Community college leadership preparation: needs, perceptions, and recommendations.

This research provides the results of a random survey, administered in 2001, of 128 community college instructional leaders. Respondents rated 48 skills and areas of expertise in effectively fulfilling community college instructional leadership roles. Survey results also suggest respondents recommend a different emphasis in doctoral coursework than they experienced in their doctoral programs of study.

Introduction

A doctoral degree is considered a passport to community college leadership (Townsend, 1996). In 1990, Townsend and Wiese reported that 38% of senior community college administrators had a doctorate in higher education. A survey of community college academic officers administered by Townsend and Bassoppo-Moyo in 1997 revealed that 49% of the respondents with a doctorate had one in higher education. Green (1988) notes another factor that supports the need for quality doctoral program preparation is the fact that higher education institutions have a lack of interest in developing administrative leadership; institutions have paid little systematic attention to developing their own leaders.

While leadership training is clearly needed, a review of the literature reflects questions about the relevancy of a higher education degree and the preparedness of graduates of higher education programs of study (Green, 1988; Hankin, 1996; Keim, 1994; Mason & Townsend, 1988; Palmer & Katsinas, 1996). Young (1996) claimed that the challenge of providing administrative leadership for two-year colleges exists in a vastly different milieu than that of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s and that it may be time for a thorough assessment of manpower supply and demand and of the attributes needed by effective two-year college leaders. He added that the types of persons and the skills required to maintain and improve an institution might be somewhat different from the skills required to establish and develop new institutions.

A review of literature reveals little documentation of research related to the specific responsibilities of community college instructional leaders. Additionally, although the literature reveals that the roles and responsibilities of community college leaders have changed over a period of 30 years, there is no documentation of the restructuring of university higher education leadership programs to prepare students for these new community college leadership positions. Furthermore, there is documentation of dissatisfaction on the part of graduate-level education program alumni (Mason & Townsend, 1988).

Future college leaders need a multicultural perspective of leadership that includes a sensitivity to diverse sense-making and decision-making strategies, an understanding of organizations as cultures with symbolic dimensions, (Gibson-Benninger, Ratcliff, & Rhoads, 1996) and a balance between theory and practice that includes concept application, reflection, and an understanding of the future by way of the past (Hankin, 1996). Leadership curriculum must include and reflect an awareness and acknowledgement of how race, ethnicity, gender, and social class affect individuals' experiences and perceptions and that these factors also affect the perceptions of community college leaders (Townsend, 1996).

Professors in community college administration programs need to reexamine the leadership models they present, with sensitivity to cultural biases, and their programs need to reflect new management and leadership models that include the new scholarship about women and minorities, not only the "traditional models designed by and for white males" (Townsend, 1996, p. 61). Although traditional paternalistic leadership styles are outmoded, they may still be studied in university leadership programs (Chliwniak, 1997).

Community colleges are considered homogeneous in that they generally serve diverse populations and share a commitment to open access, comprehensiveness, and responsiveness to local needs. However, significant differences exist among and between colleges and these differences in size, governance, financial resources, specialized staffing, local involvement with business and industry, and student characteristics must be addressed in graduate leadership programs (Chliwniak, 1997; Katsinas, 1996).

Perceptions of Higher Education Leadership Programs

The perceptions of doctoral education programs are being scrutinized nationwide. A national study entitled Re-envisioning the Ph.D., is a two-year project funded by the PEW Charitable Trusts, that has posed the question, "How can we reenvision the Ph.D. to meet the needs of the society of the twenty-first century?" The reenvisioning project leader, via input from hundreds of participants including college and university faculty and administrators, doctoral students, business representatives, accrediting agencies, and national leaders, hopes to identify present concerns about doctoral education and attempts to redesign doctoral education (Re-envisioning the Ph.D., 2001).

According to Green (1988), the education discipline has low prestige and a Ph.D. or Ed. D. in education is not the most desirable credential for academic administrators in four-year institutions. Additionally, Kennedy (1995) claimed that the mentors that graduate students are modeling have little or no experience with the kinds of institutions in which students will be working and added that faculty often show little interest in student development other than in activities that relate to faculty research. Many new administrators bewail the fact that their graduate education programs have not adequately prepared them for the real world (Hankin, 1996). Palmer and Katsinas (1996) add,

   The literature on graduate preparation programs for community college
   education bespeaks an indistinct academic field, uncertain as to curriculum
   content and professorial roles ... the indeterminate nature of the field
   diminishes the intrinsic value of the degrees awarded by graduate
   preparation programs. Such degrees may serve a credentialing function only,
   providing aspirants to leadership positions with the required doctorate
   without signifying what the doctorate means intellectually. (p. 99)

In a study of 4 cohort groups of higher education doctoral recipients who graduated over a 15-year period, Mason and Townsend (1988) found that a high percentage of respondents would not select higher education as their major field of study if they were to pursue a doctorate again. Mason and Townsend stated that the criticisms regarding the lack of intellectual rigor may reflect curricular weaknesses in most higher education programs.

Keim (1994) claimed that community college preparation programs are not well defined and questioned which degree was most appropriate for community college practitioners--a Ph.D., an Ed.D., an M.S., an Ed., or a master's. She suggested that it might be time for minimum standards for community college education programs to be developed and implemented.

The lack of a coherent knowledge base in community college leadership needs presents a challenge for graduate leadership program developers. Without a knowledge base in leadership needs, university program developers cannot know if they are meeting student preparation needs. David Pierce, as president of the American Association of Community Colleges, stated that an important contribution to community colleges would be the identification of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and competencies needed for community college leadership in the next century (Campbell & Leverty, 1997). This study provides an identification of those skills and competencies.

Methodology and Survey Results

This study identifies current community college instructional leaders' perceptions of (a) the skills necessary for effective practice, (b) the skills emphasized in their doctoral programs of study, (c) recommendations for doctoral program coursework, and (d) the relationship between the skills and areas of expertise identified as emphasized in their doctoral programs of study and the skills and areas of expertise recommended for emphasis to prepare future community college leaders. The results of this research reflect whether doctoral programs have emphasized the most relevant coursework, and we examine the relationship between what has been taught and what is recommended for inclusion in coursework. Note that the focus of our study was on leadership skills preparation and training and does not attempt to define or measure leadership or assess leadership in relation to intelligence quotients, psychological characteristics, physiological characteristics, or ethics and values.

Survey Instrument Development and Assessment

The survey instrument used in this study was designed to reflect both the skills learned in doctoral programs of study and the skills required of community college instructional leaders. Ten categories of skills and areas of expertise and 48 skills were identified and included on the survey instrument. The skills included on the survey were determined based on (a) the leadership skills identified in a review of community college leadership literature, (b) a review of job announcements for community college instructional leaders in The Chronicle of Higher Education between December, 1999 and June, 2000, and (c) an online examination of coursework offered at eight universities that offer doctorates in higher education leadership. The survey used for this study is included in the Appendix.

Many university higher education doctoral programs were reviewed online in order to verify that the survey instrument would be inclusive of the skills emphasized in doctoral programs of study. Not all universities include a comprehensive, detailed overview of their doctoral coursework online; however, most higher education programs with a leadership focus reflected common coursework. The eight universities chosen for coursework review were selected because they included coursework descriptions online. The 10 categories of skills and areas of expertise identified on the survey include (a) leadership, (b) communication, (c) institutional planning and development, (d) management, (e) policy, (f) research methodology and application (g) legal, (h) finance, (i) technology, and (j) faculty and staff development.

Each skill or area of expertise was analyzed independently; our aim was not to validate statistically each survey category and the skills it contained. Skills and areas of expertise were logically grouped using the literature review, the online review of coursework, and The Chronicle of Higher Education ads.

The 10 categories on the survey instrument included a total of 48 specific skills within those 10 categories. Survey participants were requested to rate each of the 48 specific skills and areas of expertise in 3 contexts--Needed Skills, Doctoral Emphasis (skills emphasized in their doctoral program), and Recommended Emphasis (skills recommended for doctoral emphasis to prepare future community college leaders). The rating scale for each skill ranged from 1 to 5. Face validity of the survey was determined through a pilot test of the survey administered to community college instructional leaders in New Mexico in fall 2000.

Population and Sample

The target population and unit of analysis of this study were officially designated community college instructional leaders who had completed a doctoral degree. Using a random number table generated with XLipStat software, a random sample of 300 instructional leaders in public, two-year, U.S. institutions who met the education criterion (doctoral degree) was identified using the Higher Education Directory (Rodenhouse, 2001). Each of the 6 regional accrediting associations were represented in the sample and the sample included instructional leaders in 46 states. A preliminary analysis, using the Higher Education Directory, was completed to estimate the total population of the target audience. An analysis of the two states in each accrediting region with the greatest number of community colleges, except for the western region where only California was included, was used in estimating the number of community college academic leaders in the population that would meet the criteria for inclusion in the survey. Based on a preliminary analysis of 446 public institutions in 11 states, it was estimated that two thirds (675) of the 1023 U.S. public two-year community colleges would meet the criteria for inclusion in this research in that (a) the institution would have a designated instructional leader (Chief Academic Officer--CAO) and (b) that the leader (CAO) would be a doctoral graduate. Given resource constraints, 300 instructional leaders with doctoral degrees were randomly identified and mailed survey instruments. The 300 recipients of the survey represented an estimated 45% of the target population. All recipients held a doctoral degree but the doctoral program of study of each instructional leader could not be determined prior to receipt of each respondent's completed survey.

The following parameters were established for this study: (1) Recipients of the questionnaire were limited to doctoral graduates, (2) Recipients of the questionnaire were limited to Chief Academic Officers in accredited, public, two-year institutions identified and included in the Higher Education Directory (Rodenhouse, 2001), (3) Contextual factors at a respondent's institution such as a recent crisis, upheaval, or reorganization were not controlled for, and (4) Maturity, experience, and leadership style preference were not controlled for in this research.

Demographics of Survey Participants

Responses were received from 131 instructional leaders who had completed doctoral degrees, resulting in a 42.5% response rate. Data from 128 respondents were used in the analysis.

A priori, it was determined that two sets of data would be developed, based on the type of doctoral program from which respondents had graduated. The survey instrument requested that respondents identify the title of their doctoral program. Individuals who identified a curriculum and instruction degree in education or discipline-based degrees outside of education such as biology, English, or philosophy were designated as Nonleadership Program Graduates. Although curriculum and instruction programs are housed in the college of education, these programs were determined, a priori, based on program coursework, not to be defined as leadership programs of study. Individuals who identified higher education leadership programs as their graduate level program of study were designated as Leadership Program Graduates. Examples of titles of graduate programs included in this category of programs identified by respondents included Higher Education Administration, Community College Leadership, Educational Leadership, Institutional Management, Vocational and Technical Education, Educational Administration and Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, and Educational Policy and Administration. The majority of respondents (73%) were graduates of higher education leadership programs. Ninety-three respondents were identified as Leadership Program Graduates and 34 respondents were identified as Nonleadership Program Graduates. One respondent did not identify a program of study.

Total respondents included 83 males (65%) and 45 females (35%). Leadership Program Graduates included 56 males (60%) and 37 females (40%). Mean and standard deviation of age of respondents, number of years served in any administrative position since receiving a doctoral degree, number of years at current institution, and year that the doctoral degree was completed are included in Table 1.

Descriptive Data

The mean and standard deviation for each skill in the Needed, Emphasized, and Recommended contexts were calculated and all skills were ranked based on the mean score of each skill. Skills in the Doctoral Emphasis context were rated by Leadership Program Graduates only, since Nonleadership Program Graduates did not complete a higher education leadership-based curriculum.

The ranked score of each skill in the Needed Skills and Recommended Emphasis contexts are included in Table 2. This ranking is based on responses from all respondents. The letter "T" in the Recommended Emphasis column indicates tie rankings. These results reflect community college instructional leaders' perceived importance of each skill in effectively fulfilling their job responsibilities and their recommendations for including each skill in doctoral coursework to prepare future community college leaders.

Skills and Areas of Expertise that fell into the bottom quartile in the Needed Skills context include the following: all research methodology and application skills; computer proficiency: hardware and software; accounting skills; student recruitment strategies, marketing and external public relations; development of alumni relations and partnerships; fundraising; grant writing; understanding of leadership theory and styles; The top 10 ranked skills, based on mean scores in the Needed Skills (All Respondents) and Recommended Emphasis Contexts (All Respondents and Leadership Program Graduates) categories are included in Table 3.

Congruence was found in the skills that respondents noted as Needed and Recommended for emphasis in doctoral study; 8 of the top 10 Needed Skills were also identified as Recommended Skills by All Respondents and by Leadership Program Graduates.

The top 10 skills identified for both the Needed and Recommended Emphasis were included in 5 of the 10 categories identified on the survey. Although they were ranked slightly differently, the same 5 skills included in the Communication category in the Needed Skills context were also found in the top 10 skills Recommended for Emphasis in doctoral programs of study. These rankings clearly reflect the leadership literature, which equates effective communication skills with effective leadership (Bass, 1998; Bennis, 1989; Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Roe & Baker, 1989; Witherspoon, 1997).

Organizing and time management skills, although ranked number 10 in terms of Needed Skills, was not ranked as highly in the Recommended Skills context. Respondents may believe that a doctoral program of study is not the appropriate venue to learn such skills even though they are needed skills.

Binomial Analysis

Binomial variables and associated confidence intervals were created to determine whether Leadership Program Graduates believed any of the 48 skills on the survey were underemphasized in their doctoral programs. The difference between the Doctoral Emphasis and Recommended Emphasis scores was calculated for each respondent for each skill. The binomial variable was assigned a value of one if a respondent's difference score was one or more (Recommended Emphasis > Doctoral Emphasis) denoting the respondent's belief that the skill was underemphasized. Otherwise, the binomial variable was assigned a value of zero if the respondent's difference score was zero or less, denoting the respondent's belief that the skill was not underemphasized. From this binomial variable, an exact (i.e., based on a binomial distribution, not a normal approximation) 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the population proportion of individuals believing that the skill is underemphasized. If the lower limit of a 95% CI is greater than .5, we are 95% confident that a majority of the population believes that the skill is underemphasized. Thus, if the lower limit of a CI for a given skill fell above 0.5, the skill was labeled as underemphasized. Otherwise (in the case that the lower limit of a CI fell at or below 0.5), the skill was not labeled as underemphasized (noting that, statistically we cannot conclude much in this regard about the skills whose CI's bracket 0.5). A (two-sided) CI was used rather than a (one-sided) lower confidence limit because there was an initial interest in overemphasis of a skill.

Thirty-one of the 48 Skills and Areas of Expertise were identified as underemphasized in doctoral programs. Table 4 includes the results of the binomial analysis, identifies the top 10 skills respondents perceived were emphasized in their doctoral program, and the top 10 skills respondents recommend for emphasis in doctoral programs of study. Skills that were identified as underemphasized in doctoral studies are denoted with the letter "U." This is different from asserting that the skill is sufficiently emphasized or overemphasized.

Respondents did not recommend for emphasis, at the same level, the same skills that were emphasized in their doctoral studies; 7 of the top 10 skills emphasized in doctoral studies were not recommended in the top 10 for emphasis for future doctoral students. All three skills in the Research and Methodology & Application category were highly emphasized in doctoral studies. These three skills are ranked much lower in the Recommended Emphasis category. The striking difference in rankings between the two categories suggests that these skills might be overemphasized in doctoral programs of study.

Respondents experienced a different emphasis in their programs of study than they recommend. Only 3 of the top 10 skills that respondents recommended for emphasis in leadership doctoral studies (Understanding and Application of Change, Understanding of the Community College Mission, and Effective Writing Skills) were also identified in the top 10 skills that were emphasized in respondents' doctoral programs of study. These three skills were not identified as being underemphasized. Additionally, the remaining 7 out of the top 10 skills Recommended for Emphasis were perceived to be underemphasized in doctoral programs of study. Of these seven skills, two fell under the Leadership category, four under Communication, and one under Institutional Planning and Development.

Thirty-one of the 48 Skills and Areas of Expertise evaluated (65% of the skills) were identified as underemphasized. The 17 skills not identified as underemphasized in doctoral study include (a) understanding and application of "change," (b) understanding of organizational theory and culture, (c) understanding of leadership theory and styles, (d) self-analysis and awareness, (e) understanding of community college mission, (f) effective writing skills, (g) understanding of small group dynamics, (h) grant-writing, (i) organizing and time management skills, (j) state governance, policy, and procedure, (k) interpretation of surveys and research, (1) statistical research methodology, (m) statistical software application, (n) local, state, and federal funding policy and funding formulas (o) accounting skills, (p) curriculum development, and (q) teaching and learning styles and methodology. Skills not identified as underemphasized may have been perceived to be sufficiently emphasized (effective writing skills, understanding of leadership theory and styles, understanding of community college mission, understanding and application of "change," understanding of organizational theory and culture), overemphasized (interpretation of surveys and research, statistical research methodology, statistical software application), unnecessary (accounting skills), or better taught and learned in another venue (state governance, policy, and procedure; organizing and time management skills).

Conclusions and Recommendations

It is evident, as Townsend (1996) stated, that a doctoral degree is a passport to community college leadership. This research revealed that, in community college instructional leadership positions, a leadership doctoral degree is preferred over other degrees. Of the 128 respondents in this study, 93 respondents were education leadership program graduates and only 34 were graduates of other doctoral programs. When choosing a graduate institution, aspiring community college leaders will want to consider the fact that some higher education leadership programs are specifically designed to prepare community college leaders (rather than more broad-based education programs that are designed to prepare college, university, or K-12 leaders) and that some community college leadership programs even target specific community college areas of leadership, i.e., student development, instruction, finance, the presidency, technology, etc.

As previously noted, researchers and graduates have questioned the relevancy of a higher education degree and the preparedness of future community college administrators (Green, 1988; Hankin, 1996; Keim, 1994; Mason & Townsend, 1988; Palmer & Katsinas, 1996). This research indicates that, for 65% of the skills surveyed, graduates recommend a greater emphasis in a leadership doctoral program coursework than the level of emphasis they received in their program of study (i.e., 31 of the 48 skills surveyed were identified as underemphasized by Leadership Program Graduates). As scholars suggest, the programs developed and implemented 30 years ago may not adequately serve twenty-first century community college leaders (Hankin, 1996). Leadership is a fluid, dynamic process that is continuously being redefined (Rost, 1991; Stogdill, 1974). This, coupled with changing needs at the community college level, reflects a need to reevaluate community college leadership programs. This is not to suggest that formal and informal evaluation is not taking place. The review of literature and this study, however, may suggest that program evaluation is not systematic and not research based.

What is the best approach to determining leadership program coursework requirements? Scholars recommend collaboration among university faculty, graduate students, and community college practitioners (Shapiro & Walters, 1992; Wendel, 1992). The involvement of students, graduates, and community college practitioners in an ongoing dialogue about the design and evaluation of graduate curricula will benefit all participants. Many students in doctoral leadership programs of study are already working in community colleges and may have a greater awareness than university faculty of the skills and areas of expertise necessary for effective community college leadership.

Leadership theory and practice, as they relate to community college leadership, are areas of expertise needed and recommended by community college practitioners. Community college practitioners who have the required credentials could be invited to teach community college related coursework at the university level. University and community college faculty and administrators might consider a faculty exchange program. This would expose university faculty to the very different culture found at the community college level. This could be one way of closing the gap between the skills and areas of expertise needed and those emphasized in doctoral programs. A greater understanding and appreciation of the community college culture could be helpful to university faculty in designing course objectives.

Respondents have clearly identified communication skills as the most important category of skills that community college instructional leaders deem necessary in effectively performing their jobs. Higher education program developers might consider collaborating with professors in university communication departments in incorporating the communication skills needed to adequately prepare graduates for community college leadership positions. Based on survey results, the inclusion of communication coursework in the core curriculum of leadership programs of study would benefit students.

Scholars implore community college leaders to develop their own leadership programs (Green, 1988; Roe & Baker, 1989), particularly in view of the fact that although community colleges are considered homogeneous, significant differences do exist among institutions (Katsinas, 1996). Onsite leadership training can take into consideration the characteristics and traits of the leader, characteristics of the led, context or situation, structure, goals, location, training and ability of subordinates, motivation, organizational culture, size of organization, communication patterns, economics, politics, and other external influences. Properly implemented onsite programs could complement doctoral coursework by concentrating on coursework that has been identified as underemphasized at the doctoral level.

Bennis and Nanus (1985) stated that over 350 definitions of leadership have been generated and Green (1988) added that 75 years of analysis and research have produced no conclusions about what constitutes effective leadership. Although leadership is difficult to define, community college instructional leaders who are graduates of higher education leadership programs and who participated in this research, indicate that there is a gap in the skills that were emphasized in their graduate programs of study and the skills they recommended for inclusion in leadership doctoral study. This research clearly identifies the skills that current community college practitioners perceive to be necessary for effective community college leadership. University leadership program professors and developers now have a clear list of the competencies demanded of and by higher education leadership program graduates. This data can be used to assess and market their leadership programs.

APPENDIX

Higher Education Instructional Leadership Needs, Preparation Assessment, and Recommendations

Instructions for completing the questionnaire: Using a scale from 1 to 5, as described below, score each skill and area of expertise listed on the left of your questionnaire to reflect your perceptions in each of the three contexts: Needed Skills, Doctoral Emphasis, and Recommended Emphasis in a doctoral program.

NEEDED SKILLS: Skills needed to effectively perform your job. This skill or area of expertise:

1 = is not important in performing my responsibilities as an instructional leader

2 = is somewhat important in performing my responsibilities as an instructional leader

3 = is important in performing my job responsibilities as an instructional leader

4 = is very important in performing my responsibilities as an instructional leader

5 = is essential in performing my responsibilities as an instructional leader

DOCTORAL EMPHASIS: Skills taught in your doctoral program of study Learning this skill or area of expertise:

1 = was not included in my doctoral coursework

2 = was referenced in my doctoral coursework

3 = was moderately covered in my doctoral coursework

4 = was covered at length in my doctoral coursework

5 = was emphasized in my doctoral coursework

RECOMMENDED EMPHASIS: Skills you recommend for inclusion in doctoral programs of study to effectively prepare future community college instructional leaders.

Learning this skill or area of expertise:

1 = should not be included in doctoral program coursework

2 = should be referenced in doctoral program coursework

3 = should be moderately covered in doctoral program coursework

4 = should be covered at length in doctoral program coursework

5 = should be emphasized in doctoral program coursework

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT: NEEDS, PREPARATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Using the 1 to 5 scale, score each skill and area of expertise listed on the left of the page to reflect your perceptions in each of the three contexts on the right.

SKILLS AND AREAS OF EXPERTISE

                                                  CONTEXTS

                                       NEEDED  MY DOCTORAL  RECOMMENDED
                                       SKILLS    EMPHASIS     EMPHASIS

LEADERSHIP                               --         --           --

Developing and communicating a vision    --         --           --

Understanding and application of
"Change" concepts                        --         --           --

Understanding of organizational
theory/culture                           --         --           --

Motivation strategies                    --         --           --

Incorporating ethics and values in
workplace contexts                       --         --           --

Understanding of community college
mission/philosophy                       --         --           --

Mentoring practices                      --         --           --

Self-analysis/awareness                  --         --           --

Multicultural awareness                  --         --           --

Understanding of collaborative
decision-making                          --         --           --

COMMUNICATION

Perception and impression management     --         --           --

Networking skills                        --         --           --

Understanding of interpersonal
communication skills                     --         --           --

Effective listening and feedback
skills                                   --         --           --

Effective writing skills                 --         --           --

Effective public speaking skills         --         --           --

Understanding of small group dynamics    --         --           --

Conflict resolution, mediation,
negotiation skills                       --         --           --

INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Knowledge of marketing & external
public relations                         --         --           --

Development of alumni relations and
community partnerships                   --         --           --

Fundraising                              --         --           --

Grant writing                            --         --           --

INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT

Program development and
implementation processes

Institutional effectiveness:
assessment and analysis                  --         --           --

Retention: documentation and
initiatives                              --         --           --

Student recruitment strategies           --         --           --

MANAGEMENT

Delegating

Evaluation and recommendation of
personnel                                --         --           --

Organizing and time management skills    --         --           --

Enrollment management/schedule
development                              --         --           --

POLICY

Accreditation processes and
procedures                               --         --           --

State governance policy and structure    --         --           --

Board/local governance, policy, and
procedure                                --         --           --

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION

Interpretation of surveys and
research                                 --         --           --

Statistical research methodology         --         --           --

Statistical software application         --         --           --

LEGAL

Understanding of sexual harrassment
issues, hiring and dismissal
procedures,                              --         --           --

libel, affirmative action, due
process, and academic freedom issues     --         --           --

FINANCE

Local, state, and federal policy and
funding formulas                         --         --           --

Long-range budgeting and projections     --         --           --

Accounting skills                        --         --           --

TECHNOLOGY

Development of distance education
mission/philosophy                       --         --           --

Administrative integration/
application of technology                --         --           --

Computer proficiency: hardware/
software applications                    --         --           --

FACULTY AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Curriculum development

Teaching/learning styles and             --         --           --
methodology

Adjunct faculty considerations           --         --           --

Customer service competencies            --         --           --

ADDITIONAL SKILLS YOU BELIEVE ARE IMPORTANT

--
--
--

The following demographic information and the title of each
respondent's doctoral program was requested on the survey:

1) Gender

2) Age

3) Approximate student population at respondent's school

4) Number of years served in any administrative position since
receiving doctoral degree

5) Year doctoral degree was completed

6) Title of leadership doctoral program or doctoral-level discipline
Table 1
Respondent Demographics

                                                  Standard
         Demographic Variable              Mean   Deviation

Age                                         53       6.3
Years served in administrative position     13       7.9
Years served at current institution          7       6.9
Year doctoral degree completed             1984      13.4
Table 2
Rank Order (1-48) of Needed Skills and Recommended
Emphasis Skill: All Respondents

 Skills and Areas of Expertise                         Context

                                                          Recommended
                                          Needed Skills   Emphasis in
                                                           Doctoral
                                                           Programs

                                              Rank           Rank
Leadership

Developing and communicating a
vision                                          3              4

Understanding and application of
"change"                                       14              7

Understanding of organizational
theory and culture                             28             16

Motivation strategies                          24             22

Incorporating ethics and values in
the workplace                                  23             12(T)

Understanding of leadership theory
and styles                                     37             18

Mentoring practices                            42             41

Self-analysis and awareness                    36             35

Understanding of the community
college mission                                 5              9

Multicultural awareness                        30             20

Understanding of collaborative
decision making                                17              8

Communication

Perception and impression
management                                     34             34

Networking skills                              33             27

Understanding of interpersonal
communication                                   6              6

Effective listening and feedback
skills                                          1              5

Effective writing skills                        2              2

Effective public speaking skills                7             10

Understanding of small group
dynamics                                       26             19

Conflict resolution, mediation, and
negotiation skills                              4              1

Institutional Planning and
Development

Knowledge of marketing and
external public relations                      38             39

Fundraising                                    46             47

Grant writing                                  45             46

Program development and
implementation                                 15             12(T)

Institutional effectiveness:
assessment and analysis                         8              3

Retention: documentation and
initiatives                                    27             29

Student recruitment strategies                 41             42

Management

Delegating                                     13             25

Evaluation and recommendation of
personnel                                      11             17

Organizing and time management
skills                                         10             21

Enrollment management and
schedule development                           29             37(T)

Policy

Accreditation processes and
procedures                                     19             31(T)

State governance policy and
structure                                      22             31(T)

Board and local governance, policy,
and procedure                                  16             23(T)

Research Methodology and
Application

Interpretation of surveys and
research                                       40             26

Statistical research methodology               44             37(T)

Statistical software application               48             44

Legal

Understanding of legal issues                  12             12(T)

Finance

Local, state, and federal policy and
funding formulas                               21             28

Long-range budgeting and
projections                                    18             23(T)

Accounting skills                              11             17

Technology

Development of distance education
mission                                        32             30

Administrative integration and
application of technology                      35             33

Computer proficiency: hardware and
software                                       39             43

Faculty and Staff Development

Curriculum development                          9             11

Teaching and learning styles and
methodology                                    20             15

Adjunct faculty considerations                 25             36

Customer service competencies                  31             40
Table 3
Top Ten Ranked Skills in Needed Skills (All Respondents)
and Recommended Emphasis Contexts (All Respondents and
Leadership Program Graduates)

                                                           Recommended:
Skills and Areas of          Needed: All   Recommended:     Leadership
Expertise                    Respondents  All Respondents    Program
                                                            Graduates

Leadership

Developing and
communicating a vision            3              4              8

Understanding and
application of "change"         (14)             7              3

Understanding of
community college                 5              9              4
mission

Understanding of
collaborative decision          (17)             8              6
making

Communication

Understanding of
interpersonal                     6              6              7
communication

Effective listening and
feedback skills                   1              5             10

Effective writing skills          2              2              1

Effective public speaking
skills                            7             10              8

Conflict resolution,
mediation, and                    4              1              2
negotiation

Institutional Planning
and Development

Institutional
effectiveness: assessment         8              3              4
and analysis

Management

Organizing and time
management skills                10            (21)           (20)

Faculty and Staff
Development

Curriculum development            9            (11)           (11)
Table 4
Binomial Results and Rank Order of Top Ten Doctoral Emphasis
Skills and Recommended Emphasis Skill: Leadership Program Graduates

Skills and Areas of                Binomial   Doctoral   Recommended
Expertise                          Results    Emphasis    Emphasis
                                                Rank        Rank

Leadership

Developing and
communicating a vision                U         21            8(T)

Understanding and
application of "change"                          8            3

Understanding of
organizational theory and                        4           14
culture

Understanding of
leadership theory and                            2           12
styles

Understanding of
community college                                7            4
mission

Understanding of
collaborative decision                U         11            6
making

Communication

Understanding of
interpersonal                         U         15            7
communication

Effective listening and
feedback skills                       U         25           10

Effective writing skills              U          5            1

Effective public speaking
skills                                U         13            8(T)

Conflict resolution,
mediation, and                        U         14            2
negotiating skills

Institutional Planning
and Development

Institutional
effectiveness: assessment             U         20            4(T)
and analysis

Research Methodology
and Application

Interpretation of surveys
and research                                     3           25

Statistical research
methodology                                      1           34

Statistical software
application                                     10           44

Faculty and Staff
Development                                      2           12

Curriculum development                           9           11

Teaching and learning
styles and methodology                           6           15

Note: U=Underemphasized in doctoral studies

Note: (T)=a tie ranking. If two items were tied, the next ranking
item would be ranked two places below the tied-ranking items.

References

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Campbell, D. F., & Leverty, L. H. (1997). Developing and selecting leaders for the 21st century. Community College Journal, 67, 34-36.

Chliwniak, L. (1997). Analyzing the gender gap. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410846)

Cohen A, M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gibson-Benninger, B. S., Ratcliff, J. L., & Rhoads, R. A. (1996). Diversity, discourse, and democracy: Needed attributes in the next generation of community college leadership programs. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today (pp. 65-75). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Green, M. F. (1988). Leaders for a new era: Strategies for higher education. New York: American Council on Education, Macmillan.

Hankin, J. N. (1996). The door that never closes: Continuing education needs of community college leaders. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today (pp. 37-46). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Katsinas, S. G. (1996). Preparing leaders for diverse institutional settings. In J.C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today (pp. 15-25). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Keim, M. C. (1994). Graduate preparation programs in community college education. Community College Review, 22, 53-61.

Kennedy, D. (1995). Another century's end, another revolution for higher education. Change, 27, 8-15.

Mason, S. O. & Townsend, B. K. (1988, November), Graduates of doctoral programs in higher education: Demographics and career patterns. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, St. Louis, MO.

Palmer, J. C., & Katsinas, S. G. (1996). Sources of Information: Graduate and continuing education for community college leaders. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today (pp. 95-100). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Re-envisioning the Ph.D. (January, 2001). Center for Instructional Development and Research University of Washington. Available: http://depts.washington.edu/ envision/index.html

Rodenhouse, M. P. (Ed.). (2001). Higher education directory. Falls Church, VA: Higher Education Publications.

Roe, M. A., & Baker, G. A. (1989). The development of community college leaders: A challenge for our future. Community College Review, 16, 5-16.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Shapiro, J. P. & Walters, D. L. (1992). In F. C. Wendel (Ed.) Applications of Reflective Practice (pp. 27-51). University Park, PA: University Council of Educational Administration.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Townsend, B. K. (1996). The role of the professoriate in influencing future community college leadership. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today (pp. 59-64). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Townsend, B. K. & Bassoppo-Moyo, 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 administrators. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 14, 337-347.

Wendel, F. C. (Ed.). (1992). Applications of reflective practice. University Park, PA: University Council of Educational Administration.

Witherspoon, P. D. (1997). Communicating leadership: An organizational perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Young, R. J. (1996). Legacy of the post-WW II growth years for community college leadership programs. In J. C. Palmer & S. G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and continuing education for community college leaders: What it means today (pp. 5-14). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Linda Brown is the coordinator for the Academy for Instructional Excellence and speech discipline instructor at El Paso Community College's Transmountain Campus in El Paso, Texas. [e-mail]

Mario Martinez is an assistant professor of educational management and development at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico. [e-mail]

David Daniel is an assistant professor in the University Statistics Center at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico. [e-mail]