Chapter I Introduction Organizational scholars and management analysts believe that one of the basic differences between successful and unsuccessful organizations is leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis, 1989; Burns, 1978; Drucker, 2001; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Katz, 1955; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003; Spreitzer & Quinn, 2001). Engaging in behavior that effectively coordinates the work of others is an essential skill which must be learned and utilized by leaders to achieve desired organizational outcomes. Undeniably, one of the most important leadership behaviors is to lead organizational change. In fact, many scholars argue that the entire process of change is perhaps the focal activity of administrators through which organizational objectives are accomplished (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1984; Burke, 2002; DuBrin, 2005; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Northouse, 2007; Yukl, 2002). Whether it is coordinating, directing, organizing, facilitating, implementing, strategizing or innovating, leading change is a rather complex process that requires administrators to engage in different kinds of political behavior (or influence tactics). Doing so provides a crucial path to success for any organization, especially in a politicized environment such as a community college (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981; Pusser, 2004; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974; Schriesheim & Neider, 2006; Vigoda, 2003). Not only must administrators embrace change, they also need to influence others to view and accept change as beneficial and worthwhile to pursue (Dubrin, 2005; Kotter, 2001; Yukl, 2002). As such, more and more administrators are expected to facilitate and implement change processes (and some simultaneously), including changes in leadership practices, technological advances, and shifting educational priorities (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974; Sashkin & Sashkin, 2004; Vigoda, 2003). 1 This is because administrators, particularly those in higher education, are facing (a) new pressures (e.g., stakeholders demanding greater accountability, critics expecting immediate results, and students demanding advanced educational technology), (b) escalating responsibilities (e.g., meeting the needs of those under-served populations, managing operations with ever-shrinking resources, and keeping costs low while providing quality education), and (c) unprecedented challenges (e.g., dealing with the effects and ramifications of an economic recession, addressing the emerging needs of encore career learners, and keeping the campus safe and secured) (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Eckel & Kezar, 2003). From the time of Machiavelli, political behavior has come to be understood as part of the human conditions, a fundamental attribute shared by people at all levels in the organization (Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Julius, Baldridge, & Pfeffer, 1999; Kumar & Ghadially, 1989; Pfeffer, 1992; Porter, Allen & Angle, 1981). Although politics, conflicts, and resistance are pervasive features of organizational life, only a limited amount of attention has been paid to this research area since the 1970s (Cropanzano, Kacmar, & Bozeman, 1995; Farrell & Petersen, 1982; Madison et al., 1980). It was not until Victor Baldridge’s groundbreaking book Power and Conflict in the University (1971) that scholars started to focus on some of the long standing challenges (e.g., dealing with protesters and rioters, addressing issues related to academic freedom, and resolving problems with the tenure process) administrators faced at various higher education institutions (Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 1989; Cohen & March, 1983; Nordvall, 1982; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974). Even so, there continues to be a lack of research on the political behavior of administrators in the community colleges (Roueche & Baker, 1987; Roueche, Baker, & Rose, 1989). This oversight is of great concern, particularly when today’s community colleges are facing a wide array of leadership challenges, such as budget management, resource allocation, political pressures, and retirement ramifications (Alfred, 2005; Evelyn, 2004; Levine, 2004; Roueche, Roueche, & Johnson, 2002). The Community College To provide readers with some contextual information, the next four sections will highlight the community college, challenges facing community colleges, community 2 college leadership, and challenges facing leaders. Community colleges are currently the largest and fastest-growing sector of higher education in the U.S. (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). According to the American Association of Community Colleges (2008), there are now approximately 1,180 regionally accredited community colleges located throughout the country, serving more than 11.5 million students (approximately 46 percent of all U.S. undergraduates). Increasingly, community colleges are the gateway to higher education for a growing number of students (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). These colleges provide students with an opportunity to earn credits for the first two years of a four-year bachelor's degree at high-quality, accredited institutions. With their lower tuition costs, community colleges give students the means to save money while learning in a supportive environment. They also allow students to access training for associate-degree or non-degree careers, and they offer continuing education and personal development classes for the broad spectrum of adult learners (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Most community colleges are operated either by special districts that draw property tax revenue from the local community, as a division of a state university, or as a sister institution within a statewide higher education system (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). In all cases, community colleges are governed by a board of trustees, elected from the community or appointed by the state governor. The board of trustees selects a president or chancellor to serve as the chief executive officer and the leader of numerous faculty, staff, and administrators (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Challenges Facing Community Colleges Contemporary community colleges face a new reality in which the only predictable constant in their environment is change (Alfred, 2005; Fields, 2004; Romero, 2004; Roueche, Roueche, & Johnson, 2002). Therefore, initiating, communicating, and facilitating purposeful and meaningful change has become one of the most important functions of organizational leadership, especially given the challenges facing community colleges (Association of Governing Boards, 2006; Green & Hayward, 1997; Simon, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, 2006; Yukl, 2002). Based on projected enrollment patterns, Boggs (2003) believes that community colleges will be “where the action is” (p. 17). Not only will more traditional-age students matriculate at our nation’s community colleges to pursue transfer education, an 3 increasing number of single parents, recent immigrants, international students, displaced workers, career changers, and senior citizens will also be turning to the “peoples’ college” to get the education that they need in order to reenter the workforce, earn a living wage, be more competitive, learn a new skill, pursue an encore career, and/or seek lifelong learning (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). With burgeoning enrollment, one of the major challenges would be to provide enough resources to serve the educational needs of all those walking through their doors (Boggs, 2003). In addition to escalating enrollment, Fields (2004) and O’Banion (2007) warned that that there will be troubling times in the years ahead because presidents and senior- level administrators are retiring at a steady rate. In fact, the second major challenge facing community colleges today is filling the leadership pipeline with qualified individuals who are prepared and have the skill sets for the presidency (American Association of Community Colleges, 2001). On the whole, community colleges are experiencing a leadership gap: Roughly 8 percent of presidents are now 50 years old or younger, and nearly 45 percent are expected to retire by 2010 (Shults, 2001). In a similar study, Weisman and Vaughan (2002) found that 79% of the presidents surveyed intended to retire by 2012. More recently, 84% of the respondents indicated that they would retire by 2016 (Weisman & Vaughan, 2007). To further complicate this picture, recent research indicates that community colleges have not anticipated another leadership gap—the impending impact associated with the retirement of professionals in highly skilled and specialized positions such as deans of enrollment management, directors of financial aid, and registrars (Campbell, 2006). With major questions looming about the pipeline for leader preparation, AACC (the advocacy organization for community colleges) in the last few years launched a concerted effort to address the lack of leadership development programs for those who aspire to become presidents and vice presidents. To make matters worse, community colleges (like many other public, private, and non-profit organizations) are built for stability or linear change, not “frame-breaking” change (Alfred, 2005). As such, the tendency for this kind of organizational behavior poses another major challenge: organizational inertia. According to Alfred (2005), not only must community colleges organize for constant change, they must be ready to 4 change frequently and quickly to keep pace with the external environment, to address competing demands, and to satisfy the ever-increasing needs and rising expectations of various constituent groups (e.g., board of trustees, faculty, parents, legislators, and students). The unprecedented rise and popularity of the for-profit postsecondary institutions (e.g., University of Phoenix, Corinthian College, Inc., and DeVry, Inc.) pose another major challenge for community colleges. Recently, Stetson (2002) argued that community colleges need to create new energy for change in order to survive and thrive while being bombarded with stiff competition from these for-profit institutions. Faced with this unrelenting pressure, administrators (e.g., presidents, senior-level administrators, and mid-level administrators) need to rethink how best to position their community colleges to stay competitive, flexible, responsive, and nimble. To this end, administrators need to carefully navigate the political terrain in order to successfully lead change efforts/initiatives (Maurer, 1996; Pfeffer, 1992; Simon, 1997; Yukl, 2002). After all, the ultimate goal for leading change is to achieve desired organizational outcomes (e.g., increased enrollment, enhanced reputation, and greater recognition). For the purpose of this study, achieving desired organizational outcomes implies that the administrator is able to get change done while satisfying the needs of diverse constituents, generating minimal resistance, gaining trust and commitment, and producing generally positive feelings throughout the change process. Given these five major challenges facing community colleges, administrators need to recognize that leading change is an essential part of their roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Simply put, they are expected to lead change and to be successful at it (Handy, 1995; Kotter, 1995). To be perceived as successful, administrators need to demonstrate that they can facilitate the change process and accomplish stated goals, objectives, and outcomes that will have a positive impact on the college and the community they serve (Walker, 1979; Whetten, 1984; Yukl, 2002). Engaging in political behavior is one means to this end. Community College Leadership The literature on community college leadership reveals that there is significant research examining presidents. For instance, Vaughan (1986) reports that the skills and 5 abilities associated with being a successful president include producing results, resolving conflicts, motivating others, analyzing and evaluating, relating, taking risks, and networking with peers. Roueche and Baker’s (1987) findings on leadership suggest that an excellent president possesses three major categories of skills and behaviors: 1) Sense of direction; 2) Structure for implementation; and 3) Sense of personal commitment. Roueche, Baker, and Rose’s (1989) Shared Vision study of 256 excellent presidents recognizes that the “proactive” president must attend to three stages of the change process: 1) Recognize the need for revitalization and new direction around the community college mission; 2) Create a new vision; and 3) Institutionalize change to accomplish the mission. In light of these three seminal works on community college leadership, there is still a shortage of research concerning the leadership roles, behaviors, and self- perceptions of senior-level administrators and mid-level administrators (Boggs, 2003; Campbell, 2006; Sheldon, 2005; Vaughan & Weisman, 1998). This indicates a real need for more research on community college leadership—one that includes senior-level administrators and mid-level administrators, not just presidents. All too often, administrators, especially mid-level administrators, get overlooked in many research studies but yet, they play an equally important role at the community college (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Levine, 2004; Sheldon, 2005). Challenges Facing Leaders Given the difficulties associated with the facilitation and implementation of various change initiatives, scholars note that numerous leaders, administrators, and managers are rushing into the multifaceted process of change without fully recognizing and understanding two critical realities: 1) The complexities associated with facilitating, implementing, and institutionalizing change (Burnes, 1992; Kezar, 2001; Walker, 1979); and 2) The political perspective that pervades organizational life (Baldridge, 1971; Julius, Baldridge, & Pfeffer, 1999). As a result, many change initiatives have failed despite good intentions, noble causes, and valiant efforts (Birnbaum, 1988; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Kotter, 1995). Leading change is and continues to be a tremendous challenge because it is generally a very complex and dynamic process that involves many internal and external 6 members (Kotter, 1995). What makes it even more challenging is the fact that leading change can often be very political in the sense that different organizational members (or political actors) jockey for power, position, control, and recognition (Julius, Baldridge, & Pfeffer, 1999). In order to move change along, administrators need to engage in political behavior that effectively initiates and guides change because often times that is the only way to get change done (Lichtenberg, 1998). However, doing so could be somewhat challenging depending on the potential push back and resistance from various political actors (e.g., faculty, union leaders, other administrators, and board members) and constituent groups, such as the faculty union or academic senate (Lichtenberg, 1998; Pfeffer, 1992). In fact, failure rates of institutional change efforts are not encouraging. For example, two independent studies in the early 1990s found that out of the hundreds of corporate total quality management programs studied, about two-thirds grind to a halt because of their failure to produce hoped-for results (Senge, 1999). Likewise, regional and multi-national re-engineering efforts have fared no better (Jick, 1993; Kanter, 1984; Kotter, 1995). Other studies, including some by Hammer and Champy (2003), place the failure rate somewhere around 70 percent. This leads Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Senge (1999) to conclude that schools, healthcare institutions, governmental, and nonprofit institutions still yet fare no better. One of the underlying sources for such high failure rates is because many leaders do not fully understand that most organizations resist change and most employees fear the potential outcomes of the change (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Eby et al., 2000). In response to change, a number of employees subsequently create patterns of behavior (e.g., delaying progress, creating roadblocks, and shooting down progressive ideas) to reduce stress and eliminate the unknown (Judson, 1991; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Maurer, 1996). This is largely attributed to the fact that change creates uncertainty, stresses the culture, and alarms the culture keepers—those individuals who resist change at all costs (Baldridge, 1983; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1995; Nutt, 1992). Therefore, it is the leader’s responsibility to communicate the change and the need for the change in ways that would appeal to people so as to reduce 7 undue stress within the organization (Carnall, 1995; Eisenstat & Cohen, 1990; Kotter, 2001). Due to changing operating dynamics in the colleges they lead, community college administrators are finding it more difficult to script the response of the institution to rapidly changing external conditions such as decreasing appropriations, increasing accountability, extraordinary technological advances, and unprecedented enrollment, to name a few (Alfred, 2007; Cohen & Brawer, 2003; O’Banion, 2007; Phelan, 2005; Roueche, Roueche, & Johnson, 2002). Hence, the behavior administrators employ during change becomes more crucial than ever (Baldridge, 1971; Dunphy & Stace, 1988; Handy, 1995; Mangham, 1979; Nadler & Tushman, 1989). In fact, an increasing number of leaders and managers believe that engaging in political behavior is the means to get change done (Julius, Baldridge, & Pfeffer, 1999; Kotter, 1995, 2001). For example, in a study on community college leadership succession, Levin (1998) concluded that it is imperative for administrators to be more proactive when influencing others during change. Specifically, he noted that administrators need to consistently engage in those influence tactics that encourages others to agree with and/or support the proposed change ideas/initiatives. Locke and Guglielmino (2006) reached the same conclusion in their examination of how community college administrators went about influencing different constituents and sub-coalitions. They agree that the more administrators take the initiatives to rally other organizational members around their proposed change idea/initiative, the better the chances of pushing that idea/initiative forward and getting it implemented. This conclusion is similar to Weick’s (2000) claim that American higher education institutions, such as community colleges, are loosely- coupled systems. As such, Weick argues that no one administrator can reasonably expect to successfully initiate, facilitate, and institutionalize change without others’ involvement, support, and buy-in. The Problem The problem examined in this study is self perceptions of political behavior in periods of planned organizational change among community college administrators. The approach in which community college leaders go about leading change and the contexts in which community colleges now operate are significantly 8 different than when most of them were founded in the 1960s (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). This suggests a potential challenge: Community college leaders might still be relying heavily on using their positional power and authority during the change process and engaging in behavior that ineffectively initiates and guides change (Creamer & Creamer, 1988; Ford, 2005; Roueche, Baker, & Rose, 1989). In the past, when the environment was much more stable and predictable, the use of these conventional, positional power tactics (e.g., sanctions, pressure, coercion, and blocking) resulted in some success (Patterson et al., 2008; Yukl & Chavez, 2002). However, in today’s highly competitive, complex, and political environment, engaging in behavior that ineffectively initiates and guides change might engender more resistance, conflicts, and ill feelings throughout the change process (Mintzberg, 1983; Mowday, 1978; Nutt, 1992; Raven, 1990; Whetten, 1984). Therefore, today’s administrators would benefit tremendously by gaining new insight into change management (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008; Patterson et al., 2008; Yukl & Chavez, 2002), particularly as it pertains to understanding what behavior effectively initiates and guides change. In predicting the critical skills that will be needed in organizations in the future, Handy’s (1995) findings center on one central theme: the ability to ally with others. In particular, key skills are (a) the ability to win friends and influence people at a personal level, (b) the ability to structure partnerships, and (c) the ability to negotiate and to find compromises. Handy (1995) concludes that one’s personal and professional success in organizations requires skilled management of one’s surroundings, not in the old top-down way, but from all directions. This is accomplished by employing political behavior that effectively initiates and guides change or influence tactic (a more neutral term that is commonly used). Bennis (1989) lends credibility and wisdom to the discussion by maintaining that leadership is largely a function of collaboration and coalition building. Unfortunately, many authors, practitioners, and scholars (Julius, Baldridge, & Pfeffer, 1999; Kouzes & Posner, 2001; Lichtenberg, 1998; Mumford et al., 2000; Schriesheim & Neider, 2006) do not believe that leaders and managers are mastering these key skills nor are they getting the training to become even more adept at how best to allying with others to achieve desired organizational outcomes, especially during change. For example, Reardon (2004) argues that administrators tend to not make it their 9 priority to reflect on and examine their political behavior when assessing situations, overcoming conflicts, adapting to unexpected developments, and building strategic alliances. Because of Reardon’s findings and others alike, this topic has generated interest as indicated in publications such as Breaking Tradition (Amey, 2006), Why Leaders Can’t Lead (Bennis, 1989), The Leadership Challenge (Kouzes & Posner, 2002), and The Transformational Leader (Tichy & Devanna, 1986), to name a few. Significance of the Problem Organizational change is complicated and dynamic. Successful change efforts usually mean the realignment of group behavior—often in response to a shift in internal and/or external conditions (Kotter, 1995; Yukl, 2002). To paraphrase Darwin’s statement, it is not the strongest, fastest or even most intelligent species that survives the evolutionary process. It is the species that is most flexible, and therefore best able to adapt to changing contextual conditions that will meet the dawn of a new generation. From this perspective, it is more important than ever for college administrators to become change agents who can deftly adjust to the demands of the 21st century because doing so will ultimately help their colleges to maintain flexibility and ensure their survival (Alfred, 2005; Eckel & Kezar, 2003). Since change has become the norm for many colleges, administrators are now responsible for driving the change efforts to accomplish desired organizational goals (Creamer & Creamer, 1988). Research indicates that those who were successful at initiating and guiding change were those who tended to have (a) decision-making and implementation styles that are in alignment with their organization’s mission, vision, strategic plan, and culture, or (b) influence tactics that are versatile and can adapt to the preferred change methodology of their college (Alfred, 2005; Eckel & Kezar, 2003; Hackman, 1990; Maurer, 1996). Those who were not as successful in initiating and guiding change tended to engender many negative ramifications such as low morale, diminishing productivity, and high turnover (Kotter, 1995; Eby et al., 2000). This study was undertaken to help community college administrators to better understand the dynamics of change in response to changing societal demands and rising expectations (Kezar, 2001; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996; Lueddeke, 1999). The more administrators recognize both the purpose and process of change, the more equipped they 10