1

LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES OF ENROLLMENT MANAGERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

By

KRISTY ROBERTSON PRESSWOOD

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2011

2

© 2011 Kristy Robertson Presswood

3

To my husband, Clay

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my husband, Clay, he is my greatest supporter and best friend.

Without him, none of this would be possible for we live a busy life with many obstacles.

As for obstacles, I also wish to acknowledge to my beautiful children. Although there

were many days when I did not write a word because of a sore throat, field trip or times

of just wanting to be mom, the end result is worth every minute. I took full advantage of

the time to complete my degree because my family is important to me and I did not want

to sacrifice time with my children. Emily, Samantha and Trevor all made sacrifices to

allow me to complete this project and I will spend the rest of my life making every

second with each of them an important one.

I thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Dale F. Campbell, for his continued support and

patience throughout my course of study. To my supervisory committee, Dr. David S.

Honeyman, Dr. Bernard Oliver and Dr. Lynn Leverty, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for

their persistence and guidance.

Lastly, I am grateful for my extended family at Daytona State College. Daytona

State College understands the importance of leadership development and invests in its

future leaders. Thank you for investing in me.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER

1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ........................................................................... 11

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 11 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 14 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 17 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 17 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................. 18 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 22 Summary ................................................................................................................ 23

2 A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY ................................................................................... 24

The Problem ........................................................................................................... 24 Changing Workforce ............................................................................................... 25

Aging Workforce ............................................................................................... 25 Generational Differences .................................................................................. 27 Impact of Technological Advances ................................................................... 29

Leadership .............................................................................................................. 32 Gender in Leadership ....................................................................................... 36

Talent Management ................................................................................................ 37 Leadership Development.................................................................................. 38 Succession Planning ........................................................................................ 41

Role of the Registrar ............................................................................................... 45 Closing the ‘Gap’ .................................................................................................... 47 Summary ................................................................................................................ 49

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 52

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 52 Research Problem .................................................................................................. 53 Research Hypothesis .............................................................................................. 54 Research Design .................................................................................................... 55 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 55 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 56

6

The Population ........................................................................................................ 59 Procedure for Data Collection ................................................................................. 60 Analysis of Data ...................................................................................................... 60 Research Instrument............................................................................................... 62 Summary ................................................................................................................ 63

4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 69

Aggregate Data-Descriptive Statistics..................................................................... 69 Research Hypothesis One ...................................................................................... 70 Research Hypothesis Two ...................................................................................... 74 Research Hypothesis Three ................................................................................... 77 Research Hypothesis Four ..................................................................................... 81 Summary ................................................................................................................ 84

5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSOIN ..................................... 86

Summary of Results................................................................................................ 87 Research Question 1 ........................................................................................ 87 Research Question 2 ........................................................................................ 89 Research Question 3 ........................................................................................ 89 Research Question 4 ........................................................................................ 92

Recommendations for Further Study ...................................................................... 94 Implications for Higher Education Administrators ................................................... 97 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 97

APPENDIX

A CLUSTER DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................. 100

B DATA FOR THE REGISTRAR SUBCATEGORY ................................................. 104

C DATA FOR THE DOCTORAL GRANTING SUBCATEGORY .............................. 116

E DATA FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL SIZE SUBCATEGORY .................................. 128

F DATA FOR THE GENDER SUBCATEGORY ....................................................... 140

G BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ...................................................................... 152

H LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES ................................................................................ 154

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 158

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 165

7

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 2-1 Leadership gap/deficit summary ......................................................................... 51

3-1 Single dimension & comp validities Saville Consulting WAVE© Assessment, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 64

3-2 Reliability summary Saville Consulting WAVE© Assessment, 2009 ................... 65

3-3 WAVE attribute links in other research ............................................................... 67

4-1 Mean, standard deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis of the aggregate population ........................................................................................................... 70

4-2 Kolmogorov-Smirnova and Shapiro-Wilk: aggregate population ....................... 70

4-3 Mean scores and standard deviations for the registrar and non-registrar groups (0=non-registrar; 1=registrar) .................................................................. 72

4-4 Summary ANOVA for the registrar and non-registrar groups for each of the four constructs .................................................................................................... 73

4-5 Mean scores and standard deviations for the doctoral and non-doctoral granting institution groups (0=non-doctoral granting; 1=doctoral granting) ......... 76

4-6 Summary ANOVA for the doctoral granting and non-doctoral granting groups for each of the four constructs ............................................................................ 76

4-7 Mean scores and standard deviations by institutional size (0=less than 10,000 enrollments; 1=10,000 or more enrollments) .......................................... 79

4-8 Summary ANOVA by institutional size for each of the four constructs ............... 80

4-9 Mean scores and standard deviations by gender (0=male, 1=female) ............... 82

4-10 Summary ANOVA by gender for each of the four constructs ............................. 83

4-11 Hypotheses Summary ........................................................................................ 85

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page 1-1 Population summary of enrollment management positions (HEP) ...................... 19

3-1 Theoretical structure of Saville WAVE Assessment, 2009 ................................. 66

3-2 Cluster section chart ........................................................................................... 66

4-1 Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for both registrar and other enrollment manager line graph ........................................................................... 72

4-2 Hypothesis test summary for registrar group ...................................................... 73

4-3 Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for both doctoral granting and non-doctoral granting institutions line graph ................................................ 75

4-4 Hypothesis test summary for doctoral granting group ........................................ 77

4-5 Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for institutions with enrollment of 10,000 or more and institutions with enrollments of less than 10,000 line graph ................................................................................................ 79

4-6 Hypothesis test summary for institutional size group .......................................... 80

4-7 Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for both females and males line graph ............................................................................................................ 82

4-8 Hypothesis test summary for gender group ........................................................ 83

A-1 The thought cluster, sections, and dimensions ................................................. 100

A-2 The influence cluster, sections, and dimensions .............................................. 101

A-3 The adaptability cluster, sections, and dimensions ........................................... 102

A-4 The delivery cluster, sections, and dimensions ................................................ 103

9

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES OF ENROLLMENT MANAGERS IN HIGHER

EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

By

Kristy Robertson Presswood

May 2011

Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration

Literature documents the ever growing need for new leaders with newly defined

leadership skills in nearly every industry. Corporate and higher education leaders must

be prepared to adapt to the changing workforce and to address the leadership skills

gaps that exist. Identifying the leadership attributes necessary for each position within

an organization will be important as organizations struggle to meet the demand of a

dwindling trained leadership base. Leadership demands in higher education are being

created in academic affairs, student affairs and business affairs due to a domino effect

of vacancies being filled. One purpose of this report was to identify the leadership

attributes for enrollment managers in higher education institutions and to help build a

basis for future research on the development of a leadership training program.

This study built upon previous research to draw stronger conclusions regarding the

leadership attributes of enrollment managers. Enrollment management leaders who do

not hold the position of registrar exhibited stronger communication skills and ability to

impact decision making than their registrar colleagues, while enrollment management

leaders from doctoral granting institutions exhibited more vision than their counterparts

from non-doctoral granting institutions. These factors are small in comparison to the full

10

array of leadership attributes reviewed. Registrar/enrollment managers, overall, do not

differ in their leadership attributes when compared by institution type, institutional size,

position and gender. The findings support the leadership attributes identified by the

American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) as

necessary job qualities for the future enrollment manager/registrar. This further

supports the need for future studies examining the need for leadership development

within the area of enrollment management. Senior student affairs officer positions are

typically filled from within the institution and the current non-registrar enrollment

manager, having the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position,

may likely be promoted to this position and will create the domino effect for leadership in

their current role (Amey, 2002; Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2006).

Results from this research study provide a base framework for future studies on

leadership attributes of mid-level higher education administrators and can be used to

support leadership selection and development initiatives for future enrollment managers

as the domino effect from turnover begins to unravel. Discovering what leadership

attributes are needed to be successful will assist in determining the best candidate.

11

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

This chapter will introduce the issues that contribute to the increased demand for

leaders in key higher education positions, where the vacancies are expected to have

the greatest impact, the importance of leadership training and the need for succession

planning. In addition, it will address questions related to individual and institutional

similarities. The chapter will define the research problem and will describe the purpose

and significance of the study. Finally, the chapter will conclude with the overall

organization of the study.

Statement of the Problem

The changing demographics of today’s workforce is impacting the numbers of

qualified leaders and changing the skills necessary for leaders to succeed (Jackson,

2010; Bruck, 2010; Weinstein, 2010). The American Association of Retired Persons

(AARP) reports that the unemployment rate for individuals aged fifty-five or older

declined from October 2010 to January 2011 and that almost half of the employees

between the ages of 45-70 plan to work into their seventies due to the current economic

environment (Jackson, 2010; Flecke, 2011). According to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, the numbers of individuals employed in non-seasonal positions forty-five

years of age or older in the fourth quarter of 2010 was 61,408 or 44% of the employed

population. In the fourth quarter of 1996, however, the number of employed individuals

meeting the same criteria was 59,907 or 41% of the employed population (Appendix F).

The overall workforce, due to the economic crisis, is declining, but the numbers indicate

that those forty-five or older represent nearly half of the workforce in the United States.

12

In the next few years, unprecedented numbers of employees will retire and take with

them a wealth of knowledge and history (Jackson, 2010).

Additionally, the leadership traits necessary for future leaders is changing. The

Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and AARP have identified the issue

of filling the retirement void not as one of too few people, but of too few skilled people

(Jackson, 2010). The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) conducted a survey in

2009 in response to growing concern that organizations are reporting talent deficiencies

within their employment base (Leslie, 2009). CCL identified the seven leadership skills

viewed as important for future leaders as leading employees, strategic planning,

inspiring commitment, managing change, resourcefulness, being a quick learner, and

doing whatever it takes (Leslie, 2009). They went on to note that leaders lack the skills

they need to be effective and that ‘resourcefulness’ , defined as working effectively with

top management, was the only skill that was found to be a top ten current skill and a top

ten needed skill. When comparing this attribute with those in the Saville WAVE

instrument, it most closely correlates with the cluster to thought (Figure A-1). CCL

refers to this leadership skills disparity as a leadership deficit (Leslie, 2009).

Leaders in higher education are also feeling the impact of an aging workforce in

positions at every level. Charles Shults (2001) conducted research for the American

Association of Community Colleges that found that retirements of top level

administrators in community colleges posed a critical problem for the leadership of the

future. Additionally, a follow-up study conducted in 2005 revealed that a domino effect

of presidential vacancies was creating leadership gaps in key administrative positions of

institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars, directors of financial

13

aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors of human resources

(Campbell, 2006). In 2007, the American Council on Education (ACE) released the

latest version of the American College President Study. According to this study, the

average age of president’s grew from fifty-two in the 1986 study to sixty-one in the 2007

study. Additionally, the percentage of president’s over the age of sixty-one grew from

fourteen percent in 1986 to forty-nine percent in 2007 (ACE, 2007).

Impending retirements of administrative/professionals in higher education

continues to impact the need for additional training and leadership preparation. In 2006,

the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers (AACRAO),

the National Council for Student Development (NCSD) and the Council for Resource

Development (CRD) joined in a FuturesLeaders Administrative Work Profiling Session.

During this session, they restated the growing need for effectively trained administrators

and identified the registrar position within enrollment management as the one key

position whose nature of work had changed the most dramatically. The registrar

position had evolved from one of legal implementation of student policies and student

privacy to one providing strategic planning and decision making. The participants in the

work profiling session agreed that the registrar position should be re-titled as

dean/director of enrollment management and registrar (FuturesLeaders-ATG Work

Profiling, 2006).

The participants of the FuturesLeaders Administrative Work Profiling Session

expressed concern regarding the lack of a structured career path for individuals serving

in the position of registrar. The dean/director of enrollment management and registrar

position should serve as a natural succession to fill the senior student affairs vacancy.

14

Student affairs officers are typically promoted from within the same college and tend to

remain at the same institution for more than ten years (Amey, 2002). As the number of

senior student affairs positions become vacant, it is critical that the candidates ready to

move into these positions are trained and well prepared. Additionally, it is imperative

that the successors to those being promoted are duly prepared for their new roles. The

registrar/enrollment managers of today will need to ensure they appropriately train and

transfer knowledge to their successors.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if enrollment managers from differing

institutions, holding different positions within enrollment management had common

leadership attributes. The study built upon the previous research of Kachik (2003),

Campbell (2006), Basham (2007), Tunks (2007), Berry (2008) and O’Daniels (2009) in

identifying leadership attributes of college leaders and in determining the strength of

leadership development and effective job selection.

As noted earlier, the next positions that are to be in the most demand and in a

critical shortage are institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars,

directors of financial aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors

of human resources. This study focused specifically on the growing need for registrars

and directors of admissions. Registrars rank among the highest of the top positions in

which the turnover will occur (Campbell, 2006). As stated earlier, most individuals have

a career path that is closely aligned to a chosen education track, but there is not an

educational degree for registrar or admissions directors. In a 2002 study, fifty-three

percent of senior college administrators held only a master’s degree. An additional

thirty-eight percent had earned a doctorate degree. Of those, the majority of the senior

15

respondents with doctoral degrees were either presidents or chief academic officers

(Amey, 2002). Selecting the right person for the job is of utmost importance in today’s

demanding environment. Selecting an individual for a career that does not have an

education path can be even more difficult.

Discovering what leadership attributes are needed by the successful enrollment

manager candidate will assist in determining the best candidate. Leadership attributes

reviewed in this study are presented in Appendix G. Although the attributes of each

study were not exact matches, the researcher created cross-walk correlations between

each study’s indicators and descriptions and matched them to the leadership attributes

used in the research instrument (Appendix G). The non-profit sector began

experiencing a leadership gap in 2006 and commissioned the Bridgespan Report in

response. Although the report does not indicate specific leadership attributes desired

for future non-profit leader’s, Spillett does list key descriptors that would make the new

leader successful (Spillett, 2006). These descriptors have been matched to the

leadership attributes defined in this study for further examination. Kachik’s 2003 study

compared the leadership attributes of corporate leaders to community college

administrators utilizing the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) as the

research instrument. She identified variances in the leadership attributes of corporate

leaders in comparison to community college administrator’s based on their gender.

Research regarding gender and leadership attributes was also conducted on a group of

community college administrators from the United States (O’Daniels, 2009). This study

will build upon this research of defining leadership attributes and analyzing data to

16

determine if leadership attributes are different for female registrars as compared to male

registrars.

A study describing the leadership attributes of community college presidents in

1997 found that the leadership attributes of the current community college president

was very similar to those attributes envisioned for the 21st century community college

president (Campbell and Leverty, 1997). This study also used the OPQ as its research.

Building upon the findings from the community college president’s study, additional

research has been conducted examining cohorts of higher education doctoral students,

chief business officers, national council for continuing education and training members,

and other community college administrators or board members (Tunks, 2007; Basham,

2007; Berry, 2008; O’Daniels, 2009).

This study built upon the previous research conducted on leadership attributes in

the business sector, non-profit sector and in higher education and will continue the trend

of further examination of leadership attributes in higher education to the mid-level

managers. Specifically, the overall leadership attributes of enrollment managers in

higher education institutions within the United States. This study helped to identify the

traits necessary for the new work profile of a successful registrar and may help to drive

trainings targeted at preparing future registrars for the position. Research on the

importance of leadership development and succession planning will also be extended

through this study. Results from this research study will provide a base framework for

future studies on leadership attributes of mid-level higher education administrators.

This study examined the leadership attributes of successful future enrollment

management administrators by examining the following: if leadership attributes of

17

administrators differ by type of institution; if leadership traits of administrators differ by

size of institution; and if leadership traits of administrators differ by gender. In addition,

it is hoped that trainings could be developed to help better prepare and equip new

candidates for these career opportunities.

Research Questions

This study will provide some insight into the attributes most desired in quality

candidates. Specifically, the researcher will address the following questions:

1) Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals?

2) Is there a significant relationship between type of institution as defined by doctoral granting versus non-doctoral granting and leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions?

3) Is there a significant relationship between size of institution and the leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions?

4) Is there a significant relationship between the leadership attributes for males versus females for individuals in enrollment management positions?

Significance of the Study

The changing/aging workforce is creating a need for a new set of highly skilled

leaders. While the cost is significant, the need for making the right choice with senior

hires is more important than ever. The cost of making the wrong selection could cost

colleges millions (Campbell & Associates, 2002). Technology advancements have also

significantly impacted the workforce. The methods of knowledge exchange and

information sharing are constantly changing and evolving (GCN, 2011). Technology

has moved beyond local data storage to global network transparency. Companies must

be prepared to adapt their security training and employee development to the emerging

services that are making their way into enterprise (GCN, 2011).

18

Due to these changes, the leadership attributes new leaders should have need to

be defined. Studies have been conducted by the Society of Human Resource

Management (SHRM), Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), Boston Consulting Group

and American Management Association (AMA) to address the changing workforce

demographics of the aging society and the technological advancements (Leslie, 2009;

BNA, 2010; Jackson, 2010; Minter, 2010). These studies indicate leadership skills gaps

exist in nearly every industry and offer guidance on how industries should begin to

address these gaps. This study provided baseline data on specific higher education

positions that can help aid in the development of leadership training programs,

succession planning and can augment the hiring processes. Many higher education

positions are specialized administrative roles with no clear career paths (Campbell,

2006). The results of this data, combined with previous research may help to better

define career paths within institutions.

This study built upon the previous research of Kachik (2003), Campbell (2006),

Basham (2007), Tunks (2007), Berry (2008) and O’Daniels (2009) in identifying

leadership attributes of college leaders and in determining the strength of leadership

development and effective job selection. This study continued the trend of further

examination of leadership attributes in higher education to the mid-level manager.

Specifically, the overall leadership attributes of enrollment managers in higher education

institutions within the United States.

Definition of Terms

The Higher Education Publication directory (HEP) defines the responsibilities of

the registrar as student registration, scheduling of classes, examinations and classroom

facilities, student records and related matters. The admissions director responsibilities

19

are described as recruitment, selection and admission of students; while the enrollment

manager responsibilities include planning, developing and implementing strategies to

sustain enrollment; supervision of admissions and financial aid operations (HEP, 2010).

For the purposes of this study, registrar refers to a person whose duties include the

areas of college records, registration and student services. Individual respondents in

this study who did not indicate their position as registrar will be identified as other

positions within enrollment management. These positions would include directors of

admission, directors of enrollment management or directors of associations whose

interests involve enrollment management. Figure 1-1 displays information provided by

the Higher Education Publications website (HEP, 2010) on the numbers of registrars,

directors of admission and directors of enrollment management working in higher

education institutions in the United States by institutional size and institution type

(doctoral granting versus non-doctoral granting).

Figure 1-1. Population summary of enrollment management positions (HEP)

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500500055006000

443

2526

684

2285430

2370

660

2140

331

1214

424

1120

Director of Enrollment Management

Director of Admission

Registrar

20

Doctoral granting institutions are those identified as offering a doctorate degree

or a specialist degree as the highest degree conferred. Those identified as non-doctoral

granting institutions are those institutions identified as conferring any degree other than

a doctorate or a specialist degree.

Small colleges are those institutions identified with enrollments of less than five

thousand. Moderate colleges are those institutions identified with enrollments of

between five thousand and ten thousand. Medium colleges are those institutions

identified with enrollments of between ten thousand and twenty thousand. Lastly, large

institutions are those identified with enrollments of greater than twenty thousand. For

the purposes of this study, the institutions have been categorized into small/moderate

sized institutions and medium/large sized institutions. The enrollment benchmarks for

size are in relation to the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions

Officers (AACRAO) membership dues schedule.

The WAVE refers to the personality test and correlating reports, the Executive

Summary, the Psychometric Profile, the Entrepreneurial Potential Summary, and the

Entrepreneurial Profile, developed by Saville Holdings, Ltd.

Thought Construct refers to the cluster of thought within the Saville WAVE

profile. This cluster contains the sections of vision, judgment and evaluation.

Respondents scoring high in the cluster of thought may be considered inventive,

abstract thinkers with the ability to develop effective strategies, the concepts within the

vision section. They may also be quick learners who are able to identify the core of a

problem and enjoy practical work, the concepts within the judgment section. Lastly,

respondents scoring high in the cluster of thought may enjoy solving problems, are

21

strong communicators and are comfortable working with numerical data, the concepts

within the section of evaluation.

Influence Construct refers to the cluster of influence within the Saville WAVE

profile. The cluster contains the sections of leadership, impact and communication.

Respondents scoring high in the cluster of influence are comfortable making quick

decisions, want to take the lead and attach importance to their ability to motivate others,

the concepts within the section of leadership. They are also eager to bring others to

their point of view, frequently change other’s ideas and enjoy giving presentations, the

concepts within the section of impact. Lastly, respondents scoring high on the cluster of

influence want others to know about their successes, attach a high degree of

importance to networking and are quick to establish rapport with people, the concepts

within the section of communication.

Adaptability Construct refers to the cluster of adaptability within the Saville WAVE

profile. The cluster contains the sections of support, resilience and flexibility.

Respondents scoring high in the cluster of adaptability believe they work well on a team,

understand how others feel and are very tolerant of people, the concepts within the

section of support. They are also quick to resolve disagreements, are self-confident

and are calm under pressure, the concepts within the section of resilience. Lastly,

respondents scoring high on the cluster of adaptability respond well to feedback, are

optimistic and enjoy new challenges, the concepts within the section of flexibility.

Delivery Cluster refers to the cluster of delivery within the Saville WAVE profile.

The cluster contains the sections of structure, drive and implementation. Respondents

scoring high in the cluster of delivery are well organized, are concerned with ethical

22

matters and work at a fast pace, the concepts within the section of structure. They also

consider themselves to be very energetic, ambitious and highly competitive, the

concepts within the section of drive. Lastly, respondents scoring high on the construct

of delivery regard may regard themselves as perfectionists, are conscientious about

meeting deadlines and need to have rules and adhere strictly to them, concepts within

the section of implementation.

Leadership attributes for the purpose of this study refers to concepts defining

effective leaders. The attributes examined are relative to the constructs of thought,

influence, adaptability and delivery as defined above. Additionally, Appendix G displays

how these attributes relate to the attributes defined in other research.

Limitations

Data collected at the 2006 AACRAO State and Regional Leadership Workshop

represents a small group of national enrollment management leaders and therefore

does not represent all enrollment managers at every type of institution.

This study included respondents at institutions within the United States and may

not be generalized for other international institutions. The respondents of this study did

not state their ages for study review based on generational differences.

The respondents are volunteers and are expected to have provided honest

answers to their own leadership style. Due to the nature of the response, some bias

may be present. Additionally, the instrument is computer based and is administered in

an unsupervised environment. Assumptions have been made that the respondents

concentrated on the instrument during the administration of the test.

23

Summary

This first chapter has provided an introduction to the importance of leadership

development and succession planning in an ever changing workforce demographic. A

comprehensive review of literature pertinent to this study is presented in Chapter 2.

The research methodology of the study is described in Chapter 3, which includes the

study population, the definition of terms, the data collection, the instrumentation and the

methods of analyzing the data. In Chapter 4, the results of the data analyses are

presented. The study is completed in Chapter 5 with a summary including a set of

conclusions, recommendations for future study and implications in higher education.

24

CHAPTER 2 A CONTEXT FOR INQUIRY

This chapter presents a literature review of leadership attributes, leadership

development and succession planning in businesses and higher education. Results

from this research study will provide a base framework for future studies on leadership

attributes of mid-level higher education administrators. This chapters is divided into five

sections: (a) statement of problem, (b) changing workforce, (c) leadership, (d) talent

management, and (e) role of the registrar. The chapter will conclude with a summary

linking these areas together to set a research rationale for the present study.

The Problem

Selecting the right person for the job is of utmost importance in today’s demanding

environment. Selecting an individual for a career that does not have an education path

can be even more difficult. Businesses are facing a changing workforce demographic

that is creating a leadership skills gap (Smith, 2010). The changing workforce and the

impact of technological advances on daily business activities are creating a ‘current

leadership crisis’ (Smith, 2010). According to a study conducted by Campbell in 2006

higher education is not immune to this crisis. The next positions that are to be in the

most demand and in a critical shortage for higher education are institutional

researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars, directors of financial aid,

directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors of human resources.

Supporting the findings of the CCL study (2009), a group of community college

presidents stated in a FuturesLeaders Administrative Work Profiling session in 2006,

that even though they were satisfied with the job performance of their current registrar,

they would not rehire that individual if the position were to become vacated

25

(FuturesLeaders-ATG, 2006). They determined that the current registrar skills do not

match the skills needed for the future registrar/enrollment manager. The need for a

better equipped leader combined with the impending shortages has colleges concerned

about their future leadership.

This study focused on the role of the registrar as one of the highest demand

positions. The registrar position was traditionally the policy interpreter and enforcer for

a college. This individual would implement the procedures for which policies would be

adhered to and disseminate the information appropriately. Strong logic and

communication skills were critical in this role (Stewart & Wright, 1997). As enrollment

growth has expanded, so has the role of the registrar. Many registrar positions today

also hold responsibilities in enrollment management. These individuals remain

responsible for the policy implementation, but they are also involved in the development

and decision making of the policies. They now must interpret entering student trends

and the technological needs for their staff in order to continue to provide effective

services. Today’s registrar must have strong logic and communication skills, but may

also need numeric reasoning and complex decision making skills (FuturesLeaders-ATG

Work Profiling, 2006). The leadership attributes for this position have clearly evolved,

however, these new traits may not be the same for all types of colleges.

Changing Workforce

Aging Workforce

Marie Von Ebner-Eschenbach said: "in youth we learn; in age we understand”.

This statement holds the key to the fear many business leaders have regarding an

aging workforce (Jackson, 2010). Baby boomers, individuals born between 1946 and

1964, currently represent nearly one-half of the workforce in the United States (Arnone,

26

2006). “There are 76 million boomers and they are turning 65 at the rate of one every

eight seconds” (Minter, 2010). In 2006, approximately 36 million people were 65 years

or older. By 2030, that number will represent nearly 20% of the population or one in

every five Americans (Arnone, 2006).

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) reports that almost half of

the employees between the ages of 45-70 will work into their seventies due to the

current economic environment (Jackson, 2010). Jackson feels this will lessen the talent

gap for many companies who have not begun to prepare for the mass exodus of

knowledge. However, others feel that the delay may only prove to “magnify the ill effect

when it comes to fruition” (Bruck, 2010). As noted earlier, unprecedented numbers of

employees will retire and take with them a wealth of knowledge and history in the next

five years (Jackson, 2010).

In addition to the rapid pace in which individuals will be leaving the workforce, the

decline of well prepared new workers is creating a leadership skills gap. The Center for

Creative Leadership (CCL) conducted a study of more than 2,200 from companies all

over the world (Leslie, 2009). This study revealed the seven competencies for success

as “leading people, strategic planning, managing change, inspiring commitment,

resourcefulness, the ability to do whatever it takes and the quality of being a quick

learner” (Weinstein, 2010). The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)

and AARP are working together to promote awareness of the aging workforce. They

identify the issue of filling the retirement void not as one of too few people, but of too

few skilled people (Jackson, 2010). The entering workforce is fewer in number than the

baby boomers exiting and they lack the skills employer’s require (Jackson, 2010). CCL

27

refers to the gap between the skills needed and the current skill level as “the current

leadership crisis” (Smith, 2010).

In 2007, the American Council on Education (ACE) released the latest version of

the American College President Study. According to this study, the average age of

president’s grew from fifty-two in the 1986 study to sixty-one in the 2007 study.

Additionally, the percentage of president’s over the age of sixty-one grew from fourteen

percent in 1986 to forty-nine percent in 2007 (ACE, 2007). These impending

retirements are paving the way for current administrators to take on the presidential

roles (Campbell & Kachik, 2002). A follow-up study conducted in 2005 revealed that a

domino effect of presidential vacancies was creating leadership gaps in key

administrative positions of institutional researchers, directors of learning resources,

registrars, directors of financial aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and

directors of human resources (Campbell, 2006).

Generational Differences

Generational differences are also leading towards a change in the workforce

dynamic. Today’s organizations include four different generations with varying ideas of

job desires and expectations (Jackson, 2010). Although the date ranges for each of

these generational classifications are reported differently, the four categories in the

workforce are the Traditionalists, the Boomers, the Xers and the Millennials (Clare,

2009). The Traditionalists (1922-1945) and many of the Boomers (1946-1963) are

typically the current leaders within the organization and are retiring or nearing retirement

age. They hold a great deal of organizational knowledge and the importance of

organizations to ignite the knowledge transfer is evident.

28

The Xers (1964-1976) are the next in line to receive the leadership positions, but

are they prepared? These individuals were raised using technology, are able to multi-

task and are self-reliant (Simons, 2010). These leaders will value a casual, friendly

work environment with flexibility and freedom. These leaders will need to be prepared

to mentor the next generation of leaders, the millennials (Simons, 2010).

The Millennials (1977-1998) are much more social than their predecessors. They

care about much more than money and enjoy balance between their work and social

lives (Fallon, 2009). This new population of employee was raised with continual

communication, made to feel special, were provided instant gratification and are

extremely competitive (Fallon, 2009; Clare, 2009; Tyler, 2007). Technology has

afforded them the opportunity to never be truly alone and this has hindered their

decision making ability (Tyler, 2007). Unlike the Xers, the millennial employees value

interactive relationships and consider their family as friends (Smith, 2010). The

‘helicopter parent’ of the millennial employee has transitioned from the college campus

to the workplace. They seek advice and input from their parents on even the smallest

decisions (Tyler, 2007).

The Traditionalists and the Boomers desired independence and have difficulty

understanding the need for parental connectivity the Millennials desire (Tyler, 2007).

The Xers also struggle with this concept as they were raised as latch-key kids and are

closer to their friends than their family (Smith, 2010). The Xers will need to mentor the

Millennials in a structured, supportive work environment with personalized work (Smith,

2010). In addition to the change in mentoring style, feedback is important to the

Millennial. Employers who provide regular feedback on their progress will find more

29

success in the Millennial employees and will provide them with more job satisfaction,

even more than a pay raise would provide (Fallon, 2010).

Identifying the reasons why each generation chooses to stay and work in certain

positions can help bridge the communication gaps. “Understanding the needs and traits

of each will be critical if we are to engage and motivate these employees and empower

them to strengthen the corporate culture” (Jackson, 2010). Mentoring is a common

theme among writers discussing the growth of the Millennial employee (Clare, 2009;

Fallon, 2010; Buchanan, 2010). Mentoring can also help with the knowledge transfer

that will need to occur as the Traditionalists and Boomers leave the workforce. “The

future of succession planning may well include a move from meeting promotion needs

to meeting knowledge transfer needs” (Rothwell, 2010).

Impact of Technological Advances

Technological advances are also changing the look of the workforce and

consumer expectations. In his opening statements to the House Science and

Technology Committee in April 2009, Bart Gordon stated that “information technology is

a major driver of economic growth and that advances in the field have the potential to

dramatically influence all aspects of our lives from manufacturing and healthcare to

education and entertainment” (Gordon, 2009). Businesses are changing the way they

conduct everyday activities because of these advances. A company with 20 to 49

employees will spend an average of $88,000 a year on technology if they want to stay

up to date with the latest advances (Hall, 2000). Technology life spans are short and

companies willing to keep current with the latest trends need to develop technology

plans that are compatible with their employees and their customers (Hall, 2000). The

healthcare industry discovered the impact of technology on their industry when George

30

W. Bush worked with the 109th Congress to debate whether to improve the quality and

efficiency of care (Braller, 2010). The health IT industry became united at creating the

necessary tools. These tools are now being challenged by President Obama and the

111th Congress to drive the changes in health care spending and policy (Braller, 2010).

These technological changes have impacted how everyone within the healthcare

industry conducts daily business. Technology has impacted every aspect of business

operations. Even the recruitment of new employees has been changed by technology.

In 2011, UBM Studios Unicruit offered a virtual career fair for bringing college students,

alumni and employers together in an online platform for career exploration

opportunities. Some of the companies participating in the virtual career fair included:

Intel, ABC Supply, Secret Service, Department of Treasury, Vanguard, IBM, Amazon,

GEICO and Walgreens (Closeup Media, 2011).

In 1997, social networking was at its infancy with the introduction of web

communities like classmates.com and sixdegrees.com. Social networks are defined as

"web-based services that allow individuals to (a) construct a public or semi-public profile

within a bounded system, (b) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a

connection, and (c) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others

within the system" (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). From 2002-2004, however, social networking

blossomed with the creation of Friendster.com, Linkedin, MySpace and the most

popular, Facebook. The creation of these sites and the technological evolution that they

have spawned has created a change in the way students view education. It is

interesting that the phenomenon that educators are now embracing to enhance student

engagement actually began on a campus. Facebook, with more than 150 million users,

31

was originally launched as a student project on the Harvard campus and remained

campus-based for its first two years (Nickson, 2009).

In addition to the plethora of social networking sites, there are also hundreds of

mediums in which to view them. Darla Jackson has stated that 2010 was the “Year of

the iPad”. Recent technological advancements and products introduced include the

Sony Reader, Amazon’s e-reader, the Kindle, and Apple’s iPad (Jackson, 2010).

Technology is changing how our students learn and how our employees work. This

change is also impacting how leaders must lead the new technologically acute

employee (Fallon, 2009).

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) conducted a study in 2007 on

undergraduate students and information technology. The study found that the students

owned more technology than the students in the previous two studies. Additionally, the

student’s usage patterns of these technologies had changed (Borreson & Salaway,

2007). More than eighty percent of the respondents in the study were engaged in social

networking (Borreson & Salaway, 2007). These technologies allow students to have

access to information wherever they are and is changing the face of education.

Technology has begun to change the look of colleges and the roles of registrars.

The new generation of student is more technically adept than their predecessors.

During the first major role change for registrars, in the 1970s, mainframe computers

were the budding technology. Mainframe systems were internally controlled and

allowed for internal efficiencies and effective data collection (Stewart & Wright, 1997).

As described earlier, data is everywhere and regulating and monitoring its access is

becoming increasingly more difficult.

32

Technology plays a crucial role in the job responsibilities of a registrar. Simply, the

registrar is the keeper of student data and the gatekeeper to accessing this information.

“Rapidly changing technology makes it challenging to keep abreast of the privacy,

security, and management of information and identities” (McConahay, West, Hanson &

Woodbeck, 2009). A registrar must understand how a student will want to receive

information and then communicate that need to the technological staff who can deliver

the product.

Leadership

Leadership is a word that is often used to describe the characteristics of the top

managers, however, it is the application of these characteristics that exhibits the true

meaning. Literature contains many examples of leadership characteristics. The seven

attributes essential to leadership, according to Bennis, are “technical competence,

conceptual skills, track record, people skills, taste, judgment and character” (Bennis,

1989). Furthermore, he describes the three characteristics most prevalent in leaders

are drive, competence and integrity. Morley and Eadie observed that leadership is not

well defined and is more of an art than a science (Morley & Eadie, 2001). So what

makes an effective leader? Identifying the crucial leadership attributes for a given job

helps make this determination.

Leadership attributes differ in their definition, description and in their importance in

the position they are needed. Stogill’s research in 1948 compared the common traits

and skills shared between leaders and experts (Stogill, 1948, 1974 (as cited in

Germaine, 2008). The common skills and traits were identified as ambitious, able to

judge/assess, outgoing, self-confident/self-assured, knowledge, problem-solving skills,

intuitive, able to deduce, able to improve, charisma and drive (Germaine, 2008). These

33

skills identified in 1948 closely mirror the skills described as needed for today’s

businesses in the 2009 study by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). The skills

described by CCL as necessary for the future business leaders are leading people,

strategic planning, inspiring commitment, managing change, resourcefulness,

participative management, being a quick learner, employee development, doing

whatever it takes and balancing personal life and work (Leslie, 2009). These

competencies compliment the emergent themes of leadership competencies identified

by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). These themes are

organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, advocacy

and professionalism (Campbell, Syed and Morris, 2010).

The key leadership attributes of the new non-profit leader, however, differ

somewhat in their trait descriptions. These attributes are described as future focused,

passionate communication, relationship building, accountability, organizational skills

and team building (Spillett, 2006). The differences between the leadership attribute

description of the corporate leader and that of the non-profit leader may be key to the

job expectations. Research indicates that position plays a role in determining what

leadership attributes are important for a given position (Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Campbell

& Leverty, 2007; Berry, 2008; O’Daniels, 2009). Determining how closely the higher

education leaders mirror the business leader or the non-profit leader can help to

determine their most effective leadership attributes.

A study of college of union director’s found that these leaders were

transformational leaders and exhibited leadership attributes of influence and motivation

(Mironack, 2003). A study describing the leadership attributes of community college

34

presidents in 1997 found that the leadership attributes of the current community college

president was very similar to those attributes envisioned for the 21st century community

college president (Campbell and Leverty, 1997). In a 2008 study of community college

business officers and workforce development officers and national continuing education

trainers, Berry found that each group had distinct work styles from one another and that

developing a program for identifying the job attributes was beneficial (Berry, 2008). The

leadership attributes of the community college presidents and those of the chief

business officers share some similarities, but are not a perfect match as the job

requirements call for differing leadership attributes.

The skills needed to be an effective student affairs’ administrator were reviewed by

Lovell and Kosten (2000) and it was found that there are skills, knowledge bases and

personal traits that help define the role. Specifically, the knowledge of student

development theory and functional area responsibilities and the personal traits of

integrity and cooperation are necessary to a successful student affairs officer (Lovell &

Kosten, 2000). The traditional effective student affairs practitioner is “a strong

communicator and good listener who can motivate others, plan, implement and deal

with conflict and crisis situations” (Kleinglass, 2005). Student affairs leader qualities are

often associated with student feelings (Lovell & Kosten, 2000).

As leaders they, “influence the thoughts, behaviors, and/or feelings of others”

(Gardner & Larkin, 1996). “Leadership is any attempt to influence the behavior of

another individual or group” (Hershey & Blanchard, 2007). Leadership is a “shared,

interactive, culturally framed activity” (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). These qualities

35

match those identified by Lovell and Kosten for the student affairs administrator in that

they exhibit integrity and cooperation (Lovell & Kosten, 2000).

The registrar position can be defined as a mid-level administrative position in

higher education. The Higher Education Publication directory (HEP) defines the

responsibilities of the registrar as student registration, scheduling of classes,

examinations and classroom facilities, student records and related matters. The

admissions director responsibilities are described as recruitment, selection and

admission of students; while the enrollment manager responsibilities include planning,

developing and implementing strategies to sustain enrollment; supervision of

admissions and financial aid operations (HEP, 2010). Comparing the leadership

attributes of individuals within these positions will help to build careers paths and

leadership training opportunities. The American Association of Collegiate Registrar and

Admissions Officers (AACRAO) worked with the FuturesLeaders-ATG group to define

the important attributes for the new registrar/enrollment manager as strong

communication, numeric reasoning and logic (FuturesLeaders-ATG Work Profiling,

2006). The changing workforce demographics and the innovation of technology are

redefining the job responsibilities of many positions in every industry. The new

responsibilities these changes are placing on the new registrar/enrollment manager can

impact the success of the institution. As a component of the person specific review and

job description development for the new registrar/enrollment manager, the objective to

“champion technology and utilize it to project trends appropriately, maintaining student

privacy as required” was described as a necessary attribute. Additionally, three of the

36

nine stated job objectives dealt directly with the use, collection and dissemination of

data (FuturesLeaders-ATG Work Profiling, 2006).

Gender in Leadership

Literature supports the theory that leadership attributes between males and

females differ, however, they are not in agreement as to what the strongest leadership

attributes are for women (Powell, 1988). In a 1995 study by Gibson, found that many

leadership behaviors and styles did not vary across gender. (Gibson, 1995 (as cited in

Kachik, 2003). However, Balkis and Isiker indicate that gender differences do exist

between males and females in terms of thinking styles (Balkis and Isiker, 2005 (as cited

in O’Daniels, 2009).

Kachik’s 2003 study specifically focused on gender as a variable in the

relationships between personality testing and the managerial environment. The study

was comprised of male and female leaders from community college administration and

private sector business. The study concluded that there were differences in the

characteristics males and females, however, they were not as prevalent in every

construct. The detail conscious attribute showed to be the most significant with females

being more precise and accurate than their male counterparts. The greatest

significance was found between male community college administrators and female

corporate leaders (Kachik, 2003). The study also compared the leadership attributes of

female corporate leaders with those of female community college leaders and found

that female community college leaders are more detail conscious and that the

leadership attributes of the female corporate leader was more comparable to those of

the male community college administrator. Further research on gender leadership

attributes by O’Daniels found that females were more principled and striving than their

37

male counterparts in that they are more discreet in work situations and are ambitious

(O’Daniels, 2009).

Talent Management

Businesses have concentrated on talent management for years. More than just

human resource management, talent management includes, “workforce planning, talent

gap analysis, recruiting, staffing, education and development, retention, talent reviews,

succession planning, and evaluation (McCauley & Wakefield, 2006). Identifying the

employees who have the aspiration and engagement to succeed in leadership roles will

be the key to the future success of businesses (Minter, 2010). Talent management will

be the most important aspect for human resource divisions in this growing environment.

“Leading-edge companies are increasingly adopting sophisticated methods of

analyzing employee data to enhance their competitive advantage” (Davenport, Harris &

Shapiro, 2010). Companies such as Google, P&G, Royal Bank of Scotland and Intel

have all established analytics groups to gather more insight into their people practices.

In 2009, Harrah’s Entertainment used organizational psychologists to create predictive

assessments for candidates in an external sales force. The results of the hiring from

these assessments helped reverse a decline in sales (Davenport, Harris & Shapiro,

2010).

Generational factors and job desire match is another component to talent

management that is allowing companies to begin to revamp their industries. As

mentioned earlier, the Millennial employee values giving back (Fallon, 2009). An

employer who can recognize this trait could allow employees to modify their work

schedules in order for them to become engaged within a particular cause. These types

of changes could enhance employee engagement and employee satisfaction for

38

business. Absenteeism and turnover rates go down, while employee satisfaction

improves when employees are given the opportunity to negotiate their work schedules

with others (Bruck, 2010). Additionally, the ability to create a flexible work schedule is

appealing to the older employee who may be interested in continuing to work, but are

not interested in maintaining the long hours (Jackson, 2010). This could be helpful in

slowing the leadership exodus and allowing for more time for knowledge transfer.

Leadership Development

Turnover has been a focus of the leadership development discussion for the past

15 years (Campbell, 2006). An aging workforce combined with the decreasing numbers

of college graduates has created a great demand of leadership development. All

industries will need to prepare the future leaders of their organizations. As noted earlier,

one of every five Americans is expected to be 65 years of age or older by 2030 (Arnone,

2006). Additionally, eighty million workers are expected to retire over the next 25 years

(Sacks, 2006). The infusion of leadership development initiatives and strategies within

all levels of business, industry, and educational institutions will help to prepare for the

impeding impact of retirements.

Although business and industry have traditionally been more proactive in utilizing

and providing a variety of venues to create leadership opportunities for their employees

they too are experiencing growing pains. A survey on CEO succession planning

conducted in 2010 found that although 69% of the respondents felt that they needed to

have someone ready to step into the position now, only 54% were actually grooming

someone to take the helm (Heidrick & Struggles, 2010). The survey also noted that

nearly half of the respondents could not identify an internal CEO candidate if the current

CEO were to leave (Heidrick & Struggles, 2010). Still others like Hewlett-Packard (HP)

39

have found ways to grow their own leaders. HP narrowed the search for a new CEO

down to three internal candidates in 2010 (Ricadela & Brady, 2010).

Some businesses are recognizing these issues, however, and are beginning to

train a new class of leaders. W.R. Grace, a chemical manufacturing company,

recognized the impending leadership gap and developed a manufacturing leadership

program in 2002 (Minter, 2010). This program allows recent college graduates the

opportunity to work within the organization for two-years, rotating between different sites

and different locations. The program is designed to allow participants to determine

which areas of the organization they like best and to help them hone their skills to be

key candidates when leadership openings occur (Minter, 2010).

Like industry, colleges have gone through cycles of preparing future leaders and

are currently on an upward trend of recognizing the need. The importance of

succession planning in higher education has continued to grow since the late 1990s.

Magner has claimed, “succession planning is going to change higher education”

(Magner, 2009). Many colleges are embracing the concept of succession planning and

creating programs within their own institutions. The approaches to these programs may

be different, but they are all seeking to build the leaders for tomorrow’s higher education

institutions.

Kennesaw State University offers a program that focuses on addressing core

leadership competencies through a variety of interactive classroom sessions, field trips

and social activities. The program participants are able to learn more about the mission

and strategic goals of Kennesaw State while gaining exposure to leadership roles at the

institution (Davis, 2011). The University of California at Riverside offers employees the

40

opportunity to enhance their current skills for future leadership positions through the

Management Skills Assessment Program (MSAP). This program is designed to allow

employees to enhance their effectiveness in their current role and become more

competitive within the workforce (Davis, 2011).

Daytona State College began the Leadership Development Institute (LDI) in 2003

(Carroll & Phillips, 2004). The LDI program is a year-long program that employees of all

levels are eligible to attend. The program enrollment is limited and employees must

apply to participate. LDI offers a full agenda of leadership training, assessments,

mentoring and formal education opportunities. LDI is one component of the College’s

succession plan (Carroll & Phillips, 2004).

In 2002, the presidents of all community colleges in Massachusetts also

recognized the impending problems of future retirements and became the official

sponsors of the Community College Leadership Academy (CCLA) (Crosson, Douglas,

O’Meara & Sperling, 2005). This program provides a year-long experience for senior

and middle management and faculty from throughout community colleges in

Massachusetts. The program features day-long monthly seminars, required readings

and writings, and activities. The program is designed to help hone leadership skills

(Crosson, Douglas, O’Meara & Sperling, 2005).

Each of these programs offer exposure to leadership concepts and current

campus leaders for the participants, but do not seem to be fulfilling the noticeable gap in

leadership. “Leaders seem caught in the currency of leadership succession patterns,

still assuming traditional paths into senior administrative positions” (Amey, 2002).

41

Rothwell (2010) explained that even succession planning is an ever-changing

process. The future of succession planning must be focused not on meeting

promotional needs, but on the need for transfer of knowledge. Additionally, there

should be an increase in the integration of succession planning and career development

(Rothwell, 2010). The idea of creating a technical succession plan versus a

management succession plan ensures that individuals nearing retirement with specific

technical abilities will have transferred the knowledge to others prior to their departure.

National organizations have also developed programs specific to their niche of

employee to help train leaders for the new college leadership roles. Some of these

programs include Future Leaders Institute, Institute for Aspiring Senior Student Affairs

Officer, Millenium Leadership Initiative, Women’s Leadership Institute and HERS

Summer Institute (ACE, 2011). Each of these programs is designed specifically for

select higher education populations and is focused on creating leaders for the

impending vacancies. Additionally, they provide a networking and mentoring

opportunity for participants in the same field.

One trend that colleges and industry must focus on, however, is the idea that more

training does not always lead to more qualified candidates (Bos, 2007). Effective

participant selection and program evaluation must accompany any leadership

development program in order to truly yield positive results (Harrison, McKinnon &

Terry, 2006).

Succession Planning

Succession planning began in the middle-ages as a transfer of land and authority

to an heir and has grown to a concept of focusing talent (Hartley, 2008). The current,

“talent age”, is one in which succession is not just defined for leadership, but is an

42

inclusive strategy for everyone within an organization (Hartley, 2008). Succession

planning is integral to business success and can be defined, “a systematic process of

developing individuals to fill an organization’s key roles.” (Harrison, McKinnon & Terry,

2006). Growing talent within an organization can provide stability and can maintain

historical knowledge (Smith, 2010).

During a time when the workforce is aging and the number of qualified candidates

is declining, the need for succession planning in business is great. Due to the aging

workforce, technological advances and potential gaps in leadership, business and

industry have also recognized the need to transcend succession planning beyond the

top positions within the organization and are now focusing on the lower levels (Bos,

2007). Organizations positioned to succeed will need to recognize that leadership gaps

will occur at every level and will be prepared to address them.

Ernst & Young conducted a survey in 2006 with the Human Capital Leadership

Institute to determine how organizations are responding to the aging workforce.

(Arnone, 2006). The study found that few employers are undertaking programs aimed

at retaining older workers (Arnone, 2006). If efforts are not focused on retaining an

older workforce, then there must be a rising group of leaders ready to fill the roles. In

response to this, Boston Consulting Group and the world Federation of People

Management Associations, released a report in 2010 on the importance of companies

focusing their efforts on managing talent (BNA, 2010). The report found that fifty-six

percent of the survey respondents mentioned the existence of “a critical talent gap for

senior managers’ successors” (BNA, 2010). Another study released by Bridgespan in

2009 found that there would be a need to hire 640,000 senior-level non-profit managers

43

by 2016. Additionally, between June 2007 and December 2008, seventy-seven

thousand non-profit management jobs were opened and one out of every four (25%)

was filled internally (Josyln, 2009). If “homegrown talent” is the most effective to

assume leadership within the company, why is it that more than half of the executive

positions are filled from outside candidates? (BNA, 2010).

The educational level of applicants has also been reviewed. A report by Spellings

in 2006, however, indicated that higher education was in need of reform and that the

numbers of graduates was declining. Additionally, this report called for the business

community to become directly involved with higher education leaders in developing the

strategies to improve the system (Spellings, 2006). To further complicate the problem

for community colleges, the number of individuals seeking advanced degrees in

community college administration has been declining over the past two decades

(Patton, 2004).

Corporations with effective succession management plans are poised for the

crisis. Google has created a talent value model of succession planning that helps

identify why employees choose to stay with the company and creates a distribution

curve based on employee performance. The plan helps individuals who might be

“misplaced or poorly managed” by identifying the lowest five percent of performers and

infusing an active plan for improvement (Davenport, Harris & Shapiro, 2010).

Companies like Disney and GE also embraced this concept early and were able to

handpick successors for their top positions (Barden 2006).

The answer lies in the design of the succession plan and in the leadership

development tied to the plan. Studies indicate that comprehensive succession planning

44

and dedication of senior management to talent development yield better corporate

success (Minter, 2010). The American Management Association (AMA) conducted a

study on global leadership development and found “significant statistical correlation”

between market performance and the firms with global leadership development

programs (Minter, 2010).

Higher education institutions have recognized this trend and are seeking ways to

ensure a viable workforce is available. Growing demand for college leadership and a

gap in the leadership talent available makes succession planning and leadership

development a priority for higher education (Campbell, 2006). Talent management

including these concepts is the key to this transformation. Leadership style and

behavior can be modified through specific training or educational programs to better

equip the leaders of the future (Tunks, 2007). Community colleges are leading the way

for higher education in the concept of leadership development and succession planning

(Dembicki, 2006). In 2006, sixteen community colleges, two community college districts

and five state system leadership development programs were examined and similar

approaches were highlighted. These successful approaches included involvement of

upper administration in the program development and implementation, flexible

curriculum, program delivery that includes team building and mentoring and evaluation

for continual program growth (Dembicki, 2006).

Leadership development and succession planning may help to address the need.

Colleges and universities, however, have hiring practices that indicate a need for

leadership evolution (Barden, 2006). Colleges and universities are immune to fashions

and trends, they are stable and well defined. This high level of consistency has led

45

some college leaders to the notion that only real change can occur with the hiring of

outside leadership, causing the leadership evolution (Barden, 2006). However,

promotions within education tend to be based upon an individual’s academic success

and not necessarily on the best fit for the institution (Yieldler and Codling, 2004).

Role of the Registrar

The rapid changes in workforce demands, student needs and technology are also

forcing a change in the required attributes of a registrar. The new registrar/enrollment

management leaders will need to adapt to this change and continue to be at the

forefront of effective student communication.

The first registrar was appointed at Oxford in 1446 and remained a part-time

position in the United States until the early 1900s (Stewart & Wright, 1997). Early job

duties included record keeping, registering students, scheduling high school visits,

admitting students, awarding financial aid and conducting research. In 1974, the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was signed into law and thus created a

new definition of registrar (USDOE, www.ed.gov). The new registrars were now

expected to be more data oriented, be able to respond to new legislative mandates,

provide good customer service and keep up with the growing enrollments (Pelham,

Presswood & Roof, 2006). This was the beginning of the concept of enrollment

management. Enrollment management can be defined as “a comprehensive process

designed to help an institution achieve and maintain the optimum recruitment, retention,

and graduation rates of students, where ‘optimum’ is defined within the academic

context of the institution” (Dolence, 1993). Current job duties of registrars vary between

institutions, but most contain the following, as described in a 2010 State University of

New York human resources job posting may include:

46

overall responsibility for initiating and maintaining the permanent academic record of each student and for the registration of all students; work with the academic staff in coordinating the time schedule for classes including the assignment of classroom space; maintains accurate records of all college courses and curriculum requirements; has the responsibility for planning for and supervising all pre-registration and registration for classes; preparation and printing of all registration material and forms for each registration period; initiation and maintenance of all student academic records including the collection of grades, reporting of grades, preparation of grade reports and transcripts, deficiency reports, preparation of an honors list, probation status reports, class ranking, and microfilming/imaging of student records; must have a thorough awareness of the continually increasing application of computerization and computer technology on all phases of registrar operations; works closely with institutional research and computer staff in compiling statistical data required for various college class size, faculty load and enrollment reports; is responsible for working with campus departments, divisions and schools to determine eligibility of students for graduation; maintains close liaison with the student accounting office in determining eligibility for registration and graduation; is responsible for all the administrative affairs of the registrar's office.” (SUNY, 2010)

Registrars are a hybrid between the student affairs administrator and the

academic officer. Some institutions have reporting structures where the registrar is

housed with student affairs; such as Seminole State College in Florida or California

State Polytechnic University in Pomona, California (Seminole State College, 2010;

California State Polytechnic University, 2010). Other institutions, however, have

structures that have the registrar report through the division of academic affairs; such as

Rhode Island College in Providence, RI or Slippery Rock University in Slippery Rock,

PA (Rhode Island College, 2010; Slippery Rock University, 2010). As the job duties of

the registrar range from student advocate to interpreter of academic policy, it is easy to

see why the position could exist in either realm.

Kendra Hamilton (2004) explored the traditional pathways to the college/university

presidency and found that student affairs professionals are beginning to break new

ground and are finding ways to move into the top job. Her study agreed with Amey’s

47

study in 2002 that indicated the traditional path to the presidency is through academic

affairs, however, her study went on to state that student affairs leaders who have a

Ph.D., teach, publish and participate in their academic discipline are more likely to be

promoted to a presidency. The driving question is in what field should the student

affairs administrator earn their Ph.D.? (Hamilton, 2004). As many succession plans

involve the development of employees through the advancement of degrees, this

question is at the heart of the issues of student affairs officers. The traditional route to

the presidency, chief academic officer, has an academic discipline and field in which to

focus. The student affairs officer could study student counseling, student development

or higher education and stay on top of their own field while working to progress. The

registrar position, however, is a hybrid of academic and student affairs. This position

does not have a traditional educational route and therefore, a succession plan for a

registrar must be developed.

Closing the ‘Gap’

Hiring the right person for the job is becoming more important as the numbers of

vacancies grows. Tools that can identify the best person-job fit will help reduce turnover

and help companies keep their hiring costs lower. Business and industry are utilizing

personality questionnaires and simulations during the interview process to identify

person matches. Forty percent of median-sized companies are using personality

questionnaires and an additional thirty-two percent use simulations during the interview

process (Campbell, 2009). Colleges, conversely, are not utilizing these tools in

identifying candidates with only four percent of community college leaders indicating

they use these tools (Campbell, 2009). “Hiring the right person at the outset for any

administrative position is crucial to the future of a college” (Campbell 2009).

48

In 1997, the 21st Century Education Leadership Profiles Project was created to

assist in developing and selecting professionals to address the leadership gap

(Campbell, Syed & Morris, 2010). The project focused on the leadership attributes and

work styles of successful college presidents. The Profiles Project and additional

research conducted at the University of Florida, have recognized the Occupational

Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) as contributing to the translation of work styles and

confirm that it can be used to assess managerial, professional, entrepreneurial and

personal qualities (Campbell, Syed & Morris, 2010). Additionally, research conducted

by O’Daniels and Basham have further indicated that the Saville WAVE instrument

accurately measures what it is designed to measure (O’Daniels, 2009 & Basham,

2007). The WAVE instrument is designed to measure motives, talents and preferred

culture of respondents for use in selecting and training (Saville, 2006).

The changing demographics of the workforce, the dynamics of technology, the

new millennial employee and student have created a need for a newly defined registrar.

The American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admission Officers (AACRAO)

worked with Saville Consulting in 2007 to develop a person specification and a job

description for the newly title dean/director of enrollment and registrar. As a component

of the person specific review and job description development, the objective to

“champion technology and utilize it to project trends appropriately, maintaining student

privacy as required” was described as a necessary attribute. Additionally, three of the

nine stated job objectives dealt directly with the use, collection and dissemination of

data (FuturesLeaders-ATG Work Profiling, 2006).

49

Summary

The changing workforce is creating leadership skills gaps in all industries,

including higher education. The changing face of college campuses through the

advancement of technology, the aging population, the lack of prepared college

graduates and the impending retirements will change the roles of the new

administrators. These changes have created a demand for a new work profile of the

registrar/enrollment manager within higher education. The registrar is a key position in

higher education administration and this position will face dramatic changes. The

registrar must be knowledgeable in the field of technology and in their ability to bridge

the gap between the needs of students, employees and information technology

professionals. The lack of an educational career path for this field is making it more

difficult to determine the potential leadership pool.

This study built upon the leadership attributes identified in other senior college

administration positions from previous research and in the research indicating the

importance of leadership development and succession planning. This study identified

the traits necessary for the new work profile of a successful registrar and may help to

drive trainings targeted at preparing future registrars for the position. This chapter has

provided a literature review of the changing workforce demographic, leadership

attributes, talent management (leadership development and succession planning) and

specific job responsibilities of the higher education registrar. Table 2-1 summarizes the

leadership gap that exists in every industry and states possible solutions that have been

provided in this chapter. The research methodology of the study is described in the

next chapter, which includes the study population, the data collection, the

50

instrumentation and the methods of analyzing the data to address the research

questions.

51

Table 2-1. Leadership gap/deficit summary Business Sector Research to support Proposed solutions International businesses

Center for creative leadership (2009)

Smith (2010)

Communicate specific behaviors and skills desired Assess leaders on key skills Create training programs Expose current managers to the needed skills Support learning Encourage managers to have career goals Develop succession plan Evaluate and measure program success

American corporations

Kachik (2003) Leslie (CCL 2009) Smith (2010) American Association

of Retired Persons (AARP ) - 2009

Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM ) – 2009

Communicate specific behaviors and skills desired Assess leaders on key skills Create training programs Expose current managers to the needed skills Support learning Encourage managers to have career goals Develop succession plan Evaluate and measure program success Create flexible schedules and other incentives to

maintain and recruit the older employee

Non-profit leadership

Spillett, et. al (Bridgespan report 2006)

Provide development opportunities in budgeting, working with trustees and fundraising/development

Modify compensation and benefit packages to make the positions more appealing

Community college leadership

Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Shults (2001) Kachik (2003) Campbell (2006) American Council on

Education (2007) Basham (2007) Tunks (2007) Berry (2008) O’Daniels (2009)

Leadership development programs Succession planning Identify specific skills needed Assess leaders on key skills

Higher education leadership

Lovell & Kosten (2000) Tunks (2007) Berry (2008) Middlehurst (2008) Mann (2010)

Leadership development Building leadership legitimacy through ‘track-

record’ of success Mentoring and coaching Peer collaboration

52

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter defines the research methodology used in the research study. The

purpose of the study and the design are detailed. The research problem is defined in

detail. The study sample, research instrument and data collection method are

described.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if enrollment managers from

differing institutions, holding different positions within enrollment management had

common leadership attributes. The study built upon the previous research of Kachik

(2003), Campbell (2006), Basham (2007), Tunks (2007), Berry (2008) and O’Daniels

(2009) in identifying leadership attributes of college leaders and in determining the

strength of leadership development and effective job selection.

As noted earlier, the next positions that are to be in the most demand and in a

critical shortage are institutional researchers, directors of learning resources, registrars,

directors of financial aid, directors of admissions, directors of accounting and directors

of human resources. This study focused specifically on the growing need for registrars

and directors of admissions. Registrars rank among the highest of the top positions in

which the turnover will occur (Campbell, 2006). As stated earlier, most individuals have

a career path that is closely aligned to a chosen education track, but there is not an

educational degree for registrar or admissions directors. Selecting the right person for

the job is of utmost importance in today’s demanding environment. Discovering what

leadership attributes are needed by the successful enrollment manager candidate will

assist in determining the best candidate.

53

This study continued the trend of further examination of leadership attributes in

higher education to the mid-level manager. Specifically, the overall leadership attributes

of enrollment managers in higher education institutions within the United States. This

study examined the leadership attributes of successful future enrollment management

administrators by examining the following: if leadership attributes of administrators

differ by type of institution; if leadership traits of administrators differ by size of

institution; and if leadership traits of administrators differ by gender. Results from this

research study will provide a base framework for future studies on leadership attributes

of mid-level higher education administrators.

Research Problem

Critical shortages in administrative positions in higher education across the United

States are expected in the next five years. In 2005, a group of community college

presidents were asked to project retirements within their institutions. As noted earlier,

this study indicated that student affairs administrators are among the highest in which

this turnover will occur (Campbell, 2006). Some of the presidents within this group also

indicated that, even though they were satisfied with the job performance of their current

registrar, they would not rehire that individual if the position were to become vacated.

The registrar position was traditionally the policy interpreter and enforcer for a

college. This individual would implement the procedures for which policies would be

adhered to and disseminate the information appropriately. Strong logic and

communication skills were critical in this role (Stewart & Wright, 1997). As enrollment

growth has expanded, so has the role of the registrar. Many registrar positions today

also hold responsibilities in enrollment management. These individuals remain

responsible for the policy implementation, but they are also involved in the development

54

and decision making of the policies. They now must interpret entering student trends

and the technological needs for their staff in order to continue to provide effective

services. Today’s registrar must have strong logic and communication skills, but may

also need numeric reasoning and complex decision making skills (FuturesLeaders-ATG

Work Profiling, 2006). The leadership attributes for this position have clearly evolved,

however, these new traits may not be the same for all types of colleges.

This study provided some insight into the attributes most desired in quality

candidates. Specifically, the researcher addressed the following questions:

1) Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals?

2) Is there a significant relationship between type of institution as defined by doctoral granting versus non-doctoral granting and leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions?

3) Is there a significant relationship between size of institution and the leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions?

4) Do female enrollment management professions at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as male enrollment management professionals?

Research Hypothesis

H0-1: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts.

H1: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts.

H0-2: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at non-doctoral granting institutions.

H2: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs

55

of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at non-doctoral granting institutions.

H0-3: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution.

H3: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution.

H0-4: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts.

H4: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts.

Research Design

Survey research was conducted to analyze the leadership attributes of admission,

registrar and enrollment managers at varying educational institutions throughout the

United States that are members of the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and

Admission Officers, hereto throughout referred to as AACRAO. Statistical analysis,

including analysis of variance and descriptive statistics was used to determine if there is

a relationship between leadership attributes among individuals in similar positions at

differing institutions, if these attributes remain the same if the institution type changes, if

these attributes remain the same if the institution size changes and if the WAVE is a

suitable tool for determining these attributes.

Methodology

To explore the research questions, a leadership inventory was selected and

distributed to a diverse population of admissions officers, registrars and enrollment

56

managers throughout the United States. The diversity is defined by location of

institution, type of institution, type of position and size of institution. The leadership

inventory selected was the Saville Consulting WAVE assessment.

As data from the WAVE was collected in December 2006, through collaboration

between the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers,

AACRAO, and Saville Consulting for a diverse group of admissions, registrar and

enrollment managers, the researcher requested access to this data to address the

research questions.

The data analysis summarized the individual responses into four distinct

categories. The categories are gender of leader, size of institution, type of institution

and type of position. The gender is defined as either male or female and is self

reported in the inventory survey. The size of the institution is defined by either

small/moderate schools with enrollments of less than 10,000 in the Fall 2009 integrated

postsecondary data system (IPEDS) report or medium/large schools with enrollments of

10,000 or greater in the Fall 2009 IPEDS report. The type of institution is defined by

either doctoral degree granting or non-doctoral degree granting as defined by the

National Center for Educational Statistics website. (http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/).

The types of positions are registrars or other enrollment management or admissions

professional as a self-identified component of the survey instrument.

Instrumentation

The instrument used for this research, WAVE, is a “behavioral questionnaire

developed for use in selecting, developing and establish career paths in businesses”

(Saville & Holdsworth LTD., 1996(as cited in Campbel & Kachik, 2002 and Basham,

2007). The WAVE is a personality test based upon four clusters, including thought,

57

influence, adaptability and delivery. See Appendix A. Each of the four clusters contains

three sections, each of the three sections contains three dimensions and each of the

three dimensions contains three facets. Overall, there are 108 facets. Each facet is

presented two to three times throughout the questionnaire.

This study focused specifically at comparing each group defined above within

each cluster. The cluster of thought contains the sections of vision, judgment and

evaluation. The cluster of influence contains the sections of leadership, impact and

communication. The cluster of adaptability contains the sections of support, resilience

and flexibility. The cluster of delivery contains the sections of structure, drive and

implementation. Each of these clusters is further display in Appendix A.

The WAVE is validation centric. It is designed to reveal personality characteristics

of an individual, assesses the individual’s leadership potential and describes the

environments in which the individual will work best or in which they should not work

(Saville, 2006). The questionnaire takes about 35-45 minutes to complete.

Respondents can receive a wide variety of reports from the test. The respondents in

this study received the Types report and the Expert report. The Types report outlines

the typical approach the respondent would have in their work setting towards people

and tasks. A respondent could be identified as an adaptor, transformer, individualist or

influencer in regards to people and a thinker, transactor, preserver or doer in relation to

accomplishing tasks. The two traits combined help to describe the respondent’s

leadership style. One example may be that the respondent’s results indicate that they

are an influencer-transactor. This type of leadership style is indicative of someone who

is capable of leading people to deliver impressive results. They create a compelling

58

vision and use assertive approaches to get people to buy into their plans. They know

exactly where they are going and focus on getting results. This single-minded pursuit of

a clear direction can at times lead to an autocratic leadership style (Saville, 2006).

The expert report provides the respondent with an executive summary of their

results, grouped under the four major cluster headings of thought, influence, adaptability

and delivery. Under each of the four major clusters, the sten score for each is displayed

for all 36 dimensions. The report also defines the response summary and rates the

respondent’s acquiescence when answering questions, consistency of rankings, the

motive-talent agreement and the normative-ipsative agreement. Scale descriptions of

these can be found in the 2005 Saville Consulting Technical Document.

Saville Consulting’s extensive research indicates the best predictor of performance at work is generally the score indicated by the sten marker (combined Normative-ipsative). Information is also provided on subtle differences highlighted by the profiler: facet range, motive-talent split and normative-ipsative split. (Saville, 2006)

Results from the WAVE test-retest were based on a sample size of 112 with a

retest period of one month. The alternative form normative, ipsative and combined were

based on a sample size of 1153 Results indicate a mean reliability of 0.79, the

minimum 0.71 and maximum of 0.91 as shown in Table 3-2. (Saville, 2006).

The validity of the WAVE instrument and dimensions, as mentioned earlier, is

based on validation centric development, where items are selected for inclusion in the

instrument based on their validity in predicting external job performance criteria (Saville,

2006). The WAVE instrument has also been correlated against the 16PF, the Myers

Briggs Type Indicator, the Gordon Personal Profile,and the DISC. Results of construct

validation studies suggest the WAVE is valid and measures what it is intending to

measure (Saville, 2006). Additionally, previous studies utilizing the WAVE and its base

59

prediction inventory, the OPQ have been conducted to confirm that the instrument is

“valid, reliable, and does measure what it intends to measure” (Basham, 2007).

The Population

The population for this study consisted of members of AACRAO in admissions

officer, registrar and enrollment manager positions at institutions of higher education in

the United States. The population of seventy individuals represents fifty-four institutions

from twenty-nine states. Thirty-seven (54%) of the population is made up of individuals

from doctoral degree granting institutions. Thirty (42%) of the population are males.

The institution size will be segmented into two distinct categories; small/moderate

and medium/large. Small colleges are those institutions who enroll less than five

thousand students. Moderate colleges are those institutions who enroll between five

thousand and ten thousand students. Medium colleges are those institutions who enroll

between ten thousand and twenty thousand students. Lastly, large colleges are those

institutions who enroll more than twenty thousand students. There are sixteen

individuals from small institutions, fifteen from moderate institutions, eleven from

medium institutions and twenty-six from large institutions. Combined into the two

segments, there are thirty-one small/moderate institutions and thirty-seven

medium/large institutions.

The position types will be segmented into two distinct categories; registrar and

other enrollment management/admissions professionals. The population consists of

thirty-two registrars and thirty-five other enrollment management/admissions

professionals. Two individuals are not associated with a specific institution and one

individual cannot be classified into one of the three defined positions, however, all have

a direct relationship with enrollment management functions.

60

Procedure for Data Collection

In December 2006, AACRAO held its annual State and Regional Leadership

workshop. This workshop is comprised of registrars, admissions officers or enrollment

managers from institutions throughout the United States. These individuals were

selected to attend the workshop as a part of their leadership in their state or regional

associations. Attendees were invited to participate in the online questionnaire between

October and December 2006. The participants were assured of anonymity in the

reporting and were treated in accordance with the ethical standards of the American

Psychological Association. Saville Consulting, Ltd., agreed to release a small subset of

the collected data for the dissertation research in return for first right of viewing after

defense.

Analysis of Data

Parametric statistical tests rely on two key and fundamental assumptions. First,

these tests are based on the assumption that the frequency of the data are normally

distributed for both the sample population and for the total population from which the

sample is taken. Secondly, they rely on the assumption of equal variance between the

test populations. When these parameters cannot be assumed, non-parametric

statistical tests should be performed to make statistically reliable inferences based on

the test datasets. Non-parametric tests are also well suited for analyses that are based

on relative small sample and cell sizes.

The researcher used both the Kolmogorov-Smirnova and the Shapiro-Wilk tests to

examine the normality of the construct data for the total and test populations. These

same tests were used to determine the degree of normality for these data in the sample

populations as well.

61

The first hypothesis was analyzed by grouping those respondents in the sample

who are identified as registrars from those in the sample identified as an other

enrollment management/admissions professional and comparing them to one another

with respect to the specific constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery in

the WAVE instrument. A two-way mixed measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

used between the means for the group of registrars and those from the group of

enrollment management/admissions professionals using data from the executive

summary, psychometric profile and expert reports.

The second hypothesis was analyzed by grouping those respondents in the

sample who are identified as leaders from doctoral degree granting institutions from

those in the sample identified as leaders from non-doctoral degree granting institutions

and comparing them to one another with respect to the specific constructs of thought,

influence, adaptability and delivery, respectively, in the WAVE instrument. A two-way

mixed measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used between the means for the

group from doctoral degree granting institutions and those from non-doctoral degree

granting institutions using data from the executive summary, psychometric profile and

expert reports.

The third hypothesis was analyzed by grouping those respondents in the sample

who are identified as leaders from a large/medium sized institution from those in the

sample identified as leaders from a small/moderate sized institution and comparing

them to one another with respect to the specific constructs of thought, influence,

adaptability and delivery, respectively, in the WAVE instrument. A two-way mixed

measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used between the means for the group

62

from the large/medium sized institutions and those from the small/moderate sized

institutions using data from the executive summary, psychometric profile and expert

reports.

Lastly, the fourth hypothesis was analyzed by grouping those respondents in the

sample who are identified as females from those in the sample identified as males and

comparing them to one another with respect to the specific constructs of thought,

influence, adaptability and delivery, respectively, in the WAVE instrument. A two-way

mixed measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used between the means for the

group of females and those from the group of males using data from the executive

summary, psychometric profile and expert reports.

Research Instrument

The Saville Consulting Wave Professional Styles questionnaires use a validation

centric development approach to maximize the validity of the instrument. This validation

method determines the validity of the item among other criteria. “The average validity of

one Professional Styles scale in relationship to its work performance criterion is 0.39

and the composite validity of more than one Professional Styles scale across criteria is

0.46” (Saville Consulting Wave, 2006).

Figure 3-1 shows the structure of the WAVE with four clusters, twelve sections and

thirty-six dimensions. This study focused on the four clusters in all comparative data

analysis. As displayed in Table 3-1 and as provided by the Saville Consulting Wave

research, there are 36 dimensions of the Wave instrument. As displayed in Table 3-2,

these dimensions have a combined score (ipsative and normative) of 0.86 in reliability

with a minimum of 0.78 and a maximum of 0.93 (Saville Consulting Wave, 2006).

63

Summary

This chapter has provided an explanation of the research methodology used in the

research study, including, the study population, the WAVE questionnaire characteristics,

the data collection and the methods of analyzing the data. The next chapter will present

the results of the research questions in examining the leadership attributes of

registrar/enrollment managers throughout the United States.

64

Table 3-1. Single dimension & comp validities Saville Consulting WAVE© Assessment, 2009

Criterion Single Dimension* Validity IA

Single Dimension* Validity SA

Cross Validated** Composite Validity IA

Cross Validated** Composite Validity SA

Generating Ideas .42 .44 .44 .41 Exploring Possibilities .21 .36 .44 .47 Developing Strategies .54 .56 .68 .68 Providing Insights NS .20 .42 .38 Implementing Practical Solutions

NS NS .09 .29

Developing Expertise .19 .19 .35 .38 Analyzing Situations .26 .34 .30 .36 Documenting Facts .29 .27 .29 .27 Interpreting Data .46 .42 .44 .62 Making Decisions .48 .50 .64 .64 Leading People .68 .66 .70 .70 Providing Inspirations .62 .64 .64 .64 Convincing People .26 .26 .56 .60 Challenging Ideas .47 .49 .45 .47 Articulating Information .66 .60 .68 .68 Impressing People .32 .30 .56 .45 Developing Relationships .42 .50 .64 .66 Establishing Rapport .63 .57 .71 .67 Team Working .32 .32 .46 .40 Understanding People .35 .31 .47 .40 Valuing Individuals .34 .28 .46 .44 Resolving Conflict .38 .38 .48 .40 Conveying Self-Confidence .40 .34 .66 .78 Coping with Pressure .36 .34 .32 .30 Inviting Feedback .26 .22 .40 .32 Thinking Positively .40 .38 .42 .48 Embracing Change .42 .48 .42 .34 Organizing Resources .32 .38 .22 .42 Upholding Standards .21 .21 .20 .16 Completing Tasks .26 .31 .34 .41 Taking Action .54 .56 .56 .54 Pursuing Goals .28 .42 .44 .46 Tackling Business Challenges .42 .38 .48 .45 Checking Details .39 .31 .24 .23 Meeting Timescales .45 .43 .41 .43 Following Procedures .26 .24 .44 .14 Key: SA = Supervised Access Form, IA = Invited Access Form, *Dimension validity is the correlation between a single Professional Styles scale dimension (weighted combination of ipsative and normative scores) with the matched work performance criterion. Total sample matched is N=556-658 (sample size varied due to no evidence option on criterion ratings). **Cross validated is the correlation of the composite regression equation from initial sample on hold out sample based on a hold out sample of N=252-316. All validities are corrected for attenuation based on reliability of the criteria (based on 236 pairs of criterion ratings). No further corrections were applied (e.g. restriction of range, predictor unreliability). The composite validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in relation to overall job proficiency is 0.34 and 0.42 (N=325). The composite validity of each of the two Professional Styles forms in establishing external ratings of potential for promotion is 0.54 and 0.64 (N=324).

65

Table 3-2. Reliability summary Saville Consulting WAVE© Assessment, 2009 Professional Styles Dimension

Alternate Form Normative

Alternate Form Ipsative

Alternate Form Combined

Test-Retest Normative

Inventive 0.91 0.87 0.91 0.88 Abstract 0.85 0.77 0.83 0.76 Strategic 0.84 0.79 0.84 0.73 Insightful 0.82 0.72 0.79 0.76 Pragmatic 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.81 Learning Oriented 0.86 0.84 0.87 0.78 Analytical 0.85 0.79 0.84 0.73 Factual 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.77 Rational 0.91 0.88 0.92 0.82 Purposeful 0.87 0.80 0.87 0.71 Directing 0.89 0.84 0.89 0.83 Empowering 0.90 0.85 0.89 0.80 Convincing 0.85 0.78 0.84 0.74 Challenging 0.86 0.81 0.86 0.86 Articulate 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.86 Self-promoting 0.89 0.84 0.89 0.80 Interactive 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.89 Engaging 0.87 0.83 0.87 0.79 Involving 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.74 Attentive 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.71 Accepting 0.78 0.82 0.81 0.75 Resolving 0.88 0.84 0.88 0.80 Self-assured 0.86 0.78 0.85 0.76 Composed 0.90 0.84 0.89 0.72 Receptive 0.81 0.73 0.78 0.80 Positive 0.85 0.81 0.85 0.82 Change Oriented 0.85 0.82 0.86 0.76 Organized 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.77 Principled 0.81 0.77 0.81 0.80 Activity Oriented 0.90 0.86 0.89 0.78 Dynamic 0.87 0.81 0.87 0.78 Striving 0.86 0.79 0.85 0.80 Enterprising 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.91 Meticulous 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.80 Reliable 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.83 Compliant 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.83

Alternate Form Normative, Ipsative and Combined (all based on N = 1153) Normative Test Re-Test reliability on Invited Access Normative N = 112.

66

4 clusters

12 sections 36 dimensions 108 facets

4 Clusters Yields 12 sections: Thought (vision, judgment, evaluation) Influence (leadership, impact, communication) Adaptability (support, resilience, flexibility) Delivery (structure, drive, implementation)

SAVILLE CONSULTING WAVE© ASSESSMENT, 2009

Figure 3-1. Theoretical structure of Saville WAVE Assessment, 2009

Figure 3-2. Cluster section chart

67

Table 3-3. WAVE attribute links in other research

Attribute Business/ Corporate

Community College President

College Chief Business Officer (CCBO)

National Council for Continuing Education Trainers (NCCET)

Other higher education admin.

Student Affairs Officers

Registrar/ enrollment manager

Thought Vision (inventive, abstract, strategic)

Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009)

Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Berry (2008)

Berry (2008) Tunks (2007) O’Daniels (2009)

Judgment (insightful, practically

minded, learning oriented)

Kachik (2003) Berry (2008)

Kachik (2003) O’Daniels (2009)

Lovell & Kosten (2000)

Evaluation (analytical, factual, rational)

Kachik (2003 Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Berry (2008)

Kachik (2003) Tunks (2007) O’Daniels (2009)

Lovell & Kosten (2000)

Saville (2007)

Influence Leadership (purposeful, directing, empowering)

Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009)

Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Berry (2008)

Tunks (2007) O’Daniels (2009)

Impact (convincing, challenging, articulate)

Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009)

Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Tunks (2007) O’Daniels (2009)

Lovell & Kosten (2000)

Saville (2007)

68

Table 3-3. Continued Attribute

Business/ Corporate

Community College President

College Chief Business Officer (CCBO)

National Council for Continuing Education Trainers (NCCET)

Other higher education admin.

Student Affairs Officers

Registrar/ enrollment manager

Adaptability Support (involving, attentive, accepting)

Spillett (2006)

Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Tunks (2007)

Lovell & Kosten (2000)

Resilience (resolving, self assured, composed)

Campbell & Leverty (1997)

O’Daniels (2009)

Flexibility (receptive, positive, change oriented)

Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Tunks (2007) O’Daniels (2009)

Delivery Structure (organized, principled, activity oriented)

Spillett (2006) Leslie (2009)

Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Berry (2008)

Berry (2008) O’Daniels (2009)

Lovell & Kosten (2000)

Saville (2007)

Drive (dynamic, striving, enterprising)

Leslie (2009) Campbell & Leverty (1997)

Berry (2008) Tunks (2007) O’Daniels (2009)

Saville (2007)

Implementation (meticulous, reliable, compliant)

Spillett (2006)

Tunks (2007)

Lovell & Kosten (2000)

69

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if enrollment managers from

differing institutions, holding different positions within enrollment management had

common leadership attributes. All results of this study including analysis of variance

and descriptive statistics will be described in this chapter. These findings answered the

four research questions posed in Chapter 1 and contained the statistical analysis

described in Chapter 3. This chapter presents the results of the research questions in

examining the leadership attributes of registrar/enrollment managers throughout the

United States. The results for each of the hypothesis will be shown in order. Chapter

five will present a discussion of the findings and recommendations on how to further

expand upon this research.

Aggregate Data-Descriptive Statistics

The aggregate group the mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and test of

normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnova and Shapiro-Wilk) are presented in Table 4-1 and

Table 4-2. The aggregate data appears to be distributed normally for all but the

construct of adaptability with no large deviations for skewness or kurtosis. The data also

suggests the respondents are overall slightly more positive in self-ratings in the

construct of thought (M=6.459, SD=1.251) than the constructs of influence, delivery and

adaptability.

The results of these tests for the total population are posted in Tables 4-1 and 4-2

suggest that the distribution is sufficiently normal for the constructs of influence and

delivery, but are not sufficiently normal for the constructs of thought and adaptability.

Furthermore, the tests for normality indicate that the constructs are not sufficiently

70

normal for all comparison groups as it relates to each construct (see Figures 4-2, 4-4, 4-

6, and 4-8, respectively).

Based on the results of the normality tests, the researcher decided to employ both

parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. The parametric tests were used

because of their relative statistical power; while, non-parametric tests provided a

secondary level of analysis that allows the results to withstand the scrutiny of the

highest standards of statistical practice.

Table 4-1. Mean, standard deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis of the aggregate

population

Aggregate Data

Mean SD Rank Skewness Kurtosis Thought 6.45 1.25 1 -0.68 0.21 Influence 5.49 0.94 4 -0.06 0.08 Delivery 5.86 0.98 2 -0.30 -0.33 Adaptability 5.80 1.08 3 -1.07 1.10

Table 4-2. Kolmogorov-Smirnova and Shapiro-Wilk: aggregate population

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic Df Sig. Statistic Df Sig. Thought .115 70 .023 .963 70 .038 Influence .069 70 .200 .988 70 .773 Delivery .082 70 .200 .984 70 .537 Adaptability .177 70 .000 .921 70 .000

Research Hypothesis One

This hypothesis centered on the general research question of whether or not

registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership

71

attributes as other enrollment management professionals. The specific attributes

considered are the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery1

H0-1: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts.

.

H1: Those leaders identified in registrar positions will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts.

The dataset was divided into two samples, one containing those individuals who

indicated their position as a registrar (n = 32) and those who indicated a position other

than registrar (n = 38). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded a significant

effect for the registrar subcategory in the construct of influence, F(1, 68) = 4.539, p =

.037<.05 significance level, such that respondents indicating they were not registrars

was slightly higher in the construct of influence (M=5.71, SD=.868) than for registrars

(M=5.24, SD=.979). The construct of thought, F(1, 68) = 2.535, p = .116, adaptability,

F(1, 68) = .319, p= .574, and delivery, F(1,68) = 1.446, p= .233 were not significant

between the registrar and non-registrar respondents. Additionally, a non-parametric

test of the hypothesis for each construct was run and indicated the same significance

results with a significance factor of .027 for influence. The psychometric profile’s cluster

and section means are displayed graphically for both groups in Figure 4-1. The

registrar group descriptive data indicating the means and standard deviations for each

where 0=non-registar and 1=registrar can be found in Table 4-3. The registrar group

ANOVA data indicating the significance of the construct of influence can be found in

Table 4-4. The non-parametric data for the registrar group is displayed in Figure 4-2.

1 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Communication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

72

Figure 4-1. Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for both registrar and other enrollment manager line graph

Table 4-3. Mean scores and standard deviations for the registrar and non-registrar groups (0=non-registrar; 1=registrar)

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Thought .00 38 6.24 1.24 .20 5.83 6.65 3.33 8.88 1.00 32 6.71 1.22 .21 6.27 7.15 3.00 8.44 Total 70 6.45 1.25 .14 6.16 6.75 3.00 8.88

Influence .00 38 5.71 .86 .14 5.42 5.99 3.11 7.66 1.00 32 5.24 .97 .17 4.89 5.59 3.22 7.55 Total 70 5.49 .94 .11 5.27 5.72 3.11 7.66

Adaptability .00 38 5.73 1.15 .18 5.35 6.11 2.33 7.66 1.00 32 5.88 1.01 .17 5.51 6.24 3.44 7.22 Total 70 5.80 1.08 .12 5.54 6.06 2.33 7.66

Delivery .00 38 5.99 .92 .158 5.67 6.31 3.88 7.77 1.00 32 5.70 .98 .17 5.35 6.06 3.44 7.33 Total 70 5.86 .98 .11 5.62 6.09 3.44 7.77

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Non

Registrar

73

Table 4-4. Summary ANOVA for the registrar and non-registrar groups for each of the

four constructs

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 3.880 1 3.880 2.535 .116

Within Groups 104.069 68 1.530 Total 107.949 69

Influence Between Groups 3.844 1 3.844 4.539 .037

Within Groups 57.582 68 .847 Total 61.426 69

Adaptability Between Groups .381 1 .381 .319 .574

Within Groups 81.197 68 1.194 Total 81.578 69

Delivery Between Groups 1.390 1 1.390 1.446 .233

Within Groups 65.386 68 .962 Total 66.776 69

Figure 4-2. Hypothesis test summary for registrar group

74

Research Hypothesis Two

This hypothesis centered on the general research question of whether or not

enrollment managers at doctoral granting institutions throughout the United States

share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals at

non-doctoral granting institutions. The specific attributes considered are the constructs

of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery. 2

H0-2: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at non-doctoral granting institutions.

H2: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at non-doctoral granting institutions.

The dataset was divided into two samples, one containing those individuals whose

institution confers doctoral degrees (n = 43) and those whose institutions do not confer

doctoral degrees (n = 25). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded a

significant effect for the doctoral granting subcategory in the construct of thought, F(1,

66) = 7.477, p= .008<.05 significance, such that respondents indicating they were from

doctoral granting institutions was significantly higher in the construct of thought

(M=6.76, SD=1.11) than for those from non-doctoral granting institutions (M=5.93,

SD=1.37). The constructs of influence, F(1, 66) = 1.626, p= .207, adaptability, F(1, 66)

= .713, p=.401 and delivery, F(1,66) = .724, p=.398 did not show significance between

the doctoral granting institution respondents and non-doctoral granting respondents.

2 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Communication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

75

Additionally, a non-parametric test of the hypothesis for each construct was run and

indicated the same significance results with a significance factor of p=.016 for thought.

The psychometric profile’s cluster and section means are displayed graphically for both

groups in Figure 4-3. The doctoral granting group descriptive data indicating the means

and standard deviations for each where 0=non-doctoral granting and 1=doctoral

granting can be found in Table 4-5, the doctoral granting group ANOVA data indicating

the significance of the construct of influence can be found in Table 4-6. The non-

parametric data for the doctoral group is displayed in Figure 4-4.

Figure 4-3. Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for both doctoral granting and non-doctoral granting institutions line graph

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Doc

Non

76

Table 4-5. Mean scores and standard deviations for the doctoral and non-doctoral granting institution groups (0=non-doctoral granting; 1=doctoral granting)

N Mean

Std. Deviati

on Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Thought .00 25 5.92 1.37 .27 5.36 6.49 3.00 7.88 1.00 43 6.76 1.10 .16 6.42 7.10 4.44 8.88 Total 68 6.45 1.26 .15 6.14 6.76 3.00 8.88

Influence .00 25 5.29 .90 .18 4.92 5.66 3.22 7.00 1.00 43 5.60 .97 .14 5.30 5.90 3.11 7.66 Total 68 5.49 .95 .11 5.25 5.72 3.11 7.66

Adaptability .00 25 5.64 1.04 .20 5.21 6.08 2.33 7.00 1.00 43 5.88 1.13 .17 5.53 6.23 3.00 7.66 Total 68 5.79 1.10 .13 5.53 6.06 2.33 7.66

Delivery .00 25 6.02 1.11 .22 5.56 6.48 3.44 7.77 1.00 43 5.81 .89 .13 5.54 6.09 3.88 7.66 Total 68 5.89 .98 .11 5.65 6.13 3.44 7.77

Table 4-6. Summary ANOVA for the doctoral granting and non-doctoral granting groups

for each of the four constructs

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 10.980 1 10.980 7.477 .008

Within Groups 96.925 66 1.469 Total 107.905 67

Influence Between Groups 1.464 1 1.464 1.626 .207

Within Groups 59.406 66 .900 Total 60.870 67

Adaptability Between Groups .872 1 .872 .713 .401

Within Groups 80.658 66 1.222 Total 81.529 67

Delivery Between Groups .698 1 .698 .724 .398

Within Groups 63.658 66 .965 Total 64.356 67

77

Figure 4-4. Hypothesis test summary for doctoral granting group

Research Hypothesis Three

This hypothesis centered on the general research question of whether or not

enrollment managers at large/medium sized (10,000 or more enrollments) institutions

throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment

management professionals at small/moderate sized (less than 10,000 enrollments)

78

granting institutions. The specific attributes considered are the constructs of thought,

influence, adaptability and delivery.3

H0-3: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution.

H3: Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution.

The dataset was divided into two samples, one containing those individuals whose

institutions have yearly enrollments of 10,000 or more (n = 37) and those whose

institutions have less than 10,000 yearly enrollments (n = 31). A two-way analysis of

variance (ANOVA) yielded no significant effect for respondents in the institutional size

subcategory in the constructs of thought, F(1,66) = 2.855, p =.096, influence, F(1, 66) =

.281, p=.598, adaptability, F(1, 66) = .985, p=.325, or delivery, F(1,66) = 1.200, p=.277

between the respondents from institutions with small/medium enrollments of less than

10,000 and those at moderate/large institutions with enrollments of 10,000 or greater.

Additionally, a non-parametric test of the hypothesis for each construct was run and

indicated the similar significance results. The psychometric profile’s cluster and section

means are displayed graphically for both groups in Figure 4-5. The institution size

group descriptive data indicating no significance in any construct can be found in Table

4-7. The institution size group ANOVA data can be found in Table 4-8. The non-

parametric data for the institution size is displayed in Figure 4-6.

3 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Communication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

79

Figure 4-5. Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for institutions with enrollment of 10,000 or more and institutions with enrollments of less than 10,000 line graph

Table 4-7. Mean scores and standard deviations by institutional size (0=less than 10,000 enrollments; 1=10,000 or more enrollments)

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Thought .00 31 6.17 1.21 .21 5.73 6.62 3.33 8.00 10.00 37 6.69 1.28 .21 6.26 7.11 3.00 8.88 Total 68 6.45 1.26 .15 6.14 6.76 3.00 8.88

Influence .00 31 5.42 .93 .16 5.07 5.76 3.11 7.22 10.00 37 5.54 .97 .16 5.22 5.87 3.22 7.66

Total 68 5.49 .95 .11 5.25 5.72 3.11 7.66 Adaptability .00 31 5.65 1.29 .23 5.17 6.12 2.33 7.66

10.00 37 5.91 .90 .14 5.61 6.22 3.44 7.22 Total 68 5.79 1.10 .13 5.53 6.06 2.33 7.66

Delivery .00 31 6.03 1.15 .20 5.61 6.45 3.44 7.77 10.00 37 5.77 .80 .13 5.50 6.04 4.11 7.33 Total 68 5.89 .98 .11 5.65 6.13 3.44 7.77

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Thou

ght

Visi

on

Judg

men

t

Eval

uatio

n

Influ

ence

Lead

ersh

ip

Impa

ct

Com

mun

icat

ion

Ada

ptab

ility

Supp

ort

Resi

lienc

e

Flex

ibili

ty

Del

iver

y

Stru

ctur

e

Dri

ve

Impl

emen

tatio

n

10+

LT10

80

Table 4-8. Summary ANOVA by institutional size for each of the four constructs

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 4.475 1 4.475 2.855 .096

Within Groups 103.430 66 1.567 Total 107.905 67

Influence Between Groups .258 1 .258 .281 .598

Within Groups 60.612 66 .918 Total 60.870 67

Adaptability Between Groups 1.199 1 1.199 .985 .325

Within Groups 80.331 66 1.217 Total 81.529 67

Delivery Between Groups 1.150 1 1.150 1.200 .277

Within Groups 63.207 66 .958 Total 64.356 67

Figure 4-6. Hypothesis test summary for institutional size group

81

Research Hypothesis Four

This hypothesis centered on the general research question of whether or not

female enrollment managers at institutions throughout the United States share common

leadership attributes as male enrollment management professionals. The specific

attributes considered are the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery.4

H0-4: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will not exhibit any significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts.

H4: Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts.

The dataset was divided into two samples, one containing the responses of the

female respondents (n = 40) and one containing the responses of the male respondents

(n = 30). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded no significant effect for

respondents in the gender subcategory in the constructs of thought, F(1,68) = 1.023,

p=.315, influence, F(1, 68) = .073, p=.788, adaptability, F(1, 68) = .812, p=.371, or

delivery, F(1,68) = 2.626, p=.110, between the male and female respondents. The

psychometric profile’s cluster and section means are displayed graphically for both

groups in Figure 4-7. Additionally, a non-parametric test of the hypothesis for each

construct was run and indicated the similar significance results. The gender group

descriptive data indicating no significance in any construct can be found in Table 4-9.

The gender group ANOVA data can be found in Table 4-10. The non-parametric data

for the gender group is displayed in Figure 4-8.

4 Thought(Vision, Judgment, Evaluation); Influence (Leadership, Impact, Communication); Adaptability (Support, Resilience, Flexibility); Delivery (Structure, Drive, Implementation)

82

Figure 4-7. Psychometric profile’s cluster and section means for both females and males line graph

Table 4-9. Mean scores and standard deviations by gender (0=male, 1=female)

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Thought .00 30 6.63 1.30 .23 6.14 7.11 3.55 8.88 1.00 40 6.32 1.21 .19 5.94 6.71 3.00 8.44

Total 70 6.45 1.25 .14 6.16 6.75 3.00 8.88 Influence .00 30 5.46 .90 .16 5.12 5.80 3.22 7.66

1.00 40 5.52 .98 .15 5.21 5.83 3.11 7.55 Total 70 5.49 .94 .11 5.27 5.72 3.11 7.66

Adaptability .00 30 5.93 1.03 .18 5.54 6.32 3.44 7.66 1.00 40 5.69 1.12 .17 5.34 6.05 2.33 7.22

Total 70 5.80 1.08 .12 5.54 6.06 2.33 7.66 Delivery .00 30 5.64 1.13 .20 5.22 6.06 3.44 7.77

1.00 40 6.02 .83 .13 5.75 6.29 4.11 7.55 Total 70 5.86 .98 .11 5.62 6.09 3.44 7.77

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Thou

ght

Visi

on

Judg

men

t

Eval

uatio

n

Influ

ence

Lead

ersh

ip

Impa

ct

Com

mun

icat

ion

Ada

ptab

ility

Supp

ort

Resi

lienc

e

Flex

ibili

ty

Del

iver

y

Stru

ctur

e

Dri

ve

Impl

emen

tatio

n

F

M

83

Table 4-10. Summary ANOVA by gender for each of the four constructs Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 1.601 1 1.601 1.023 .315

Within Groups 106.348 68 1.564 Total 107.949 69

Influence Between Groups .066 1 .066 .073 .788

Within Groups 61.360 68 .902 Total 61.426 69

Adaptability Between Groups .963 1 .963 .812 .371

Within Groups 80.614 68 1.186 Total 81.578 69

Delivery Between Groups 2.483 1 2.483 2.626 .110

Within Groups 64.294 68 .945 Total 66.776 69

Figure 4-8. Hypothesis test summary for gender group

84

Summary

In this chapter the results of this study including analysis of variance and

descriptive statistics were presented. A summary of the hypotheses results can be

found in Table 4-11. The analyses needed to answer the research questions in Chapter

3 were also presented. Chapter 5 will discuss these results in detail and use them to

answer the proposed research questions.

85

Table 4-11. Hypotheses Summary Hypothesis Description Result H1 Those leaders identified in registrar positions

will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability or delivery than their enrollment management counterparts.

Differences in the construct of influence, F(1, 68) = 4.539, p = .037<.05 significance level Non-registrar enrollment mangers yielded higher scores

H2 Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at doctoral granting institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at non-doctoral granting institutions.

Differences in the construct of thought, F(1, 66) = 7.477, p= .008<.05 significance Enrollment managers at non-doctoral granting institutions yielder higher scores

H3 Those leaders identified in any enrollment management position working at large/medium sized institution will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their enrollment management counterparts at small/moderate sized institution.

Fail to reject the null hypothesis

H4 Those female leaders identified in any enrollment management position will exhibit significant difference on the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery than their male enrollment management counterparts.

Fail to reject the null hypothesis

86

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSOIN

This chapter presents additional analyses and conclusions based on the

results from the previous chapter, while comparing the findings to literature. This

chapter also presents recommendations for further research and implications for

higher education.

The purpose of this study was to compare leadership attributes of

registrar/enrollment managers in the United States to determine if there were

common attributes based on the type of institution, the size of institution, their

position or their gender. Another purpose of this study was the further explore

the research of leadership attributes and to provide a base framework for future

studies of mid-level higher education administrators.

Specifically, this study provided some insight into the attributes most

desired in quality candidates and addressed the following questions:

1) Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals?

2) Is there a significant relationship between size of institution and the leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions?

3) Is there a significant relationship between type of institution as defined by doctoral granting versus non-doctoral granting and leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions?

4) Is there a significant relationship between the leadership attributes for males versus females for individuals in enrollment management positions?

The next four sections will focus on the findings from the previous chapter

and answer each of these questions. These sections will resolve the research

questions by comparing the leadership attributes of the population in respect to

87

the constructs of thought, influence, adaptability and delivery in respect to their

position, institutional size, type of institution and gender.

Summary of Results

Research Question 1

Do registrars at differing institutions throughout the United States share

common leadership attributes as other enrollment management professionals?

The results indicate that enrollment managers, whether they are registrars

or leaders from another area within enrollment management do not have differing

leadership attributes. The construct of influence was the only cluster, of the four

within the WAVE, that showed variability in the responses between those who

indicated their position as registrar and those who were in other enrollment

management roles. The influence cluster is further defined by the sections of

leadership, impact and communication. There are also nine dimensions, three

for each section, within the cluster of influence (Appendix A). When reviewing

the data to the section and dimension levels, the section of communication was

the only section of the three within the cluster of influence that showed

significant.

Additionally, all three of the dimensions within the section of communication

indicated significance. Comparing the means for the registrar and the non-

registrars within each of these dimensions shows that those that indicated they

were not registrars ranked themselves higher in all three of the dimensions within

the section of communication (self-promoting, interaction and engaging

dimensions).

88

The results of the analysis of the data indicate that registrars and other

enrollment managers do not differ in their leadership attributes. However, those

non-registrar enrollment managers consider themselves to be better

communicators than their registrar colleagues. This finding is consistent with the

findings of the previous research. The studies of non-profit leaders, community

college presidents, college chief business officers, student affairs officers and

other higher education administrators all propose that communication is a key

leadership attribute for the future leader (Table 3-3). The leadership attribute of

communication includes the skills of networking, establishing rapport and giving a

good first impression (Appendix G).

The CCL leadership study did not indicate communication, as defined in

this study, as one of the top ten attributes needed for the future leader, but it is

within the top twenty (Leslie, 2009). The finding is also consistent with the job

description profiling of the new registrar/enrollment manager attributes defined in

the job description developed in the FuturesLeaders-ATG Work Profiling session

with AACRAO in 2006. That session found that the new registrar must have

strong logic and communication skills (FuturesLeaders-ATG Work Profiling

session, 2006). Additionally, Kleinglass noted that the qualities of the senior

student affairs officers include strong communication (Kleinglass, 2005). This

further supports the concepts that student affairs administrators are typically

promoted from within and that the current non-registrar enrollment manager has

the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position and will

89

create the domino effect for leadership in their current role (Amey, 2002;

Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2006).

Research Question 2

Is there a significant relationship between type of institution, as defined by

doctoral granting versus non-doctoral granting, and leadership attributes for

individuals in enrollment management positions?

The results indicate that enrollment managers, whether they are from

doctoral granting institutions or non-doctoral granting institutions tend to not differ

in their leadership attributes. The construct of thought was the only cluster, of

the four within the WAVE, that showed variability in the responses between those

who indicated they worked at a doctoral degree granting institution and those

whose institutions do not confer doctoral degrees. As described earlier and

displayed in Appendix A, the cluster of thought has three sections (vision,

judgment and evaluation) and each of these sections has three dimensions.

Further examination of the results of the data indicate that respondents from

doctoral granting institutions rated themselves higher in the section of evaluation

and the dimensions of abstract (thought cluster/vision section), learning oriented

(thought cluster/judgment section) and change oriented (adaptability

cluster/flexibility section).

The results of the analysis of this data indicate that individuals from doctoral

granting institutions are problem solvers who enjoy thinking about and

developing concepts, are motivated by learning new things, are strong

communicators and enjoy new challenges. In comparing with other leaders

specific to doctoral granting institutions, this is consistent with Mironack’s 2003

90

study of college union directors. His study found that these leaders were

transformational leaders and exhibited behaviors of influence and motivation.

The previous research of non-profit leaders and corporate leaders support this

finding as a key leadership attribute for the new leader (Spillett, 2006; Kachik,

2003; Leslie, 2009). Each of these studies indicates attributes within the thought

cluster as critical for the future leader. Only the CCL study, however, also

identifies the attribute of flexibility as a key future leader attribute (Leslie, 2009).

Higher education and community college studies find importance in the

leadership attributes of the thought cluster, even though the majority of

respondents are from non-doctoral granting institutions (Campbell & Leverty,

1997; Kachik, 2003; Tunk, 2007; Berry, 2008, O’Daniels, 2009). This further

supports the idea that the leadership attribute is job specific within the

organization and that individuals fulfilling different responsibilities will have a

need for differing leadership attributes.

Respondents from non-doctoral granting institutions, in contrast, show

stronger significance in the section of implementation(meticulous, reliable,

compliant) and the dimensions of principled (delivery cluster/structure section)

and compliant (delivery cluster/implementation section). All of these attributes

are within the delivery cluster. This indicates that these individuals need

structure and are pleased with following set requirements. These results are

consistent with the WAVE scale in that they indicate that individuals scoring high

on compliant are very likely to score low on change oriented (Saville, 2005). All

previous studies displayed in Table 3-3 indicate structure as a key leadership

91

attribute for the future leader. Compliant, however, is only supported by the

research on the leadership attributes of non-profit leaders, student affairs officers

and other higher education administrators (Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Spillett, 2006;

Tunks, 2007). This further supports the concept that leadership attributes are

position driven. Non-profit leaders and student affairs officers likely must comply

to state policies, government regulations or funding provider limitations and a

strong leader will understand the need for compliance. Overall, those

respondents from the doctoral granting institutions are more change oriented

while those from the non-doctoral granting institutions are more compliant.

Research Question 3

Is there a significant relationship between size of institution and the

leadership attributes for individuals in enrollment management positions?

The results indicate that enrollment managers, regardless of the size of

institution in which they work do not differ in their leadership attributes. For each

of the four clusters examined, there are three sections and three dimensions.

When reviewing the data to the section and dimension levels none of the twelve

sections showed significance. In the cluster of thought the three sections are

vision, judgment and evaluation. In the section of evaluation there are three

dimensions (analytical, factual and rational). Comparing the means for the

small/medium institutions to the moderate/large institutions shows that those

enrollment managers working at moderate/large institutions ranked themselves

higher in the dimension of analytical.

The results of the analysis of the data indicate that enrollment managers

from different size institutions do not differ in their leadership attributes.

92

Enrollment managers at moderate/large institutions consider themselves to be

more analytical than those respondents from small/medium sized institutions.

Analytical, for the purposes of this study, indicates an individual is a good

problem solver, probing and effective at analyzing information. Previous studies

of corporate leaders, college chief business officers, student affairs officers and

other higher education administrators indicate that analytical is a key leadership

attribute for the future leader (Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Kachik, 2003; Berry, 2008;

O’Daniel, 2009). The non-profit leader of the future and the international leaders

in the CCL study both indicate that analytical is not a key attribute for future

leaders in their industry (Spillett, 2006; Leslie, 2009). These differing concepts

regarding the attribute of analytical support the concept that leadership attributes

are position specific and that organizations’ need to define the attributes for each

position in order to effectively identify the best candidate.

Research Question 4

Is there a significant relationship between the leadership attributes for

males versus females for individuals in enrollment management positions?

The results indicate that enrollment managers, whether they are male or

female do not differ in their leadership attributes. There were no significant

differences between the leadership attributes of males or females in any of the

four constructs. When reviewing the data to the section and dimension levels,

the section of structure was the only one that showed significant with a p=.007.

The dimension of activity oriented (delivery cluster/drive section) also showed

significant with a p=.009 indicating that females tend to rank themselves higher in

this category. Structure, for the purposes of this study, the leader exhibiting this

93

attribute is organized, principled and activity oriented. The results of the analysis

of the data indicate that female respondents tend to find importance in planning,

work at a fast pace, cope well with multi-tasking and like to follow set procedures

at higher levels than their male counterparts. These factors are comparable to

Kachik’s 2003 study in the aspect of detail conscious. That study found that

female administrators are more detail conscious and precise than male

administrators. A direct conclusion that females are more detail conscious

cannot be drawn, however, without further examination of the differences in the

populations. The Kachik study compared community college administrators with

corporate leaders.

Further examination of the data revealed that the dimension of rational

(thought cluster/evaluation section) showed significant with a p=.021. This

finding indicates that the male respondents tend to rank themselves higher in this

category. For the purposes of this study, rational refers to number fluency,

technology aware and objective. The data also shows that the male respondents

tend to see problems solving as one of their strengths, are comfortable working

with numerical data and are highly competitive at higher levels than their female

counterparts. This is particularly important for the future role of the registrar.

The leadership attributes defined by AACRAO at the FuturesLeaders-ATG Work

Profiling session in 2006 listed numeric reasoning and complex decision making

as two of the desired attributes for future registrar/enrollment managers

(FuturesLeaders-ATG Work Profiling, 2006). Overall, this data shows that

94

enrollment managers tend to not have differing leadership attributes regardless

of their gender.

Recommendations for Further Study

As the literature reviewed demonstrated, leadership styles can be defined

(Bennis, 1989; Lovell & Kosten, 2000; Kachik, 2003; O’Daniels, 2009), learned

(Tunks, 2007), and the WAVE instrument is a valid instrument in building job

profiles and informing the development of a structured candidate selection

process (Basham, 2007; Berry, 2008). There is little research, however, on the

specific leadership attributes of enrollment managers and, even less with specific

focus on registrars. This study built upon to the leadership research from other

positions and has added some focus to the area of enrollment management.

The American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers

(AACRAO) worked with the FuturesLeaders-ATG Group in 2006 to develop a

new job description for registrars. The first important component of this job

description was to rename the position to dean/director of enrollment and

registrar. The key factors in making this distinction was that the position now

requires more strategic planning and decision making (Campbell, 2006). Given

this information and the fact that enrollment managers tend to not differ in their

leadership attributes, with a few exceptions, further examination of the data could

help to confirm the attributes described by AACRAO and better define the

specific attributes that make an effective registrar. Further examination could

also assist in the creation of training programs specifically suited for enrollment

managers.

95

Another area where this study could be expanded is in the idea of

succession planning and its link to the economy. Economy has had an impact on

the speed in which predicted retirements have occurred (Jackson, 2010).

Studies have been reporting on the looming leadership gap since early 2000 and

yet the workforce is still aging and nearing retirement (Jackson, 2010). In higher

education, the turnover rate has progressed slower than originally projected as

well. The economy may be the factor that has slowed retirements. Amey’s study

(2002) indicated that student affairs officers tended to remain at the same

institution longer and tended to be promoted from within the same institution.

The review of labor statistics found that, despite the aging workforce, the

percentage of the workforce forty-five years of age or older has increased by 4%

between 2006 and 2010. Many attribute this to the economy and the need for

individuals to remain employed, but how is this change impacting succession

planning? Further research as to how the economy impacts succession planning

and the continued funding of leadership development programs should be

reviewed. As indicated by Rothwell in 2010, succession planning is also an

evolving process and must be reviewed (Rothwell, 2010).

Review of the labor statistics highlights the growing Hispanic population, as

well as the declining white population. These changes, combined with the

demographic changes noted earlier lead to the question of cultural awareness

requirements for the new registrar/enrollment manager. Further research on the

cultural awareness necessary for the new leader and how the generational

96

differences impact the definition of culture will provide a great framework for

identifying new leadership attributes.

Doctoral granting institutions versus non-doctoral granting institutions were

a part of this study and the leadership attributes of leaders within each of these

types of institutions should be further examined. Further research is needed to

determine if the organizational structure of enrollment management differs

between doctoral granting and non-doctoral granting institutions and if this

impacts the differences noted in the leadership attributes. Further research could

also examine if the culture at these differing types of institutions contributes to

the differences in leadership attributes.

Research also indicated that the chief academic officers are the highest

percentage of positions that progress towards the presidency and the attrition of

these leaders is low at an average of only 4.7 years on the job (Mann, 2010). If

knowledge transfer is the key to the next phases of succession planning, then an

administrator willing to remain with an organization may be more appealing

(Rothwell, 2010). As indicated earlier, Amey’s study (2002) indicated that

student affairs officers tended to remain at the same institution longer and tended

to be promoted from within the same institution. Further examination of the

subset of senior student affairs officers who later become presidents and of what

type of institution they were promoted from (doctoral versus non-doctoral) and

what their institutions organizational structure was (enrollment management

within academic affairs or student affairs) could help to colleges prepare stronger

career paths for enrollment management professionals. Furthermore, the

97

comparison and regression analysis of enrollment manager leadership data with

other leadership groups within higher education could be segmented by

institution type, size, location and other factors that may draw more conclusive

links between where the enrollment managers of today need to grow in their

leadership skills in order to remain competitive for the role of president.

Implications for Higher Education Administrators

The data collected will help to establish baseline information on leadership

attributes of individuals working in admission, registrar and enrollment

management positions. The data can be subcategorized by type of institution,

size of institution and position level and compared to other position groups so

that position-related trainings specific to small community colleges, large

universities, mid-level admissions staff and other targeted groups could be

developed.

Higher education administrators will need to understand the vital role

enrollment managers will continue to play in the daily operations of each

institution and will need to help prepare for the vacancies that are looming. The

new enrollment manager is technically adept and understands the technological

abilities of the incoming freshmen. In addition to strong leadership and

communication skills, the new registrar/enrollment managers should be

connected to all aspects of college administration with an understanding of

operations, finance, student relations, technology and academics.

Conclusion

Corporate and higher education leaders must be prepared to adapt to the

changing workforce and the address the leadership skills gaps that exist.

98

Identifying the leadership attributes necessary for each position within an

organization will be important as organizations struggle to meet the demand of a

dwindling trained leadership base. One purpose of this report was to identify the

leadership attributes for enrollment managers in higher education institutions and

to help build a basis for future research on the development of a leadership

training program.

This study built upon previous research to draw stronger conclusions

regarding the leadership attributes of enrollment managers. The study found that

enrollment management leaders who do not hold the position of registrar

exhibited stronger communication skills and ability to impact decision making

than their registrar colleagues, while enrollment management leaders from

doctoral granting institutions exhibited more vision than their counterparts from

non-doctoral granting institutions. These factors are small in comparison to the

full array of leadership attributes reviewed. Registrar/enrollment managers,

overall, do not differ in their leadership attributes. The findings support the

leadership attributes identified by AACRAO as necessary job qualities for the

future enrollment manager/registrar. Further research should be conducted to

determine the need for leadership development within the area of enrollment

management. Senior student affairs officer positions are typically filled from

within the institution and the current non-registrar enrollment manager, having

the skills necessary to move into the senior student affairs position, may likely be

promoted to this position and will create the domino effect for leadership in their

current role (Amey, 2002; Hamilton, 2004; Campbell, 2006).

99

Results from this research study provide a base framework for future

studies on leadership attributes of mid-level higher education administrators and

can be used to support leadership selection and development initiatives for future

enrollment managers as the domino effect from turnover begins to unravel.

Discovering what leadership attributes are needed to be successful will assist in

determining the best candidate. .

100

APPENDIX A CLUSTER DESCRIPTIONS

Recall from Figure 3-1 the WAVE is composed of four clusters: thought, influence,

adaptability, and delivery. Each of these clusters is divided into three sections, three

dimensions per section, and three facets per dimension yielding a total of 12 sections,

36 dimensions and 108 facets.

Thought Cluster

The thought cluster (see Figure A-1) is composed of vision, judgment, and

evaluation sections and inventive, abstract, strategic, insightful, practically minded,

learning oriented, analytical, factual, and rational dimensions.

Cluster Section Dimension Facets

Inventive Creative, original, radical Vision Abstract Conceptual, theoretical, learning by thinking Strategic Developing strategy, visionary, forward thinking Insightful Discerning, seeking improvement, intuitive Thought Judgment Practically Minded Practical, learning by doing common sense focused Learning Oriented Open to learning, learning by reading, quick learning Analytical Problem solving, analyzing information, probing Evaluation Factual Written communication,

logical, fact finding Rational Number fluency, technology aware, objective Figure A-1. The thought cluster, sections, and dimensions

101

Influence Cluster

The influence cluster (see Figure A-2) is composed of leadership, impact, and

communication sections and purposeful, directing, empowering, convincing,

challenging, articulate, self promoting, interactive, and engaging dimensions.

Cluster Section Dimension Facets Purposeful Decisive, making decisions definite Leadership Directing Leadership oriented, control seeking, coordinating people Empowering Motivating others, inspiring, encouraging Convincing Persuasive, negotiative, asserting views Influence Impact Challenging Challenging ideas, prepared to disagree, argumentative Articulate Giving presentations,

eloquent, socially confident Self promoting Immodest, attention seeking, praise seeking Communication Interactive Networking, talkative, lively

Engaging Establishing rapport, friendship seeking, initial impression

Figure A-2. The influence cluster, sections, and dimensions

102

Adaptability Cluster

The adaptability cluster (see Figure A-3) is composed of support, resilience, and

flexibility sections and involving, attentive, accepting, resolving, self assured, composed,

receptive, positive, and change oriented dimensions.

Cluster Section Dimension Facets Involving Team oriented, democratic, decision sharing Support Attentive Empathic, listening, psychologically minded Accepting Trusting, tolerant,considerate Resolving Conflict resolution, handling angry and upset people Adaptability Resilience Self assured Self-confident, self-valuing, self-directing Composed Calm, poised, copes with

pressure Receptive Receptive to feedback, open to criticism, feedback seeking Flexibility Positive Optimistic, cheerful, buoyant Change oriented Accepting challenges, accepting change, tolerant

of uncertainty

Figure A-3. The adaptability cluster, sections, and dimensions

103

Delivery Cluster

The delivery cluster (see Figure A-4) is composed of structure, drive and

implementation sections and organized, principled, activity oriented, dynamic, striving,

enterprising, meticulous, reliable, and compliant dimensions.

Cluster Section Dimension Facets Organized Self organized, planning, prioritizing Structure Principled Proper, discreet, honoring commitments Activity oriented Quick working, busy, multi-tasking Dynamic Energetic, initiating, action oriented Delivery Drive Striving Ambitious, results driven, perservering Enterprising Competitive, enterpreurial, selling Meticulous Quality oriented, thorough, detailed Implementation Reliable Meeting deadlines, finishing Tasks, punctual Compliant Rule bound, following

Procedures, risk averse

Figure A-4. The delivery cluster, sections, and dimensions

104

APPENDIX B DATA FOR THE REGISTRAR SUBCATEGORY

1-Registrar; 0-Non-Registrar

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound

Thought .00 38 6.242690079 1.2474479016 .2023627714 5.832664157 6.652716001 3.3333333 8.8888890

1.00 32 6.715277769 1.2246432636 .2164883891 6.273746788 7.156808749 3.0000000 8.4444450

Total 70 6.458730166 1.2507891790 .1494979011 6.160490013 6.756970318 3.0000000 8.8888890

Vision .00 38 6.008771926 1.8510395320 .3002782635 5.400350372 6.617193481 1.6666666 9.3333330

1.00 32 6.812500006 1.3005030935 .2298986391 6.343618640 7.281381372 3.6666667 8.6666670

Total 70 6.376190477 1.6612679990 .1985595040 5.980075105 6.772305849 1.6666666 9.3333330

Inventive .00 38 5.658 2.2212 .3603 4.928 6.388 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.250 1.5658 .2768 5.685 6.815 4.0 9.0

Total 70 5.929 1.9584 .2341 5.462 6.396 2.0 10.0

Abstract .00 38 5.763 2.2110 .3587 5.036 6.490 1.0 10.0

1.00 32 7.125 1.8622 .3292 6.454 7.796 3.0 10.0

Total 70 6.386 2.1555 .2576 5.872 6.900 1.0 10.0

Strategic .00 38 6.605 2.1877 .3549 5.886 7.324 1.0 10.0

1.00 32 7.063 1.8826 .3328 6.384 7.741 3.0 10.0

Total 70 6.814 2.0522 .2453 6.325 7.304 1.0 10.0

Judgment .00 38 6.377192974 1.1654976005 .1890686771 5.994103445 6.760282502 3.3333333 8.0000000

1.00 32 6.583333309 1.3333333014 .2357022548 6.102615391 7.064051227 3.6666667 9.0000000

Total 70 6.471428556 1.2400883527 .1482189077 6.175739925 6.767117186 3.3333333 9.0000000

Insightful .00 38 6.421 1.8691 .3032 5.807 7.035 3.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.813 1.7309 .3060 6.188 7.437 3.0 10.0

Total 70 6.600 1.8050 .2157 6.170 7.030 3.0 10.0

105

Practically minded .00 38 6.211 1.7730 .2876 5.628 6.793 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.063 1.9166 .3388 5.371 6.754 3.0 10.0

Total 70 6.143 1.8280 .2185 5.707 6.579 2.0 10.0

Learning oriented .00 38 6.500 1.8270 .2964 5.899 7.101 3.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.875 2.1365 .3777 6.105 7.645 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.671 1.9688 .2353 6.202 7.141 1.0 10.0

Evaluation .00 38 6.342105211 1.5663250861 .2540914814 5.827266966 6.856943455 3.0000000 9.3333330

1.00 32 6.749999994 1.6805870801 .2970886302 6.144083738 7.355916250 1.6666666 9.6666670

Total 70 6.528571397 1.6206128531 .1937002847 6.142149902 6.914992892 1.6666666 9.6666670

Analytical .00 38 6.421 1.8691 .3032 5.807 7.035 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.969 1.9258 .3404 6.274 7.663 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.671 1.9013 .2273 6.218 7.125 1.0 10.0

Factual .00 38 6.737 1.7962 .2914 6.146 7.327 3.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.813 2.0389 .3604 6.077 7.548 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.771 1.8971 .2268 6.319 7.224 2.0 10.0

Rational .00 38 5.868 1.9888 .3226 5.215 6.522 2.0 9.0

1.00 32 6.469 1.9341 .3419 5.771 7.166 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.143 1.9729 .2358 5.672 6.613 2.0 10.0

Influence .00 38 5.713450289 .8678560633 .1407848439 5.428193100 5.998707479 3.1111112 7.6666665

1.00 32 5.243055537 .9790466561 .1730726324 4.890071577 5.596039498 3.2222223 7.5555553

Total 70 5.498412689 .9435190348 .1127720944 5.273438516 5.723386861 3.1111112 7.6666665

Leadership .00 38 6.052631532 1.4633178403 .2373814996 5.571650926 6.533612137 3.0000000 9.3333330

1.00 32 6.145833334 1.2866490774 .2274495719 5.681946874 6.609719795 3.3333333 8.3333330

Total 70 6.095238070 1.3762920480 .1644983631 5.767072815 6.423403325 3.0000000 9.3333330

Purposeful .00 38 5.711 2.1423 .3475 5.006 6.415 1.0 9.0

1.00 32 5.750 2.0791 .3675 5.000 6.500 1.0 10.0

Total 70 5.729 2.0985 .2508 5.228 6.229 1.0 10.0

106

Directing .00 38 6.263 1.9821 .3215 5.612 6.915 1.0 9.0

1.00 32 6.500 1.2700 .2245 6.042 6.958 4.0 9.0

Total 70 6.371 1.6869 .2016 5.969 6.774 1.0 9.0

Empowering .00 38 6.184 1.9708 .3197 5.536 6.832 3.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.188 1.6152 .2855 5.605 6.770 2.0 9.0

Total 70 6.186 1.8041 .2156 5.756 6.616 2.0 10.0

Impact .00 38 5.552631571 1.0347601457 .1678602614 5.212514375 5.892748767 2.6666667 7.6666665

1.00 32 5.125000003 1.2999862185 .2298072676 4.656304991 5.593695016 2.6666667 8.0000000

Total 70 5.357142854 1.1745029011 .1403799469 5.077092523 5.637193186 2.6666667 8.0000000

Convincing .00 38 4.921 1.6665 .2703 4.373 5.469 2.0 8.0

1.00 32 4.469 1.7036 .3012 3.855 5.083 1.0 8.0

Total 70 4.714 1.6866 .2016 4.312 5.116 1.0 8.0

Challenging .00 38 5.105 1.8276 .2965 4.505 5.706 2.0 9.0

1.00 32 4.375 1.7735 .3135 3.736 5.014 2.0 9.0

Total 70 4.771 1.8271 .2184 4.336 5.207 2.0 9.0

Articulate .00 38 6.632 1.8515 .3004 6.023 7.240 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.531 1.7410 .3078 5.904 7.159 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.586 1.7896 .2139 6.159 7.012 1.0 10.0

Communication .00 38 5.535087695 1.2143770085 .1969979641 5.135931905 5.934243485 3.0000000 8.3333330

1.00 32 4.458333325 1.3326611445 .2355834331 3.977857745 4.938808905 1.0000000 7.3333335

Total 70 5.042857126 1.3713439801 .1639069558 4.715871696 5.369842556 1.0000000 8.3333330

Self promoting .00 38 5.026 1.9100 .3098 4.399 5.654 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 4.156 1.6086 .2844 3.576 4.736 1.0 8.0

Total 70 4.629 1.8192 .2174 4.195 5.062 1.0 10.0

Interactive .00 38 6.237 1.6347 .2652 5.700 6.774 2.0 9.0

1.00 32 4.813 1.6932 .2993 4.202 5.423 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.586 1.7977 .2149 5.157 6.014 1.0 9.0

107

Engaging .00 38 5.342 1.5117 .2452 4.845 5.839 2.0 9.0

1.00 32 4.406 1.9321 .3415 3.710 5.103 1.0 8.0

Total 70 4.914 1.7672 .2112 4.493 5.336 1.0 9.0

Adaptability .00 38 5.733918126 1.1525427167 .1869671174 5.355086762 6.112749490 2.3333333 7.6666665

1.00 32 5.881944419 1.0167601380 .1797394971 5.515363298 6.248525540 3.4444444 7.2222223

Total 70 5.801587289 1.0873288632 .1299606565 5.542322873 6.060851704 2.3333333 7.6666665

Support .00 38 5.754385953 1.7530482845 .2843819840 5.178173320 6.330598585 2.0000000 9.0000000

1.00 32 6.041666625 1.5969280036 .2822996551 5.465912682 6.617420568 2.6666667 8.3333330

Total 70 5.885714260 1.6776312423 .2005152857 5.485697210 6.285731310 2.0000000 9.0000000

Involving .00 38 5.895 2.3572 .3824 5.120 6.670 1.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.156 2.2734 .4019 5.337 6.976 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.014 2.3062 .2756 5.464 6.564 1.0 10.0

Attentive .00 38 5.237 2.1864 .3547 4.518 5.955 1.0 10.0

1.00 32 5.375 2.0280 .3585 4.644 6.106 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.300 2.1014 .2512 4.799 5.801 1.0 10.0

Accepting .00 38 6.132 1.8035 .2926 5.539 6.724 3.0 9.0

1.00 32 6.594 1.5629 .2763 6.030 7.157 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.343 1.7015 .2034 5.937 6.749 3.0 9.0

Resilience .00 38 5.754385947 1.1719550744 .1901162177 5.369173900 6.139597995 2.3333333 7.6666665

1.00 32 5.812500025 .9310937094 .1645956690 5.476804945 6.148195105 3.3333333 7.0000000

Total 70 5.780952383 1.0615300669 .1268771106 5.527839473 6.034065293 2.3333333 7.6666665

Resolving .00 38 5.447 1.8556 .3010 4.837 6.057 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 5.313 2.0547 .3632 4.572 6.053 1.0 10.0

Total 70 5.386 1.9359 .2314 4.924 5.847 1.0 10.0

Self-assured .00 38 5.947 1.8151 .2944 5.351 6.544 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.313 1.6740 .2959 5.709 6.916 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.114 1.7491 .2091 5.697 6.531 2.0 10.0

108

Composed .00 38 5.868 1.6953 .2750 5.311 6.426 1.0 9.0

1.00 32 5.813 1.4906 .2635 5.275 6.350 3.0 8.0

Total 70 5.843 1.5938 .1905 5.463 6.223 1.0 9.0

Flexibility .00 38 5.692982463 1.3542981970 .2196961782 5.247835723 6.138129203 1.3333334 7.6666665

1.00 32 5.791666631 1.4731770887 .2604233773 5.260529651 6.322803611 2.6666667 8.3333330

Total 70 5.738095226 1.4003597830 .1673750076 5.404191222 6.071999230 1.3333334 8.3333330

Receptive .00 38 5.553 1.9270 .3126 4.919 6.186 1.0 10.0

1.00 32 5.219 2.0278 .3585 4.488 5.950 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.400 1.9664 .2350 4.931 5.869 1.0 10.0

Positive .00 38 5.658 1.6810 .2727 5.105 6.210 2.0 8.0

1.00 32 5.656 1.8597 .3288 4.986 6.327 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.657 1.7519 .2094 5.239 6.075 1.0 9.0

Change Oriented .00 38 5.868 1.9888 .3226 5.215 6.522 1.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.500 2.0791 .3675 5.750 7.250 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.157 2.0404 .2439 5.671 6.644 1.0 10.0

Delivery .00 38 5.991228047 .9749554962 .1581586661 5.670768150 6.311687945 3.8888888 7.7777777

1.00 32 5.708333363 .9872746849 .1745271561 5.352382881 6.064283844 3.4444444 7.3333335

Total 70 5.861904763 .9837534567 .1175810276 5.627337031 6.096472495 3.4444444 7.7777777

Structure .00 38 6.236842111 1.2942652642 .2099575505 5.811427704 6.662256517 3.6666667 8.6666670

1.00 32 6.260416638 1.3486602278 .2384116981 5.774172773 6.746660502 2.6666667 8.0000000

Total 70 6.247619037 1.3097992228 .1565509504 5.935308437 6.559929638 2.6666667 8.6666670

Organized .00 38 6.105 1.8569 .3012 5.495 6.716 2.0 10.0

1.00 32 6.156 1.9026 .3363 5.470 6.842 1.0 9.0

Total 70 6.129 1.8644 .2228 5.684 6.573 1.0 10.0

Principled .00 38 6.342 1.6154 .2621 5.811 6.873 3.0 9.0

1.00 32 6.813 1.5332 .2710 6.260 7.365 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.557 1.5847 .1894 6.179 6.935 3.0 9.0

109

Activity Oriented .00 38 6.263 1.7810 .2889 5.678 6.849 1.0 9.0

1.00 32 5.813 1.6932 .2993 5.202 6.423 1.0 8.0

Total 70 6.057 1.7436 .2084 5.641 6.473 1.0 9.0

Drive .00 38 6.026315779 1.5253248774 .2474403693 5.524953968 6.527677590 3.6666667 9.0000000

1.00 32 5.354166678 1.1971815217 .2116337931 4.922536711 5.785796645 2.6666667 8.3333330

Total 70 5.719047619 1.4160748131 .1692533130 5.381396498 6.056698739 2.6666667 9.0000000

Dynamic .00 38 6.526 1.9692 .3194 5.879 7.174 3.0 10.0

1.00 32 5.688 1.9250 .3403 4.993 6.382 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.143 1.9802 .2367 5.671 6.615 2.0 10.0

Striving .00 38 6.500 1.7359 .2816 5.929 7.071 3.0 9.0

1.00 32 6.438 1.5850 .2802 5.866 7.009 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.471 1.6570 .1980 6.076 6.867 3.0 9.0

Enterprising .00 38 5.053 1.7850 .2896 4.466 5.639 2.0 9.0

1.00 32 3.938 1.4128 .2497 3.428 4.447 1.0 6.0

Total 70 4.543 1.7083 .2042 4.136 4.950 1.0 9.0

Implementation .00 38 5.710526318 1.5347253057 .2489653201 5.206074663 6.214977974 3.0000000 8.6666670

1.00 32 5.510416684 1.5356792972 .2714723112 4.956745255 6.064088113 2.3333333 8.3333330

Total 70 5.619047629 1.5272993236 .1825471847 5.254875960 5.983219298 2.3333333 8.6666670

Meticulous .00 38 5.553 1.7351 .2815 4.982 6.123 2.0 8.0

1.00 32 5.625 1.8622 .3292 4.954 6.296 2.0 9.0

Total 70 5.586 1.7815 .2129 5.161 6.010 2.0 9.0

Reliable .00 38 5.474 2.1275 .3451 4.774 6.173 2.0 9.0

1.00 32 5.313 2.3478 .4150 4.466 6.159 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.400 2.2159 .2648 4.872 5.928 1.0 9.0

Compliant .00 38 6.105 1.8127 .2941 5.509 6.701 2.0 9.0

1.00 32 5.594 1.6822 .2974 4.987 6.200 2.0 9.0

Total 70 5.871 1.7604 .2104 5.452 6.291 2.0 9.0

110

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 3.880 1 3.880 2.535 .116

Within Groups 104.069 68 1.530 Total 107.949 69

Vision Between Groups 11.222 1 11.222 4.258 .043

Within Groups 179.205 68 2.635 Total 190.427 69

Inventive Between Groups 6.090 1 6.090 1.602 .210

Within Groups 258.553 68 3.802 Total 264.643 69

Abstract Between Groups 32.217 1 32.217 7.597 .007

Within Groups 288.368 68 4.241 Total 320.586 69

Strategic Between Groups 3.632 1 3.632 .861 .357

Within Groups 286.954 68 4.220 Total 290.586 69

Judgment Between Groups .738 1 .738 .476 .492

Within Groups 105.371 68 1.550 Total 106.110 69

Insightful Between Groups 2.662 1 2.662 .815 .370

Within Groups 222.138 68 3.267 Total 224.800 69

Practically minded Between Groups .381 1 .381 .112 .738

Within Groups 230.191 68 3.385 Total 230.571 69

111

Learning oriented Between Groups 2.443 1 2.443 .627 .431

Within Groups 265.000 68 3.897 Total 267.443 69

Evaluation Between Groups 2.890 1 2.890 1.102 .298

Within Groups 178.330 68 2.623 Total 181.221 69

Analytical Between Groups 5.211 1 5.211 1.451 .233

Within Groups 244.232 68 3.592 Total 249.443 69

Factual Between Groups .099 1 .099 .027 .869

Within Groups 248.243 68 3.651 Total 248.343 69

Rational Between Groups 6.261 1 6.261 1.623 .207

Within Groups 262.311 68 3.858 Total 268.571 69

Influence Between Groups 3.844 1 3.844 4.539 .037

Within Groups 57.582 68 .847 Total 61.426 69

Leadership Between Groups .151 1 .151 .079 .780

Within Groups 130.548 68 1.920 Total 130.698 69

Purposeful Between Groups .027 1 .027 .006 .938

Within Groups 303.816 68 4.468 Total 303.843 69

Directing Between Groups .974 1 .974 .339 .562

Within Groups 195.368 68 2.873 Total 196.343 69

112

Empowering Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .994

Within Groups 224.586 68 3.303 Total 224.586 69

Impact Between Groups 3.177 1 3.177 2.348 .130

Within Groups 92.006 68 1.353 Total 95.183 69

Convincing Between Groups 3.554 1 3.554 1.254 .267

Within Groups 192.732 68 2.834 Total 196.286 69

Challenging Between Groups 9.264 1 9.264 2.849 .096

Within Groups 221.079 68 3.251 Total 230.343 69

Articulate Between Groups .175 1 .175 .054 .817

Within Groups 220.811 68 3.247 Total 220.986 69

Communication Between Groups 20.140 1 20.140 12.494 .001

Within Groups 109.620 68 1.612 Total 129.760 69

Self promoting Between Groups 13.150 1 13.150 4.155 .045

Within Groups 215.192 68 3.165 Total 228.343 69

Interactive Between Groups 35.242 1 35.242 12.765 .001

Within Groups 187.743 68 2.761 Total 222.986 69

Engaging Between Groups 15.214 1 15.214 5.166 .026

Within Groups 200.271 68 2.945 Total 215.486 69

113

Adaptability Between Groups .381 1 .381 .319 .574

Within Groups 81.197 68 1.194 Total 81.578 69

Support Between Groups 1.434 1 1.434 .506 .479

Within Groups 192.763 68 2.835 Total 194.197 69

Involving Between Groups 1.188 1 1.188 .221 .640

Within Groups 365.798 68 5.379 Total 366.986 69

Attentive Between Groups .332 1 .332 .074 .786

Within Groups 304.368 68 4.476 Total 304.700 69

Accepting Between Groups 3.711 1 3.711 1.287 .261

Within Groups 196.061 68 2.883 Total 199.771 69

Resilience Between Groups .059 1 .059 .051 .821

Within Groups 77.694 68 1.143 Total 77.752 69

Resolving Between Groups .316 1 .316 .083 .774

Within Groups 258.270 68 3.798 Total 258.586 69

Self-assured Between Groups 2.316 1 2.316 .754 .388

Within Groups 208.770 68 3.070 Total 211.086 69

Composed Between Groups .054 1 .054 .021 .885

Within Groups 175.217 68 2.577 Total 175.271 69

114

Flexibility Between Groups .169 1 .169 .085 .771

Within Groups 135.140 68 1.987 Total 135.310 69

Receptive Between Groups 1.937 1 1.937 .497 .483

Within Groups 264.863 68 3.895 Total 266.800 69

Positive Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .997

Within Groups 211.771 68 3.114 Total 211.771 69

Change Oriented Between Groups 6.929 1 6.929 1.681 .199

Within Groups 280.342 68 4.123 Total 287.271 69

Delivery Between Groups 1.390 1 1.390 1.446 .233

Within Groups 65.386 68 .962 Total 66.776 69

Structure Between Groups .010 1 .010 .006 .941

Within Groups 118.365 68 1.741 Total 118.375 69

Organized Between Groups .045 1 .045 .013 .910

Within Groups 239.798 68 3.526 Total 239.843 69

Principled Between Groups 3.844 1 3.844 1.543 .218

Within Groups 169.428 68 2.492 Total 173.271 69

Activity Oriented Between Groups 3.528 1 3.528 1.163 .285

Within Groups 206.243 68 3.033 Total 209.771 69

115

Drive Between Groups 7.848 1 7.848 4.089 .047

Within Groups 130.515 68 1.919 Total 138.363 69

Dynamic Between Groups 12.223 1 12.223 3.217 .077

Within Groups 258.349 68 3.799 Total 270.571 69

Striving Between Groups .068 1 .068 .024 .876

Within Groups 189.375 68 2.785 Total 189.443 69

Enterprising Between Groups 21.602 1 21.602 8.171 .006

Within Groups 179.770 68 2.644 Total 201.371 69

Implementation Between Groups .696 1 .696 .295 .589

Within Groups 160.257 68 2.357 Total 160.952 69

Meticulous Between Groups .091 1 .091 .028 .867

Within Groups 218.895 68 3.219 Total 218.986 69

Reliable Between Groups .451 1 .451 .091 .764

Within Groups 338.349 68 4.976 Total 338.800 69

Compliant Between Groups 4.545 1 4.545 1.477 .228

Within Groups 209.298 68 3.078 Total 213.843 69

116

APPENDIX C DATA FOR THE DOCTORAL GRANTING SUBCATEGORY

0 = Non-Doctoral Granting; 1=Doctoral Granting

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound

Thought .00 25 5.928888892 1.3732002789 .2746400558 5.362059676 6.495718108 3.0000000 7.8888890

1.00 43 6.762273909 1.1091467726 .1691432971 6.420928916 7.103618902 4.4444447 8.8888890

Total 68 6.455882359 1.2690617246 .1538963393 6.148703980 6.763060738 3.0000000 8.8888890

Vision .00 25 5.866666728 1.6969471904 .3393894381 5.166201355 6.567132101 1.6666666 8.6666670

1.00 43 6.682170516 1.6199050908 .2470332104 6.183637314 7.180703718 3.6666667 9.3333330

Total 68 6.382352947 1.6832653110 .2041259022 5.974915941 6.789789953 1.6666666 9.3333330

Inventive .00 25 5.680 1.8868 .3774 4.901 6.459 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.093 1.9738 .3010 5.486 6.700 3.0 10.0

Total 68 5.941 1.9385 .2351 5.472 6.410 2.0 10.0

Abstract .00 25 5.640 2.0992 .4198 4.773 6.507 1.0 10.0

1.00 43 6.791 2.1332 .3253 6.134 7.447 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.368 2.1779 .2641 5.840 6.895 1.0 10.0

Strategic .00 25 6.280 2.2642 .4528 5.345 7.215 1.0 10.0

1.00 43 7.163 1.9140 .2919 6.574 7.752 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.838 2.0777 .2520 6.335 7.341 1.0 10.0

Judgment .00 25 6.079999976 1.5039453612 .3007890722 5.459201842 6.700798110 3.3333333 8.3333330

1.00 43 6.682170523 1.0388065216 .1584165094 6.362473064 7.001867982 4.3333335 9.0000000

Total 68 6.460784293 1.2538886656 .1520563356 6.157278576 6.764290009 3.3333333 9.0000000

Insightful .00 25 6.320 1.7963 .3593 5.579 7.061 3.0 10.0

1.00 43 6.721 1.8429 .2810 6.154 7.288 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.574 1.8229 .2211 6.132 7.015 3.0 10.0

117

Practically minded .00 25 5.920 2.0396 .4079 5.078 6.762 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.256 1.7195 .2622 5.727 6.785 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.132 1.8358 .2226 5.688 6.577 2.0 10.0

Learning oriented .00 25 6.000 2.3094 .4619 5.047 6.953 1.0 10.0

1.00 43 7.070 1.6959 .2586 6.548 7.592 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.676 1.9958 .2420 6.193 7.160 1.0 10.0

Evaluation .00 25 5.839999952 1.7403703184 .3480740637 5.121610393 6.558389511 1.6666666 8.0000000

1.00 43 6.922480593 1.4617471842 .2229143558 6.472621210 7.372339976 4.6666665 9.6666670

Total 68 6.524509769 1.6434362926 .1992959242 6.126713439 6.922306099 1.6666666 9.6666670

Analytical .00 25 5.760 2.0058 .4012 4.932 6.588 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 7.209 1.6841 .2568 6.691 7.728 4.0 10.0

Total 68 6.676 1.9273 .2337 6.210 7.143 1.0 10.0

Factual .00 25 5.920 1.9562 .3912 5.113 6.727 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 7.186 1.7218 .2626 6.656 7.716 4.0 10.0

Total 68 6.721 1.8993 .2303 6.261 7.180 2.0 10.0

Rational .00 25 5.840 1.8412 .3682 5.080 6.600 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.372 2.0589 .3140 5.738 7.006 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.176 1.9846 .2407 5.696 6.657 2.0 10.0

Influence .00 25 5.297777812 .9013706339 .1802741268 4.925710301 5.669845323 3.2222223 7.0000000

1.00 43 5.602067142 .9747646149 .1486502102 5.302078873 5.902055411 3.1111112 7.6666665

Total 68 5.490196065 .9531565884 .1155872145 5.259483019 5.720909110 3.1111112 7.6666665

Leadership .00 25 5.906666648 1.4159147907 .2831829581 5.322205748 6.491127548 3.3333333 8.3333330

1.00 43 6.286821674 1.3185316946 .2010741984 5.881037514 6.692605835 3.0000000 9.3333330

Total 68 6.147058797 1.3572266202 .1645879033 5.818539967 6.475577627 3.0000000 9.3333330

Purposeful .00 25 5.520 2.1432 .4286 4.635 6.405 1.0 10.0

1.00 43 5.884 2.0841 .3178 5.242 6.525 1.0 9.0

Total 68 5.750 2.0974 .2544 5.242 6.258 1.0 10.0

118

Directing .00 25 6.080 1.4697 .2939 5.473 6.687 4.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.674 1.7004 .2593 6.151 7.198 1.0 9.0

Total 68 6.456 1.6339 .1981 6.060 6.851 1.0 9.0

Empowering .00 25 6.120 2.0478 .4096 5.275 6.965 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.302 1.6695 .2546 5.789 6.816 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.235 1.8048 .2189 5.798 6.672 2.0 10.0

Impact .00 25 5.160000020 1.2878348237 .2575669647 4.628407932 5.691592108 2.6666667 7.6666665

1.00 43 5.441860449 1.1167813779 .1703075635 5.098165871 5.785555027 2.6666667 8.0000000

Total 68 5.338235291 1.1809609588 .1432125521 5.052381841 5.624088742 2.6666667 8.0000000

Convincing .00 25 4.360 1.9122 .3824 3.571 5.149 1.0 8.0

1.00 43 4.907 1.5708 .2395 4.424 5.390 3.0 8.0

Total 68 4.706 1.7109 .2075 4.292 5.120 1.0 8.0

Challenging .00 25 4.880 1.7870 .3574 4.142 5.618 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 4.744 1.8528 .2826 4.174 5.314 2.0 9.0

Total 68 4.794 1.8167 .2203 4.354 5.234 2.0 9.0

Articulate .00 25 6.240 1.9425 .3885 5.438 7.042 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.674 1.6579 .2528 6.164 7.185 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.515 1.7661 .2142 6.087 6.942 1.0 10.0

Communication .00 25 4.826666640 1.0720351542 .2144070308 4.384152277 5.269181003 3.0000000 7.3333335

1.00 43 5.077519379 1.4617471733 .2229143541 4.627660000 5.527378758 1.0000000 7.6666665

Total 68 4.985294107 1.3288904014 .1611516321 4.663634104 5.306954111 1.0000000 7.6666665

Self promoting .00 25 4.480 1.8055 .3611 3.735 5.225 2.0 10.0

1.00 43 4.674 1.7958 .2739 4.122 5.227 1.0 9.0

Total 68 4.603 1.7884 .2169 4.170 5.036 1.0 10.0

Interactive .00 25 5.360 1.5242 .3048 4.731 5.989 3.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.605 1.9166 .2923 5.015 6.194 1.0 9.0

Total 68 5.515 1.7746 .2152 5.085 5.944 1.0 9.0

119

Engaging .00 25 4.640 1.3808 .2762 4.070 5.210 1.0 7.0

1.00 43 4.953 1.8892 .2881 4.372 5.535 1.0 8.0

Total 68 4.838 1.7157 .2081 4.423 5.254 1.0 8.0

Adaptability .00 25 5.648888880 1.0485537703 .2097107541 5.216067156 6.081710604 2.3333333 7.0000000

1.00 43 5.883720912 1.1367293865 .1733496063 5.533887243 6.233554580 3.0000000 7.6666665

Total 68 5.797385606 1.1031123557 .1337720223 5.530375532 6.064395680 2.3333333 7.6666665

Support .00 25 5.826666620 1.4437604859 .2887520972 5.230711582 6.422621658 3.3333333 8.3333330

1.00 43 5.922480598 1.8485475075 .2819008521 5.353581646 6.491379549 2.0000000 9.0000000

Total 68 5.887254871 1.7002684840 .2061878397 5.475702220 6.298807521 2.0000000 9.0000000

Involving .00 25 6.120 1.6411 .3282 5.443 6.797 3.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.116 2.5468 .3884 5.332 6.900 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.118 2.2429 .2720 5.575 6.661 2.0 10.0

Attentive .00 25 4.960 1.9035 .3807 4.174 5.746 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.372 2.1715 .3311 4.704 6.040 1.0 10.0

Total 68 5.221 2.0722 .2513 4.719 5.722 1.0 10.0

Accepting .00 25 6.400 1.8257 .3651 5.646 7.154 3.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.279 1.6666 .2541 5.766 6.792 3.0 9.0

Total 68 6.324 1.7142 .2079 5.909 6.738 3.0 9.0

Resilience .00 25 5.653333352 1.0907014140 .2181402828 5.203113936 6.103552768 2.3333333 7.3333335

1.00 43 5.798449605 1.0341766602 .1577104621 5.480177007 6.116722203 3.3333333 7.6666665

Total 68 5.745098041 1.0495480249 .1272763931 5.491053297 5.999142785 2.3333333 7.6666665

Resolving .00 25 5.240 1.6401 .3280 4.563 5.917 1.0 8.0

1.00 43 5.326 2.0086 .3063 4.707 5.944 1.0 10.0

Total 68 5.294 1.8693 .2267 4.842 5.747 1.0 10.0

Self-assured .00 25 5.960 1.8592 .3718 5.193 6.727 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.163 1.6752 .2555 5.647 6.678 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.088 1.7341 .2103 5.668 6.508 2.0 10.0

120

Composed .00 25 5.760 1.6902 .3380 5.062 6.458 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.907 1.5555 .2372 5.428 6.386 3.0 8.0

Total 68 5.853 1.5954 .1935 5.467 6.239 1.0 9.0

Flexibility .00 25 5.466666664 1.4529662998 .2905932600 4.866911653 6.066421675 1.3333334 7.6666665

1.00 43 5.930232540 1.3792838467 .2103388147 5.505751626 6.354713453 2.6666667 8.3333330

Total 68 5.759803909 1.4140324538 .1714766225 5.417535138 6.102072680 1.3333334 8.3333330

Receptive .00 25 5.600 2.1409 .4282 4.716 6.484 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.395 1.8405 .2807 4.829 5.962 1.0 10.0

Total 68 5.471 1.9430 .2356 5.000 5.941 1.0 10.0

Positive .00 25 5.360 1.9339 .3868 4.562 6.158 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.744 1.6343 .2492 5.241 6.247 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.603 1.7461 .2117 5.180 6.026 1.0 9.0

Change Oriented .00 25 5.440 2.0429 .4086 4.597 6.283 1.0 8.0

1.00 43 6.651 1.9381 .2956 6.055 7.248 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.206 2.0484 .2484 5.710 6.702 1.0 10.0

Delivery .00 25 6.026666692 1.1163211401 .2232642280 5.565871973 6.487461411 3.4444444 7.7777777

1.00 43 5.816537458 .8964242817 .1367034214 5.540658785 6.092416132 3.8888888 7.6666665

Total 68 5.893790853 .9800730209 .1188513114 5.656562643 6.131019063 3.4444444 7.7777777

Structure .00 25 6.373333336 1.6139438907 .3227887781 5.707130041 7.039536631 2.6666667 8.6666670

1.00 43 6.240310063 1.1063204315 .1687122841 5.899834889 6.580785236 3.6666667 8.0000000

Total 68 6.289215678 1.3055620566 .1583226547 5.973202336 6.605229019 2.6666667 8.6666670

Organized .00 25 6.360 2.2338 .4468 5.438 7.282 1.0 10.0

1.00 43 6.093 1.6156 .2464 5.596 6.590 2.0 9.0

Total 68 6.191 1.8549 .2249 5.742 6.640 1.0 10.0

Principled .00 25 7.160 1.5460 .3092 6.522 7.798 5.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.302 1.5045 .2294 5.839 6.765 3.0 9.0

Total 68 6.618 1.5648 .1898 6.239 6.996 3.0 9.0

121

Activity Oriented .00 25 5.600 2.3274 .4655 4.639 6.561 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.326 1.2858 .1961 5.930 6.721 3.0 8.0

Total 68 6.059 1.7610 .2135 5.633 6.485 1.0 9.0

Drive .00 25 5.400000016 1.2397729304 .2479545861 4.888246902 5.911753130 3.0000000 8.3333330

1.00 43 5.961240300 1.4910833372 .2273880772 5.502352582 6.420128018 2.6666667 9.0000000

Total 68 5.754901960 1.4207857692 .1722955823 5.410998539 6.098805382 2.6666667 9.0000000

Dynamic .00 25 5.960 1.8367 .3673 5.202 6.718 3.0 10.0

1.00 43 6.279 2.1081 .3215 5.630 6.928 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.162 2.0045 .2431 5.677 6.647 2.0 10.0

Striving .00 25 6.160 1.5727 .3145 5.511 6.809 3.0 9.0

1.00 43 6.767 1.6306 .2487 6.266 7.269 3.0 9.0

Total 68 6.544 1.6248 .1970 6.151 6.937 3.0 9.0

Enterprising .00 25 4.080 1.4697 .2939 3.473 4.687 2.0 7.0

1.00 43 4.837 1.8248 .2783 4.276 5.399 1.0 9.0

Total 68 4.559 1.7310 .2099 4.140 4.978 1.0 9.0

Implementation .00 25 6.306666708 1.5089854270 .3017970854 5.683788138 6.929545278 3.3333333 8.6666670

1.00 43 5.248062007 1.4458351503 .2204877934 4.803099626 5.693024388 2.3333333 8.0000000

Total 68 5.637254912 1.5461237045 .1874950395 5.263013247 6.011496577 2.3333333 8.6666670

Meticulous .00 25 6.040 1.6452 .3290 5.361 6.719 2.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.349 1.8630 .2841 4.775 5.922 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.603 1.8050 .2189 5.166 6.040 2.0 9.0

Reliable .00 25 6.080 2.4651 .4930 5.062 7.098 1.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.047 1.9634 .2994 4.442 5.651 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.426 2.2012 .2669 4.894 5.959 1.0 9.0

Compliant .00 25 6.800 1.4434 .2887 6.204 7.396 4.0 9.0

1.00 43 5.349 1.6745 .2554 4.833 5.864 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.882 1.7323 .2101 5.463 6.302 2.0 9.0

122

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 10.980 1 10.980 7.477 .008

Within Groups 96.925 66 1.469 Total 107.905 67

Vision Between Groups 10.514 1 10.514 3.870 .053

Within Groups 179.323 66 2.717 Total 189.837 67

Inventive Between Groups 2.697 1 2.697 .715 .401

Within Groups 249.068 66 3.774 Total 251.765 67

Abstract Between Groups 20.933 1 20.933 4.654 .035

Within Groups 296.876 66 4.498 Total 317.809 67

Strategic Between Groups 12.320 1 12.320 2.937 .091

Within Groups 276.900 66 4.195 Total 289.221 67

Judgment Between Groups 5.732 1 5.732 3.798 .056

Within Groups 99.607 66 1.509 Total 105.340 67

Insightful Between Groups 2.541 1 2.541 .762 .386

Within Groups 220.091 66 3.335 Total 222.632 67

Practically minded Between Groups 1.783 1 1.783 .525 .471

Within Groups 224.026 66 3.394 Total 225.809 67

Learning oriented Between Groups 18.092 1 18.092 4.799 .032

123

Within Groups 248.791 66 3.770 Total 266.882 67

Evaluation Between Groups 18.524 1 18.524 7.527 .008

Within Groups 162.435 66 2.461 Total 180.959 67

Analytical Between Groups 33.206 1 33.206 10.162 .002

Within Groups 215.676 66 3.268 Total 248.882 67

Factual Between Groups 25.340 1 25.340 7.730 .007

Within Groups 216.352 66 3.278 Total 241.691 67

Rational Between Groups 4.476 1 4.476 1.139 .290

Within Groups 259.407 66 3.930 Total 263.882 67

Influence Between Groups 1.464 1 1.464 1.626 .207

Within Groups 59.406 66 .900 Total 60.870 67

Leadership Between Groups 2.285 1 2.285 1.245 .269

Within Groups 121.134 66 1.835 Total 123.418 67

Purposeful Between Groups 2.091 1 2.091 .472 .495

Within Groups 292.659 66 4.434 Total 294.750 67

Directing Between Groups 5.586 1 5.586 2.128 .149

Within Groups 173.282 66 2.625 Total 178.868 67

Empowering Between Groups .526 1 .526 .159 .691

124

Within Groups 217.710 66 3.299 Total 218.235 67

Impact Between Groups 1.256 1 1.256 .899 .346

Within Groups 92.187 66 1.397 Total 93.443 67

Convincing Between Groups 4.730 1 4.730 1.631 .206

Within Groups 191.388 66 2.900 Total 196.118 67

Challenging Between Groups .292 1 .292 .087 .769

Within Groups 220.826 66 3.346 Total 221.118 67

Articulate Between Groups 2.983 1 2.983 .956 .332

Within Groups 206.002 66 3.121 Total 208.985 67

Communication Between Groups .995 1 .995 .560 .457

Within Groups 117.324 66 1.778 Total 118.319 67

Self promoting Between Groups .598 1 .598 .185 .669

Within Groups 213.682 66 3.238 Total 214.279 67

Interactive Between Groups .946 1 .946 .297 .587

Within Groups 210.039 66 3.182 Total 210.985 67

Engaging Between Groups 1.554 1 1.554 .524 .472

Within Groups 195.667 66 2.965 Total 197.221 67

Adaptability Between Groups .872 1 .872 .713 .401

125

Within Groups 80.658 66 1.222 Total 81.529 67

Support Between Groups .145 1 .145 .049 .825

Within Groups 193.546 66 2.933 Total 193.691 67

Involving Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .995

Within Groups 337.059 66 5.107 Total 337.059 67

Attentive Between Groups 2.685 1 2.685 .622 .433

Within Groups 285.007 66 4.318 Total 287.691 67

Accepting Between Groups .231 1 .231 .078 .781

Within Groups 196.651 66 2.980 Total 196.882 67

Resilience Between Groups .333 1 .333 .299 .586

Within Groups 73.471 66 1.113 Total 73.804 67

Resolving Between Groups .116 1 .116 .033 .857

Within Groups 234.002 66 3.545 Total 234.118 67

Self-assured Between Groups .650 1 .650 .214 .645

Within Groups 200.820 66 3.043 Total 201.471 67

Composed Between Groups .342 1 .342 .132 .717

Within Groups 170.188 66 2.579 Total 170.529 67

Flexibility Between Groups 3.397 1 3.397 1.717 .195

126

Within Groups 130.568 66 1.978 Total 133.966 67

Receptive Between Groups .662 1 .662 .173 .679

Within Groups 252.279 66 3.822 Total 252.941 67

Positive Between Groups 2.333 1 2.333 .763 .386

Within Groups 201.946 66 3.060 Total 204.279 67

Change Oriented Between Groups 23.190 1 23.190 5.934 .018

Within Groups 257.927 66 3.908 Total 281.118 67

Delivery Between Groups .698 1 .698 .724 .398

Within Groups 63.658 66 .965 Total 64.356 67

Structure Between Groups .280 1 .280 .162 .689

Within Groups 113.921 66 1.726 Total 114.201 67

Organized Between Groups 1.127 1 1.127 .324 .571

Within Groups 229.388 66 3.476 Total 230.515 67

Principled Between Groups 11.629 1 11.629 5.035 .028

Within Groups 152.430 66 2.310 Total 164.059 67

Activity Oriented Between Groups 8.323 1 8.323 2.754 .102

Within Groups 199.442 66 3.022 Total 207.765 67

Drive Between Groups 4.980 1 4.980 2.523 .117

127

Within Groups 130.269 66 1.974 Total 135.248 67

Dynamic Between Groups 1.609 1 1.609 .397 .531

Within Groups 267.611 66 4.055 Total 269.221 67

Striving Between Groups 5.833 1 5.833 2.251 .138

Within Groups 171.034 66 2.591 Total 176.868 67

Enterprising Between Groups 9.064 1 9.064 3.121 .082

Within Groups 191.700 66 2.905 Total 200.765 67

Implementation Between Groups 17.716 1 17.716 8.208 .006

Within Groups 142.447 66 2.158 Total 160.163 67

Meticulous Between Groups 7.552 1 7.552 2.365 .129

Within Groups 210.727 66 3.193 Total 218.279 67

Reliable Between Groups 16.885 1 16.885 3.621 .061

Within Groups 307.747 66 4.663 Total 324.632 67

Compliant Between Groups 33.291 1 33.291 13.097 .001

Within Groups 167.767 66 2.542 Total 201.059 67

128

APPENDIX D DATA FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL SIZE SUBCATEGORY

0 = Less than 10,000 enrollments; 10=10,000 or more enrollments

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound

Thought .00 31 6.175627226 1.2140379347 .2180476499 5.730314516 6.620939935 3.3333333 8.0000000

10.00 37 6.690690714 1.2825020608 .2108420400 6.263083237 7.118298190 3.0000000 8.8888890

Total 68 6.455882359 1.2690617246 .1538963393 6.148703980 6.763060738 3.0000000 8.8888890

Vision .00 31 6.000000055 1.7659327920 .3171708925 5.352250677 6.647749432 1.6666666 8.6666670

10.00 37 6.702702668 1.5630450226 .2569630188 6.181557511 7.223847825 3.6666667 9.3333330

Total 68 6.382352947 1.6832653110 .2041259022 5.974915941 6.789789953 1.6666666 9.3333330

Inventive .00 31 5.645 1.9244 .3456 4.939 6.351 2.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.189 1.9413 .3192 5.542 6.836 3.0 10.0

Total 68 5.941 1.9385 .2351 5.472 6.410 2.0 10.0

Abstract .00 31 5.871 2.3628 .4244 5.004 6.738 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.784 1.9456 .3199 6.135 7.432 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.368 2.1779 .2641 5.840 6.895 1.0 10.0

Strategic .00 31 6.484 2.1583 .3876 5.692 7.276 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 7.135 1.9883 .3269 6.472 7.798 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.838 2.0777 .2520 6.335 7.341 1.0 10.0

Judgment .00 31 6.344086016 1.2779725047 .2295306377 5.875321917 6.812850115 3.3333333 8.3333330

10.00 37 6.558558524 1.2423942748 .2042483606 6.144323649 6.972793399 3.6666667 9.0000000

Total 68 6.460784293 1.2538886656 .1520563356 6.157278576 6.764290009 3.3333333 9.0000000

Insightful .00 31 6.387 1.6058 .2884 5.798 6.976 3.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.730 1.9951 .3280 6.065 7.395 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.574 1.8229 .2211 6.132 7.015 3.0 10.0

129

Practically minded .00 31 6.065 2.0645 .3708 5.307 6.822 2.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.189 1.6472 .2708 5.640 6.738 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.132 1.8358 .2226 5.688 6.577 2.0 10.0

Learning oriented .00 31 6.581 1.9455 .3494 5.867 7.294 3.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.757 2.0603 .3387 6.070 7.444 1.0 10.0

Total 68 6.676 1.9958 .2420 6.193 7.160 1.0 10.0

Evaluation .00 31 6.182795629 1.4111689582 .2534534269 5.665174676 6.700416582 3.0000000 9.0000000

10.00 37 6.810810805 1.7839139577 .2932736481 6.216024279 7.405597332 1.6666666 9.6666670

Total 68 6.524509769 1.6434362926 .1992959242 6.126713439 6.922306099 1.6666666 9.6666670

Analytical .00 31 6.194 1.7401 .3125 5.555 6.832 2.0 10.0

10.00 37 7.081 2.0052 .3297 6.412 7.750 1.0 10.0

Total 68 6.676 1.9273 .2337 6.210 7.143 1.0 10.0

Factual .00 31 6.419 1.5226 .2735 5.861 6.978 3.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.973 2.1536 .3541 6.255 7.691 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.721 1.8993 .2303 6.261 7.180 2.0 10.0

Rational .00 31 5.935 1.8962 .3406 5.240 6.631 3.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.378 2.0595 .3386 5.692 7.065 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.176 1.9846 .2407 5.696 6.657 2.0 10.0

Influence .00 31 5.422939094 .9386178345 .1685807396 5.078651292 5.767226895 3.1111112 7.2222223

10.00 37 5.546546500 .9744254840 .1601945628 5.221656868 5.871436132 3.2222223 7.6666665

Total 68 5.490196065 .9531565884 .1155872145 5.259483019 5.720909110 3.1111112 7.6666665

Leadership .00 31 5.999999968 1.4375905359 .2581988824 5.472687502 6.527312433 3.0000000 8.3333330

10.00 37 6.270270249 1.2929959136 .2125672188 5.839163947 6.701376550 3.6666667 9.3333330

Total 68 6.147058797 1.3572266202 .1645879033 5.818539967 6.475577627 3.0000000 9.3333330

Purposeful .00 31 5.677 2.3436 .4209 4.818 6.537 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 5.811 1.8979 .3120 5.178 6.444 1.0 9.0

Total 68 5.750 2.0974 .2544 5.242 6.258 1.0 10.0

130

Directing .00 31 6.065 1.8246 .3277 5.395 6.734 1.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.784 1.3971 .2297 6.318 7.250 4.0 9.0

Total 68 6.456 1.6339 .1981 6.060 6.851 1.0 9.0

Empowering .00 31 6.258 1.9827 .3561 5.531 6.985 3.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.216 1.6689 .2744 5.660 6.773 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.235 1.8048 .2189 5.798 6.672 2.0 10.0

Impact .00 31 5.236559148 1.2388571176 .2225053068 4.782142689 5.690975608 2.6666667 7.6666665

10.00 37 5.423423411 1.1403071124 .1874653345 5.043226091 5.803620731 2.6666667 8.0000000

Total 68 5.338235291 1.1809609588 .1432125521 5.052381841 5.624088742 2.6666667 8.0000000

Convincing .00 31 4.581 1.7659 .3172 3.933 5.228 1.0 8.0

10.00 37 4.811 1.6806 .2763 4.250 5.371 1.0 8.0

Total 68 4.706 1.7109 .2075 4.292 5.120 1.0 8.0

Challenging .00 31 5.000 1.9664 .3532 4.279 5.721 2.0 9.0

10.00 37 4.622 1.6890 .2777 4.058 5.185 2.0 9.0

Total 68 4.794 1.8167 .2203 4.354 5.234 2.0 9.0

Articulate .00 31 6.129 1.7271 .3102 5.496 6.763 2.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.838 1.7562 .2887 6.252 7.423 1.0 10.0

Total 68 6.515 1.7661 .2142 6.087 6.942 1.0 10.0

Communication .00 31 5.032258061 1.1749069272 .2110195135 4.601298721 5.463217401 2.3333333 7.3333335

10.00 37 4.945945930 1.4604107192 .2400900433 4.459020753 5.432871106 1.0000000 7.6666665

Total 68 4.985294107 1.3288904014 .1611516321 4.663634104 5.306954111 1.0000000 7.6666665

Self promoting .00 31 4.516 1.8774 .3372 3.827 5.205 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 4.676 1.7329 .2849 4.098 5.253 1.0 9.0

Total 68 4.603 1.7884 .2169 4.170 5.036 1.0 10.0

Interactive .00 31 5.613 1.8381 .3301 4.939 6.287 2.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.432 1.7407 .2862 4.852 6.013 1.0 9.0

Total 68 5.515 1.7746 .2152 5.085 5.944 1.0 9.0

131

Engaging .00 31 4.968 1.4488 .2602 4.436 5.499 2.0 8.0

10.00 37 4.730 1.9242 .3163 4.088 5.371 1.0 8.0

Total 68 4.838 1.7157 .2081 4.423 5.254 1.0 8.0

Adaptability .00 31 5.652329752 1.2991741444 .2333385646 5.175788828 6.128870675 2.3333333 7.6666665

10.00 37 5.918918889 .9082190563 .1493102931 5.616103579 6.221734199 3.4444444 7.2222223

Total 68 5.797385606 1.1031123557 .1337720223 5.530375532 6.064395680 2.3333333 7.6666665

Support .00 31 5.526881694 1.8273116823 .3281948666 4.856618357 6.197145030 2.0000000 9.0000000

10.00 37 6.189189154 1.5466820472 .2542729623 5.673499685 6.704878623 2.6666667 8.3333330

Total 68 5.887254871 1.7002684840 .2061878397 5.475702220 6.298807521 2.0000000 9.0000000

Involving .00 31 5.839 2.0992 .3770 5.069 6.609 2.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.351 2.3596 .3879 5.565 7.138 2.0 10.0

Total 68 6.118 2.2429 .2720 5.575 6.661 2.0 10.0

Attentive .00 31 4.774 2.3052 .4140 3.929 5.620 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 5.595 1.8022 .2963 4.994 6.195 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.221 2.0722 .2513 4.719 5.722 1.0 10.0

Accepting .00 31 5.968 1.9914 .3577 5.237 6.698 3.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.622 1.4014 .2304 6.154 7.089 4.0 9.0

Total 68 6.324 1.7142 .2079 5.909 6.738 3.0 9.0

Resilience .00 31 5.698924726 1.1622291263 .2087425132 5.272615641 6.125233811 2.3333333 7.6666665

10.00 37 5.783783792 .9597331744 .1577791620 5.463792820 6.103774764 3.3333333 7.0000000

Total 68 5.745098041 1.0495480249 .1272763931 5.491053297 5.999142785 2.3333333 7.6666665

Resolving .00 31 5.323 1.8688 .3356 4.637 6.008 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 5.270 1.8951 .3116 4.638 5.902 1.0 10.0

Total 68 5.294 1.8693 .2267 4.842 5.747 1.0 10.0

Self-assured .00 31 5.806 1.7208 .3091 5.175 6.438 2.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.324 1.7329 .2849 5.747 6.902 3.0 9.0

Total 68 6.088 1.7341 .2103 5.668 6.508 2.0 10.0

132

Composed .00 31 5.968 1.7413 .3128 5.329 6.606 1.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.757 1.4796 .2432 5.263 6.250 3.0 8.0

Total 68 5.853 1.5954 .1935 5.467 6.239 1.0 9.0

Flexibility .00 31 5.731182810 1.5333800662 .2754031899 5.168734461 6.293631159 1.3333334 7.6666665

10.00 37 5.783783749 1.3268737073 .2181366938 5.341382029 6.226185469 2.6666667 8.3333330

Total 68 5.759803909 1.4140324538 .1714766225 5.417535138 6.102072680 1.3333334 8.3333330

Receptive .00 31 5.484 2.0796 .3735 4.721 6.247 1.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.459 1.8498 .3041 4.843 6.076 1.0 10.0

Total 68 5.471 1.9430 .2356 5.000 5.941 1.0 10.0

Positive .00 31 5.548 2.0630 .3705 4.792 6.305 1.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.649 1.4571 .2395 5.163 6.134 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.603 1.7461 .2117 5.180 6.026 1.0 9.0

Change Oriented .00 31 6.161 2.0672 .3713 5.403 6.920 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.243 2.0603 .3387 5.556 6.930 1.0 10.0

Total 68 6.206 2.0484 .2484 5.710 6.702 1.0 10.0

Delivery .00 31 6.035842294 1.1537689442 .2072230197 5.612636428 6.459048159 3.4444444 7.7777777

10.00 37 5.774774781 .8040050901 .1321776226 5.506706138 6.042843425 4.1111110 7.3333335

Total 68 5.893790853 .9800730209 .1188513114 5.656562643 6.131019063 3.4444444 7.7777777

Structure .00 31 6.408602181 1.6071822347 .2886584507 5.819082978 6.998121384 2.6666667 8.6666670

10.00 37 6.189189149 .9985809008 .1641656888 5.856245700 6.522132597 4.0000000 8.0000000

Total 68 6.289215678 1.3055620566 .1583226547 5.973202336 6.605229019 2.6666667 8.6666670

Organized .00 31 6.290 2.2685 .4074 5.458 7.122 1.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.108 1.4488 .2382 5.625 6.591 2.0 8.0

Total 68 6.191 1.8549 .2249 5.742 6.640 1.0 10.0

Principled .00 31 6.710 1.5747 .2828 6.132 7.287 4.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.541 1.5740 .2588 6.016 7.065 3.0 9.0

Total 68 6.618 1.5648 .1898 6.239 6.996 3.0 9.0

133

Activity Oriented .00 31 6.226 2.1089 .3788 5.452 6.999 1.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.919 1.4216 .2337 5.445 6.393 1.0 8.0

Total 68 6.059 1.7610 .2135 5.633 6.485 1.0 9.0

Drive .00 31 5.688172032 1.3359292894 .2399399835 5.198149213 6.178194852 3.0000000 8.3333330

10.00 37 5.810810819 1.5041927657 .2472877674 5.309287981 6.312333656 2.6666667 9.0000000

Total 68 5.754901960 1.4207857692 .1722955823 5.410998539 6.098805382 2.6666667 9.0000000

Dynamic .00 31 6.290 2.1165 .3801 5.514 7.067 2.0 10.0

10.00 37 6.054 1.9285 .3170 5.411 6.697 3.0 10.0

Total 68 6.162 2.0045 .2431 5.677 6.647 2.0 10.0

Striving .00 31 6.355 1.4271 .2563 5.831 6.878 3.0 9.0

10.00 37 6.703 1.7774 .2922 6.110 7.295 3.0 9.0

Total 68 6.544 1.6248 .1970 6.151 6.937 3.0 9.0

Enterprising .00 31 4.419 1.4782 .2655 3.877 4.962 2.0 8.0

10.00 37 4.676 1.9301 .3173 4.032 5.319 1.0 9.0

Total 68 4.559 1.7310 .2099 4.140 4.978 1.0 9.0

Implementation .00 31 6.010752697 1.6089653490 .2889787075 5.420579442 6.600925951 3.3333333 8.6666670

10.00 37 5.324324335 1.4390636585 .2365806081 4.844516623 5.804132047 2.3333333 8.3333330

Total 68 5.637254912 1.5461237045 .1874950395 5.263013247 6.011496577 2.3333333 8.6666670

Meticulous .00 31 5.935 1.8246 .3277 5.266 6.605 2.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.324 1.7647 .2901 4.736 5.913 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.603 1.8050 .2189 5.166 6.040 2.0 9.0

Reliable .00 31 5.903 2.5736 .4622 4.959 6.847 1.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.027 1.7715 .2912 4.436 5.618 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.426 2.2012 .2669 4.894 5.959 1.0 9.0

Compliant .00 31 6.194 1.6817 .3020 5.577 6.810 2.0 9.0

10.00 37 5.622 1.7536 .2883 5.037 6.206 2.0 9.0

Total 68 5.882 1.7323 .2101 5.463 6.302 2.0 9.0

134

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 4.475 1 4.475 2.855 .096

Within Groups 103.430 66 1.567 Total 107.905 67

Vision Between Groups 8.329 1 8.329 3.029 .086

Within Groups 181.508 66 2.750 Total 189.837 67

Inventive Between Groups 4.992 1 4.992 1.335 .252

Within Groups 246.772 66 3.739 Total 251.765 67

Abstract Between Groups 14.055 1 14.055 3.054 .085

Within Groups 303.754 66 4.602 Total 317.809 67

Strategic Between Groups 7.154 1 7.154 1.674 .200

Within Groups 282.066 66 4.274 Total 289.221 67

Judgment Between Groups .776 1 .776 .490 .487

Within Groups 104.564 66 1.584 Total 105.340 67

Insightful Between Groups 1.980 1 1.980 .592 .444

Within Groups 220.652 66 3.343 Total 222.632 67

Practically minded Between Groups .262 1 .262 .077 .783

Within Groups 225.547 66 3.417 Total 225.809 67

Learning oriented Between Groups .523 1 .523 .130 .720

135

Within Groups 266.359 66 4.036 Total 266.882 67

Evaluation Between Groups 6.653 1 6.653 2.519 .117

Within Groups 174.306 66 2.641 Total 180.959 67

Analytical Between Groups 13.287 1 13.287 3.722 .058

Within Groups 235.595 66 3.570 Total 248.882 67

Factual Between Groups 5.170 1 5.170 1.443 .234

Within Groups 236.521 66 3.584 Total 241.691 67

Rational Between Groups 3.309 1 3.309 .838 .363

Within Groups 260.574 66 3.948 Total 263.882 67

Influence Between Groups .258 1 .258 .281 .598

Within Groups 60.612 66 .918 Total 60.870 67

Leadership Between Groups 1.232 1 1.232 .666 .418

Within Groups 122.186 66 1.851 Total 123.418 67

Purposeful Between Groups .300 1 .300 .067 .796

Within Groups 294.450 66 4.461 Total 294.750 67

Directing Between Groups 8.726 1 8.726 3.385 .070

Within Groups 170.141 66 2.578 Total 178.868 67

Empowering Between Groups .030 1 .030 .009 .925

136

Within Groups 218.206 66 3.306 Total 218.235 67

Impact Between Groups .589 1 .589 .419 .520

Within Groups 92.854 66 1.407 Total 93.443 67

Convincing Between Groups .894 1 .894 .302 .584

Within Groups 195.224 66 2.958 Total 196.118 67

Challenging Between Groups 2.415 1 2.415 .729 .396

Within Groups 218.703 66 3.314 Total 221.118 67

Articulate Between Groups 8.474 1 8.474 2.789 .100

Within Groups 200.511 66 3.038 Total 208.985 67

Communication Between Groups .126 1 .126 .070 .792

Within Groups 118.193 66 1.791 Total 118.319 67

Self promoting Between Groups .429 1 .429 .133 .717

Within Groups 213.850 66 3.240 Total 214.279 67

Interactive Between Groups .549 1 .549 .172 .679

Within Groups 210.436 66 3.188 Total 210.985 67

Engaging Between Groups .956 1 .956 .321 .573

Within Groups 196.265 66 2.974 Total 197.221 67

Adaptability Between Groups 1.199 1 1.199 .985 .325

137

Within Groups 80.331 66 1.217 Total 81.529 67

Support Between Groups 7.399 1 7.399 2.621 .110

Within Groups 186.292 66 2.823 Total 193.691 67

Involving Between Groups 4.433 1 4.433 .880 .352

Within Groups 332.626 66 5.040 Total 337.059 67

Attentive Between Groups 11.353 1 11.353 2.712 .104

Within Groups 276.338 66 4.187 Total 287.691 67

Accepting Between Groups 7.212 1 7.212 2.510 .118

Within Groups 189.670 66 2.874 Total 196.882 67

Resilience Between Groups .121 1 .121 .109 .743

Within Groups 73.682 66 1.116 Total 73.804 67

Resolving Between Groups .046 1 .046 .013 .910

Within Groups 234.071 66 3.547 Total 234.118 67

Self-assured Between Groups 4.524 1 4.524 1.516 .223

Within Groups 196.947 66 2.984 Total 201.471 67

Composed Between Groups .751 1 .751 .292 .591

Within Groups 169.779 66 2.572 Total 170.529 67

Flexibility Between Groups .047 1 .047 .023 .880

138

Within Groups 133.919 66 2.029 Total 133.966 67

Receptive Between Groups .010 1 .010 .003 .959

Within Groups 252.931 66 3.832 Total 252.941 67

Positive Between Groups .170 1 .170 .055 .816

Within Groups 204.110 66 3.093 Total 204.279 67

Change Oriented Between Groups .113 1 .113 .027 .871

Within Groups 281.004 66 4.258 Total 281.118 67

Delivery Between Groups 1.150 1 1.150 1.200 .277

Within Groups 63.207 66 .958 Total 64.356 67

Structure Between Groups .812 1 .812 .473 .494

Within Groups 113.389 66 1.718 Total 114.201 67

Organized Between Groups .560 1 .560 .161 .690

Within Groups 229.955 66 3.484 Total 230.515 67

Principled Between Groups .483 1 .483 .195 .660

Within Groups 163.576 66 2.478 Total 164.059 67

Activity Oriented Between Groups 1.589 1 1.589 .509 .478

Within Groups 206.176 66 3.124 Total 207.765 67

Drive Between Groups .254 1 .254 .124 .726

139

Within Groups 134.995 66 2.045 Total 135.248 67

Dynamic Between Groups .942 1 .942 .232 .632

Within Groups 268.279 66 4.065 Total 269.221 67

Striving Between Groups 2.041 1 2.041 .771 .383

Within Groups 174.827 66 2.649 Total 176.868 67

Enterprising Between Groups 1.108 1 1.108 .366 .547

Within Groups 199.656 66 3.025 Total 200.765 67

Implementation Between Groups 7.948 1 7.948 3.446 .068

Within Groups 152.216 66 2.306 Total 160.163 67

Meticulous Between Groups 6.300 1 6.300 1.962 .166

Within Groups 211.979 66 3.212 Total 218.279 67

Reliable Between Groups 12.950 1 12.950 2.742 .102

Within Groups 311.683 66 4.722 Total 324.632 67

Compliant Between Groups 5.517 1 5.517 1.862 .177

Within Groups 195.541 66 2.963 Total 201.059 67

140

APPENDIX E DATA FOR THE GENDER SUBCATEGORY

0 = Male; 1=Female

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound

Thought .00 30 6.633333323 1.3000802144 .2373610867 6.147875393 7.118791254 3.5555556 8.8888890

1.00 40 6.327777798 1.2124577625 .1917064048 5.940014993 6.715540602 3.0000000 8.4444450

Total 70 6.458730166 1.2507891790 .1494979011 6.160490013 6.756970318 3.0000000 8.8888890

Vision .00 30 6.599999977 1.7668726906 .3225853430 5.940238871 7.259761082 1.6666666 9.3333330

1.00 40 6.208333353 1.5792231843 .2496971098 5.703273276 6.713393429 3.6666667 9.0000000

Total 70 6.376190477 1.6612679990 .1985595040 5.980075105 6.772305849 1.6666666 9.3333330

Inventive .00 30 6.133 1.9429 .3547 5.408 6.859 2.0 10.0

1.00 40 5.775 1.9805 .3131 5.142 6.408 2.0 9.0

Total 70 5.929 1.9584 .2341 5.462 6.396 2.0 10.0

Abstract .00 30 6.567 2.2846 .4171 5.714 7.420 1.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.250 2.0724 .3277 5.587 6.913 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.386 2.1555 .2576 5.872 6.900 1.0 10.0

Strategic .00 30 7.100 2.1066 .3846 6.313 7.887 2.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.600 2.0102 .3178 5.957 7.243 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.814 2.0522 .2453 6.325 7.304 1.0 10.0

Judgment .00 30 6.399999963 1.3544307497 .2472840914 5.894247210 6.905752717 3.6666667 9.0000000

1.00 40 6.525000000 1.1618030321 .1836971887 6.153437364 6.896562636 3.3333333 8.3333330

Total 70 6.471428556 1.2400883527 .1482189077 6.175739925 6.767117186 3.3333333 9.0000000

Insightful .00 30 6.767 1.8696 .3413 6.069 7.465 3.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.475 1.7685 .2796 5.909 7.041 3.0 10.0

Total 70 6.600 1.8050 .2157 6.170 7.030 3.0 10.0

141

Practically minded .00 30 5.933 2.1324 .3893 5.137 6.730 2.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.300 1.5722 .2486 5.797 6.803 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.143 1.8280 .2185 5.707 6.579 2.0 10.0

Learning oriented .00 30 6.500 2.1132 .3858 5.711 7.289 2.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.800 1.8701 .2957 6.202 7.398 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.671 1.9688 .2353 6.202 7.141 1.0 10.0

Evaluation .00 30 6.899999983 1.5416316868 .2814621501 6.324345251 7.475654716 3.3333333 9.3333330

1.00 40 6.249999957 1.6412593520 .2595058892 5.725099752 6.774900163 1.6666666 9.6666670

Total 70 6.528571397 1.6206128531 .1937002847 6.142149902 6.914992892 1.6666666 9.6666670

Analytical .00 30 7.167 1.6626 .3036 6.546 7.788 3.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.300 2.0026 .3166 5.660 6.940 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.671 1.9013 .2273 6.218 7.125 1.0 10.0

Factual .00 30 6.767 2.1445 .3915 5.966 7.567 3.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.775 1.7170 .2715 6.226 7.324 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.771 1.8971 .2268 6.319 7.224 2.0 10.0

Rational .00 30 6.767 1.6543 .3020 6.149 7.384 4.0 9.0

1.00 40 5.675 2.0803 .3289 5.010 6.340 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.143 1.9729 .2358 5.672 6.613 2.0 10.0

Influence .00 30 5.462962917 .9064750915 .1654989518 5.124479555 5.801446279 3.2222223 7.6666665

1.00 40 5.525000018 .9809800434 .1551065638 5.211267379 5.838732656 3.1111112 7.5555553

Total 70 5.498412689 .9435190348 .1127720944 5.273438516 5.723386861 3.1111112 7.6666665

Leadership .00 30 6.055555500 1.4676154540 .2679486966 5.507538883 6.603572117 3.3333333 9.3333330

1.00 40 6.124999998 1.3219330806 .2090159725 5.702225288 6.547774707 3.0000000 8.3333330

Total 70 6.095238070 1.3762920480 .1644983631 5.767072815 6.423403325 3.0000000 9.3333330

Purposeful .00 30 5.833 2.2756 .4155 4.984 6.683 1.0 10.0

1.00 40 5.650 1.9813 .3133 5.016 6.284 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.729 2.0985 .2508 5.228 6.229 1.0 10.0

142

Directing .00 30 6.567 1.5687 .2864 5.981 7.152 4.0 9.0

1.00 40 6.225 1.7757 .2808 5.657 6.793 1.0 9.0

Total 70 6.371 1.6869 .2016 5.969 6.774 1.0 9.0

Empowering .00 30 5.767 1.9772 .3610 5.028 6.505 2.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.500 1.6172 .2557 5.983 7.017 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.186 1.8041 .2156 5.756 6.616 2.0 10.0

Impact .00 30 5.333333340 1.1447029239 .2089932043 4.905894243 5.760772437 2.6666667 8.0000000

1.00 40 5.374999990 1.2105601252 .1914063620 4.987844080 5.762155900 2.6666667 7.6666665

Total 70 5.357142854 1.1745029011 .1403799469 5.077092523 5.637193186 2.6666667 8.0000000

Convincing .00 30 4.767 1.8323 .3345 4.082 5.451 1.0 8.0

1.00 40 4.675 1.5914 .2516 4.166 5.184 2.0 8.0

Total 70 4.714 1.6866 .2016 4.312 5.116 1.0 8.0

Challenging .00 30 4.800 1.6897 .3085 4.169 5.431 2.0 9.0

1.00 40 4.750 1.9447 .3075 4.128 5.372 2.0 9.0

Total 70 4.771 1.8271 .2184 4.336 5.207 2.0 9.0

Articulate .00 30 6.433 1.8134 .3311 5.756 7.110 1.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.700 1.7860 .2824 6.129 7.271 2.0 9.0

Total 70 6.586 1.7896 .2139 6.159 7.012 1.0 10.0

Communication .00 30 4.999999957 1.1580138820 .2114234417 4.567590467 5.432409447 3.0000000 7.3333335

1.00 40 5.075000003 1.5256356427 .2412241755 4.587078053 5.562921952 1.0000000 8.3333330

Total 70 5.042857126 1.3713439801 .1639069558 4.715871696 5.369842556 1.0000000 8.3333330

Self promoting .00 30 4.733 1.5742 .2874 4.146 5.321 2.0 9.0

1.00 40 4.550 1.9994 .3161 3.911 5.189 1.0 10.0

Total 70 4.629 1.8192 .2174 4.195 5.062 1.0 10.0

Interactive .00 30 5.633 1.6291 .2974 5.025 6.242 3.0 9.0

1.00 40 5.550 1.9342 .3058 4.931 6.169 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.586 1.7977 .2149 5.157 6.014 1.0 9.0

143

Engaging .00 30 4.633 1.8096 .3304 3.958 5.309 1.0 8.0

1.00 40 5.125 1.7274 .2731 4.573 5.677 1.0 9.0

Total 70 4.914 1.7672 .2112 4.493 5.336 1.0 9.0

Adaptability .00 30 5.937037033 1.0380923825 .1895288715 5.549406967 6.324667099 3.4444444 7.6666665

1.00 40 5.699999980 1.1250408953 .1778845845 5.340194446 6.059805514 2.3333333 7.2222223

Total 70 5.801587289 1.0873288632 .1299606565 5.542322873 6.060851704 2.3333333 7.6666665

Support .00 30 5.811111080 1.8459509606 .3370229937 5.121821663 6.500400497 2.0000000 9.0000000

1.00 40 5.941666645 1.5614433250 .2468858672 5.442292843 6.441040447 2.0000000 8.3333330

Total 70 5.885714260 1.6776312423 .2005152857 5.485697210 6.285731310 2.0000000 9.0000000

Involving .00 30 6.200 2.3547 .4299 5.321 7.079 2.0 10.0

1.00 40 5.875 2.2892 .3620 5.143 6.607 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.014 2.3062 .2756 5.464 6.564 1.0 10.0

Attentive .00 30 4.767 2.0957 .3826 3.984 5.549 1.0 10.0

1.00 40 5.700 2.0406 .3226 5.047 6.353 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.300 2.1014 .2512 4.799 5.801 1.0 10.0

Accepting .00 30 6.467 1.8520 .3381 5.775 7.158 3.0 9.0

1.00 40 6.250 1.5973 .2526 5.739 6.761 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.343 1.7015 .2034 5.937 6.749 3.0 9.0

Resilience .00 30 6.022222250 .9302631324 .1698420340 5.674856288 6.369588212 4.3333335 7.6666665

1.00 40 5.599999983 1.1277388205 .1783111639 5.239331610 5.960668355 2.3333333 7.6666665

Total 70 5.780952383 1.0615300669 .1268771106 5.527839473 6.034065293 2.3333333 7.6666665

Resolving .00 30 5.633 1.8473 .3373 4.944 6.323 1.0 10.0

1.00 40 5.200 2.0026 .3166 4.560 5.840 1.0 10.0

Total 70 5.386 1.9359 .2314 4.924 5.847 1.0 10.0

Self-assured .00 30 6.367 1.6914 .3088 5.735 6.998 3.0 9.0

1.00 40 5.925 1.7887 .2828 5.353 6.497 2.0 10.0

Total 70 6.114 1.7491 .2091 5.697 6.531 2.0 10.0

144

Composed .00 30 6.067 1.4368 .2623 5.530 6.603 4.0 9.0

1.00 40 5.675 1.7005 .2689 5.131 6.219 1.0 8.0

Total 70 5.843 1.5938 .1905 5.463 6.223 1.0 9.0

Flexibility .00 30 5.977777763 1.3531099741 .2470429519 5.472518195 6.483037331 2.6666667 8.3333330

1.00 40 5.558333323 1.4250256166 .2253163336 5.102588020 6.014078625 1.3333334 7.6666665

Total 70 5.738095226 1.4003597830 .1673750076 5.404191222 6.071999230 1.3333334 8.3333330

Receptive .00 30 5.733 1.9989 .3649 4.987 6.480 1.0 10.0

1.00 40 5.150 1.9289 .3050 4.533 5.767 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.400 1.9664 .2350 4.931 5.869 1.0 10.0

Positive .00 30 5.633 1.7117 .3125 4.994 6.272 2.0 9.0

1.00 40 5.675 1.8030 .2851 5.098 6.252 1.0 9.0

Total 70 5.657 1.7519 .2094 5.239 6.075 1.0 9.0

Change Oriented .00 30 6.567 1.9772 .3610 5.828 7.305 1.0 10.0

1.00 40 5.850 2.0575 .3253 5.192 6.508 1.0 10.0

Total 70 6.157 2.0404 .2439 5.671 6.644 1.0 10.0

Delivery .00 30 5.644444450 1.1347673283 .2071792211 5.220715366 6.068173534 3.4444444 7.7777777

1.00 40 6.024999998 .8312842696 .1314375838 5.759142390 6.290857605 4.1111110 7.5555553

Total 70 5.861904763 .9837534567 .1175810276 5.627337031 6.096472495 3.4444444 7.7777777

Structure .00 30 5.766666653 1.4833688720 .2708248641 5.212767613 6.320565693 2.6666667 8.6666670

1.00 40 6.608333325 1.0429180636 .1648998247 6.274791947 6.941874703 4.3333335 8.6666670

Total 70 6.247619037 1.3097992228 .1565509504 5.935308437 6.559929638 2.6666667 8.6666670

Organized .00 30 5.633 2.1251 .3880 4.840 6.427 1.0 9.0

1.00 40 6.500 1.5689 .2481 5.998 7.002 3.0 10.0

Total 70 6.129 1.8644 .2228 5.684 6.573 1.0 10.0

Principled .00 30 6.233 1.6543 .3020 5.616 6.851 3.0 9.0

1.00 40 6.800 1.5055 .2380 6.319 7.281 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.557 1.5847 .1894 6.179 6.935 3.0 9.0

145

Activity Oriented .00 30 5.433 2.0625 .3766 4.663 6.203 1.0 9.0

1.00 40 6.525 1.3006 .2056 6.109 6.941 2.0 9.0

Total 70 6.057 1.7436 .2084 5.641 6.473 1.0 9.0

Drive .00 30 5.888888880 1.4915684040 .2723218870 5.331928085 6.445849675 3.6666667 9.0000000

1.00 40 5.591666673 1.3618478473 .2153270512 5.156126601 6.027206744 2.6666667 8.6666670

Total 70 5.719047619 1.4160748131 .1692533130 5.381396498 6.056698739 2.6666667 9.0000000

Dynamic .00 30 6.067 2.1485 .3923 5.264 6.869 2.0 10.0

1.00 40 6.200 1.8701 .2957 5.602 6.798 3.0 10.0

Total 70 6.143 1.9802 .2367 5.671 6.615 2.0 10.0

Striving .00 30 6.600 1.8118 .3308 5.923 7.277 3.0 9.0

1.00 40 6.375 1.5473 .2447 5.880 6.870 3.0 9.0

Total 70 6.471 1.6570 .1980 6.076 6.867 3.0 9.0

Enterprising .00 30 5.000 1.6815 .3070 4.372 5.628 2.0 9.0

1.00 40 4.200 1.6672 .2636 3.667 4.733 1.0 8.0

Total 70 4.543 1.7083 .2042 4.136 4.950 1.0 9.0

Implementation .00 30 5.277777813 1.6794529194 .3066247494 4.650659787 5.904895840 2.3333333 8.6666670

1.00 40 5.874999990 1.3685259170 .2163829467 5.437324168 6.312675812 3.3333333 8.3333330

Total 70 5.619047629 1.5272993236 .1825471847 5.254875960 5.983219298 2.3333333 8.6666670

Meticulous .00 30 5.233 1.8696 .3413 4.535 5.931 2.0 9.0

1.00 40 5.850 1.6878 .2669 5.310 6.390 2.0 9.0

Total 70 5.586 1.7815 .2129 5.161 6.010 2.0 9.0

Reliable .00 30 5.200 2.4691 .4508 4.278 6.122 1.0 9.0

1.00 40 5.550 2.0248 .3202 4.902 6.198 2.0 9.0

Total 70 5.400 2.2159 .2648 4.872 5.928 1.0 9.0

Compliant .00 30 5.400 1.6733 .3055 4.775 6.025 2.0 9.0

1.00 40 6.225 1.7612 .2785 5.662 6.788 3.0 9.0

Total 70 5.871 1.7604 .2104 5.452 6.291 2.0 9.0

146

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Thought Between Groups 1.601 1 1.601 1.023 .315

Within Groups 106.348 68 1.564 Total 107.949 69

Vision Between Groups 2.630 1 2.630 .952 .333

Within Groups 187.797 68 2.762 Total 190.427 69

Inventive Between Groups 2.201 1 2.201 .570 .453

Within Groups 262.442 68 3.859 Total 264.643 69

Abstract Between Groups 1.719 1 1.719 .367 .547

Within Groups 318.867 68 4.689 Total 320.586 69

Strategic Between Groups 4.286 1 4.286 1.018 .317

Within Groups 286.300 68 4.210 Total 290.586 69

Judgment Between Groups .268 1 .268 .172 .680

Within Groups 105.842 68 1.556 Total 106.110 69

Insightful Between Groups 1.458 1 1.458 .444 .507

Within Groups 223.342 68 3.284 Total 224.800 69

Practically minded Between Groups 2.305 1 2.305 .687 .410

147

Within Groups 228.267 68 3.357 Total 230.571 69

Learning oriented Between Groups 1.543 1 1.543 .395 .532

Within Groups 265.900 68 3.910 Total 267.443 69

Evaluation Between Groups 7.243 1 7.243 2.831 .097

Within Groups 173.978 68 2.558 Total 181.221 69

Analytical Between Groups 12.876 1 12.876 3.701 .059

Within Groups 236.567 68 3.479 Total 249.443 69

Factual Between Groups .001 1 .001 .000 .986

Within Groups 248.342 68 3.652 Total 248.343 69

Rational Between Groups 20.430 1 20.430 5.599 .021

Within Groups 248.142 68 3.649 Total 268.571 69

Influence Between Groups .066 1 .066 .073 .788

Within Groups 61.360 68 .902 Total 61.426 69

Leadership Between Groups .083 1 .083 .043 .836

Within Groups 130.616 68 1.921 Total 130.698 69

Purposeful Between Groups .576 1 .576 .129 .720

Within Groups 303.267 68 4.460 Total 303.843 69

Directing Between Groups 2.001 1 2.001 .700 .406

148

Within Groups 194.342 68 2.858 Total 196.343 69

Empowering Between Groups 9.219 1 9.219 2.911 .093

Within Groups 215.367 68 3.167 Total 224.586 69

Impact Between Groups .030 1 .030 .021 .884

Within Groups 95.153 68 1.399 Total 95.183 69

Convincing Between Groups .144 1 .144 .050 .824

Within Groups 196.142 68 2.884 Total 196.286 69

Challenging Between Groups .043 1 .043 .013 .911

Within Groups 230.300 68 3.387 Total 230.343 69

Articulate Between Groups 1.219 1 1.219 .377 .541

Within Groups 219.767 68 3.232 Total 220.986 69

Communication Between Groups .096 1 .096 .051 .823

Within Groups 129.664 68 1.907 Total 129.760 69

Self promoting Between Groups .576 1 .576 .172 .680

Within Groups 227.767 68 3.350 Total 228.343 69

Interactive Between Groups .119 1 .119 .036 .849

Within Groups 222.867 68 3.277 Total 222.986 69

Engaging Between Groups 4.144 1 4.144 1.333 .252

149

Within Groups 211.342 68 3.108 Total 215.486 69

Adaptability Between Groups .963 1 .963 .812 .371

Within Groups 80.614 68 1.186 Total 81.578 69

Support Between Groups .292 1 .292 .102 .750

Within Groups 193.905 68 2.852 Total 194.197 69

Involving Between Groups 1.811 1 1.811 .337 .563

Within Groups 365.175 68 5.370 Total 366.986 69

Attentive Between Groups 14.933 1 14.933 3.504 .066

Within Groups 289.767 68 4.261 Total 304.700 69

Accepting Between Groups .805 1 .805 .275 .602

Within Groups 198.967 68 2.926 Total 199.771 69

Resilience Between Groups 3.056 1 3.056 2.782 .100

Within Groups 74.696 68 1.098 Total 77.752 69

Resolving Between Groups 3.219 1 3.219 .857 .358

Within Groups 255.367 68 3.755 Total 258.586 69

Self-assured Between Groups 3.344 1 3.344 1.095 .299

Within Groups 207.742 68 3.055 Total 211.086 69

Composed Between Groups 2.630 1 2.630 1.036 .312

150

Within Groups 172.642 68 2.539 Total 175.271 69

Flexibility Between Groups 3.016 1 3.016 1.550 .217

Within Groups 132.294 68 1.945 Total 135.310 69

Receptive Between Groups 5.833 1 5.833 1.520 .222

Within Groups 260.967 68 3.838 Total 266.800 69

Positive Between Groups .030 1 .030 .010 .922

Within Groups 211.742 68 3.114 Total 211.771 69

Change Oriented Between Groups 8.805 1 8.805 2.150 .147

Within Groups 278.467 68 4.095 Total 287.271 69

Delivery Between Groups 2.483 1 2.483 2.626 .110

Within Groups 64.294 68 .945 Total 66.776 69

Structure Between Groups 12.144 1 12.144 7.774 .007

Within Groups 106.231 68 1.562 Total 118.375 69

Organized Between Groups 12.876 1 12.876 3.858 .054

Within Groups 226.967 68 3.338 Total 239.843 69

Principled Between Groups 5.505 1 5.505 2.231 .140

Within Groups 167.767 68 2.467 Total 173.271 69

Activity Oriented Between Groups 20.430 1 20.430 7.337 .009

151

Within Groups 189.342 68 2.784 Total 209.771 69

Drive Between Groups 1.514 1 1.514 .753 .389

Within Groups 136.849 68 2.012 Total 138.363 69

Dynamic Between Groups .305 1 .305 .077 .783

Within Groups 270.267 68 3.975 Total 270.571 69

Striving Between Groups .868 1 .868 .313 .578

Within Groups 188.575 68 2.773 Total 189.443 69

Enterprising Between Groups 10.971 1 10.971 3.918 .052

Within Groups 190.400 68 2.800 Total 201.371 69

Implementation Between Groups 6.114 1 6.114 2.685 .106

Within Groups 154.838 68 2.277 Total 160.952 69

Meticulous Between Groups 6.519 1 6.519 2.086 .153

Within Groups 212.467 68 3.125 Total 218.986 69

Reliable Between Groups 2.100 1 2.100 .424 .517

Within Groups 336.700 68 4.951 Total 338.800 69

Compliant Between Groups 11.668 1 11.668 3.924 .052

Within Groups 202.175 68 2.973 Total 213.843 69

152

APPENDIX F BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTIC

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU02000000Q Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level Labor force status:

Employed

Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual 2000 135485 137175 137289 137613

2001 136638 137293 137295 136508 2002 135059 136548 137389 136945 2003 136374 137820 138124 138625 2004 137333 139051 140189 140435 2005 139180 141662 143001 143075 2006 142083 144221 145332 146073 2007 144692 146039 146723 146731 2008 144755 146166 146029 144500 2009 140125 140592 140069 138724 2010 137332 139561 139922 139441

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU02024230Q Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level - 55 yrs. & over Labor force status:

Employed

Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 55 years and over Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual 2000 18009 18125 18171 18418

153

2001 18532 18799 18941 19319 2002 19415 19825 20131 20548 2003 20896 21041 21096 21794 2004 21867 21878 22159 22696 2005 22768 23380 23548 24077 2006 24149 24605 24721 25380 2007 25178 25572 25832 26306 2008 26489 26664 26764 27248 2009 27006 27115 27030 27378 2010 27505 27975 27975 28163

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU02000093Q Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level - 45-54 yrs. Labor force status:

Employed

Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 45 to 54 years Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual 2000 30055 30231 30183 30770

2001 30880 31043 31052 31168 2002 31128 31129 31302 31567 2003 31568 31893 31925 32270 2004 32223 32353 32545 32756 2005 32818 33160 33330 33521 2006 33686 33942 34053 34527 2007 34370 34521 34520 34839 2008 34549 34563 34499 34508 2009 33728 33696 33408 33621 2010 33158 33281 33080 33245

154

APPENDIX G LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES

Saville WAVE Dimension

WAVE description OPQ OPQ high level attribute

Inventive (Thought/Vision)

Creative, original, radical Artistic Innovative

Shows artistic appreciation Enjoys creating novel solutions

Abstract (Thought/Vision)

Conceptual, theoretical, learning by thinking

Conceptual Enjoys working with theory

Strategic (Thought/Vision)

Developing strategy, visionary, forward thinking

Forward Planning Enjoys forming short & long term plans

Insightful (Thought/Judgment)

Discerning, seeking improvement, intuitive

Decisive Likes to make quick decisions

Practically minded (Thought/Judgment)

Practical, learning by doing, common sense focused

Practical Enjoys repairing things

Learning oriented (Thought/Judgment)

Analytical (Thought/Evaluation)

Problem solving, analyzing information, probing

Critical Critically evaluates ideas

Factual (Thought/Evaluation)

Written communication, logical, fact finding

Detail Conscious Is concerned about details

Rational (Thought/Evaluation)

Number fluency, technology aware, objective

Data Rational Judges on basis of data/logic

Purposeful (Influence/Leadership

Decisive, making decision, definite

Decisive Likes to make quick decisions

155

Directing (Influence/Leadership)

Leadership oriented, control seeking, coordinating people

Controlling Prefers to direct or take control

Empowering (Influence/Leadership)

Motivating others, inspiring, encouraging

Persuasive Can sell and be persuasive

Convincing (Influence/Impact)

Persuasive, negotiative, asserting views

Persuasive Independent

Can sell and be persuasive Argues strongly for opinions

Challenging (Influence/Impact)

Challenging ideas, prepared to disagree, argumentative

Independent Tough Minded

Argues strongly for opinions Does not suffer hurt feelings

Articulate (Influence/Impact)

Giving presentations, eloquent, socially confident

Socially Confident Is confident with people

Self promoting

Interactive (Influence/Communication)

Networking, talkative, lively Outgoing Socially Confident

Is talkative and outgoing Is confident with people

Engaging (Influence/Communication)

Establishing rapport, friendship seeking, initial impression

Socially Confident Is confident with people

Involving (Adaptability/Support)

Team oriented, democratic, decision sharing

Affiliative Democratic

Likes to work with groups/teams Consults others before deciding

Attentive (Adaptability/Support)

Empathetic, listening, psychologically minded

Caring

Is empathetic and tolerant Likes analyzing others’

156

Behavioral behaviors Accepting (Adaptability/Support)

Trusting, tolerant, considerate

Caring Is empathetic and tolerant

Resolving Self-assured (Adaptability/Resilience)

Self confident, self valuing, self directing

Optimistic Keeps optimistic outlook

Composed (Adaptability/Resilience)

Calm, poised, copes with pressure

Relaxed Can switch off work pressures

Receptive (Adaptability/Flexibility)

Receptive to feedback, open to criticism, feedback seeking

Tough Minded Does not suffer hurt feelings

Positive (Adaptability/Flexibility)

Optimistic, cheerful, buoyant Optimistic Keeps optimistic outlook

Change oriented (Adaptability/Flexibility)

Accepting challenges, accepting change, tolerant of uncertainty

Change Oriented Seeks change/variety in work

Organized (Delivery/Structure)

Self organized, planning, prioritizing

Forward Planning Enjoys forming short & long term plans

Principled Activity oriented (Delivery/Structure)

Quick working, busy, multi-tasking

Active Enjoys active jobs/activities

Dynamic (Delivery/Drive)

Energetic, initiating, action oriented

Active Enjoys active jobs/activities

Striving (Delivery/Drive)

Ambitious, results driven, persevering

Achieving Is ambitious for success

Enterprising (Delivery/Drive)

Competitive, entrepreneurial, selling

Competitive Likes to compete and win

Meticulous (Delivery/Implementati

Quality oriented, thorough, detailed

Detail Conscious Is concerned about details

157

on) Reliable (Delivery/Implementation)

Meeting deadlines, finishing tasks, punctual

Conscientious See routine tasks through

Compliant (Delivery/Implementation)

Rule bound, following procedures, risk averse

Traditional Follow conventional approach

158

LIST OF REFERENCES

American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admission Officers (AACRAO) Online dues schedule. (2010). AACRAO. http://www.aacrao.org/membership/join/webins.pdf

American Council on Education Study. (2007). The American College President. ACE

Publications. http://store.acenet.edu/showItem.aspx?product=311940&session=CAE29684BB84406EA7E4AC0630CF330E

Amey, M. J. & Van Der Linden, K. E. (2002). Career paths for community college

leaders. AACC Research Briefs, No. 2. Retrieved November 18, 2009 from ERIC database #465400.

Amey, M. J., Van Der Linden, 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. Retrieved November 18, 2009 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Arnone, W. (2006). Are employers prepared for the aging U.S. workforce? Benefits

Quarterly. Fourth quarter 2006, pp 7-12. Balkis, M., & Isiker, G. B. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and

personality types. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 283-294. Barden, D. (2006). The internal heir apparent. Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol 52,

Issue 28, pp2-3. Retrieved November 29, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Basham, M. (2007). A Cognitive Application of Personality Testing: Measuring

Entrepreneurialism in America’s Community Colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2007). UF Online Dissertations.

Bennis, Warren (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Benisom, E., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams and

teamwork in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Berry, J. (2008). Baseline Development to Streamline Executive Selection (Masters

thesis, University of Florida, 2008). UF Online Thesis. BNA (2010). HR faces growing leadership development deficits, study says. HR

Focus. 87: no 11. ISSN: 1059-6038. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from Wilson Web.

159

Borreson, J. and Salaway, G. (2007). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2007. EDUCAUSE. www.educause.edu/ecar/

Bos, J. (2007). Top trends in training and leadership development. Workforce Management. www.workforce.com. Pp 35-38. Retrieved March 10, 2008. Boyd, D. M. and Ellison, N. B. (2008), Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and

Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13: 210–230. Braller, D. (2010). Perspective: presidential leadership and health information

technology. Retrieved March 13, 2011: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=8&sid=f92d5121-dc72-4be1-8214-cfd844cd8687%40sessionmgr14&vid=8

Bruck, L. (2010). The workforce talent drain. EHS Today: Distributor Focus. A1-A4.

ISSN: 1945-9599. Buchanan, L. (2010). Meet the millennials. INC. pp 166. ISSN: 0162-8968. California State Polytechnical University. (2010). http://www.csupomona.edu/ Campbell, D. F. (2006). The new leadership gap: Shortages in administrative positions.

Community College Journal, 76, 10-14. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Campbell, D. F. (2009). Your next leader: piecing together the executive search

process. Community College Journal, 34-35. Campbell, D. F. & Associates (2002). The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies For

Leadership Development. Washington: Community College Press. Campbell, D. F. & Kachik, C. (2002). “Leadership profile research and consortium.” In

Campbell, D. F. & Associates, The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies For Leadership Development. Washington: Community College Press.

Campbell, D. F. & Leverty, L. H. (1997). Developing & selecting leaders for the 21st

century. Community College Journal, Vol 67, no. 4. Campbell, D. F.; Syed, S., & Morris, P. (2010). “Minding the gap: filling a void in

community college leadership development.” In New Directions for Community Colleges. Wiley InterScience. www.interscience.wiley.com.

Carroll, C. & Phillips, L. (2004). Succession Planning: Daytona Beach Community

College Prepares Tomorrow’s Leaders. The Bottomline – Newsletter of Community College Business Officers. Summer 2004.

160

Clare, C. (2009). Generational differences turning challenges into opportunities. J Prop Manage. 74 no 5: 41-43. www.irem.org/jpm. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from Wilson Web.

Closeup Media (2011). UBM Studios unicruit names Intel as platinum sponsor for

veterans. http://financial.tmcnet.com//news/2011/02/16/5315945.htm Crosson, P., Douglas, K., O’Meara, K. and Sperlin, Charmian (2005). A Community

College Leadership Academy: Developing Leaders for Massachuttes. Community College Review, Vol 33 Issue 2, 45-63. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

Davenport, T.; Harris, J. & Shapiro, J. (2010). Competing on talent analytics. Harvard

Business Review. 52-59. Retrieved on February 17, 2011 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Davis, G. P. (2011) Preparing leaders for the future: a toolkit for developing

administrators in higher education. www.acenet.edu. Dembicki, M. (2006). Hot issues: report highlights leadership program practices.

AACC website. http://www.aacc.nche.edu. Retrieved October 6, 2006. Dolence, M. (1993) Strategic enrollment management: a primer for campus

administrators. AACRAO Guide Publication. Fallon, T. (2009). Retain and motivate the next generation: 7 ways to get the most out

of your millennial workers. Supervision. 70 no 5: 4-7. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web.

FuturesLeaders-ATG Work Profiling Session (2006). Dean/Director Enrollment and

Registrar. Unpublished document. GCN (2011). Technology vs. experience: the changing workforce.

http://gcn.com/articles/2011/01/28/Commentary-next-gen-mobile-workers.aspx?p=1

Gardner, H. & Larkin, E. (1996). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York:

Harper Collins. Germain, M. L. (2008). Traits and skills theory as the nexus between leadership and

expertise: reality or fallacy? St. Thomas University Dissertation retrieved January 15, 2011.

Gibson, C. B. (1995). An investigation of gender differences in leadership across four

countries. Journal of International Business Studies. 26, 255-275.

161

Gordon, B. (2009). Congressional testimony: opening statement to the House Science and Technology Committee. Retrieved February 19, 2011 from MasterFIlE Premier, access number 32Y3403614931.

Hall, A. (2000). Taming the techno beast: technology is running wild, learn to manage

change, or you’ll get eaten alive. Business Week. 30-42. Hamilton, K. (2004) A pathway to the presidency. Black Issues in Higher Education.

21, 20, p38-41. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from Academic Search Premier.. Harrison, M., McKinnon, T, and Terry, P. (Oct 2006). Effective succession planning:

how to design and implement a successful succession plan. TD pp 22-23. Hartley, L. (2008). Succession planning through the ages. Workforce Management. 87

no 14. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web. Heidrick & Struggles (2010). New CEO and board research reveals serious gaps in

CEO succession planning. Boardmember.com http://www.boardmember.com/New-CEO-and-Board-Research-Reveals-Serious-Gaps-in-CEO-Succession-Planning.aspx Retrieved February 15, 2011.

Hershey, P. & Blanchard, K. (2007). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading

Human Resources. Prentice Hall. Higher Education Publications (2010). Select administrators and characteristics.

http://www.hepinc.com/admin_charact_select.php Retrieved February 15, 2011. Jackson, D. (2010). 2010: The year of the iPad? Law Library Journal. Vol 102:3, pp

513-520. Jackson, H. G. (2010). HR, the boomer, exodus and preparing for what’s next. HR

Magazine. 55 no 10 p II-IV. ISSN: 1047-3149. Joslyn, H. (2009). A growing leadership gap. The Chronicle on Philanthropy. 21: no

13. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web. Kachik, C. J. (2003). The five-factor model and Holland’s theory: Community college

and corporate leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003). UF Online Dissertations.

Kleinglass, N. (2005). Who is driving the changing landscape in student affairs? New

Directions for Student Services, 112, 25-38. Retrieved March 29, 2009 from Academic Search Premier.

Krieger, L. (2008). WAVE© assessment interpretation. Training. Jacksonville, FL.

162

Leslie, J. (2009). The leadership gap. Center for Creative Leadership. http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/leadershipGap.pdf

Lovell, C. & Kosten, L. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary for

success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of research. NAPSA Journal. Vol 37, No. 4, pp 553-572.

Magner, D. (2009). The leadership pipeline. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mann, T. (2010). Attrition among chief academic officers threatens strategic plans. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Wilson Web. McCauley, C. and Wakefield, M. (2006). Talent management in the 21st century. The

Journal for Quality and Participation. Winter 2006, pp 4-7. McConahay, M., West, A., Hanson, K. and Woodbeck, D. (2009). The electronic

FERPA: access in the digital age. College & University. Vol 84, No. 3. Middlehurst, R. (2008). Not enough science or not enough learning? Exploring the

gaps between leadership and theory. Higher Education Quarterly. Vol 62, no 4, pp322-339. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from Academic Search Premier.

Minter, S. (2010). Identifying your future leaders. IW. 24-26. www.industryweek.com.

ISSN: 0039-0895. Mironack, M. (2003). Leadership Behaviors Among College Union Directors at

Doctoral-research Universities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003). UF Online Dissertations.

Morley, J. & Eadie, D. (2001). Moving from manager to leader. NACUBO Business

Officer, 34(12), 22-25. National Center for Educational Statistics (2010). http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/ Nickson, C. (2009). The history of social networking. Digital Trends. Retrieved March

15, 2010 from http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/

O’Daniels, T. (2009). Gender in Community College Administration (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Florida, 2009). UF Online Dissertations. Patton, M. (2004). Initiative seeks to inform and prepare new leaders. Community

College Times,Washington: AACC. http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/ContentGroups/CC_Times/January_20041/Initiative_Seeks_To_Inform_and_Prepare_New_Leaders.htm, firstaccessed February 2010.

163

Pelham, D., Roof, J., & Presswood, K. (2006). The changing role of the community

college registrar would your president rehire you? AACRAO Annual Conference Presentation.

Powell, G.N. (1988). Women and men in management.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rhode Island College. (2010). http://www.ric.edu/ Ricadela, A. & Brady, D.(2010) HP said to be near decision on Mark Hurd’s successor.

Bloomberg Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-17/hp-said-to-be-near-decision-on-mark-hurd-s-successor.html Retrieved on February 15, 2011.

Rothwell, W. (2010). The Future of Succession Planning. T+D – American Society for

Training and Development. P 51-54. Sacks, D. (2006). Scenes from the ;) culture clash. Fast Company, 102, 73-78. Saville (2006). Technical Document. Unpublished report. Saville, P. & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative

approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 219-238. Retrieved May 22, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Seminole State College (2010). http://www.seminolestate.edu/ Shults, Christoper. (2001). The Critical Impact of Impending Retirements on

Community College Leadership. American Association of Community Colleges, Research Brief, No. 1. Leadership Series, 2001.

Simons, N. (2010). Leveraing generational work styles to meet business objectives.

Information Management. 28-33. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from Academic Search Premier Database.

Slippery Rock University. (2010). http://www.sru.edu/index/pages/home.aspx Smith, D. (2010). A leadership skills gap? T&D. 16-17. Spellings, M. (2006). Report commissioned by Secretary of Education. A test of

leadership: charting the future of U.S. higher education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html. Retrieved March 5, 2007.

164

Spillett, R. (2006). It begins with leadership and discipline of the board. The Nonprofit’s Sector Leadership Deficit. Bridgespan Report. http://www.bridgespan.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=936

Stewart & Wright (1997) The registrar, a view of the profession. SACRAO Journal. SUNY Rockland Community College. (2010) Registrar job description.

http://www.sunyrockland.edu/Members/inewhem/job-description Tunks, L. (2007). Comparison of the Outcomes of Leadership Behaviors of community

Collge Administrators (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2007). UF Online Dissertations.

Tyler, K. (2007). The tethered generation. HR Magazine. 52, no 5: 41-46. USDOE (2010) FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html Weinstein, M. (2010). Missing something? Training Magazine. 47 no 1. Retrieved

February 17, 2011 from Wilson Web. Yielder, J. & Codling, A. (2004). Management and leadership in the contemporary

university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 315-328. Retrieved Oct 18, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Database.

165

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kristy Robertson Presswood was born in Daytona Beach, Florida in 1971. The

sixth of seven children, she grew up in Daytona Beach, graduating from Mainland High

School in 1989. She is an alum of Daytona State College and earned a Bachelor of

Science degree in Business Administration and a Masters of Business Administration

from the University of Central Florida (UCF) in 1997 and 1999, respectively.

Kristy began working full-time at Daytona State College in 1992. During her

tenure at Daytona State, she graduated with her doctorate in Higher Education

Administration from the University of Florida in 2011. Kristy has worked in nearly every

area of the College giving her a better perspective of the ‘big picture’ and how the

departments relate. She feels communication is the key to ensuring successful

program implementation and continual growth.

Kristy is the Associate Vice President of the College of Education at Daytona State

College. She has been married to James Clayton Presswood nearly 15 years. They

have three children: Emily, age 12; Samantha, age 10; and Trevor, age 7.