Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The board-president relationship in three British Columbia community colleges Levin, John S. 1989

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1989_A2 L48.pdf [ 13.94MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055846.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055846+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055846.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055846+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055846+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055846+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0055846 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0055846.txt
Citation
1.0055846.ris

Full Text

THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP IN THREE BRITISH COLUMBIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES BY JOHN S. LEVIN A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, ADULT, AND HIGHER EDUCATION We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard The University of British Columbia September 1989 ©John S. Levin, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT The issue of governance in institutions of higher education has attracted considerable attention in the North American literature. While much has been published concerning the respective roles of the president and the governing board in managing the affairs of colleges and universities, limited attention has been given to the relationship which exists between the two parties. Furthermore, while the importance of the relationship is acknowledged, there has been no systematic research to determine reasons for such a claim. This study examines the board-president relationship in three community colleges in the province of British Columbia and ascertains reasons for its importance. The research framework on which the study is based consists of three major components, the determinants of the board-president relationship, its effects, and the characteristics of the relationship itself. The literature on boards and presidents implies that any relationships which do exist fall into three distinct dimensions, formal, operational, and personal. The three dimensions of the relationship are used in this study as a focal point and conceptual centre around which research questions are designed. The method involves a qualitative-interpretive design which generates both documentary, factual data and perceptual data from two major sources. The sources are institutional and legal documents and in-depth interviews with the presidents and board members from the three institutions. The study largely reveals an understanding of the relationship from the perspective of the participants. The conclusions which emerge from this investigation indicate that the board-president relationship at each college displays characteristics which identify the relationship with the articulated goals, philosophy, and values of each institution and reflects its development. Moreover, as perceived by the participants, the relationship exerts important influence upon the image of the college with both its internal and external community, while reinforcing the values and philosophy of the institution. The research provides a beginning for the development of theory in the area of leadership and management in institutions of post-secondary education. It also offers insights for practitioners concerned with the improvement of their effectiveness in governance, specifically in the colleges in British Columbia. The study has moved beyond current scholarship on the board-president relationship; it has also prepared the groundwork for further research by posing several hypothetical questions which arise from this investigation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viiLIST OF FIGURES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xi CHAPTER ONE: THE PURPOSE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1 THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 3 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 6 SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF THE STUDY 11 CHAPTER TWO: BOARDS, PRESIDENTS, AND THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13 THE PARTIES TO THE RELATIONSHIP 1The Governing Board 3 The President 24 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOARD AND PRESIDENT 35 CONCEPTIONS OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP 44 Prescriptions and Expectations 4Behaviours of Presidents and Boards 4 6 Personalities and their Dynamics 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4 8 iv CHAPTER THREE: THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 51 CONCEPTUALIZING THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP 51 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 6CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 65 DATA SOURCES 6 6 Documents 6 Interviews of Board Members and Presidents 67 Field Notes 68 DATA COLLECTIONSite Selection 68 Sample 7 0 Collection of Data 72 DATA ANALYSIS 8 4 Descriptive Analysis 8 4 Interpretive Analysis 7 Comparative Analysis 8 9 DELIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 90 Delimitations 9Assumptions 0 CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART I 93 THE FORMAL DIMENSION • 93 Legislated Expectations for the Formal Dimension 94 The Perceived Understanding of the Formal Dimension 9 6 THE OPERATIONAL DIMENSION 103 The Operational Dimension: Documentary Evidence 10 4 The Operational Dimension: Perceptions of Respondents 112 Summary: The Operational Dimension 127 THE PERSONAL DIMENSION 129 The Nature of Personal Relationships 12 9 The Perceived Influence of the Personal Relationship 137 Summary: The Personal Dimension .140 CHAPTER SIX: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART II 142 PERCEIVED DETERMINANTS OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP 142 Appletree College 143 Oak College 147 Cedar College 152 Perceived Determinants at the Three Colleges: Summary 158 PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP .159 Appletree College 15Oak College 163 Cedar College 5 Perceived Effects at the Three Colleges: Summary ' 170 BOARD AND PRESIDENT WORKING TOGETHER 17 0 Appletree College 171 Oak College 173 Cedar College 17 6 vi Board and President Working Together at Three Colleges 17 8 SUMMARY FINDINGS OF CHAPTER SIX 184 CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY OF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 185 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY 18The Purposes of the Research 185 Methods • 185 Findings 18 6 CONCLUSIONS 192 The Importance of the Board-President Relationship 192 The Research Framework 195 IMPLICATIONS 199 BIBLIOGRAPHY 20 6 APPENDICES 222 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I REQUEST TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 222 RESEARCH CONSENT FORM 224 PILOT TEST OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 225 INTERVIEW RESPONSE SHEET 246 INTERVIEW RESPONSES 2 62 INTERVIEW SUMMARY CONFIRMATION 333 COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE ACT (RELEVANT SECTIONS) 334 DETERMINANTS (TABLES 12, 13, & 14) 335 EFFECTS (TABLES 15, 16, & 17) 357 vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 ASSUMPTIONS OF THE THREE DIMENSIONS TABLE 2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS TABLE 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA TABLE 4 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TABLE 5 SOURCES FOR ANSWERS TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS TABLE 6 KNOWLEDGE OR FAMILIARITY:' LEGISLATION: APPLETREE TABLE 7 KNOWLEDGE OR FAMILIARITY: LEGISLATION: OAK TABLE 8 KNOWLEDGE OR FAMILIARITY: LEGISLATION: CEDAR TABLE 9 PERSONAL DIMENSION: APPLETREE TABLE 10 PERSONAL DIMENSION: OAK TABLE 11 PERSONAL DIMENSION: CEDAR TABLE 12 PERCEIVED DETERMINANTS: APPLETREE TABLE 13 PERCEIVED DETERMINANTS: OAK TABLE 14 PERCEIVED DETERMINANTS: CEDAR TABLE 15 PERCEIVED EFFECTS: APPLETREE TABLE 16 PERCEIVED EFFECTS: OAK 359 TABLE 17 PERCEIVED EFFECTS: CEDAR 361 TABLE 18 SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF THREE COLLEGES' VALUES: APPLETREE 180 TABLE 19 SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF THREE COLLEGES' VALUES: OAK 181 TABLE 20 SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF THREE COLLEGES' VALUES: CEDAR 182 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP FIGURE 2 DETERMINANTS OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP FIGURE 3 EFFECTS OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP FIGURE 4 THE NATURE OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP FIGURE 5 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND DATA REQUIRED 1 Figures produced by Ken Hughes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Each person who embarks on such a study must needs travel alone. Nevertheless, those who serve as guides and mentors make the journey less a solitary meandering and more of a tour. To the three wise men, John Dennison, Ian Housego, and Graham Kelsey, who gladly served, I am honoured by your presence. To my mentor, Lee Stewart, who accompanied and accommodated me during this adventure, I am indebted to your sense of direction. For those in my family now dead, I feel a particular form of gratitude. Some left a continent so that I would not experience servitude or persecution. Some worked for economic prosperity so that I would not want. One left a legacy of social responsibility. Another left an image of human potential and greatness. Another left the feeling of human understanding and selflessness. And another left me with a sense of the importance of the ordinary in life. Without these qualities, I would not have been able to meet this challenge. I can only hope that I have done their memory justice. xi CHAPTER ONE THE PURPOSE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Within the North American academic institution a president (or chief executive officer) and a governing board (or trustees) have both formal and informal connections to each other. These connections can be referred to as a board-president relationship, whether it is described as a relationship between the two parties or as an association of two parties. Indeed, in recent discussions (e.g., Wood 1984 & 1985; Vaughan, 1986) the connection of board and president is explicitly called a board-president relationship. There is not only recognition of the relationship in discussions and studies but also concern over its condition. Gleazer Jr.(1985) inquires into the "health" of the relationship at the community college. Pappas and Ritter (1983) hypothesize the existence of adverse relations between community college presidents and their boards. Wood (1984) examines the tensions within the board-president relationship at the four-year college. Munitz (1980) emphasizes the tensions which may exist between board and president in colleges and universities. Whereas many observers are concerned with problems, conflicts, and tensions in the board-president relationship, others devote their attention to assertions of the relationship's importance. In the following example, Kauffman offers an emphatic statement on the importance of the relationship to the president: 1 Nothing is more important to a college or university president than a successful relationship with that institution's governing board. It is the governing board that determines or arranges the forms of institutional governance. It is the governing board . that delegates authority to the president, without a sound relationship with the governing board, the president cannot be effective.(1980:52) Others (e.g., Richardson Jr. et al., 1972; Gould, 1973; Corson, 1980; Gleazer Jr., 1985) emphasize the importance of the relationship to the governing board. Wood (1984 & 1985) is one of the few who suggest that the importance of the relationship is not only for each of the separate parties1but also for the benefit of higher education, particularly for the maintenance of intellectual values and the pursuit of educational innovation (Wood, 1984:42). That the board-president relationship is important is neither disputed nor in doubt based on the assertions of observers and participants. But while the reasons for its importance may seem self-evident, there has been no attempt to examine them systematically or to see what, if any, insights are to be gained from such examinations. Although Kauffman (1980) states that the president cannot be effective without a sound relationship with the governing board, his assertion does not explain the relationship's influence on presidential performance and on the institution (e.g. its operations). Although Corson (1980) states that the critical component, of the relationship is the president's accountability, his assessment does not uncover the nature of the relationship or reveal how it works. No clear, compelling, or authoritative explanation of the nature and functioning of the board-president relationship is to be found in the 2 literature. Nonetheless, the assertions of its importance are universal in discussions of community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities in North America. It appears that there is a lack of explanation for a relationship which commands .considerable attention and attracts judgement. What are the reasons for the relationship's importance? The Purpose Of The Study The purpose of this study is to examine the board-president relationship in the academic institution in order to discern reasons for the importance of the relationship. In fulfilling this purpose, it is necessary to examine, systematically, those aspects of the relationship which give insights into the relationship. What contributes to or determines the relationship, what qualities or characteristics are observable in the relationship, and what results are produced by the relationship all can be seen to comprise what in this study is referred to as the nature of the board-president relationship. The examination and description of the nature of the relationship constitute an initial undertaking of this study. Following this, the discovery and subsequent explanation of the ways the two parties govern and manage the academic institution (i.e., how the parties work together) are intended to emerge. And from the combined examination of the nature of the relationship and the workings of the relationship, the reasons for the importance of the 3 relationship will be discerned and described. Although the literature on boards and presidents does offer assertions about the relationship and insights into the two separate parties, it does not provide explanations of the character and distinguishing qualities of the board-president relationship. While Munitz (1980) suggests that there are inevitable tensions between board members and the president, and Wood (1984) asserts that these tensions are symptoms of uncertainties in the relationship, nonetheless these observations and conclusions neither describe nor explain the qualities of the board-president relationship, what gives rise to these qualities, and what are the results, or effects, of, these. The identification of determinants, characteristics, and effects of the board-president relationship, it is assumed, will provide an empirical basis for discerning and describing how the parties work together and the reasons why the relationship i3 important. Among the many and various topics examined and discussed in the literature on academic institutions, governance and management have assumed prominent positions, especially in recent decades (e.g. Corson, 1975; Baldridge et al., 1977; Mortimer & McConnell, 1978; Clark, 1983; Keller, 1983; Lee & Van Horn, 1983; Cameron, 1984; Dill, 1984; Davies, 1985; Alfred & Smydra, 1985; Dennison, 1986) . In North American higher education, conditions of financial constraint, sharp growth and decline of student populations, changing clienteles, and expansion of knowledge are among the factors which over the past two decades have placed both greater expectations and pressures upon academic institutions. These conditions have considerable import for those who 4 have major responsibilities for the performance and activities of universities and colleges. As chief parties in roles of formal authority, governing boards and presidents have positions of prominence in the literature on governance and management of the academic institution. In the U.S., over the past two decades, the literature on governance and management of the academic institution has included numerous and various examinations of governing boards and presidents as major actors (e.g. Cohen & March, 1974; Riley, 1977; Corson, 1980; Wood, 1985; Gleazer Jr., 1985; Kerr & Gade, 1986). It is evident that governing boards and presidents are connected in studies and discussion with governance and management of the academic institution, but there is little attention given to the ways in which boards and presidents function together. While importance of the board-president relationship is assumed in this study, the reasons for its importance await discovery. Wood (1985) argues that the impact of the board on the four year college has at least one negative outcome: the board, unintentionally, diminishes the leadership potential of the presidency. Wood (1985) notes as well that shared governance of board and president is a survival activity for presidents. In the examination of how the parties work, together and in the identification of the nature of the board-president relationship, particularly with regard to the effects of the relationship, the main goal of this study will be addressed: to uncover reasons for the importance of the relationship. The literature on boards and presidents suggests that the relationship's 5 importance pertains to its effects on one of the parties. In this study, the importance of the relationship is examined largely in the context of the operations of the academic institution, not just in connection with one or both of the parties. The Significance Of The Study There are at least three areas to which this study is directed that suggest significance for this investigation. The first area involves the two parties, board members and presidents, as major actors in higher education. The second area involves the academic institution, specifically its governance and management. The third area involves methodology. Whereas the importance of the board-president relationship is asserted rather than explained, the importance of the two parties to the relationship can be seen (and often explained) in the many discussions and studies of colleges and universities. In particular, systematic studies of the governance of higher education, a recent research activity according to Wood (1985), have focussed on and emphasized one or both parties (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973; Cohen & March, 1974 & 1986; Corson, 1975 & 1980; Monroe, 1977; Riley, 1977; Mortimer & McConnell, 1978; Alfred & Smydra, 1985; Wood, 1985; Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). Also, discussions of leadership in higher education emphasize the key role of presidents and board members in academic leadership (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978; Kauffman, 1980; Fisher, 1984; 6 Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984; Astin, 1985; Kerr & Gade, 1986; Vaughan, 1986). And, most recently, discussions of management in the academic institution identify presidents and board members as responsible parties for academic management (Kauffman, 1980; Keller, 1983; Davies, 1985; Campbell & Associates, 1985) . The focus on presidents and board members as major participants in higher education can be seen not only in the number of publications on the two parties but also in the topics and themes found in the discussions on the two parties. Astin (1985) argues that chief executive officers and trustees as leaders in higher education have a particular role to play in reforming and in communicating an institution's educational goals. The educational leadership role for presidents is noted by others (Dodds, 1962; Kauffman, 1980; Benezet et al., 1981; Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984; Wood, 1984; Fisher, 1984; Vaughan, 1986). In some cases, that same role is given to governing boards (Heilbron, 1973; Ingram, 1979; Corson, 1980). Other roles and responsibilities are accorded to both parties. Kauffman (1980) suggests that boards are the highest legal authority within the institution's structure of governance and that presidents are responsible for their institution's affairs. Richman and Farmer (1977) indicate that boards define the goals and establish the priorities of the institution; presidents negotiate and mediate in order to realize these goals and priorities. Some of the roles and responsibilities accorded to boards and presidents are prescriptive rather than descriptive as shown in several studies (Cohen & March, 1974 & 1986; Walker, 1979; Trachtenberg, 1981; Wood, 1985) . 7 With few exceptions, what is clear in the literature is the importance of both boards and presidents, independently, for their actual, potential, or alleged influences on the academic institution. Significance of this present study can be seen in its examination of these separately influential parties as a jointly influential factor of the academic institution. Given that the two parties, board members and presidents, have important roles and are influential, at least potentially, there are likely reasons and justification for the asserted importance of the board-president relationship. Either explicitly or implicitly, the board-president relationship is viewed as having important effects on the participants (e.g. Richardson Jr. et al., 1972; Polk et al., 1976; Ingram, 1979; Fisher, 1984; Wood, 1984 & 1985; Worth, 1986; Vaughan, 1986) and as being influential in processes and outcomes of higher education (e.g. Stoke, 1958; Munitz, 1980; Kauffman, 1980; Wood, 1985; Gleazer Jr., 1985; Kerr & Gade, 1986). The literature on boards and presidents implies several actual or potential effects or outcomes of the board-president relationship. As noted above, the relationship is viewed as affecting the two parties as well as processes and outcomes of higher education. A number of effects may be seen, for example, in decision making, institutional morale, external perceptions of the institution, institutional goals and priorities, and the participants' commitment to their institution. Most of the possible effects fall under the categories of educational leadership and institutional management, two prominent topics in the literature on boards and presidents. The topics of governance and management of the academic institution are prominent in higher education scholarship. Examination of these suggests dilemmas and challenges which face participants. Keller (1983) notes that in the U.S., colleges and universities are among the largest industries in the nation. He sees the history of higher education as a struggle for finances. "Campus presidents and their boards of trustees in the United States have performed the longest continuing high-wire act in history" (Keller, 1983: 8). As early as 1966, Rourke and Brooks noted profound changes in mangement and governance of the academic institution in the U.S.. These changes-include new forms of decision making, a cabinet style of government in place of presidential leadership, and greater publicity for the conduct of administration (Rourke & Brooks, 1966) . A decade later, Ross (1976) suggested that governance and management of universities in Canada, England, and the U.S. were under severe strain and a threat to institutional stability. Others (e.g. Kemerer & Baldridge, 1975; Lee, 1979) have noted shifts in governance as a result of negotiated contracts with faculty. Indeed, Lee (1979) suggests that at the four year college where contracts stipulate precise responsibilities and accountablities that administrators at vice presidential and presidential levels have increased authority in decision making. Campbell and Associates (1985) indicate that management styles at community colleges in the U.S. must alter in response to external changes such as those in public policy. Alfred and Smydra (1985) observe that with rapid changes to the structure of post secondary institutions (e.g. greater centralization) changes in governance (i.e., decision making) will follow. They acknowledge a rise in external influence which has impact on academic and administrative decisions; thus, they suggest that internal control will diminish (Alfred & Smydra, 1985). 9 Dennison and Gallagher (198 6) are emphatic with regard to management at Canadian community colleges: traditional forms of management, whether collegial management or hierarchical management, will not suffice in the 1980s and beyond. According to Dennison and Gallagher (1986), change, largely found in the external environment and including technological, social, cultural, economic, and political changes, means for Canadian community colleges that management modes of operation will have to be adaptable to and compatible with internal and external change. A contribution of this present study is that it examines how the two parties jointly manage and govern the academic institution. The third area of significance involves methodology. While there are a few studies concerned with the relationship between the board and the president, these studies are limited in their contribution to methodology. Three of the studies (Drake, 1977; Cleary, 1979; Pappas & Ritter, 1983) involve survey questionnaires: they use one instrument for the collection of data. Cleary (1979), for example, pursues the authority roles of board members and presidents. In a fourth study, Wood (1985) uses the research instrument of the interview, which she refers to as a conversation, to understand boards' decision making processes, their power structures, and their relationships with presidents. While Wood's (1985) method can be designated qualitative, her approach is neither documented to aid scholars in methodological advancement nor systematic enough to suggest research procedures which might be adopted, adapted, or rejected. In this present study, research methods have been developed to address the research problem. It is plausible to assume that the research problem, while apparent to other scholars, has not been addressed 10 because a suitable research method was not adopted. The significance of this study, from this line of thought, is that particular research methods can be seen to address issues and questions which heretofore were neither addressed nor answered. A complex problem such as the board-president relationship requires an appropriate method. In this study, the problem involves multiple dimensions of a relationship and several levels of the parties' operations. This study addresses among its many topics group dynamics, organizational functioning, legal obligations, public perceptions, personal judgements, what Mintzberg (1980) calls the nature of managerial work, and what Dill (1984) calls administrative behaviour. At the centre of this study is a human relationship, and the study endeavours to explain how this relationship functions and why the relationship is important. What can be judged here, then, is the usefulness of the research method for the investigation of a human relationship. Summary And Outline Of The Study This study is an investigation of the board-president relationship in three British Columbia colleges. The rationale for these settings will be discussed in Chapter Four. Through a qualitative-interpretive research method this study examines the two parties to the relationship jointly in order to discern reasons for the importance of their relationship. To fulfill this purpose, it is necessary to explore the nature (i.e., the determinants, characteristics, 11 and effects) of the relationship in order to identify how the two parties work together to govern and manage the academic institution. This dissertation contains seven chapters, of which this is the first. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature on boards and presidents. Chapter Three establishes a research framework and research questions based on the literature. In Chapter Four, the study's research method, including the research procedures, data collection, and data analysis, is explained and justified. Chapters Five and Six present the analysis of data, and responses to the eight research questions. Chapter Six also reports on how boards and presidents work together. Chapter Seven offers the study's conclusions and implications. 12 CHAPTER TWO BOARDS, PRESIDENTS, AND THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The relevant literature addresses, in the main, the separate parties to the relationship, including the expectations for the parties, the behaviours and characteristics of the parties, and the forces impinging upon the parties. Observations and information on the relationship itself are limited, evident in references to the two parties in the literature on boards and presidents, in the literature on governance and management of the academic institution, and finally in the limited studies and commentaries on the relationship between governing board and president. The discussion which follows examines the parties to the relationship, the relationship between the two parties, and the conceptions of the board-president relationship which can be inferred from the literature. The Parties To The Relationship The Governing Board As a whole, writings about governing boards suggest two major views on boards in the academic institution. There is a difference between the articulated clarity of what boards are expected to do and the disputed nature of what they actually do. Boards are viewed, for example, as an essential service to the 13 academic institution through their various roles, and as the highest legal authority in the university, four-year college, and community college. Nevertheless, board performance, it seems, does not match expectations of scholars and other observers; boards' impact on the academic institution is viewed in some cases as negative and in other cases as negligible. One view emphasizes the role and supposed functions of governing boards; this view underlies descriptions of norms for behaviours, prescribed roles, and expectations for performance. The other view emphasizes observed or inferred performance of boards and board members; this view underlies evaluations and judgement of what boards and board members either do or do not do. Together these two views provide conflicting positions on boards. Nonetheless, as a source for the understanding of the board-president this conflict may indicate that there is difficulty in understanding how boards and presidents function together. The board and its asserted functions. There is both apparent certainty and accompanying clarity in the assertions and descriptions of what boards should do in their roles. These descriptions give the impression of role stability and rational functioning of boards and board members. There is little in this view of boards to suggest or imply that government at the academic institution is complex, as Corson (1975) has noted, or that board actions can be seen as dysfunctional, as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1983) suggests. Functions and responsibilities of boards described through prescription and exhortation are numerous and consistent. Boards are seen as essential participants with a major and coherent role in governance and management of the academic institution. Assertions of prescribed and described roles of governing boards suggest numerous functions and responsibilities. There is no acknowledgement, however, that these are problematic. Bell (1956) argues that trustees are the controlling body of the institution and have both the right and the duty to determine educational offerings and to give educational identity to the institution (for example, as a liberal arts college, or technical school, or professional school). He qualifies this by indicating that trustees must function under the terms of their charter and endowments (Bell, 1956). Duff and Berdahl (1966), in their report on universities in Canada, recommend that university governing boards continue with their existing functions: to exercise ultimate fiscal responsibilities and ultimate de jure sovereignty. Corson (1975) articulates specific functions for boards: select the president, define the institution's objectives, oversee financing, preserve and develop facilities, and represent the institution to the public. In addition to this general role, governing boards are required to show an interest in and an understanding of educational issues, provide the institution with a connection to society, aid the institution in repelling bureaucratic forces, and offer appraisal of operations (Corson, 1975) . It can be seen that from 1972 to 1985, there are numerous lists of governing boards' responsibilities, although many items are repetitions from earlier lists. Monroe (1972) identifies five major functions with several adjunctive duties; Potter (1976) offers eleven items; Riley (1977) offers five general categories; Nason (1980) gives twelve responsibilities and two years later 15 offers thirteen (1982) — the addition is not discrete, but a re-wording of the twelve; Gleazer Jr. (1985) identifies nine responsibilities; and Dennison and Gallagher (198 6) refer to four. The lists include the following responsibilities: define and clarify the institution's goals, purposes, objectives, mission; provide for administration through appointment and dismissal of executive officers, especially the chief executive officer; ensure financial solvency; monitor the quality of instruction, research, and student performance; serve as court of appeal or court of last resort; preserve institutional independence; assure adequate physical facilities; enhance the public image; act as legal agent for the institution; interpret the community to the institution; uphold legal contracts and legislated acts; preserve the values of the institution; and, provide assessment of board performance (Monroe, 1972; Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973; Corson, 1975; Potter, 1976; Riley, 1977; Nason, 1980; Nason, 1982; Gleazer Jr., 1985; Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). There is either wide agreement or lack of disagreement on responsibilities. Zwingle and Mayville (1974) capture governing board members' responsibilities in their potential roles: legal corporation, supreme court, board of managers, board of inquiry, emergency corps, underwriters, society of friends, stabilizers, directors, planners, and energizers. At the descriptive level of what boards should do, dilemmas and contradictions are not apparent, and board responsibilities are both clear and compatible although extensive. Examination of ascribed responsibilities for boards reinforces the view that board responsibilities are lucid and understandable. For example, in the appointment of a president or chief executive officer (one of the most repeated 16 items of board responsibility), Nason (1980) argues that the board is in the position to view the institution as a whole and to determine who will meet the needs of the various internal groups and who will also serve the institution best. The best interests of the board are served if the board is responsible for presidential appointment: the president is the primary agent of the board, a delegate who manages the institution in accordance with the board's policies (Nason, 1982) . Monroe underlines the importance of the board's appointment of the president because the president is the symbol of the board and the board's powers. "In reality, the board is no better than its agents, the president and his administrative staff. It is they who speak for the board and are the visible representatives of the board to the general public." (Monroe, 1972:309) . This reasoning appears consistent with those who prescribe board functions. As lay-governors and part-time volunteers, board members must depend on a professional executive for educational management (Corson, 1980). Boards are also viewed as responsible for matters of an academic nature, such as an institution's policies, goals, objectives, and missions. Nason (1980) contends that boards should ensure that a statement of mission is written, approved by the board, and then published. Such a mission statement should articulate the particular institution's distinct characteristics, or its unique approach, or its special focus, or its exclusive curriculum, and its reasons for existence (Nason, 1980) . Every college and university was created to serve one or more specific purposes: to provide an educated ministry in colonial days; to prepare citizens who could cope with the problems and prospects of a new democratic society; to train young people in the arts 17 and skills necessary for an honest living; to safeguard the true faith; to train schoolteachers; to carry on research in science and technology; or . . .to encourage young men and women to explore and develop their inherent potentials. (Nason, 1980:33) Corson (1980) advocates trustee participation in goal setting, in the review of policy making, and in the continued overviewing of the institution's functioning. The legal responsibility of boards for all activities and behaviours in an institution compels boards to concern themselves with all aspects of the college or university, especially with the educational programs (Corson, 1980). Boards, argues Corson, should have an authoritative role in what is taught, who is taught, and who teaches. Bell announces a similar although more general and pervasive role for boards: Logically the trustees as the controlling body have the right — and in fact the duty — to determine what kind of education shall be offered . . . They are free (subject to the terms of their charter and endowments of course) to determine whether the institution shall be a liberal arts college, a technical school, a professional school, or a teachers college, whether new projects shall be undertaken, new schools or institutes created, existing ones liquidated . . . (1956:354) Such descriptions portray a substantial role for boards in the affairs of the academic institution. The behaviour of boards. A change in emphasis from what boards should do to the way in which boards do in fact operate is more than a change in emphasis, it is a change in point of view. Writings which approach governing boards 18 through the behaviour of boards and board members take a judgemental position. It is evident from the judgements on boards that there are problems in the behaviour of boards which may affect the academic institution as well as the board-president relationship. Judgements are generally either condemnatory or equivocal, qualified by adverse conditions which influence performance. Problems associated with governing boards are not confined to discoveries in 1973 (Carnegie Commission) or 1975 (Corson) or 1977 (Riley) or 1985 (Gleazer Jr.). An early twentieth century statement (1918) establishes a polemic on governing boards: . . . the boards are of no material use in any connection: their sole effectual function being to interfere with the academic management in matters that are not of the nature of business and that lie outside their competence and outside the range of their habitual interest. The governing boards — trustees, regents, curators, fellows, whatever their style and title — are an aimless survival from the days of clerical rule when they were presumably of some effect in enforcing conformity to orthodox opinions and observance, among the academic staff. (Veblen[1918], 1957:48) Riley (1977) and Meyerson (1980) acknowledge both the problems and failures in board performance, but they qualify these by noting the forces which influence performance. In this century, such forces as the increasing specialization of knowledge, the growth in complexity of many colleges and universities, the rising status of the professoriate, and the emergence of professional associations and faculty unions have encouraged the 19 tendency of trustees to leave most academic matters to faculty and administration. (Meyerson, 1980:174) Riley notes that by 1977 many traditions in American college and university academic governance had eroded, brought about by increased faculty unionization, increased centralization of decision making power and authority, and increased pressures for institutional accountability (Riley, 1977). Riley reports that external environmental conditions, such as increased government control, central or system wide bargaining, and financial restraint affect decision making and policy formations of individual institutions. He notes as well that increased external environmental pressure (e.g. government agencies) * leads to an increased demand for accountability; and increased environmental pressure leads to increased board members' involvement in matters of institutional management, including daily decision making. Riley (1977), however, identifies delegation of responsibility as the primary cause for boards' loss of power and authority. Their powers and their authority are dependent upon those who are given the trust to exercise judgement, provide information, and implement decisions. Riley (1977) suggests that board behaviour lacks responsibility because responsibility has shifted to the chief executive officer and the institution's administrators. The recognition that board performance is at least less than expected, and in several cases judged as detrimental to the academic institution, leads writers to respond in diverse ways, two of which are described below. One response is prescriptive: it prescribes remedies to improve board performance. The other response is evaluative: it argues for changes in board functions and 20 authority. The first response we find in Corson (1975); the second, in Mortimer and McConnell (1978). Corson's position is that board performance can improve if boards participate in the monitoring and evaluating of their institutions. Mortimer and McConnell's position is that boards' powers and their authority are unbridled; boards do not have enough constraints. Corson's (1975) prescriptions for and Mortimer and McConnell's (1978) evaluations of board performance exemplify the two main views on boards in the literature. One view suggests an ideal about how the governing board should and could function (Corson, 1975). The other view provides observations and judgement of how the governing board actually does function (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978) . The problem is that divergent views and approaches do not give a unitary perspective for the understanding of governing boards. Board members. Contributing to the two primary views on governing boards (the view which prescribes board activity and the view which judges board activity) are descriptions of board members including their social and personal characteristics and character, and in a few cases their behaviours within the board itself. In many of these writings either prescription or judgement comprises a part of the description. Both characteristics of individual board members and the overall composition of the board indicate a relatively homogeneous group, with membership limited to a small stratum of society (Riley, 1977) . This uniformity may provide reasons why either prescription or judgement accompanies description: the accusations 21 and claims can be generalized, applying to all or most board members and boards, and resultant changes in board composition by category (e.g. from males to females) may, it is implied, lead to the performance change of boards. The standard criticism of governing boards has been the . alleged monolithic character of their membership — white, anglo-saxon, Protestant, male, well-to-do business and professional men, and over 50 in age — in short the Aestablishment' with all its basic conservatism. (Nason, 1982:55) Selection of board members (who is selected and how) is an expressed concern. Corson notes that: . . . the choice of individuals to serve for reasons extraneous to the central needs of the institutions they serve has led to prevailing criticisms of governing boards. (1975:267) Yet, Corson (1980) rejects the prescriptions and judgements based on categories. Here we have a focus on the individual board member and his or her personal attributes. The problematical nature of board composition and identity of board members is not, according to Corson, a function of categories (e.g. appointment versus election, socio-economic background of members, or political affiliation). Instead, lack of talent, lack of interest in the institution, and lack of assessment of the board and the institution justify criticism of board members and point to the prescribed alternative of how board members should be and what they should be. A catholic curiosity is the mark of most truly effective 22 individuals ... It is the talent that the most valuable trustees bring to any college or university. The curious will . . . suggest that the board take the time to look back and assess its own performance. . . (Corson, 1980:116) Wood offers a similar focus on the personal attributes of individual board members, what she refers to as the "preferences, expectations, and experiences of individual board members" (Wood, 1985: 93). Individually, Wood notes, board members "do not usually expect the college presidency to be a position of power for an individual who expresses strong views about higher education" (1985: 9) . Because of this common perception of individual board members, boards rarely address issues of institutional mission or concerns over the quality of educational leadership (Wood, 1985). Thus, for Wood, the expectations of individual board members affect how the board operates. But Wood (1985) does not restrict determinants of board performance to personal attributes. Wood (1985) suggests that there are key board members, including a board chairperson, whose "preferences, expectations, and experiences" (1985:116) affect the operation of the board most. These key members may constitute a power bloc on the board. The chairperson may serve as the board's symbolic leader and as their chief mediator. The character of board members, especially key members, and the political behaviour of members within the board, as well as the management style of the president in relation to the board, all contribute to the operating style of the board (Wood, 1985). Wood (1985) also suggests that boards function in one of three operating styles; there are three categories of boards matching these styles. The three 23 categories are the ratifying board, the corporate board, and the participatory board (Wood, 1985) . Wood suggests that the personal traits of individual board members influence a board's operating style which in turn influences the board's performance. Furthermore, Wood acknowledges "the management style of the president and his or her willingness to educate the board to the degree of involvement he or she prefers" (Wood, 1985: 93) as a determinant of how the board operates. Summary and implications. It can be observed that from one perspective, the literature exhibits a degree of certainty and simplicity about the specific duties and responsibilities of boards and board members. From another perspective, it can be seen that there is a discrepancy between expected behaviour of boards and board performance. It can also be observed from the views of Wood (1985) and others (e.g. Corson, 1980) that there are complex factors which determine what boards do and how well they perform. These factors may not be compatible with the expected duties and responsibilities of boards. Furthermore, it may be that board members' personal characteristics and orientations lack compatibility with the personality and orientations of presidents as well as with the roles of the presidency. The President Benezet et al. (1981) indicate that two patterns of thought dominate writings about the presidency. The first suggests that presidents are products of a 24 stream of forces outside their personal control; they display signs in what they do of their limited control over the institution. The second pattern of thought suggests that presidents have the power and the control to move their institutions in a given direction. The presence of these discrete patterns of thought may explain why Kauffman (1980) states that there are many conflicting and contradictory thoughts on what a president does or should do. Stroke (1959), for example, notes that presidents are seen as either dedicated individuals who have important responsibilities or as furious promoters who have no appreciation of academic life. Other views of presidents lead to the application of numerous images. These include "mediator" (Kerr, 1963), "manager" (Rourke & Brooks, 1966), "mayor" (Cohen & March, 1974), "negotiator" (Richman & Farmer, 1977), "symphony conductor" (Kauffman, 1980), "risk taker" (Fisher, 1984), "politician" (Wood, 1984) and "chief bureaucrat" and "conciliator/referee" (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). And still other views express that many images such as "hero" (Cohen & March, 1974), "master-architect", "innovator", "decision-maker", "muscle administrator" (Walker, 1979), "autocrat", and "leader" (Vaughan, 1986) are historical and not necessarily accurate descriptors of presidents. Views on presidents and the presidency focus on two main themes: expectations of the presidency and constraints and limitations on the president. Of the many topics that accompany discussions of the president, such as governance, administration, and management, the topic of presidential leadership points to discussions involving the two patterns of thought identified by Benezet et al. (1981) and incorporating both the theme of role expectations for the presidency and the theme of constraints and limitations on the president. 25 Expectations of the presidency. President as leader is one of the more common images or requisites for the presidency (Dodds, 1962; Kauffman, 1980; Fisher, 1984). Kauffman (1980) notes that presidential leadership is an historical, phenomenological, and social component of the presidency. Benezet et al., while acknowledging those who disparage the leadership role of presidents, insist that the president is a leader: He or she affects not only substance and structure but also the institution's morale and ambiance. . . The question is not whether the president is a leader or manager but what kind of a leader he or she is. (1981:20) Dodds, also, defends the leadership capability of presidents. Can a college or university president be an educational leader and still -find time for the other things that he must attend to — or that his publics think he should? Cynics answer 'no'. We are more optimistic. (1962:1) Fisher (1984) identifies characteristics of effective leaders (i.e., those with persistence, innovation, confidence, personal style), and exhorts presidents to act presidential and to advance the influential nature of their office. Evidently, these writers fit into the category of thought which suggests that there is presidential power and control in the academic institution. Their expectations fashion a laudable presidency; their descriptions indicate that presidents can or do fit their mold. Expectations of the presidency are quite often expressed within a context of acknowledged social change and public controversy, such as increased democracy 26 in institutional governance (Kauffman, 1980) and the student protests of the 1960s (Vaughan, 1986), or in defense of presidential power in the face of evidence or allegations of leadership decline. Kauffman, in reaction to views on the decline of leadership based on anti-authority and anti-institutional sentiments of the 1960s in the U.S., uses these views to bolster the president's image as leader and to indicate expectations of the presidency. I think we need politically effective leadership, visible leadership, and leadership that cherishes the essential value of our educational institutions and their potential for dignifying humankind and shaping its destiny. (1980:113) Fisher notes that leadership "will be a greater problem during the 1980s than inflation, increasing expenses, declining government support, curriculum rebuilding, or declining enrollments" (1984:16). Nevertheless, he is convinced that presidents can be effective leaders and overcome prevailing economic, political, and social forces in the external environment. Expectations of the presidency appear to require a promethean individual to fulfill leadership roles. Dodds (19'62) expects presidents to demonstrate personal and individualistic values a3 well as an organizational mind for action (both creative thinker and good manager). The president, suggests Dodds, must operate in a milieu that demands discordant behaviours (e.g. conformity and non-conformity; group cohesion and individuality), and thus the president must cope with at least two behavioural orientations. Other reflections of expectations for the presidency appear in group reports, 27 collective statements, and commissions (see American Association of University Professors, 1966; American Council of Education, 1970; American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1971; Carnegie Commission, 1973). A more recent commission appeals for the strengthening of presidential leadership to accomplish no less a task than the preservation of academic institutions in the United States (Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984) . Presidents, then, as suggested by Dodds (1962), Kauffman (1980), and Fisher (1984), either can or do conform to expectations of the presidency. This assumption is reflected in discussions on the topic of leadership. It is an assumption associated with a school of thought about presidents which claims that presidents, even faced, for example, with competing forces within and outside the academic institution, have the power to effect major changes in their institutions. Constraints and limitations on the president. In contrast to the suggestion in the literature that presidents can or do attain the high levels of expectations associated with the presidency, an alternative suggestion provides a different assumption about presidential power and control, which is seen as both limited and constrained. From these points of view, presidents serve at the board's or some other party's pleasure in a context of unrealistic expectations and severe job constraints; they face an organizational environment which demands their compliance and can give, and can equally withdraw, de facto authority. Leadership behaviours of presidents do not and cannot match the expectations of the presidency expressed by some scholars and observers of presidential behaviour. Limitations and constraints on leadership are of three kinds. They are external to the institution (e.g. economic, political, and social 28 conditions). They are within the institution (e.g. system of governance, personnel, students). They are also part of the role itself (e.g. isolation from constituents). Mortimer and McConnell (1978) note that organizational ambiguity, faculty power, student power, technical staff, and external agencies and bodies constrain presidents and limit their power. Their reference to excessive confusion and conflicts for presidents in organizational matters includes diverse and dispersed job functions, diluted and dispersed power for decision making, and non-rationalized distribution of resources. They state that faculty members in colleges and universities behave as "independent professionals responsible mainly to themselves and their peers rather than to their institutions and their administrative officers" (1978:161). Students demand participation in decisions, Mortimer and McConnell note, and the president's technical staff "may restrict the power and breadth of vision of the titular leader by paring down alternatives without ever having their own assumptions, technical analysis, or operating objectives subjected to critical review or direction" (1978:163). External decision makers, such as civil servants, government departments, co-ordinating agencies, and professional bodies, also constrain presidential freedom and power. Presidents not only face strong and entrenched faculty power, and student demand for participation in decisions but also hold administrative responsibility for support services (e.g. residence, food, health) for which they have limited financial or direct managerial control (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978). Other writings acknowledge constraints on presidents and suggest that 29 presidents cannot perform according to role expectations held for the presidency. Astin (1985) also asserts that some problems for presidents stem from faculty power. Faculty represent the major source of conflict and frustrations for presidents (Astin, 1985). The Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership (1984) notes that forces such as federal and state controls, judicial court participation in academic decisions, and the diminishment of public acceptance of institutional authority typify external constraints. Internal constraints, the Commission indicates, come from increasing participation by governing boards in daily decisions, more influence by faculties over appointments, promotions, and academic policies, more layers of governance, and the presence of unions. As a result of these numerous constraints, the academic institution is limited in its opportunities for growth, change, and innovation; its missions have limited external value; and presidents have limited authority for educational leadership (Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984). These constraints add to problems of presidential performance and weaken a president's power. In addition to external and internal constraints that impede presidents from satisfying expectations of the presidency, there are personal and role limitations which hamper performance. One viewpoint indicates that successful candidates for presidential positions may not have qualities compatible with educational leadership. Cohen and March (1974) state that with present presidential selection procedures, social, personal, and experiential characteristics of candidates are homogeneous: candidates, and thus presidents, are conservative and conventional. The Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership (1984) notes the decline in attracting 30 good candidates to presidential positions and claims that present search processes reduce opportunities for obtaining the best candidates. Astin (1985) states that procedures for presidential selection favour ambitious and often poor candidates, and that committees make little effort to determine candidates' past performances. According to Cohen and March (1974), the president's role in the institution is, in fact, less than profound; nonetheless, it is deemed to be significant. Birnbaum (1988) concurs in asserting that "most presidents do the right things, and do them right, most of the time; they properly fulfill the requirements of their roles even if they are unlikely to leave a distinctive mark on their institution" (1988: 27). The power of presidents is perceived and believed by constituents. Presidents are viewed as almost solely responsible for the institution, and presidents themselves accept the view of a power model, especially in the early years of their presidency, with themselves at the top. This mismatch between expectations and reality is not news to the presidents. Presidents accept the conventional description of their role in part because they have no alternative and in part because heroic expectations about presidents are characteristic of others with whom they deal. (Cohen & March, 1974: 123) Hemmed in by two aspects to the presidential role — those which compel them to react to constituents' demands and those which obligate them to sustain an appropriate public image — presidents maintain conventional views of leadership and help to perpetuate their own roles (Cohen & March, 1974) . The 31 president performs a conservative role in the life of the academic institution. Cohen and March note that presidents contribute ritual legitimacy to decisions; and presidents respond to constituents and to the public conventionally, within a context of social expectations of the presidency. Presidents serve as symbolic leaders; but their actual behaviours are reactive. They worry about the concerns of trustees, community leaders, students, faculty members, law enforcement officials. They see themselves as trying to reconcile the conflicting pressures on the college. They allocate their time by a process that is largely controlled by the desire of others., (Cohen & March, 1974:1) Characteristics of the position itself make presidents captive in a role not of leader but as servant of many masters and mistresses (Stroke, 1959). They are isolated from constituents yet responsible for and to them (Trachtenberg, 1981), followers, in Stoke's view, not leaders. Presidents themselves, according to Cohen and March (1974), participate in sustaining this condition. Although the role may frustrate their control over institutional decisions or limit them from providing direction to their institution (characteristics of educational leadership), presidents enjoy their work and view their own capabilities as impressive and their job as the superior careers for themselves (Cohen & March, 1974) . The constraints and limitations on the president provide evidence to support the claim that presidents function in "a stream of forces that stress the limitations of time, energy, funds, and a persistently vexing sociology for those who would seek to lead" (Benezet et al., 1981). Kerr and Gade (1986), in 32 attempting to display the diversity of contexts for the presidency, convey the view that presidents face numerous restrictions and restraints, external and internal forces, and the structural arrangement of the institution's governance model. Implicitly, rather than explicitly, they show that the president is partially captive in the institution's model of governance (whether hierarchical or political). Cohen and March (1986), in summarizing an earlier view (Cohen & March, 1974), assert that the activities which surround leadership, the necessities of an institution's adaptation to the external environment, and the ways academic institutions are organized require presidents to do what they do. From this point of view, a president's performance does not and cannot match the various role expectations of the presidency. Personal experiences of presidents. In addition to scholarship on presidents, commentaries, confessions, memoirs, journals and other similar personal writings of presidents also indicate the extent to which personal experiences of presidents reflect a limited and constrained presidency. Bennis (1976) suggests that presidents are thwarted in actions by the traditions and values of a university. Parker (1979) blames university and college faculty for leaders' inability to effect needed change. Haak (1982) suggests that a president's problems with leadership are a consequence of the operations of the academic institution, which is unlike a hierarchical organization although it appears to be hierarchical. Althought the president is expected to be the individual who directs operations, the experience of the presidency is in conflict with top down management. Fisher (1984) suggests that personal 33 charisma is the chief determinant of presidential success. Berendzen (1986) notes the difficulties for presidents in balancing two major roles: the presidential role and the role of the private person. Implications. Two patterns of thought about presidential power and control, taken together, have implications for governing boards as well as for the board-president relationship. Discussions of presidents convey the themes of expectation and limitation. Acknowledgement of the distinctions between these two themes arises during problem situations and perceived crises in the academic institution, as well as during periods of social discontent with the perceived deterioration of educational institutions' performance (see National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984) . Increased pressures on the institution to respond to external demands (see Kauffman, 1980; Wood, 1984 & 1985) and appeals for leadership (see Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984) both pertain to institutional preservation. The president's, ability to respond to these conditions and situations is characterized as limited (Corson, 1975; Mortimer & McConnell, 1978). With limitations of presidents and constraints on presidents, such as faculty power, government controls, and student demands, the governing board may look elsewhere for advice (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978) or they may increase their participation in the daily affairs of the institution (Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984) . Although expectations of the presidency include presidential power and control, the president may in fact have limited freedom of action to provide educational leadership. According to Trachtenberg (1981), this discrepancy — between expectation and limitation — can lead to a 34 president's isolation from both constituents (e.g. faculty) and the operation of the institution. The Relationship Between Board And President Information on the relationship between board and president is limited to a few explicit studies and commentaries (Polk et al., 1976; Drake, 1977; Cleary, 1979; Ingram, 1979; Marsee, 1980; Munitz, 1980; Pappas & Ritter, 1983; Wood, 1984 & 1985), to explicit references to the two parties within studies of and commentaries on boards, presidents, and the academic institution (Stoke, 1959; Heilbron, 1973; Kauffman, 1980; Fisher, 1984; Gleazer Jr., 1985; Kerr & Gade, 1986; Worth, 1986; Berendzen, 1986; Vaughan, 1986), and to implications found in the literature on boards and presidents. Within the literature, there are at least three approaches taken in descriptions of the board-president relationship. One approach is to see the relationship as a connection between two parties. A second approach is to view the relationship in its association with the academic institution, particularly with its governance and management. And a third approach, which stems in the main from personal accounts of presidents (e.g. Berendzen, 1986), is' to see the relationship as a lived experience. Approaches which focus predominantly on the twin realities of board and president, suggesting a relationship between two separate parties, exhibit a one dimensional or narrow perspective of the board-president relationship. 35 Although images associated with the relationship between board and president imply equality ("partners", "team", "adversaries", "marriage"), attention given to the relationship in several examinations is one dimensional: either the board is at the centre or the president is the focus (e.g. Ingram, 197 9; Munitz, 1980: Vaughan, 1986). Kauffman emphasizes the importance of the relationship to the president: Nothing is more important to a college or university president than a successful relationship with that institution's governing board . . . Without a sound relationship with the governing board, the president cannot be effective. (1980:52) Corson's (1975) focus on the relationship is also for the benefit of presidents. Presidential success with boards is achieved if presidents, for example, involve board members in actual institutional problems, admit mistakes to board members, and demonstrate a flexible mind (Corson, 1975). In another discussion, the focus on the relationship is for the benefit of board members (Corson, 1980). Boards must depend upon presidents for information on matters such as the educational program, the quality of the faculty, and student and institutional performance so that boards can fulfill their responsibilities. Thus, presidents must be accountable to the board, and this accountability serves as a basis for the relationship between the board and the president (Corson, 1980) . In discussions where the emphasis is predominantly on one or the other party, 36 there is ample evidence of separate spheres of board and president responsibility and function. One such separation involves the areas of policy and administration (or management). Corson (1975) asserts that boards cannot and should not manage the institution. Ingram (197 9), in discussing the relationship between boards and presidents in community colleges, counsels against board involvement in non-policy matters. Fisher (1984), although conceding that in the final analysis boards have broad authority on institutional matters, discourages board involvement in the administration of the institution. Advice of this kind is in concert with government legislation, guidelines, and charters that formalize or describe the functions and responsibilities of boards and presidents (e.g. Chait & Associates, 1984). Identification and promotion of separate spheres for board and president stem from the assumption that the model of the academic institution in which boards and presidents function is a rational hierarchy (Wood, 1984) . This perspective of the relationship is a narrow one. In the rational hierarchy, Wood notes, the president is positioned at the pinnacle of the bureaucracy; the board provides direction through the establishment of policy; and the president executes and administers policy. Rourke and Brooks (1966) suggest that the simplicity of the administrative model of the academic institution wherein the president manages and the governing board provides direction belongs to the early development (1860-1933) of higher education in the United States. Yet, as already noted, this model continues to be applied to boards and presidents and to the board-president relationship by both scholars and observers. Examinations which identify the board-president relationship as a relationship between two parties are those which generally adopt the assumption of the 37 bureaucratic model (or a regulated system of procedures) of operation for the academic institution. In the second approach, the board-president relationship is associated with behaviours and activities connected to the academic institution. The approach sees the board-president relationship as a dynamic relationship. Those who acknowledge this potential or actual dynamic condition imply (or state) that the board-president relationship is changeable, dependent upon such matters as the economic, social, and political conditions in the external environment (Wood, 1984) and the conditions within the institution, such as the form of governance (Kerr & Gade, 1986). Wood (1984) implies that the board-president relationship has a relative and changeable character. Wood notes the effects of the external environment on the relationship. Economic and social forces are influential in the shaping of boards and presidents' orientations and thus these forces are factors which contribute to the deterioration of educational leadership. On the basis of her study of board members at ten U.S. colleges, Wood states: . . . today's social and economic environment encourages trustees, presidents, and faculty members — those who both reflect and mold prevailing ideas about the presidential role — to value managerial and political skills . . . [N]either an interest in educational innovation nor a deep concern for intellectual values is likely to be reinforced in the present climate of governance. . . (1984:42) 38 Kerr and Gade (1986), in their study of presidents, view the board-president relationship as a dynamic condition. Whereas Wood notes the effects of the external environment on the board-president relationship, Kerr and Gade note the influences of the internal environment, in particular the structural arrangements for institutional decision making, on the relationship. Although governance does take place outside the institution as well as inside, internal structural arrangements or configurations, Kerr and Gade note, based on models of institutional governance, both influence and reflect several aspects of the functioning of the board-president relationship. For example, in the hierarchical model of governance with the president in the position of administrative authority, the president is responsible to the board alone. Board roles in this model, according to Kerr and Gade, are of four kinds. . Assenting or overseeing boards that receive and ratify reports and act only in emergencies; . Policy or trustee boards that guide and care for the long-run overall welfare of the institution; . Managerial or administrative boards that make detailed decisions; . Representation or special-interest boards that advance the concerns of external or even internal factions with board members acting as delegates. (1986:128) One alternative model is the collegial consensus and shared governance model with the president as the centre of influence "as the chief communicator, the chief negotiator, the chief persuader, the chief mediator among other centers of influence and, more occasionally, the chief arbitrator" (Kerr & Gade, 1986:133). Board, president, and faculty comprise the main centres of influence. The president has a more influential role than the board; but, the 39 president has more responsibility than authority. The president "has the power to bargain and the opportunity to persuade, and has the most information" (Kerr & Gade, 1986:130). In this model, if presidents are weak or inexperienced, a major position of power may be filled by the board chairperson or by the institution's vice-president. What is appropriate behaviour and action of board and president in one governance model is not, according to Kerr and Gade, applicable to another model. Worth (1986), as an illustration of this point, notes that through the president's influence on board member socialization and on policy formation processes, individual board members are likely to adopt one of several roles. Worth's position, if placed within the context established by Kerr and Gade (1986) although appropriate for the hierarchical model of governance, is incompatible with the collegial consensus model (as well as two other major models, polycentric and organized anarchy). It is unlikely that the president is a mediator or compromiser in Worth's view. Yet for Kerr and Gade (1986), a central theme in the collegial model of governance involves the building of consensus between centres of influence (i.e., between board and faculty, president and board, and president and faculty). This is the world of shared governance, of presidents who discuss and agree, of teams and committees, and of consultation and consensus, and often slow movement of decisions through this process. (1986:137) Kerr and Gade's configurations and the assumptions underlying these seem to suggest that the board-president relationship is dependent upon "the 40 characteristics of the institution's governance pattern and the style of the particular president" (1986: 156). Different models of governance necessitate different presidential characteristics, according to Kerr and Gade. Presidential behaviours arise out of theoretical bases of each model (e.g. bureaucratic, consensual, adversarial) and tend to adapt to or reflect different situations. From this, it can be assumed that board behaviour and performance are influenced by the institution's particular model of governance as well as by the "style" of the president. The implications from Kerr and Gade (1986) point to the dependency of the board-president relationship on the form of governance embraced by the institution. The board-president relationship, then, is potentially dynamic in that a change in governance structure will alter the form and basis of the board-president relationship. And because institutions do not all have identical governance structures, board-president relationships exhibit different characteristics from institution to institution. Kerr and Gade portray a potentially dynamic rather than a static condition in the academic institution, and by implication they describe a board-president relationship which is relative and changeable, in conception and potentially in practice. Wood (1985) implies that the board-president relationship is both contextual and conditional in its nature and functioning. This implication arises out of her view that boards function in one of three operating styles. Several conditions shape these operating styles. One condition can be seen in the decision making behaviour of boards. 41 A board's operating style arises in response to the central issue of trusteeship which is, Is the board (or is it not) going to substitute its collective judgment for that of the president, who is its agent on campus? (1985:91) A second condition, Wood argues, is the management style of the president. A third condition involves "the preferences, expectations, and experiences of individual board members" (1985: 93). And a fourth condition relates to "the history and tradition of the board as an organization" (1985: 93). Each operating style, Wood notes, carries with it particular roles for boards and presidents. Each style, then, suggests a specific context for the board-president relationship. The ratifying board permits presidential control of and responsibility for the institution. The corporate board expects the president to assume full operating authority in line with controls, such as financial and managerial, imposed upon the institution by the board. The participatory board authorizes its own involvement in institutional affairs and does not treat the president as a chief executive officer or as a powerful figure. These operating styles suggest the presence of a theoretical or actual dynamic condition of the board-president relationship. Thus, Wood's views, as well as the views of Kerr and Gade, are not dependent upon the assumption that the academic institution is, or is only, a rational hierarchy with the president as chief bureaucrat who administers the institution according to board policy and direction. 42 The two approaches to the board-president relationship discussed above differ in their assumptions and descriptions. One approach indicates that there are two parties, each with role expectations and judgements based on these expectations (e.g. policy functions and administrative functions). This view assumes that there is a relationship between two parties. The other approach characterizes the relationship, either explicitly or implicitly, as a potential or actual dynamic condition. In this way, the relationship is approached not with primary' focus on one of the two parties, or their roles, but rather through concepts which relate to the institution, such as governance or educational leadership. A third approach to the board-president relationship' addresses the relationship as the lived experiences of the participants. This approach implies that the reality of the board-president relationship resides in the individual perceptions and judgements of the participants based on their experiences. Stoke (1959) , as the president of a college, indicates that the informal influences of board members on a president are the most influential of factors in the board-president relationship. Ingram(1979) stresses the importance of the personal comfort of the president with individual board members at the community college. Wood notes that board members "use the term style to describe how the intagibles of personality, appearance, academic and social background, and manner of exercising authority bear on administrative effectiveness" (1985: 23). Judgement of presidents by board members appears to reflect preferences, expectations, and experiences of individual board members (Wood, 1985) . Berendzen (1986) indicates that board and president function under the administrative and educational leadership of the president. 43 Berendzen's account of his presidential experiences suggest that three variables qualify all personal relationships (including that of board and president): common purpose, joint action, and the presence of personal communication. Berendzen (1986) as president sees the character of the president as the major contributor to how board and president work together, and his view of the relationship reflects his own personal aspirations, values, and experiences. Conceptions Of The Board-President Relationship The literature on boards, presidents, and the board-president relationship contains three distinct conceptions of the board-president relationship. One conceptions focusses on what is prescribed and expected for each of the two parties. A second conception focusses on what board members and presidents do, separately and together. And a third conception focusses on what the individual participants experience, personally, in their interactions with other participants. Each will be discussed in more detail in the following section. Prescriptions And Expectations In this conception of the board-president relationship, the formal roles of the two parties constitute both the expected and the regulated for the 44 relationship. Duties, responsibilities, functions, and norms of behaviour are found in such documents as government legislation, institutional charters and policies, guidebooks, and legal contracts. These formal roles carry with them expectations. For example, boards have responsibility for policy matters and presidents for administration (Corson, 1975; Ingram, 1979; Fisher, 1984); boards have primary responsibility for board-president relations (Kauffman, 1980; Gleazer Jr., 1985); presidents have primary responsiblity for board-president relations (Heilbron, 1973; Gould, 1973; Fisher, 1984) . Prescriptions and expectations are derived from a broad concept of law, discernible in a variety of sources including constitutions, legislation, administrative rules and regulations, administrative adjudications, case law, institutional rules and regulations, institutional contracts, and academic custom and usage (Kaplin, 1985). It can be seen, then, why this conception of the board-president relationship is fundamentally a conception of the relationship as a relationship between two roles. Considerable expectations in the form of regulations and norms are attached to the two parties, and these serve as both controllers and predictors of behaviours. These expectations assume a fixed concept of boards and presidents, not dependent upon such conditions as the political environment of the academic institution, or the personality of the president, or the funding behaviour of governments. The board-president relationship is affiliated with, and regulated by, a society's or state's laws, customs, beliefs, and values, such as its concepts of responsibility and authority as well as its concept of an academic institution and higher education. 45 Behaviours Of Presidents And Boards A second conception of the board-president relationship addresses the behaviours and actions of the two parties. Descriptions and judgements based on observation and inference are derived from the two parties' joint involvement in the operations of the academic institution. Behaviours and actions of board members and presidents are discernible in the areas of governance and management. While there is little evidence in scholarship of what boards and presidents actually do together, inference of joint activities is possible through observations of behaviours and actions of each party. Chait and Associates (1984), based on their U.S. national study, provide lists of activities of board members. Based on studies and examinations of presidents (Dodds, 1962; Corson, 1975; Walker, 1979; Kauffman, 1980; Benezet, 1982; & Vaughan, 1986) the following activities identified by Chait and Associates are either actually or potentially shared with presidents: educational planning (including long range plans and establishing new programs); establishment of the annual budget; revision of institutional mission; and establishment of institutional policies (these are among the most prevalent). Behaviours of board members and presidents also depend upon such variables as an institution's governance pattern or structure (Kerr & Gade, 1986), the style of the president (Kerr & Gade, 1986), the operating style of the board (Wood, 1985), and external pressures on the institution (Wood, 1984). Seen from this conception, the behaviours of board members and presidents are not necessarily 46 consistent with the prescriptions and expectations attached to the separate parties and found in formal documents. Personalities And Their Dynamics A third conception of the board-president relationship arises through the parties' experiences of each other. This conception is discernible through their perceptions and evaluations of the character and personality of the other party. Gleazer Jr. (1985), for example, suggests that in community colleges there are tensions between board.members and presidents. These tensions are influenced by the diversity in board membership, special interests of board members (e.g. political interests), and by the complexity of instituional problems (Gleazer Jr., 1985). Kerr and Gade (1986) indicate that the style of the president is a determinant of how boards and presidents work together. Personal preferences, personality dynamics, and interpersonal interactions give rise to perceptions and judgements among the parties (Wood, 1985) . The board-president relationship is conceived of as an interpersonal relationship. Hinde (1979) argues that there are three groups of variables which may have a crucial influence on the dynamics of an interpersonal relationship. One variable is the actual characteristics of participants, such as their attitudes and personalities. These are the bases upon which relationships are formed or continued. A second variable includes events outside the time span of the observed relationship, such as anticipated future rewards and benefits. A third variable includes a larger social context, including social and cultural 47 values and other relationships in which the two parties are enmeshed. Hinde (1979) also notes that these variables are independent. Hinde's (1979) views are reflected in the literature on presidents and governing boards. Wood, for example, implies that the board-president relationship has several dependencies including the management style of the president, "the preferences, expectations, and experiences of individual board members", and "the history and tradition of the board as an organization" (1985: 93). Berendzen's (1986) account of his presidential experiences describes three important variables which qualify all personal relationships: common purpose, joint action, and the presence of personal communication. Ingram (1979) suggests that such factors as the president's personal comfort with individual board members and mutual respect and trust among a president and board members influence relations. These views (Ingram, 1979; Wood, 1985; Berendzen, 1986) fall under one or more of Hinde's (1979) categories: actual characteristics of participants; temporal aspects of relationships; and, social context. Summary And Conclusions At least three conceptual categories can be seen in the literature on the board-president relationship. One conception emerges from the perspective that 48 the relationship is between two separate parties, board members and president. This conception suggests that the relationship is a role relationship, and based on role expectations for each party. Such a relationship, with its associated formal roles and predictable outcomes, is perceived as a static condition. A second conception emerges from the perspective that the relationship is a dynamic condition with behavioural exchanges between participants and between the parties and the academic institution's internal and external environments. This conception suggests that the internal form of governance (Kerr & Gade, 1986) and external conditions (Wood, 1985), such as the political environment, help to shape the board-president relationship. A third conception of the relationship emerges from the perspective that the relationship is a personal phenomenon, experienced by the participants and based on personal perceptions and judgements of the participants. This conception conforms to what Hinde (1979) and McCall (1970) refer to as an interpersonal relationship. For each of the three conceptions there is emphasis on common items associated with the board-president relationship. In one conception, the emphasis is on prescriptions and expectations for the two parties. In the second conception, the emphasis is on the behaviours of the parties. And in the third conception, the emphasis is on the personal characteristics and dynamics of the participants. This review concludes that a focus on only a single conception limits understanding of the board-president relationship. One conception alone excludes considerable information and perspective from the other two conceptions. It is suggested that a lack of explanation for the board-president relationship in the literature is a consequence of limited 49 conceptions of the relationship. Each conception provides a perspective of only one dimension of the board-president relationship. This present literature review identifies a minimum of three distinct dimensions; together these dimensions may constitute a comprehensive conception of the board-president relationship. This comprehensive conception is absent in the extant literature on boards, presidents, and the board-president relationship. 50 CHAPTER THREE THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The purpose of this study is to examine the board-president relationship in the academic institution in order to discern reasons for the importance of the relationship. In fulfilling this purpose, it is necessary to explore the nature (i.e., determinants, characteristics, and effects) of the board-president relationship and following this to identify how the two parties work together to govern and manage the academic institution. In the preceding chapter, a review of the literature on boards and presidents indicated that, while there is much discussion of the relationship, there is as yet no systematic study of either its nature or the reasons for its importance. The present chapter draws - on that literature in describing the way in which the board-president relationship was conceived for this study and the research questions which flowed from that conceptualization. Conceptualizing The Board-President Relationship Although the literature does not offer a systematic study of the' board-president relationship, it does contain distinct categories for examinations of the relationship. These categories can be expressed as three dimensions of the board-president relationship: a formal or legal dimension, an operational or working dimension, and a personal or human dimension. 51 Each of the three dimensions provides a particular perspective for seeing the board-president relationship, and each perspective carries with it assumptions about the nature of the relationship. Its nature can be seen as having three parts: characteristics, determinants, and effects. It is the assumptions about each dimension drawn from the literature which can provide a basis for structuring a systematic study of the relationship. The dimensions and their assumptions constitute a research framework for this study. Each dimension (formal, operational, and personal) is drawn from a conception of the relationship which contains assumptions. These assumptions pertain to the determinants, characteristics, and effects of the board-president relationship. Table 1 displays the assumptions about the three dimensions drawn from the literature. For example, the conception of the relationship from the formal dimension assumes that government legislation is a determinant of the relationship, that the relationship is a connection between two authority roles, and that the effects of the relationship are predictable in that they follow and fulfill expectations. These assumptions as a whole constitute conjectures about the board-president relationship from the literature which, with few exceptions, does not contain empirical evidence about the relationship. These assumptions therefore precede systematic study. The nature of the board-president relationship is represented, cumulatively, in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. In these representations, the three dimensions of the relationship are connected to suggest one relationship with three dimensions. The characteristics of the board-president relationship are represented in Figure 1. The formal dimension is discernible through legalistic sources such as constitutions, legislation, administrative rules and regulations, 52 TABLE 1 Assumptions of the Three Dimensions (From the literature) Dimensions Determinants Characteristics Effects Formal Laws, Legislation, Regulations Static connection of authority figures (Roles) Parties fulfill expectations Operational External and internal environments; personal style of presidents-operating style of board; governance structure of institution Dynamic; involvement in operations of academic institution, but variable from one to another (Behaviours) Differentiated in one kind of relationship from another, but focussed on operations of academic institution Personal Individual personalities; group dynamics Interpersonal relationships, including actual characteristics of participants, temporal aspects of relationships, and social context Personal relationships influence on board-president relationship (Personalities) 53 administrative adjudications, case law, institutional rules and regulations, institutional contracts, and academic custom and usage (Kaplin, 1985) . From this perpective, the board-president relationship is assumed to be a role relationship. The two parties occupy roles which are placed within a context of bureaucratic procedures. A characteristic of the relationship, it is assumed, is- that there is a static connection between two sets of authority figures within the academic institution. Figure 1 Characteristics Of The Board-President Relationship -54 operations. Institutional operations include governance and management behaviours of the two parties (but not expectations, motivations, outcomes, etc.). ' The perspective from the operational dimension shows a board-president relationship that is dynamic. Wood (1985), for example, notes that there are three categories of boards characterized by three distinct operating styles. The assumption from the perspective of the operational dimension, based on Wood's (1985) study of boards, is that there are at least three kinds of board-president relationships. One relationship has a corporate, business-like character; another, an authoritarian or militaristic, and likely hierarchical, character; and, another a community or family-like character. The perspective of the operational dimension suggests that there is wide variation from one relationship to another in how the parties are involved in the operations of the academic institution. The personal dimension is discernible through the perceptions and judgements of the two parties, particularly in their evaluations of the overall character of the other party. Characteristics from the perspective of the personal dimension suggest that the board-president relationship can be seen as an interpersonal relationship containing what Hinde (1979) refers to as actual characteristics of participants, temporal aspects of the relationships, and social contexts. Determinants of the board-president relationship are represented in Figure 2. From the perspective of the formal dimension, laws, rules, legislation, norms, and formal expectations are assumed to be determinants of the relationship; they regulate what board members and presidents do together. From the 55 perspective of the operational dimension, the relationship is assumed to be influenced by various conditions including the external environment (e.g. political environment), the governance structure of the academic institution, the personal style of the president, and the operating style of the board. From the perspective of the personal dimension, the board-president relationship is assumed to be dependent upon individual personalities and group dynamics. Mutual trust and the duration of the relationship would, for example, be two assumed determinants of the board-president relationship. Figure 2 Determinants Of The Board-President Relationship 56 Effects of the board-president relationship are represented in Figure 3. The effects of the board-president relationship seen from the formal dimension imply predictability. The two parties will, it is assumed, fulfill their role expectations by conforming with legalistic requirements. From the perspective of the operational dimension, effects will include those actions which pertain to the operations of the academic institution and are assumed to be differentiated in one relationship from another. From the perspective of the personal dimension, effects are assumed to be identical to those qualities (e.g. personal comfort, confidence, trust) of the board-president relationship expressed by one party in their evaluations and judgements of the other party. 57 Figures 1, 2, and 3 combined represent the nature of the board-president relationship: characteristics, determinants, • and effects. It can be seen that the perspective of each dimension is limited in its assumptions about how the parties function, what gives rise to or motivates their functioning, and the results of what they do together. While each dimension provides a perspective that contains assumptions about the relationship, taken independently, each dimension provides only a partial view of the relationship. The connection of the three dimensions of the board-president relationship permits examination of the nature of the relationship from a comprehensive perspective, one which is broader than that offered by the perspective from a single dimension. Figure 4 is a diagram of the nature of the board-president relationship combining characteristics, determinants, and effects of the relationship. The research framework is thus conceived of as having three components: 1. the characteristics of the board-president relationship involving three dimensions; 2. determinants of the board-president relationship viewed from the perspective of three dimensions; and, 3. effects of the board-president relationship viewed from the perspective of three dimensions. This framework was used in an investigation of a setting or settings (i.e., one or more academic institutions) to explore the nature of the board-president relationship, then to examine how boards and presidents jointly govern and manage the academic institution, and finally to discern why the relationship is deemed to be important (which may include more than its perceived effects). 58 Figure 4 The Nature Of The Board-President Relationship This investigation required information which included both factual and perceptual descriptions of the relationship. Both documentary evidence and the perceptions of the two parties to the relationship provided relevant data. Therefore, research questions for this investigation are of two kinds (i.e., relating to documented evidence and to perceptions). These questions are directed at the three-fold nature of the relationship (characteristics, determinants, and effects) of which the dominant one (characteristics) is itself in three parts (i.e., formal, operational, personal). The research framework and the two kinds of data the investigation required (factual and perceptual) are represented in Figure 5. 59 Figure 5 Research Framework And Data Required 60 The Research Questions From the literature and the research framework derived from that literature, research questions were established. These questions were used to examine the board-president relationship and to uncover the nature of that relationship. Research questions address the characteristics of the relationship (formal, operational, and personal dimensions), determinants of the relationship, and effects of the relationship (See Table 2). Questions #1 and #2 focus on the formal dimension, and pursue factual and perceptual data respectively. Question #1 addresses how the legal documents which govern or regulate the two parties describe the relationship. Question #2 focusses on the perceptions of the participants with regard to the laws which may govern or regulate their behaviours and actions. Questions #3 and #4 focus on the operational dimension, and they require factual and perceptual data respectively. Question #3 addresses the operational dimension through institutional documents. Question #4 approaches the operational dimension through the perceptions of the participants in the relationship. Questions #5 and #6 address the personal dimension through the perceptions of the participants both in their descriptions of their personal relationships and through their identification of the major influences of the personal relationships. Both questions #5 and #6 require perceptual data. Both questions #7 and #8 require perceptual data. Question #7 addresses the determinants of the relationship from the perceptions of both individual 61 TABLE 2 Research Questions 1. How is the formal dimension specified in legislation? 2. How do board members and presidents understand the formal rules and laws which govern or regulate their functioning? 3. How is the operational dimension'described in institutional documents? 4. How do board members and presidents describe their actions in managing the operations of the academic institution? 5. How do the parties describe their personal relationship? 6. What are the indications, if any, from board members and presidents that the personal relationship affects the way the parties work together? 7. From the accounts of board members and presidents, what are the indications of what might determine the character and functioning of the relationship? 8. From the accounts of board members and presidents, what are the indications of the effects of the relationship? 62 TABLE 3 Research Questions And Data Formal Dimension Factual Data Question #1 Perceptual Data Question #2 Operational Dimension Factual Data Question #3 Perceptual Data Question #4 Personal Dimension Perceptual Data Question #5 & #6 Determinant s Perceptual Data Question #7 Effects Perceptual Data Question #8 63 participants and the combination of participants' perceptions. Question #8 addresses the effects of the relationship from the perceptions of both i individual participants and the combination of participants' perceptions. Table 3 displays the connection of the two kinds of data (factual and perceptual) and their connection to the eight research questions. While answers to individual research questions may point toward possible reasons for the importance of the relationship, it is anticipated that the answers to research questions as a whole will address the main purpose of the study: to discern reasons for the importance of the board-president relationship. The use of the research framework which incorporates both the three dimensions which characterize the board-president relationship and the determinants and effects of the relationship has as its objectives first to explore the nature of the relationship, then to uncover the ways in which the parties work together to govern and manage the academic institution, and finally to discern reasons for the relationship's importance, thereby explaining why there is emphasis placed on the relationship by scholars and practitioners alike. 64 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES In order to address the research questions a method was used which is labelled qualitative-interpretive research. The researcher determined the relevant sources for data, developed strategies for collecting data, and analyzed data to enable descriptions, interpretations, and comparisons of human relationships. These actions were carried out in a manner consistent with current scholarly thought on qualitative analysis (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Smith, 1983; Goetz & Le Ccmpte, 1984; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Popkewitz, 1984; Burgess, 1985; Erickson, 1986; Merriam, 1988). For Erickson (1986), qualitative methods "combine close analysis of fine details of behaviour and meaning in everyday social interaction with analysis of the wider social world...within which the face-to-face interaction takes place" (1986: 120). This study investigates the board-president relationship by examining the meaning participants (board members and presidents) attribute to their actions, attitudes, and situations; by examining the institutional context in which the parties act; and by examining the context which formalizes the relationship. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research method used.- The description covers in sequence Data Sources, Data Collection, Data Analysis, and Delimitations and Assumptions. 65 Data Sources Data sources for this study were identified which could best address the research questions (see Table 2, Chapter Three). These sources include government legislation, institutional documents, interviews of participants in the board-president relationship (board members and presidents), and field notes. The sources permit analysis of the forces which govern and regulate behaviours of the two parties, participants' operations within an institutional setting, and perceptions of participants. Documents Two types of documents are sources for this study. The first is government legislation which governs and regulates the board-president relationship. This source is used as data for the research question: How is the formal dimension specified in the legislation? The second type constitutes a source for information on the operational dimension of the board-president relationship. This source includes institutional documents which are relevant to what board members and presidents do' together. They are primary sources of data for the research question: How is the operational dimension described in institutional documents? 66 Interviews Of Board Members And Presidents The literature on board members and presidents suggests that board members have been the principal source for the study of board members and presidents have been a major source for the study of presidents. The use of participants as sources conforms with Gay's (1976) view that the actors have the most accurate information on their actions. In educational research, and particularly in studies on board members and presidents, the use of the participants as sources is well established. Wood (1985) chose board members and presidents as sources in order to develop an understanding of trustees' actions and the consequences of their actions. Cohen and March (1974) explored leadership in the academic institution using presidents as their primary source. The Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership (1984), in pursuing answers to why the strength of the college and university presidency in the U.S. had weakened over the past two decades, chose presidents as principal sources. Chait and Associates (1984), in determining the operational involvement of board members in the academic institution, relied on board members as sources. In a Canadian study, Dennison and Harris (1984) used board members as their sources. And, finally, a variation of this pattern can be seen in those presidents who function as both researchers (or commentators) and participant-observers (e.g. Stoke, 1959; Dodds, 1962; Kauffman, 1980; Fisher, 1984; Vaughan, 1986; Berendzen, 1986) . Research on board members and presidents which focusses on the activities and perceptions of the two groups and on the importance of the two groups (i.e., their roles, functions, and effectiveness) has often depended upon the interview as a data collection instrument (see Cohen & March, 1974; Benezet, 1982; Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984; 67 Wood, 1985; Vaughan, 1986). Field Notes While the interview provides data on the participants' perceptions of the board-president relationship, the observations (recorded as field notes) of • the researcher on the interviews'are used as a source in the analysis of interview data. The researcher's role in this study will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this chapter. Data Collection Site Selection The colleges of British Columbia were chosen as the settings for this study. There are two reasons for choosing these colleges and another reason why the colleges of British Columbia were considered for this study. A first reason for the selection of British Columbia's colleges is the researcher's practical knowledge of community colleges, particularly in British Columbia, as a consequence of professional work in two British Columbia colleges over two decades. The researcher's intimate knowledge of the operations of these colleges as well as his knowledge of the historical, political, and social 68 context would, it was presumed during selection, aid the researcher in the collection and analysis of data. Because of his background, the researcher would be able to establish rapport with participants. He would be able to comprehend and to acknowledge provincial or college system references (e.g. "restraint", "BCAC", college "scandal", "profile", and "self-study"), and be able to grasp the meaning participants give to their management actions in such areas as educational planning and budget development because these actions are familiar to him as part of his experiences. Second, these colleges fall under the jurisdiction of a single government. For the colleges of British Columbia, one legislated act applies to all public colleges and institutes. In British Columbia, there is one government minister (Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training) and one government department responsible as government for the provincial colleges. The choice of settings within one legislated jurisdiction (in Canada, education falls under provincial jurisdiction), within a common legal framework, and with a common government authority as a responsible legislated body was deliberate. Thus, variables related to the formal dimension of the board-president relationship and involving such areas as the external political environment, law, and government behaviours are common to all public colleges in the province. The selection'of British Columbia colleges for this study is appropriate because development of these colleges matches the development of U.S. community colleges. As Dennison and Gallagher (1986) note, British Columbia's colleges were adaptations of the American community college concept. In that the research framework for this study was based upon a body of literature that 69 is written predominantly from a U.S. perspective, the selection of British Columbia colleges as settings does not depart from the underlying assumptions of that literature. The research framework should apply to British Columbia. Sample Three British Columbia colleges and the board-president relationship within each college comprise the sample for this study. More than one site was chosen to permit comparison of findings and conclusions and to validate conclusions. Three sites permit a triangular comparison and allow for greater potential variation and differentiation of findings than two sites. The use of more than three sites for this study's purposes would have made data collection difficult given the time and resource limitations. Three sites were deemed to be a reasonable number to allow for variation and to permit comparisons. Only one overt differentiating feature among the three colleges was consciously identified as a criterion for selection. By ensuring site variation, this investigation did not ignore the variables of geographical environment. Mitchell (1986).notes that colleges in British Columbia serve identifiable geographical regions. Colleges are also categorized by types as Urban, Semi-Urban, and Rural (Mitchell, 1986). In this present study, two college are urban colleges and one college is classified as semi-urban. In this way, arguments are avoided that might be raised with this study's conclusions if all urban colleges were selected or if all three colleges were in one geographical location (i.e., Lower Mainland). While neither the regions nor the categories 70 appear in legislation, these characteristics identified with particular British Columbia colleges can be found in both government and institutional documents. In this study, some recognition of these distinctions seemed necessary so that the three colleges were not all from the same region or all viewed as falling under one category (e.g. urban). Therefore, the sample includes at least one site which is both geographically distinct from the other two and does not fall under the same category. Several criteria were used to select these colleges. These include the tenure of the college president, the age of the institution, and the educational program of the institution. All three presidents selected had more than one year's experience as chief executive officer. Applying this criterion reduced the probability that either the president or a board member was likely to qualify perceptions, either explicitly or implicitly, in terms of the president's inexperience or lack of familiarity with the board or with all board members. The three colleges chosen are not new colleges and they all have existed for ten years or more. This criterion of age allowed for comparisons in the area of established traditions and the effects of historical events. The colleges have similar educational programs including career, preparatory, vocational, community, and academic offerings. That is, all three colleges can be viewed as supporting a comprehensive curriculum. As such, participants' actions and judgements involve educational institutions which are educationally comparable. The three colleges were given fictitious names for the purpose of ensuring confidentiality of information. The colleges were named Appletree, Oak, and 71 Cedar. Institutional documents were collected from each college and interviews were conducted at each college, involving all three presidents and twenty-four of the twenty-six board members. Two board members were not included in this study. Neither was available for interviews during the interview process, although neither had declined to participate in the study. Collection of Data Five kinds of data were used: 1. The College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984); 2. institutional documents from each of the three colleges; 3. machine recorded interviews involving the researcher and twenty-seven subjects (board members and presidents at three colleges); 4. the subjects' interview summary documents (see Appendix E); and, 5. field notes recorded by the researcher during and after interviews with the twenty-seven subjects. College And Institute Act. The College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984) is the specific legal document which applies to the roles, duties, and responsibilities of governing boards and chief executive officers in the province of British Columbia's colleges at the time of this study. In response, then, to the research question on the formal dimension of the board-president relationship, the College and Institute Act (Province of 72 British Columbia, 1984) is a primary source. The act originated in 1977, and has been amended on several occasions. Major amendments occurred in 1983 .'i (Mitchell, 1986) which could be seen to have impact on the board-president relationship. For example, in the 1983 amendment all board members became government appointees, whereas prior to this amendment boards were a combination of government appointees and local school board representatives (Dennison1 & Gallagher, 1986; Mitchell, 1986). Dennison (1986) has noted that legislative changes with regard to .'British Columbia colleges suggest greater centralization of control over colleges and less autonomy for local boards. The College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984), in its present form, has legally regulated the behaviours and actions of boards and presidents. It is, therefore, a key source for answers to research questions on the formal dimension of the board-president relationship. Text of the act which is applicable to the board-president relationship appears in Appendix G. Institutional documents. The operational dimension of the board-president relationship pertains to the joint actions of board and president in managing the operations of the academic institution. Documents which identify these actions are not only sources for evidence but also sources for comparison as validity checks with subjects' data. Institutional documents were acquired through the office of the college president at Appletree College, through the office of the bursar at Oak College, and through both the office of the president and the office of the bursar at Cedar College. The following documents were acquired from the three colleges: 73 1. college calendars; 2. collective agreements with faculty unions; 3. collective agreements with support staff unions; 4. five year plans; 5. board policy documents; 6. management planning documents; 7. administrative policy documents; 8. board meeting minutes for an eight to twelve month period. The above constitute the public documents produced by the colleges which have relevancy to both parties and how they work together. The interview questions. All interviews were based upon a single set of twenty questions. The following paragraphs describe first the way the questions were developed and second the results of a pilot test. The final list of questions is shown in Table 4. These questions were developed to elicit responses on each of the three dimensions of the board-president relationship as well as on the determinants and effects of the relationship. For the formal dimension, two questions were designed to ascertain the extent of subjects' knowledge of how the College and  Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984) applied to the board-president relationship and the effects of the act upon the relationship. These became questions #1 and #2 in Table 4. Responses to these questions were intended to convey the subjects' knowledge of the act, the formal rules and regulations which govern the relationship, and the subjects' attitudes towards the formal dimension of the relationship (e.g. its existence and its importance). Questions pertinent to the operational dimension were developed from a large pool of sources. The literature on boards and the literature on presidents were reviewed for commonality of interests and actions involving board members and presidents. Chait and Associates (1984) provide a recent and comprehensive guide to the involvement of board members in college operations. Their analysis is based on a national U.S. survey of board members which identifies the major issues which confront board members and the issues on which boards assume active roles. From the literature on presidents (e.g. Cohen & March, 1974; Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership, 1984; Kerr & Gade, 1986; Berendzen, 1986; Vaughan, 1986), the issues and activities involving board members were compared with issues and activities involving presidents. Six shared major activities were identified: establish new programs and long range plans for academic programs; appoint senior administrators; revise the institution's mission; establish faculty compensation policies; lay-off of faculty; and declare financial emergencies. The use of Corson's (1980) items increased the list to include: develop mission statements; develop physical plans; develop and approve budgets; and develop and approve- policies. Gleazer Jr. (1985), in discussing community colleges, noted the following: preserve institutional independence; enhance the public image; and interpret the community to the campus. This literature-derived list was then compared with a locally generated list of relevant issues and activities. The researcher drew upon his own extensive experience to compile an initial list which was then presented for comment to four people who were or had been parties to the board-president relationship in British Columbia. The parties included one current chief executive officer, 75 one former chief executive officer, one current board member, and one former board member, none of whom was in the final sample. All parties concurred with the following list of major activities which would involve both board members and presidents: a. the development and establishment of institutional policies; b. the development and allocation of budgets (includes declare financial emergencies and establish faculty compensation policies); c. educational planning (includes establish new programs and long range planning; revise the institution's mission; develop mission statements; and, interpret community to campus); d. hiring of personnel; e. termination of employment of personnel; f. creation and maintenance of a public image for the college. Only two items present in the literature review are missing either explicitly or implicitly from this locally derived list: preserve institutional independence (Gleazer Jr., 1985) and develop physical plans (Corson, 1980). The preservation of institutional independence may be viewed as part of the creation and maintenance of a public image; and the development of physical plans may be associated with budgets or financial activities. Because the items of the preservation of independence and the development of physical plans did not appear in a recent national U.S. study (Chait & Associates, 1984) and because the length of the list with their inclusion would lengthen the interview without adding new information, they were left out of the final list of major, joint activities of board members and presidents (Table 4, questions #3-10) . Items "d" and "e" above were omitted from the final question set as a result of the pilot test (see Appendix C) which is referred to later. 76 Finally, questions were developed to elicit responses about the personal dimension of the board-president relationship (Table 4, questions #11-19). The literature on boards and presidents, particularly works authored by presidents (e.g. Stoke, 1959; Kauffman, 1980; Berendzen, 1986), suggests potential question areas posed to answer the research questions (i.e., How do the parties describe the nature of their personal relationship? Do board members and presidents indicate that the personal relationship affects the way the parties work together?). The work of Hinde (1979) and McCall (1970) on interpersonal relationships provides a systematic explanation of interpersonal relationships. In developing theory on interpersonal relationships, Hinde (1979) examines dimensions of these relationships and refers to McCall's (1970) list of characteristics as a representative example. McCall's (1970) list of the dimensions of interpersonal relationships, provides a set of criteria for the development of questions. The criteria include the following dimensions of an interpersonal relationship: intimacy, duration, formality, embeddedness (connection to a larger structure), actuality (nature of encounters), reciprocity (reciprocal commitment), and differentiation (distinguishing features). For McCall (1970), the dimensions are understood through responses to the following questions: a. How well does one party know the other party's.feelings? (intimacy) b. How long has the personal association continued? '(duration) c. How much is the personal relationship structured by the role relationship? (formality) d. To what extent is the personal relationship embedded within a larger organization? (embeddedness) e. Are interpersonal encounters concrete or on a symbolic plane? (actuality) f. Is the commitment to the relationship reciprocal? (reciprocity) g. Are the parties distinguished from each other on the basis of power, status, leadership role? (differentiation) 77 Hinde (1979) adds to McCall's (1970) discussion of dimensions by noting that the actual characteristics of' participants influence these dimensions, at least in as much as these characteristcis are conducive to the formation or continuation of an interpersonal relationship. Hinde (1979) suggests that evaluation (e.g. judging its worth) is a characteristic of an interpersonal relationship, and outcomes of evaluation can affect the future course of the relationship. At first, the question developed was: What is your assessment of your relationship with "X"? This question was altered after discussion with and review by a current chief executive officer at a British Columbia community college. Instead, the question developed was: What do you like about your relationship with the other party? An initial set of twenty-four questions dealt with the three dimensions of the relationship and with the determinants and effects of the relationship. Further refinement of this set was done by means of a pilot test in Fall 1987. Subjects for this pilot test included two current board members at two community colleges in British Columbia; one former board member at a British Columbia community college; and one former president of a British Columbia community college (see Appendix C). None of these subjects was part of the final sample of the study. As a result of the pilot test, four questions on the operational dimension were deleted, one question was re-worded to reduce possible misunderstanding, and interview procedures were modified. After initial development and pilot testing of interview questions, twenty questions were selected by the researcher as research instruments. Table 4 displays the questions. 78 TABLE 4 Board-president relationship: interview questions 1. In what ways does the College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? 2. What are the consequences/effects of this act on your relationship? 3. How do you work with president/board on the development and establishment of institutional policies (e.g. instructional policies, admission policies)? 4. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and establishment of policies? 5. How do you work with president/board on the development and allocation of budgets? 6. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and allocation of budgets? 7. How do you work with president/board on educational planning? 8. What are the consequences of this approach to educational planning? 9. How do you work with president/board on the creation and maintenance of a public image for your college (e.g. mission statement, promotion)? 10. What are the consequences to this approach to the creation and maintenance of a public image? 11. Are you knowledgeable of the other party's feelings and views on a variety of topics and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 12. What is the length of time you have known the other party, or members of the other party? 13. To what extent is your relationship with the other party, or members of the other party, structured by the role relationship of board and president? 14..To what extent is your relationship with the other party contained within the operations of the college? 15. To what extent are your personal encounters with the other party generally formal or informal (e.g. conventional behaviours and gestures or specific and individual interactions? 16. Do you think that the other party's commitment to the relationship is similar in kind and intensity to your commitment? 17. Do you make distinction between yourself and the other party on the basis of power? social status? leadership role? 18. What are the consequences/effects of your personal relationship with the other party? 19. What do you like about your relationship with the other party? 20. Do you have any comments to make on the board-president relationship or on the views you have expressed already? 79 Interview procedures. Subjects were interviewed in the Spring of 1988. Each subject (N=27) was interviewed for approximately one and one-half hours. Interviews 'were recorded on audio tape, and the researcher took notes on a response sheet (see Appendix D), a device used for data reduction (Miles & Huberman, 1984) and for assistance in data analysis (Erickson, 1986). The interviews were conducted at a location (college office or meeting room, residence of subject) suitable for the subjects, and only the researcher and the subject were present. The researcher explained process and procedures to subjects, gave details on the purposes of the study, and indicated to subjects that their review of an interview summary may be required at a later date. The twenty questions shown in Table 4 were put to each subject- Subjects were also asked for additional information. The probes took the form of follow-up questions, the re-phrasing of the subjects' responses by the researcher, and responses to subjects' responses by the researcher to initiate further discussion by subjects. For most responses given by subjects to questions pertaining to the formal and operational dimensions (questions #1-10) the researcher paraphrased subjects' responses immediately following responses to individual questions. In this way, the researcher could ascertain if his understanding was consistent with subjects' intentions. Subjects were informed that interviews were confidential and that neither personal nor college identities would be revealed publicly. Subjects were asked to assist in maintaining the confidential nature of the study by keeping their college's participation in the study confidential. In order to give all subjects at each college similar conditions for interviews, each subject was 80 asked to refrain from discussing both questions and their responses with other subjects until all interviews at their college were concluded. Interview data. While one category of data can be seen in the machine recorded tapes which resulted from the interviews involving the researcher and twenty-seven subjects, another category of data also resulted from these interviews (field notes) . * Together, the data from these two categories were developed into a third category (interview summary documents). Prior to the interviews, the researcher developed interview response sheets (see Appendix D). These sheets were used to record the researcher's field notes. These notes and the tape recorded interviews were merged to produce interview summary documents (Appendix E). During the interview, the investigator hand-recorded (by paraphrase and direct quotation) subjects' responses to questions and probes, the content of the probes themselves, the investigator's impressions of subjects' behaviours (e.g. nervousness, enthusiasm), and a summary of the responses to a topic area (e.g. educational planning). After the interview, the investigator reviewed the response sheets, corrected errors in language, made additions based on memory recall of the conversations, and added summaries for subjects' responses in places where during the interview he had been unable to record a summary. This procedure occurred immediately following the interview. After this procedure,- the researcher listened to each recorded interview, and 81 with the responses sheet in front of him at the same time, he added to and revised the interview response sheets. All twenty-seven taped interviews and response sheets were treated in this manner. These revised response sheets were then used as the basis for the development of interview summaries. For each subject, an interview summary was developed (see Appendix E). These summaries used the language and intended meanings of the subjects (as opposed to the researcher's understanding or interpretations). The summaries used the categories of the three dimensions of the board-president relationship (i.e., formal, operational, and personal) and contained as well a category for additional responses. Subjects were sent copies of the summaries and asked to review them, to make-alterations if the summaries did not reflect their responses accurately, and return corrected summaries to the researcher within a time-frame of approximately two weeks (see Appendix F). Only four subjects suggested changes to the text of the summaries. One subject (Cedar C) asked for two clarifying phrases to be added. Neither suggestion altered the essential meaning of statements. These changes qualified statements which could be read as absolutes (To "We don't operate in camera without the president" was added "unless we are discussing his performance in a salary review context"). A second subject suggested wording changes, a few points to clarify what was presented, and an additional paragraph which altered the meaning of a judgement. The first two suggestions led to alterations in the document, but the third suggestion was not accepted by the researcher. On this point, the researcher listened to the passage on the tape and reviewed his notes. The 82 original intention was clear and the suggested change would alter meaning substantially. A third subject asked for wording changes which were accepted as they did not alter substance. This subject also asked for an addition which although it did not contradict what was present actually was a suggestion for an addition which was neither evident on the tape nor relevant to the topic. This third subject also asked that a reference to a specific political official be omitted. Given that this reference was not a central point nor was it given in response to an interview question, it could be regarded as an aside. The reference was dropped at the request of the subject, although it remains on the recorded tapes. The fourth subject suggested one change, part of which clarified a statement and another part of which added new information. The part of the suggested addition which served to clarify was accepted; the other part was not accepted because it was clearly an afterthought. with these few exceptions, then, the summaries as they appear in Appendix E have been accepted by subjects as valid representations of personal responses to interview questions and probes. Validity, credibility, and trustworthiness of data. In the collection of data, validity and credibility are achieved by several research procedures. Validity of interview data was ensured by the researcher returning the interview summary documents to subjects for verification. The credibility of data was increased by the use of multiple sources, including subjects (board members and presidents), institutional documents, and government legislation and multiple methods (document examination and interviews). Moreover, three sites were used to gather subject and documentary data. The use of three sites rather than one 83 improves the trustworthiness of eventual general conclusions and the generation of hypothetical questions. Data Analysis Table 5 displays both the research questions and the sources for answers to these questions. In this section, the ways in which data from those sources is analyzed are described. There are three modes of analysis used in this study. The modes are descriptive, interpretive, and comparative analysis. The section ends with a discussion of the delimitations and assumptions of the research. Descriptive Analysis Legislation. Although there is no reference to the board-president relationship in the College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984) , the sections which refer to both board and president were selected for descriptive analysis. The parts of the College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984) which pertain to the board-president relationship either explicitly or implicitly are both appended (Appendix G) and paraphrased in the text. Institutional documents. These documents were used as sources for answers to 84 TABLE 5 Sources For Answers To Research Questions Research question Primary source(s) of data How is the formal dimension specified in legislation? College and Institute Act (Province of B.C., 1984) How do board members and presidents understand the formal rules and laws which govern or regulate their functioning? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) How is the operational dimension described in institutional documents? Institutional documents How do board members and presidents explain their actions in managing the operations of the academic institution? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) How do the parties describe the nature of their personal relationship? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) What are the indications, if any, from board members and presidents that the personal relationship affects the way the parties work together? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) From the accounts of board members and presidents, what are the indications of what might determine the character and functioning of the relationship? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) From the accounts of board members and presidents, what are the indications of the effects of the relationship? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) 85 the research question on the operational dimension of the board-president relationship (question #3: How is the operational dimension described in institutional documents?). Material from these documents is described in the text of the study. Whatever information is provided by collective agreements, policy documents, educational plans, management plans, and calendars is summarized if that material pertains either explicitly or implicitly to the combined or associated operations of board members and the president. In the case of board meeting minutes, an exception to the above noted documents, because of extensive reference to combined or associated operations of board members and the president, material is paraphrased and included in the text as descriptions of operations found in these documents. Interview data. Summary interview documents, validated by subjects (Appendix E) are primary sources for analysis. Each document is organized on the basis of the three dimensions (formal, operational, and personal) of the board-president relationship. The data are used to provide a description in response to research questions #s 2,4,5,6,7, and 8 (see Table 5). Material from summary interview documents is extracted and either paraphrased or applied verbatim in descriptions of board members and presidents' perceptions. Descriptive analysis is displayed both in the text of this study and in tables (many of which are appended). This approach to analysis conveys the subjects' perceptions with minimal manipulation of data and allows both researcher and reader to see what is actually present, both in number and kind, in interview data, particularly with respect to research questions. 86 Interpretive Analysis Data analysis in this study involved the counting of data frequencies, the noting of patterns, clustering (grouping data by topic and subsequently by theme), identifying and connecting images and metaphors, and finding intervening variables all in order to establish meaning for the collected data and to provide conceptual coherence. Counting occurred for data relevant to research question #2 (subjects' responses to questions on the formal dimension), to research question #5 (subjects' responses to the question on their personal relationship), to research question #4 (subjects' responses to the question on the management of operations) to research question #7 (determinants) and to research question #8 (effects) . Responses to. interview questions were counted for each of these areas, by individual college, and categorized. Counting helped to shape meaning for a single college's combined perceptions and gave a quantitative context for findings. Repetitions of causes, explanations, actors and actions, language, expectations, attitudes and feelings, regulations, outcomes and outputs, and other qualities were noted as patterns in both institutional documents and interview data applicable to each college. These patterns were used to reach findings for research questions and to provide content for descriptions of subjects' perceptions. Clustering data involved grouping or categorizing all relevant interview data 87 for a research question by college. This technique was used for research questions #4,7, and 8 (Table 5). Clustering was used to interpret data applicable both to the operational dimension of the board-president relationship and to the determinants and effects of the relationship. The technique groups all descriptive data (paraphrased from the source) by topic. In the case of subjects' perceptions of determinants, sub-headings which designate themes that fall under the cluster topic were used because of the quantity of data. The use of themes helped to focus the interpretation of data. In identifying and connecting images and metaphors, the researcher first reviewed institutional documents and interview data as well as his field notes. Images and metaphors which were either central to interview questions and research questions or could be seen as summations of responses to questions were identified. These images and metaphors aided the researcher in the development of interview summaries. The interpretation of these images and metaphors in conjunction with the use of identified patterns allowed the researcher to address research question #6 (the affect of the personal relationship). Moreover, the interpretation of images assisted the researcher in the analysis of the colleges' philosophy, missions, goals, and purposes as expressed in their institutional documents. The technique of finding intervening variables (Miles & Huberman, 1984), that is a variable that provides a link between two other variables, arose in those few cases where interpretation of data did not provide coherence. Two or more-observations did not fit together: they were either inconsistent or 88 contradictory. While disconfirming or inconsistent evidence was not rejected, the researcher did attempt to identify reasons and explanations for this kind of evidence. When two or more variables did not fit together, the researcher looked for an intervening variable. This can be seen in the discussion of determinants at Appletree College in Chapter Six. Comparative Analysis In order for the researcher to report on the ways in which board members and presidents work together, interpreted data from all research questions are compared from two perspectives. The first perspective addresses each of the three colleges separately and seeks to provide coherent description and explanation of how board members and the president work together. In this perspective, interpreted data and findings are compared and fitted together into a common framework. The second perspective addresses all three colleges combined. Interpreted data and findings which address the research questions are brought together for a more abstract and generalized explanation based on a comparison of the three board-president relationships. This explanation of how board members and presidents work together compares the empirical evidence from this study with the literature. . 89 Delimitations And Assumptions Delimitations This study was delimited to an investigation of the board-president relationship in three British Columbia colleges from the period of September 1, 1987 to September 1, 1988. The investigation addressed three dimensions of the relationship; these dimensions were identified in the chapter on the research framework. Public documents and the collected perceptions of the participants were examined and analyzed. The researcher's field notes were the other source for information. Assumptions Assumptions about the board-president relationship derived from the literature were identified in Chapter Three. Assumptions based on the researcher's background experiences are important, especially given the nature of the method used in this study. As an educational practitioner in a British Columbia college, the researcher is both familiar with college operations and knowledgeable about the historical, political, and social context of British Columbia's colleges. The researcher has experience in both college management and college instruction. Prior to this study, the researcher had established 90 personal associations with those occupying roles of board members and president in a variety of colleges. These personal contacts were not used as respondents for this present study. These associations provided the researcher with information about attitudes and behaviours of the two parties in specific institutions. In 1986 and 1987, prior to the investigation of the three colleges in this study, the researcher questioned eleven chief executive officers of Canadian community colleges (survey questionnaires) in seven provinces and one territory. All chief executive officers indicated their goals, objectives, accomplishments, and difficulties. Of these eleven chief executive officers, seven were interviewed in person, and of these seven, three were questioned specifically on their relationship with the governing board. The researcher, then, acquired information on the perceptions of chief executive officers on the presidency, and he acquired insight into presidents' perceptions of the board-president relationship (Levin, 1987) . From his experience, the researcher was cognizant of the concern by both parties over the condition of their relationship. Friction, hostility, and frustration were noted in several relationships. Every president had problems with at least one board member and some board members had problems with their president, either past or present. i Also from his experiences, the researcher was cognizant that a focal point for friction between board members and a president was in the area of authority. Presidents wanted to behave as leaders and chief executive officers. Board 91 members wanted to believe they made the decisions for their college. The researcher also from his experiences had knowledge of the efforts of board members and presidents to achieve a uniform position on college-related issues. In the environment of a union-management organization, board members and president wanted to be on the same side of an issue or a dispute. Thus, as a result, board and president (and possibly with other senior administrators) conducted confidential and secretive business. This secretive environment had other consequences such as the eventual development of inner circles within the relationship between the two parties. These inner circles could include one or two senior administrators, the president, and one or two board members; it could also include several board members and exclude the president. Another consequence of the confidential-secretive behaviours of board members and president was that the parties appeared to be dissociated from their college, operating in a vacuum without awareness of the realities of organizational life perceived by college participants. The role, then, of the researcher in this study was not that of an objective outsider in the sense that the researcher was free from assumptions prior to site entry. The researcher's experiences and assumptions, however, are not inconsistent with qualitative-interpretive research where a researcher's subjectivity can be a key component (Goetz & Le Compte, 1984; Erickson, 1986). While this researcher followed a deliberate and systematic approach to both data collection and data analysis, following the suggestions of Miles and Huberman (1984), his prior experiences did aid him in both the collection and analysis of data. 92 CHAPTER FIVE DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART I In this chapter, the findings of data analysis are reported. This chapter addresses research questions #1-6 (see Table 5 in Chapter Four). Analysis of documents provides answers to questions #1 and #3. Analysis of subject data provides answers to questions #2, 4, 5, and 6. In this chapter, the analysis of legislation which governs or regulates the functioning of board and president is reported; the analysis of institutional documents which describe the operational dimension is reported; and the analysis of subjects' perceptions (board members and presidents) is reported. This chapter is organized on the basis of the three dimensions of the board-president relationship contained within the research framework. Appendix E contains the data from board members and presidents which are used in analysis. The data are included in full as a convenient compilation of material which is essential for a thorough understanding of the perceptions of board members and presidents. Appendix E is referred to throughout Chapters Five and Six. The Formal Dimension The formal dimension of the board-president relationship is addressed through 93 two research questions (i.e., How is the formal relationship specified in legislation? How do board members and presidents understand the formal rules and laws which govern or regulate their functioning?). The source for the first question is the College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984). The sources for the second question include both interview data collected from board members and presidents at the three colleges and the field notes of the researcher. Legislated Expectations For The Formal Dimension The College and Institute Act(Province of British Columbia, 1984) is the document which applied to the formal connection of board members and presidents in British Columbia colleges in September 1987, the initial date of the study. In this section, the legal requirements applicable to the board-president relationship are noted and interpreted. The College and Institute Act specifies legal requirements applicable to the board-president relationship. The board is required to appoint a president (the term "principal" is used in the act) as chief executive officer. The president under the direction of the board supervises and directs staff (instructional, administrative, and other); and, the president exercises powers and performs duties assigned by the board. The board has the powers and the duty to make by-laws about the powers, duties, and benefits of the president. The president recommends to the board appointments, promotions, and removal (including suspension) of members of the institution. The president 94 attends all meetings of the board (excluded only by board resolution). The president advises the board on all operational matters of the institution. The president reports to the board, at least annually, on the progress of the institution and includes recommendations for the benefit and advancement of the institution(see Appendix G). From the specifications contained within the College and Institute Act, it can be seen that formally, the board-president relationship is an hierarchical model. The board supervises the president, and the president supervises staff. The president reports to, recommends to, and advises the board. The board makes by-laws which regulate the behaviours of the president and which give the president's actions authority. The president's primary, specified duties include supervision of instruction and the advising of the board on college operations. The board has discretion and powers to delegate and assign duties to the president, but its ability is limited by the powers of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training who approves board by-laws. The board has primary authority and responsibility for the operations of the institution. The board has the authority as well to limit its own duties, its actions, and its involvement in the institution. The president is the agent of the board. The president's powers, responsibilities, and duties (with the few exceptions already cited) are dependent upon the board's pleasure. The legislated expectations for the board-president relationship can be seen to characterize an unequal partnership. The president's actions are either prescribed (e.g. president is required to recommend employee appointments; president is required to report on the progress of the institution to the 95 board) or permitted by the board. The College and Institute Act addresses the role relationship of board and president and specifies legal authority. Legislated expectations appear to be both narrow and limited, particularly in the case of the president. However, the formal dimension established in the research framework of this study comprises more than legislative expectations, and the parties' understandings of the formal dimension at each college are addressed in the next section. The Perceived Understanding Of The Formal Dimension By The Parties To The Relationship The parties' perceived understandings of the formal dimension of the board-president relationship are derived from interview questions #1 and #2 (i.e., In what ways does the College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? and, What are the consequences/effects of this act upon your relationship?). When asked the first question, all parties acknowledged either explicitly (e.g. "I don't think I've ever read it", Appletree E, Appendix E) or implicitly (e.g. confusion about the contents of the document) the degree of their knowledge of. the act. In the analysis of data, the researcher gave his appraisal of the knowledge or familiarity of subjects with the act; the researcher noted what respondents saw as. constituting the legal requirements of board members and presidents, as well as the applicability of these requirements to the connection of the two parties; and, finally, the researcher combined the perceptions of individual repondents for each college. 96 Appletree College. The majority of subjects (7) express no understanding (see Table 6) of the College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984) . Formal laws and regulations are not emphasized in responses. Legal requirements can be seen in the subjects' conception of each party's role, in particular the board's role (e.g. policy approval, ultimate responsibility). In only one example, the dismissal of administrators, did the legal components apply to the board-president relationship. Oak College. The majority of subjects (5) express familiarity (see Table 7) with the College and Institute Act(Province of British Columbia, 1984). Not one subject indicated complete lack of understanding of the act. In their interviews, board members and president indicated that the presence of the laws and regulations pertain to the roles of the parties, to the powers and authority of the board, to problem situations, and to the president's role connection to the board. The board's employer status with the president and the board as the ultimate authority appear in four responses. The most prevalent view is that the formal and legal aspects pertain to the roles of the separate parties (especially the board) and implicitly to the role relationship between the two parties. Formal regulations and laws are also viewed as guidelines for the institution and as limitations on the president. Also, data from Oak indicates that the legal aspects point out the college's connection to government in that the government appoints board members; the government finances the college; and the government minister has a directive role. 97 TABLE 6 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: APPLETREE Knowledge or Familiarity: Legislation Code Name Status College and Institute Act BRD/PRES KNOW/FAMILIAR/VAGUE/NONE Appletree A BRD VAGUE B BRD NONE C PRES FAMILIAR D BRD VAGUE E BRD NONE F BRD NONE G BRD NONE H BRD NONE I BRD NONE J BRD NONE 98 One board member noted that the formal laws are not relevant. Two board members suggested that the laws are not consciously taken into account. For three subjects, then, the act does not appear to be relevant on a daily basis. Cedar College. A minority (3) of subjects express familiarity (see Table 8) with the College and Institute Act (Province of British Columbia, 1984). Four subjects indicate that they have vague knowledge of the act. In the views of respondents, formal regulations and laws apply predominantly to the board's role rather than to the president's role or to the board-president relationship. The perceptions of the two parties at Cedar College are that the president has a formal connection to the board as the body which hires the president and as the body to which the president is accountable. The president sees the applicable laws as neutral: they neither govern nor bind the president. Board resolutions, approved at board meetings, however, are seen by all subjects as legally binding. While the majority of subjects have views which are not in conflict on the legal aspects, one subject sees the board as advisory to the president, one subject sees the Minister as the authority for policy, and one subject sees no effects of the legal dimension and no consciousness of it in the two parties' operations. There is apparent variation in the subjects' views of formal laws and regulations. The overwhelming majority of responses are of an abstract nature ("formal areas are critical"; the relationship is "an understood relationship") with reference to a few specific examples (e.g. hiring of the president, balanced budget) or they refer to role responsibilities, primarily of the board (e.g. financial approval, government authority). 99 TABLE 7 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: OAK Knowledge or Familiarity: Legislation Code Name Status BRD/PRES College and Institute Act KNOW/FAMILIAR/VAGUE/NONE Oak A BRD FAMILIAR B BRD FAMILIAR C BRD FAMILIAR D BRD VAGUE E BRD VAGUE F PRES KNOW G BRD VAGUE H BRD FAMILIAR I BRD FAMILIAR 100 TABLE 8 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: CEDAR Knowledge or Familiarity: Legislation Code Name Status College and Institute Act BRD/PRES KNO W / F AM ILI AR / VAGUE / NONE Cedar A BRD VAGUE B' BRD NONE C BRD FAMILIAR D BRD FAMILIAR E BRD FAMILIAR F BRD VAGUE G PRES VAGUE H BRD VAGUE 101 The Three Colleges Together. At Appletree College, formal laws and regulations are not emphasized with regard to the board-president relationship. In the views of the parties, the formal dimension largely concerns the role relationship but is limited primarily to the board's role in the college. At Oak College, the formal dimension is a complex arrangement. Laws and regulations pertain not just to the separate roles of the two parties. The perceptions of the parties about the formal dimension include an awareness that the college is connected to government and to the government Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. At Cedar College, the parties do not acknowledge that formal laws and regulations apply explicitly to the board-president relationship although they presumably apply implicitly through the formal role of the board. There is wide variation among participants about their understanding of the formal dimension of the board-president relationship. Only the separate roles of the two parties are regulated by legislation. Legislated expectations are both narrow and limited, and suggest an unequal partnership. The board has primary authority over the president and over the academic institution (Province of British Columbia, 1984). However, because there are no legislated regulations specified for the board-president relationship, with the exception of the president's reporting relationship to the board, what in fact constitutes the formal dimension of the board-president relationship exists in the perceptions and arrangements of the two parties. At Appletree College, formal laws and regulations are not emphasized. The formal 102 dimension embraces the role relationship of board and president, limited primarily to the board's role, not the president's. At Oak College, the formal dimension embraces not only the separate roles of the two parties but also the college's connection to government and to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. At Cedar College, the formal dimension is more implicit than explicit, although there is wide variation among the participants about their understanding of the formal dimension. The Operational Dimension In this section, two research questions are addressed: How is the operational dimension of the board-president relationship described in institutional documents? How do board members and presidents explain their actions in managing the operations of the academic institution? For the first question, institutional documents including collective agreements with employee groups, educational plans, college calendars, college policies, and board meeting minutes are examined as evidence for descriptions and explanations of the operational dimension. For the second question, perceptions of respondents are reported, analysed, and used as sources for explanations of how the parties manage the operations of the academic institution. 103 The Operational Dimension: Documentary Evidence In this study, the researcher examined documents from the three colleges in an attempt to discern the characteristics of the operational dimension of the board-president relationship. These documents revealed joint activities and actions of the board and the president. It was apparent from these documents that at each college the operational dimension included characteristics specific to each relationship at the three colleges. Appletree. College. At Appletree College, documentary evidence implies that the operational dimension of the board-president relationship is a hierarchical relationship at the apex of a bureaucracy. The board's role is to ratify presidential action, action which the board has directed, although with considerable latitude. The president takes and is given responsibility for institutional performance. Board and president involvement together in the operations of Appletree College is apparent (e.g. exchange leaves for employees; in dismissal of employees; in a task force on workload for employees) in the negotiation of collective agreements with three bargaining units, given the appearance of both board members' and the president's signatures on this document. Two documents, the college calendar and the college Five-Year Plan, do not show evidence of the two parties working together. In one document (Executive Management Plans), it is noted that the president and his executives administer and the board governs: the president is responsible to the board for college management; the president is designated as the party responsible for college decisions. 104 Board meeting minutes from April 1987 to January 1988 indicate board-and president joint activities and actions. Board meeting minutes indicate the following: Board members meet with the president and senior administrators. The board chairman chairs meetings of the board, with the president present. Board business largely excludes the president and the other administrators. The bursar is the most prominent senior administrator at board meetings. The president reports to the board on a variety of issues, such as management planning, international education, enrolments, self-study, new programs. During the president's report, other senior administrators will take a key role in the discussion or presentation. Only on one occasion was there direct board-president interaction reported (board chairman directs president to advertise the existence of a college endowment fund). The board approves program proposals drawn up by a Vice-President, the Five Year Plan Update, and a policy on capital expenditures drawn up by the bursar. The board chairman and the president have connections with each other through a meeting with Provincial college board chairmen, college presidents, and the Minister. The board chairman speaks on behalf of the board to the president in the reported minutes. The operational dimension of the relationship displayed in documentary evidence relies on the role expectation that the president is the board's agent and supervises the college's operations in accord with board approved policies. It is clear that the president reports to the board. It is also apparent that the board chairman assumes a directive role with the president. This is particularly apparent in a college document on management plans. These prescriptions match the conception of the board and president as two separate parties involved in the management of a rational hierarchy with the president at the top of the bureaucracy and the board directing through the- establishment 105 of policy. In short, there is distance between board and president on matters which pertain to the operations (e.g. educational planning and educational services) of the college. The president answers to the board either directly or through his senior administrators about his actions and the actions of his administrators in managing Appletree College. Other senior administrators, especially the bursar, are involved operationally with the board. The board approves; the president acts. Joint activities are not apparent. There is little board-president interaction during board meetings, as evidenced by minutes of the meetings. The board's operating style can be portrayed as that of a ratifying board as opposed to the other two types, corporate and participatory (Wood, 1985). At Appletree College, the model of governance is hierarchical with the president in a position of administrative authority and the board expecting and permitting presidential control and responsibility for the institution. Oak College. At Oak College, documentary evidence implies that board and president share governance responsibilities by developing consensus on decisions and actions. The president has and accepts this responsibility for achieving consensus within the institution and he is viewed by the board as the source for institutional information and advice. Board and president, and by implication the other groups in Oak College, operate as a collective. Board and president involvement together in the operations of Oak College is apparent in college policies, collective agreements with employees, and in the Five Year Plan. For example, in the Five Year Plan, the board is involved in directing the college to examine criteria for student accessibility and to assess college, program, and individual performance. By implication, the board can be 106 seen, to be involved with the president in this activity. Within the collective agreement with the faculty, board and president are involved together procedurally in the dismissal of faculty members, specifically by the inclusion of a board member on the judicial body which recommends dismissal of a faculty member to the president. In college policies, board and president are involved together in the appointment of administrators. Board meeting minutes indicate joint activities and actions of board and president. Board meeting minutes from April 1987 to February 1988 indicate the following: Board members meet with the president and senior administrators. The board chairman chairs the meeting, but the chairman is seldom referred to in the minutes as leading discussions. On one occasion the president served as acting chairman during the election of the chairman. Senior administrators are active during board meetings, and the president participates in discussions together with board members. Board committees report at board meetings, with assistance from time to time from senior administrators but not from the president. The president gives a report at every meeting, and the report is often interrupted with discussion by both board members and senior administrators. The president's report is informational(topics include parking, international education, graduation, contract negotiations, government funding, a provincial council of principals, college committee issues, and provincial and national education issues). Discussion and debate occur during almost all parts and aspects of board meetings, involving students, administrators, president, and board members. Board and president interaction is frequent. Senior administrators, but not the president, are given direction by board members. The board approves a, variety of resolutions and policies related to such matters as the Five Year Plan, audit reports, expenditure plans. These are presented as motions by board members without reference to the initiators or creators of plans and reports. The board chairman and the president do not exhibit any special joint behaviours(e.g. verbal exchanges, joint reporting). All board members have equal roles, but two or three board members are 107 the most active(this does not include the board chairman). The documentary evidence about the operational dimension of the relationship at Oak College suggests that there is some degree of sharing role responsibilities and joint responsibilities of the two parties. The president appears to participate on an equal footing with board members. The president more than the board chairman appears to take a leadership role at meetings. There is board-president interaction as well as board-administration interaction, board-faculty association interaction, and board-student society interaction. Indeed, in some behaviours and actions role differentiation is not apparent. In board meetings, the president appears to take a dominant role and a discussion or debating forum characterizes meetings more so than a business meeting of the board. Meetings include open discussion, and many discussions appear to be spontaneous among board members. The president not only informs board members of college business but also includes board members in discussions on college business. Board meetings are fairly informal. Informality at board meetings reflects the disappearance of role divisions between president and board that is evident both in the substance of discussions and in the reported behaviours of participants at board meetings. Based on documentary evidence, the operational dimension of the relationship at Oak College suggests a model of shared governance. The president is a centre of influence in the institution but not the only centre. Senior administrators, board, college faculty, and to a lesser extent support staff and students, have influence. The president functions as a mediator among 108 centres of influence and by building consensus among centres of influence. The participation of many groups at board meetings and the absence of factions, individual pursuits and proposals (e.g. references to who initiates or creates plans and reports are not apparent), as well as the absence of references to a hierarchy suggest that board and president operate as a collective. Cedar College. At Cedar College, the operational dimension of the board-president relationship, based on documentary evidence, seems to have a dualistic character. Although behaviours and actions are formalized (e.g. roles of the parties specified in collective agreements and policies), there is recognition of particular roles and functions of participants based on ability. Roles have both prescribed or formal power and influence as well as that power and influence which is based on personality: operationally, board and president rely on both formal prescriptions and on individual expertise. Board and president involvement together in the operations of the college can be seen in collective agreements with employees, board policies, board by-laws, board resolutions, and in the college calendar. For example, board policy indicates that the board delegates several responsibilities to the president including the initiation of public information and the ability to act in the absence of policy. Board by-laws and resolutions provide numerous examples of board and president joint functioning (e.g. president as member of board planning committee; president conducts the election of the board chairman; president as member of the board finance committee). Board meeting minutes from April 1987 to May 1988 indicate board and president 109 joint activities and actions. These minutes indicate the following: Board members meet with the president and the administration. The board chairman chairs the meetings. The board chairman is active throughout the meetings. The first major business of meeting is the chairman's report. Board members participate throughout the meetings, and board committee chairmen(finance in particular) have active roles. There are regular presentations from three college societies or unions. These include students, faculty, and support staff. Administrators, particularly the deans, are actively involved in meetings. The bursar plays a leading role in financial matters. The president participates, but only slightly more so than the deans. The president does not report to the board under a separate or special category. There is some board-president interaction. The president usually speaks to educational and operational issues. The chairman assigns tasks to board members. Meetings are largely for reporting(information, announcements); they are not forums for debate. At each meeting an instructional area of the college offers an informational presentation. A number of issues recur at meetings. These include government ministry activities(e.g.. formula funding), early retirement, unmet demand for instruction, fund raising, and economic development in the community. The board and the president operate as a corporate body with the board chairman as the board's authority figure and the president as the board's chief executive officer for the college. The board chair plays the most prominent role at meetings. In institutional documents, there is an emphasis on the formal roles of board and president. Collective agreements with employees and board policies specify roles and responsibilities. At board meetings, the college's activities from the senior management level to student, faculty, and staff levels are major items of business. There is participation by several formal college groups at board meetings. The president and to some extent the 110 deans and the bursar are equal participants with board members on all but formal actions. As reported in the minutes, the president, bursar, and deans (as well as directors) participate equally with board members on informal matters; on formal matters only board members are involved. Board meetings are a blend of the formal and the informal. Meetings are information giving and receiving sessions. The president serves as the board's agent on all college matters except those pertaining to finances, such as collective agreements and budget matters. The' president appears as the educational and institutional leader, but he does not direct the board, especially on financial matters. On these, the bursar has a more obvious role. The president acts on behalf of the board; recommends to the board; and advises the board. At Cedar College, the model of governance is not hierarchical with the president responsible to the board alone; but neither is the governance model polycentric with the president as just one centre of power and influence among many centres. Nor is the model shared governance, in part because collective agreements are rather explicit about roles and diminish the opportunity for political behaviours such as negotiating and mediating outside of collective bargaining. Instead, it seems that the nature of the operational dimension of the board-president relationship can be characterized as dualistic. On the one hand, behaviours and actions are formalized (e.g. legal roles of separate parties in collective agreements and policies). On the other hand, there is acknowledgement of separate spheres for. participants (e.g. board chairman as board leader; bursar as financial expert; president and deans as educational 111 experts; president as college leader;, and the groups of faculty, staff, and students as special interest groups). The operational dimension of the relationship, then, is a mixture of what is prescribed by legal agreements, policies, and traditions as well as what influence is affiliated with roles. For example, the board chairman has considerable influence on board related matters; the bursar, on financial matters; and the president, on educational matters. At all three colleges, while institutional documents reveal some of the joint activities and actions of board and president, the operational dimension of the relationship can be differentiated from one college to another. The examination of institutional documents in this study confirms the suggestion noted in the discussion of the research framework, in Chapter Three, that the workings of boards and presidents together display variation depending on the individual college setting. The Operational Dimension: Perceptions of Respondents Respondents' perceptions of operational management are reported and analysed in this section. The respective parties' explanations of college operations involving institutional policies, budgets, educational planning, and the public image are responses to interview questions (#3 - #10, Table 4, Chapter Four) and are contained in items two, three, four, and five of the interview summaries (Appendix E). References for statements appear in parenthesis in the text, and these alphabetical letters signify the subject's interview data from 112 the college under discussion. Thus, under Appletree College, the letters A, B, C, etc. refer to subjects Appletree A, B, C etc. whose interview summaries are contained in Appendix'E. Appletree College. The responses of board members and president suggest that actions are both various and numerous in their managing the operations of Appletree College. Their actions include initiating, developing, reviewing, and approving. The president does initiate policies. The president and the senior administrators do develop policies. The board and the senior administrators review the policies in private meetings. The board approves policies at open meetings. While board members recommend, suggest, and guide in budget development, while they review, question, and discuss educational plans, and while they critique and direct plans and operations related to the maintenance of the college's public image, only the board chairman participates in the operations with the president and the senior administrators. Processes for board and president actions in managing operations are neither acknowledged nor apparent. There do not appear to be formal procedures established for board-president management, and the process seems to be dependent upon the senior administrators' styles, schedules, and agendas. The behaviours of the two parties are reported as relating to the personal dispositions of both parties. The board is referred to as guarded (F), inactive (A,C,D,G), and political (C,F,G,I); the president, as a workaholic (E), down-to-earth (D), open (E,F,H), and astute (E,I). The president is referred to least in budget matters; the board, it appears, has a minor role 113 in educational planning. In the area of public image, board and president appear to have the largest connection. Their work together in this area, however, is mainly discussion. Board and president engage in a decision making process and decisions are carried out by the administration with the participation of the board chairman. Board and president together engage in more that the establishment of policy. Indeed, policy establishment is a minor activity. Operational leadership appears to be the president's role, but this leadership is shaped by the judgements and requests of board members. The president must explain to the board, usually through the board chairman. The president's proposals are often modified by the board chairman, or if not modified then constrained. Policy. In the area of policy, board and president discuss and agree upon expenditures and public image; they do not attend to educationally-related policy. The policy process is not formal; the respondents' discussion of process is largely a description of the flow and movement of information. The board votes on policy to approve. Policy actions of board and president are reported as the initiation of policy (A, D, G, H, F) , the development of policy (B, C), the revision of policy (D), and the actions of discussion (H), critiquing (C), lobbying (I), and approving (A, B, D, J). The policy process concerns the flow and movement of the policy and related policy information (A, C). The setting for policy actions includes in camera meetings (B, E) of board and senior administrators, open board meetings (B,E), verbal exchanges (D) outside of meetings between board members and among board members and senior administrators, and "behind the scenes" (I) political behaviours. Behaviours 114 are a combination of the spontaneous (D), the personal (I), and individual traits such as knowledge (A), confidence (C), and vigilance (H). Although behaviours of the parties do not appear to be regulated or ordered, the participants are assisted by those with knowledge of and experience (H) in college governance and management. Policy actions relate to expenditures (H) and public image; actions (H) are not educational in their focus. Budgets. In the area of budgets, as reported, president and board do not work together. The bursar is the active administrator with the board. The board chairman and the vice chairman are involved on behalf of the board to discuss, to question, and to recommend revisions to budgets. The board votes on budget proposals to approve. Budget actions of board and president concern a long list of actions including initiating, developing, framework setting, conferring, priority setting, recommending, questioning, reporting, guiding, participating, voting, and approving (B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J) .. The budget process is not clear to respondents, with the only comment present that the budget is brought to the board (D). The setting for budget development and allocation includes in camera meetings and open meetings (F). Behaviours include the president's lack of involvement with board members, board's marginal involvement, limited but open discussion on budget matters, and a democratic approach (A, B, C, D, F, G, I). The chairman and the vice chairman play leadership roles with the board on budget matters (F). Educational planning. In the area of educational planning, as reported by respondents, board members are marginally involved, and the onus of responsibility falls upon the board chairman. The senior administrators, 115 including the president, bring educational proposals to the board and the board discusses these proposals in a limited way. The board reviews educational plans but does not participate in their development or implementation. The president is viewed as the expert and chief planner. The chairman and one or two more experienced board members play a "watchdog" (D) role to ensure that plans have been subjected to appropriate college processes. Educational planning actions involve a long list including reviewing, questioning, discussing, initiating, rubber stamping, participating, developing, suggesting, supporting, watching, ensuring, deciding, asking, approving, and directing (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J). The educational planning process is not explained except that the senior administrators bring the plans to the board (D). Reported behaviours suggest that the president leads planning, that the board is not involved, that planning is not future oriented, that board members have freedom, that board members participate, that board members give credit to the president, that the board backs off from planning, that the onus is upon the board chairman, that senior administrators answer to the board, that' the president takes responsibility, and that there is lobbying and manoeuvering by board members (A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J). The actions of educational planning are seen as similar to budget development and the budget process (E, G). Public image. The area of public image differs from the other areas in that actions and behaviours are reported to be unlike those in the other areas. It appears that the goal of uniformity dominates, and the president and the board have more balance to their efforts. While the president is the main actor in the public realm, the board shares the leadership role with the president in the creation of the public image, and in decisions regarding public 116 information. In this area, of all the four noted areas, the president is subject to overt constraints from the board. The president must follow board decisions. The president must inform and confer with the board chairman. Both board and president pursue connections with government officials and politicians. The board's work is largely informal; the president's is both informal and formal. Public image actions of the board and the president involve a long list including leading, working, creating, promoting, speaking, critiquing, initiating, reviewing, approving, guiding, directing, talking, discussing, changing, representing, encouraging, listening, and deferring (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J). The process for public image actions involves the agreements of board and president, the roles for chairman and president, the rules which pertain to conflicting information and to the president's behaviours (B, D, F, I). Board, president, and administrators agree upon a uniform position for public information (B). The president must follow board consensus (F). The college's mission is developed by the college's employees and moves up to the administration, and finally goes to the board (C). The setting for the creation and maintenance of the public image is not made explicit, although both formal and in camera meetings are implied as settings. One subject noted that board members will use the telephone to speak to government officials (G). Behaviours are various and numerous. The board itself does not seem to be active except for the board chairman (A, D, J). Board members do lobby government officials and do relate to community groups (G). The president is viewed as active and effective in this area (E, G, H, I). He works in the community and both through and with government (C, E, I). Board members are guarded in their public role (F, H). The board chairman is concerned that the president gives too much time to public image activities 117 (J). The public image activities, however, are left to the president (H). The president seeks the approval of the board for his personal, public activities, but he does not seek their approval for college documents (e.g. calendar) which are public image vehicles (I). The board works through a provincial association: this is their public forum (C). In the past at Appletree College, lack of uniform responses from board members and president led to difficulties for the college (F). Board members and president suggest that their actions together in managing the operations of the college are largely oral: discussion is the activity they engage in most with each other. The board does not appear to be involved in writing or reading or counting (as in accounting), in personnel management, or in public speaking. The board is a screen, or filter, or gate, for the president's intentions and actions. Their working relationship is not an equal partnership. The president and the senior administrators either act or propose action; the board reacts. Oak College. Talking is the primary action of board and president together as reported by the majority of respondents. Board members and the president discuss policy; the president discusses the budget with the board; board and president discuss general college directions; and the president informs the board on public image matters. Actions include clarifying, questioning, examining, recommending, critiquing, guiding, encouraging, and stimulating. On policy and budgets, the board approves. The president is described as an initiator (F), key communicator (A), leader (C), source of information (D), guide (G), and generator of excitement (I). These responses imply that the parties see the president as both a stimulating and mediating force in the 118 institution. While sub-committees and formal meetings are action environments, informal meetings, dinner meetings, and in camera meetings permit casual communication exchanges for board members and the president. The position of the president is known to board members; the positions of board members are conveyed, formally, by the board chairman to the president. The board, while comprised of individuals with personal opinions, speaks as a group. In their interactions with board members, senior administrators act not as mirror images of the president but rather as institutional officers in the areas of policy, budgets, and educational plans. Only the president, among the administrators, is identified with the public image of the college by board members. Processes involve college committees for policy formulation, the bursar for budget presentation, and the board sub-committee, which includes senior administrators, for educational planning. No process is identified for the creation and maintenance of the public image. Processes for board and president actions are not specified beyond identification of who receives what from whom. Behaviours emphasize the separate and different roles of president and board members, with the possible exception of the chairman. The president is viewed as a leader but as distinct and somewhat distant from board members in his actions. The board is seen as protective of the college and generally supportive of the president. 119 Policy. Policy actions of board and president involve the discussion of policy, questioning of policy, clarification of policy, voting on policy, and approval of policy (A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I). Policy is formulated through college committees before it is brought to the board by the president and the senior administrators (A, D, F, H). The settings' for policy action include open committee meetings of the board, dinner meetings of the board, and in camera meetings (G, I). Behaviours include the leadership role of the president, the separation of board and president in policy development and approval, board members' awareness of the president's perception of a policy, the advice giving role of the board, the board's trust of the president, and the participation of those board members with appropriate expertise (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I). The onus for the process falls on the administration; the board may not be capable of greater participation, but for some participants the board could be more involved (C, G). Budget. Budget actions appear to be confined to development and approval and do not pertain to allocation. Actions concern development, clarification, examination, rationalization, recommendation, voting, and approval (A, B, C, D, G, H). The president advises the board, explains to the board, and discusses the budget with the board (G, H). The board works with the president verbally in discussion by asking questions, by giving opinions and advice, and by giving directions and judgement (D, E, F, H). The budget process involves the board's receipt of budget proposals from the bursar and the board sub-committee (B, D, G). The setting for budget actions includes closed board committee meetings, where there are casual discussions involving senior administrators and board members, and sessions after board meetings where the president and three or 120 four board members discuss budget matters informally (G, H). Behaviours pertain to the board as a group and to the president as detached or independent. The board buffers the administration from government (B). The board likes to be informed and does not appreciate surprises (D). The president takes responsibility for decisions (G), and he worries about the college's finances (C). Educational planning. Educational planning actions concern the providing of information, the discussion of directions, the questioning and critiquing of plans, guiding and clarifying, and the making of final decisions (A, B, D, F, G, H, I). The educational planning process involves the initiating of long range planning at a board retreat, the board's receipt of plans from college committees, the examination of plans by a board sub-committee, and recommendations from the sub-committee to the board (A, D, H). The setting for planning actions involves board retreats, sub-committee meetings of the board, board meetings, and informal meetings of the board and the president (A, E, F, G) . Reported behaviours of the two parties refer to the president's role and the board's limited participation (B, D, F, G). The president "breaks ground"; the president does not "dictate" (G, H). The board is not closely involved; the board is "detached" (D). The president can be seen to initiate actions as well as attempting to engage and involve board members. Public image. Public image actions involve the president and the board chairman. The president acts alone or with the board chairman. The board chairman either acts jointly with the president or on behalf of the board (G, H) . Actions involving president and board are largely verbal. The president 121 provides the board with information, encouragement, and enthusiasm (D, H, I). No process for the creation and maintenance of the public image is identified. Behaviours concern the president's energy and active role (A, C, I). The board has a passive and, to some extent, a limiting role (D). Board and president have achieved agreement on a few basic issues: the college's mission, educational direction, and the response to public information. Board and president have adopted a practice of open, informal communication among themselves. Beyond these basic understandings and this approach to communication, there are few or no apparent rules or understandings which direct how the board and the president manage the operations of the college. If budget plans comply with the general educational directions, the budget is acceptable; if a new program fits the college's mission, then the proposals for the program will receive the board's attention; , and if a labour dispute arises, the board and the president know that individual college officials will not give their opinions in public statements. Together, board and president work at maintaining and developing their institution. The college's welfare supersedes all actions. Operations such as budget development by administration and approval by the board, with rationales provided by the president, are viewed as operations for the institution and by the institution, not as actions of the president or the board. Cedar College. The responses of board members and the president suggest that actions are consequences of the knowledge and experience of those who fill the roles of president, board chairman, board member, bursar, and senior administrator. Actions are identified with the roles of individuals or groups 122 and associated with a particular expertise. The bursar is viewed as a "superb" financial analyst (G); thus, many budget actions are initiated by and involve the bursar. The senior administrators and the president are viewed as closely associated with educational planning because of their role and operational connection with faculty. Board members' actions are noted when a board member has specific expertise(financial experience) or specific interests(local community). The board chairman's involvement is noted, but largely as an adjunct to the president or as a representative voice or listener for the board. Processes involving procedures, policies, and rules are noticeably absent or neglected by board members and the president in the actions of managing the operations of the college. Policy moves from the senior administrators or president to the board. Policies are discussed by the board in a variety of settings, but the review and approval process and related procedures are not identified. This is similar for budgets, with the exception that a board sub-committee takes resolutions and recommendations to the board for approval. In educational planning and the creation and maintenance of a public image, process is not apparent. Policy. Policy actions of the board and the president concern several groupings of actors: the president, the board, the board chairman, and senior administrators. The president is viewed as guiding, reviewing, informing, sharing, and overseeing (A, C, E, F, G). The board is viewed as initiating, debating, overseeing, accepting, and approving (B, D, E, F, H). The board chairman is seen as liaising and representing (D, E). And senior 123 administrators are viewed as initiating, reviewing, formulating, and leading (D, G, H). The process for policy involves the movement of policy from senior administration or the president to the board (B). Policies are handled by either a board sub-committee or a committee of the whole board, although one perception is that formal procedures for policy development and review are absent (B, G, H). The setting for policy involves in camera meetings, open meetings, and telephone calls from board members to administrators or to the president (A, B, D, H). Behaviours indicate that the parties have knowledge and experience in management and related activities, that the chairman works on behalf of the board, that the president represents the major college constituents (the faculty), and that the president's behaviours are influenced by policy (A, B, D, F). Budget. Budget actions of the board and the president involve the bursar as well (A, B, C, D, E, G, H). Budget actions with the board entail review, explanation of details, discussion, and committee work. The bursar's actions include preparation of budget documents and explanation of budgets to the board and to the board sub-committee (A, B, D, E, H). The budget process is not emphasized but it appears that the budget is reviewed by the board sub-committee and resolutions and recommendations are taken from the sub-committee to the board as a whole for approval (D, H). The setting for budget actions include sub-committee meetings and board meetings (A). Reported behaviours indicate that the bursar has a key role in budgets as a result of experience and expertise (B, C, G), that the bursar and the president are identified with budgets (B), and that board behaviours are largely passive with the exception of those board members who have extensive experience in financial 124 matters (C). The parties express a sense of comfort with these behaviours. The board is conscious of the college's financial obligations (E). The administration takes responsibility for the details of budget development and allocation (E). Internally, budgets are associated with the president, the bursar, and the other senior administrators (B, G). Educational planning. Actions related to educational planning focus mainly on the president and the senior administrators, as well as on faculty committees which are involved in the development of plans. Actions include reporting, directing, recommending, developing, leading, planning, casting a veto, and deciding by the president, and to some extent by the senior administrators (A, B, C, G). The board's actions are limited to reaction, with the exceptions that board members may bring community concerns to discussion and that board members act through the board chairman (A, D). There is no process identified for educational planning involving the board and the president. Behaviours focus primarily on the president's power and influence (B, E, G, H). The board is permissive; the board is given information; and the board has freedom to discuss plans, especially through the board chairman (B, G, H). The setting for educational planning includes board sub-committee meetings, formal board meetings, and informal exchanges outside of meetings of board members with the president or with a senior administrator (B, C). Respondents also noted a variety of characteristics about educational planning (Board members are ambivalent about their limited participation in educational planning (A). The board accepts a philosophy for educational planning (D). The board's position between government and the faculty is limiting (D). Board members do / communicate with the government Minister (F) about the college's plans). 125 Public image. Public image actions involve both board and president separately and together. The board chairman is active both as a board representative and in concert with the president (A, B, E, H). The president appears to undertake various and numerous actions including informing and encouraging board members, and leading, speaking, and working "behind the scenes" (A, B, E, H). The president works on behalf of the board and in consultation with the board (F, H). There is no process (or procedures) identified for public image actions and activities. There is no setting identified for public image actions and activities. Reported behaviours refer to the president's leadership role, the president's increasing comfort with his external activities, and the president's attachment to risk taking (E, G). Reported board members' behaviours refer to their adoption of a belief about the college, their low visibility in public image activities, and the rejection, by a minority of board members, of the president's views on the image of the college (A, D F, G). Board and president behaviours emanate from a generally shared motive: to enhance the college's reputation as a specific kind of college (B, E). Public image activities are primarily the responsibility of the president; guiding both policy and college direction is the board's responsibility (C, F). The emphasis on role and individual expertise, including knowledge and experience, suggests that process, procedures, and regulations may not be necessary in that the expectations of all parties are cl,ear, that outcomes are understood, and that past experience reinforces confidence. While not all board members are content with the board and/or the president's behaviours and decisions, the status quo and the college philosophy appear to be more important to the parties than, for example, greater participation by board 126 members in educational planning or alternate approaches to the college's association with the external community. As well, the perception of the board chairman's involvement with the president in the management of operations suggests that process and procedures may be unnecessary in that substantive board and president interactions and combined actions focus on the board chairman and the president. Thus, rather than procedures and processes for the two groups, processes involve these two individuals. Process and regulations for these two individuals may be more implicit that explicit given the length of their association (over a decade) and their acknowledged intimacy. Summary: The Operational Dimension At Appletree College, two separate parties are involved in the management of a rational hierarchy. That is, the president is the chief executive officer of a bureaucracy and the board directs the bureaucracy through the establishment of policy. Responses indicate that the board approves and the president acts or the president and his senior administrators either act or propose action and the board reacts. Governance is hierarchical. Joint activities of board and president are not apparent. The board permits presidential control over the college. The board is a filter for the president's intentions and actions. At Oak College, the responses from board members and president indicate that their actions together in managing the operations of the college are oral: discussion is their main activity together. Board and president share some of their role responsibilities; operations are managed jointly. At meetings of 127 board and president, role divisions are not always apparent. Governance is a shared responsibility. In practice, the president acts as an initiator of action while attempting to involve board members in college management and governance. Board and president have achieved agreement on the basic issues of the college's mission, its educational direction, and its response to public information. Board and president have adopted a practice of open, informative communication among themselves. Beyond these basic understandings and their approach to communications, there are few, or no apparent rules or understandings which direct how the board and the president manage the operations of the college. Indeed, operations are viewed as carried out by and for the institution, not as actions of the president or the board. At Cedar College, the operational dimension of the relationship appears to be dualistic, mixing both role expectations and expertise. The board and president operate as a corporate body with the board chairman as the board's authority figure and the president as the chief executive officer of the college. On all but formal matters, the president is an equal partner with board members. Formally, the president recommends to the board, advises the board, and acts on behalf of the board. The emphasis on role and individual expertise suggests that process, procedures, and regulations may not be necessary in that the expectations of all parties are clear, that outcomes are understood, and that past experience reinforces confidence. The board chairman's involvement with the president in the management of operations suggests that process and procedures may be unnecessary because substantial board and president interactions and combined actions involve only these two individuals. 128 The Personal Dimension This section reports and interprets the participants' perceptions of the personal dimension of the board-president relationship. Sources of evidence include responses to interview questions #11-19 (Table 4, Chapter Four). Two research questions are addressed: How do the parties describe the personal relationship? Do board members and presidents indicate that the personal relationship affects the way the parties work together? The reporting is in two parts. In the first part, the respondents' perceptions of the nature (characteristics and qualities) of personal relationships among the parties are detailed and explained. In the second part, the respondents' perceptions of the influence of their personal relationship on how the parties work together are explained. The Nature Of Personal Relationships As Perceived By The Respondents Responses to interview questions #11-17 and #19 (Response sheets and Appendix E, Interview summary item number six) are the sources for the parties' descriptions of the nature of their personal relationship. Tables 9, 10, and 11 report the parties' responses to specific interview questions (#11 - #17) . These tables quantify responses to each question. Quantities comprise the number of participants in one relationship responding within a particular category. For example, for question #1, there are four categories which represent the range of responses to the question of respondents' knowledge of 129 the other party's feelings on general topics and issues. The range indicates that responses could be classified under the categories of considerable knowledge, general knowledge, some knowledge, and no knowledge. For question #2, as another example, respondents were asked the length of time they have known the other party. Responses varied from a few months to over five years. Along with their responses to these questions, and in interview question #19, subjects described the characteristics and qualities of their personal relationships. These brief descriptions are integrated following the reporting of responses to interview questions #11 to 17. Appletree College. Table 9 displays the responses of participants to specific interview questions (Interview questions #11-17). Board members' and the president's knowledge of the other party's feelings on general topics and issues varies, with 6 of 10 subjects having only some or no knowledge. The duration of the relationship between the two parties varies from under one year (3 subjects) to over five years (5 subjects) The relationship of board and president is seen to be structured by the role relationship of board and president. The relationship is viewed as wholly or substantially contained within the operations of the college. Personal encounters of board and president are either informal or a mixture of the formal and the informal. In 8 of 10 responses, each party's commitment to the relationship is viewed as equal. Distinctions (respondents were able to make a maximum of three distinctions each) between the two parties are made on the basis of leadership role (8 responses), and to some extent on the basis of power (4 responses), and to a lesser extent on the basis of social status (2 responses). 130 TABLE 9 PERSONAL DIMENSION: APPLETREE N = 10 Code Name Appletree 1. Knowledge of other party's feelings on topics and issues: considerable knowledge_4_ general_0_ some_3_ no knowledge_3_ 2. Length of time (years) known other party: under 1 year_3_; 1 to 2_1_; over 2 to 3 _1_ ; over 3 to 5_0_; over 5_5_ 3. Extent to which relationship is structured by role relationship(board/president): 100%_7_ 7 5%_1_ 50%_2_ 25%_0_ 0%_0_ 4. Extent to which relationship is contained within operations of college: 100%_7_ 7 5%_3_ 50%_0_ 25%_0_ 0%_0_ 5. Character of personal encounters: formal_0_ informal_6_ mixture_4_ 6. Strength of other party's commitment to relationship: greater_0_ the same_8_ lesser_2_ 7. Distinctions made by you on the basis of: power_4/10_ social status_2/10_ leadership role_8/10_ 131 In the Appletree responses, the personal dimension appears to focus predominantly on the personal attributes of the president. Board members respond positively to how the president treats and relates to them. There are two board members who have some negative reactions to the president's interpersonal behaviours. Descriptions of the president's qualities focus on his trustworthiness, openness, diligence, and his treatment of others. The president indicates that board members "mother and father" the president (Appletree C). The board chairman and the president have a complex and lengthy connection with each other (complex because of the various role relationships over the past decade). This relationship suggests some friction between the two parties. Mutual respect is also evident in their responses. Oak College. Table 10 displays the responses of participants to specific interview questions (Interview questions #11-17). Board members' and the president's knowledge of the other party's feelings on general topics and issues varies from considerable knowledge to some knowledge. The duration of the relationship between the two parties, for all save two respondents is in excess of three years. There is variation in perception of the influence of the role relationship on the personal dimension. Table 10 shows that while three respondents view the personal relationship completely structured by the role relationship, three others respond that the personal is only marginally structured by roles. The relationship is contained within the operations of the college for five respondents. Personal encounters of board and president are either informal or a mixture of formal and informal. In 7 of 9 cases, each party's commitment to the relationship is viewed as equal. Distinctions 132 TABLE 10 PERSONAL DIMENSION: OAK N = 9 Code Name Oak 1. Knowledge of other party's feelings on topics and issues: considerable knowledge_l_ general_3_ some_5_ no knowledge_0_ 2. Length of time (years) known other party: under 1 year_0_; 1 to 2_1_; over 2 to 3_1_; over 3 to 5_2_; over 5_5_ 3. Extent to which relationship is structured by role relationship(board/president): 100%_3_ 75%_2_ 50%_1_ 25%_3_ 0%_0_ 4. Extent to which relationship is contained within operations of college: 100%_5_ 75%_4_ 50%_0_ 25%_0_ 0%_0_ 5. Character of personal encounters: formal_0_ informal_5_ mixture_4_ 6. Strength of other party's commitment to relationship: greater_2_ the same_7_ lesser_0_ 7. Distinctions made by you on the basis of: power 2/10_ social status 0/10 leadership role_7/10_ 133 (respondents were able to make a maximum of three distinctions each) between the two parties are made on the basis of leadership role for seven respondents, on the basis of power for two respondents. None makes the distinction on the basis of social status. In the Oak responses, board members respond positively to the personality and personal attributes of the president(energetic, stimulating, honest, open). Board members as a whole express respect for the president. The president's view of the personal dimension is at variance with board members' views. The president feels, to some extent, personally aloof or remote from board members. The exception for the president is his personal connection to the board chairman. The president indicates that there is an intimate personal association with the board chairman, characterized as a parent-child relationship (with the president as the child). For board members, the personality of the president is the predominant characteristic of the personal dimension. Board members feel at ease and comfortable with the president. Cedar College. Table 11 displays responses of participants to specific interview questions (Interview questions #11-17). Board members' and the president's knowledge of the other party's feelings on general topics and issues shows wide variation. The duration of the relationship between the two parties varies from 2 of 8 subjects with two or less two years' duration to 6 of 8 of subjects with over five years' duration. The relationship of board and president is completely structured by the role relationship of board and president for five subjects and mainly structured by the role relationship for 134 TABLE 11 PERSONAL DIMENSION: CEDAR N = 8 Code Name Cedar 1. Knowledge of other party's feelings on topics and issues: considerable knowledge_3_ general_l_ some_3_ no knowledge_l_ 2. Length of time (years) known other party: under 1 year_l_; 1 to 2_1_; over 2 to 3_0_; over 3 to 5_0_; over 5_6_ 3. Extent to which relationship is structured by role relationship(board/president): 100%_5_ 7 5%_2_ 50%_0_ 25%_1_ 0%_0_ 4. Extent to which relationship is contained within operations of college: 100%_7_ 75%_1_ 50%_0_ 25%_0_ 0%_0_ 5. Character of personal encounters: formal_0_ informal_7_ mixture_l_ 6. Strength of other party's commitment to relationship: greater_3_ the same_4_ lesser_l_ 7. Distinctions made by you on the basis, of: power_3/8_ social status_2/8_ leadership role_6/8_ 135 two subjects. The relationship is contained within the operations of the college for seven of eight subjects. Personal encounters of board and president are informal for seven of eight subjects. Half of the respondents indicated that the strength of their commitment to the relationship was the same as the other party's. Of the remainder, three respondents considered the other party's commitment as greater. Distinctions (respondents were able to make a maximum of three distinctions each) between the two parties are made on the basis of leadership (6 of 8), on power (3 of 8), and on social status (2 of 8) . In the Cedar responses, board members focus on narrow attributes of the president (e.g. intelligence) and on a friendly and compatible association. The president reciprocates these views of friendliness and compatibility. Board members and the president emphasize the mental and verbal qualities of their connection. Both the president and the board chairman emphasize their personal connection and the qualities of their association. They view this association as a mutually supportive condition. The board chairman indicates that she acts as a partner with the president, and both the chairman and the president imply that the board chairman takes on a parental role with the president as a supporter and a confidante. The colleges compared. At Appletree College, while there are evidently distinctions between those who have knowledge of the other party's feelings on general topics and issues and those who do not, the emphasis from all parties to the board-president relationship is on the personal attributes of the president. The president is viewed as the institutional leader and his 136 personal qualities (trustworthiness, openness, diligence, and treatment of others) qualify his leadership role. At Oak College, there is evident variation in participants' perceptions on the extent to which their personal relationships are structured by their role relationship of either board member or president. What is also evident is that the president's perceptions of this personal relationship with board members is at variance with the perceptions of the majority of board members about their relationships with the president. While board members emphasize personal attributes and the personality of the other party, the president neither acknowledges these nor suggests the existence of personally intimate connections between himself and board members, with the exception of the board chairman. At Cedar College, board members and the president emphasize the intellectual and verbal qualities of their personal association. The parties' responses show wide variation-in individuals' perception of knowledge of .the other party's feelings on general topics and issues. The majority (6) of subjects, however, have known the other party in excess of five years. Of all respondents, the board chairman and the president emphasize their close personal connection; they also emphasize the mutually supportive qualities of their relationship. The Perceived Influence Of The Personal Relationship On How The President And Board Work Together Responses to interview question #18 (Table 4, Chapter four) are the sources for the parties' descriptions of the influence of their personal relationships. While the relationships at all three colleges have affective characteristics, the personal dimension has more than affective influence. At each college, the 137 personal relationship is associated with particular functions: at Appletree College, the function is political; at Oak, the function is communicative; and, at Cedar, the function is instrumental in operations (Appendix E, Interview Summaries, item #6). These characterizations are amplified in the following paragraphs. Appletree College. Board members and the president discuss and describe the personal relationship in such a way that it was clearly an affective condition; that is, the personal pertains to feelings and emotions of the two parties. The president receives support from board members. As well, there is trust between the president and board members. Also, the board chairman and the president have mutual respect for each other. Finally, board members take a parental role with the president (Appletree C). Board members and the president discuss and describe the personal relationship in such a way that it was clearly a political condition: that is, the procurement and the maintenance of power. Both board and president participate in this political behaviour. The board is able to predict the president's actions; the president can rely on board members; and the president is able to gain the support of board members. The president appears to be the greatest beneficiary. In one example, an individual board member allies himself with the president against the board chairman (Appletree E). The president's leadership role is enhanced and the president's activities are supported by his personal relationship with board members. In another example, three or four board members have personal relationships with the president which have influence on the president's actions. Board members accept the president's 138 advice because of their personal attachment to the president. This, in turn, gives the president influence. Oak College. Board members and the president discuss and describe the personal relationship in such a way that it was clearly an affective condition, although the president focusses predominantly on the board chairman. Board and president have mutual respect for each other. The personal aspects create a feeling of trust. Board members feel at ease in the college because of their personal association with the president. Also, the president has an intimate connection with the board chairman, involving in the president's description the roles of parent and child (president as child) and professional expert and layperson (president as professional). Board members and the president discuss and describe the personal relationship in such a way that it can be seen as a communications exchange environment. There is ease with discussions among board members and the president. Board members can approach the president at any time. The president is viewed as approachable. A board member's personal knowledge of the president permits him to be frank in discussions (Oak I). The board chairman and the president are able to discuss "everything" (Oak B); they have a "confessional"-like relationship (Oak F) . Cedar College. Board members discuss and describe the personal relationship in such a way that it can be seen as an affective condition, but the president 139 does not. Board members indicate that there is mutual respect (Cedar C), that individual board members gain psychologically from the relationship (Cedar F), and that there are board members who enjoy the relationship (Cedar E & H). Board members and president discuss and describe the personal relationship in such a way as to be seen as instrumental; that is, the personal is a vehicle which connects the board-president relationship to the managerial operations of the college. Personal rapport helps the board and the president to accomplish formal requirements. The personal relationship has a positive effect on board members' decisions. One board members notes that a warmer relationship would be more productive (Cedar A). Board members' personal approval of the president also determines the president's tenure: Personal knowledge allows board members to anticipate the president's posture and helps board members to make decisions and judgements. Personal feelings influence the direction the board takes with the college. Summary: The Personal Dimension At Appletree College, the personal dimension has an emphasis on the personal attributes of the president. The president is viewed as the institutional leader, and his personal qualities such as trustworthiness, openness, diligence, and his treatment of others qualify his leadership role. At Oak College, the president's perceptions of personal relationships are at variance with the perceptions of the majority of board members. While board members 140 emphasize the personality and personal attributes of the president, the president neither acknowledges these nor suggests the existence of personally intimate connections with other board members, excepting the board chairman. At Cedar College, both parties emphasize the intellectual and verbal qualities of their personal association. Of all participants, the board chairman and the president emphasize a close personal connection and a mutually supportive relationship. At Appletree College, the personal relationships are viewed as having affective characteristics involving the feelings and emotions of both parties. Personal relationships are described as politically oriented: acquiring allies, gaining support, and achieving stability, predictability and control. At Oak College, the personal dimension is viewed as involving both trust and mutual respect among the parties. The personal relationships are described as arenas and opportunities for communication; the opportunity to talk openly, frankly, and informally is valued by the two parties. At Cedar College, whereas board members view their personal relationships as having affective characteristics, the president does not acknowledge this. Both parties describe their personal relationship as instrumental, as vehicles which connect the board-president relationship to the governance and management of the college. 141 CHAPTER SIX DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART II This chapter contains three main sections. In the first section, the study addresses research question seven (determinants of the board-president relationship; see Table 2, Chapter Three). In the second section, it addresses research question eight (effects of the relationship; see Table 2). In the third section, the study reports on how boards and president work together. Perceived Determinants Of The Board-President Relationship The discussion of determinants of the board-president relationship reports C participants' perceptions drawn from interview data (Appendix E). The statements of participants are categorized (clustered) under general headings specific to each college; the established categories are based upon the content of statements (see Tables 12, 13, and 14 in Appendix H). Sub-categories for each category are also displayed. For Appletree College, categories of determinants are.government, the president's qualities and personality, the board chairman, the board, past events, and administration. At Oak College, categories of determinants are the board and the president, governance, administration, government, the board, and the board chairman. At 142 Cedar College, the categories of determinants are the board chairman, the board and board members, the president, senior administators, the college, process, government, attitudes, the past, the public, legal/formal, and faculty. Perceptions of participants are analyzed descriptively by reporting statements of participants. Perceptions are also analyzed interpretively and comparatively (see Chapter Four). Descriptive and interpretive analyses are presented under the topic of each college. A brief summary of comparative analysis follows the discussion of individual colleges. Appletree College At Appletree College, individuals (e.g. the president, the former president, the board chairman, senior administrators, and the government Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training) are seen as determinants of the board-president relationship. For example, the president's personality is seen as a determinant of board members' perceptions and judgements of the president's actions and overall performance. Government (as well as individuals in government) is viewed as a determinant. Government influence is both of a formal nature (e.g. government appointed board members) and political (e.g. politicians' influence on the college). All subjects (10) referred both to the president's qualities and to government as determinants of the relationship. Nine referred to the board chairman, eight to the board, seven to past events and actors, and four to administration 143 as determinants. Tables 12a to 12f (Appendix H) display the applicable data which were extracted from interview data (Appendix E). Determinants which fall under the category of government include the government ministry responsible for college and the government minister, the personnel and operational links between government and the college, and the political activities of board members with government officials. The college president is perceived to have a good working relationship with ministry personnel and a personal relationship with the Minister (e.g. Appletree A: The "president is liked by the Minister and the Ministry"). The provincial government has involvement with the college, on the one hand through its directives such as the 1980s restraint program, and on the other hand as a consequence of government appointment of board members. Board members participate in local politics, and they have connections and relationships with government and elected officials (Table 12a, Appendix H). Determinants which fall under the category of the president's qualities include the president's treatment of others, the president's interests and abilities, and the president's personal background. The president is viewed as a caring, supportive, and responsive individual. The president exhibits an interest in the local community. Respondents report that he is a good communicator, and he is effective publicly. The president has considerable experience within the college, which includes longstanding relationships with college employees (Table 12b). Determinants which fall under the category of the board chairman include the 144 chairman's actions, the chairman's interactions with the president, and the chairman's personal background. The chairman is seen to exhibit leadership with the board. She is seen to share a leadership role with the president, and although engaged in a co-operative relationship is seen to have conflicts with the president. She is seen as knowledgeable, with an educational background and with college experiences as a former employee of the college (Table 12c). Determinants which fall under the category of the board include board members' local, political interests, board members' knowledge and experience, board members' personal association with the president, and the role played by the board in college operations. Board members display an interest in local politics. Some board members have considerable knowledge and experience with governance and management. These board members are viewed as key actors in the board-president relationship. Board members have personal knowledge of the president. They exhibit trust in the president. The role played by the board in college operations is seen as both detached and permissive of the president's actions (Table 12d). Determinants which fall under the category of past events and actors include the former president, organizational change, college image, government restraint, the college's finances, and the president's past loyalties. Half of the subjects referred to the former chief executive officer as a determinant of the present board-president relationship. One subject mentioned that the former chief executive officer was fired; another, expressed distrust for the former president. Organizational changes, the college's tarnished image, and the college's financial debt situation, all referred to as determinants, are 145 connected to the behaviours and actions of the former president. The government's financial restraint program was viewed as a determinant. The president's loyalty to former colleagues was viewed as a determinant (Table 12e) . While there are several major categories for the determinants of the board-president relationship at Appletree College, a few patterns predominate. Individuals have an impact on the board-president relationship. The president's personality, his perceived treatment of board members, disposes board members to judge him in a favourable light. The actions of the former president not only have conditioned board members in their role, particularly in their awareness of finances, but also have disposed them to judge the president in contrast to the former president. "A scandal arose over the actions of a former president" (Appletree F). The past "president did cause problems" (Appletree H). The "team" approach of administration, although a consequence of the former president's domination of management, is a determinant of the board-president relationship to the extent that the president and the senior administrators are identified in one board member's words as "the boys". The board chairman has a key role in the board-president relationship: she is an active participant in college governance and has both an historical relationship with the president and a present relationship conditioned by frequent encounters with the president. "As a former faculty member at the college and as a former employee of the present president, I understand the president more clearly than any board member does" (Appletree D). The government minister is also a determinant of the board-president relationship not only because the Minister is positively responsive to the 146 college but also because the official to whom board members answer(the minister) has a personal relationship with the president. "There are personal connections with the government minister which has meant that the minister has approached the president directly instead of the board" (Appletree C). This connection appears to give the president an advantageous position with his employer. The identification of two distinct groups or types of board members suggests that the board as a determinant of the relationship depends on key board members, including the board chairman, whose knowledge both of college operations and the president lead to their "watchdog" approach and to the board's cohesiveness with the administration. Finally, the government, including the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training and the Social Credit government, is seen to be influential in a number of areas related to the combined operations of board members and president. Both the college and the president are seen to be judged favourably by both the government ministry and the government minister. Board members and the college are seen to be connected to, and influenced by, local and provincial politics. And the facts that colleges are government agencies and the governors are appointed imply that government has influence on the actions and perceptions of board members and president. Oak College At Oak College, both group dynamics of college participants and government are viewed as main determinants of the board-president relationship. Group dynamics which influence how board and president work together include not 147 only those of the board and the president, but also those of senior administrators and the board, those of faculty, those of the board, and those of the board chairman and the president. These group dynamics are connected with decision making at Oak College. Government's influence at Oak College is viewed as negative; and government as a determinant of the board-president relationship can be seen in the extent to which board and president oppose government actions which are directed at Oak College. Board and president are allied against government on matters which they view as threats to their collective concept of their college (e.g. on access issues, on funding). Eight out of a possible nine subjects at Oak College referred to the board and president as determinants of the relationship. Seven referred to governance, six to administration, five referred to both the board alone and to government as determinants, and three referred to the board chairman as a determinant. Tables 13a - 13f (Appendix H) display the applicable data which were extracted from the interview data (Appendix E). Determinants which fall under the category of board and president include the qualities of respect and trust displayed by one party for the other (mainly that the board trusts the president). One subject indicated that the board and the president communicate freely with each other (Table 13a, Appendix H). Determinants which fall under the category of governance include college information processes, college decisions, and college behaviours. College information is viewed as coming from faculty, from the community, and from all areas of the college. Decisions are seen as the joint efforts and mutual 148 understandings of board and president. Policy decisions are seen as deriving from the activities of college committees. Behaviours are seen as collective efforts and college personnel involvement (Table 13b). Determinants which fall under the category of administration include power and influence of senior administrators, the role of senior administrators, and the behaviours of senior administrators. Senior administrators are viewed as a powerful and cohesive group actively involved at board meetings, particularly in the development of policy, and the college employees who explain and discuss college operations with the board (Table 13c). Determinants which fall under the category of government include the government's restraint program of the 1980s, government control over education and educational finances, government influence in college matters, and government appointment of board members (Table 13d). The president of Oak College notes: The minister's powers in this province are considerable; what is not the minister's is viewed by the president and the board as the board's. This leads to some friction with ministry staff who... by-pass the board and go directly to the college administrators. (Oak F) Determinants which fall under the category of the board include the board's institutional orientation, the board's power, and the board's actions (Table 13e). The board is viewed as detached from college operations, and the board is seen as having a community focus. The board is viewed as a powerful group, 149 and one board member is seen as influential within the provincial college system. As well, the board is viewed as protective of the college, even in opposition to government. The board is also seen as supportive of the president's positions and actions. "The board's support for the president is a strong determiner qf what occurs in educational planning" (Oak F). Determinants which fall under the category of board chairman include the chairman's association with the president and the chairman's prominent role on the board (Table 13f). He is seen to play a supportive role for the president (Oak B & F). While there are several major categories for the determinants of the board-president relationship, a few patterns predominate. The way in which groups or individuals work with each other is emphasized. This suggests that group dynamics are major determinants. From the responses of board members, the board emphasize their respect for the president ("I have tremendous respect for...[his] abilities": Oak A); senior administrators interact frequently with board members complementing the president's efforts; faculty participate in the decisions ultimately agreed upon by board and president; the board sees itself as working on behalf of the college; and the board chairman sees himself as providing emotional and operational support for the president. This perception is shared by the president. Group dynamics are connected with the approach to decision making at Oak College. "Because the board and the president have a good personal relationship, everything seems to flow with the board" (Oak G). The collective, the combination of group perceptions, is valued by board and president; and, thus, their perceptions of this collective 150 is a central determinant of how board and president work together. "The bottom-up approach makes us feel that there is a lot of input from a lot of people" (Oak H). To some extent, the external, local community is perceived as aligned with the internal collective. One board member noted that board and president "meet the changing community needs by asking community members" (Oak E). The same board member stated that this approach "brings us community input as well as individual college members' input" (Oak E). Perceptions of the external community's needs are also determinants of the board-president relationship. Government is also a major determinant, and government is perceived if not negatively then at least as a force not compatible with the collective. The government's controls, particularly on the financial conditions of the college (as evidenced by the restraint program), are viewed as constraints on the college and determinants of how board and president work together. "The restraint program brought the board and the president closer together" (Oak B). Although government does have potential influence on the relationship through its appointment process of board members, this influence is negative in that board members act on the college's behalf even if these actions are in opposition to government intentions. Indeed, the government's actions are identified as strengthening the board-president connection to the extent that board and president ally themselves against a perceived threat to the college. 151 Cedar College At Cedar College there are numerous identified determinants of the board-president relationship. Two patterns of determinants are dominant. The first pattern involves those who fill specific roles: these individuals are influential within the college and in how board and president work together. These individuals include the president, the bursar, the deans, the board chairman, and faculty members. The second pattern involves the college's character, its belief system, its values, its self-image, and its traditions. This character of the college provides a boundary in which board and president work together. All subjects (8) at Cedar College referred to the board chairman, to the board and board members, and to the president as determinants of the relationship. Seven out of eight subjects referred to senior administrators, six to the college, five to process, four to attitudes, four to government, three to the past, three to the public domain, three to the legal domain; and two referred to faculty. Tables 14a to 141 (Appendix H) display the applicable data which were extracted from interview data (Appendix E). Determinants which fall under the category of the board chairman include the chairman's influence and power, her association with the president, her personal characteristics, and the limited role of the board chairman. The chairman is viewed as a leader of the board, as influential in the public's perception of the college, and as influential in college policies. The chairman and the president are viewed as closely connected, both personally and officially. They have a relationship characterized by trust, frequency, and influence. The chairman is viewed as active in college activities, active with 152 other board members, and knowledgeable about governance. The chairman's role is viewed by one subject, however, as largely ceremonial and not attached to institutional operations (Table 14a, Appendix H). Determinants which fall under -the category of board and board members include the board members' association with the president, the board's actions, the knowledge and experience of board members, the orientations and attitudes of the board, and the characteristics of board members. The board is viewed as knowledgeable about and supportive of the president. Board members are seen to have personal connections and associations with the president. The board is seen to ensure that the college serves the community, to pass judgement on the president's performance, to have a central role in hiring senior administrators, and to have the sole authority role for hiring the president. Board members are seen to be available for discussion with both other board members and the president; they have no explicit limitations on their actions in the college; and they engage in open discussion and debate. Board members are viewed as experienced and knowledgeable in the areas of finance, governance, and with senior administration. They have knowledge of the president; they are well-informed; and they gain information from a provincial network of board members. More experienced board members are distinguished from the newer board members. Board members are seen as sharing values and visions related to the college; and they are viewed as being in a relationship of trust with the president. As well, the volunteer nature of trusteeship is noted as are the homogeneous backgrounds and profiles of board members and the political nature of the board (Table 14b). 153 Determinants which fall under the category of the president include the personal qualities and abilities of the president, the behavioural "style" of the president, and the history and "culture" of the college. The president is viewed as a powerful figure who possesses several qualities and talents. He is seen as bright, as intellectual, and as frank. He is viewed as a leader, a negotiator, and as a mediator. He uses his administrators well. He confronts challenges. The president is seen as exhibiting an intellectual and personally detached style of behaviour with board members. He is aloof from college politics. He is consultative arid encourages board members to participate in discussions. He is viewed as connected to the faculty and to the traditions of the college. As well, the president's historical associations with the college, including the history of his presidential appointment, are seen as determinants (Table 14c). Determinants which fall under the category of senior administrators include the bursar's qualities, the actions of administrators, and the experience of administrators, as well as the respect they command from board members. The bursar is viewed as financially able and influential in management. Administrators are seen to play influential roles in the budget process and in educational planning. They are viewed as an active group and involved with board members. Senior administrators have considerable experience in the college, and they are respected by board members (Table 14d) . Determinants which fall under the category of college are predominantly associated with the college's character, or culture. Power relationships, lack of power relationships, and college personnel's support for the board and the 154 president are also seen as determinants of the board-president relationship at Cedar College. The college is seen to have a culture comprised of its ethos, its traditions, its philosophy, and its way of operating. A collective will or mind is identified, as is a collegial environment. While one subject notes that there are competing internal forces within the college, another indicates that there is a lack of factions or power groups within the college. A third view indicates that the internal community is supportive of the board and the president (Table 14e). Determinants which fall under the category of process in decision making indicate an open process characterized by consultation and consensus (Table 14f). "Policies are now well-communicated; the process involves many people in the institution" (Cedar A). "Budgets are reflections of common goals" (Cedar C). Determinants which fall under the category of government include government financing of the colleges and government ministry orientations toward the college. The government's funding approach is viewed as influential, and the government's restraint program of the 1980s is also seen as an influence. The behaviours of the government ministry including its constraints on the college, its demands upon the college, and its treatment of boards are seen as determinants (Table 14g). Determinants which fall under the category of attitudes include the two parties' attitudes toward their relationship, the two parties' mutual position on goals, the trust and respect elements of their relationship, their knowledge 155 of each other, and their view of an opportunistic environment for their college (Table 14h). Determinants which fall under the category of the past include previous boards which erred in their responsibilities, the previous president who had a positive affect on board members, and a labour dispute with faculty (Table 14i) . Determinants which fall under the category of the public include the college's image in the public domain and the college's relationship with the local community (Table 14j). "In the past our profile in the community was not as high as it should have been...This was a consideration in the hiring of the president" (Cedar D). Determinants which fall under the legal/formal category indicate that the College and Institute Act(Province of British Columbia, 1984) is influential in that it establishes a framework for the board-president relationship and it leads to the hiring of the president. The acknowledgement of legal components suggests that there is an awareness among the parties that a formal/legal dimension is present in the board-president relationship and has influence (Table 14k). Determinants which fall under the category of faculty indicate that the college has particular kinds of faculty, that faculty's actions externally are influential, and that the management of the college is influenced with the presence of professional employees (Table 141). "It takes a lot of work for a 156 lay board to work as a team with academics" (Cedar E). There are numerous categories for determinants of the board-president ' relationship at Cedar College. There are numerous distinct items within most of the categories of determinants. Several themes emerge in a comparison of these categories. One dominant pattern can be seen in the influence of those who fill specific roles: as president, bursar, dean, board chairman, board member, and faculty. It is evident that the college is viewed to be comprised of powerful and influential individuals who occupy roles. These roles are on the one hand exclusive (e.g. board member, administrator, faculty) but on the other hand interdependent. The board chairman is viewed as active and influential, but her specific effects are noted as dependent upon the president (e.g. the time the president spends with the board chairman; his use of the board chairman as advisor on personal matters) and upon the other board members who are willing to let the board chairman work on their behalf. "The chairman has an overpowering effect on board members and the president" (Cedar A). The president is viewed as powerful and influential, but it is clear that the deans and the bursar are active either with or instead of the president in areas involving board members. Board members are influential, but their influence is dependent upon the work of the president and his administrators, upon the leadership role of the board chairman, and upon the board's philosophical compatibility with the organization. Another pervasive theme involves the college's character, its belief system, its values, its self-image, and its traditions. While the personalities who fill the roles, particularly president, board chairman, and administrators, are 157 judged to be strong, even powerful, the character of the college is viewed as guiding these personalities and shaping behaviours. Internal constituents and participants' perceptions of their college create what subjects refer to as "elan" (Cedar B), "culture" (E), "personality" (A), "tradition" (G), and "college philosophy" (B, E). While the roles are powerful forces in the college and the personalities who fill those roles are viewed as influential, the intangible character (or persona) of the college itself is a predominant shaper of behaviours and actions. Board and president act within the boundaries or parameters of the college's "culture", "traditions", and they are guided by the college's "philosophy". While individuals are respected and viewed as influential players, they are subordinate to what Dill(1982), Schein(1985), and others refer to as organizational culture. Perceived Determinants At The Three Colleges: Summary At each college, determinants not only shape but also, to a greater or lesser degree, control how board members and the president work together. At Appletree College, perceived determinants include the president, the former president, the board chairman, senior administrators, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, and the government. At Oak College, perceived determinants include group dynamics of college participants (such as board and president, senior administrators and the board, the board, the faculty and the board chairman and the president) and government. At Cedar College, numerous 158 determinants are noted. Two major patterns of determinants involve, first those who fill specific roles, at the college (e.g. president, bursar, deans, board chairman) and who are influential within the college and second the college's belief system, its values, its self-image, and its traditions. Perceived Effects Of The Board-President Relationship This section shows the perceived effects of the board-president relationship (Research question #8, Table 2, Chapter Three). The section is structured so that the parties' perceptions of the effects of the board-president relationship are reported and then interpreted. The reported perceptions are drawn from interview data (Appendix E, Interview Summaries). The parties' statements are categorized (clustered) under general headings specific to each college; the established categories are based upon the content of statements. For Appletree College, categories include the board, the president, the college, the community, board and president. At Oak College, categories include board and president, the college, and the community. At Cedar College, categories include actions, board and board members, the college's image, the college, and attitudes. These can be seen in Tables 15 to 17 (Appendix I). The interpretation of the parties' perceptions can be seen as findings drawn from the data. These interpretations for individual colleges are brought together in a summary at the end of this section. 159 Appletree College At Appletree College, the board-president relationship is perceived by participants to have enhanced the college's image by repairing a previously tarnished public image, to have established harmony within the college, and to have gained the support and approval of government for both the college and its management. At Appletree College, seven out of a total of ten subjects referred to the board as an effect, six to the college; four to both the community and the president, and three referred to the board and the president. Table 15 (Appendix I) displays the applicable data which were extracted from interview data (Appendix E). Perceptions reported. Effects which refer to the board include board members' knowledge and experience, board members' orientation and reactions, and board and board members' power and influence. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. Board members do not possess equal knowledge of the college's operations: some board members are not involved and feel neglected; some board members who lack experience are followers and do not contribute effectively to governance and management. Board members have accurate budget information. Board members can predict the actions of the president. The board gives a uniform reaction to government. The board is a tightly knit and guarded group. The board ensures that there are checks and balances in the management of the college. Several board members, notably those with educational backgrounds, have impact and influence on board and college decisions. 160 Effects which refer to the president include the president's power and the president's actions and behaviours. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. The college sees the president as its educational leader. The president has repaired a poor college public image. The president is supported by the board. The president is cautious, nonetheless. The president ensures that the board chairman does not exercise too much power. Board members' objectivity toward the president diminishes from time to time. Effects which refer to the college include operational benefits to the college and good relations externally and internally. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. There is improved integration of operations and personnel in the institution. Faculty are involved in educational planning. The college's missions and goals belong to all constituents. The college operates in a business-like manner. The college conforms to the expectations and the directives of the government ministry. The government minister is personally supportive of the college. There is an improvement in the faculty's perception of the board. Effects which refer to the community include the college's service to the community and the college's good image in the community. Effects which refer to the board and president indicate a united image of the board and president, united action of board and president, and united thought of board and president. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. College employees see the board and the president as a common front, even as a common enemy. The president and the board have made a joint decision to create 161 and to promote a college mission. The board and the president are able to reach consensus on budgets. There are no political conflicts between the board and the president. Perceptions interpreted. A number of effects can be identified, but a major or pervasive effect of the board-president relationship involves the reputation and the perceived image of both the college and the board and president, both within the college and in the external community. Although other effects are noted, in the main these contribute to the image and the reputation of the college as well as to those who have primary governance responsibilities. In their relationship with the president, board members ensure that the college's operations are financially correct and effective. The actions and judgements of several knowledgeable and experienced board members, with the president's cooperation, enable the college to present a uniform response to government, to faculty, and to the local communities. The president is viewed as the educational leader and is the visible college representative internally and externally. His actions and his role are supported by the board. Through this relationship, board and president, through the president, have brought greater internal harmony to the college and have repaired a damaged image in the community. As well, this approach and the apparent success have brought forward government approbation, particularly through the Minister and the Ministry, for the college and its management. Notwithstanding these effects, which have enhanced the image and the reputation of the college, board, and president, there are other effects which are seen 162 as damaging. There are board members who are neither fully involved in decisions and responsibilities nor fully satisfied with processes and outcomes. There is friction between the president and the board chairman which appears to affect the president's behaviours. There is as well a potential for board, president, and senior administration to be regarded by faculty as a common, monolithic enemy in that unity and the appearance of a single source for decisions are conveyed by the two parties. Furthermore, faculty opposition to government policy and practice can be transferred to board and president because of the two parties' apparent conformity to government expectations and directives. Oak College At Oak College, the board-president relationship's effects are perceived as primarily affective: the feelings and attitudes of college personnel and of external community members are viewed as the ultimate effects of the relationship. Specific observable effects are not perceived presumably because the board-president relationship emphasizes process matters such as communication and participation. At Oak College, subjects did not identify a long list of effects. Five out of a total of nine subjects referred to the category of board and the president; three referred to the college; and two referred to the community. Perceptions reported. Effects which refer to the board and president include 163 board and president behaviours and the roles of the two parties. Reported behaviours of the parties include the freedom of the president to express his opinions to the board? the increase in the personal connection between the board and the president, and the increase in confidence by the board for the president. Reported roles include the board as a critic, the board as evaluator of senior administrators, leadership positions for two board members, and the president as the public representative of both college and the board. Roles and behaviours are not viewed as power struggles. Effects which refer to the college include the college's image, college personnel's participation, and the college's community focus. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. The college has become more community-focussed. The college has developed a unified front in its approach to the public. College personnel participate in college governance and they feel they have "ownership" of college policies. Effects which refer to the community indicated that the community participates in the governance of the college and that the community is supportive of the college. Effects of the board-president relationship at Oak College are not prevalent, nor is there consensus among subjects on the specific effects. In almost all responses, effects were neither specific nor concrete. Feelings and attitudes, such as confidence, support, lack of friction, unity, and participation, were the major noted effects. 164 Perceptions interpreted. Presidential and board roles and behaviours suggest comfort, ease, and openness, essentially a personally compatible association. •The parties have extended their positive views about the college to the college community and to the external communities. The college in its behaviours and actions has brought internal and external communities closer together so that there is compatibility. The community is viewed as a source of support and as a source of information. The college, not the external community, however, is viewed as the end goal. As such, the external community is integrated into the college rather than the college integrated into the community. While there are few identified, explicit effects of the board-president relationship, and there is no consensus on these effects, the affective domain appears to be most prevalent area for outcomes. How college participants and the public feel about the college are the noted effects of the board-president relationship. The paucity of identifiable effects, however, may suggest that process takes precedence over outcomes at Oak College given the emphasis on process matters (e.g. communication, participation) noted earlier. Cedar College At Cedar College, numerous effects are noted including, for example, the college's control over its operations and the positive and negative public image. However, the dominant effect suggested by the expressed perceptions of participants is that the board-president relationship helps to sustain the college's beliefs and traditions. By conforming to the philosophy and values 165 of the college, board members and president together reinforce the college's philosophy and values. All eight subjects referred to actions. Seven referred both to board and board members and to image. Six referred to the college, and five referred to attitudes. Perceptions reported. Effects which refer to actions include the president's influence, the college's character, and the deliberateness of actions. The president is viewed as a figure of power with the ability to manage effectively. He initiates action, and he is supported by the board. The college is viewed as the determiner of its own condition. The college's traditions, not the external environment, govern college participants' behaviours. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. The board acts deliberately and consistently. The college acts through consensus. Philosophy and traditions of the college lead to deliberate and controlled action of the college and its constituents. The board and the president as representatives of the college act in accord with the collective decisions of the college. Actions lead to predictable results. There are two effects which are not consistent with other perceived effects but refer to action. They constitute the views of two subjects. The first is that planning is reactive to government ministry directives. The second is that board members accept the positions of the political party in power. Effects which refer to the board and board members include the rules and 166 constraints faced by the board, board decisions, and board members' knowledge. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. .Board members are limited by their lack of knowledge of the college, by the dominant role of the board chairman, by their lack of power and influence, by the government ministry's behaviours, and by board members' difficulties in working with academics. The board is directed and regulated by its corporate responsibilities. Decisions of board members are influenced by their knowledge of the president, by the behaviours of other board members, and by the experience and influence of other board members. Board members are knowledgeable about the president's intentions and about the issues under discussion by other board members. Effects which refer to the college's image include the negative image of the college and the favourable perceptions of the college image. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. The college has a negative image as a result of a former internal labour dispute. The college has a negative image in the government ministry. The college also has a negative image in the community. Board members evaluate the college in a favourable light: they believe in the college's positive reputation, and they see an effectively managed institution. The college is viewed as having quality programs and efficient operations. Effects which refer to the college include college personnel's knowledge of the institution and the college's operational condition. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. College personnel understand issues and are aware of the rationales for decisions (e.g. budget decisions). The college 167 has useful policies. Policies are compatible with the college's collective vision. The status quo of the college is maintained. There is no "game playing" in the college. The college is seen to be operating effectively. Effects which refer to attitudes include the parties' feelings and the commonality of attitudes. Reported perceptions include the following assertions. Board members feel comfortable with college operations and behaviours. Board and president feel pride in the institution. The president is able to relax. The president appears distant from some board members. Board members and the president have a common cause. Board and the administration accept the results of policy. The board becomes more knowledgeable about the common view of the college. There is a pervasive "conscience" in the college. Other effects include the president's relationship with the board and the role and actions of senior administrators. Perceptions interpreted. While several effects of the board-president relationship at Cedar College can be identified, such as the college's control over its operations, the limitations and constraints on board members, the positive and negative public image of the college, the level of comfort for board members and the president, the president's position of influence with board members, and the actions and influence of senior administrators, a connecting and pervasive theme of conformity emerges in these patterns. Both conformity of attitudes, behaviours, and actions of college participants and the uniform perception of these participants, especially of the college's 168 character or image, are in fact conformity to the perceived philosophy, traditions, and beliefs of the college. Attitudes, behaviours, and actions therefore reinforce the philosophy, traditions, and beliefs. The board-president relationship can be seen to conform to this pattern. The president's position of influence and power is reinforced because the president operates within and according to what he refers to as "traditions". The college's actions and positions fall within the boundaries of what is expected by those who accept the college's philosophy and follow its traditions. Actions, therefore, are seen as deliberate because they reflect college values and beliefs. The college sets its own direction in spite of government constraints and controls; and the college attempts to shape its communities to its image rather than adapting to the public's will. Board members are constrained or limited because they are not immersed on a daily basis in the college's belief system and behaviours. The board follows the philosophy and traditions; it does not control or shape these. The board-president relationship, then, contributes to and sustains the college's beliefs and traditions. Board and president accomplish this by conforming to the philosophy and values of the college. In that the board hires the president and takes an active role in the hiring of senior administrators, the board with the president is responsible for the integration of personalities and ideologies which comprise the college. These personalities and ideologies develop and sustain what Dill (1982), Schein (1985) and others refer to as organizational culture. 169 Perceived Effects At The Three Colleges: Summary At each college, the board-president relationship (either deliberately or inadvertently) produces results, or it influences people, or conditions, or perceptions. What board members and the president do together, how they interact and perceive each other, and how they and their actions are perceived both within the institution and in the external world have consequences. At Appletree College, the board-president relationship is perceived by participants to have enhanced the college's image in the community, to have established harmony within the college, and to have gained support and approval from government for both the college and its management. At Oak College, effects are perceived as primarily affective involving the feelings and attitudes of both college personnel and community members. The two parties' emphasis on communication and participation reinforces these processes throughout the college. At Cedar College, a perceived dominant effect is the board-president relationship's contribution to the maintenance of the college's philosophy and values. Board And President Working Together This study has examined the determinants, effects, and the characteristics of the board-president relationship at three British Columbia colleges. Through this examination, the researcher has presented observations and findings which 170 move this study toward the identification of how boards and presidents work together (i.e., how they govern and manage the academic institution). In this section, portraits of the three colleges provide descriptions of how board and president work together, including explanation of behaviours and actions. Following these portraits, a more general description of how boards and presidents work together is offered in a summary comparison of the three colleges. Appletree College At Appletree College how the parties work together is seen to be determined by the president's personality, the actions of the former president, the background and behaviours of the board chairman, the participants' perceptions of their tainted past, by key board members, and by the government minister. Descriptions of the relationship at Appletree College emphasize the personal character and efforts of the president. The managerial approach is entrepreneurial, with the president and his administrators as activists, the board chairman as overseer, and the board as reactors. Behaviours and actions are highly political with the securing of allies, internally and externally, as an important objective. Key board members, other than the board chairman, provide personal and political support for the president. In this way, board and president work to improve the college's reputation, to promote the institution both internally and externally, to ensure survival of the college, and to enhance the college's growth, primarily in economic terms. 171 Personal politics are at the centre of how board and president work together. The president possesses power both from internal and external sources (i.e., from board members, administrators, faculty, staff; from local business, community orgainzations, and government including the government minister). The "president is liked by the Minister and the Ministry" (Appletree A, Appendix E). Board members ally themselves with the president and with the other senior administrators. With the help of a board member "the president is able to ensure that the board chair does not change the college deliberately" (Appletree E, Appendix E). There are several board members who are active in provincial and local government politics, and they use their influence from these bases. For example, the "board chairman...has important political connections" (Appletree I, Appendix E). And the personality and personal attributes of the president sustain and enhance the efforts to improve the college's image and to increase the financial growth of the college. The character of the board-president relationship was formed out of a past highlighted by excessive presidential control, financial problems and a crisis, and public embarrassment. The "past president did cause problems" (Appletree G, Appendix E). Whereas the board is repelled by this past and the accompanying events, the president is seen as the obverse of the past's negative image. "Everybody on the board respects the president" (Appletree I, Appendix E) . The. "respect of the entire board" for the president is seen as "largely a result of distrust with the past chief executive officer" (Appletree H, Appendix E). The further the college moves away from association with this past, the greater the satisfaction for board members and the greater the reinforcement for the president and his actions. The president "has repaired a 172 poor image with the board's support" (Appletree E, Appendix E). With the support of the board, the president is seen as rescuing the college from infamy by pursuing dramatic change in a pragmatic fashion. The president is seen as the "right person at the right time" (Appletree F, Appendix E). This recent legacy has established a pattern for how the board and the president continue to work together at Appletree College. At Appletree College, a hierarchical model of governance places the board and the president in positions of institutional authority. Formally, the board allows the president to direct and control the college's operations. The president's actions, however, are constrained by both board approval and by specific directions especially from the board chairman. Through the way in which the two parties work together, the college has been able to present consistent and uniform responses and images to the public and to government. Through the combined actions of board and president the reputation of Appletree College has improved externally and the reputations of both the president and the board have improved internally. Board and president together have elevated the level of trust within Appletree College and they have helped to reduce friction among college constituents and between faculty and administration (including the board). Oak College At Oak College, how the parties work together is determined by the group dynamics of board members and the president, the collective perception of college constituents, and by government initiatives (e.g. fiscal restraint). Descriptions of the relationship at Oak College emphasize both the personality 173 of the president and the verbal interactions and exchanges of the participants. The managerial approach is communal, stressing co-operation, consensus, and community. Board members, president, and senior administrators are a familial-like group. The relationship has a strong affective component, the result of the communal approach to management and the duration of working relationships among senior administrators, among administrators and board members, and between board members and the president (e.g. several board members have sustained a relationship with the president for,over ten years). The effects of the relationship are largely affective. That is, the relationship functions to influence the feelings and attitudes of participants. At the centre of the board-president relationship is a concept of the college which has several component attributes. The college's mission is service to the community, and this mission justifies the actions of board and president. "The college achieved a very positive public image perception, and this assists the board in its work and gives the board confidence in the president" (Oak A, Appendix E). The college governance structure is based on an ideal of employee participation in decision making. The "personality [of the president] is compatible with a participatory style of management" (Oak D). There is "a lot of input from a lot of people" (Oak H). The college's internal environment is valued for its conduciveness to social harmony and personal satisfaction. Underlying the attributes of the college, however, is the rationale that all behaviours, actions, and activities contribute to the college. "The president personalizes the mission of the college" (Oak C). The college as a value in itself takes precedence over, for example, the local communities, over working conditions for employees, and over financial matters.. Indeed, "the institution 174 takes precedence over government" (Oak H) even though it is a government institution. The board-president relationship is viewed by participants as secondary to the college. The rationales and justifications for what board and president do together have their basis in the value and the history of the college. "Policies are collective, the result of evolutionary collective effort" (Oak F). While this value is not defined by participants, it is clear that the value is connected with feelings of pride, self-worth, and indeed altruism. Board and president feel sustained and nourished personally as well as professionally by the actions of the college in serving students and the community. At Oak College, the joint role responsibilities and the periodic absence of defined responsibilities among the parties indicate that governance is a shared activity. The president, as institutional leader, performs the role of chief mediator among centres of influence within the college. Within the board-president relationship, the president represents the voice of internal college consensus. Through their approach to governance and their managerial actions, board and president together ensure that both college students and the external community have the benefits of college services. The board-president relationship facilitates open communication and broad constituent participation in governance within the college. Also, the combined actions and approaches of board members and president engender positive feelings and attitudes toward Oak College by the college's external community. 175 Cedar College At Cedar College, how the parties work together is determined by the attributes of individuals who fill senior management and board roles, by the'belief system of the college, and by the ethos of the college. Descriptions of the relationship at Cedar College emphasize particular attributes of both the president and the board chairman as well as the philosophy and traditions of the college. The managerial approach combines elements of a corporation and an academy where rank or role suggests status and influence, and where authority is a consequence of expertise. This is what Mintzberg(1983b) would call a professional bureaucracy. The relationship has an affective component, but primarily for board members. Behaviours and actions are directed toward maintenance of the internal status quo. "There are competing forces, and these help to maintain a status quo...Change occurs by consensus" (Cedar F, Appendix E). Presidential behaviours are viewed as intelligent; board behaviours are viewed as wise and based on experience. Expectations for behaviours and actions for both parties are clear, and goals are consistent. The effects of the relationship are both behavioural and attitudinal. There is evident conformity in attitudes, behaviours, and actions of board and president to the values and philosophy of the institution. This conformity serves to reinforce the values and the philosophy of the institution. Therefore, the relationship can be seen to be sustained by, and to sustain, the ethos of the college. This self-perpetuated image of Cedar College justifies how board and president work together, what they do, and the consequences of their behaviours and actions. Behaviours and actions are justified on the basis of correctness and 176 intelligence (e.g. the bursar oversees the budget process because the bursar is a "superb" financial analyst). Correctness and intelligence comprise part of the ethos of the college. Debate is noted as a common behaviour among college constituents, and board members are satisfied that the outcomes of debate constitute the right or correct advice. The president assumes the role of educational leader because the president is both highly intelligent and academically qualified. Board decisions are based on board and president assessments of the internal constituents' (primarily faculty) thoughts, attitudes, and values. The college philosophy arises not from the mandate of government legislation or from externally driven values (e.g. community attitudes), but from both the traditions of the institution and the orientations (attitudes, values, and actions) of internal constituents such as faculty and administrators. "There is a conscience which is pervasive" (Cedar G). "If the president left, the philosophy would not change" (Cedar B). Decisions, such as the establishment of new programs, the hiring of personnel, and the promotion of the college, must conform to the identified traditions and orientations of Cedar College and its internal constituents. "The image of the college...is largely determined by the type of faculty" at the college (Cedar E). "The president is aware of the aspirations and the culture of the institution" (Cedar G). Board and president work together within the larger context of these traditions and orientations. At Cedar College, a corporate model of governance places the board in the role of formal approvers and the president in the role of operational leader. However, board and president may have separate roles, but they are both roles of institutional authority and the two parties are thus seen as equals. The 177 president is the college's educational leader and he speaks for the educational institution. The board (and in particular the board chairman) speaks for itself and for the corporate body called the college. Through their approaches and actions board and president have governed and managed the college to maintain the status quo of Cedar College. Their approaches and actions help to sustain the college's philosophy, its beliefs, its self-image, and its traditions. Board and president together have also sustained the college's external public image, an image which is consistent with the college's philosophy. Board And President Working Together At Three Colleges Board and president work together in the governance and management of the academic institution, and they are structural components of the institution, participants within the institution, and manifestations of the culture of their institutions. In this context, they are formally connected to the institution as a strategic apex (Mintzberg, 1983b) or as the chief authorities in a bureaucracy, with the president as the board's agent. Their operational connection to the institution, while differentiated among the colleges, involves such areas as the development of institutional policies, the approval of budgets, the review of long range plans or college educational directions, and the endorsement of the college's public activities and actions. Together, board and president assume and exercise authority for the college's operations. The personal connection of board and president to the institution is most overt in the parties' identification with their college. That is, colleges' 178 characteristics seen in such images as the enterprise, the family, and the academy, which represent respectively Appletree, Oak, and Cedar, are compatible and congruent with the joint orientations and goals of board members and the president. As a unit of the larger organization, board and president together mirror the characteristics of the institution. At Appletree College, board and president together show the influence of past events and the personality of the former/ president on the institution. At Oak College, board and president display in their behaviours the participatory, co-operative style of the larger institution. And at Cedar College, board and president in their decisions express allegiance to a college philosophy held by the internal constituents. The personal values of the individual participants can be seen in their colleges' visible culture. At the three colleges, the orientations (i.e., the basis for decisions) and the perceptions of board members and president together are consistent with their college's goals. Personal values and beliefs of board members and presidents appear to be congruent with the visible values and philosophy of their colleges. At Appletree College, the purposes and goals of the college as expressed in the college's calendar (Table 18) are consistent with board and president orientations. The college's purpose and goals suggest both a service and a market sensitive orientation. This orientation was referred to earlier as entrepreneurial. At Oak College, the philosophy of the college as expressed in the college calendar (Table 19) is consistent with board and president orientations which embody ideals for human life including personal, social, and economic development of individuals and 179 TABLE 18 SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF THREE COLLEGES' VALUES: APPLETREE (Expressed in College Statements of Philosophy, Purposes, Goals, and Missions) Appletree College(from College Calendar) 1.0. Purpose: Identify regional educational needs and provide experiences necessary to meet needs. 2.0. Goals: 2.1. Education for all people in the college region. 2.2. Meet needs for different learners. 2.3. Wide range of educational opportunities for life-long learning. 2.4. Educational excellence through quality services. 2.5. As a public institution, college will be accountable to the public. 2.6. Provide service to the community through comprehensive offerings. 2.7. Attend to special needs of individuals. 2.8. Promote personal growth and development of individuals. 2.9. Promote national and international understanding and goodwill. 2.10. Foster cultural development. 180 TABLE 19 SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF THREE COLLEGES' VALUES: OAK (Expressed in College Statements of Philosophy, Purposes, Goals and Missions) Oak College(from College Calendar) 1.0. Philosophy: 1.1. Value of education in fulfillment of human potential. 1.2. Life-long learning for a changing world. 1.3. Accessibility to educational opportunities. 1.4. Educational opportunities are comprehensive. 1.5. The college is part of a larger system. 1.6. Education is responsive to changing needs of individuals. 1.7. Democratic process of education is reflected in college governance. 181 TABLE 20 SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF THREE COLLEGES' VALUES: CEDAR (Expressed in College Statements of Philosophy, Purposes, Goals, and Missions) Cedar College(from Board Policies) 1.0. Mission: 1.1. Broad range of post-secondary opportunities of high quality in response to educational needs in the region. 1.2. Focus on individual aspirations. 1.3. Focus on regional, provincial, and national needs. 2.0. Goals: 2.1. Provide comprehensive curriculum. 2.2. Provide developmental programs and services. 2.3. Provide diversity of learning environments recognizing individual differences. 2.4. Use a consultative form of governance. 2.5. Encourage a high level of student achievement. 2.6. Make educational changes in response to needs of region's residents. 2.7. Evaluate and improve curriculum and support services. 2.8. Provide access to college's activities and services. 2.9. Maintain equitable service to the region. 2.10. Provide educational, social, cultural, and recreational services wanted by the region's population. 2.11. Act responsibly educationally and fiscally. 182 society. The college's philosophy suggests an environment where there is both caring and nurturing. At Oak College, the democratic process is enshrined in the college's philosophy. At Cedar College, .the college's mission and goals are expressed in board policy (Table 20) rather than in the calendar. These mission and goal statements are consistent with board and president orientations. These orientations concern effectiveness and efficiency in the college's performance. There is emphasis here on levels of quality and achievement. There is also emphasis on their public responsibility and mandate. Perceptions of board members and presidents with respect to the ways in which the parties work together suggest a specific portrayal of individual colleges. Appletree College can be seen as entrepreneurial; Oak, as communal; and Cedar, as corporate and academic. College documents provide corresponding evidence to the perceptions of the two parties. It can be seen that the perceptions of board members and presidents are consistent with institutional documents which embody the articulated cultural values of each college. Board members and president together are not only the strategic apex (Mintzberg, 1983b) of their organizations but also units of the larger organization which both reflect and sustain the corporate culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982) of their institutions. 183 Summary Findings of Chapter Six At each college, determinants not only shape but also control how board members and the president work together. At Appletree College, perceived determinants include, for example, the president and the former president. At Oak College, determinants include group dynamics of college participants and government. And at Cedar College, determinants include, for example, the president and the board chairman. At each college, the relationship produces results, or it influences people or conditions or perceptions. At Appletree College, the relationship is perceived by participants to have enhanced the college's image in the community, to have established harmony within the college, and to have gained support and approval from government. At Oak College, effects are perceived as primarily affective involving the feelings and attitudes of both college personnel and community members. At Cedar College, a perceived dominant effect is the board-president relationship's contribution to the maintenance of the college's philosophy and values. Board and president work together in the governance and management of the academic institution, and they are structural components of the institution, participants within the institution, and manifestations of the culture of their institution. Perceptions of board members and presidents imply that the parties are not only connected to their colleges formally and operationally but also as units of the larger organization which reflect and sustain the corporate culture of their institution. 184 CHAPTER SEVEN SUMMARY OF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary Of The Study The Purposes Of The Research The purpose of this study was to examine the board-president relationship in the academic institution in order to discern reasons for the importance of the relationship. In fulfilling this purpose, it was necessary to explore the nature (i.e., determinants, characteristics, and effects) of the relationship and to identify how the two parties work together to govern and manage the academic institution. A review of the literature on boards and presidents indicated that, while there was much discussion of the relationship, there was no systematic study of either its nature or the reasons for its importance. Methods The purpose of the study was addressed through qualitative-interpretive research methods which were consistent with current scholarship (e.g. Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Smith, 1983; Goetz & Le Compte, 1984; Miles & Huberman, 1984; Popkewitz, 1984; Burgess, 1985; Erickson, 1986; Merriam, 185 1988). Three colleges in the province of British Columbia were chosen as sites for research investigation. For this study, these colleges were named Appletree, Oak, and Cedar respectively. Data sources included documentary evidence and perceptual evidence. Sources for documentary evidence comprised government legislation and institutional documents from each college. Sources for perceptual evidence comprised interviews of participants in the board-president relationship at each college. The researcher also served as both a data source and as a research instrument. The researcher's field notes were used (in conjunction with recorded interviews of participants) in the creation of interview summary sheets (Appendix E), and the field notes were used in the analysis of data. During interviews, the researcher recorded his observations of respondents and their responses. During analysis of interview data, the researcher used the recorded observations to assist in interpretation of data. The researcher's background knowledge and experience in educational administration, particularly in the colleges of British Columbia, were also utilized both in eliciting perceptions from participants and in analyzing data. Findings The nature of the board-president relationship. For the purposes of this study, the nature of the board-president relationship was deemed to include characteristics, determinants, and effects. Based upon the literature, the board-president relationship was also conceived of as having three dimensions: a formal dimension, an operational dimension, and a personal dimension. Taken together these dimensions were seen to constitute the characteristics of the 186 relationship. Formal dimension. Only the role relationship of board and president is regulated by legislation. Legislated expectations are both narrow and limited, and suggest an unequal partnership. The board has primary authority over the president and over the academic institution (Province of British Columbia, 1984). However, because there are no legislated regulations specifically directed to the board-president relationship (with the exception of the reporting relationship), what in fact constitutes the formal dimension of the relationship exists in the perceptions and arrangements of the two parties. At Appletree College, formal laws and regulations are not emphasized by the parties. The formal dimension embraces the role relationship of board and president, limited primarily to the board's role rather than to that of the president. At Oak College, the formal dimension embraces not only the separate roles of the two parties but also the connection of the college to government and to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. At Cedar College, the formal dimension is more implicit than explicit, although there is wide variation among the participants about their understanding of the formal dimension. Operational dimension. A distinct operational dimension for the relationship can be identified with each of the three colleges. At Appletree College, two separate parties are involved in the management of a rational hierarchy. That is, the president is the chief executive officer of a bureaucracy and the board directs the bureaucracy through the establishment of policy.' The board approves and the president acts. Governance is hierarchical. Joint activities 187 of board and president are not apparent. The board permits control over the college by the president. Board members and the president report that their actions together in managing the operations of the college are oral: discussion is their main activity together. The board is a filter for the president's intentions and actions. The president and his senior administrators either act or propose action; the board reacts. At Oak College, board and president appear to share some.of their role responsibilities; operations are managed jointly. At meetings of board and president, as reported, role divisions are not always apparent. Governance is a shared responsibility. In practice, the president can be seen to act as a mediator among centres of influence within the college. Board and president have achieved agreement on the basic issues of the college's mission, its educational direction, and its response to public information. Board and president have adopted a practice of open, informative communication among themselves. Beyond these basic understandings and their approach to communications, there are few, or no apparent, rules or understandings which direct how the board and the president manage the operations of the college. Indeed, operations are viewed as carried out by and for the institution, not a actions of the president or the board. At Cedar College, the operational dimension appears to be dualistic, mixing both role expectations and expertise. The board and the president operate as corporate body with the board chairman as the board's authority figure and the president as the chief executive officer of the college. On all but formal matters, the president appears to be an equal partner with board members. 188 Formally, the president recommends to the board, advises the board, and acts on behalf of the board. The emphasis of the two parties on role and individual expertise suggests that process, procedures, and regulations may not be necessary in that the expectations of the parties are clear, that outcomes are understood, and that past experience reinforces confidence. The board chairman's involvement with the president in the management of operations suggests that process and procedures may be unnecessary because substantial board and president interactions and combined actions involve only these two individuals. Personal dimension. At each college, the emphasis placed upon the personal dimension of the relationship varies in kind. And at each college, personal relationships among the parties have distinct functions. At Appletree College, the personal dimension has an emphasis upon the personal attributes of the president. The president is viewed as the institutional leader, and his personal qualities such as trustworthiness, openness, diligence, and his treatment of others qualify his leadership role. At Oak College, the president's perceptions of personal relationships are at variance with the perceptions of the majority of board members. While board members emphasize the personality and personal attributes of the president, the president neither acknowledges these nor suggests the existence of personally intimate connections with other board members, excepting the board chairman. At Cedar College, both parties emphasize the intellectual and verbal qualities of their personal association. Of all participants, the board chairman and the president emphasize a close personal connection and a mutually supportive relationship. 189 At Appletree College, personal relationships among the parties can be described as politically oriented: acquiring allies-, gaining support, and achieving stability, predictability, and control. At Oak College, personal relationships can be described as arenas and opportunities for communication among the participants. At Cedar College, personal relationships can be described as instrumental, as vehicles which connect the board-president relationship to the governance and management of the college. Determinants. At each college, determinants not only shape but also, to a greater or lesser degree, control how board members and president work together. At Appletree College, perceived determinants include the president, the former president, the board chairman, senior administrators, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, and the government. At Oak College, perceived determinants include group dynamics of college participants (such as board and president, senior administrators and the board, the board and the faculty, and the board chairman and the president) and government. At Cedar College, numerous determinants are noted. Two major patterns of determinants involve first, those who fill specific roles at the college ( e.g. president, bursar, deans, board chairman) and are influential within the college and second, the college's belief system, its values, its self-image, and its traditions. Effects. At each college, the board-president relationship produces results (either deliberately or inadvertently), or it influences people, or conditions, or perceptions. What board members and the president do together, how they interact and perceive each other, and how they and their actions are seen to be 190 perceived both within the institution and in the external world have consequences. At Appletree College, the board-president relationship is perceived by participants to have enhanced the image of the college in the community, to have established harmony within the college, and to have gained support and approval from government for both the college and its management. At Oak College, effects are perceived as primarily affective involving the feelings and attitudes of both college personnel and community members. The two parties' emphasis on communication and participation reinforces these processes throughout the college. At Cedar College, a perceived dominant effect is the board-president relationship's contribution to the maintenance of the college's philosophy and values. Governance and management: board and president working together. Board and president together are structural components of the institution, participants within the institution, and manifestations of the culture of their institution. They are connected formally to the institution as the chief authorities in a bureaucracy. They assume and exercise authority for operations of their college. Their personal values reflect the goals of their college, and the joint orientations and goals of board members and the president are consistent with images they portray for their college. These images include the enterprise (Appletree College), the family (Oak College) , and the academy (Cedar College). And as a unit of the larger organization, board and president together both mirror and sustain distinguishing features of the institution .(e.g. importance of the past on present actions, operational style of the college's participants, and allegiance to a college philosophy). 191 Conclusions The Importance Of The Board-President Relationship The importance of the board-president relationship was noted at the outset of this study. However, reasons for the importance of the relationship were not established by those who assert or imply importance (e.g. Richardson Jr. et al., 1972; Gould, 1973; Corson, 1980; Kauffman, 1980; Munitz, 1980; Gleazer Jr., 1985; Vaughan, 1986). Some of the assertions indicate that the relationship is important to the president (e.g. Kauffman, 1980; Vaughan, 198 6). Others indicate that the relationship is important to the governing board (e.g. Corson, 1980; Gleazer Jr., 1985). And still others suggest that the importance of the relationship can be seen in its effects, mainly adverse (see Wood, 1984) upon the academic institution (e.g. Pappas & Ritter, 1983; Wood, 1984) . Pappas and Ritter note that adverse relationships between college presidents and boards "could hamper the overall development of the college" (1983: 19). Wood speculates that "trustees and presidents together can now make changes that will enhance the inventive and inspirational dimensions of leadership" (1984: 42). In this section, reasons for the importance of the board-president, relationship constitute conclusions of this study. The reasons presented here differ both in kind and complexity from those assertions noted in the literature. None suggests that the relationship has importance solely for one party or the other. None suggests that the relationship is important because of its adverse 192 effects on the academic institution, although given the importance of the relationship there is potential for its effects to be deleterious. Five major-conclusions are presented to indicate reasons for the importance of the board-president relationship. These reasons justify why the relationship commands attention and attracts judgement. External image of the college. At the three colleges, the board and the president see themselves as having influence and impact upon the external community. Board and president together have established or maintained an association between their college and the external community. At Appletree College, board and president have helped to repair a damaged college reputation. At Oak College, board and president have ensured that the community has access to the college's service and that the college is involved in community development projects. At Cedar College, board and president have helped to sustain the college's image, as a high quality academic institution, in the community. Internal environment at the college. At the three colleges, the board and the president see themselves as having influence and impact upon the internal college community. At Appletree College, board and president have improved the level of trust between and among various college groups (e.g. between faculty and administration), and they have helped to reduce conflict and visible friction between college groups and individuals. At Oak College, board and president have sustained both broad participation of constituents in college governance and the continuation of open communication among all college constituents. At Cedar College, board and president have been 193 instrumental in the maintenance of internal status quo at the college, particularly with regard to the philosophy of the college embraced by college constituents. Goals of the college. There is a high level of value compatibility among board members and the president, based on the accounts of the parties. Board and president together act in accord with established and articulated goals of their college. There is a high degree of consistency between the official values of the institution and those expressed by board members and the president. Personally articulated values of board members and presidents are compatible with articulated goals of their colleges. How board members and the president describe the ethos of their college is consistent with both their accounts of college operations and'the descriptive evidence in institutional documents. Board and president as chief authorities. Board and president together view themselves as the chief authorities of the institution, responsible for the governance and management of the operations of their colleges. At Appletree College, a hierarchical model of governance places the board and the president in positions of institutional authority. The president at Appletree College is the visible manifestation of that' authority. At Oak College, while the president is the leader of the institution, the board and the president share responsibility and authority in college governance. At Cedar College, both board and president have authority roles, but these are separate: the board has authority for formal matters; the president has the role of educational leader. Notwithstanding specific institutional arrangements, board and 194 president together are not only influences but also the parties responsible for college governance and management. As such, how the college is governed and managed and the outcomes of these processes are directly attributable to both parties and how they work together. The board-president relationship as a mirror image of the college. At the three colleges, board and president together, in their expressed attitudes and actions, mirror perceived characteristics of the larger organization. The board-president relationship can be seen in part as a microcosm of its respective college. Determinants of the relationship are also seen as influences on the larger organization. The way in which board and president work together (e.g. operating style) is consistent with the orientation associated with the larger organization (e.g. entrepreneurial, communal, academic). Board and president together share and reinforce the philosophy and values or their respective college. The Research Framework The significance of the research framework can be seen in its conceptual orientation which affects "the nature of the questions raised, which in turn determines the research design, which in turn influences the conclusions drawn" (Merriam, 1988: 54). The framework reflects the way in which the board-president relationship was conceived for this study. The effectiveness of the research framework can be seen not only in how it organizes and unifies the investigation but also in how it matches conceptions of the relationship 195 with empirical evidence. Dimensions of the board-president relationship. The assumptions from the literature suggested that there were three dimensions of the board-president relationship. Each dimension offered a perspective of the relationship, and from each perspective the relationship was seen to possess particular characteristics. From the perspective of the formal dimension, the literature assumed that the board-president relationship was a role relationship. While this view can be acknowledged from the evidence of this study, the role relationship of board and president was generally in the background excepting in formal matters such as voting on and approving policies and budgets. Even in these formal matters, the role relationship was not always a dominant characteristic of the relationship. From the perspective of the operational dimension, the literature assumed that the board-president relationship was dynamic, not static, and variable from one relationship to another. This variation was assumed to be determined by one or more of such factors as external and internal environments, the personal style of the president, the operating style of the board, and the governance structure of the institution. While variation among the three board-president relationships was evident in this study, some determinants which could be seen as developing the characteristics of the relationship were not consistent with assumptions provided by the literature. Determinants at the colleges included specific individuals (e.g. board chairman, former president, the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, and senior administrators), government, group interactions involving board and senior administrators, interactions of 196 board, president and faculty, and college philosophy. These were not specified as assumed determinants in the literature. Although assumed determinants present in the literature were evident in these three colleges, there were more determinants of the board-president relationship identified in this study than suggested in the literature. From the perspective of the personal dimension, the literature assumed that the board-president relationship was an interpersonal relationship (or relationships) dependent upon individual personalities and group dynamics. At the three colleges in this study, while personal relationships were viewed as contributors to and as components of the board-president relationship, the relationship was not viewed primarily as only an interpersonal relationship. Group dynamics and personalities were evident in how the parties judged the board-president relationship. Especially evident were the board members' assessments of the personal qualities and attributes of the president. What was not present in the literature but in the forefront of findings on the relationship in this study were the particular functions (e.g. political) which personal relationships served in the board-president relationship. Determinants of the board-president relationship. The research framework permitted identification of determinants from the perspective of each of the three dimensions as well as from the three dimensions combined. While the legislation was a common feature of all three board-president relationships, it was not seen to be a main determinant of how board and president work together. A second common feature which included government, a government 197 department, and government officials was viewed in the case of two colleges as a main determinant of the relationship. Aside from this commonality, determinants of the board-president relationship included two categories: people and perceptions (e.g. perceptions of the past, of traditions, and of values). The identification of these determinants emerged from the investigation's focus on the operational and personal dimensions of the relationship. Effects of the board-president relationship. The research framework permitted identification of effects when approached through the perspective of the two dimensions (operational and personal) both separately and combined, but effects were not identified from the perspective of the formal dimension. Effects can be, in the main, associated with perceptions (e.g. college's image, feelings of college personnel, philosophy of the college). How the parties work together. The research framework which combined the characteristics, determinants, and effects of the board-president relationship enabled this investigation to examine how boards and presidents worked together. After answering the research questions, the investigator was able to identify patterns of reported behaviours, motivations, and activities jointly involving board members and presidents at the three colleges. The behaviours, motivations, and activities involved more than the operational dimension of the relationship. Answers to research questions also indicated the ways in which the two parties together were associated with their respective institutions. 198 Implications This study began as an exploration and examination of the board-president relationship in three colleges. As such, its conclusions are specific to three settings. The applications of these conclusions and their implications to other settings are a matter of conjecture. Some of these speculations may pertain to the relationship in the academic institution, generally, and some to the relationship in the colleges of British Columbia, specifically. In this final section of this dissertation, several hypothetical questions are raised as implications arising from this study. As described later, these questions constitute suggestions for further research which should assist in the development of theory. They should also give research direction for those in the field of higher education who are addressing problems in such areas as management and governance. In what ways the academic institution is governed and managed and with what accompanying behaviours by those who are responsible have been underlying questions for those who study the academic institution. Weick (1976) speculates on how the organization does what it does. Cohen and March (1974 & 1986) attempt to explain the apparent disorder in governance and management processes. Baldridge et al. (1977) offer rationales for decision making processes. Dill (1982) frames reasons within an anthropological perspective for academic behaviours. Keller (1983) ponders over how the academic institution could be managed better and thus saved from impending crises. Alfred and Smydra (1985) and Dennison and Gallagher (1986), from the community 199 college sector, approach governance and management from a socio-historical perspective, suggesting an interplay between institution (processes, structures,- behaviours) and environment, with the environment as major determinant. Birnbaum (1988) attempts to "change perceptions about how organizations of higher education work" (1988: xiv) so that administrative performance will improve. On a more practical and mundane level, those who govern and manage the academic institution as well as those who work within colleges, technical institutes, and universities may want to know why some institutions seem to be managed well and others poorly, why there is tension and strife at one college but not at another, why some presidents resign and others endure, and why some governing boards are more effective than others. This present study, through examination of the board-president relationship in three colleges, has illuminated a way to address these issues through explanation of the board-president relationship founded upon empirical research. That way lies through an understanding of administrative behaviours, actions, and their consequences. The understanding of the board-president relationship is a significant part of this journey. On the basis of this investigation, and in the interests of promoting further research, several hypothetical questions can be stated. While these questions are generated from the investigation of three specific sites, they may be useful in developing theory to the extent that these three sites are typical. In qualitative research, a basic precursor to theory development is the raising of questions. For this reason, the following speculations are in the form of questions from which hypotheses might be developed. This investigation has 200 shown that the governing board and president together are perceived to be the chief authorities responsible for the governance and management of the academic institution. The conclusions of the study indicate that while there are numerous effects or outcomes of the board-president relationship perceived by the two parties, these effects mainly involve such matters as how the community sees the college and how the college constituents view the board and the president. Tangible or quantifiable effects of the board-president relationship, in such matters as institutional performance or learning outcomes of students, were not apparent. The conclusions of this study about outcomes or effects of the board-president relationship sit in a contrasting light to the proposals from scholars for improvements in higher education. Keller (1983) has urged increased institutional productivity. Astin (1985) has advocated improved student performance. Campbell and Associates (1985) propose adaptable organizational structures in response to changing external environments. Finally, in the Canadian community college context, Dennison and Gallagher (198 6) note that traditional forms of management and governance are inappropriate for the 1980s and beyond. They argue for management of the community college which is both adaptable and compatible with internal and external environments. In this present study, the absence of identified outcomes which include institutional productivity, student performance, and organizational response to a changing external environment raises several questions. Are the principal outcomes of the board-president relationship those identified in this investigation of the three colleges? Are there other major outcomes which may be present but are not recognized by the parties? If these are the only chief 201 outcomes, or the dominant ones, why is there a gap between what is promoted by scholarship (e.g. Keller, 1983; Astin, 1985) and the reported performance of the two parties? Are the expectations of scholars impractical? Are board and president together limited in their abilities or capacities to meet some goals for higher educational institutions? Or perhaps, could the questions which were posed to the participants have been framed in another form so as to generate different responses? One possible observation in this investigation is that the outcomes of what board and president do together reinforce what the parties continue to do. An initial assumption of this investigation was that there was a separation between determinants and effects. For example, at Appletree College the president's personality was viewed by the respondents as a determinant of the relationship, and at Appletree College the improved internal college environment was viewed as an effect of the board-president relationship. It i questionable if the distinctions between determinants and effects are as clear as originally assumed. A reasonable speculation is that outcomes or effects o the board-president relationship are themselves determinants of the relationship. This speculation poses the assertion that the relationship may be a self-correcting process. The absence of such a condition may help to explain why, as scholars and practititoners note, sometimes there are adverse relations between board and president (Cleary, 1979), why there are undercurrents in the relationship (Wood, 1984), and why presidents have problems with boards and why boards do not live up to performance expectations as amply noted in the literature. 202 The board-president relationship seems to reflect in many ways such institutional characteristics as institutional history, philosophy, values, and operational orientations (or operating style). It is interesting to speculate on whether and to what extent the relationship reflects these characteristics, and whether, and to what extent, board and president together are influential in the development of these characteristics. To what extent is the board-president relationship influential in the creation and/or development of what Deal and Kennedy (1982) refer to as corporate culture, and to what Dill (1982) refers to as academic culture? Dill (1984) notes that with the exception of a few studies, there is little scholarship which gives insight into administrative behaviours in higher education. Therefore, illuminating the nature of administrative action and its consequences in different settings is apt to be of substantial value to theory and practice. (Dill, 1984: 94) In order to address these speculations, future research could investigate the relationship in settings which are different from those in this present study. Conclusions from these investigations will aid in the understanding of both administrative behaviours and organizational operations (e.g. decision making) in the academic institution, as well as adding to the findings and conclusions of the study on how boards and presidents work together. Other settings might include the following: a. colleges in other Canadian provinces; b. colleges in the U. S.; c. universities in both Canada and the U. S.; and d. technical institutes. 203 An examination of the relationship in other Canadian provinces could indicate the extent to which provincial or regional differences are influences on how the parties behave or on how the parties perceive their relationship. These differences may include government legislation, government control over institutions, or government politics. The examination of the relationship in the U.S. could indicate whether and to what extent national characteristics influence how the parties work together or how they perceive the relationship. For example, the emphasis in the U.S. upon vertical social mobility, quantitative measures of performance, and social cohesion (see National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984) might surface in the examination of the board-president relationship at a U.S. college. The question of the influence of institutional type (e.g. community college as opposed to research university) might be addressed by an examination of the relationship in a university and by examination of the relationship in a community college or technical institute. The presence of a corporate culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982) or an academic culture (Dill, 1982) may be seen more clearly in such a comparison. Through research of this kind, continued development of theory may be accomplished. In this study of three board-president relationships, a number of conclusions emerged which indicate reasons for the importance of the relationship. In the fulfillment of the purpose of the study a number of findings and other observations were reported. The significance of this study, however, is not just in what emerged as findings or conclusions; its significance to scholarship lies as well with its initiation of systematic study in this area and its generation of empirical evidence from which there can develop 204 theory.. Peterson (1985) argues that the "challenge of postsecondary organizational theory and research is to try to understand what holds together these fascinating institutions as organizations and what makes them effective" (1985: 5) . Prior to this study, the lack of explanation for a relationship which commands both attention and judgement in the literature may have been a consequence of the absence of an appropriate investigative approach. In this study, an attempt has been made to solve that problem. The research framework and the research methods enable this study to examine the two parties jointly, by viewing the relationship from their perspective as well as from the evidence provided by institutional documents and legislation. This study, then, has moved beyond current scholarship on the board-president relationship and has now prepared the groundwork for further research to address the questions which have emerged from this study. In pursuing the question of the importance of the board-president relationship, this investigation may have given direction and focus to the development of theory applicable to an understanding of governance and management of the academic institution. 205 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, H. 1976 The Academic Tribes. New York: Liveright. Alfred, R.L. and D.F.Smydra 1985 Reforming Governance: Resolving Challenges to Institutional Authority, in W. Deegan and D. Tillery(eds.), Renewing The American Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Assembly on University Goals and Governance. 1971 A First Report. Unpublished. American Association of University Professors. 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities. Unpublished. American Council of Education. 197 0 Report of the Special Committee on Campus Tensions. Unpublished. Astin, A. 1985 Achieving Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. and R.A. Scherrei 1980 Maximizing Leadership Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astley, W.G. 1985 Administrative Science As Socially Constructed Truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30:497-519. Bacharach, S.B. and E.J. Lawler 1980 Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baldridge, J.V. 1971 Power and Conflict in the University. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Baldridge, J.V., D. Curtis, G. Ecker, and G. Riley 1977 Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education, in G. Riley and J.V. Baldridge (eds.), Governing Academic Organizations: 2-25. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Baldridge, J.V., D. Curtis, G. Ecker, and G. Riley 1978 Policy Making and Effective Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 206 Bell, D. 1971 By Whose Right, in H. Hodgkinson and L.R. Meeth (eds.). Power and Authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bell, D. 1980 The Winding Passage. Cambridge, Mass: ABT Books. Bell, L. 1956 From the Trustees' Corner. Association of American Colleges Bulletin, 42 (3) . Belshaw, CS. 1974 Towers Besieged: The Dilemma of the Creative University. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Benezet, L.T. 1982 Do Presidents Make a Difference. Educational Record, 63(4):10-13. Benezet, L.T., J. Katz, and F. Magnusson 1981 Style and Substance. Leadership and the College Presidency. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Bennis, W. 1973 The Leaning Ivory Tower. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bennis, W. 1976 The Unconscious Conspiracy: Why Leaders Can't Lead. New York: Amacom. Bercuson, D., R. Bothwell, and J.L. Granatstein 198 4 The Great Brain Robbery. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Berendzen, R. 1986 Is My Armour Straight? A Year in the Life of a University President. Bethesda, Maryland: Alder and Alder. Birnbaum, R. 1988 How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bolman, L.G. and T.E. Deal 1985 Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borg, W.R. and M.D. Gall 1979 Educational Research. New York: Longman. Bowen, Howard R. 1977 Investment in Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 207 Brenner, M. 1978 Interviewing: The Social Phenomenology of a Research Instrument, in M. Brenner, P. Marsh, and M. Brenner(eds.), The Social Contexts of Method. London: Croom Helm. Brewster Jr., K. 1971 Politics of Academia, in H.L. Hodgkinson and L.R. Meeth (eds.), Power and Authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burgess, R. (ed.) 1985 Strategies of Educational Research: Qualitative Methods. London: The Falmer Press. Burns, J.M. 1978 Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Cameron, K.S. 1980 Critical Questions in Assessing Organizational Effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn: 66-80. Cameron, K.S. 1984 Organizational Adaptation and Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education, 55(2): 122-144. Campbell, G. 1974 Community Colleges in Canada. In A. Konrad(ed-), Clientele and Community. Willowdale, Ontario: Association of Canadian Community Colleges. Campbell, J. 1973 The Hero With a Thousand Faces. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 197 0 The Open-Door College. New York: McGraw-Hill. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1973 Governance of Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. • 1980 The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. A Summary of Reports and Recommendations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carnegie Foundation For the Advancement of Teaching 1983 A Governance Framework for Higher Education. Educational Record. 64(2):12-18. Chait and Associates 1984 Trustee Responsibility For Academic Affairs. Washington, D.C: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. 208 Clark, B. 1970 The Distinctive College. Chicago: Aiding Publishing Company. Clark, B.R. 1983 The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cleary, R.E. 1979 Trustee-President Authority Relations. Educational Record, 60(1): 146-158. Cohen, A.M. 1969 Dateline '79: Heretical Concepts for the Community College. Beverly Hills, California: Glencoe Press. Cohen, A.M. and F.B. Brawer 1982 The American Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, L. and L. Manion 1980 Research Methods in Education. London: Croom Helm. Cohen, M. and J. March 197 4 Leadership and Ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cohen, M. and J. March 1986 Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, second edition. Commission on Strengthening Presidential Leadership 1984 Presidents Make a Difference. Directed by C. Kerr. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Cook, D. and N.K. LaFleur 1975 A Guide to Educational Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Corson, J.J. 1975 The Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill. Corson, J.J. 1980 Participating in Policy Making and Management, in R.T. Ingram and Associates (eds.) Handbook of College and University Trusteeship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cowley, W.H. 1980 Presidents, Professors, and Trustees. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 209 Cross, G.L. 1983 Letters to Bill: On University Administration. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Davies, B. et al. 1985 Integrating Methodologies: If the Get You, the Social Will, in R.G. Educational Research: Qualitative Press. Intellectual Relations Don't Burgess (ed.). Strategies of Methods. London: The Falmer Davies, J. 1985 The Agenda for University Management in the Next Decade. In Glockwood and J. Davies (eds.), Universities: The Management Challenge. Windsor, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and NFER Nelson. Deal, T.E. and A.A. Kennedy 1982 Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Deegan, W.D. Tillery, and R.J. Melone . 1985 The Process of Renewal: An Agenda for Action in William Deegan and D. Tillery (eds.), Renewing The American Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dennison, J.D. 1986 Some Aspects of Government Policy Towards Community Colleges in British Columbia: 1982-86. Journal of Education Administration and Foundations. Dennison, J.D. and R. Harris 1984 Governing Boards in Postsecondary Education. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, xiv(2):13-31. Dennison, J.D. and P. Gallagher 1986 Canada's Community Colleges. Vancouver: University of B.C. Press. Dill, D. 1982 The Management of Academic Culture: Notes on the Management of Meaning and Social Integration. Higher Education, 11 (3) :303-320. Dill, D. 1984 The Nature of Administrative Behavior in Higher Education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3):69-99. Dockrell, W.B. 1980 The Contribution of Research to Knowledge and Practice, in W.B. Dockrell and D. Hamilton (eds.), Rethinking Educational Research: 11-22. Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton. 210 Dodds, H.W. 19 62 The Academic President - Educator or Caretaker? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Doob, L.W. 1983 Personality, Power, and Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Duff, Sir J. and R.O. Berdahl 1966 University Government in Canada. Report of a Commission sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Dunsire, A. 1973 Administration: The Word and the Science. London: Martin Robertson and Company. Eisner, E. 1981 On the Difference between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher, 10(4): 5-9. Erickson, F. 1986 Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Fisher, J.L. 1984 Power of the Presidency. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Gay, L.R. 1976 Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Geertz, C. 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Getzels, J.W., J.M. Lipham, and R.I. Campbell 1968 Educational Administration as a Social Process: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Harper and Row. Gleazer Jr., E.J. 1985 Governance and the Shifting Role of the Board of Trustees, in W. Deegan and J. Gollattscheck (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges: Ensuring Effective Governance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goetz, J.P. and M.D. LeCompte 1984 Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Orlando: Academic Press. 211 Gollattscheck, J.F. 1985 Developing and Maintaining Governance, in W. Deegan and J.F. Gollattscheck (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges: Ensuring Effective Governance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodman, Paul 1962 The Community of Scholars. New York: Random House. Gould, S. 1973 Trustees and the University Community, in J.A. Perkins (ed.), The University as an Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Green, M.F. 1981 Developing Leadership: A Paradox in Academe, in R.H. Atwell and M.F. Green (eds.), Academic Leaders as Managers. New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Greenfield, T.B. 1984 Leaders and Schools: Willfulness and Nonnatural Order in Organizations, in T.J.' Sergiovanni and J.E. Corbally, Leadership and Organizational Culture. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Haak, H.H. 1982 Parable of a President. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman 1977 The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929-964. Hartnett, R. 1971 Trustee Power in America, in H. Hodgkinson and L.R. Meeth (eds.), Power and Authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harvard University, University Committee on Governance 1970 Choice of a New President: Term of Office and Review of Performance. Unpublished. Heilbron, L.H. 1973 The College and University Trustee. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hinde, R.A. 1979 Towards Understanding Relationships. Toronto: Academic Press. Hofstadter, R. 1955 Academic Freedom in the Age of the College. New York: Columbia University Press. Hodgkinson, H. and L.R. Meeth (eds.) 1971 Power and Authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 212 Ingram, R.T. 1979 The Marriage of Presidents and Boards, in R. Lahti (ed.), New Directions for Community Colleges: Managing in a New Era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jencks, C. and D. Riesman 1968 The Academic Revolution. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company. Kaplan, A. 1964 The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company. Kaplin, W.A. 1985 The Law of Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kauffman, J. 1980 At the Pleasure of the Board. Washington, D.C: American Council on Education. Keller, G. 1983 Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in American Higher Education. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Kemerer, F.R. and J.V. Baldridge 1975 Unions on Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bassy. Kerr, C. 1963 & The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 1972 University Press. Kerr, C. and M. Gade 1986 The Many Lives of Academic Presidents. Washington, D.C: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Killian Jr., J.R. 1985 The Education of a College President. Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T . Press. Knoell, D. and C. Mclntyre 1974 Planning Colleges for the Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. Konrad, A. 1975 Community College Boards: A Canadian Perspective, in R. Richardson Jr. (ed.), New Directions for Community Colleges: Reforming College Governance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. .Konrad, A. 1980 Community College Boards. Journal of the Association of Community Colleges, IV(1,2):95-106. 213 Kratzmann, A. and T. Fleming 1979 College Governance: Some Principles and Processes. Unpublished Report. Ladd Jr., E.C. and S.J. Lipset 1975 The Divided Academy. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Langer, S.K. 1964 Philosophy in a New Key. New York: New American Library. Le Compte, M.D. and J.P. Goetz 1982 Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1): 31-60. Lee, B.A. 1979 Governance at Unionized Four-Year Colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 50(5): 565-585. Lee, S.M. And J.C. Van Horn 1983 Academic Administration. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Levin, J.S. 1987 Educational Leadership and the President: Who Directs the Community College? Unpublished manuscript. Lockwood, G. and J. Davies. 1985 Universities: The Management Challenge. Philadelphia: The NFER-Nelson Publishing Company. Marsee, S.E. 1980 The President's Relationship to the Board. Unpublished Report. McCall, M. 197 0 Boundary Rules in Relationships and Encounters. In G. McCall, M. McCall, N. Denzin, G. Suttles, and S. Kurth (eds.), Social Relationships. Chicago: Aldine. McGivney, J.H. 198 4 State Educational Governance Pattern. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(2) . Medsker, L.L. and D. Tillery 1971 Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-Year Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Merriam, S.B. 1988 Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 214 Meyer, J.W. 1984 Organizations as Ideological Systems, in T.J. Sergiovanni and J.E. Corbally (eds.), Leadership and Organizational Culture. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Meyer, J.W. and B. Rowan 1977 Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2) :340-363. Meyer, J.W. and B. Rowan 197 8 The Structure of Educational Organizations, in M.W. Meyer and Associates (eds.), Environments and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Meyerson, M. 1980 Overseeing Academic Programs, in R. Ingram and Associates, (eds.)., Handbook of College and University Trusteeship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman 1984 Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing. Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman 1984(b) Drawing Valid Meaning from Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5):20-30. Mintzberg, H. 1979 " Organizational Power and Goals: A Skeletal Theory, in D.E. Schendel and C.W. Hofer (eds.), Strategic Management. Toronto: Little, Brown, and Company. Mintzberg, H. 1980 The Nature of Managerial Work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Mintzberg, H. 1983 Power In and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Mintzberg, H. 1983 (b) Structure in Fives. Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Mintzberg, H. 1984 The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact, in D.S. Pugh (ed.), Organization Theory. Markham, Ontario: Penguin Books. Mitchell, A. 1986 Administrators' Perceptions of Implementing Provincial Policy on Community College Governance in British Columbia. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. University of British Columbia. 215 Monroe, 1972 C.R. Profile of the Community College, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moodie, G. and R. Eustace 197 4 Power and Authority in British Universities. London: George Allen and Unwin. Morgan, G. 1986 Images of Organization. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Morris, G.B. 1985 Perspective: A Futuristic Cognitive View of Leadership. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 21(l):7-27. Mortimer, K. and T.R. McConnell 1978 Sharing Authority Effectively. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Munitz, B. 1980 Reviewing Presidential Leadership, in R. Ingram and Associates (eds.), Handbook of College and University Trusteeship. San * Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Murray, Jr., E.A. 197 9 Commentary, in D.E. Schendel and C.W. Hofer (eds.), Strategic Management. Toronto: Little, Brown, and Company. Nason, J.W. 1980 Responsibilities of the Governing Board, in R. Ingram and Associates (eds.), Handbook of College and University Trusteeship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nason, J.W. 1982 The Nature of Trusteeship: The Role and Responsibility of College and University Boards. Washington, D.C.: The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. National Commission on Excellence in Education 1984 A Nation at Risk. Cambridge, Mass. Ness, F.W. 1971 An Uncertain Glory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pappas, R.J. and S.L. Ritter 1983 Survey finds administrators, trustees differ on roles. Community and Junior College Journal, 54(2):18-19. Parker, G.T. 1979 The Writing on the Wall: Inside Higher Education in America. New York: Simon and Schuster. 216 Parsons, T. 1960 Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Illinois: The Free Press, (5) .-170-198. Perkins, J.A. 1973 Conflicting Responsibilities of Governing Boards, in J.A. Perkins (ed.), The University as an Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Peters, T. and R.H. Waterman, Jr. 1984 In Search of Excellence. New York: Warner Books. Peters, T. and N. Austin 1985 A Passion For Excellence. New York: Random House. Peterson, M.W. 1985 Emerging Developments in Postsecondary Organization Theory and Research: Fragmentation or Integration. Educational Researcher 14 (3) : 5-12. Pfeffer, J. 1981 Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 3:1-52. Pfeffer, J. 1982 Organizations and Organizational Theory. Boston: Pitman Publishing. Polk, C.H., V.A. LaCombe, and J. Goddard 1976 Building the Management Team, in V. Dzuiba and W. Meardy (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges: Enhancing Trustee Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Popkewitz, T.S. 1984 Paradigm and Ideology in Educational Research. London: The Falmer Press. Potter, G. 1976 Responsibilities, in V. Dzuiba and W. Meardy (eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges: Enhancing Trustee Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Province of British Columbia 1984 College and Institute Act. Victoria: Queen's Printer. Quinn, R.E. and M.R. McGrath 1985 The Transformation of Organizational Cultures, in P. Frost, L. Moore, C. Lundberg, and J. Martin (eds.), Organizational Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 217 Rauh, M.A. 1973 Internal Organization of the Board, in J.A. Perkins (ed.), The University as an Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Richards, M.D. 1979 Commentary, in D.E. Schendel and C.W. Hofer (eds.), Strategic Management. Toronto: Little, Brown, and Company. Richardson Jr., R., C.E. Blocker, and L.W. Bender 1972 Governance for the Two Year College. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Richman, B.N. and R. Farmer 1977 Leadership, Goals, and Power in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Riesman, D. 1980 On Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Riley, G.L. 1977 The Changing Role of Trustees in Academic Governance, in G. Riley and J.V. Baldridge (eds.), Governing Academic Organizations. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Riley, G.L. and V. Baldridge 1977 Governing Academic Organizations. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Ross, M. 197 6 The University: The Anatomy of Academe. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Rourke, F.E. and G.E. Brooks 1966 The Managerial Revolution in Higher Education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Rushing, J.B. 197 6 Changing Role of the Community College President in the Face of New Administrative Pressures. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Schendel, D.E. and C.W. Hofer (eds.) 1979 Strategic Management. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company. Schein, E.H. 1985 Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . 218 Scott, W.G. 1972 Organization Theory: An Overview and An Appraisal, in W.R. Nord (ed.), Concepts and Controversy in Organizational Behaviour. California: Goodyear Publishing Company. Scott, W.R. 1978 Theoretical Perspectives, in M.W. Meyer and Associates (eds.), Environments and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Searle, C. (ed.) 1978 New Directions for Community Colleges: Balancing State and Local Control. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sergiovanni, T.J. 1984 Cultural and Competing Perspectives in Administrative Theory and Practices, in T.J. Sergiovanni and J.G. Corbally (eds.), Leadership and Organizational Culture. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press Sergiovanni, T.J. and J.E. Corbally (eds.) 1984 Leadership and Organizational Culture. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press Smircich, L. 1983 Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 339-358. Smircich, L. 1983b Studying Organizations as Cultures, in G. Morgan (ed.), Beyond Method. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. Smith, J.K. 1983 Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the Issue. Educational Researcher, March: 6-13. Smith, M.L. 1987 Publishing Qualitative Research. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2): 173-183. Snow, CP. 1971 Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution in Public Affairs. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Stadtman, V.A. 1980 Academic Adaptations: Higher Education Prepares for the 1980s and 1990s, in The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. A Summary of Reports and Recommendations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stoke, H.W. 1959 The American College President. New York: Harper and Brothers. Stone, E. 1978 Research Methods in Organizational Behavior. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Sudman, S. and N.M. Bradburn 1982 Asking Questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tillery, D. and W.L. Deegan 1985 The Evolution of Two-Year Colleges Through Four Generations in Deegan and Tillery (eds.), Renewing the American Community College. Trachtenberg, S.J. 1981 Not What It's Cracked Up to Be, in R. Atwell and M.F. Green (eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: Academic Leaders as Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Trow, M. 1975 The Public and Private Lives of Higher Education. Daedalus, 104 (1) . Vaughan, G. 1983 Introduction: Community Colleges in Perspective, in G.B.Vaughan and Associates (eds.), Issues for Community College Leaders in a New Era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vaughan, G. 1986 The"Community College President. New York: American Council on Education and MacMillan Publishing. Veblen, T. 1957 The Higher Learning in America [1918]. New York: Hill and Wang. Walker, D.E. 197 9 The Effective Administrator: A Practical Approach to Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Campus Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weick, K.E. 1976 Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 1-19. Wiersma, W. 1980 Research Methods in Education. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers. Wood, M.M. 1984 Crosscurrents and Undercurrents in the Trustee-President Relationship. Educational Record, 65 (1):38-42. 220 Wood, M.M. 1985 Trusteeship in the Private College. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Worth, W.H. 1986 Political Primer for College Board Members. The Canadian Administrator, 26(3), December: 1-5. Zwerling, L.S. 1976 Second Best: The Crisis of the Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Zwingle, J.L. 1975 Effective Trusteeship: Guidelines for Board Members. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Zwingle, J.L. and W. Mayville 197 4 College Trustees: A Question of Legitimacy. Research Report no. 10, Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Washington, D.C: American Association for Higher Education. 221 PILOT TEST: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP IN THREE COLLEGES JOHN S. LEVIN UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MARCH 1988 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR PILOT TEST (October, 1987) 1. In what ways does the College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? 2. What are the consequences/effects of this act on your relationship? 3. How do you 'work with president/board on the development and establishment of institutional policies (e.g. instructional policies, admission policies)? 4. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and establishment of policies? 5. How do you work with president/board on the development and allocation of budgets? 6. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and allocation of budgets? 7. How do you work with president/board on educational planning? 8. What are the consequences of this approach to educational planning? 9. How do you work with president/board on the hiring of college personnel? 10. What are the consequences of this approach to the hiring of personnel? 11. How do you work with board/president on employment terminations of personnel? 12. What are the consequences of this approach to employment termination? 13. How do you work with president/board on the creation and maintenance of a public image for your college (e.g. mission statement, promotion?) 14. What are the consequences of this approach to the creation and maintenance of a public image? 15. Are you knowledgeable of the other party's feelings and views on a variety of topics and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 16. What is the length of time you have known the other party, or members of the other party? 226 17. To what extent is your relationship with the other party or members of the other party structured by the role relationship of board and president? 18. To what extent is your relationship with the other party contained within the operations of the college? 19. Are your personal encounters with the other party formal or more concrete and specified (i.e., of a personal or social nature)? 20. Do you think that the other party's commitment to the relationship is similar in kind and intensity to your commitment? 21. Do you make distinctions between yourself and the other party on the basis of power? Social status? Leadership role? 22. What are the consequences/effects of your personal relationship with the other party? 23. What do you like about your relationship with the other party? 24. Do you have any comments to make on the board-president relationship or on the views you have expressed already? 227 Pilot Test Of Interview Questions Four subjects participated in the pilot test. Three of these subjects are categorized as board members and one as a president. The subjects will be coded A, B, C, and D. Interview Procedures Each subject was interviewed for approximately 2-2.5 hours. The initial question was asked, and a follow-up question or probing comment was given to the subject if the initial response did not convey a thorough enough view. At the conclusion of the interview, with the exception of one subject (who did not complete the interview), subjects were asked for their comments on the value of the questions asked; and, they were asked if any questions could have been added to gather more information. During the interview process, the investigator rephrased and/or summarized subjects' responses. This occurred for most question areas. The investigator explicitly asked subjects if the investigator's understanding was in accord with the subjects' intentions. All interviews were machine recorded, and the investigator made notes which were recorded on a response sheet devised for data reduction. 228 Explanation Of Response Categories (a) Difficulty: Does the subject indicate, verbally, that the question is unclear or difficult to respond to and requires clarification? (b) Answer: Does the subject provide the investigator with a response (which is on topic) to the question? (c) Follow-up: Does the investigator give the subject a follow-up question or probe the subject's response after the subject's initial response? (d) Answer: Does the subject provide the investigator with a response to the follow-up question or to the probe? Key To Responses (a) Yes=Y; (b) No=N; (c) Not applicable=N/A. 229 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: RESPONDENT A Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer (Yes/No) 1. In what ways does the N Y N N/A College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? 2. What are the consequences/effects of N Y N N/A this Act on your relationship? 3. How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on the development and establishment of institutional policies (e.g. instructional policies)? 4. What are the consequences of this N approach to the development and establishment of policies? 5. How do you work with president/ N board on the development and allocation of budgets? 6. What are the consequences of this N approach to the development and allocation of budgets? 7. How do you work with president/ N board on educational planning? 8. What are the consequences of this N approach to educational planning? 9. How do you work with president/ N board on the hiring of college personnel? 10. What are the consequences of this N approach to the hiring of personnel? 11. How do you work with board/president N on employment termination of personnel? 12. What are the consequences of this N approach to employment termination? 230 13. How do you work with president/board on the creation and maintenance of a public image for your college (e.g. mission statement, promotion)? 14. What are the consequences of this approach to the creation and maintenance of a public image? 15. Are you knowledgeable of the other party's feelings and views on a variety of topics and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 16. What is the length of time you have known the other party, or members of the other party? 17. To what extent is your relationship with the other party or members of the other party structured by the role relationship of board and president? 18. To what extent is your relationship with the other party contained within the operations of the college? 19. Are your personal encounters with the other party formal or more concrete and specific (i.e., of a personal or social nature?) 20. Do you think that the other party's commitment to the relationship is similar in kind and intensity to your commitment? 21. Do you make distinctions between yourself and the other party on the basis of power? Social status? Leadership role? 22. What are the consequences/effects of your personal relationship with the other party? Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer (Yes/No) N Y N N/A N Y Y Y N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y Y Y N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y Y Y 231 23. What do you like about your N Y N N/A relationship with the other party? 24. Do you have any comments to make N Y N N/A on the board-president relationship or on the views you have expressed already? 232 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: RESPONDENT B Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer (Yes/No) 1. In what ways does the N Y Y Y College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? 2. What are the consequences/effects N Y Y Y of this act on your relationship? 3. How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on the development and establishment of institutional policies (e.g. instructional policies, admission policies?) 4. What are the consequences of this N Y Y Y approach to the development and establishment of policies? 5. How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on the development and allocation of budgets? 6. What are the consequences of this N Y N N/A approach to the development and allocation of budgets? 7. How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on educational planning? 8. What are the consequences of this N Y N N/A approach to educational planning? 9. How do you work with president/board N Y N N/A on the hiring of college personnel? 10. What are the consequences of this N Y Y Y approach to the hiring of personnel? 11. How do you work with board/president N Y Y Y on employment termination of personnel? 12. What are the consequences of this N Y Y Y approach to employment termination? 233 13. How do you work with president/board on the creation and maintenance of a public image for your college (e.g. mission statement, promotion?) 14. What are the consequences of this approach to the creation and maintenance of a public image? 15. Are you knowledgeable of the other party's feelings and views on a variety of topics and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 16. What is the length of time you have known the other party, or members of the other party? 17. To what extent is your relationship with the other party or members of the other party structured by the role relationship of board and president? 18. 19. 20. Do you think that the other party's commitment to the relationship is similar in kind and intensity to your commitment? Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer (Yes/No) N Y N N/A N Y Y Y N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y N N/A To what extent is your relationship with the other party contained within the operations of the college? Are your personal encounters with the other party formal or more concrete and specific (i.e., of a personal or social nature)? 21. Do you make distinctions between N Y N N/A yourself and the other party on the basis of power? social status? leadership role? 22. What are the consequences/effects of N Y Y Y your personal relationship with the other party? 234 23. What do you like about your N Y N N/A relationship with the other party? 24. Do you have any comments to make N Y N N/A on the board-president relationship or on the views you have expressed already? 235 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: RESPONDENT C 1. ' In what ways does the College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? 2. What are the consequences/effects of this act on your relationship? 3. How do you work with president/board on the development and establishment of institutional policies (e.g. instructional policies, admission policies)? Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer (Yes/No) N Y Y Y N Y Y Y NY Y Y 4. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and establishment of policies? 5. 6. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and allocation of budgets? N Y Y Y N Y Y Y How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on the development and allocation of budgets? 7. How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on educational planning? 8. What are the consequences of this N Y N N/A approach to educational planning? 9. How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on the hiring of college personnel? 10. What are the consequences of this NY Y Y approach to the hiring of personnel? 11. How do you work with board/president N Y Y Y on employment termination of personnel? 12. What are the consequences of this N Y Y Y approach to employment termination? 236 Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer 13. How do you work with president/board on the creation and maintenance of a public image for your college (e.g. mission statement, promotion)? 14. What are the consequences of this approach to the creation and maintenance of a public image? 15. Are you knowledgeable of the other party's feelings and views on a variety of topics and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 16. What is the length of time you have known the other party, or members of the other party? 17. To what extent is your relationship with the other party or members of the other party structured by the role relationship of board and president? 18. To what extent is your relationship with the other party contained within the operations of the college? 19. Are your personal encounters with the other party formal or more concrete and specific (i.e., of a personal or social nature)? 20. Do you think that the other party's commitment to the relationship is similar in kind and intensity to your commitment? 21. Do you make distinctions between yourself and the other party on the basis of power? Social status? Leadership role? 22. What are the consequences/effects of your personal relationship with the other party? 23. What do you like about your relationship with the other party? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 237 24. Do you have any comments to make on N/A the board-president relationship or on the views you have expressed already? 238 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: RESPONDENT D 1. In what' ways does the College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? 2. What are the consequences/effects of this act on your relationship? 3. How do you work with president/board on the development and establishment of institutional policies (e.g. instructional policies, admission policies)? 4. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and establishment of policies? 5. How do you work with president/board on the development and allocation of budgets? 6. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and allocation of budgets? 7. How do you work with president/board on educational planning? 8. What are the consequences of this approach to educational planning? 9. How do you work with president/board on the hiring of college personnel? 10. What are the consequences of this approach to the hiring of personnel? 12. What are the consequences of this approach to employment termination? Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer (Yes/No) N Y Y Y N Y N N/A N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N/A N Y Y Y N Y N N/A N Y Y Y N Y N N/A N Y N N/A N Y N N/A 11. How do you work with board/president on employment termination of personnel? 239 Difficulty Answer Follow-up Answer (Yes/No) • 13. How do you work with president/board N Y Y Y on the creation and maintenance of a public image for your college (e.g. mission statement, promotion)? 14. What are the consequences of this N Y N N/A approach to the creation and maintenance of a public image? 15. Are you knowledgeable of the other N Y N N/A party's feelings and views on a variety of topics and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 16. What is the length of time you have N Y N N/A known the other party, or members of the other party? 17. To what extent is your relationship N Y N N/A with the other party or members of the other party structured by the role relationship of board and president? 18. To what extent is your relationship N Y N N/A with the other party contained within the operations of the college? 19. Are your personal encounters with the N Y N N/A other party formal or more concrete and specific (i.e., of a personal or social nature)? 20. Do you think that the other party's N Y N N/A commitment to the relationship is similar in kind and intensity to your commitment? 21. Do you make distinctions between N Y N N/A yourself and the other party on the basis of power? Social status? Leadership role? 22. What are the consequences/effects of N Y Y Y your personal relationship with the other party? 240 23. What do you like about your N Y N N/A relationship with the other party? 24. Do you have any comments to make on N Y N N/A the board-president relationship or on the views you have expressed already? 241 Assessment Of Questions And Procedures 1. Are changes to questions required? No changes are required, provided that probes continue. Question #19 will be re-worded to reduce possible misunderstanding. 2. Are changes to procedures required? Changes in procedures are required in order to shorten the length of the interview. Time constraints on subjects gave problems in two of the four interviews: these subjects were not willing to be flexible with their time. Several questions yielded redundant responses. The reduction of interview time should not change the outcomes of the interview. The interview questions which deal with the operational dimension of the board-president relationship appear to be repetitive in nature. The reduction of this section is therefore a way to reduce the interview time. Two question areas, involving four specific questions, can be omitted without effect on the outcomes. The two question areas are (a) hiring of personnel and (b) termination of personnel. Among all of the questions in this section, these • activities are referred to least in the literature on boards and presidents. Specific response to questions on these activities indicated that boards and presidents together do not devote extensive time to these areas. In the case of hiring, boards and presidents limit themselves to the senior level of appointments, and this activity may occur once every two or three years. In the case of termination, frequency of activity is also limited. It is concluded, therefore, that the absence of these four questions will not lessen 242 the information on the operational nature of the board-president relationship. Their absence-should reduce interview time by twenty to thirty minutes. Another way to reduce interview time involves the limitation of subjects' responses to the question areas. In this trial, the investigator did not constrain the subjects in their responses, and all subjects moved off-topic on several occasions. In that the investigator is also a practitioner, subjects wanted to discuss the topics at length with a party familiar with the issues. The investigator will have to be more directive with subjects and confine their responses to questions and probes in order to complete interviews within the prescribed time frame. Outcomes For Interview Questions As a result of this pilot test, the twenty-four questions were reduced to twenty questions, and the wording of question #19 was altered slightly (new question #15). The revised interview questions follow. 243 Board-President Relationship Interview Questions (Revised March, 1988) 1. In what ways does the College and Institute Act of British Columbia apply to your relationship with president/board? 2. What are the consequences/effects of this act on your relationship? 3. How do you work with president/board on the development and establishment of institutional policies (e.g. instructional policies, admission policies)? 4. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and establishment of policies? 5. How do you work with president/board on the development and allocation of budgets? 6. What are the consequences of this approach to the development and allocation of budgets? 7. How do you work with president/board on educational planning? 8. What are the consequences of this approach to educational planning? 9. How do you work with president/board on the creation and maintenance of a public image for your college (e.g. mission statement, promotion)? 10. What are the consequences of this approach to the creation and maintenance of a public image? 11. Are you knowledgeable of the other party's feelings and views on a variety of topics and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 12. What is the length of time you have known the other party, or members of the other party? 13. To what extent is your relationship with the other party or members of the other party structured by the role relationship of board and president? 14. To what extent is your relationship with the other party contained within the operations of the college? 15. To what extent are your personal encounters with the other party generally formal or informal (e.g. conventional behaviours and gestures or specific and individual interactions)? 16. Do you think that the other party's commitment to the relationship is similar in kind and intensity to your commitment? 244 17. Do you make distinctions between yourself and the other party on the basis of power? Social status? Leadership role? 18. What are the consequences/effects of your personal relationship with the other party? 19. What do you like about your relationship with the other party? 20. Do you have any comments to make on the board-president relationship or on the views you have expressed already? 245 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW RESPONSE SHEET Name: Date: Status: Time: College: Place A. FORMAL RELATIONSHIP Nature of formal relationship (College and Institute Act) INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSE CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS 2. Effects of formal relationship (College and Institute Act) INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS B. OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP 3. Development and establishment of Institutional Policies INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS 4. Effects of Board-President Activities in development of institutional policies. INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSE CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS 250 Development and Allocation of Budgets INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS 6. Effects of Board/President activities, re: development/allocation of budgets INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS Educational Planning INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS Effects re: Educational Planning INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS Creation and Maintenance of Public Image INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS Effects re: Activities involving Public Image INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS C. PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP 11. Characteristics of personal relationship ( i) knowledge of other party's feelings on topics & issues (ii) length of time known other party: (iii) extent to which relationship is structured by role relationship of board/president 257 ( iv) extent to which relationship is contained within operations of • college ( v) extent to which personal encounters are generally formal or informal (e.g. conventional or individualized?) ( vi) other party's commitment to relationship: same in kind and intensity as yours (vii) distinctions between yourself and other party based on power, social status, leadership role. 258 12. Effects of personal relationship INITIAL RESPONSES SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS Assessment: What do you like about your relationship with the othe party? INITIAL RESPONSE SUBSEQUENT RESPONSES CONTEXT/CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONSES TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS D. UNSTRUCTURED DISCUSSION Do you have any other comments which may clarify or add to your respons on the board-president relationship? E. INTERVIEW OBSERVATIONS APPENDIX E BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree A 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): No part of the act seems to deal with the board-president relationship. Board members have legal responsibilities(as in a company). Act is referred to at particular times, usually by board chairman or by board members. The act should be of "paramount importance in deliberations of the board". There is nothing really "contentious" in the act. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): Changes in policy are brought to the board for the board's approval by the President and his senior administrators. Policy is approved; it is a "rubber stamp situation". The board chairman is familiar with policy and policy development. Sometimes, the board will suggest changes to policies. This approach gives me an appreciation of what administration has to deal with on a daily basis. Administration wants to avoid problems, and the avoidance of problems helps the board-president relationship. The board is kept out of policy development except for problem situations. Board members have an external focus. The board participated in a policy over a controversial issue which involved the government minister. If the board members had more time they would be more involved in policy development. This would likely give better direction to the college. Policy initiatives by the board are not "a closed door". The president is not "dictatorial". The board chairman is involved, and board members receive information: they feel involved but not too involved. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The president does not seem to be involved in budgets nor does he work with the board on budget development or allocation. The president is more "operationally oriented". The bursar is the one who works with the board on budgets. 262 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): The board is not involved in educational planning. The board is involved with the development of the Five Year plan. This activity is led by the president. The board role seems to be a "functionary position". It meets the requirements of the act. Individual board members may not feel that they are worthwhile contributors to educational planning. Board members are neither prepared nor involved because of this approach. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The "board could be given more responsibility" for this activity, especially in board members' communities. The board lacks knowledge of college activities and its public image ventures. The president takes the lead in this area, and there are certainly no problems with this. Board members are left out, and they feel neglected. We are falling into a "rut". There is a lack of board participation. 6. Personal dimension: I don't know the president well, but I am concerned because of his lack of attentiveness to me personally. Board members could be more involved with the college. The lack of a personal connection with the president leads to a lack of personal satisfaction for board members. The president handles too much on his own. Board members would help, but they are not asked. 7. Additional comments: Shortcomings are on my part as well as on the president. I don't feel productive in the organization. The president is responsible for getting board members "in gear": he's not doing his job on this. The board is a worthwhile function, but we haven't done very much this past year. Other board members may feel they are "just along for the ride". Because the president is liked by the Minister and the Ministry, the board may be seen as less important. The government minister is personally supportive of college initiatives. 263 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree B 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): The board's function is to approve policy. Policy comes up to board through President and back down in to the institution through the president. The act refers primarily to policy and to the board's policy setting role. The board-president relationship is a "relationship which requires a fair bit of trust on the part of board members". We must believe and trust in the president's information. The president must also trust board members. The board is the ultimate "ruling body". The act and the formal dimension of the relationship helps others to see that the board is in charge. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): The president and the senior administrators develop policy. The board is informed, but the board may identify a problem, look for an existing policy or suggest a new policy. The. board votes to approve policies. The board chairman and vice-chair meet with the president to work out the details of policies. Policies are discussed by board members at in camera meetings, but they are approved at open meetings. In this way, board and president are seen as a common front, a "single" body. This "has enormous impact on the institution". Organizational changes led to bitter feelings among faculty and staff. The president and the board were seen as a common enemy, and the organizational changes were associated with how the board and the president worked together. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The board and the president do not work closely together on budgets. The president is not involved in budgeting. The bursar is the key administrative figure in public,.but likely the president and the other administrators are involved in the background. There is some involvement of board members, usually through the chairman of a board sub-committee. Board members may be critical, in an informal way, and ask questions of the president and the other administrators during meetings. 264 The president gives direction to the board on the allocation of money. This process functions on the "basis of a lot of trust between two parties". This involves the Bursar as well as the president with the board. This is a better system than in the past because it is an administrative team. There is a "fairer division of the funds" than in the past. Although there is still a perception in the institution of inequity, there is greater integration. 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): The board is only involved marginally in educational planning. We are not really informed until after the fact. While the board has an approval role, that doesn't really happen. Board members could approach the senior administrators to make suggestions. The board has approved of the President and the senior administrators doing educational planning. The board is involved in some limited discussions on the Five Year plan. This approach allows for faculty involvement in educational planning. With the board uninvolved, the college can move ahead without interference. Board members lack expertise in this area. The president and the administrators are in "daily or weekly communication with Ministry in Victoria". The board rubber stamps senior administration's proposals. The college sees the president as the educational leader. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): This is the major area where the board and the president work together, especially because of the "tarnished image" of the college in the past. There was a joint decision of board and president to create and promote a "mission". The president speaks for the college. The board has a great deal of "trust" in the president. The president and the board chairman agree on what college personnel will say to the public. No conflicting information is permitted. This leads to powerful statements from the college. There is an informal agreement between the president and the board: they want and they get uniformity. The senior administrators are involved as well. The president is the "kingpin of this secret group". 6. Personal dimension: The president is a "supportive", "nurturing", individual. This supplies him with support as well. This personal rapport he has helps him in difficult times. His personality has a positive effect on the relationship. Personal trust is evident. 265 7. Additional comments: The president and the board chairman help government relationships with the college. The president keeps the Ministry informed. The provincial government has a great deal to do with the college. 266 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree C 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): Board and president are governed by the act. We refer to the act at times, particulary with regard to policies. The act is a "crutch". It is influential, and indicates what you can or cannot do. But, the act does not limit us. "We push everything to the wall here." It is a "necessary" document which gives us rules and procedures. The act protects the board members and to a certain degree the president. Although the president has taken "flak" on a specific case, the board is ultimately responsible. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): Normally, the administrative "team"(president and vice-presidents) generate policy and move it up to the board. The board rarely generates policy, although the board may identify an issue. "Policy maker" here means approval of policy. The board works with the president in understanding policy. The president is the information giver; the board critiques, challenges. The president does not feel "threatened" by this approach. Unlike the past, there is no longer one person with complete control; there is now a team of four administrators. The team approach is "bringing the place together". The president is the final authority before issues go to the board. The team approach is not a "problem" for board and president, but it is difficult to identify actual effects on the board-president relationship. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): Budgets are developed from the "bottom up". Senior administration develops the framework, and colege personnel(administrators, faculty, and staff) do the work. The board is only marginally involved. The board members generally "accept what's put forward". The board appreciates all the information that they receive. They also appreciate that they don't have to work on the budget. Some college personnel might say that the board as government appointees don't advocate enough on behalf of the college. But, the college community likes our approach to budget development. 267 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): Educational planning is also "bottom up". The board approves; they are not involved in educational planning. The board reviews the Five Year plan "after the fact". Board members are busy people. Sometimes, board members may ask questions or initiate an educationally related task force. The "board [chairman] and I talk about most things". The president is involved in numerous local committees. This approach allows the president to take a community emphasis and allows the senior administrators to "work inside". 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The board "works mostly through BCAC"(British Columbia Association of Colleges), and the president works with the provincial government ministry and the Council of Principals. College employees develop the college mission; this goes through the senior administrators and then to the board. The board critiques the work of the college. Through this process, the mission and goals belong to everyone. The majority are "buying in". Top down doesn't work well. Everyone has a sense of ownership. This wouldn't work if the board established the public image for the college. 6. Personal dimension: The board gets to know the president well and is able to predict. Trust is there. Board members "mother and father" the president. They have the best of motives. They are a group of people I can relate to easily. I rely on them when I need them. I understand their role. They are supportive. I don't want them to get into the "nuts and bolts of the place". I get advice from them. Politics gets involved for some of them. All of them are appointed by the Social Credit government. I am watchful. The president is "in" with the local elected, government officials. The president has a "pretty good relationship" with the board chairman, who is a former employee of the college. But, "I don't like some of the things [the chairman] does." The president is able to talk over issues with the board chairman. The board chairman is the leader of the board. The board chairman also has important political connections. 7. Additional comments: It is important to have a board: "objective, cool heads, observers". A governing body is needed for an additional perspective. The board is needed to "take the heat"; that's a "board responsiblity". The president can go to 268 the board with a problem. The board is able to provide "community input". The government has been involved with the college through board members and the president. There are personal connections with the government minister which has meant that the minister has approached the president directly instead of the board. This intervention led to the development of a college policy by the president and the board. 269 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree D 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): The act serves as an umbrella. It is used for "a discussion that wasn't on track". It may also be used for liability issues. Some concerns arose from dealings with a previous chief executive officer at the college. "I [seldom] refer to Act." The act is needed. It provides a framework. The senior administrators follow the regulations of the act. The act is important because it is there. But the act is not comprehensive. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): New policies are initiated by the board. Administration initiates the "revamping" of present policies. The president is the formal initiator of policy; the administrators work as a "team". The responsibility is the president's. The board chair works with the president. If there is a problematical situation with a policy the president will involve the board chair. Policy goes from the president to a board committee of the "whole". The board votes on policy. There may also be informal discussions outside of board meetings. Although policy development and procedures are improved from the past, the board is dependent upon administration. The approach to policy development is generally "ad-hoc", and this affects the college. However, in light of other issues, policy is not a major issue. More people are now involved than in the past in the college's affairs because of a college policy which was the result of board initiative, particularly the board chair's initiative. The college operates in a more "business-like" manner. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The board is not active in either the development or the allocation of budgets. "It's basically brought to us." The board will determine the "direction" of expenditures. The board chair and the president confer privately and come to mutually acceptable positions. There are very few differences on perspectives among board members and the president. 270. "We have full confidence in our administrators" in the process of budgets. 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): The administration works on educational plans and brings these to the board. The administration knows the board's interests and they know the program areas which interest board members. Programs may "come and go", although the president does not like dropping programs, even those with low enrollments. Board members are not adverse to dropping programs. The only shortfall in our approach to educational planning is that we are not "looking into the future". The administration is reluctant to examine alternative modes of instructional delivery. The board must work at taking the initiative in areas where the administrators are not performing. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The board has encouraged senior administrators to become "high profile" in the community. The board chair is very active in the community. The college has a good image with the government ministry. Board members and the president are aware that if the college tries to assist the community, the community will assist the college. The effects of the previous chief executive officer are being overcome. The present president is "down-to-earth"; he is a caring person. He takes the leadership role in the creation and maintenance of a public image for the college. Informally, board members and the president work together on this. Over the past two years the media have become more supportive of the college. The college's approach is now more coordinated, and this approach has helped the community. The board and the president have a "common front"; there is a consistent image of the board and the president. The board chair speaks for the board; the president speaks for the college. 6. Personal dimension: "We don't always agree", but I know what makes him comfortable. The president is uncomfortable with problems related to friends and friendship. He works on the "old buddy system". I am more "bureaucratically oriented". I prefer not to be a social friend with the president. The president is open. We "respect each other". 7. Additional comments: There are some stresses and strains on the board-president relationship. Personality conflicts are most detrimental to the relationship. "This happens." 271 The Ministry and the minister have become involved in college affairs on one occasion. The college tries to maintain a good relationship with the ministry including the minister. We try to be "as positive as possible". As a former faculty member at the college and as a former employee of the present president, I understand the president more clearly than any board member does. I see myself as a "watchdog". The president does come to me as board chair for approval and advice. Although initially I did not want the present president to become the chief executive officer, I find that he is working very hard to improve the college. The president and the senior administrators are working effectively as a team. 272 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree E_ 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): SeractS ""i^on'rthinr^^' ^ 1 ^ COMci°»» of »P~±f±c sections of the act. I don t think I've ever read it." If we dismiss senior -i-.** legal relationship comes to the forefront. In ^ZTnltrTliri^' a former president the board brought the legal as • * ..play„ri^u°f ^ legal dimension has a s.all role, especially with this particular president Te"s^l ' l6gal ***** ~* affeCt the board-presided' 2. operational ^enSi0n(rnstitutional policies) : Sir'if^^rCrj^""^" ^ -liege on a day-to-day SSI X direct, to the preset"' do.-. If I have a Policies flow frothe president to the bos r-H or- * „v ^ board. The boardviews policy carefullv It L fc° is rubber stamped Policy matters " " Jhe.. exception "that policy approved in publi are reviewed and discussed in private, but Although the boar!houldn't be involved in d^-t-o * college", from ti* time, the board initials ool * °f the running well and have a good president in place —^hing is policy initiated board." The bMr!". Place...rare you would need.. a Ifa vote of conf;e for t^^8 P°Sltlon on the hands-off approach 3. operational dion(Budget development&allocation): The bursar initiale budg t proc budget development board fcJ ^ ^e ^oard sets the framework for  to approve the Sloped budget There is mo" 7'. The b°ard VOt6s in the past, althSw board ^ are not aJ^n involvement than The board is able e an role but not 33 °ld members • college's debt sit fco ^ not an -terfering role. The administration. ^ is perceived „* J 273 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): This is not an area of expertise for board members. In areas where individual board members have expertise, the board participates in educational planning. The educational plan is seen as the president's plan. Some board members have a personal "hobby horse". Board members may give suggestions to the president and to other administrators. Essentially, the board stands behind the administration. In that the board relies on its experts, the college's staff, the college is able to serve the community. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): This area, public image, is highly dependent upon the president's abilities. The college's mission is reviewed by the board, with modest changes from time to time. This president, unlike the former Chief exectuive officer, is present locally; he is "here". He has repaired a poor image with the board's support. The board is not active in the community, does not take an active role in the Five Year Plan or with other college public documents. Board members are available but not "proactive'. At times, community members will approach board members, especially in small communities. There is no contact with faculty and staff on college issues. Some college personnel might allege that board members are too aloof, that they are cut off from the campus. 6. Personal dimension: "I find him[president]to be very honest and open...hardworking and capable." The president is compassionate especially toward faculty problems. He protects the image of the college. "We are on the same wave length." The administrators see me as a primary supporter. This is not the case with all board members. There is conflict with the board chair. There is a problem with the chair and the administration and with the chair and the college generally. The president and I "have an understanding", but the other board members are not aware of this association. "Chairmen come and go; but, the administration stays." The board chair does not have the best interests of the college in mind. The chair is the only board member involved "hands on" in the college. The president, however, is able to avoid potential friction with the board chair. With my help, the president is able to ensure that the board chair does not "change the college deliberately". 7. ' Additional comments: The president does not dominate, on behalf of the college, in public. He is very good with human relations. He may not be the best builder, but he is the best administrator. He made a point "of getting to know Minister". The ministry is favourable to the college, and this has helped during problem situations. This connection of the president and the minister may have some 274 effects on the president's relationship with the board. Some board members may be "in awe of the minister". "I get very concerned at times with... [the president's] complete involvement with his job." The president is physically and emotionally a "workaholic". 275 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree F 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): I read the act several years ago, and I have not referred to it since. With respect to the board-president relationship the act has no effects. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): "The president initiates policy objectives or policy ideas." He bounces these off board members. After a good deal of discussion, the board comes to policy initiatives. In some cases, policy may come from other areas of the college besides the board or president. "I hope that this approach to the development of policy" has an influence on the institution. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The senior administrators run an overview of the budget for the year past the board. The board has an opportunity to make alterations and suggestions. The executive may revise the budget after board input. A "comprehensive effort" is made by the board and senior administration in budget development; but, the board is not involved in the "line by line" of the budget. The board gives guidelines in terms of priorities. Board members look to the chair and vice-chair for leadership. Sometimes the board members meet in camera, without the president or the bursar to discuss budget matters. Following such a meeting the board chair will go to the president to discuss the issues. In open meetings, there is not much debate or discussion on budget matters. This permits group consensus on budgets. This seems to be a satisfactory approach for the president. The rest of the college would see that the budget is approved by a large group(i.e. the board and the administration). 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): This process is similar to the budget process. We have a Five Year Plan which is put together by the senior administrators and brought to the board. The board can have an influence on long range plans. Individual board members do have an influence in their personal areas of expertise. Educational plans come up from the bottom and these plans achieve a consensus from administration. The president does have "his pet areas". The board tends to 276 back off on educational matters. Board members are guided by administrators' advice. Educational issues of local community interest do bring out board members who may be influenced by faculty and are often perceived as allies of faculty on these matters. On day-to-day matters, the chair and the vice-chair have the task of watching the senior administrators. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The board is more attentive to this area than to other areas. Board members are sensitive to the public. They have the "opportunity to influence [the] picture that it being presented". The Five Year Plan "needs board approval". The board guides and directs the president. The president would not speak out publicly without talking to the chair on sensitive issues. The chair speaks for the board; the president is the main spokesperson for the college. It is "critical that the president be a good communicator". The president must follow the majority vote of the board or the consensus of the board. "Consensus usually reigns." The board tries to present a uniform reaction to government. The personalities of government make a difference. One board member spoke out in the past against the position of the board. This put the president in a difficult position. This also led to hostility for the outspoken board member by the other board members. The board is a tightly knit group. Faculty have the most difficulty with this area. They see the board as a "common enemy". There is an ideological battle at the college. The faculty are "a political group". A scandal arose over the actions of a former president. At first the board was blamed for this incident. Now the board is more guarded. Now the bursar must accept greater responsiblity. The board wants "checks and balances". The bursar answers to the board not to the president. 6. Personal dimension: Those who know the president have positive responses to him. He is the "right person at the right time". I am biased positively toward the president; my "objectivity slide[s]". I like the openness of the relationship. There are "no hidden agendas". 7. Additional comments: The real problem concerns individuals' mandates to be on the board. Those who have educationally related agendas work better with the president. There are those who want to "clobber academics" and tend to be "anti-educational". There is "no room for personal political gains". In the past the president(former) and board chair(former) were at odds, philosophically. The present chair has a good background. There are no political wrangles with the board and the president. The way the president treats board members is primary: this determines how board and president "get along". There is some political 277 in-fighting among political party people on the board. The college is supposed to be an educational institution. 278 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree G_ 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): There is no awareness of the act; the relationship is natural and functional. "I have a background here: policy making function of board and administrative function of president—these are natural things." I am not conscious of legal roles. We "don't have to fall back on legal definitions". This is a positive condition both for the president and for the college. The president's function is to carry out board policy. If he doesn't do this "satisfactorily, he gets fired". 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): When the need arises, the president and his staff "bring us a policy". From time to time, the board gives direction to the president for a policy. The board's role is protective of the institution. The board is more interested in personnel issues(e.g., sexual harassment, aids). The president takes a leadership role on policy. Some board members "just sit there". Experience on the board determines how active individual board members are on policy initiatives. The board and the president have developed a good working relationship. "I don't hear anybody criticizing the president behind his back." 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The board initiates a budget philosophy first. The philosophy of the budget involves the aims and goals of the college: this is worked on by the president, the senior administrators, and the board. Budget information and requests filter up through the institution. Budget proposals come to the board as recommendations from the bursar and the president, as a joint presentation. The board asks questions, superficial questions because of time limitations. For the past three years budget reporting by the bursar has become more frequent: we need a more accurate reflection of the situation. We are not "a rubber stamp organization". The president makes a recommendation; there is freedom of expression for both president and board. The president must substantiate his recommendations. "We'll shoot it down" if he can't substantiate. We "each have confidence in the other". We don't have surprises with problems. There is a "very open understanding 279 of problems". The college community is involved in the budget process. 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): This process is similar to budget development. Board members are willing to give the president credit for educational planning. One or two board members step in beyond policy making into educational planning. There are, however, infrequent requests from board members for specific programs. A few key board members support president, but ensure that the educational plan is not seen as soley the president's but the "result of a lot of meetings". The president is responsible, but the senior administrators will speak to educational issues and some are questionned and criticized by board members from time to time. The planning process has developed over the years toward an "ideal situation". Information on educational planning is available for everyone in the institution to examine. The participants in the institution are able to be fully aware of the process. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The president is "very much aware of the need for a good public perception of the college". The board discusses the college's mission and goals, annually, at a retreat with the president. There is no change in goals, but there is a change in emphasis. We seem "to conform to the Ministry". The president and the Minister "get along very well". There is a good personal relationship with the Minister which comes from "a lot of personal communication". Board members may and will phone government officials. Lobbying and individual initiatives from board members are common. There is a tacit understanding on this matter. Board members are subtle political promoters of the college. We have a good image in the community. We have a good public information program. Board members are effective, but there are potential and actual conflicts which arise from political lobbying. There are "lots of factions" in the political world. 6. Personal dimension: Past president did cause problems. I "can't help but be positive" about our present president. He is able to discuss serious matters with me in confidence. "If ...[he]... has that kind of relationship with any or all his board members, his leadership benefits." He "never asks for intervention", but he does ask for advice. "If I can help..[him]...if it's not obvious, I will." I admire the president as a person; I like his personal aims and goals. He is good with his family. He can discuss things "openly". "He's open." 280 Additional comments: We have worked at our relationship. At the college, we have a good board, some very good administrators, and the college is running as smoothly as ever. "We are doing a tremendous job", because of "openness, trust, respect". We have a fairly coherent group of board members. One or two board members have personal biases. It is important to have a good relationship of board and president, but you need to "develop proper relationships with [the] whole administrative group". The president's background within the college has helped the board-president relationship. 281 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree I 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): "I've read the act, but can't quote one line." There is no consciousness of the act. If there was a problem, I would go to the act. There is a role/legal relationship with the president. "I have a basic understanding of that relationship." 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): An individual board member tried to make a case to the president on a policy matter. That individual board member was not able to get support from other board members. The president did not take the advice, and the board made an "error" on their actions. There was a good deal of "lobbying behind the scenes", and this lobbying involved faculty as well. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The board is "committed to getting best" for its money. This process is carried out "very democratically". The board chair is fair, good at what she does. The bursar and the president are the main college participants. 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): "We (as a board) haven't spent a lot of time on trying to service educational needs of community." The leadership role is shared equally by the president and the board chair. They get together "over the telephone". There is lobbying and manouevering. This is very effective. Educational plans are board decisions. The board has freedom in this area. Board members could be more involved if they wanted. 5. Operational dimension(CreationSmaintenance of public image): "There is a lot of emphasis on [the] image of the college." The president is very effective. He represents the college well. The board encourages him to become - active and visible. The president has considerable freedom in speaking publicly. If the president is wrong, the board can say, "you should have come to us". But the president "plays it very well"; he "checks with [the] board 282 chairman". The president relates well to the government ministry. The board takes an active role. Board members listen and talk to community. 6. Personal dimension: I "respect" the president. He is "honest" and "hardworking". He is "capable", a "good citizen". I don't see him primarily as an educator. The president might be concerned about my personal concerns, interest, and community involvement. Because of my activities, I have information and knowledge which may not sit well with the president. 7. Additional comments: The president is a "diplomat", a "salesman". "Everybody on the board respects" the president. There is no "animosity", no "bad blood". The president "reads people well". The board chair plays a key role. The vice chair is capable. The board is "such a serious thing". "I've gone along with others" because I am new and lack the appropriate background. "I know why we are here": to help the community; to prepare people for economic problems. "It's a jungle out there." I believe I could contribute more than a "watchdog". 283 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Appletree J 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): "I don't think it[the Act]has anything to do with the relationship with the president." The act is fairly "bare bones". It has no effects on the board-president relationship. I am not conscious of a "legal connection". 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): Policies come from the administration through the president to the board. The board reacts to policy, with very few exceptions. The board has initiated a "couple of things over the past year". In most cases, the board approves policy, and may add a minor suggestion. If the board were overly critical of the president's policy, this would not be a good situation. The personality of the president is a key factor here. "With this president... if we almost turned several[policies] upside down the relationship would still exist." The administrators are a "team"; their work is a joint effort. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The administration initiates budgets; the board approves. The main players are the president, the bursar, and the vice-presidents. The board participates. There is a "good balance". I have the impression that others in the institution are involved. 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): The board may direct the president on large, public issues such as the acquisition of a new campus, but the president and his administrators initiate most activities involving educational planning. The board may direct the president to come up with a response to their concerns. Although a vice-president may answer to the board; the board may critique the president. The president takes the responsibility. "I don't know" the effects. "We keep changing." Educational planning is a continuous process. I don't know what the president and the vice-presidents are doing. 284 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The board is aware of public oriented material, but the board does not "approve" the material. Board members refer to the president for the college's public role. As a board member, I will refer matters to administrators which relate to the public. Because I do not reside near the college's campus, I am. unaware of local issues. I am not a representative of a local community. The board chair is concerned about the president's involvement in this area: the president gives a great deal of his time to the community. The college has a good image in the community. The faculty's perception of the board is improving. During restraint, the faculty became very "disenchanted". College re-organization was upsetting as well. The information from the vice-presidents and the president about the college is accurate. Our board chair who was a former employee of the college knows about the accuracy of this information. 6. Personal dimension: The "personal aspect is everything". The "personality of a president...plays a great role". The president's interpersonal skills are a benefit to the institution. Although the personal qualities of the president are uppermost, the board will not vote with this in mind. I find the president "personable"; he works hard on behalf of the college. He's "doing a good job". I go along with his advice. With nine board members, there is variation in response to each other and to the president. The board is fairly new, but it works well. 7. Additional comments: The president doesn't have any "favourites around the table"; he deals with all equitably. All board members feel they have a "pretty good relationship with him". We have had a problem or two. One board member resigned over a public issue; she wasn't liked, however, by the other board members. There was board conflict. Social Credit party politics are not evident with the board. The president is "apolitical". 98% of college board members in British Columbia are Socreds. 285 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Oak A 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): The act gives birth to the college in a technical sense and to the players in the college. The act sets the terms of reference. The board is composed of government appointees. There is little actual contact with the act. It parallels the articles of incorporation of a company. The board and president refer to the act only if there is a problem. In a practical sense, the act has no effect on the relationship. Board members set a standard outside of the act. The act is taken for granted to the extent that the formal relationship as reflected by the act is not a conscious relationship. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): The president and the senior administrators bring policy to the board. The board looks to the president for direction. The board looks to the president to identify community needs. The board has chosen a leader to represent the board's interests. The board may challenge the president, and the president needs to rationalize and justify. The board and the president have a dependency-type relationship. The board must trust and depend upon the president. Information and policy direction flow up in the institution. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): Management develops initial budgets; board and president may work together on specific problems. The "board provides direction, feedback, and analysis" but doesn't have the resources to do more. The relationship must be one of "complete confidence in the president" by the board; and, to some extent, the president's confidence in the board. The few differences on budget matters are acceptable, whereas many differences indicate rapid deterioration. 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): Management usually makes a determination, then takes plans to the board. A 286 board committee examines the directions and comes to the full board with recommendations. The president gives information; the board raises questions. Board members are independent of the college and can bring their views to the college. The president runs the college. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The board takes a big role in this area. The president is very visible in the community, and he is the "key communicator", although the board chairman speaks for the college as well. The board and the president do share public image tasks, but the president has the dominant role. The board gives the president the authority to lead in this area. The college has achieved a very positive public image perception, and this assists the board in its work and gives the board confidence in the president. 6. Personal dimension: The board-president relationship is more of a personal relationship than a role relationship. "Having confidence in someone is part of a personal relationship." Although the board and the president could function on a conventional level, the personal aspects for association make the process more enjoyable. The board and the president have mutual respect for each other. The president maintains a high regard for all board members. "I have tremendous respect for...[his] abilities." 7. Additional comments: The board is present to manage the overall direction of the college. The board has tremendous respect for the college's management. The board-president relationship is a very dynamic relationship. 287 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Oak B 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): The act has no relationship to the board-president relationship. Board and president could operate the same way they do now without the act. The role of board and president has not changed even though the act has changed. The board-president relationship is "people working together". The formal dimension of the board-president relationship has no effects on the board-president relationship. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): Policies originate from administration. Board members may make suggestions. Policy is developed by the president with the participation of the deans. The board votes on the policies, but the president takes a leading role. There are no "secrets", no "hidden agenda". The president meets with the board chairman every second or third week and "briefs" the chairman. The chairman offers advice and sometimes the president takes the chairman's advice. This approach to the development of policy makes for an excellent working relationship where everyone(board members, administration, and president) work together. A college management committee receives "input" from all areas of the college. When policy comes to the board it has been well-thought out and the management has agreed to it. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The budget is prepared by the deans and the bursar with input from all college areas. This budget is given to a board sub-committee which screens the budget and may recommend changes. The board is aware that there are no disagreements among the president and the administrators, although there may be disagreement between faculty and administration. There are no private meetings on the budget with the board chairman and the president, but the board and senior administration meet in private to discuss budget. The board acts as a buffer between the administration and government; the board will side with the president against government. This approach helps us to be the best functioning college with respect to management. 288 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): The board is not involved in educational planning in the sense that the board does not tell the college how to plan. "Not our role." The board acts as constructive critics; the board voices community needs. The president and the deans must assure the board that their proposals are required. The board wants the knowledge to make the final decisions. The open flow of information allows the board to be fully apprised of college situations even though the board is not involved in the day-to-day activities. This distance helps the board to assist the president. The board chairman is able to express the board's concerns to the president if the board is ever "angry" with the president. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): It is an exception that the board will take a leading role without the assistance of the president. It is hard to say, however, who initiates the creation of a particular image. Restraint had a positive effect in that the administrators were forced to go out into the community for support for the college. The board and the president have always wanted a community college image, but the government ministry opposed this. The board was constrained by the government department through government control of finances. This is changing. The restraint program brought the board and the president closer together. Board and president were able to take a common stand. This also rippled down into the faculty as administrators and faculty became more community oriented. 6. Personal dimension: We have an "open" relationship. It is easy to get along with someone if you like how he administers his function. We can discuss everything. He appreciates "my presence" and my being around to listen. He is this way with other board members. This personal dimension, however, is not a factor in decision-making. My personal rapport with the president doesn't influence my decisions. 7. Additional comments: None. 289 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Oak C 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): The act gives "authority" for decisions. The legal relationship is evident during "problem" situations, during disruptions. The president needs to know he is legally backed up. During labour disputes, board and president are certainly aware of the legal nature of their relationship. The act is a "solemn guide" and an "instructional base" for the board-president relationship. The legal relationship constitutes the rules of the game, rules which are beneficial because everyone knows them. Those who are most aware of the rules have the advantage. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): The president is "a very creative guy". He is intelligent and he has leadership qualities. He takes the leadership role in policy development and this leads to sophisticated policies. He "suggests in subtle ways the need for policy". The board has developed a sense of trust for the president. The president, however, is limited in what he can do by the nature of his work: he cannot be in contact with all faculty, staff, and students. The board, too, has limitations on their-time. The board could do more on policy, but the time is not there. There would be better policies if the board had more time. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The president is "keenly tuned into" the financial condition of the institution, more than the board. The board is more relaxed than the president on these matters of budgets. The president worries about finances. Government is also a big influence here. The board is placed by government; board members are "government henchmen". There are two experienced board members who are "keenly aware" of financial'matters. The board develops budgets under the aegis of government. The college is a public institution, heavily influenced by government: the agenda of government is both economic and social. The changing economic, social, and political agendas have a large influence on the nature of the colleges and thus on how boards and presidents manage the college. 290 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning) On educational issues, board members and the president develop a consensus; others in the senior administrative group are also part of this consensus. There are particular demands which stem from the external environment. The college must follow some of these, must "adapt", but the college must avoid following popular trends. The board and the president weigh all the evidence and give a model or a vision of the college. Given that government controls education and that the board and the president are in fact government representatives, the board and the president work extremely effectively in educational planning. "It is the people's place." 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The board and the president are agreed on a common, united position. The president takes an active role in this area. The president "personalizes" the mission of the college. The president speaks for the college; on occasion, the chairman of the board will speak for the college. Official documents come from both the board and the president. There is a consensus on the public image. The president is the "up front man", the bringer of good news. This is what the public wants. The board is happy with the president because he has passion; he is a believer. 6. Personal dimension: Personal knowledge of the president diminishes the chance of surprises. As a board member, it is "my duty to find out who we are dealing with here". The president is a stimulating individual and this stimulation keeps me on the board. There are no problems with my personal relationship with the president, and this is a positive for the institution. With an unhealthy relationship, sad things would happen. 7. Additional comments: The educational process is "fraught with danger". "There are real prima donnas in academia". Knowledge tends to "puff" people up. 291 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP INTERVIEW RESPONSES CODE NAME Oak D 1. Formal dimension(College and Institute Act): "I have only referred to act on one occasion." "The act does spell out what our role is." Formal dimension is not a conscious factor, although board members are aware that they are the President's "boss". "We are the final say on establishing policy"; implementation rests on the president and his administrators. Although the act gives the board a position of power, "I don't perceive myself in a position of power". This formal dimension has no specific effects on the board-president relationship or on the institution. 2. Operational dimension(Institutional policies): . Operationally, there is a separation of board and president on the development of institutional policies. Nonetheless, the board is aware of the president's position on policy, and the president, indirectly, initiates policy. This separation allows for another perspective besides the president's by the board on policy. The administration is answerable to the board. t Policy items comes up through college committees to the board. Board committeees make recommendations to the board on policy matters. At board meetings where policy is discussed, the president will speak to the policy if there is a question about the policy. 3. Operational dimension(Budget development&allocation): The board is not involved in the allocation of budgets, but is involved at a distance in the development of budgets. The board receives budget proposals from the Bursar. The President is involved in discussions with the bursar and the bursar's staff. Draft budgets go to the board for "permission". The board may ask for more information. "If they are snowing us, sometimes we find out." "We don't necessarily rubber stamp." The president has been "taken to task" on at least one occasion. "We don't like surprises." This distance of the board from the activities of budget development allows the board to play the role of critic. 292 4. Operational dimension(Educational planning): The president and the board discuss general educational directions. Overall plans are developed by the administration. Plans come to the board from various committee levels. Board members may focus on "access" for students. The board often takes the role of constructive critics. The president will often speak to the board's questions. It is not the board's role to work through curriculum. The board is detached from educational planning, and unless board members can trust the president this wouldn't work. After knowing how the president operates for many years, the board can trust the president. 5. Operational dimension(Creation&maintenance of public image): The president takes the lead role because of his personality. Board members are reactors not creators. The president keeps the board informed of his messages to the public. The board takes a leadership role in maintaining the college's public image(mainly through the board chairman). Faculty are very involved in the public aspects of the college. The board would put the "brakes on" if the college was heading in a wrong direction. 6. Personal dimension: Board members are sensitive toward president's feelings. There is ease with discussions between board members and the president, both formally and informally. Board members may and do speak to the president personally. Board members are allowed to be honest with the president. Board members enjoy their relationship with the president. Th