Professional development for presidents: a study of community and technical college presidents in three states.

Introduction and Background

In an era where the diminishing supply of qualified leaders has been well documented (Shults, 2001; Campbell, 2002) at the same time that the complexity and challenges of the job are increasing, it is critical that current community and technical college presidents have every opportunity to continue to hone their skills and their abilities to provide quality leadership. The students, faculty, and staff of America's community and technical colleges deserve no less.

The presidency of a technical or community college is a demanding role. More than 91% of current presidents reported in 1991 that they spend in excess of 50 hours a week on college work. Perhaps not surprisingly, 69% of those presidents who took a vacation of at least two weeks reported that they did college work while on vacation (Vaughan & Weisman, 1998). It is apparent that administration in general has become less attractive as a career choice. In a discussion of leadership challenges in secondary technical education, Zirkle and Cotton (2001) point to a dilemma that is also apparent in higher education: "All of this to enter an administrative area that demands longer hours, places more stress, and offers fewer rewards than the teaching profession. It is not a bright prospect" (p. 17).

There are also great rewards and challenges if a president is appropriately prepared and has access to continuing professional development opportunities. Professional development is often defined very broadly, including wellness and personal needs such as stress management, as well as skill building, networking, and further education. For the purposes of this study, professional development is defined as those activities and experiences that increase job-related skills and knowledge and support the building of positive relationships. With the demands, expectations, and complexities that are a part of the contemporary community college presidency, there is little doubt that opportunities for meaningful and appropriate professional development are much needed and appreciated by today's presidents.

It is inaccurate to assume that once a president secures an appointment that he or she has "arrived" and has little need for further professional development. On the contrary, presidents themselves, as shown by their responses to the survey that formed the basis for this study, indicate a need for further professional development to meet the challenges they face in their increasingly complex roles. The presidents in this study also expressed definite ideas about the kinds of professional development that are useful as well as the limitations that may keep them from attaining their maximum effectiveness.

This study seeks to examine the professional development needs, opportunities, and limitations for community and technical college presidents in three states: North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Literature Review

Professional development in the community college has been studied as a field of inquiry for more than 30 years (Centra, 1976; Hammons, 1979; Lindquist, 1978; Cryer, 1981; Hansen & Rhodes, 1982). There are over a dozen national and international organizations that have as a major focus professional development in community colleges.

Most of these organizations emphasize faculty professional development. Similarly, the majority of the studies conducted over the past three decades also have been related to faculty professional development. Very little has been written about administrative development and even less about professional development for presidents of community and technical colleges (Vaughan, 1986; Roueche, Baker, & Rose, 1988; O'Banion, 1989; Hammons & Keller, 1990; Vaughan & Weisman, 1998).

A number of studies have been conducted in an effort to determine just what skills, knowledge, and preparation lead to successful presidencies. In Vaughan and Weisman's 1998 study, sitting community college presidents identified the skills that they believe future leaders will need to be successful. Those skills include the ability to bring all segments of the college into the governing process, building consensus, an understanding of technology, a high tolerance for ambiguity, an appreciation of multiculturalism, and the ability to build successful partnerships and coalitions.

A report issued by the Community College Leadership Development Institute (CCLDI) reported that the challenges of leading a community college have become increasingly complex and often contentious, while tenure in leadership positions has become shorter (2001). In the spring of 2000, CCLDI convened 37 educational leaders from California, Hawaii, and the Western Pacific to design a leadership program. They began by defining what they called the "issues" of leadership. The twelve issues they identified are as follows: 1) personal qualities; 2) communication skills; 3) working with individuals and groups; 4) cultivating leadership; 5) institutional culture; 6) managing internal institutional functions; 7) planning; 8) ethics; 9) teaching and learning; 10) diversity; 11) external environment; and 12) history and mission (CCLDI, 2001).

Many of these issues reappear as Lorenzo (cited in Campbell, 2001) summarizes what he sees as the changing nature of presidential leadership. He believes three characteristics will continue to be important: 1) the ability to manage the completion of tasks, 2) a commitment to developing human resources, and 3) the ability to lead organizational change. He also sees three newer leadership skills as essential. These include 1) the decentralization of leadership authority and the rising importance of teams, 2) an emphasis on skills in conflict resolution, and 3) the ability to facilitate individual and organizational learning.

The research conducted by Shults (2001) indicates that sitting presidents do indeed need and value continued professional development. They see professional development activities as an opportunity to network. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents to Shults' survey indicated that having a mentor was an important part of their professional development and was very valuable to them in obtaining their current presidency. Not only was a mentor valued in assisting an individual to obtain a presidency, the mentor continued to be a trusted ally and sounding board for both the daily routines and the unexpected problems inherent in any presidency.

While the findings of the present study of community and technical college presidents reveal many similarities to previous studies in the needs and concerns of technical and community college presidents, there are some important differences in emphasis. It is also important to note that this study deals only with three nonunionized states. If the survey were to be conducted in unionized environments, in large urban areas, or in systems with a single governing body for all of higher education, the responses may have been somewhat different. Overall, however, it is clear that despite the differences in governance, structure, financing, and enrollment, not only among the three states examined in this study but across the country, presidents do have many core needs in common.

How, then, are these needs being met? Where are current and prospective presidents being trained? How are presidents and prospective presidents gaining the skills they need? It seems unlikely to be from formal community college leadership programs inasmuch as "the number of advanced degrees conferred in community college administration decreased 78 percent from 1982-83 to 1996-97" (Shults, 2001, p.1). Nevertheless, professional development opportunities for current presidents, many of whom have no formal community college leadership training, is a critical need.

Methods and Procedures

The study that led to the writing of this article was conducted through mail surveys. One hundred six technical and community college presidents were surveyed. Seventy-six presidents (72%) responded to the mail surveys.

The survey is a two-part needs assessment. Part I asked presidents to respond to professional development needs of their faculty, as the presidents perceived those needs. Part II asked presidents to respond to their own professional development needs. This article deals only with Part II, "Presidential Professional Development."

The population for the study consists of technical and community college presidents in three states: North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The presidents were identified by officials in their respective state systems. Although some of the colleges had multiple campuses or centers, only the CEO for the college was surveyed. Center or campus presidents, vice-presidents, deans, and directors were not included. In Georgia, the four university system colleges with technical divisions were not surveyed; only the technical colleges were included for the purposes of this survey. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Center for Applied Textile Technology is a part of the North Carolina Community College System; however, because it is a specialized center it was not included in the survey.

The first survey, including a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey and a postage-paid return envelope, was mailed on January 14, 2002. A total of 60 valid surveys were received as a result of the first mailing. A second mailing was sent to nonresponders on March 14, 2002. A total of 16 valid surveys were received as a result of the second mailing. In all, 76 surveys were used for the study. Male, female, White, and minority presidents were all represented, as were small, medium, large, rural, suburban, and urban colleges. A copy of the survey is included in the Appendix.

Findings

Skills and Knowledge

The first section of the survey presented the presidents with an 18-point list of knowledge and skills that they were asked to rate as to their importance for a successful presidency. The survey items were developed from three general sources: a review of the literature on presidential professional development, a review of recent state and regional surveys, and personal experience including discussions with presidents. A five-point scale (1-very important; 5-not important) was used. The 18 measures are as follows: 1) budget management; 2) salary administration; 3) institutional and strategic planning; 4) technology planning; 5) board and CEO relationships; 6) employment practices; 7) risk management; 8) conflict resolution; 9) public relations and media; 10) legal issues; 11) multicultural understanding; 12) business and industry partnerships; 13) use of presentation software; 14) use of administrative software; 15) time management; 16) motivational skills; 17) relationship with local political leaders; and 18) relationship with state political leaders.

There was unanimity of responses from the presidents in all three states as to the three skills of most importance and value to presidents. Seventy-four (97%) of the respondents ranked budget management as either very important or important. Similar agreement was reflected in the importance of developing positive relationships with local political leaders, with 74 (97%) responding with very important or important ratings. The third skill was also related to the significance of politics in being a successful president with 69 (91%) of the respondents indicating that it was very important or important to have positive relationships with state political leaders.

Some responses reflected variations in state norms and cultures. For example, 98% of Noah Carolina presidents and 100% of South Carolina presidents reported board and CEO relationships as a very important skill, the item most frequently rated as very important. Conversely, in Georgia, board and CEO relationships were not even ranked. The discrepancy can most likely be explained by the fact that the governing board in Georgia is a centralized state authority and local boards serve mainly in an advisory capacity. Thus, presidents in Georgia do not report directly to a local board chair.

There was somewhat less agreement on the items that were of least importance. The use of administrative software was looked at as somewhat important, not very important, or not important by 45 (59%) of the respondents. The use of presentation software was similarly ranked with 44 (58%) indicating they saw that skill as only somewhat important, not very important, or not important. Twenty-eight (37%) of the respondents regarded knowledge of risk management as somewhat important, not very important, or not important. All three of these low-scoring skills may be explained by the fact that most presidents feel they can delegate such responsibilities to other trusted employees within the organization.

An open-ended question followed the first section asking what other skills the presidents believed to be critical to a successful presidency. Examples listed by the presidents included team development, wise delegation, common sense, oral presentation skills, fundraising, vision for the college, grant writing, decision making and problem solving, and moral and ethical leadership. Golf was also mentioned as a useful skill, as was the "tenacity of a bulldog, hide of an elephant, stomach of a goat, disposition of a jackass, and public image of Mother Teresa."

Usefulness of Professional Development Activities

The second section of the survey asked the presidents to rate seven common professional development opportunities as to their usefulness to a president, using the same five-point scale. The professional development opportunities are as follows: 1) state and regional conferences; 2) national conferences; 3) statewide presidents' meetings; 4) local leadership programs (i.e., Chamber of Commerce); 5) state leadership programs; 6) national leadership programs (i.e., AACC Presidents Academy, League for Innovation Executive Leadership Institute; Harvard Seminar for New Presidents; National Institute for Leadership Development); and 7) sabbatical leave.

Reflecting the importance of local concerns, 66 (87%) of the respondents indicated that statewide presidents' meetings provided their most valuable professional development opportunities. National conferences ranked second with 58 respondents (76%) rating them as very important or important. State and regional conferences ranked third with 50 respondents (66%) indicating a rating of very important or important. Interestingly, the 66% of respondents who saw state and regional conferences as valuable came only from North Carolina and Georgia. That may reflect the fact that with only 16 colleges, few statewide conferences providing professional development opportunities for presidents are held in South Carolina.

Following the second section of the survey, the survey posed another open-ended question regarding other professional development opportunities that would be valuable to a president. Examples of responses to this question included serving on accreditation teams; the time and opportunity to teach; professional writing and speaking; topics related to personal survival such as finance, investing, balancing responsibilities, and retirement; a good mentor; professional reading; visits to other colleges; motivational tapes; and international travel.

Limitations to Professional Development

The third section of the survey asked the presidents to rate seven limitations to professional development opportunities using a five-point scale with 1 indicating very serious and 5 indicating not serious. The limitations are as follows: 1) funding; 2) time; 3) lack of support of governing board; 4) perception of the college community; 5) perception of community and service area; 6) lack of appropriate activities; and 7) lack of convenient locations.

It was very clear that presidents saw time as their most serious limitation with 71 presidents (93%) indicating time was even more of a concern than the 49 (61%) respondents who cited funding. That may seem somewhat surprising given the tight budgets that presidents are administering. However, it reinforces the notion that presidents are always "on the clock" and see very little possible open time for their own development. Complementing the lack of time and funding is the third most frequently cited limitation cited by 41 (54%) of the respondents, the lack of convenient locations. Particularly when time and funding are of concern, it is important to be able to access development opportunities close to home.

Following the third section of the survey, an open-ended question asked what other issues might limit a president's professional development. Responses to this question included lack of adequate staffing to cover day-to-day activities, family responsibilities, attitude and ego, the diverse nature of presidential responsibilities creating difficulty in identifying opportunities that offer in-depth exposure, motivation, too many commitments, the press of multiyear projects including construction and fundraising campaigns, and the nature of the professional development activity--some require extensive commitment, regular attendance, travel to multiple sites, research, and data analysis.

Concluding Questions

The survey concluded with two open-ended questions. The first asked the respondents to describe the most effective and useful professional activity in which they had participated since assuming their current presidency. Some examples cited by the presidents included an excellent seminar on fundraising and capital campaigns, the League for Innovation's Executive Leadership program, international travel and study, the Ed.D. program at the University of Georgia, serving as a SACS team leader, the AACC Presidents Academy, the Harvard Seminar for New Presidents, statewide presidential peer group meetings, teaching at the graduate level, Leadership Seminar for Women sponsored by the AAWHE, legal conferences sponsored by the University of North Carolina Institute of Government, ACCT meetings with trustees, AACC conferences, and of course, learning experiences on the job.

The second concluding question asked what the presidents would like to do to develop their skills and improve their effectiveness if they had the complete support of their governing board and adequate funding. The presidents' responses fell into four categories, with some overlap: skill building, further education, networking, and renewal activities. Skill building responses included the desire to improve fundraising ability, spending time with a communications specialist, honing strategic planning and institutional effectiveness skills, and developing skills in cultivating and lobbying local and state legislators. Further education responses included going to law school, attending seminars in leadership activities, attending national programs for presidents, learning more about technology and legal issues, pursuing an academic subject not related to management or community colleges, and completing a doctoral program. Networking responses included visiting other colleges, having networking opportunities with other presidents, visiting colleges with recognized successful programs in certain areas, and attending national meetings. Renewal responses included taking a leave to work with a corporation, taking time management training, and taking a sabbatical leave.

Taking a sabbatical leave was by far the most frequently mentioned activity that sitting presidents believe would make them more effective. Such comments as "after 11 years, I could use a six-month sabbatical to recharge my batteries;" "since I've been here for seven years, it might be nice to go on an extended leave--a month or so--to refresh and renew;" "mini-sabbatical on the dynamics of leadership as it applies to coaching an executive team to become an ethical, trusting, and innovative team;" "take a sabbatical to write a book on leadership; this would allow reflection on events/activities and allow for research;" and "take a six-month sabbatical" are representative of the comments of many of the presidents. While sabbatical leave policies vary, the opportunity for any kind of sabbatical leave is uncommon in technical and community colleges. State systems and local boards may need to reevaluate the opportunities they could provide to presidents. The chance for a sabbatical leave, even one of short duration, may be a useful incentive to retain a valuable president.

Implications of the Study

Role, Skills, and Knowledge

It is obvious from the survey responses that presidents understand their primary role to be political and fiduciary. They understand the relationship between political acumen and financial support. Thus, when a new president assumes the leadership role at a technical or community college, it is incumbent upon community and business leaders, as well as board members, to be sure the new president has appropriate introductions and opportunities to interact with political leaders at both the local and state levels. This step is particularly important when the president is coming from another state. It may even be significant when a president moves from one pan of a state to another, where the local politics may be quite different from the president's previous experience.

Similarly, a new president needs a quick and thorough indoctrination into the financing and budgetary processes of the college and state system. A competent and trusted business manager, a knowledgeable board member, or a state officer needs to take the necessary time to tutor the new president in the specifics of the college budget and state and local funding mechanisms.

Usefulness of Activities

Presidents are very much aware of the local nature of their responsibilities. Thus, they have found that some of the most useful professional development activities are those where they share their experiences and are able to ask questions among a group of colleagues operating under similar structure and governance. State officials who plan such meetings need to be cognizant of the informal as well as the formal purposes served by such meetings and be sure adequate time is allotted for discussions of concerns related to specific local leadership issues.

Presidents also understand the value of getting beyond their local concerns on occasion and networking with presidents in other states. They value attendance at national meetings where they can find new ideas, best practices, and the opportunity to renew their enthusiasm for the challenges they face at home, recognizing that others are dealing with the same concerns. Presidents also indicate that they value state and regional meetings for the same reasons. Thus, it is important that boards and state systems be sure that sufficient funding is allocated for presidents to attend such meetings, even in times of tight budgets. Boards and state systems also need to be openly supportive of attendance at national, state, and regional meetings so that presidents and their constituencies see the meetings not as a luxury or a "perk" but as an expectation of the job.

Limitations

Clearly, the single most important limitation on presidential professional development is the lack of time. The roles and responsibilities of the president are intense and omnipresent. Presidents find it difficult to put their own professional development above, or even equal to, other pressing institutional needs. Inasmuch as funding and the lack of convenient locations are also cited as primary limitations to presidential professional development, those organizations and professional associations who design professional development activities might serve more presidents by replicating miniconferences in individual states and regions. It is much easier for a president to justify taking advantage of professional development activities that do not require a trip across the country and expensive travel arrangements.

Furthermore, many presidents expressed the desire to complete advanced degrees. Universities need to be more attentive to both current and potential presidents and offer accessible, quality doctoral programs that emphasize technical and community college leadership. An expansion of on-line coursework combined with occasional weekend face-to-face meetings seems to be a successful format for technical and community college leaders.

Conclusion

The responsibilities of technical and community college presidents have been vastly expanded in the last decade. The community, business and industry, and political leaders have all come to view the college as an accessible resource meeting a wide variety of needs. While technical and community college presidents have embraced these new challenges, they have often done so at the expense of their own professional growth and effectiveness. This study has demonstrated the perceived skills and knowledge that presidents regard as critical to their success, the professional development activities that are most useful, and the limitations that may keep presidents from providing the best possible leadership. Presidents themselves, as well as boards and state offices, community and business leaders, and professional associations have the opportunity to make an investment in the professional growth and development of the nation's technical and community college leadership. Such an investment will help assure the continuance of the tradition of excellence, access, and service that has come to be expected from technical and community colleges.

Appendix

Presidential Professional Development Survey

Please rate each of the following skills and knowledge on a scale of 1-5 (1-very important, 5-not important) as to their importance for a successful presidency.

                                      1    2    3    4    5

Budget management
Salary administration
Institutional planning
Technology planning
Board and CEO relationships
Employment practices
Risk management
Conflict resolution
Public relations and media
Legal issues
Multicultural understanding
Business and industry partnerships
Use of presentation software
Use of administrative software
Time management
Motivational skills
Relationship with local political
leaders
Relationship with state political
leaders

List any other skills you believe to be critical.

Please rate each of the following skills and knowledge on a scale of 1-5 (1-very valuable; 5-not valuable) as to their usefulness to a president.

                                      1    2    3    4    5

1. State and regional conferences
2. National conferences
3. Statewide presidents meetings
4. Local leaderships programs
   (Chamber of Commerce, etc.)
5. State leadership programs
6. National leadership programs
   (AACC's Presidents Academy,
   Harvard, Bryn Mawr, NILD,
   etc.)
7. Sabbatical leave

What other professional development opportunities are valuable to a president?

Please rate on a scale from 1-5 (1-very serious; 5-not serious) each of the following limitations to presidential professional development opportunities.

                                      1    2    3    4    5

1. Funding
2. Time
3. Lack of support of governing
   board
4. Perception of college community
5. Perception of community or
   service area
6. Lack of appropriate activities
7. Lack of convenient locations

What other issues limit a president's professional development?

Describe the most effective or useful professional development activity you have engaged in since assuming your current presidency.

If you had the complete support of your governing board and adequate funding, what would you most want to do to develop your skills and improve your effectiveness as president?

References

Campbell, D.F. (2002). The leadership gap: Model strategies for leadership development. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Centra, J. (1976). Faculty development practices in U.S. colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Community College Leadership Development Initiative. (2001). Preparing community college leaders for a new era (Report #2). San Diego, CA: Mesa College Communications Services.

Cryer, P. (1981). Who are the staff developers in United Kingdom universities and polytechnics? Higher Education, 10, 425-436.

Hammons, J.O. (1979). The multi-faceted role of an `ideal' cc faculty member. Community College Review, 7 (2), 36-41.

Hammons, J.O., & Keller, L. (1990). Competencies and personal characteristics of future community college presidents. Community College Review, 18 (3), 34-41.

Hansen, D.W., & Rhodes, D.M. (1982). Staff development through degrees: Alternatives to the Ph.D. Community College Review, 10 (2), 52-58.

Lindquist, J. (Ed.). (1978). Designing teaching improvement programs. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Soundings Press.

O'Banion, T. (1989). Retaining a peak-performing president. Trustee Quarterly, fall, 7-11.

Roueche, J.E., Baker, G.A., & Rose, R.R. (1988). The community college president as transformational leader. AACJC Journal, 58 (5), 48-52.

Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college leadership. Research Brief, Leadership Series, No. 1. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Vaughan, G.B. (1986). The community college presidency. New York: Macmillan.

Vaughan, G.B., & Weisman, I.M. (1998). The community college presidency at the millennium. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Zirkle, C., & Cotton, S. (2001). Where will future leadership come from? Technology Education, December, 15-18.

Desna L. Wallin is an assistant professor in the Department of Occupational Studies at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. [e-mail]