their first CCSSAO position s and on how they would have prepared differently for their first CCSSAO position s Definitions American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) With a membership of close to 1,200 two year, associate degree granting institutions, the AACC has become the leading

PAGE 21

21 foci: r ecognition and advocacy for community colleges ; s tudent access, learning, and success ; c ommunity college leadership development; e conomic and workforce development ; and g lobal and intercultural e ducation (AACC, 2011). Community College For the purposes of this study, a community college is defined as a no n profit, two year institution of higher education in which the most common degree awarded to students is an associate degree. Competency Model Competency models organize and provide structure to lists of competencies to explain the core requirements for a job, and may be used for selection, evaluation, training, and career development (Spencer & Spencer, 1993) Leadership Competencies L eadership competencies are the behaviors, knowledge, skills, and abilities that a person needs to provide effective leadership an d positively impact an organization at a par ticular time (McNamara, 2003). Mentoring Relationships In the context of this study, mentoring relationships are formal or informal pairings of an established leader in the field (mentor) and a less experience d professional (protg). Mentoring relationships have been shown to positive ly impact the career development and leadership ( Carpenter & Stimp son, 2007 ; VanDerLinden, 2005 ) Leadership development programs I n th context, leadership development programs are short term training experiences designed to help faculty or administrators improve their leadership skills. Often sponsored by professional associations, state agencies, or individual institutions, these workshops are generally ou tcome s orientated and may be based on a curriculum grounded in an established competency model.

PAGE 22

22 Senior Student Affairs Officer The senior student affairs officer, also known as the chief student affairs officer a nd frequently holds the title of vice pre sident for student affairs or dean of students is the senior administrator on a college campus charged with leading the student affairs division. This individual generally reports to the chief executive off icer (president or chancellor). Student Affairs Student affairs refers to the division within a college or university charged with handling the numerous complex administrative and learning experiential matters of students time outside of the classroom (Moneta & Jackson, 2011 ; Sandeen, 1996). Positiv e experience and interactions with programs under the purview of student affairs has been shown to have a significant impact on student retention, persistence, and learning (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 1991; NASPA & ACPA, 2004; Tinto, 1993). University Based Graduate Programs University based graduate programs, offering m degrees and doctoral degrees, are commonly used to prepare administrators for professional positions in student affairs. Senior level positions often require a doct oral degree. Within educational administration, one has an option of the EdD (Doctorate of Education) or a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy). While both are terminal degrees, the P h D is research oriented and the EdD is directed toward practitioners and focuse s on the application of theory and research. Limitations The study was limited to individuals listed as senior student affairs officers in the 2011 Higher Education Directory or the 2010 National Council on Student Development Membership Directory and who had a valid e mail address listed in the directories. Not every senior student affairs officer at every U.S. community college was listed in these two documents, and employee turnover invalidated some of the e mail addresses. The results of this study prov ided a snapshot of CCSSAOs serving in that capacity during the spring 2011 semester ; this population will

PAGE 23

23 change over time, and the responses may not generalize over time. Information from this study was drawn from the CCSSAOs was designed to be completed electronically, and multiple attempts were made to secure a maximum number of responses, there was limite d control of the response rate. The timing the study itself may have been a limitation. Depending on the institution an d its academic calendar the initial notification may have arrived during the first week of classes, resulting in CCSSAOs be ing occupied with registration subsided when follow up e mail s were sent, busy schedules may have prohibited some from participat ing An assumption has been made that CCSSAOs who pa rticipated in the study responded honestly and fair l y due to the anonymity of their responses The responses to questions about importance of and preparedness for the AACC Competencies were subject to individual bias and self perception. Organization of the Study A review of the literature regarding the history and state of affairs for both community colleges and student affairs at the time the study was conducted as well as a discussion about competencies and leadership development in higher education may be found in c hapter two. Chapter three contains an explanation of the research design and methodology (i.e. the data collection and data analysis procedures used in this study ) Chapter four contains t he statistics and findings from the data analysi s of th is study. The final chapter includes a summary of the study, discussion of the conclusions, implications of the findings, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERA TURE This chapter provide s a n overview of the literature as it pertains to research on the four general areas: the community college system, the field of student affairs in the United States, the concept of competencies, and a review o f leadership development practices An overview of the community college system explore s the history of the community college in the United States and relates the unique attributes of this system of higher education. Also, a focus on the differences at two year institutions introduc e s an ex amination of challenges fac ing community colleges at the time of the study As Dungy (1999) pointed out, research on community college student affairs is sporadic at best. As such, the first section of this chapter use s the lens of the four year instituti on to discuss the development of student affairs as a profession, including its foundations and development toward the modern student affairs division. This section of the chapter also describe s the composition and state of a modern community college stud ent affairs division. Finally, this section of chapter two explore s the nature of student affairs leadership. The third section of chapter two reviews the concept of competencies and explores research pertaining to competencies for higher education leader s, including both student affairs and general community college leadership. This review of competency oriented research creates the groundwork for a discussion of leadership competencies for CCSSAOs final section addresses leadership and l eadership development in the community college. The literature examination delineates theoretical underpinnings and research that describes methods used to prepare leaders in both student affairs and throughout general community college leadership Infor mation related to a variety of leadership development tools, including

PAGE 25

25 university based graduate programs, leadership development programs and mentoring relationships are also included The Community College System In the late 19th century, post Civil Wa r United States, a widespread system of higher education was developing and transforming who was served and how they were served. Higher education was no longer reserved for the elite after the Morrill Acts o f 1862 and 1890 led to the establishment of land grant state universities with an emphasis on agriculture and mechanical sciences (Witt, Wattenbarger, Gollatscheck, & Suppiger, 1994). The Germanic influence on education led to a research based curriculum at universities at the expense of the liberal arts curriculum that had dominated the col onial colleges (Rudolph, 1962/ 1990 ; Thelin, 2004 ). To emphasize the new research mission for their universities, University of Michigan President Henry Tappan and othe rs advocated a new institutional model in which the first two years of higher education would be conducted at a separate college (Cohen & Brawer, 2008 ). The se leaders reasoned that until the universities abandoned the lower division, they would never beco me true research centers. for the junior college movement, which gained momentum in the early 1900s. In 1892, Yale University President William Rainey Harper was recruited to be the f irst president at t he new University of Chicago. He brought a deep concern for public schools, and proposed a model featuring a seamless system of education in which students would transition from elementary school to secondary school to higher education. According to Ratcliff (1986), Harper believed the general education commonly associated with the first two years of university could best be completed in conjunction with public schools, separate from the research emphasis. His concept bec a yea of such institutions open ed as Joliet High School in Joliet, Illinois (Witt et al., 1994). It later bec a me Joliet Junior College, and

PAGE 26

26 College, 2010). With Joliet established, the junior college movement was underway, and six year high schools open ed throughout the Midwest over the next decade. Fretwell (1954) reported that by 1910, 13 six year high schools and junior colleges had open ed each affiliated wi th the University of Chicago. Beyond the six year high school, Harper strongly felt that a group of small, struggling religious colleges would be more successful if they dropped their upper division curriculum and focused on the gener al education curriculum common to two year college s Brin t and Karabel (1989) report ed that idea was so popular in the S outh that by 1916, over half the s swelled to 207 (Cohen & Brawer, 2008 ). As the junior college system grew, standards, accreditation, and national structures were developed. In 1921, the American Council on Education (ACE) became the first national organization to propose a list of standards, includ ing institution of higher education which gives two years of work equivalent in prerequisites, scope, and thoroughness to the work done in the first two years of a college as defined elsewhere by t he pertained to admission s requirements, graduation requirements, faculty credentials, teaching schedules, curricula, minimum enrollment size, financial status, fa cilities, and a need for inspe ction by an accreditation body. The ACE standards w ere revised throughout the 1920s in conjunction with the newly created American Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC), and by the end of the decade each of the five regional accreditation associations adopt ed these ACE standards and accept ed junior

PAGE 27

27 colleges as members (Witt et al., 1994). As such, junior colleges attained credibility and the degrees allowed students to transfer to upper division institutions. By 1930, juni or colleges existed in all but five states (Cohen & Brawer, 2008 ). Bill, the demand for access to higher education resulted in an unprecedented increase in both numbers of comm unity colleges and their enrollment s (Witt et al., 1994). The Truman Higher Education for American Democracy emphasized the importance of two year college s and encouraged a system of learning for the entire community, with or without restrictions that surround formal course work in traditional institutions of higher education. It gears its programs an d services to the need Zook 1947, p p. 68 7 0). Growth continued throughout the 1950s despite a decreased community college enrollment during the Korean Conflict (Witt et al., 1994). By 1957, there were 652 community c olleges in the United States ; the number had tripled over a 35 year period (Cohen & Brawer, 200 8 ). The curriculum evolved to include not only university transfer programs, but science intensive programs, adult education, and vocational / technical training (Cohen & Brawer, 200 8 ). In the early 1950s, the first a n ursing were established, br inging national attention to the junior college movement with the aid of the Kellogg F oundation (Witt et al., 1994). The baby boom that followed World War II impacted the community college system as early as 1962. The demand for higher education access led to the development of community colleges in urban environments, which thus far had been bypass ed. De los Santos (2 004)

PAGE 28

28 describe d onset had quadrupled to almost 2.5 million students (Wi t t et al., 1994). T h e influx of new community college students diversi fied the student populations Community college students reflected the U S population in a different way tha n other forms of higher education. Th ese new student s diverse in terms of age, race, ethnicity, level of academic preparedness, and languages spoken forced community college administrators to adapt their programs and services to meet ever changing needs The solutions the se administrators implemented ranging from c ollege p reparation and English as a s econd l anguage curricula to services for older and married students with ch ildren exemplified the democratized and flexible nature of the community colle ge system (Cohen & Brawer, 200 8 ). o diversi f y. By the 2006 200 7 academic year, the U.S. Department of Education reported that there were 6.2 million students enrolled in over 1, 045 public community colleges (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). This report also state d that in fall 2005, 19% of community colleges reported that ethnic and racial minorit ies made up a majority of their enrollment s compared to only 15% of public four year institutions and 10% of private four year institutions Community college students differ from their four year counterparts in many ways, particularly that most community college students are financially independent from parents (61%) compared to only 35% of students at public or priva te four year institutions (Horn & Nevill, 2006). Community colleges also have larger percentages of nontraditional and low income students than four year institutions (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). The primary i ssues facing community colleges at the time of this study include d meeting the

PAGE 29

29 challenges of serving their regions support (A ACC 2010; Gorski, 2010), a mandate to increas e (Goldrick Rab, 2010; Lee, Jr. & Rawls, 2 010), an increased focus on assessment and institutional accountability (A ACC 2010), and a focus on workforce and economic development ( U.S. Government Account ability Of fice, 2008). An Overview of Student Affairs Reviewing how the role of CCSSAOs has chan ged over time can provide a more complete he overview of s tudent a ffairs examine s the history of the student personnel movement, the development of the student affairs profession, and the c omponents of the modern student affairs department at a four year institution. From its foundations as student personnel work, the concept of student affairs predates the community college and ha s been well documented in the literature (Appleton, Briggs & Rhatigan, 1978; Ayers, Tripp, & Russel, 1966; Caple, 1998; Cowley, 1949; Evans, Forney, & Guido DiBrito, 1998; Gardner, 1934; Leonard, 1956; McGinnis, 1933; Mueller, 1961; Nuss, 2 003; Shaffer & Martinson, 1966). Student affairs can be traced back to 1870 at what was then known as Harvard College when Ephraim Gurney became the first college dean, and his student affairs work included responsibility for studen t rights and responsibilities. Gurney initially assumed responsibility for disciplinary cases at Harvard, which previously was 1998). According to McGinnis (1933), d ean positions were created over the next 30 years at Amherst (1880), Yale (1884), the University of Chicago (1892), and Columbia College (1896). Early deans had largely administrative roles, functioning as an assistant to the p resident, student advisor, chief disciplinarian, registrar, and sometimes budget officer (McGinnis, 1933). In time, the dean s focus ed

PAGE 30

30 1962/ 19 90 p. 435) as colleges and universities became more academically specialized. As institutions grew, the personnel functions were delegated to other officers reporting to t he dean The years Germanic model of higher education was implemented throughout the United States (Rudolph, 1962/ 19 90 ; Thelin, 20 04). During this time, as institutions deepened their commitment to research and rigorous scholarship, the faculty left humanistic work behind and early deans stepped in to provide for needs (Rhatigan, 2000). The 1937 Student Personnel Point V iew explained that after the Civil War, the primary emphasis for hig her education faculty shifted away from the needs of the individual student to an emphasis, through scientific research, upon the extension of the boundaries of knowledge. The pressures upon faculty members to contribute to this growth of knowledge shifted the direction of their thinking to a preoccupation with subject matter and to a neglect of the student as an individual ( NASPA, 1989) As such, the student affairs profession largely be gan by serving those needs faculty deemed less important (Fenske, 1980). The 1937 Student Personnel Point Vie w is often referred to as the foundation for the student affairs profession (Nuss, 2003; Rhatigan, 2000) This work established th e basic premise needs of the individual student must be understood, and instructions and student support programs must be coordinated and tailored to fit needs (Nuss, 2003). The S tudent Personnel Point Vie w listed 23 types of services compris ing a then comprehensive student personnel program and ma de recommendations for future development of the profession, including cooperation among national organizations, and a call for specific research on topics includ ing student faculty interaction, students out of class experiences, and student financial aid.

PAGE 31

31 While this document was written over 70 years ago, the recommendations remain valid. Blimling (2003) made several arguments for cons olidating ACPA and NASPA Also the 2008 Joint ACPA/NASPA Task Force was charged with exploring strategic alignment of the two national associations for student affairs (Torries & Walbert, 2009) ; memberships of both organizations voted on the measure in M arch and April of 2011. Student faculty interaction and of classroom experiences have been measured at over 2,000 colleges and universities by the National Survey on Student Engagement and Community College Survey for Student Engagement (200 9). Research and reporting on student financial aid continues with close to 2,000 articles on student financial aid appearing on the National Association of Student (NASFAA) W ebsite (2009a), including two major reports relea sed within one year by national organizations calling for similar rev ision on federal student aid programs (NAFSAA, 2009b; Rethinking Student Aid Study Group, 2008). Twelve years after the 1937 Student Personnel Point of View was drafted, the follow up 194 9 Student Personnel Point of View was published, emphasizing the importance of student specific aspect s of students personalit ies (NASPA, 1989). This emphasis preceded the description of we llness as an all encompassing area for development (Hattie, Myers, & Sweeney, 2004). The 1949 Student Personnel Point of View also provide d an outline of specific student competencies which Chickering (1969) later postulate d in his Seven Vectors of Student Development Lastly, as Carpenter (1996) explain ed the revised Student Personnel Point of View introduce d the concept that student personnel workers are involved in educational activities, and are not merely service providers. This foreshadow ed the future literature that call ed for increased student affairs

PAGE 32

32 personnel involve ment in student learning ( ACPA, 1996; Baxter Magolda, 1999; NASPA, 198 9 ; NASPA & ACPA, 2004; ). With the philosophical basis established for student affairs, pol itical and issues emerged that alter ed the country, higher education, and the student affairs profession. The GI Bill forever changed higher education demographics (Nuss, 2003). Additional federal legislation, including the Higher Education Act of 1965 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the 1990 Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Higher Educa tion Amendments of 1992 added to the complexities of student affairs divisions by requiring specialized student affairs employees charged with carrying ou t specific requirements of the legislation (Nuss, 2003; Rhatigan, 2000). Student personnel departments evolved into the modern student affairs divisions during the postwar years (Hirt, 2006). As previously explained, the GI Bill profound ly impact ed higher education and student affairs. As enrollment s grew, student affairs bur eaucrac ies grew to meet the burgeoning needs of increas ing student population s (Ambler, 2000). While different 88 ; Sandeen, 1996), over the past 50 years, several authors have tried to describe the components of a modern student affairs department. Composition of a Modern Student Affairs Department 17 functional areas of personnel work into three ca tegories: personnel services basic to campus life, personal services for student growth, and personnel services for special student groups. The basic services included admissions, rec ruitment, evaluation, housing, academic advising, orientation, and progr ams for student physical and mental health. F unctional areas considered

PAGE 33

33 services for student growth included student activities, student union s student government s campus publications, student discipline, and religious programs. The functional areas contained within the services for special student groups included fraternities and sororities, financial aid, placement services, and services for married s tudents and foreign students A few years after 1966 report by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare identified 17 functional areas of student affairs in higher education: recruitment, admissions, nonacademic records, counseling, discipline, testing, financial aid, foreign students, nurse care services, me dical services, residence halls, married student housing, job placement, student union, student activities, intramural athletics, and religious affairs (Ayers, Tripp, & Russel). In 1977, Packwood described college personnel services as including admissions financial aid, orientation, housing, student activities, student union, campus ministry, ombudsman, student discipline, campus security, health services, counseling, p lacement, and alumni services. Ro binson (1980) described the major student affairs fun ctions as recruitment and admissions, counseling and advising, residence halls, health services, placement services, student activit ies, and financial assistance. Sandeen (1996) stated the functions of a comprehensive student affairs division at a univers ity include such services as : admissions and recruitment, orientation, registration, financial aid, academic advising and support services, i nternational student services, college unions and student activities offices, counseling services, career development, residence life, disabilities services, intercollegiate athletics,

PAGE 34

34 childcare services, student health services, food services, d ean of s tudents, community service and leadership programs, judicial affairs, recreation and fitness programs, student religious programs, special student populations, commuter student services, and program research and evaluation. Sandeen added that several universities include d programs, testing, student legal se rvices, speech and hearing clinics, and transfer centers within the organizational responsibility of student affairs. Rentz (1996) assert ed that the predominate roles in student affairs are enrollment management, academic advising, career services, counse ling, judicial affairs, multicultural affairs, orientation, residence life, student activities, student financial aid, and student health. More recently, Kuk and Banning (2009) found that student affairs divisions are complex organizations whose structures vary greatly from institution to institution. The common functional areas they report include : counseling centers, residence life, career services, health centers, student activities, student centers, campus recreation, judicial affairs, academic advisin g and support services, disability services, multicultural student services, d ean of s tudents, and enrollment management (consisting of admissions, financial aid, and a r egistrar). Community College Student Affairs As Floyd (1991) illustrate d the 1937 Stu dent Personnel Point of View and the 1 949 Student Personnel Point of Vie w established a basis for and provided direction for the student affairs profession However, these publications did not address the specific needs of community college student affairs. While the composition of community college student populations differ

PAGE 35

35 from that at four year institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 200 8 ; Horn & Nevill, 2006; Provasnik & Planty, 2008), the funct ions of the student affairs department are similar to th ose of four year institution s Mattox and Creamer (1998) found that the majority of U.S. community colleges include the following student services: recruitment, admissions, orientation, career counsel ing, records, educational testing, counseling, academic advisement, co curricular activities, student government, registration, financial aid, job placement, enrollment services, student development services, and student special support services. Cohen an d Brawer (2003) describe d the community college student affairs operation as consisting of recruitment and retention, counseling and guidance, orientation, extracurricular activities, financial aid, and program articulation. A community college grea tly impact s the size of the student affairs staff. Provasnik and Plant y (2008) report ed that 61% of community colleges have enrollments of less than 5 000 students and 35% enroll less than 2 500 students. In contrast, only 38% of public four year institutions have an enrollment of less than 5,000 students. Hirt (2006) point ed out that these smaller colleges have fewer student affairs employees than their larger counterparts p erhaps fewer than a dozen emplo yees b ut are charged with carrying out the same student affairs functions. W hile the administrative outcomes may be similar, the job responsibilities and day to day experiences of community college student affairs employees are very different. For exampl e, at a community college, the academic advisers may be also be responsible for orientation, or counselors may handle personal counseling, career counseling, and academic s the larger shifts in student affairs organizations advocated by Manning, Kinzie, and Schuh (2006). Dassance

PAGE 36

36 (1994) suggested linking all college functions to maximize effectiveness a shift occurring at m any community colleges Th e collab orative environment extends beyond the student affairs division. Hirt (2006) report ed that community college student affairs administrators report ed more partnerships with faculty than at other types of institutions. Examples of successful student affair s faculty partnerships at community colleges are first year experience programs, learning communit ies service learning, supplemental instruction, and student life programs (Frost, Strum, Down ey, Schultz, & Holland, 2010). Student affairs faculty collabor ation are rooted in the belief that community college student affairs employees are more attuned to the institutional mission and are more focused on outcomes (student learning and student success) than at other types of higher education institutions (Hirt 2006). Hirt further assert ed that the collaborative nature of community college student affairs, plus the proclivity to change, positions community colleges to take the lead i n fostering partnerships with academic affairs. A national study of 210 community college presidents and senior student affairs officers looked at challenges and opportunities for student affairs The researchers found that 73% of respondents felt the role of student affairs would grow at their institution due to increased demands for accountability, an increas ed influx of first generation students, and increase d enrollment of underprepared students (Helfgot & Culp, 2005). Senior student affairs officers who participated in the study suggest ed that their division would also be more involved emphasi zing student learning, student success, and student learning outcomes. Primary Issues F acing Community College Student Affairs Student learning has been a focus of student affairs since the mid 1990s, since the Student

PAGE 37

37 extended this concept with his discussion of a c (1997). The shift from teaching to learning has implications for student affairs as learning is extended beyond the classroom ( de la Teja & Kramer, 1999; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010) mplex, holistic, multi centric activity that occurs throughout and across NASPA & ACPA, 2004, p. 6). The task for student affairs professionals is to ask what students can and should learn from their programs, services and activi ties and how to best assess, document, and publicize this learning (Helfgot, 2005). The concept of student success originated in student affairs and was later adopted throughout the community college system (Helfgot & Culp, 1995). Success is more than st udent learning success is the ability of students to parlay that learning to achieve a desired academic outcome and perform successfully in th eir chosen field s (Helfgot, 2005). Individual student success may be hard to define, as community college student s have diverse goals that rang e from degrees or certifications, to passing a specific class, or from being prepared to either enter the workforce or transfer to a four year institution ( Zachry & Orr, 2009 ). The College Completion Agenda is based on the id ea that student success is defined by a student graduating from college with a degree or certificate (Lee & Rawls, 2010). Student affairs professional s help students achieve this measure of success in many ways, among which are orienting them to college life, providing appropriate academic advising to guide students along the proper track, implementing cocurricular activities that help student s learn job skills ne cessary for the 21 st century workplace, fostering relationships with local businesses that may hire graduates, and ensuring division institutions.

PAGE 38

38 One challenge with focusing solely on completion as a measure of student success is that this focus assumes that all community college students hop e to earn degree s or certificate s Community college students are more diverse than their peers at four year institutions t hey tend to be older and enter the college with previous degrees (Helfgot, 2005). Older student s often return to a community college to take one or two classes to bolster their education s, usually for a specific purpose related to job training. Often, this pattern is repeated several times resulting in a group of students Helfgot refers to as administrators need to develop ways to assess whether or not students achieved their desired academic goal s and this require s a focus on assessment to revise assumption s on student success, to ask the right question s, and to select and implement the right assessment instru ments (Oburn, 2005). The focus on student learning for student affairs has fostered an emphasis on student learning outcomes t he statements that specify what the learners will know or be able to do as a result of a learning activity. As the manner in which student affairs practitioner s develop a culture of evidence on campus, assessing student learning outcomes from student affairs activities and services help demonstrate the role student affairs pl ays in supporting the mission (Helfgot, 2005). Developing, measuring, and reporting student learning outcomes requires proficiencies in assessment, and can be used to demonstrate need, to document effectiveness, and to determine which services m ake a difference to students as well as the extent of t hat difference (Oburn, 2005). The Council on the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) made student learning outcomes a cornerstone of the latest CAS Professional Standards in Higher Edu cation publication ( Dean 2009), emphasizing the broad impact of the student learning movement on student affair s. As Oburn (2005) emphasize d :

PAGE 39

39 Replacing anecdotal cultures with cultures of evidence is not an easy task, but with committed student affairs leaders, partners, tools, and training, it can be done. Student affairs practitioners who rely on data to guide programming and budgeting decisions will strengthen the profession as well as their institutions by demonstrating that student affairs divisions offer quality programs that contribute significantly to student access, learning, and success (p. 32) Student Affairs Leadership Within an institution, s tudent a ffairs leadership is usually a senior management position, f executive officer (CEO) In a study of 2,621 two year and four year institutions, Tull and Freeman (2008) found that the majority (54%) of senior student affairs officers held the title v ice p resident or v ice c hancellor. The next most prevalent title w as d ean (34%), followed by d irector (8%). In examining only responses from community colleges, the results we re similar: 48% v ice p resident or v ice c hancellor, 40% d ean, and 9% d irector (Tull & Freeman, 2008) This research reflect ed a shift from (2002) earlier findings, wh ere a study of 201 CCSSAOs in the S outheast United States found that the predominant title was dean (43%). The second most popular title was vice president or vice chancellor (32%) followed by director or c oordinator (13%). Numerous studies have examined the demographics and educational backgrounds of CCSSAOs Wilson study of 37 CCSSAOs found that the majority were female (62.2%), and 37.8% were male. This differ ed from Edwards (2005), whose study of 28 CCSSAOs in the Northeast United States reported that 64.3% were male, and 35.7% were female. The findings N = 201) of CCSSAOs in the S outheast United States found a larger majority of men (55.2%), with only 39.8% female s (and d the largest sample size ( N = 300), with results that f e sample study seem ed to follow the 30 year trend observed in the literature. A 1972 nationwide study

PAGE 40

40 found that only 15% of CCSSAOs were female; by 1984, this percent age increased to 26%, and to 39% by 1993 (Edwards, 2005). This shift reinforce d an observation by Hamrick and Carlisle (1990) who wrote that far more wo men than men were entering the student affairs fie ld. Additional demographic features worth noting are age and ethnicity. Smith (2002) found that that average age of CCSSAOs in the S outheast United States is 48 years old. This was (2005) sample in the N ortheast United States where the majority w as in the range of 50 5 9 years old (2005). Pertaining to ethnicity, Edwards (2005) study of CCSSAOs (2002) study only reported on Caucasian (74.1%) and African American (18.9%) ethnicities. The ethnicities of the remaining 7% of the sample we re not reported. Regarding highest degree earned by CCSSAOs, Piper (1981) found that 54% had m aster s degrees and 39% h ad CCSSAOs reported that 51% held m and 42% held doctorates. More recently, Keim (2008) reported equivalent percent ages (48%) for both m s and doctorate s Both Smith and Keim found that a majority (62% and 56%, respectively) of the doctorates earned were EdDs ; Keim also reported that 81% of th e doctorates were in education. Sandeen (1991) wrote the seminal book on the responsibilities of the senior student affairs offi cer. In his text, he describe d the primary roles as leader, manager, mediator, and educator. As a leader, the senior student affairs officer organizes and has administrative responsibility for multiple institutional programs and services that comprise the student affairs division and builds a team within the division. In the manager role, the senior student affairs officer develops and implements a plan consistent with the college mission, secures and allocates financial resources to allow the division to achieve this vision, and regularly assesses the d ivision to allow for

PAGE 41

41 recognition. As a mediator, the senior student affairs officer resolve s disputes u sually in situations involving students a nd encourages cooperation and collaboration. In the educator role, the senior student affairs officer support s the educational mission of the institution through policies and practices, and serves as an advocate for student growth and development. Culp (2011) found that highly effective CCSSAOs share these five traits: They are leaders as well as managers and rea lize that no one size fits all student affairs model exists ; The y connect student affairs to learning and the college to its students ; The y understand the competencies and knowledge of skills student affairs professionals and leverage these capabilities in to college wide partnerships with academic affairs ; The y k now how to build trust, create teams, communicate effectively, motivate and inspire, and influence the college community ; and They do not allow themselves to be fenced in; they view themselves as le aders in the college and the community, not just in student affairs (p. 17) Competencies While competencies are a fairly modern convention in training and leadership development, many industries have found competencies useful for determining whether or no t a candidate would be an appropriate match for a specific position, as well as identifying potential areas for growth and development of current employees. The modern use of comp etency based human resources can be traced back to 1973, when McCleland prop osed a set of competencies to be used as indicator s of performance (Boyatzis, 2008). Today, industries ranging from health care to engineering to government have used core competency models to guide strategic improvement programs that address leadership a nd organizational culture (Calhoun et al., 2008). As training tools, competencies provide a framework for establishing a training c urriculum or agenda. The term leadership competencies is used to describe the set of behaviors, knowledge, skills, and abili ties that a person needs to provide leadership and positively impact an

PAGE 42

42 organization at a particular time (McNamara, 2003). Stahl and Bjorkman (2006) define d whic ed that competencies are patterns of thinking that underscore behaviors, creating a long term impact. Drawing from an anthropology and human resources background, Zwell (2000) explained that the practice of behavioral competencies can be used to establish a common, unifying foundation upon which corporate culture, hiring practices, and employee development strategies may be developed. Boyatzis (2008) s aw competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence. Emotional intelligence competencies draw on such concepts as self awareness and emotional self control. Social intelligence competencies manifest in social awareness and relationships, including teamwork and empathy. Cognitive intelligence competencies include systems thinking and pattern recognition. A fourth dimension, cultural intelligence, was introduced by Chin and Gaynier (2006) to bring attention to unifying factors that undergird organizations and people. The authors assert ed that in the global marketplace, cultural dynamics are critical to organizational transformation and leadership success. For an organization, culture includes shared values and guiding principles, and significant ly impact s The practical aspects of competencies we re emphasized by Intagliata, Ulrich, and Smallwood (2000) in their description of a leadership brand. The authors stated that competencies are an important tool for leadership development because they provide direction to employees, are measurable, can be learned, and may help integrate management practices Collectively the competencies may help create a leadership brand and differentiate the

PAGE 43

43 have monetary value, as an Ernst and Young report (as cited in In tagliata, Ulrich, & Smallwood 2000) show ed that 30 40% of investor decis (p. 13). In higher education such may be donors, legislators, or students trying to determine where to expend their resources. Hernez B r oom e and Hughes (2004) point ed out that leadership developme nt in organizations takes place in a work environment th r ough such methods as training programs, coaching and mentoring, action learning, and development assignments. The curricul a used to guide this development is based on the organizat ompetencies. Different organizations present their competencies in different ways. Lombardo and Eichinger (2000) developed a general leadership competency frame with 67 individual competencies. Chin, Gu, and Tubbs (2001) introduced the Global Leadership Competency Model with eight hierarchical factors. The Maternal and Child Health Leadership Competencies (1999) contains 12 competencies divided into three categories. The U S Coast Guard (n.d.) developed a list of 28 leadership competencies items that f all within four categories. Within higher education, several professional organizations have developed competencies for their members. These competencies are used to form curricul a for training institutes, workshop s and certification program s For competencies of Chief Housing Officers enabled the Association of College and University Housing Officers International (ACUHO I 2010 ) to develop a training model used at the annual National Housing Training Instit ute. Institute attendees use these competencies to complete a self assessment as a way to develop an individualized professional plan to help them realize their career goals

PAGE 44

44 One example of an association using competencies as the basis for a certificati on comes from the National Academic Advising Association (2003) which recently proposed the creation of an Advisor Certification program based on a framework called Certification Standards 13 compet encies organized into five categories. Another route was taken by NAFSA Association of International Educators (NASFA) with their Statement of Professional Competenc i es for International Educators. Where as the previous two professional organizations e ssentially created list s of competencies, NAFSA (2009) developed a statement that serves as a narration describ ing collective values and beliefs, and lists qualifications common for all international educators, in addition to smaller list s o f qualifications for different types of positions common to NAFSA members. Professional c ompetencies in higher education are not limited to student affairs. E DUCAUSE a higher education information technology association, examined leadership styles, knowl edge based competencies, and activity based competencies to develop a model for effective information technology leadership ( Nelson, 2003). The author explored the relationship between leadership styles and the different types of competencies to describe what makes a c hief i nformation o fficer effective in higher education. T he competencies ACUHO I and E DUCAUSE created were primarily for senior level administrators. In contrast, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO 2006 ) expanded their competencies spectrum by develop ing three sets of competencies: one for chief business officers, one for the business office staff and one for individuals with business and finance responsibilities who work in other units of the institution. The authors explain ed that the y completed this project to identify core competencies and the

PAGE 45

45 professional development needs of business professional s at different ranks and wor king in different environments within higher education General Co mpetencies in Student Affairs Beyond function specific competencies, several attempts have been made to determine general competencies for student affairs professionals. Over 35 years ago, the Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education (1975) identified three competencies referred to as functions: administrative, instructive, or consulting. The administrative function is carried out by applying systematic approaches to human relationships, with an emphasis on community, coordination, s upportive services, rules and regulations. Administrative function concerns are primarily for accountabilities, program development, and a clear definition of right s and responsibilities. Instruction functions are focused on knowledge acquisition, teach ing, and research. As educators, student affairs professionals who focus on the instruction function are well equipped to provid e teaching experiences outside the classroom. The consultant function is best characterized by the concept that student s maint ain responsibility for their own development which t he consultant fosters through counseling, collaborating, and facilitating. Wade (1993) identified 14 professional competencies and 16 personal characteristics for student affairs professionals. r esearch, which observed perceptions of senior student affairs officers, sought to determine which competencies and characteristics are most important for a new professional to advance within the student affairs field (Appendix C) Several years after Wade Lovell and Kosten (2000) report ed on necessary skills, knowledge, and personal traits for success in student affairs leadership. After e xamining 23 studies spanning 30 years of research on successful student affairs administration Lovell and Kosten discovered a core set of skills, knowledge bases, and personal traits. The authors identified eight skills, six

PAGE 46

46 knowledge bases and two personal traits recommended throughout the literature for senior student affairs officers ( Appendix D ) Hyman (1983) and Waple (2000) both developed lists of competencies for new student affairs professionals at four year institutions. In research aimed at improving graduate preparation programs in student affairs, Hyman asked three groups (senior student affairs officers, chief housing officers, and graduat e faculty teaching in student affairs preparation programs ) to rate the importance of 33 competencies a nd how well they felt students acquired each competency Based on feedback from a pilot study, Waple (2000) competencies by adding practical skills. study, with a revised list of 28 competencies, asked the same questions as Hyman but instead of involving faculty and senior staff, new profe ssionals working in student affairs at four year institutions. This approach provided insight to what knowledge was gained in graduate preparation program s, as well as wh at skills were actually needed in the workplace. Herdlein (2004) surveyed 50 senior student affairs officers at four year institutions to gauge the effectiveness of student affairs graduate preparation programs in training new professionals on the knowledge, skills, and personal traits judged most important by senior student affairs offi cers. He rdlein found that the senior student affairs officers believed interpersonal development was most important, followed by practical competence, complex cognitive skills, and intrapersonal development. Furthermore, study respondents stated that the most critical traits needed for success in the field were the ability to work with diverse populations, effective communication, interpersonal skills, budgeting, knowledge of politics, collaboration skills, leadership ability, flexibility, and critical th inking.

PAGE 47

47 ACPA College Student Educators International (ACPA) developed a set of eight competencies as a tool to help student affairs practitioners develop professional development plans: Advising and helping, Asse ssment, evaluation, and research, Ethics, Leadership and administration/management, Legal foundations, Pluralism and inclusion, Stud ent learning and development, and Teaching (p. 5) Arising from a need for greater participation in assessment and accountability, the competencies were seen as a w ay to help professionals identify skill deficien cies, so these individuals could be intentional in seeking professional growth. Each of the eight competencies was developed with examples of basic, intermediate, and advanced skills to demonstrate the pote ntial depth found within the competency (ACPA, 2008). T he latest major effort to define competencies for student affairs practitioners builds on Recently completed as a combined effort of ACPA and NASPA, a joint task force comprised of leader s from both organizations spent a year analyzing 19 documents previously published by ACPA, NASPA, and the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) produc ing a comprehensive document with 10 competencies called Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners (2010). Their 10 competencies are: Advising and helping ; Assessment, evaluation, and research ; Equity, diversity, and inclusion ; Ethical professional practice ; History, philo sophy, and values ; Human and o rganizational resources ; Law, policy, and governance ;

PAGE 48

48 Leadership ; Personal foundations; and Student l earning and development (p p 6 2 7) Each competency is explained by listing a series of knowledge, skills, or attitudes that practitioners should be able to demonstrate. As with the earlier ACPA document, each competency is divided into basic, intermediate, or advanced levels to demonstrate the professional growth that is expected to occur throughout career. The authors e xplain ed that the Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners should be used to aid in curricul a design for graduate preparation programs in s tudent a ffairs, to assist with the design of professional development opportunities, and to be used by practitioners to conduct self assessment s, as a means to gauge and direct their professional development (ACPA & NASPA, 2010). As Wilson Strauss (2005) point ed out, most research on community college leadership is written from the executive perspective, and most research on leadership within student affairs is directed at the four year institution, with little research conducted specifically on community college student affairs leadership. Wilson Strauss (2005) replicated earlier studies by Hyman (1983) and Waple (2000) with a focus on community college student affairs. Wilson Strauss developed a list of 25 competencies (Appendix E), derived primarily from a 1991 paper produced by a joint ACPA / NASPA commission that was supplemented by analyzing student affairs literature. His research on graduate preparation programs in student affairs aimed to determine th e extent to which competencies of CCSSAOs were being taught in graduate preparation programs. His study also asked CCSSAOs to rate the importance of the 25 competencies. CCSSAOs indicated that the four most important competencies for new CCSSAOs were eff ective written and oral communication, ethics, personnel management, and

PAGE 49

49 problem solving. Conversely, the lowest ranked competencies were risk taking advising students, physical resource management, and research models and methods. In one of the few arti cles focus ed on competencies for CCSSAOs Laws (2011) argue d that the emphas e s should be to think and act entrepreneurially, develop and utilize problem solving and decision making skills pertaining to a wide range of issues, be prepared to manage a multig enerational staff, and be adept at developing and maintaining partnerships with external constituencies that may help the division fulfill its mission. The entrepreneurial CCSSAO promotes innovation, risk taking, and creativity. A flat organizational str ucture and the flexible outward focus that define s the community college (Hirt, 2006) lend themselves to an in previous generations, and these students present a variety of mental health issues that require careful consideration to ensure the health and well being of the college community (Traynor, 2009). Laws (2011) explain ed the CCSSAO students and how the decisions impact the entir e college. Sandeen (1996) asserted that the manager role of the senior student affairs involves supervision and oversight of departments and their employees. Laws (20 1 1) discusse d the intricacies that derive from having members of up to four generations ( t raditionalists, b aby boomers, g eneration X ers and m illennials) working in one office, and the importance of a good administrator to understand needs. Finally, s mention of effective partnerships refer red to working with business or community agencies to provide services students need including housing, health care, and opportunities for internships co ops, and observations sites. Competencies for Community College Leaders There has been much research on leadership development in h igher education, and several opinions have been published on the skills, characteristics, and attributes a successful collegiate

PAGE 50

50 leader should possess. Community college leadership, as a subset of this body of literature, has been discussed for at least 2 5 years. Much of the literature focuses on executive leadership al though the concepts are transferable to other areas of leadership within higher education including student affairs. Campbell (1985) identified four overarching challenges facing communit y college leaders, along with adaptive strategies for meeting each challenge and suggested a list of competencies related to each strategy. This list of challenges, adaptive strategies and competencies (Appendix F) was developed to help community colleg e presidents take advantage of what their fellow presidents learned while addressing these issues. Even though this list is 25 years old, the competencies are still relevant and reappear in more recent publications T o develop a definition of the characte ristic and skills that the next generation of community college leaders must possess, Hammons and Keller (1990) asked sitting community community college presidents (1974) classic Handbook of Leadership : l eadership skills, g roup r elated skills, and p ersonal characteristics. Thirty six additional items from community c ollege leadership and business literature were added (Appendix G) Hammons and Keller found a consensus on 23 competencies, and stability on 18 items As the end of the 20th century drew near the Commission on the Future of Community Colleges (1988) stated that the leadership provided by community college president s would be impending challenges, and that a new model of executive leadership would b e needed in the next century. To help meet this challenge, Duncan and Harlacher (1991) describe d five leadership competencies for community college presidents.

PAGE 51

51 Following a lit erature review and a survey of 10 sit ting president s they proposed five leader ship competencies for community college presidents: Instituti onal vision and revitalization, Ethical leadership, Institutional empowerment and transformation, Political leadership, and Institutional conceptualization and survival (p. 41) Additionally, Du ncan and Harlacher conclude d that successful community college executive s should possess the following characteristics, qualities, and traits: Innate personality characteristics: self confidence, ambition and drive, persistence, consistency, a sense of hum or, and a positive orientation ; Interpersonal traits: compassion, people orientation, friendliness, and sensitivity to the needs of different constituencies ; Ethical/moral qualities: firmness, trustworthiness, integrity, and honesty ; Intellectual traits: w isdom, superior judgment, independence of thought, intelligence, decisiveness, creativity, and innovation ; and Physical qualities: stamina and high levels of energy. (p. 40) Pierce and Pederson (1997) examined qualities of successful community college pres idents. The y found that the three most important personal traits were personal adaptability, role flexibility, and sound judgment. Adaptability matters relate to responding to changes in student demographics, legislative mandates, or changing economic co nditions. The collaborative nature of community colleges requires a president be adept at working with community agencies, organizations, businesses. Most importantly the president must be skilled a t making sound decisions. This involves listening to o thers, asking good questions, accessing reliable data from reliable sources, and possessing a strong sense of autonomy to make decisions free of external p ressures.

PAGE 52

52 Brown, Martinez, and Daniel (2002) identified 48 potential skills for community college lea ders organized into 10 categories ( Appendix H ) The top 10 recommended skills as ranked by all 128 respondents were: Conflict resolution, mediation, and negotiation skills, Effective writing skills, Institutional effectiveness: assessment and analysis, Developing and communicating a vision, Effective listening and feedback skills, Understanding of interpersonal communication, Understanding of collaborative decision making, Understanding of the community college mission, and Effective public speaking skills. (p. 57) It is noteworthy that 9 of the top 10 most important recommended skills for community colleges leaders fell into leadership and communication categories. More recent studies included (2006) study on short term leadership programs and Hockaday and Puyear (2008) research on traits and skills for community college leaders. Wallin (2006) developed to a framework for GYO L development workshops with t hree emphasis areas : skills orientatio n, relationship orientation, and personal concerns. Skills orientation refers to specific tasks including resource development, budget development, legal issues, and conflict resolution. Relationship orientation refers to motivation and teambuilding. P ersonal concerns address areas of family and individual wellness While asserting that there is no typical leader, Hockaday and Puyear (2008) provide d a list of desired traits and skills for community college leaders: Vision, Integrity, Confidence, Courag e, Technical knowledge, Collaborators,

PAGE 53

53 Persistence, Good judgment, and Desire to lead (p p 1 3 ) A merican A ssociation of C ommunity C olleges Competencies for Community College Leaders The competencies examined in this study, the A merican A ssociation of C ommunity C olleges ( AACC ) Competencies for Community College Leaders originated out of a 2003 Kellogg Foundation grant awarded to address the national need for community college leaders. Known a s Leading Forward, AACC convened a series of four one day lea dership summits designed to build consensus around a core set of knowledge, values, and skills needed to lead community colleges, and how best to impart this core set for long term effectiveness Panel participants included practitioners, educators, and t rainers who were engaged in community college leadership development. Qualitative data from these summits w ere analyzed and used to create a set of core competencies required to provide effective community college leadership. A 2004 survey sent to all le adership summit participants was used to confirm the critical competencies. Based on the survey feedback, the AACC b oard of d irectors approved the Competencies for Community College Leaders in 2005. The six primary competenc y domains were: O RGANIZATIONAL S TRATEGY : An effective community college leader strategically improves the quality of the institution, protects the long term health of the organization, promotes the success of all students, and sustains the community college mission, based on knowledge of the organization, its environment, and future trends. R ESOURCE M ANAGEMENT : An effective community college leader equitably and ethically sustains people, processes, and information as well as physical and financial assets to fulfill the mission, vision, and goals of the community college. C OMMUNICATION : An effective community college leader uses clear listening, speaking, and writing skills to engage in honest, open dialogue at all levels of the college and its surrounding community, to promote the success of all students, and to sustain the community co llege mission.

PAGE 54

54 C OLLABORATION : An effective community college leader develops and maintains responsive, cooperative, mutually beneficial, and ethical internal and external relationships that nurture diversity, promote the success of all students, and sustai n the community college mission. C OMMUNITY C OLLEGE A DVOCACY : An effective community college leader understands, commits to, and advocates for the mission, vision, and goals of the community college. P ROFESSIONALISM : An effective community college leader wo rks ethically to set high standards for self and others, continuously improve self and surroundings, demonstrate accountability to and for the institution, and ensure the long term viability of the college and community. (p p 4 6 ) The six competency domain s were further explained by 45 individual leadership competencies, which formed the nucleus of the document (Appendix A) Along with the approved core set the AACC Competencies also approved five principles of leadership designed to aid in the appreciatio n and use of the AACC C ompetencies : Leadership can be learned. Many members of the community college community can lead. Effective leadership is a combination of effective management and vision. Learning leadership is a lifelong process, the movement of which is influenced by personal and career maturity as well as other development processes The leadership gap can be addressed through a variety of strategies such as college GYOL programs, AACC council and university programs, state system programs, resi dential institutes, caching, mentoring, and on line and blended approaches. Competencies 415 community college presidents rated the 45 individual leadership competencies from the six domains to determine how the s e individuals perceived their level s of preparation for their first presidenc ies and the level of importance they attributed to each of the 45 leadership competencies. The competencies within the organizational strategy and communication domain s were rate d highest in importance, with 95.8% and 95.4% of respondents rating them as very important or important respectively Resource management was rated the third most important domain, with 94.0% of respondents

PAGE 55

55 rating the competencies as very important or im portant. The competencies within the collaboration domain were rated very important or important by 91.4% of respondents Similarly, 88.1% of the sample rated the community college advocacy competencies very important or important. The competency domain rated least important was the professionalism domain, with only 78.4% of respondents rating its competencies as very important or important. For each of the 45 leadership competencies, the community college presidents in the sample provided higher importa nce rating s than preparedness rating s The six items for which respondents felt least prepared, with less than 70% rating themselves very prepared or prepared were: Contribute to the profession through professional development programs, professional orga nizational leadership, and research/publication (60.5%) ; Take an entrepreneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sources (61.4%) ; Manage stress through self care, balance, adaptability, flexibility, and humor (65.3%) ; Work effectively and dip lomatically with unique constituent groups such as legislators, board members, business leaders, accreditation organizations, and others (66.0%) ; Demonstrate cultural competence relative to a global society (66.3%) ; and Demonstrate transformational leaders hip through authenticity, creativity, and vision (69.4%) (pp. 85 89 ) Of these six lowest rated items on the preparedness scale, three are in the professional domain t he domain rated lowest in importance. Leadership Development for Community College Studen t Affairs As the literature makes clear, there is no one way in which community college leaders are trained (AACC, 2005; Campbell, 2002; Duree, 2007; Friedel, 2010; H ockaday & Puyear, 2008; Piland & Wolf, 2003; Ullman, 2010 ; Watts & Hammons, 2002 ). Among the ways to prepare community colleges leaders are:

PAGE 56

56 University based graduate programs in community college leadership or higher education administration ; Leadership institutes organized by national professional associations (AACC, A CP A, League for Innovat ion in Community Colleges, NASPA, N ational Council on Student Development [NCSD] etc.) ; and G YOL programs organized by individual institutions, a group of institutions, or a state system. The following sections explore each of these leadership preparation methods more in depth. University Based Graduate P rograms Brown et al. (2002) felt that a doctorate should be a prerequisite to obtaining a community college leadership position. Tunks (2007) state d that it is unusual for a college administrator to attai n a n executive level position without a terminal degree. Duval l (2003) assert ed that as community colleges look for new leadership, they often focus on individuals who earned a doctoral degree in community college leadership or higher education leadershi p. Recent studies by Duree (2007) and Amey and VanDe r Linden (2002) suggest ed that 87 9 0% of community college executive s hold doctora tes While these terminal degrees are from a range of academic specialties, the majority hold doctorates in education, including many in community college leadership. Amey (2006) contend ed that university based programs in community college leadership take many different forms, including for credit or noncredit, degree or certificate, and skill based or theoretical. With all these differences, certain characteristics are consistent, largely because the programs uniformly cater to working professionals. The essential characteristics of these leadership programs include: Accessible, Low cost, High qualit y, Tailored for working professionals, Provide mentoring opportunities, and

PAGE 57

57 Allow for personal reflection and assessment (p. 1) Bragg (2002) and Amey (2006) reviewed the composition of several university based graduate programs in community college leade rship. Both found that many programs use learning communities or cohorts, internships, technology based learning, and connections to local community college leaders. Learning communities or cohort base d learning structures a re program s where students ar e admitted as a group and take the same set of courses together as they progress toward a degree. These system s often rely on group projects, lead ing to feelings of teamwork and connectedness and a commitment to the program a ll of which are often lackin g for part time students. These cohorts develop into strong networks that aid in program completion and lead to professional development and career advancement long after the docto ra te has been earned Internships provide opportunities to apply theory to practice. For students who are full time professionals, internships may provide them with a short term work experience in a different setting than their regular workplaces thus adding to their portfolio of experiences with student affairs For students who are not working, an internship provides improved insight to the workplace and a chance for discussions, shadowing networking, and mentorship. Appropriate use of technology as a learning tool can help a cohort stay connected and may help working profe ssionals participate in classes without traveling to the universit y Amey (2006) describe d a course structure where students and faculty meet in person for a weekend once a month, and spent the intermediate time using technology to communicate and collabo rate. With many community colleges utilizing distance learning, this experience helps administrators develop a more in depth understand ing of the ir academic experience s

PAGE 58

58 Both Bragg (2002) and Amey (2006) stress ed how importan t connections are to the local community college. Presidents and other senior administrations may serve as adjunct faculty or guest lecturers. They m ay create a culture that supports the program by establishing policies that enable their employees to enroll in a doctoral degree program, either by allowing flexible work hours and/ or by paying tuition, fees, and/or books for their employees taking classes in the program. They may also host classes on their campus es making the educational program more accessible to their e mployees Outcome data collected by Amey (2006) suggest ed : Students are satisfied with their experiences and learning outcomes ; The material is important and beneficial to them in their current jobs and future aspirations ; The networks th ey develop are si gnificant ; and They are more willing to assume leadership responsibilities, eve n while in the same jobs (p.16) Sustaining these positive outcomes and meeting the diverse needs of community colleges requires some flexibility and scalability on the part of the university based program, as the demand for these programs grows in r esponse to the leadership gap. It is also important to assess how well the university based graduate programs prepare their graduates for leadership positions. Duree (2007) found tha t there was no significant difference between how community colleges presidents rate d their preparation for the AACC Competencies based on the highest deg ree earned. Even though 90% of the participants in study possessed a doctorate, the findings suggest ed that having a doctorate does not guarantee that a person is prepared to assume a community college presidency. Leadership Development Programs Hockaday and Puyear (2008) assert ed that professional organizations should assist in preparing community college leaders. Tunks (2007) found 44 different leadership programs for

PAGE 59

59 community college administrators offered by different professional associations and advertised by the AACC. Lar gely aimed at the executive, these programs Leaders Institute, Future Leaders Institute Advanced, the Presidents Academy Summer Institute, and the New CEO Institute. Others program s sponsored by professional community college Executive Leadership Institute, National Institute for Leadership Foundation Leadership Academy and Advanced Leadership Academy. Professional associations for student affairs administrators offer a significant number of Level Management Institute Affairs Officers, Institute fo r New Senior Student affairs Officers, Manicur Symposium, Stevens Institute, the Student Services Institute for Community and Two Year Colleges, and the National Institute. Associations that focus on specific functional areas of student affairs offer their own leadership development experiences, including ACUHO I (National Housing Training Institute), Association of College Unions I and Indiana Professional Development Seminar), and Association for Student Conduct Administration (Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration). I nstitutions have support for developing GYOL development workshops using the AACC Competen cies as the basis of curricul a ( AACC, 2005). Individual institutions, teams of colleges, or state agencies usually

PAGE 60

60 coordinate t hese workshops. Carroll and Romero (2003) advocate d that institutions work together to develop these short term leadership expe riences. Even with an established curriculum, the process to develop such a program can be daunting. Jeandro n (2006) described four stages for GYO L program development: plan, develop, deliver, and strengthen. The planning phase includes involving key per sonnel, including the president, senior administrators, faculty, and members of the governance board. Programs f unding should also be allocated during the planning phase. The development phase features curriculum design and selecting the participants and faculty based on interests, qualificati ons, and diversity. The delivery phase is implementation of the program itself which should include elements of team building, networking, and mentoring. Strengthening is accomplish ed by listening to feedback from a thorough program assessment provided by both participants and program instructors Tunks (2007) analyzed the impact leadership workshop attend ance on 23 community college employees working at two Florida institutions. Prior to attending the workshop, t he study participants took the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ), an instrument that generates a personality profile across 32 dimensions. Following workshop completion, the OPQ was administered a second time, and the data collected was examine d to determine if participating in the leadership development program resulted in a change in leadership style as measured by the OPQ. The analysis of pretest a n d posttest scores found no significant difference between the groups as whole. Additionally, the analysis of pretest a n d posttest scores did not indicate that gender ha d a statistically signi ficant impact on the outcomes. s of their preparedness for the 45 leadershi p competencies contained within the six domains of the

PAGE 61

61 AACC Competencies Just over 50% of the sample participated in a formal leadership development program prior to assuming their first presidency. R espondents who participated in a formal leadership program perceived them themselves as less prepared for the AACC Competencies th a n those who did not participat e in such a program. This finding should not be perceived as diminishing the positive impact o f attending leadership development programs Ra ther this finding may indicate that attending a leadership development program made future realize the complexities and scope of their position s and this realization may have lead to their repor ting themselves as less prepared. Mentoring Lankau and Scandura (2007) describe d mentoring as a forum for personal learning and development within organizations. The authors contend ed that a successful mentoring program will advance the organization by bu ilding a learning organization, developing future leaders, and strengthening employee diversity. Likewise, th e value and role of mentoring is expressed throughout literature on community college leadership development ( Campbell, Sved, & Morris, 2010; Fult on Calkins & Milling, 2005; Hockaday & Puyear, 2008; McDade, 2005; Phelan, 2005; VanDerLinden, 2005; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). In response to the need for trained leaders, Hockaday and Puyear (2008) stated that n ational, state, and local community college organizations should identify, train, and mentor prospective leaders for community colleges. Weisman and Vaughan (2002) felt that forming mentoring relationships should be part of any GYO L program. McDade (2005) explain ed that mentoring relationship s ar e learning process es that produce administrative skills and socialization. Fulton Calkins and Millin g (2005) identif ied mentoring programs as a way of assisting with the transition of individuals from one role to another. They advocate d for continual lead ership learning opportunities through succession planning. This includes recognizing

PAGE 62

62 anticipated vacancies of key positions in a timely fashion, identifying a diverse group of employees who could potentially fill those vacancies, and providing leadership development experience s for those individuals, including assigning a mentor. Mentors should be selected from within the institution to offer the necessary guidance and support to ease the transition. Watkins (2003) asser ted that the first 90 days of leaders tenure s in a new role is critical to establish themselves and succeed. A mentor can help smooth the transition, allowing more immediate success. Tunks (2007) leadership behavi unks repo r t ed that mentoring emerged as a distinctive theme when study participants were asked to reflect on what they would have do ne differently to ensure success, and what advice they would give to ot hers. Specifically, the participants affirmed that they would treat mentoring differently (i.e. find one faster or utilize theirs more than they did), or they would enco urage others to have a mentor. Phel a n (2005) advocate d for mentoring in the form of a n intergenerational leadership program to fill gaps he identifie d in existing university based graduate preparation programs. Phelan envision ed a program where senior community college administrators are brought together on a regular basis to prepare the next generation of community college leaders by sharing their experiences on a number of practicalities associated with the community college system development, foundation b oard relations, legislative and congressional relations, board/president relations, policy governance, higher education law, visioning and strategic planning, and media a n also discusse d the importance of relationshi ps as an essential byproduct of the mentoring relationship.

PAGE 63

6 3 Roper (2002) s aw relationships as a primary reason why some student affairs administrators are more effective than others. He argue d that young professional s grasp the importance o supervisors, and senior administrators in part because they are so busy wit h the details of their position s (p. 11). Participation in mentoring relationship s may help new student a ffairs professionals be more successful as (VanDerLinden, 2005). and Sti mp son (2007) posited that mentoring is an effective method of facilitati ng professional development within student affairs. Within th is context, Cooper and Miller (199 8 ) explain ed established from interactions resulting from professional concern and desire to facilitate the d the value found in personal, intimate interactions with other profe ssionals as useful in professional development for student affairs. Cooper and Miller asked 365 experienced NASPA members (excluding graduate sonal influencers people who have helped you d evelop a sense of who you are, personally and professionally, and how you view yourself as a student affairs practitioner. Personal influencers will tend to be people with whom you worked, spent professional time, or who provided you with supervision or me ntoring. They may be institutional colleagues or professional colleagues through various organizations/associations. These are people with whom you may have developed a close worki ng interpersonal relationship. (p. 62) Study participants most often identif ied supervisors (55%), faculty members (18%), internship supervisors (14%), and colleagues or coworkers (8%). As a whole, participants were more likely to identify men than women, though women were more likely to identify o ther women. P articipants most often used the term mentor to describe the significan t relationship. Finally, respondents reported what made their relationship s significant,

PAGE 64

64 and what the personal influencer s did or said that made an impact. Cooper and Mil ler found that the responses were connected to qualities of guidance (described as personality traits or interpersonal behaviors), role modeling (leadership qualities and negative traits), and career support (career guidance and professional development). Based on their findings, Cooper and Miller ma d e a case for establishing a formal mentoring program with in the context of student affairs employment. Twale and Jelin e k (1996) explore d the mentoring experience s of femal e senior student affairs officers in t he S outheast United States. Of the 40 women in their sample, 60% had a mentor while still in graduate school ; o f these, 56% of the mentors were female. As new professionals, slightly few er (56%) reported hav ing mentors, though a greater percent age of the se mentors were female (64%). A majority of the female senior student affairs officers in study (80%) indicated that they served as mentors for one or more graduate students or new professionals usually women research, (2007) study of community college presidents showed that just under half of respondents (49.4%) participated in a mentoring relationship as a protg. Conversely, over 85% of respondents were pa rticipating in a mentoring relationship as a mentor. Summary Leadership development for CCSSAOs is complex and multifaceted, with needs based on a number of variables. For example, CCSSAO leadership development must be examined through the lens es of both t he institution type and nature of the student affairs field in which the se individuals work. To provide a context for further exploring these concepts, t his chapter reviewed the history and state of both community colleges and student affairs, and introdu ced the concept of competencies.

PAGE 65

65 Competencies include the behaviors, knowledge, skills, and abilities that a person needs to provide leadership to positively impact an organization at a particular time. CCSAOs have an opportunity to develop competencies g ermane to both the field of student affairs and to the community college. These competencies, including the six domain competencies found within the AACC Competencies may be learned through a variety of formal methods including formal grad u at e education leadership development programs and mentoring relationships.

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of c hapter three is to outline the procedures used in this study and the methods use for analyzing the data. The statement of pur pose is restated along with the specific research questions developed for this study. This chapter also include s information relating to the research population, instrument development, validity and reliability, endorsement of the study, administration of the instruction, data analysis, and summary. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess CCSSAOs backgrounds, and leadership development experiences as related to their mastery of the leadership skills outlined in the AACC Competencies and to determine which of these leaderships skills is deemed most critical for CCSSAOs to perform their jobs effectively. Furthermore the study examine d CCSSAOs ceptions of their preparedness for the AACC Competencies and explore d a variety of me thod s for providing leadership development. To these ends, this study sought to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the general demographic characteristics professional backgrounds and leadership experiences of current community college senior student affairs officers in the United States? 2. perceptions of importance of th e leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies and their perception of their preparedness for those skills when they assumed their first community college senior student affairs officer position? 3. To what extent do the highest degrees earned by commu nity college senior student affairs officers influence how they rate their preparedness on the leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies when they assumed their first community college senior student affairs officer position? 4. To what extent do th e differences in leadership preparation outside of formal education influence how they rate their preparedness on the leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies when they assumed their first community college senior student affairs officer positio n?

PAGE 67

67 5. To what extent do differences in institutional characteristics (specifically, institution size, setting, structure, and highest degree offering) affect the reported importance of the AACC Competencies ? 6. Which leadership experiences do current community c ollege senior student affairs officers believe best prepared them to serve in this capacity, and what do they wish they had done differently to prepare for their first community college senior student affairs officer position? Instrument Development A quan titative survey research design was used to address the research questions. Quantitative survey research design allows researchers to collect data from a sample at one point in time via a questionnaire (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). An electronic, Web ba sed questionnaire was developed as the survey instrument for the target population. Web based surveys have been shown to provide efficiencies for the researcher and the participants, allowing for an increase d response rate (Porter, 2004). As a study on co mmunity college leadership that focuse d on the AACC Competencies this study adapted a survey that was previously developed for a similar study on community college presidents. The Community College Presidency: Demographics and Leadership Preparation Factors Survey was developed by researchers at the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and the Office of Community College Research and Policy at Iowa State University under the leadership of Larry Ebbers, u niversity p rofessor, and Fra nkie Santos Laanan, associate p rofessor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (Duree, 2007) D uring the course of development, it was subjected to rigorous tests for reliability and validity, underwent external review by l eading researchers, piloted with a small group of community college presidents, and received the endorsement of the A ACC C EO G eorge Boggs (Duree, 2007).

PAGE 68

68 The survey used in this study was s permission from The Community College P residency: Demographics and Leadership Preparation Factors Survey (Appendix B) This new instrument The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Survey was developed by a researcher working under the direction of Dal e Campbell, p rofessor, School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education at the University of Florida. This community college president s urvey was modified to focus on community college s tudent a ffairs administrators. The Office of Educational Research, housed within the College of Education at the University of Florida provided support in modifying and refining the instrument. Additional support came from the Santa Fe College Office of Institutional Research and Planning The surv ey was developed and designed to be administered as a Web based survey. Before the sample was notified by email about participati ng in the survey, t he instrument was externally reviewed by a panel of leading researchers in the community college student af fairs field, and also was juried by a group of 10 current CCSSAOs In addition, the University of Florid a Institutional Re view Board granted approval for this research Endorsement of the Study As stated by Berdie, Anderson, and Neibuhr (1986), sement of key individuals or organizations has a major effect on the attitude of people being asked to participate in the The survey was reviewed by and received the endors ement of the NCSD. The NCSD endorsement was sought because of the ACC organization solely dedicated to serving the needs of student development professionals in the community college. NCSD is the n s primary voice for sharing knowledge, expertise, professional

PAGE 69

69 (N CSD 2010a). A letter of endorsement for this study was provided by Tom Walter, NCSD President (Appendix I) This letter provided an explanation of the objective and use of the study and encouraged CCSSAOs to participate. This letter was e mail ed to the research population in the initial correspondence regarding the launch of the online survey an d was included with each subsequent communication to the research population Research Population The research population for this study included all CCSSAOs a t U.S. two year colleges who were listed in either the 2011 Higher Education Directory or the 20 10 NCSD Membership Directory The Higher Education Directory was selected to solicit participants because it is the Education Directory and has published directory information on accredited college s and univ ersities for 25 years (Higher Education Publications, Inc., 2010). Since t he NCSD endorsed the study, all CCSSOs who were NCSD members were added to the sample. The 2011 Higher Education Directory list ed 1 427 individuals classified as either Chief Studen t Life Officer or Director, Student Affairs, working at two year colleges (NCSD, 2010b) The group was refined by eliminating 442 individuals who work at institutions outside the United States do not work at two year institutions, or were not identified as senior student affairs officer by their institution s This resulted in a group of 985 individuals for the sample. The 2010 NCSD Membership Directory contain ed 216 individuals along with their institution s and title s This group was refined by eliminating 147 individuals who either work at institutions outside the United States or were not identified as the senior student affairs officer s at their institution s This resulted in 69 eligible in dividuals who could be a dded to the sample.

PAGE 70

70 Since the intent of this study was to gather responses from as broad a sample as possible, the entire population of CCSSAOs listed in the 2010 Higher Education Directory and the 2010 NCSD Membership Directory were used as a sample. Eli minating 16 duplicates produced a final list of 1 038 individuals. Survey Instrument Data were collected using The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Survey This survey was designed after conducting an extensive review of the literature that discussed community college president and CCSSAO demographics, professional backgrounds, educational preparation s and roles and responsibilities (Duree, 2007; Edwards, 200 5 ; Kubala & Bailey, 2001; McFarlin, Crittenden, & Ebb ers, 1999; Sandeen, 1991; Smith, 2002; Wade, 1993; Weisman & Vaughn, 2007). The instrument used by Duree (2007) to answer th research questions. The typ es of inventories u sed to measure the 41 item s on the survey instrument included categorical responses (for demographic data), dichotomous responses (i.e. yes and no ), numerical scales, four point Likert type scales (e.g., not important to very important ; not prepared to very prepared ), and open ended responses (Appendix B) The items in the instrument were organized into seven sections: (a ) individual a nd institutional demographics; (b ) career pathways; (c) leadership preparation; (d ) faculty staff, and public relations; (e ) research and publications; (f ) competencies for community colle ge leaders; and (g ) conclusion. Individual and institutional demographics The first section of the instrument was designed to provide demographic and professional inform ation about respondents and a description of their current educational institution s Individual demographic data collected included age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Professional information collected included title and

PAGE 71

71 educational background (highest deg ree earned and major field of study in that degree). The institutional demographics explored institution size, setting, structure, and the types of degrees offered. The institution size and setting categories used in this study were adapted from an Integ rated Postsecondary Education Data System report summarized on the AACC W ebsite (A ACC 2003). Career pathways The purpose of this section was to determine career tracks for CCSSAOs Questions asked in this section explore d the number of different studen t affairs positions held, the number of years in the present posit ion, and the number of years working in student affairs, plus the previous position, number of years working in community college student affairs, university student affairs, and other posit ions ( both inside and outside higher education) teaching experience s and career aspiration s Leadership preparation The third section asked participants to describe their involvement with any formal and informal leadership development activities outside of th eir degree programs. A variety of strategies exist to bolster leadership in higher education, including institution based and state based GYOL programs, leadership institutes offered through professional organizations, corporate training and coaching, mentoring, and online approaches (A ACC 2005; Hockaday & Puyear, 2008; Ullman, 2010). Questions in this section sought to learn about the importa nce of graduate program cohorts and faculty, peers at community colleges, social and business networks, mentorships, and formal leadership programs. Faculty, staff, and public relations This segment explored additional responsibilities and inter actions both within their institution s and in the ir communit ies For example, respondents could indicate external boards on which they served, and individuals or

PAGE 72

72 groups they meet or speak with on a weekly basis. This section presented an opportunity to explore who CCSSAOs interact with both on campus and in the community. Research and publications This section provided an opportunity to assess professional experiences by reviewing their contributions to research literature. While Duree (200 7) found that a majority of community college presidents had not recently published, previous studies found correlations between research and publication with traits of outstanding community college leaders (McFarlin, Crittenden & Ebbers 1999). Competenc ies for community college leaders The sixth phase of the survey was based on the six domains established in the AACC Competencies (2005). This phase asked respondents to rate the importance of and their level of preparedness for the 45 individual leadership competencies connected to organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism. Data collected during this section of the instrument was used to assess the overall preparedn ess and to identify areas of greater importance where greater emphasis should be made to prepar e future CCSSAOs Conclusion The final survey section asked CCSSAOs to recall how prepared they felt when they assumed their first CCSAO position s Responden ts were also given the opportunity to reflect on wh at leadership development experience s they valued most as preparation for their first CCSSAO position s. Following this reflection, respondents could provide a narrative description of what they wish they had done differently to prepare for their first CCSSAO position. Administration of Survey I nstrument Once the survey items were finalized, the instrument was programmed for online administration via a secure Web application and was juried by a group of 10 CCSSAOs

PAGE 73

73 Revisions were made ba sed on feedback from the jury In addition to these modifications, t he Web survey instrument was tested prior to distribution To protect the integrity, the results were stored in a secure, password protected online database that could only be accessed by the researcher and would not contain any identifiable fields, including an Internet Protocol ( IP ) address. On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 an e m ail was sent to the sample of 1 038 eligible individuals to explain the study and to invite them to participate. This e mail contained the letter on NCSD letterhead, signed by Dr. Walter, and affirmed NCSD s support of the study. The following Thursday, J anuary 20, 2011, a follow up e mail containing identical information was sent to the entire the sample, less individuals who asked to be removed from the e mail list. The third and final e mail reminder was sent on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 to the entire sample, less those who had requested no further contact. Each e mail contained complete instructions for accessing the online survey, including a hyperlink. A phone number and return e mail address were also provided so members of the sample could ask any questions they had about the study or the instrument. The final reminder also included the survey closing date (February 11, 2011), after which no further responses would be collected. Surveys were completed from January 11 until February 11, 2011. A tot al of 342 responses were collected. Data were downloaded from the online database an d organized into a spreadsheet. A coding manual was developed that identified categorical variable names and response codes for the survey. Open ended text responses wer e record ed in a separate spreadsheet.

PAGE 74

74 Results Of the 1,038 e mail addresses for the sample, 63 e mail addresses failed due to soft bounces, technical failures, invalid users, or content blocks, reducing the sample to 97 5 The final 342 respondents included 19 respondents who stated that they were not CCSSAOs ; these were classified as ineligible reducing the sample to 956 (Table 3 1) The responses also i ncluded 28 cases with partially completed instruments. Fifteen of the partially completed cases did not provide enough information to justify including them in the data set. However, 13 partially completed cases did provide sufficient information in their responses to include them in the data set. Adding these 13 to the 295 fully completed cases who ident ified themselves as CCSSAOs increased the total number of acceptab le completions to 308. Based on the eligible sample of 956, the final response rate was 32.2% ( Table 3 2 ) Data Analysis Procedures Using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) v ersion 19, several statistical data analyses were performed, including t tests, analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) and tests of reliability. Content analysis was performed to analyze data collecte d from the open ended responses T he t tests are perfo rmed to compare the means of two groups to determine if the differences between the groups are significant (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Paired t tests were used to determine differences between importance and preparedness ratings for the each of six leade rship compe tency domains Independent sample t t ests were used were used to determine whether participation in a mentoring relationship or leadership development programs had an impact on the perceived preparedness for each of the six leadership competenc y domains and to determine if institutional structure impacted how CCSS AO s rated the importance of the leadership competencies

PAGE 75

75 In conjunction with the t tests, ANOVA procedures are used to compare the means of more than two groups to determine if the di fferences among them are significant (Shavelson, 1996). ANOVA procedures assume that the variable groups are independent of the population, have a normal distribution, and have equal variances (Frankel & Wallen, 1996). Significant findings were further e xamined by Tukey post hoc tests to determine the direction and strength of each significant difference. Correlation analysis is used to explain the relationship among two or more variables, with the correlation coefficient expressing in mathematical terms the directions and strength of that w as used to test internal consistency in this study. Along with correlation analysis, Content a nalysis is a qualitative research technique used to analyze the contents of a communication (Frankel & Wallen, 1996). Glesne (2006) explain ed that content analysis allows a researcher to synthesize the raw data develop hypotheses and theories, explore patterns, and ultimately i nterpret the collected data. For research question one, descriptive statistics were used to examine self reported demographics, educational background s career pathways, leadership development experiences, and professional and community ex periences. These include d questions in the first five sections of the instrument. Frequencies and percentages were reported as appropriate. For research question two, descriptive statistics were used to examine the preparedness level and importance of ea ch of the 45 individual leadership competencies found within the AACC Competencies as reported by CCSSAOs Frequencies and percentages were reported as appropriate. A correlation analysis was conducted to determine if any coherence existed for the 45 in dividual leadership competencies as related to the six domains defined by the AACC

PAGE 76

76 Competencies (2005) Assuming the variables within each competency domain we re found to be significantly correlated, research questions three, four, and five examine d the six domains instead of all 45 individual leadership competencies. Research question three explored the impact of formal education on leadership skill preparation. By grouping respondents based on highest degree earned, ANOVA procedures were conducted to detect significant differences in preparedness among each group. Tukey post hoc tests wer e conducted to determine the direction and strength of each significant difference found by the ANOVA procedures For research question four which looked at leadership preparation outside of formal education, a combination of t tests and ANOVA procedures were conducted to detect significant differences in preparedness among each group. Groupings were based on involvement with mentoring relationships GYO L programs, and leadership programs sponsored by professional organizations The t tests were used to test the groups based on involvement with mentoring and institution based leadership programs; ANOVA procedures were used to analyze groups based on peer networks and leadership programs sponsored by professional associations. Tukey post hoc tests were co nducted to examine significant findings based on the mentors gender s Research question five explore d the assessment of the importance of the AACC Competencies based on difference s in institutional characteristics, specifically institutional size, setting structure, and highest degree off er ing Descriptive statistics were used to report on institutional characteristics. A combination of t tests and one way ANOVA procedures were conducted to detect significant differences in importance of th e AACC Competencies based on each institutional characteristic group. Tukey post hoc tests were

PAGE 77

77 conducted to determine the direction and strength of each significant difference found by the ANOV A procedures. Research question six was answered using content analysis on the open ended questions that explored the types of experiences CCSSAOs found most valuable in preparation for their first CCSSAO position s. In addition to the reality of their preparations respondents were also as ked to speculate about what they wish they had done differently to prepare for their first CCSSAO position s Frequencies and percentages were reported as appropriate. Summary Chapter three provided an explanation of the research design methodology, data collection and data analysis procedures used in this study. The sample population was CCSSAOs listed in either the 2010 Higher Education Directory or the 2010 NCSD Membership Director y Data were collected using a Web based instrument called The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Survey This instrument was based on an instrument used in a 2007 study on community college presidents. Prior to implementation, the survey was reviewed by researc hers and a pilot study was conducted. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t tests, ANOVA and content analysis. Chapter four presents the statistics and findings from the data analysis for the research study. Chapter five includes a summar y of the study, discussion of the conclusions, implications of the findings, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 78

78 Table 3 1. Eligible s ample for T he Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadershi p Survey Sample information Cases Sample 1 038 Not r eachable 63 Not e ligible 19 Eligible s ample 956 Table 3 2. Response rate for The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Demographics and Leadership Survey Response rate Cases No response / Refuse 633 Partial response Not included 15 Partial response Included 13 Completed surveys 295 Percent 32.2%

PAGE 79

79 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to assess demographics, educational backgrounds, and leadership development experiences as related to their mastery of the leadership skills outlined in the AACC Competencies (2005) and to determine wh at leadership skills are deemed most critical for CCSSAOs to p erform their jobs effectively. As discussed in the previous chapter, a variety of statistical analyses were employed to assess the data. Chapter four presents an overview of the se findings Research Que stion One Research q uestion one explored the general demographic characteristics professional backgrounds, and leadership development experiences of CCSSAOs Frequency analysis was used to examine t he demographics of the sample their educat ional backgrounds, career pathways leadership development experiences professional experiences and community involvement General Demographics R s gender s and race s /ethnicit ies were examined to gain a greater understanding of the status of CCSSAOs at the time of the study (Table 4 1) The majority of CCSSAOs i n the study sample were aged 40 5 9 years. Of 30 8 respondents, 29.4% ( n = 90) were 40 4 9 years old and 41.5% ( n = 127) were 50 5 9 years old The average age of the survey respondents was 51.7 years. There was not a significant difference in average age of CCSSAOs when compared by gender. The average age male respondent was 51.2 ; the average ag e o f female respondent was 52.1. Just over half of respondents were female (52.3%, n = 161) and just under half were male (47.7%, n = 147). No respondents indicated they were transgendered. Findings from a cross

PAGE 80

80 tabulation of all groups by gender and ra ce/ethnicity reveal ed that the one category where male s CCSSAOs outnumber ed their female counterparts was Hispanic/Latino males (54.5% vs. 45.5%). Among all race/ethnicity groups by gender, White/Caucasian females comprised the greatest percentage (38.9%, n = 119). Of the 308 CCSSAO respond ents 74.5% were White/Caucasian. Among other race/ethnicity groups Black/African American CCSSAOs comprised 14.1% of respondents; Hispanic/Latino CCSSAOs 7.2%; American Indian/ Native American CC SSAAOs 2.0%; and Asian/Pacific Islander CCSSAOs 1.3%. Multiracial CCSSAOs comprised 1.0% of the sample. Findings from a cross tabulation of all groups by age and race/ethnicity reveal ed that among all race/ethnicity groups by age White/Caucasian males aged 50 5 9 years comprised the greatest percentage (30.9%, n = 94). Educational Background s The educational background s of stud y participants w ere examined by reviewing their highest degree earned and the major field of study in that degree (Table 4 2) The findings show ed that about half of respondents (49.7%, n = 153) possess ed a m percentage of respon dents (46.6%, n = 144) ha d earned a doctorate. Only 2.9% ( n = 9) of respondents ha d an educational specialist degree Less than 1 % of respondents claim ed an s earned. Th e majority (59.7%) of doctorate holding CCSSAOs pos sess ed a doctorate of education (EdD) Findings from a cross tabulation of all groups by gender and highest degree earned reveal ed the one category where male CCSSAOs outnumber ed their female counterparts wa s possession of a JD (100% vs. 0%). Among all highest degree s greatest percentage (26.6%, n = 82).

PAGE 81

81 CCSSAOs in the sample overwhelmingly (79.7%, n = 235) selected an education related major field of study f or highest degree. Higher education with an emphasis other than community college leadership was selected by 29.2% ( n = 86) respondents. Other education related major fields of study identified were higher education (183%, n = 18). Major fields of study not related to education were selected by 20.3% ( n = 60) of respondents. Findings from a cross tabulation of all groups by highest degree earned and major field of study in the highest degree earned reveal ed that 75.0% ( n = 60) of EdD holders and 58.6% ( n = 34) of PhD holders earned their doctorates in higher education, without or without a community college emphasis. Among all highest degree earned groups by major field of study in the highest degree earned, m tion comprised the highest percentage (14.5%, n = 43). The next highest percentage was an EdD in higher education, without a concentration in community college leadership (13.2%, n = 39). Career Pathways addition, the CCSSAOs were asked for information providing insight to the paths they took to their current positions, as well as where they hoped those paths would ta ke them in the future. To develop a profile of responding CCSSAOs through the lens of their employment, questions were asked about their current title s how long they ha d held the ir current position s how long they had worked in student affairs and in com munity colleges, their previous positions, teaching experience s and their career aspiration s (Tables 4 3 and 4 4) The majority of CCSSAOs w ho responde d to the survey had the title v ice p resident or v ice c hancellor (54.5%, n = 168). The second most popul ar responses w ere d ean or d irector (34.7%, n = 107). The average length of time respondent s had worked in their current position s was 6.5 years. The average number of years respondents had worked in student affairs was 19.8 years.

PAGE 82

82 On average, respondent s had held 4.1 differen t positions in student affairs, including their positions at the time they completed the survey Respondents were asked about the position title s they held immediately prior to their CCSSAO position s at the time they completed the su rvey The most common previous position was a dean/director position within student affairs, with 30.2% ( n = 93) of respondents having serv ed in this capacity. Half as many respondents (15.6%, n = 48) had served as an associate / assistant vice president for student affairs. The second largest group of respondents previous position s was as a senior student affairs officer position ( 28.6% n = 88). The overwhelming majority of respondents (80.7%, n = 246) stated that their previous position s were at a co mmunity colle ge. A cross tabulation of previous position titles and previous position s at community college s revealed that of the 88 respondents whose previous position s were as a senior student affairs officer, 88.6% ( n = 78 ) of them previously had worke d at a community college. Only 11.4% ( n = 10) entered the CCSSAO position from other types of higher education. The responding CCSSAOs were likely to have taught at least part time at a community college, though they were unlikely to be teaching during th e spring 2011 semester when they responded to the survey Three fifths of respondents ( n = 187) ha d experience teaching part time at a community college. Only 7.8% ( n = 24) had taught full time at a community college, and fewer still (3.2%, n = 70) ha d both full time and part time teaching experience. Over one fourth of respondents (28.2%, n = 87) ha d no community college teaching experience. At the time of the survey, about two thirds of respondents (67%, n = 201) reported that they were not teaching. Of those who were teaching the majority (23.7%, n = 71) were teaching at a community college. The rem a inder (9.3%, n = 28) were teaching at other in stitutions of higher education.

PAGE 83

83 Most respondents were either interested in remaining in their current ro le or becoming a community college president. The career aspirations of the largest group (48.1%, n = 127) was to be a senior studen t affairs administrator. Over one third of respondents (36.0%, n = 95) aspired to the presidency. Five respondents (1.9%) wished to be full time faculty. The remainder w ere interested in other educational positions (8.3%, n = 83) or positions outside higher education (5.7%, n = 15). A cross tabulation of education level s and career aspiration s demonstrated that those CCSSA Os who were interested in becoming a community college president were likely to have earned a doctoral degree. Just over half of all respondents with doctoral degrees (51.9%, n = 68) indicated an interested in becoming a community college president Leade rship Development Experiences Leadership development experiences examined in this study included mentoring relationships, leadership development programs and a variety of peer networks CCSSAOs were asked to reflect on the importance of these experiences Ultimately, respondents indicated the perceived impact these experiences had on their leadership development (Tables 4 5 and 4 6) When rating the importance of peer networks in helping prepare them to serve as CCSSAOs, respondents rated co workers at co mmunity colleges as most important among the five groups examined, with 88.8% ( n = 270) rating them very important or important. Just over half of respondents rated graduate program faculty and social networks as important or very important, with 50.6% ( n = 154) and 50.3% ( n = 153) respectively. Just under half of respondents rated business networks as important to their preparation, with 49.0% ( n = 149) rating them very important or important. Compared to the other peer groups, a graduate program

PAGE 84

84 cohor t was deemed least important, with only 37.1% ( n = 113) rating that network as very important or important. Just over half of respondents (51.2%, n = 153) acknowledged that they participated in a mentoring relationship as a protg. Just under one fourth of these relationships (24.7%, n = 39) were formal mentoring mentoring relationships were largely developed within the setting of community college employment, with 82.6% ( n = 129) of relations hips developed this way. About one fourth of these relationships (21.5% of the total, n = 34) were developed while the protg was enrolled in a graduate program and working at a community college. Another 4.4% ( n = 7) of the relationships were developed while the protg was enrolled in a graduate program but not employed at a community college. The remainder of the mentoring relationships (13.9%, n = 22) were developed in a variety of settings, including through university employment, professional asso ciations, and involvement in formal leadership development programs. Almost three fifths of respondents (59.4%, n = 95) stated that they had more than one mentor and just over half of respondents (53.2%, n = 141) had male mentors. Female respondents wer e more likely to have mentors than males (54.1% vs. 47.9%), though this difference is not significant ( n = .062). CCSSAOs developed leadership skills through attending a variety of leadership development programs sponsored by professional associations, individual institutions, and state associations. The most commonly attended formal leadership program was the institution b ased GYOL program. About one fifth of respondents (22.2%, n = 68) indicated attending a GYOL at a community college. State based leadership programs attracted 15.9% ( n = 27) of respondents. The most popular professional organization leadership program a ttended by respondents was the ( n = 20) of respondents attended. This was

PAGE 85

85 ( n = 15) of respondents. Close to one fourth of respondents (23.5%, n = 40) indicated they attended at least one of four different leadership programs presented by NASPA, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, including the Institute for Aspiring Senior Student Affairs Officers, the Mid Managers Institut e, the Institute for Community/Two Y ear Colleges, an d the Alice Manicur Symposium. Professional Activities and Community Leadership Experiences Professional activities that contribute d to the field of student affairs and community leadersh ip experiences r ound ed out the leadership experiences of CCSAOs ( Table 4 7 ) C CSSAOs were asked to list the number of books, articles, chapters, or book reviews they had published within the past five years. The most common professional activity was havi ng articles published in profe ssional journals, with over one fifth of respondents (21.7%, n = 56) saying they had published at least one article. About half as many (11.5%, n = 30) ha d contributed a chapter to a published book. Less than 10% of responde nts had published a monograph or book (6.6%, n = 17) or had a book review published (3.1%, n = 8). In terms of community leadership, CCSSAO participa nts indicated their involvement in a variety of boards. At the time they completed the survey, o ver a third of respondents (36.0%, n = 111) serve d on boards of professional organizations. C CSSAOs were also active i n civic organization s and other nonprofit organization boards, with 44.2% ( n = 137) and 39.0% ( n = 120) of respondents indicat ing membership, r espectively. Over one fourth of respondents (28.2%, n = 87) indicated they were members of more than one civic or other nonprofit organization boards. Membership on college/university boards wa s less common, with only 17.5% ( n = 54) of respondents indica ting this membership. The least common community

PAGE 86

86 leadership wa s membership on a corporate board, with only 6.5% ( n = 20) of respondents indicating such a membership. Research Question Two Research q uestion two explored the relationship between CCSSAOs importance of the 45 leadership competencies included in the AACC Competencies (2005) Additionally, respondents were asked to provide perception s of their preparedness for those competencies when they assumed thei r first CCSSAO position s Table 4 8 presents the findings with the 45 leadership competencies divided into six competency domains based on the structure of the AACC Competencies : organizational strategy, resource management, collaboration, community college advocacy, and profes sionalism. Leadership Skills Organizational strategy More than four of out five CCSSAOs who participated in the study rated themselves as very prepared or p repared on four of the six leadership competencies within the organizational strategy domain. The competency in which respondents felt most prepared was to develop a positive environment that supports innovation, teamwork, and successful outcomes (96.1% n = 294 ). This competency was also identified as most importan t, with 99.7% ( n = 304) of responde nts rating it as very important or important. Close to 90% of respondents rated themselves as very prepared or prepared to develop, implement, and evaluate strategies to improve the quality of education at their institution s (89.5% n = 274 ) and align organizational mission, structures, and resources with the college master plan (88.9% n = 271 ). Both of these competencies were rated very important or important by more than 95% of respondents (95.7% ( n = 292) and 96.1% ( n = 292) respectively). Howeve r, f ewer respondents rated themselves very prepared or prepared to use data driven decision making practices to plan strategically (83.0% n = 254 ). Nevertheless t his

PAGE 87

87 competency yielded the second highest importance, with 98.0% ( n = 299) rating it is ver y important or important. About three fourths of respondents felt that they were very prepared or prepared to maintain and grow college personnel, fiscal resources and assets (74.8% n = 229 ). With 95.7% ( n = 292) of respondents rating this competency ve ry important or important rating, this item ha d a 20.9% differential in preparedness rating and importance rating. While CCSSAOs expressed confidence with managing college fiscal and human resources, this same confidence did not apply to systems perspecti ves. Within the organizational strategy domain, t he competency that respondents felt least prepared for was to use a systems perspective to assess and respond to the needs of students and the community (71.1% n = 216 ). This competency wa s also lowest rat ed in the importance, with only 86.5% ( n = 262) of respondents rating it very important or important. Resource management As a whole, the competencies found within the resource management domain were rated lower in both preparedness and importance sca les. The resource management skill in which participating CCSSAOs felt best prepared was employ ing organizational, time management, planning, and delegations skills, with 86.8% ( n = 2 62 ) of respondents rating themselves as very prepared or prepared. This skill was rated very important or important by 97.3% ( n = 293) of respondents, making it the second highest rated skill in terms of importance. The resource management skill rated highest on the importance scale was manage conflict and change in ways tha t contribute to the long term viability of the organization, seen as very important or important by 99.0% ( n = 298) of respondents. Only 74.0% of CCSSAO study participa nts ( n = 2 23 ) rated themselves very prepared to prepared for this skill. Along with

PAGE 88

88 term success, c lose to 80% of respondents rated themselves very prepared or prepared to develop and manage resources consistent with the college master plan (79.9% n = 241 ) and ensure accountability in reporting ( 78.5% n = 237 ). Far more study participants determined that the competencies were very important or important (95.0% ( n = 285) and 95.4% ( n = 288) respectively) Just over 70% of CCSSAOs perceive d themselves as very prepared or prepared to support opera tional decisions by managing information resources (71.6% n = 216 ). Close to 90% of CCSSAOs (89.7% n = 255 ) rate d this skill as very important or important. Aligned with information resources, a bout three fifths of respondents rated themselves very pre pared or prepared to implement a human resources system that fosters the professional development and advancement of all staff (61.5% n = 186 ) and to implement financial strategies to support programs, services, staff, and facilities (59.0% n = 178 ). B o th competencies were rated very important or important by 91.0% ( n = 274) of respondents resulting in a 29.5% and 32% rating differential respectively The resource management competency the study participants felt least prepared for was tak ing an entrep reneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sources. With only 36.6% ( n = 111) of CCSAOs rating themselves as very prepared or prepared, this skill had the lowest preparedness rating and was only one of two of the 45 competencies for which less than half of respondents fe lt very prepared or prepared. Despite the lower preparedness rating, two thirds (67.1% n = 202 ) of respondents rated this skill very important or important creating a 30.8% rating differential Communication Comm unication must be a strength for CCSSAOs as over 90% of respondents reported being very prepared or prepared for the six competencies listed in this

PAGE 89

89 domain. For four of the items, over 94% of respondents rated themselves very prepared or prepared: listen actively to understand, analyze, engage, and act (97.0% n = 294 ) ; create and maintain open communication regarding resources, priorities, and expectations (96.0% n = 290 ) ; project confidence and respond responsibly and tactfully (95.0% n = 288 ) ; and ef fectively convey ideas and information to all constituents (94.4% n = 286). All four items were rated very important or important by at least 97% of respondents (99.3% ( n = 300) 98.7% ( n = 297) 98.0 % ( n = 295) and 97.7% ( n = 295) respectively). While 94.0% ( n = 286) of participating CCSSAOs felt very prepared or prepared to disseminate and support policies and strategies, only 93.7% ( n = 282) rated this skill very important or important. This item was one of only six in the study that yielded a higher score on i mportance than p reparedness, though the 0.3% differential was not significant In contrast, t he item that yielded the lowest preparedness rating (92.1% n = 279 ) for the c ommunication domain was the ability to articulate and ch ampion shared mission, vision, and values to internal and external audiences. However, t he item was rated very importa nt or important by 9 6 .3% ( n = 290) of respondent s. Overall the c ommunication domain ranked highest in i mportance rating, with an averag e very important/important rating of 97.3%. Collaboration More than 9 of 10 participating CCSSAOs rated themselves very prepared or prepared on five of the eight competencies in the co llaboration domain: develop, enhance and sustain teamwork and cooperat ion (97.2% n = 280 ) ; facilitate shared problem solving and d ecision making (95.8% n = 276 ) ; manage conflict and change by building and maintaining productive relationships (94.4% n = 272 ) ; embrace and employ the diversity of individuals, cultures, values, ideas, and communication style (93.8% n = 271 ) ; and involve students, faculty,

PAGE 90

90 staff, and community members to work for the common good (91.7% n = 264 ). At least 94% of respondents rate d five competencies as very important or important. On ly two thirds of respondents felt very prepared or prepared on two competencies within the c ollaboration domain (demonstrate cultural competence in a global society [ 72.7% n = 210 ] and work effective ly and diplomatically with legislators, board members, business leaders, accredita tion organizations, and others [ 63.8% n = 183 ] ). However, over 85% of respondents felt the competencies wer e very important or important (8 6.4% ( n = 248) and 87.6% ( n = 248 ) respectively). The ratings differential on these two items was 13.7% and 23.9%. The c ollaboration skill for which CCSSAOs felt least prepared was establish ing networks and partnerships to advance the mission. Only 43.8% ( n = 132) reported being very prepared or prepared, making this skill one of two with less than 50% of respondents feeling very prepared or prepared. The item was rated very important or important by 90.6% ( n = 259) of respondents, creat ing a 46.8% differential bet ween the two ratings the largest differential in the study. Community college advocacy About 9 of 10 respondents rated themselves very prepared or prepared i n five of the six competencies in the community college advocacy domain: value and promote diver sity, inclusion, equity, and academic excellence (91.6% n = 262 ) ; promote equity, open access, teaching, learning, and innovation as primary goals for the college (90.9% n = 260 ) ; represent the community college in a variety of settings as a model of hig her education (89.1% n = 254 ) ; advocate the community college mission to all constituents and empower them to do the same, and advance lifelong learning and support a learning centered environment (both at 88.5% n = 253 ) Each of the five community coll ege advocacy competencies w as rated very

PAGE 91

91 important or important by over 90% of respondents, with the highest rating (96.5% n = 275 ) received by valu e and promot e diversity, inclusion, equity, and academic excellence. The last skill in this domain, demonstrate commitment to the mission of community colleges and student success through the scholarship of teaching and learning, yielded a 82.5% ( n = 235) preparedness rating. Finally, one of the c ommunity college a dvocacy competencies, advocate the community c ollege mission to all constituents and empower them to do the same, was unusual in that its importance rating (88.1% n = 251 ) was lower than its preparedness rating (88.5% n = 253 ) one of only six competencies where this occurred Professionalism The largest domain, with 11 competencies, was rated least important by the responding CCSSAOs This domain had four of six total items where the importance rating was lower than the preparedness rating, including two where the different ial wa s greater than 10%. The skill in which the most respondents indicated they were very prepared or prepared was promote and maintain high standards for personal and organizational integrity, honesty, and respect for people (97.2%, n = 278) This item was also scored highest on the importance scale, with 98.9% ( n = 282) of respondents identifying it as very important or important. More than 9 of 10 respondents rated themselves very prepared or prepared i n five other competencies in the p rofessionalism domain: weigh short term and long term goals in decision making (94.7% n = 270 ) ; demonstrate the courage to take risks, make difficult decisions, and accept responsibility (93.4% n = 267 ) ; support lifelong learning for self and others (93.0% n = 268 ) ; regularly self evaluation (91.6% n = 262 ) ; and demonstrate an understanding of the history, philosophy, and culture of the community college (90.2% n = 258 ). However, t he importance ratings varied for these five competencies. Over 90% of respondents felt three of the item s were very important or

PAGE 92

92 important: demonstrate the courage to take risks, make difficult decisions, and accept responsibility (98.6% n = 281 ) ; regularly self asses reflection, goal settin g, and evaluation (96 .5% n = 275 ) ; and support lifelong learnin g for self and others ( 91.9% n = 262 ). Only 77.2% of respondents ( n = 220) rated demonstrate an understanding of the history, philos ophy, and culture of the community college as very important or important, as did only 70. 3% ( n = 188) on weigh short term and long term goals in decision making. These last two ratings we re notable in that the importance sc ore wa s far lower than the preparedness score. The former ha d a 13.0% rating differential, and 24.5% rating differential was, by far, the largest in the study. Beyond the confines of their individual institutions, CCSSAOs explored broader perspectives, and j ust fewer than 9 of 10 respondents felt very prepared or prepared to understand the impact of perceptions, worldviews, and emotions on self and others. An almost equivalent percentage of respondents ( 88.0% n = 250 ) rated this skill very important or important. Abo ut four fifths of respondents rated themselves very prepared or prepared i n three p rofessionalism categories: use influence and power wisely in facilitating the teaching learning process and the exchange of knowledge (82.9% n = 237) ) ; manage stress throug h self care, balance, adaptability, flexibility, and humor (80.4% n = 230 ) ; and demonstrate transformational leadership (80.1% n = 226 ). The preparedness scores for these categories were lower, at 88.8% ( n = 253) 96.5% ( n = 275) and 88.6% ( n = 249). Nevertheless, CCSSAOs rated these items very important or important, respectively. The p rofessional domain in which respondents felt least prepared was contribute to the profession through professional development programs, professional organizational lead ership,

PAGE 93

93 and research/publications. Only 70.3 % ( n = 201) of respondents indicated they were very prepared or prepared in this competency This competency was rated second lowest of the 45 competencies, and lowest within the p rofessional domain, with only 68.8% ( n = 196) of respondents identifying it a s very important or important. This competency was the sixth one where the preparedness rating wa s higher than the importance rating, with a 1.5% rating differential. As a summar y of perceptions of their prepar edness they were asked to assess their overall preparation for their first CCSSAO position (Table 4 9 ) Just over one tenth of respondents (11.8%, n = 35) felt they were very prepared for their first CCSSAO po sition. The largest grouping of respondents (45.6%, n = 135) felt prepared for the first CCSSAO position. Just over one third of respondents (37.5%, n = 111) felt slightly prepared. The smallest group of respondents (5.1%, n = 14) felt they were not pre pared to assume the CCSSAO position Internal Consistency of AACC Competency D omains The AACC Competencies are divided into six domains: organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism. A correlation analysis was conducted to determine if CCSSAOs responses to questions about their preparedness level s and the impor tance of each of the 45 competencies were significantly related within each competency domain ( Table 4 10 ) C ompetenc ies domain. With the exception of the organizational strategy / nal / preparedness hav ing the strongest correlation.

PAGE 94

94 Therefore, when looking at how educational background s leadership development experiences, and institutional characteristics may have impact ed CCSSAOs perception s of their preparedness and of the importa nce of the AACC Competencies ( r esearch q uestions three four and five ), the findings were examined as 12 composite domain variables instead of as 90 individual competency ratings This analysis include d the organization strategy / importance domain, even though the responses for six competencies within the domain were not found to be significantly correlated. Each of the six competency domains were evaluated by CCSSAOs based on preparedness and importance, creating 12 matched variables. To determine if th ere wa s a difference in the competency domain assess ments paired sample t tests were conducted on each of the six domains ( Table 4 1 1 ) For each competency domain, respondents rated their own preparedness significantly lower than they rate d the importanc e. Organizational strategy Regarding o rganizational strategy, findings indicate d a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs fe lt, as compared to the importance they placed on the competencies within the domain. The preparedness mean ( M = 3.18 SD = 0.47) was significantly lower than the importance mean ( M = 3.56 SD = 0.36 ) ; t (304) = 13.99 p = 0.000. Resource management With regards to resource management findings show ed a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs fe lt, compared to the imp ortance they placed on the domain competencies. The preparedness mean ( M = 3.01 SD = 0.48) wa s significantly lower than the importance mean ( M = 3.32 SD = 0.38); t (302) = 11.02 p = 0.000. Communication Pertaining to communication, findings indicate d a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs fe lt they were compared to the importance they placed on the

PAGE 95

95 competencies within the domain. The preparedness mean ( M = 3.43 SD = 0.42) was significantly lower than the importance mean ( M = 3.54 SD = 0. 40 ) ; t (301) = 1.16 p = 0.000. Collaboration With regards to collaboration, findings show ed a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs fe lt, compared to the importance they placed on the domain competencies. The preparedness mean ( M = 3.18 SD = 0.44) wa s significantly lower than the importance mean ( M = 3.42 SD = 0.39 ) ; t (286) = 9.02 p = 0.000. Community college advocacy Regarding community college advocacy, findings indicate d a significant difference in how prepared CCSAOs fe lt, compared to the importance they placed on the competencies within the domain. The preparedness mean ( M = 3.26 SD = 0.50) was significantly lower than the importance mean ( M = 3.34 SD = 0.46 ) ; t (284) = 2.98 p = 0.003. Professionalism With regards to professionalism, findings show ed a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs fe lt, compared to the importance they placed on the domain competencies. The preparedness mean ( M = 3.22 SD = 0.42) wa s significantly lower than the importance mean ( M = 3.32 SD = 0.39 ) ; t (284) = 3.73 p = 0.000. Research Question Three Research q uestion three examined the extent to which the highest degrees earned by CCSSAOs influence d how they rate d their preparedness on the AACC Competencies when they assumed their fir st CCSSAO position. As previously discussed, 95.7% of CCSSAOs who participated in this study had earned as their highest degree a m d octorate in e ducation ( Ed D ) or a doctorate in p hilosophy ( PhD highest degree s were split into four categories, creating samples too small to analyze with any statistical significance Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, only the responses from

PAGE 96

96 CCSSAOs whose highest degree s earned w ere m degrees EdD s or PhD s were examined The independent variables used in this analysis were m PhD. To determine if the highest degree earned by CCSSAOs impacted how they perceive d their preparedness i n the AACC Competencies a one way ANOVA was performed on the composite domain variables. The dependent variables were organizational strategy preparation, resource management preparation, communication preparation, collaboration preparation, community college advocacy preparation, and professi onalism preparation. A p value of < .05 was established to determine statistical significance. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted to explain any statistically significant findings ( Tables 4 1 2 and 4 1 3 ) Organizational strategy Findings show ed the fol lowing between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 3.23 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 1.62 ) f ratio ( F = 7.78 ) and significance ( p = .001 ) Because p < .05, there was a significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in organizational strategy competencies based on their highest de gree earned. Tukey post hoc tests show ed a significant difference ( p = .035) between responses of those whose highest degree earned wa s a m with PhD s and a signific ant difference ( p = .0 01) between responses of those whose highest degree earned wa s a m ith EdD s In both cases, compared to respondents whose highest respondents with doctoral degrees reporte d higher levels of preparedness for the organizational strategy competencies Resource management Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 1.75 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.87 ) f ratio ( F = 3.92 ) and significance ( p = .021 ) Because p < .05, there wa s a significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in resource management competencies based on their hig hest

PAGE 97

97 degree earned. Tukey post hoc tests show ed a significant difference ( p = .017) between responses of those whose highest degree earned wa s a m ith EdD s respondents w ith EdD s reported higher level s of prepar edness for the reso urce management competencies Communication Findings indicate d the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.40 ), degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( M S = 2.20 ) f ratio ( F = 1.15 ) and significance ( p = .318 ) Because the p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate their preparedness in communication competencies based o n their highest degree earned. Due to the lack of significant difference, Tukey post hoc tests were not conducted. Collaboration Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 2.32 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 1.16 ) f ratio ( F = 6.28 ) and significance ( p = .002 ) Because p < .05, there wa s a significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedne ss in collaboration competencies based on their hig hest degree earned. Tukey post hoc tests show ed a significant difference ( p = .001) between responses of those whose highest degree earned wa s a m with EdD s Compared to respondents respondents with EdD s reported higher level s of prepar edness for the collaboration competencies Community college advocacy Findings indicate d the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 2.97 ), degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 1.49 ) f ratio ( F = 6.23 ) and significance ( p = .002 ) Because p < .05, there wa s a significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in community college advocacy competencies based on their hig hest degree earned. Tukey post hoc tests show ed a significant difference ( p = .001) between responses of those whose highest degree earned is a m degree and those with EdD s

PAGE 98

98 Compared t respondents with EdD s reported higher level s of prepar edness for the community college advocacy competencies Professionalism Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 2.56 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 1.28 ) f ratio ( F = 7.80 ) and significance ( p = .001 ) Because p < .05, there wa s a significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in professionalism competencies based on the ir hig hest degree earned. Tukey post hoc tests show ed a significant difference ( p = .001) between responses of those whose highest degree earned wa s a m with EdD s and a significant difference ( p = .0 02) between responses of those with PhD s and those with EdD s In both cases, compared to respondents with EdD s reported higher levels of preparedness for the professional competencies Research Question Four Research q uestion four explore d differences in leadership preparation outside of formal education. Specifically, the question examined whether or not these differences influence d how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness on the AACC Competencies when they assumed their first CCSSAO position s The types of leadership preparation examined include d participation in mentoring relationship s the gender of the mentor, and participation in formal leadership development programs. Mentoring Relationship T o determine if CCSSAOs who were /are protgs in mentoring relationship s reported higher levels of preparedness than respondents who were not in such a relationship (nonprotgs). F or each of the competency domains, an independent sample t test was perform ed on the six composite domain variables. The dependent variables were organizational strategy preparation, resource management preparation, communication preparation,

PAGE 99

99 collaboration preparation, community college advocacy preparation, and professionalism preparation. A p value of < .05 was established to determine statistical s ignificance ( Table 4 14 ) Organizat ional strategy With regards to organizational strategy, findings show ed a significant difference in prepared ness of CCSSAOs who were / are protgs in mentoring relationship s perceived themselves compared to no n protgs M = 3.25 ; SD = 0.49) wa s significantly higher than the no n ( M = 3.10 SD = 0.44 ) ; t (295) = 2.87 p = .004. Therefore, respondents who participated in a mentoring relationship indicated a higher level of preparedness for the competencie s in this domain than their non participating peers. Resource management Pertaining to resource management, findings indicate d there was not a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs who were / are protgs in mentoring relationship s perceived themselves compared to no n protgs M = 3.07 SD = 0.52) wa s not significantly higher than the no n ( M = 2.9 6 SD = 0.44 ) ; t (293) = 1.95 p = .052. Therefore, respondents who participated in a mentoring relationship indicated the same level of preparedness for the competencies in this domain as their nonparticipating peers. Communication Regarding communication, findings show ed there was not a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs who were / are protgs in mentoring relationship s perceived themselves compared to n o n protgs M = 3.46 SD = 0.41) wa s not significantly h igher than the no n ( M = 3. 40 SD = 0.43 ) ; t (292) = 1.21 p = .224. Therefore, respondents who participated in a mentoring relationship indicated the same level of preparedness for the competencie s in this domain as their non participating peers.

PAGE 100

100 Collaboration With regards to collaboration, findings indicate d there was a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs who were / are protgs in mentoring relationship s perceived themselves compared to n o n protgs M = 3 .24 SD = 0.44) wa s significantly higher than the no n ( M = 3.11 SD = 0.44 ) ; t (278) = 2.41 p = .016. Therefore, respondents who participated in a mentoring relationship indicated a higher level of preparedness for the competencies in this domain than their nonparticipating peers. Community college advocacy Pertaining to community college advocacy, fin dings show ed a significant difference in how prepared CCSSAOs who were / are protgs in mentoring relationship s perceived themselves compared to n o n protgs M = 3.33 SD = 0.49) wa s significantly higher than the no n ( M = 3.18 SD = 0.50 ) ; t (275) = 2.43 p = .016. Therefore, respondents who participated in a mentoring relationship indicated a higher level of preparedness for the competencies in this domain than their nonparticipating peers. Professionalism With regards to professionalism, findings indicate d a significant difference in how prepared CCSAOs who were / are protgs in mentoring relationship s perceived themselves compared to n o n protgs M = 3.29 SD = 0.40) wa s significantly higher than the no n ( M = 3.15 SD = 0.43 ) ; t (275) = 2.93 p = .004. Therefore, respondents who participated in a mentoring relationship indicated a higher level of preparedness for the competencies in this domain than their nonparticipating peers. To determine the effect of a CCSSAO in the AACC Competenc i es a one way ANOVA was performed on the six composite domain variables. The dependent variables were organizational strategy preparation, resou rce management preparation, communication preparation, collaboration preparation, community

PAGE 101

101 college advocacy preparation, and professionalism preparation. The dependent variables were male mentor only, female mentor only, and both male and female mentor s A p value of < .05 was established to determine statistical significance. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted to explain any statistically significant findings ( Tables 4 15 and 4 16 ) Organizational strategy Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.53 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.26 0 ) f ratio ( F = 1.18 ) and significance ( p = .309 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in organi zational strategy competencies based on the gender. Resource management Findings indicate d the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.45 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.23 ), f ratio ( F = 0.87 ) and significance ( p = .421 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in resource management competencies based o n the gender. Communication Findings show ed the following between gro ups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.52 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.26 ) f ratio ( F = 1.57 ) and significance ( p = .212 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in communication competencies based on the gender. Collaboration Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 1.33 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.67 ), f ratio ( F = 3.62 ) and significance ( p = 029 ) Because p < .05, there wa s a significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in collaboration competencies based on the gend er. Tukey post hoc tests show ed a significant difference ( p = .045) between responses of CCSSAOs who

PAGE 102

102 had male mentors and those who had both male and female mentors. R espondents with both male and female mentors reported higher level s of prepar edness in collaboration competencies than respondents who only had mal e mentors. Community college advocacy Findings indicate d the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 1.16 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.58 ) f ratio ( F = 2.45 ) and significance ( p = .090. Because p > .05, there wa s no signifi cant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in community college advocacy competencies based o n the gender. Professionalism Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.19 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.10 ) f ratio ( F = 0.59 ) and the significance ( p = .559 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness in professionalism competencies based on the gender. L eadership Development Programs To determine the effect of attending formal leadership development programs on preparedness for the AACC Competenc i es an independent sample t test was performed on the si x composite domains As previously discussed, the number of respondents attending any one type workshop was insufficient for conducting statistical analyses. Therefore, the independent variables we re attending any workshop and not attending any workshop. The dependent va riables were organizational strategy preparation, resource management preparation, communication preparation, collaboration preparation, community college advocacy preparation, and professionalism preparation. A p value of < .05 was established to determi ne statistical significance (Table 4 1 7 )

PAGE 103

103 Organizational strategy With regards to organizational strategy, findings show ed there was not a significant difference in CCSSAO preparedness between those who attended a formal leadership development program an M = 3.22 SD = 0.46) wa s not si gnificantly higher than the non ( M = 3.13 SD = 0.49 ) ; t (304) = 1.56 p = .114. Resource management Pertaining to resource management, findings show ed there was not a significant difference in CCSSAO preparedness between those who attended a formal M = 3.05 SD = 0.44) wa s not signi ficantly higher than the non ( M = 2.96 SD = 0.52 ) ; t (302) = 1.74 p = .084. Communication With regards to communication, findings show ed there was not a significant difference in CCSSAO preparedness between those who attended a formal leadership development program and those who did n mean ( M = 3.45 SD = 0.43) wa s not si gnificantly higher than the non ( M = 3.40 SD = 0.41 ) ; t (301) = 0.94 p = .348. Collaboration Regarding collaboration, findings show ed there was not a significant difference in CCSSAO preparedness between those who attended a formal leadership M = 3.20 SD = 0.45) wa s not si gnificantly higher than the non ( M = 3.16 SD = 0.44 ) ; t (287) = 0.70 p = .484 Community college advocacy With regards to community college advocacy, findings show ed there was not a significant difference in CCSSAO preparedness between those who

PAGE 104

104 ( M = 3.30 SD = 0.49) wa s not significantly higher than the non ( M = 3.20 SD = 0.51 ) ; t (284) = 1.61 p = .108. Professionalism Pertaining to professionalism, findings show ed there was not a significant difference in CCSSAO preparedness between those who attended a formal leadership M = 3.24 SD = 0.41) wa s not si gnificantly higher than the non ( M = 3.19 SD = 0.43 ) ; t (284) = 0.98 p = .329. Research Question Five Research question five explore d the extent to which differences in institutional characteristics (specifically, institution size, setting, structure, and highest degree offering) affect ed the perceived i mportance of the AACC Competencies by CCSSAOs These four institutional characteristics were examined to see if differences in perceived importance of the AACC Competencies could be attributed to instit ution type. First, frequency analyses were performed for each of the four institutional characteristics ( Table 4 1 8 ) The majority of CCSSAOs who participated in the study worked at colleges with more than 10,000 students (30.1%). The next largest group came from colleges with 5,000 10,000 students (26.1%) Combining these two groups more than half of respondents worked colleges with more than 5,000 students. After the two largest groups, 17.3% of respondents work ed at colleges with 3,001 5,000 students. About one fourth of respondents work ed at colleges w ith 3,000 or less students. Less than one in ten (9.8%) work ed at colleges with 2,001 3 ,000 students, and 11.1% work ed at colleges with 1,000 2,000 students. Only 5.6% of respondents work ed at colleges with less than 1,000 students. Almost half of respondents stated that they worked for rural community colleges (45.3%). Close to one third of respondents (31.3%) were employed at suburban institution s Just one

PAGE 105

105 fourth of CCSSAO s (23.5%) worked at urban institutions. Almost two thirds (64.1%) of CCSSAOs who participated in the study worked at community colleges with multiple campuses. The remainder (35.9%) worked at single campus institutions. The overwhelming majority of respondents (96.1%) reported that they worked at institutions at which the highest degree awarded is an awarding colleges accounted for 3.2% of study participants. Only 0.3% of respondents work ed at institutions o ffering m s, or whose degree offerings we re limited to a certificate. These findings did not allow statistical analyses to be conducted on highest degree awarded because the responses we re too homogenous to detect any significant differences Institutional Size To determine if the size of the institution s where CCSSAO s worked at the time they completed the survey impact ed how important they rated the competency domain, a one way ANOVA was performed on the composite domain variables. The dependent variables were organizational strategy importance, resource management importance, communication importance, collaboration importance, community c ollege advocacy importance, and professionalism importance. A p value of < .05 was established to determine statistical significance. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted to explain any statistically sig nificant findings (Tables 4 19 and 4 20) Organizati onal strategy Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 2.26 ) degree of freedom ( df = 5 ) mean square ( MS = 0.45 ) f ratio ( F = 3.62 ) and significance ( p = .003 ) Because p < .05, there wa s a significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of organizational strategy competencies based on the size s of their institution s Tukey post hoc tests show ed a significant difference between respondents who worked at institutions with 1,000 2 ,000 students and those who work ed at institutions with

PAGE 106

106 5,000 10,000 students ( p = .004) and those who worked at institutions with more than 10,000 students ( p = .027). In both cases, compared to those who worked at smaller institutions, respondents who worked at larger institutio ns felt that the organization strategy competencies were more important. Resource management Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 1.21 ), degree of freedom ( df = 5 ) mean square ( MS = 0.24 ) f ratio ( F = 1.67 ) and significance ( p = .143 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of resource management competencies based on the size s of their institution s Communication. Findings indicate d the following between g roups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.56 ), degree of freedom ( df = 5 ) mean square ( MS = 0.11 ) f ratio ( F = 0.78 ) and significance ( p = .566 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of communication compete ncies based on the size s of their institution s Collaboration. Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.94 ), degree of freedom ( df = 5 ) mean square ( MS = 0.19 ) f ratio ( F = 1.25 ) and significance ( p = .284 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of collaboration competencies based on the size s of their institution s Community college advocacy Findings indicate d the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0. 94 ) degree of freedom ( df = 5 ) the mean square ( MS = 0.30 ) f ratio ( F = 1.42 ) and the significance ( p = .217 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of community college advocacy competencies based on the size s of their institution s

PAGE 107

107 Professionalism. Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS ) = 0.99 degree of freedom ( df) = 5, the mean square ( MS ) = 0.19, f ratio ( F ) = 1.32, and the significance ( p ) = .257. Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of professionalism competencies based on the size s of their institution s Institutional Setting To determine if the institutional setting where CCSSAO s worked at the time they completed the survey impact ed how important they rated the competency domain, a one way ANOVA was performed on the composite domain variables. The dependent variables were organizational strateg y importance, resource management importance, communication importance, collaboration importance, community college advocacy importance, and professionalism importance. A p value of < .05 was established to determine statistical significance. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted to explain any statistically significant findings (Tables 4 21 and 4 22) Organizational strategy Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 1.03 ) degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.54 ) f ratio ( F = 4.21 ) and significance ( p = .016 ) Because p < .05, there wa s a significant difference between how study participants rate d the importance of organizational strategy competencies based on the setting s of their institution s Tukey post hoc tes ts show ed a significant difference between responses of those who work ed at rural institutions and those who work ed at urban institutions ( p = .004). Compared to respondents who worked at rural institutions, respondents who worked at urban institutions felt the organization strategy competencies were more important. Resource management Findings indicate d the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.36 ), degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.18 ), f ratio ( F = 1.2 2 ) and

PAGE 108

108 significance ( p = .297 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of resource management competencies based on the setting s of their institution s Communication. Findings show ed the following b etween groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.37 ), degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.18 ) f ratio ( F = 1.28 ) and significance ( p = .279 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of communication competencies based on the setting s of their institution s Collaboration. Findings indicate d the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.32 ), degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.16 ) f ratio ( F = 1.05 ) and s ignificance ( p = .350 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of collaboration competencies based on the setting s of their institution s Community college advocacy Findings show ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.11 ), degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.55 ) f ratio ( F = 0.25 ) and significance ( p = .776 ) Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of co mmunity college advocacy competencies based on the setting s of their institution s Professionalism. Findings indicat ed the following between groups : sum of squares ( SS = 0.70 ), degree of freedom ( df = 2 ) mean square ( MS = 0.39 ) f ratio ( F = 2.32 ) and significance ( p = .101. Because p > .05, there wa s no significant difference between how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of professionalism competencies based on the setting s of their institution s Institutional Structure To determine if the structure s of th e institution s where CCSSAO s worked at the time of completing the survey impact ed how important they rated the competency domain, an independent sample t test was performed on the six composite domain variables. The dependent

PAGE 109

109 variables were organizational strategy importance, resource management importance, communication importance, collaboration importance, community college advocacy importance, and professionalism importance. A p value of < .05 was established to determine s tatistical significance ( Table 4 2 3 ) Organizational strategy Findings show ed there was not a significant difference in how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of organizational strategy competencies based on the structure s of the institution s The single camp M = 3.55 SD = 0.35) was not significantly different from the multiple c ( M = 3.58 SD = 0.37 ); t (301) = 0.747 p = .455. Resource management Findings indicate d there was not a significant difference in how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of resource management competencies based on the structure s of the institution s M = 3.30 SD = 0.36) was not significantly different from the mul ( M = 3.33 S D = 0.39 ); t (300) = 0.488 p = .626. Communication. Findings show ed there was not a significant difference in how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of communication competencies based on the structure s of the institution s ( M = 3.50 SD = 0.38) was not significantly different from the ( M = 3.56 SD = 0.38 ); t (299) = 1.32 p = .187. Collaboration. Findings indicate d there was not a significant difference in how CCSSAOs rate d the importance o f collaboration competencies based on the structures of the institution s M = 3.37 SD = 0.39) was not significantly

PAGE 110

110 different from the ( M = 3.44 SD = 0.39 ) ; t (284) = 1.42 p = .157. Community college advocacy Findings show ed there was not a significant difference in how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of community college advocacy competencies based on the structure s of the institution s M = 3.31 SD = 0.43) was not significantly different from the ( M = 3.36 SD = 0.48 ) ; t (282) = 0.847 p = .398. Professionalism. Findings indicate d there was not a significant difference in how CCSSAOs rate d the importance of professionalism competencies based on the structure s of the institution s M = 3.27 SD = 0.37) was not significantly different from the ( M = 3.35 SD = 0.39 ) ; t (282) = 1.76 p = .084. Research Question Six Research q uestion six asked w h at leadership experiences current community college senior student affairs officers believe d best prepared them to serve in th at capacity, and what they wish they had done differently to prepare for their first senior student affairs position s. Respondents were asked open ended questions to allow vari ous responses. Content analyses were conducted to determine the most common res ponses (Tables 4 22 and 4 23) Most Valuable Leadership Development Experience More than 8 of 10 respondents ( N = 254) report ed on the leadership experience s they found most valuable in preparing for their first CCSSAO position s The most valuable leaders hip development experiences identified by respondents w ere previous employment within student affairs ( 41.7%, n = 106). Included in this were a small number of respondents who cited their experience s in the counseling field ( 2.4%, n = 6), their experienc e s in the broad realm of student

PAGE 111

111 affairs outside their functional area of specialization ( 1.6%, n = 4), and their opportunities to work with both academic and student affairs ( 1.6%, n = 4) as being especially critical to their preparedness. Close to 20% of respondents ( n = 50) cited l eadership development programs as the most valuable leadership development experience s Respondents listed 16 different professional association workshops, as well as numerous state based leadership programs, local leadership p rograms, and institution based GYOL programs. The most cited workshop was The Chair 2% n = 5). Mentoring relationships were designated by a good number of the sample ( 17.7%, n = 45) as the most valuable leadership developm ent experience s In their open ended responses, respondents described their mentors as other CCSSAOs community college presidents, and previous supervisors who had taken particular interest in assisting with their professional development. The next mos t frequent response, f ormal education was perceived as the most valuable leadership development experience by just over 12% ( n = 32) of respondents While a small number of these respondents ( 0.8%, n = 2) cited coursework leading to a Masters of Business Administration degree as most valuable, the majority of respondents who wrote about formal education ( 11.8%, n = 30) claimed that their graduate work and doctoral degree work in education proved most valuable. Beyond employment, leadership development workshops, mentoring relationships, and formal education, n o other response s were cited by more than 10% of the sample, though the importance of networking ( 7.5%, n = 19), state association peer groups ( 5.9% n = 15), and having a good relationship with col lege presidents ( 5.9% n = 15) are worth mention ing as they were common responses.

PAGE 112

112 What They Wish They Had D one Differently Of the 308 CC S SAOs who participated in the study, about 70% ( N = 216) wr o te about what they wish they had done differently to prepar e for their first CCSSAO position s The most frequent response ( 15.3%, n = 33) was a desire to have earned a doctorate prior to assuming the position. Several respondents indicated they were pursuing doctoral degree s at the time they completed the survey and these individuals had difficult ly balanc ing their jobs and educations Others discussed how the failure to complete the doctorate when they assumed the CCSSAO position led to an exten sive delay before the degree was finished. Still others stated that they felt having a terminal degree would have brought instant credibility in the ir new position s or would have enhance d the standing of student affairs in the eyes of faculty. Just over 10% of respondents identified two knowledge gaps they wish ed they had addressed before assuming their first CCSSAO position s With one of these knowledge gaps, 11.1% of respondents ( n = 24) stated that they wish ed they had known more about the various components of student affairs for which they would become responsibl e. Specific areas emphasized include d financial aid, enrollment management, student conduct, residence life, and athletics. With the second knowledge gap, 10.6% of respondent s ( n = 23) s aid that they wished they had known more about the financial aspects of higher education. Particularly they wished they had more formal training in accounting and budgeting, especially zero based budgeting, and that they had more knowledge about public funding of community colleges. About 10% of respond ents emphasized tw o areas of leadership development they wished they had focused on prior to their first CCSSAO position, with 10.2% ( n = 22) wishing they had placed more emphasis on professional development activities. This include d attend ing professional association conferences, accepting leadership roles in professional associations, emphasi zing research and publications, and enhancing network s with peers at similar

PAGE 113

113 institutions. Another 9.7% ( n = 21) of respondents wished they had develope d at least one strong mentoring relationships as a protg. A couple of respondents wrote that they wished they had a mentor, while others expressed a desire to have had cultivated multiple mentoring relationships. A few study participants reported wishi ng they had a mentor at a different institution while others simply mentioned using their mentor s more often to aid their learning and development. Chapter Summary Chapter four provided a description of how the data were collected and the findings of the statistical analyses. Several significant f indings were presented in rela tion to each research question. Overall, t he leadership skills contained in the AACC Competencies were rated as important or very important by the majority of responding CCS SAOs The participants rated each of the six competency domains significantly higher in the importance scale than they rated their own preparedness. The highest degree earned impacted the preparedness rating, as respondents with EdDs reported a significan tly higher level of preparedness for the AACC C ompetencies in five of the six domains tha n respondents with m in one of the six domains than those with PhD s Also, r espondents who participated in mentoring relationships as a protg reported a significantly higher level of preparedness for the AACC Competencies on four of six domains tha n respondents who did not participate in a mentoring relationship. Conversely, pa rticipation in leadership development programs did not result in significantly higher level s of preparedness for the AACC Competencies In general, i nstitutional characteristics had minimal impact on the perceived importance of the AACC Competencies Ins titutional structure yielded no significant differences.

PAGE 114

114 The leadership development experiences deemed most valuable by the respondents in terms of preparing them to be a CCSSAO was their previous work experience in student affairs. Other commonly cited e xperiences include participation in leadership development programs, participation in mentoring rel a tionships, and formal education s pecifically their graduate and doctoral work in education. When discussing what they wish they had done differently, resp ondents wrote about completing a doctorate prior to becoming a CCSSAO, learning more about specific areas of students affairs, participating in leadership development workshops, and developing at least one strong mentoring relationship. Based on the findin gs presented in chapter four, c hapter five presents a summary of the study and the conclusions drawn are discussed. In addition, the implications these findings have a ddressed, and recommendations for future research are provided

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 1 Demographics of CCSSAO s ample Variable % Age 20 2 9 0.7 30 3 9 8.5 40 4 9 29.4 50 5 9 41.5 60 6 9 19.3 70 7 9 0.7 Gender Female 52.3 Male 47.7 Race / Ethnicity American Indian / Native American 2.0 Asian / Pacific Islander 1.3 Black / African American 14.1 Hispanic / Latino 7.2 White / Caucasian 74.5 Multiracial 1.0 Table 4 2. Educational b ackgrounds of CCSSAO sample Variable % Highest d egree e arned Associate s 0.3 Bachelor s 0.3 Master s 49.7 Ed. Specialist 2.9 EdD 26.5 PhD 19.5 J D 0.6 Major f ield of s tudy in h ighest d egree Student p ersonnel in h igher e ducation 12.2 Higher e ducation w ith emphasis on c ommunity c ollege l eadership 16.3 Higher e ducation w ith other emphasis 29.2 K 1 2 a dministration 3.7 Other e ducational field 18.3 Other 20.3

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 3 Career p athways of CCSSAO sample Part 1 Variable % Current t itle Vice President / Vice Chancellor 54.5 Associate / Assistant Vice Presiden t / Vice Chancellor 4.8 Dean / Director 34.7 Associate / Assistant Dean / Director 2.9 Other 2.6 Previous p osition h eld Senior Student Affairs Officer 28.6 Vice President, Non Student Affairs 2.9 Associate / Assistant Vice President, Student Affairs 15.6 Dean / Director, Student Affairs 30.2 Director, Other 9.7 Assistant Dean / Director, Student Affairs 3.2 Counselor 1.9 Faculty 1.6 Other 6.1 Previous p osition at a c ommunity c ollege Yes 80.7 No 19.3 Teaching e xperience at c ommunity c ollege Yes, f ull time 7.8 Yes, p art time 60.7 Yes, f ull time a nd p art time 3.2 No 28.2 Currently t eaching Community c ollege 23.7 Other higher e ducation 9.3 Not c urrently teaching 67.0 Career a spirations Community College President 36.0 Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer 48.1 Faculty 1.9 Other e ducational position 8.3 Other p osition o utside e ducation 5.7 Table 4 4 Career p athways of CCSSAO sample Part 2 Variable M Years in p resent p osition 6.45 Years working in s tudent a ffairs 19.75 Number of different positions in s tudent a ffairs 4.12

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 5 mportance in p reparing for CCSSAO p osition Variable % Graduate program c ohort Very i mportant 15.1 Important 22.0 Slightly i mportant 30.5 Not i mportant 32.5 Graduate program f aculty Very i mportant 17.4 Important 33.2 Slightly i mportant 25.7 Not i mportant 23.7 Co w orkers at community c olleges Very i mportant 60.5 Important 28.3 Slightly i mportant 5.3 Not i mportant 5.9 Social n etworks Very i mportant 14.8 Important 35.5 Slightly i mportant 28.3 Not i mportant 21.4 Business n etworks Very i mportant 17.4 Important 31.6 Slightly i mportant 29.3 Not i mportant 21.7

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 6 Leadership d evelopment e xperiences of CCSSAO sample Variable % Participation in a m entoring r elationship as a p rotg Yes 51.2 No 48.8 Formality of m entoring r elationship Formal 24.7 Informal 75.3 Setting in which m entoring r elationship d eveloped During g raduate p rogram 4.4 During c ommunity c ollege e mployment 60.5 Both 21.5 Other 13.9 Gender of m entors Female 46.8 Male 53.2 Formal l eadership p rogram p articipation Institution based g row y our o wn l eader p rogram 22.2 State based l eadership p rograms 15.9 Local l eadership p rograms 4.1 11.8 Level Management Institute 0.6 4.7 4.7 Mid Manager Institutes 4.1 / 2 Year Colleges 8.2 8.8 s Leadership Symposium 6.5 The Chair Academy Workshop 4.7 National Institute for Leadership Development Workshop 2.9 Other f ormal l eadership p rograms 23.0 Table 4 7 Professional and c ommunity e xperiences of CCSSAO sample Variable % Professional e xperiences in p ast f ive y ears Book r eviews p ublished 3.1 Articles p ublished in p rofessional j ournals 21.7 Monographs or b ooks p ublished 6.6 Chapters c ontributed to p ublished b ooks 11.5 Membership on e xternal b oards Corporate b oards 6.5 College or u niversity b oards 17.5 P rofessional o rganization b oards 36.0 Civic organization b oards 44.2 Other n onprofit b oards 39.0

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 8 AACC Competencies CCSSAO p erceptions of p reparation and l evel s of i mportance Variable % Prepared/ Very Prepared Important / Very Important Organizational s trategy Develop, implement, and eva luate strategies to improve the quality of education at your institution 89.5 95.7 Use a data driven decision making practices to plan strategically 83.0 98.0 Use a systems perspective to assess and respond to the needs of students and the community 71.1 86.5 Develop a positive environment that supports innovation, te amwork, and successful outcomes 96.1 99.7 Maintain and grow college personnel, fiscal resources and assets 74.8 95.7 Align organizational mission, str uctures, and resources with the college master plan 88.9 96.1 Resource m anagement Ensure accountability in reporting 78.5 95.4 Support operational de cisions by managing information resources 71.6 89.7 Develop and manage resour ces consistent with the college master plan 79.9 95.0 Take an entrepreneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sources 36.6 67.1 Implement financial strategies to support programs, services, staff, and facilities 59.0 91.0 I mplement a human re sources system that fosters the professional development and advancement of all staff 61.5 91.0 Employ organizational, time management, p lanning, and delegations skills 86.8 97.3 Manage conflict and change in ways that contribute to the long term viability of the organization 74.0 99.0 Communication Articulate and champion shared missio n, vision, and values to internal and external audiences 92.1 96.3 Disseminate and s upport policies and strategies 94.0 93.7 Create and maintain open com munication regarding resources, priorities, and expectations 96.0 98.7 Effectively convey ideas and information to all constituents 94.4 97.7 Listen actively to understand, analyze, engage, and act 97.0 99.3 Project confidence and respond responsibly and tactfully 95.0 98.0 Collaboration Embrace and employ the dive rsity of individuals, cultures, values, ideas, and communication styles 93.8 96.9 Demonstrate cultural competence in a global society 72.7 86.4 Involve students, faculty, staff and community members to work f or the common good 91.7 94.0 Establish networks and partner ships to advance the mission of the community college 43.8 90.6

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 8. Continued. Variable % Prepared/ Very Prepared Important/ Very Important Work effectively and diplomatically with legislators, board members, business leaders, a ccreditation organizations, and others 63.8 87.6 Manage conflict and cha nge by building and maintaining productive relationships 94.4 98.6 Develop, enhance and sustain teamwork and cooperation 97.2 99.3 Facilitate shar ed problem solving and decision making 95.8 97.6 Community c ollege a dvocacy Value and promote diversity, inclusion, equity, and academic excellence 91.6 96.5 Demonstrate commitment to th e mission of community colleges and student success through the scholarship of teaching and learning 82.5 90.1 Promote equity, open access, tea ching, learning, and innovation as primary goals for the college 90.9 93.3 Advocate the community college mission to all constituents and empower them to do the same 88.5 88.1 Advance lifelong learning and support a learning centered environment 88.5 91.9 Represent the community college in a variety of settin gs as a model of higher education 89.1 90.1 Professionalism Demonstrate transformational leadership 80.1 88.6 Demonstrate an understanding of the history, philosophy, and culture of the community college 90.2 77.2 own performance using feedback, reflection, goal setting, and evaluation 91.6 96.5 Support lifelong learning for self and others 93.0 91.9 Manage stress through se lf care, balance, adaptability, flexibility, and humor 80.4 96.5 Demonstrate the courage to take r isks, make difficult decisions, and accept responsibility 93.4 98.6 Understand the impact of perceptions, worldviews, and emotions on self and others 87.7 88.0 Promote and maintain high standards for personal and organizational integrity, honesty, and respect for people 97.2 98.9 Use influence and power wisely in facilitating the teaching learning process and the exchange of knowledge 82.9 88.8 Weigh short term and long term goals in decision making 94.7 70.3 Contribute to the profession t hrough professional development programs, professional organizational leadership, and research / publications 70.3 68.8

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 9 Level of p reparedness for f irst CCSSAO p osition Variable % Very p repared 11.8 Prepared 45.6 Slightly p repared 37.5 Not p repared 5.1 Table 4 10 Internal c onsistency a nalysis of AACC Competenc ies d omains Competency d omains Organizational s trategy P reparedness 0.747 I mportance 0.689 Resource m anagement Preparedness 0.810 Importance 0.761 Communication Preparedness 0.807 Importance 0.761 Collaboration Preparedness 0.822 Importance 0.802 Community c ollege a dvocacy Preparedness 0.829 Importance 0.824 Professionalism Preparedness 0.851 Importance 0.848 Table 4 1 1 Paired s ample t tests for AACC C ompetencies d omains Dependent v ariable Preparedness Importance df t p M SD M SD Organizational s trategy 3.18 0.47 3.56 0.36 304 13.99 .000 Resource m anagement 3.01 0.48 3.32 0.38 302 11.02 .000 Communication 3.43 0.42 3.54 0.40 301 4.16 .000 Collaboration 3.18 0.44 3.42 0.39 286 9.02 .000 Community college a dvocacy 3.26 0.50 3.34 0.46 284 2.98 .003 Professionalism 3.22 0.42 3.32 0.39 284 3.73 .000

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 1 2 One w ay ANOVA of p reparedness for leadership c ompetencies of CCSSAO sample by h ighest d egree e arned Dependent variable Groups SS df MS F p Organizational s trategy Between 3.23 2 1.62 7.78 .001 Within 60.28 290 0.21 Total 63.52 292 Resource m anagement Between 1.75 2 0.87 3.92 .021 Within 64.40 289 2.22 Total 66.15 291 Communication Between 0.40 2 2.20 1.15 .318 Within 50.31 288 0.18 Total 50.71 290 Collaboration Between 2.32 2 1.16 6.28 .002 Within 50.87 275 0.19 Total 53.19 277 Community c ollege Between 2.97 2 1.49 6.23 .002 a dvocacy Within 64.80 272 0.24 Total 67.77 274 Professionalism Between 2.56 2 1.28 7.80 .001 Within 44.62 272 0.16 Total 47.17 274 Table 4 1 3 Tukey po st h oc t ests conducted on s ignificant ANOVA f indings regarding highest degree earned Dependent v ariable Master s PhD EdD p M SD M SD M SD Organizational s trategy 3.09 0.47 3.26 0.40 .035 3.09 0.47 3.32 0.46 .001 Resource m anagement 2.95 0.49 3.13 0.45 .017 Collaboration 3.12 0.43 3.34 0.48 .001 Community c ollege a dvocacy 3.17 0.49 3.42 0.51 .001 Professionalism 3.41 0.40 3.49 0.42 .001 3.42 3.49 0.42 .001 Table 4 1 4 T tests of preparedness for leadership c ompetencies of CCSSAO sample by p articipation in a m entoring r elationship as a p rotg Dependent v ariable Yes No df t p M SD M SD Organizational s trategy 3.25 0.49 3.10 0.44 295 2.87 .004 Resource m anagement 3.07 0.52 2.96 0.44 293 1.95 0.52 Communication 3.46 0.41 3.40 0.43 292 1.21 .224 Collaboration 3.24 0.44 3.11 0.44 278 2.41 .016 Community c ollege a dvocacy 3.33 0.49 3.18 0.50 275 2.43 .016 Professionalism 3.29 0.40 3.15 0.43 275 2.93 .004

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 15 One w ay ANOVA of p reparedness for leadership c ompetencies of CCSSAO sample by mentor g ender Dependent v ariable Groups SS df MS F p Organizational s trategy Between 0.53 2 0.26 1.18 .309 Within 34.71 156 0.22 Total 35.23 158 Resource m anagement Between 0.45 2 0.23 0.87 .421 Within 40.62 156 0.26 Total 41.07 158 Communication Between 0.52 2 0.26 1.57 .212 Within 25.92 155 0.17 Total 26.44 157 Collaboration Between 1.33 2 0.67 3.62 .029 Within 27.06 147 0.18 Total 28.39 149 Community c ollege Between 1.16 2 0.58 2.45 .090 a dvocacy Within 34.16 145 0.24 Total 35.32 147 Professionalism Between 0.19 2 0.10 0.59 .559 Within 23.63 145 0.16 Total 23.82 147 Table 4 1 6 Tukey p ost ho c t ests conducted on s ignificant ANOVA f indings regarding mentor gender Dependent v ariable Male o nly Male & Female p M SD M SD Collaboration 3.38 0.44 3.48 0.39 .045 Table 4 1 7 T t ests of p reparedness for leadership c ompetencies of CCSSAO sample by p articipation in f ormal leadership development programs Dependent v ariable Yes No df t p M SD M SD Organizational s trategy 3.22 0.46 3.13 0.49 304 1.56 .114 Resource m anagement 3.05 0.44 2.96 0.52 302 1.74 .084 Communication 3.45 0.43 3.40 0.41 301 0.94 .348 Collaboration 3.20 0.45 3.16 0.44 287 0.70 .484 Community c ollege a dvocacy 3.30 0.49 3.20 0.51 284 1.61 .108 Professionalism 3.24 0.41 3.19 0.43 284 0.98 .329

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 1 8 Community c ollege i nstitutional c haracteristics of CCSSAO sample Variable % Institution s ize Less than 1,000 5.6 1,001 2,000 11.1 2,001 3,000 9.8 3,001 5,000 17.3 5,001 10,000 26.1 More than 10,000 30.1 Institution s etting Rural 45.3 Suburban 31.3 Urban 23.5 Institution s tructure Single c ampus 35.9 Multiple campuses 64.1 Highest d egree a ward ed Certification 0.3 Associate s d egree 96.1 Bachelor s d egree 3.2 Master s d egree 0.3 Table 4 1 9 One w ay ANOVA of i mportance for leadership c ompetencies of CCSSAO sample by i nstitutional s ize Dependent v ariable Groups SS df MS F p Organizational s trategy Between 2.26 5 0.45 3.62 .003 Within 37.16 2 97 0.13 Resource m anagement Between 1.21 5 0.24 1.67 .143 Within 42.82 295 0.15 Total 44.02 299 Communication Between 0.56 5 0.11 0.78 .566 Within 42.34 294 0.14 Total 42.91 299 Collaboration Between 0.94 5 0.19 1.25 .284 Within 41.63 279 0.15 Total 42.57 284 Community c ollege Between 1.51 5 0.30 1.42 .217 a dvocacy Within 59.08 277 0.21 Total 60.59 282 Professionalism Between 0.99 5 0.19 1.32 .257 Within 41.78 277 0.15 Total 42.77 282

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 20 Tukey p ost h oc t ests conducted on s ignificant ANOVA f indings regarding CCSSAO institutional size Dependent v ariable 1,001 2,000 5,001 10,000 10,001 + p M SD M SD M SD Organizational s trategy 3.38 0.40 3.65 0.34 .004 3.38 0.40 3.60 0.36 .027 Table 4.2 1 One w ay ANOVA of i mportance of leadership c ompetencies of CCSSAO sample by i nstitutional s ettings Dependent v ariable Groups SS df MS F p Organizational s trategy Between 1.03 2 0.54 4.21 .016 Within 38.72 301 0.13 Total 39.80 303 Resource m anagement Between 0.36 2 0.18 1.22 .297 Within 43.80 299 0.15 Total 44.16 301 Communication Between 0.37 2 0 18 1.28 .279 Within 42.91 298 0.14 Total 43.28 300 Collaboration Between 0.32 2 0.16 1.05 .350 Within 42.43 283 0.15 Total 42.75 285 Community c ollege Between 0.11 2 0.55 0.25 .776 a dvocacy Within 60.59 281 0.22 Total 60.70 283 Professionalism Between 0.70 2 0.39 2.32 .101 Within 42.23 281 0.15 Total 42.93 283 Table 4 2 2 Tukey p ost h oc t ests conducted on significant ANOVA f indings regarding CCSSAO institutional settings Dependent v ariable Rural Urban p M SD M SD Organizational s trategy 3.51 0.38 3.65 0.33 .004

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 2 3 T t ests of i mportance for leadership c ompetencies of CCSSAO sample by i nstitutional s tructure Dependent v ariable Single c ampus Multiple c ampus df t p M SD M SD Organizational s trategy 3.55 0.35 3.58 0.37 301 .747 .455 Resource m anagement 3.30 0.36 3.33 0.39 300 .488 .626 Communication 3.50 0.38 3.56 0.38 299 1.32 .187 Collaboration 3.37 0.39 3.44 0.39 284 1.42 .157 Community c ollege a dvocacy 3.31 0.43 3.36 0.48 282 0 .8 5 .398 Professionalism 3.27 0.37 3.35 0.39 282 1.76 .084 Table 4 2 4 Most e ffective l eadership e xperiences of CCSSAO sample Variable % Student affairs employment experience 41.7 Specific leadership development workshop 19.7 Mentoring relationships 17.7 Graduate school / doctoral program 11.8 Networking 7.5 State association peer groups 5.9 Working with college presidents 5 9 Observing different leaders and learning from them 4.7 Professional associations 4.3 On the job training 3.9 Table 4 2 5 How CCSSAO survey respondents w ish t hey h ad p repare d f or f irst s enior l evel p osition s Variable % Completed a doctoral degree 15.3 Acquired greater knowledge of each area of student affairs 11.1 Acquired greater knowledge about accounting, budgets, and budgeting processes 10.6 Emphasized professional development 10.2 Better developed at least one mentoring relationship 9.7 Enrolled in a leadership development institute 5.6

PAGE 127

127 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS OF CONCLUSI ONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of c hapter five is to present a summary of the study. conclusions and implications are imitations are addressed, and recommendations for future research are provided The purpose of this study was to assess demographics, educational backgrounds, and leadership development experiences as related to their mast ery of the leadership skills outlined in the AACC Competencies and to determine which of these leaderships skills is deemed most critical for CCSSAOs to perform their jobs effectively. Furthermore the study examine d how perceptions of their preparedness for the AACC Competencies and explore the means of providing leadership development. Related to he desired outcomes of this study were to determine which of the AACC Competencies were deemed most i mportant to CCSSAOs which AACC Competencies CCSSAOs felt the least prepared for, and which existing leadership development experiences were most effective i n preparing CCSSAOs for their roles. Specifically, this study addressed the following six research questions: 1. What are the general demographic characteristics, professional backgrounds and leadership experiences of current community college senior student affairs officers in the United States? 2. Is there a relationship between the community college senio perceptions of importance of the leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies and their perception of their preparedness for those skills when they assumed their first community college senior student affairs officer posi tion? 3. To what extent do the highest degrees earned by community college senior student affairs officers influence how they rate their preparedness on the leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies when they assumed their first community college se nior student affairs officer position?

PAGE 128

128 4. To what extent do the differences in leadership preparation outside of formal education influence how they rate their preparedness on the leadership skills included in the AACC Competencies when they assumed their fir st community college senior student affairs officer position? 5. To what extent do differences in institutional characteristics (specifically, institution size, setting, structure, and highest degree offering) affect the reported importance of the AACC Compet encies ? 6. Which leadership experiences do current community college senior student affairs officers believe best prepared them to serve in this capacity, and what do they wish they had done differently to prepare for their first community college senior stud ent affairs officer position? Discussion of Conclusions Based on the information presented in chapter four, this section presents c onclusions drawn from th findings Also, the findings are discussed in more detail. As with the findings, t he conclusions relate to the six research questions. Research Question One To develop a profile of CCSSAOs respondents were asked a series of questions about their general demographic characteristics including their age s gender s and race s /ethnicit ies. educational backgrounds including their highest degree s earned and major field s of study And the last category of data collected leadership development exper iences s pecifically leadership development programs and mentoring relationships. The average age of all CCSSAOs in this study male and female, wa s 51.7 years old. Ages range d from 2 6 7 5 years old, with 51 years old as the most reported age. More than 70% of respondents were aged 40 5 9 years. Of the 306 respondents, 29.4% were 40 4 9 years old, and 41.5% were 50 5 9 years old These findings align with the earlier findings of Smith (2002) and Edwards (2005), whose regional studies found the avera ge age to be 48 and mid 50s respectively. Based on gender, t here was no significant difference in average age.

PAGE 129

129 The majority (52.3%) of CCSSAOs in this study were female; the rest were male (47.7%). These findings ound the opposite with 52% male and 48% female. This change could reflect a trend noted in the literature pertaining to senior student affairs officers at four year institutions over the past 30 years. As Edwards (2005) reported, the percentage of femal e senior student affairs officers has risen from 15% in 1972 to 26% in 1984, and 39% in 1993. Logically, the majority of CCSSAOs in 2011 should be female, especially in light of Hamrick and the number of women entering the fi eld of student affairs far exceeded the number of men pursuing that career path In 2011, 20 years after Hamrick and Carlisle identified this transition, it stands to reason that women who entered the student affairs field at that time would currently hold senior positions. Of the 308 CCSSAO respond e nts 74.5% of them were White/Caucasian. The next two highest reported race/ethnicity groups were Black/African American (14.1%) and Hispanic/Latino (7.2%). This Caucasian dominated result was similar to S CCSSAOs in the S outheast United States, which reported that almost three fourths (74.1%) of respondents were Caucasian, and 18.9% were African American. Slightly more diverse were the ethnicities reported by Edwards (2005), whose No rtheast United States study included 68% Caucasians, 28% African America ns, and 4% Hispanic s While diversity has substantial ly i ncreased since the 1972 study showing that 95% of all senior student affairs officers were Caucasian (Edwards, 2005), more prog ress must be made before the racial/ethnic demographics of CCSSAOs reflect th ose of community college student s The National Center on Education Statistics (2010) report ed that at the time of their data collection, 60.2% of community college students wer e Caucasian, 14.4% were African

PAGE 130

130 American, and 14.8% were Hispanic Another 6.1% were Asian and t he remaining 4.5% were split among American Indian, Pacific Isl ander, Multiracial, and other. Clearly much work remains to further diversify the senior ranks of student affairs administration s That said, this study did show ways that CCSSAOs are more ethnically diverse tha n community college president s Duree (2007) reported the race/ethnicity of community college presidents as 80 .7 % Caucasian, 8.2% Black/African American, 5.8% Hispanic/Latino, 2.2% Native American, and 1.9% Asian/Pacific Islander. Nevertheless, measures should be taken to promote diversity within student affairs. While undergraduates, appropriate s tudents from v arious racial/ethnic groups should be encouraged to enroll in graduate preparation programs t he first step in any student affairs profession. Th findings show ed that about just less than half (49.7%) of CCSSAO respondents possess ed a m ree as their highest degree earned. A similar percentage of respondents (46.6%) ha d earned a doctorate. The majority (59.7%) of doctorate holding CCSSAOs possess ed a doctorate of education. For 79.7% of respondents, the major field of study in the highe st degree earned was education. These findings were similar to those presented by Smith (2002) and Keim (2008). Smith reported that 51.2% of respondents had m s and 42.3% had earned a doctorate. Smith also reported that the majority of the doctorate s earned (62%) were EdDs ; t he remaining 38% were PhDs. Keim reported that 48% of CCSSAOs had m s and 48% had earned a doctorate. Like Smith, Keim found that the majority (56%) of the doctorates were EdDs. Keim also noted that 81% of th e doctorates were in education. Th findings were consistent with a trend dating back to 1981, when Piper reported that the highest degrees earned were 54% m aster s degrees and 39% doctorates. In

PAGE 131

131 1990, Townsend and Weise reported t hat over 39% of senior student affairs officers had doctorates in higher education. In each study o ver the past 30 years, the percentage of CCSSAOs with doctorates has increased and the number of CCSSAOs with m s as their highest degree earn ed has dec reased T he findings demonstrate d that a m remains the minimum degree for a CCSSAO position though more individuals serving in or intending to serves as CCSSAOs in the future are pursuing doctoral degrees than they did in the past Lastly, this study indicate d that the appropriate doctoral degree for CCSSAOs is an EdD. This finding aligns with those of Nelson and Coorough ( 199 4), who stated that the PhD is research oriented, and the EdD is designed for the educational practitione r. C CSSAOs who participated in this study acknowledged their efforts to develop leadership skills through attending a variety of leadership development programs sponsored by professional associations, individual institutions, and state associations. Just less than half of r espondents (47%) reported attending such a program compared to 56.9% of community college presidents who had participated in a leadership workshop prior to their first presidency (Duree, 2007). C CSSAOs were more likely to have particip ated in an institution based GYOL program than colleg e presidents ( 22.2% vs. 12.5% ) Popular professional association workshops included the NCSD Community College Leadership Institute, which was attended by 8.8% of respondents, and a variety of leadershi p workshops presented by NASPA, including the Institute for Aspiring Senior Student Affairs Officers, the Mid Managers Institute the Institute for Community/Two Year Colleges, and the Alice Manicur Symposium. Collectively, NASPA sponsored workshop s attra cted 23.5% of respondents. Just over half of respondents (51.2%) acknowledged that they had participated in a mentoring relationship as a protg. This percentage was lower than what Twale and Jelin e k

PAGE 132

132 (1996) found in a study of female senior student affai rs officers most ly from four year institutions. Controlling for gender in this study, women were more likely to have a mentor than men, with 54.1% of the 157 female participants indicating they had a mentor. This result was closer to findings The settings in which the mentoring relationships developed were largely employment based, with 82.6% of the relationships developed within the context of community college employment. This affirms the 199 9 finding of Cooper and Miller, who rep orted that 77% of mentoring relationship s were developed within the employment arena. Despite Cooper and Miller (199 9 ) call for formal mentoring programs within the context of student affairs employment, 75.3% of protg respondents reported that their mentoring relationship was informal. From a community college executive perspective, Duree (2007) report ed that just less than half of community college presidents (49.4%) participated in a mentoring relationship as a protg. This result was similar to the participation rate found in this study. Research Question Two C CSSAOs were ask ed to rate their preparedness for the 45 leadership skills found within the AACC Competencies at the time they entered their first CCSSAO position s In addition respondents indicated the importance of the leadership competencies for service as a CCSSAO. The s e rating s were conducted using a four point L ikert type scale ( very prepared prepared slig htly prepared not prepared ; very important important slightly important not important ) As a whole, CCSSAO rat ings of their preparedness for the leaderships skill s include d in the AACC Competencies v a ry On average, 83.7% of respondents reported that they were very prepared or prepared for the leadership s kills when they entered their first CCSSAO position s To identify training priorities the leadership skills for which respondents felt least prepared must be identified The 10 leadership skills with the lowest preparedness ratings, and with the

PAGE 133

133 percent age of respondents who stated they were prepared or very prepared in these competencies, were : Take an entrepreneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sources (36.6%) ; Establish networks and partnerships to advance the mission of the communit y college (43.8%) ; Implement financial strategies to support programs, services, staff, and facilities (59.0%) ; Implement a human resources system that fosters the professional development and advancement of all staff (61.5%) ; Work effectively and diplomat ically with legislators, board members, business leaders, accreditation organizations, and others (63.8%) ; Contribute to the profession through professional development programs, professional organizational leadership, and research/publications (70.3%) ; Use a systems perspective to assess and respond to the needs of students and the community (71.1%) ; Support operational decisions by managing information resources (71.6%) ; Demonstrate cultural competence in a global society (72.7%) ; and Manage conflict and change in ways that contribute to the long term viability of the organization (74.0%) These leadership skills represent ed a skill set the responding CCSSAO s determined was missing when they entered their first senior level position. However, CCSSAOs are not alone in lacking these skills. As Duree (2007) report ed when community college presidents rated the ir preparedness prior to their first presidency on these same skills seven of the same 10 were rated lowest: Contribute to the profession through professional development programs, professional organizational leadership, and research/publications (60.5%) ; Take an entrepreneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sources (61.4%) ; Work effectively and diplomatically with legislators, board members, business leaders, and accreditation organizations (66.0%) ;

PAGE 134

134 Demonstrate cultural competence in a global society (66.3%) ; Use a systems perspective to assess and respond to the needs of students and the community (77.3%) ; Support operational decisi ons by managing information resources (71.4%) ; and Implement a human resources system that fosters the professional development and advancement of all staff (74.4%) 10 skills were : Manage stress through self care, balanc e, adaptability, flexibility, and humor (65.3%) ; Demonstrate transformational leadership (69.4%) ; and Understand the impact of perceptions, worldviews, and emotions on self and others (72.5%) The similarities between CCSSAO and community college preside responses indicate gap s in graduate school training, leadership development programs and mentoring relationships. If this observation is isolated, one m ight determine that these areas are most needed in training. However, one must first assess the importance attributed to these skills, to see if the y are important enough to warrant investing time and resources in their development Collectively CCSSAOs rated the AACC Competencies very high on the importance scale. On average, the leadership competencies were rated very important or important by 92.3% of respondents. At least 98% of respondents rated t he following top 10 leadership skills very important or important: Develop a po sitive environment that supports innovation, teamwork, and successful outcomes (99.7%) ; Listen actively to understand, analyze, engage, and act (99.3%) ; Develop, enhance and sustain teamwork and cooperation (99.3%) ; Manage conflict and change in ways that contribute to the long term viability of the organization (99.0% );

PAGE 135

135 Promote and maintain high standards for personal and organizational integrity, honesty, and respect for people (98.9%) ; Create and maintain open communication regarding resources, prioritie s, and expectations (98.7%) ; Demonstrate the courage to take risks, make difficult decisions, and accept responsibility (98.6%) ; Manage conflict and change by building and maintaining productive relationships (98.6%) ; Use a data driven decision making prac tices to plan strategically (98.0%) ; and Project confidence and respond responsibly and tactfully (98.0%) ed the competencies defined elsewhere in the literature as critical traits and skills for community c ollege leaders (Brown, Martinez, & Daniel, 2002; Duncan & Harlacher, 1991; Hockaday & Puyear, 2008). leadership skills very important or important wa s lower overall but not significantly so. The 10 most important skills align ed in some areas including the top two and four of top 10 skills The five skills that also appear ed 10 list, with the percentage of respondents who rated them very important or important, we re: Develop a positive environment that supports innovation, teamwork, and successful outcomes (98.8%) ; Listen actively to understand, analyze, engage, and act (97.3%) ; Manage conflict and change in ways that contribute to the long ter m viability of the organization (97.1% ) ; Create and maintain open communication regarding resources, priorities, and expectations (96.6%) ; and Use a data driven decision making practices to plan strategically (96.4%) The rest of the preside 10 skills we re: Maintain and grow college personnel, fiscal resources, and assets (98.0%) ;

PAGE 136

136 Effectively convey ideas and information to all constituents (96.9%) ; Articulate and champion shared mission, vision, and values to internal and external au diences (96.8%) ; Align organizational mission, structures, and resources with the college master plan (96.4%) ; and Ensure accountability in reporting (96.1%) The differences and similarities in the top 10 rated leadership skills underscore d the differences in roles between CCSSAOs 10 m ost important leadership skills fell into one of three competency domains: organizational strategy, resource management, and communication. On the other h and, top 10 most important leadership skills include d two items each from collaboration and professionalism, as well as items within the other three domains. In terms of importance, n either CCSSAOs nor community college presidents include d leader ship skills from the community college advocacy domain in their top 10 When observing the domains collective ly participating CCSSAOs rated the communication competency domain the most important, followed by organizational strategy and collaboration. Com munity college advocacy was rated fourth most important, followed by resource management. Professionalism was deemed to be the least important competency reverse order. Presidents indicated that the organizational strategy wa s the most important competency domain, followed by communication. Resource management was the presidents third most important domain, followed by collaboration. Community college advocacy was rat ed fifth. As with CCSSAOs the competency domain rated least important by presidents was the professionalism domain.

PAGE 137

137 What can be taken away from this research question is an understanding of what skills matter most to CCSSAOs. skills can be compare d and contrasted to their presidents. This list, combined with the items that CCSSAOs rate d lowest on the preparedness scale, identify critical training needs. Research Question Three The percentage of CCSSAOs with doctorat e s has steadily increased over the past 30 years. This research question determine d the extent to which the knowledge gained during the doctoral degree process impact ed perceptions of their preparedness for the leadership competencies found in the AACC Competencies To determine this extent, a one way ANOVA technique was performed using three types of degree s as the independent variable ( m PhD, and EdD), and th e preparedness rating s for each of the six competency domains as the dependent variables. For five of the six competency domains, a significant difference ( p < .05) was found between level s of preparedness based on the highest degree earned. The only com petency domain without a significant difference was the c ommunication domain. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted on the significant findings to determine the direction and strength of each difference. In each case respondents with a doctoral degree repo rted a higher level of preparedness, though different doctoral degrees yielded different findings For organizational strategy, respondents with both PhDs and EdDs reported significantly higher preparedness than those with s For resource management, collaboration, and community college advocacy, the differences were between the EdD s s For each of the three competency domains, respondents with EdDs reported a significantly higher level of preparedness for the leadership

PAGE 138

138 the professionalism domain, EdD holders rated themselves significantly more prepared than respondents with either gree s or PhDs. These findings were degree earned had no impact on how community college presidents perceive d their level of prepar edness prior to their first presidency. Clearly CCSSAOs who ha d earned EdDs value d this edu cational experience. Nelson and Coorough ( 199 4) determined that the EdD wa s the doctoral degree designed for the educational practitioner; th findings indicate d that earning this degree may more thoroughly prepare individuals for positions as ed ucational practitioner s Research Question Four Outside of formal education, CCSSAOs also develop ed leadership skills by participating in mentoring relationships and attending leadership development programs This research question sought to determine the extent to which differences in leadership preparation outside of formal education influence d how CCSSAOs rate d their preparedness on the leaders hip skills included in the AACC Competencies Th is first CCSSAO position s To determine the extent to which mentoring relationships impacted preparedness, an independent sample t test was performed on the six composite domain variables. For four of the six competency domains (organizational strategy, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism), a significant difference ( p < .05) was found between level of prepa redness based on participation in a mentoring relationship as a protg. R espondents who had participated in mentoring relationships as protgs perceived themselves as more prepared than their nonprotg counterparts.

PAGE 139

139 s gender on protg preparedness, a one way ANOVA was performed using three possible gender combinations as the independent variable (female only, male only, and female and male), and the preparedness rating s for each of the six competency domains as the dependent variables. For one of the six competency domains based a significant difference ( p < .05) was found in level s of preparedness. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted on the significant findings to determine the dir ection and strength of the difference. The findings showed that respondents with both male and female mentors perceived themselves as more prepared for the leadership skills within the collaboration domain tha n respondents with only a male mentor. After m To determine the extent to which attending leadership development programs impacted CCSSAO preparedness, an independent t test was performed on the six composite domain variables. Findings showed that attendi ng leadership programs did not produce a significant difference ( p < .05) i n respondents perception s of their preparedness for the leadership skills found in the AACC Competenci es. A variety of literature contains several references to how mentor s can assist in leadership development (Carpenter & Sti mp son, 2007; Cooper & Miller, 199 9 ; Roper, 2002; VanDerLinden, 2005) T his study explored this concept more in depth, by showing how participati on in mentoring relationships impacts protgs perceptio n s of the ir preparedness to lead. In addition, th findings provide d evidence for the value in having multiple mentors of different genders. Conversely, these findings indicate d that participating in leadership development programs d id not help p articipants feel more prepared to lead. Despite this finding, one should not assume that leadership development programs did no t

PAGE 140

140 (2007) suggest ed participating in leadership development experiences may in crease participants aware ness of the challenges and intricacies involved in providing community college leadership, causing participants to report lower levels of preparedness as a result of having a more thorough understanding of their positions. Research Question Five A higher education institution physical environment plays a key role in shaping and environmental aspects of a college or university impa s perceptions of the ir job s and their priorities. To explore this concept research question seven examined the extent to which institutional characteristics (specifically, institution size, setting, structure, and highest degree offering) affected the importance of the AACC Competencies The survey instrument divided instituti on size into six categories based on an Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System ( IPEDS ) report featured on the AACC W ebsite (2003). To determine the extent to which institution size affected the importance of the AACC Competencies a one way ANOVA procedure was performed using the six institutional size categories as independent variables, and the importance rating for each of the six competency domains as dependent variables. For the organizational strategy competency domains, a significant differe nce ( p < .05) was found between the importance ratings based on institution size. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted on the significant findings to determine the direction and strength of the difference. The post hoc test s result s showed that organizati onal strategy competencies were rated significantly higher at colleges with 5,000 10,000 students and more than 10,000 students compared to colleg es with 1,000 2,000 students.

PAGE 141

141 The instrument divided institution setting into three categories (rural, su burban, and urban). To determine the extent to which institution setting affected the reported importance of the AACC Competencies a one way ANOVA procedure was performed using the three institutional settings categories as independent variables, and the importance rating for each of the six competency domains as dependent variables. For the organizational strategy competency domains, a significant difference ( p < .05) was found between the importance ratings based on institution setting. Tukey post hoc tests were conducted on the significant findings to determine the direction and strength of the difference. The post hoc tests results showed that organizational strategy competencies were rated significantly higher at urban colle ges compared to rural c olleges. It was noteworthy that the organizational strategy competency domain was the only one to garner any significant differences based on size or setting. As previously stated, organiz ational strategy was the second highest ranked competency in terms of importance. Rather than infer that CCSSAOs working in college s with 1,000 2,000 students and/ or in rural colleges do not find the leadership skills found in the organizational strategy domain un important, it might b e more accurate to say that all participants felt the leadership skills in the organizational strategy domain we re important, and those at large, urban colleges found them extremely important. The instrument divided institution structure into two categorie s (single campus and multi campus). To determine the extent to which institution structure affected the reported importance of the AACC Competencies an independent sample t test was performed using the two institutional structure categories as independe nt variables, and the importance rating for each of the six competency do mains as dependent variables. The findings showed no significant difference ( p > .05) in importance rating based on institutional structure.

PAGE 142

142 This finding implie d that differences in institutional structure should be considered when developing curriculum for leadership development experiences. However, this d id not imply that there was no value in training community college leaders to work with different types of institutional structu res Instead, this finding indicate d should not impact on curriculum development in reference to the AACC Competencies Over 96% of respondents worked at community colleges highest degree offering. In terms of highest degree awarded, t he homogeneity of the sample did not allow for any statistical analysis based on this variable. The small number of respondents who work ed at community colleges offering deg ree s implies that the rapid expans ion of the community college baccalaureate, as predicted by Floyd, Skolnik, and Walker (2005) ha d not yet come to fruition. Research Question Six The final questions in th is study provided respondents with an opportunity to reflect on what leadership experiences were most valuable in prepar ing them for their first CCSSAO position s. Also, CCSSAOs could provide information regarding what they wished they had done differently to prepare for their first CCSSAO position s A content analysi s was conducted to determine the most popular responses, and th ese form ed the bases for answer ing research question six By far the most frequent response to what best prepared respondents was their previous student affairs work experience. Over 40% of r espondents discussed work experiences in multiple roles over time, serving as a director or coordinator for specific functional role s within student affairs, or working as assistant / associate vice president s for student affairs. Several respondents commen ted on how working in different student affairs departments fostered a more thorough understanding of the entire student affairs division; this sentiment was echoed by those

PAGE 143

143 who had worked as assistant / associate vice president s, who stated that th ose roles enabled them to see the broader vision of how student affairs relates to other aspects of the community college A couple of respondents mentioned that working at multiple institutions was valuable because these experiences helped them learn different i nstitutional governance and leadership systems A few respondents specifically referred to their counseling experience as valuable leadership development experience. The high level of preparedness reported on many of the leadership skills included in the communication competency domain may counseling backgrounds. Despite the finding that participati on in leadership development programs d id not significant ly impact perceptions of preparedness for the AACC Competencies 50 respondents identified a workshop as the leadership development experience that was most valuable to them in preparation for their first CCSSAO position. This information ma d e leadership development programs the second most frequently cited leadershi p experiences. The specific workshops listed varied greatly and included 16 different professional association programs plus state based leadership programs, local leadership programs, and institution based GYOL pr ograms. The program that appear ed most in the response s leadership conference. Mentoring relationships were the third most discussed leadership experience related to respondents for their first CCSSAO position s The mentors, described as CCSSAOs community college presidents, and previous supervisors, took particular interest in The findings from this study strongly suggest ed that midlevel CCSSAOs who are interested in serving in a senior leve l capacity identify a mentor to improve their overall development. This finding support ed the

PAGE 144

144 assertions of Fulton Calkins and Millin g (2005) and McDade (2005) that mentoring relationships help ed improve administrative and social skills and prepare protg s for career advancement The fourth most listed leadership development experience s that helped prepare respondents for the ir first CCSSAO position s w ere their formal education s The majority of the 12% of the sample who specifically identified formal ed ucation mentioned their graduate work in education. Th is support ed the findings of results from research question three where, compared to respondents with EdDs reported higher levels of prepar edness for all six leadership competencies. C CSSAOs were very open about what they wished they had done differently to prepare for their first senior level position s; 70% of respondents replied to this open ended item. The most common response was a desire to h ave earned a doctor ate before accepting a senior level position. Respondents provided various reasons for this desire, from the challenges inherent in balancing academic and work requirements to the status a leader with a doctorate would generate for the student affairs division The next three answers all pertained to knowledge acquisition, as respondents stated that they wish they had acquired greater knowledge of each area of student affairs, acquired greater knowledge about accounting, budgets, and bud geting processes, or emphasized professional development more prior to assuming the ir first CCSSAO position s Interestingly, respondents who expressed a desire for more knowledge about student affairs often did not state that their experience s in student affairs w ere their most valuable leadership development experience s. The comments regarding the need for additional knowledge of financial aspects of higher education reflect ed the findings about preparedness on the leadership skills found within the reso urce management competenc ies domain. With only three fifths of respondents perceiving themselves

PAGE 145

145 as very prepared or prepared to manage financial strategies to support programs, services, staff, and facilities and only about one third of respondents perceiving themselves as very prepared or prepared to take an entrepreneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sources, the findings indicate d two areas for additional training needs The fifth most common response was to have developed at least one strong mentoring relationship. About 10% of respondents identified their mentoring relation ships as either deficient or non existent. These findings support ed s (2007) research, wh ich stated that mentoring was a distincti ve theme that arose when leaders were asked to reflect on what they would do differently in the future. Implications A number of implications may be drawn from this study which might affect numerous facets of entities involved with educating and training individuals on the CCSSAO career path. These entities range the full spectrum of the leadership development process, from graduate school faculty and administrators, to professional organizations and community college employees charged with responsibiliti Individuals who aspire to serve in senior level position s and community college executives may also benefit from these findings. Graduate school f aculty and administrators may want to consider the EdD the more a ppropriate degree for those aspiring to be senior student affairs administrators. Departments offering both the PhD and the EdD should strive to track new students appropriately based on their anticipated career path s All respondents rated t he se compete ncy domains important or very important and curricul a could be created based on the leadership skills found in the AACC Competencies Faculty and administrators should also ensure that EdD curricul a include practical elements for active learning, in cludi ng internships and practica

PAGE 146

146 exposure t heir intended work environment s The curricul a should include at least one class on the financial aspects of higher education, including accounting, budgets, and budgeting procedures. Finally EdD programs should include structured opportunities for students to develop mentoring relationships with profe ssionals working in the field. Professional organizations should renew their efforts to establish formal mentoring programs, giving new professio nals o pportunit ies to learn from more experience d colleagues. Only half of respondents had participated in such a relationship, and respondents indicated that if they could alter preparation s for their first CCSSAO positions, they would have developed at least one strong mentoring relationship. Professional organizations should also look at the curricul a and structure of their leadership development programs R espondents who attended leadership workshops did not perceive themselves as more p repared than nonattendees; however attendees also felt that the workshops were valuable experiences for leadership prepar edness To improve the quality and relevancy of the programs and to help improve leadership development program organizers should review the leadership skills in the AACC Competencies to en sure that the curricul a are research based. Additionally, assessments should be developed to determine if the workshop participants are s uccessfully achieving the intende d learning outcomes. Community college student affairs divisions should invest in professional development experience s for their entry level and mid level employees includ ing cross training and expos ur e to financial aspects of higher education, including bu dgets and budgeting processes. The leadership skills contained within the AACC Competencies are a solid, research based f oundation upon which to build a curriculum to training CCSSAOs While the AACC Competencies w ere developed with community college presidents as the focus

PAGE 147

147 high importance ratings throughout this study indicate d that the competencies are also relevant to student affairs leadership. Very few institutional characteristics had a significant impact on how respondents rated the importance of the AACC Competencies Therefore, program designers should not emphasize institutional characteristics when de veloping or evaluating curricula for l eadership development programs. Th ose who aspire to seni or level student affairs position s may garner several important lessons from this study. First and foremost, they should begin a doctorate program (preferably an EdD) with a goal of completing it prior to assuming a senior level position. Second, they s hould find at least one mentor and cultivate the relationship. They should explore opportunities to learn about multiple facets of student affairs, by working in different departments within a division, serving on committees outside the primary work area comp leting internships and practica while in graduate school, or serving in an assistant /associate vice president position. Those who desire senior level student affairs can also use th is study instrument as a self assessment tool to determine a reas where additional knowledge is needed, and seek out this knowledge to i ncrease preparedness for a CCSSAO position. Finally, community college presidents charged with hiring new CCSSAOs may benefit from using the list of competencies to determine desired competencies in candidates The findings here effectively encapsulate d competencies deemed most important by other CCSSAOs. Presidents may find value in using these competencies as an aid in during the selection process. Recommendations for Future Research Given that only 308 usable responses were received from the 1,045 community colleges in the United States, one recommendation for future research would be to replicate the study using e very current CCSSAO a t every AACC member institution as a sample As part of this follow up study, efforts should be made to contact the sample with methods in addition to e mails.

PAGE 148

148 Using a multiple mode survey design (such as adding phone calls and/or letters sent via U.S. Mail) has been shown to improve data quality by increasing response rates (Dillman, Smyrth, & Christian, 2009). This study did not geograph ic locations With the proliferation of state organization based GYO L programs (Carroll & Romero, 2003) the states producing more prepared administrators could be identified S tate specific results could be generalized to meet the unique needs of community college leaders in that state and perhaps best practices could be generalized to other states About 40% of respondents stated that their most valuable leadership development opportunities were their prior student affairs employment work experience. The instrument did not, however, include questions that explored work history. Given these findings, a dditional research should be conducted to determine the career pathways that lead individuals to work as CCSSAO s including the types of positions held, the roles and responsibilities, and how each of these help ed prepare the administrator for the senior l evel position. A more thorough analysis of learning outcomes of leadership development programs is needed to assess how the programs impact ed preparedness to serve in senior level positions. Although findings did not indicate a significant impact from leadership development program participati on respondents indicated the programs wer e valuable experience s for increasing their prepare dness for their first senior level position s Additional research on the learning outcomes of le adership development programs may address this lack of cohesion Differences in institutional size and setting were shown to have a significant impact on the importance placed on the organizational strategy competencies by CCSSAOs working at large,

PAGE 149

149 urban i nstitutions compared to their counterparts at small, rural college s. Additional research should be done to more fully explore the impact of institutional size and setting to determine the competencies needed to succeed at different types of institutions. Related research may include exploring leadership styles and job satisfaction with a goal of helping prospective job candidat es find good institutional fit. A small number of respondents indicated their community college wa s approved to award degree s If Floyd et al. (2005) were correct in their assertion that the community college baccalaureate is the future for these institutions understand ing how institutions support of this degree and the students pursuing it will impact student affairs work and the role. Research focused exclusively on senior CCSSAOs who work at community colleges that award the baccalaureate degree could be conducted, to determine how the change in highest degree offering impacts perception s of the importance of the AACC Competencies thereby affecting training model s for administrators employed by bac granting community colleges. This study only addressed senior level CCSSAOs Student affairs professionals work at a variety of hierarchical levels. A similar study based on the AACC Competencies could be administrated to entry level and midlevel professionals to determine competency based models appropriate for each level of the profession. Along these same lines, t his study e xamined the AACC Competencies model as applied to CCSSAOs in the United States. Similar studies could be replicated with other senior level positions in the community college ( e.g. academic affairs, business affairs, etc.) to develop competency based tra ining models based on the AACC Competencies for each functional area of the community college.

PAGE 150

150 Summary T his study applied a competency model for training CCSSAOs demonstrat ing the most important leadership skills for this population and provid ing a struct ure for their train ing This study also provided an updated demographic overview of CCSSAOs in the United States. The results of the study have wide ranging implications that may affect the approaches used by professional organizations, state association s, university graduate programs, and community college student affairs divisions use to provide training and professional development for student affairs professionals. Additionally, individuals who aspire to serve as senior level administrators could use the results from this study to direct their professional development. Finally, community college presidents could use these results to guide their selection process when hiring a CCSSAO for their institution.

PAGE 151

151 APPENDIX A AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMU NITY COLLEGES COMPETENCIES FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE LE ADERS Organizational Strategy Assess, develop, implement, and evaluate strategies regularly to improve the quality of education and the long term health of the organization. Use data driven evidence and proven practices from internal and external stakeholders to solve problems, make decisions, and plan strategically. Use a systems perspective to assess and respond to the culture of the organization, to changing demographics, and to the economic, political, and public health needs of students and the community. Develop a positive environment that supports innovation, teamwork, and successful outcomes. Maintain and grow college personnel and fiscal resources. Align organizational mission, structures, and resources with the college master plan. Resource Management Ensure accountability in reporting. Support operational decisions by managing information resources and ensuring the integrity and integration of supporting systems and database s. Develop and manage resource assessment, planning, budgeting, acquisition and allocation processes consistent with the college master plan and local, state, and national policies. Take an entrepreneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sour ces. Implement financial strategies to support programs, services, staff, and facilities. Implement a human resources system that includes recruitment, hiring, reward, and performance management systems and that fosters the professional development and adv ancement of all staff. Employ organizational, time management, planning, and delegation skills. Manage conflict and change in ways that contribute to the long term viability of the organization. Communication Articulate and champion shared mission, visio n, and values to internal and external audiences, appropriately matching message to audience. Disseminate and support policies and strategies. Create and maintain open communications regarding resources, priorities, and expectations. Convey ideas and infor mation succinctly, frequently, and inclusively through media and verbal and nonverbal means to the board and other constituencies.

PAGE 152

152 Listen actively to understand, comprehend, analyze, and act. Project confidence and respond responsibly and tactfully. Collaboration Embrace and employ the diversity of individuals, cultures, values, ideas, and communication styles. Demonstrate cultural competence relative to a global society. Catalyze involvement and commitment of students, faculty, staff, and community members to work for the common good. Build and leverage networks and partnerships to advance mission, vision, and goals of the community college. Work effectively and diplomatically with unique constituent groups such as legislators, board members, busines s leaders, accreditation organizations, and others. Manage conflict and change by building and maintaining productive relationships. Develop, enhance, and sustain teamwork and cooperation. Facilitate shared problem solving and decision making. Community C ollege Advocacy Value and promote diversity, inclusion, equity, and academic excellence. Demonstrate a passion for and commitment to the mission of community colleges and student success through the scholarship of teaching and learning. Promote equity, op en access, teaching, learning, and innovation as primary goals for the college, seeking to understand how these change over time and facilitating discussion with all stakeholders. Advocate the community college mission to all constituents and empower them to do the same. Advance lifelong learning and support a learner centered environment. Represent the community college in the local community, in the broader educational community, at various levels of government, and as a model of higher education that can be replicated in international settings. Professionalism Demonstrate transformational leadership through authenticity, creativity, and vision. Understand and endorse the history, philosophy, and culture of the community college. Self assess performance regularly using feedback, reflection, goal setting, and evaluation. Support lifelong learning for self and others. Manage stress through self care, balance, adaptability, flexibility, and humor. Demonstrate the courage to take risks, make difficult decisio ns, and accept responsibility. Understand the impact of perceptio ns, world views, and emotions on self and others.

PAGE 153

153 Promote and maintain high standards for personal and organizational integrity, honesty, and respect for people. Use influence and power wisely in facilitating the teaching learning process and the exchange of knowledge. Weigh short term and long term goals in decision making. Contribute to the profession through professional development programs, professional organizational leadership, and resea rch/publication.

PAGE 154

154 APPENDIX B THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SENIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICER: DEMOGRAPHICS AND LEADERSHIP SURVEY Informed Consent Protocol Title: Competencies of Community College Senior Student Affairs Officers Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study was to assess current community college senior level student affairs career pathways, and leadership development experiences as related to their mastery of the leadership skills outlined in the AACC Competencies for Community College Leaders and to determine which of these leaderships skills is deemed most critical for co mmunity college senior student affairs officers (SSAOs) to do their jobs effectively. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to participate in a 41 item survey designed to examine current community college senior student affairs offi development of the leadership skills outlined in the AACC Competencies for Community College Leader ; and to determine which of these leaderships skills is deemed most critical for senior student affairs officer to do their job effectively. Time required: 25 minutes Risks and Benefits: None Compensation: None Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential. Survey responses are anonymous. Participants will not be asked for their name or any other identifiers. No individual responses will be reported, only an aggregate of all responses. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Who to contact if you have questions about the study:

PAGE 155

155 Dan Rodkin, Graduate Student, School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education, University of Fl orida; Director for Student Life, Santa Fe College, 352 395 4171, dan.rodkin@sfcollege.edu Dale Campbell, PhD School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education College of Education, Univer sity of Florida, 352 392 2391, dfc@coe.ufl.edu Who to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; P hone : 352 392 0433 Agreement: Next The Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer: Dem ographics and Leadership Survey In each section, provide the information or check the sp aces as appropriate. You do not have to answer questions if you feel uncomfortable doing so. Your answers will be anonymous and will be kept confidential. For this survey, Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer ( or SSAO) is defined as the most senior employee in the student affairs/student services/student development division of an educational institution or system with two year associate de grees as its primary offering. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this survey. 1. Are you a Community College Senior Student Affairs Officer? Yes No [If no, skip to Thank You page] Section One: Individual & Institutional Demographics 2. Current position/leadership title: Vice President/Vice Chancellor Associate Vice President/Vice Chancellor Assistant Vice President/Vice Chancellor Director/Dean

PAGE 156

156 Associate Director/Dean Assistant Director/Dean Other (please specify) [text box] 3. What is the highest degree you have earned? (Check all that apply) Ed. Specialist EdD PhD JD 4. What was the major field of study in your highest degree? Student Personnel in Higher Education Higher education with emphasis on community college leadership Higher education with other emphasis K 12 administration Other educa tional field Other If other educational or noneducational field, please specify: [text box] 5. Current age: [numerical box] 6. Gender: Male Female Transgendered 7. Race/Ethnicity: American Indian/Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White/Caucasian Multiracial 8. How many for credit students does your current institution enroll? Less than 1,000 1,000 2,000

PAGE 157

157 2,001 3,000 3,001 5,000 5,001 10,000 More than 10,000 9. How would you best describe Rural Suburban Urban 10. Does your current institution have a single campus or multiple campuses? Single Multiple 11. Please indicate the highest academic degree your current institution offers. Certifications egrees Section Two: Your Career Pathways 12. Including your current position, how many Student Affairs positions have you held? [numerical box] 13. For how many years have you been in your present position? [numerical box] 14. What is the total number of years you have worked in Student Affairs? [numerical box] 15. What was your last position prior to your current position? [text box] 16. What was this position in a community college? Yes No 17. How many years did you spend in each of the following career tracks? Community College student affairs [numerical box] Other Community College positions [numerical box] University student affairs [numerical box] Other positions in education [numerical box]

PAGE 158

158 Other positions outside of education [numerical box] 18. Have you ever taught in a community college? Yes, Full time Yes, Part time Yes, both Full and Part time No 19. Are you currently teaching in any of the following settings? (Check all that apply) C ommunity College Other higher education Not currently teaching Other (please specify) [text box] 20. What is your career aspiration? Community college president Community college senior student affairs officer Faculty Other educational position Other position outside education If other educational or noneducational field, please specify: [text box] Section Three: Leadership Preparation 21. How important were each of the following peer networks in preparing for your leadership position in community college student affairs? Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important a. Graduate program cohort b. Graduate program faculty c. Co workers at community colleges d. Social networks e. Business networks 22. As you develop leadership skills required of a community college leader, are you participating in or have you participated in a mentor protg relationship as a protg? Yes No [If no, go to Q28] 23. When did you participate in a mentor protg relationship? ( Check all that apply)

PAGE 159

159 During undergraduate studies During graduate studies During first 5 years of career During second 5 years of career Other (please specify) [text box] 24. Was your mentor protg relationship formal or informal? For mal Informal 25. Was your mentor protg relationship developed within the academic setting of a graduate program or within the professional setting of community college employment? During graduate program During community college employment Both Other (please specif y) [text box] 26. Did you participate in more than one mentor protg relationship as a protg? Yes No 27. Please indicate the number of mentors you have had by gender. Female mentors [numerical box] Male mentors [numerical box] 28. Outside of your graduate program, have you participated in any professional association sponsored leadership preparation programs prior to becoming a Senior Student Affairs Officer? (Check all that apply) Level Management Institute Manager Institutes Year Colleges ge Student Development Leadership Institute Other (please specify) [text box] 29. Did you participate as an attendee at an institution (GYOL) program?

PAGE 160

160 Yes No Section Four: Faculty, Staff & Public Relations 30. O n how many of the following external boards do you currently serve? Corporate [numerical box] College or university [numerical box] Civic organization [numerical box] Professional organization [numerical box] Other nonprofit organization [numerical box] 31. In your role as a Senior Student Affairs officer, on average, how many times per week do you meet with or have discussions with each of the following? Cabinet level administrators [numerical box] Midlevel student affairs officers [numerical box] Other college staff [numerical box] Faculty [numerical box] Students [numerical box] College board members [numerical box] Other community college SSAOs [numerical box] Other education officials [numerical box] Business/Ind ustry officials [numerical box] Local, state or national elected officials [numerical box] Section Five: Research and Publications 32. a. How many book reviews have you published in a profe ssional journal? [numerical box] b. How many articles have you publish ed in a professional journal? [numerical box] c. How many monographs or books have you published? [numerical box] d. How many chapters have you contributed to a published book? [numerical box] Section Six: Competencies for Community College Leaders The next six questions address six competency domains for community college leaders that have been developed and endorsed by the American Associatio n of Community Colleges (AACC).

PAGE 161

161 For each individual compet ency listed, please rate how well prepared you feel are to perform the competency, and how important each competency is to effective community college student affairs leadership. 33. Organizational Strategy Not Prepared Slightly Prepared Prepared Very P repared Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Develop, implement, and evaluate strategies to improve the quality of education at you institution. Use a data driven decision making practices to plan strategically. Use a systems perspective to assess and respond to the needs of students and the community. Develop a positive environment that supports innovation, teamwork, and successful outcomes. Maintain and grow college personnel, fiscal resources and assets. Align organizational mission, structures, and resources with the college master plan. 34. Resource Management Not Prepared Slightly Prepared Prepared Very Prepared Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Ensure accountability in reporting. Support operational decisions by managing information resources.

PAGE 162

162 Develop and manage resources consistent with the college master plan. Take an entrepreneurial stance in seeking ethical alternative funding sources. Implement financial strategies to support programs, services, staff, and facilities. Implement a human resources system that fosters the professional development and advancement of all staff. Employ organizational, time management, planning, and delegations skills. Manage conflict and change in ways that contribute to the long term viability of the organization. 35. Communication Not Prepared Slightly Prepared Prepared Very Prepared Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Articulate and champion shared mission, vision, and values to internal and external audiences. Disseminate and support policies and strategies. Create and maintain open communication regarding resources, priorities, and expectations.

PAGE 163

163 Effectively convey ideas and information to all constituents. Listen actively to understand, analyze, engage, and act. Project confidence and respond responsibly and tactfully. 36. Collaboration Not Prepared Slightly Prepared Prepared Very Prepared Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Embrace and employ the diversity of individuals, cultures, values, ideas, and communication styles. Demonstrate cultural competence in a global society. Involve students, faculty, staff, and community members to work for the common good. Establish networks and partnerships to advance the mission of the community college. Work effectively and diplomatically with legislators, board members, business leaders, accreditation organizations, and others. Manage conflict and change by building and maintaining productive relationships.

PAGE 164

164 Develop, enhance and sustain teamwork and cooperation. Facilitate shared problem solving and decision making. 37. Community College Advocacy Not Prepared Slightly Prepared Prepared Very Prepared Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Value and promote diversity, inclusion, equity, and academic excellence. Demonstrate commitment to the mission of community colleges and student success through the scholarship of teaching and learning. Promote equity, open access, teaching, learning, and innovation as primary goals for the college. Advocate the community college mission to all constituents and empower them to do the same. Advance lifelong learning and support a learning centered environment. Represent the community college in a variety of settings as a model of higher education.

PAGE 165

165 38. Professionalism Not Prepared Slightly Prepared Prepared Very Prepared Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important Demonstrate transformational leadership. Demonstrate an understanding of the history, philosophy, and culture of the community college. Regularly performance using feedback, reflection, goal setting, and evaluation. Support lifelong learning for self and others. Manage stress through self care, balance, adaptability, flexibility, and humor. Demonstrate the courage to take risks, make difficult decisions, and accept responsibility. Understand t he impact of perceptions, world views, and emotions on self and others. Promote and maintain high standards for personal and organizational integrity, honesty, and respect for people. Use influence and power wisely in facilitating the teaching learning process and the exchange of knowledge. Weigh short term and long term goals in decision making. Contribute to the profession through professional development programs, professional organizational leadership, and research/publications.

PAGE 166

166 Section Seven: Conclusion 39. How well prepared did you feel when you assumed your first SSAO position? Not prepared Slightly prepared Prepared Very prepared 40. What leadership development experience was most valuable to you in preparation for your first SSAO position? Please explain. [text box] 41. What do you wish you had done differently t o prepare for your first SSAO position, knowing what you know now? [text box] Section Eight: Closing Message THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. YOUR RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECORDED. If you would like a copy of the results of the study, please e mail dan.rodkin@sfcollege.edu

PAGE 167

167 APPE NDIX C PROFESSIONAL COMPETE NCIES AND PERSONAL C HARACTERISTICS OF SE NIOR STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFI CERS Professional Competencies Assessment and evaluation Communication skills Cultural competence Decision making Environmenta l management Financial accountability Implementation Initiative Institutional commitment Organizing Personnel management Planning Professional self improvement Supervisory ability Personal Characteristics Adaptable Considerate Cooperative Dependable Energetic Enthusiastic Ethical Good judgment Hard working Impartial Intelligent Loyal Open minded Sincere Stable Well organized

PAGE 168

168 APPE NDIX D CHARACTERISTICS OF S TUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS STUDIE D IN ARTICLES Skills Administration and Management Human Facilitation Communication Leadership Student enrollment and participation Role of educator Entrepreneurial Knowledge Student development theory Functional unit responsibilities Academic background Organizational development/behavior Federal policies/reg ulations Student needs, values, and behaviors Personal Trait/Quality Interactive quality Individual trait

PAGE 169

169 APPENDIX E COMPETENCIES AND SKI LLS FOR COMMUNITY CO LLEGE STUDENT AFFAIR S PROFESSIONALS Institutional Competencies Education Culture (including Knowledge of Higher Education, Community Colleges, & Student Affairs Institutional Culture (including Institutional. Mission/Objectives and Creating an Institutional Vision) Legal Issues in Higher Education Personnel Management (including Hiring, Evaluatio n, Personnel Conflict, Diversity in the Workplace and Professional Mentoring) Budgets and Financial Resource Management Physical Resource Management Leadership Theory (including Strategic Plann ing, Decision Making, Responsibility and Delegation) Research M odels & Methods Campus and Community Relations (including Collab oration and Coalition Building) Student and Group Programming Program Design and Organization (including Programming Requests, Interpreting Student needs, Representing Students Needs to Other s) Program Implementation Program Evaluation/Assessment Program Revision Student Development Student Demographics and Characteristics (including Multicultural Awareness, Trends, and Enrollment Data) Advising Students Crisis and Conflict Management Adjudicate Student Conduct Student Outcomes Assessment Individual Development Effective Oral and Written Communication Skills Personal Organization and Time Management Problem Solving Risk Taking Flexibility and Adaptability Technology Ethics

PAGE 170

170 APPENDIX F CHALLENGES, ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES AND COMPETENCIES FOR THE FUTURE Challenges Adaptive Strategies Competencies Rapid Telecommunications Developments Human Resource Development Develop & administer accurate & meaningful programs of faculty evaluation & development Ability to use technology to maximize performance Management of change Changing Economy Resource Development Fund raising & Marketing Creative management of finances Research trend analyses, assessing needs assessments, evaluation of outcomes which focus on our product Increasing Competition Focus on the Curriculum Master politician Establishing linkages Focus on the mission in decision making Caring asking the right questions Motivating developing & maintaining high standards and clear performance objectives Questioning Identity Creative Leadership & Governance Commitment to clear vision & mission of the comprehensive open door philosophy Ability to plan strategically Integrating left & right brain skills Working with and through trustees Clarify image Teacher Commitment to professionalizing the management team

PAGE 171

171 APPE NDIX G COMPETENCIES AND PER SONAL CHARACTERISTIC S OF FUTURE COMMUNIT Y COLLEGE PRESIDENTS Leadership Delegation Personnel Selection Decision Making Interpersonal Skills Knowled ge of and Commitment to Mission Leadership Planning Visionary Organizing Information Processing Public Relations Professionalism Finance/Budgeting Performance Appraisal Analysis Controlling Peer Network Scholarly Writing Group Related Motivation Use of Power Entrepreneurship Integrating Conflict Resolution Personal Characteristics Judgment Commitment Integrity Communication Flexibility Positive Attitude Energy Wellness Sense of Responsibility Persistence Risk Taking Emotional Balance/Control Time Management Sense of Humor Research Creativity/Stability Empathy Introspection Patience Charisma

PAGE 172

172 APPE NDIX H CATEGORIES OF SKILLS AREAS OF EXPERTISE AND SKILLS OF COMM UNITY C OLLEGE LEADERS Leadership Developing and communicating a vision Un derstanding and application of Understanding of organizational theory and culture Motivation strategies Incorpora ting ethics and values in the workplace Understanding of leadership theory Mentoring practices Self analysis and awareness Understanding of the community college mission Multicultural awareness Understanding of collaborative decision making Communication Perception and impression management Networking skills Understanding of interpersonal communication Effective listening and feedback skills Effective writing skills Effective public speaking skills Understanding of small group dynamics Conflict resolution mediation, and negotiation skills Institutional Planning and Development Knowledge of marketing and external public relations Fundraising Grant writing Program development and implementation Institutional effectiveness: assessment and analysis Retentio n: documentation and initiatives Student recruitment strategies Management Delegating Evaluation and recommendation of personnel Organizing and time management skills Enrollment management and schedule development

PAGE 173

173 Policy Accreditation processes and procedures State governance policy and structure Board and local governance, policy, and procedure Research Methodology and Application Interpretation of surveys and research Statistical research methodology Statistical software application Legal Under standing of legal issues Finance Local, state, and federal policy and funding formulas Long rage budgeting and projections Accounting skills Technology Development of distance education mission Administrative integration and application of technology Computer proficiency: hardware and software Faculty and Staff Development Curriculum development Teaching and learning styles and methodology Adjunct faculty considerations Customer service competencies

PAGE 174

174 APPENDIX I LETTER OF ENDORSEMEN T FROM THE NATION AL COUNCIL ON STUDEN T DEVELOPMENT January 6, 2011 Dear Colleagues: The National Council on Student Development (NCSD) is pleased to endorse the research project, Competencies of Senior Student Affairs Officers at Community Colleges in the United States being carried out by Dan Rodkin, Director, Student Life at Santa Fe College, in partial fulfillment of his Doctor of Education Degre e at the University of Florida. This research is being carried out under the direction of Dr. Dale Campbell, Professor an d Director of the School of Human Development & Organizational Studies in Educatio n at the University of Florida. NCSD believes that this research will make an important contribution to the literature on student affairs admini strators at community college s. While we realize that you are quite busy, please set aside some time to complete this survey. You have been specifically selected and your participation is vital to this project and its contribution to our profession. Thank you in advance for your wi llingness to help in this way. I hope to see you at our conference next October Sincerely, Tom G. Walter, Ph. D. President National Council on Student Development Vice President for Student Development & Enrollment Management Gainesville State College NCSD, P.O. Box 3948, Parker, CO 80134, (o) 866.972.0717; (f) 303.755.7363

PAGE 175

175 LIST OF REFERENCES Ambler, D. A. (2000). Organizational and administrative models. In M. J. Barr & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (2nd e d., pp. 121 134 ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. American Association of Community Colleges. (2003). Institutional characteristics of community colleges Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/ instcharacteristics.aspx American Association of Community Colleges. (2005). Competencies for community college leaders [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author. American Association of Community Colleges (2010). Community colleges issues brief Washington, DC: Author. American Association of Community Colleges (2011). Who we are Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Abou t/Who/Pages/default.aspx A merican C ollege P ersonnel A ssociation : College Student Educators International (2008). ACPA document on professional competencies Washington, DC: A uthor. American College Personnel Association : College Student Educators International & N ational A ssociation of S tudent P ersonnel A dministrators: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. (2010). Professional competency areas for student affairs practitioners Washi ngton, DC: Authors. Ame rican College Personnel Association. (199 4 ). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs Alexandria, VA : Author Amey, M. J. (2006). Breaking tradition : New community college leadership programs meet 21st century needs Washington, DC : American Association of Community Colleges Amey, M. J. & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). Career p aths for c ommunity c ollege l eaders ( Research Brief Leadership Series, No. 2, AACC RB 02 2 ) .Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Apra ku Amankwaatia, K. (2004). An analysis of the functions of the chief student affairs officers in selected two year colleges in Ohio (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database ( UMI No. 3191699) Appleton, J. R. Briggs C. M. & Rhatigan, J. J. (1978). Pieces of e ight : The rites, roles, and styles of the dean, by eight who have been there Portland, OR: NASPA Institute of Research and Development.

PAGE 176

176 Association of College and University Housing Officers International. (2010). N ational H ousing T raining I nstitute competencies Retrieved from http://www.acuho.org/Default.aspx ? tabid=913 Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited San F rancisco CA : Jossey Bass. Ayers, A. R., Tripp, P. & Russel, J. (1966). Student services administration in higher education. Wash ington, DC: U.S. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Defining and redefining student learning. In E. Whitt (Ed.), Student learning as student affairs work ( NASPA Monograph Series no. 23 pp. 35 49 ) Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Berdie, D. R ., Anderson, J. F., & Neibuhr, M. A. (1986). Questionnaire s: D esign and use (2nd ed.). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Blimling, G. S. (2003). ACPA and NASPA con solidation: United we stand together . divided we stand apart [Editorial] Journal of College Student Development, 44 (5), 581 5 87. Bogart, M., & Hirshberg, R. (1993 March ). A holistic approach to student retention Paper presented at the 6th Annual Regional Reading and Study Skills Conference Kansas City, MO (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 4 99) Boggs, G. R. (2003). Leadership context for the twenty first century. New directions for community colleges 123, 15 2 5. doi: 10.1002/cc.118 Bonos, A. B. Jr. (1948). Community colleges: The next major step in American education. Junior College Journal, 18 (8), 425 4 33. Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development 27 (1), 5 12. Bragg, D. (2002). Doing their best: Exemplary graduate leadership programs. Community College Journal, 77 (1), 49 5 3. Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America 1900 1 985 New York NY : Oxford University Press. Brown, L., Martinez, M., & Daniel, D. (2002). Community college leadership preparation: Needs, perceptions and recommendations. Community College Review, 30 (1), 45 7 3. Calhoun, J. G., Dollett, L., Sinioris, M. E., Wainio, J., But ler, P. W., Griffith, J. R., & Warden, G. L. (2008). Development of an interprofessional competency model for healthcare leadership. Journal of Healthcare Management 53 (6), 375 3 90.

PAGE 177

177 Campbell, D. F. (1985). Challenges, adaptive strategies, and competencies for the future. In D. F. Campbell & Associates (Eds.) Leadership strategies for community college effectiveness Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Campbell, D. F. (200 6). The new leadership gap: Shortages in administrative positions. Community College Journal, 74 (4), 10 14. Campbell, D. F. & Associates (2002). The leadership gap: Model strategies for l eadership development. Washington, DC: Community College Press. Ca mpbell, D. F., & Leverty, L. H. (1997). Developing and selection of leaders for the 21st century. Community College Journal, 67 (4), 34 36. Campbell, D. F., Syed, S., & Morris, P. A. (201 1). Minding the gap: Filling a void in community college leadership d evelopment. New Directions for Community Colleges, 149 33 39. Caple, R. B. (1998). To mark the beginning: A social history of college student affairs Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Carpenter, S. (1996). The philosophica l heritage of student a ffairs. In A. L. Rentz & Associates (Eds.) Student affairs practice in higher education (pp 3 2 7). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas. Carpenter, S. & Stimpson, M. T. (2007). Professionalism, scholarly practice, and p rofessional development in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44 (2), 265 2 84. Carroll, C. M., & Romero, M. G. (2003). Leadership development: A collaborative approach. New Directions for Community Colleges, 123 83 91. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass Chin, C. O. & Gaynier, L. P. (2006 March ). Global leadership competence: A cultural intelligence perspective Paper presented at the 2006 M idwest B usiness A dministration A ssociation International Conference Chicago, IL. Chin C O., Gu J. & Tubbs S. ( 2001 ). Developing global leadership competencies. Journal of Leadership Studies 7 (4) 20 3 5. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2009). Almanac of higher education: 2009 10, 56 (1), 3. Cohen, A. M. & Brawe r, F. B. (200 8 ). The American community college (5 th ed.). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. The College Board (2008). Coming to our senses : Educ ation and the American future Retrieved from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/coming to our senses college board 2008.pdf

PAGE 178

178 Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. (198 8). Building communities: A vision for a new century Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Cooper, D. L. & Miller, T. K. (199 8 ). Influence and impact: Professional development in student affairs. New Directions for Stude nt Services, 84 55 6 9. doi: 10.1002/ss.8405 Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education. (1975). Student development service s in post secondary education. In A. L. Rentz (Ed.), heritage (2nd ed., pp. 428 437). Landham, MD: University Press of America. Cowley, W. H. (1949). Some history and a venture in prophesy. In E. G. Williamson (Ed.), Trends in student personnel work Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Culp, M. in: The senior student affairs officer in the 21st century community college. In G. J. Dungy & S. E. Ellis (Eds.), Exceptional senior student affairs (pp. 15 40). Washington, DC: N ational A ssociation of S tudent P ersonnel Administrators Dassance, C. R. (1994). Student s ervices. In A. M. Cohen & F. B. Brawer, Managing community colleges: A handbook for effective practice (pp. 281 300). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Davis, J. R. (2003). Learning to lead: A handbook for postsecondary administrators Westport, CT: American Council on Education & Pra e ger Publishers. de la Teja, M. H., Dalpes, P. Swett, D, & Shenk, E. (2010). Filling the leadership gap. Leadership Exchange, 8 (1), 10 15. de la Teja, M. H. & Kramer, D. F. (1999). Student affairs and learning in the community college. In F. K. Stage, L. W. Watson, & M. Terrell (Eds.). Enhancing student learning: Setting the campus context (pp. 77 102). Lanham, MD: United Press of America de los Santos, A. G. Jr. (2004). A web untangled. In L.W. Ty r ee, M. D. Milliron, & G. E. de los Santos (Eds.), The leadership dialogues: Community college case studies to consider (pp. 149 152). Phoenix, AZ: League for Innov ation in the Community College. Dean, L. A. (Ed.). (2009). CAS professional standards for higher education (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education Dillman D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed mode survey s: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Duncan, A. H. & Harlacher, E. L. (1991). The twenty first century executive leader. Community College Review, 18 (4), 39 47. Dungy, G. J. (1999) View from community colleges. New Directions for Student Services, 85 33 4 5.

PAGE 179

179 Duree, C. A. (2007). The challenges of the community college presidency in the new millennium: Pathways, preparation, competencies, and leadership programs needed to survive Dissertation Abstracts International, 68 (11A), 4625. Duvall, B. (2003). Role of universities in leadership development. New D irections for C ommunity C olleges, 123 63 7 1. Edwards, K. B. (2005). Role and functions of chief student affairs officers at public community colleges in New England. D issertation Abstracts International 67 (9), 3273A. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S. & Guido DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Fenske, R. H. ( 1980). Historical foundations. In U. Delworth & G. R. Hanson (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Floyd, D. L. (Ed.) (1991). Toward mastery leadership: Issues and challenges for the 1990s Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Floyd, D. L, Skolnik, M. L & Walker, K. P. (Eds.). (2005). The community college baccalaureate: Emerging trends & policy issues Sterling, VA: Stylus. Frank el, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education (3rd ed.). Ne w York NY : McGraw Hill. Freidel, J. N. (2010). University based community college leadership programs: Where future community college leaders are prepared. New Directions for Community Colleges, 149 51 58. Fretwell, E. K. (1954). Founding public junior colleges: Local initiative in six communities New York NY : Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. Frost, R. A., Strom, S. L., Downey, J., Schultz, D. D., & Holland, T. A. (2010). Enhancing student learning and academic and stude nt affairs collaboration. The Community College Enterprise, 16 (1), 37 5 1 Fulton Calkins, P., & Milling, C. (2005). Community college leadership: An art to be practiced: 2010 and beyond. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29 (3), 233 250. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. O & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston MA : Pearson. Gardner, D. H. (1934). Duties of the deans of men. The Journal of Higher Education, 5 (4), 191 196.

PAGE 180

180 Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston MA : Pearson. Goldrick Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and o pportunities for i mproving c ommunity c ollege Student Success. Review of Educational Research, 80 (3), 437 469. Gorski, E. (2010). Community c olleges like spotlight, need money Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36159578/ns/us_news education/ Hammons, J. O., & Keller, L. (1990). Competencies and personal charact eristics of future community college presidents. Community College Review, 18 (3), 34 41. Hamrick, F. A., & Carlisle, W. (1990). Gender diversity in student affairs: Administrative perceptions and recommendations. NASPA Journal, 27 (4), 306 310. Hamrick, F. A. Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. A. (2002). Foundations of student affairs practice San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Hattie, J., Myers, J., & Sweeney, T. (2004). A f actor s tructure of w ellness: Theory, a ssessment, a nalysis, and p ractice. Journal of Counseling & Development 82 (3), 354 364. Hebel, S. (2009, July 14). Obama to propose graduation goal and $12 billion programs for 2 year colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ Ob ama to Propose Graduation/47375 Helfgot, S. R. (2005). Core values and major issues in student affairs practice: What real ly matters? New Directions for Community Colleges, 131, 5 18. Helfgot, S. R., & Culp, M. M. (1995) Promoting s tudent success in the community c ollege New Directions for Student Services, 69 17 30 Helfgot S. R. & Culp, M. M. (2005). Results of a nat ional survey identifying challenges and opportunities for student affairs. New Directions for Community Colleges 131, 99 106. Herdlein, R. J. III. (2004). Survey of chief student affairs officers regarding relevance of graduate preparation of new profes sionals. NASPA Journal, 42 (1), 51 7 1. Hernez Broome, G. & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning, 27 (1), 24 33. Higher Education Publications, Inc. (2010). Home Re trieved from http://hepinc.com/ Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administrators at different types of institutions Landham, MD: University Press of America.

PAGE 181

181 Hockaday, J. & Puye ar D. E. (2008). Community college leadership in the new millennium. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/ Pages /ccleadershipnewmillenium.aspx Holloway, M. H. (2003). A profile of senior student affairs officers in community colleges: Personal charact eristics, career patterns, and job satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International 64 (3), 740A. Horn, L., & Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003 04 : With a special analysis of community colleg e students (NCES 2006 184). Washington, DC : U.S. Dep artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Hyman, R. E. (1983). An assessment of student affairs preparation programs in relation to professional competencies (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 8528582) Intagliata, J., Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2000). Leveraging leadership competencies to produce leadership brand: creating distinctiveness b y focusing on strategy and results. Human Resources Planning, 23 (3), 12 23. Jeandron, C. A. (2006). Growing your own leaders: Community colleges step up. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Joliet Ju nior College. (2010). History Retrieved from http://www.jjc.edu/about/ college info/Pages/history.aspx Keim, M. C. (2008). Chief student aff airs officers in 2 year colleges: Their demographics and backgrounds. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32 435 442. Kenney, D. R., Dumont, R., & Kenney, G. (2005). Mission and place: Strengthening learning and community through campus design Westport, CT: American Council on Education & Praeger Publishers. Kubala, T. S., & Bailey, G. M. (2001). A new perspective on community college presidents: Results of a national study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25 793 80 4. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, G.D., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass Kuh, G D. Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J. & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approa ches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass.

PAGE 182

182 Kuk, L. & Banning, J. H. (2009). Designing student affairs organizational structures: Perceptions of senior student affairs officers. NASPA Journal, 46 (1), 94 117. Lankau, M. & Scandura, T. (2007). Mentoring as a forum for personal learning in organizations. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.) The Handbook of Mentoring at Work (pp. 95 122 ) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Laws, J. R. (2011). Competencies for the community college student affairs officer. In G. J. Dungy & S. E. Ellis (Eds.), Strategies and competencies for success (pp. 70 80). Washington, DC: N ational A ssociation of S tudent P er sonnel A dministrators Lee, J. M. Jr., & Rawls, A. (2010). The college completion agenda: 2010 progress report New York, NY: The College Board. Leonard, E. A. (1956). Origins of student personnel services in higher education Minneapolis, MN: Universit y of Minnesota Press. Lombardo, M. M ., & Eichenger R. W. (2000). The leadership machine: Architecture to develop leaders for any future (3rd e d.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger. Lovell, C. D. & Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits n ecessary for success as a student affairs administrator: Meta analysis of thirty years of research. NAPSA Journal, 37 (4), 553 572. Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2006). One size does not fit all: Traditional and innovative model of student affairs practice New York NY : Routledge. Maternal and Child Health Leadership Competencies Workgroup (Eds.). (2009). Maternal and Child Health Leadership Competencies (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://leadership. mchtraining.net/mchlc_docs/mch_leadership_comp_3 0.pdf Mattox, R. E. & Creamer, D. G. (1998). Perceptions of the scope and quality of student services functions in two year colleges. Community College Review, 25 (4) 3 21. McDade, S. A. (2005). Teacher pupil: The challenging relationships of mentors and protgs. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29 (9 10), 759 781. McFarlin, C. H., Crittenden, B. J., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). Background factors comm on among outstanding community college presidents. Community College Review, 27 (3), 19 31. McGinnis, F. A. (1933). The dean and his duties. The Journal of Higher Education, 4 (4), 191 196. McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry (6th e d.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.

PAGE 183

183 McNamara, C. (2003). Field guide to leadership and supervision for nonprofit staff (2nd e d.). Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting. Monetta, L., & Jackson, M. L. (2011). The new world of student affairs. In G. J. Dungy & S. E. Ellis (Eds.), competencies for success (pp. 1 14). Washington, DC: National Association of Studen t Personnel Administrators Mueller, K. H. (1961). Student personnel work in higher education Boston MA : Houghton Mifflin. Mullin, C. M. (2010, June). Rebalancing the mission: The community college completion challenge (Policy Brief 2010 02PBL). Washin gton, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. N A FSA: Association of International Educators. (2009). competenc i es for international educators Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/about.sec/ governance_leadership/ethics_ standards/nafsa_s_statement_of/ National Academic Advising Association. (2003). Proposed advisor certification Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/clearinghouse/research_related /competencies.h tm National Association of College and University Business Officers. (2006). Competency survey results for professional development planning. Business Officer, (39) 11. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Magazine_Archives/June_2006/ Competency_Survey_Results_for_Professi onal_Development_Planning.html National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. (2009a). Annotated Bibliography on Student Financial Aid Retrieved from http://www.nasfaa.org/Apps/Bibliography/ Default.asp National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. (2009b). National conversation initiative: Access and aid for student success in postsecondary education Retrieved from ht t p://www.nasfaa.org/PDFs/2009/NCIPreliminaryRecs.pdf National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1989). Points of view: A perspective on student affairs 1987 Washington, DC: Author National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus wide focus on the student experience. : Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/d ocuments/ LearningReconsidered.pdf

PAGE 184

184 National Center on Education Statistics. (2010). Profile of undergraduate students: 2007 2008. (NCES 2010 205). Washington, DC : U.S. Dep artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education. (2005). Accountability for better results: a national imperative for higher education Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/ account/accountability.pdf National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The im perative for educational reform Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html National Council on Student Development. (2010a). Mission Retrieved from http://www.ncsdonline.org National Council on Student Development. (2010b). NCSD membership directory Retrieved from http://www.ncsdonline.org/membership /mem bersonly/memberdirectory.aspx National Survey on Student Engagement. (2009). About the National Survey of Student Engagement Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm Nelson, J. K. & Coorou gh, C. (1994). Content analysis of the PhD versus EdD dissertation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62 (2), 158 168. Nelson, M. R. (2003). The CIO in higher education: Leadership, competencies, effectiveness. Boulder, CO: E DUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed.). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century American Council on Education/Oryx Press series on higher educ ation. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Obama, B. H. (2009, July 12). Rebuilding something better. The Washington Post Retrieved from from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/ AR2009071100647.html Oburn, M. (2005). Building a culture of evidence in student affairs. New Directions in Community Colleges, 131 19 32. 009). Gender in community college administration (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. ( UMI No. 3385975). Packwood, W. T. (Ed.). (1977). College student personnel services Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

PAGE 185

185 hopes and questions. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chro nicle.com/article/Obamas Plan for Community /47379/ Phelan, D. J. (2005). Crossing the generations: Learning to lead across the leadership life cycle. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29 (9 10), 783 792. Pierce, D. & Pedersen, R. P. (1 997). The community college presidency: Qualities for success. New Directions for Community Colleges 98 13 20. Piland, W. E. & Wolf, D. B. (Eds.). (2003). Help wanted: Preparing community college leaders in a new century. New Directions for Community C olleges, 123 15 25 Piper, G. B. (1981). Characteristics, preparation, and attitudes of chief student personnel administrators of public community junior colleges accredited by the North Central Association that are institutional members of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (10), 4242A. Porter, J. D. (2005). s competency domain model for senior college housing officers in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). Re trieved from ProQuest Dissertation & Theses database (UMI No. 3204463) Porter, S. (2004). Pros and cons of paper and electronic surveys. New Directions for Institutional Research 121, 91 97. Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008 August ). Community colleges: Special supplement to the condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008 033). Washington, DC : U.S. Dep artment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, I nstitute of Education Sciences. Ratcliff, J. L. (1986). Should we forget William Rain ey Harper? Community College Review, 13 (4), 12 19. Rentz, A. L. (1996). A history of student affairs. In A. L. Rentz & Associates (Eds.) Student affairs practice in higher education (pp. 28 55). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Rentz, A. L. & Saddlem ire, G. L. (1988). Student affairs functions in higher education. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Rethi nking Student Aid Study Group. (2008). Fulfilling the commitment: Recommendations for reforming federal student aid Retrieved from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/ profdownload/rethinking stu aid fulfilling c ommitment recommendations.pdf Rhatigan, J. J. (2000). The history and philosophy of student affairs. In M. J. Barr, M. K. Desler & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (2nd ed. pp. 3 24). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass.

PAGE 186

186 Robinson, D. W. (1980). The student personnel function in American higher education. In J. Eddy, J D. Dameron, & D. T. Borland (Eds.), College student personnel development, admi nistration, and counseling (2nd ed. pp. 15 26 ). Washington, DC: University Press of America. Roper, L. (2002). Relationships: The crucial ties that bind professionals. New Directions for Student Services, 98, 11 26. Rudol ph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. (Original work published 1962) Sandeen, A. A. (1991). The chief student affairs officers: Leader, manager, mediator, educator. S an Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Sandeen, A. (1996). Organization, functio ns, and standards of practice. In In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (3rd ed. pp. 435 4 57). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Shaffer, R. & Martinson, W. (1966) Student personnel services in higher education New York NY : The Center for Applied Research in Education. Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Smith, R. L. (2002). A profile of community college chief student affairs officers in the southeast Waco, TX: Baylor University. Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York NY : Wiley. Stahl, G. K. & Bjorkman, I. (2 006). Handbook of research in international human resource management Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership New York NY : The Free Press. Thelin, J. R. (2004). Historical overview of American higher ed ucation. I n S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed. pp. 3 21 ). San Francisco CA : Jossey Bass. Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago IL : The University of Chicago Press. Torres, V., & Walbert, J. (2009). Updates: The task force on the future of student affairs. Retrieved from http://www2.myacpa.org/au/governance/joint taskforce update.php

PAGE 187

187 Townsend, B. K., & Bassop po Mayo, S. (1997). The effective community college academic administrator: Necessary competencies and attitudes Community College Review 25 41 56. Townsend, B. K., & Wiese, M. (1990). Value of the higher education doctorate for community college admin istration. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 14 337 347. Traynor, C. (2009, March). Higher enrollme nts increase, privacy concerns. Community College Times Retrieved from http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Campus Issues/ Higher enrollments increas e safety privacy concerns.aspx Tull, A. & Freeman, J. P. (2008). Chief student affairs officer title s: Standardization of titles and broadening of labels. NAPSA Journal, 45 (2), 265 281. Tunks, L.U. (2007). Comparison of the outcomes of leadership behaviors of community college administrators (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3271206) Twale, D., & Jelinek, S. (1996). Protgs and mentors: mentoring experiences of women student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal 33 203 21 7 : The changing state of community college training programs Community College Journal, 80 (6), 20 2 5. U S Coast Guard. (n.d.). Coast Guard Leadership Competencies Retrieved from http://uscg.mil/ leadership/docs/28LeadComp.pdf U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2008, May). Workforce development: Community colleges and one stop centers collaborate to meet 21st century workforce needs (GAO 08 547). Washington, DC: Author VanDerLinden, K. E. (2005). Learning to play the game: Professional development and mentoring. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29 (9 10), 729 7 43. Vincent, E. T. (2004). A qualitative analysis of community college leadership from the Leading Forward summit: Final report prepared for the American Association of Community Colleges. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program. Wade, R. W. (1993). An analysis of beliefs of chief student affairs of ficers and student affairs professionals regarding perceived importance of selected personal characteristics and professional competencies for advancement in the field of student affairs (D octoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & T hes es database. (UMI No. 9327086 )

PAGE 188

188 Wallin, D. L. ( 2006). Short term leadership development: Meeting a need for emerging community college leaders. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30 (7) 513 528. Waple, J. N. (2000). The preparation of new professionals in the field of student affairs administration: An assessment of skills and competencies necessary for en try level student affairs work (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 9986992) W atkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all levels Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Watts, G. E., & Hammons, J. O. (2002). Leadership development for the next generation. New Directions for Community Colleges, 20, 59 66. Weisman, I. M., & Vaughan, G. B. (2002). The community college presidency, 2001 (Research Brief Leadership Series, No. 3). Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association of Community Colleges. Weisman, I. M., & Vaugha n, G. B. (2007 October 27 ). A profile of community college presidents [Special issue]. The Chronicle of Higher Education B16. Wilson Strauss, W. E. (2005). Graduate preparation for community college student affairs officers (Doctoral dissertation) Retr ieved from ProQuest Dissertation & Theses database. (UMI No. 3202724) Wingspread Group. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education Report of the Wingspread Group on Higher Education. Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation. Witt, A. A., Wattenbarger, J. L Gollatscheck, J. F & Suppiger, J. E. (1994). community colleges: The first century Washington, DC: Community College Press. Zachry, E. & Orr, G. (2009). Building student success from the ground up: A case study of an Achieving the Dream college. New York NY: MDRC. Zook, G. F. (Ed.). (1947). Higher education for American democracy: A report of the (Vols. 1 6). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. Zwell, M. (2000). Creating a culture of competence New York NY : Wiley.

PAGE 189

189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Daniel M. Rodki n was born in Chicago, Illinois, but moved south when he was young. After growing up in Coral Springs, Florida (FL) he attended the University of Florida and graduated in 1995 with a Bachelor of Science in business a dministration. While an undergraduate, Dan discovered student affairs and decided to pursue this field as a career. In 1996, Dan enrolled at the University of South Carolina and in 1998 rec eived a Master of Education in s tudent personnel in higher e ducation. Upon graduation, Dan was hired as Area Director at the University of Tampa and later worked as Interim Assistant Director of Housing at the University of Florida. In 2000, Dan accepted a Senior Student Development Specialist position at then Santa Fe Community College. He was named C oordinator, Student Leadership and Activities in 2001, and promoted to Associate Director, Student Life in 2005. Dan was named Director, Student Life in 2007 and continues to work in that capacity at Santa Fe College. In 2004, after encouragement from former Santa Fe Community College President Larry Tyree, Dan enrolled in the doctorate program in higher education administration at the University of Florida. Dan met his wif e, Christy, while both were undergraduate student s, through their mutual co curricular involvements. They were married in 1999, and reside in Gainesville, FL, with their children Ben and Dela ney. In their spare time, Dan and Christy activities and pursuits, camping, traveling, and magic of Walt Disney World. They also honor their first infant.