Table Of ContentFaculty Perceptions of Selection Criteria for Department Leaders
In recent years, many studies have been enthusiastic/optimistic
conducted and articles published on the sub- ethical
ject of leadership. Examples of these efforts information gathering & management
can be found in most academic fields. Histori- insightful
cally, these efforts have focused on the pre- intelligent/practical judgment
vailing leadership theory being professed at motivating others
that time. However, today there is agreement organizing
that leadership is a complex construct that persistent
goes beyond personal characteristics and abili- personal integrity
ties (Moss & Liang, 1990). The consensus of planning William D. Paige
the leadership research suggests that quality problem-solving
leadership is extremely important to the suc- networking
cess of an organization. sensitivity/respect
Several factors contribute to successful lead- stress management
ership. Crosby (1994) provided a description of tolerant of ambiguity/complexity
the duties of a leader and identified four main tolerant of frustration
absolutes of leadership: (a) integrity, (b) infor- visionary
mation, (c) innovation, and (d) decisiveness. In Leadership in higher education was exam-
the book On Becoming a Leader, Bennis (1989) ined by Tack (1991). A result of the study was
stressed that although leaders vary in many the compilation of the following list of essen-
areas, they seem to possess the following char- tial qualities required of present and future
acteristics: (a) a guiding vision, (b) a passion for higher education leaders:
what they are doing, (c) personal integrity, (d) 1. A set of clear, positive, and rationally de-
trust of those they lead, (e) a deep curiosity, and fendable values that they understand and
This article is dedicated to the
(f) daring. In addition, effective leaders are sup- on which they rely when making deci-
memory of Dr. William Wolansky,
portive, goal-oriented, intelligent, self-confident, sions.
who devoted his life to our
and energetic (Joiner, 1987). 2. The courage to focus on quality in every- profession. A tireless leader, Dr.
Research conducted specifically on leader- thing they do, from the vision articulated Wolansky led by example and
ship in vocational education has resulted in to the rewards given to faculty and staff for provided his students and fellow
professionals with exemplary
the identification of leadership attributes nec- meritorious performance.
standards for aspiring leaders in the
essary for vocational leaders (Moss & Liang, 3. The ability and willingness to take calcu-
discipline. Dr. Wolansky was a
1990). Subsequent research efforts were taken lated risks in order to capitalize on new member of the Alpha Xi Chapter of
to refine and validate these leadership at- opportunities. Epsilon Pi Tau and was a
tributes (Moss & Johansen, 1991). These ef- 4. The ability and willingness to balance the Distinguished Service Award
recipient .
forts by Moss et al. have resulted in the devel- competing and often consuming demands
opment of the following list of 37 attributes of their work and personal lives.
that appear to provide a valid descriptor of 5. The ability to balance the need for extensive
leadership: participation and input against the re-
accept responsibility quirement to keep the organization on
accountable course and committed to its future plans.
achievement oriented 6. The ability and willingness to be a motiva-
adaptable, open to change tional specialist.
appropriate use of leadership styles 7. The ability to factor time into the decision-
assertive/initiating making process more carefully than has
beliefs appropriate to the group been done in the past.
coaching Leadership in most departments of indus-
committed to common good trial technology/technology education has tra-
communication ditionally been provided by the department
confident/self-accepting executive officer (DEO). Throughout the his-
conflict management tory of industrial technology/technology edu-
courageous, risk-taker cation, strong leaders such as Warner, Lon- Dr. Paige is a Professor in the
delegating don, Maley, DeVore, Lux, Bensen, House- Department of Technology and
decision-making holder, and others (too numerous to mention) Human Resources Development at
Clemson University, South
dependable/reliable have successfully led departments. Just as the
Carolina. He is a member and
emotionally balanced leaders from the past were able to adapt to the
founding Trustee of Gamma Tau
energetic with stamina demands of their time, future leaders will need Chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau.
33
to understand the processes, and carefully turers. The sample for this study was limited to
assess each situation and make decisions that faculty from colleges and universities in the
will move the profession forward. Therefore, United States.
the selection of a new DEO is one of the most Two hundred sixty-three survey instruments
important decisions that a faculty must make. were returned. This was an overall return rate
Selecting a leader of a department is a of 57%. Three of the instruments were re-
complex process. Within this process there turned incomplete, resulting in a final usable
are many factors, among which is the identifi- return of 260 instruments or a rate of 56%.
cation of the selection criteria to be used. An
earlier study sought to identify the criteria Instrument
deans use to screen and select DEOs for de- The instrument utilized for this study was
partments of industrial technology/technol- identical to the one used in a previous study by
ogy education (Paige & Wolansky, 1991). The Paige and Wolansky (1991). The instrument
results indicated that deans place the greatest included items incorporating 13 criteria vari-
emphasis on the criteria of creative ability, ables that may be considered in the selection
scholarly ability, grantsmanship ability, and process of department executive officers in
fiscal management. industrial technology/technology education.
Another group of people who actively par- The respondents were asked to rate each of the
ticipate in the selection process is the faculty. 13 selection criteria on a 7-point Likert-type
In many cases, faculty input in the selection scale as to its current and future importance.
process for a DEO is considered to be para- The criteria and corresponding descriptors are
mount for what would appear to be obvious listed as follows:
reasons, such as an ability to work with col- 1. Creative Ability to generate ideas and
leagues within the department, research inter- ability solve problems.
ests that relate to the departmental mission, 2. Human re- Inspires confidence and gets
ability to work with faculty to develop a shared lations abilityalong well with others; sensi-
vision, and so forth. However, the specific tivity to women and minority
criteria that faculty perceive to be important issues.
and, therefore, are used by faculty to select 3. Leadership Capacity to influence others
their DEOs have not been identified in the ability to achieve departmental, col-
literature. lege, institutional, and fac-
One approach that might be taken to iden- ulty goals.
tify which criteria faculty consider important 4. Professional Demonstrated participation
in the selection of a DEO is to solicit open- ability in professional organizations
ended responses from faculty and then group and service activities at lo-
these reponses. Another method is to provide cal, state, national, and inter-
faculty members with a predetermined list of national levels.
criteria and ask them to rate the importance of 5. Research Demonstrated capacity in the
each item. This latter process of identifying the ability use of analytical and statisti-
criteria and analyzing the level of importance cal design tools.
could provide insight into the characteristics 6. Scholarship Demonstrated performance
and abilities faculty perceive to be important ability and achievement in publica-
and want their department leader to possess. tions, advanced study, and
scholarly recognitions.
THE STUDY 7. Teaching Demonstrated superior per-
The purpose of this research was to deter- ability formance in classroom and
mine the criteria faculty members perceive to laboratory teaching assign-
be most important currently and in the future ments.
for the process of selecting department execu- 8. Curriculum Development of mission,
tive officers of departments of industrial tech- development program, and evaluation of
nology/technology education. ability outcomes.
9. Health Stamina, energy, and general
Population well-being meet the rigorous
The population for this study included all demands of administration.
faculty members listed in the 1992-1993 In- 10. Grantsman- Record of ability to acquire
dustrial Teacher Education Directory (Dennis, ship ability project grants.
1992). The sample consisted of a total of 462 11. Fiscal Demonstrated performance
faculty. Included in the sample were 128 management in budgetary matters and
professors, 119 associate professors, 135 as- grants management.
sistant professors, and 80 instructors and lec- 12. Personality Personal characteristics are
34
consistent with the depart- tance for the following 10 selection criteria:
mental organizational opera- communication ability
tions and aura. creative ability
13. Communi- Evidence of sensitivity and curriculum development ability
cation ability skill in establishing effective fiscal management
communication networks. grantsmanship ability
health
Results and Implications human relations ability
When the data were compiled and ana- leadership ability
lyzed, a significant difference was found be- personality
tween the overall ratings for the selection research ability
criteria at the present time as compared to the When examining the means for the 13
ratings for the criteria in the future. The overall selection criteria, it was interesting to observe
mean for the importance of the selection crite- which items faculty members perceived to be
ria in the future was significantly higher than most important. The means for the 13 selec-
the overall mean of the present (Table 1). This tion criteria are presented in Table 2 in de-
indicates that greater expectations and higher scending order. Criteria which could be cat-
standards of excellence can be expected in the egorized as humanistic provided the five high-
selection process for industrial technology/ est means and, therefore, could easily be
technology education department executive considered most important from the perspec-
officers in the future. tive of this group of respondents. Conversely,
In paired t tests, 12 of the 13 selection criteria that received the lowest mean rating
criteria demonstrated a significant increase in scores (research ability, grantsmanship abil-
the rating between current and future impor- ity, and scholarship ability) reflect attributes
tance at the .05 level. Only the criteria of which are quite often measured on an indi-
scholarship failed to show statistical signifi- vidual basis. Historically, these same criteria
cance between current and future importance. have also been deemed among the most im-
Furthermore, significance was greater than the portant criteria by many others who have
.001 level between current and future impor- participated in the selection process (Murray,
Table 1
Comparison of Current and Future Ratings
N Standard Paired Differences 2-Tail
Variable Pairs Mean Deviation Mean Std. Dev. t value Probability
Current
Rating 71.44 9.32
250 -4.63 5.95 -12.30 <.001
Future
Rating 76.01 8.41
Table 2
Means of Present and Future Criteria Ranked in Descending Order
Present Mean Future Mean
Leadership 6.30 Human relations 6.58
Human relations 6.13 Leadership 6.51
Communications 6.04 Communications 6.50
Personality 5.83 Creative ability 6.34
Creative ability 5.82 Fiscal management 6.12
Fiscal management 5.64 Personality 6.04
Curriculum 5.52 Curriculum 5.96
Health 5.42 Grantsmanship ability 5.79
Teaching ability 5.27 Health 5.75
Professional ability 5.18 Teaching ability 5.42
Scholarship ability 5.00 Professional ability 5.32
Grantsmanship ability 4.98 Scholarship ability 5.12
Research ability 4.46 Research ability 4.68
Note: N = 259.
35
1988; Paige & Wolansky, 1991). erations during the selection process.
Only two criteria were found to be signifi- The findings of this survey have provided
cant when examining the data to see if any insights into the criteria that current faculty in
differences existed in the mean responses of industrial technology/technology education
instructors/lecturers, assistant professors, as- feel are important for selecting department
sociate professors, and professors. Interest- executive officers. For the most part, regard-
ingly, both of these differences that emerged less of rank, faculty hold similar views regard-
were found in the present selection criteria. ing which criteria are most important. It is also
The results of a one-way analysis of variance, evident that faculty perceive the importance
presented in Table 3, indicate a difference placed on the selection criteria will be in-
between the groups. Further analysis using the creased in the future.
Scheffe procedure revealed that assistant pro- When examining any of the leadership
fessors rated the criteria of creative ability position announcements in the field of indus-
significantly higher than the other three groups. trial technology/technology education as well
This may be because assistant professors gen- as other disciplines, one usually finds similar
erally are somewhat newer to the profession qualifications listed. Qualifications most often
and within one to five years past their terminal listed include teaching ability, research abil-
degree. They are also usually younger than ity, grantsmanship/scholarship ability. As re-
associate or full professors, brimming with ported in this research, the most important
new ideas to try as well as being very excited criteria (as far as faculty are concerned) in-
about the future. Likewise, for the criteria of clude ability to communicate, human rela-
grantsmanship ability, the mean response of tions ability, creative ability, and leadership.
the instructor/lecturer group as revealed by If, in fact, these humanistic characteristics are
the Scheffe procedure was significantly higher rated by faculty as being extremely important,
at the .05 level than those of the other three then why are these important criteria missing
groups. This may result from the fact that, as a in many position announcements? One would
group, instructors/lecturers fill temporary po- also ask: Is there congruence between what
sitions that vary and are often dependent upon characteristics we say we want our leaders to
soft money for support. As such, grantsman- possess and the criteria we use to select them?
ship ability is extremely important to their job The need for quality leadership in industrial
security. technology/technology education is indeed
There were no significant differences found clear. Communicating which criteria and lead-
in the mean responses of the four categories of ership characteristics have been identified by
faculty regarding the importance of the selec- the faculty as important to potential depart-
tion criteria in the future. Thus, it may be ment executive officers is essential. Everyone
concluded that the respondents held some- involved in the selection process must work
what consistent beliefs about the selection together constructively and communicate their
criteria for the department executive officers expectations and desires, thus creating an
in industrial technology/technology educa- effective nurturing environment that is filled
tion in the future. It may also be concluded that with opportunities for the future success of our
faculty perceive that interpersonal skills will leaders, faculty, programs, and the discipline.
be considered most important in their delib-
Table 3
One-Way Analysis of Variance for Creativity and Grantsmanship
Group/Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Probability
Creativity
Between groups 3 12.66 4.22 3.14 .0261*
Within groups 255 343.17 1.35
Total 258 355.83
Grantsmanship
Between groups 3 22.03 7.34 4.53 .0041*
Within groups 255 413.83 1.62
Total 258 435.86
* Significant at a = 0.05.
36
References
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Crosby, P. (1994, March). Leaders and learning. Journal for Quality and Participation, pp. 30–33.
Dennis, E. A. (Ed.). (1992-1993). Industrial teacher education directory (31st ed.). Cedar Falls,
IA: Council on Technology Teacher Education and National Association of Industrial and
Technical Teacher Educators.
Joiner, C. W., Jr. (1987). Leadership for change. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Moss, J., & Johansen, B. (1991). Conceptualizing leadership and assessing leader attributes.
Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, National Center for Research in Vocational
Education.
Moss, J., & Liang, T. (1990). Leadership, leadership development and the National Center for
Research in Vocational Education. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, National
Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Murray, J. P. (1988). Searching for leadership. College Teaching, 36, 90.
Paige, W. D., & Wolansky, W. D. (1991). Screening and selecting chairpersons or heads. The
Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 17(2), 47–52.
Tack, M. W. (1991, Winter). Future leaders in higher education. Phi Kappa Phi Journal, pp. 29–32.
37
