Stress factors end community college deans: the stresses of their role identified.

Community college deans responded to a national survey about their perception of stress, using a 41-item stress inventory. Using principal components factor analysis, nine stress factors were identified. Detailed information about the items in each stress factor, including general characteristics, is included. Demographic characteristics of community college deans were identified.

Introduction

Community colleges are unique educational creations that have forever changed the landscape of higher education in the United States. Community college deans are at the heart of these organizations. Dill (1980) writes that deans and deanships are relatively new in American higher education and that their evolution can be traced in terms of decades rather than centuries. Dill (1980) describes deanships in the following manner:

   Most are built without designs, improvised instead from memories
   of previous successes and failures and elaborated to the extent
   that local initiative and creativity will allow.... Some ... have
   been known to capsize in calm water and sink, flags flying, shortly
   after leaving the dock. (p. 261)

These midlevel academic leaders are positioned to carry out the day-to-day business of the colleges, and they also are the talent pool for the future leadership of the community colleges (Shults, 2001).

Sandwiched between administration and instruction, these midlevel academic leaders have been called jugglers who are required to manage successfully the frequently competing priorities, interests, agendas, and other matters of concern to the various administrators and faculty members of their colleges (Seagren, Wheeler, Creswell, Miller, & VanHornGrassmeyer, 1994). Bragg (2000) writes that "the most vital functions of the community college--transfer, career preparation, community education, and support services" (p. 75)--revolve around the positions of deans.

The normal responsibilities of their complex and challenging positions generate stress for academic deans in community colleges. In addition, the deans are being asked to respond to new demands that generate even more stress. These new, stressful demands involve broader accountability, restricted or diminished resources, increased expectations for services, and greater challenges in the interactions of the deans with faculty and administration (Seagren et al., 1994; Tucker & Bryan, 1991; Wharton, 1997). To improve management of stress for academic deans, it is important for both the deans and the college community to know what functions the deans perform and to understand their position in the middle ground between administration and faculty (Fagin, 1997; Gillett-Karam, 1999b).

Two issues in particular complicate efforts to understand the stresses of academic deans in community colleges. One issue is the absence of a universally applied definition for the term academic dean, making it difficult to identify, research, and discuss the position. The second issue is the reality that community colleges and matters of stress for academic deans are under researched. A review of the literature indicates that there is little research dealing with the role and function of academic deans in community colleges (Robillard, 2000; Vaughan, 1990).

History of Stress Research

Researching stress has been a topic of interest for social scientists for many years. The study of occupational stress has become a significant branch of stress research. In the field of education, occupational stress research has included studies with various groups of faculty and administrators in secondary and postsecondary education.

McGrath (1970) presents the four-dimensional stress paradigm. Selye (1974) describes the cyclical pattern of stress using the general adaptation syndrome (G.A.S.). Selye presents the concept that the stress cycle begins in the individual with an alarm reaction to some perceived stress agent and then moves to a resistance stage and, finally, to a stage of exhaustion. These theoretical models have guided numerous studies of stress (Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Gmelch & Burns, 1993; Gmelch, Lovrich, & Wilke, 1984; Gmelch & Swent, 1984; Koch, Tung, Gmelch & Swent, 1982; Rasch, Hutchison, & Tollefson, 1986; Sarros, Gmelch, & Tanewski, 1998; Wolverton, Gmelch, Wolverton, & Sarros, 1999).

The body of theoretical research by Selye (1974), McGrath (1970, 1976), and Gmelch (1988) was used to inform this study. Efforts were focused at the first and second stages of the model developed by Gmelch. The first stage is characterized by the stress items being clustered into categories, or factors, that represent the themes of stress in jobs of the deans. Gathering and analyzing information about the perceptions of stress characterize the second stage.

This model of the stress cycle was expanded further by Gmelch and Wilke (1991) and Gmelch and Bums (1991) to include college and university administrators. The school-administrator model developed by Gmelch is described in the Torelli and Gmelch (1993) discussion of occupational stress and burnout in the academic environment. Gmelch (1988) and Torelli and Gmelch (1993) describe how the four-stage stress cycle was analyzed and adapted for school administrators in the following manner:

Stage 1) Stressors: Factor analysis was used to cluster identified stress items into four categories: role-based stress, task-based stress, boundary-spanning stress, and conflict-mediating stress;

Stage 2) Perceptions: The individual interprets the stressors based on his or her perception of the situation;

Stage 3) Responses: The individual decides on a response (coping strategy) based on the determination of the situation in Stage 2; and

Stage 4) Consequences: The individual's health and well-being begin to show the consequences of prolonged stress.

Koch et al. (1982) studied academic work environment stresses for secondary school administrators and through factor analysis identified four factors measuring perceived levels of job-related stress. The identified factors were labeled role-based stress, task-based stress, boundary-spanning stress, and conflict-mediating stress (Koch et al., 1982).

Academic Deans

Research about academic deans' positions was found under various titles (e.g., chair, division chair, department chair, associate dean, assistant dean, etc.) (Gillett-Karam, 1999b; Murray & Murray, 1998). Regardless of the title used in the research, the issues affecting these midlevel positions were selected based on the authenticity of the work-related stress for the holders of the positions.

Researchers refer to the academic deans being in a role of "middleness" (Fagin, 1997). Seagren et al. (1994), in their research of such positions, describe this middle role in this manner:

   ... A juggler who initiates, controls, and halts objects being
   juggled. These objects may be competing priorities, interests,
   agendas, and expectations. And the chair is in the middle, feeling
   the pressures of the objects in flight, delicately balancing
   interests, and hoping that the final act will receive a standing
   ovation. (p. ix)

These researchers effectively describe the stressful aspects of the deans' responsibilities in their midlevel positions.

Other researchers examine the mixed messages and unclear definition of such work, delving into the stresses of role conflict and ambiguity for deans and department chairs (Sarros et al., 1998; Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999). Not knowing clearly what is expected and needing to respond to conflicting demands in these midlevel positions create stress for these academic administrators.

Many of the pressures for the deans stem directly from the challenges facing community colleges. Byrne (1997), in his overview of past and present literature, considers the changes in the roles of the chairs to be due to factors that are changing the traditional bureaucratic governance model of community colleges. These factors include the following: 1) collective bargaining, which brings uncertainties; 2) extensive use of part-time faculty who often exhibit low attachment to the institution, department, or discipline; 3) increasing experimentation with professionalization of faculty through scholarship; 4) increasing experimentation with participatory management; 5) an increasing percentage of PhDs in academic departments; 6) changing demands on the part of the communities, which may be addressed best by faculty or the chair; and 7) changes in the structure of student demand for courses and programs that may be addressed by faculty and the chair.

Another researcher (Wharton, 1997) describes changes in community colleges in the following list:

* being held more acutely accountable by various external agents,

* having to respond ever more flexibly to the increasingly diverse expectations of students,

* needing to adjust major aspects of curriculum and course content substantially to meet the requirements of education reform, and

* having to reorganize and rebudget continually to deal with level of diminished finances. (p. 15)

The interface with these types of changes on a daily basis keeps deans searching for balance and experiencing stress. Notwithstanding the value of these changes, whether good of bad, the transitional state of the community colleges increases the complexity of stress for the deans.

As financial resources are strained or eliminated, additional stress is generated for the deans in community colleges. The deans playa key role in the utilization of community college resources (Robillard, 2000). The deans are responsible for significant amounts of resources, and good stewardship of resources may mean the success or failure of an academic unit. If an institution has invested heavily in faculty members and technology, it is not apt to be tolerant of poor management and stewardship practices in the deployment of those resources by a midlevel manager.

If this position is to carry the academic world through the transitions required by constituencies, the repeated request for preparation and training must be heeded. Wolverton and Wolverton et al. (1999) state that "early preparation may be key to understanding the expectations placed upon deans as they enter the position. The academy, especially business colleges, abounds in opportunities for such preparation. For instance, learning solid managerial and interpersonal skills may go a long way toward eliminating the uneasy feeling of not knowing what is expected" (p. 101). Other college and program areas, such as public administration and political science, may well hold complementary topics that would enhance the preparation found in the curriculum of a college of education.

Research Method and Survey Instrument

The 2000 National Survey of Community and Technical College Academic Deans, sponsored by the Center for Academic Leadership and the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) at Iowa State University, was sent to 750 community college deans (in 394 community colleges). This national sample of community college deans was identified from the 2000 membership directory of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). The Community College Dean's Stress Inventory (CCDSI) was included as part of the national survey.

From the sample of 750 deans who were identified to receive the survey in the 394 colleges surveyed, 324 usable surveys were returned from 200 colleges. The response rate was 43.2% (324 of 750 deans). The college-return rate was 50.8% (200 of 394 colleges). The state-return rate was 92.0% and represented responses from 46 of the 50 states (Russell, 2000; Wild, 2002).

The Dean's Stress Inventory of the survey questionnaire evolved from the Administrative Stress Index (ASI) (Gmelch & Swent, 1984), the Faculty Stress Index (FSI) (Gmelch et al., 1984), and the Department Chair Stress Index (DCSI) (Gmelch & Burns, 1991). The Dean's Stress Inventory was pan of a larger survey, 2000 National Study of Community and Technical College Academic Deans (Wild, Ebbers, Gmelch, & Russell, 2000-2001).

Participants

All academic deans from the AACC member schools were identified as the target population for the study. The 2000 membership directory of the AACC was used to identify public, two-year community and junior colleges. Private and special interest institutions were excluded. Excluding these institutions provided a more homogeneous sample of community colleges for the database. This procedure identified 959 colleges for the study.

A stratified random sampling method was selected to provide equitable dean and college samples across the United States. The stratified random sampling method permitted equitable samples to be taken regardless of geographic distance or population distribution. This method maintained the proportion of sampling done in each stratum (state) (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 1998). The strata, or states, permitted the greatest opportunity for individuals within the states to have homogeneous organizational structures, statutory guidelines, and perspectives regarding the questions posed to them.

The sampling scheme was to sample two colleges for every five per state group. This resulted in 394 colleges identified randomly. The sampling scheme was conducted by listing the AACC institutions in each state with numbers; the colleges, along with their academic deans, were identified using a random number table (Russell, 2000). The general guide for sampling within states was as follows: 1) for states with 0-10 community colleges, a minimum of 3 were sampled--if the state had one, two, or three community colleges, the state was oversampled; 2) for states with 11-25 community colleges, a minimum of 5 were sampled; 3) for states with 26-50 institutions, a minimum of 15 were selected; and 4) for states with over 50 community colleges (there are 3), a minimum of 20 community colleges were identified.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Windows[R] version 10.0 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to reduce the items in the stress inventory into clusters that reveal the underlying dimensions of stress.

Table 1 presents the frequency distribution and comparisons of responses with respect to selected demographic characteristics.

The demographic profile of the community college dean emerges as a married, White male, 55 years of age. This individual perceives himself as an administrator and is working in a community college that has both technical and transfer programs. This was consistent with the statements of Dill (1980) and Cohen, Brawer, & Associates (1994) who describe the community college deanship as an extension of the presidency or vice presidency and not an extension of the faculty. The distribution of length of time in the current position is nearly an even split between 3 years or less (167) or more than 3 years (157). Two-thirds of the time the individual secured the current job from an internal position. There is a nearly even distribution between male and female respondents for this study. This was similar to the responses that Houchen (1994, p. 86) found among community college department chairs.

Identifying What Stresses Deans

The 41 items in the Dean's Stress Inventory were ranked by the mean score derived from averaging respondents' answers. The deans responded to the items by indicating their perceived stress for each item on a five-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 1 = Slight to 5 = High. The range of means was from 3.51 to 1.71.

When ranked by mean, the stress item ranked the highest by the deans is Item No. 31t, Attending meetings that take up too much time. This also was the stress item ranked the highest for males in the Houchen (1994) study of community college chairs. This same stress item was ranked fourth by university department chairs (Burns, 1992). In their research of four-year college and university deans, Gmelch, Wolverton, Wolverton, and Sarros (1999) found that this same stress item had the highest mean rank.

In reviewing the responses, a person develops a sense of the many demands on a dean's time. Interaction with people is a constant factor of the job. While these positions experience heavy demands with respect to leadership and administration, they also require extensive communication and human relations skills (Findlen, 2000; Gillett-Karam, 1999a; Jensen, 2000; Robillard, 2000).

In addition to the 41 items in the stress inventory, the deans were asked to measure their perceived level of stress in regard to two general estimates of stress (See Table 2). The first general estimate asked the deans to assess the perception level of overall stress they experienced as deans. The mean of the responding deans was 3.06 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1 being a slight perception of stress; 5 being high perception of stress). The general perception of stress at 3.06 is slightly higher than is the mean of all 41 items on the stress inventory which is 2.54.

The second general estimate asked the deans to give a percentage of the total stress in their lives that resulted from being deans. The mean reported by the deans was 55.68%. Houchen (1994) found that community college department chairs perceived 49% (n=235) of the stress in their lives to be from their work. Staten's (1989) research on administrator stress in community colleges found that overall stress was reported to be in the moderate range, at 48% (n=195).

The mean response for the 41 stress items in this study was 2.54. The average mean of the stress items in the study of community college department chairs completed by Houchen (1994) was 2.69.

Factor Analysis

Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to determine associations among the inventory of stress items. Nine factors emerged. Names of stress factors, eigenvalues, number of items, and percent of variance after rotation are listed in Table 3. The nine factors accounted for a total of 62.612% of the variance among the 41 items.

Based on the commonality of the stress items within each factor, names were selected that were descriptive of the theme represented by the items that loaded highly on each factor.

Stress Factors

Stress items that loaded below .40 were not used. One stress item, 31v, Adapting to technology changes (e.g., distance learning, e-mail, computers), did not load clearly on any factor and was eliminated.

Another stress item, 31c, Complying with unit rules and regulations, loaded on Factor 1, Role Strain, Factor 2, Managing Human Interactions, and Factor 8, Fiscal Responsibilities, with loadings of .428, .405, and .422, respectively. Since the stress item did not load with any strength on one factor, the item was discarded (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).

Harada (1991) describes the knowledge of policies, rules, and regulations as a major part of the deans' jobs. He pointed out that it was appropriate to find the stress item concerning rules and regulations in every facet of the deans' jobs and not strongly linked with any one factor.

Five stress items were found to load on more than one factor. Those items that loaded on more than one factor were 1) 31j, Believing my administrative career progress is not what it should be; 2) 31p, Feeling required paperwork is not utilized; 3) 31cc, Supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people; 4) 31kk, Meeting report and other paperwork deadlines; and 5) 3100, Attempting to balance my professional and personal lives.

Factor 1: Role Strain

Factor 1 was labeled Role Strain. It was made up of eight items from the stress inventory.

These stress items identify the deans' perceptions of being in the middle of interactions and their expectations in conjunction with their supervisors and others in authority. The highest loading item represents the importance of the deans being acutely aware of the interdependent positions they hold. The need for a good match in personalities and work style is evident in the items grouped together on this factor. The deans are in positions of being held accountable yet not having authority over the decisions that affect themselves and the units for which they are responsible.

Factor 2: Managing Human Interactions

Factor 2 was labeled Managing Human Interactions and was composed of nine stress items.

Deans are likely to have been faculty members at some time in their career and therefore fully understand the concerns of faculty. This close affiliation and understanding of the faculty role likely adds to the stress of conflicts with this group.

Most individuals have a natural desire to avoid conflict. By the nature of their positions, the community college deans are placed in a position of having to address conflicts among faculty, students, and chairs. Providing supervision and evaluation for others also holds the potential for conflicts and stress.

Factor 3: Intrinsic Job Demands

Factor 3 was labeled Intrinsic Job Demands. This factor includes seven stress items.

The items in Factor 3 clearly describe the sentiments of the deans regarding these multifaceted jobs and represent the pressure of administrative duties that impose continuous demands on the time of the deans. The wide range of duties and expectations requires the deans to determine what is personal time and what is professional time. The deans find they do not have a job that begins and ends on precise hours or days.

Factor 4: Managing Professional/Personal Life

Factor 4 was labeled Managing Professional/Personal Life and included five stress items.

Factor 4 was comprised of stress items that indicate the social expectations of the deans' positions. These types of social activities are expected due to the positions and may be more a professional expectation than a personal choice. These types of expectations thus add to the stress of managing time for their other professional duties and their personal lives.

Factor 5: Professional Maturity

Factor 5, Professional Maturity, consisted of two stress items.

The two stress items in Factor 5 identify the stress deans perceive in response to the level of experience and comfort they have in such jobs. Those individuals who have made the first step into academic administration will have to decide if they will remain in an administrative role or if they are not suited for this type of position (Murray & Murray, 1998). This factor represents the stress that can be experienced by deans who are new to their work, as opposed to those who have been in the position for a period of time (Robillard, 2000).

Factor 6: Balancing Leadership and Scholarship

Factor 6 was labeled Balancing Leadership and Scholarship and was composed of three stress items.

Factor 6 indicates the stress of deans as they attempt to balance the conflicts between being an administrator and a scholar. The roles of these midlevel leaders demand a great deal of their time. These positions often do not leave adequate time for the pursuit of individual scholarship, nor does the mission and purpose of the community college find the scholarship role a priority for community college administrators (Perkins, 1991; Vaughan, 1986). The community college environment has been touted as focused on teaching versus research. This choice between teaching or pursuing research is being reexamined as community colleges continue to define and redefine their role in higher education. The measure and balance of teaching and research is one of the elements that will help define that role (Perkins, 1991; Sims & Sims, 1991; Boggs, 2001).

The third stress item in this factor was 31k, Believing my academic career progress is not what it should be, and needs to be considered through the lens of the priorities of community colleges for academic accomplishment. This item may represent the desires of the deans to complete additional academic credentials (master's or doctorate) and the stress of not having sufficient time to work on other degrees due to competing job and family commitments. The deans know that other individuals may have completed or be completing advanced degrees, thus making those individuals more marketable for positions in academic administration.

Factor 7: Administrative Identity

Factor 7 was labeled Administrative Identity and was composed of four stress items.

This factor presents the perception of professional identity that individuals see for themselves as administrators. This category can be likened to comparing self to colleagues in the same type of jobs. As a dean, perception of what is being accomplished and how valued the accomplishments are by the organization depends upon the individual's self-confidence along with the political environment in which the dean operates.

Factor 8: Fiscal Responsibilities

Factor 8 was labeled Fiscal Responsibilities and consisted of four stress items.

These stress items speak to the requirements for reports and paperwork that typically ask for justifications of unit needs and goals. Too often the perceptions are that justifications are either insufficient or not utilized and fail to garner the resources requested, becoming a source of stress for the deans. The continual need to request, lobby, justify, and defend the need for resources is intrinsically part of the job of the deans (McBride, 2000).

Factor 9: External Constituency Demands

Factor 9 was labeled External Constituency Demands and included two stress items.

The two stress items of Factor 9, External Constituency Demands, in addition to one stress item in Factor 8, Fiscal Responsibilities (31mm, Trying to gain financial support for college programs), were identified in Gmelch et al. (1999). The study of these researchers was based on deans in four-year colleges and universities. They identified a new theme composed of three stress items (Having to engage in fund raising, Trying to gain financial support for faculty programs, and Trying to satisfy constituent groups [e.g., alumni, legislators, community]) that indicated fund raising and interactions with constituencies were a source of stress for four-year college and university academic deans. This theme also appeared in this current study and served to identify a dimension of stress that was the basis of this stress factor for community college deans.

Factor 9 identifies the need for deans to interact with constituencies outside the community college to meet demands. It is no longer feasible for the deans to remain focused only on the internal function of the unit for which they are responsible. This factor focuses on fund raising activities and expresses the increased pressure to look to external sources for funding. The abilities of the deans to negotiate and win a priority position internally in the institution may not be sufficient to gain the fiscal resources needed for the units under the deans.

Ranking Stress Factors by Mean of $tress Items

The average of each stress factor was obtained by determining the average of the means of the stress item means in each stress factor (Table 13). A Likert scale of 1 = Slight and 5 = High was used to gain responses for each stress item. All ranked factors indicate an average that is below the theoretical mean of 3.0 on the five-point Likert scale.

Concluding Statement

The study confirms the existence of stress factors for community college deans. Nine stress factors were discovered by principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. These factors identified the dimensions of stress experienced by community college deans. While the number of stress factors was more than expected, these factors do provide insight into emerging issues that are contributing to the perceived stress level of community college deans. The emerging issues that should be considered for further study include the following: Factor 7, Administrative Identity, Factor 8, Fiscal Responsibilities, and Factor 9, External Constituency Demands. It would be helpful to know if these emerging factors are characteristic of the community college environment or if economic and societal changes are impacting this environment in more demanding ways.

Gaining knowledge about the deans and their perceptions of stress is important in order to keep dynamic and creative leadership available to community colleges. Unrelenting stress may lead to health problems and burnout, which will leave the organization without productive and proactive administrators (Cloud, 1991).

It is important to carry out research that may aid administrators, specifically deans, to be successful in managing the stresses they encounter in executing their role in community colleges. Levin (1998a) describes the environment of community colleges as one that presents opportunities but certainly also exposes the potential of increasing stress for midlevel administrators. Levin (1998b) portrays this dynamic environment in the following way:

   Community colleges are not static organizations: they alter, change
   their approaches, their programs, and their relationship with their
   environment. But they are not transformed institutions; they have
   not become another institution: they are neither universities nor
   secondary schools; they are neither corporations nor small
   businesses. They possess the attributes of many other organizations;
   they do so because on the one hand their external environment
   pushes them in that direction, and on the other hand because in
   order to survive yet maintain their purposes, community colleges
   themselves change course and adopt new approaches, new technologies,
   and new employees. (p. 53)

This environment, as well as the challenges being presented to education in general and to community colleges in particular, makes it critical that deans are aware of the factors causing stress. In addition, deans should have the support they and their colleges need in order to manage stress and maintain a healthy work environment. These midlevel administrators are at the heart of keeping community colleges vital in serving their students as well as their broader community.

Table 1
Selected Personal, Professional, and Institutional Characteristics of
Community College Deans

Variable                                      Frequency    Percentage *

Gender (n = 322)
  Female                                         149           46.3
  Male                                           173           53.7

Age (n = 317)
  <47                                             76           24.0
   47-52                                          72           22.7
   53-56                                          92           29.0
  >56                                             77           24.3

Marital status (n = 322)
  Single                                          64           19.9
  Married                                        258           80.1

Ethnicity (n = 322)
  White                                          297           92.2
  Hispanic                                        11            3.4
  Asian-American                                   4            1.2
  Other                                            4            1.2
  Native American                                  3            0.9
  African-American                                 3            0.9

Nature of appointment (n = 323)
  Inside                                         215           66.6
  Outside                                        108           33.4

Length of time in current position (n = 324)
  < 1.6 yrs                                       84           25.9
    1.6 yrs-3 yrs                                 83           25.6
    3.1 yrs-7 yrs                                 74           22.8
  > 7.1 yrs                                       83           25.6

Type of community college (n = 324)
  Technical                                       48           14.8
  Transfer                                        46           14.2
  Both Technical and Transfer                    229           70.7
  Other                                            1             .3

Role Perception (a = 321)
  Administrator                                  227           70.7
  Faculty                                         14            4.4
  Both                                            80           24.9

* Percentages are based on the number of participants who responded to
each item.

Table 2
Stress Variable Means and Standard Deviations

Category                                 Items          Range
                                                    Min       Max

Stress Inventory (n = 319)                41         1          5
Assessment of overall stress (n = 318)     1         1          5
Percent of stress from job (n = 312)       1         0        100

Category                                 Mean      Standard
                                                  deviation

Stress Inventory (n = 319)                2.54 *     0.64
Assessment of overall stress (n = 318)    3.06 *     1.01
Percent of stress from job (n = 312)     55.68      24.67

* Mean based on five-point Likert scale (1 = Slight, 5 = High).

Table 3
Eigenvalues and Percent of Explained Variance for Stress Factors

                                            Eigen-   No. of  Percent of
No.  Factor                                 value    items    variance

1    Role Strain                            4.671      8      11.392
2    Managing Human Interactions            4.019      9       9.803
3    Intrinsic Job Demands                  3.436      7       8.380
4    Managing Professional/Personal Life    2.684      5       6.545
5    Professional Maturity                  2.556      2       6.234
6    Balancing Leadership and Scholarship   2.339      3       5.705
7    Administrative Identity                2.243      4       5.471
8    Fiscal Responsibilities                2.130      4       5.196
9    External Constituency Demands          1.593      2       3.886

Table 4
Factor 1: Role Strain

Item    Description                                             Loading

31y     Not knowing how my supervisor evaluates my               .778
        performance
31u     Trying to influence the actions and decisions of         .773
        my supervisor
31g     Resolving differences with my supervisor                 .769
31i     Having insufficient authority to perform my unit         .717
        responsibilities
31ff    Feeling I will not be able to satisfy the                .607
        conflicting demands of those in positions of
        authority over me
31p     Feeling required paperwork is not utilized               .540 *
3ldd    Feeling others don't understand my goals and             .446
        expectations
31j     Believing my administrative career progress is not       .420 *
        what it should be

Cronbach's alpha = .87
* Loaded on more than one factor.

Table 5
Factor 2: Managing Human Interactions

Item    Description                                             Loading

31n     Handling concerns and conflicts with faculty             .814
31f     Handling student concerns and conflicts                  .695
31m     Handling concerns and conflicts with chairs              .671
3lii    Having to make decisions that affect the lives of        .555
        faculty, staff, and students (e.g., tenure,
        promotion, and advancement)
31aa    Evaluating chair, faculty, and staff performance         .533
31e     Imposing excessively high self-expectations              .453
31cc    Supervising and coordinating the tasks of many people    .410 *
31jj    Promoting diversity among faculty, students, and the     .403
        leadership team
31w     Seeking compatibility among unit and personal goals      .399

Cronbach's alpha = .84
* Loaded on more than one factor.

Table 6
Factor 3. Intrinsic Job Demands

Item    Description                                         Loading

31s     Feeling I have too heavy a workload                 .729
31t     Attending meetings which take up too much time      .671
31gg    Being frequently interrupted by telephone calls     .588
        and drop-in visitors
31oo    Attempting to balance my professional and           .549 *
        personal lives
31kk    Meeting report and other paperwork deadlines        .541 *
31cc    Supervising and coordinating the tasks of many      .535 *
        people
31r     Writing letters and memos and responding to other   .451
        paperwork

Cronbach's alpha = .85

* Loaded on more than one factor.

Table 7

Factor 4: Managing Professional/Personal Life

Item    Description                                          Loading

31b     Meeting social obligations expected of deans         .809
        (e.g., clubs, parties, volunteer work)
31a     Participating in work related activities outside     .766
        the regular working hours which conflict with
        personal activities
31d     Participating/presenting at professional meetings    .604
31oo    Attempting to balance my professional and            .451 *
        personal lives
311     Having to travel to fulfill job expectations         .431

Cronbach's alpha = .78

* Loaded on more than one factor.

Table 8
Factor 5: Professiona1 Maturity

Item     Description                                        Loading

31ee     Feeling I am not adequately trained to handle       .723
         my job
31hh     Feeling pressure for better job performance         .676
         above what I feel is reasonable

Cronbach's alpha = .63

Table 9
Factor 6: Balancing Leadership and Scholarship and was composed of
three stress items.

Item    Description                                         Loading

31h     Having insufficient time to stay current in my       .735
        academic field
31nn    Attempting to balance my leadership and scho-        .657
        larship responsibilities
31k     Believing my academic career progress is not         .628
        what it should be

Cronbach's alpha = .70

Table 10
Factor 7: Administrative Identity

Item    Description                                        Loading

31x     Receiving insufficient recognition for my           .681
        performance
31z     Receiving inadequate salary                         .660
3lo     Receiving insufficient recognition for              .656
        performing administrative functions
31j     Believing my administrative career progress is      .455 *
        not what it should be

Cronbach's alpha = .81

* Loaded on more than one factor.

Table 11
Factor 8: Fiscal Responsibilities

Item    Description                                         Loading

3111    Preparing budgets and allocating resources           .593
31mm    Trying to gain financial support for unit            .498
        programs
31kk    Meeting report and other paperwork deadlines         .478 *
31p     Feeling required paperwork is not utilized           .437 *

Cronbach's alpha = .76

* Loaded on more than one factor.

Table 12
Factor 9: External Constituency Demands

Item    Description                                          Loading

31q     Having to engage in fund raising activities           .707
3lbb    Trying to satisfy the concerns of constituent         .606
        groups (e.g., alumni, legislators, community)

Cronbach's alpha = .48

Table 13
Rank of Stress Factors by Factor Mean

Rank    Factor Mean *    Factor    Factor Name

 1          2.994          2       Managing Human Interactions
 2          2.675          3       Intrinsic Job Demands
 3          2.487          4       Managing Professional/Personal
                                   Life
 4          2.454          1       Role Strain
 5          2.416          6       Balancing Leadership and
                                   Scholarship
 6          2.370          8       Fiscal Responsibilities
 7          2.298          9       External Constituency Demands
 8          2.262          7       Administrative Identity
 9          2.077          5       Professional Maturity

* Mean based on five-point Likert scale (1 = Slight, 5 = High).

References

Boggs, G. R. (2001). The meaning of scholarship. Community College Journal, 72(1), 23-26.

Bragg, D. D. (2000). Preparing community college deans to lead change. In D. Robillard (Ed.), Dimensions of managing academic affairs in the community college (pp. 75-85). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, J. S. (1992). Dimensions of university academic department chair stress: A national study. Pullman: Washington State University, Center for the Study of the Department Chair.

Byrne, J. P. (1997). Chairs and change in the evolving community college. Athens: University of Georgia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED428781)

Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Associates. (1994). Managing community colleges: A handbook for effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cloud, R. C. (1991). A stress management primer for college administrators. The Educational Record, 72(3), 31-34.

Cooper, C. L. & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 11-29.

Dill, W. R. (1980). The deanship: An unstable craft. In D. E. Griffiths & D. J. McCarty (Eds.), The dilemma of the deanship (pp. 261-284). Danville, IL: Interstate.

Fagin, C. M. (1997). The leadership role of a dean. In M. J. Austin, F. L. Ahern, & R. A. English (Eds.), The professional school dean: Meeting the leadership challenges (pp. 95-99). New Directions for Higher Education, no. 98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Findlen, R. A. (2000). Conflict: The skeleton in academe's closet. In D. Robillard, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of managing academic affairs in the community college (pp. 41-49). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gillett-Karam, R. (1999a). Midlevel management in the community college: A rose garden? In R. Gillett-Karam (Ed.), Preparing department chairs for their leadership roles (pp. 5-11). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 105. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gillett-Karam, R. (with Cameron, D. W., Messina, R. C., Jr., Mittelstet, S. K., Mulder, A. E., Sykes, A. B., Jr., Thornton, J. S.) (1999b). College presidents examine midlevel management in the community college. In R. Gillett-Karam (Ed.), Preparing department chairs for their leadership roles (pp. 37-46). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 105. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gmelch, W. H. (1988). Research perspectives on administrative stress: Causes, reactions, responses and consequences. The Journal of Educational Administration, 26(2), 134-140.

Gmelch, W. H., & Burns, J. S. (1991). Sources of stress for academic department chairs: A national study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Boston, MA.

Gmelch, W. H., & Burns, J. S. (1993). The cost of academic leadership: Department chair stress. Innovative Higher Education, 17, 259-270.

Gmelch, W. H., Lovrich, N. P., & Wilke, P. K. (1984). Sources of stress in academe: A national perspective. Research in Higher Education, 20(4), 477-490.

Gmelch, W. H., & Swent, B. (1984). Management team stressors and their impact on administrators' health. The Journal of Educational Administration, 22(2), 192-205.

Gmelch, W. H., & Wilke, P. K. (1991). The stresses of faculty and administrators in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Management, 6(2), 23-33.

Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. C., (1999). The academic dean: An imperiled species searching for balance. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 717-740.

Harada, M. (1991). Criteria for evaluation of community college instructional deans. San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338293)

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Houchen, B. C. (1994). Study of stress factors with relationship to demographics, time allocation, and social support for department chairs at community colleges. (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 12A.

Jensen, R. (2000). Rules and truths of community college leadership. Community College Week, 13(9), 4-5.

Koch, J. L., Tung, R., Gmelch, W., & Swent, B. (1982). Job stress among school administrators: Factorial dimensions and differential effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 493-499.

Levin, J. S. (1998a). Organizational change and the community college. In J. S.

Levin (Ed.), Organizational change in the community college: A ripple or a sea change? (pp. 1-4). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levin J. S. (1998b). Making sense of organizational change. In J. S. Levin (FA.), Organizational change in the community college: A ripple or a sea change? (pp. 43-54). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McBride, S. A. (2000). Academic economics: The academic dean and financial management. In G. B. Vanghan & J. C. Palmer (Eds.), Enhancing teaching and administration through scholarship (pp. 49-58). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 76. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGrath, J. E. (1970). A conceptual formulation for research on stress. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), Social and psychological factors in stress (pp. 10-21). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

McGrath, J. E. (1976) Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (FA.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351-1395). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Murray, J. P. & Murray, J. I. (1998). Job satisfaction and the propensity to leave ala institution among two-year college division chairpersons. Community College Review, 25(4), 45-59.

Perkins, J. R. (1991). Scholarship and the academic dean. In G. B. Vaughan & J. C. Palmer (Eds.), Enhancing teaching and administration through scholarship (pp. 49-58). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 76. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rasch, C., Hutchison, J. & Tollefson, N. (1986). Sources of stress among administrators at research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 9(4), 419-434.

Robillard, D. (2000). Toward a definition of deaning. In D. Robillard, Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of managing academic affairs in the community college (pp. 3-8). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Russell, C. A. (2000). Community college academic deans: Leadership frames and stress. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 10A.

Sarros, J. C., Gmelch, W. H., & Tanewski, G. A. (1998). The academic dean: A position in need of a compass and clock. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(1), 65-87.

Seagren, A. T., Wheeler, D. W., Creswell, J. W., Miller, M. T., & VanHorn-Grassmeyer, K. (1994). Academic leadership in community colleges. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Selye, H. (1974). The stress of life. New York: McGraw Hill.

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.

Sims, R. R. & Sims, S. J. (1991). Managing institutions of higher education into the 21st century. New York: Greenwood Press.

Staten, D. J. (1989). Administrator stress in community colleges. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 03A.

Torelli, J. A., & Gmelch, W. H. (1993). Occupational stress and burnout in educational administration. People and Education, 1(4). 363-381.

Tucker, A., & Bryan, R. A. (1991). The academic dean: Dove, dragon, and diplomat (2nd ed.). Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Vaughan, G. B., (1986). The community college presidency. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Vaughan, G. B. (1990). Pathway to the presidency: Community college deans of instruction. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Wharton, L. E. (1997). Observations on community college leadership. Community College Review, 25(1), 15-28.

Wild, L. L. (2002). Work-related stress factors affecting the community college dean. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 4A.

Wild, L. L., Ebbers, L. H., Gmelch, W. H., & Russell, C. (2000-2001). 2000 National Study of Community and Technical College Academic Deans. Ames: Iowa State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.

Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. C. (1999). Stress in academic leadership: U.S. and Australian department chairs/heads. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 165-185.

Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Gmelch, W. H. (1999). The impact of role conflict and ambiguity on academic deans. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 80-105.

Linda Wild is director of Academic Development at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan. [e-mail]

Larry Ebbers is professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Iowa State University. [e-mail]

Mack Shelley is professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and professor of Statistics at Iowa State University. [e-mail]

Walter Gmelch is professor and dean of the College of Education at Iowa State University. [e-mail]