The managerial roles of public community college chief academic officers.

The position of Chief Academic Officer (CAO) at a community college is of critical importance to the success of the mission of the institution. Some scholars have suggested that the position is of equal importance to that of the president, at least in terms of the academic affairs of the community college (Birnbaum, 1992; Mech, 1997; Vaughan, 1990). The CAO's title tends to vary from institution to institution. Many institutions use the title dean of instruction, for example. Murray, Murray, and Summar (2000) defined the chief academic officer "as the administrative head of academic programs with responsibility for all academic affairs at the institution. At most community colleges the chief academic officer is the second highest-ranking administrative officer and reports to the president" (p. 22).

The critical role of the CAO is quite evident. Vaughan (1990) states that chief academic officers are "responsible for the instructional program; these individuals are at the center of what is ultimately of greatest importance to the community college, teaching and learning. Deans of instruction also occupy that middle ground where many of the tensions of the college come together, where daily battles are fought: administrative concerns versus faculty concerns; student services concerns versus instructional concerns" (p. 19). Erwin (2000) notes that "the chief academic officer at a college is the person primarily responsible for its instructional integrity and curriculum development" (p. 9).

The duties and responsibilities of the CAO are broad and diverse.

   To summarize, deans of instruction deal daily with collegewide issues; pass
   professional judgment on all teaching faculty; report to and advise the
   college president; are responsible for the college's programs of study and
   schedule of classes; help with long-range planning; work with the college's
   public relations program; plan, monitor, and spend a budget; deal with
   external agencies; and, in general, have their fingers on the pulse beat of
   the entire college in a way that is equaled only by the college president.
   The successful dean of instruction must be a leader with vision, a manager
   of details, an advocate of the faculty, and a representative of the
   president's office. Indeed, the dean of instruction's position probably
   requires more time, energy, and attention to a myriad of details than any
   other administrative position on campus, including that of president
   (Vaughan, 1990, pp. 10-11).

Robillard (2000) adds:

   It is clear from the research that the position of dean at a community
   college is a challenging job. Deans must mediate among students, faculty,
   administration, and staff. They must be careful stewards of resources and
   offer guidance in how funds should be allocated and reallocated. Finally,
   they must cope with both internal program evaluation and external
   accountability mandates (p. 8).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study was based on Mintzberg's (1973) typology defining managerial roles of CAOs as sets of behaviors. Mintzberg noted that all managers perform 10 managerial roles: (1) figurehead, (2) leader, (3) liaison, (4) monitor, (5) disseminator, (6) spokesperson, (7) entrepreneur, (8) disturbance handler, (9) resource allocator, and (10) negotiator. Each role is influenced by four variable types: (1) the environment (for this study these were span of control, collective bargaining, and region), (2) the job (for this study this was the CAO position), (3) the person (for this study these were gender and age), and (4) the situation (for this study these were years of managerial experience, years in position, and years at institution). Thus, even though all managers perform each role, they emphasize different roles based on the influencing factors (see Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Mintzberg (1973) declared that the manager's position is always the starting point in a given analysis concerning organizations. Since the manager is the leader of a particular organizational unit, formal authority and status are immediate for the manager. From this formal authority and status come the interpersonal roles. First, in the role of figurehead, the manager represents the company in formal matters with the external constituencies. Second, in the role of liaison, the manager forms partnerships with colleagues and external constituencies to secure favors and information. Third, in the role of leader, the manager has the responsibility to motivate and develop subordinates. In the role of disseminator, the manager is able to communicate information to individuals internal to the organization. In a much broader sense, as spokesperson, the manager is able to communicate the organization's message to the outside environment.

Because the manager is the apex of status and authority and because all information must come through this position, the manager is at the focal point for decision making. Decision making consists of four roles. In the entrepreneurial role, the manager is at the forefront of making changes. When the organization is threatened, the manager becomes the disturbance handler. As a resource allocator, the manager decides where the institution will expend resources. Finally, as the negotiator, the manager mediates situations that could either jeopardize or benefit the organization.

Because the manager is the apex of status and authority and because all information must come through this position, the manager is at the focal point for decision making. Decision making consists of four roles. In the entrepreneurial role, the manager is at the forefront of making changes. When the organization is threatened, the manager becomes the disturbance handler. As a resource allocator, the manager decides where the institution will expend resources. Finally, as the negotiator, the manager mediates situations that could either jeopardize or benefit the organization.

Methodology

Research Questions

This study asked the following questions: What managerial roles do CAOs at community colleges perform and which roles do they emphasize? Are there differences in the roles CAOs emphasize because of environmental characteristics (i.e., span of control, collective bargaining, and region), because of personal characteristics (i.e., gender and age), or because of situational characteristics (i.e., years of managerial experience, years in position, and years at institution)?

Instrumentation

This study used a managerial role survey based on Mintzberg's taxonomy (1973) designed by Judson (1981), modified by Mech (1997), and further modified by the researchers for this present study. The original survey had two questions for each managerial role. For the present study 10 more questions were added to the original 20 because latent factors having fewer than 3 indicator variables generally exhibit problems with identification and convergence.

Because a newly modified instrument needs to be critiqued for content validity, 10 higher education managers were asked to critique the instrument for validity of the managerial roles (latent factors). Each of Mintzberg's 10 managerial roles (latent factors) was operationalized through 3 questions (indicator variables). The managers were asked to identify which combination of 3 questions corresponded to each of the 10 managerial roles. If they did not agree, then revisions in wording were made to the survey. Questions 13, 18, and 26 were reworded. After the project was finished and awkward or misleading wording was corrected, then the researchers felt confident that the survey (see Appendix) measured what it claimed to measure--the 10 managerial roles as defined by Mintzberg.

The newly modified instrument was analyzed for the internal consistency of the 10 scales (managerial roles). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.89 for 177 valid responses. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that all 30 questions concerning the managerial roles loaded onto 9 independent factors.

Sampling Procedure

A stratified, random sample was selected by sorting the target population by the six national accrediting regions and then calculating the percentages of community colleges in each region. The appropriate number of colleges from each accreditation region was randomly selected. For statistical analysis purposes, oversampling of three accreditation regions was necessary. In spring 2001, packets containing the survey, instructions, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope were mailed to the randomly selected CAOs. Two weeks later nonrespondents received a second mailing. A total of 184 of 250 surveys were returned, representing a 73.6% response rate.

Findings

The data were analyzed in several ways. Descriptive statistics were used to determine managerial roles emphasized by CAOs, as well as environmental, personal, and situational characteristics for CAOs. Causal-comparative statistical methods were used to describe differences in managerial roles with respect to environmental, personal, and situational variables. Correlation statistical methods were used to discover relationships among environmental, personal, and situational variables and managerial roles emphasized by community college CAOs.

Descriptive Statistics

Managerial Roles of CAOs

Table 1 shows that, overall, the respondents' average use of all 10 managerial roles ranged from some (9) to often (12). The scale used in the survey for the managerial roles was as follows: not used at all (3), a little (6), some (9), and often (12). Included are the range denoted by minimum and maximum, the mean score, and the standard deviation. Respondents indicated that the leader role is used most often followed by liaison and disseminator roles. The liaison and disseminator roles are then followed by the monitor, resource allocator, and entrepreneur roles. The least used roles are spokesperson, disturbance handler, negotiator, and figurehead.

Table 2 shows that the CAOs in this study have an average of 13.7 individuals reporting directly to them. The median for span of control is 9 individuals with the highest percentage (77%) of respondents having between 5 and 12 individuals reporting directly to them. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) found no statistical differences in managerial roles emphasized for span of control by the 6 different regions.

Table 3 reveals that of the 184 institutions responding, 102 (55.4%) have collective bargaining agreements; and 82 (44.6%) do not have collective bargaining agreements. In 5 of the 6 regions, over 50% of the colleges have collective bargaining agreements. With 93.7%, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) have the highest percentage of institutions represented by collective bargaining.

Table 4 shows that the majority of respondents were male (59.2%). Female respondents represented 40.8% of the total respondents. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) found statistical differences in managerial roles emphasized by males and females, which will be discussed in the following section of this article. Table 5 shows that the average age of respondents was 52.5. The median age was 53, and the mode age was 55. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no statistical differences in managerial roles emphasized between the regions for age.

Table 6 shows that the average years of managerial experience of the respondents is 16.4 years. The median is 15.5 years. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any statistical differences in managerial roles emphasized between years of managerial experience by the regions. Table 7 shows that respondents have been at their current institution an average of 13.5 years. The median time spent at the same institution is 10 years. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not show any statistical differences in managerial roles emphasized between the regions by years of managerial experience.

Table 8 shows that respondents have been in their current position an average of 5.4 years. The median was 4 years and the mode was 1 year. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the data; no statistical differences were found in managerial roles emphasized because of years in current position and region.

Satisfaction and Role Ambiguity

Table 9 reveals the satisfaction of CAOs from the United States and from each of the six accreditation regions. Included in the table are numbers of subjects, the range denoted by minimum and maximum, the mean, the median, and the standard deviation. The scale used for satisfaction was (1) no satisfaction, (2) a little satisfaction, (3) some satisfaction, and (4) much satisfaction. Table 9 indicates that CAOs are satisfied with their positions. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with no statistical differences discovered in managerial roles emphasized between accrediting regions.

Table 10 shows the level of role ambiguity the CAO respondents indicated. The scale used was as follows: (1) no role ambiguity, (2) a little role ambiguity, (3) some role ambiguity, and (4) much role ambiguity. Table 10 indicates that respondents have experienced some role ambiguity in their academic position. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with no statistical differences for role ambiguity between regions.

Causal-Comparative Statistics

It is obvious from looking over the tables in the Descriptive Statistics section that differences do exist for managerial roles based on the environmental, personal, and situational variables. Causal-comparative statistical methods were used to determine if any of the apparent differences were statistically significant. There were some statistically significant different means. However, the measure of association using the omega squared technique showed small to medium associations. Therefore, the reader should realize that these statistically significant differences may not be found with other sample populations.

In all of the tests performed, the independent variables were environmental (span of control, region, collective bargaining), personal (age and gender), or situational (years of managerial experience, years at institution, and years in position). The dependent variables were the 10 managerial roles. First, a MANOVA was performed selecting various independent variables with the dependent variables and, if significance was found, then follow-up univariate tests were conducted to help substantiate the claim. Only significant findings are reported in this section.

A MANOVA was performed using gender and other independent variables such as years of managerial experience and age; however, only gender showed significance with three managerial roles--leader, liaison, and disseminator. To test this finding further, a one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) was utilized. Again, statistical differences were discovered for these roles as they relate to gender. Tables 11 through 13 show the statistical significance.

There is a significant statistical difference between CAOs who have fewer than 5 years experience and those who have more than 5 years; the largest difference was between CAOs with fewer than 5 years experience and CAOs with 16 to 20 years experience. A MANOVA discovered statistically significant differences between independent variable, managerial experience, and the dependent variable, figurehead. A one-way ANOVA found that CAOs with fewer than five years managerial experience place less emphasis on the figurehead role than CAOs who have more than five years of experience.

The variable age was divided into 3 categories: from 29 to 40, from 41 to 55, and from 56 to 65. Older CAOs tend to place more importance on the monitor role of gathering and analyzing information than do their younger counterparts in the 29 to 40 category. The MANOVA found statistical significance with the independent personal variable age and the dependent managerial variable monitor. Using a one-way ANOVA, statistical differences were found with the monitor role by the three categories of age of the CAOs. Table 15 describes the significance for the mean differences in the monitor role for the three categories of age.

Correlation Statistics

It appears that when span of control increases, the importance of the disseminator role decreases and the importance of the entrepreneur role increases. Correlation analysis was used to determine if any dependent (managerial roles) variables were associated with any independent (environmental, personal, or situational) variables. Two correlations were found using the nonparametric correlation Spearman's rho. A negative correlation (.05 level; two-tailed) was found between span of control and the disseminator role, and a positive correlation (.05 level; two-tailed) was found between span of control and the entrepreneur role. If one does not partition span of control (treat span of control as continuous), the data indicate that when CAOs have more people reporting directly to them, the role of disseminator is emphasized less and the role of entrepreneur is emphasized more.

Discussion

The demographic data gathered in this study suggest that the typical CAO is 52.5 years of age, male, works at a college with collective bargaining, supervises between 5 and 12 midlevel administrators, has 15.5 years of managerial experience, and has been a CAO at his current institution for 5.4 years. The average age is the same as that reported by Shults (2001) and Cejda, McKenny, and Burley (2001). However, what is interesting is that the median age was 53 and the modal age was 55. This means that one half of the current CAOs are over 53 and that the most frequently represented age is 55. This strongly suggests a looming crisis in leadership. Some scholars are predicting that as many as 70% of all community college presidents will be retiring in the next 10 years (Lane, 2002). Traditionally, the CAO has been the stepping stone to the presidency (Boggs, 1988; Twombly, 1988; Vaughan, 1990). Yet, given the age of the current CAOs, it is likely that they also will be retiring in high numbers. Therefore, it is likely that community colleges could face shortages of experienced administrators to step into both the presidency and the CAO positions. Community colleges need to consider training younger managers with the potential to be effective CAOs.

The CAOs from all 6 regions indicated that all 10 managerial roles are used in the performance of their duties, with more weight placed on the roles of leader, liaison, and disseminator. Although the liaison role does involve scanning the external environment for information that might be important to organizational members, the emphasized roles are largely internally focused and tend to emphasize people skills over task orientation. In order to fulfill these three roles, CAOs must be able to gather and analyze information effectively and then communicate it to their subordinates. CAOs need to be effective at human relations functions such as motivating, communicating, and collaborating with others to accomplish the institutional mission. Thus, future CAOs should make sure they have effective communication skills, both verbal and written. One corollary is that CAOs should be able to utilize technological tools such as internet, email, spreadsheets, and word processors (Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo, 1996).

The next cluster of managerial roles most often used by CAOs was monitor, resource allocator, and entrepreneur. The monitor role requires CAOs to have skills in networking with other people both inside and outside the academic department to gather and evaluate data regarding institutional effectiveness. The resource allocator role requires that CAOs initiate, develop, and maintain the operational budget within the academic division and effectively manage the human and physical resources. The entrepreneur role requires CAOs to have skills in searching internally and externally for innovations or opportunities that may improve the performance or outcomes of the institution. These three roles require innovative people who feel comfortable with some ambiguity.

The last cluster of managerial roles emphasized by CAOs was spokesperson, disturbance handler, figurehead, and negotiator. The roles of figurehead and spokesperson require excellent public speaking skills as well as good judgment concerning sensitive information. In these roles, the CAOs need to be aware that they are public figures who represent the college administration both internally and externally. The roles of disturbance handler and negotiator require the ability to make difficult decisions. However, before decisions are made, an effective CAO should take the time to find out as many facts as possible. In other words, CAOs should be reflective in their behavior.

It is interesting that the roles of figurehead and spokesperson were never in the top three emphasized by CAOs. Clearly, CAOs at community colleges are more like internally focused middle managers than CEOs who are highly visible. However, it is interesting that CAOs with over five years of managerial experience indicate that the figurehead role is more important to them than it is to their counterparts who have fewer than five years of experience. This could mean that managers, in general, develop more of a figurehead role as they gain more experience. It may be that after becoming comfortable with their mostly internal roles, CAOs begin to seek new challenges. It may also be that after reaching a comfort level with the more internally focused roles, CAOs feel more confident representing their institutions to various constituencies. The figurehead role of acting as a symbol or representative of the organization also becomes more important as CAOs begin to consider moving to a presidency.

The study also found a statistically significant difference between the independent situational variable of years of managerial experience and the dependent managerial variable of liaison. Managers with more years of experience tended to emphasize the liaison role of establishing networks to gather information more than do CAOs with less experience. It could be that, as managers are more successful, they develop more contacts and see their role as fostering outside relationships rather than simply being focused within their college.

Although there were no statistically significant differences in the ranking of managerial roles based on accrediting regions, differences were found based on personal variables of gender and age, the situational variable of managerial experience, and the environmental variable of span of control. Although table 16 shows that female and male CAOs tend to be identical in the order in which they rank managerial roles, an ANOVA (see tables 11, 12, & 13) showed that female CAOs place more emphasis on the leader, liaison, and disseminator roles than do their male counterparts. Since this study could not determine the reasons for this situation, a future study might try to determine if there are differences in male and female managerial experiences.

The study also uncovered a statistically significant difference between the independent personal variable of age and the dependent managerial variable of monitor. Older CAOs tend to place more importance on the monitor role of gathering and analyzing information than do their younger counterparts in the 29 to 40 category. Although the study could not determine the reasons for this difference, it is clear that older CAOs feel a need to scan both the external and the internal environment and keep themselves cognizant of actions that might impact the effectiveness of the college.

The study also found a statistically significant difference between the independent environmental variable of span of control and the dependent managerial variables of disseminator and entrepreneur. When the span of control increases, the importance of the entrepreneur role increases, and the importance of the disseminator role decreases. It appears that CAOs with more staff reporting directly to them may be able to work more efficiently through bureaucratic chains of command or simple delegation than their counterparts who have fewer individuals reporting to them. Therefore, they could have more time to be entrepreneurial.

Conclusions

The answers to the research questions that guided this study and its resulting implications, recommendations, and conclusions should be taken seriously because of the strengths of this study: (1) a 73.6% response rate from a stratified, random sample population of 250 CAOs across all 6 accreditation regions within the United States; (2) the generalizability of the results across all 6 national accreditation regions; and (3) the high reliability and internal validity of the managerial role survey.

Knowing the managerial roles of CAOs at community colleges and which roles they tend to emphasize is important for at least three reasons. First, the way CAOs perceive their work and the roles they fulfill may have implications for their own job satisfaction. Knowing which roles incumbent CAOs emphasize may help new or aspiring CAOs have realistic expectations of the position. For example, new CAOs coming from a dean's level or below should be preparing for the leader, liaison, and disseminator roles. Second, an increase in effectiveness of CAOs in community colleges can lead to more efficient institutions, thereby strengthening the community college movement by increasing morale and other important components associated with faculty and other managers. Third, if this position generates presidents, then CAOs need to develop an understanding of how to be effective at the CAO position while balancing their ambition for becoming presidents.

This study creates a benchmark for managerial roles of CAOs at community colleges. CAOs can compare the roles that they perform to the national data and also to the data within their particular accreditation region. They can determine if the roles they emphasize are similar to the roles by other CAOs within their region or at similar institutions. Perhaps the results of the study will persuade or dissuade some individuals who desire to assume a CAO position or modify the way they perform in the CAO position.

Based on the data, it appears that in whatever geographical location an individual is planning to be a CAO, all 10 managerial roles are used: (1) figurehead, (2) liaison, (3) leader, (4) disseminator, (5) monitor, (6) entrepreneur, (7) spokesperson, (8) resource allocator, (9) disturbance handler, and (10) negotiator. The three most emphasized roles are (1) leader, (2) liaison, and (3) disseminator. Knowing this, those aspiring to be CAOs and those desiring to be more effective CAOs can better prepare themselves to assume these roles.

Appendix

Managerial Functions

Instructions

The following questions describe basic managerial functions that are representative of most chief academic officers. Please read each statement carefully and use the four category rating scale to indicate the extent to which each function is required throughout the year in your position as your institution's chief academic officer. Check the appropriate response to each statement. Your first impressions are usually the best. Please give your opinion on every statement. If you find the choices do not adequately indicate your opinion, use the one that is closest to the way you feel.

Check only one response for each item.

                                    Not at   A Little   Some   A Lot
                                     all
                                      1         2        3      4

Figurehead

 1. Participating in a variety of
    symbolic, social, and
    ceremonial activities such
    as attending convocations
    and banquets
 2. Feeling obligated to
    perform a number of routine
    duties of a ceremonial or
    social nature such as
    meeting institutional guests
 3. Participating in a variety of
    symbolic, social, and
    ceremonial activities such as
    speaking at convocations or
    banquets

Leader

 4. Creating a milieu in which
    faculty and staff will work
    effectively
 5. Interacting with colleagues
    within Academic Affairs to
    develop professional
    activities and duties
 6. Encouraging teamwork
    among your staff

Liaison

 7. Maintaining a network of
    contacts and information
    sources outside the
    Academic Affairs
    division
 8. Developing good
    interpersonal relations with
    personnel outside the
    academic office and
    academic staff
 9. Passing information
    between your department
    and outside departments

Monitor

10. Seeking and receiving
    information so that you can
    improve or maintain your
    understanding of the
    institution and its
    environment
11. Developing your own
    contacts to establish a
    personal and informal
    information network
12. Monitoring the internal
    and external environments
    to make sure operations are
    running smoothly

Disseminator

13. Sharing pertinent
    information received from
    outsiders or faculty and
    staff with the appropriate
    internal office or
    individuals
14. Sharing accumulated
    relevant information with
    faculty and staff
15. Ensuring staff and faculty
    are updated with
    information relevant to
    them

Spokesperson

16. Revealing information
    to people outside the
    Academic Affairs
    division or the institution
17. Representing the
    Academic Affairs
    division or your institution
    to outside groups
18. Speaking to individuals
    outside your department
    about information within
    academic affairs

Entrepreneur

19. Searching the institution
    and its environment to
    identify opportunities and
    situations that may require
    organizational change
20. Initiating and designing
    much of the change that
    occurs within the Academic
    Affairs division
21. Scanning the internal and
    external environment
    looking for innovations
    to be implemented

Disturbance Handler

22. Taking corrective action
    when you face important,
    unexpected problems or
    crises

23. Taking corrective action
    because unexpected
    pressure from either within
    or outside your institution
    is too great to ignore
24. Putting a stop to
    misbehavior within or
    outside your department

Resource Allocator

25. Allocating institutional
    or Academic Affairs
    divisional resources

26. Scheduling your own time
    and approving various
    authorizations within
    academic affairs
27. Spending time on resource
    allocation for personnel
    in Academic Affairs

Negotiator

28. Representing the
    Academic Affairs division
    or the institution at various
    nonroutine discussions or
    negotiations
29. Resolving problems that
    develop with other
    institutional units
30. Working with two
    parties to come to an
    agreement

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL QUESTIONS

31. How satisfied are you with being a Chief Academic Officer?

--Not At All(1)--A Little(2)--Some(3)--A Lot(4)

32. Are the faculty members at your institution represented by collective bargaining contracts? --Yes --No

33. How many individuals (i.e. unit heads, department chairs or other administrators) report directly to you? --

34. How many years have you been employed in your current position? --

35. How many years have you worked for your current employer? --

36. How many years of managerial experience (department head or higher) do you have? --

37. What is your age? --

38. What is your gender? --Female --Male

39. How much role ambiguity would you say your job has? --None(1) --A Little(2) --Some(3) --A Lot(4)

Table 1

Managerial Roles of CAOs in the United States

Roles                  Min    Max    Mean    S.D.

Leader                  7     12     11.4    1.06
Liaison                 7     12     11.1    1.06
Disseminator            6     12     11.1    1.25
Monitor                 6     12     10.9    1.24
Resource allocator      5     12     10.4    1.49
Entrepreneur            4     12     10.3    1.53
Spokesperson            3     12      9.9    1.58
Disturbance handler     3     12      9.5    1.96
Negotiator              5     12      9.3    1.85
Figurehead              3     12      9.2    2.03

Note: Variations in the order of which managerial roles are emphasized
do occur based on the environmental, personal, and situational
variables.

Table 2

Span of Control

Region     N     Min    Max    Mean    Mdn     S.D.

NCASC      55     3     100    14.9   10.0    19.95
MASAC      19     4      30    13.0    9.0     8.94
NEASC      10     4      17     8.7    8.0     3.80
NASAC      14     4     160    18.7    8.5    40.76
SASAC      54     3     260    14.8    9.0    34.39
WASC       32     3      49     9.6    8.0     7.74
Total     184     3     260    13.7    9.0    24.57

Key: North Central (NCASC), Middle States (MASAC), New England (NEASC),
Northwest (NASAC), Southern (SASAC), and Western (WASC).

Table 3

Percentage of Collective Bargaining Institutions

           Collective bargaining

Region        No            Yes        Total

NCASC     18 (32.7%)     37 (67.3%)      55
MASAC      7 (36.8%)     12 (63.2%)      19
NEASC      1 (10.0%)      9 (90.0%)      10
NASAC      3 (21.4%)     11 (78.8%)      14
SASAC     51 (94.4%)      3  (5.6%)      54
WASC       2  (6.3%)     30 (93.8%)      32
Total     82 (44.6%)    102 (55.4%)     184

Table 4

Gender

Region       Male         Female

NCASC     34 (61.8%)    21 (38.2%)
MASAC     13 (68.4%)     6 (31.6%)
NEASC      7 (70.0%)     3 (30.0%)
NASAC      7 (50.0%)     7 (50.0%)
SASAC     32 (59.3%)    22 (40.7%)
WASC      16 (50.0%)    16 (50.0%)
Total    109 (59.2%)    75 (40.8%)

Table 5

Age

Region     N     Min    Max    Mean    Mdn     S.D.

NCASC     55      3     31     17.4    18.0    7.47
MASAC     19      2     29     13.7    13.0    6.98
NEASC     10      3     33     15.3    14.0    9.06
NASAC     14     11     27     17.5    16.0    5.73
SASAC     54      2     32     16.2    15.0    7.69
WASC      32      2     35     16.5    15.0    7.66
Total    184      2     37     16.5    15.5    7.48

Table 6

Years of Managerial Experience

Region     N     Min    Max    Mean    Mdn     S.D.

NCASC     55      3     37     17.4    18.0    7.47
MASAC     19      2     29     13.7    13.0    6.98
NEASC     10      3     33     15.3    14.0    9.06
NASAC     14     11     27     17.5    16.0    5.73
SASAC     54      2     32     16.2    15.0    7.69
WASC      32      2     36     16.5    15.0    7.66
Total    184      2     37     16.4    15.5    7.48

Table 7

Years at Current Institution

Region     N     Min    Max    Mean    Mdn     S.D.

NCASC     55      1     34     11.3     8.0    10.50
MASAC     19      1     32     14.1    15.0     9.58
NEASC     10      1     30     16.2    17.5    11.72
NASAC     14      3     32      9.8     7.5     8.23
SASAC     54      1     36     15.9    17.0    12.09
WASC      32      1     31     13.5    10.0    10.46
Total    184      1     36     13.5    10.0    10.89

Table 8

Years in Current Position

Region     N     Min    Max    Mean    Mdn    S.D.

NCASC     55      1     17     5.0     3.0    4.26
MASAC     19      1     18     5.1     4.0    4.42
NEASC     10      1     25     5.5     3.0    7.37
NASAC     14      3     12     5.9     5.0    2.87
SASAC     54      1     20     5.7     3.5    5.16
WASC      32      1     20     5.3     3.5    4.59
Total    184      1     25     5.4     4.0    4.68

Table 9

Satisfaction

Region     N     Min    Max    Mean    Mdn    S.D.

NCASC     55      2      4     3.8     4.0    .42
MASAC     19      3      4     3.8     4.0    .37
NEASC     10      3      4     3.6     4.0    .52
NASAC     14      3      4     3.6     4.0    .50
SASAC     54      1      4     3.8     4.0    .61
WASC      32      3      4     3.8     4.0    .44
Total    184      1      4     3.8     4.0    .49

Table 10

Role Ambiguity

Region     N     Min    Max    Mean    Mdn    S.D.

NCASC     55      1      4     2.8      3     1.00
MASAC     19      1      4     2.5      2     0.90
NEASC     10      1      4     2.8      3     0.92
NASAC     14      2      4     2.8      3     0.70
SASAC     54      1      4     2.6      3     0.68
WASC      32      1      4     2.8      3     0.77
Total    184      1      4     2.7      3     0.84

Table 11

ANOVA for Leader Role by Gender

Source       SS      Df      MS        F      Significance

Between     12.38      1    12.38    11.71       0.001
Within     192.31    182     1.06
Total      204.68    183

Table 12

ANOVA for Liaison Role by Gender

Source        SS      Df      MS       F      Significance

Between      10.19      1   10.19     9.48        .002
Within      195.58    182    1.08
Total       205.77    183

Table 13

ANOVA for Disseminator Role by Gender

Source        SS      Df      MS       F      Significance

Between      12.21      1   12.21    8.15        .005
Within      272.72    182    1.50
Total       284.94    183

Table 14

ANOVA for Figurehead Role by Years of Managerial Experience

Source        SS      Df      MS       F      Significance

Between      45.01      4   11.25     2.86        .025
Within      705.48    179    3.94
Total       750.49    183

Table 15

ANOVA for Monitor Role by Age

Source        SS      Df      MS      F      Significance

Between       9.22      2    4.61    3.07        .049
Within      271.82    181    1.50
Total       281.04    183

Table 16

Managerial Roles: Male and Female

                         Mean         S.D.        Mean       S.D.
Roles                  (females)    (females)    (males)    (males)

Leader                   11.71        0.75        11.18      1.18
Liaison                  11.39        1.00        10.89      1.11
Disseminator             11.37        0.93        10.86      1.36
Monitor                  11.03        1.20        10.73      1.26
Resource allocator       10.51        1.42        10.26      1.55
Entrepreneur             10.49        1.41        10.17      1.60
Spokesperson              9.98        1.53         9.92      1.62
Disturbance handler       9.56        2.13         9.48      1.85
Negotiator                9.45        2.30         9.22      1.94
Figurehead                9.32        1.73         9.10      1.81

References

Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boggs, G. R. (1988, March). Pathways to the presidency. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Community and Junior colleges, Washington, D.C.,

Cejda, B. D., McKenny, C. B., & Burley, H. (2001) The career lines of chief academic officers. Community College Review, 28 (4), 31-46.

Erwin, J. S. (2000). The dean as chief academic officer. In D. Robillard, Jr. (Ed.) Dimensions of managing academic affairs in the community college. (pp. 9-17). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 109.

Judson, C. J. (1981). Managerial roles as perceived by chief student affairs administrators in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Lane K. (2002, March 4). Moving on up. Community College Week, 14 (15), 6-11.

Mech, T. (1997, May/June). The managerial roles of chief academic officers. Journal of Higher Education, 68 (3), 282-298.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper Row.

Robillard, D., Jr. (2000). Toward a definition of deaning. In D. Robillard, Jr. (Ed.) Dimensions of managing academic affairs in the community college. (pp. 9-17). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 109.

Murray, J. P., Murray, J. I., & Summar, C. (2000). The propensity of community college chief academic officers to leave an institution. Community College Review, 28 (3), 22-36.

Shults, C. (2001). Research brief: The critical impact of impending retirements on community college leadership. Leadership Series, 1. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges.

Townsend, B. K., & Bassoppo-Moyo, S. (1996, August). The ideal community college academic affairs administrator: An inside view. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Community College Research, Panama City, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397863).

Twombly, S. B. (1988). Administrative labor markets: A test of the existence of internal labor markets in two-year colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 668-689.

Vaughan, G. B. (1990). Pathway to the presidency: Community college deans of instruction. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Philip Anderson is an assistant professor in the Mathematics Department at South Plains College in Levelland, Texas. [e-mail]

John P. Murray is an associate professor in the Higher Education Department at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. [e-mail]

Arturo Olivarez, Jr. is an associate professor in the Educational Psychology and Leadership Department at Texas Tech University in Lubbock; Texas. [e-mail]