Citation
Succession planning : identifying and preparing future leaders in the Colorado Community College system

Material Information

Title:
Succession planning : identifying and preparing future leaders in the Colorado Community College system
Creator:
Carlson, Kristina Skees Binard
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver Collections
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
SUCCESSION PLANNING: IDENTIFYING AND PREPARING FUTURE LEADERS
IN THE COLORADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
By
Kristina Skees Binard Carlson
B.S., Colorado State University, 1989
M.S., Colorado State University, 1994
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2007


by Kristina Skees Binard Carlson
All rights reserved


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Kristina Skees Binard Carlson
has been approved
Rodney Muth
Micheli
aney
Michael Ellis

Date


Binard Carlson, Kristina Skees (Ph.D. Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Succession Leadership: Identifying and Preparing Future Leaders in the Colorado
Community College System
Thesis directed by Professor Rodney Muth
ABSTRACT
According to research by the American Council on Education and the
American Association of Community Colleges, a possible crisis may be impending
in community college leadership in the next decade due to retirements. In addition,
current mid-level community college administrators may not be prepared to fill
these upper-level administrative positions, including the presidency, because of a
lack of training opportunities. Although community college presidents have been
aware of the impending crisis since 2001, only a few institutions have been
identified as developing plans of action.
Because of the impending vacancies in community college leadership, the
research questions for this study address issues related to succession planning, also
called succession leadership. Succession leadership has primarily been used in
business and industry and includes three areas: identifying future leaders,
developing potential leaders, and providing career advancement opportunities.
These aspects of succession leadership were studied in the Colorado
Community College System, using a mixed methodology. A survey instrument


was distributed to capture quantitative data from the full-time faculty and
administrators, and interviews were used to collect qualitative data from the college
and system presidents. The combination of the two research methods assisted with
the research questions.
Research and data from this study show that community colleges realize
that they need to grow their own leaders. However, many community colleges do
not have succession-leadership plans or leadership-development programs available
to their employees. Although leadership-development programs have been studied
at community colleges, research is needed to determine what constitutes an
effective program. Based on the data from this study, areas for recommendation for
the Colorado Community College System include (a) a formal process to identify
future leaders within the individual colleges and the system, (b) a system to prepare
future leaders strategically, and (c) a process to develop a succession leadership
model for the colleges.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's
recommend its publication.
Signed.
Rodney Muth


DEDICATION PAGE
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to several people who have been amazing
throughout this process. To my husband who has always supported me in anything
I want to do and certainly would not let me give up on this degree. To my sons
who have always known their Mom as a student, and rarely complained when I said
one more time I had to work on my paper. To my parents for inspiring me to
always do my best.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this to my late grandmother Freda Janke
Harrington and mother-in-law Louise Simon Carlson. These amazing women had
a profound impact on my life as an educator and learner. They were both an
inspiration toward my completion.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank my advisor, Rod Muth, for supporting me as I pursued my
degree. I also would like to thank my committee members for assisting me with
my doctoral study and contributing to my completion. In addition, I would like to
thank Front Range Community College and the Colorado Community College
System for allowing me to conduct this study. Finally, I would like to thank Laura
Jensen, who assisted me with the survey and was a support through my data
collection.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables.................................................................xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................1
Colorado Community Colleges.....................................2
Current Pathways to the Community College Presidency............3
Characteristics of Community College Presidents................4
Succession Planning in Community Colleges.......................5
Statement of the Problem........................................7
Research Questions..............................................8
Significance of the Study......................................12
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................14
Community College President Characteristics....................14
Changing Role of the Community College President...............20
Succession Planning in Community Colleges......................28
Summary........................................................34
3. METHODOLOGY........................................................35
Research Design................................................36
Human Subjects Review..........................................36
Population.....................................................37
Survey Instrument..............................................37
Reliability and Validity of the CCCSP Survey...................39
viii


Quantitative Data Collection.......................................................40
Quantitative Data Analysis.........................................................40
Qualitative Data Collection........................................................44
Qualitative Data Analysis..........................................................44
Demographic Data Analysis..........................................................45
Institution B.................................................................45
Institution D.................................................................46
Institution F.................................................................46
Institution G.................................................................47
Institution H.................................................................47
Institution K.................................................................53
Institution L.................................................................53
Institution N.................................................................56
Institution Q.................................................................56
Institution R.................................................................56
Institution S.................................................................57
Institution U.................................................................57
Institution Y.................................................................63
Institution Z.................................................................63
Overall Study Population......................................................66
Summary............................................................................69
4. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS......................................................................70
Chapter Overview...................................................................70
Quantitative Data Analysis Process.................................................71
Research Question #1: Who is Interested.......................................71
IX


Research Question #2: Identifying Future Leaders.............79
Research Question #3: Preparing Future Leaders................91
Research Question #4: Succession Leadership at the Colleges..109
Qualitative Data Analysis........................................119
Research Question #5: The Elements Necessary for a Succession
Leadership Program...........................................122
Summary............................................................123
5. IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION............................125
Overview of Research Question Implications.........................126
Research Question #1 ..........................................127
Research Question #2...........................................128
Research Question #3...........................................129
Research Question #4...........................................131
Research Question #5...........................................132
Recommendations for Action.........................................133
Identifying Future Leaders.....................................133
Preparing Future Leaders.......................................134
Succession Leadership Model....................................135
Recommendations for Future Research................................138
Conclusion ........................................................140
APPENDIX
A. Colorado Community College Succession Planning Survey............142
B. Participant Email................................................149
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................150
x


LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1 Instrument and statistical analysis by research questions...............43
3.2 Institution B demographics..............................................48
3.3 Institution D demographics..............................................49
3.4 Institution F demographics..............................................50
3.5 Institution G demographics..............................................51
3.6 Institution H demographics..............................................52
3.7 Institution K demographics..............................................54
3.8 Institution L demographics..............................................55
3.9 Institution N demographics .............................................58
3.10 Institution Q demographics..............................................59
3.11 Institution R demographics..............................................60
3.12 Institution S demographics..............................................61
3.13 Institution U demographics..............................................62
3.14 Institution Y demographics..............................................64
3.15 Institution Z demographics..............................................65
3.16 Overall study population demographics...................................67
4.1 Chi-square analysis of gender and plan to become a senior administrator.72
4.2 Chi-square analysis of gender and desire to become a president..........73
4.3 Comparison of retirement date to question #14...........................74
4.4 One-way analysis of variance comparing retirement date to plan to become a senior
administrator and desire to become a president..........................75
XI


4.5 Comparison of retirement date to question #15: Desire to become a community
College president................................................................75
4.6 Comparison of position to question #14: Plan to become a senior
administrator....................................................................76
4.7 One-way analysis of variance comparing position and plan to become a
Senior administrator and desire to become a community college
president..........................................................................77
4.8 Comparison of position and question #15: Desire to become a community college
President..........................................................................78
4.9 Comparison of retirement date to position..........................................79
4.10 One-way analysis of variance summary table for questions 16-20;
Identify Scale....................................................................81
4.11 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
question 16: This college looks out of state when hiring...........................82
4.12 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
question 17: This college has a reputation for making promotional
opportunities available...........................................................83
4.13 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
question 18:This college is doing a good job of recruiting and hiring
people who someday have the potential to provide leadership.......................84
4.14 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
question 19: Administrators and supervisors at this college regularly
identify high potential employees...............................................86
4.15 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
Question 20: at this college individuals are told if they are regarded as high
potential future leaders..........................................................87
4.16 Agree versus disagree comparison by institution for question 20..................88
4.17 One-way analysis of variance comparing identify scale variable to institution,
position, retirement, degree, ethnicity, and senior administrator.................90
4.18 One-way analysis of variance summary table for questions 22-30;
Prepare scale.....................................................................92
4.19 Question 21 percentage of individuals participating in leadership
opportunities.....................................................................95
xii


4.20 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question
22: opportunities exist on campus for employees to accept new challenges
within their current jobs...................................................96
4.21 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
question 23: at this college responsibilities are purposely added to an
individuals current job, giving them broader work experiences..............97
4.22 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
question 24: lateral transfers are made within or between division at this
college in order to give individuals different work or developmental
experiences.........................................................................98
4.23 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions to
question 25: At this college, individuals are encouraged to take
responsibility for developing new programs or services......................99
4.24 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions to
question 26: opportunities are offered to individuals at this college that provide
exposure to higher levels of management............................................100
4.25 Comparison of position to question 26: opportunities exist to individuals
at this college that provide exposure to higher levels of management.............101
4.26 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing institutions to
question 27: at this college, individuals are encouraged to participate in
leadership development training on campus..........................................102
4.27 Comparison of positions to question 27: at this college, individuals
are encouraged to participate in leadership development
training on campus.................................................................103
4.28 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions to
Question 28: at this college, individuals are encouraged to attend national
leadership development training....................................................104
4.29 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
Questions 20: at this college, mentoring is given to high potential individuals
In order to help them manage their careers.........................................105
4.30 Comparison of position to question 29: at this college, mentoring is
Given to high potential individuals in order to help them manage
their careers......................................................................106
4.31 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
Question 30: feedback is given to employees at this college on developmental
job progress and career management opportunities as a part of their
performance management plan........................................................107
xiii


4.32 One-way analysis of variance comparing prepare scale variable to
Institutions, position, retirement, degree, ethnicity, and
senior administrator...............................................................109
4.33 Analysis of variance summary table for questions 31-34;
succession scale...................................................................111
4.34 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
Question 31: this college makes a deliberate attempt to prepare high potential
individuals to advancement.........................................................113
4.35 Comparing of position to question 31: this college makes a deliberate
Attempt to prepare high potential individuals for advancement....................114
4.36 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
With question 32: prepared for succession leadership at this college is a
part of the institutions overall plan.............................................115
4.37 Comparison of position to question 32: prepared for succession leadership at this
college is a part of the institutions overall plan................................115
4.38 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
Question 33: when vacancies have occurred in administrations over the
last five years, this college has generally hired from within....................116
4.39 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with
question 34: if you retire or leave your position tomorrow, do one or more
individuals at this college have the personal skills and job-related knowledge
to replace you.....................................................................117
4.40 One-way analysis of variance comparing identify scale variable to institutions,
position, retirement, and senior administrator.....................................119
XIV


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A leadership crisis is predicted over the next 10 to 15 years in higher
education, especially in community colleges (American Council on Education, 2007;
Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; McKlenney, 2001; Shults, 2001; Weisman &
Vaughan, 2002). Because many community colleges were established in the 1960s
and 1970s, presidents and upper-level administrators may be reaching retirement age
(Shults). In fact, in a recent survey sponsored by the American Association of
Community Colleges, Shults found that more than 79% of community college
presidents will retire by 2011. In addition, senior college administrators and tenured
faculty are approaching retirement age as quickly as presidents and will not be
available to fill presidential vacancies (Evelyn, 2001). This large number of projected
retirements in both the senior executive positions and faculty could lead to a
leadership crisis in community colleges. While studies suggest a leadership crisis
nationwide, retirement data are not available for the Colorado community colleges.
Because literature suggests a potential leadership crisis, do Colorado community
colleges face this possible shortage? Can a plan be developed to replace future
community college leadership in the state of Colorado?
1


Colorado Community Colleges
The Colorado Community College System (CCCS) consists of 13 community
colleges located in both rural and urban areas throughout Colorado and governed by a
system president. In addition to the 13 system community colleges, two additional
public community colleges are independent to the system. These two colleges are
funded locally and are not governed by the CCCS president. Because these two
colleges are independent of the system, they were not included in the study.
The Colorado Community College System is governed by a state board and a
system president appointed by the governor. The State Board of Community
Colleges serves as an advisory board to the system president. The system enrolls
approximately 116,000 students and employs over 3,000 full-time staff and faculty
(Colorado Community College System, 2006). According to the CCCS website, the
mission of the Colorado Community College System is to:
Serve Colorado residents who reside in their service areas by offering a broad
range of general, personal, vocational, and technical education programs.
Each college shall be a two-year college. No college shall impose admission
requirements upon any student. The objects of the community and technical
colleges shall be to provide educational programs to fill the occupational
needs of youth and adults in technical and vocational fields, two-year transfer
educational programs to qualify students for admission to the junior year at
other colleges and universities, basic skills, workforce development, and a
broad range of personal and vocational education for adults. (Colorado
Community College System, 2007)
In addition, the system has three strategic priorities which are student access, student
success, and operational excellence (Colorado Community College System).
2


Although the system has a strategic priority of operational excellence, no known
leadership development or succession planning opportunities exist through the system
office.
At the time of this study, four female presidents, seven male presidents, and
one interim president lead the 13 colleges in the system. The system president is
female and the system office employees are also included in this study. Two of the
colleges, Lamar Community College and Otero Junior College, are led by one
president. Since the time the study was completed, two of the presidents interviewed
have left the Colorado Community College System and another is moving to the
system office. One of these colleges has replaced the president externally and the
other two colleges are conducting national searches.
Current Pathways to the Community College Presidency
The path to the community college presidency has been studied for over
twenty years (Vaughan, 1983). Paths to the presidency have included experience in
academic affairs, student services, public schools, senior business affairs, community
service or continuing education positions, four-year academic positions, state level
positions, and other positions throughout the college or outside of academia (Vaughan
& Weisman 1998).
The American Council on Education also has studied the career paths of
community college presidents. The 2001 study found that over 52% of community
college presidents held the position of provost or Senior Academic Affairs Officer
3


before becoming president (Corrigan, 2002). Other positions held prior to the
presidency include Senior Student Affairs Officer (15%) or another administrative
position at the college (12%) (Corrigan). Although many community college
presidents have risen from the ranks of academic affairs, other paths also have led to
the presidency (Corrigan; Vaughan & Weisman, 1998).
Research by Vaughan (1989) indicates that almost one third of all community
college presidents are recycled, moving from one presidency to another. In addition,
Corrigan (2002) found that 25% of all community college presidents were presidents
at another institution before moving to their current positions. As presidents retire,
more positions may become available because retiring presidents will no longer be
recycled for the positions.
Characteristics of Community College Presidents
In addition to identifying individuals who aspire to be future community
college presidents, important characteristics of a president should be identified. In
1997, McFarlin studied community college presidents and identified nine preparation
factors for outstanding community college presidents. These included a doctorate,
community college leadership as a degree focus, publication and research, preparation
to be a change agent, previous leadership position, mentor relationship, peer network,
leadership development program, and use of technology (McFarlin). Later in 2000,
the presidents belonging to the American Association of Community Colleges were
asked to identify the skills needed to be an effective president (Shults, 2001). These
4


self-identified skills included politics, budgeting, and relationship building; however,
these skills had not been included in any leadership program attended by prospective
presidential candidates (Shults, 2001).
Because of the Shults study, the American Association of Community
Colleges initiated the Leading Forward project in 2003 (Vincent, 2004). In order to
gather data about developing future leaders, the American Association of Community
Colleges held four leadership summits with current community college leaders. The
issues discussed at the summits included leadership competencies, leadership
development, effectiveness of current leadership programs, and possible models for a
national leadership development program (Vincent). The participants involved in the
Leading Forward project identified six competencies for effective community college
leaders. These competencies include organizational strategy, resource management,
communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism
(Vincent). These competencies could be used to prepare future leaders in the
Colorado community college system.
Succession Planning in Community Colleges
Succession planning has been an integral process for business and industry for
years (Berger & Berger, 2004; Munro, 2005; Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, &
Lindholm, 2005). Higher education, however, has not implemented succession
planning until recently (Carroll, 2004). A search for doctoral research projects
focused on community college succession planning has identified only four research
5


studies that have been completed, and all were conducted within the last three years
(Korb, 2004; Montague, 2004; Prigge, 2004; VanDusen, 2005).
One of these authors studied succession planning in community colleges by
interviewing 14 community college presidents about the potential leadership crisis in
community colleges (Korb, 2004). The interviewees viewed the current leadership
situation as a challenge rather than a crisis. With the potential for several upper-level
administrators to retire from higher education, institutions will need to identify
internal candidates as well as find ways to attract and train new leaders. In the past,
prospective community college presidents may have participated in an advanced
degree program, an external leadership program, and an informal mentoring program
(Amey & Vanderlinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). Korb (2004) advocates
for a succession plan that identifies potential leaders at the institution who already
have been involved in these types of programs but also advocates for additional
programs.
Several leadership preparation programs have been specifically designed for
community college leaders interested in becoming presidents. Some of these include
the Executive Leadership Institute (League of Innovation, 2006), the Fellows
Program (American Council on Education, 2006), the Future Leaders Institute
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2006) and the Leaders Institute
(National Institute for Leadership Development, 2006). All of these programs offer
an intensive leadership program. Topic areas include board relations, crisis
6


management, media relations, fundraising, trends, and current president perspectives
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2006; American Council on
Education, 2006; League of Innovation, 2006).
Although these opportunities are available nationally, no leadership
preparation programs are known to be available in Colorado for both men and women
in higher education. The only current leadership program for higher education is the
Academic Management Institute (2006), which is geared toward women in Wyoming
and Colorado. The Colorado Community College System ran a leadership academy
from 2003 to 2005, which was disbanded due to funding issues. Because of the lack
of leadership development opportunities for future higher education administrators in
Colorado, there is a void to fill with leadership development opportunities.
Statement of the Problem
Research has identified a possible crisis in community college leadership in
the next decade due to retirements (Amey & VanDerlin, 2002; Shults, 2001;
Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). In addition, current mid-level community college
administrators may not be prepared to fill these upper-level administrative positions,
including the presidency, because of a lack of training opportunities (Amey &
VanDerlin, 2002). Although community college presidents have been aware of the
impending crisis since 2001, only a few institutions have developed plans of action
(Amey & VanDerlin, 2002; Carroll, 2004; Leubsdorf, 2006; Shults, 2001; Weisman
& Vaughan, 2002).
7


Research Questions
Because of the impending vacancies in community college leadership, the
research questions for this study address issues related to succession planning, which
also will be referred to as succession-leadership. Succession-leadership includes
three areas: identifying future leaders, developing these potential leaders, and
providing career advancement opportunities (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, &
Lindholm, 2005). The different aspects of succession-leadership in the Colorado
Community College System were studied using a mixed methodology. A survey
instrument was used to capture quantitative data from the full-time faculty and
administrators and interviews were used to collect qualitative data from the
presidents. The combination of the two research methods assisted with the research
questions.
The survey used is a modified version of the Community College
Developmental Job Experiences Survey (Prigge, 2004). The Community College
Developmental Job Experiences Survey was previously used in a study addressing the
issue of succession planning in community colleges (Prigge). This survey was
administered to 533 participants from 89 institutions and included the president at
each institution as well as three female administrators. In addition, the Career and
Lifestyle Survey was utilized for the demographic questions since the data has been
collected from community college leaders over the past 20 years (Weisman &
8


Vaughan, 2002). The modified survey for this study is called the Colorado
Community College Succession Planning (CCCSP) survey.
Survey questions asked about identifying future leaders, preparing future
leaders through job training and leadership development, and succession planning at
the colleges. Research at the Center for Creative Leadership found that many
leadership activities included trainings and education; however, jobs and bosses
were the best way to develop leadership talent (Fulmer & Conger, 2004, p. 6).
Because of the importance of actual job experiences, career advancement
opportunities were analyzed using questions about job mobility and new challenges.
According to a study conducted in 2000 by Amey and VanDerlin (2002), 86 % of the
administrators surveyed had completed a performance evaluation; however, only 43%
had participated in a career planning review which would identify education and
training opportunities. Recent research also states that career planning is an integral
part of a succession plan and has added benefits of improving retention, improving
employees morale, and improving the companys bottom line (Rothwell, Jackson,
Knight, & Lindholm, 2005).
All of the survey questions that addressed succession planning related to the
three areas of identification, preparation, and advancement. Succession planning is a
broader way to address replacement management of those who have retired or left the
organization. Demographic questions included years working in a community
college, interest in upward mobility, and years until retirement. These questions
9


assisted with the introductory phase of succession planning which is identifying
potential employees to move upward in the organization.
Interviews with the presidents and survey data collected from all full-time faculty
and administrators addressed the specific research questions for this study. The
research questions referred to the current and future avenues for succession-
leadership in the Colorado Community College System. The specific questions for
this study included the following:
1. To what extent are current Colorado community college employees interested
in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency?
2. Do Colorado community colleges currently identify internal employees to fill
future vacancies in upper-level administration?
3. Are the Colorado community colleges preparing internal employees to fill
vacancies in upper-level administration?
4. Are the Colorado community colleges providing succession planning to
replace upper-level administrative positions?
5. What elements might a succession-leadership program include for the
Colorado Community College System?
The primary research for this study included the Colorado Community
College Succession Planning survey, which was distributed to all full-time faculty
and administrators throughout the community college system. The survey collected
10


data from the Colorado Community College System employees about their own
leadership preparation and succession planning experiences.
In order to study the process currently in place for filling upper administrative
positions in the Colorado community college system, the views of the current
presidents and system president were collected through interviews. The 12
community college presidents and system president were asked if they currently
identify future leaders in their organization and, if so, how they prepare their
employees for a future role at the college. In addition, the presidents were asked to
describe what a succession planning program for the system should include. The
interview data was analyzed to determine the presidents views of the leadership
challenge and the way Colorado community colleges currently prepare leaders.
The Colorado Community College Succession Planning survey collected a
variety of data including demographic information, employment history, education,
leadership experiences, future career goals, and retirement timeline to identify
potential community college administrators who may be eligible to fill future
leadership positions in the system. In addition, survey questions inquired about past
leadership opportunities within the colleges and the participants perceived
opportunities for advancement. The survey results were compared to the interview
data and used to identify any succession planning and leadership development needs
for the system.
11


Significance of the Study
Research indicates that almost 79% of presidents nationally will retire over
the next ten years and that faculty and senior academic affairs administrators are also
retiring (Amey & VanDerlinden, 2002; Shults, 2001). According to Shults, 45% of
community college presidents studied in 2001 will retire within six years. In
addition, 34% will retire within ten years and another 16% will retire in 15 years.
This data indicates a crisis in community college leadership over the next ten years.
In addition, a study conducted by the Colorado Community College System
office using state retirement information, Public Employees Retirement Association
(PERA), found that 50% of the full-time faculty, administrators, and staff in the
Colorado Community College System (including classified staff) were eligible to
retire now or within the next three years (2006). However, this data is limiting
because it is based solely on age and number of years in the system. Employees have
not been surveyed to determine any immediate retirement crisis.
Because the national rate of retirements for presidents is growing, it is
important to study the availability of future leaders in the Colorado Community
College System. Although several studies have examined the preparation factors
necessary to be an effective president (Amey & VanDerlinden, 2002; Hammons &
Keller, 1990; McClenney, 2001; McFarlin, 1997; Shults, 2001), few studies have
examined succession planning for future presidents in community colleges (Korb,
2004; Montague, 2004; Prigge, 2004; VanDusen, 2005). By analyzing the data from
12


the Colorado Community College Succession Planning survey and the presidential
interviews, a succession-leadership program was presented to the CCCS presidents
regarding future leadership in the Colorado community colleges.
13


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to analyze research related to the
identification and preparation of community college presidents. The literature review
will focus on three areas of research. First, the review will concentrate on the
characteristics of community college presidents. Second, the changing role of the
community college president will be reviewed based on research and past trends that
may impact community college leadership in the future. Finally, this chapter will
review succession planning as it relates to developing future community college
leaders.
Community College President Characteristics
Over the past 20 years, community college presidents have been studied by a
variety of organizations. The American Council on Education has been studying
higher education presidents since 1988 (Green). In addition, George Vaughan has
been studying community college presidents since 1983. This section discusses the
data collected in those surveys to understand the characteristics of contemporary
community college presidents.
Prior to the 1950s, community college presidents were recruited from public
schools, four-year institutions, and other fields (Schultz, 1965). From 1961 to 1977,
14


community colleges doubled the number of institutions, and founding presidents were
appointed with no previous community college experience (Schultz, 1965). During
this time, experiences and skills necessary to be a college president tended to include
understanding the mission and being able to translate that understanding into a
vision, having effective communication skills, having knowledge of the community
and the relationship between the college and community, and having experience
within the community college field (Schultz, p. 114).
As the job description of the community college president has changed over
the past 40 years, the career pathway may have changed as well. According to a
study by Cohen and March (1974), most college and university presidents have risen
from instructional posts. The typical career pathway to the presidency included
faculty, department chair, division chair, dean, academic vice president, and president
(Cohen & March). A study conducted by Kubala in 1999 investigated the career
pathways of community college presidents and also found similar results. Kubala
studied 82 community college presidents in 30 states who had been appointed
between May 1995 and February 1997. He found that 72% of the presidents
surveyed had come through the academic ranks. However, in a similar study
conducted between 1997 and 1999 with 101 community college presidents, Kubala
and Bailey (2001) found that only 56% of the presidents had come through the
academic ranks. These data may suggest that the characteristics of community
college leadership are changing.
15


For almost 20 years, the American Council on Education has conducted a
study of college presidents using the American College Presidents Survey (American
Council on Education (ACE), 2007; Corrigan, 2002; Green 1988; Ross & Green,
2000). The latest study, conducted in 2006, compared the findings from the past
twenty years. The survey respondents included 2,148 college and university
presidents, 749 from a community college (ACE). Characteristics over the past
twenty years that have changed include women and ethnic minorities, average age of
presidents, length of service in position, previous position, and full-time faculty
experience (ACE).
According to the study, female presidents have doubled since 1986 (10%), but
remain low with only 23% in 2006. In addition, ethnic minorities have seen even less
of an increase with only 14% in 2006, up from 8% in 1986. The average age of
presidents also has increased from 52 years of age in 1986 to 60 years of age in 2006.
Along with age, the years of service have increased by almost 2 years. The most
common position previously held by current presidents included a previous
presidency (up 5% to 21%) as well as chief academic officer (up 8% to 31%).
However, the percentage of presidents hired outside of higher education has declined
slightly (down by 2%). Finally, presidents with full-time faculty experience have
decreased by six percent. These characteristics indicate a changing population for
presidents in colleges and universities. The changes in age and length of service
16


could indicate an even greater urgency to identify and prepare future leaders before
additional presidents retire.
The previous Academic Council on Education study conducted in 2001
surveyed 2,500 university and college presidents, including 800 public community
college presidents (Corrigan, 2002). Eighty-two percent of the identified public
community college presidents responded to this survey. The study found that 27% of
the presidents were women, 15% were ethnic minority, 85% were married, 87% had
their doctorate, and 36% had not previously held a full-time faculty position
(Corrigan). This study also analyzed positions previously held by presidents.
Additional positions held prior to the presidency included senior academic officer
(28%), past president (20%), senior executive position in academic affairs (13%),
senior executive in finance or administration (13%), senior executive in student
affairs or development (7%), faculty or chair (4%), and outside academia (15%)
(Corrigan). The fact that more than 20% of the presidents surveyed in both the 2001
and 2006 studies had previously been a president could be an issue when filling future
presidential vacancies.
In addition, since 1986 community college presidents have been studied using
Vaughans Career and Lifestyle Survey (Vaughan, 1986; Vaughan, Mellanden, &
Blois, 1994; Vaughan & Weisman, 1998; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). The Career
and Lifestyle Survey analyzes self-identified demographics and leadership
information about todays community college presidents. Completion of a terminal
17


degree and work experience in a community college are the two most common
criteria for a senior leadership position in a community college. However, according
to that same survey, only 45% of community college presidents had taught full-time
at some point in their career and 53% said they had taught at least part-time (2002).
These data may suggest a shift from the instructional model identified by Cohen and
March (1974) with more people advancing to the presidency from non-instructional
positions.
The latest Career and Lifestyle Survey (Weisman & Vaughan, 2002) studied
936 public community college presidents who are members of the American
Association of Community Colleges. The survey collected demographic information
about current community college presidents. For instance, over 25% of presidents are
women, 14% are ethnic minorities, the average age is 56, 88% hold a doctorate, and
the average length of time that they serve is 10 years (Weisman & Vaughan). In
addition, more than 90% of all incoming community college presidents have
previously worked at a community college (Weisman & Vaughan). The primary
issue identified was the number of presidents planning to retire. The study found that
79% of current presidents plan to retire within 10 years, which may leave a leadership
crisis if other senior administrators are not prepared to take over (Weisman &
Vaughan). The results of this study are similar to those found in the American
Council on Education survey (American Council on Education, 2007; Corrigan, 2002;
Green, 1988).
18


In 2000, the American Association of Community Colleges studied
community college senior administrators to determine career paths and backgrounds
to their current position (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002). The study included 1,700
administrators from 14 different positions including presidents, senior administrative
officers, senior student services officers, senior financial officers, continuing
education directors, occupational and technical education directors, and business and
industry directors. The study found that the position held most frequently before
attaining the presidency was dean of instruction or provost (37%). Of the remaining
presidents surveyed, 25% had been a president at another community college, and
15% had been either a senior academic or instruction officer. Other positions held
prior to serving as president were director of continuing education, senior student
affairs officer, vice president for institutional advancement, faculty, public school
administrators, and college system board members (Amey & VanDerLinden). "Non-
traditional pathways may open doors for future community college presidents.
Recent studies suggest an increase in upper-level and presidential positions
within community colleges. In addition, presidents are moving into their positions
from different higher education backgrounds including finance, student services, and
institutional advancement. As more upper-level positions become available,
institutions may need to identify staff outside of instruction as well as faculty to fill
these positions.
19


Changing Role of the Community College President
Although the characteristics of community college presidents are important to
the future of community college leadership, it is also important to recognize the
changing role of community college presidents. In order to identify future
community college presidents, institutions should know what they are looking for in a
future leader, and what competencies are necessary for future leaders. Community
colleges have seen changes in leadership expectations over the past forty years
(American Council on Education, 2007; Corrigan, 2002; Hammons & Keller, 1990;
Shults, 2001; Shultz, 1965; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002).
A review of literature by Hammons and Keller (1990) on competencies
needed to be an effective community college president originally found that 62
competencies were needed in three different categories. The researchers used a
Delphi method to reduce this list to 43 major competencies in the areas of leadership
skills, group-related skills, and personal characteristics. In addition, they asked a
panel of community college presidents to determine which competencies were critical
to be an effective community college president (Hammons & Keller). The panel of
presidents, convened in 1990, agreed that delegation, personnel selection, and
decision making were the top three competencies.
In 1997, Townsend and Bassoppo-Moyo conducted a similar study with
community college administrators to investigate the competencies needed for an
effective academic administrator. The researchers were interested in the top
20


competencies that these administrators would choose when asked as an open-ended
question. Four major competency categories were identified by the academic
administrators: contextual, communication, interpersonal, and technical (Townsend
& Bassoppo-Moyo, 1997). The main components of the contextual competency
included legal issues in higher education and curriculum development; where as, the
technical competency included budgeting and finance, analytical thinking, and
experience evaluating programs (Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo). The next two
competencies included human relations and supervision (interpersonal competency)
as well as computer skills and traditional communication skills (communication
competency) (Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo). In addition, the ability to change was
noted by 25% of the respondents. These competencies reflect a changing role for
community college academic administrators outside of traditional curriculum
development.
Additional traits for the changing role of the community college presidency
are recommended by Hockaday and Puyear (2000). The traits recommended include
vision, integrity, confidence, courage, technical knowledge, collaboration,
persistence, good judgment, and the desire to lead (p. 3). These traits could be
incorporated with the list of competencies for future community college leaders. To
understand the role of the president further, Barwick (2002) writes that an
administrator who wants to become a president must fully understand theories of
learning, curriculum education, corporate training, applications of technology,
21


funding formulas and budgets, admissions and advising processes, be able to at least
sound intelligent about financial aid, and understand the complex interplay of these
(p. 8). In order to gain these skills, administrators should build peer networks at the
college with administrators in these areas. The competency Barwick mentions is an
understanding of the college as a system.
In 2002, Brown, Martinez, and Daniel also conducted a study on
competencies needed for instructional leaders. A random sample of 300 instructional
leaders, who had completed a doctoral degree, was identified to receive a survey
about the skills necessary for effective practice (Brown, et al., p. 48). One hundred
and twenty-eight responses were received for the data analysis. The top 10
competencies identified by the respondents were: (a) effective listening and feedback
skills, (b) effective writing skills, (c) developing and communicating a vision, (d)
conflict resolution, mediation, and negotiation, (e) understanding of community
college mission, (f) understanding of interpersonal communication, (g) effective
public speaking skills, (h) institutional effectiveness: assessment and analysis, (i)
curriculum development, and (j) organizing and time management (p. 57). These
competencies reflect a theme of communication, technology, budgeting, visioning,
and decision-making. These themes have changed since the 1960s when presidents
were recruited based on their understanding of the community college mission
(Schultz, 1965). As more studies are conducted on community college competencies,
22


the changing roles can be identified and incorporated into future leadership
development.
At the same time, the millennium has brought new challenges and changes to
higher education that includes technology, student population demographics, and
financial access (Dolence, Lujan, & Rowley, 1998). Other trends include competition
for funds and students, management efficiency, flexibility in teaching and delivery,
and global networks for local institutions (Lueddke, 1999). Issues specifically related
to community colleges include funding reductions, student population growth,
technology needs, community partnerships, efficiency, and accountability (Vaughan
& Weisman, 1998). In addition, Sullivan (2001) has suggested that community
colleges will face new challenges including a shift in faculty resources, learning
assessment, external agencies regulations, and competition from private institutions.
In 2002, Corrigan explained the need for new leadership:
The imperative of rapidly changing economic, demographic, and political
conditions suggests the need for adaptability and diversity in educational
institutions and their leaders. The challenges of growing enrollments,
increasing fiscal pressures and added government oversight may alter the
character and chief responsibilities of the American college president, (p. 47)
As with many four-year institutions, two-year colleges are asked to provide more
programs and services to students with fewer dollars.
In addition to addressing the mission of the community college and its
relationship to the community, Corrigan (2002) found that community college
presidents spend most of their time with planning, community relations, and
23


personnel. Fundraising was listed as fourth on the list of most time-consuming
activities. In contrast, private community college presidents spend most of their time
fundraising, planning, and budgeting (Corrigan). In addition, presidents found their
greatest challenge to be relations with faculty, legislators, and governing boards
(Corrigan). Based on these changes, community college presidents in the future may
be identified by their ability to work with others and build relationships.
The latest American Council on Education 2006 survey of college and
university presidents (2007) found similar results to those found in a study conducted
in 2001 (Corrigan, 2002). According to the 2006 study, college and university
presidents spend most of their time on fundraising, budgeting, community relations,
and strategic planning (American Council on Education). The 2006 study also found
differences in how presidents spend their time based on institutional type. Presidents
at private community colleges spend most of their time on budgeting, whereas
presidents at public community colleges identified community relations as the most
time consuming activity (American Council on Education, 2007). The public
community college presidents identified community relations, budgeting, and fund
raising as their top three time consuming activities (American Council on Education).
These activities differ from the private community college presidents who stated that
budgeting, fund raising, and strategic planning consumed most of their time. In fact,
community relations were not in the top three identified activities for private
community college presidents (American Council on Education). Interestingly,
24


community relations were listed as the area most enjoyed by community college
presidents at a public institution. Unfortunately, research in 2001 found that new
presidents feel unprepared to deal with key aspects of their jobs, including
fundraising, financial management, and working effectively with their governing
boards (Shults, p. 1).
When asked to identify the constituent groups who were the most challenging,
public college and universities chose legislators, faculty, and system boards
(American Council on Education, 2007). Alternatively, when public college and
university presidents were asked to identify the constituents they found the most
rewarding to work with, students, administration and staff, and faculty were listed in
the top three (American Council on Education). Understanding the skills sets needed
for community college presidents, including who they work with, may assist with
preparing future presidents for these changing roles.
The American Association of Community Colleges reported at the 2001
Leadership Summit five specific traits needed for community college leaders to
become presidents. These traits include understanding and implementing the
community college mission; understanding the importance of effective advocacy with
communities and legislators; understanding a wide range of administrative skills
including organizational development, personnel issues, research and planning, and
managing technology; understanding the impact on community and economic
development; and understanding the importance of personal skills (AACC, 2002).
25


Because of the research studies conducted after 2001 predicting a leadership
crisis in community college leadership (Amey & Vanderlinden, 2002; Corrigan,
2002; Shults, 2001; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002), the American Association of
Community Colleges convened a taskforce of community college presidents in 2003
(Vincent, 2004). The taskforce identified knowledge areas, skills, values and other
characteristics needed to become an effective community college president (Vincent).
From this list, five competencies considered to be very or extremely important to a
community college president were created and adopted by the AACC board
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). The six competencies
identified are organizational strategy, resource management, communication,
collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism. The competencies
include illustrations for each that community colleges can use to develop their own
leaders.
Two recent studies also have analyzed traits necessary to be an effective
president. In 2003, Kinkley studied the perceptions of presidential search committees
on community college effectiveness. Kinkley found that demographic characteristics
of potential presidents did not influence the perception of an effective president
(2003). However, six significant predictors emerged as an influence on the
presidential search committee. The six predictors included mediating disputes,
making good decisions, being action-oriented, choosing carefully how to use
resources, building relations with staff and administrators, and interacting frequently
26


with students (Kinkley). These predictors relate directly to the skill set identified by
McClenney in 2001: financial planning, building relationships, communicating with
others, and building a shared vision. However, new presidents indicated that
financial issues, technology concerns, and insufficient funding were the biggest
disappointments (Kubala, 1999).
The second study examined the effectiveness of 239 community college
presidents located in 19 states (Powell, 2004). Powell used information from the
National Center for Education Statistics to determine effectiveness based on
performance indicators. Of the presidents profiled, 64% were in their first
presidency, and 25% were in their second. Thirty percent held the provost position
before becoming president, and 37% were promoted from within (Powell). In the
study, Powell interviewed five of the presidents who had been identified as effective.
From those interviews he found that these community college presidents attributed
their success to four traits: being an effective communicator and good listener,
creating a supportive and caring cultural climate, building and nurturing relationships
with student and community, and being a risk taker for positive change at their
institution (p. 92). All of the characteristics identified could be used as indicators
when identifying future community college leaders.
Recently, the American Association of Community Colleges published a book
about community college administration. Jensen and Giles (2006) discuss the ins and
outs of community college leadership, especially the presidency. According to them,
27


a president has to be a business manager, fundraiser, chief policy maven, keeper of
the academic flame, hand-holder, backslapper, art and athletic devotee, childcare and
technology advocate, a pretty good public speaker, and an even better vote counter
(p. 8). In addition, they state that the president should be a change agent and be able
to articulate a vision, as well as maintain ethical behavior and integrity. The role of
the community college president has been changing over the past forty years, and the
competencies and traits have changed as well.
Succession Planning in Community Colleges
According to the 2002 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10 million more jobs will
be available than people prepared to fill those jobs by the year 2010. Because of this
deficit, businesses and government are analyzing their future leadership potential to
avert a leadership crisis (Berger & Berger, 2004; Hargreaves, 2005; Munro, 2005;
Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005).
One way to identify potential leaders in an organization is through succession
planning. According to business researchers, implementing a successful succession
planning program decreases the risk of losing key people, increases employee job
satisfaction, and improves the likelihood of matching the most qualified individuals to
the most critical work (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Linholm, p. 26). Succession
planning used to be thought of as a process to replace the CEO; however, it has
evolved into a complex process for all levels of an organization (Berger & Berger,
2004; Kesner & Sebora, 1994). Succession planning is different from replacement
28


planning as it not only identifies individuals to replace those who are retiring but also
develops a pool of future leaders (Corporate Leadership Council, 2003; Kesler, 2002).
The Corporate Leadership Council (2003) conducted a research study with
276 organizations world-wide to determine what factors distinguish a top-tier
leadership organization. Based on their findings, the following areas were identified:
1. Senior executive commitment to development
2. Organizational reinforcement of development
3. Hiring for organizational compatibility
4. Exacting performance standards
5. Full business exposure for rising executives
6. Selecting successors for leadership ability, and
7. Focusing on scarce skills and fit with position
These findings reinforce the need for succession planning programs within the
organizations.
Although the business model of succession planning has been around for
sometime, not much has been studied in P-20. In 2005, Hargreaves investigated
succession planning in high schools around the United States. The results of the
study found that a successful succession-leadership program depended on sound
planning, employment of outbound and inbound leadership knowledge, limiting the
frequency of succession events, and preserving leadership in the face of movements
toward more management (p. 164). He pointed out that poor succession planning is
29


due to poor planning as well as selection and rotation of staff. According to his study,
succession planning should include the following:
1. Succession needs to be planned thoughtfully and ethically.
2. Distributing leadership makes succession less dependent on the talents of
particular individuals.
3. Leaders are not all the same.
4. Leaders need to give thought to the leadership capacity they will build and
legacies they will leave, and
5. The alarming rise in rates of succession should be reversed immediately, and
principles should be kept in school for longer than five years w'hen their
improvement efforts are doing well (Hargreaves, p. 172).
Although these issues emerged from a study of high school principals, the issues are
applicable to higher education.
Succession planning can prepare a community college for future success by
developing leaders before a need is identified (Berke, 2006; Harris & Brewer, 2000;
Kelly, 2002). In addition, it provides an organization time to fully assess the
leadership needs before a vacancy occurs (Khurana, 2001). Succession planning is
the long-term approach to meeting the present and future talent needs of an
organization (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005, p. 27), and is
sometimes referred to as succession management (Berke, 2006). According to
30


Berger and Berger (2004), three strategies are needed for a successful succession
planning program:
1. Find, assess, develop, reward and retain those employees who greatly
exceed organization expectations and are the backbone for current and
future organization success
2. Identify and have backup key positions in place
3. Invest resources in employees based on current and potential contribution
to the organizations success (p. 275)
In higher education, a need for succession planning has been identified. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 6,000 jobs in postsecondary-education
administration will have to be filled annually between 2004 and 2014 (Leubsdorf,
2006, p. 2) because of the growth in higher education and impending retirements.
Some colleges and universities are identifying the number of planned retirements and
starting to plan for this shift. For instance at Montgomery College, a community
college in Maryland, 55 % of the administrators are older than 55, and 45 % will be
eligible to retire by 2010 (Luebsdorf, 2006, p. 2). Other examples include
Metropolitan Community College in Nebraska where 75 % of the employees are
older than 40 (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006).
Some institutions are starting to grow their own leaders. Research suggests
that insiders may deliver better results when groomed to replace a position (Khurana,
2001; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2004). An example of growing your own leaders is
31


Metropolitan Community College. They started a leadership academy called
lead@mccacademy, which provides an opportunity to build leadership skills
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). Another example is the
University of Arizona where the institution is working with younger employees to
develop future leaders (Luebsdorf. 2006). The Community College of Philadelphia
has developed a Leadership Institute, and one of the co-facilitators of the program
stated that 42% of the participants from the first two years have been promoted
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). Because of turnover in
administrative positions at Georgia Perimeter College, five components were
identified to enhance leadership development and mentoring of the executive team
(Belcher & Montgomery, 2001). The components included the following strategies:
1. Evaluating the institutional environment
2. Learning about the current leadership team
3. Scanning the environment
4. Building a leadership team through evaluation and training, and
5. Looking internally for new leaders (p. 19)
Most notably, Daytona Beach Community College has implemented a
succession planning model. During the last few years, Daytona Beach has identified
the need for a systemic approach to general leadership development and a specific
plan to ensure smooth transitions as current leaders retire or make other career
moves (Carroll, 2004, p. 1). For Daytona Beach, the succession plan was a tool for
32


organizational development as well as personal and professional development
(Carroll). For this reason, Daytona Beach illustrates the effectiveness of using
succession planning to develop future leaders in an educational institution.
In 2004, Korb identified 14 presidents through the League of Innovation to
conduct a study on community college leadership. The presidents were interviewed
regarding a potential leadership crisis in community colleges due to a lack of
qualified candidates. The strategies these presidents used to address the potential
leadership challenge including mentoring, professional development, leadership
development, and marketing and recruiting (Korb). Developing internal leaders is
effective since research has shown that community colleges usually hire from within
(Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). However, Korb found
that senior positions in community colleges could be losing their appeal due to the
changing job responsibilities. Because of this perception, identifying and developing
future leaders may be especially important to the future of community college
leadership.
To follow-up on the effectiveness of the current leadership practices and
programs, Dembicki (2006) studied the leadership development programs at 16
community colleges, two district colleges and five state systems. Dembicki found
four main components of each program: plan, develop, deliver, and strengthen.
Planning includes high-level administrators and financial support from the college.
The development of the program includes the location for the program, costs,
33


speakers, as well as identifying who coordinates the program. When delivering the
program, important components include team building, networking, mentoring,
coaching, and job shadowing. Finally, feedback and evaluation will assist with
building a stronger program (Dembicki, 2006). These components can contribute to a
successful succession-leadership program.
Summary
According to a 2002 American Council on Education report, presidents spend
most of their time planning, fund-raising, budgeting, and supervising (Corrigan). In
addition, future presidents will need skills in mediation, technology, communication,
legislative issues, fund-raising, budget management, creating a shared vision, and
working with constituents (McKlenney, 2001; Shults, 2001). Avenues for skill
development are imperative to the development of future leaders.
Although several colleges are implementing programs for succession
management and leadership development, not all are addressing the issues of future
retirements (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006; Dembicki, 2006;
Luebsdorf, 2006). The Colorado Community College System has not formally
identified a process for identifying future leaders and preparing these leaders through
a succession plan. This study looked at one community college system to recommend
a succession-leadership development plan.
34


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research methods used for this dissertation
study. This study incorporated a mixed methodology to address several issues related
to succession-leadership in the Colorado Community College System. A mixed
methodology combines both quantitative and qualitative research methods to fully
understand a problem or issue (Creswell, 2004). The quantitative method was a
survey design which according to Fowler (1993) is an interaction between a
researcher and a respondent. In a self-administered survey, the researcher speaks
directly to the respondent through a written questionnaire (p. 71). A survey was
used to collect data related to succession-leadership in the Colorado Community
College System.
In addition to the quantitative data collected through the survey, I interviewed
the 12 Colorado community college presidents and the system president to get a
better understanding of my research questions from their perspective. This qualitative
portion of the study focused on understanding something, gaining some insight into
what is going on and why this is happening (Maxwell, 1996, p. 16).
35


Research Design
Although two types of methodology were used for this study, the primary
methodology was a survey instrument e-mailed to all participants with a request to
participate. The survey was designed to gather descriptive, quantitative data using
closed-ended questions for comparisons across categories (Rea & Parker, 2005). The
survey instrument had 15 demographic questions and 20 questions related to
succession-leadership experiences at the participants institutions. Specifically, these
questions examined how institutions currently identify future leaders, how institutions
prepare future leaders, and whether a succession planning process was currently in
place. The information was collected to describe the leadership opportunities that
currently exist in the CCCS community colleges. Participants also were asked to self-
identify if they wanted to participate in a system-wide succession-leadership program.
The qualitative methodology included interviews with the 12 Colorado
community college presidents and the system president to determine how they
currently identify and prepare leaders on their campuses. The interviews gave
additional meaning to the survey data and helped to determine whether succession
planning was being used in the colleges. The use of two data collection techniques
increased the validity of the research (Creswell, 1994).
Human Subjects Review
In accordance with the requirements of the University of Colorado at Denver
and Health Sciences Center, the research design was submitted to the Human
36


Subjects Review Committee before beginning the study. An overview of the study
and its potential risks was included in the request and the e-mail request for
participation was reviewed (Appendix A). The study protocol was e-mailed to all
participants with the Web link. The participants agreed to accept any potential risks
by submitting the survey.
Population
The population for this survey included all full-time faculty and administrators
working in the Colorado Community College System. Positions included vice
president, dean, department chair, director, coordinator, and all faculty categories.
Based on the nature of the study, the survey population included all employees who
fit in one of these categories. Participants were identified through the college Web
site, Colorado Community College System Global Outlook, and the Human Resource
Directors at the college. In total, 1,870 participants were identified for this study. In
addition, all of the college presidents who work at a Colorado Community College
System college were interviewed to gain additional information related to a
succession-leadership plan for the system.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument, the Colorado Community College Succession
Planning (CCCSP) survey (see Appendix B), was modeled on the Community
College Developmental Job Experience (CCDJE) survey (Prigge, 2004). The CCDJE
survey was created originally to analyze career opportunities for women in
37


community colleges based on developmental job experiences. These job experiences
also relate to research on succession planning, which is a system to identify and
prepare leaders for future leadership positions within the organization (Berger &
Berger, 2004; Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005).
The demographic questions for the CCCSP survey related to succession-
leadership by asking the participants about the number of years working in higher
education, number of years at a community college, number of years until retirement,
desire to become a community college president or senior level administrator, and
highest degree earned. In addition, the survey asked an additional 20 questions
relating to the identification and preparation of future leaders in the institution.
The original CCDJE instrument was tested for reliability using Cronbachs
Alpha to determine if the answers provided by the women administrators and
presidents were consistent (Prigge, 2004). The results showed that the respondents
would give the same answers repeatedly if the measurement could be made in the
same way (Babbie, Halley, & Zaino, 2003, p. 21). In addition, Prigge pilot-tested
her survey with a group of three administrators and three presidents to determine both
reliability of the questions as well as length and clarity for validity. Prigge
determined that the questions did measure what was intended, which included how
future leaders are identified and prepared to fill upper-level positions.
38


Reliability and Validity of the CCCSP Survey
The Colorado Community College Succession Planning survey used the same
questions as the Community College Developmental Job Experiences survey, so its
validity is based on that of the previous study. In addition, a reliability test was
computed using Cronbachs Alpha for the CCCSP survey. Three variable sets were
identified for the study, which were the identify scale, prepare scale and succession
scale. The identify scale consisted of questions 16-20. When the Cronbachs Alpha
was computed, question 16 had a negative inter-item correlation. Because the
question related to hiring outside of the college and identify relates to hiring from
within the college, I determined that the scoring of the variable should be reversed.
After reversing the scoring, the identify scale had a Cronbachs Alpha of .765 for the
five questions.
The second variable included questions 22-30 for the prepare scale. These
nine questions had a Cronbachs Alpha of .871. Finally, the third variable scale,
succession, incorporated questions 31-34 and had a Cronbachs Alpha of .625 for the
four items. Neither the prepare scale nor the succession scale consisted of any
negative inter-item correlation so no survey items were reversed. The total reliability
for all 18 items had a Cronbachs Alpha of .914. This computation supports the
reliability of the survey for this study.
39


Quantitative Data Collection
Data for this study were collected through the CCCSP and interviews. The
invitation to take the survey instrument was e-mailed to all participants with a Web
link to the Front Range Community College Web site. Once the participants entered
the site, they clicked on the Colorado Community College Succession Planning
Survey. The information was collected anonymously, unless a participant self-
identified according to an option provided at the end of the survey. For three
institutions, the human resources director e-mailed the information to the participants,
including the follow-up e-mail. For the other 11 institutions, including the Colorado
Community College System employees, the e-mail was sent directly to each
participant individually as well as a follow-up e-mail.
The participants were given three weeks to respond. Based on the number of
responses, a second e-mail was sent after the three weeks to encourage more
participation. The participants were given one more week to respond. Overall, 746
participants responded to the study out of 1,870 for a 40% return rate. Twenty-one of
the respondents were invalid as their position was not within the category of full-time
administrator or faculty. Thus, 725 completed surveys (39%) were analyzed.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 15.0 Graduate Pack was
used to determine frequencies and calculate an analysis of variance (ANOVA) by
institution, position, gender, ethnicity, and functional area. Statistical software was
40


used for the descriptive analysis since it can assist with large sets of data (Rea &
Parker, 2005).
Demographic questions 1 to 15 were used to determine the need for succession
planning in the Colorado Community Colleges. These questions related to years
working in community colleges, years until retirement, age, gender, ethnicity, and
desire to become a president or senior administrator. The demographic questions
sought information about the employees currently working in the Colorado
Community College System.
In addition, research questions were addressed, using the following survey
questions:
Research question #1: To what extent are current Colorado community college
employees interested in moving into upper-level administrative positions including
the presidency? Q14 and Q15 (see Appendix B) addressed this research question by
asking the participants if they desire to become a president or senior-level
administrator. Descriptive statistics were computed for each question. In addition,
Chi-Square tests were calculated to compare gender on Q14 and Q15. ANOVA tests
were used to compare position and time to retirement on Q14 and Q15 to determine if
there were any differences based on these variables.
Research question #2: Do Colorado community colleges currently identify
internal employees to fill future vacancies in upper-level administration? Questions
16 to 20 were used to determine how Colorado community colleges currently identify
41


future leaders. Descriptive statistics were computed for each question and then a
composite score was created to compare the results of each question to each
institution. An ANOVA was calculated to compare colleges on these composite
scores.
Research question #3: Are the Colorado community colleges currently preparing
internal employees to fill vacancies in upper-level administration? Survey questions
22 to 30 ask whether preparation factors in community college leaders are being
implemented. The preparation factors link specifically to job training, leadership
development, feedback, and mentoring. For these questions, descriptive statistics
were analyzed, a composite score was created for each question, and ANOVA was
used to compare colleges on the composite score.
Research question #4: Are the Colorado community colleges providing
succession planning to replace upper-level administrative positions? Survey
questions 31 to 34 connected specifically to succession-leadership and asked
questions about the institutions existing succession-leadership plan. In addition,
respondents were asked if individuals had been identified to replace upper
management. Descriptive Statistics were analyzed for each question. In addition, a
composite score was created for each question, and ANOVA was used to compare
colleges on the composite score. Table 3.1 lists the research questions, survey
instrument items, and types of statistical analysis.
42


Table 3.1
Instrument Items and Statistical Analysis by Research Questions
Research Question Survey item(s) Statistical Analysis
RQ1: To what extent are current Colorado community college employees interested in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency? Ql, 11, 12, 14, 15 Descriptive Statistics were computed for each question. Chi-Square tests were computed to compare gender (Q12) on Q14 and Q15. ANOVA tests were computed to compare position (Ql) and time to retirement (11) on Q14 and Q15.
RQ2: Do Colorado community colleges currently identify internal employees to fill future vacancies in upper-level administration? Q16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (variable scale identify) Descriptive Statistics were computed for each question. A composite score was created for each question and ANOVA was used to compare colleges on the composite score.
RQ3: Are the Colorado community colleges currently preparing internal employees to fill vacancies in upper-level administration? Q22 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (variable scale prepare) Q21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5 Descriptive Statistics were computed for each question. A composite score was created for each question and ANOVA was used to compare colleges on the composite score. Descriptive statistics were computed for questions 21.1- 21.5 regarding leadership opportunities.
RQ4: Are the Colorado community colleges providing succession planning to replace upper-level administrative positions? Q31, 32, 33, 34 (variable scale succession) Descriptive Statistics were computed for each question. A composite score was created for each question and ANOVA was used to compare colleges on the composite score
RQ5: What elements would a succession leadership program include for the Colorado Community College System? N/A This question was addressed with the interview data.
43


Qualitative Data Collection
To get additional in-depth data, the presidents from the Colorado Community
College System were interviewed, including the system president. A total of 13
interviews were conducted to address research question #5: What elements would a
succession leadership program include for the Colorado Community College System?
The purpose of the interviews was to gather the views of those who are in a position
to make a difference at the institution (Bogdan & Bilken, 1992). In addition, the
interviews assisted with the research questions as well as recommending a succession
leadership model for the system.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The interviews were conducted either by phone or in person and took
approximately 20 minutes to complete. The interview data were analyzed using an
inductive approach which uses data to develop a descriptive model that encompasses
all cases of the phenomenon (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 70). The interview data
were compared with the quantitative data and were used in developing a model
succession leadership plan for the system. The following interview questions were
asked to each president:
1. What leadership development training and education did you receive in your
pursuit of the presidency?
2. Do you currently identify future leaders in your organization? How?
3. Do you currently prepare future leaders in your organization? How?
44


4. If the Colorado Community College System were to develop a succession
planning model, what should be included?
Demographic Data Analysis
The demographic information describes the respondents who work within the
Colorado Community College System and may assist with future planning for the
system. Fifteen demographic questions were asked related to gender, age, ethnicity,
position, institution, years in position, years working in a community college,
functional area, teaching experience, highest degree earned, retirement date, and
desire to move into a senior level position or presidency. In addition, participants
were asked if they were interested in participating in a succession-leadership program
for the system. Below is a synopsis of the responses for all 14 participating
institutions, which are identified using the letters B, D, F, G, H, K, L, N, Q, R, S, U,
Y, and Z. The letters were randomly chosen to identify each institution and were
purposely chosen out of sequence.
Institution B
Institution B had a lower response rate than most of the other institutions. This
was one of the institutions that received the survey through their human resources
director instead of directly from me. I was unable to identify the population
externally and therefore relied on the Human Resources Department for assistance.
Whether or not the low response rate is a consequence of this change in procedure is
unknown. Overall, Institution B had the highest level of ethnic diversity; 68% were
45


Caucasian, 17% were Hispanic and 12% were African-American. The average age of
44 years was also one of the lowest, when compared to the other institutions. The
highest percentage of respondents by position was from the student services
functional area. Thirty-one percent are planning to retire in the next 10 years, and
25% are unsure when they will retire. Twelve percent of the respondents at
Institution B were interested in a presidency at some point in their career, which is
higher than the result for the overall study respondents. Table 3.2 below shows the
demographic representation of the respondents from Institution B.
Institution D
The majority of the respondents from Institution D were from the Instruction
functional area with 55% identifying with this area. Thirty-eight percent stated that
they were full-time faculty, and 38% also said that they teach both part-time and full-
time. Institution D also had one of the highest percentages of respondents with
doctoral degrees: 16% had earned this degree prior to the study. Thirty percent of the
participants plan to retire within the next 10 years. Five percent stated that they
desire to become a president. Table 3.3 below shows the demographic representation
of the respondents from Institution D.
Institution F
Seventy-seven percent of respondents at Institution F were female. In addition,
100% of the respondents were Caucasian. Fifty percent were from Instruction, and
31% taught part-time. Forty-three percent plan to retire in the next 10 years, and
46


another 19% are unsure when they will retire or if they will move out of the system.
Twelve percent stated that they desire to become a president in the community
college system, which again is above the response rate for the overall responses in
this study. Table 3.4 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents
from Institution F.
Institution G
Institution G had a high response rate of 50%. Twenty-three percent had worked
in a Colorado community college for 16 or more years. Sixty-eight percent work in
Instruction, and 40% taught full-time. A majority of the respondents, 56%, plan to
retire within the next ten years. Only 2% stated interest in becoming a president.
Table 3.5 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from
Institution G.
Institution H
For Institution H, 66% of the respondents had been in their position for 5 years or
fewer. Fifty-six percent work in Instruction, and 47% have taught both part-time and
full-time. Eleven percent had earned their doctorate, and only 31% plan to retire
within 10 years. Thirty percent plan to become a senior administrator, and 7% were
interested in becoming a president. Table 3.6 below shows the demographic
representation of the respondents from Institution H.
47


Surveys 180 Administrator 67 Faculty 247 Total
Responses 59 Total
Return Rale 24%
Gender 25% male 75% female
Ethnicity 68% Caucasian 17% Hispanic 0% Asian American/ Pacific 12% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 3% Other
Average Age 44
Position 12% Dean or Vice President 6% Department Chair 22% Director 36% Coordinator 12% faculty 12% Other
Years in current position 69% 0-5 years 21% 6-10 years 9% 11-15 years 1 % 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 49% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 17% 11-15 years 10% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado Community College 50*% 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 17% 11-15 years 10% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 48% 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 20% 11-15 years 10% 16 or more
Functional Area 36% Instruction 37% Student Services 7% Continuing Education 5% Business and/or Facilities 15% Other
Teaching Experience 10% Full-time 29% Part-time 22% Both 37% None
Highest Degree earned 5% Doctorate 61% Masters 32% Bachelors 2% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Date 5% 1 -3 years 14% 4-6 years 12% 7-10 years 44% in more than 10 years 25% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 36% No 24% Yes 12% Already in position 29% Undecided
Desire to become a President 73% No 12% Yes 15% Undecided
Table 3.2
Institution B Demographics


Surveyed 143 Administrator 206 Faculty 349 Total
Responses 123 Total
Response Rate 35%
Gender 68% male 32% female
Ethnicity 90% Caucasian 5% Hispanic 1% Asian American/ Pacific 1% African American 1% American Indian/ Native American 2% Other
Average Arc 45
Position 7% Dean or Vice President 5% Department Chair 20% Director 28% Coordinator 38% faculty 8% Other
Years in current position 71 % 0-5 years 17% 6-10 years 7% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 53% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 13% 11-15 years 10% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 56% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 13% 11-15 years 7% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 51% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 13% 11-15 years 11 % 10 or more years
Functional Area 55% Instruction 33% Student Services 1% Continuing Education 2% Business and/or Faci 1 ities 9% Other
Teaching experience 10% Full-time 22% Part-time 38% Both 24% None
Highest Degree earned 16% Doctorate 58% Masters 22% Bachelors 3% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Date 5% 1 -3 years 10% 4-6 years 15% 7-10 years 40% in more than 10 years 30% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 44% No 19% Yes 4% Already in position 33% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 84% No 5% Yes 11% Undecided
Table 3.3
Institution D Demographics


Surveyed 35 Administrator 33 Faculty 68 Total
Responses 26 Total
Response Rate 40%
Gender 23% male 77% female
Ethnicity 100% Caucasian 0% Hispanic 0% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 0% Other
Average Age 49
Position 5% Dean or Vice President 0% Department (.'hair 38% Director 15% Coordinator 42% faculty 0% Other
Years in current position 58% 0-5 years 23% 6-10 years 15% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 42% 0-5 years 31% 6-10 years 15% 11-15 years 12% 1 b or more
Total years working in a Colorado Community College 46% 0-5 years 31% 6-10 years 15% 11-15 years 8% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 46% 0-5 years 31% 6-10 years 15% 11-15 years 8% 16 or more
Kunctional Area 50% Instruction 35% Student Services 0% Continuing Education 8% Business and/or Faci 1 ilies 7% Other
Teaching Lxpcrience 27% Pull-time 31% Part-time 15% Both 27% None
Highest Degree Earned 4% Doctorate 58% Masters 31 % Bachelors 7% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Date 19% 1 -3 years 12% 4-6 years 12% 7-10 years 38% in more than 10 years 19% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 50% No 23% Yes 0% Already in position 27% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 77% No 12% Yes 11% Undecided
Table 3.4
Institution F Demographics


Surveyed 26 Administrator 74 Faculty 100 Total
Responses 50 Total
Response Kale 50%
Gender 33% male 67% female
Ethnicity 74% Caucasian 16% Hispanic 0% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 2% American Indian/ Native American 8% Other
Average Age 50
Position 10% Dean or Vice President 26% Department Chair 26% Director 10% Coordinator 28% faculty 0% Other
Years in current position 58% 0-5 years 12% 6-10 years 18% 11-15 years 12% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community ( ollege 34% 0-5 years 18% 6-10 years 22% 1 1-15 years 26% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado Community College 37% 0-5 years 18% 6-10 years 22% 11-15 years 23% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 32% 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 18% 11-15 years 28% 16 or more
Functional Area (>8% Instruction 18% Student Services 4% Continuing Education 6% Business and/or Facilities 4% Other
Teaching Experience 40% Full-time 14% Part-time 34% Both 12% None
1 lighest Degree earned 4% Doctorate 58% Masters 32% Bachelors 6% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Date 18% 1 -3 years 10% 4-0 years 22% 7-10 years 24% in more than 10 years 20% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 52% No 16% Yes 18% Already in position 14% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 00% No 2% Yes 8% Undecided
Table 3.5
Institution G Demographics


Surveyed 78 Administrator 63 Faculty 141 Total
Responses 62 Total
Response Rate 44%
Gender 30% male 70% female
Ethnicity 89% Caucasian 6% Hispanic 3% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 2% Other
Average Age 47
Position 8% Dean or Vice President 16% Department Chair 19% Director 31% Coordinator 21% faculty 5% Other
Years in current position 66% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 6% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 38% 0-5 years 33% 6-10 years 17% 11-15 years 12% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado Community College 44% 0-5 years 31% 6-10 years 18% 11-15 years 8% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 41% 0-5 years 28% 6-10 years 21% 11-15 years 10% 16 or more
Functional Area 56% Instruction 24% Student Services 5% Continuing Education 6% Business and/or Facilities 18% Other
l eaching Experience 8% Full-time 26% Part-time 47% Both 19% None
Highest Degree Famed 11 % Doctorate 56% Masters 26% Bachelors 5% Associates 2% High School
Retirement Date 3% 1 -3 years 13% 4-6 years 15% 7-10 years 56% in more than 10 years 13% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 41% No 30% Yes 8% Already in position 21% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 82% No 7% Yes 11% Undecided
Table 3.6
Institution H Demographics


Institution K
The response rate for Institution K was 50% as well. The majority of the
participants were female as well as Caucasian. Eighteen percent had worked at their
community college for 16 years or longer. Sixty-six percent work in Instruction with
another 16% in Student Services. Forty-five percent plan to retire within ten years,
and only 4% desire to become a president. However, 19% would like to become a
senior administrator. Table 3.7 below shows the demographic representation of the
respondents from Institution K.
Institution L
Institution L had greater gender balance with 45% male and 55% female. Eighty-
two percent had been in their position for five years or fewer. However, 18% have
worked in a community college for 16 or more years. Forty-five percent were from
business or facilities, and 64% had never taught. Eighteen percent have their
doctorate, and 14% are interested in becoming a president. Table 3.8 below shows
the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution L.
53


Surveyed 65 Administrator 44 Faculty 109 Total
Responses 55 Total
Response Rale 50%
Gender 25% male 75% female
F.thnicily 85% Caucasian 15% Hispanic 0% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 2% Other
Average Age 47
Position 7% Dean or Vice President 2% Department Chair 17% Director 25% Coordinator 42% faculty 7% Other
Years in current position 56% 0-5 years 28% 6-10 years 9% 11-15 years 7% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College .11% 0-5 years 33% 6-10 years 18% 11-15 years 18% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 36% 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years 17% 11-15 years 21 % 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 36% 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 22% 11-15 years 20% 16 or more
Functional Area 66% Instruction 16% Student Services 2% Continuing Education 1 1% Business and/or Facilities 5% Other
l eaching Experience 33% Full-time 20% Part-time 29% Both 18% None
! lighest Degree Earned 951, Doctorate 44% Masters 31% Bachelors 11% Associates 5% High School
Retirement Dale 9% 1 -3 years 11 % 4-6 years 25% 7-10 years 38% in more than 10 years 17% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 59% No 19% Yes 2% Already in position 20% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 87% No 4% Yes 9% Undecided
Table 3.7
Institution K. Demographics


Surveyed 45 Administrator 0 Faculty 45 Total
Responses 22
Response Rate 49%
Gender 45% male 55% female
Ethnicity 86% Caucasian 0% Hispanic 14% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 0% Other
Average Age 46
Position 10% Dean or Vice President 0% Department Chair 41% Director 18% Coordinator 0% faculty 32% Other
Years in current position 82% 0-5 years 14% 6-10 years 4% 11-15 years 0% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 68% 0-5 years 14% 6-10 years 4% 11-15 years 14% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 59% 0-5 years 18% 6-10 years 9% 11-15 years 14% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 59% 0-5 years 14% 6-10 years 9% 11-15 years 18% 16 or more
Functional Area 18% Instruction 9% Student Services 0% Continuing Education 45% Business and/or Faci 1 tties 27% Other
Teaching Experience 9% Full-time 18% Part-time 9% Both 64% None
Highest Degree earned 18% Doctorate 50% Masters 18% Bachelors 14% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Dale 18% 1 -3 years 5% 4-6 years 9% 7-10 years 41% in more than 10 years 27% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 27% No 27% Yes 27% Already in position 18% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 68% No 14% Yes 18% Undecided
Table 3.8
Institution L Demographics


Institution N
The average age for Institution N was 50 years old at the time of the survey,
which is slightly higher than the overall survey respondents. Twenty-three percent
had worked in a community college for 16 years or longer, and 20% had worked at
their current community college for 16 or more years. Seventy-one percent work in
Instruction and 16% have a doctorate. A high percentage of participants, 43%, plan
to retire in the next ten years, and only 3% desire to become a president. Table 3.9
below shows the demographic representation for the respondents from Institution N.
Institution Q
At Institution Q, 70% have worked in their position for less than five years, and
only 4% had worked at their current community college for more than 16 years.
Sixty-three percent have their masters degree, and another 8% has a doctorate.
Thirty-seven percent plan to retire within the next ten years. Seventeen percent plan
to become a senior administrator, and 7% want to become a president. Table 3.10
below shows the demographic representation for the respondents from Institution Q.
Institution R
Institution R had the highest response rate with 52% of the population completing
the survey. This institution also had the highest percentage working in Student
Services, 44% In addition, 40% have taught part-time. Sixty-five percent of the
population has worked at the institution for less than ten years. Thirty-seven percent
plan to retire within the next ten years, and 9% state that they could become a college
56


president. Table 3.11 below shows the demographic representation of the
respondents from Institution R.
Institution S
Institution S has 48% male and 52% female responding to the survey with a 45%
response rate. The average age was low at 43. Eighty-three percent have been
working in their position for less than five years. Both Instruction and Student
Services are split with 43% working in each area. This institution had the lowest
expected retirements with only 13% planning to retire within the next ten years. Only
4% had a doctorate, but 17% desire to become a community college president. Table
3.12 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from
Institution S.
Institution U
The respondents at Institution U were 50% female, and 50% male, and 97%
Caucasian. Sixty-eight percent were in Instruction, and 13% had their doctorate.
However, 29% of the total institution respondents had earned only an Associates
degree or High School diploma. Thirty-five percent planned to retire within the next
10 years, and 6% are interested in becoming a president. Table 3.13 below shows the
demographic representation of the respondents from Institution U.
57


Surveyed 50 Administrator 32 Faculty 82 Total
Responses 31 Total
Response Rate 38%
Gender 42% male 58% female
Ethnicity 81% Caucasian 10% Hispanic 6% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 3% Other
Average Age 50
Position 6% Dean or Vice President 10% Department Chair 23% Director 6% Coordinator 52% faculty 3% Other
Years in current position 50% 0-5 years 33% 6-10 years 10% 11-15 years 7% 16 or more
Years employed at Currenl Community College 40% 0-5 years 20% 6-10 years 20% 11-15 years 20% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 43% 0-5 years 17% 6-10 years 20% 11-15 years 20% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 45% 0-5 years 16% 6-10 years 16% 11-15 years 23% 16 or more
Functional Area 71% Instruction 16% Student Services 0% Continuing Education 10% Business and/or Facil ities 3% Other
Teaching Experience 42% Full-time 16% Part-time 20% Both 13% None
Highest Degree canted 16% Doctorate 52% Masters 19% Bachelors 13% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Date 10% 1-3 years 23% 4-6 years 10% 7-10 years 45% in more than 10 years 12% arc unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 58% No 16% Yes 7% Already in position 19% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 84/;, No 3% Yes 13% Undecided
Table 3.9
Institution N Demographics


Surveyed 70 Administrator 93 Faculty 163 Total
Responses 75 Total
Response Rate 46%
Gender 27% male 73% Female
Ethnicity 80% Caucasian 4% Hispanic 3% Asian American/ Pacific 3% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 1 % Other
Average Age 48
Position 0% Dean or Vice President 11% Department Chair 21% Director 20% Coordinator 35% faculty 4% Other
Years in current position 70% 0-5 years 19% 6-10 years 7% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 51 % 0-5 years 23% 6-10 years 13% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 57% 0-5 years 19% 6-10 years 15% 11-15 years 8% 16 or more
Total years working in community colleges 52% 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 13% 11-15 years 13% 16 or more
Functional Area 57% Instruction 21% Student Services 4% Continuing Education 10% Business and/or Faci 1 ities 8% Other
Teaching Experience 15% Full-time 19% Part-time 41% Both 25% None
Highest Degree earned 8% Doctorate 63% Masters 23% Bachelors 3% Associates 3% High School
Retirement Date 0% 1 -3 years 8% 4-6 years 20% 7-10 years 40% in more than 10 years 24% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 52% No 17% Yes 8% Already in position 23% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 87% No 7% Yes 6% Undecided
Table 3.10
Institution Q Demographics


Surveyed bl Administrator 21 Faculty 82 Total
Responses 43 Total
Response Rate 52%
Gender 35% male 65% female
Ethnicity 79% Caucasian 7% Hispanic 5% Asian American/ Pacific 9% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 0% Other
Average age 4b
Position 4% Dean or Vice President 12% Department Chair 26% Director 28% Coordinator 19% faculty 11% Other
Years in position 70% 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years 4% 11-15 years 0% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 44% 0-5 years 21% 6-10 years 19% 11-15 years 16% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado Community college 50% 0-5 years 29% 6-10 years 14% 11-15 years 7% 16 or more
Total years working In a community college 45% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 19% 11-15 years 12% 16 or more
Functional Area 40% Instruction 44% Student Services 5% Continuing Education 5% Business and/or Facil ities 6% Other
Teaching Experience 1 1% Full-time 40% Part-time 30% Both 19% None
Highest Degree earned 9% Doctorate 51 % Masters 30% Bachelors 9% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Date 9% 1 -3 years 16% 4-6 years 12% 7-10 years 44% in more than 10 years 19% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 35% No 30% Yes 7% Already in position 26% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 84% No 9% Yes 7% Undecided
Table 3.11
Institution R Demographics


Surveyed 30 Administrator 21 Faculty 51 Total
Responses 23 Total
Response Rale 45%
Gender 48% male 52% female
Hlhnicily 83% Caucasian 9% Hispanic 0% Asian American/ Pacific 1% African American 4% American Indian/Nalive American 4% Other
Average Age 43
Position 13% Dean or Vice President 0% Department Chair 22% Director 35% Coordinator 30% faculty 0% Other
Years in current position 83% 0-5 years 13% 6-10 years 0% 11 -15 years 4% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 61 % 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years 4% 11-15 years 9% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado Community college 61% 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years 4% 11-15 years 9% 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 48% 0-5 years 35% 6-10 years 9% 11-15 years 9% 16 or more
Functional Area 43% Instruction 43% Student Services 0% Continuing Education 4% Business and/or Facilities 10% Other
Teaching Experience 22% Full-time 22% Part-time 30% Both 26% None
Highest Degree earned 4% Doctorate 43% Masters 39% Bachelors 9% Associates 5% High School
Retirement Dale 4% 1 -3 years 9% 4-6 years 0% 7-10 years 61% in more than 10 years 26% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 40% No 30% Yes 13% Already in position 17% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 70% No 17% Yes 13% Undecided
Table 3.12
Institution S Demographics


Surveyed <12 Administrator 27 Faculty 69 Total
Responses 31 Total
Response Rale 45%
Gender 50% male 50% female
Brlinicily 07% Caucasian 0% Hispanic 0% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 0% American Indian/ Native American 3% Other
Average Age 48
Position 3% Dean or Vice President 19% Department Chair 35% Director 13% Coordinator 26% faculty 4% Other
Years in current position 68% 0-5 years 16% 6-10 years 16% 11-15 years 0% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community C ollege 45% 0-5 years 23% 6-10 years 26% 11-15 years 6% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 48% 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years 20% 11-15 years 6% 16 or more
Total years working in community colleges 42% 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years 26% 11-15 years 6% 16 or more years
Functional Area 68% Instruction 16% Student Services 3% Continuing Education 10% Business and/or Faci 1 ittes 3% Other
Teaching Experience 32% Full-time 10% Part-time 35% Both 23% None
Highest Degree Earned 13% Doctorate 32% Masters 26% Bachelors 23% Associates 6% High School
Retirement Dale 6% 1 -3 years 10% 4-6 years 10% 7-10 years 26% in more than 10 years 30% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 58% No 10% Yes 13% Already in position 19% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 77% No 6% Yes 16% Undecided
Table 3.13
Institution U Demographics


Institution Y
Institution Y had the lowest response rate of 22%. This was one of the
institutions that received the survey through their human resources director instead of
directly from me. I was unable to identify the population externally and had to rely
on the human resources department for assistance. Whether or not the low response
rate is a result of this procedure is not known, but it may be related to this procedural
difference. Based on the responses, however, a high percentage of individuals
working in Instruction, 77%, responded to the survey. Fifty-two percent have taught
both part-time and full-time, and 14% have their doctorate. Thirty-seven percent plan
to retire within ten years and only 4% want to become a president. However, 24% are
interested in becoming a senior administrator. Table 3.14 below shows the
demographic representation of the respondents from Institution Y.
Institution Z
Institution Z had a 51% response rate and an average age of 42 years at the time
of the survey. Thirty-six percent of the respondents were faculty, and a total of 57%
identified their functional area as Instruction. None of the respondents had their
doctorate, but 46% had a masters degree. Twenty-three percent plan to retire within
the next ten years, but only 2% desire to become a president. Table 3.15 below
shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution Z.
63


Surveyed 68 Administrator 186 Faculty 254 Total
Responses 56 Total
Response Rate 22%
Gender 34% male 66% female
Hlhnicily 89% Caucasian 0% Hispanic 2% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 4% American Indian/ Native American 5% Other
Average Age 48
Position 8% Dean or V ice President 20% Department Chair 16% Director 13% Coordinator 43% faculty 0% Other
Years in current position 68% 0-5 years 18% 6-10 years 5% 11-15 years 9% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 50% 0-5 years 20% 6-10 years 13% 11-15 years 17% 16 or more
t otal years working in a Colorado Community College 56% 0-5 years 20% 6-10 years 5% 11-15 years 18% 16 or more years
t otal years working in a community college 52% 0-5 years 25% 6-10 years 5% 11-15 years 18% 16 or more years
Functional Area 77% Instruction 18% Student Services 0% Continuing Education 4% Business and/or Facilities 1% Other
Teaching Experience 25% Full-time 13% Part-time 52% Both 11 % None
Highest Degree earned 14% Doctorate 61% Masters 16% Bachelors 7% Associates 2% High School
Retirement Date 14% 1 -3 years 7% 4-6 years 16% 7-10 years 40% in more than 10 years 23% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 45% No 24% Yes 7% Already in position 24% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 89% No 4% Yes 7% Undecided
Number of individuals scll'-identificd lor succession program 11/20%
Table 3.14
Institution Y Demographics


Surveyed 01 Administrator 49 Faculty 110 Total
Responses 56 Total
Response Rale 5I%-
Gender 67% male 33% Female
Ethnicity 95% Caucasian 5% Hispanic 0% Asian American/ Pacific 0% African American 0% American Indian/Native American 0% Other
Average Age 42
Position 4% Dean or Vice President 9% Department Chair 29% Director 20% Coordinator 36% faculty 2% Other
Years in current position 73% 0-5 years 18% 6-10 years 7% 11-15 years 2% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 45% 0-5 years 16% 6-10 years 16% 11-15 years 23% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 45% 0-5 years 18% 6-10 years 16% 11-15 years 21 % 16 or more
Total years working in a community college 43% 0-5 years 13% 6-10 years 21% 11-15 years 23% 16 or more
Functional Area 57% Instruction 21% Student Services 9% Continuing Education 9% Business and/or Facilities 5% Other
l eaching Experience 32% Full-time 16% Part-time 21% Doth 30% None
Highest Degree earned 0% Doctorate 46% Masters 46% Bachelors 8% Associates 0% High School
Retirement Date 3% 1 -3 years 7% 4-6 years 13% 7-10 years 43% in more than 10 years 34% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 57% No 20% Yes 5% Already in position 18% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President O 2 £ 00 1 2% Yes 9% Undecided
Table 3.15
Institution Z Demographics


Overall Study Population
Although 1,870 participants were identified for this study, only 725 usable
surveys were submitted, for a 39% response rate. The majority of the respondents
were female (67%). The average age at the time of the survey was 48 years.
However, ages ranged from 20 to 75. Table 3.16 below shows the demographic
representation of all the respondents who participated in the survey.
The majority of the participants were Caucasian (87%). Seven percent of the
respondents identified as Hispanic, 2% identified as African-American, 2% identified
as Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% as American Indian, and 2% as other.
Only 6% of the respondents plan to become a president. However, only 4% of the
female respondents indicated that they desire to become a president. Twelve percent
of the male respondents replied that they want to become a president. When the
undecided responses about becoming a president are added to the positive
responses, the percentages are 14% for female and 24% for male.
According to the 2006 American Council on Education (ACE, 2007) presidential
survey results, 82% of all presidents have a doctorate of some kind including a
doctorate in law, medicine, education, and philosophy. However, only ten percent of
the CCCS respondents reported that they had a doctorate. The majority of the
respondents (54%) had earned a masters degree, and another 27% had earned their
Bachelors degree.
66


Surveyed 054 Administrator 016 Faculty 1870 total
Responses 725 Total
Response Rate 39%
Gender 33% male 67% female
Ethnicity 86% Caucasian 7% Hispanic 2% Asian American/ Pacific 2% African American 1% American Indian/Native American 2% Other
Average Age 4R
Position 8% Dean or Vice President 10% Department Chair 23% Director 23% Coordinator 31% faculty 5% Other
Years in current position 68% 0-5 years 20% 6-10 years 8% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more
Years employed at Current Community College 46% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 16% II-15 years 14% 16 or more
Total years working in a Colorado community college 49% 0-5 Years 23% 6-10 years 15% 11-15 Years 13% 16 or more
Total years working in community colleges 46% 0-5 years 23% 6-10 years 16% 11-15 years 15% 16 or more
Functional Area 56% Instruction 26% Student Services 3% Continuing Education 7% Business and/or Facilities 7% Other
Teaching Experience 21% Full-time 22% Part-time 34% Both 23% None
Highest Degree earned 10% Doctorate 5*1% Masters 27% Bachelors 7% Associates 2% High School
Retirement Dale 9% 1 -3 years 11 % 4-6 years 15% 7-10 years 41% in more than 10 years 24% are unsure or plan to move out of the system
Plan to become a Senior Administrator 47% No 21% Yes 8% Already in position 24% Undecided
Do you desire to become a President 83% No 6% Yes 11% Undecided
Number of individuals self- identilicd for succession program 182/25%
Table 3.16
Overall Study Population Demographics


Twenty-two of the respondents were vice presidents and 36 were deans. The
majority of the participants were faculty: 225 (31%). Other categories included
department chair (10%), director (23%), coordinator (23%), and other positions (5%).
A recent study conducted by the Colorado Community College System using data
from the Employee Retirement Eligibility Report (2006) found that 50% of the entire
Colorado community college workforce was eligible to retire now or within the next
three years. However, this research study found that only 9% plan to retire within the
next three years; in my study, 35% of the respondents state that they will retire in the
next ten years. These data suggest that there is a potential for the Colorado
Community College System to grow its own leaders.
The participant responses to the number of years working in a community college
and the number of years working at their current institution were similar. Forty-six
percent of the respondents had worked at their current institution for 0-5 years. In
addition, the same percentage (46%) responded that their total years worked in a
community college were zero to 5. The same percent for both also applied to the
other categories, with 23% of the respondents having worked in a community college
for 6-10 years, 16% having worked for 11-15 years, and 15% having worked for more
than 16 years. However, the number of years that the respondents had worked in
their current position was dramatically different, with 68% in their present position
from 0-5 years, 20% 6-10 years, 8% 11-15 years, and 4% 16 or more years.
68


Summary
I used both quantitative data and qualitative data to understand succession
planning in the Colorado Community College System and individual colleges. My
survey instrument was administered to 1,870 employees to collect data on the current
state of succession leadership in the Colorado Community College System. In
addition, I conducted interviews with the community college presidents to help
identify and explain the need for a succession leadership plan. The survey questions
related to the identification and preparation of future leaders at their current
institution. The interviews inquired about how presidents currently identify and
prepare future leaders for their institution. The two methods were used to provide
insight into the different levels or units of analysis (Creswell, 2004, p. 16).
Ultimately the information collected from the study will be presented to the system
presidents along with a plan for a potential succession leadership program.
69


CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Chapter Overview
This study investigated how current Colorado community colleges identify
and prepare future leaders. Results of the research study are presented in this chapter,
using the survey results and interview data. Because of recent literature on
impending retirements, information regarding expected retirement dates also was
collected. The specific research questions for this study included the following:
1. To what extent are current Colorado community college employees interested
in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency?
2. Do Colorado community colleges currently identify internal employees to fill
future vacancies in upper-level administration?
3. Are the Colorado community colleges preparing employees internally to fill
vacancies in upper-level administration?
4. Are the Colorado community colleges conducting succession planning to
replace upper-level administrative positions?
5. What elements might a succession leadership program include for the
Colorado Community College System?
70


Quantitative Data Analysis Process
A survey was distributed to all full-time faculty and administrators at the
thirteen Colorado Community College System colleges and system office. Based on
information from the Web site, the Global Outlook directory, and human resources
directors, 1,870 employees were identified to be included in the study. From this
group, 725 usable surveys were returned for a 39% response rate. The survey
questions related specifically to the research questions of identifying and preparing
future leaders (research question #1-3). Both the survey responses and the qualitative
data collected from the presidents answered research questions #4 and #5. The first
fifteen questions on the survey pertained to demographic information including
whether individuals were interested in future leadership positions. Questions 16-34
used a forced choice to determine if a college implemented a particular activity
related to identifying and preparing future leaders. Each statement had four possible
answers: 1 for strongly agree, 2 for agree, 3 for disagree and 4 for strongly disagree.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed for each question to obtain
a college mean, standard deviation, and overall population mean.
Research Question #7: Who is Interested
Survey questions 14 and 15 related specifically to research question #1, which
asked to what extent current Colorado community college employees were interested
in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency.
Question #14 asked participants if they desired to become a senior administrator, and
71


question #15 asked if they desired to become a community college president in the
system. Overall, 47% answered no to question #14. Another 21% stated that, yes,
they did want to become a senior administrator, and 24% were undecided. Eight
percent stated that they were already senior administrators. Twenty-one percent of
the female respondents stated that they were interested in becoming a senior
administrator, compared to 23% of the males. However, when I added in the
undecided responses, 47% of the females and only 40% of males stated that they were
either undecided or interested in becoming a senior administrator (see Table 4.1
below). A chi-square statistic showed a statistically significant difference between
gender on question 14 (p = .05). Table 4.1 below shows the gender analysis of those
who are interested in becoming a senior administrator.
Table 4.1
Chi-square Analysis of Gender and Plan to Become a Senior Administrator (p/ Do you plan to become a senior administrator?
No Yes N/A (I am already an administrator) Undecided Total
Gender Female 224 99 32 127 482
Male 113 53 27 40 233
Total 337 152 59 167 715

N df Value Asymp.Sig (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-square 715 3 10.827(a) .013
To be more specific, question #15 asked the participants if they were
interested in becoming a president in the community college system. Overall, fewer
72


respondents stated that they wanted to become a president in the system. Eighty-three
percent answered no, 6% answered yes, and another 11% were undecided. Only 4%
of the female respondents and 12% of male respondents indicated that they wanted to
become a community college president. Adding the number of undecided responses,
the percentages rise to 14% for female respondents and 24% for male respondents
who might be interested in becoming or persuaded to become a president in the
community college system. Although the total population studied was 67% female, a
much smaller percentage of females was interested in becoming a community college
president. A chi-square analysis showed a significant difference (p = .000) between
gender on whether a respondent wanted to become a community college president in
CCCS. Table 4.2 below shows the gender analysis of those interested in becoming a
president in CCCS.
Table 4.2
Chi-square Analysis of Gender and Desire to Become a President (p/ Do you desire to become a president?
No Yes Undecided Total
Gender Female 416 19 48 483
Male 177 27 28 232
Total 593 46 76 715

N df Value Asymp.Sig (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-square 715 2 16.956(a) .000
A one-way ANOVA examined questions 14 and 15 compared to retirement
date. Sixty percent of those who stated that they were interested in becoming a senior
73


administrator indicated that they will retire in more than ten years. Table 4.3 below
shows the comparison of retirement date to those who plan to become a senior
administrator.
Table 4.3
Comparison of Retirement Date to Question #14: Plan to Become a Senior
Administrator
Retirement date No Yes N/A (I am already an administrator) Undecided Total
In the next 1 -3 years 42 1 11 8 62
In the next 4-6 years 46 8 12 12 78
In the next 7-10 years 60 14 13 24 111
In more than 10 years 107 91 19 77 294
I plan to move out of the system 21 2 0 5 28
I am unsure when I will retire or leave 63 36 4 42 146
N 339 152 59 169 719
Further analysis showed a statistically significant difference (p = .006)
between a respondents retirement date and whether a respondent planned to become
a senior administrator. This one-way analysis of variance also showed significant
difference between retirement date and desire to become a community college
president (p = 000). Table 4.4 below shows the one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) of retirement date and both interest in becoming a senior administrator and
CCCS president.
74


Table 4.4
One-way Analysis of Variance Comparing Retirement Date to Plan to Become a
Senior Administrator and Desire to Become a President
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Do you plan to become a senior administrator? Between Groups 24.372 5 4.874 3.326 .006
Within Groups 1044.949 713 1.466
Total 1069.321 718
Do you desire to become a president? Between Groups 15.033 5 3.007 7.644 .000
Within Groups 280.441 713 .393
Total 295.474 718
In addition, 61% of the respondents who stated that, yes, they wanted to
become a president in the system also replied that they plan to retire in more than ten
years. Overall, 41% of the respondents plan to retire in more than 10 years. An
additional 20% are not sure when they will retire. Table 4.5 below shows the
comparison of retirement date to those who plan to become a CCCS president.
Table 4.5
Comparison of Retirement Date to Question #15: Desire to Become a Community
College System President
Retirement date No Yes Undecided Total
In the next 1-3 years 59 0 2 61
In the next 4-6 years 74 1 3 78
In the next 7-10 years 102 4 4 110
In more than 10 years 220 28 47 295
I plan to move out of the system 25 2 1 28
I am unsure when I will retire or leave 117 11 19 147
N 597 46 76 719
75


The position currently held by respondents interested in becoming a senior
administrator were predominantly director level and coordinator. However, a larger
percentage of directors also stated that they already are an administrator (14%)
compared to the department chairs, only 3% of whom considered themselves a senior
administrator. The faculty respondents were the least interested in becoming a senior
administrator with 64% not interested in becoming a senior administrator. Table 4.6
below shows the comparison of position to those who plan to become a senior
administrator.
Table 4.6
Comparison of Position to Question #14: Plan to Become a Senior Administrator
Position No Yes N/A (I am already an administrator) Undecided Total
Vice President 1 1 18 0 20
Dean 6 11 15 3 35
Department Chair 44 10 2 17 73
Director 56 50 23 40 169
Coordinator 75 40 0 52 167
Faculty 144 29 0 51 224
Other 14 11 1 6 32
N 340 152 59 169 720
A one-way analysis of variance also showed a significant difference between
a respondents position and the interest in becoming a senior administrator (p = .000)
as well as a community college president (p = .006) (See Table 4.7). Both questions
relate directly to filling future leadership positions. Table 4.7 below shows the one-
76


way analysis of variance of position to those planning to become a CCCS president or
senior administrator.
Table 4.7
One-way Analysis of Variance Comparing Position and Plan to Become a Senior
Administrator and Desire to Become a Community College President
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Do you plan to become a senior administrator Between Groups 43.256 6 7.209 5.004 .000
Within Groups 1027.232 713 1.441
Total 1070.488 719
Do you desire to become a president Between Groups 7.339 6 1.223 3.026 .006
Within Groups 288.211 713 .404
Total 295.550 719
In regard to the data related to respondents interested in becoming a
community college president, vice presidents were the most interested in becoming a
president with 25% of the population answering yes to this question. Twenty percent
of the deans, 8% of the directors, 7% of the coordinators, and only 3% of the faculty
answered yes to becoming a community college president (see Table 4.8). These data
indicate that many respondents are interested in becoming a senior-level
administrator. However, more attention is needed to encourage faculty into moving
into administrative positions. Table 4.8 below shows the comparison of position to
those interested in becoming a CCCS president.
77


Table 4.8
Comparison of Position and Question #15: Desire to Become a Community College
President
Position No % No Yes % Yes Undecided % Undecided Total
Vice President 12 60% 5 25% 3 15% 20
Dean 21 60% 7 20% 7 20% 35
Department Chair 65 89% 0 0% 8 11% 73
Director 138 82% 13 8% 18 11% 169
Coordinator 139 83% 11 7% 17 10% 167
Faculty 197 89% 7 3% 18 8% 222
Other 26 76% 3 9% 5 15% 34
N 598 83% 46 6% 76 11% 720
Additional analysis compared retirement date to the position of the
respondent. The position with the largest number of retirements was the dean, with
62% planning to retire in 10 years. Fifty percent of the vice presidents plan to retire
within 10 years, as do 47% of the department chairs, 43% of the directors, and 33%
of the faculty. Table 4.9 below shows the comparison of retirement date to position.
78


Table 4.9
Comparison of Retirement Date to Position
Retirement Date 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years more than 10 years move out of the system unsure when I will retire or leave Total
Position
Vice President 1 5 4 7 0 3 20
Dean 8 7 8 10 2 2 37
Department Chair 8 11 15 33 2 4 73
Director 20 23 29 55 3 39 169
Coordinator 4 11 19 78 9 45 166
Faculty 21 21 32 97 11 43 225
Other 1 l 4 16 1 11 34
N 63 79 111 296 28 147 724
Research Question #2: Identifying Future Leaders
Research Question #2 asked whether colleges in the Colorado community
college system currently identify internal employees to fill future vacancies in upper-
level administration. Five survey statements were computed for the research
question, which constitute the variable Identify Scale. The five statements were:
1. This college looks out of state when hiring (Question #16).
2. This college has a reputation for making promotional opportunities
available to its own (Question #17).
3. This college is doing a good job of recruiting and hiring people who have
the potential to provide leadership (Question #18).
79


4. Administrators and supervisors at this college regularly identify high
potential employees (Question #19).
5. At this college, individuals are told if they are regarded as high potential
leaders (Question #20).
The Identify Scale consists of these five questions. Below are the findings
from the one-way analysis of variance completed on each question in this variable
related to the thirteen institutions as well as ANOVA related to the overall variable of
Identify. According to the ANOVA for questions 16-20, all five questions have
statistical significance between the institutions (see Table 4.10).
For question 16, colleges look out of state when hiring, a statistical difference
was found with F (13,671) = 13.763, p = .000 (See table 4.10). Question 17,
reputation for making promotional opportunities available, also showed a statistical
difference with F (13, 682) = 7.646, p = .000. Question 18 which related to recruiting
and hiring people who someday have the potential to provide leadership had a
significance of F (13, 687) = 3.348,/? = .000. Question 19, administrators and
supervisors regularly identify high potential employees computed an ANOVA of F
(13, 677) = 3.3889, p = .000. Finally, for question 20, individuals are told if they are
regarded as high potential future leaders, the statistical significant difference was F
913, 660) = 2.385,/? = .004. For all five questions, a significant difference was found
between the groups. Table 4.10 below shows the one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for the survey questions on the Identify Scale.
80


Table 4.10
One-way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Questions 16-20; Identify Scale
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig
Q16 This college looks out of state when hiring Between Groups 78.989 13 6.076 13.763 .000
Within Groups 296.231 671 .441
Total 375.220 684
Q17 This college has a reputation for making promotional opportunities available to its own employees Between Groups 44.894 13 3.453 7.646 .000
Within Groups 308.024 682 .452
Total 352.918 695
Q18 This college is doing a good job of recruiting and hiring people who someday have the potential to provide leadership Between Groups 22.418 13 1.724 3.348 .000
Within Groups 353.862 687 .515
Total 376.280 700
Q19 Administrators and supervisors at this college regularly identify high potential employees Between Groups 25.035 13 1.926 3.889 .000
Within Groups 335.272 677 .495
Total 360.307 690
Q20 At this college individuals are told if they are regarded as high potential future leaders Between Groups 16.206 13 1.247 2.385 .004
Within Groups 344.929 660 .523
Total 361.135 673
The tables below show the mean and standard deviation for each institution as
well as the total mean and standard deviation for all institutions combined. A
response of 1 equals strongly agree, a response of 2 equals agree, a response of 3
equals disagree, and a response of 4 equals strongly disagree. No institution had an
81


overall mean of 3.5 or above. In addition, there were no statistical differences within
any of the institutions.
Table 4.11 below shows the mean and standard deviation for question 16.
Although there were no statistical differences found for any of the questions within
the institutions, both the mean and standard deviation are included for each question
in case the reader is interested in examining the statistical results more closely.
Question 16 asks specifically about hiring outside of the state. Institutions G and U
had the lowest mean scores with 2.02 and 2.0 respectively, which suggests the
respondents believe their college looks out of state when hiring. Institutions H and N
disagreed with the statement, 3.1 and 3.03 means respectively (see Table 4.11).
Overall the respondents disagreed with this survey question.
Table 4.11
Overall Mean and Standard Deviations Comparing the Institutions with Question 16:
This College Looks Out of State When Hiring
Institution Mean Std. Deviation
B 2.6 .627
D 2.32 .750
F 2.88 .526
G 2.02 .622
H 3.10 .548
K 2.8 .528
L 2.55 .605
N 3.03 .566
0 2.67 .793
R 2.48 .634
S 2.86 .640
U 2.0 .775
Y 2.13 .695
82


Table 4.11 (Cont.)
z 2.21 .653
Total 2.51 .741
For question 17 (see table 4.12), the overall sample agreed that their colleges
have a reputation for making promotional opportunities available to its employees
with all of the means below 2.5. However, respondents from Institutions F (1.8), H
(1.6), K (1.96), N (1.87), S (1.96), and Z (1.91) strongly agree that their institutions
promote from within with a mean below 2.0 for each institution. The overall mean of
2.14 relates to a high agreement that colleges are promoting from within. Table 4.12
below shows the mean and standard deviation for question 17.
Table 4.12
Overall Mean and Standard Deviations Comparing the Institutions with Question 17:
This College has a Reputation for Making Promotional Opportunities Available
Institution Mean Std. Deviation
B 2.24 .744
D 2.35 .632
F 1.8 .577
G 2.22 .764
H 1.60 .643
K 1.96 .576
L 2.30 .470
N 1.87 .806
Q 2.41 .684
R 2.14 .710
S 1.96 .638
u 2.42 .765
y 2.35 .751
z 1.91 .549
Total 2.14 .713
83


The Institutions with the lowest mean for question #18 were G (2.04), N
(2.00), R (2.07), and Z (2.07). These four institutions had a higher percent of
participants who agreed that the institution recruits and hires people who have the
potential someday to provide leadership to the institution (see Table 4.13). In
addition, Institution G responded positively to both question 18 (2.04) and question
16 (2.02), which asked if hiring occurred outside of the institution (see Table 4.11).
Perhaps Institution G is hiring outside of the institution and recruiting potential
leaders. Institution Q had the highest mean (2.60) or lowest agreement for recruiting
and hiring high potential employees. Institution Q also had a higher mean (2.41) or
lower agreement for making promotions available to its own employees. Table 4.13
below shows the overall mean and standard deviation by institution to question 18.
Table 4.13
Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 18:
This College is Doing a Good Job of Recruiting and Hiring People who Someday
have the Potential to Provide Leadership
Institution Mean Std. Deviation
B 2.40 .771
D 2.39 .698
F 2.33 .702
G 2.04 ..638
H 2.18 .567
K 2.29 .737
L 2.45 .605
N 2.00 .856
0 2.60 .812
R 2.07 .632
S 2.43 .992
u 2.43 .774
84


Table 4.13 (Cont.)
Y 2.41 .708
Z 2.07 .628
Total 2.30 .733
For question 19, institutions H (3.10) and N (3.03) did not agree that the
institution regularly identified high potential employees. Other institutions receiving
a 2.8 mean or above were Institutions F, K, and S. All three had a high percentage of
respondents who disagreed with the statement. On the other hand, Institutions G and
U had the lowest means with 2.02 and 2.0 respectively (see Table 4.14). These two
institutions also agreed with the statement that this college looks out of state when
hiring (Table 4.11). In addition, Institution G had a high number of respondents
agree (2.04) that the institution recruits and hires people who have high potential for
leadership. Table 4.14 below shows the comparison of mean and standard deviation
to question 19.
Although the means for question 20 were all below 3.0, all of the institutions
except for three (H, K, and L) disagreed that the institutions tell employees if they are
regarded as high potential future leaders, and one institution (G) tied on this question.
An overall mean of 2.68 indicates disagreement system-wide (Table 4.15). In
addition, four institutions had a mean of 2.8 or above (D, Q, U, and Y) which
indicates that a higher majority of participants at these institutions disagreed with this
statement. In order to analyze these responses further, Table 4.15 below shows the
85


comparison of mean and standard deviation to question 20, and Table 4.16 shows the
total number of respondents who agree (274) versus disagree (400) with this question.
Table 4.14
Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 19:
Administrators and Supervisors at this College Regularly Identify High Potential
Employees
Institution Mean Std. Deviation
B 2.6 .753
D 2.32 .733
F 2.88 .663
G 2.02 .820
H 3.10 .609
K 2.8 .685
L 2.55 .607
N 3.03 .664
0 2.67 .693
R 2.48 .663
S 2.86 .898
U 2.0 .728
Y 2.13 .627
Z 2.21 .672
Total 2.47 .723
86


Full Text

PAGE 1

SUCCESSION PLANNING: IDENTIFYING AND PREPARING FUTURE LEADERS IN THE COLORADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM By Kristina Skees Binard Carlson B.S., Colorado State University, 1989 M.S., Colorado State University, I 994 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership and Innovation 2007

PAGE 2

by Kristina Skees Binard Carlson All rights reserved

PAGE 3

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Kristina Skees Binard Carlson has been approved

PAGE 4

Binard Carlson, Kristina Skees (Ph.D. Educational Leadership and Innovation) Succession Leadership: Identifying and Preparing Future Leaders in the Colorado Community College System Thesis directed by Professor Rodney Muth ABSTRACT According to research by the American Council on Education and the American Association of Community Colleges, a possible crisis may be impending in community college leadership in the next decade due to retirements. In addition, current mid-level community college administrators may not be prepared to fill these upper-level administrative positions, including the presidency, because of a lack of training opportunities. Although community college presidents have been aware of the impending crisis since 2001, only a few institutions have been identified as developing plans of action. Because of the impending vacancies in community college leadership, the research questions for this study address issues related to succession planning, also called succession leadership. Succession leadership has primarily been used in business and industry and includes three areas: identifying future leaders, developing potential leaders, and providing career advancement opportunities. These aspects of succession leadership were studied in the Colorado Community College System, using a mixed methodology. A survey instrument

PAGE 5

was distributed to capture quantitative data from the full-time faculty and administrators, and interviews were used to collect qualitative data from the college and system presidents. The combination of the two research methods assisted with the research questions. Research and data from this study show that community colleges realize that they need to grow their own leaders. However, many community colleges do not have succession-leadership plans or leadership-development programs available to their employees. Although leadership-development programs have been studied at community colleges, research is needed to determine what constitutes an effective program. Based on the data from this study, areas for recommendation for the Colorado Community College System include (a) a formal process to identify future leaders within the individual colleges and the system, (b) a system to prepare future leaders strategically, and (c) a process to develop a succession leadership model for the colleges. This abstract accurately represents the content of the c recommend its publication. Si

PAGE 6

DEDICATION PAGE I would like to dedicate this dissertation to several people who have been amazing throughout this process. To my husband who has always supported me in anything I want to do and certainly would not let me give up on this degree. To my sons who have always known their Mom as a student, and rarely complained when I said one more time I had to work on my paper. To my parents for inspiring me to always do my best. Finally, I would like to dedicate this to my late grandmother Freda Janke Harrington and mother-in-law Louise Simon Carlson. These amazing women had a profound impact on my life as an educator and learner. They were both an inspiration toward my completion.

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank my advisor, Rod Muth, for supporting me as I pursued my degree. I also would like to thank my committee members for assisting me with my doctoral study and contributing to my completion. In addition, I would like to thank Front Range Community College and the Colorado Community College System for allowing me to conduct this study. Finally, I would like to thank Laura Jensen, who assisted me with the survey and was a support through my data collection.

PAGE 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables ......................... ...... ..... ...... ............... ....... ............... ............................... xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..................... .... ....................................................................... 1 Colorado Community Colleges .................................................................... 2 Current Pathways to the Community College Presidency ........................... 3 Characteristics of Community College Presidents ..................... ........... 4 Succession Planning in Community Colleges ...................................... 5 Statement of the Problem ..... ...................................................... .... 7 Research Questions ...................................................................... 8 Significance of the Study ......... ... ...... .................................... .... ... 12 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 14 Community College President Characteristics .......................................... 14 Changing Role of the Community College President ................................ 20 Succession Planning in Community Colleges .................................... 28 Summary .................................................................................. 34 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 35 Research Design ................................................................. .... ................... 36 Human Subjects Review .................................. .... ...................................... 36 Population ....... ........................................ ............. ... ... .............. 37 Survey Instrument .......... ... ................ ...... ..... ... . ... ................. 37 Reliability and Validity of the CCCSP Survey ............... ...................... 39 viii

PAGE 9

Quantitative Data Collection ........................ ...... . ....... ........ ........ .... 40 Quantitative Data Analysis .... ............................................................. 40 Qualitative Data Collection ....... ..... .................................................... 44 Qualitative Data Analysis .... ................... ..... .............. ...................... 44 Demographic Data Analysis ............................................................... 45 Institution B ................................................................................ 45 Institution D ..................................................... .......................... 46 Institution F ................................................................................. 46 Institution G ........................................................................... ...... 4 7 Institution H ....... ..... . ..... ........ .... . ..................... ................. 47 Institution K .............................. ........ ...... .................................. 53 Institution L ................................................................................. 53 Institution N ................................................... ........................ .... 56 Institution Q ........................................................ ...... .................. 56 Institution R ................................................................................ 56 Institution S ................................................................................ 57 Institution U ................................................................................ 57 Institution Y ................................................................................ 63 Institution Z ................................................................................. 63 Overall Study Population ......... ............................... .... ............... 66 Summary ............................................... ... ................. ................... 69 4. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ..... ..... ..... ........................................ .... ............... 70 Chapter Overview ......................................... ... .................................. 70 Quantitative Data Analysis Process ................................................. .... 71 Research Question #1: Who is Interested ..... ................................. .... 71 ix

PAGE 10

Research Question #2: Identifying Future Leaders ...... . ... ... .... ..... 79 Research Question #3: Preparing Future Leaders .............................. 91 Research Question #4: Succession Leadership at the Colleges ........... 109 Qualitative Data Analysis ................................ ........ .......................... 119 Research Question #5: The Elements Necessary for a Succession Leadership Program ................................................................... 122 Summary .................................. ...................................................... 123 5. IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ............................. 125 Overview of Research Question Implications ....... .. ....... .......................... 126 Research Question #1 ................................................................. 127 Research Question #2 ............................. ........ ............................ 128 Research Question #3 ................................................................. 129 Research Question #4 ................................................................. 131 Research Question #5 ................................................................. 132 Recommendations for Action ...................... ..... ................................. 133 Identifying Future Leaders ............................................................ 133 Preparing Future Leaders ............................................................. 134 Succession Leadership Model ....................................................... 135 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................ 138 Conclusion ................................................................. ................... 140 APPENDIX A. Colorado Community College Succession Planning Survey .......................... 142 B. Participant Email .................................................................... .............. .......... 149 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................. ....................... ...... ............................. ... ......... 150 X

PAGE 11

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Instrument and statistical analysis by research questions .......... ............... ........... 43 3.2 Institution 8 demographics ...................... .......................................... ......... ...... ..... 48 3.3 Institution D demographics ........... ........................................................................ 49 3.4 Institution F demographics ............. ........ ..... ...... ....... .......................................... 50 3.5 Institution G demographics ............ ............... ...... ...................... ........................... 51 3.6 Institution H demographics ..................................................................................... 52 3.7 Institution K demographics ................................................................. .................... 54 3.8 Institution L demographics ................................. .............................. .................... 55 3.9 Institution N demographics ........ ......... ..................... ................................... ...... 58 3.1 0 Institution Q demographics ..................................................................................... 59 3.11 Institution R demographics ..................................................................................... 60 3.12 Institution S demographics ....................................................................... 61 3.13 Institution U demographics ... ............ .... .... . ............................................ 62 3.14 Institution Y demographics ............... .... ...... ............................................ 64 3.15 Institution Z demographics .... .................................................................... 65 3.16 Overall study population demographics ........................................................ 67 4.1 Chi-square analysis of gender and plan to become a senior administrator ........... 72 4.2 Chi-square analysis of gender and desire to become a president ...................... 73 4.3 Comparison of retirement date to question #14 .......................................... .... 74 4.4 One-way analysis of variance comparing retirement date to plan to become a senior administrator and desire to become a president ............................................. 75 xi

PAGE 12

4.5 Comparison of retirement date to question #15: Desire to become a community College president .................................................................................... 75 4.6 Comparison of position to question #14: Plan to become a senior administrator ........................................................................................................... 76 4.7 One-way analysis of variance comparing position and plan to become a Senior administrator and desire to become a community college president ......................................................................................... .... 77 4.8 Comparison of position and question #15: Desire to become a community college President .............................................................................................. 78 4.9 Comparison of retirement date to position .................................................... 79 4.10 One-way analysis of variance summary table for questions 16-20; Identify Scale ....................................................................................... 81 4.11 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 16: This college looks out of state when hiring ................................... 82 4.12 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 17: This college has a reputation for making promotional opportunities available ........................................................................... 83 4.13 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 18:This college is doing a good job of recruiting and hiring people who someday have the potential to provide leadership ................... .... 84 4.14 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 19: Administrators and supervisors at this college regularly identify high potential employees ............................................................. 86 4.15 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with Question 20: at this college individuals are told if they are regarded as high potential future leaders .......................................................................... 87 4.16 Agree versus disagree comparison by institution for question 20 .................... 88 4.17 One-way analysis of variance comparing identify scale variable to institution, position, retirement, degree, ethnicity, and senior administrator ...................... 90 4.18 One-way analysis of variance summary table for questions 22-30; Prepare scale ......................................................................... ...... ........ 92 4.19 Question 21 percentage of individuals participating in leadership opportunities ........................................................................................ 95 xii

PAGE 13

4.20 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 22: opportunities exist on campus for employees to accept new challenges within their current jobs ......................................................................... 96 4.21 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 23: at this college responsibilities are purposely added to an individual's current job, giving them broader work experiences ...................... 97 4.22 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 24: lateral transfers are made within or between division at this college in order to give individuals different work or developmental experiences ........................................................................................ 98 4.23 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions to question 25: At this college, individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for developing new programs or services ............................... 99 4.24 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions to question 26: opportunities are offered to individuals at this college that provide exposure to higher levels of management ............................................... 1 00 4.25 Comparison of position to question 26: opportunities exist to individuals at this college that provide exposure to higher levels of management... ........... 1 01 4.26 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing institutions to question 27: at this college, individuals are encouraged to participate in leadership development training on campus ............................................. 1 02 4.27 Comparison of positions to question 27: at this college, individuals are encouraged to participate in leadership development training on campus .............................................................................. 1 03 4.28 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions to Question 28: at this college, individuals are encouraged to attend national leadership development training ............................................................. 1 04 4.29 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with Questions 20: at this college, mentoring is given to high potential individuals In order to help them manage their careers .............................................. 1 05 4.30 Comparison of position to question 29: at this college, mentoring is Given to high potential individuals in order to help them manage their careers ........................................................................ .... ....... 1 06 4.31 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with Question 30: feedback is given to employees at this college on developmental job progress and career management opportunities as a part of their performance management plan .............................................................. 1 07 xiii

PAGE 14

4.32 One-way analysis of variance comparing prepare scale variable to Institutions. position, retirement, degree, ethnicity, and senior administrator ........................................................................... 109 4.33 Analysis of variance summary table for questions 31-34; succession scale ............................................................................... 111 4.34 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with Question 31: this college makes a deliberate attempt to prepare high potential individuals to advancement .................................................................. 113 4.35 Comparing of position to question 31: this college makes a deliberate Attempt to prepare high potential individuals for advancement ..................... 114 4.36 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with With question 32: prepared for succession leadership at this college is a part of the institution's overall plan ......................................................... 115 4.37 Comparison of position to question 32: prepared for succession leadership at this college is a part of the institution's overall plan ......................................... 115 4.38 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with Question 33: when vacancies have occurred in administrations over the last five years, this college has generally hired from within ......................... 116 4.39 Overall mean and standard deviation comparing the institutions with question 34: if you retire or leave your position tomorrow, do one or more individuals at this college have the personal skills and job-related knowledge to replace you .................................................................................. 117 4.40 One-way analysis of variance comparing identify scale variable to institutions, position, retirement. and senior administrator .......................................... 119 xiv

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A leadership crisis is predicted over the next 1 0 to 15 years in higher education, especially in community colleges (American Council on Education, 2007; Arney & VanDerLinden, 2002; McKlenney, 2001; Shults, 2001; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). Because many community colleges were established in the 1960s and 1970s, presidents and upper-level administrators may be reaching retirement age (Shults). In fact, in a recent survey sponsored by the American Association of Community Colleges, Shults found that more than 79% of community college presidents will retire by 2011. In addition, senior college administrators and tenured faculty are approaching retirement age as quickly as presidents and will not be available to fill presidential vacancies (Evelyn, 2001). This large number of projected retirements in both the senior executive positions and faculty could lead to a leadership crisis in community colleges. While studies suggest a leadership crisis nationwide, retirement data are not available for the Colorado community colleges. Because literature suggests a potential leadership crisis, do Colorado community colleges face this possible shortage? Can a plan be developed to replace future community college leadership in the state of Colorado? 1

PAGE 16

Colorado Community Colleges The Colorado Community College System (CCCS) consists of 13 community colleges located in both rural and urban areas throughout Colorado and governed by a system president. In addition to the 13 system community colleges, two additional public community colleges are independent to the system. These two colleges are funded locally and are not governed by the CCCS president. Because these two colleges are independent of the system, they were not included in the study. The Colorado Community College System is governed by a state board and a system president appointed by the governor. The State Board of Community Colleges serves as an advisory board to the system president. The system enrolls approximately 116,000 students and employs over 3,000 full-time staff and faculty (Colorado Community College System, 2006). According to the CCCS website, the mission of the Colorado Community College System is to: Serve Colorado residents who reside in their service areas by offering a broad range of general, personal, vocational, and technical education programs. Each college shall be a two-year college. No college shall impose admission requirements upon any student. The objects ofthe community and technical colleges shall be to provide educational programs to fill the occupational needs of youth and adults in technical and vocational fields, two-year transfer educational programs to qualify students for admission to the junior year at other colleges and universities, basic skills, workforce development, and a broad range of personal and vocational education for adults. (Colorado Community College System, 2007) In addition, the system has three strategic priorities which are student access, student success, and operational excellence (Colorado Community College System). 2

PAGE 17

Although the system has a strategic priority of operational excellence, no known leadership development or succession planning opportunities exist through the system office. At the time of this study, four female presidents, seven male presidents, and one interim president lead the 13 colleges in the system. The system president is female and the system office employees are also included in this study. Two of the colleges, Lamar Community College and Otero Junior College, are led by one president. Since the time the study was completed, two of the presidents interviewed have left the Colorado Community College System and another is moving to the system office. One of these colleges has replaced the president externally and the other two colleges are conducting national searches. Current Pathways to the Community College Presidency The path to the community college presidency has been studied for over twenty years (Vaughan, 1983 ). Paths to the presidency have included experience in academic affairs, student services, public schools, senior business affairs, community service or continuing education positions, four-year academic positions, state level positions, and other positions throughout the college or outside of academia (Vaughan & Weisman 1998) The American Council on Education also has studied the career paths of community college presidents. The 2001 study found that over 52% of community college presidents held the position of provost or Senior Academic Affairs Officer 3

PAGE 18

before becoming president (Corrigan, 2002). Other positions held prior to the presidency include Senior Student Affairs Officer (15%) or another administrative position at the college (12%) (Corrigan). Although many community college presidents have risen from the ranks of academic affairs, other paths also have led to the presidency (Corrigan; Vaughan & Weisman, 1998). Research by Vaughan ( 1989) indicates that almost one third of all community college presidents are recycled, moving from one presidency to another. In addition, Corrigan (2002) found that 25% of all community college presidents were presidents at another institution before moving to their current positions. As presidents retire, more positions may become available because retiring presidents will no longer be recycled for the positions. Characteristics of Community College Presidents In addition to identifying individuals who aspire to be future community college presidents, important characteristics of a president should be identified. In 1997, McFarlin studied community college presidents and identified nine preparation factors for outstanding community college presidents. These included a doctorate, community college leadership as a degree focus, publication and research, preparation to be a change agent, previous leadership position, mentor relationship, peer network, leadership development program, and use of technology (McFarlin). Later in 2000, the presidents belonging to the American Association of Community Colleges were asked to identify the skills needed to be an effective president (Shults, 2001 ). These 4

PAGE 19

self-identified skills included politics, budgeting, and relationship building; however, these skills had not been included in any leadership program attended by prospective presidential candidates (Shults, 2001 ). Because ofthe Shults study, the American Association ofCommunity Colleges initiated the Leading Forward project in 2003 (Vincent, 2004). In order to gather data about developing future leaders, the American Association of Community Colleges held four leadership summits with current community college leaders. The issues discussed at the summits included leadership competencies, leadership development, effectiveness of current leadership programs, and possible models for a national leadership development program (Vincent). The participants involved in the Leading Forward project identified six competencies for effective community college leaders. These competencies include organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism (Vincent). These competencies could be used to prepare future leaders in the Colorado community college system. Succession Planning in Community Colleges Succession planning has been an integral process for business and industry for years (Berger & Berger, 2004; Munro, 2005; Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005). Higher education, however, has not implemented succession planning until recently (Carroll, 2004). A search for doctoral research projects focused on community college succession planning has identified only four research 5

PAGE 20

studies that have been completed, and all were conducted within the last three years (Korb, 2004; Montague, 2004; Prigge, 2004; VanDusen, 2005). One of these authors studied succession planning in community colleges by interviewing 14 community college presidents about the potential leadership crisis in community colleges (Korb, 2004 ). The interviewees viewed the current leadership situation as a challenge rather than a crisis. With the potential for several upper-level administrators to retire from higher education, institutions will need to identify internal candidates as well as find ways to attract and train new leaders. In the past, prospective community college presidents may have participated in an advanced degree program, an external leadership program, and an informal mentoring program (Arney & Vanderlinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). Korb (2004) advocates for a succession plan that identifies potential leaders at the institution who already have been involved in these types of programs but also advocates for additional programs. Several leadership preparation programs have been specifically designed for community college leaders interested in becoming presidents. Some of these include the Executive Leadership Institute (League of Innovation, 2006). the Fellows Program (American Council on Education, 2006), the Future Leaders Institute (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006) and the Leaders Institute (National Institute for Leadership Development, 2006). All of these programs offer an intensive leadership program. Topic areas include board relations, crisis 6

PAGE 21

management, media relations, fundraising, trends, and current president perspectives (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006; American Council on Education, 2006; League of Innovation, 2006). Although these opportunities are available nationally, no leadership preparation programs are known to be available in Colorado for both men and women in higher education. The only current leadership program for higher education is the Academic Management Institute (2006), which is geared toward women in Wyoming and Colorado. The Colorado Community College System ran a leadership academy from 2003 to 2005, which was disbanded due to funding issues. Because ofthe lack of leadership development opportunities for future higher education administrators in Colorado, there is a void to fill with leadership development opportunities. Statement ofthe Problem Research has identified a possible crisis in community college leadership in the next decade due to retirements (Arney & VanDer! in, 2002; Shults, 2001; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). In addition, current mid-level community college administrators may not be prepared to fill these upper-level administrative positions, including the presidency, because of a lack of training opportunities (Arney & VanDerlin, 2002). Although community college presidents have been aware of the impending crisis since 2001, only a few institutions have developed plans of action (Arney & VanDerlin, 2002; Carroll, 2004; Leubsdorf, 2006; Shults, 2001; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). 7

PAGE 22

Research Questions Because of the impending vacancies in community college leadership, the research questions for this study address issues related to succession planning, which also will be referred to as succession-leadership. Succession-leadership includes three areas: identifying future leaders, developing these potential leaders, and providing career advancement opportunities (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005). The different aspects of succession-leadership in the Colorado Community College System were studied using a mixed methodology. A survey instrument was used to capture quantitative data from the full-time faculty and administrators and interviews were used to collect qualitative data from the presidents. The combination of the two research methods assisted with the research questions. The survey used is a modified version of the Community College Developmental Job Experiences Survey (Prigge, 2004). The Community College Developmental Job Experiences Survey was previously used in a study addressing the issue of succession planning in community colleges (Prigge). This survey was administered to 533 participants from 89 institutions and included the president at each institution as well as three female administrators. In addition, the Career and Lifestyle Survey was utilized for the demographic questions since the data has been collected from community college leaders over the past 20 years (Weisman & 8

PAGE 23

Vaughan, 2002). The modified survey for this study is called the Colorado Community College Succession Planning (CCCSP) survey. Survey questions asked about identifying future leaders, preparing future leaders through job training and leadership development, and succession planning at the colleges. Research at the Center for Creative Leadership found that many leadership activities included trainings and education; however, '1obs and bosses were the best way to develop leadership talent" (Fulmer & Conger, 2004, p. 6). Because of the importance of actual job experiences, career advancement opportunities were analyzed using questions about job mobility and new challenges. According to a study conducted in 2000 by Arney and VanDer! in (2002), 86 % of the administrators surveyed had completed a performance evaluation; however, only 43% had participated in a career planning review which would identify education and training opportunities. Recent research also states that career planning is an integral part of a succession plan and has added benefits of improving retention, improving employees' morale, and improving the company's bottom line (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005). All of the survey questions that addressed succession planning related to the three areas of identification, preparation, and advancement. Succession planning is a broader way to address replacement management of those who have retired or left the organization. Demographic questions included years working in a community college, interest in upward mobility, and years until retirement. These questions 9

PAGE 24

assisted with the introductory phase of succession planning which is identifying potential employees to move upward in the organization. Interviews with the presidents and survey data collected from all full-time faculty and administrators addressed the specific research questions for this study. The research questions referred to the current and future avenues for succession leadership in the Colorado Community College System. The specific questions for this study included the following: 1. To what extent are current Colorado community college employees interested in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency? 2. Do Colorado community colleges currently identify internal employees to fill future vacancies in upper-level administration? 3. Are the Colorado community colleges preparing internal employees to fill vacancies in upper-level administration? 4. Are the Colorado community colleges providing succession planning to replace upper-level administrative positions? 5. What elements might a succession-leadership program include for the Colorado Community College System? The primary research for this study included the Colorado Community College Succession Planning survey, which was distributed to all full-time faculty and administrators throughout the community college system. The survey collected 10

PAGE 25

data from the Colorado Community College System employees about their own leadership preparation and succession planning experiences. In order to study the process currently in place for filling upper administrative positions in the Colorado community college system, the views of the current presidents and system president were collected through interviews. The 12 community college presidents and system president were asked if they currently identify future leaders in their organization and, if so, how they prepare their employees for a future role at the college. In addition, the presidents were asked to describe what a succession planning program for the system should include. The interview data was analyzed to determine the presidents' views of the leadership challenge and the way Colorado community colleges currently prepare leaders. The Colorado Community College Succession Planning survey collected a variety of data including demographic information, employment history, education, leadership experiences, future career goals, and retirement timeline to identify potential community college administrators who may be eligible to fill future leadership positions in the system. In addition, survey questions inquired about past leadership opportunities within the colleges and the participants' perceived opportunities for advancement. The survey results were compared to the interview data and used to identify any succession planning and leadership development needs for the system. 11

PAGE 26

Significance of the Study Research indicates that almost 79% of presidents nationally will retire over the next ten years and that faculty and senior academic affairs administrators are also retiring (Arney & VanDerlinden, 2002; Shults, 2001). According to Shults, 45% of community college presidents studied in 2001 will retire within six years. In addition, 34% will retire within ten years and another 16% will retire in 15 years. This data indicates a crisis in community college leadership over the next ten years. In addition, a study conducted by the Colorado Community College System office using state retirement information, Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA), found that 50% ofthe full-time faculty, administrators, and staff in the Colorado Community College System (including classified staff) were eligible to retire now or within the next three years (2006). However, this data is limiting because it is based solely on age and number of years in the system. Employees have not been surveyed to determine any immediate retirement crisis. Because the national rate of retirements for presidents is growing, it is important to study the availability of future leaders in the Colorado Community College System. Although several studies have examined the preparation factors necessary to be an effective president (Arney & VanDerlinden, 2002; Hammons & Keller, 1990; McClenney, 2001; McFarlin, 1997; Shults, 2001 ), few studies have examined succession planning for future presidents in community colleges (Korb, 2004; Montague, 2004; Prigge, 2004; VanDusen, 2005). By analyzing the data from 12

PAGE 27

the Colorado Community College Succession Planning survey and the presidential interviews, a succession-leadership program was presented to the CCCS presidents regarding future leadership in the Colorado community colleges. 13

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this literature review is to analyze research related to the identification and preparation of community college presidents. The literature review will focus on three areas ofresearch. First, the review will concentrate on the characteristics of community college presidents. Second, the changing role of the community college president will be reviewed based on research and past trends that may impact community college leadership in the future. Finally, this chapter will review succession planning as it relates to developing future community college leaders. Community College President Characteristics Over the past 20 years, community college presidents have been studied by a variety of organizations. The American Council on Education has been studying higher education presidents since 1988 (Green). In addition, George Vaughan has been studying community college presidents since 1983. This section discusses the data collected in those surveys to understand the characteristics of contemporary community college presidents. Prior to the 1950s, community college presidents were recruited from public schools, four-year institutions, and other fields (Schultz, 1965). From 1961 to 1977, 14

PAGE 29

community colleges doubled the number of institutions. and founding presidents were appointed with no previous community college experience (Schultz, 1965). During this time, experiences and skills necessary to be a college president tended to include "understanding the mission and being able to translate that understanding into a vision, having effective communication skills, having knowledge of the community and the relationship between the college and community, and having experience within the community college field" (Schultz, p. 114 ). As the job description of the community college president has changed over the past 40 years. the career pathway may have changed as well. According to a study by Cohen and March (1974), most college and university presidents have risen from instructional posts. The typical career pathway to the presidency included faculty, department chair, division chair, dean, academic vice president, and president (Cohen & March). A study conducted by Kubala in 1999 investigated the career pathways of community college presidents and also found similar results. Kubala studied 82 community college presidents in 30 states who had been appointed between May 1995 and February 1997. He found that 72% of the presidents surveyed had come through the academic ranks. However, in a similar study conducted between 1997 and 1999 with I 0 I community college presidents, Kubala and Bailey (200 1) found that only 56% of the presidents had come through the academic ranks. These data may suggest that the characteristics of community college leadership are changing. 15

PAGE 30

For almost 20 years. the American Council on Education has conducted a study of college presidents using the American College Presidents Survey (American Council on Education (ACE), 2007; Corrigan, 2002; Green 1988; Ross & Green, 2000). The latest study, conducted in 2006, compared the findings from the past twenty years. The survey respondents included 2,148 college and university presidents, 749 from a community college (ACE). Characteristics over the past twenty years that have changed include women and ethnic minorities, average age of presidents, length of service in position, previous position, and full-time faculty experience (ACE). According to the study, female presidents have doubled since 1986 ( 10% ), but remain low with only 23% in 2006. In addition, ethnic minorities have seen even less of an increase with only 14% in 2006, up from 8% in 1986. The average age of presidents also has increased from 52 years of age in I 986 to 60 years of age in 2006. Along with age, the years of service have increased by almost 2 years. The most common position previously held by current presidents included a previous presidency (up 5% to 21 %) as well as chief academic officer (up 8% to 31 %). However, the percentage of presidents hired outside ofhigher education has declined slightly (down by 2%). Finally, presidents with full-time faculty experience have decreased by six percent. These characteristics indicate a changing population for presidents in co11eges and universities. The changes in age and length of service 16

PAGE 31

could indicate an even greater urgency to identify and prepare future leaders before additional presidents retire. The previous Academic Council on Education study conducted in 2001 surveyed 2,500 university and college presidents, including 800 public community college presidents (Corrigan, 2002). Eighty-two percent ofthe identified public community college presidents responded to this survey. The study found that 27% of the presidents were women, 15% were ethnic minority, 85% were married, 87% had their doctorate, and 36% had not previously held a full-time faculty position (Corrigan). This study also analyzed positions previously held by presidents. Additional positions held prior to the presidency included senior academic officer (28%), past president (20%), senior executive position in academic affairs ( 13%), senior executive in finance or administration ( 13%), senior executive in student affairs or development (7%), faculty or chair (4%), and outside academia (15%) (Corrigan). The fact that more than 20% of the presidents surveyed in both the 200 I and 2006 studies had previously been a president could be an issue when filling future presidential vacancies. In addition, since 1986 community college presidents have been studied using Vaughan's Career and Lifestyle Survey (Vaughan. 1986; Vaughan, Mellanden, & Blois, 1994; Vaughan & Weisman, 1998; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). The Career and Lifestyle Survey analyzes self-identified demographics and leadership information about today's community college presidents. Completion of a tem1inal 17

PAGE 32

degree and work experience in a community college are the two most common criteria for a senior leadership position in a community college. However, according to that same survey, only 45% of community college presidents had taught full-time at some point in their career and 53% said they had taught at least part-time (2002). These data may suggest a shift from the instructional model identified by Cohen and March ( I974) with more people advancing to the presidency from non-instructional positions. The latest Career and Lifestyle Survey (Weisman & Vaughan, 2002) studied 936 public community college presidents who are members of the American Association of Community Colleges. The survey collected demographic information about current community college presidents. For instance, over 25% of presidents are women, I4% are ethnic minorities, the average age is 56, 88% hold a doctorate, and the average length of time that they serve is I 0 years (Weisman & Vaughan). In addition, more than 90% of all incoming community college presidents have previously worked at a community college (Weisman & Vaughan). The primary issue identified was the number of presidents planning to retire. The study found that 79% of current presidents plan to retire within I 0 years, which may leave a leadership crisis if other senior administrators are not prepared to take over (Weisman & Vaughan). The results of this study are similar to those found in the American Council on Education survey (American Council on Education, 2007; Corrigan, 2002; Green, I988). 18

PAGE 33

In 2000, the American Association of Community Colleges studied community college senior administrators to determine career paths and backgrounds to their current position (Arney & VanDerLinden, 2002). The study included 1, 700 administrators from 14 different positions including presidents, senior administrative officers, senior student services officers, senior financial officers, continuing education directors, occupational and technical education directors, and business and industry directors. The study found that the position held most frequently before attaining the presidency was dean of instruction or provost (37%). Ofthe remaining presidents surveyed, 25% had been a president at another community college, and 15% had been either a senior academic or instmction officer. Other positions held prior to serving as president were director of continuing education, senior student affairs officer, vice president for institutional advancement, faculty, public school administrators, and college system board members (Arney & VanDerLinden). Non traditional pathways may open doors for future community college presidents. Recent studies suggest an increase in upper-level and presidential positions within community colleges. In addition, presidents are moving into their positions from different higher education backgrounds including finance, student services, and institutional advancement. As more upper-level positions become available, institutions may need to identify staff outside of instruction as well as faculty to fill these positions. 19

PAGE 34

Changing Role of the Community College President Although the characteristics of community college presidents are important to the future of community college leadership, it is also important to recognize the changing role of community college presidents. In order to identify future community college presidents, institutions should know what they are looking for in a future leader, and what competencies are necessary for future leaders. Community colleges have seen changes in leadership expectations over the past forty years (American Council on Education, 2007; Conigan, 2002; Hammons & Keller, 1990; Shults, 2001; Shultz, 1965; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). A review of literature by Hammons and Keller ( 1990) on competencies needed to be an effective community college president originally found that 62 competencies were needed in three different categories. The researchers used a Delphi method to reduce this Jist to 43 major competencies in the areas of leadership skills, group-related skills, and personal characteristics. In addition, they asked a panel of community college presidents to determine which competencies were critical to be an effective community college president (Hammons & Keller). The panel of presidents, convened in 1990, agreed that delegation, personnel selection, and decision making were the top three competencies. In 1997, Townsend and Bassoppo-Moyo conducted a similar study with community college administrators to investigate the competencies needed for an effective academic administrator. The researchers were interested in the top 20

PAGE 35

competencies that these administrators would choose when asked as an open-ended question. Four major competency categories were identified by the academic administrators: contextual, communication, interpersonal, and technical (Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo, 1997). The main components of the contextual competency included legal issues in higher education and curriculum development; where as, the technical competency included budgeting and finance, analytical thinking, and experience evaluating programs (Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo). The next two competencies included human relations and supervision (interpersonal competency) as well as computer skills and traditional communication skills (communication competency) (Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo). In addition, the ability to change was noted by 25% ofthe respondents. These competencies reflect a changing role for community college academic administrators outside of traditional curriculum development. Additional traits for the changing role of the community college presidency are recommended by Hockaday and Puyear (2000). The traits recommended include "vision, integrity, confidence, courage, technical knowledge, collaboration, persistence, good judgment, and the desire to lead" (p. 3). These traits could be incorporated with the list of competencies for future community college leaders. To understand the role of the president further, Barwick (2002) writes that an administrator who wants to become a president "must fully understand theories of learning, curriculum education, corporate training, applications of technology, 21

PAGE 36

funding formulas and budgets, admissions and advising processes, be able to at least sound intelligent about financial aid, and understand the complex interplay of these" (p. 8). In order to gain these skills, administrators should build peer networks at the college with administrators in these areas. The competency Barwick mentions is an understanding of the college as a system. In 2002, Brown, Martinez, and Daniel also conducted a study on competencies needed for instructional leaders. A random sample of 300 instructional leaders, who had completed a doctoral degree, was identified to receive a survey about "the skills necessary for effective practice" (Brown, eta!., p. 48). One hundred and twenty-eight responses were received for the data analysis. The top 10 competencies identified by the respondents were: (a) effective listening and feedback skills, (b) effective writing skills, (c) developing and communicating a vision, (d) conflict resolution, mediation, and negotiation, (e) understanding of community college mission, (f) understanding of interpersonal communication, (g) effective public speaking skills, (h) institutional effectiveness: assessment and analysis, (i) curriculum development, and (j) organizing and time management (p. 57). These competencies reflect a theme of communication, technology, budgeting, visioning, and decision-making. These themes have changed since the 1960s when presidents were recruited based on their understanding of the community college mission (Schultz, 1965). As more studies are conducted on community college competencies, 22

PAGE 37

the changing roles can be identified and incorporated into future leadership development. At the same time, the millennium has brought new challenges and changes to higher education that includes technology, student population demographics, and financial access (Dolence, Lujan, & Rowley, 1998). Other trends include competition for funds and students, management efficiency, flexibility in teaching and delivery, and global networks for local institutions (Lueddke, 1999). Issues specifically related to community colleges include funding reductions, student population growth, technology needs, community partnerships, efficiency, and accountability (Vaughan & Weisman, 1998). In addition, Sullivan (2001) has suggested that community colleges will face new challenges including a shift in faculty resources, learning assessment, external agencies regulations, and competition from private institutions. In 2002, Corrigan explained the need for new leadership: The imperative of rapidly changing economic, demographic, and political conditions suggests the need for adaptability and diversity in educational institutions and their leaders. The challenges of growing enrollments, increasing fiscal pressures and added government oversight may alter the character and chief responsibilities of the American college president. (p. 4 7) As with many four-year institutions, two-year colleges are asked to provide more programs and services to students with fewer dollars. In addition to addressing the mission ofthe community college and its relationship to the community, Corrigan (2002) found that community college presidents spend most of their time with planning, community relations, and 23

PAGE 38

personnel. Fundraising was listed as fourth on the list of most time-consuming activities. In contrast, private community college presidents spend most of their time fundraising, planning, and budgeting (Corrigan). In addition, presidents found their greatest challenge to be relations with faculty, legislators, and governing boards (Corrigan). Based on these changes, community college presidents in the future may be identified by their ability to work with others and build relationships. The latest American Council on Education 2006 survey of college and university presidents (2007) found similar results to those found in a study conducted in 2001 (Corrigan, 2002). According to the 2006 study, college and university presidents spend most of their time on fundraising, budgeting, community relations, and strategic planning (American Council on Education). The 2006 study also found differences in how presidents spend their time based on institutional type. Presidents at private community colleges spend most of their time on budgeting, whereas presidents at public community colleges identified community relations as the most time consuming activity (American Council on Education, 2007). The public community college presidents identified community relations, budgeting, and fund raising as their top three time consuming activities (American Council on Education). These activities differ from the private community college presidents who stated that budgeting, fund raising, and strategic planning consumed most of their time. In fact, community relations were not in the top three identified activities for private community college presidents (American Council on Education). Interestingly, 24

PAGE 39

community relations were listed as the area most enjoyed by community college presidents at a public institution. Unfortunately, research in 2001 found that new presidents "feel unprepared to deal with key aspects of their jobs, including fundraising, financial management, and working effectively with their governing boards" (Shults, p. 1 ). When asked to identify the constituent groups who were the most challenging, public college and universities chose legislators, faculty, and system boards (American Council on Education, 2007). Alternatively, when public college and university presidents were asked to identify the constituents they found the most rewarding to work with, students, administration and staff, and faculty were listed in the top three (American Council on Education). Understanding the skills sets needed for community college presidents, including who they work with, may assist with preparing future presidents for these changing roles. The American Association of Community Colleges reported at the 2001 Leadership Summit five specific traits needed for community college leaders to become presidents. These traits include understanding and implementing the community college mission; understanding the importance of effective advocacy with communities and legislators; understanding a wide range of administrative skills including organizational development, personnel issues, research and planning, and managing technology; understanding the impact on community and economic development; and understanding the importance of personal skills (AACC, 2002). 25

PAGE 40

Because of the research studies conducted after 2001 predicting a leadership crisis in community college leadership (Arney & Vanderlinden, 2002; Corrigan, 2002; Shults, 2001; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002), the American Association of Community Colleges convened a task force of community college presidents in 2003 (Vincent, 2004). The taskforce identified knowledge areas, skills, values and other characteristics needed to become an effective community college president (Vincent). From this list, five competencies considered to be very or extremely important to a community college president were created and adopted by the AACC board (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). The six competencies identified are organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism. The competencies include illustrations for each that community colleges can use to develop their own leaders. Two recent studies also have analyzed traits necessary to be an effective president. In 2003, Kinkley studied the perceptions of presidential search committees on community college effectiveness. Kinkley found that demographic characteristics of potential presidents did not influence the perception of an effective president (2003 ). However, six significant predictors emerged as an influence on the presidential search committee. The six predictors included mediating disputes, making good decisions, being action-oriented, choosing carefully how to use resources, building relations with staff and administrators, and interacting frequently 26

PAGE 41

with students (Kinkley). These predictors relate directly to the skill set identified by McClenney in 2001: financial planning, building relationships, communicating with others, and building a shared vision. However, new presidents indicated that financial issues, technology concerns, and insufficient funding were the biggest disappointments (Kubala, 1999). The second study examined the effectiveness of 239 community college presidents located in 19 states (Powell, 2004). Powell used information from the National Center for Education Statistics to determine effectiveness based on performance indicators. Of the presidents profiled, 64% were in their first presidency, and 25% were in their second. Thirty percent held the provost position before becoming president, and 37% were promoted from within (Powell). In the study, Powell interviewed five ofthe presidents who had been identified as effective. From those interviews he found that "these community college presidents attributed their success to four traits: being an effective communicator and good listener, creating a supportive and caring cultural climate, building and nurturing relationships with student and community, and being a risk taker for positive change at their institution" (p. 92). All of the characteristics identified could be used as indicators when identifying future community college leaders. Recently, the American Association of Community Colleges published a book about community college administration. Jensen and Giles (2006) discuss the ins and outs of community college leadership, especially the presidency. According to them, 27

PAGE 42

a president has to be "a business manager, fundraiser, chief policy maven, keeper of the academic flame, hand-holder, backslapper, art and athletic devotee, childcare and technology advocate. a pretty good public speaker, and an even better vote counter" (p. 8). In addition, they state that the president should be a change agent and be able to articulate a vision, as well as maintain ethical behavior and integrity. The role of the community college president has been changing over the past forty years, and the competencies and traits have changed as well. Succession Planning in Community Colleges According to the 2002 Bureau of Labor Statistics, I 0 million more jobs will be available than people prepared to fill those jobs by the year 2010. Because ofthis deficit, businesses and government are analyzing their future leadership potential to avert a leadership crisis (Berger & Berger, 2004; Hargreaves, 2005; Munro, 2005; Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005). One way to identify potential leaders in an organization is through succession planning. According to business researchers, "implementing a successful succession planning program decreases the risk of losing key people, increases employee job satisfaction, and improves the likelihood of matching the most qualified individuals to the most critical work" (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Linholm, p. 26). Succession planning used to be thought of as a process to replace the CEO; however, it has evolved into a complex process for all levels of an organization (Berger & Berger, 2004; Kesner & Sebora, 1994 ). Succession planning is different from replacement 28

PAGE 43

planning as it not only identifies individuals to replace those who are retiring but also develops a pool of future leaders (Corporate Leadership Council, 2003; Kesler, 2002). The Corporate Leadership Council (2003) conducted a research study with 276 organizations world-wide to determine what factors distinguish a top-tier leadership organization. Based on their findings, the following areas were identified: I. Senior executive commitment to development 2. Organizational reinforcement of development 3. Hiring for organizational compatibility 4. Exacting performance standards 5. Full business exposure for rising executives 6. Selecting successors for leadership ability, and 7. Focusing on scarce skills and fit with position These findings reinforce the need for succession planning programs within the organizations. Although the business model of succession planning has been around for sometime, not much has been studied in P-20. In 2005, Hargreaves investigated succession planning in high schools around the United States. The results of the study found that a successful succession-leadership program depended on "sound planning, employment of outbound and inbound leadership knowledge, limiting the frequency of succession events, and preserving leadership in the face of movements toward more management" (p. 164). He pointed out that poor succession planning is 29

PAGE 44

due to poor planning as well as selection and rotation of staff According to his study, succession planning should include the following: 1. Succession needs to be planned thoughtfully and ethically. 2. Distributing leadership makes succession less dependent on the talents of particular individuals. 3. Leaders are not all the same. 4. Leaders need to give thought to the leadership capacity they will build and legacies they will leave, and 5. The alarming rise in rates of succession should be reversed immediately, and principles should be kept in school for longer than five years when their improvement efforts are doing well (Hargreaves, p. 172). Although these issues emerged from a study of high school principals, the issues are applicable to higher education. Succession planning can prepare a community college for future success by developing leaders before a need is identified (Berke, 2006; Harris & Brewer, 2000; Kelly, 2002). In addition, it provides an organization time to fully assess the leadership needs before a vacancy occurs (Khurana, 2001 ). Succession planning is the "long-term approach to meeting the present and future talent needs of an organization" (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005, p. 27), and is sometimes referred to as succession management (Berke, 2006). According to 30

PAGE 45

Berger and Berger (2004 ), three strategies are needed for a successful succession planning program: l. Find, assess, develop, reward and retain those employees who greatly exceed organization expectations and are the backbone for current and future organization success 2. Identify and have backup key positions in place 3. Invest resources in employees based on current and potential contribution to the organization's success (p. 2 7 5) In higher education, a need for succession planning has been identified. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that "6,000 jobs in postsecondary-education administration will have to be filled annually between 2004 and 2014" (Leubsdorf, 2006, p. 2) because of the growth in higher education and impending retirements. Some colleges and universities are identifying the number of planned retirements and starting to plan for this shift. For instance at Montgomery College, a community college in Maryland, "55% of the administrators are older than 55, and 45% will be eligible to retire by 201 0" (Luebsdorf, 2006, p. 2). Other examples include Metropolitan Community College in Nebraska where 75% ofthe employees are older than 40 (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). Some institutions are starting to grow their own leaders. Research suggests that insiders may deliver better results when groomed to replace a position (Khurana, 2001; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2004). An example of growing your own leaders is 31

PAGE 46

Metropolitan Community College. They started a leadership academy called lead@mccacademy, which provides an opportunity to build leadership skills (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). Another example is the University of Arizona where the institution is working with younger employees to develop future leaders (Luebsdorf. 2006). The Community College of Philadelphia has developed a Leadership Institute, and one of the co-facilitators of the program stated that 42% of the participants from the first two years have been promoted (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). Because ofturnover in administrative positions at Georgia Perimeter College, five components were identified to enhance leadership development and mentoring of the executive team (Belcher & Montgomery, 2001 ). The components included the following strategies: 1. Evaluating the institutional environment 2. Learning about the current leadership team 3. Scanning the environment 4. Building a leadership team through evaluation and training, and 5. Looking internally for new leaders (p. 19) Most notably, Daytona Beach Community College has implemented a succession planning model. During the last few years, Daytona Beach has identified "the need for a systemic approach to general leadership development and a specific plan to ensure smooth transitions as current leaders retire or make other career moves" (Carroll, 2004, p. 1 ). For Daytona Beach, the succession plan was a tool for 32

PAGE 47

organizational development as well as personal and professional development (Carroll). For this reason, Daytona Beach illustrates the effectiveness of using succession planning to develop future leaders in an educational institution. In 2004, Korb identified 14 presidents through the League oflnnovation to conduct a study on community college leadership. The presidents were interviewed regarding a potential leadership crisis in community colleges due to a lack of qualified candidates. The strategies these presidents used to address the potential leadership challenge including mentoring, professional development, leadership development, and marketing and recruiting (Korb ). Developing internal leaders is effective since research has shown that community colleges usually hire from within (Arney & VanDerLinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). However, Korb found that senior positions in community colleges could be losing their appeal due to the changing job responsibilities. Because of this perception, identifying and developing future leaders may be especially important to the future of community college leadership. To follow-up on the effectiveness of the current leadership practices and programs, Dembicki (2006) studied the leadership development programs at 16 community colleges, two district colleges and five state systems. Dembicki found four main components of each program: plan, develop, deliver, and strengthen. Planning includes high-level administrators and financial support from the college. The development of the program includes the location for the program, costs, 33

PAGE 48

speakers, as well as identifying who coordinates the program. When delivering the program, important components include team building, networking, mentoring, coaching, and job shadowing. Finally, feedback and evaluation will assist with building a stronger program (Dembicki, 2006). These components can contribute to a successful succession-leadership program. Summary According to a 2002 American Council on Education report, presidents spend most of their time planning, fund-raising, budgeting, and supervising (Corrigan). In addition, future presidents will need skills in mediation, technology, communication, legislative issues, fund-raising, budget management, creating a shared vision, and working with constituents (McKlenney, 200 l; Shults, 200 l ). A venues for skill development are imperative to the development of future leaders. Although several colleges are implementing programs for succession management and leadership development, not all are addressing the issues of future retirements (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006; Dembicki, 2006; Luebsdorf, 2006). The Colorado Community College System has not formally identified a process for identifying future leaders and preparing these leaders through a succession plan. This study looked at one community college system to recommend a succession-leadership development plan. 34

PAGE 49

CHAPTER3 METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the research methods used for this dissertation study. This study incorporated a mixed methodology to address several issues related to succession-leadership in the Colorado Community College System A mixed methodology combines both quantitative and qualitative research methods to fully understand a problem or issue (Creswell, 2004). The quantitative method was a survey design which according to Fowler {1993) is "an interaction between a researcher and a respondent. In a self-administered survey the researcher speaks directly to the respondent through a written questionnaire" (p. 71 ). A survey was used to collect data related to succession-leadership in the Colorado Community College System In addition to the quantitative data collected through the survey, I interviewed the 12 Colorado community college presidents and the system president to get a better understanding of my research questions from their perspective. This qualitative portion ofthe study focused on "understanding something, gaining some insight into what is going on and why this is happening" (Maxwell, 1996 p 16). 35

PAGE 50

Research Design Although two types of methodology were used for this study, the primary methodology was a survey instrument e-mailed to all participants with a request to participate. The survey was designed to gather descriptive, quantitative data using closed-ended questions for comparisons across categories (Rea & Parker, 2005). The survey instrument had 15 demographic questions and 20 questions related to succession-leadership experiences at the participants' institutions. Specifically, these questions examined how institutions currently identify future leaders, how institutions prepare future leaders, and whether a succession planning process was currently in place. The information was collected to describe the leadership opportunities that currently exist in the CCCS community colleges. Participants also were asked to self identify if they wanted to participate in a system-wide succession-leadership program. The qualitative methodology included interviews with the 12 Colorado community college presidents and the system president to determine how they currently identify and prepare leaders on their campuses. The interviews gave additional meaning to the survey data and helped to determine whether succession planning was being used in the colleges. The use of two data collection techniques increased the validity of the research (Creswell, 1994 ). Human Subjects Review In accordance with the requirements of the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, the research design was submitted to the Human 36

PAGE 51

Subjects Review Committee before beginning the study. An overview of the study and its potential risks was included in the request and the e-mail request for participation was reviewed (Appendix A). The study protocol was e-mailed to all participants with the Web linlc The participants agreed to accept any potential risks by submitting the survey. Population The population for this survey included all full-time faculty and administrators working in the Colorado Community College System. Positions included vice president, dean, department chair, director, coordinator, and all faculty categories. Based on the nature of the study, the survey population included all employees who fit in one of these categories. Participants were identified through the college Web site, Colorado Community College System Global Outlook, and the Human Resource Directors at the college. In total, I ,870 participants were identified for this study. In addition, all of the college presidents who work at a Colorado Community College System college were interviewed to gain additional information related to a succession-leadership plan for the system. Survey Instrument The survey instrument, the Colorado Community College Succession Planning (CCCSP) survey (see Appendix B), was modeled on the Community College Developmental Job Experience (CCDJE) survey (Prigge, 2004). The CCDJE survey was created originally to analyze career opportunities for women in 37

PAGE 52

community colleges based on developmental job experiences. These job experiences also relate to research on succession planning, which is a system to identify and prepare leaders for future leadership positions within the organization (Berger & Berger, 2004; Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005). The demographic questions for the CCCSP survey related to succession leadership by asking the participants about the number of years working in higher education, number of years at a community college, number of years until retirement, desire to become a community college president or senior level administrator, and highest degree earned. In addition, the survey asked an additional 20 questions relating to the identification and preparation of future leaders in the institution. The original CCDJE instrument was tested for reliability using Cronbach's Alpha to determine if the answers provided by the women administrators and presidents were consistent (Prigge, 2004 ). The results showed that the "respondents would give the same answers repeatedly if the measurement could be made in the same way" (Babbie, Halley, & Zaino, 2003, p. 21 ). In addition, Prigge pilot-tested her survey with a group of three administrators and three presidents to determine both reliability of the questions as well as length and clarity for validity. Prigge detennined that the questions did measure what was intended, which included how future leaders are identified and prepared to fill upper-level positions. 38

PAGE 53

Reliability and Validity of the CCCSP Survey The Colorado Community College Succession Planning survey used the same questions as the Community College Developmental Job Experiences survey, so its validity is based on that of the previous study. In addition, a reliability test was computed using Cronbach's Alpha for the CCCSP survey. Three variable sets were identified for the study, which were the identify scale, prepare scale and succession scale. The identify scale consisted of questions 16-20. When the Cronbach 's Alpha was computed, question 16 had a negative inter-item correlation. Because the question related to hiring outside of the college and identify relates to hiring from within the college, I determined that the scoring of the variable should be reversed. After reversing the scoring, the identify scale had a Cronbach 's Alpha of. 765 for the five questions. The second variable included questions 22-30 for the prepare scale. These nine questions had a Cronbach's Alpha of .871. Finally, the third variable scale, succession, incorporated questions 31-34 and had a Cronbach's Alpha of .625 for the four items. Neither the prepare scale nor the succession scale consisted of any negative inter-item correlation so no survey items were reversed. The total reliability for all 18 items had a Cronbach's Alpha of .914. This computation supports the reliability of the survey for this study. 39

PAGE 54

Quantitative Data Collection Data for this study were collected through the CCCSP and interviews. The invitation to take the survey instrument was e-mailed to all participants with a Web link to the Front Range Community College Web site. Once the participants entered the site, they clicked on the Colorado Community College Succession Planning Survey. The information was collected anonymously, unless a participant self identified according to an option provided at the end of the survey. For three institutions, the human resources director e-mailed the information to the participants, including the follow-up e-mail. For the other 11 institutions, including the Colorado Community College System employees, the e-mail was sent directly to each participant individually as well as a follow-up e-mail. The participants were given three weeks to respond. Based on the number of responses, a second e-mail was sent after the three weeks to encourage more participation. The participants were given one more week to respond. Overall, 746 participants responded to the study out of 1,870 for a 40% return rate. Twenty-one of the respondents were invalid as their position was not within the category of full-time administrator or faculty. Thus, 725 completed surveys (39%) were analyzed. Quantitative Data Analysis The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 15.0 Graduate Pack was used to determine frequencies and calculate an analysis of variance (ANOVA) by institution, position, gender, ethnicity, and functional area. Statistical software was 40

PAGE 55

used for the descriptive analysis since it can assist with large sets of data (Rea & Parker, 2005). Demographic questions 1 to 15 were used to determine the need for succession planning in the Colorado Community Colleges. These questions related to years working in community colleges, years until retirement, age, gender, ethnicity, and desire to become a president or senior administrator. The demographic questions sought information about the employees currently working in the Colorado Community College System. In addition, research questions were addressed, using the following survey questions: Research question #1: To what extent are current Colorado community college employees interested in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency? Ql4 and QI5 (see Appendix B) addressed this research question by asking the participants if they desire to become a president or senior-level administrator. Descriptive statistics were computed for each question. In addition, Chi-Square tests were calculated to compare gender on Q 14 and Q 15. ANOV A tests were used to compare position and time to retirement on Q14 and Ql5 to determine if there were any differences based on these variables. Research question #2: Do Colorado community colleges currently identify internal employees to fill future vacancies in upper-level administration? Questions 16 to 20 were used to determine how Colorado community colleges currently identify 41

PAGE 56

future leaders. Descriptive statistics were computed for each question and then a composite score was created to compare the results of each question to each institution. An ANOV A was calculated to compare colleges on these composite scores. Research question #3: Are the Colorado community colleges currently preparing internal employees to fill vacancies in upper-level administration? Survey questions 22 to 30 ask whether preparation factors in community college leaders are being implemented. The preparation factors link specifically to job training, leadership development, feedback, and mentoring. For these questions, descriptive statistics were analyzed, a composite score was created for each question. and ANOV A was used to compare colleges on the composite score. Research question #4: Are the Colorado community colleges providing succession planning to replace upper-level administrative positions? Survey questions 31 to 34 connected specifically to succession-leadership and asked questions about the institution's existing succession-leadership plan. In addition, respondents were asked if individuals had been identified to replace upper management. Descriptive Statistics were analyzed for each question. In addition, a composite score was created for each question, and ANOV A was used to compare colleges on the composite score. Table 3.1 lists the research questions, survey instrument items, and types of statistical analysis. 42

PAGE 57

Table 3.1 Instrument Items and Statistical Analysis by Research Questions Research _Question Survey item(s) Statistical Analysis RQI: To what extent are current Ql, 11, 12, 14, IS Descriptive Statistics were Colorado community college computed for each question. employees interested in moving Chi-Square tests were computed into upper-level administrative to compare gender (Ql2) on positions including the Ql4 and QIS. presidency? ANOV A tests were computed to compare position (Ql) and time to retirement (II) on Q 14 and QIS. RQ2: Do Colorado community Q16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (variable Descriptive Statistics were colleges currently identify scale identify) computed for each question. A internal employees to fill future composite score was created for vacancies in upper-level each question and ANOV A was administration? used to compare colleges on the composite score. RQ3: Are the Colorado Q22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, Descriptive Statistics were community colleges currently 30 (variable scale prepare) computed for each question. A preparing internal employees to composite score was created for fill vacancies in upper-level Q2l.l, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, 21.5 each question and ANOV A was administration? used to compare colleges on the composite score. Descriptive statistics were computed for questions 21.121.5 regarding leadership opportunities. RQ4: Are the Colorado Q3l, 32, 33, 34 (variable scale Descriptive Statistics were community colleges providing succession) computed for each question. A succession planning to replace composite score was created for upper-level administrative each question and ANOV A was positions? used to compare colleges on the composite score RQS: What elements would a N/A This question was addressed succession leadership program with the interview data. include for the Colorado Community College System? 43

PAGE 58

Qualitative Data Collection To get additional in-depth data, the presidents from the Colorado Community College System were interviewed, including the system president. A total of 13 interviews were conducted to address research question #5: What elements would a succession leadership program include for the Colorado Community College System? The purpose of the interviews was to gather the views of those who are in a position to make a difference at the institution (Bogdan & Bilken, 1992). In addition, the interviews assisted with the research questions as well as recommending a succession leadership model for the system. Qualitative Data Analysis The interviews were conducted either by phone or in person and took approximately 20 minutes to complete. The interview data were analyzed using an inductive approach which uses data "to develop a descriptive model that encompasses all cases ofthe phenomenon" (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 70). The interview data were compared with the quantitative data and were used in developing a model succession leadership plan for the system. The following interview questions were asked to each president: 1. What leadership development training and education did you receive in your pursuit of the presidency? 2. Do you currently identify future leaders in your organization? How? 3. Do you currently prepare future leaders in your organization? How? 44

PAGE 59

4. If the Colorado Community College System were to develop a succession planning model, what should be included? Demographic Data Analysis The demographic information describes the respondents who work within the Colorado Community College System and may assist with future planning for the system. Fifteen demographic questions were asked related to gender, age, ethnicity, position, institution, years in position, years working in a community college, functional area, teaching experience, highest degree earned, retirement date, and desire to move into a senior level position or presidency. In addition, participants were asked if they were interested in participating in a succession-leadership program for the system. Below is a synopsis of the responses for all 14 participating institutions, which are identified using the letters B, D, F, G, H, K, L, N, Q, R, S, U, Y, and Z. The letters were randomly chosen to identify each institution and were purposely chosen out of sequence. Institution B Institution B had a lower response rate than most of the other institutions. This was one of the institutions that received the survey through their human resources director instead of directly from me. I was unable to identify the population externally and therefore relied on the Human Resources Department for assistance. Whether or not the low response rate is a consequence of this change in procedure is unknown. Overall, Institution B had the highest level of ethnic diversity; 68% were 45

PAGE 60

Caucasian, 17% were Hispanic and 12% were African-American. The average age of 44 years was also one of the lowest, when compared to the other institutions. The highest percentage of respondents by position was from the student services functional area. Thirty-one percent are planning to retire in the next 10 years, and 25% are unsure when they will retire. Twelve percent of the respondents at Institution B were interested in a presidency at some point in their career, which is higher than the result for the overall study respondents. Table 3.2 below shows the demographic representation ofthe respondents from Institution B. Institution D The majority of the respondents from Institution 0 were from the Instruction functional area with 55% identifying with this area. Thirty-eight percent stated that they were full-time faculty, and 38% also said that they teach both part-time and full time. Institution 0 also had one of the highest percentages of respondents with doctoral degrees: 16% had earned this degree prior to the study. Thirty percent of the participants plan to retire within the next 1 0 years. Five percent stated that they desire to become a president. Table 3.3 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution D. Institution F Seventy-seven percent of respondents at Institution F were female. In addition, 100% of the respondents were Caucasian. Fifty percent were from Instruction, and 31% taught part-time. Forty-three percent plan to retire in the next 10 years, and 46

PAGE 61

another 19% are unsure when they will retire or if they will move out of the system. Twelve percent stated that they desire to become a president in the community college system, which again is above the response rate for the overall responses in this study. Table 3.4 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution F. Institution G Institution G had a high response rate of 50%. Twenty-three percent had worked in a Colorado community college for 16 or more years. Sixty-eight percent work in Instruction, and 40% taught full-time. A majority of the respondents, 56%, plan to retire within the next ten years. Only 2% stated interest in becoming a president. Table 3.5 below shows the demographic representation ofthe respondents from Institution G. Institution H For Institution H, 66% of the respondents had been in their position for 5 years or fewer. Fifty-six percent work in Instruction, and 47% have taught both part-time and full-time. Eleven percent had earned their doctorate, and only 31% plan to retire within 10 years. Thirty percent plan to become a senior administrator, and 7% were interested in becoming a president. Table 3.6 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution H. 47

PAGE 62

00 Surveys Responses Return Rate liender Ethnicity Average Age Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Community College Total years workmg in a ( '!1lorado C'ommuntty College Total years worktng m a community college Functional Area Teaching Highest Degree eamed Retirement Date Plan to become a Senior Administrator Desire to become a President I SO Admimstrator 67 Faculty 24% 25% male 75% female 68% Caucasian 17% llispanic 44 12% Dean or Vice 6% Department President Chair 69% 0-5 years 21%6-10 years 49%0-5 years 24%6-IOyears 50% 0-5 years 22% 6-1 0 years 4!!% 0-5 years 22%6-10 years 36% Instruction 37% Student Services 10% Full-time 29% Part-time 5% Doctorate tJI% Masters 5% 1-3 years 14%4-6 years JtJ% No 24% Yes 73% No 12%Yes 247 Total 59 Total 0% Asian American/ 12% African Pacilic American 22% Director 36% Coordinator 9% I I -15 years 1% 16 or more I 7% 11-15 years 10% 16 or more I 7% I 1-1 5 years 10% 16 or more 20% 11-15 years 10% 16 or more 7% Continuing 5% Business Education and/or Faci I ities 22% Both 37% None 32% Bachelors 2% Associates 12% 7-10 years 44% m more than I 0 years 12% Already in 29% Undecided position 15% Undecided ------0% American Indian/ Native Amem:an 12% faculty 15% Other 0% High School 25% are unsure or plan to move out of the system 3% Other 12% Other S'--1 (/) "" ::. cr -1::: (1) a. t..;.J 0 ::l N o:l ;? ::; o (/)

PAGE 63

+:\0 Surveyed Responses Response Rate Gender Ethnicity Average Age: Position Years in current position Years employed at ( 'urrcnt ('omtnUillty College Total years work mg in a Colorado community wllegc: Total years worktng in a community college Functional Area Teaching Highest Degree earned Retirement Date Plan to become a Senior Administrator Do you desire to hecomc a President ---143 206 Faculty AdministralOr 35% 68% male 32% female 90% Caucasian 5% llispamc 45 7% Dean or Vice 5% Department President Chair 71% 0-5 years 17% 6-1 0 years 5 J% 0-5 years 24%6-10 years 56% 0-5 years 24% 6-10 years 51% U-5 years 24% 6-10 years 55'Yo Instruction 33% Student Services 16% Full-time 22% Part-time 16% Doctorate 58% Masters 5% 1-3 ycars I 0% 4-6 years 44% No 19% Yes 84% No 5% Yes ---349 Total 123 Total 1% Asian I% African American/ American Pacific 20% Director 28% Coordinator 7% 11-1 5 years 4% 16 or more 13% 11-15 10% 16 or more years 13%11-15 7% 16 or more years 13% 11-15 1 I% I 6 or more years years 1% Continuing 2% Business Education and/or Faci I ities 38% Both 24% None 22% Bachelors 3% Associates I 5%7-10 years 40% in more than 10 years 4% Already in JJ% Undecided position I I% Undecided 1% American Indian/ Native: American 38% faculty 9% Other 0% High School 30% are unsure or plan to move out of the system 2% Other 8% Other 5"-1 Vl I>) c. cr" e(b :::-. t.;J 0 ::J w 0 0 3 0 I>) '1:1 :r (') Vl

PAGE 64

Vl 0 Surveyed Responses Response Rate Gender Ethniciry Av.:ragc Age Position Years in cu1Tent position Years employed at Current Commumly College Total years working in a Culoradu Community Collc_g_e Total years working in a community coll!!ge functional Area Teaching Experience liighest Degree Earned Retirement Date Plan to hecomc a Senior Administrator Do you desire to become a Pr.:sidcnt _15 33 Faculty Admimstraror 40% 23% male 77% female I 00% Caucasian 0% Hispanic 4'> 5% Dean llr Y1cc 0% Department President Chair 58% 0-5 years 23% 6-10 years 42%0-5 years 31%6-10 years 46%0-5 years JI%6-IOyears 46"1.. 0-5 years 31' Y o 6-10 years 50% Instruction 35% Student Services 27% Full-time J I% Part-time 4% Doctorate 58% Masters I <)
PAGE 65

Surveyed 26 74 Faculty 100 Total Administrator 50 Total Response Rate 50% 5'-i VI !>) .... oGender 33% 67% female Ethn1city 74/u Caucasian I o% Hispanic 0% Asian O;., African 2% American 8% Other .... w g v, American/ American Indian/ C'l Pacific Native American 0 Average Age 50 Position 10% Dean or Y1ce 26% 26'Yu Director 10% Co01dinator 28% !acuity 0% Other President Department 111 3 0 Chair !>) "0 Y cars in current 5 8'Yo 0-5 years 12%6-10 years 18%11-15 12% I(> or more position years ::r ()" Vl Years employed at J4% 0-5 years 18%6-10 years 22% 11-15 26% 16 or more l'unent Commun1ty years ('olkgc Total years working in 37% 0-5 years 18% 6-10 years 22%11-15 23% 16 or more a Colorado Community years College Total years working in 32% 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 18%11-15 28% 16 or more Vl a community college years ....... Functional Area 6S% Instruction 18% Student 4% Continuing 6% Business 4% Other Services Education and/or Faci I ities Teachin11. Expc:ricnce 40% Full-time 14% Part-time 34% Roth 12% None llighest Degree 4% Doctorate 58% Masters 32% Bachelors 6% Associates 0% High School earned Retirc:ment Date 18% 1-J years 16% 4-o years 22% 7-10 years 24% in more than 20% are unsure or 10 years plan to move out of the system Plan to become a 52'Yc, No 16% Yes 18% Already in 14% Undccidcd Administrator p_osition Do you desire to 1)0% No 2% Yes 8'Yo Undecided become a Pres1dcnt

PAGE 66

VI N Surveyed Responses Response Rate Gender Ethnicity Average Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Commuruty College Total years working in a Colorado Community College TotDI years workrng in a community college Functronal Area Teaching Experience Highest Degree Earned Retirement Date Plan to become a Senior Administrator Do you desire to become a President 7H 63 Faculty Administrator 44% 30% lllOIIe 70% female 89% Caucasian 6% Hispanic 47 8% Dean or Vice Io% President Department Chair 66% 0-5 years 24%6-10 years 38'Yo 0-5 years JJ% 6-10 years 44% 0-5 years 3 I% 6-1 0 years 41% 0-5 years 28%6-10 years 56% Instruction 24% Student Services !!% Full-time 26% Pan-time II% Doctorate 56% Masters J% 1-J years 13% 4-6 years 41%No JO% Yes 82% No 7% Yes -141 Total 62 Total J% Asian 0% African American/ Amen can Pacific 19% Director 31% Coordinator 6% I 1-15 years 4% 16 or more I 7% I 1-15 years 12% 16 or more I 8% 11-15 years 8% 16 or more 21% 11-15 years 10% 16ormore 5% Continuing 6% Business Education and/or Faci I ities 47% Both 19% None 26% Bachelors 5% Associates 15%7-10 years 56% in more than 10 years 8% Already in 21% Undecided position II% Undecided 0% American Indian/ Native American 21% faculty 18% Other 2% High School 13% are unsure or plan to move out of the svstem 2% Other 5% Other 5"...., "' I'll = czn ::t. w 0 :I 0\ :r: 0 (() 3 0 ::r ('i" "'

PAGE 67

Institution K The response rate for Institution K was 50% as well. The majority of the participants were female as well as Caucasian. Eighteen percent had worked at their community college for 16 years or longer. Sixty-six percent work in Instruction with another 16% in Student Services. Forty-five percent plan to retire within ten years, and only 4% desire to become a president. However, 19% would like to become a senior administrator. Table 3.7 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution K. Institution L Institution L had greater gender balance with 45% male and 55% female. Eighty two percent had been in their position for five years or fewer. However, 18% have worked in a community college for 16 or more years. Forty-five percent were from business or facilities, and 64% had never taught. Eighteen percent have their doctorate, and 14% are interested in becoming a president. Table 3.8 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution L. 53

PAGE 68

Vl ... Surveyed Responses Response Rate Gender Ethnicity Average Age Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Commumty College Total years working in a ( "oloradu community o.:ollege Total years working in a community wllege Functional Area Teaching Experience I lighest Degree Earned Retirement Date Plan to becom.: a Senior Administrator Do you des1re to hccomc a President 65 44 faculty Administrator 50% 25% male i'5% female RS% C aucasian 15% Hispanic 47 7% Dc:an or Vice 2% Department President Chair 56% 0-5 years 28% 6-10 years .li%0-Syears 33%6-10 years 36 % 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years JC>%, 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 66 % Instruction 16% Student Services JJ% full-time 20% Part-time 9% Doctorate 44% Masters 9% I -3 years I I% 4-6 years 59% No 19% Yes 87%No 4% Yes 109 Total SS Total 0% Asian 0% African American/ American Pacific I 7% Director 25% Coordinator 9% 11-15 years 7% 16 or more 18% I 1-15 years I 8% 16 or more 17% I 1-15 years 21% 16 or more 22% 11-15 years 20% 16 or more 2% Continuing I I ;., Business Education and/or Faci I ilies 29% Both 18'% None J I% Bachclllrs I 1% Associates 25%7-10 years 38"1i in more than 10 years 2% Already in 20% Undecided position 9'Yo Undecided 0% American Indian / Native American 42% facully 5% Other 5% High School 17% are unsure or plan to move out of the sy_stem 2% Other 7% Other 5"'....., V1 Ill :-. r::r c-n-:=. w o =' --.1 ;:-:: ?? 3 Ill "0 :r ;:; V1

PAGE 69

Vl Vl [ Responses Response Rate Gender Ethnicity A\eragc Age Position Years in curn:nt position Years employed at Current Community College fotal years workinjl in a Colorado community colll!&e Total years working in a community college Functional Area Teaching llighest Degree earned Retirement Dat.: Plan to become a Senior Administrator Do ynu desire tu a Presi(h:nt 45 0 Administrator 22 49"/o 45%male SS'Yo female 86% 0% 46 10% Dean or Vtce 0% Department President Chair M2% 0-5 years 14%6-10 years 6!1% 0-5 years 14%6-10 years 59%, 0-S years 18% 6ro years 59 % 0-5 years 14%6-10 years 18"/o, Instruction 9% Student Services 'J% Full-time I !1% Part-time I !I% Doctorate 50% Masters 18% 1-3 years 5%4-6 years 27% No 27% Yes o8% No 14% Yes L_ ----45 Total 14% Asian 0% African American / American Pacific 41% tor 18% Coordinator 4% 11-15 years 0% 16 or rnore 4% 11-15 years 14% 16ormore 9% II -15 years 14% lour more 9% 1 I -15 years 18% 16 or more 0% Continuing 45% Business Education and /o r faci lilies 9% Both 64% None 18% Bachelors 14% Associates 9% 7-10 years 41% in more than 10 years 27% Already in 18% Undecided position 18% --0% American Indian/ 0% Other Native American 0% faculty 32% Other 27% Other 0% High School 2 7% are unsure or plan to move out of the system I 5"-1 VI Ql ='3' c:;r = w o :::1 00 r 0 3 0 "C :::T" n VI

PAGE 70

Institution N The average age for Institution N was 50 years old at the time of the survey, which is slightly higher than the overall survey respondents. Twenty-three percent had worked in a community college for 16 years or longer, and 20% had worked at their current community college for 16 or more years. Seventy-one percent work in Instruction and 16% have a doctorate. A high percentage of participants, 43%, plan to retire in the next ten years, and only 3% desire to become a president. Table 3.9 below shows the demographic representation for the respondents from Institution N. Institution Q At Institution Q, 70% have worked in their position for less than five years, and only 4% had worked at their current community college for more than 16 years. Sixty-three percent have their master's degree, and another 8% has a doctorate. Thirty-seven percent plan to retire within the next ten years. Seventeen percent plan to become a senior administrator, and 7% want to become a president. Table 3.10 below shows the demographic representation for the respondents from Institution Q. Institution R Institution R had the highest response rate with 52% of the population completing the survey. This institution also had the highest percentage working in Student Services, 44%. In addition, 40% have taught part-time. Sixty-five percent of the population has worked at the institution for less than ten years. Thirty-seven percent plan to retire within the next ten years, and 9% state that they could become a college 56

PAGE 71

president. Table 3.11 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution R. Institution S Institution S has 48% male and 52% female responding to the survey with a 45% response rate. The average age was low at 43. Eighty-three percent have been working in their position for less than five years. Both Instruction and Student Services are split with 43% working in each area. This institution had the lowest expected retirements with only 13% planning to retire within the next ten years. Only 4% had a doctorate, but 17% desire to become a community college president. Table 3.12 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from InstitutionS. Institution U The respondents at Institution U were 50% female, and 50% male, and 97% Caucasian. Sixty-eight percent were in Instruction, and 13% had their doctorate. However, 29% of the total institution respondents had earned only an Associate's degree or High School diploma. Thirty-five percent planned to retire within the next 10 years, and 6% are interested in becoming a president. Table 3.13 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution U. 57

PAGE 72

Vl 00 Responses ReSJ>_onse Rate Gender l:'thnicity Age Positllln Years m current position Years employed at Current Community College Total years working in a Colorado community college Total years working in a community Functional Area Teaching bpericncc Highest camed Retirement Date Plan to become a Senior Administrator Do you desire! to become a Presu.lent 50 32 Faculty Administrator 31:1% 42% male 58% female I! I% Caucastan I 0% Hispanic 50 6% Dean or Vice 10% Prest dent Department Cha1r 50%0-5 years 33%6-10 years 40% 0-5 years 20% 6-10 years 43% 0-5 years 17% 6-10 years 45% 0-5 years 16%6-10 years 71% Instruction 16 % Student Services 42% Full-time 16% Part-time I 6% Doctorate 52% Masters I 0% 1-3 years 23% 4-6 years 58"!. No 16% Yes 84%No 3 % Yes -------82 Total 31 Total 6% Astan 0% African American / American Pacific 23% L>irector 6% Coordinator 10% 11-15 years 7% 16 or more 20"/o I 1-15 years 20% 16 or more 20"/o 11-15 years 20"/o I 6 or more 16% I 1-1 5 years 23% 16 or more 0% Continuing I 0% Business Education and/or Faci 1 ities 29% Both 13% None 19% Bachelors I 3% Associates 10%7-10 years 45% in more than 10 years 7% Already in 19% Undecided position I 3% Undecided ---0% American 3% Other Indian / Native American 52% faculty 3% 3% Other 0% High School 12% arc unsure or plan to move out of the system -I _....., ::l Q) !ac:r S.w 0 ;,o ::l z 0 (1) g -g. C'i' (/l

PAGE 73

Vl \0 Surv9'ed Response Rate Gender Ethnicity Average Age Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Community College Total years working in a Colorado community_ college Tntal years working in 'ommunity colleges Functional Area Tca,hing Expencncc Highest Degree camec:J Retirement Date Plan to become a Senior Administrator Do you desire to become a Prcsidc:nt -70 Administrator 93 Faculty 27% male 73% temale 89% Caucasian 4% Hispanic 48 9'Yu Dean or Vice II ;,, President Department Chair 70% 0-5 years 19%6-10 years S I% 0-5 years 23% 6-10 years 57%0-5 19"/o 6-10 years years 52% 0-5 years 22% 6-10 years 57% Instruction 21% Student Services 15% Full-time 19% Part-time 8% Doctorate 63% Masters 9'Yo I -3 years 8%46 years 52% No 17% Yes 87% No 7% Yes L___ ---163 Total 75 Total 3% Asian 3% Ati-ican American/ American Pacific 21% Director 20% Coordinator 7% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more 13% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more 15%11-15 8% 16 or more years IJ% 11-15 years I 3% 16 or mnre 4'Yu Continuing I 0% Business Education and / or Faci I ities 41% Both 25% None 23% Bachelors 3% Associates 20%7-10 years 40% in more than 10 years 8% Already in 23% Undecided position 6% Undecided 0% American Indian/ Native American 35% faculty 8% Other 3% High School 24% are unsure nr plan to move out of the system l%0ther 4% Other I I I I I 5"-l :::: 0 Sw 0 :..... :::3 0 .0 0 C'1l 2': () VI

PAGE 74

0\ 0 Surveyed Rcspons.:s Response Rate llc:nder Ethnicity age: Position Years in position Years employed at C urrent ( 'ommunity l 'o llcge Total years working in a C1>lorado Community Total yc:ars working in a college: Functional Arc:a Teaching Experience Highest Degn:c earned Retirement Date: Plan to bc:come a Senior Administrator Do you desire to become: a President 1>1 21 Faculty 52% 35% male: 65% female 79% Caucasian 7% flisp:mic 41> 4' Y o Dean or Vice 12% Pn:sident Department Chair 70% 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years 44%0-5 years 21%6-10 years SO% 0-5 years 29%6-10 years 45% 0-5 years 24% ft-1 0 years 40% Instruction 44% Student Services II% Full-time 40% Part-time 9% Doctorate 51% Masters 9% 1-3 yc:ars 16% 4-6 years 35% No 30% Yes 84% No 9% Yes 82 Total 43 Total 5% Asian 9% African American/ American PaCific 26% Director 28% Coordinator 4% 11-15 years 0% 16 or more 19%11-15 years 16% 16 or more 14% I I -15 years 7% 16 or more 19"/o 11-15 years 12% 16 or more 5% Continuing 5% Business Education and /or Faci I ities 30% Both 19% None 30% Bachelors 9% Associates 12%7-10 years 44% in more than 10 years 7% Already in 26% Undecided position 7% Undecided 0% American Indian/ Native: A111<:ncan 19% faculty 6%0ther 0% High School 19% are unsure or plan to move out of the system 0% Other II"!., Other I 5'-l en c cr' en g w :::l :;:t:l J ::r ('i Vl

PAGE 75

Survcyt!d 30 21 Faculty Administrator Responses Response Rate 45% Gender 48% male 52% female Ethnicity 83% Caucasian 9% Hispanic Average Age 4) Position 13% Dean or Vice 0% Department Pn:sident Chair Years in current position 83% 0-5 years 13%6-10 years Years employed at Current 61%0-5 years 2 6o/o 6-1 0 years Communi!}'_ Colleg_e Total years working m a 61%0-5 years 26% 6-1 0 years Colurado Community colleg_c Total years working in a 48% 0-5 years 35%6-10 years community college Funcuonal Area 43% Instruction 43% Student Services 0\ Teaching Expcru:nce 22% Full-time 22% Part-time Htghest Degree 4% Doctorate 43% Masters camed Retirement Dale 4% 1-J years 9%4-6 years Plan to become a Senior 40% No 30% Yes Administrator Do you desire to become a 70%Nu 17% Yes Prest dent 51 Total 23 Total 0% Asian 1% African American/ American Pacific 22% Director 35% Coordinator 0% I I -15 years 4% 16 or more 4%11-ISyears 9% 16 or more 4% 11-15 years 9% 16 or more 9% 11-15 years 9% 16 or more 0% Continuing 4% Business Education and/or Faci I ities 30% Both 26% None 39% Bachelors 9% ASS(lCiates 0%7-10 years 61% in more than I 0 years 13% Already in 17% Undecided position 13% Undecided ----4% American lndian!Nali11e American 30% faculty 10% Other 5% High School 26% are unsure or plan to move out of the system 4%0ther 0% Other 5"....., Vl I>' :::::!'. 0"" en-= w 0 :;, i3 r:n 0 n 3 ::r ()' Vl

PAGE 76

0\ N Responses Response Rate Gender Erhmcity Age: Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Connnumty College Total years working in a Colorado community college Total years wnrk ing in community colleges Functional Area Teaching Expenence Highest Degree Earned Retirement Date Plan to become a St:nior Administrator Do you desire to become a President -Administrator 27 Faculty 45 % 50' % male 50% female 97% Caucasian 0% Hispanic 411 J% Dean or Vice: I 9"/o President Depanment Chair 68% 0-5 _years 16%6-10 years 45%0-5 years 23%6-10 years 48% 0-5 years 26% 6-10 years U% 0-5 years 26%6-10 years 68% Instruction 16 % Student Services 32% Full-time I 0% Pan-time l.l% Doctorate 32% Masters 6'Y., 1-3 years 10%4-6 years 58'Yo No 10% Yes 77%No 6% Yes --69Total 31 Total 0%Asian 0% African American/ American Pacitic J5% Director I 3% Coordinator 16% 11-15 years 0% 16 or more 26% 11-15 years 6% 16 or more 20"/o I 1-15 years 6% lo or more 26% 11-15 years 6% I(> or more years J% Continuing I 0% llusiness Education and / or Faci I iucs 35% Both 23% None 26% Bachelors 2J% Associates 19%7-10 years 26% in more than tO years I 3% Already in I 9"/o Undedded position 16% Undecided 0% American Indian/ Native American 26% faculty J% Other 6% High Sehoul 39"/o are unsure or plan to move out of the system I I 3 % Other 4% Other i ----5"-l VI -a-0 0 :..... :::l w c 0 n 3 0 "C ::r c; VI

PAGE 77

Institution Y Institution Y had the lowest response rate of 22%. This was one of the institutions that received the survey through their human resources director instead of directly from me. I was unable to identify the population externally and had to rely on the human resources department for assistance. Whether or not the low response rate is a result of this procedure is not known, but it may be related to this procedural difference. Based on the responses, however, a high percentage of individuals working in Instruction, 77%, responded to the survey. Fifty-two percent have taught both part-time and full-time, and 14% have their doctorate. Thirty-seven percent plan to retire within ten years and only 4% want to become a president. However, 24% are interested in becoming a senior administrator. Table 3.14 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution Y. Institution Z Institution Z had a 51% response rate and an average age of 42 years at the time of the survey. Thirty-six percent ofthe respondents were faculty, and a total of 57% identified their functional area as Instruction. None of the respondents had their doctorate, but 46% had a master's degree. Twenty-three percent plan to retire within the next ten years, but only 2% desire to become a president. Table 3.15 below shows the demographic representation of the respondents from Institution Z. 63

PAGE 78

0"1 Survey.:J Responses Response Rate Gender Ethnicily Averag_e Age Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Community College Total years working m a Colorado Community ( ollt:ge Total years working in a community college Functional Area Teaching Experience llighest Oegrce earned Retirement Date Plan to become a Senior Administrator Oo you desire to become a President Numher of individuals sdf-identilicd lor succession program 68 186 Faculty Administrator 22% )4% male 66% female 89% Caucasian 0% Hispanic 48 s;., Dean or Vice 20% Depanment President Chair 68% 0 5 years 18% 6-1 0 years 50% 0-5 years 20%6-10 years 56% 0-5 yt:ars 20% 6-1 0 y.:ars 52% 0-5 years 25%6-10 years 77% Instruction 18% Student Services 25% Full-time 13% Pan-time 14% Doctorate 61% Masters 14% 1-3 years 7%4-6 years 45% No 24% Yes 89%No 4% Yes 11/ 20% 254 Total 56 Total 2% Asian American/ 0% African 4% American 5%0ther Pacilic American Indian/ -....., ::::1 "' (i'" S.w o ::::1 -< Native American 0 I'll 3 16% Director I J% Coordinator 4)% faculty 0% Other 0 "' 5% 11-15 years 9% 16 or more 13% I 1-15 years I 7% 16 or more "0 2': a Vl 5% I I -I 5 years I 8% 16 or more years 5% 11-15 years 18% 16 or more _ye:us 0% Continuing 4% Business !%Other Education and/or Faci I ities 52% Both II% None 16% Bachelors 7% Associates 2% High School 16%7-10 years 40% in more than 2J% are unsure or I 0 years plan to move out of the system 7% Already in 24% Undecided position 7% Undecided -----

PAGE 79

0\ VI Surveyed Responses Response Rate Gender [thnicity Average Age Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Community College Total years working in a Colorado community college: Total years workmg in a community .:ollegc functional Area Teaching Expericn.:e llighest Degree earned Retirement Date Plan to become a Senior Administrator Do you desire: to become a President bl 49 Faculty AdministralOr 51% 67% male 33% female 95% Caucasian 5% Hispanic 42 4% Dean or Vice 9% Depanrnent President Chair 7 )% 0-5 }'Cars 18%6-10 years 45%0-5 years 16%6-10 years 45%0-5 years Ill% 6-10 years 43"/o, 0-5 years I 3%6-10 years 57% Instruction 21% Student Services 32% Full-time 16% Pan-time oo,r,, Doctorate 46% Masters 3'V., 1-3 years 7%4-6 years 57% No 20% Yes 89%No 2% Yes -------110 Total 56 Total 0% Asian American/ O'Yo African 0% American 0%0ther Pacific American Indian/Native American -...., :I -(1) !:ow 0 ::1 VI N 0 (1) 3 29% Director 20% Coordinator 36% laculty 2%0ther 0 7% 11-15 years 2% 16 or more ::r I 6% I I -15 years 23% 16 or more C'i Vl I 6% I I -15 years 21% l6ormore I 21% 11-15 years 23% ICl or more 9% Continuing 9% Business 5%0ther Education :mdior Faci I ities 21% Both 30% None 46% Bachelors II% Associates 0% High School 13%7-10 years 43% in more than 34% are unsure or 10 years plan to move out of the system 5% Already in 18% Undecided position 9% Undecided ---

PAGE 80

Overall Study Population Although 1,870 participants were identified for this study, only 725 usable surveys were submitted, for a 39% response rate. The majority of the respondents were female (67%). The average age at the time of the survey was 48 years. However, ages ranged from 20 to 75. Table 3.16 below shows the demographic representation of all the respondents who participated in the survey. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (87%). Seven percent ofthe respondents identified as Hispanic, 2% identified as African-American, 2% identified as Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% as American Indian, and 2% as other. Only 6% of the respondents plan to become a president. However, only 4% of the female respondents indicated that they desire to become a president. Twelve percent of the male respondents replied that they want to become a president. When the "undecided" responses about becoming a president are added to the positive responses, the percentages are 14% for female and 24% for male. According to the 2006 American Council on Education (ACE, 2007) presidential survey results, 82% of all presidents have a doctorate of some kind including a doctorate in law, medicine, education, and philosophy. However, only ten percent of the CCCS respondents reported that they had a doctorate. The majority of the respondents (54%) had earned a master's degree, and another 27% had earned their Bachelor's degree. 66

PAGE 81

0'1 ........ Surveyed Response Rate Gender Ethnicity Average Age Position Years in current position Years employed at Current Community College Total years working in a Colorado community college Total years working in comrnunlly colleges Function01l Area Teaching Experience Highest Degree eamed Rcll remen t Date Pl01n to become a Sc:nior Administrator Do you desire to become a PreSI(lt:nt Number of individuals sdf-identilicd f(>r succession program ---954 916 Administrator Faculty 39% .H% male 67% female 86% Caucasian 7% Hispanic 4R II% Dean or Vice I 0% Department President Chair 6!1% 0-5 years 20% 6-1 0 years 46% 0-5 years 24%6-10 years 49%0-5 23%6-10 years Yc:ars 46'V., 0-5 years 23% 6-10 years 56% InstructiOn 26% Student Services 21% Full-time 22% Part-time I 0% Doctorate 54% Masters 9% 1-3 years I I% 4-6 years 47% No 21% Yes !l3%No 6% Yes 1112/25% ---1870 tlllal 725 Total 0-l < rtJ 0"' ..., rtJ =\.;.) en;._ 2% 2% African I% Amencan 2% Other 20'Amen can/ Amen can Indian/Native 0.. '-<: Pacific American "'0 0 "0 23% Director 23% Coordinator Jl% faculty 5% Other t: iii" 8% 11-15 years 4% 16 or more 16% 11-15 years 14% 16 or more ::t. 0 ::1 0 rtJ 15%11-15 13% 16 or more 3 Years 16% I I -15 years 15%, 16 or more 0 "0 :r' J'Yo Continuing 7% Business 7% Other n Education and/or Vl Facilities 34% Both B"/,, None 21% Oachelors 7% Associates 2% High School 15%7-10 years 41% in more than 24% are unsure 10 yt:ars or plan to move out of the system !1% Already in 24% Undecided I position II% Undecided

PAGE 82

Twenty-two of the respondents were vice presidents and 36 were deans. The majority of the participants were faculty: 225 (31 %). Other categories included department chair (1 0%), director (23%), coordinator (23%), and other positions (5%). A recent study conducted by the Colorado Community College System using data from the Employee Retirement Eligibility Report (2006) found that 50% of the entire Colorado community college workforce was eligible to retire now or within the next three years. However, this research study found that only 9% plan to retire within the next three years; in my study, 35% of the respondents state that they will retire in the next ten years. These data suggest that there is a potential for the Colorado Community College System to grow its own leaders. The participant responses to the number of years working in a community college and the number of years working at their current institution were similar. Forty-six percent of the respondents had worked at their current institution for 0-5 years. In addition, the same percentage (46%) responded that their total years worked in a community college were zero to 5. The same percent for both also applied to the other categories, with 23% of the respondents having worked in a community college for 6-10 years, 16% having worked for 11-15 years, and 15% having worked for more than 16 years. However, the number of years that the respondents had worked in their current position was dramatically different, with 68% in their present position from 0-5 years, 20% 6-1 0 years, 8% 11-15 years, and 4% 16 or more years. 68

PAGE 83

Summary I used both quantitative data and qualitative data to understand succession planning in the Colorado Community College System and individual colleges. My survey instrument was administered to I ,870 employees to collect data on the current state of succession leadership in the Colorado Community College System. In addition, I conducted interviews with the community college presidents to help identify and explain the need for a succession leadership plan. The survey questions related to the identification and preparation of future leaders at their current institution. The interviews inquired about how presidents currently identify and prepare future leaders for their institution. The two methods were used "to provide insight into the different levels or units of analysis" (Creswell, 2004, p. 16). Ultimately the information collected from the study will be presented to the system presidents along with a plan for a potential succession leadership program. 69

PAGE 84

CHAPTER4 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Chapter Overview This study investigated how current Colorado community colleges identify and prepare future leaders. Results of the research study are presented in this chapter, using the survey results and interview data Because of recent literature on impending retirements, information regarding expected retirement dates also was collected. The specific research questions for this study included the following: 1. To what extent are current Colorado community college employees interested in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency? 2. Do Colorado community colleges currently identify internal employees to fill future vacancies in upper-level administration? 3. Are the Colorado community colleges preparing employees internally to fill vacancies in upper-level administration? 4. Are the Colorado community colleges conducting succession planning to replace upper-level administrative positions? 5. What elements might a succession leadership program include for the Colorado Community College System? 70

PAGE 85

Quantitative Data Analysis Process A survey was distributed to all full-time faculty and administrators at the thirteen Colorado Community College System colleges and system office. Based on information from the Web site, the Global Outlook directory, and human resources directors, I ,870 employees were identified to be included in the study. From this group, 725 usable surveys were returned for a 39% response rate. The survey questions related specifically to the research questions of identifying and preparing future leaders (research question #1-3). Both the survey responses and the qualitative data collected from the presidents answered research questions #4 and #5. The first fifteen questions on the survey pertained to demographic information including whether individuals were interested in future leadership positions. Questions 16-34 used a forced choice to determine if a college implemented a particular activity related to identifying and preparing future leaders. Each statement had four possible answers: 1 for strongly agree, 2 for agree, 3 for disagree and 4 for strongly disagree. A one-way analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was computed for each question to obtain a college mean, standard deviation, and overall population mean. Research Question #1: Who is Interested Survey questions 14 and 15 related specifically to research question # 1, which asked to what extent current Colorado community college employees were interested in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency. Question #14 asked participants if they desired to become a senior administrator, and 71

PAGE 86

question # 15 asked if they desired to become a community college president in the system. Overall, 4 7% answered no to question # 14. Another 21% stated that, yes, they did want to become a senior administrator, and 24% were undecided. Eight percent stated that they were already senior administrators. Twenty-one percent of the female respondents stated that they were interested in becoming a senior administrator, compared to 23% ofthe males. However, when I added in the undecided responses, 47% ofthe females and only 40% of males stated that they were either undecided or interested in becoming a senior administrator (see Table 4.1 below). A chi-square statistic showed a statistically significant difference between gender on question 14 (p = .05). Table 4.1 below shows the gender analysis of those who are interested in becoming a senior administrator. Table 4.1 Chi-square Analysis of Gender and Plan to Become a Senior Administrator (p/
PAGE 87

respondents stated that they wanted to become a president in the system Eighty-three percent answered no, 6% answered yes, and another 11% were undecided. Only 4% ofthe female respondents and 12% of male respondents indicated that they wanted to become a community college president. Adding the number of undecided responses, the percentages rise to 14% for female respondents and 24% for male respondents who might be interested in becoming or persuaded to become a president in the community college system. Although the total population studied was 67% female, a much smaller percentage of females was interested in becoming a community college president. A chi-square analysis showed a significant difference (p = 000) between gender on whether a respondent wanted to become a community college president in CCCS. Table 4.2 below shows the gender analysis of those interested in becoming a president in CCCS Table 4.2 Chi-square Analysis of Gender and Desire to Become a President (p/
PAGE 88

administrator indicated that they will retire in more than ten years. Table 4.3 below shows the comparison of retirement date to those who plan to become a senior administrator. Table 4.3 Comparison of Retirement Date to Question # 14: Plan to Become a Senior Administrator NIA (I am Retirement date No Yes already an Undecided administrator) In the next 1-3 years 42 1 11 8 In the next 4-6 years 46 8 12 12 In the next 7-1 0 years 60 14 13 24 In more than 1 0 years 107 91 19 77 I plan to move out of the system 21 2 0 5 I am unsure when I will retire or leave 63 36 4 42 N 339 152 59 169 Further analysis showed a statistically significant difference (p = .006) Total 62 78 111 294 28 146 719 between a respondent's retirement date and whether a respondent planned to become a senior administrator. This one-way analysis of variance also showed significant difference between retirement date and desire to become a community college president (p = 000). Table 4.4 below shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of retirement date and both interest in becoming a senior administrator and CCCS president. 74

PAGE 89

Table 4.4 One-way Analysis of Variance Comparing Retirement Date to Plan to Become a Senior Administrator and Desire to Become a President Sum of df Mean F Sig. Squares Square Do you plan to Between become a senior Groups 24.372 5 4.874 3.326 .006 administrator? Within Groups 1044.949 713 1.466 Total 1069.321 718 Do you desire to Between become a Groups 15.033 5 3.007 7.644 .000 president? Within Groups 280.441 713 .393 Total 295.474 718 In addition, 61% of the respondents who stated that, yes, they wanted to become a president in the system also replied that they plan to retire in more than ten years. Overall, 41% ofthe respondents plan to retire in more than 10 years. An additional 20% are not sure when they will retire. Table 4.5 below shows the comparison of retirement date to those who plan to become a CCCS president. Table 4.5 Comparison ofRetirement Date to Question #15: Desire to Become a Community College System President Retirement date No Yes Undecided Total In the next l-3 years 59 0 2 61 In the next 4-6 years 74 1 3 78 In the next 7-1 0 years 102 4 4 110 In more than 1 0 years 220 28 47 295 I plan to move out of 25 2 I 28 the system I am unsure when I will 117 11 19 147 retire or leave N 597 46 76 719 75

PAGE 90

The position currently held by respondents interested in becoming a senior administrator were predominantly director level and coordinator. However, a larger percentage of directors also stated that they already are an administrator (14%) compared to the department chairs, only 3% of whom considered themselves a senior administrator. The faculty respondents were the least interested in becoming a senior administrator with 64% not interested in becoming a senior administrator. Table 4.6 below shows the comparison of position to those who plan to become a senior administrator. Table 4.6 Comparison of Position to Question #14: Plan to Become a Senior Administrator Position No Yes Nl A (I am already Undecided Total an administrator) Vice President 1 1 18 0 20 Dean 6 11 15 3 35 Department 44 10 2 17 73 Chair Director 56 50 23 40 169 Coordinator 75 40 0 52 167 Faculty 144 29 0 51 224 Other 14 11 1 6 32 N 340 152 59 169 720 A one-way analysis of variance also showed a significant difference between a respondent's position and the interest in becoming a senior administrator (p = .000) as well as a community college president (p = .006) (See Table 4. 7). Both questions relate directly to filling future leadership positions. Table 4. 7 below shows the one76

PAGE 91

way analysis of variance of position to those planning to become a CCCS president or senior administrator. Table 4.7 One-way Analysis of Variance Comparing Position and Plan to Become a Senior Administrator and Desire to Become a Community College President Sum of df Mean F Sig. Squares Square Do you plan to Between become a senior Groups 43.256 6 7.209 5.004 .000 administrator Within 1027.232 713 1.441 Groups Total 1070.488 719 Do you desire to Between 7.339 6 1.223 3.026 .006 become a president Groups Within 288.211 713 .404 Groups Total 295.550 719 In regard to the data related to respondents interested in becoming a community college president, vice presidents were the most interested in becoming a president with 25% of the population answering yes to this question. Twenty percent of the deans, 8% ofthe directors, 7% ofthe coordinators, and only 3% ofthe faculty answered yes to becoming a community college president (see Table 4.8). These data indicate that many respondents are interested in becoming a senior-level administrator. However, more attention is needed to encourage faculty into moving into administrative positions. Table 4.8 below shows the comparison of position to those interested in becoming a CCCS president. 77

PAGE 92

Table 4.8 Comparison of Position and Question #15: Desire to Become a Community College President Position No %No Yes %Yes Undecided %Undecided Total Vice President 12 60% 5 25% 3 I5% 20 Dean 2I 60% 7 20% 7 20% 35 Department 65 89% 0 0% 8 II% 73 Chair Director I38 82% 13 8% I8 11% 169 Coordinator 139 83% I 1 7% 17 10% 167 Faculty 197 89% 7 3% I8 8% 222 Other 26 76% 3 9% 5 I5% 34 N 598 83% 46 6% 76 II% 720 Additional analysis compared retirement date to the position of the respondent. The position with the largest number of retirements was the dean, with 62% planning to retire in I 0 years. Fifty percent of the vice presidents plan to retire within 10 years, as do 47% of the department chairs, 43% of the directors, and 33% of the faculty. Table 4.9 below shows the comparison ofretirement date to position. 78

PAGE 93

Table 4.9 Comparison of Retirement Date to Position more move unsure when Retirement 1-3 4-6 7-10 than out of I will retire Total Date years years years 10 the or leave years system Position Vice 1 5 4 7 0 3 20 President Dean 8 7 8 10 2 2 37 Department 8 11 15 33 2 4 73 Chair Director 20 23 29 55 3 39 169 Coordinator 4 II 19 78 9 45 166 Faculty 21 21 32 97 11 43 225 Other 1 1 4 16 1 11 34 N 63 79 111 296 28 147 724 Research Question #2: Identifying Future Leaders Research Question #2 asked whether colleges in the Colorado community college system currently identify internal employees to fill future vacancies in upperlevel administration. Five survey statements were computed for the research question, which constitute the variable Identify Scale. The five statements were: I. This college looks out of state when hiring (Question #16). 2. This college has a reputation for making promotional opportunities available to its own (Question #17). 3. This college is doing a good job of recruiting and hiring people who have the potential to provide leadership (Question # 18). 79

PAGE 94

4. Administrators and supervisors at this college regularly identify high potential employees (Question #19). 5. At this college, individuals are told if they are regarded as high potential leaders (Question #20). The ldenti fy Scale consists of these five questions. Below are the findings from the one-way analysis of variance completed on each question in this variable related to the thirteen institutions as well as ANOV A related to the overall variable of Identify. According to the ANOV A for questions 16-20, all five questions have statistical significance between the institutions (see Table 4.1 0). For question 16, colleges look out of state when hiring, a statistical difference was found with F ( 13,671) = 13.763, p = .000 (See table 4.1 0). Question 17, reputation for making promotional opportunities available, also showed a statistical difference with F (13, 682) = 7.646,p = .000. Question 18 which related to recruiting and hiring people who someday have the potential to provide leadership had a significance ofF (13, 687) = 3.348,p = .000. Question 19, administrators and supervisors regularly identify high potential employees computed an ANOVA ofF (13, 677) = 3.3889, p = .000. Finally, for question 20, individuals are told ift}Jey are regarded as high potential future leaders, the statistical significant difference was F 913, 660) = 2.385, p = .004. For all five questions, a significant difference was found between the groups. Table 4.10 below shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOV A) for the survey questions on the Identify Scale. 80

PAGE 95

Table 4.10 One-way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Questions 16-20; Identify Scale Sum of df Mean F Sig. Squares Square Q 16 This college looks Between Groups 78.989 13 6.076 13.763 .000 out of state when hiring Within Groups 296.231 671 .441 Total 375.220 684 Q 17 This college has a reputation for making promotional opportunities Between Groups 44.894 13 3.453 7.646 .000 available to its own employees Within Groups 308.024 682 .452 Total 352.918 695 Q 18 This college is doing a good job of recruiting and hiring people who Between Groups 22.418 13 1.724 3.348 .000 someday have the potential to provide leadership Within Groups 353.862 687 .515 Total 376.280 700 Q19-Administrators and supervisors at this college Between Groups 25.035 13 1.926 3.889 .000 regularly identify high potential employees Within Groups 335.272 677 .495 Total 360.307 690 Q20 At this college individuals are told if they Between Groups 16.206 13 1.247 2.385 .004 are regarded as high potential future leaders Within Groups 344.929 660 .523 Total 361.135 673 The tables below show the mean and standard deviation for each institution as well as the total mean and standard deviation for all institutions combined. A response of l equals strongly agree, a response of 2 equals agree, a response of 3 equals disagree, and a response of 4 equals strongly disagree. No institution had an 81

PAGE 96

overall mean of 3.5 or above. In addition, there were no statistical differences within any of the institutions. Table 4.11 below shows the mean and standard deviation for question 16. Although there were no statistical differences found for any of the questions within the institutions, both the mean and standard deviation are included for each question in case the reader is interested in examining the statistical results more closely. Question 16 asks specifically about hiring outside of the state. Institutions G and U had the lowest mean scores with 2.02 and 2.0 respectively, which suggests the respondents believe their college looks out of state when hiring. Institutions H and N disagreed with the statement, 3.1 and 3.03 means respectively (see Table 4.11 ). Overall the respondents disagreed with this survey question. Table4.11 Overall Mean and Standard Deviations Comparing the Institutions with Question 16: This College Looks Out of State When Hiring Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.6 .627 D 2.32 .750 F 2.88 .526 G 2.02 .622 H 3.10 .548 K 2.8 .528 L 2.55 .605 N 3.03 .566 Q 2.67 .793 R 2.48 .634 s 2.86 .640 u 2.0 .775 y 2.13 .695 82

PAGE 97

Table 4.11 (Cont.) I 12.21 2.51 1.653 .741 For question 17 (see table 4.12), the overall sample agreed that their colleges have a reputation for making promotional opportunities available to its employees with all of the means below 2.5. However, respondents from Institutions F (1.8), H (1.6), K (1.96), N (1.87), S (1.96), and Z (1.91) strongly agree that their institutions promote from within with a mean below 2.0 for each institution. The overall mean of 2.14 relates to a high agreement that colleges are promoting from within. Table 4.12 below shows the mean and standard deviation for question 1 7. Table 4.12 Overall Mean and Standard Deviations Comparing the Institutions with Question 17: This College has a Reputation for Making Promotional Opportunities Available Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.24 .744 D 2.35 .632 F 1.8 .577 G 2.22 .764 H 1.60 .643 K 1.96 .576 L 2.30 .470 N 1.87 .806 Q 2.41 .684 R 2.14 .710 s 1.96 .638 u 2.42 .765 y 2.35 .751 z 1.91 .549 Total 2.14 .713 83

PAGE 98

The Institutions with the lowest mean for question # 18 were G (2.04), N (2.00), R (2.07), and Z (2.07). These four institutions had a higher percent of participants who agreed that the institution recruits and hires people who have the potential someday to provide leadership to the institution (see Table 4.13). In addition, Institution G responded positively to both question 18 (2.04) and question 16 (2.02), which asked ifhiring occurred outside ofthe institution (see Table 4.11). Perhaps Institution G is hiring outside of the institution and recruiting potential leaders. Institution Q had the highest mean (2.60) or lowest agreement for recruiting and hiring high potential employees. Institution Q also had a higher mean (2.41) or lower agreement for making promotions available to its own employees. Table 4.13 below shows the overall mean and standard deviation by institution to question 18. Table 4.13 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 18: This College is Doing a Good Job of Recruiting and Hiring People who Someday have the Potential to Provide Leadership Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.40 .771 D 2.39 .698 F 2.33 .702 G 2.04 .. 638 H 2.18 .567 K 2.29 .737 L 2.45 .605 N 2.00 .856 Q 2.60 .812 R 2.07 .632 s 2.43 .992 u 2.43 .774 84

PAGE 99

Table 4.13 (Cont.) y 2.41 .708 z 2.07 .628 Total 2.30 .733 For question 19, institutions H (3.1 0) and N (3.03) did not agree that the institution regularly identified high potential employees. Other institutions receiving a 2.8 mean or above were Institutions F, K, and S. All three had a high percentage of respondents who disagreed with the statement. On the other hand, Institutions G and U had the lowest means with 2.02 and 2.0 respectively (see Table 4.14). These two institutions also agreed with the statement that this college looks out of state when hiring (Table 4.11 ). In addition, Institution G had a high number of respondents agree (2.04) that the institution recruits and hires people who have high potential for leadership. Table 4.14 below shows the comparison of mean and standard deviation to question 19. Although the means for question 20 were all below 3.0, all of the institutions except for three (H, K, and L) disagreed that the institutions tell employees if they are regarded as high potential future leaders, and one institution (G) tied on this question. An overall mean of 2.68 indicates disagreement system-wide (Table 4.15). In addition, four institutions had a mean of 2.8 or above (D, Q, U, and Y) which indicates that a higher majority of participants at these institutions disagreed with this statement. In order to analyze these responses further, Table 4.15 below shows the 85

PAGE 100

comparison of mean and standard deviation to question 20, and Table 4.16 shows the total number of respondents who agree (274) versus disagree (400) with this question. Table 4.14 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 19: Administrators and Supervisors at this College Regularly Identify High Potential Employees Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.6 .753 D 2.32 .733 F 2.88 .663 G 2.02 .820 H 3.10 .609 K 2.8 .685 L 2.55 .607 N 3.03 .664 Q 2.67 .693 R 2.48 .663 s 2.86 .898 u 2.0 .728 y 2.13 .627 z 2.21 .672 Total 2.47 .723 86

PAGE 101

Table 4.15 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 20: At this College Individuals are Told if They are Regarded as High Potential Future Leaders Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.79 .693 D 2.83 .756 F 2.56 .455 G 2.65 .629 H 2.46 .574 K 2.47 .543 L 2.55 .486 N 2.48 .831 Q 2.84 .737 R 2.53 .688 s 2.61 .785 u 2.80 .792 y 2.88 .563 z 2.57 .689 Total 2.68 .680 When comparing question 20 to those who agreed or strongly agreed versus those who disagreed or strongly disagreed, Institution D disagreed by 71%, Institution Q disagreed by 67%, Institution U disagreed by 73%, and Institution Y disagreed by 71% (see Table 4.16). Although institutions K and L had more agree versus disagree, the mean for L was disagree. In addition, institutions G and H had the same number of agree versus disagree but the overall mean for institution G was disagree. This is an area where the colleges could do a better job of identifying high potential employees and letting them know they are regarded as such by the institution. 87

PAGE 102

Table 4.16 Agree Versus Disagree Comparison by Institution for Question 20 Strongly agree or Disagree or Strongly Institution Agree Disagree Total B 22 34 56 D 33 81 114 F 12 13 25 G 23 23 46 H 28 28 56 K 28 25 53 L II 9 20 N 15 16 31 Q 23 46 69 R 20 23 43 s II 12 23 u 8 22 30 y 15 37 52 z 25 31 56 Total 274 400 674 Based on the means of tables 4.11 through 4.15, the total respondents surveyed for this study disagreed that their college looks out of state when hiring (Q 16), agreed that the colleges had a reputation for making promotions from within 88

PAGE 103

(Ql7), agreed that institutions recruited and hired people with potential for future leaders (Q18), agreed that supervisors and administrators at the institutions regularly identified high potential employees (Ql9), but disagree that the institutions tell individuals when they are regarded as high potential future leaders (Q20). A one-way analysis of variance was also used to compute the variable Identify Scale (questions 16-20) by institution, position, retirement date, degree, ethnicity, and interest in a senior administrative position. The total mean for the Identify Scale was a 2.427, which indicates that the majority of respondents believe that institutions are identifying future leaders. In addition, on the Identify Scale there were significant differences between groups by institution F (13, 634) = 7.076,p = .000; position F (6, 652) = 3.647, p = .001; retirement date F(5, 652) = 8.383, p = .000; highest degree earned F ( 4, 653) = 4.807, p = .001; ethnicity F (5, 645) = 2.333, p = .041; and interest in senior administrative position F (3, 651) = 3.779, p = .010 (see Table 4.17). No statistical differences were found for gender or interest in a community college president position. Table 4.17 below shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOV A) for the Identify Scale by institution, position, retirement date, degree earned, ethnicity, and those interested in becoming a senior administrator. 89

PAGE 104

Table 4.17 One-way Analysis of Variance Comparing Identify Scale Variable to Institution, Position, Retirement, Degree, Ethnicity, and Senior Administration Sum of Sg_uares df Mean F Sig. Identify Scale Between Groups 22.473 13 1.729 7.076 .000 By Institution Within Groups 154.881 634 .244 Total 177.354 647 Identify Scale Between Groups 5.820 6 .970 3.647 .001 Bv Postion Within Groups 173.419 652 .266 Total 179.239 658 Identify Scale Between Groups By Retirement 10.807 5 2.161 8.383 .000 Date Within Groups 168.103 652 .258 Total 178.910 657 Identify Scale Between Groups 5.125 4 1.281 4.807 .001 By Degree Within Groups 174.084 653 .267 Total 179.209 657 Identify Scale Between Groups 3.163 5 .633 2.333 .041 By Ethnicity Within Groups 174.844 645 .271 Total 178.007 650 Identify Scale Between Groups By Interest in 3.059 3 1.020 3.779 .010 Senior Administration Within Groups 175.681 651 .270 Total 178.740 654 90

PAGE 105

Research Question #3: Preparing Future Leaders Research question #3 asked whether the Colorado Community System colleges prepare employees internally to fill vacancies in upper-level administration. Nine statements pertained to this question. 1. Opportunities exist on campus for employees to accept new challenges within their current jobs (Question #22). 2. At this college, responsibilities are purposely added to an individual's current job, giving them broader work experience (Questions #23). 3. Lateral transfers are made within or between divisions at this college in order to give individuals different work or developmental experiences (Question #24). 4. At this college, individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for developing new programs or services (Question #25). 5. Opportunities are offered to individuals at this college that provide exposure to higher levels of management (Question #26). 6. At this college, individuals are encouraged to participate in leadership development training on campus (Question #27). 7. At this college, individuals are encouraged to attend national leadership development training (Question #28). 8. At this college, mentoring is given to high potential individuals in order to help them manage their careers (Question #29). 91

PAGE 106

9. Feedback is given to employees at this college on developmental job progress and career management opportunities as a part of their performance management plan (Question #30). The variable scale Prepare consists of these nine questions Below are the findings from the one-way analysis of variance completed on each question in this variable related to the thirteen institutions as well as ANOV A related to the overall variable of Prepare According to the ANOVA for questions 22-30, all nine questions except for questions 22 and 24 have a statistical significant difference between the institutions Table 4 .18 below shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the Prepare Scale related to each question. Table 4.18 One-way Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Questions 22-30; Prepare Scale Sum of df Mean F Sig Squares Square 022 Opportunities exist on campus for employees Between 9.083 13 .699 1 524 .103 to accept new challenges Groups within their current jobs Within 315 922 689 .459 Groups Total 325.004 702 023At this college, responsibilities are purposely added to an Between 12 816 13 986 2 227 007 individual's current job, Groups giving them broader work experience Within 302 332 683 .443 Groups Total 315 148 696 92

PAGE 107

Table 4.18 (Cont.) 024 Lateral transfers are made within or between divisions at this college in Between 7.811 13 .601 1.336 .187 order to give individuals Groups different work or developmental experiences Within 291.929 649 .450 Groups Total 299.741 662 025 -At this college, Between individuals are encouraged Groups 22.796 13 1.754 4.342 .000 to take responsibility for developing new programs or services Within 277.062 686 .404 Groups Total 299.857 699 026 Opportunities are offered to individuals at this Between college that provide Groups 12.165 13 .936 1.969 .021 exposure to higher levels of management Within 319.364 672 .475 Groups Total 331.529 685 027 At this college, individuals are encouraged Between to participate in leadership Groups 22.320 13 1.717 2.944 .000 development training on campus. Within 401.219 688 .583 Groups Total 423.538 701 028 -At this college, individuals are encouraged Between to attend national Groups 28.669 13 2.205 4.306 .000 leadership development traininQ Within 345.715 675 .512 Groups Total 374.383 688 029At this college, mentoring is given to high Between potential individuals in Groups 16.789 13 1.291 2.653 .001 order to help them manage their careers 93

PAGE 108

Table 4.18 (Cont.) Within 324.685 667 .487 Groups Total 341.474 680 030 Feedback is given to employees at this college on developmental job progress and career Between 11.310 13 .870 1.743 .049 management Groups opportunities as a part of their performance management plan Within 334.944 671 .499 Groups Total 346.254 684 An additional question on the survey (Question #21) asked the participants to indicate five different types of professional development that they had participated in over the last five years. The participants responded yes or no to each professional development experience listed. One hundred percent of the respondents stated that they had participated in at least one off-campus leadership opportunity within the past five years (Table 4.19). The majority also had participated in a state or national networking organization as well as community-based training. The lowest response was for graduate work: Only 27% stated that they had participated in graduate work within the past five years. Table 4.19 below shows the percentage of respondents who participated in leadership opportunities. 94

PAGE 109

Table 4.19 Question 21 Percentages of Individuals Participating in Leadership Opportunities Yes No Additional Graduate 27% 73% Work State or national 60% 40% networking organizations Off-campus leadership 100% opQ_ortuni ties On-campus leadership 40% 60% opportunities Community 63% 37% based training The tables below report the mean and standard deviation for each institution as well as the overall population mean for questions 22 through 30. A response of 1 equals strongly agree, a response of 2 equals agree, a response of 3 equals disagree and a response of 4 equals strongly disagree. All of the institutions had an overall mean of at least 2 or above, and a few had a mean of 3 or above. Questions 22 through 26 specifically relate to developmental job experiences at each institution. Developmental job experiences are uniquely focused job opportunities added to an employee's current position or a change in job description based on a person's career aspirations (Prigge, 2004). Questions 22 and 25 below had a low mean overall which indicates that a majority of the respondents agree or 95

PAGE 110

strongly agree with those statements. The tables and summaries below give an overview ofthe responses to each ofthe survey statements. Respondents from six institutions strongly agree or agree with question 22 with an overall of mean of 1.0 or above. The highest mean was a 2.24 (Institution Q), and the next highest was a 2.18 (Institution G). The lowest mean was a 1.88 (Institution Z), and the overall mean was a 2.08 (see Table 4.20). Overall the population agrees that opportunities exist on campuses for employees to accept new challenges within their current jobs. Table 4.20 below shows the mean and standard deviation for each institution for question 22. Table 4.20 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 22: Opportunities Exist on Campus for Employees to Accept New Challenges within Their Current Jobs Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.10 .693 D 2.14 .756 F 1.96 .455 G 2.18 .629 H 1.93 .574 K 2.04 .543 L 1.95 .486 N 2.10 .831 Q 2.24 .737 R 1.95 .688 s 1.95 .785 u 2.19 .792 y 2.15 .563 z 1.88 .689 Total 2.08 .680 96

PAGE 111

Question 23 related specifically to developmental job experiences that may be added to a person's job to give them broader work experience. The respondents from two institutions, Institution N (1.97) and S (1.87), strongly agree with this statement. Institution Q (2.40) had the highest institution mean. However, all of the institutions also agree with this statement (2.21). Table 4.21 below shows the mean and standard deviation for each institution for question 23. Table 4.21 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 23: At This College Responsibilities are Purposely added to an Individual's Current Job, Giving Them Broader Work Experience Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.21 .642 D 2.37 .714 F 2.16 .473 G 2.20 .606 H 2.26 .637 K 2.04 .637 L 2.14 .478 N 1.97 .706 Q 2.40 .640 R 2.09 .684 s 1.87 .626 u 2.23 .762 y 2.27 .700 z 2.16 .733 Total 2.21 .673 Examining Table 4.22, the overall mean for this question was a 2.56. Some institutions had a mean as high as 2. 70 with the lowest at 2.30. This question had one of the highest overall means for all of the institutions correlating to a negative answer 97

PAGE 112

to this question. This higher mean reflects the research on broader community colleges where most do not use lateral transfers for additional work experience (Arney, VanDerlinden & Brown, 2002; Prigge, 2004). Table 4.22 below shows the mean and standard deviation by institution for question 24. Table 4.22 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 24: Lateral Transfers are Made within or Between Divisions at this College in Order to Give Individuals Different Work or Developmental Experiences Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.47 .684 D 2.59 .723 F 2.30 .559 G 2.67 .630 H 2.41 .563 K 2.45 .642 L 2.55 .510 N 2.56 .768 Q 2.70 .659 R 2.63 .667 s 2.35 .935 u 2.70 .750 y 2.63 .595 z 2.54 .660 Total 2.56 .673 Overall, the total respondents agreed with question 25 with a 2.0 l overall mean (see Table 4.23). Six institutions strongly agreed with this statement with a 1.0 or higher. These institutions include F, H, K, N, R, and Z. Table 4.23 below shows the mean and standard deviation for question 25. 98

PAGE 113

Table 4.23 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions to Question 25: At this College, Individuals are Encouraged to Take Responsibility for Developing New Programs or Services Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.11 .646 D 2.06 .636 F 1.80 .500 G 2.12 .627 H 1.88 .590 K 1.91 .554 L 2.30 .801 N 1.80 .551 Q 2.28 .731 R 1.77 .684 s 2.00 .739 u 2.10 .790 y 2.20 .585 z 1.70 .502 Total 2.01 .655 The overall mean for question 26 was a 2.41 (see Table 4.24). This question related to opportunities offered to individuals that provide exposure to higher levels of management. This perception could have an effect on the percentage of individuals who are interested in senior administrator positions. Table 4.24 below shows the mean and standard deviation by institution for question 26. Forty-five percent of the faculty disagreed or strongly disagreed with question 26 meaning they do not agree that the college provides exposure to higher levels of management. Although some deans and vice presidents disagreed (25%), 49% of department chairs disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 43% of the coordinators 99

PAGE 114

disagreed or strongly disagreed. Overall, 60% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Table 4.25 below shows the comparison of question 26 by position. Table 4.24 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions to Question 26: Opportunities are offered to Individuals at this College that Provide Exposure to Higher Levels of Management Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2 32 .716 D 2.53 .672 F 2.17 .565 G 2.48 .707 H 2.22 .671 K 2 .35 .677 L 2.32 .582 N 2.23 .858 Q 2.61 .786 R 2.35 .686 s 2.33 .730 u 2.62 .775 y 2.43 .633 z 2 .32 .543 Total 2 .41 .696 100

PAGE 115

Table 4.25 Comparison of Position to Question 26: Opportunities are offered to Individuals at this College that Provide Exposure to Higher Levels of Management Strongly Total% Strongly Total% agree or disagree Total Position or agree disagree Vice President 16 80% 4 20% 20 Dean 26 72% 10 28% 36 Department 36 50% 35 50% 71 Chair Director 100 62% 61 38% 161 Coordinator 91 57% 70 43% 161 Faculty 121 55% 98 45% 219 Other 25 81% 6 19% 31 N 415 60% 284 40% 699 Overall, questions 22-26 focused on the job experiences needed to prepare future leaders. The employees responded with agree to new challenges, broader work experiences, and the ability to develop new programs. However, the respondents responded with disagree to lateral transfers and had a lower agreement on exposure to higher levels of management. In order to facilitate career advancement, institutions will need to look at these areas for further development. The following two questions focused on leadership development opportunities on campus as well as nationally. In addition to survey questions 27 and 28 on leadership opportunities, question 21 also asked what professional development opportunities the employees had participated in over the past five years. As shown in Table 4.19, only 40% stated they participated in on-campus training, and I 00% 101

PAGE 116

stated that they participated in off-campus training. These questions compare how institutions are developing future leaders through leadership development activities. Question 27 concentrated on leadership training opportunities on campus. Overall the mean was 2.36 with two institutions below 2.1 0. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Table 4.26 below shows the mean and standard deviation for question 27. Table 4.26 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions to Question 27: At this College, Individuals are Encouraged to Participate in Leadership Development Training On Campus Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.19 .915 D 2.53 .750 F 2.08 .572 G 2.32 .819 H 2.34 .655 K 2.64 .754 L 2.43 .598 N 2.13 .846 Q 2.50 .737 R 2.21 .914 s 2.26 .864 u 2.52 .811 y 2.38 .702 z 2.04 .660 Total 2.36 .777 102

PAGE 117

Although a high percentage of vice presidents agreed or strongly agreed (85%), only 51% of department chairs, 54% of faculty, and 57% of deans agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Based on the findings, a difference in perspective about opportunities for leadership development may exist between senior administrators and other positions on campus. Table 4.27 below shows the comparison of position to question 27. Table 4.27 Comparison of Position to Question 2 7: At this College, Individuals are Encouraged to Participate in Leadership Development Training on Campus Strongly Total% Strongly Total% Position disagree agree or Total or agree disagree Vice President 17 85% 3 15% 20 Dean 21 60% 16 40% 35 Department 37 51% 36 49% 73 Chair Director 103 61% 63 39% 169 Coordinator 97 58% 68 42% 167 Faculty 121 55% 102 45% 222 Other 23 68% 8 32% 34 N 419 59% 296 41% 715 A higher overall mean (2.69) was reflected on question 28, which asked about national leadership development. Interestingly, on question 21 above, 100% of the employees responded positively to attending an off-campus leadership programs (see Table 4.19). However, based on the response to question 28, the leadership opportunities in question 21 must not have been national trainings. A higher percentage of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. 103

PAGE 118

According to the president interviews, this may be a result of budget cuts over the years which impacted the ability to travel for national leadership development training. Table 4.28 below shows the mean and standard deviation for institutions to question 28. Table 4.28 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the lnstitutions with Question 28: At This College, Individuals are Encouraged to Attend National Leadership Development Training Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.91 .714 D 2.78 .684 F 2.64 .810 G 2.24 .771 H 2.50 .688 K 2.72 .662 L 2.62 .669 N 2.29 .824 Q 2.99 .702 R 2.77 .841 s 2.86 .774 u 2.58 .807 y 2.76 .581 z 2.65 .673 Total 2.69 .738 The following two survey questions related to mentoring on campus as well as consistent feedback regarding job performance. Both questions had a high overall mean which correlated with a high level of disagreement. The tables below review the responses to these questions. 104

PAGE 119

Question 29 focused on mentoring, which is one of the indicators of an effective president (McFarlin, 1997). Overall, 66% of the population disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement with a mean of2.74. In fact, Institution U had a mean of 3.0. Table 4.29 below shows the mean and standard deviation by institution for question 29. Table 4.29 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 29: At This College, Mentoring is given to High Potential Individuals in Order to Help Them Manage their Careers Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.86 .667 D 2.88 .645 F 2.72 .678 G 2.48 .839 H 2.55 .685 K 2.75 .717 L 2.65 .671 N 2.32 .670 Q 2.75 .687 R 2.79 .833 s 2.78 .850 u 3.00 .695 y 2.85 .563 z 2.65 .673 Total 2.74 .709 No differences were found between genders on this question, but some differences were found based on position (Table 4.30). Neither the vice presidents nor the deans strongly agreed on this question. However, 65% of the vice presidents agreed with this statement. All other positions had a higher percentage of 105

PAGE 120

disagreement or strong disagreement. All positions had at least one respondent disagree with this statement. According to this data, institutions are not providing mentoring for their employees. Table 4.30 below shows the comparison of position to question 29. Table 4.30 Comparison of Position to Question 29: At this College, Mentoring is given to High Potential Individuals in Order to help them Manage their Careers Strongly Total% Strongly Total% agree or disagree Total Position or agree disagree Vice President 13 65% 7 35% 20 Dean 6 17% 30 83% 36 Department 15 21% 56 79% 71 Chair Director 55 34% 107 66% 162 Coordinator 49 31% 110 69% 159 Faculty 85 39% 131 61% 216 Other 11 37% 19 63% 30 N 234 34% 460 66% 694 The last question for this research question (30) refers to feedback given to employees on job progress and career management opportunities. The majority of participants disagreed with this question. However, Institution N had a 2.33 mean, and 70% of the employees agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (see Table 4.31 ). In addition, institutions H (2.41) and Z (2.47) had a majority of the sample agree with this statement with 55% and 53% respectively agreeing or strongly 106

PAGE 121

agree mg. The overall mean of 2.61 indicates disagreement with this statement. Table 4.31 below shows the mean and standard oeviation for question 30. Table 4.31 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 30: Feedback is given to Employees at this College on Developmental Job Progress and Career Management Opportunities as a Part of their Performance Management Plan Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.63 .728 D 2.71 .717 F 2.72 .737 G 2.56 .787 H 2.41 .593 K 2.58 .692 L 2.58 .692 N 2.33 .758 Q 2.71 .725 R 2.51 .736 s 2.65 .714 u 2.84 .688 y 2.76 .699 z 2.47 .634 Total 2.61 711 Based on tables 4.20 through 4.32, the total respondents surveyed for this study overall agreed that opportunities exist for new challenges (Q22), agreed that the colleges add responsibilities for broader work experiences (Q23), disagreed that lateral transfers are offered to give individuals different work experiences (Q24 ), agreed that institutions encourage respondents to take responsibility for developing new programs (Q25), agreed that opportunities provide exposure to higher levels of management (Q26), agreed that individuals are encouraged to participate in 107

PAGE 122

leadership development training (Q27), disagreed that individuals are encouraged to attend national leadership training (Q28), disagreed that mentoring is given to high potential individuals (Q29), and disagreed that feedback is given to employees on developmental job progress (Q30). A one-way analysis ofvariance was also used to compute the variable scale Prepare, which included questions 22-30, by institution. The total mean for the Prepare Scale was a 2.4230, which indicates that the respondents neither agree nor disagree that institutions are preparing future leaders. In addition, on the Prepare Scale there were significant differences between groups by institution F (13, 614) = 3.227,p = .000; position F (6, 634) = 3.190,p = .004; retirement date F(S, 634) = 7.106,p = .000; highest degree earned F (4, 635) = 2.613,p = .034; ethnicity F (5, 627) = 2.487, p = .030; and interest in senior administrative position F (3, 633) = 3.668, p = .012. No statistical differences were found for gender or interest in becoming a community college president. Table 4.32 below shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Prepare Scale by institution, position, retirement date, degree earned, ethnicity, and interest in becoming a senior administrator. 108

PAGE 123

Table 4.32 One-way Analysis of Variance Comparing Prepare Scale Variable to Institution, Position, Retirement, Degree, Ethnicity, and Senior Administration Sum of Mean SQuares df Square F Sig. Prepare scale Between 9.866 13 .759 3.227 .000 By Institution Groups Within Groups 144.402 614 .235 Total 154.268 627 Prepare scale Between 4.580 6 .763 3.190 .004 By Position Groups Within Groups 151.716 634 .239 Total 156.296 640 Prepare scale Between 8.293 5 1.659 7.106 .000 By Retirement date Groups Within Groups 147.986 634 .233 Total 156.279 639 Prepare scale Between 2.526 4 .631 2.613 .034 By Degree Groups Within Groups 153.437 635 242 Total 155.963 639 Prepare scale Between 2.993 5 .599 2.487 .030 By Ethnicity Groups Within Groups 150.914 627 .241 Total 153.907 632 Prepare scale Between By Interest in Senior Groups 2.669 3 .890 3.668 .012 Administrative position Within Groups 153.504 633 243 Total 156.173 636 Research Question #4: Succession Leadership at the Colleges The fourth research question asked whether or not colleges in the Colorado Community College System are providing succession planning to replace upper-level 109

PAGE 124

administrative positions. Four statements, identified for this research question, are listed below: I. This college makes a deliberate attempt to prepare high potential individuals for advancement (Question 31 ). 2. Prepared for succession of leadership at this college is a part of the institution's overall plan (Question 32). 3. When vacancies have occurred in administration over the last five years, this college has generally hired from within (Question 33). 4. If you retire or leave your position tomorrow, do one or more individuals at this college have the personal skills and job-related knowledge to replace you (Question 34)? For each statement, the survey respondents marked a 1 for strongly agree, 2 for agree, 3 for disagree and 4 for strongly disagree. The variable scale Succession consists of these four questions. Below are the findings from the one-way analysis of variance completed on each question in this variable related to the thirteen institutions as well as ANOV A related to the overall variable of Succession. According to the ANOV A for questions 31-34, all four questions show statistical significant differences among the institutions. Table 4.33 below shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOV A) for the Succession Scale. 110

PAGE 125

Table 4.33 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Questions 31-34: Succession Scale Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Si!Ol. Q31 -This college makes a Between deliberate attempt to prepare Groups 17.445 13 1.342 2.916 .000 high potential individuals for advancement Within 306.054 665 .460 Groups Total 323.499 678 Q32 Preparing for Between succession of leadership at Groups 20.168 13 1.551 3.322 .000 this college is a part of the institution's overall plan Within Groups 304.457 652 .467 Total 324.625 665 Q33-When vacanies have Between occured in administration over Groups the last five years, this college 63.517 13 4.886 11.030 .000 has generally hired from within Within 294.574 665 .443 Groups Total 358.091 678 Q34-If you retire or leave Between your position tomorrow, do Groups one or more individuals at this 27.024 13 2.079 3.148 .000 college have the personal skills and job-related knowledge to replace you. Within 454.925 689 .660 Groups Total 481.949 702 The following tables display the mean and standard deviation for each institution as well as the total mean and standard deviation for all institutions combined. A response of 1 equals strongly agree, a response of 2 equals agree, a Ill

PAGE 126

response of 3 equals disagree, and a response of 4 equals strongly disagree. No statistical differences were found within any of the institutions. The first question in this section asked whether a deliberate attempt was made to prepare high potential individuals for advancement. As tables 4.34 to 4.39 detail, the participants did not agree with this question. Overall the population mean for question #3 I was a 2. 70 which indicates that the majority of respondents disagreed with this statement (see Table 4.35). This survey question was instrumental to the study as it directly correlates to the research question on succession-leadership. Although two institutions had a mean below 2.50, only Institution N had a majority of the population agree with this statement (67%). The remainder of the institutions had a higher mean with some schools as high as 2.87 (Institution Y), 2.90 (Institution Q), and 2.85 (Institution D). Table 4.34 below shows the mean and standard deviation for question #31. 112

PAGE 127

Table 4.34 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 31: This College Makes a Deliberate Attempt to Prepare High Potential Individuals for Advancement Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.81 .667 D 2.85 .613 F 2.48 .714 G 2.63 .755 H 2.59 .702 K 2.62 .686 L 2.50 .607 N 2.33 711 Q 2.90 .636 R 2.61 .771 s 2.70 .876 u 2.84 .638 y 2.87 .627 z 2.53 .663 Total 2.70 .691 As Table 4.35 also shows, 80% of the vice presidents agreed with this statement. However, all other positions disagreed. In fact, only 24% of department chairs agreed, 34% or coordinators and 36% of faculty. Deans and directors also disagreed with 60% of each group disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this statement. 113

PAGE 128

Table 4.35 Comparison of Position to Question 31: This College Makes a Deliberate Attempt to Prepare High Potential Individuals for Advancement Position Strongly %Total Strongly %Total Agree Disagree Total Or Agree or Disagree Vice President 16 80% 4 20% 20 Dean 14 39% 22 61% 36 Department 17 24% 53 76% 70 Chair Director 66 41% 95 59% 161 Coordinator 53 34% 105 66% 158 Faculty 77 36% 137 64% 214 Other 14 45% 17 55% 31 N 257 37% 433 63% 690 Overall, the population disagreed with question 32 (2. 75), and the institutions with a higher mean had a higher percentage of disagreement. According to this data, individuals do not agree that the colleges are preparing for succession-leadership. Table 4.36 below shows the mean and standard deviation by institution for question 32. When comparing the data to this question by position, the only position that agreed that the colleges are preparing for succession-leadership was the vice president level. In fact, 70% of the faculty disagreed or strongly disagreed with this question. Table 4.37 below shows the comparison of position to question 32. 114

PAGE 129

Table 4.36 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 32: Prepared for Succession-Leadership at this College is a Part of the Institution's Overall Plan Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.72 .763 D 2.83 .642 F 2.52 .823 G 2.82 .782 H 2.66 .640 K 2.67 .658 L 2.65 .587 N 2.27 .740 Q 3.04 .679 R 2.61 .771 s 2.83 .717 u 2.90 .651 y 2.90 .569 z 2.61 .623 Total 2.75 .699 Table 4.37 Comparison of Position to Question 32: Prepared for Succession-Leadership at this College is a Part of the Institution's Overall Plan Strongly %Total Strongly %Total Position Agree or Disagree Total Agree or Disa_g_ree Vice President 15 75% 5 25% 20 Dean 8 24% 26 76% 34 Department 18 26% 52 74% 70 Chair Director 63 39% 99 61% 162 Coordinator 46 30% 108 70% 154 i Faculty 64 31% 144 69% 208! Other 12 41% 17 59% 291 N 226 33% 451 67% 6771 115

PAGE 130

Question 33 asked whether the institution has hired from within over the last five years. This question had a mean of 2.34 which related to a high percentage of respondents who agreed with this statement (see Table 4.38). In fact, Institution H had a mean of 1.68, and Institution K had a mean of 1.84. However, Institution L disagreed with a mean of2.85. This question directly correlates to succession leadership by hiring employees from within. Table 4.38 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 33: When Vacancies Have Occurred in Administration Over the Last Five Years, This College has Generally Hired from Within Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.42 .653 D 2.54 .695 F 2.12 .600 G 2.38 .697 H 1.68 .567 K 1.84 .510 L 2.85 .671 N 2.00 .587 Q 2.51 .697 R 2.49 .597 s 2.30 .703 u 2.71 .824 y 2.57 .815 z 2.31 .605 Total 2.34 .727 Two previous questions asked similar questions on hiring future leaders. Question 16 asked if institutions hire outside of the college and the majority of respondents disagreed with this statement. The second question (QI7) asked ifthe 116

PAGE 131

college makes promotional opportunities available to its own. Overall the respondents agreed with this statement. The data from both of these questions support the fact that institutions are hiring from within. Based on the means below for question 34, the respondents at Institution H ( 1.61) and Institution K (I. 79) strongly agreed with this statement. Respondents at institutions F (3.04), S (3.09), and U (3.23) disagreed. However, the majority of the respondents disagreed (2.64) that their college had individuals who were ready to replace them. Table 4.39 below shows the mean and standard deviation for question 34. Table 4.39 Overall Mean and Standard Deviation Comparing the Institutions with Question 34: If You Retire or Leave Your Position Tomorrow, Do One or More Individuals at This College Have the Personal Skills and Job-related Knowledge to Replace You Institution Mean Std. Deviation B 2.55 .776 D 2.51 .855 F 3.04 .735 G 2.46 .734 H 1.61 .817 K 1.79 .893 L 2.62 .805 N 2.73 .740 Q 2.50 .781 R 2.60 .877 s 3.09 .733 u 3.23 .762 y 2.54 .713 z 2.66 .940 Total 2.64 .829 117

PAGE 132

Based on tables 4.34 through 4.39, the total respondents surveyed for this study disagreed that the colleges attempt to prepare high potential individuals for advancement (Q31 ), disagreed that the colleges incorporate succession-leadership as a part of the college plan (Q32), agreed that over the past five years vacancies have been hired from within (Q33), and disagreed that one or two individuals have the skills to replace them at the college (Q34). A one-way analysis of variance was also used to compute the Succession variable scale (questions 31-34) compared by institution. The total mean for the Succession variable scale was a 2.6204, which indicates that respondents do not believe that the colleges are developing a succession-leadership plan. In addition, on the Succession variable scale there were significant differences between groups by institution F ( 13, 631) = 3.543, p = .000; position F (6, 647) = 4.640, p = .000; retirement date F (5, 647) = 6.502,p = .000; and interest in senior administrative position F (3, 646) = 4.440, p = .004 (see Table 4.40). Unlike the other two variables, there were no significant differences between the variable succession scale and highest degree earned or ethnicity. In addition, there was no statistical difference for gender or interest in becoming a community college president. Table 4.40 below shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the Succession Scale to institution, position, retirement, and interest in a senior administrator position. 118

PAGE 133

Table 4.40 One-way Analysis of Variance Comparing Identify Scale Variable to Institution, Position, Retirement, and Senior Administration Sum of Mean Squares df Square F Siq, Succession scale Between 11.336 13 .672 3.543 .000 By Institution Groups Within 155.320 631 .246 Groups Total 166.658 644 Succession scale Between 6.945 6 1.157 4.640 .000 By Position Groups Within 161.385 647 .249 Groups Total 168.330 653 Succession scale Between By Retirement Groups 8.052 5 1.610 6.502 .000 Date Within 160.261 647 .248 Groups Total 168.313 652 Succession scale Between By Interest in Groups 3.367 3 1.129 4.440 .004 Senior Administration Within 164.253 646 .254 Groups Total 167.640 649 The last question on the survey (Q35) asked participants if they would like to be identified for a succession-leadership program at the system. Based on the responses, 182 individuals (25%) were interested in participating in a program and self-identified with their contact information. Qualitative Data Analysis In addition to the survey data on research question #4, the qualitative data also addressed this research question. Twelve Colorado community college presidents 119

PAGE 134

and the president of the Colorado Community College System were interviewed for this study. Each president was asked the following four questions: 1. What leadership development training and education did you receive in your pursuit of the presidency? 2. Do you currently identify future leaders in your organization? How? 3. Do you currently prepare future leaders in your organization? How? 4. If the Colorado Community College System were to develop a succession planning model, what should be included? The first three questions collected data on research question #4, which asks whether or not colleges in the Colorado Community College System are providing succession planning to replace upper-level administrative positions. The last question collected data for research question #5, which asked what elements a succession-leadership program would include for the Colorado Community College System. In regard to what leadership development training and education the presidents received, their backgrounds and experiences were varied. Seven of the presidents had worked in higher education in a variety of positions before becoming a president. One of the presidents had worked in the public school system, and the other five had worked in private industry or government. Those who came from private industry or government had some leadership training prior to accepting the position but not much training while in the position. The seven presidents from higher education, including the one from the public school system, have participated 120

PAGE 135

in more national higher education leadership trainings such as American Council on Education, American Association of Women in Community Colleges, Academic Management Institute in Colorado, Academic Chair Academy, and leadership programs through their doctoral programs. Some of the presidents had not received any formal training before accepting the president position. The second interview question asked the presidents about identifying future leaders within their organization. All of the presidents stated that they identify future leaders in some way. Ten of the presidents stated that they have an informal process through the college leadership, but that they are moving toward a more fonnal process. Three additional presidents stated that they identify future leaders early in the process and that some think about succession leadership when hiring for a new position. A few of the presidents also mentioned the differences between being selected by the college and self-identifying. These presidents are looking for ways that employees can come forward regarding their own career aspirations and interests. The third interview question related to preparing future leaders in their organization. Overall the presidents stated that they are not preparing future leaders as well as they should be at the colleges. Some of the reasons for not preparing future leaders were the budget cuts over the past few years. However, they all agreed that some level of training is needed. A few mentioned that mentoring has occurred in the past, and another also stated that cross training has been a possibility. Individuals at the institution where cross training was mentioned also responded with a strong 121

PAGE 136

agreement to question #23 which states, "At this college responsibilities are purposely added to an individual's current job, giving them broader work experience" and question #25 which states, "At this college, individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for developing new programs or services." Two college presidents are revising leadership programs at their colleges, and another is implementing a succession leadership plan. Although some aspects of trainings occur at the colleges, they all agreed they could do a better job of preparing future leaders in the organization. Research Question #5: The Elements Necessary for a Succession Leadership Program This research question was addressed using the interview data. Each president was asked this question: "If the Colorado Community College System were to develop a succession planning model, what should be included?" The answers to this question were varied. The presidents responded to this question with several ideas regarding a succession leadership model. The two areas mentioned most often were mentoring and internship opportunities in the system. Several times presidents mentioned the need to expose individuals to different jobs. In addition, it was mentioned that individual employees need to take an inventory of their job skills and then develop a realistic career advancement plan. However, rural colleges were concerned about 122

PAGE 137

employees spending more time away from the campus and would not want to see a program where each college was required to send people to Denver on a regular basis. Some of the presidents wanted the system office to act as a resource for the colleges and then let the presidents initiate their own programs. One president wanted to make sure that a "cookie cutter" program was not implemented for all of the colleges. A president from a rural college also mentioned that it is important to respond to differences in an urban versus a rural college. The ways of recruiting may be different as well as the skills needed. Overall, the presidents agreed that they did not favor a leadership academy where the employees would sit and learn, but instead they would prefer an opportunity for job development. One president mentioned a series of seminars where employees could choose activities based on their career advancement needs. As a few presidents mentioned, any program would need to be embraced by the system so that all college employees have an opportunity for professional development. Summary This chapter reported the data collected for the five succession leadership research questions. The quantitative data analysis was used for questions one through four, and the qualitative data was utilized for questions four and five. The data has shown that portions of succession leadership are occurring around the system but that there is a need for more formal succession planning. With at least 35% of the 123

PAGE 138

employees retiring in the next ten years and more who are undecided, the system has time to prepare future leaders for these vacancies. Implications, recommendations and conclusions from this data will be presented in Chapter 5. 124

PAGE 139

CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION Recent research predicts a leadership crisis in community colleges by 2011 (American Council on Education, 2007; Arney & VanDerLinden, 2002; McKlenney, 2001; Shults, 2001; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002). For instance, the American Council on Education 2007 report on the American College President found that the percent of presidents 61 years or older had increased from 14% in 1986 to 49% in 2006. This increase in the current age of presidents may indicate a smaller increase in retirements over the next decade or so. With research indicating a shortage in future leaders nationally, my study addressed issues related to identifying and preparing future leaders in the Colorado Community College System. My study combined a survey instrument and interviews to determine the current retirement situation in the Colorado community colleges as well as the need for future training and development. In addition, I asked participants if they wanted to become a senior administrator or president in the Colorado Community College System. Full-time faculty and administrators also were asked about how the community colleges currently prepare future leaders. My five research questions focused on these areas of succession planning: 125

PAGE 140

1. To what extent are current Colorado community college employees interested in moving into upper-level administrative positions including the presidency? 2. Do Colorado community colleges currently identify internal employees to fill future vacancies in upper-level positions? 3. Are the Colorado community colleges preparing employees internally to fill vacancies in upper-level administration? 4. Are the Colorado community colleges conducting succession planning to replace upper-level administrative positions? 5. What elements might a succession leadership program include for the Colorado Community College System? Overview ofResearch Question Implications The population used for this survey included all full-time faculty and administrators working in a Colorado Community College System college during the spring semester 2007. The population surveyed included 51% administrator and 49% faculty; however, only 31% of the responses were from faculty. The other 69% included vice president or dean (8%), department chair (1 0%), director (23%), or coordinator (23%). Some of these other positions may have included full-time faculty who also hold another position. Other demographics of the respondents included 33% male, 67% female; 86% Caucasian, 7% Hispanic, 2% Asian American, 2% African American, and 2% other ethnicity. Forty-nine percent of the respondents have worked in the Colorado Community College System for less than 5 years and 126

PAGE 141

another 23% have worked in a CCCS college for 6-10 years. Overall, a large number of respondents have worked in the system and could be potential future leaders. While working on my dissertation proposal, the Colorado Community College System conducted a study (CCCS, 2006) using information from the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) to determine who was eligible to retire. PERA is a pension fund created for public employees in the state of Colorado and the retirement matrix is based on years of employment and age. From this study, it was determined that 50% of the current faculty, staff, and administrators were eligible to retire based solely on the PERA calculation of age and years of employment (CCCS, 2006). This study, however, found that only 35% of the population plans to retire within the next ten years. Although a higher percentage of faculty and administrators may be eligible to retire, they may decide to work longer for various reasons. Research Question #1 Besides collecting retirement data, my first research question asked participants if they were interested in becoming a senior administrator or president in the Colorado Community College System. Out ofthe 725 responses, 21% were interested in becoming a senior administrator, 24% were undecided and 8% stated that they already occupied a senior administrator position. In contrast, only 6% of the respondents stated that they were interested in becoming a president, while 11% were undecided. Although a larger percentage of the total responses were from female faculty and administrators, a smaller percentage 127

PAGE 142

of female respondents were interested in becoming a president (4%). The current position most interested in becoming a president were vice presidents (25%) while the position least interested in becoming a president were faculty (3%). The respondents who stated that they were interested either in becoming a senior administrator or a president indicated that they plan to retire in more than ten years. Thus an opportunity exists to recruit and train current employees to become future leaders as more senior administrators retire. However, the current community college leadership will need to address this issue quickly so that new leadership will be ready to step up. Research Question #2 My second research question inquires about the process used to identify internal employees to fill future vacancies at the community colleges. Five survey questions were used to compute the Identify Scale (IS). Overall, the respondents agreed that institutions identify internal employees for future vacancies, with an overall mean of 2.42. However, differences existed by survey question. Most of the respondents agreed that the colleges make promotional opportunities from within. In addition, the majority of respondents agreed that administrators and supervisors regularly identify high potential employees. However, most of the positions were split 50/50 on this survey question except for the vice president positions of which 90% agreed. 128

PAGE 143

Respondents also were asked if their institution tells individuals if they are regarded as high-potential future leaders. Sixty percent of the respondents disagreed with this statement. Although respondents generally agreed that employees are being identified as future leaders, many respondents do not know if they have been identified as a high-potential leader. Research Question #3 My third research question investigated whether the Colorado Community College System colleges prepare employees for future leadership positions. Nine statements were included in the Prepare Scale. Overall, respondents agreed that opportunities exist for new challenges, responsibilities are added to an individual's current job for broader work experiences, and respondents are encouraged to develop new programs or services. All three of these statements relate to added responsibility to the respondents' current positions. Because of budget cuts, some respondents may have had added responsibilities due to positions not being replaced. Respondents disagreed that lateral transfers occur at their colleges to provide a developmental work experience, but agreed that individuals are exposed to higher levels of management. Both ofthese statements are crucial to succession planping as they allow respondents opportunities to grow professionally within the institution in an area outside of their current position as well as provide information on higher level positions. 129

PAGE 144

The respondents also were asked about both on campus leadership training and national leadership training. A higher percentage of vice presidents (85%) agreed or strongly agreed that on-campus leadership training occurred, but only 46% of faculty agreed or strongly agreed that such leadership trainings occurred. The majority of respondents agreed that, while on-campus leadership training occurs, opportunities are not available for national leadership training. McFarlin ( 1997) found mentoring to be an important component for future community college leaders. Yet, the respondents in my study indicated that mentoring is not occurring at their college. In fact, the only position that agreed with this statement was the vice presidents, a level at which it probably is occurring. Mentoring, however, is an important component in developing future leaders and should be incorporated into any future leadership preparation program. When asked whether feedback occurs at their institution, the majority of respondents disagreed with this statement. Such job-performance feedback could assist with identifying and preparing future leaders; however, the respondents do not agree that the institutions are using performance evaluations as a mechanism for professional development feedback. The overall Prepare Scale had a mean of2.42. indicating that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with research question #3. However, the respondents disagreed with key components of preparing future leaders including lateral transfers, mentoring, and feedback. 130

PAGE 145

Research Question #4 My fourth research question asked if colleges were providing succession planning to replace upper-level positions at their institutions. An overall mean of 2.6 indicates that mo of the respondents disagreed than agreed with this research question. The respondents disagreed that their colleges were deliberately preparing high-potential individuals. In fact, all position respondents disagreed with this statement, except for vice presidents where 80% agreed or strongly agreed. This disparity may reflect differences between the presidents and vice presidents to other positions within the organization. Respondents also said that succession-leadership is not a part ofthe institution's overall plan. Again, the only respondents who agreed with this statement were vice presidents. In fact, 70% of the faculty disagreed, suggesting a need to connect with other positions in the college on succession planning so it is occurring on all levels. Although respondents agreed that administration has been replaced from within, the respondents did know one or two people who could replace them if they were to leave the institution. Overall, the respondents disagreed that the colleges were providing succession-leadership at the colleges. In addition, the faculty were the least likely to agree that the institution was identifying and preparing future leaders. This indicates a need to discuss succession-leadership at the colleges. In addition, individual colleges and the system may want to develop a succession-leadership program that includes a mechanism for identifying future leaders and the ways to prepare them. 131

PAGE 146

The presidents at all of the Colorado Community College System colleges were also asked about both identifying and preparing future leaders. All of the presidents stated that they are identifying high potential leaders at their institution. The majority of the presidents indicated that the process has been informal, with only three stating that the process was deliberate from the time an employee was hired. The presidents also stated that they were interested in self-identification by faculty and administrators. When asked about preparing future leaders, the presidents agreed that professional development programs have not been available to develop future leaders at their institutions. Research Question #5 My last research question inquired about what should be included in a succession leadership program for the Colorado Community College System. The majority of presidents mentioned both an internship experience and mentoring as key components of a succession leadership program. In addition, they mentioned that individuals identified for a succession leadership program should complete a skills analysis and then develop a realistic career-advancement plan. The presidents did not want to implement a program model based on monthly meetings with speakers. Instead, the presidents said that the program should be unique to each identified participant. 132

PAGE 147

Recommendations for Action Areas for recommendation include identifying future leaders within the individual colleges and the system, preparing future leaders, and developing a succession-leadership model. The following recommendations are based on the data collected both from the surveys and the president interviews. Identifying Future Leaders The last question on the survey asked respondents to self-identify if they were interested in participating in a succession-leadership program offered by the system. One hundred and eighty-two participants self-identified for a succession-leadership program. This was 25% of the respondents, a significant number, from all 13 community colleges and the system office. In addition, respondents represented each position category. The position of director had the highest percentage of interest with 25% (51 individuals) interested in participating, and 21% of the faculty respondents expressed the same interest. Since the survey showed that 59% did not know whether they were being identified for future leadership positions, the first recommendation is to develop a formal process for identifying and naming future leaders. To begin, I will share information with the presidents about those who have self-identified. This will allow the presidents to discern who interest in future leadership in the survey. In addition, colleges may want to provide performance-evaluation feedback training so that supervisors know how to discuss an individual's job development and 133

PAGE 148

advancement opportunities within the college. Each college employee could have an individual career plan, and each position might have at least two to three employees ready to step up if needed. Identification of future leaders does not guarantee that a person automatically can move into the identified position, but it would allow the institution an opportunity to grow its own leaders (Berke, 2006; Kesler, 2002; Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000; Vincent. 2004; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2004). Preparing Future Leaders Based on the survey data, lateral transfers for developmental job experiences, mentoring, and consistent feedback are not available at most levels in the Colorado community colleges. Development, mentoring, and feedback have been identified as important components of preparing future leaders (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Jeandron, 2006; Leibman, Bruer, & Maki, 1996; McFarlin, 1997; Prigge, 2004). In addition, peer networks and leadership development activities outside of graduate programs can prepare individuals to become effective senior administrators or president (McFarlin, 1997). The second recommendation is to implement individual leadership-preparation programs at the colleges. Programs should be designed for specific individuals and positions as well as for the institution as a whole. As mentioned earlier, individuals should be identified as potential replacements for future positions. A preparation program then could assist individuals to attain the skills and experiences they need to be eligible for the next step. Once future leaders 134

PAGE 149

and potential vacancies are identified, the colleges can develop a succession leadership program that works for their faculty and administrators. Succession Leadership Model A third recommendation is based on prior research, my survey results, and my president interviews. This recommendation includes a five-part succession leadership program for the Colorado Community College system. The five components consist of an individual career development plan to identify skill gap analysis, internship experience, mentoring, feedback, and exposure to higher levels of leadership within the system. A program model based on these features was presented to the CCCS Presidents on November 13, 2007. The proposed succession-leadership model would serve a large number of participants in the system (25-30). Since rural community college presidents were concerned about the time commitment off-campus, the participants would meet quarterly so that time away from the college would be minimal. However, the overall program would involve additional time commitments to incorporate internship and mentoring experiences. According to the presidents and my research, the first step in the program is to identify future leaders and develop individual career plans. An example of this is the Leading Forward project, which developed the Competencies for Community College Leaders (American Association of Community Colleges, 2006). These six competencies could be a useful resource to identify individual gaps in the participant's career plan. The competencies include illustrations that demonstrate 135

PAGE 150

specific outcomes (AACC). When the AACC developed the competencies, they did so with the foundation that leadership can be learned, that any member can lead, that leadership is a lifelong process, and that institutions can grow their own leaders. These competencies can be used to determine leadership gaps in an individual's career-development plan. The primary purpose of the career-development plan is to assist with developmental job experiences in the system that could lead to upper-level positions (Eastman, 1995; Jeandron, 2006; Leibman, Bruer, & Maki, 1996; Prigge, 2004). As per the survey results, respondents are not participating in lateral job experiences. However, these are precisely the types of experiences that can help an employee gain needed experiences to move up in the organization (Rothwell, 2001 ). In this same vein, the presidents also mentioned the importance of an internship experience within a succession leadership program, which is the second component. Once participants identify gaps in their skills and abilities, based on the AACC Competencies for Community College Leaders (2006), an internship within the system then could be identified for each participant. Based on prior research and the findings from this study, the third comp_onent of a succession-leadership program would include mentoring. McFarlin (1997) found that mentoring and peer networks were important factors for an effective president. In addition, other research shows that community college presidents have found that mentoring was a critical component in developing future leaders (Belcher & 136

PAGE 151

Montgomery, 2001; Korb, 2004). Although mentoring is important, the respondents to my survey generally did not agree that mentoring was occurring at their institution. The presidents interviewed in the system also mentioned mentoring as an important component in their own pathway to the presidency as well as an important component of a succession-leadership program. A fourth critical component to developing future leaders is feedback given to employees on job progress and career-management opportunities. An effective program should include informative feedback, but survey respondents indicated that feedback was not provided. Not only should this aspect of career development be included in the succession-leadership program, it should also be included in performance-evaluation training for supervisors. Feedback on job progress and career management should be a centerpiece of annual review processes. The last component of a succession-leadership program should include opportunities for the participants to be informed about higher-level management positions in the system. In addition, a succession-leadership model should provide realistic information about the role of upper-level administration. What are the rewards of being a dean, vice president, or president that would encourage others to follow this path? The research (American Council on Education, 2007) also shows that 82% of community college presidents have their doctorate. Although this is not a requirement, it is usually a preferred credential when hiring a president. Out of the 137

PAGE 152

725 respondents for this survey, only ten percent had their doctorate. In addition, 54% had their master's degree. A recommendation would include ways to support individuals to complete advanced degrees. Although the financial resources may not be available, time, and moral support also are valuable resources that can be incorporated into the culture of the system. Perhaps a succession-leadership model could include an opportunity for graduate credit through a master's or doctoral program. Recommendations for Future Research Community colleges are realizing the need to grow their own leaders. However, many community colleges do not have succession-leadership plans or leadership-development programs available to their employees. Although leadership development programs have been studied at community colleges (Powell, 2004; Korb, 2004; Wolfe & Carroll, 2002), research still is needed to determine what constitutes an effective program. Following are five areas for future research: 1. Further research should be conducted on the Colorado Community College System colleges that received a higher rating on identifying and preparing future leaders. What is it that these colleges, for example, are doing that others are not? 2. Additional research also might reveal how the individuals who self-identified as future leaders in the Colorado Community College System are preparing themselves to follow their career paths and leadership preparation 138

PAGE 153

opportunities. Were self-identified leaders in the system prepared for future leadership positions? If so, how were they prepared? Did their preparation include the five recommendations? 3. A follow up evaluation could be implemented to find out if the CCCS presidents implemented a succession leadership model, and if so, whether the model included the recommendations set forth in this study. Was a succession leadership model implemented in the Colorado Community College System? If so, did it include the recommended factors? 4. If a program has been implemented at the state level as well as in the individual colleges, this research study could be replicated in a few years to determine if the succession leadership programs improved survey results on identifying and preparing future leaders. What are the CCCS system-colleges doing to identify and prepare future leaders? 5. This study could be replicated in other community college districts to determine if other community college districts are identifying and preparing future leaders. How are other community college districts identifying and preparing future leaders? 6. Research also is needed on succession planning within community colleges to determine how to implement an effective program. Are the community colleges who have implemented a succession-leadership model using the five recommendations set forth in this study? 139

PAGE 154

Conclusion Based on the research in this study, a succession-leadership program for the Colorado Community College System is needed since faculty and administrators do not say that they are being identified and prepared for future leadership. In addition, at least 35% of the respondents plan to retire within the next ten years, and more than 50% of vice presidents, deans, directors, and department chairs plan to retire within that same time frame. Although a succession-leadership model is important for the system, individual succession-leadership models also are needed at each college. The college presidents mentioned the differences between a rural and urban college and the challenges with recruiting and retention. In order to be effective, a plan should incorporate both system and college needs. In summary, previous research has shown that community colleges need to identify and prepare future leaders in their institutions (Arney, 2004; Hargreaves, 2005; Prigge, 2004; Rothwell, 2005; Shults, 2001; Zang & Rajagopalan). This study found that, although colleges in the Colorado Community College System are identifying and preparing some faculty and administrators, a formalized succession leadership program should be implemented to assist the colleges in improving their most important resource, the people. Based on this study, a succession-leadership model is proposed that incorporates components identified through the study and, other research. Although outside factors often influence the future leadership of the 140

PAGE 155

institution, a succession-leadership model can address leadership needs, skill gaps, and upper-level succession. 141

PAGE 156

APPENDIX A Colorado Community College Succession Planning Survey Succession planning is defined here as a strategy which identifies high potential individuals and purposely provides them with challenging job experiences and leadership training opportunities in order to expose them to skills and knowledge that will prepare them for senior leadership positions. Your responses to this survey are confidential. This survey will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Submitting this survey indicates that you have voluntarily given your consent to participate. 1. Please indicate which title best describes your present position. I. Vice President 2. Dean 3. Department Chair 4. Director 5. Coordinator 6. Faculty 7. Other: ---------------------------2. What college-level instructional experience have you had? I. Full-time faculty 2. Part-time faculty 3. Both 4. None 3. At which system college are you employed full-time? Arapahoe Community College Community College of Aurora Community College of Denver Colorado Northwestern Community College Front Range Community College Lamar Community College Morgan Community College Northeastern Junior College Otero Junior College I42

PAGE 157

Pueblo Community College Pikes Peak Community College Red Rocks Community College Trinidad State Junior College Colorado Community College System 4. How many years have you been employed at this college? 1. 0-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 4. 16 or more 5. How long have you been in your present position at this college? 1. 0-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 4. 16 or more 6. How many years have you been employed full-time in community college work in Colorado? 1. 0-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 4. 16 or more 7. How many total years have you been employed full-time in community college work? 1. 0-5 2. 6-10 3. 11-15 4. 16 or more 8. Please indicate which functional area best describes your work area? I Instruction 2. Student Services 3. Continuing Education 4. Business/ Facilities 5. Other (please specify): ______ 9. Please indicate your highest degree earned. 1. Doctorate 143

PAGE 158

2. Masters 3. Bachelors 4. Associates 5. High School Diploma l 0. What is your age at the time of this survey? ____ 11. When do you plan to retire? 1. In the next 1-3 years 2. In the next 4-6 years 3. In the next 7-10 years 4. In more than 10 years 5. I plan to move out of the system 6. I am unsure when I will retire or leave 12. Gender: I. Male 2. Female 13. Which best describes your race/ethnicity? 1. Asian American/ Pacific Islander 2. African American 3. Hispanic 4. American Indian/Native American 5. White/Caucasian 6. Other 14. Do you desire to become a senior administrator? I. N/ A (I am already a senior administrator) 2. Yes 3. No 4. Undecided 15. Do you desire to become a president in the community college system? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Undecided I 6. This college tends to look out of state when seeking senior administrators 1. Strongly agree 144

PAGE 159

2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 17. This college has a reputation for making promotional opportunities available to its own employees. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 18. This college is doing a good job of recruiting and hiring people who have the potential to someday provide effective leadership in administrative positions. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 19. Administrators and/or supervisors at this college regularly identify high potential employees for future leadership positions. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 20. At this college, individuals are told if they are regarded as high potential future leaders. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 21. Please check all ofthe professional development opportunities in which you have participated in the last five years: 1. Additional graduate work 2. State or national networking organizations 3. Off-campus leadership conferences 4. On-campus leadership training 5. Community based training 145

PAGE 160

22. Opportunities exist on this campus for employees to accept new challenges within their current jobs. I. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 23. At this college, responsibilities are purposely added to an individual's current job, giving them broader work experiences. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 24. Lateral transfers are made within or between divisions at this college in order to give individuals different work or developmental experiences. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 25. At this college, individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for developing new programs or services. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 26. Opportunities are offered to individuals at this college that provide exposure to higher levels of management. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 27. At this college, individuals are encouraged to participate in leadership development training on campus. I. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 146

PAGE 161

4. Strongly disagree 28. At this college, individuals are encouraged to attend national leadership development training. 5. Strongly agree 6. Agree 7. Disagree 8. Strongly disagree 29. At this college, mentoring is given to high potential individuals in order to help them manage their careers. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 30. Feedback is given to employees at this college on developmental job progress and career management opportunities as a part of their performance management plan. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 31. This college makes a deliberate attempt to prepare high potential individuals for advancement. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 32. Preparing for succession of leadership at this college is a part of the institution's overall plan. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 33. When vacancies have occurred in administration over the last five years, this college has generally hired from within. 1. Strongly agree 147

PAGE 162

2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 34. If you retire or leave your position tomorrow, do one or more individuals at this college have the personal skills and job-related knowledge to replace you. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree 35. I would like to be identified as a future leader in the Colorado Community College System. 1. Yes 2. No If you stated yes to #35, please submit your name and email address for further information: Name: --------------------Email: --------------------Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. SUBMIT 148

PAGE 163

Dear colleague, APPENDIX B Participant Email As an administrator at a community college in Colorado and a doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Denver, I am interested in the future succession planning of the Colorado Community College System. The purpose of this email is to ask for your participation in an online survey related to succession planning. Succession planning is the identification and preparation of future leaders through developmental job opportunities, leadership training, and mentoring. You have been asked to complete the survey as an employee in the Colorado Community College System. According to the research, community college administrators will be retiring in alarming rates over the next 5-7 years. Although literature exists nationally, no known information exists for the Colorado Community College System. This survey will gather data that will assist with developing a succession leadership model for the system. The research may benefit both the participant and the system as a succession planning model is identified. Data from the survey will be kept confidential to limit any risk of embarrassment, psychological discomfort or damage to reputation. No known questions will be asked that could be damaging either socially or economically. Questions related to retirement will be kept confidential. If confidentiality were breached, individual college presidents may have access to information related to individual employees at the college. The information would relate to retirement data and succession planning experiences. In addition, the system president would have data regarding the performance of the individual college presidents related to succession planning. The survey will take approximately 5-l 0 minutes to complete and I hope you take this opportunity to participate. You can complete the survey by clicking on the following link. www.frontrange.edu/ir/ When you have completed the survey, press the submit button and your responses will be collected and kept confidential in a database. There will be no means of identification unless you self identify at the end of the survey. If so, this information will be shared with your college. Submitting the survey indicates that you have voluntarily given your consent to participate. Participation in this survey is voluntary and you may withdraw from the survey at any time or choose not to answer any question. Thanks you for participating in this survey. K.ris B inard Dean of Student Services Front Range Community College Kris. binard@frontrange .edu 970-204-8362 149

PAGE 164

REFERENCES Academic Management Institute Session Agenda (2006). Retrieved September 16, 2006, from http://www.coloradowomensnetwork.com American Association of Community Colleges (2002, November 8). Leadership 2020:Recruitment, preparation, and support. Retrieved November 27, 2004, from http://www .aacc.nche.edu American Association of Community Colleges (2006). Leading forward. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from https:/ /www.ccleadership.org/resource _center/ competencies.htm American Association of Community Colleges (2006). Future Leaders Institute. Retrieved September 16, 2006, from https://www.aacc.nche.edu American Association of Community Colleges (2006). Competencies for community college leaders. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. American Council on Education (2006). The Fellows Program. Retrieved September 16,2006, from https://www.acenet.edu American Council on Education (2007). The American college president 2007 edition: 2dh anniversary. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Arney, M. (2004). Learning leadership in today's community colleges. Community College Journal, 74(4), 6-9. Arney, M. J ., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). Career paths for community college leaders (Research Brief AACC-RB-02-2). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Arney, M., VanDerLinden, K. E., & Brown, D. F. (2002). Perspectives on community college leadership: Twenty years in the making. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 573-589. 150

PAGE 165

Babbie, E., R., Halley, F., & Zaino, J. (2003). Adventures in social research: Data analysis using SPSS 11.0111.5 for Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Barwick, J. T. (2002, August/September). Pathways to the presidency: Same trail, new vistas. Community College Journal, 73, 6-11. Belcher, J. M., & Montgomery, P. D. (2001). Leadership Team Selection and Development. In Campbell & Associates, The Leadership Gap. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Berger, L.A., & Berger, D. A. (2004). The talent management handbook: Creating organizational excellence by identifying, developing, and promoting your best people. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berke, D. (2005). Succession planning and management: A guide to organizational systems and practices. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. ( 1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Brown, L., Martinez, M., & Daniel, D. (2002). Community college leadership preparation: Needs, current perceptions, and recommendations. Community College Review, 30(1), 45-74. Carroll, C. (2004). Succession planning: Developing leaders for the future of the organization. Retrieved on March 12, 2006, from http://www.league.org/ publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0204-1.htm Cohen, M., & March, J. (197 4 ). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill. Colorado Community College System (2006). A report on PERA and system employees. Colorado Community College System (2007). Providing access to for success. Retrieved on September 19, 2007, from http://www.cccs.edu/ aboutcccs/rolemission.html Conger, J. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline. Han:ard Business Review, 81(12), 76-84. 151

PAGE 166

Corporate Leadership Council. (2003). Hallmarks of leadership success: Strategies for improving leadership quality and executive readiness. Washington, DC: Author. Corrigan, M. E. (2002). The American college president. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Creswell, J. W. (2003 ). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Dembicki, M. (2006). Report highlights leadership program practices. College Times, p. 1, 4. Dolence, M. G., Lujan, H. D., & Rowley, D. J. (1998). Strategic choices for the academy: How demand for lifelong learning will re-create higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eastman, L. J. (1995). Succession planning: An annotated bibliography and summary of commonly reported organizational practices. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Evelyn, J. (2001 ). Community colleges face a crisis ofleadership. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(30), A36-A37. Fowler, J. F. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage. Fulmer, R. M., & Conger, J. A. (2004). Growing your company's leaders. New York: AMACOM. Green, M. F. (1988). The American president: A contemporary profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hammons, J. 0., & Keller, L. (1990). Competencies and personal characteristics of future community college presidents. Community College Review. 18(3), 3441. Hargreaves, A. (2005). Leadership succession. The Educational F arum, 69, 163-173. Harris, E., & Brewer, G. (2000). Developing tomorrow's executives. Sales and Marketing Management, 152(1 0), 133. 152

PAGE 167

Hockaday, J ., & Puyear, D. (2000). Community college leadership in the new millennium. New Expeditions Issues Paper No. 8. Washington DC: Community College Press. Jeandron, C. A. (2006). Growing your own leaders: Community colleges step up. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Jensen, R., & Giles, R. (2006). Insider's guide to community college administration (2"d ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Kelly, E. (2002). The changing ofthe guard. Community College Week, 14(21). 6-9. Kesler, G. C. (2002). Why the leadership bench never gets deeper: Ten insights about executive talent development. Human Resource Planning, 25(1 ), 32-44. Kesner, I. F., & Sebora, T. C. (1994). Executive succession: Past, present and future. Journal of Management, 20, 327-372. Khurana, R. (2001). Finding the right CEO: Why boards often make poor choices. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(1), 91-95. Kinkley, M. J. (2003) Influences on perceptions of presidential search committee and board of trustee members at two-year colleges regarding effective presidents. (Doctoral dissertation, University ofToledo, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03A), 772. (UMI3085571 ). Korb, J. L. (2004). Community college leadership at a crossroads: Where crisis intersects opportunity. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(08A), 2814. (UMI3185181 ). Kubala, T. S. (1999). A national study on the community college presidency. College Journal of Research and Practice, 23(2), 183-192. Kubala, T. S., & Bailey, G. (2001 ). A new perspective on community college presidents: Results of a national study. Community College Journal of Research and practice, 25, 793-804. League of Innovation (2005). Executive Leadership Institute. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.league.org 153

PAGE 168

Leubsdorf, B. (2006). Boomers' retirement may create talent squeeze. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September I, 2006, from http://chronicle.com /weekly/v53/i02/02a051 0 l.htm Leibman, M., Bruer, R. A, & Maki, B. R. (1996). Succession management: The next generation of succession planning. Human Resource Planning. 19(3), 16-29. Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management, 39, 321-329. Lueddke, G. R. (1999). Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 5, 235-260. Maxwell, J. A (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage. McClenney, K. M. (2001). Converting crisis to opportunity. Community College Journal, 71(6),24-27. Mcfarlin, C. H. (1997). Preparation factors common in outstanding community college presidents. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(03A), 711. (UMI 9725438). Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Montague, E. L. (2004). Leadership development practices in the community college: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(04A), 1225, (UMI 3129520). Munro, A (2005). Practical succession management: How to future-proof your organization. England: Gower. National Institute for Leadership Development (2006). Leaders Institute. Retrieved September 16, 2006, from https://www.pc.maricopa.edu/nild/leaders.html Prigge, P. L. (2004). Developmental job experiences for women on community college campuses (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2004 ). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(03A), 810. (UMI 3126797). 154

PAGE 169

Powell, C. R. (2004). Community college leadership in the new millennium: Traits and characteristics of presidents of effective community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02A), 392. (UMI3121868). Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ross, D. C., & Green, M. F. (2000). The American president: 2000 edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Rothwell, W. J. (200 I). Effective succession planning (2"d ed. ). New York: AMACOM. Rothwell, W. J., Jackson, R., Knight, S., & Lindhom, J. (2005). Career planning and succession management. London: Praeger. Salimbene, A. M. ( 1982). Pathways to the presidency: An examination of the careers of current college and university chief executives (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(1 OA), 3237. (UMI 8305694). Shults, C. (2001 ). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college leadership. Research Brief AACC-RB-01-5. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Schultz, R. E. (1965). Changing profile of the junior college president. Junior College Journal, 36, 8-13. Sullivan, L. G. (2001 ). Four generations of community college leadership. Community College Journal of Research and practice. 25, 559-571. Townsend, B. K., & Bassoppo-Moyo, S. ( 1997). The effective community college academic administrator: Necessary competencies and attitudes. Community College Review, 25(2), 41-56. VanDusen, L. A. (2005). Community college leadership in the 2151 century. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, 2005 ). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66( 1 OA). (UMI 3193511 ). 155

PAGE 170

Vaughan, G. B. (1983). Issues for community college leaders in a new era. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Vaughan, G. B. (1986). The community college presidency. New York: American Council on Education. Vaughan, G. B. (1989). Leadership in transition: The community college presidency. New York: American Council on Education. Vaughan, G. B., Mellanden, G. A., & Blois, B. (1994). The communi(y college presidency: Current status and future outlook. Washington, DC: Community College Press. Vaughan, G. B., & Weisman, I. M. ( 1998). The community college presidency at the millennium. Washington, DC: Community College Press. Vincent, E. T. (2004). A qualitative of community college leadership from the Leading Forward summits. Final report for the American Association of Community Colleges. Washington DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Weisman, I. M., & Vaughan, G. B. (2002). The communi(v college presidency 2001 (Research Brief AACC-RB-02-1). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Wolfe, D. B., & Carroll, C. M. (2002). Shaking the leadership blues. Community College Journal, 7 3(1 ), 12-17. Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2004). When the known devil is better than an unknown god: An empirical study of the antecedents and consequences of relay CEO successions. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 483-500. 156