Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The board-president relationship in three British Columbia community colleges 1989

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1989_A2 L48.pdf [ 13.94MB ]
UBC_1989_A2 L48.pdf
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
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 a c c e p t t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a September 1989 © J o h n S . L e v i n , 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 i n i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education has a t t r a c t e d considerable a t t e n t i o n i n the North American l i t e r a t u r e . While much has been published concerning the respective roles of the president and the governing board i n managing the a f f a i r s of colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s , l i m i t e d attention has been given to the r e l a t i o n s h i p which e x i s t s between the two p a r t i e s . Furthermore, while the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s acknowledged, there has been no systematic research to determine reasons f o r such a claim. This study examines the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i n three community colleges i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia and ascertains reasons f o r i t s importance. The research framework on which the study i s based consists of three major components, the determinants of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t s e f f e c t s , and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i t s e l f . The l i t e r a t u r e on boards and presidents implies that any r e l a t i o n s h i p s which do e x i s t f a l l i n t o three d i s t i n c t dimensions, formal, operational, and personal. The three dimensions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p are used i n t h i s study as a f o c a l point and conceptual centre around which research questions are designed. The method involves a q u a l i t a t i v e - i n t e r p r e t i v e design which generates both documentary, f a c t u a l data and perceptual data from two major sources. The sources are i n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g a l documents and in-depth interviews with the presidents and board members from the three i n s t i t u t i o n s . The study l a r g e l y reveals an understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p from the perspective of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . The conclusions which emerge from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e that the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p at each college displays c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p with the a r t i c u l a t e d goals, philosophy, and values of each i n s t i t u t i o n and r e f l e c t s i t s development. Moreover, as perceived by the p a r t i c i p a n t s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p exerts important influence upon the image of the college with both i t s i n t e r n a l and external community, while r e i n f o r c i n g the values and philosophy of the i n s t i t u t i o n . The research provides a beginning for the development of theory i n the area of leadership and management i n i n s t i t u t i o n s of post-secondary education. It also o f f e r s i n s i g h t s f o r p r a c t i t i o n e r s concerned with the improvement of t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n governance, s p e c i f i c a l l y i n the colleges i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The study has moved beyond current scholarship on the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p ; i t has also prepared the groundwork for further research by posing several hypothetical questions which a r i s e from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . TABLE OF CONTENTS C o n t e n t s Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v L I S T OF TABLES v i i i L I S T OF FIGURES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i 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 13 The Governing Board 13 The President 24 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOARD AND PRESIDENT 35 CONCEPTIONS OF THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP 44 Pre s c r i p t i o n s and Expectations 44 Behaviours of Presidents and Boards 4 6 P e r s o n a l i t i e s and t h e i r Dynamics 47 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4 8 i v CHAPTER THREE: THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 51 CONCEPTUALIZING THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP 51 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 61 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 65 DATA SOURCES 6 6 Documents 66 Interviews of Board Members and Pre s i d e n t s 67 F i e l d Notes 68 DATA COLLECTION 68 S i t e S e l e c t i o n 68 Sample 7 0 C o l l e c t i o n of Data 72 DATA ANALYSIS 8 4 D e s c r i p t i v e A n a l y s i s 8 4 I n t e r p r e t i v e A n a l y s i s 87 Comparative A n a l y s i s 8 9 DELIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 90 D e l i m i t a t i o n s 90 Assumptions 90 CHAPTER F I V E : DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART I 93 THE FORMAL DIMENSION • 93 L e g i s l a t e d Expectations f o r the Formal Dimension 94 The Per c e i v e d Understanding of the Formal Dimension 9 6 THE OPERATIONAL DIMENSION 103 The O p e r a t i o n a l 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 S I X : DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART I I 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 159 Oak College 163 Cedar College 165 Perceived E f f e c t s at the Three Colleges: Summary ' 170 BOARD AND PRESIDENT WORKING TOGETHER 17 0 Appletree College 171 Oak College 173 Cedar College 17 6 v i Board and President Working Together at Three Col leges 17 8 SUMMARY FINDINGS OF CHAPTER SIX 184 CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY OF THE STUDY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 185 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY 185 The Purposes of the Research 185 Methods • 185 Findings 18 6 CONCLUSIONS 192 The Importance of the Board-President Re la t ionsh ip 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 v i i L I S T 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 PERC IVED 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 L I S T 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 t r a v e l alone. Nevertheless, those who serve as guides and mentors make the journey less a s o l i t a r y meandering and more of a tour. To the three wise men, John Dennison, Ian Housego, and Graham Kelsey, who gla d l y served, I am honoured by your presence. To my mentor, Lee Stewart, who accompanied and accommodated me during t h i s adventure, I am indebted to your sense of d i r e c t i o n . For those i n my family now dead, I f e e l a p a r t i c u l a r form of gratitude. Some l e f t a continent so that I would not experience servitude or persecution. Some worked f or economic prosperity so that I would not want. One l e f t a legacy of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Another l e f t an image of human p o t e n t i a l and greatness. Another l e f t the f e e l i n g of human understanding and s e l f l e s s n e s s . And another l e f t me with a sense of the importance of the ordinary i n l i f e . Without these q u a l i t i e s , I would not have been able to meet t h i s challenge. I can only hope that I have done t h e i r memory j u s t i c e . x i CHAPTER ONE THE PURPOSE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Within the North American academic i n s t i t u t i o n a president (or ch i e f executive o f f i c e r ) and a governing board (or trustees) have both formal and informal connections to each other. These connections can be r e f e r r e d to as a board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p , whether i t i s described as a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two p a r t i e s or as an assoc i a t i o n of two p a r t i e s . Indeed, i n recent discussions (e.g., Wood 1984 & 1985; Vaughan, 1986) the connection of board and president i s e x p l i c i t l y c a l l e d a board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . There i s not only recognition of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n discussions and studies but also concern over i t s condition. Gleazer Jr.(1985) inquires into the "health" of the r e l a t i o n s h i p at the community co l l e g e . Pappas and R i t t e r (1983) hypothesize the existence of adverse r e l a t i o n s between community college presidents and t h e i r boards. Wood (1984) examines the tensions within the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p at the four-year c o l l e g e . Munitz (1980) emphasizes the tensions which may e x i s t between board and president i n colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s . Whereas many observers are concerned with problems, c o n f l i c t s , and tensions i n the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p , others devote t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to assertions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s importance. In the following example, Kauffman o f f e r s an emphatic statement on the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p to the president: 1 Nothing i s more important to a college or u n i v e r s i t y president than a successful r e l a t i o n s h i p with that i n s t i t u t i o n ' s governing board. It i s the governing board that determines or arranges the forms of i n s t i t u t i o n a l governance. It i s the governing board . that delegates authority to the president, without a sound r e l a t i o n s h i p with the governing board, the president cannot be effective.(1980:52) Others (e.g., Richardson J r . et a l . , 1972; Gould, 1973; Corson, 1980; Gleazer J r . , 1985) emphasize the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p to the governing board. Wood (1984 & 1985) i s one of the few who suggest that the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not only f o r each of the separate p a r t i e s 1 b u t also f o r the b e n e f i t of higher education, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the maintenance of i n t e l l e c t u a l values and the pursuit of educational innovation (Wood, 1984:42). That the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i s important i s neither disputed nor i n doubt based on the assertions of observers and p a r t i c i p a n t s . But while the reasons f o r i t s importance may seem se l f - e v i d e n t , there has been no attempt to examine them syste m a t i c a l l y or to see what, i f any, i n s i g h t s are to be gained from such examinations. Although Kauffman (1980) states that the president cannot be e f f e c t i v e without a sound r e l a t i o n s h i p with the governing board, his a s s e r t i o n does not explain the r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s influence on p r e s i d e n t i a l performance and on the i n s t i t u t i o n (e.g. i t s operations). Although Corson (1980) states that the c r i t i c a l component, of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the president's a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , his assessment does not uncover the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p or reveal how i t works. No c l e a r , compelling, or a u t h o r i t a t i v e explanation of the nature and functioning of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i s to be found i n the 2 l i t e r a t u r e . Nonetheless, the assertions of i t s importance are u n i v e r s a l i n discussions of community colleges, four-year colleges, and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n North America. It appears that there i s a lack of explanation f o r a r e l a t i o n s h i p which commands .considerable at t e n t i o n and a t t r a c t s judgement. What are the reasons f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s importance? The P u r p o s e Of The S t u d y The purpose of t h i s study i s to examine the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i n order to discern reasons f o r the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In f u l f i l l i n g t h i s purpose, i t i s necessary to examine, systematically, those aspects of the r e l a t i o n s h i p which give i n s i g h t s into the r e l a t i o n s h i p . What contributes to or determines the r e l a t i o n s h i p , what q u a l i t i e s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are observable i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p , and what r e s u l t s are produced by the r e l a t i o n s h i p a l l can be seen to comprise what i n t h i s study i s r e f e r r e d to as the nature of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . The examination and d e s c r i p t i o n of the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p constitute an i n i t i a l undertaking of t h i s study. Following t h i s , the discovery and subsequent explanation of the ways the two p a r t i e s govern and manage the academic i n s t i t u t i o n ( i . e . , how the p a r t i e s work together) are intended to emerge. And from the combined examination of the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and the workings of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , the reasons f o r the importance of the 3 r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be d i scerned and descr ibed . Although the l i t e r a t u r e on boards and pres idents does o f f e r as ser t ions about the r e l a t i o n s h i p and i n s i g h t s in to the two separate p a r t i e s , i t does not prov ide explanat ions of the character and d i s t i n g u i s h i n g q u a l i t i e s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . While Munitz (1980) suggests that there are i n e v i t a b l e tensions between board members and the pres ident , and Wood (1984) asser t s that these tens ions are symptoms of u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p , nonetheless these observat ions and conclus ions ne i ther descr ibe nor exp la in the q u a l i t i e s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , what g ives r i s e to these q u a l i t i e s , and what are the r e s u l t s , or e f f e c t s , of, these . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of determinants , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t i s assumed, w i l l provide an e m p i r i c a l bas i s f o r d i s c e r n i n g and d e s c r i b i n g how the p a r t i e s work together and the reasons why the r e l a t i o n s h i p i 3 important . Among the many and var ious t o p i c s examined and d i scussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e on academic i n s t i t u t i o n s , governance and management have assumed prominent p o s i t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y i n recent decades (e .g . Corson, 1975; Baldr idge et a l . , 1977; Mortimer & McConnel l , 1978; C l a r k , 1983; K e l l e r , 1983; Lee & Van Horn, 1983; Cameron, 1984; D i l l , 1984; Davies , 1985; A l f r e d & Smydra, 1985; Dennison, 1986) . In North American higher educat ion, condi t ions of f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t , sharp growth and dec l ine of student popula t ions , changing c l i e n t e l e s , and expansion of knowledge are among the fac tors which over the past two decades have p laced both greater expectat ions and pressures upon academic i n s t i t u t i o n s . These condi t ions have cons iderable import for those who 4 have major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r the performance and a c t i v i t i e s of u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s . As ch i e f p a r t i e s i n roles of formal authority, governing boards and presidents have po s i t i o n s of prominence i n the l i t e r a t u r e on governance and management of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . In the U.S., over the past two decades, the l i t e r a t u r e on governance and management of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n has included numerous and various examinations of governing boards and presidents as major actors (e.g. Cohen & March, 1974 ; R i l e y , 1 9 7 7 ; Corson, 1980 ; Wood, 1985 ; Gleazer J r . , 1985 ; Kerr & Gade, 1 9 8 6 ) . It i s evident that governing boards and presidents are connected i n studies and discussion with governance and management of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , but there i s l i t t l e a t tention given to the ways i n which boards and presidents function together. While importance of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i s assumed i n t h i s study, the reasons f o r i t s importance await discovery. Wood (1985) argues that the impact of the board on the four year college has at l e a s t one negative outcome: the board, u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y , diminishes the leadership p o t e n t i a l of the presidency. Wood (1985) notes as well that shared governance of board and president i s a s u r v i v a l a c t i v i t y f o r presidents. In the examination of how the p a r t i e s work, together and i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the nature of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p , p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard to the e f f e c t s of the re l a t i o n s h i p , the main goal of t h i s study w i l l be addressed: to uncover reasons f o r the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The l i t e r a t u r e on boards and presidents suggests that the r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s 5 importance pertains to i t s e f f e c t s on one of the p a r t i e s . In t h i s study, the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s examined l a r g e l y i n the context of the operations of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , not just i n connection with one or both of the p a r t i e s . The S i g n i f i c a n c e Of The Study There are at l e a s t three areas to which t h i s study i s d i r e c t e d that suggest s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The f i r s t area involves the two p a r t i e s , board members and presidents, as major actors i n higher education. The second area involves the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y i t s governance and management. The t h i r d area involves methodology. Whereas the importance of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i s asserted rather than explained, the importance of the two p a r t i e s to the r e l a t i o n s h i p can be seen (and often explained) i n the many discussions and studies of colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s . In p a r t i c u l a r , systematic studies of the governance of higher education, a recent research a c t i v i t y according to Wood (1985), have focussed on and emphasized one or both p a r t i e s (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973; Cohen & March, 1974 & 1986; Corson, 1975 & 1980; Monroe, 1977; Riley, 1977; Mortimer & McConnell, 1978; A l f r e d & Smydra, 1985; Wood, 1985; Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). Also, discussions of leadership i n higher education emphasize the key ro l e of presidents and board members i n academic leadership (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978; Kauffman, 1980; Fisher, 1984; 6 Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984 ; A s t i n , 1985 ; Kerr & Gade, 1986 ; Vaughan, 1 9 8 6 ) . And, most recently, discussions of management i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i d e n t i f y presidents and board members as responsible p a r t i e s f o r academic management (Kauffman, 1980 ; K e l l e r , 1 9 8 3 ; Davies, 1985 ; Campbell & Associates, 1985) . The focus on presidents and board members as major p a r t i c i p a n t s i n higher education can be seen not only i n the number of pu b l i c a t i o n s on the two p a r t i e s but also i n the top i c s and themes found i n the discussions on the two p a r t i e s . A s t i n (1985) argues that chief executive o f f i c e r s and trustees as leaders i n higher education have a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e to play i n reforming and i n communicating an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s educational goals. The educational leadership r o l e f o r presidents i s noted by others (Dodds, 1962 ; Kauffman, 1 9 8 0 ; Benezet et a l . , 1 9 8 1 ; Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984 ; Wood, 1984 ; Fisher, 1984 ; Vaughan, 1 9 8 6 ) . In some cases, that same role i s given to governing boards (Heilbron, 1 9 7 3 ; Ingram, 1979 ; Corson, 1 9 8 0 ) . Other rol e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are accorded to both p a r t i e s . Kauffman (1980) suggests that boards are the highest l e g a l authority within the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s structure of governance and that presidents are responsible for t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n ' s a f f a i r s . Richman and Farmer (1977) i n d i c a t e that boards define the goals and e s t a b l i s h the p r i o r i t i e s of the i n s t i t u t i o n ; presidents negotiate and mediate i n order to r e a l i z e these goals and p r i o r i t i e s . Some of the roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s accorded to boards and presidents are p r e s c r i p t i v e rather than d e s c r i p t i v e as shown i n several studies (Cohen & March, 1974 & 1986 ; Walker, 1979 ; Trachtenberg, 1 9 8 1 ; Wood, 1985) . 7 With few exceptions, what i s c l e a r i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s the importance of both boards and presidents, independently, f o r t h e i r actual, p o t e n t i a l , or alleged influences on the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s present study can be seen i n i t s examination of these separately i n f l u e n t i a l p a r t i e s as a j o i n t l y i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . Given that the two p a r t i e s , board members and presidents, have important roles and are i n f l u e n t i a l , at l e a s t p o t e n t i a l l y , there are l i k e l y reasons and j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the asserted importance of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . E i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y , the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i s viewed as having important e f f e c t s on the p a r t i c i p a n t s (e.g. Richardson J r . et a l . , 1972; Polk et a l . , 1976; Ingram, 1979; Fisher, 1984; Wood, 1984 & 1985; Worth, 1986; Vaughan, 1986) and as being i n f l u e n t i a l i n processes and outcomes of higher education (e.g. Stoke, 1958; Munitz, 1980; Kauffman, 1980; Wood, 1985; Gleazer J r . , 1985; Kerr & Gade, 1986). The l i t e r a t u r e on boards and presidents implies several a c t u a l or p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s or outcomes of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . As noted above, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s viewed as a f f e c t i n g the two p a r t i e s as well as processes and outcomes of higher education. A number of e f f e c t s may be seen, f o r example, i n d e c i s i o n making, i n s t i t u t i o n a l morale, external perceptions of the i n s t i t u t i o n , i n s t i t u t i o n a l goals and p r i o r i t i e s , and the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' commitment to t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n . Most of the possible e f f e c t s f a l l under the categories of educational leadership and i n s t i t u t i o n a l management, two prominent topics i n the l i t e r a t u r e on boards and presidents. The t o p i c s of governance and management of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n are prominent i n higher education scholarship. Examination of these suggests dilemmas and challenges which face p a r t i c i p a n t s . K e l l e r (1983) notes that i n the U.S., colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s are among the larg e s t i n d u s t r i e s i n the nation. He sees the h i s t o r y of higher education as a struggle f o r finances. "Campus presidents and t h e i r boards of trustees i n the United States have performed the longest continuing high-wire act i n h i s t o r y " (Keller, 1983: 8). As e a r l y as 1966, Rourke and Brooks noted profound changes i n mangement and governance of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i n the U.S.. These changes-include new forms of d e c i s i o n making, a cabinet s t y l e of government i n place of p r e s i d e n t i a l leadership, and greater p u b l i c i t y f or the conduct of administration (Rourke & Brooks, 1966) . A decade l a t e r , Ross (1976) suggested that governance and management of u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Canada, England, and the U.S. were under severe s t r a i n and a threat to i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y . Others (e.g. Kemerer & Baldridge, 1975; Lee, 1979) have noted s h i f t s i n governance as a r e s u l t of negotiated contracts with f a c u l t y . Indeed, Lee (1979) suggests that at the four year college where contracts s t i p u l a t e precise r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a c c o u n t a b l i t i e s that administrators at v i c e p r e s i d e n t i a l and p r e s i d e n t i a l l e v e l s have increased authority i n d e c i s i o n making. Campbell and Associates (1985) i n d i c a t e that management s t y l e s at community colleges i n the U.S. must a l t e r i n response to external changes such as those i n p u b l i c p o l i c y . A l f r e d and Smydra (1985) observe that with rapid changes to the structure of post secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s (e.g. greater c e n t r a l i z a t i o n ) changes i n governance ( i . e . , d e c i s i o n making) w i l l follow. They acknowledge a r i s e i n external influence which has impact on academic and administrative decisions; thus, they suggest that i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l w i l l diminish (Alfred & Smydra, 1985). 9 Dennison and Gallagher (198 6) are emphatic with regard to management at Canadian community co l l e g e s : t r a d i t i o n a l forms of management, whether c o l l e g i a l management or h i e r a r c h i c a l management, w i l l not s u f f i c e i n the 1980s and beyond. According to Dennison and Gallagher (1986), change, l a r g e l y found i n the external environment and i n c l u d i n g t e c h n o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l , economic, and p o l i t i c a l changes, means f o r Canadian community colleges that management modes of operation w i l l have to be adaptable to and compatible with i n t e r n a l and external change. A cont r i b u t i o n of t h i s present study i s that i t examines how the two p a r t i e s j o i n t l y manage and govern the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . The t h i r d area of s i g n i f i c a n c e involves methodology. While there are a few studies concerned with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the board and the president, these studies are l i m i t e d i n t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to methodology. Three of the studies (Drake, 1977; Cleary, 1979; Pappas & R i t t e r , 1983) involve survey questionnaires: they use one instrument f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of data. Cleary (1979), f o r 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 re f e r s to as a conversation, to understand boards' d e c i s i o n making processes, t h e i r power structures, and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with presidents. While Wood's (1985) method can be designated q u a l i t a t i v e , her approach i s neither documented to a i d scholars i n methodological advancement nor systematic enough to suggest research procedures which might be adopted, adapted, or rejected. In t h i s present study, research methods have been developed to address the research problem. It i s p l a u s i b l e to assume that the research problem, while apparent to other scholars, has not been addressed 10 because a s u i t a b l e research method was not adopted. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s study, from t h i s l i n e of thought, i s that p a r t i c u l a r 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p requires an appropriate method. In t h i s study, the problem involves multiple dimensions of a r e l a t i o n s h i p and several l e v e l s of the p a r t i e s ' operations. This study addresses among i t s many topics group dynamics, organizational functioning, l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s , p u b l i c perceptions, personal judgements, what Mintzberg (1980) c a l l s the nature of managerial work, and what D i l l (1984) c a l l s administrative behaviour. At the centre of t h i s study i s a human r e l a t i o n s h i p , and the study endeavours to explain how t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p functions and why the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s important. What can be judged here, then, i s the usefulness of the research method f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a human r e l a t i o n s h i p . Summary A n d O u t l i n e O f The S t u d y This study i s an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i n three B r i t i s h Columbia c o l l e g e s . The rat i o n a l e f o r these settings w i l l be discussed i n Chapter Four. Through a q u a l i t a t i v e - i n t e r p r e t i v e research method t h i s study examines the two p a r t i e s to the r e l a t i o n s h i p j o i n t l y i n order to discern reasons f o r the importance of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . To f u l f i l l t h i s purpose, i t i s necessary to explore the nature ( i . e . , the determinants, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 11 and e f f e c t s ) of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n order to i d e n t i f y how the two p a r t i e s work together to govern and manage the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . This d i s s e r t a t i o n contains seven chapters, of which t h i s i s the f i r s t . Chapter Two provides a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on boards and presidents. Chapter Three establishes a research framework and research questions based on the l i t e r a t u r e . In Chapter Four, the study's research method, in c l u d i n g the research procedures, data c o l l e c t i o n , and data analysis, i s explained and j u s t i f i e d . 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 o f f e r s the study's conclusions and i m p l i c a t i o n s . 12 CHAPTER TWO BOARDS, PRESIDENTS, AND THE BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: A REVIEW OF THE L ITERATURE The relevant l i t e r a t u r e addresses, i n the main, the separate p a r t i e s to the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n c l u d i n g the expectations f o r the p a r t i e s , the behaviours and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p a r t i e s , and the forces impinging upon the p a r t i e s . Observations and information on the r e l a t i o n s h i p i t s e l f are l i m i t e d , evident i n references to the two p a r t i e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e on boards and presidents, i n the l i t e r a t u r e on governance and management of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , and f i n a l l y i n the l i m i t e d studies and commentaries on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between governing board and president. The discussion which follows examines the p a r t i e s to the r e l a t i o n s h i p , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two p a r t i e s , and the conceptions of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p which can be i n f e r r e d from the l i t e r a t u r e . The P a r t i e s To The R e l a t i o n s h i p The G o v e r n i n g B o a r d As a whole, writings about governing boards suggest two major views on boards i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . There i s a d i f f e r e n c e between the a r t i c u l a t e d c l a r i t y of what boards are expected to do and the disputed nature of what they a c t u a l l y do. Boards are viewed, for example, as an e s s e n t i a l service to the 13 academic i n s t i t u t i o n through t h e i r various roles, and as the highest l e g a l a u t h o r i t y i n the u n i v e r s i t y , four-year college, and community co l l e g e . Nevertheless, board performance, i t seems, does not match expectations of scholars and other observers; boards' impact on the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i s viewed i n some cases as negative and i n other cases as n e g l i g i b l e . One view emphasizes the r o l e and supposed functions of governing boards; t h i s view underlies d e s c r i p t i o n s of norms f o r behaviours, prescribed r o l e s , and expectations f o r performance. The other view emphasizes observed or i n f e r r e d performance of boards and board members; t h i s view underlies evaluations and judgement of what boards and board members e i t h e r do or do not do. Together these two views provide c o n f l i c t i n g p o s i t i o n s on boards. Nonetheless, as a source f o r the understanding of the board-president t h i s c o n f l i c t may indicate that there i s d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding how boards and presidents function together. The b o a r d a n d i t s a s s e r t e d f u n c t i o n s . There i s both apparent c e r t a i n t y and accompanying c l a r i t y i n the assertions and descriptions of what boards should do i n t h e i r r o l e s . These descriptions give the impression of r o l e s t a b i l i t y and r a t i o n a l functioning of boards and board members. There i s l i t t l e i n t h i s view of boards to suggest or imply that government at the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i s complex, as Corson (1975) has noted, or that board actions can be seen as dysfunctional, as the Carnegie Foundation f o r the Advancement of Teaching (1983) suggests. Functions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of boards described through p r e s c r i p t i o n and exhortation are numerous and consistent. Boards are seen as e s s e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s with a major and coherent r o l e i n governance and management of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . Asser t ions of p r e s c r i b e d and descr ibed ro l e s of governing boards suggest numerous funct ions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . There i s no acknowledgement, however, that these are prob lemat ic . B e l l (1956) argues that t rus tees are the c o n t r o l l i n g body of the i n s t i t u t i o n and have both the r i g h t and the duty to determine educat iona l o f f er ings and to g ive educat iona l i d e n t i t y to the i n s t i t u t i o n (for example, as a l i b e r a l a r t s c o l l e g e , or t e c h n i c a l schoo l , or p r o f e s s i o n a l s c h o o l ) . He q u a l i f i e s t h i s by i n d i c a t i n g that t rus tees must func t ion under the terms of t h e i r char ter and endowments ( B e l l , 1956). Duff and Berdahl (1966), i n t h e i r report on u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Canada, recommend that u n i v e r s i t y governing boards continue with t h e i r e x i s t i n g func t ions : to exerc i se u l t imate f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and u l t imate de jure sovere ignty . Corson (1975) a r t i c u l a t e s s p e c i f i c funct ions for boards: s e l ec t the pres ident , def ine the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s o b j e c t i v e s , oversee f i n a n c i n g , preserve and develop f a c i l i t i e s , and represent the i n s t i t u t i o n to the p u b l i c . In a d d i t i o n to t h i s general r o l e , governing boards are requ ired to show an i n t e r e s t i n and an understanding of educat iona l i s sues , provide the i n s t i t u t i o n with a connection to soc i e ty , a i d the i n s t i t u t i o n i n r e p e l l i n g bureaucra t i c f orce s , and o f f er a p p r a i s a l of operat ions (Corson, 1975) . I t can be seen that from 1972 to 1985, there are numerous l i s t s of governing boards' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , although many items are r e p e t i t i o n s from e a r l i e r l i s t s . Monroe (1972) i d e n t i f i e s f i v e major funct ions with severa l adjunct ive d u t i e s ; Po t ter (1976) o f fers eleven items; R i l e y (1977) o f f er s f i v e general ca tegor i e s ; Nason (1980) gives twelve r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and two years l a t e r 15 o f f e r s t h i r t e e n (1982) — the addition i s not d i s c r e t e , but a re-wording of the twelve; Gleazer J r . (1985) i d e n t i f i e s nine r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; and Dennison and Gallagher (198 6) r e f e r to four. The l i s t s include the following r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s : define and c l a r i f y the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s goals, purposes, objectives, mission; provide for administration through appointment and d i s m i s s a l of executive o f f i c e r s , e s p e c i a l l y the c h i e f executive o f f i c e r ; ensure f i n a n c i a l solvency; monitor the q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n , research, and student performance; serve as court of appeal or court of l a s t resort; preserve i n s t i t u t i o n a l independence; assure adequate p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s ; enhance the p u b l i c image; act as l e g a l agent f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n ; i n t e r p r e t the community to the i n s t i t u t i o n ; uphold l e g a l contracts and l e g i s l a t e d acts; preserve the values of the i n s t i t u t i o n ; 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 J r . , 1985; Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). There i s e i t h e r wide agreement or lack of disagreement on r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Zwingle and Mayville (1974) capture governing board members' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t h e i r p o t e n t i a l r o l e s : l e g a l corporation, supreme court, board of managers, board of inquiry, emergency corps, underwriters, s o c i e t y of f r i e n d s , s t a b i l i z e r s , d i r e c t o r s , planners, and energizers. At the d e s c r i p t i v e l e v e l of what boards should do, dilemmas and contradictions are not apparent, and board r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are both c l e a r and compatible although extensive. Examination of ascribed r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r boards re i n f o r c e s the view that board r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are l u c i d and understandable. For example, i n the appointment of a president or c h i e f executive o f f i c e r (one of the most repeated 16 items of board r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) , Nason (1980) argues that the board i s i n the p o s i t i o n to view the i n s t i t u t i o n as a whole and to determine who w i l l meet the needs of the various i n t e r n a l groups and who w i l l also serve the i n s t i t u t i o n best. The best i n t e r e s t s of the board are served i f the board i s responsible f o r p r e s i d e n t i a l appointment: the president i s the primary agent of the board, a delegate who manages the i n s t i t u t i o n i n accordance with the board's p o l i c i e s (Nason, 1982) . Monroe underlines the importance of the board's appointment of the president because the president i s the symbol of the board and the board's powers. "In r e a l i t y , the board i s no better than i t s agents, the president and his administrative s t a f f . It i s they who speak f o r the board and are the v i s i b l e representatives of the board to the general p u b l i c . " (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 p r o f e s s i o n a l executive f o r educational management (Corson, 1980 ) . Boards are also viewed as responsible f o r matters of an academic nature, such as an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s p o l i c i e s , goals, objectives, and missions. Nason (1980) contends that boards should ensure that a statement of mission i s written, approved by the board, and then published. Such a mission statement should a r t i c u l a t e the p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n ' s d i s t i n c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , or i t s unique approach, or i t s s p e c i a l focus, or i t s exclusive curriculum, and i t s reasons f o r existence (Nason, 1980) . Every college and u n i v e r s i t y was created to serve one or more s p e c i f i c purposes: to provide an educated mini s t r y i n c o l o n i a l days; to prepare c i t i z e n s who could cope with the problems and prospects of a new democratic society; to t r a i n young people i n the arts 17 and s k i l l s necessary f o r an honest l i v i n g ; to safeguard the true f a i t h ; to t r a i n schoolteachers; to carry on research i n science and technology; or . . . t o encourage young men and women to explore and develop t h e i r inherent p o t e n t i a l s . (Nason, 1980:33) Corson (1980) advocates trustee p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n goal s e t t i n g , i n the review of p o l i c y making, and i n the continued overviewing of the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s f u nctioning. The l e g a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of boards f o r a l l a c t i v i t i e s and behaviours i n an i n s t i t u t i o n compels boards to concern themselves with a l l aspects of the college or u n i v e r s i t y , e s p e c i a l l y with the educational programs (Corson, 1980). Boards, argues Corson, should have an a u t h o r i t a t i v e r o l e i n what i s taught, who i s taught, and who teaches. B e l l announces a s i m i l a r although more general and pervasive r o l e f o r boards: L o g i c a l l y the trustees as the c o n t r o l l i n g body have the ri g h t — and i n fa c t the duty — to determine what kind of education s h a l l be of f e r e d . . . They are free (subject to the terms of t h e i r charter and endowments of course) to determine whether the i n s t i t u t i o n s h a l l be a l i b e r a l a r t s college, a t e c h n i c a l school, a p r o f e s s i o n a l school, or a teachers college, whether new projects s h a l l be undertaken, new schools or i n s t i t u t e s created, e x i s t i n g ones l i q u i d a t e d . . . (1956:354) Such d e s c r i p t i o n s portray a su b s t a n t i a l r o l e f o r boards i n the a f f a i r s of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . The b e h a v i o u r o f b o a r d s . A change i n emphasis from what boards should do to the way i n which boards do i n fact operate i s more than a change i n emphasis, i t i s a change i n point of view. Writings which approach governing boards 18 through the behaviour of boards and board members take a judgemental p o s i t i o n . It i s evident from the judgements on boards that there are problems i n the behaviour of boards which may a f f e c t the academic i n s t i t u t i o n as well as the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . Judgements are generally e i t h e r condemnatory or equivocal, q u a l i f i e d by adverse conditions which influence performance. Problems associated with governing boards are not confined to dis c o v e r i e s i n 1973 (Carnegie Commission) or 1975 (Corson) or 1977 (Riley) or 1985 (Gleazer J r . ) . An e a r l y twentieth century statement (1918) establishes a polemic on governing boards: . . . the boards are of no material use i n any connection: t h e i r sole e f f e c t u a l function being to i n t e r f e r e with the academic management i n matters that are not of the nature of business and that l i e outside t h e i r competence and outside the range of t h e i r habitual i n t e r e s t . The governing boards — trustees, regents, curators, fellows, whatever t h e i r s t y l e and t i t l e — are an aimless s u r v i v a l from the days of c l e r i c a l rule when they were presumably of some e f f e c t i n enforcing conformity to orthodox opinions and observance, among the academic s t a f f . (Veblen[1918], 1957:48) R i l e y (1977) and Meyerson (1980) acknowledge both the problems and f a i l u r e s i n board performance, but they q u a l i f y these by noting the forces which influence performance. In t h i s century, such forces as the increasing s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of knowledge, the growth i n complexity of many colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s , the r i s i n g status of the p r o f e s s o r i a t e , and the emergence of p r o f e s s i o n a l associations and f a c u l t y unions have encouraged the 19 tendency of t rus tees to leave most academic matters to f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . (Meyerson, 1980:174) R i l e y notes that by 1977 many t r a d i t i o n s i n American c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y academic governance had eroded, brought about by increased f a c u l t y u n i o n i z a t i o n , increased c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of d e c i s i o n making power and a u t h o r i t y , and increased pressures for i n s t i t u t i o n a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y (Ri l ey , 1977). R i l e y reports that e x t e r n a l environmental c o n d i t i o n s , such as increased government c o n t r o l , c e n t r a l or system wide barga in ing , and f i n a n c i a l r e s t r a i n t a f f ec t d e c i s i o n making and p o l i c y formations of i n d i v i d u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . He notes as we l l that increased ex terna l environmental pressure (e .g . government agencies) * leads to an increased demand for a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ; and increased environmental pressure leads to increased board members' involvement i n matters of i n s t i t u t i o n a l management, i n c l u d i n g d a i l y d e c i s i o n making. R i l e y (1977), however, i d e n t i f i e s de legat ion of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as the primary cause for boards' loss of power and a u t h o r i t y . T h e i r powers and t h e i r a u t h o r i t y are dependent upon those who are given the t r u s t to exerc i se judgement, provide in format ion , and implement d e c i s i o n s . R i l e y (1977) suggests that board behaviour lacks r e s p o n s i b i l i t y because r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has s h i f t e d to the c h i e f execut ive o f f i c e r and the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The r e c o g n i t i o n that board performance i s at l eas t l e ss than expected, and i n s evera l cases judged as detr imenta l to the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , leads wri ters to respond i n d iverse ways, two of which are descr ibed below. One response i s p r e s c r i p t i v e : i t prescr ibes remedies to improve board performance. The other response i s e v a l u a t i v e : i t argues for changes i n board funct ions and 20 authority. The f i r s t response we f i n d i n Corson (1975); the second, i n Mortimer and McConnell (1978). Corson's p o s i t i o n i s that board performance can improve i f boards p a r t i c i p a t e i n the monitoring and evaluating of t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s . Mortimer and McConnell's p o s i t i o n i s that boards' powers and t h e i r a uthority are unbridled; boards do not have enough c o n s t r a i n t s . Corson's (1975) p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r and Mortimer and McConnell's (1978) evaluations of board performance exemplify the two main views on boards i n the l i t e r a t u r e . One view suggests an i d e a l about how the governing board should and could function (Corson, 1975). The other view provides observations and judgement of how the governing board a c t u a l l y does function (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978) . The problem i s that divergent views and approaches do not give a u n i t a r y perspective f o r the understanding of governing boards. B o a r d members . Contributing to the two primary views on governing boards (the view which prescribes board a c t i v i t y and the view which judges board a c t i v i t y ) are d e s c r i p t i o n s of board members i n c l u d i n g t h e i r s o c i a l and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and character, and i n a few cases t h e i r behaviours within the board i t s e l f . In many of these writings e i t h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n or judgement comprises a part of the d e s c r i p t i o n . Both c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n d i v i d u a l board members and the o v e r a l l composition of the board i n d i c a t e a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous group, with membership l i m i t e d to a small stratum of s o c i e t y (Riley, 1977) . This uniformity may provide reasons why e i t h e r p r e s c r i p t i o n or judgement accompanies d e s c r i p t i o n : the accusations 21 and claims can be generalized, applying to a l l or most board members and boards, and resultant changes i n board composition by category (e.g. from males to females) may, i t i s implied, lead to the performance change of boards. The standard c r i t i c i s m of governing boards has been the . all e g e d monolithic character of t h e i r membership — white, anglo-saxon, Protestant, male, well-to-do business and pr o f e s s i o n a l men, and over 50 i n age — i n short the Aestablishment' with a l l i t s basic conservatism. (Nason, 1982:55) Sel e c t i o n of board members (who i s selected and how) i s an expressed concern. Corson notes that: . . . the choice of i n d i v i d u a l s to serve f o r reasons extraneous to the c e n t r a l needs of the i n s t i t u t i o n s they serve has l e d to p r e v a i l i n g c r i t i c i s m s of governing boards. (1975:267) Yet, Corson (1980) r e j e c t s the p r e s c r i p t i o n s and judgements based on categories. Here we have a focus on the i n d i v i d u a l board member and his or her personal a t t r i b u t e s . The problematical nature of board composition and i d e n t i t y of board members i s not, according to Corson, a function of categories (e.g. appointment versus e l e c t i o n , socio-economic background of members, or p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n ) . Instead, lack of t a l e n t , lack of i n t e r e s t i n the i n s t i t u t i o n , and lack of assessment of the board and the i n s t i t u t i o n j u s t i f y c r i t i c i s m of board members and point to the prescribed a l t e r n a t i v e of how board members should be and what they should be. A c a t h o l i c c u r i o s i t y i s the mark of most t r u l y e f f e c t i v e 22 i n d i v i d u a l s . . . It i s the t a l e n t that the most valuable trustees bring to any college or u n i v e r s i t y . The curious w i l l . . . suggest that the board take the time to look back and assess i t s own performance. . . (Corson, 1980 :116 ) Wood o f f e r s a s i m i l a r focus on the personal a t t r i b u t e s of i n d i v i d u a l board members, what she re f e r s to as the "preferences, expectations, and experiences of i n d i v i d u a l board members" (Wood, 1 9 8 5 : 9 3 ) . I n d i v i d u a l l y , Wood notes, board members "do not usually expect the college presidency to be a p o s i t i o n of power f o r an i n d i v i d u a l who expresses strong views about higher education" (1985 : 9) . Because of t h i s common perception of i n d i v i d u a l board members, boards r a r e l y address issues of i n s t i t u t i o n a l mission or concerns over the q u a l i t y of educational leadership (Wood, 1 9 8 5 ) . Thus, f o r Wood, the expectations of i n d i v i d u a l board members a f f e c t how the board operates. But Wood (1985) does not r e s t r i c t determinants of board performance to personal a t t r i b u t e s . Wood (1985) suggests that there are key board members, in c l u d i n g a board chairperson, whose "preferences, expectations, and experiences" ( 1985 :116 ) a f f e c t the operation of the board most. These key members may co n s t i t u t e a power bloc on the board. The chairperson may serve as the board's symbolic leader and as t h e i r chief mediator. The character of board members, e s p e c i a l l y key members, and the p o l i t i c a l behaviour of members within the board, as well as the management s t y l e of the president i n r e l a t i o n to the board, a l l contribute to the operating s t y l e of the board (Wood, 1 9 8 5 ) . Wood (1985) also suggests that boards function i n one of three operating s t y l e s ; there are three categories of boards matching these s t y l e s . The three 23 categories are the r a t i f y i n g board, the corporate board, and the p a r t i c i p a t o r y board (Wood, 1985) . Wood suggests that the personal t r a i t s of i n d i v i d u a l board members influence a board's operating s t y l e which i n turn influences the board's performance. Furthermore, Wood acknowledges "the management s t y l e of the president and his or her willingness to educate the board to the degree of involvement he or she p r e f e r s " (Wood, 1985 : 93) as a determinant of how the board operates. Summary a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s . It can be observed that from one perspective, the l i t e r a t u r e e x h i b i t s a degree of c e r t a i n t y and s i m p l i c i t y about the s p e c i f i c duties and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of boards and board members. From another perspective, i t can be seen that there i s 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 fa c t o r s which determine what boards do and how well they perform. These fa c t o r s may not be compatible with the expected duties and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of boards. Furthermore, i t may be that board members' personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and o r i e n t a t i o n s lack c o m p a t i b i l i t y with the p e r s o n a l i t y and ori e n t a t i o n s of presidents as well as with the roles of the presidency. The P r e s i d e n t Benezet et a l . (1981) i n d i c a t e that two patterns of thought dominate writings about the presidency. The f i r s t suggests that presidents are products of a 24 stream of forces outside t h e i r personal c o n t r o l ; they d i s p l a y signs i n what they do of t h e i r l i m i t e d c o n t r o l over the i n s t i t u t i o n . The second pattern of thought suggests that presidents have the power and the c o n t r o l to move t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s i n a given d i r e c t i o n . The presence of these d i s c r e t e patterns of thought may explain why Kauffman (1980) states that there are many c o n f l i c t i n g and contradictory thoughts on what a president does or should do. Stroke (1959), f o r example, notes that presidents are seen as e i t h e r dedicated i n d i v i d u a l s who have important r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s or as furious promoters who have no appreciation of academic l i f e . Other views of presidents lead to the a p p l i c a t i o n of numerous images. These include "mediator" (Kerr, 1963), "manager" (Rourke & Brooks, 1966), "mayor" (Cohen & March, 1974), "negotiator" (Richman & Farmer, 1977), "symphony conductor" (Kauffman, 1980), " r i s k taker" (Fisher, 1984), " p o l i t i c i a n " (Wood, 1984) and "chief bureaucrat" and " c o n c i l i a t o r / r e f e r e e " (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). And s t i l l 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 h i s t o r i c a l and not ne c e s s a r i l y accurate descriptors of presidents. Views on presidents and the presidency focus on two main themes: expectations of the presidency and constraints and l i m i t a t i o n s on the president. Of the many t o p i c s that accompany discussions of the president, such as governance, administration, and management, the to p i c of p r e s i d e n t i a l leadership points to discussions i n v o l v i n g the two patterns of thought i d e n t i f i e d by Benezet et a l . (1981) and incorporating both the theme of ro l e expectations f o r the presidency and the theme of constraints and l i m i t a t i o n s on the president. 25 E x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e p r e s i d e n c y . President as leader i s one of the more common images or r e q u i s i t e s f o r the presidency (Dodds, 1962; Kauffman, 1980; Fisher, 1984). Kauffman (1980) notes that p r e s i d e n t i a l leadership i s an h i s t o r i c a l , phenomenological, and s o c i a l component of the presidency. Benezet et a l . , while acknowledging those who disparage the leadership role of presidents, i n s i s t that the president i s a leader: He or she a f f e c t s not only substance and structure but also the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s morale and ambiance. . . The question i s not whether the president i s a leader or manager but what kind of a leader he or she i s . (1981:20) Dodds, also, defends the leadership c a p a b i l i t y of presidents. Can a college or u n i v e r s i t y president be an educational leader and s t i l l -find time f o r the other things that he must attend to — or that h i s p u b l i c s think he should? Cynics answer 'no'. We are more o p t i m i s t i c . (1962:1) Fisher (1984) i d e n t i f i e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of e f f e c t i v e leaders ( i . e . , those with persistence, innovation, confidence, personal s t y l e ) , and exhorts presidents to act p r e s i d e n t i a l and to advance the i n f l u e n t i a l nature of t h e i r o f f i c e . Evidently, these writers f i t into the category of thought which suggests that there i s p r e s i d e n t i a l power and c o n t r o l i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . Their expectations fashion a laudable presidency; t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s i n d i c a t e that presidents can or do f i t t h e i r mold. Expectations of the presidency are quite often expressed within a context of acknowledged s o c i a l change and p u b l i c controversy, such as increased democracy 26 i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l governance (Kauffman, 1980) and the student pro tes t s of the 1960s (Vaughan, 1986), or i n defense of p r e s i d e n t i a l power i n the face of evidence or a l l e g a t i o n s of l eadersh ip d e c l i n e . Kauffman, i n r e a c t i o n to views on the d e c l i n e of l eadersh ip based on a n t i - a u t h o r i t y and a n t i - i n s t i t u t i o n a l sentiments of the 1960s i n the U . S . , uses these views to b o l s t e r the p r e s i d e n t ' s image as leader and to i n d i c a t e expectat ions of the pres idency . I t h i n k we need p o l i t i c a l l y e f f e c t i v e l eadersh ip , v i s i b l e l e a d e r s h i p , and l eadersh ip that cherishes the e s s e n t i a l value of our educat iona l i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r d i g n i f y i n g humankind and shaping i t s d e s t i n y . (1980:113) F i s h e r notes that l eadersh ip " w i l l be a greater problem dur ing the 1980s than i n f l a t i o n , i n c r e a s i n g expenses, d e c l i n i n g government support , c u r r i c u l u m r e b u i l d i n g , or d e c l i n i n g enrollments" (1984:16). Nevertheless , he i s convinced that pres idents can be e f f e c t i v e leaders and overcome p r e v a i l i n g economic, p o l i t i c a l , and s o c i a l forces i n the ex terna l environment. Expectat ions of the pres idency appear to require a promethean i n d i v i d u a l t o f u l f i l l l eadersh ip r o l e s . Dodds (19'62) expects pres idents to demonstrate personal and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c values a 3 we l l as an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l mind for a c t i o n (both c r e a t i v e th inker and good manager). The pres ident , suggests Dodds, must operate i n a m i l i e u that demands d iscordant behaviours (e .g . conformity and non-conformity; group cohesion and i n d i v i d u a l i t y ) , and t h u s the pres ident must cope with at l eas t two behavioura l o r i e n t a t i o n s . Other r e f l e c t i o n s of expectat ions for the pres idency appear i n group repor t s , 27 c o l l e c t i v e statements, and commissions (see American Ass o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Professors, 1966; American Council of Education, 1970; American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1971; Carnegie Commission, 1973). A more recent commission appeals f o r the strengthening of p r e s i d e n t i a l leadership to accomplish no less a task than the preservation of academic i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the United States (Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984) . Presidents, then, as suggested by Dodds (1962), Kauffman (1980), and F i s h e r (1984), e i t h e r can or do conform to expectations of the presidency. This assumption i s r e f l e c t e d i n discussions on the t o p i c of leadership. It i s an assumption associated with a school of thought about presidents which claims that presidents, even faced, f o r example, with competing forces within and outside the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , have the power to e f f e c t major changes i n t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s . C o n s t r a i n t s a n d l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e p r e s i d e n t . In contrast to the suggestion i n the l i t e r a t u r e that presidents can or do a t t a i n the high l e v e l s of expectations associated with the presidency, an a l t e r n a t i v e suggestion provides a d i f f e r e n t assumption about p r e s i d e n t i a l power and c o n t r o l , which i s seen as both l i m i t e d and constrained. From these points of view, presidents serve at the board's or some other party's pleasure i n a context of u n r e a l i s t i c expectations and severe job c o n s t r a i n t s ; they face an organizational environment which demands t h e i r 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 p r e s i d e n t i a l behaviour. Limitations and constraints on leadership are of three kinds. They are external to the i n s t i t u t i o n (e.g. economic, p o l i t i c a l , and s o c i a l 28 c o n d i t i o n s ) . They are within the i n s t i t u t i o n (e.g. system of governance, personnel, students). They are also part of the r o l e i t s e l f (e.g. i s o l a t i o n from c o n s t i t u e n t s ) . Mortimer and McConnell (1978) note that organizational ambiguity, f a c u l t y power, student power, t e c h n i c a l s t a f f , and external agencies and bodies cons t r a i n presidents and l i m i t t h e i r power. Their reference to excessive confusion and c o n f l i c t s f o r presidents i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l matters includes diverse and dispersed job functions, d i l u t e d and dispersed power f o r decision making, and n o n - r a t i o n a l i z e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources. They state that f a c u l t y members i n colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s behave as "independent p r o f e s s i o n a l s responsible mainly to themselves and t h e i r peers rather than to t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e i r administrative o f f i c e r s " (1978:161). Students demand p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions, Mortimer and McConnell note, and the president's t e c h n i c a l s t a f f "may r e s t r i c t the power and breadth of v i s i o n of the t i t u l a r leader by paring down a l t e r n a t i v e s without ever having t h e i r own assumptions, t e c h n i c a l analysis, or operating objectives subjected to c r i t i c a l review or d i r e c t i o n " (1978:163). External d e c i s i o n makers, such as c i v i l servants, government departments, co-ordinating agencies, and p r o f e s s i o n a l bodies, also constrain p r e s i d e n t i a l freedom and power. Presidents not only face strong and entrenched f a c u l t y power, and student demand f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decisions but also hold administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for support services (e.g. residence, food, health) f o r which they have l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l or d i r e c t managerial c o n t r o l (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978). Other writings acknowledge constraints on presidents and suggest that 29 presidents cannot perform according to role expectations held f o r the presidency. A s t i n (1985) also asserts that some problems f o r presidents stem from f a c u l t y power. Faculty represent the major source of c o n f l i c t and f r u s t r a t i o n s f o r presidents (Astin, 1985). The Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership (1984) notes that forces such as f e d e r a l and state c o n t r o l s , j u d i c i a l court p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n academic decisions, and the diminishment of p u b l i c acceptance of i n s t i t u t i o n a l a u thority t y p i f y external c o n s t r a i n t s . Internal constraints, the Commission i n d i c a t e s , come from in c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n by governing boards i n d a i l y decisions, more influence by f a c u l t i e s over appointments, promotions, and academic p o l i c i e s , more layers of governance, and the presence of unions. As a r e s u l t of these numerous cons t r a i n t s , the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i s l i m i t e d i n i t s opportunities f o r growth, change, and innovation; i t s missions have l i m i t e d external value; and presidents have l i m i t e d authority f o r educational leadership (Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984). These const r a i n t s add to problems of p r e s i d e n t i a l performance and weaken a president's power. In addition to external and i n t e r n a l constraints that impede presidents from s a t i s f y i n g expectations of the presidency, there are personal and r o l e l i m i t a t i o n s which hamper performance. One viewpoint in d i c a t e s that successful candidates f o r p r e s i d e n t i a l p o s i t i o n s may not have q u a l i t i e s compatible with educational leadership. Cohen and March (1974) state that with present p r e s i d e n t i a l s e l e c t i o n procedures, s o c i a l , personal, and e x p e r i e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of candidates are homogeneous: candidates, and thus presidents, are conservative and conventional. The Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership (1984) notes the decline i n a t t r a c t i n g 30 good candidates to p r e s i d e n t i a l p o s i t i o n s and claims that present search processes reduce opportunities f o r obtaining the best candidates. A s t i n (1985) states that procedures f o r p r e s i d e n t i a l s e l e c t i o n favour ambitious and often poor candidates, and that committees make l i t t l e e f f o r t to determine candidates' past performances. According to Cohen and March (1974), the president's r o l e i n the i n s t i t u t i o n i s , i n f a c t , l e s s than profound; nonetheless, i t i s deemed to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Birnbaum (1988) concurs i n as s e r t i n g that "most presidents do the r i g h t things, and do them r i g h t , most of the time; they properly f u l f i l l the requirements of t h e i r r o l e s even i f they are u n l i k e l y to leave a d i s t i n c t i v e mark on t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n " (1988: 27). The power of presidents i s perceived and believed by constituents. Presidents are viewed as almost s o l e l y responsible f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n , and presidents themselves accept the view of a power model, e s p e c i a l l y i n the e a r l y years of t h e i r presidency, with themselves at the top. This mismatch between expectations and r e a l i t y i s not news to the presidents. Presidents accept the conventional d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i r r o l e i n part because they have no a l t e r n a t i v e and i n part because heroic expectations about presidents are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of others with whom they deal. (Cohen & March, 1974: 123) Hemmed i n by two aspects to the p r e s i d e n t i a l r o l e — those which compel them to react to constituents' demands and those which obligate them to sustain an appropriate p u b l i c image — presidents maintain conventional views of leadership and help to perpetuate t h e i r own roles (Cohen & March, 1974) . The 31 president performs a conservative r o l e i n the l i f e of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . Cohen and March note that presidents contribute r i t u a l legitimacy to decisions; and presidents respond to constituents and to the p u b l i c conventionally, within a context of s o c i a l expectations of the presidency. Presidents serve as symbolic leaders; but t h e i r actual behaviours are r e a c t i v e . They worry about the concerns of trustees, community leaders, students, f a c u l t y members, law enforcement o f f i c i a l s . They see themselves as t r y i n g to r e c o n c i l e the c o n f l i c t i n g pressures on the c o l l e g e . They a l l o c a t e t h e i r time by a process that i s l a r g e l y c o n t r o l l e d by the d e s i r e of others., (Cohen & March, 1974:1) C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o s i t i o n i t s e l f make presidents captive i n a r o l e not of leader but as servant of many masters and mistresses (Stroke, 1959). They are i s o l a t e d from constituents yet responsible f o r and to them (Trachtenberg, 1981), followers, i n Stoke's view, not leaders. Presidents themselves, according to Cohen and March (1974), p a r t i c i p a t e i n sustaining t h i s condition. Although the r o l e may f r u s t r a t e t h e i r c o n t r o l over i n s t i t u t i o n a l decisions or l i m i t them from providing d i r e c t i o n to t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of educational leadership), presidents enjoy t h e i r work and view t h e i r own c a p a b i l i t i e s as impressive and t h e i r job as the superior careers f o r themselves (Cohen & March, 1974) . The c o n s t r a i n t s and l i m i t a t i o n s on the president provide evidence to support the claim that presidents function i n "a stream of forces that stress the l i m i t a t i o n s of time, energy, funds, and a p e r s i s t e n t l y vexing sociology for those who would seek to lead" (Benezet et a l . , 1981). Kerr and Gade (1986), in 32 attempting to d i s p l a y the d i v e r s i t y of contexts f o r the presidency, convey the view that presidents face numerous r e s t r i c t i o n s and r e s t r a i n t s , external and i n t e r n a l forces, and the s t r u c t u r a l arrangement of the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s governance model. I m p l i c i t l y , rather than e x p l i c i t l y , they show that the president i s p a r t i a l l y captive i n the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s model of governance (whether h i e r a r c h i c a l or p o l i t i c a l ) . Cohen and March (1986), i n summarizing an e a r l i e r view (Cohen & March, 1974), assert that the a c t i v i t i e s which surround leadership, the n e c e s s i t i e s of an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s adaptation to the external environment, and the ways academic i n s t i t u t i o n s are organized require presidents to do what they do. From t h i s point of view, a president's performance does not and cannot match the various r o l e expectations of the presidency. P e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s o f p r e s i d e n t s . In a d d i t i o n to scholarship on presidents, commentaries, confessions, memoirs, journals and other s i m i l a r personal writings of presidents also i n d i c a t e the extent to which personal experiences of presidents r e f l e c t a l i m i t e d and constrained presidency. Bennis (1976) suggests that presidents are thwarted i n actions by the t r a d i t i o n s and values of a u n i v e r s i t y . Parker (1979) blames u n i v e r s i t y and college f a c u l t y f o r leaders' i n a b i l i t y to e f f e c t needed change. Haak (1982) suggests that a president's problems with leadership are a consequence of the operations of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , which i s unlike a h i e r a r c h i c a l organization although i t appears to be h i e r a r c h i c a l . Althought the president i s expected to be the i n d i v i d u a l who d i r e c t s operations, the experience of the presidency i s i n c o n f l i c t with top down management. Fisher (1984) suggests that personal 33 charisma i s the chief determinant of p r e s i d e n t i a l success. Berendzen (1986) notes the d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r presidents i n balancing two major r o l e s : the p r e s i d e n t i a l r o l e and the ro l e of the pr i v a t e person. I m p l i c a t i o n s . Two patterns of thought about p r e s i d e n t i a l power and con t r o l , taken together, have implications f o r governing boards as well as f o r the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . Discussions of presidents convey the themes of expectation and l i m i t a t i o n . Acknowledgement of the d i s t i n c t i o n s between these two themes a r i s e s during problem s i t u a t i o n s and perceived c r i s e s i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , as well as during periods of s o c i a l discontent with the perceived d e t e r i o r a t i o n of educational i n s t i t u t i o n s ' performance (see National Commission on Excellence i n Education, 1984) . Increased pressures on the i n s t i t u t i o n to respond to external demands (see Kauffman, 1980; Wood, 1984 & 1985) and appeals f o r leadership (see Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984) both p e r t a i n to i n s t i t u t i o n a l preservation. The president's, a b i l i t y to respond to these conditions and s i t u a t i o n s i s characterized as l i m i t e d (Corson, 1975; Mortimer & McConnell, 1978). With l i m i t a t i o n s of presidents and constraints on presidents, such as f a c u l t y power, government controls, and student demands, the governing board may look elsewhere f o r advice (Mortimer & McConnell, 1978) or they may increase t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d a i l y a f f a i r s of the i n s t i t u t i o n (Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984) . Although expectations of the presidency include p r e s i d e n t i a l power and con t r o l , the president may i n fac t have l i m i t e d freedom of a c t i o n to provide educational leadership. According to Trachtenberg (1981), t h i s discrepancy — between expectation and l i m i t a t i o n — can lead to a 34 p r e s i d e n t ' s i s o l a t i o n from both const i tuents (e .g . facu l ty ) and the operat ion of the i n s t i t u t i o n . The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between B o a r d A n d P r e s i d e n t Information on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between board and pres ident i s l i m i t e d to a few e x p l i c i t s tudies and commentaries (Polk et a l . , 1976; Drake, 1977; C l e a r y , 1979; Ingram, 1979; Marsee, 1980; Munitz , 1980; Pappas & R i t t e r , 1983; Wood, 1984 & 1985), to e x p l i c i t references to the two p a r t i e s w i th in s tudies of and commentaries on boards, pres ident s , and the academic i n s t i t u t i o n (Stoke, 1959; H e i l b r o n , 1973; Kauffman, 1980; F i s h e r , 1984; Gleazer J r . , 1985; Kerr & Gade, 1986; Worth, 1986; Berendzen, 1986; Vaughan, 1986), and to i m p l i c a t i o n s found i n the l i t e r a t u r e on boards and p r e s i d e n t s . Within the l i t e r a t u r e , there are at l ea s t three approaches taken i n d e s c r i p t i o n s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . One approach i s to see the r e l a t i o n s h i p as a connect ion between two p a r t i e s . A second approach i s to view the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n i t s a s s o c i a t i o n with the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y with i t s governance and management. And a t h i r d approach, which stems i n the main from personal accounts of pres idents (e .g . Berendzen, 1986), is' to see the r e l a t i o n s h i p as a l i v e d experience. Approaches which focus predominantly on the twin r e a l i t i e s of board and p r e s i d e n t , suggest ing a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two separate p a r t i e s , e x h i b i t a one dimensional or narrow perspect ive of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . 35 Although images assoc ia ted with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between board and pres ident imply e q u a l i t y ("partners", "team", "adversaries", "marriage"), a t t e n t i o n given to the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n severa l examinations i s one d imensional : e i t h e r the board i s at the centre or the pres ident i s the focus (e .g . Ingram, 197 9; Muni tz , 1980: Vaughan, 1986). Kauffman emphasizes the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p to the pres ident : Nothing i s more important to a co l l ege or u n i v e r s i t y pres ident than a success fu l r e l a t i o n s h i p with that i n s t i t u t i o n ' s governing board . . . Without a sound r e l a t i o n s h i p with the governing board, the pres ident cannot be e f f e c t i v e . (1980:52) Corson's (1975) focus on the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a l so for the bene f i t of p r e s i d e n t s . P r e s i d e n t i a l success with boards i s achieved i f p r e s i d e n t s , for example, invo lve board members i n a c t u a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l problems, admit mistakes to board members, and demonstrate a f l e x i b l e mind (Corson, 1975). In another d i s c u s s i o n , the focus on the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s for the benef i t of board members (Corson, 1980). Boards must depend upon pres idents for informat ion on matters such as the educat iona l program, the q u a l i t y of the f a c u l t y , and student and i n s t i t u t i o n a l performance so that boards can f u l f i l l t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Thus, pres idents must be accountable to the board, and t h i s a c c o u n t a b i l i t y serves as a bas i s for the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the board and the pres ident (Corson, 1980) . In d i scuss ions where the emphasis i s predominantly on one or the other par ty , 36 there i s ample evidence of separate spheres of board and pres ident r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and f u n c t i o n . One such separat ion invo lves the areas of p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (or management). Corson (1975) asserts that boards cannot and should not manage the i n s t i t u t i o n . Ingram (197 9), i n d i s c u s s i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between boards and pres idents i n community c o l l e g e s , counsels against board involvement i n non-po l i cy matters . F i s h e r (1984), although conceding that i n the f i n a l ana lys i s boards have broad a u t h o r i t y on i n s t i t u t i o n a l matters , discourages board involvement i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the i n s t i t u t i o n . Advice of t h i s k i n d i s i n concert with government l e g i s l a t i o n , g u i d e l i n e s , and charters that formal ize or descr ibe the funct ions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of boards and pres idents (e .g . Chai t & Assoc ia te s , 1984). I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and promotion of separate spheres for board and pres ident stem from the assumption that the model of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i n which boards and pres idents func t ion i s a r a t i o n a l h i erarchy (Wood, 1984) . This perspect ive of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a narrow one. In the r a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y , Wood notes, the pres ident i s p o s i t i o n e d at the p innac le of the bureaucracy; the board provides d i r e c t i o n through the establishment of p o l i c y ; and the pres ident executes and administers p o l i c y . Rourke and Brooks (1966) suggest that the s i m p l i c i t y of the admin i s t ra t ive model of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n wherein the pres ident manages and the governing board provides d i r e c t i o n belongs to the e a r l y development (1860-1933) of higher education i n the Uni ted States . Yet, as a lready noted, t h i s model continues to be a p p l i e d to boards and pres idents and to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p by both scholars and observers . Examinations which i d e n t i f y the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p as a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two p a r t i e s are those which g e n e r a l l y adopt the assumption of the 37 bureaucra t i c model (or a regulated system of procedures) of operat ion for the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . In the second approach, the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a s soc ia ted with behaviours and a c t i v i t i e s connected to the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . The approach sees the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p as a dynamic r e l a t i o n s h i p . Those who acknowledge t h i s p o t e n t i a l or a c t u a l dynamic c o n d i t i o n imply (or state) that the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s changeable, dependent upon such matters as the economic, s o c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l condi t ions i n the e x t e r n a l environment (Wood, 1984) and the condi t ions wi th in the i n s t i t u t i o n , such as the form of governance (Kerr & Gade, 1986). Wood (1984) impl ies that the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p has a r e l a t i v e and changeable c h a r a c t e r . Wood notes the e f f ec t s of the e x t e r n a l environment on the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Economic and s o c i a l forces are i n f l u e n t i a l i n the shaping of boards and p r e s i d e n t s ' o r i e n t a t i o n s and thus these forces are f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e to the d e t e r i o r a t i o n of educat ional l e a d e r s h i p . On the bas i s of her study of board members at ten U . S . c o l l e g e s , Wood s ta te s : . . . today's s o c i a l and economic environment encourages t r u s t e e s , pres ident s , and f a c u l t y members — those who both r e f l e c t and mold p r e v a i l i n g ideas about the p r e s i d e n t i a l ro l e — to value managerial and p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s . . . [N]either an i n t e r e s t i n educat iona l innovat ion nor a deep concern for i n t e l l e c t u a l values i s l i k e l y to be r e i n f o r c e d i n the present c l imate of governance. . . (1984:42) 38 Kerr and Gade (1986), i n t h e i r study of pres ident s , view the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p as a dynamic c o n d i t i o n . Whereas Wood notes the e f f e c t s of the e x t e r n a l environment on the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , Kerr and Gade note the in f luences of the i n t e r n a l environment, i n p a r t i c u l a r the s t r u c t u r a l arrangements for i n s t i t u t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making, on the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Although governance does take p lace outs ide the i n s t i t u t i o n as w e l l as i n s i d e , i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r a l arrangements or c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , Kerr and Gade note, based on models of i n s t i t u t i o n a l governance, both in f luence and r e f l e c t s e v e r a l aspects of the f u n c t i o n i n g of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . For example, i n the h i e r a r c h i c a l model of governance with the pres ident i n the p o s i t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y , the pres ident i s respons ib le to the board alone. Board ro l e s i n t h i s model, according to Kerr and Gade, are of four k inds . . Assent ing or overseeing boards that rece ive and r a t i f y reports and act only i n emergencies; . P o l i c y or t rus tee boards that guide and care for the long-run o v e r a l l welfare of the i n s t i t u t i o n ; . Managerial or admin i s t ra t ive boards that make d e t a i l e d d e c i s i o n s ; . Representat ion or s p e c i a l - i n t e r e s t boards that advance the concerns of ex terna l or even i n t e r n a l f a c t i o n s with board members a c t i n g as de legates . (1986:128) One a l t e r n a t i v e model i s the c o l l e g i a l consensus and shared governance model with the pres ident as the centre of in f luence "as the c h i e f communicator, the c h i e f nego t ia tor , the c h i e f persuader, the c h i e f mediator among other centers of in f luence and, more o c c a s i o n a l l y , the c h i e f a r b i t r a t o r " (Kerr & Gade, 1986:133). Board, pres ident , and f a c u l t y comprise the main centres of i n f l u e n c e . The pres ident has a more i n f l u e n t i a l r o l e than the board; but, the 39 president has more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y than authority. The president "has the power to bargain and the opportunity to persuade, and has the most information" (Kerr & Gade, 1986:130). In t h i s model, i f presidents are weak or inexperienced, a major p o s i t i o n of power may be f i l l e d by the board chairperson or by the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s vice-president. What i s appropriate behaviour and action of board and president i n one governance model i s not, according to Kerr and Gade, app l i c a b l e to another model. Worth (1986), as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s point, notes that through the president's influence on board member s o c i a l i z a t i o n and on p o l i c y formation processes, i n d i v i d u a l board members are l i k e l y to adopt one of several r o l e s . Worth's p o s i t i o n , i f placed within the context e s t a b l i s h e d by Kerr and Gade (1986) although appropriate f o r the h i e r a r c h i c a l model of governance, i s incompatible with the c o l l e g i a l consensus model (as well as two other major models, p o l y c e n t r i c and organized anarchy). It i s u n l i k e l y that the president i s a mediator or compromiser i n Worth's view. Yet f o r Kerr and Gade (1986), a c e n t r a l theme i n the c o l l e g i a l model of governance involves the b u i l d i n g of consensus between centres of influence ( i . e . , between board and f a c u l t y , president and board, and president and f a c u l t y ) . This i s 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 t h i s process. (1986:137) Kerr and Gade's configurations and the assumptions underlying these seem to suggest that the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p i s dependent upon "the 40 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s governance pa t t ern and the s t y l e of the p a r t i c u l a r pres ident" (1986: 156). D i f f e r e n t models of governance necess i ta te d i f f e r e n t p r e s i d e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , according to Kerr and Gade. P r e s i d e n t i a l behaviours a r i s e out of t h e o r e t i c a l bases of each model (e .g . b u r e a u c r a t i c , consensual , adversar ia l ) and tend to adapt to or r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . From t h i s , i t can be assumed that board behaviour and performance are in f luenced by the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s p a r t i c u l a r model of governance as w e l l as by the "style" of the p r e s i d e n t . The i m p l i c a t i o n s from Kerr and Gade (1986) po int to the dependency of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p on the form of governance embraced by the i n s t i t u t i o n . The board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , then, i s p o t e n t i a l l y dynamic i n that a change i n governance s t ruc ture w i l l a l t e r the form and bas i s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . And because i n s t i t u t i o n s do not a l l have i d e n t i c a l governance s t r u c t u r e s , board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from i n s t i t u t i o n to i n s t i t u t i o n . Kerr and Gade por tray a p o t e n t i a l l y dynamic rather than a s t a t i c c o n d i t i o n i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , and by i m p l i c a t i o n they descr ibe a board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p which i s r e l a t i v e and changeable, i n conception and p o t e n t i a l l y i n p r a c t i c e . Wood (1985) impl ies that the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s both contextual and c o n d i t i o n a l i n i t s nature and f u n c t i o n i n g . This i m p l i c a t i o n a r i s e s out of her view that boards funct ion i n one of three operat ing s t y l e s . Several condi t ions shape these operat ing s t y l e s . One c o n d i t i o n can be seen i n the d e c i s i o n making behaviour of boards. 41 A board's operating s t y l e a r i s e s i n response to the c e n t r a l issue of trusteeship which i s , Is the board (or i s i t not) going to substitute i t s c o l l e c t i v e judgment f o r that of the president, who i s i t s agent on campus? ( 1985 :91 ) A second condition, Wood argues, i s the management s t y l e of the president. A t h i r d condition involves "the preferences, expectations, and experiences of i n d i v i d u a l board members" ( 1985 : 9 3 ) . And a fourth condition r e l a t e s to "the h i s t o r y and t r a d i t i o n of the board as an organization" ( 1985 : 9 3 ) . Each operating s t y l e , Wood notes, c a r r i e s with i t p a r t i c u l a r r o l e s f o r boards and presidents. Each s t y l e , then, suggests a s p e c i f i c context f o r the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . The r a t i f y i n g board permits p r e s i d e n t i a l control of and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n . The corporate board expects the president to assume f u l l operating authority i n l i n e with c o n t r o l s , such as f i n a n c i a l and managerial, imposed upon the i n s t i t u t i o n by the board. The p a r t i c i p a t o r y board authorizes i t s own involvement i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l a f f a i r s and does not t r e a t the president as a c h i e f executive o f f i c e r or as a powerful f i g u r e . These operating s t y l e s suggest the presence of a t h e o r e t i c a l or actual dynamic condition of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus, Wood's views, as well as the views of Kerr and Gade, are not dependent upon the assumption that the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i s , or i s only, a r a t i o n a l hierarchy with the president as c h i e f bureaucrat who administers the i n s t i t u t i o n according to board p o l i c y and d i r e c t i o n . 42 The two approaches to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p d i scussed above d i f f e r i n t h e i r assumptions and d e s c r i p t i o n s . One approach i n d i c a t e s that there are two p a r t i e s , each with r o l e expectat ions and judgements based on these expectat ions (e .g . p o l i c y funct ions and admin i s t ra t ive f u n c t i o n s ) . This view assumes that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two p a r t i e s . The other approach c h a r a c t e r i z e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p , e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y , as a p o t e n t i a l or a c t u a l dynamic c o n d i t i o n . In t h i s way, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s approached not with primary' focus on one of the two p a r t i e s , or t h e i r r o l e s , but rather through concepts which r e l a t e to the i n s t i t u t i o n , such as governance or educat iona l l e a d e r s h i p . A t h i r d approach to the board-pres ident re la t ionsh ip ' addresses the r e l a t i o n s h i p as the l i v e d experiences of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . This approach impl ies that the r e a l i t y of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p res ides i n the i n d i v i d u a l percept ions and judgements of the p a r t i c i p a n t s based on t h e i r experiences . Stoke (1959) , as the pres ident of a c o l l e g e , i n d i c a t e s that the informal in f luences of board members on a pres ident are the most i n f l u e n t i a l of fac tors i n the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Ingram(1979) s tresses the importance of the persona l comfort of the pres ident with i n d i v i d u a l board members at the community c o l l e g e . Wood notes that board members "use the term s t y l e to descr ibe how the i n t a g i b l e s of p e r s o n a l i t y , appearance, academic and s o c i a l background, and manner of e x e r c i s i n g a u t h o r i t y bear on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e f fec t iveness" (1985: 23). Judgement of pres idents by board members appears to r e f l e c t preferences , expectat ions , and experiences of i n d i v i d u a l board members (Wood, 1985) . Berendzen (1986) i n d i c a t e s that board and pres ident func t ion under the admin i s t ra t ive and educat iona l l eadersh ip of the pres ident . 43 Berendzen's account of h i s p r e s i d e n t i a l experiences suggest that three v a r i a b l e s q u a l i f y a l l personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( inc lud ing that of board and p r e s i d e n t ) : common purpose, j o i n t a c t i o n , and the presence of personal communication. Berendzen (1986) as pres ident sees the charac ter of the pres ident as the major c o n t r i b u t o r to how board and pres ident work together, and h i s view of the r e l a t i o n s h i p r e f l e c t s h i s own persona l a s p i r a t i o n s , values , and experiences . C o n c e p t i o n s Of The B o a r d - P r e s i d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p The l i t e r a t u r e on boards, pres ident s , and the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p contains three d i s t i n c t conceptions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . One conceptions focusses on what i s p r e s c r i b e d and expected for each of the two p a r t i e s . A second conception focusses on what board members and pres idents do, s eparate ly and together . And a t h i r d conception focusses on what the i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s experience, p e r s o n a l l y , i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s with other p a r t i c i p a n t s . Each w i l l be d i scussed i n more d e t a i l i n the fo l lowing s e c t i o n . P r e s c r i p t i o n s A n d E x p e c t a t i o n s In t h i s conception of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , the formal ro le s of the two p a r t i e s c o n s t i t u t e both the expected and the regulated for the 44 r e l a t i o n s h i p . Dut i e s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , func t ions , and norms of behaviour are found i n such documents as government l e g i s l a t i o n , i n s t i t u t i o n a l charters and p o l i c i e s , guidebooks, and l e g a l c o n t r a c t s . These formal ro l e s c a r r y with them expecta t ions . For example, boards have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p o l i c y matters and pres idents for a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (Corson, 1975; Ingram, 1979; F i s h e r , 1984); boards have primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s (Kauffman, 1980; Gleazer J r . , 1985); pres idents have primary r e s p o n s i b l i t y for board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s (Hei lbron, 1973; Gould, 1973; F i s h e r , 1984) . P r e s c r i p t i o n s and expectat ions are d e r i v e d from a broad concept of law, d i s c e r n i b l e i n a v a r i e t y of sources i n c l u d i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n s , l e g i s l a t i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ru le s and r e g u l a t i o n s , admin i s t ra t ive a d j u d i c a t i o n s , case law, i n s t i t u t i o n a l ru l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t r a c t s , and academic custom and usage (Kapl in , 1985). It can be seen, then, why t h i s conception of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s fundamentally a concept ion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p as a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two r o l e s . Cons iderable expectat ions i n the form of regulat ions and norms are attached to the two p a r t i e s , and these serve as both c o n t r o l l e r s and p r e d i c t o r s of behaviours . These expectat ions assume a f i x e d concept of boards and p r e s i d e n t s , not dependent upon such condi t ions as the p o l i t i c a l environment of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , or the p e r s o n a l i t y of the pres ident , or the funding behaviour of governments. The board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a f f i l i a t e d with, and regula ted by, a s o c i e t y ' s or s t a t e ' s laws, customs, b e l i e f s , and values , such as i t s concepts of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y as w e l l as i t s concept of an academic i n s t i t u t i o n and higher educat ion . 45 B e h a v i o u r s O f P r e s i d e n t s A n d B o a r d s A second conception of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p addresses the behaviours and actions of the two p a r t i e s . Descriptions and judgements based on observation and inference are derived from the two p a r t i e s ' j o i n t involvement i n the operations of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . Behaviours and actions of board members and presidents are d i s c e r n i b l e i n the areas of governance and management. While there i s l i t t l e evidence i n scholarship of what boards and presidents a c t u a l l y do together, inference of j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s i s possible through observations of behaviours and actions of each party. Chait and Associates (1984), based on t h e i r U . S . national study, provide l i s t s of a c t i v i t i e s of board members. Based on studies and examinations of presidents (Dodds, 1962; Corson, 1975; Walker, 1979; Kauffman, 1980; Benezet, 1982; & Vaughan, 1986) the following a c t i v i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d by Chait and Associates are e i t h e r a c t u a l l y or p o t e n t i a l l y shared with presidents: educational planning (including long range plans and e s t a b l i s h i n g new programs); establishment of the annual budget; r e v i s i o n of i n s t i t u t i o n a l mission; and establishment of i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s (these are among the most prevalent). Behaviours of board members and presidents also depend upon such variables as an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s governance pattern or structure (Kerr & Gade, 1986), the s t y l e of the president (Kerr & Gade, 1986), the operating s t y l e of the board (Wood, 1985), and external pressures on the i n s t i t u t i o n (Wood, 1984). Seen from t h i s conception, the behaviours of board members and presidents are not n e c e s s a r i l y 46 cons i s tent with the p r e s c r i p t i o n s and expectat ions attached to the separate p a r t i e s and found i n formal documents. P e r s o n a l i t i e s And T h e i r Dynamics A t h i r d conception of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p a r i s e s through the p a r t i e s ' experiences of each other . This conception i s d i s c e r n i b l e through t h e i r percept ions and evaluat ions of the character and p e r s o n a l i t y of the other p a r t y . Gleazer J r . (1985), f or example, suggests that i n community co l l eges there are tens ions between board.members and p r e s i d e n t s . These tensions are in f luenced by the d i v e r s i t y i n board membership, s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s of board members (e .g . p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s ) , and by the complexity of i n s t i t u i o n a l problems (Gleazer J r . , 1985). Kerr and Gade (1986) i n d i c a t e that the s t y l e of the pres ident i s a determinant of how boards and pres idents work together . Personal preferences , p e r s o n a l i t y dynamics, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s give r i s e to percept ions and judgements among the p a r t i e s (Wood, 1985) . The board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s conceived of as an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Hinde (1979) argues that there are three groups of v a r i a b l e s which may have a c r u c i a l in f luence on the dynamics of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . One v a r i a b l e i s the a c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s , such as t h e i r a t t i tudes and p e r s o n a l i t i e s . These are the bases upon which r e l a t i o n s h i p s are formed or cont inued. A second v a r i a b l e inc ludes events outs ide the time span of the observed r e l a t i o n s h i p , such as a n t i c i p a t e d future rewards and b e n e f i t s . A t h i r d v a r i a b l e inc ludes a l a r g e r s o c i a l context , i n c l u d i n g s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l 4 7 values and other r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n which the two p a r t i e s are enmeshed. Hinde (1979) a l so notes that these v a r i a b l e s are independent. Hinde's (1979) views are r e f l e c t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e on pres idents and governing boards. Wood, for example, impl ies that the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p has severa l dependencies i n c l u d i n g the management s t y l e of the p r e s i d e n t , "the preferences , expectat ions , and experiences of i n d i v i d u a l board members", and "the h i s t o r y and t r a d i t i o n of the board as an organizat ion" (1985: 93). Berendzen's (1986) account of h i s p r e s i d e n t i a l experiences descr ibes three important v a r i a b l e s which q u a l i f y a l l personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s : common purpose, j o i n t a c t i o n , and the presence of personal communication. Ingram (1979) suggests that such fac tors as the p r e s i d e n t ' s personal comfort with i n d i v i d u a l board members and mutual respect and t r u s t among a pres ident and board members in f luence r e l a t i o n s . These views (Ingram, 1979; Wood, 1985; Berendzen, 1986) f a l l under one or more of Hinde's (1979) ca tegor ie s : ac tua l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s ; temporal aspects of r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; and, s o c i a l context . Summary And Conclusions At l ea s t three conceptual categories can be seen i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . One conception emerges from the perspect ive that 48 the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s between two separate p a r t i e s , board members and p r e s i d e n t . This conception suggests that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p , and based on r o l e expectat ions for each p a r t y . Such a r e l a t i o n s h i p , with i t s a s soc ia ted formal ro l e s and p r e d i c t a b l e outcomes, i s perce ived as a s t a t i c c o n d i t i o n . A second conception emerges from the perspec t ive that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a dynamic c o n d i t i o n with behavioura l exchanges between p a r t i c i p a n t s and between the p a r t i e s and the academic i n s t i t u t i o n ' s i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l environments. This conception suggests that the i n t e r n a l form of governance (Kerr & Gade, 1 9 8 6 ) and ex terna l condi t ions (Wood, 1 9 8 5 ) , such as the p o l i t i c a l environment, help to shape the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . A t h i r d concept ion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p emerges from the perspec t ive that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a personal phenomenon, experienced by the p a r t i c i p a n t s and based on persona l percept ions and judgements of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . This concept ion conforms to what Hinde ( 1 9 7 9 ) and M c C a l l ( 1 9 7 0 ) r e f e r to as an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . For each of the three conceptions there i s emphasis on common items assoc iated with the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . In one concept ion, the emphasis i s on p r e s c r i p t i o n s and expectat ions for the two p a r t i e s . In the second concept ion, the emphasis i s on the behaviours of the p a r t i e s . And i n the t h i r d conception, the emphasis i s on the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and dynamics of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . This review concludes that a focus on only a s i n g l e conception l i m i t s understanding of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . One conception alone excludes cons iderable informat ion and perspect ive from the other two concept ions . I t i s suggested that a lack of explanat ion for the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s a consequence of l i m i t e d 49 conceptions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Each conception provides a perspec t ive of only one dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . This present l i t e r a t u r e review i d e n t i f i e s a minimum of three d i s t i n c t dimensions; together these dimensions may c o n s t i t u t e a comprehensive conception of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . This comprehensive conception i s absent i n the extant l i t e r a t u r e on boards, pres ident s , and the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . 50 CHAPTER THREE THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The purpose of t h i s study i s to examine the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i n order to d i s c e r n reasons for the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . In f u l f i l l i n g t h i s purpose, i t i s necessary to explore the nature ( i . e . , determinants, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and e f fects ) of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and fo l lowing t h i s to i d e n t i f y how the two p a r t i e s work together to govern and manage the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . In the preceding chapter , a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on boards and pres idents i n d i c a t e d that , while there i s much d i scuss ion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , there i s as yet no systematic study of e i t h e r i t s nature or the reasons for i t s importance. The present chapter draws - on that l i t e r a t u r e i n d e s c r i b i n g the way i n which the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p was conceived for t h i s study and the research questions which flowed from that c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . Conceptua l i z ing The Board-Pres ident R e l a t i o n s h i p Although the l i t e r a t u r e does not o f f er a systematic study of the' board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t does contain d i s t i n c t categor ies for examinations of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . These categories can be expressed as three dimensions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p : a formal or l e g a l dimension, an opera t iona l or working dimension, and a personal or human dimension. 51 Each of the three dimensions provides a p a r t i c u l a r perspect ive for seeing the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , and each perspect ive c a r r i e s with i t assumptions about the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Its nature can be seen as having three p a r t s : c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , determinants, and e f f e c t s . It i s the assumptions about each dimension drawn from the l i t e r a t u r e which can provide a bas i s for s t r u c t u r i n g a systematic study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The dimensions and t h e i r assumptions c o n s t i t u t e a research framework for t h i s study. Each dimension (formal, o p e r a t i o n a l , and personal) i s drawn from a conception of the r e l a t i o n s h i p which contains assumptions. These assumptions p e r t a i n to the determinants , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Table 1 d i s p l a y s the assumptions about the three dimensions drawn from the l i t e r a t u r e . For example, the conception of the r e l a t i o n s h i p from the formal dimension assumes that government l e g i s l a t i o n i s a determinant of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a connection between two a u t h o r i t y r o l e s , and that the e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p are p r e d i c t a b l e i n that they fo l low and f u l f i l l expectat ions . These assumptions as a whole cons t i tu te conjectures about the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p from the l i t e r a t u r e which, with few except ions , does not conta in e m p i r i c a l evidence about the r e l a t i o n s h i p . These assumptions therefore precede systematic study. The nature of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s represented, cumulat ive ly , i n Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. In these representat ions , the three dimensions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p are connected to suggest one r e l a t i o n s h i p with three dimensions. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p are represented i n F igure 1. The formal dimension i s d i s c e r n i b l e through l e g a l i s t i c sources such as c o n s t i t u t i o n s , l e g i s l a t i o n , admin i s t ra t ive ru les and r e g u l a t i o n s , 52 TABLE 1 Assumptions of the Three Dimensions (From the l i t e r a t u r e ) Dimensions Determinants C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s E f f e c t s Formal Laws, L e g i s l a t i o n , Regulations S t a t i c connection of au thor i ty f igures (Roles) P a r t i e s f u l f i l l expectat ions Operat iona l E x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l environments; personal s t y l e of presidents- operat ing s t y l e of board; governance s t ruc ture of i n s t i t u t i o n Dynamic; involvement i n operations of academic i n s t i t u t i o n , but v a r i a b l e from one to another (Behaviours) D i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n one k ind of r e l a t i o n s h i p from another, but focussed on operations of academic i n s t i t u t i o n Personal I n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s ; group dynamics Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i n c l u d i n g ac tua l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s , temporal aspects of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and s o c i a l context Personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s inf luence on board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p (Personal i t i e s ) 53 admin i s t ra t ive ad jud ica t ions , case law, i n s t i t u t i o n a l ru les and regu la t ions , i n s t i t u t i o n a l contrac t s , and academic custom and usage (Kapl in , 1985) . From t h i s perpec t ive , the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s assumed to be a ro l e r e l a t i o n s h i p . The two p a r t i e s occupy ro les which are p laced wi th in a context of bureaucra t i c procedures . A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t i s assumed, is- that there i s a s t a t i c connection between two sets of au thor i ty f igures w i th in the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . F i g u r e 1 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Of The B o a r d - P r e s i d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p - 54 operat ions . I n s t i t u t i o n a l operations inc lude governance and management behaviours of the two p a r t i e s (but not expectat ions , mot ivat ions , outcomes, e t c . ) . ' The perspect ive from the opera t iona l dimension shows a board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p that i s dynamic. Wood (1985), for example, notes that there are three categor ies of boards c h a r a c t e r i z e d by three d i s t i n c t operat ing s t y l e s . The assumption from the perspect ive of the opera t iona l dimension, based on Wood's (1985) study of boards, i s that there are at l eas t three kinds of board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p s . One r e l a t i o n s h i p has a corporate , b u s i n e s s - l i k e character ; another, an a u t h o r i t a r i a n or m i l i t a r i s t i c , and l i k e l y h i e r a r c h i c a l , character ; and, another a community or f a m i l y - l i k e charac ter . The perspect ive of the opera t iona l dimension suggests that there i s wide v a r i a t i o n from one r e l a t i o n s h i p to another i n how the p a r t i e s are invo lved i n the operat ions of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . The personal dimension i s d i s c e r n i b l e through the percept ions and judgements of the two p a r t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e i r evaluat ions of the o v e r a l l character of the other p a r t y . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from the perspect ive of the personal dimension suggest that the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p can be seen as an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p conta in ing what Hinde (1979) re fers to as a c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p a r t i c i p a n t s , temporal aspects of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and s o c i a l contexts . Determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p are represented i n Figure 2. From the perspect ive of the formal dimension, laws, r u l e s , l e g i s l a t i o n , norms, and formal expectat ions are assumed to be determinants of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; they regulate what board members and pres idents do together . From the 55 perspect ive of the operat iona l dimension, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s assumed to be in f luenced by various condi t ions i n c l u d i n g the ex terna l environment (e .g . p o l i t i c a l environment), the governance s t ruc ture of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , the personal s t y l e of the pres ident , and the operat ing s t y l e of the board. From the perspect ive of the personal dimension, the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s assumed to be dependent upon i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s and group dynamics. Mutual t r u s t and the durat ion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p would, for example, be two assumed determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . F igure 2 Determinants Of The Board-Pres ident R e l a t i o n s h i p 56 E f f e c t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p are represented i n Figure 3. The e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p seen from the formal dimension imply p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . The two p a r t i e s w i l l , i t i s assumed, f u l f i l l t h e i r ro l e expectat ions by conforming with l e g a l i s t i c requirements. From the perspect ive of the opera t iona l dimension, e f f ec t s w i l l inc lude those act ions which p e r t a i n to the operations of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n and are assumed to be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n one r e l a t i o n s h i p from another. From the perspect ive of the personal dimension, e f f ec t s are assumed to be i d e n t i c a l to those q u a l i t i e s (e .g . personal comfort, confidence, t rus t ) of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p expressed by one party i n t h e i r evaluat ions and judgements of the other par ty . 57 Figures 1, 2, and 3 combined represent the nature of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p : c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , determinants, • and e f f e c t s . It can be seen that the perspec t ive of each dimension i s l i m i t e d i n i t s assumptions about how the p a r t i e s func t ion , what gives r i s e to or motivates t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n g , and the r e s u l t s of what they do together. While each dimension provides a perspect ive that contains assumptions about the r e l a t i o n s h i p , taken independently, each dimension provides only a p a r t i a l view of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The connection of the three dimensions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p permits examination of the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p from a comprehensive perspec t ive , one which i s broader than that o f fered by the perspect ive from a s i n g l e dimension. F igure 4 i s a diagram of the nature of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p combining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , determinants, and e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The research framework i s thus conceived of as having three components: 1. the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i n v o l v i n g three dimensions; 2. determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p viewed from the perspect ive of three dimensions; and, 3. e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p viewed from the perspect ive of three dimensions. This framework was used i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a s e t t i n g or s e t t ings ( i . e . , one or more academic i n s t i t u t i o n s ) to explore the nature of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , then to examine how boards and pres idents j o i n t l y govern and manage the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , and f i n a l l y to d i s c e r n why the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s deemed to be important (which may inc lude more than i t s perce ived e f f e c t s ) . 58 F i g u r e 4 The N a t u r e Of The B o a r d - P r e s i d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p This i n v e s t i g a t i o n required information which inc luded both f a c t u a l and perceptual d e s c r i p t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Both documentary evidence and the percept ions of the two p a r t i e s to the r e l a t i o n s h i p provided re levant data . Therefore , research questions for t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are of two kinds ( i . e . , r e l a t i n g to documented evidence and to percept ions ) . These quest ions are d i r e c t e d at the t h r e e - f o l d nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , determinants, and ef fects ) of which the dominant one ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) i s i t s e l f i n three parts ( i . e . , formal , o p e r a t i o n a l , p e r s o n a l ) . The research framework and the two kinds of data the i n v e s t i g a t i o n required ( fac tua l and perceptual) are represented i n Figure 5. 59 Figure 5 Research Framework And Data Required 60 The R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s From the l i t e r a t u r e and the research framework der ived from that l i t e r a t u r e , research quest ions were e s t a b l i s h e d . These questions were used to examine the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and to uncover the nature of that r e l a t i o n s h i p . Research quest ions address the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p (formal, o p e r a t i o n a l , and personal dimensions) , determinants of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , and e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p (See Table 2) . Questions #1 and #2 focus on the formal dimension, and pursue f a c t u a l and perceptua l data r e s p e c t i v e l y . Question #1 addresses how the l e g a l documents which govern or regulate the two p a r t i e s descr ibe the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Question #2 focusses on the percept ions of the p a r t i c i p a n t s with regard to the laws which may govern or regulate t h e i r behaviours and a c t i o n s . Questions #3 and #4 focus on the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension, and they require f a c t u a l and perceptual data r e s p e c t i v e l y . Question #3 addresses the opera t iona l dimension through i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents. Question #4 approaches the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension through the percept ions of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Questions #5 and #6 address the personal dimension through the percept ions of the p a r t i c i p a n t s both i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s and through t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the major inf luences of the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Both questions #5 and #6 require perceptua l da ta . Both quest ions #7 and #8 require perceptual data . Question #7 addresses the determinants of the r e l a t i o n s h i p from the percept ions of both i n d i v i d u a l 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, i f 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 R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s And D a t a F o r m a l D i m e n s i o n F a c t u a l D a t a Q u e s t i o n #1 P e r c e p t u a l D a t a Q u e s t i o n #2 O p e r a t i o n a l D i m e n s i o n F a c t u a l D a t a Q u e s t i o n #3 P e r c e p t u a l D a t a Q u e s t i o n #4 P e r s o n a l D i m e n s i o n P e r c e p t u a l D a t a Q u e s t i o n #5 & #6 D e t e r m i n a n t s P e r c e p t u a l D a t a Q u e s t i o n #7 E f f e c t s P e r c e p t u a l D a t a Q u e s t i o n #8 63 p a r t i c i p a n t s and the combination of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions . Question #8 addresses the e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p from the percept ions of both i i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s and the combination of p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions . Table 3 d i s p l a y s the connection of the two kinds of data ( fac tua l and perceptual) and t h e i r connection to the e ight research ques t ions . While answers to i n d i v i d u a l research questions may point toward poss ib l e reasons for the importance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d that the answers to research questions as a whole w i l l address the main purpose of the study: to d i s c e r n reasons for the importance of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . The use of the research framework which incorporates both the three dimensions which charac ter i ze the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and the determinants and e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p has as i t s objec t ives f i r s t to explore the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , then to uncover the ways i n which the p a r t i e s work together to govern and manage the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , and f i n a l l y to d i s c e r n reasons for the r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s importance, thereby e x p l a i n i n g why there i s emphasis p laced on the r e l a t i o n s h i p by scholars and p r a c t i t i o n e r s a l i k e . 64 C H A P T E R F O U R R E S E A R C H D E S I G N AND P R O C E D U R E S In order to address the research questions a method was used which i s l a b e l l e d q u a l i t a t i v e - i n t e r p r e t i v e research. The researcher determined the relevant sources f o r data, developed strategies f o r c o l l e c t i n g data, and analyzed data to enable de s c r i p t i o n s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , and comparisons of human r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These actions were c a r r i e d out i n a manner consistent with current s c h o l a r l y thought on q u a l i t a t i v e 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), q u a l i t a t i v e methods "combine close analysis of f i n e d e t a i l s of behaviour and meaning i n everyday s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n with analysis of the wider s o c i a l world...within which the face-to-face i n t e r a c t i o n takes place" (1986: 120). This study investigates the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p by examining the meaning p a r t i c i p a n t s (board members and presidents) a t t r i b u t e to t h e i r actions, a t t i t u d e s , and s i t u a t i o n s ; by examining the i n s t i t u t i o n a l context i n which the pa r t i e s act; and by examining the context which formalizes the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to describe the research method used.- The de s c r i p t i o n covers i n sequence Data Sources, Data C o l l e c t i o n , Data Analysis, and Delimitations and Assumptions. 65 Data Sources Data sources for t h i s study were i d e n t i f i e d which cou ld best address the research quest ions (see Table 2, Chapter Three) . These sources inc lude government l e g i s l a t i o n , i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents, interviews of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p (board members and p r e s i d e n t s ) , and f i e l d notes . The sources permit ana lys i s of the forces which govern and regulate behaviours of the two p a r t i e s , p a r t i c i p a n t s ' operat ions wi th in an i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g , and percept ions of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Documents Two types of documents are sources for t h i s study. The f i r s t i s government l e g i s l a t i o n which governs and regulates the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . This source i s used as data for the research quest ion: How i s the formal dimension s p e c i f i e d i n the l e g i s l a t i o n ? The second type cons t i tu te s a source for informat ion on the opera t iona l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . This source inc ludes i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents which are re levant to what board members and pres idents do' together . They are primary sources of data for the research quest ion: How i s the opera t iona l dimension descr ibed i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents? 66 I n t e r v i e w s O f B o a r d Members A n d P r e s i d e n t s The l i t e r a t u r e on board members and pres idents suggests that board members have been the p r i n c i p a l source for the study of board members and pres idents have been a major source for the study of p r e s i d e n t s . The use of p a r t i c i p a n t s as sources conforms with Gay's (1976) view that the actors have the most accurate informat ion on t h e i r a c t i o n s . In educat ional research, and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s tudies on board members and pres idents , the use of the p a r t i c i p a n t s as sources i s we l l e s t a b l i s h e d . Wood (1985) chose board members and pres idents as sources i n order to develop an understanding of t rus tee s ' act ions and the consequences of t h e i r a c t i o n s . Cohen and March (1974) explored l eadersh ip i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n us ing pres idents as t h e i r primary source. The Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership (1984), i n pursuing answers to why the s trength of the co l l ege and u n i v e r s i t y presidency i n the U . S . had weakened over the past two decades, chose pres idents as p r i n c i p a l sources . Chai t and Assoc iates (1984), i n determining the opera t iona l involvement of board members i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n , r e l i e d on board members as sources . In a Canadian study, Dennison and H a r r i s (1984) used board members as t h e i r sources . And, f i n a l l y , a v a r i a t i o n of t h i s pat tern can be seen i n those pres idents who funct ion as both researchers (or commentators) and p a r t i c i p a n t - o b s e r v e r s (e.g. Stoke, 1959; Dodds, 1962; Kauffman, 1980; F i s h e r , 1984; Vaughan, 1986; Berendzen, 1986) . Research on board members and pres idents which focusses on the a c t i v i t i e s and percept ions of the two groups and on the importance of the two groups ( i . e . , t h e i r r o l e s , funct ions , and e f fect iveness ) has often depended upon the interv iew as a data c o l l e c t i o n instrument (see Cohen & March, 1974; Benezet, 1982; Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984; 67 Wood, 1985; Vaughan, 1986). F i e l d Notes While the interv iew provides data on the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , the observations (recorded as f i e l d notes) of • the researcher on the in terv iews 'are used as a source i n the ana lys i s of interv iew data . The researcher ' s ro l e i n t h i s study w i l l be d i scussed i n more d e t a i l i n a subsequent sec t ion of t h i s chapter . Data C o l l e c t i o n S i t e S e l e c t i o n The co l l eges of B r i t i s h Columbia were chosen as the se t t ings for t h i s study. There are two reasons for choosing these co l leges and another reason why the co l l eges of B r i t i s h Columbia were considered for t h i s study. A f i r s t reason for the s e l e c t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia's co l leges i s the researcher ' s p r a c t i c a l knowledge of community co l l eges , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia, as a consequence of p r o f e s s i o n a l work i n two B r i t i s h Columbia co l l eges over two decades. The researcher ' s int imate knowledge of the operat ions of these co l l eges as wel l as h i s knowledge of the h i s t o r i c a l , p o l i t i c a l , and s o c i a l 68 context would, i t was presumed during s e l e c t i o n , a i d the researcher i n the c o l l e c t i o n and ana lys i s of data . Because of h i s background, the researcher would be able to e s t a b l i s h rapport with p a r t i c i p a n t s . He would be able to comprehend and to acknowledge p r o v i n c i a l or co l l ege system references (e .g. " r e s t r a i n t " , "BCAC", co l l ege "scandal", " p r o f i l e " , and "se l f - s tudy") , and be able to grasp the meaning p a r t i c i p a n t s give to t h e i r management act ions i n such areas as educat iona l p lanning and budget development because these act ions are f a m i l i a r to him as part of h is experiences . Second, these co l l eges f a l l under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a s i n g l e government. For the co l l eges of B r i t i s h Columbia, one l e g i s l a t e d act app l i e s to a l l p u b l i c co l l eges and i n s t i t u t e s . In B r i t i s h Columbia, there i s one government min i s ter (Minis ter of Advanced Education and Job Training) and one government department respons ib le as government for the p r o v i n c i a l c o l l e g e s . The choice of se t t ings wi th in one l e g i s l a t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n (in Canada, education f a l l s under p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ) , w i th in a common l e g a l framework, and with a common government a u t h o r i t y as a respons ib le l e g i s l a t e d body was d e l i b e r a t e . Thus, v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to the formal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and i n v o l v i n g such areas as the ex terna l p o l i t i c a l environment, law, and government behaviours are common to a l l p u b l i c co l l eges i n the prov ince . The s e l e c t i o n ' o f B r i t i s h Columbia co l leges for t h i s study i s appropriate because development of these co l leges matches the development of U . S . community c o l l e g e s . As Dennison and Gal lagher (1986) note, B r i t i s h Columbia's co l l eges were adaptations of the American community co l l ege concept. In that the research framework for t h i s study was based upon a body of l i t e r a t u r e that 69 i s wr i t t en predominantly from a U . S . perspec t ive , the s e l e c t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia co l l eges as se t t ings does not depart from the under ly ing assumptions of that l i t e r a t u r e . The research framework should apply to B r i t i s h Columbia. Sample Three B r i t i s h Columbia co l leges and the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p wi th in each co l l ege comprise the sample for t h i s study. More than one s i t e was chosen to permit comparison of f indings and conclus ions and to v a l i d a t e conc lus ions . Three s i t e s permit a t r i a n g u l a r comparison and allow for greater p o t e n t i a l v a r i a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of f indings than two s i t e s . The use of more than three s i t e s for t h i s s tudy's purposes would have made data c o l l e c t i o n d i f f i c u l t given the time and resource l i m i t a t i o n s . Three s i t e s were deemed to be a reasonable number to al low for v a r i a t i o n and to permit comparisons. Only one overt d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g feature among the three co l l eges was consc ious ly i d e n t i f i e d as a c r i t e r i o n for s e l e c t i o n . By ensuring s i t e v a r i a t i o n , t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n d i d not ignore the v a r i a b l e s of geographical environment. M i t c h e l l (1986).notes that co l leges i n B r i t i s h Columbia serve i d e n t i f i a b l e geographica l reg ions . Col leges are a lso categor ized by types as Urban, Semi-Urban, and Rural ( M i t c h e l l , 1986). In t h i s present study, two co l l ege are urban co l l eges and one co l l ege i s c l a s s i f i e d as semi-urban. In t h i s way, arguments are avoided that might be r a i s e d with t h i s s tudy's conclus ions i f a l l urban co l l eges were se l ec ted or i f a l l three co l leges were i n one geographical l o c a t i o n ( i . e . , Lower Mainland) . While ne i ther the regions nor the categories 70 appear i n l e g i s l a t i o n , these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i d e n t i f i e d with p a r t i c u l a r B r i t i s h Columbia co l l eges can be found i n both government and i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents. In t h i s study, some recogn i t ion of these d i s t i n c t i o n s seemed necessary so that the three co l l eges were not a l l from the same region or a l l viewed as f a l l i n g under one category (e .g . urban) . Therefore , the sample inc ludes at l eas t one s i t e which i s both geographica l ly d i s t i n c t from the other two and does not f a l l under the same category. Several c r i t e r i a were used to se l ec t these c o l l e g e s . These inc lude the tenure of the co l l ege pres ident , the age of the i n s t i t u t i o n , and the educat iona l program of the i n s t i t u t i o n . A l l three pres idents s e l ec t ed had more than one year ' s experience as c h i e f executive o f f i c e r . Apply ing t h i s c r i t e r i o n reduced the p r o b a b i l i t y that e i t h e r the pres ident or a board member was l i k e l y to q u a l i f y percept ions , e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y , i n terms of the p r e s i d e n t ' s inexperience or lack of f a m i l i a r i t y with the board or with a l l board members. The three co l l eges chosen are not new co l l eges and they a l l have e x i s t e d for ten years or more. This c r i t e r i o n of age al lowed for comparisons i n the area of e s t a b l i s h e d t r a d i t i o n s and the e f f ec t s of h i s t o r i c a l events . The co l l eges have s i m i l a r educat iona l programs i n c l u d i n g career , preparatory , v o c a t i o n a l , community, and academic o f f e r i n g s . That i s , a l l three co l l eges can be viewed as support ing a comprehensive c u r r i c u l u m . As such, p a r t i c i p a n t s ' act ions and judgements involve educat iona l i n s t i t u t i o n s which are e d u c a t i o n a l l y comparable. The three co l l eges were given f i c t i t i o u s names for the purpose of ensuring c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of in format ion . The co l leges were named Apple tree , Oak, and 71 Cedar. I n s t i t u t i o n a l documents were c o l l e c t e d from each co l l ege and interviews were conducted at each co l l ege , i n v o l v i n g a l l three pres idents and twenty-four of the twenty-s ix board members. Two board members were not inc luded i n t h i s study. Nei ther was a v a i l a b l e for interviews during the interv iew process , although ne i ther had d e c l i n e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. C o l l e c t i o n of Data F i v e kinds of data were used: 1. The Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984); 2. i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents from each of the three co l l eges ; 3. machine recorded interviews i n v o l v i n g the researcher and twenty-seven subjects (board members and pres idents at three c o l l e g e s ) ; 4. the subjects ' interview summary documents (see Appendix E ) ; and, 5. f i e l d notes recorded by the researcher dur ing and a f t er interviews with the twenty-seven subjec t s . College And I n s t i t u t e Act. The Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) i s the s p e c i f i c l e g a l document which appl ies to the r o l e s , d u t i e s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of governing boards and c h i e f executive o f f i c e r s i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia's co l leges at the time of t h i s study. In response, then, to the research quest ion on the formal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of 72 B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) i s a primary source. The act o r i g i n a t e d i n 1977, and has been amended on severa l occas ions . Major amendments occurred i n 1983 .'i ( M i t c h e l l , 1986) which could be seen to have impact on the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . For example, i n the 1983 amendment a l l board members became government appointees, whereas p r i o r to t h i s amendment boards were a combination of government appointees and l o c a l school board representat ives (Dennison 1 & Gal lagher , 1986; M i t c h e l l , 1986). Dennison (1986) has noted that l e g i s l a t i v e changes with regard to . ' B r i t i s h Columbia co l l eges suggest greater c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of c o n t r o l over co l leges and less autonomy for l o c a l boards. The Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984), i n i t s present form, has l e g a l l y regulated the behaviours and act ions of boards and p r e s i d e n t s . It i s , there fore , a key source for answers to research questions on the formal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Text of the act which i s a p p l i c a b l e to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p appears i n Appendix G. I n s t i t u t i o n a l documents. The opera t iona l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p per ta ins to the j o i n t act ions of board and pres ident i n managing the operat ions of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . Documents which i d e n t i f y these act ions are not only sources for evidence but a lso sources for comparison as v a l i d i t y checks with subjects ' data . I n s t i t u t i o n a l documents were acquired through the o f f i c e of the co l lege pres ident at Appletree Co l l ege , through the o f f i c e of the bursar at Oak Col l ege , and through both the o f f i c e of the pres ident and the o f f i c e of the bursar at Cedar C o l l e g e . The fo l l owing documents were acquired from the three co l l eges : 73 1. co l l ege calendars; 2. c o l l e c t i v e agreements with f a c u l t y unions; 3. c o l l e c t i v e agreements with support s t a f f unions; 4. f i v e year p lans; 5. board p o l i c y documents; 6. management planning documents; 7. admin i s t ra t ive p o l i c y documents; 8. board meeting minutes for an eight to twelve month p e r i o d . The above c o n s t i t u t e the p u b l i c documents produced by the co l l eges which have re levancy to both p a r t i e s and how they work together . The in terv iew quest ions . A l l interviews were based upon a s i n g l e set of twenty quest ions . The fo l lowing paragraphs descr ibe f i r s t the way the questions were developed and second the r e s u l t s of a p i l o t t e s t . The f i n a l l i s t of questions i s shown i n Table 4. These quest ions were developed to e l i c i t responses on each of the three dimensions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p as we l l as on the determinants and e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . For the formal dimension, two questions were designed to a s c e r t a i n the extent of subjects ' knowledge of how the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) a p p l i e d to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and the e f f ec t s of the act upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p . These became questions #1 and #2 i n Table 4. Responses to these questions were intended to convey the subjects ' knowledge of the act , the formal ru les and regu la t ions which govern the r e l a t i o n s h i p , and the subjects ' a t t i t u d e s towards the formal dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p (e .g . i t s existence and i t s importance) . Questions per t inent to the opera t iona l dimension were developed from a large pool of sources . The l i t e r a t u r e on boards and the l i t e r a t u r e on pres idents were reviewed for commonality of i n t e r e s t s and act ions i n v o l v i n g board members and p r e s i d e n t s . Chait and Associates (1984) provide a recent and comprehensive guide to the involvement of board members i n co l l ege operat ions . The ir ana lys i s i s based on a n a t i o n a l U . S . survey of board members which i d e n t i f i e s the major issues which confront board members and the i ssues on which boards assume ac t ive r o l e s . From the l i t e r a t u r e on pres idents (e .g . Cohen & March, 1974; Commission on Strengthening P r e s i d e n t i a l Leadership, 1984; Kerr & Gade, 1986; Berendzen, 1986; Vaughan, 1986), the issues and a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g board members were compared with issues and a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v i n g pres ident s . S ix shared major a c t i v i t i e s were i d e n t i f i e d : e s t a b l i s h new programs and long range plans for academic programs; appoint senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ; rev i se the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s miss ion; e s t a b l i s h f a c u l t y compensation p o l i c i e s ; l a y - o f f of f a c u l t y ; and dec lare f i n a n c i a l emergencies. The use of Corson's (1980) items increased the l i s t to inc lude : develop miss ion statements; develop p h y s i c a l p lans; develop and approve budgets; and develop and approve- p o l i c i e s . Gleazer J r . (1985), i n d i s cus s ing community co l l eges , noted the fo l lowing: preserve i n s t i t u t i o n a l independence; enhance the p u b l i c image; and i n t e r p r e t the community to the campus. This l i t e r a t u r e - d e r i v e d l i s t was then compared with a l o c a l l y generated l i s t of re levant issues and a c t i v i t i e s . The researcher drew upon h i s own extensive experience to compile an i n i t i a l l i s t which was then presented for comment to four people who were or had been p a r t i e s to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p in B r i t i s h Columbia. The p a r t i e s inc luded one current c h i e f executive o f f i c e r , 75 one former c h i e f executive o f f i c e r , one current board member, and one former board member, none of whom was i n the f i n a l sample. A l l p a r t i e s concurred with the fo l l owing l i s t of major a c t i v i t i e s which would invo lve both board members and pres ident s : a. the development and establishment of i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s ; b . the development and a l l o c a t i o n of budgets ( includes dec lare f i n a n c i a l emergencies and e s t a b l i s h f a c u l t y compensation p o l i c i e s ) ; c . educat iona l p lanning ( includes e s t a b l i s h new programs and long range p lanning; rev i se the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s miss ion; develop miss ion statements; and, i n t e r p r e t community to campus); d . h i r i n g of personnel ; e. t erminat ion of employment of personnel ; f. c r e a t i o n and maintenance of a p u b l i c image for the c o l l e g e . Only two items present i n the l i t e r a t u r e review are miss ing e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y from t h i s l o c a l l y der ived l i s t : preserve i n s t i t u t i o n a l independence (Gleazer J r . , 1985) and develop p h y s i c a l plans (Corson, 1980). The preserva t ion of i n s t i t u t i o n a l independence may be viewed as part of the c r e a t i o n and maintenance of a p u b l i c image; and the development of p h y s i c a l plans may be as soc ia ted with budgets or f i n a n c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Because the items of the preserva t ion of independence and the development of p h y s i c a l plans d i d not appear i n a recent n a t i o n a l U . S . study (Chait & Assoc ia te s , 1984) and because the length of the l i s t with t h e i r i n c l u s i o n would lengthen the interv iew without adding new informat ion , they were l e f t out of the f i n a l l i s t of major, j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s of board members and pres idents (Table 4, questions #3-10) . Items "d" and "e" above were omitted from the f i n a l quest ion set as a r e s u l t of the p i l o t t e s t (see Appendix C) which i s r e f e r r e d to l a t e r . 76 F i n a l l y , quest ions were developed to e l i c i t responses about the personal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p (Table 4, quest ions #11-19). The l i t e r a t u r e on boards and pres idents , p a r t i c u l a r l y works authored by pres idents (e .g . Stoke, 1959; Kauffman, 1980; Berendzen, 1986), suggests p o t e n t i a l quest ion areas posed to answer the research questions ( i . e . , How do the p a r t i e s descr ibe the nature of t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p ? Do board members and pres idents i n d i c a t e that the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p a f fec t s the way the p a r t i e s work toge ther?) . The work of Hinde (1979) and McCal l (1970) on i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s provides a systematic explanat ion of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In developing theory on in terpersona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , Hinde (1979) examines dimensions of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s and re fers to M c C a l l ' s (1970) l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a representat ive example. M c C a l l ' s (1970) l i s t of the dimensions of i n t e r p e r s o n a l re la t ionsh ips , provides a set of c r i t e r i a for the development of quest ions . The c r i t e r i a inc lude the fo l l owing dimensions of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p : int imacy, durat ion , f o r m a l i t y , embeddedness (connection to a l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e ) , a c t u a l i t y (nature of encounters) , r e c i p r o c i t y ( r e c i p r o c a l commitment), and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s ) . For McCal l (1970), the dimensions are understood through responses to the fo l l owing quest ions: a. How wel l does one party know the other p a r t y ' s . f e e l i n g s ? (intimacy) b. How long has the personal a s s o c i a t i o n continued? '(duration) c. How much i s the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s t r u c t u r e d by the ro l e r e l a t i o n s h i p ? (formality) d . To what extent i s the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p embedded wi th in a l a r g e r organizat ion? (embeddedness) e. Are i n t e r p e r s o n a l encounters concrete or on a symbolic plane? (actua l i ty ) f. Is the commitment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p r e c i p r o c a l ? ( rec iproc i ty ) g. Are the p a r t i e s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each other on the bas is of power, s tatus , l eadership role? ( d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) 77 Hinde (1979) adds to M c C a l l ' s (1970) d i s c u s s i o n of dimensions by not ing that the a c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of' p a r t i c i p a n t s inf luence these dimensions, at l east i n as much as these c h a r a c t e r i s t c i s are conducive to the formation or cont inuat ion of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Hinde (1979) suggests that eva luat ion (e .g . judging i t s worth) i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , and outcomes of eva luat ion can a f fec t the future course of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . At f i r s t , the quest ion developed was: What i s your assessment of your r e l a t i o n s h i p with "X"? This quest ion was a l t e r e d a f t e r d i s c u s s i o n with and review by a current ch i e f executive o f f i c e r at a B r i t i s h Columbia community c o l l e g e . Instead, the quest ion developed was: What do you l i k e about your r e l a t i o n s h i p with the other party? An i n i t i a l set of twenty-four questions dea l t with the three dimensions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and with the determinants and e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Further refinement of t h i s set was done by means of a p i l o t t es t i n F a l l 1987. Subjects for t h i s p i l o t t es t inc luded two current board members at two community co l l eges i n B r i t i s h Columbia; one former board member at a B r i t i s h Columbia community co l l ege ; and one former pres ident of a B r i t i s h Columbia community co l l ege (see Appendix C ) . None of these subjects was part of the f i n a l sample of the study. As a r e s u l t of the p i l o t t e s t , four questions on the opera t iona l dimension were de le ted , one quest ion was re-worded to reduce poss ib l e misunderstanding, and interv iew procedures were modi f ied . A f t e r i n i t i a l development and p i l o t t e s t i n g of interview quest ions , twenty questions were s e l ec t ed by the researcher as research instruments. Table 4 d i sp lays the quest ions . 78 TABLE 4 B o a r d - p r e s i d e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p : i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s 1. In what ways does the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act of B r i t i s h Columbia apply to your r e l a t i o n s h i p with pres ident /board? 2. What are the consequences/effects of t h i s act on your r e l a t i o n s h i p ? 3. How do you work with pres ident /board on the development and establishment of i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s (e .g. i n s t r u c t i o n a l p o l i c i e s , admission p o l i c i e s ) ? 4. What are the consequences of t h i s approach to the development and establishment of p o l i c i e s ? 5. How do you work with pres ident /board on the development and a l l o c a t i o n of budgets? 6. What are the consequences of t h i s approach to the development and a l l o c a t i o n of budgets? 7. How do you work with pres ident /board on educat iona l planning? 8. What are the consequences of t h i s approach to educat iona l planning? 9. How do you work with pres ident /board on the c r e a t i o n and maintenance of a p u b l i c image for your co l l ege (e .g. miss ion statement, promotion)? 10. What are the consequences to t h i s approach to the c r e a t i o n and maintenance of a p u b l i c image? 11. Are you knowledgeable of the other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings and views on a v a r i e t y of t o p i c s and issues? To what extent are you knowledgeable? 12. What i s the length of time you have known the other par ty , or members of the other party? 13. To what extent i s your r e l a t i o n s h i p with the other par ty , or members of the other par ty , s t ruc tured by the ro l e r e l a t i o n s h i p of board and pres ident? 14 . .To what extent i s your r e l a t i o n s h i p with the other party contained within the operat ions of the co l lege? 15. To what extent are your personal encounters with the other party genera l ly formal or informal (e .g. convent ional behaviours and gestures or s p e c i f i c and i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n s ? 16. Do you th ink that the other p a r t y ' s commitment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s i m i l a r i n k ind and i n t e n s i t y to your commitment? 17. Do you make d i s t i n c t i o n between yourse l f and the other party on the bas is of power? s o c i a l status? leadership ro le? 18. What are the consequences/effects of your personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with the other party? 19. What do you l i k e about your r e l a t i o n s h i p with the other party? 20. Do you have any comments to make on the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p or on the views you have expressed already? 79 Interview procedures . Subjects were interviewed i n the Spring of 1988. Each subject (N=27) was interviewed for approximately one and one-hal f hours. Interviews 'were recorded on audio tape, and the researcher took notes on a response sheet (see Appendix D) , a device used for data reduct ion (Miles & Huberman, 1984) and for ass i s tance i n data ana lys i s (Er ickson , 1986). The interviews were conducted at a l o c a t i o n (col lege o f f i c e or meeting room, res idence of subject) s u i t a b l e for the subjects , and only the researcher and the subject were present . The researcher expla ined process and procedures to subjec t s , gave d e t a i l s on the purposes of the study, and i n d i c a t e d to subjects that t h e i r review of an interview summary may be requ ired at a l a t e r date . The twenty quest ions shown i n Table 4 were put to each subject- Subjects were a l so asked for a d d i t i o n a l in format ion . The probes took the form of fol low-up quest ions , the re -phras ing of the subjects ' responses by the researcher , and responses to subjec t s ' responses by the researcher to i n i t i a t e fur ther d i s c u s s i o n by subjec t s . For most responses g iven by subjects to questions p e r t a i n i n g to the formal and opera t iona l dimensions (questions #1-10) the researcher paraphrased subjects ' responses immediately fo l l owing responses to i n d i v i d u a l ques t ions . In t h i s way, the researcher cou ld a s c e r t a i n i f h i s understanding was cons i s tent with subjects ' i n t e n t i o n s . Subjects were informed that interviews were c o n f i d e n t i a l and that ne i ther persona l nor co l l ege i d e n t i t i e s would be revealed p u b l i c l y . Subjects were asked to a s s i s t i n mainta in ing the c o n f i d e n t i a l nature of the study by keeping t h e i r c o l l e g e ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study c o n f i d e n t i a l . In order to give a l l subjects at each co l l ege s i m i l a r condi t ions for in terv iews , each subject was 80 asked to r e f r a i n from d i s c u s s i n g both questions and t h e i r responses with other subjects u n t i l a l l interviews at t h e i r co l l ege were concluded. Interview data . While one category of data can be seen i n the machine recorded tapes which r e s u l t e d from the interviews i n v o l v i n g the researcher and twenty-seven subjects , another category of data a l so r e s u l t e d from these interviews ( f i e l d notes) . * Together, the data from these two categor ies were developed in to a t h i r d category ( interview summary documents). P r i o r to the in terv iews , the researcher developed interv iew response sheets (see Appendix D) . These sheets were used to record the researcher ' s f i e l d notes . These notes and the tape recorded interviews were merged to produce interv iew summary documents (Appendix E ) . During the in terv iew, the i n v e s t i g a t o r hand-recorded (by paraphrase and d i r e c t quotation) subjects ' responses to questions and probes, the content of the probes themselves, the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s impressions of subjects ' behaviours (e .g . nervousness, enthusiasm), and a summary of the responses to a t o p i c area (e .g. educat iona l p l a n n i n g ) . A f t e r the interview, the i n v e s t i g a t o r reviewed the response sheets, correc ted e r r o r s i n language, made addi t ions based on memory r e c a l l of the conversat ions , and added summaries for subjects ' responses i n places where during the interview he had been unable to record a summary. This procedure occurred immediately fo l lowing the in terv iew. A f t e r t h i s procedure,- the researcher l i s t e n e d to each recorded interv iew, and 81 with the responses sheet i n front of him at the same time, he added to and r e v i s e d the interv iew response sheets. A l l twenty-seven taped interviews and response sheets were t r e a t e d i n t h i s manner. These rev i s ed response sheets were then used as the bas is for the development of interv iew 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 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ) . The summaries used the categor ies of the three dimensions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p ( i . e . , formal , o p e r a t i o n a l , and personal) and contained as we l l a category for a d d i t i o n a l responses. Subjects were sent copies of the summaries and asked to review them, to make- a l t e r a t i o n s i f the summaries d i d not r e f l e c t t h e i r responses accura te ly , and re turn c o r r e c t e d summaries to the researcher wi th in 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 c l a r i f y i n g phrases to be added. Neither suggestion a l t e r e d the e s s e n t i a l meaning of statements. These changes q u a l i f i e d statements which cou ld be read as absolutes (To "We don't operate i n camera without the pres ident" was added "unless we are d i s c u s s i n g his performance i n a s a l a r y review context") . A second subject suggested wording changes, a few points to c l a r i f y what was presented, and an a d d i t i o n a l paragraph which a l t e r e d the meaning of a judgement. The f i r s t two suggestions l e d to a l t e r a t i o n s i n the document, but the t h i r d suggestion was not accepted by the researcher . On t h i s p o i n t , the researcher l i s t e n e d to the passage on the tape and reviewed h i s notes. The 82 o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n was c l e a r and the suggested change would a l t e r meaning s u b s t a n t i a l l y . A t h i r d subject asked f o r wording changes which were accepted as they d i d not a l t e r substance. This subject also asked f o r an addition which although i t d i d not contradict what was present a c t u a l l y was a suggestion for an a d d i t i o n which was neither evident on the tape nor relevant to the t o p i c . This t h i r d subject also asked that a reference to a s p e c i f i c p o l i t i c a l o f f i c i a l be omitted. Given that t h i s reference was not a c e n t r a l point nor was i t given i n response to an interview question, i t could be regarded as an aside. The reference was dropped at the request of the subject, although i t remains on the recorded tapes. The fourth subject suggested one change, part of which c l a r i f i e d a statement and another part of which added new information. The part of the suggested addition which served to c l a r i f y was accepted; the other part was not accepted because i t was c l e a r l y an afterthought. with these few exceptions, then, the summaries as they appear i n Appendix E have been accepted by subjects as v a l i d representations of personal responses to interview questions and probes. V a l i d i t y , c r e d i b i l i t y , and trustworthiness of data . In the c o l l e c t i o n of data, v a l i d i t y and c r e d i b i l i t y are achieved by several research procedures. V a l i d i t y of interview data was ensured by the researcher returning the interview summary documents to subjects for v e r i f i c a t i o n . The c r e d i b i l i t y of data was increased by the use of multiple sources, i n c l u d i n g subjects (board members and presidents), i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents, and government l e g i s l a t i o n and multiple methods (document examination and interviews). Moreover, three s i t e s were used to gather subject and documentary data. The use of three s i t e s rather than one 83 improves the trustworthiness of eventual general conclus ions and the generation of h y p o t h e t i c a l quest ions . D a t a A n a l y s i s Table 5 d i s p l a y s both the research questions and the sources for answers to these quest ions . In t h i s s ec t i on , the ways i n which data from those sources i s analyzed are descr ibed . There are three modes of ana lys i s used i n t h i s study. The modes are d e s c r i p t i v e , i n t e r p r e t i v e , and comparative a n a l y s i s . The sect ion ends with a d i s c u s s i o n of the d e l i m i t a t i o n s and assumptions of the research . D e s c r i p t i v e A n a l y s i s L e g i s l a t i o n . Although there i s no reference to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) , the sect ions which r e f e r to both board and pres ident were se l ec ted for d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s . The parts of the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) which p e r t a i n to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y are both appended (Appendix G) and paraphrased i n the t e x t . I n s t i t u t i o n a l d o c u m e n t s . These documents were used as sources for answers to 84 TABLE 5 S o u r c e s F o r Answers To R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s R e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n P r i m a r y s o u r c e ( s ) o f d a t a How i s the formal dimension s p e c i f i e d i n l e g i s l a t i o n ? Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B . C . , 1984) How do board members and pres idents understand the formal ru les and laws which govern or regulate t h e i r funct ioning? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) How i s the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension descr ibed i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents? I n s t i t u t i o n a l documents How do board members and pres idents e x p l a i n t h e i r act ions i n managing the operations of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n ? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) How do the p a r t i e s descr ibe the nature of t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p ? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) What are the i n d i c a t i o n s , i f any, from board members and pres idents that the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p a f f ec t s the way the p a r t i e s work together? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) From the accounts of board members and pres ident s , what are the i n d i c a t i o n s of what might determine the character and func t ion ing of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) From the accounts of board members and pres ident s , what are the i n d i c a t i o n s of the e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ? Interview Summaries (Appendix E) 85 the research question on the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p (question #3: How i s the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension d e s c r i b e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents?). M a t e r i a l from these documents i s d e s c r i b e d i n the t e x t of the study. Whatever i n f o r m a t i o n i s provided by c o l l e c t i v e agreements, p o l i c y documents, e d u c a t i o n a l plans, management plans, and calendars i s summarized i f t h a t m a t e r i a l p e r t a i n s e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y to the combined or a s s o c i a t e d operations of board members and the p r e s i d e n t . In the case of board meeting minutes, an exception to the above noted documents, because of ext e n s i v e reference to combined or a s s o c i a t e d operations of board members and the p r e s i d e n t , m a t e r i a l i s paraphrased and i n c l u d e d i n the t e x t as d e s c r i p t i o n s of operations found i n these documents. Interview d a t a . Summary i n t e r v i e w documents, v a l i d a t e d by su b j e c t s (Appendix E) are primary sources f o r a n a l y s i s . Each document i s organized on the b a s i s of the three dimensions (formal, o p e r a t i o n a l , and personal) of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p . The data are used t o provide a d e s c r i p t i o n i n response to research questions #s 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , and 8 (see Table 5 ) . M a t e r i a l from summary i n t e r v i e w documents i s e x t r a c t e d and e i t h e r paraphrased or a p p l i e d verbatim i n d e s c r i p t i o n s of board members and p r e s i d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s . D e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s i s d i s p l a y e d both i n the t e x t of t h i s study and i n t a b l e s (many of which are appended). This approach to a n a l y s i s conveys the sub j e c t s ' perceptions w i t h minimal manipulation of data and allows both researcher and reader to see what i s a c t u a l l y present, both i n number and k i n d , i n i n t e r v i e w data, p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h respect to research questions. 86 I n t e r p r e t i v e A n a l y s i s Data ana lys i s i n t h i s study invo lved the counting of data frequencies , the not ing of pat terns , c l u s t e r i n g (grouping data by t o p i c and subsequently by theme), i d e n t i f y i n g and connecting images and metaphors, and f i n d i n g in terven ing v a r i a b l e s a l l i n order to e s t a b l i s h meaning for the c o l l e c t e d data and to provide conceptual coherence. Counting occurred for data relevant to research quest ion #2 (subjects ' responses to quest ions on the formal dimension), to research quest ion #5 (subjects ' responses to the quest ion on t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p ) , to research quest ion #4 (subjects' responses to the quest ion on the management of operations) to research quest ion #7 (determinants) and to research quest ion #8 (effects) . Responses to . interview questions were counted for each of these areas, by i n d i v i d u a l co l l ege , and categor ized . Counting helped to shape meaning for a s ing l e c o l l e g e ' s combined perceptions and gave a q u a n t i t a t i v e context for f i n d i n g s . Repet i t ions of causes, explanat ions , actors and a c t i o n s , language, expectat ions , a t t i t u d e s and f e e l i n g s , regu la t ions , outcomes and outputs, and other q u a l i t i e s were noted as patterns i n both i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents and interv iew data a p p l i c a b l e to each c o l l e g e . These patterns were used to reach f indings for research questions and to provide content for d e s c r i p t i o n s of subjects ' percept ions . C l u s t e r i n g data invo lved grouping or c a t e g o r i z i n g a l l re levant interv iew data 87 for a research quest ion by c o l l e g e . This technique was used for research questions #4,7, and 8 (Table 5) . C l u s t e r i n g was used to i n t e r p r e t data a p p l i c a b l e both to the opera t iona l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and to the determinants and e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The technique groups a l l d e s c r i p t i v e data (paraphrased from the source) by t o p i c . In the case of subjects ' perceptions of determinants, sub-headings which designate themes that f a l l under the c l u s t e r t o p i c were used because of the quant i ty of data . The use of themes helped to focus the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of data . In i d e n t i f y i n g and connecting images and metaphors, the researcher f i r s t reviewed i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents and interview data as wel l as h i s f i e l d notes. Images and metaphors which were e i t h e r c e n t r a l to interv iew quest ions and research quest ions or could be seen as summations of responses to questions were i d e n t i f i e d . These images and metaphors aided the researcher i n the development of interview summaries. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these images and metaphors i n conjunct ion with the use of i d e n t i f i e d pat terns al lowed the researcher to address research quest ion #6 (the a f f ec t of the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p ) . Moreover, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of images a s s i s t e d the researcher i n the ana lys i s of the co l l eges ' phi losophy, miss ions , goals , and purposes as expressed i n t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents. The technique of f i n d i n g in terven ing v a r i a b l e s (Miles & Huberman, 1984), that i s a v a r i a b l e that provides a l i n k between two other v a r i a b l e s , arose i n those few cases where i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of data d i d not provide coherence. Two or more- observat ions d i d not f i t together: they were e i t h e r incons i s t en t or 88 c o n t r a d i c t o r y . While d i sconf i rming or incons i s t ent evidence was not re jec ted , the researcher d i d attempt to i d e n t i f y reasons and explanat ions for t h i s k ind of evidence. When two or more v a r i a b l e s d i d not f i t together, the researcher looked for an in terven ing v a r i a b l e . This can be seen i n the d i s c u s s i o n of determinants at Appletree Col lege i n Chapter S i x . Comparative A n a l y s i s In order for the researcher to report on the ways i n which board members and pres idents work together, i n t e r p r e t e d data from a l l research questions are compared from two perspec t ive s . The f i r s t perspect ive addresses each of the three co l l eges separate ly and seeks to provide coherent d e s c r i p t i o n and explanat ion of how board members and the pres ident work together . In t h i s perspec t ive , i n t e r p r e t e d data and f indings are compared and f i t t e d together in to a common framework. The second perspect ive addresses a l l three co l l eges combined. Interpreted data and f ind ings which address the research questions are brought together for a more abstract and genera l i zed explanat ion based on a comparison of the three board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p s . This explanat ion of how board members and pres idents work together compares the e m p i r i c a l evidence from t h i s study with the l i t e r a t u r e . . 89 D e l i m i t a t i o n s A n d A s s u m p t i o n s D e l i m i t a t i o n s This study was d e l i m i t e d to an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i n three B r i t i s h Columbia co l l eges from the p e r i o d of September 1, 1987 to September 1, 1988. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n addressed three dimensions of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; these dimensions were i d e n t i f i e d i n the chapter on the research framework. P u b l i c documents and the c o l l e c t e d percept ions of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were examined and analyzed. The researcher ' s f i e l d notes were the other source for in format ion . A s s u m p t i o n s Assumptions about the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p d e r i v e d from the l i t e r a t u r e were i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter Three. Assumptions based on the researcher ' s background experiences are important, e s p e c i a l l y given the nature of the method used i n t h i s study. As an educat ional p r a c t i t i o n e r i n a B r i t i s h Columbia c o l l e g e , the researcher i s both f a m i l i a r with co l l ege operat ions and knowledgeable about the h i s t o r i c a l , p o l i t i c a l , and s o c i a l context of B r i t i s h Columbia's c o l l e g e s . The researcher has experience i n both co l l ege management and co l l ege i n s t r u c t i o n . P r i o r to t h i s study, the researcher had e s tab l i shed 90 personal a s soc ia t ions with those occupying ro les of board members and pres ident i n a v a r i e t y of c o l l e g e s . These personal contacts were not used as respondents for t h i s present study. These assoc ia t ions provided the researcher with informat ion about a t t i t u d e s and behaviours of the two p a r t i e s i n s p e c i f i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . In 1986 and 1987, p r i o r to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the three co l l eges i n t h i s study, the researcher questioned eleven c h i e f executive o f f i c e r s of Canadian community co l l eges (survey quest ionnaires) i n seven provinces and one t e r r i t o r y . A l l c h i e f executive o f f i c e r s i n d i c a t e d t h e i r goa l s , o b j e c t i v e s , accomplishments, and d i f f i c u l t i e s . Of these eleven c h i e f execut ive o f f i c e r s , seven were interviewed i n person, and of these seven, three were questioned s p e c i f i c a l l y on t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the governing board. The researcher , then, acquired informat ion on the percept ions of c h i e f execut ive o f f i c e r s on the pres idency , and he acquired i n s i g h t in to pres ident s ' percept ions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p (Levin, 1987) . From h i s experience, the researcher was cognizant of the concern by both p a r t i e s over the c o n d i t i o n of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . F r i c t i o n , h o s t i l i t y , and f r u s t r a t i o n were noted i n severa l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Every pres ident had problems with at l eas t one board member and some board members had problems with t h e i r pres ident , e i t h e r past or present . i Also from h i s experiences , the researcher was cognizant that a f o c a l point for f r i c t i o n between board members and a pres ident was i n the area of a u t h o r i t y . Pres idents wanted to behave as leaders and ch ie f executive o f f i c e r s . Board 91 members wanted to be l i eve they made the dec i s ions for t h e i r c o l l e g e . The researcher a l so from h i s experiences had knowledge of the e f f o r t s of board members and pres idents to achieve a uniform p o s i t i o n on c o l l e g e - r e l a t e d i s s u e s . In the environment of a union-management o r g a n i z a t i o n , board members and pres ident wanted to be on the same s ide of an i ssue or a d i s p u t e . Thus, as a r e s u l t , board and pres ident (and p o s s i b l y with other sen ior adminis trators ) conducted c o n f i d e n t i a l and s e c r e t i v e bus iness . This s ecre t ive environment had other consequences such as the eventual development of inner c i r c l e s w i th in the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two p a r t i e s . These inner c i r c l e s could inc lude one or two senior admin i s t ra tors , the pres ident , and one or two board members; i t could a lso inc lude severa l board members and exclude the p r e s i d e n t . Another consequence of the c o n f i d e n t i a l - s e c r e t i v e behaviours of board members and pres ident was that the p a r t i e s appeared to be d i s s o c i a t e d from t h e i r c o l l e g e , operat ing i n a vacuum without awareness of the r e a l i t i e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i f e perce ived by co l l ege p a r t i c i p a n t s . The r o l e , then, of the researcher i n t h i s study was not that of an objec t ive ou t s ider i n the sense that the researcher was free from assumptions p r i o r to s i t e e n t r y . The researcher ' s experiences and assumptions, however, are not incons i s t en t with q u a l i t a t i v e - i n t e r p r e t i v e research where a researcher ' s s u b j e c t i v i t y can be a key component (Goetz & Le Compte, 1984; E r i c k s o n , 1986). While t h i s researcher fol lowed a d e l i b e r a t e and systematic approach to both data c o l l e c t i o n and data a n a l y s i s , fo l lowing the suggestions of Mi l e s and Huberman (1984), h i s p r i o r experiences d i d a i d him i n both the c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s of da ta . 92 CHAPTER FIVE DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART I In t h i s chapter , the f ind ings of data ana lys i s are reported . This chapter addresses research quest ions #1-6 (see Table 5 i n Chapter F o u r ) . Ana lys i s of documents provides answers to quest ions #1 and #3. A n a l y s i s of subject data provides answers to quest ions #2, 4, 5, and 6. In t h i s chapter , the ana lys i s of l e g i s l a t i o n which governs or regulates the f u n c t i o n i n g of board and pres ident i s reported; the ana lys i s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents which descr ibe the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension i s reported; and the a n a l y s i s of subjec t s ' percept ions (board members and pres idents) i s reported . This chapter i s organized on the bas i s of the three dimensions of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p contained wi th in the research framework. Appendix E contains the data from board members and pres idents which are used i n a n a l y s i s . The data are inc luded i n f u l l as a convenient compi la t ion of m a t e r i a l which i s e s s e n t i a l for a thorough understanding of the percept ions of board members and p r e s i d e n t s . Appendix E i s r e f e r r e d to throughout Chapters F ive and S i x . The Formal Dimension The formal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s addressed through 93 two research quest ions ( i . e . , How i s the formal r e l a t i o n s h i p s p e c i f i e d i n l e g i s l a t i o n ? How do board members and pres idents understand the formal rules and laws which govern or regulate t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n g ? ) . The source for the f i r s t quest ion i s the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984). The sources for the second quest ion inc lude both interv iew data c o l l e c t e d from board members and pres idents at the three co l l eges and the f i e l d notes of the researcher . L e g i s l a t e d E x p e c t a t i o n s F o r The F o r m a l D i m e n s i o n The Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) i s the document which a p p l i e d to the formal connection of board members and pres idents i n B r i t i s h Columbia co l l eges i n September 1987, the i n i t i a l date of the study. In t h i s s e c t i o n , the l e g a l requirements a p p l i c a b l e to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p are noted and i n t e r p r e t e d . The Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act s p e c i f i e s l e g a l requirements a p p l i c a b l e to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . The board i s requ ired to appoint a pres ident (the term " p r i n c i p a l " i s used i n the act) as c h i e f executive o f f i c e r . The pres ident under the d i r e c t i o n of the board supervises and d i r e c t s s t a f f ( i n s t r u c t i o n a l , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and o ther ) ; and, the pres ident exerc ises powers and performs dut ies assigned by the board. The board has the powers and the duty to make by-laws about the powers, d u t i e s , and benef i t s of the p r e s i d e n t . The pres ident recommends to the board appointments, promotions, and removal ( inc lud ing suspension) of members of the i n s t i t u t i o n . The pres ident 9 4 attends a l l meetings of the board (excluded only by board resolution). The president advises the board on a l l 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, i t 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 i t s a b i l i t y 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 i t s own duties, i t s actions, and i t s 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 9 5 board) or permit ted by the board. The Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act addresses the r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p of board and pres ident and s p e c i f i e s l e g a l a u t h o r i t y . L e g i s l a t e d expectat ions appear to be both narrow and l i m i t e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case of the p r e s i d e n t . However, the formal dimension e s t a b l i s h e d i n the research framework of t h i s study comprises more than l e g i s l a t i v e expectat ions , and the p a r t i e s ' understandings of the formal dimension at each co l l ege are addressed i n the next s e c t i o n . The P e r c e i v e d U n d e r s t a n d i n g Of The F o r m a l D i m e n s i o n By The P a r t i e s To The R e l a t i o n s h i p The p a r t i e s ' perce ived understandings of the formal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p are der ived from interv iew quest ions #1 and #2 ( i . e . , In what ways does the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act of B r i t i s h Columbia apply to your r e l a t i o n s h i p with pres ident /board? and, What are the consequences/effects of t h i s act upon your r e l a t i o n s h i p ? ) . When asked the f i r s t ques t ion , a l l p a r t i e s acknowledged e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y (e .g . "I don't th ink I've ever read i t " , Appletree E , Appendix E) or i m p l i c i t l y (e .g . confusion about the contents of the document) the degree of t h e i r knowledge of. the a c t . In the ana lys i s of data , the researcher gave h i s a p p r a i s a l of the knowledge or f a m i l i a r i t y of subjects with the act ; the researcher noted what respondents saw as. c o n s t i t u t i n g the l e g a l requirements of board members and pres ident s , as we l l as the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of these requirements to the connection of the two p a r t i e s ; and, f i n a l l y , the researcher combined the percept ions of i n d i v i d u a l repondents for each c o l l e g e . 96 Appletree C o l l e g e . The major i ty of subjects (7) express no understanding (see Table 6) of the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) . Formal laws and regula t ions are not emphasized i n responses. Legal requirements can be seen i n the subjects ' conception of each p a r t y ' s r o l e , i n p a r t i c u l a r the board's r o l e (e .g . p o l i c y approval , u l t imate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) . In only one example, the d i s m i s s a l of admin i s t ra tors , d i d the l e g a l components apply to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Oak C o l l e g e . The major i ty of subjects (5) express f a m i l i a r i t y (see Table 7) with the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984). Not one subject i n d i c a t e d complete lack of understanding of the a c t . In t h e i r in terv iews , board members and pres ident i n d i c a t e d that the presence of the laws and regu la t ions p e r t a i n to the ro le s of the p a r t i e s , to the powers and a u t h o r i t y of the board, to problem s i t u a t i o n s , and to the p r e s i d e n t ' s ro l e connection to the board. The board's employer status with the pres ident and the board as the u l t imate a u t h o r i t y appear i n four responses. The most prevalent view i s that the formal and l e g a l aspects p e r t a i n to the ro le s of the separate p a r t i e s ( e s p e c i a l l y the board) and i m p l i c i t l y to the r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two p a r t i e s . Formal regu la t ions and laws are a lso viewed as gu ide l ines for the i n s t i t u t i o n and as l i m i t a t i o n s on the pres ident . A l s o , data from Oak i n d i c a t e s that the l e g a l aspects point out the c o l l e g e ' s connection to government i n that the government appoints board members; the government f inances the c o l l e g e ; and the government m i n i s t e r has a d i r e c t i v e r o l e . 97 TABLE 6 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: APPLETREE Knowledge o r F a m i l i a r i t y : L e g i s l a t i o n Code Name Status C o l l e g e a n d I n s t i t u t e A c t BRD/PRES KNOW/FAMILIAR/VAGUE/NONE A p p l e t r e e 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 r e l e v a n t . Two board members suggested that the laws are not consc ious ly taken in to account. For three subjec t s , then, the act does not appear to be re levant on a d a i l y b a s i s . Cedar C o l l e g e . A m i n o r i t y (3) of subjects express f a m i l i a r i t y (see Table 8) with the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984). Four subjects i n d i c a t e that they have vague knowledge of the a c t . In the views of respondents, formal regu la t ions and laws apply predominantly to the board's r o l e rather than to the p r e s i d e n t ' s ro l e or to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . The percept ions of the two p a r t i e s at Cedar Col lege are that the pres ident has a formal connection to the board as the body which h i r e s the pres ident and as the body to which the pres ident i s accountable . The pres ident sees the a p p l i c a b l e laws as n e u t r a l : they ne i ther govern nor b i n d the p r e s i d e n t . Board r e s o l u t i o n s , approved at board meetings, however, are seen by a l l subjects as l e g a l l y b i n d i n g . While the major i ty of subjects have views which are not i n c o n f l i c t on the l e g a l aspects , one subject sees the board as advisory to the pres ident , one subject sees the M i n i s t e r as the a u t h o r i t y for p o l i c y , and one subject sees no e f f ec t s of the l e g a l dimension and no consciousness of i t i n the two p a r t i e s ' operat ions . There i s apparent v a r i a t i o n i n the subjec t s ' views of formal laws and r e g u l a t i o n s . The overwhelming major i ty of responses are of an abstract nature ("formal areas are c r i t i c a l " ; the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s "an understood re la t ionsh ip") with reference to a few s p e c i f i c examples (e .g . h i r i n g of the pres ident , balanced budget) or they r e f e r to r o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , p r i m a r i l y of the board (e .g . f i n a n c i a l approval , government a u t h o r i t y ) . 99 TABLE 7 BOARD-PRESIDENT RELATIONSHIP: OAK Knowledge o r F a m i l i a r i t y : L e g i s l a t i o n Code Name Status BRD/PRES C o l l e g e a n d I n s t i t u t e A c t 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 o r F a m i l i a r i t y : L e g i s l a t i o n Code Name Status C o l l e g e a n d I n s t i t u t e A c t BRD/PRES KNO W / F AM ILI AR / VAGUE / NONE C e d a r 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 Col leges Together. At Appletree Co l l ege , formal laws and regulat ions are not emphasized with regard to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . In the views of the p a r t i e s , the formal dimension l a r g e l y concerns the ro l e r e l a t i o n s h i p but i s l i m i t e d p r i m a r i l y to the board's r o l e i n the c o l l e g e . At Oak Co l l ege , the formal dimension i s a complex arrangement. Laws and regula t ions p e r t a i n not just to the separate ro le s of the two p a r t i e s . The percept ions of the p a r t i e s about the formal dimension inc lude an awareness that the co l l ege i s connected to government and to the government M i n i s t e r of Advanced Education and Job T r a i n i n g . At Cedar Co l l ege , the p a r t i e s do not acknowledge that formal laws and regula t ions apply e x p l i c i t l y to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p although they presumably apply i m p l i c i t l y through the formal ro l e of the board. There i s wide v a r i a t i o n among p a r t i c i p a n t s about t h e i r understanding of the formal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Only the separate ro le s of the two p a r t i e s are regulated by l e g i s l a t i o n . L e g i s l a t e d expectat ions are both narrow and l i m i t e d , and suggest an unequal p a r t n e r s h i p . The board has primary au thor i ty over the pres ident and over the academic i n s t i t u t i o n (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984). However, because there are no l e g i s l a t e d regulat ions s p e c i f i e d for the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , with the exception of the p r e s i d e n t ' s r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p to the board, what i n fac t cons t i tu tes the formal dimension of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s i n the perceptions and arrangements of the two p a r t i e s . At Appletree Co l l ege , formal laws and regulat ions are not emphasized. The formal 102 dimension embraces the r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p of board and pres ident , l i m i t e d p r i m a r i l y to the board's r o l e , not the p r e s i d e n t ' s . At Oak Co l l ege , the formal dimension embraces not only the separate ro le s of the two p a r t i e s but also the c o l l e g e ' s connection to government and to the M i n i s t e r of Advanced Education and Job T r a i n i n g . At Cedar Co l l ege , the formal dimension i s more i m p l i c i t than e x p l i c i t , although there i s wide v a r i a t i o n among the p a r t i c i p a n t s about t h e i r understanding of the formal dimension. The Operat iona l Dimension In t h i s s e c t i o n , two research questions are addressed: How i s the operat iona l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p descr ibed i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents? How do board members and pres idents exp la in t h e i r act ions i n managing the operat ions of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n ? For the f i r s t quest ion, i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents i n c l u d i n g c o l l e c t i v e agreements with employee groups, educat iona l p lans , co l l ege ca lendars , co l l ege p o l i c i e s , and board meeting minutes are examined as evidence for d e s c r i p t i o n s and explanat ions of the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension. For the second quest ion, percept ions of respondents are reported , analysed, and used as sources for explanations of how the p a r t i e s manage the operat ions of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n . 103 The O p e r a t i o n a l D i m e n s i o n : Documenta ry E v i d e n c e In t h i s study, the researcher examined documents from the three co l l eges i n an attempt to d i s c e r n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . These documents revealed j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s and act ions of the board and the p r e s i d e n t . It was apparent from these documents that at each co l l ege the opera t iona l dimension inc luded c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s p e c i f i c to each r e l a t i o n s h i p at the three c o l l e g e s . A p p l e t r e e . C o l l e g e . At Appletree Co l l ege , documentary evidence impl ies that the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p at the apex of a bureaucracy. The board's r o l e i s to r a t i f y p r e s i d e n t i a l a c t i o n , a c t i o n which the board has d i r e c t e d , although with cons iderable l a t i t u d e . The pres ident takes and i s given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n s t i t u t i o n a l performance. Board and pres ident involvement together i n the operat ions of Appletree Col lege i s apparent (e .g . exchange leaves for employees; i n d i s m i s s a l of employees; i n a task force on workload for employees) i n the negot ia t ion of c o l l e c t i v e agreements with three barga in ing u n i t s , g iven the appearance of both board members' and the p r e s i d e n t ' s s ignatures on t h i s document. Two documents, the co l l ege calendar and the co l l ege F i v e - Y e a r P l a n , do not show evidence of the two p a r t i e s working together . In one document (Executive Management P l a n s ) , i t i s noted that the pres ident and h i s executives administer and the board governs: the pres ident i s respons ib le to the board for co l l ege management; the pres ident i s des ignated as the party respons ib le for co l l ege d e c i s i o n s . 104 Board meeting minutes from A p r i l 1987 to January 1988 i n d i c a t e board-and president j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s and actions. Board meeting minutes i n d i c a t e 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 l a r g e l y excludes the president and the other administrators. The bursar i s the most prominent senior administrator at board meetings. The president reports to the board on a v a r i e t y of issues, such as management planning, i n t e r n a t i o n a l education, enrolments, self-study, new programs. During the president's report, other senior administrators w i l l take a key ro l e i n the discussion or presentation. Only on one occasion was there d i r e c t board-president i n t e r a c t i o n reported (board chairman d i r e c t s 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 p o l i c y on c a p i t a l expenditures drawn up by the bursar. The board chairman and the president have connections with each other through a meeting with P r o v i n c i a l college board chairmen, college presidents, and the Min i s t e r . The board chairman speaks on behalf of the board to the president i n the reported minutes. The operational dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p displayed i n documentary evidence r e l i e s on the ro l e expectation that the president i s the board's agent and supervises the college's operations i n accord with board approved p o l i c i e s . It i s c l e a r that the president reports to the board. It i s also apparent that the board chairman assumes a d i r e c t i v e role with the president. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent i n a college document on management plans. These p r e s c r i p t i o n s match the conception of the board and president as two separate p a r t i e s involved i n the management of a r a t i o n a l hierarchy with the president at the top of the bureaucracy and the board d i r e c t i n g through the- establishment 105 of p o l i c y . In short , there i s d i s tance between board and pres ident on matters which p e r t a i n to the operat ions (e .g . educat ional p lanning and educat ional services) of the c o l l e g e . The pres ident answers to the board e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or through h i s sen ior adminis trators about h i s act ions and the act ions of h i s admin i s tra tors i n managing Appletree C o l l e g e . Other sen ior ad min i s t r a tor s , e s p e c i a l l y the bursar , are invo lved o p e r a t i o n a l l y with the board. The board approves; the pres ident a c t s . J o i n t a c t i v i t i e s are not apparent. There i s l i t t l e board-pres ident i n t e r a c t i o n dur ing board meetings, as evidenced by minutes of the meetings. The board's operat ing s t y l e can be portrayed as that of a r a t i f y i n g board as opposed to the other two types , corporate and p a r t i c i p a t o r y (Wood, 1985). At Appletree Co l l ege , the model of governance i s h i e r a r c h i c a l with the pres ident i n a p o s i t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y and the board expect ing and permi t t ing p r e s i d e n t i a l c o n t r o l and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the i n s t i t u t i o n . Oak C o l l e g e . At Oak Co l l ege , documentary evidence impl ies that board and pres ident share governance r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s by developing consensus on dec i s ions and a c t i o n s . The pres ident has and accepts t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for ach iev ing consensus wi th in the i n s t i t u t i o n and he i s viewed by the board as the source for i n s t i t u t i o n a l information and adv ice . Board and pres ident , and by i m p l i c a t i o n the other groups i n Oak Co l l ege , operate as a c o l l e c t i v e . Board and pres ident involvement together i n the operations of Oak Col lege i s apparent i n co l l ege p o l i c i e s , c o l l e c t i v e agreements with employees, and i n the F ive Year P l a n . For example, i n the F ive Year P lan , the board i s invo lved i n d i r e c t i n g the c o l l e g e to examine c r i t e r i a for student a c c e s s i b i l i t y and to assess c o l l e g e , program, and i n d i v i d u a l performance. By i m p l i c a t i o n , the board can be 106 seen, to be invo lved with the pres ident i n t h i s a c t i v i t y . With in the c o l l e c t i v e agreement with the f a c u l t y , board and pres ident are invo lved together p r o c e d u r a l l y i n the d i s m i s s a l of f a c u l t y members, s p e c i f i c a l l y by the i n c l u s i o n of a board member on the j u d i c i a l body which recommends d i s m i s s a l of a f a c u l t y member to the p r e s i d e n t . In co l l ege p o l i c i e s , board and pres ident are involved together i n the appointment of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Board meeting minutes i n d i c a t e j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s and act ions of board and p r e s i d e n t . Board meeting minutes from A p r i l 1987 to February 1988 i n d i c a t e the f o l l o w i n g : Board members meet with the pres ident and sen ior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The board chairman cha ir s the meeting, but the chairman i s seldom r e f e r r e d to i n the minutes as l ead ing d i s c u s s i o n s . On one occasion the pres ident served as a c t i n g chairman dur ing the e l e c t i o n of the chairman. Senior admini s trators are ac t ive dur ing board meetings, and the pres ident p a r t i c i p a t e s i n d i scuss ions together with board members. Board committees report at board meetings, with ass i s tance from time to time from senior adminis trators but not from the pres ident . The pres ident g ives a report at every meeting, and the report i s often i n t e r r u p t e d with d i s c u s s i o n by both board members and senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The p r e s i d e n t ' s report i s i n f o r m a t i o n a l ( t o p i c s inc lude park ing , i n t e r n a t i o n a l educat ion, graduat ion, contract nego t ia t ions , government funding, a p r o v i n c i a l c o u n c i l of p r i n c i p a l s , co l l ege committee i s sues , and p r o v i n c i a l and n a t i o n a l education i s s u e s ) . D i scuss ion and debate occur dur ing almost a l l parts and aspects of board meetings, i n v o l v i n g students , admin i s t ra tors , pres ident , and board members. Board and pres ident i n t e r a c t i o n i s frequent . Senior admin i s t ra tors , but not the pres ident , are given d i r e c t i o n by board members. The board approves a, v a r i e t y of re so lu t ions and p o l i c i e s r e l a t e d to such matters as the F ive Year P lan , audit r epor t s , expenditure p lans . These are presented as motions by board members without reference to the i n i t i a t o r s or creators of plans and r e p o r t s . The board chairman and the pres ident do not e x h i b i t any s p e c i a l j o in t behav iours (e .g . v e r b a l exchanges, j o i n t r e p o r t i n g ) . A l l board members have equal r o l e s , but two or three board members are 107 the most a c t i v e ( t h i s does not inc lude the board chairman). The documentary evidence about the opera t iona l dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p at Oak Col lege suggests that there i s some degree of shar ing r o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and j o i n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the two p a r t i e s . The pres ident appears to p a r t i c i p a t e on an equal f oo t ing with board members. The pres ident more than the board chairman appears to take a l eadersh ip r o l e at meetings. There i s board-pres ident i n t e r a c t i o n as we l l as board-admin i s t ra t ion i n t e r a c t i o n , b o a r d - f a c u l t y a s s o c i a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n , and board-student s o c i e t y i n t e r a c t i o n . Indeed, i n some behaviours and act ions r o l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s not apparent. In board meetings, the pres ident appears to take a dominant r o l e and a d i s c u s s i o n or debating forum charac ter i ze s meetings more so than a business meeting of the board. Meetings inc lude open d i s c u s s i o n , and many d i scuss ions appear to be spontaneous among board members. The pres ident not only informs board members of co l l ege business but a lso inc ludes board members i n d i scuss ions on co l l ege bus iness . Board meetings are f a i r l y i n f o r m a l . In formal i ty at board meetings r e f l e c t s the disappearance of r o l e d i v i s i o n s between pres ident and board that i s evident both i n the substance of d i scuss ions and i n the reported behaviours of p a r t i c i p a n t s at board meetings. Based on documentary evidence, the opera t iona l dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p at Oak Col lege suggests a model of shared governance. The pres ident i s a centre of in f luence i n the i n s t i t u t i o n but not the only centre . Senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , board, co l l ege f a c u l t y , and to a l e s s e r extent support s t a f f and students , have i n f l u e n c e . The pres ident funct ions as a mediator among 108 centres of in f luence and by b u i l d i n g consensus among centres of i n f l u e n c e . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of many groups at board meetings and the absence of f a c t i o n s , i n d i v i d u a l p u r s u i t s and proposals (e .g . references to who i n i t i a t e s or creates plans and reports are not apparent) , as wel l as the absence of references to a h i e r a r c h y suggest that board and pres ident operate as a c o l l e c t i v e . Cedar C o l l e g e . At Cedar Co l l ege , the opera t iona l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , based on documentary evidence, seems to have a d u a l i s t i c c h a r a c t e r . Although behaviours and act ions are formal ized (e .g . ro l e s of the p a r t i e s s p e c i f i e d i n c o l l e c t i v e agreements and p o l i c i e s ) , there i s r e c o g n i t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r ro les and funct ions of p a r t i c i p a n t s based on a b i l i t y . Roles have both p r e s c r i b e d or formal power and in f luence as we l l as that power and in f luence which i s based on p e r s o n a l i t y : o p e r a t i o n a l l y , board and pres ident r e l y on both formal p r e s c r i p t i o n s and on i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r t i s e . Board and pres ident involvement together i n the operations of the co l l ege can be seen i n c o l l e c t i v e agreements with employees, board p o l i c i e s , board by-laws, board r e s o l u t i o n s , and i n the co l l ege ca lendar . For example, board p o l i c y ind ica tes that the board delegates severa l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to the pres ident i n c l u d i n g the i n i t i a t i o n of p u b l i c information and the a b i l i t y to act i n the absence of p o l i c y . Board by-laws and reso lu t ions provide numerous examples of board and pres ident j o i n t func t ion ing (e .g . pres ident as member of board planning committee; pres ident conducts the e l e c t i o n of the board chairman; pres ident as member of the board f inance committee). Board meeting minutes from A p r i l 1987 to May 1988 i n d i c a t e board and pres ident 109 joint a c t i v i t i e s 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 f i r s t 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 i s 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 a c t i v i t i e s 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 p a r t i c i p a n t s with board members on a l l but formal a c t i o n s . As reported i n the minutes, the pres ident , bursar , and deans (as w e l l as d i r e c t o r s ) p a r t i c i p a t e equa l ly with board members on informal matters; on formal matters only board members are i n v o l v e d . Board meetings are a b lend of the formal and the i n f o r m a l . Meetings are informat ion g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g sess ions . The pres ident serves as the board's agent on a l l co l l ege matters except those p e r t a i n i n g to f inances , such as c o l l e c t i v e agreements and budget matters . The' pres ident appears as the educat iona l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l l eader , but he does not d i r e c t the board, e s p e c i a l l y on f i n a n c i a l matters . On these, the bursar has a more obvious r o l e . The pres ident acts on behal f of the board; recommends to the board; and advises the board. At Cedar C o l l e g e , the model of governance i s not h i e r a r c h i c a l with the pres ident respons ib le to the board alone; but ne i ther i s the governance model p o l y c e n t r i c with the pres ident as just one centre of power and in f luence among many centres . Nor i s the model shared governance, i n part because c o l l e c t i v e agreements are rather e x p l i c i t about ro le s and d imin i sh the opportuni ty for p o l i t i c a l behaviours such as negot ia t ing and mediating outs ide of c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . Instead, i t seems that the nature of the o p e r a t i o n a l dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as d u a l i s t i c . On the one hand, behaviours and act ions are formal ized (e.g. l e g a l ro le s of separate p a r t i e s i n c o l l e c t i v e agreements and p o l i c i e s ) . On the other hand, there i s acknowledgement of separate spheres for. p a r t i c i p a n t s (e .g . board chairman as board l eader; bursar as f i n a n c i a l expert; pres ident and deans as educat ional 111 experts; pres ident as co l l ege leader; , and the groups of f a c u l t y , s t a f f , and students as s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups) . The opera t iona l dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , then, i s a mixture of what i s p r e s c r i b e d by l e g a l agreements, p o l i c i e s , and t r a d i t i o n s as we l l as what in f luence i s a f f i l i a t e d with r o l e s . For example, the board chairman has cons iderable in f luence on board r e l a t e d matters; the bursar , on f i n a n c i a l matters; and the pres ident , on educat ional matters . At a l l three c o l l e g e s , while i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents revea l some of the jo in t a c t i v i t i e s and act ions of board and pres ident , the opera t iona l dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from one co l l ege to another. The examination of i n s t i t u t i o n a l documents i n t h i s study confirms the suggestion noted i n the d i s c u s s i o n of the research framework, i n Chapter Three, that the workings of boards and pres idents together d i s p l a y v a r i a t i o n depending on the i n d i v i d u a l co l l ege s e t t i n g . The O p e r a t i o n a l D i m e n s i o n : P e r c e p t i o n s o f R e s p o n d e n t s Respondents' percept ions of opera t iona l management are reported and analysed i n t h i s s e c t i o n . The respect ive p a r t i e s ' explanations of co l l ege operations i n v o l v i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s , budgets, educat ional p lanning , and the pub l i c image are responses to interview questions (#3 - #10, Table 4, Chapter Four) and are contained i n items two, three , four , and f i v e of the interv iew summaries (Appendix E ) . References for statements appear i n parenthes is i n the t ex t , and these a l p h a b e t i c a l l e t t e r s s i g n i f y the subjec t ' s interview data from 112 the co l l ege under d i s c u s s i o n . Thus, under Appletree C o l l e g e , the l e t t e r s A, B, C, e t c . r e f e r to subjects Appletree A, B, C e t c . whose interv iew summaries are contained i n Appendix 'E . A p p l e t r e e C o l l e g e . The responses of board members and pres ident suggest that act ions are both var ious and numerous i n t h e i r managing the operat ions of Appletree C o l l e g e . T h e i r act ions inc lude i n i t i a t i n g , deve loping , reviewing, and approving. The pres ident does i n i t i a t e p o l i c i e s . The pres ident and the sen ior admin i s tra tors do develop p o l i c i e s . The board and the sen ior admin i s tra tors review the p o l i c i e s i n p r i v a t e meetings. The board approves p o l i c i e s at open meetings. While board members recommend, suggest, and guide i n budget development, while they review, quest ion , and d i scuss educat iona l p lans , and while they c r i t i q u e and d i r e c t plans and operat ions r e l a t e d to the maintenance of the c o l l e g e ' s p u b l i c image, only the board chairman p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the operat ions with the pres ident and the sen ior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Processes for board and pres ident act ions i n managing operat ions are ne i ther acknowledged nor apparent. There do not appear to be formal procedures e s t a b l i s h e d for board-pres ident management, and the process seems to be dependent upon the sen ior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' s t y l e s , schedules, and agendas. The behaviours of the two p a r t i e s are reported as r e l a t i n g to the personal d i s p o s i t i o n s of both p a r t i e s . The board i s r e f e r r e d to as guarded (F), i n a c t i v e ( A , C , D , G ) , and p o l i t i c a l ( C , F , G , I ) ; the pres ident , as a workaholic (E), down-to-earth (D), open ( E , F , H ) , and astute ( E , I ) . The pres ident i s r e f e r r e d to l ea s t i n budget matters; the board, i t appears, has a minor ro le 113 i n educat iona l p l a n n i n g . In the area of p u b l i c image, board and pres ident appear to have the larges t connect ion. T h e i r work together i n t h i s area, however, i s mainly d i s c u s s i o n . Board and pres ident engage i n a d e c i s i o n making process and dec i s ions are c a r r i e d out by the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n with the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the board chairman. Board and pres ident together engage i n more that the establishment of p o l i c y . Indeed, p o l i c y establishment i s a minor a c t i v i t y . Operat iona l l eadersh ip appears to be the p r e s i d e n t ' s r o l e , but t h i s l eadersh ip i s shaped by the judgements and requests of board members. The pres ident must e x p l a i n to the board, u s u a l l y through the board chairman. The p r e s i d e n t ' s proposals are often modif ied by the board chairman, or i f not modif ied then cons tra ined . P o l i c y . In the area of p o l i c y , board and pres ident d i scuss and agree upon expenditures and p u b l i c image; they do not attend to e d u c a t i o n a l l y - r e l a t e d p o l i c y . The p o l i c y process i s not formal; the respondents' d i s c u s s i o n of process i s l a r g e l y a d e s c r i p t i o n of the flow and movement of in format ion . The board votes on p o l i c y to approve. P o l i c y act ions of board and pres ident are reported as the i n i t i a t i o n of p o l i c y (A, D, G, H, F) , the development of p o l i c y (B, C ) , the r e v i s i o n of p o l i c y (D), and the act ions of d i s c u s s i o n (H), c r i t i q u i n g (C), lobbying (I) , and approving (A, B, D, J ) . The p o l i c y process concerns the flow and movement of the p o l i c y and r e l a t e d p o l i c y information (A, C ) . The s e t t i n g for p o l i c y act ions inc ludes i n camera meetings (B, E) of board and senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , open board meetings (B ,E ) , v e r b a l exchanges (D) outs ide of meetings between board members and among board members and senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and "behind the scenes" (I) p o l i t i c a l behaviours . Behaviours 114 are a combination of the spontaneous (D), the personal (I) , and i n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s such as knowledge (A), confidence (C), and v i g i l a n c e (H). Although behaviours of the p a r t i e s do not appear to be regulated or ordered, the p a r t i c i p a n t s are a s s i s t e d by those with knowledge of and experience (H) i n co l l ege governance and management. P o l i c y act ions r e l a t e to expenditures (H) and p u b l i c image; act ions (H) are not educat ional i n t h e i r focus . Budgets. In the area of budgets, as reported , pres ident and board do not work together . The bursar i s the ac t ive admini s tra tor with the board . The board chairman and the v i c e chairman are invo lved on behal f of the board to d i scuss , to ques t ion , and to recommend r e v i s i o n s to budgets. The board votes on budget proposals to approve. Budget act ions of board and pres ident concern a long l i s t of ac t ions i n c l u d i n g i n i t i a t i n g , developing, framework s e t t i n g , c o n f e r r i n g , p r i o r i t y s e t t i n g , recommending, ques t ion ing , r e p o r t i n g , gu id ing , p a r t i c i p a t i n g , v o t i n g , and approving (B, C, D, E , F , G, H, J) .. The budget process i s not c l e a r to respondents, with the only comment present that the budget i s brought to the board (D). The s e t t i n g for budget development and a l l o c a t i o n inc ludes i n camera meetings and open meetings (F) . Behaviours inc lude the p r e s i d e n t ' s lack of involvement with board members, board's marginal involvement, l i m i t e d but open d i s c u s s i o n on budget matters , and a democratic approach (A, B, C, D , F , G, I ) . The chairman and the v i c e chairman p lay l eadersh ip ro l e s with the board on budget matters (F) . E d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g . In the area of educat ional p lanning , as reported by respondents, board members are marg ina l ly invo lved , and the onus of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f a l l s upon the board chairman. The sen ior admin i s t ra tors , 115 i n c l u d i n g the pres ident , b r i n g educat ional proposals to the board and the board d iscusses these proposals i n a l i m i t e d way. The board reviews educat iona l plans but does not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e i r development or implementation. The pres ident i s viewed as the expert and c h i e f p lanner . The chairman and one or two more experienced board members p lay a "watchdog" (D) r o l e to ensure that plans have been subjected to appropriate co l l ege processes . Educat iona l p lanning act ions invo lve a long l i s t i n c l u d i n g reviewing, ques t ion ing , d i s c u s s i n g , i n i t i a t i n g , rubber stamping, p a r t i c i p a t i n g , deve loping , suggesting, support ing , watching, ensur ing , d e c i d i n g , asking , approving, and d i r e c t i n g (A, B, C, D, E , F , G, J ) . The educat iona l p lanning process i s not exp la ined except that the sen ior admini s trators b r i n g the plans to the board (D). Reported behaviours suggest that the pres ident leads p lanning , that the board i s not i n v o l v e d , that p lanning i s not future o r i e n t e d , that board members have freedom, that board members p a r t i c i p a t e , that board members give c r e d i t to the p r e s i d e n t , that the board backs o f f from p lanning , that the onus i s upon the board chairman, that sen ior adminis trators answer to the board, that' the pres ident takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and that there i s lobbying and manoeuvering by board members (A, B, C, D, F , G, H, I, J ) . The act ions of educat iona l planning are seen as s i m i l a r to budget development and the budget process (E, G) . P u b l i c image. The area of p u b l i c image d i f f e r s from the other areas i n that ac t ions and behaviours are reported to be u n l i k e those i n the other areas . It appears that the goal of un i formi ty dominates, and the pres ident and the board have more balance to t h e i r e f f o r t s . While the pres ident i s the main actor i n the p u b l i c realm, the board shares the l eadersh ip r o l e with the pres ident i n the c r e a t i o n of the p u b l i c image, and i n dec i s ions regarding p u b l i c 116 in format ion . In t h i s area, of a l l the four noted areas, the pres ident i s subject to overt cons tra in t s from the board. The pres ident must fo l low board d e c i s i o n s . The pres ident must inform and confer with the board chairman. Both board and pres ident pursue connections with government o f f i c i a l s and p o l i t i c i a n s . The board's work i s l a r g e l y in formal ; the p r e s i d e n t ' s i s both in formal and formal . P u b l i c image act ions of the board and the pres ident invo lve a long l i s t i n c l u d i n g l ead ing , working, c r e a t i n g , promoting, speaking, c r i t i q u i n g , i n i t i a t i n g , reviewing, approving, gu id ing , d i r e c t i n g , t a l k i n g , d i s c u s s i n g , changing, represent ing , encouraging, l i s t e n i n g , and d e f e r r i n g (A, B, C, D, E , F , G, I , J ) . The process for p u b l i c image ac t ions involves the agreements of board and pres ident , the ro les for chairman and pres ident , the ru les which p e r t a i n to c o n f l i c t i n g information and to the p r e s i d e n t ' s behaviours (B, D, F , I ) . Board, pres ident , and adminis trators agree upon a uniform p o s i t i o n for p u b l i c information (B). The pres ident must fo l low board consensus (F) . The c o l l e g e ' s miss ion i s developed by the c o l l e g e ' s employees and moves up to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and f i n a l l y goes to the board (C). The s e t t i n g for the c r e a t i o n and maintenance of the p u b l i c image i s not made e x p l i c i t , although both formal and i n camera meetings are impl i ed as s e t t i n g s . One subject noted that board members w i l l use the telephone to speak to government o f f i c i a l s (G). Behaviours are various and numerous. The board i t s e l f does not seem to be ac t ive except for the board chairman (A, D, J ) . Board members do lobby government o f f i c i a l s and do r e l a t e to community groups (G). The pres ident i s viewed as ac t ive and e f f e c t i v e i n t h i s area (E, G, H, I ) . He works i n the community and both through and with government (C, E , I ) . Board members are guarded i n t h e i r p u b l i c ro l e (F, H) . The board chairman i s concerned that the pres ident gives too much time to p u b l i c image a c t i v i t i e s 117 (J ) . The p u b l i c image a c t i v i t i e s , however, are l e f t to the pres ident (H). The pres ident seeks the approval of the board for h i s persona l , p u b l i c a c t i v i t i e s , but he does not seek t h e i r approval for co l l ege documents (e .g . calendar) which are p u b l i c image veh ic l e s ( I ) . The board works through a p r o v i n c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n : t h i s i s t h e i r p u b l i c forum (C). In the past at Appletree C o l l e g e , l ack of uniform responses from board members and pres ident l e d to d i f f i c u l t i e s for the co l l ege (F) . Board members and pres ident suggest that t h e i r act ions together i n managing the operat ions of the co l l ege are l a r g e l y o r a l : d i s c u s s i o n i s the a c t i v i t y they engage i n most with each other . The board does not appear to be invo lved i n w r i t i n g or reading or counting (as i n account ing) , i n personnel management, or i n p u b l i c speaking. The board i s a screen, or f i l t e r , or gate, f or the p r e s i d e n t ' s in t en t ions and a c t i o n s . Their working r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not an equal p a r t n e r s h i p . The pres ident and the senior admin i s tra tors e i t h e r act or propose a c t i o n ; the board r e a c t s . Oak C o l l e g e . T a l k i n g i s the primary a c t i o n of board and pres ident together as reported by the major i ty of respondents. Board members and the pres ident d iscuss p o l i c y ; the pres ident discusses the budget with the board; board and pres ident d i scuss general co l l ege d i r e c t i o n s ; and the pres ident informs the board on p u b l i c image matters . Act ions inc lude c l a r i f y i n g , ques t ion ing , examining, recommending, c r i t i q u i n g , gu id ing , encouraging, and s t i m u l a t i n g . On p o l i c y and budgets, the board approves. The pres ident i s descr ibed as an i n i t i a t o r (F) , key communicator (A), leader (C), source of informat ion (D), guide (G), and generator of excitement ( I ) . These responses imply that the p a r t i e s see the pres ident as both a s t i m u l a t i n g and mediat ing force i n the 118 i n s t i t u t i o n . While sub-committees and formal meetings are ac t ion environments, informal meetings, d inner meetings, and i n camera meetings permit casual communication exchanges f o r board members and the p r e s i d e n t . The p o s i t i o n of the pres ident i s known to board members; the p o s i t i o n s of board members are conveyed, f o r m a l l y , by the board chairman to the p r e s i d e n t . The board, while comprised of i n d i v i d u a l s with personal op in ions , speaks as a group. In t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s with board members, senior admini s trators act not as m i r r o r images of the pres ident but rather as i n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r s i n the areas of p o l i c y , budgets, and educat iona l p lans . Only the pres ident , among the admin i s t ra tors , i s i d e n t i f i e d with the p u b l i c image of the co l l ege by board members. Processes invo lve co l l ege committees for p o l i c y formulat ion , the bursar for budget p r e s e n t a t i o n , and the board sub-committee, which inc ludes senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , f or educat iona l p lann ing . No process i s i d e n t i f i e d for the c r e a t i o n and maintenance of the p u b l i c image. Processes for board and pres ident ac t ions are not s p e c i f i e d beyond i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of who receives what from whom. Behaviours emphasize the separate and d i f f e r e n t ro les of pres ident and board members, with the p o s s i b l e exception of the chairman. The pres ident i s viewed as a leader but as d i s t i n c t and somewhat d i s t a n t from board members i n h i s a c t i o n s . The board i s seen as p r o t e c t i v e of the co l l ege and g e n e r a l l y support ive of the p r e s i d e n t . 119 P o l i c y . P o l i c y act ions of board and pres ident invo lve the d i s c u s s i o n of p o l i c y , ques t ion ing of p o l i c y , c l a r i f i c a t i o n of p o l i c y , vo t ing on p o l i c y , and approval of p o l i c y (A, B, D, E , F , G, H, I ) . P o l i c y i s formulated through co l l ege committees before i t i s brought to the board by the pres ident and the sen ior admin i s tra tors (A, D, F , H) . The set t ings ' for p o l i c y a c t i o n inc lude open committee meetings of the board, dinner meetings of the board, and i n camera meetings (G, I ) . Behaviours inc lude the l eadersh ip r o l e of the p r e s i d e n t , the separat ion of board and pres ident i n p o l i c y development and approval , board members' awareness of the p r e s i d e n t ' s percept ion of a p o l i c y , the advice g i v i n g r o l e of the board, the board's t r u s t of the pres ident , and the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of those board members with appropriate exper t i se (A, B, C, D, E , F , G, H, I ) . The onus for the process f a l l s on the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; the board may not be capable of greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n , but for some p a r t i c i p a n t s the board cou ld be more invo lved (C, G ) . B u d g e t . Budget ac t ions appear to be conf ined to development and approval and do not p e r t a i n to a l l o c a t i o n . Act ions concern development, c l a r i f i c a t i o n , examination, r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n , recommendation, v o t i n g , and approval (A, B, C, D, G, H) . The pres ident advises the board, expla ins to the board, and discusses the budget with the board (G, H) . The board works with the pres ident v e r b a l l y i n d i s c u s s i o n by asking quest ions , by g i v i n g opinions and advice , and by g i v i n g d i r e c t i o n s and judgement (D, E , F , H) . The budget process involves the board's r e c e i p t of budget proposals from the bursar and the board sub-committee (B, D, G ) . The s e t t i n g for budget act ions inc ludes c lo sed board committee meetings, where there are casual d i scuss ions i n v o l v i n g senior admin i s tra tors and board members, and sess ions a f t e r board meetings where the pres ident and three or 120 four board members d iscuss budget matters i n f o r m a l l y (G, H) . Behaviours p e r t a i n to the board as a group and to the pres ident as detached or independent. The board buf fers the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n from government (B). The board l i k e s to be informed and does not appreciate surpr i s e s (D). The pres ident takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for dec i s ions (G), and he worries about the c o l l e g e ' s f inances (C). E d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g . Educat iona l p lanning act ions concern the p r o v i d i n g of in format ion , the d i s c u s s i o n of d i r e c t i o n s , the ques t ion ing and c r i t i q u i n g of p lans , g u i d i n g and c l a r i f y i n g , and the making of f i n a l dec i s ions (A, B, D, F, G, H, I ) . The educat iona l p lanning process involves the i n i t i a t i n g of long range p lanning at a board r e t r e a t , the board's r ece ip t of plans from co l l ege committees, the examination of plans by a board sub-committee, and recommendations from the sub-committee to the board (A, D, H) . The s e t t i n g for p lanning ac t ions involves board r e t r e a t s , sub-committee meetings of the board, board meetings, and informal meetings of the board and the pres ident (A, E , F, G) . Reported behaviours of the two p a r t i e s r e f e r to the p r e s i d e n t ' s ro l e and the board's l i m i t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n (B, D, F , G) . The pres ident "breaks ground"; the pres ident does not "dictate" (G, H) . The board i s not c l o s e l y invo lved; the board i s "detached" (D). The pres ident can be seen to i n i t i a t e act ions as w e l l as attempting to engage and invo lve board members. P u b l i c i m a g e . P u b l i c image act ions involve the pres ident and the board chairman. The pres ident acts alone or with the board chairman. The board chairman e i t h e r acts j o i n t l y with the pres ident or on behal f of the board (G, H) . Act ions i n v o l v i n g pres ident and board are l a r g e l y v e r b a l . The pres ident 121 provides the board with information, encouragement, and enthusiasm (D, H, I ) . No process f o r the creation and maintenance of the p u b l i c image i s i d e n t i f i e d . Behaviours concern the president's energy and act i v e r o l e (A, C, I ) . The board has a passive and, to some extent, a l i m i t i n g r o l e (D). Board and president have achieved agreement on a few basic issues: the college's mission, educational d i r e c t i o n , and the response to pu b l i c information. Board and president have adopted a p r a c t i c e of open, informal communication among themselves. Beyond these basic understandings and t h i s approach to communication, there are few or no apparent rules or understandings which d i r e c t how the board and the president manage the operations of the col l e g e . If budget plans comply with the general educational d i r e c t i o n s , the budget i s acceptable; i f a new program f i t s the college's mission, then the proposals f o r the program w i l l receive the board's attention; , and i f a labour dispute a r i s e s , the board and the president know that i n d i v i d u a l c o llege o f f i c i a l s w i l l not give t h e i r opinions i n pu b l i c statements. Together, board and president work at maintaining and developing t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n . The college's welfare supersedes a l l actions. Operations such as budget development by administration and approval by the board, with r a t i o n a l e s provided by the president, are viewed as operations f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n and by the i n s t i t u t i o n , 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 f i l l the roles of president, board chairman, board member, bursar, and senior administrator. Actions are i d e n t i f i e d with the roles of i n d i v i d u a l s or groups 122 and as soc ia ted with a p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r t i s e . The bursar i s viewed as a "superb" f i n a n c i a l analys t (G); thus, many budget act ions are i n i t i a t e d by and involve the b u r s a r . The senior adminis trators and the pres ident are viewed as c l o s e l y as soc ia ted with educat iona l p lanning because of t h e i r r o l e and opera t iona l connection with f a c u l t y . Board members' act ions are noted when a board member has s p e c i f i c e x p e r t i s e ( f i n a n c i a l experience) or s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s ( l o c a l community). The board chairman's involvement i s noted, but l a r g e l y as an adjunct to the pres ident or as a representat ive voice or l i s t e n e r for the board. Processes i n v o l v i n g procedures, p o l i c i e s , and ru les are n o t i c e a b l y absent or neglected by board members and the pres ident i n the act ions of managing the operat ions of the c o l l e g e . P o l i c y moves from the sen ior admin i s tra tors or pres ident to the board . P o l i c i e s are d i scussed by the board i n a v a r i e t y of s e t t i n g s , but the review and approval process and r e l a t e d procedures are not i d e n t i f i e d . This i s s i m i l a r for budgets, with the except ion that a board sub-committee takes re so lu t ions and recommendations to the board for approval . In educat iona l p lanning and the c r e a t i o n and maintenance of a p u b l i c image, process i s not apparent. P o l i c y . P o l i c y act ions of the board and the pres ident concern severa l groupings of a c t o r s : the pres ident , the board, the board chairman, and senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The pres ident i s viewed as gu id ing , reviewing, informing, shar ing , and overseeing (A, C, E , F , G ) . The board i s viewed as i n i t i a t i n g , debat ing , overseeing, accept ing , and approving (B, D, E , F , H) . The board chairman i s seen as l i a i s i n g and represent ing (D, E ) . And senior 123 admin i s tra tors are viewed as i n i t i a t i n g , reviewing, formulat ing , and l eading (D, G, H) . The process for p o l i c y involves the movement of p o l i c y from senior a d m i n i s t r a t i o n or the pres ident to the board (B). P o l i c i e s are handled by e i t h e r a board sub-committee or a committee of the whole board, although one percept ion i s that formal procedures for p o l i c y development and review are absent (B, G, H) . The s e t t i n g for p o l i c y involves i n camera meetings, open meetings, and telephone c a l l s from board members to admin i s tra tors or to the pres ident (A, B, D, H) . Behaviours i n d i c a t e that the p a r t i e s have knowledge and experience i n management and r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , that the chairman works on beha l f of the board, that the pres ident represents the major co l l ege cons t i tuents (the f a c u l t y ) , and that the p r e s i d e n t ' s behaviours are in f luenced by p o l i c y (A, B, D, F ) . Budget. Budget act ions of the board and the pres ident invo lve the bursar as we l l (A, B, C, D, E , G, H) . Budget act ions with the board e n t a i l review, explanat ion of d e t a i l s , d i s c u s s i o n , and committee work. The b u r s a r ' s act ions inc lude prepara t ion of budget documents and explanat ion of budgets to the board and to the board sub-committee (A, B, D, E , H) . The budget process i s not emphasized but i t appears that the budget i s reviewed by the board sub-committee and reso lu t ions and recommendations are taken from the sub-committee to the board as a whole for approval (D, H) . The s e t t i n g for budget ac t ions inc lude sub-committee meetings and board meetings (A). Reported behaviours i n d i c a t e that the bursar has a key ro l e i n budgets as a r e s u l t of experience and expert i se (B, C, G) , that the bursar and the pres ident are i d e n t i f i e d with budgets (B), and that board behaviours are l a r g e l y pass ive with the except ion of those board members who have extensive experience i n f i n a n c i a l 124 matters (C). The p a r t i e s express a sense of comfort with these behaviours . The board i s conscious of the c o l l e g e ' s f i n a n c i a l o b l i g a t i o n s (E) . The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the d e t a i l s of budget development and a l l o c a t i o n (E) . I n t e r n a l l y , budgets are assoc ia ted with the pres ident , the bursar , and the other senior adminis trators (B, G ) . E d u c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g . Act ions r e l a t e d to educat iona l p lanning focus mainly on the pres ident and the sen ior admin i s t ra tors , as we l l as on f a c u l t y committees which are invo lved i n the development of p lans . Act ions inc lude r e p o r t i n g , d i r e c t i n g , recommending, developing, l ead ing , p lanning , c a s t i n g a veto, and d e c i d i n g by the pres ident , and to some extent by the sen ior admini s trators (A, B, C, G ) . The board's act ions are l i m i t e d to r e a c t i o n , with the exceptions that board members may b r i n g community concerns to d i s c u s s i o n and that board members act through the board chairman (A, D) . There i s no process i d e n t i f i e d for educat iona l p lanning i n v o l v i n g the board and the p r e s i d e n t . Behaviours focus p r i m a r i l y on the p r e s i d e n t ' s power and in f luence (B, E , G, H) . The board i s permiss ive ; the board i s given informat ion; and the board has freedom to d iscuss p lans , e s p e c i a l l y through the board chairman (B, G, H) . The s e t t i n g for educat iona l p lanning inc ludes board sub-committee meetings, formal board meetings, and in formal exchanges outs ide of meetings of board members with the pres ident or with a sen ior admini s tra tor (B, C ) . Respondents a l so noted a v a r i e t y of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s about educat ional p lanning (Board members are ambivalent about t h e i r l i m i t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n educat iona l p lanning (A). The board accepts a phi losophy for educat ional p lanning (D). The board's p o s i t i o n between government and the f a c u l t y i s l i m i t i n g (D). Board members do / communicate with the government M i n i s t e r (F) about the c o l l e g e ' s p l a n s ) . 125 P u b l i c image. P u b l i c image act ions involve both board and pres ident separate ly and together . The board chairman i s ac t ive both as a board representat ive and i n concert with the pres ident (A, B, E , H) . The pres ident appears to undertake var ious and numerous act ions i n c l u d i n g informing and encouraging board members, and l e a d i n g , speaking, and working "behind the scenes" (A, B, E , H) . The pres ident works on behal f of the board and i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with the board (F, H) . There i s no process (or procedures) i d e n t i f i e d for p u b l i c image act ions and a c t i v i t i e s . There i s no s e t t i n g i d e n t i f i e d for p u b l i c image act ions and a c t i v i t i e s . Reported behaviours r e f e r to the p r e s i d e n t ' s l eadersh ip r o l e , the p r e s i d e n t ' s i n c r e a s i n g comfort with h i s ex terna l a c t i v i t i e s , and the p r e s i d e n t ' s attachment to r i s k tak ing (E, G ) . Reported board members' behaviours r e f e r to t h e i r adoption of a b e l i e f about the c o l l e g e , t h e i r low v i s i b i l i t y i n p u b l i c image a c t i v i t i e s , and the r e j e c t i o n , by a m i n o r i t y of board members, of the p r e s i d e n t ' s views on the image of the c o l l e g e (A, D F , G ) . Board and pres ident behaviours emanate from a g e n e r a l l y shared motive: to enhance the c o l l e g e ' s reputat ion as a s p e c i f i c k ind of co l l ege (B, E ) . Pub l i c image a c t i v i t i e s are p r i m a r i l y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the pres ident ; gu id ing both p o l i c y and co l l ege d i r e c t i o n i s the board's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (C, F ) . The emphasis on r o l e and i n d i v i d u a l exper t i s e , i n c l u d i n g knowledge and experience, suggests that process , procedures, and regu la t ions may not be necessary i n that the expectat ions of a l l p a r t i e s are cl ,ear, that outcomes are understood, and that past experience re in forces conf idence . While not a l l board members are content with the board and/or the p r e s i d e n t ' s behaviours and d e c i s i o n s , the status quo and the co l l ege phi losophy appear to be more important to the p a r t i e s than, for example, greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n by board 126 members i n educat iona l p lanning or a l t e r n a t e approaches to the c o l l e g e ' s a s s o c i a t i o n with the ex terna l community. As w e l l , the percept ion of the board chairman's involvement with the pres ident i n the management of operat ions suggests that process and procedures may be unnecessary i n that substant ive board and pres ident i n t e r a c t i o n s and combined act ions focus on the board chairman and the p r e s i d e n t . Thus, rather than procedures and processes for the two groups, processes invo lve these two i n d i v i d u a l s . Process and regulat ions f o r these two i n d i v i d u a l s may be more i m p l i c i t that e x p l i c i t g iven the length of t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n (over a decade) and t h e i r acknowledged int imacy . Summary: The O p e r a t i o n a l D i m e n s i o n At Appletree C o l l e g e , two separate p a r t i e s are invo lved i n the management of a r a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y . That i s , the pres ident i s the c h i e f executive o f f i c e r of a bureaucracy and the board d i r e c t s the bureaucracy through the establishment of p o l i c y . Responses i n d i c a t e that the board approves and the pres ident acts or the pres ident and h i s sen ior adminis trators e i t h e r act or propose ac t ion and the board r e a c t s . Governance i s h i e r a r c h i c a l . J o i n t a c t i v i t i e s of board and pres ident are not apparent. The board permits p r e s i d e n t i a l c o n t r o l over the c o l l e g e . The board i s a f i l t e r for the p r e s i d e n t ' s in t en t ions and a c t i o n s . At Oak Co l l ege , the responses from board members and pres ident i n d i c a t e that t h e i r act ions together i n managing the operations of the co l l ege are o r a l : d i s c u s s i o n i s t h e i r main a c t i v i t y together . Board and pres ident share some of t h e i r r o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; operations are managed j o i n t l y . At meetings of 127 board and p r e s i d e n t , r o l e d i v i s i o n s are not always apparent. Governance i s a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In p r a c t i c e , the pres ident acts as an i n i t i a t o r of ac t i on while attempting to involve board members i n co l l ege management and governance. Board and pres ident have achieved agreement on the b a s i c issues of the c o l l e g e ' s miss ion , i t s educat iona l d i r e c t i o n , and i t s response to p u b l i c in format ion . Board and pres ident have adopted a p r a c t i c e of open, informative communication among themselves. Beyond these bas ic understandings and t h e i r approach to communications, there are few, or no apparent ru le s or understandings which d i r e c t how the board and the pres ident manage the operat ions of the c o l l e g e . Indeed, operations are viewed as c a r r i e d out by and for the i n s t i t u t i o n , not as act ions of the pres ident or the board . At Cedar C o l l e g e , the opera t iona l dimension of the r e l a t i o n s h i p appears to be d u a l i s t i c , mixing both ro l e expectat ions and e x p e r t i s e . The board and pres ident operate as a corporate body with the board chairman as the board's a u t h o r i t y f i gure and the pres ident as the c h i e f executive o f f i c e r of the c o l l e g e . On a l l but formal matters , the pres ident i s an equal partner with board members. Formal ly , the pres ident recommends to the board, advises the board, and acts on behal f of the board. The emphasis on r o l e and i n d i v i d u a l exper t i se suggests that process , procedures, and regula t ions may not be necessary i n that the expectat ions of a l l p a r t i e s are c l e a r , that outcomes are understood, and that past experience re in forces conf idence . The board chairman's involvement with the pres ident i n the management of operat ions suggests that process and procedures may be unnecessary because s u b s t a n t i a l board and pres ident i n t e r a c t i o n s and combined act ions invo lve only these two i n d i v i d u a l s . 128 The P e r s o n a l D i m e n s i o n This s ec t ion reports and i n t e r p r e t s the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions of the personal dimension of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Sources of evidence inc lude responses to interv iew questions #11-19 (Table 4, Chapter F o u r ) . Two research questions are addressed: How do the p a r t i e s descr ibe the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p ? Do board members and pres idents i n d i c a t e that the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p a f f ec t s the way the p a r t i e s work together? The r e p o r t i n g i s i n two p a r t s . In the f i r s t p a r t , the respondents' percept ions of the nature ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and q u a l i t i e s ) of personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the p a r t i e s are d e t a i l e d and expla ined . In the second p a r t , the respondents' percept ions of the in f luence of t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p on how the p a r t i e s work together are exp la ined . The N a t u r e Of P e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s As P e r c e i v e d By The R e s p o n d e n t s Responses to interv iew questions #11-17 and #19 (Response sheets and Appendix E , Interview summary item number six) are the sources for the p a r t i e s ' d e s c r i p t i o n s of the nature of t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p . Tables 9, 10, and 11 report the p a r t i e s ' responses to s p e c i f i c interview questions (#11 - #17) . These tab les quant i fy responses to each ques t ion . Quant i t i e s comprise the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n one r e l a t i o n s h i p responding wi th in a p a r t i c u l a r category. For example, for quest ion #1, there are four categor ies which represent the range of responses to the quest ion of respondents' knowledge of 129 the other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings on general top ic s and i s sues . The range ind ica tes that responses could be c l a s s i f i e d under the categor ies of cons iderable knowledge, general knowledge, some knowledge, and no knowledge. For quest ion #2, as another example, respondents were asked the length of time they have known the other p a r t y . Responses v a r i e d from a few months to over f i v e years . Along with t h e i r responses to these quest ions , and i n interv iew quest ion #19, subjects descr ibed the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r persona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n s are in t egra ted f o l l o w i n g the repor t ing of responses to interv iew questions #11 to 17. A p p l e t r e e C o l l e g e . Table 9 d i s p l a y s the responses of p a r t i c i p a n t s to s p e c i f i c in terv iew quest ions (Interview questions #11-17). Board members' and the p r e s i d e n t ' s knowledge of the other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings on general t o p i c s and i ssues v a r i e s , with 6 of 10 subjects having only some or no knowledge. The d u r a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two p a r t i e s v a r i e s from under one year (3 subjects) to over f i v e years (5 subjects) The r e l a t i o n s h i p of board and pres ident i s seen to be s t r u c t u r e d by the r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p of board and p r e s i d e n t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s viewed as wholly or s u b s t a n t i a l l y contained wi th in the operat ions of the c o l l e g e . Personal encounters of board and pres ident are e i t h e r informal or a mixture of the formal and the i n f o r m a l . In 8 of 10 responses, each p a r t y ' s commitment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s viewed as equa l . D i s t i n c t i o n s (respondents were able to make a maximum of three d i s t i n c t i o n s each) between the two p a r t i e s are made on the bas i s of leadership r o l e (8 responses) , and to some extent on the bas is of power (4 responses) , and to a l e s s e r extent on the bas i s of s o c i a l status (2 responses) . 130 T A B L E 9 P E R S O N A L D I M E N S I O N : A P P L E T R E E N = 10 Code Name Appletree 1. Knowledge of other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings on t o p i c s and i s sues : cons iderable knowledge_4_ general_0_ some_3_ no knowledge_3_ 2. Length of time (years) known other par ty : 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t r u c t u r e d by r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( b o a r d / p r e s i d e n t ) : 100%_7_ 7 5%_1_ 50%_2_ 25%_0_ 0%_0_ 4. Extent to which r e l a t i o n s h i p i s contained wi th in operat ions of c o l l e g e : 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 p a r t y ' s commitment to r e l a t i o n s h i p : greater_0_ the same_8_ lesser_2_ 7. D i s t i n c t i o n s made by you on the bas i s of: power_4/10_ s o c i a l status_2/10_ l eadersh ip ro le_8/10_ 131 In the Appletree responses, the personal dimension appears to focus predominantly on the personal a t t r i b u t e s of the president. Board members respond p o s i t i v e l y to how the president t r e a t s and r e l a t e s to them. There are two board members who have some negative reactions to the president's interpersonal behaviours. Descriptions of the president's q u a l i t i e s focus on his trustworthiness, openness, d i l i g e n c e , and h i s treatment of others. The president i n d i c a t e s 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 r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s over the past decade). This r e l a t i o n s h i p suggests some f r i c t i o n between the two p a r t i e s . Mutual respect i s also evident i n t h e i r responses. Oak College. Table 10 displays the responses of p a r t i c i p a n t s to s p e c i f i c interview questions (Interview questions #11-17). Board members' and the president's knowledge of the other party's f e e l i n g s on general topics and issues varies from considerable knowledge to some knowledge. The duration of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two p a r t i e s , f o r a l l save two respondents i s i n excess of three years. There i s v a r i a t i o n i n perception of the influence of the r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p on the personal dimension. Table 10 shows that while three respondents view the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p completely structured by the rol e r e l a t i o n s h i p , three others respond that the personal i s only marginally structured by r o l e s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s contained within the operations of the c o l l e g e f o r f i v e respondents. Personal encounters of board and president are e i t h e r informal or a mixture of formal and informal. In 7 of 9 cases, each party's commitment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s viewed as equal. D i s t i n c t i o n s 132 TABLE 10 PERSONAL DIMENSION: OAK N = 9 Code Name Oak 1. Knowledge of other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings on top ic s and i s sues : cons iderable knowledge_l_ general_3_ some_5_ no knowledge_0_ 2. Length of time (years) known other par ty : 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t r u c t u r e d by r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( b o a r d / p r e s i d e n t ) : 100%_3_ 75%_2_ 50%_1_ 25%_3_ 0%_0_ 4. Extent to which r e l a t i o n s h i p i s contained wi th in operat ions of c o l l e g e : 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 p a r t y ' s commitment to r e l a t i o n s h i p : greater_2_ the same_7_ lesser_0_ 7. D i s t i n c t i o n s made by you on the bas i s of: power 2/10_ s o c i a l s tatus 0/10 l eadersh ip ro le_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 i s 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 C o l l e g e . 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 T A B L E 11 P E R S O N A L D I M E N S I O N : C E D A R N = 8 Code Name Cedar 1. Knowledge of other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings on top ic s and i s sues : cons iderable knowledge_3_ g e n e r a l _ l _ some_3_ no knowledge_l_ 2. Length of time (years) known other par ty : under 1 y e a r _ l _ ; 1 to 2_1_; over 2 to 3_0_; over 3 to 5_0_; over 5_6_ 3. Extent to which r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t r u c t u r e d by r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( b o a r d / p r e s i d e n t ) : 100%_5_ 7 5%_2_ 50%_0_ 25%_1_ 0%_0_ 4. Extent to which r e l a t i o n s h i p i s contained wi th in operat ions of c o l l e g e : 100%_7_ 75%_1_ 50%_0_ 25%_0_ 0%_0_ 5. Character of personal encounters: formal_0_ informal_7_ m i x t u r e _ l _ 6. Strength of other p a r t y ' s commitment to r e l a t i o n s h i p : greater_3_ the same_4_ l e s s e r _ l _ 7. D i s t i n c t i o n s made by you on the basis, of: power_3/8_ s o c i a l s tatus_2/8_ l eadersh ip ro le_6 /8_ 135 two subjec t s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s contained wi th in the operat ions of the co l l ege for seven of e ight subjec t s . Personal encounters of board and pres ident are in formal for seven of e ight subjec t s . Hal f of the respondents i n d i c a t e d that the s trength of t h e i r commitment to the r e l a t i o n s h i p was the same as the other p a r t y ' s . Of the remainder, three respondents considered the other p a r t y ' s commitment as grea ter . D i s t i n c t i o n s (respondents were able to make a maximum of three d i s t i n c t i o n s each) between the two p a r t i e s are made on the bas i s of l eadersh ip (6 of 8), on power (3 of 8), and on s o c i a l status (2 of 8) . In the Cedar responses, board members focus on narrow a t t r i b u t e s of the pres ident (e .g . i n t e l l i g e n c e ) and on a f r i e n d l y and compatible a s s o c i a t i o n . The pres ident rec iprocates these views of f r i e n d l i n e s s and c o m p a t i b i l i t y . Board members and the pres ident emphasize the mental and v e r b a l q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r connect ion . Both the pres ident and the board chairman emphasize t h e i r personal connection and the q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n . They view t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n as a mutual ly support ive c o n d i t i o n . The board chairman ind ica te s that she acts as a partner with the pres ident , and both the chairman and the pres ident imply that the board chairman takes on a p a r e n t a l r o l e with the pres ident as a supporter and a conf idante . The co l l eges compared. At Appletree Co l l ege , while there are e v i d e n t l y d i s t i n c t i o n s between those who have knowledge of the other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings on general t o p i c s and issues and those who do not, the emphasis from a l l p a r t i e s to the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s on the personal a t t r i b u t e s of the p r e s i d e n t . The pres ident i s viewed as the i n s t i t u t i o n a l leader and h i s 136 personal q u a l i t i e s ( trustworthiness , openness, d i l i g e n c e , and treatment of others) q u a l i f y h i s l eadersh ip r o l e . At Oak Co l l ege , there i s evident v a r i a t i o n i n p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions on the extent to which t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are s t r u c t u r e d by t h e i r r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p of e i t h e r board member or p r e s i d e n t . What i s a l so evident i s that the p r e s i d e n t ' s percept ions of t h i s persona l r e l a t i o n s h i p with board members i s at var iance with the percept ions of the major i ty of board members about t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the p r e s i d e n t . While board members emphasize personal a t t r i b u t e s and the p e r s o n a l i t y of the other p a r t y , the pres ident ne i ther acknowledges these nor suggests the exis tence of p e r s o n a l l y int imate connections between himsel f and board members, with the except ion of the board chairman. At Cedar C o l l e g e , board members and the pres ident emphasize the i n t e l l e c t u a l and verba l q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r personal a s s o c i a t i o n . The p a r t i e s ' responses show wide v a r i a t i o n - i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' percept ion of knowledge of .the other p a r t y ' s f ee l ings on general t op i c s and i s s u e s . The major i ty (6) of subjects , however, have known the other party i n excess of f i v e years . Of a l l respondents, the board chairman and the pres ident emphasize t h e i r c lose personal connect ion; they a l so emphasize the mutual ly support ive q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . The P e r c e i v e d I n f l u e n c e Of The P e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p On How The P r e s i d e n t A n d B o a r d Work T o g e t h e r Responses to in terv iew quest ion #18 (Table 4, Chapter four) are the sources for the p a r t i e s ' d e s c r i p t i o n s of the inf luence of t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . While the r e l a t i o n s h i p s at a l l three co l l eges have a f f e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the personal dimension has more than a f f e c t i v e i n f l u e n c e . At each c o l l e g e , the 137 personal r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a s soc ia ted with p a r t i c u l a r funct ions : at Appletree C o l l e g e , the funct ion i s p o l i t i c a l ; at Oak, the func t ion i s communicative; and, at Cedar, the funct ion i s instrumental i n operat ions (Appendix E , Interview Summaries, item #6) . These c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s are a m p l i f i e d i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs. A p p l e t r e e C o l l e g e . Board members and the pres ident d i scuss and descr ibe the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p i n such a way that i t was c l e a r l y an a f f e c t i v e cond i t i on ; that i s , the persona l per ta ins to f ee l ings and emotions of the two p a r t i e s . The pres ident rece ives support from board members. As w e l l , there i s t r u s t between the pres ident and board members. A l s o , the board chairman and the pres ident have mutual respect for each other . F i n a l l y , board members take a p a r e n t a l r o l e with the pres ident (Appletree C ) . Board members and the pres ident d iscuss and descr ibe the persona l r e l a t i o n s h i p i n such a way that i t was c l e a r l y a p o l i t i c a l c o n d i t i o n : that i s , the procurement and the maintenance of power. Both board and pres ident p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s p o l i t i c a l behaviour. The board i s able to p r e d i c t the p r e s i d e n t ' s ac t ions ; the pres ident can r e l y on board members; and the pres ident i s able to ga in the support of board members. The pres ident appears to be the greatest b e n e f i c i a r y . In one example, an i n d i v i d u a l board member a l l i e s himself with the pres ident against the board chairman (Appletree E ) . The p r e s i d e n t ' s l eadersh ip r o l e i s enhanced and the p r e s i d e n t ' s a c t i v i t i e s are supported by his persona l r e l a t i o n s h i p with board members. In another example, three or four board members have personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the pres ident which have in f luence on the p r e s i d e n t ' s a c t i o n s . Board members accept the p r e s i d e n t ' s 138 advice because of t h e i r personal attachment to the p r e s i d e n t . T h i s , i n t u r n , g ives the pres ident i n f l u e n c e . Oak C o l l e g e . Board members and the pres ident d iscuss and descr ibe the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p i n such a way that i t was c l e a r l y an a f f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n , although the pres ident focusses predominantly on the board chairman. Board and pres ident have mutual respect for each other . The personal aspects create a f e e l i n g of t r u s t . Board members f e e l at ease i n the co l l ege because of t h e i r personal a s s o c i a t i o n with the p r e s i d e n t . A l s o , the pres ident has an int imate connection with the board chairman, i n v o l v i n g i n the p r e s i d e n t ' s d e s c r i p t i o n the ro le s of parent and c h i l d (president as ch i ld ) and p r o f e s s i o n a l expert and layperson (president as p r o f e s s i o n a l ) . Board members and the pres ident d iscuss and descr ibe the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p i n such a way that i t can be seen as a communications exchange environment. There i s ease with d i scuss ions among board members and the p r e s i d e n t . Board members can approach the pres ident at any t ime. The pres ident i s viewed as approachable. A board member's personal knowledge of the pres ident permits him to be frank i n d i scuss ions (Oak I ) . The board chairman and the pres ident are able to d i scuss "everything" (Oak B); they have a "confe s s iona l" - l ike r e l a t i o n s h i p (Oak F) . Cedar C o l l e g e . Board members discuss and descr ibe the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p i n such a way that i t can be seen as an a f f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n , but the pres ident 139 does not . Board members i n d i c a t e that there i s mutual respect (Cedar C ) , that i n d i v i d u a l board members gain p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y from the r e l a t i o n s h i p (Cedar F ) , and that there are board members who enjoy the r e l a t i o n s h i p (Cedar E & H) . Board members and pres ident d iscuss and descr ibe the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p i n such a way as to be seen as ins trumenta l ; that i s , the personal i s a v e h i c l e which connects the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p to the managerial operations of the c o l l e g e . Personal rapport helps the board and the pres ident to accomplish formal requirements. The personal r e l a t i o n s h i p has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on board members' d e c i s i o n s . One board members notes that a warmer r e l a t i o n s h i p would be more product ive (Cedar A ) . Board members' personal approval of the pres ident a l so determines the p r e s i d e n t ' s tenure: Personal knowledge allows board members to a n t i c i p a t e the p r e s i d e n t ' s posture and helps board members to make dec i s ions and judgements. Personal f ee l ings in f luence the d i r e c t i o n the board takes with the c o l l e g e . Summary: The Personal Dimension At Appletree C o l l e g e , the personal dimension has an emphasis on the personal a t t r i b u t e s of the p r e s i d e n t . The pres ident i s viewed as the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l eader , and h i s personal q u a l i t i e s such as t rus tworth iness , openness, d i l i g e n c e , and h i s treatment of others q u a l i f y h i s l eadersh ip r o l e . At Oak C o l l e g e , the p r e s i d e n t ' s percept ions of personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are at variance with the percept ions of the major i ty of board members. While board members 140 emphasize the p e r s o n a l i t y and personal a t t r i b u t e s of the pres ident , the pres ident n e i t h e r acknowledges these nor suggests the exis tence of persona l ly int imate connections with other board members, except ing the board chairman. At Cedar Co l l ege , both p a r t i e s emphasize the i n t e l l e c t u a l and v e r b a l q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r personal a s s o c i a t i o n . Of a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s , the board chairman and the pres ident emphasize a c lose personal connection and a mutual ly support ive r e l a t i o n s h i p . At Appletree Co l l ege , the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are viewed as having a f f e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n v o l v i n g the f ee l ings and emotions of both p a r t i e s . Personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are descr ibed as p o l i t i c a l l y or i en ted : a c q u i r i n g a l l i e s , ga in ing support , and ach iev ing s t a b i l i t y , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l . At Oak Col l ege , the personal dimension i s viewed as i n v o l v i n g both t r u s t and mutual respect among the p a r t i e s . The personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are descr ibed as arenas and oppor tun i t i e s f o r communication; the opportuni ty to t a l k openly, f r a n k l y , and i n f o r m a l l y i s valued by the two p a r t i e s . At Cedar Co l l ege , whereas board members view t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s as having a f f e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the pres ident does not acknowledge t h i s . Both p a r t i e s descr ibe t h e i r personal r e l a t i o n s h i p as ins trumenta l , as veh i c l e s which connect the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p to the governance and management of the c o l l e g e . 141 CHAPTER SIX DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS, PART I I This chapter contains three main sec t ions . In the f i r s t s e c t i o n , the study addresses research quest ion seven (determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p ; see Table 2, Chapter Three) . In the second s e c t i o n , i t addresses research quest ion e ight (effects of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ; see Table 2) . In the t h i r d s e c t i o n , the study reports on how boards and pres ident work together . P e r c e i v e d D e t e r m i n a n t s Of The B o a r d - P r e s i d e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p The d i s c u s s i o n of determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p reports C p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions drawn from interv iew data (Appendix E ) . The statements of p a r t i c i p a n t s are categor ized (clustered) under general headings s p e c i f i c to each c o l l e g e ; the e s tab l i shed categor ies are based upon the content of statements (see Tables 12, 13, and 14 i n Appendix H) . Sub-categories for each category are a lso d i s p l a y e d . For Appletree Co l l ege , categor ies of determinants are.government, the p r e s i d e n t ' s q u a l i t i e s and p e r s o n a l i t y , the board chairman, the board, past events, and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . At Oak Co l l ege , categor ies of determinants are the board and the pres ident , governance, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , government, the board, and the board chairman. At 142 Cedar C o l l e g e , the categor ies of determinants are the board chairman, the board and board members, the pres ident , sen ior admini s ta tors , the c o l l e g e , process , government, a t t i t u d e s , the past , the p u b l i c , l e g a l / f o r m a l , and f a c u l t y . Percept ions of p a r t i c i p a n t s are analyzed d e s c r i p t i v e l y by r e p o r t i n g statements of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Perceptions are a lso analyzed i n t e r p r e t i v e l y and comparat ively (see Chapter F o u r ) . D e s c r i p t i v e and i n t e r p r e t i v e analyses are presented under the t o p i c of each c o l l e g e . A b r i e f summary of comparative a n a l y s i s fo l lows the d i s c u s s i o n of i n d i v i d u a l c o l l e g e s . Apple tree Co l l ege At Appletree C o l l e g e , i n d i v i d u a l s (e .g. the pres ident , the former pres ident , the board chairman, sen ior admin i s t ra tors , and the government M i n i s t e r of Advanced Educat ion and Job Training) are seen as determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . For example, the p r e s i d e n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y i s seen as a determinant of board members' percept ions and judgements of the p r e s i d e n t ' s ac t ions and o v e r a l l performance. Government (as we l l as i n d i v i d u a l s i n government) i s viewed as a determinant. Government in f luence i s both of a formal nature (e .g. government appointed board members) and p o l i t i c a l (e .g . p o l i t i c i a n s ' inf luence on the c o l l e g e ) . A l l subjects (10) r e f e r r e d both to the p r e s i d e n t ' s q u a l i t i e s and to government as determinants of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Nine r e f e r r e d to the board chairman, e ight to the board, seven to past events and ac tors , and four to admin i s tra t ion 143 as determinants . Tables 12a to 12f (Appendix H) d i s p l a y the a p p l i c a b l e data which were ex trac ted from interview data (Appendix E ) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of government inc lude the government m i n i s t r y respons ib le for co l l ege and the government m i n i s t e r , the personnel and o p e r a t i o n a l l i n k s between government and the c o l l e g e , and the p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s of board members with government o f f i c i a l s . The co l l ege pres ident i s perce ived to have a good working r e l a t i o n s h i p with m i n i s t r y personnel and a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with the M i n i s t e r (e .g . Appletree A: The "president i s l i k e d by the M i n i s t e r and the M i n i s t r y " ) . The p r o v i n c i a l government has involvement with the c o l l e g e , on the one hand through i t s d i r e c t i v e s such as the 1980s r e s t r a i n t program, and on the other hand as a consequence of government appointment of board members. Board members p a r t i c i p a t e i n l o c a l p o l i t i c s , and they have connections and r e l a t i o n s h i p s with government and e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s (Table 12a, Appendix H) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of the p r e s i d e n t ' s q u a l i t i e s inc lude the p r e s i d e n t ' s treatment of others , the p r e s i d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s , and the p r e s i d e n t ' s personal background. The pres ident i s viewed as a c a r i n g , support ive , and responsive i n d i v i d u a l . The pres ident e x h i b i t s an i n t e r e s t i n the l o c a l community. Respondents report that he i s a good communicator, and he i s e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c l y . The pres ident has cons iderable experience wi th in the c o l l e g e , which inc ludes longstanding r e l a t i o n s h i p s with co l l ege employees (Table 12b). Determinants which f a l l under the category of the board chairman inc lude the 144 chairman's a c t i o n s , the chairman's i n t e r a c t i o n s with the p r e s i d e n t , and the chairman's personal background. The chairman i s seen to e x h i b i t l eadership with the board. She i s seen to share a l eadersh ip r o l e with the pres ident , and although engaged i n a co-operat ive r e l a t i o n s h i p i s seen to have c o n f l i c t s with the p r e s i d e n t . She i s seen as knowledgeable, with an educat iona l background and with co l l ege experiences as a former employee of the co l l ege (Table 12c). Determinants which f a l l under the category of the board inc lude board members' l o c a l , p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s , board members' knowledge and experience, board members' personal a s s o c i a t i o n with the pres ident , and the r o l e p layed by the board i n co l l ege operat ions . Board members d i s p l a y an i n t e r e s t i n l o c a l p o l i t i c s . Some board members have cons iderable knowledge and experience with governance and management. These board members are viewed as key actors i n the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Board members have personal knowledge of the p r e s i d e n t . They e x h i b i t t r u s t i n the p r e s i d e n t . The r o l e p layed by the board i n co l l ege operat ions i s seen as both detached and permiss ive of the p r e s i d e n t ' s ac t ions (Table 12d). Determinants which f a l l under the category of past events and actors inc lude the former pres ident , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change, co l l ege image, government r e s t r a i n t , the c o l l e g e ' s f inances , and the p r e s i d e n t ' s past l o y a l t i e s . Half of the subjects r e f e r r e d to the former c h i e f executive o f f i c e r as a determinant of the present board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . One subject mentioned that the former c h i e f execut ive o f f i c e r was f i r e d ; another, expressed d i s t r u s t for the former p r e s i d e n t . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l changes, the c o l l e g e ' s t a r n i s h e d image, and the c o l l e g e ' s f i n a n c i a l debt s i t u a t i o n , a l l r e f e r r e d to as determinants, are 145 connected to the behaviours and act ions of the former p r e s i d e n t . The government's f i n a n c i a l r e s t r a i n t program was viewed as a determinant. The p r e s i d e n t ' s l o y a l t y to former col leagues was viewed as a determinant (Table 12e) . While there are s evera l major categor ies for the determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p at Appletree Co l l ege , a few patterns predominate. I n d i v i d u a l s have an impact on the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . The p r e s i d e n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y , h i s perce ived treatment of board members, disposes board members to judge him i n a favourable l i g h t . The ac t ions of the former pres ident not only have condi t ioned board members i n t h e i r r o l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e i r awareness of f inances , but a l so have disposed them to judge the pres ident i n contras t to the former p r e s i d e n t . "A scandal arose over the ac t ions of a former pres ident" (Appletree F ) . The past "president d i d cause problems" (Appletree H) . The "team" approach of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , although a consequence of the former p r e s i d e n t ' s domination of management, i s a determinant of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p to the extent that the pres ident and the sen ior adminis trators are i d e n t i f i e d i n one board member's words as "the boys". The board chairman has a key r o l e i n the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p : she i s an ac t ive p a r t i c i p a n t i n co l l ege governance and has both an h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the pres ident and a present r e l a t i o n s h i p condi t ioned by frequent encounters with the p r e s i d e n t . "As a former f a c u l t y member at the co l l ege and as a former employee of the present pres ident , I understand the pres ident more c l e a r l y than any board member does" (Appletree D) . The government m i n i s t e r i s a l so a determinant of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p not only because the M i n i s t e r i s p o s i t i v e l y responsive to the 146 co l l ege but a l so because the o f f i c i a l to whom board members answer(the min i s ter ) has a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with the p r e s i d e n t . "There are personal connections with the government m i n i s t e r which has meant that the m i n i s t e r has approached the pres ident d i r e c t l y ins tead of the board" (Appletree C ) . This connect ion appears to give the pres ident an advantageous p o s i t i o n with h i s employer. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of two d i s t i n c t groups or types of board members suggests that the board as a determinant of the r e l a t i o n s h i p depends on key board members, i n c l u d i n g the board chairman, whose knowledge both of co l l ege operat ions and the pres ident l ead to t h e i r "watchdog" approach and to the board's cohesiveness with the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . F i n a l l y , the government, i n c l u d i n g the M i n i s t r y of Advanced Education and Job T r a i n i n g and the S o c i a l C r e d i t government, i s seen to be i n f l u e n t i a l i n a number of areas r e l a t e d to the combined operat ions of board members and p r e s i d e n t . Both the co l l ege and the pres ident are seen to be judged favourably by both the government m i n i s t r y and the government m i n i s t e r . Board members and the co l l ege are seen to be connected to , and in f luenced by, l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l p o l i t i c s . And the facts that co l l eges are government agencies and the governors are appointed imply that government has in f luence on the act ions and percept ions of board members and p r e s i d e n t . Oak Co l l ege At Oak C o l l e g e , both group dynamics of co l l ege p a r t i c i p a n t s and government are viewed as main determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Group dynamics which in f luence how board and pres ident work together inc lude not 147 only those of the board and the pres ident , but a l so those of sen ior admin i s tra tors and the board, those of f a c u l t y , those of the board, and those of the board chairman and the p r e s i d e n t . These group dynamics are connected with d e c i s i o n making at Oak C o l l e g e . Government's in f luence at Oak Col lege i s viewed as negat ive; and government as a determinant of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p can be seen i n the extent to which board and pres ident oppose government act ions which are d i r e c t e d at Oak C o l l e g e . Board and pres ident are a l l i e d against government on matters which they view as threat s to t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e concept of t h e i r co l l ege (e .g . on access i s sues , on funding) . E ight out of a p o s s i b l e nine subjects at Oak Col lege r e f e r r e d to the board and pres ident as determinants of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Seven r e f e r r e d to governance, s i x to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , f i v e r e f e r r e d to both the board alone and to government as determinants , and three r e f e r r e d to the board chairman as a determinant. Tables 13a - 13f (Appendix H) d i s p l a y the a p p l i c a b l e data which were extracted from the interv iew data (Appendix E ) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of board and pres ident inc lude the q u a l i t i e s of respect and t r u s t d i s p l a y e d by one party for the other (mainly that the board t r u s t s the p r e s i d e n t ) . One subject i n d i c a t e d that the board and the pres ident communicate f r e e l y with each other (Table 13a, Appendix H) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of governance inc lude co l l ege informat ion processes , co l l ege d e c i s i o n s , and co l l ege behaviours . Col lege in format ion i s viewed as coming from f a c u l t y , from the community, and from a l l areas of the c o l l e g e . Decis ions are seen as the j o i n t e f f o r t s and mutual 148 understandings of board and president. P o l i c y decisions are seen as d e r i v i n g from the a c t i v i t i e s of college committees. Behaviours are seen as c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t s and college personnel involvement (Table 13b). Determinants which f a l l under the category of administration include power and influence of senior administrators, the ro l e of senior administrators, and the behaviours of senior administrators. Senior administrators are viewed as a powerful and cohesive group a c t i v e l y involved at board meetings, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the development of p o l i c y , and the college employees who explain and discuss college operations with the board (Table 13c). Determinants which f a l l under the category of government include the government's r e s t r a i n t program of the 1980s, government c o n t r o l over education and educational finances, government influence i n college matters, and government appointment of board members (Table 13d). The president of Oak College notes: The minister's powers i n t h i s province are considerable; what i s not the minister's i s viewed by the president and the board as the board's. This leads to some f r i c t i o n with m i n i s t r y s t a f f who... by-pass the board and go d i r e c t l y to the college administrators. (Oak F) Determinants which f a l l under the category of the board include the board's i n s t i t u t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n , the board's power, and the board's actions (Table 13e). The board i s viewed as detached from college operations, and the board i s seen as having a community focus. The board i s viewed as a powerful group, 149 and one board member i s seen as i n f l u e n t i a l wi th in the p r o v i n c i a l co l l ege system. As w e l l , the board i s viewed as p r o t e c t i v e of the c o l l e g e , even i n oppos i t i on to government. The board i s a lso seen as support ive of the p r e s i d e n t ' s p o s i t i o n s and a c t i o n s . "The board's support f or the pres ident i s a s trong determiner qf what occurs i n educat iona l planning" (Oak F ) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of board chairman inc lude the chairman's a s s o c i a t i o n with the pres ident and the chairman's prominent ro l e on the board (Table 13f) . He i s seen to p lay a support ive r o l e f or the pres ident (Oak B & F ) . While there are s evera l major categor ies for the determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , a few patterns predominate. The way i n which groups or i n d i v i d u a l s work with each other i s emphasized. This suggests that group dynamics are major determinants. From the responses of board members, the board emphasize t h e i r respect for the pres ident ("I have tremendous respect f o r . . . [ h i s ] a b i l i t i e s " : Oak A ) ; sen ior admini s trators i n t e r a c t f requent ly with board members complementing the p r e s i d e n t ' s e f f o r t s ; f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the dec i s ions u l t i m a t e l y agreed upon by board and pres ident ; the board sees i t s e l f as working on behal f of the c o l l e g e ; and the board chairman sees h imsel f as p r o v i d i n g emotional and opera t iona l support f or the p r e s i d e n t . This percept ion i s shared by the p r e s i d e n t . Group dynamics are connected with the approach to d e c i s i o n making at Oak C o l l e g e . "Because the board and the pres ident have a good personal r e l a t i o n s h i p , everyth ing seems to flow with the board" (Oak G ) . The c o l l e c t i v e , the combination of group percept ions , i s va lued by board and pres ident ; and, thus, t h e i r percept ions of t h i s c o l l e c t i v e 150 i s a c e n t r a l determinant of how board and pres ident work together . "The bottom-up approach makes us f e e l that there i s a l o t of input from a l o t of people" (Oak H) . To some extent , the e x t e r n a l , l o c a l community i s perce ived as a l i g n e d with the i n t e r n a l c o l l e c t i v e . One board member noted that board and pres ident "meet the changing community needs by asking community members" (Oak E ) . The same board member s ta ted that t h i s approach "brings us community input as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l co l l ege members' input" (Oak E ) . Percept ions of the e x t e r n a l community's needs are a l so determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Government i s a l so a major determinant, and government i s perce ived i f not negat ive ly then at l eas t as a force not compatible with the c o l l e c t i v e . The government's c o n t r o l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y on the f i n a n c i a l condi t ions of the co l lege (as evidenced by the r e s t r a i n t program), are viewed as c o n s t r a i n t s on the co l l ege and determinants of how board and pres ident work together . "The r e s t r a i n t program brought the board and the pres ident c l o s e r together" (Oak B ) . Although government does have p o t e n t i a l in f luence on the r e l a t i o n s h i p through i t s appointment process of board members, t h i s in f luence i s negative i n that board members act on the c o l l e g e ' s behal f even i f these act ions are i n oppos i t ion to government i n t e n t i o n s . Indeed, the government's act ions are i d e n t i f i e d as s trengthening the board-pres ident connection to the extent that board and pres ident a l l y themselves against a perce ived threat to the c o l l e g e . 151 Cedar Co l l ege At Cedar Co l l ege there are numerous i d e n t i f i e d determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . Two pat terns of determinants are dominant. The f i r s t p a t t e r n invo lves those who f i l l s p e c i f i c r o l e s : these i n d i v i d u a l s are i n f l u e n t i a l w i th in the co l l ege and i n how board and pres ident work together . These i n d i v i d u a l s inc lude the pres ident , the bursar , the deans, the board chairman, and f a c u l t y members. The second pat tern invo lves the c o l l e g e ' s charac ter , i t s b e l i e f system, i t s va lues , i t s se l f - image , and i t s t r a d i t i o n s . This character of the co l l ege provides a boundary i n which board and pres ident work together . A l l subjects (8) at Cedar Col lege r e f e r r e d to the board chairman, to the board and board members, and to the pres ident as determinants of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Seven out of e ight subjects r e f e r r e d to sen ior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , s i x to the c o l l e g e , f i v e to process , four to a t t i t u d e s , four to government, three to the past , three to the p u b l i c domain, three to the l e g a l domain; and two r e f e r r e d to f a c u l t y . Tables 14a to 141 (Appendix H) d i s p l a y the a p p l i c a b l e data which were ex trac ted from interv iew data (Appendix E ) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of the board chairman inc lude the chairman's in f luence and power, her a s s o c i a t i o n with the pres ident , her persona l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and the l i m i t e d r o l e of the board chairman. The chairman i s viewed as a leader of the board, as i n f l u e n t i a l i n the p u b l i c ' s percept ion of the c o l l e g e , and as i n f l u e n t i a l i n co l l ege p o l i c i e s . The chairman and the pres ident are viewed as c l o s e l y connected, both p e r s o n a l l y and o f f i c i a l l y . They have a r e l a t i o n s h i p c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t r u s t , frequency, and i n f l u e n c e . The chairman i s viewed as ac t ive i n co l l ege a c t i v i t i e s , ac t ive 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 f a l l 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 i s 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 p o l i t i c a l nature of the board (Table 14b). 153 Determinants which f a l l under the category of the pres ident inc lude the personal q u a l i t i e s and a b i l i t i e s of the pres ident , the behav ioura l "style" of the p r e s i d e n t , and the h i s t o r y and "culture" of the c o l l e g e . The pres ident i s viewed as a powerful f i gure who possesses severa l q u a l i t i e s and t a l e n t s . He i s seen as b r i g h t , as i n t e l l e c t u a l , and as f rank . He i s viewed as a l eader , a nego t ia tor , and as a mediator. He uses h i s admini s trators w e l l . He confronts cha l l enges . The pres ident i s seen as e x h i b i t i n g an i n t e l l e c t u a l and persona l ly detached s t y l e of behaviour with board members. He i s a loof from co l l ege p o l i t i c s . He i s c o n s u l t a t i v e arid encourages board members to p a r t i c i p a t e i n d i s c u s s i o n s . He i s viewed as connected to the f a c u l t y and to the t r a d i t i o n s of the c o l l e g e . As w e l l , the p r e s i d e n t ' s h i s t o r i c a l a s soc ia t ions with the c o l l e g e , i n c l u d i n g the h i s t o r y of h i s p r e s i d e n t i a l appointment, are seen as determinants (Table 14c). Determinants which f a l l under the category of sen ior admin i s tra tors inc lude the b u r s a r ' s q u a l i t i e s , the act ions of admin i s t ra tors , and the experience of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , as we l l as the respect they command from board members. The bursar i s viewed as f i n a n c i a l l y able and i n f l u e n t i a l i n management. Admin i s tra tors are seen to p lay i n f l u e n t i a l ro le s i n the budget process and i n educat iona l p l a n n i n g . They are viewed as an ac t ive group and invo lved with board members. Senior adminis trators have cons iderable experience i n the c o l l e g e , and they are respected by board members (Table 14d) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of co l l ege are predominantly as soc ia ted with the c o l l e g e ' s character , or c u l t u r e . Power r e l a t i o n s h i p s , lack of power r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and co l l ege personnel ' s support for the board and the 154 pres ident are a l so seen as determinants of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p at Cedar C o l l e g e . The co l l ege i s seen to have a c u l t u r e comprised of i t s ethos, i t s t r a d i t i o n s , i t s phi losophy, and i t s way of operat ing . A c o l l e c t i v e w i l l or mind i s i d e n t i f i e d , as i s a c o l l e g i a l environment. While one subject notes that there are competing i n t e r n a l forces w i th in the c o l l e g e , another ind ica tes that there i s a lack of fac t ions or power groups wi th in the c o l l e g e . A t h i r d view i n d i c a t e s that the i n t e r n a l community i s support ive of the board and the pres ident (Table 14e). Determinants which f a l l under the category of process i n d e c i s i o n making i n d i c a t e an open process c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c o n s u l t a t i o n and consensus (Table 14f) . " P o l i c i e s are now well-communicated; the process invo lves many people i n the i n s t i t u t i o n " (Cedar A ) . "Budgets are r e f l e c t i o n s of common goals" (Cedar C ) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of government inc lude government f i n a n c i n g of the co l l eges and government m i n i s t r y o r i e n t a t i o n s toward the c o l l e g e . The government's funding approach i s viewed as i n f l u e n t i a l , and the government's r e s t r a i n t program of the 1980s i s a l so seen as an i n f l u e n c e . The behaviours of the government m i n i s t r y i n c l u d i n g i t s c o n s t r a i n t s on the co l l ege , i t s demands upon the c o l l e g e , and i t s treatment of boards are seen as determinants (Table 14g). Determinants which f a l l under the category of a t t i t u d e s inc lude the two p a r t i e s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , the two p a r t i e s ' mutual p o s i t i o n on goa l s , the t r u s t and respect elements of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e i r knowledge 155 of each other , and t h e i r view of an o p p o r t u n i s t i c environment for t h e i r co l l ege (Table 14h). Determinants which f a l l under the category of the past inc lude previous boards which e r r e d i n t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , the previous pres ident who had a p o s i t i v e a f f e c t on board members, and a labour dispute with f a c u l t y (Table 14i) . Determinants which f a l l under the category of the p u b l i c inc lude the c o l l e g e ' s image i n the p u b l i c domain and the c o l l e g e ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the l o c a l community (Table 14 j ) . "In the past our p r o f i l e i n the community was not as high as i t should have b e e n . . . T h i s was a cons idera t ion i n the h i r i n g of the pres ident" (Cedar D) . Determinants which f a l l under the l e g a l / f o r m a l category i n d i c a t e that the Col lege and I n s t i t u t e Act (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1984) i s i n f l u e n t i a l i n that i t e s tab l i shes a framework for the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and i t leads to the h i r i n g of the p r e s i d e n t . The acknowledgement of l e g a l components suggests that there i s an awareness among the p a r t i e s that a f o r m a l / l e g a l dimension i s present i n the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p and has in f luence (Table 14k). Determinants which f a l l under the category of f a c u l t y i n d i c a t e that the co l lege has p a r t i c u l a r kinds of f a c u l t y , that f a c u l t y ' s act ions e x t e r n a l l y are i n f l u e n t i a l , and that the management of the co l l ege i s in f luenced with the presence of p r o f e s s i o n a l employees (Table 141). "It takes a l o t of work for a 156 l ay board to work as a team with academics" (Cedar E ) . There are numerous categories for determinants of the board-pres ident ' r e l a t i o n s h i p at Cedar C o l l e g e . There are numerous d i s t i n c t items wi th in most of the categor ies of determinants. Several themes emerge i n a comparison of these c a t e g o r i e s . One dominant pa t t ern can be seen i n the in f luence of those who f i l l s p e c i f i c r o l e s : as pres ident , bursar , dean, board chairman, board member, and f a c u l t y . It i s evident that the co l l ege i s viewed to be comprised of powerful and i n f l u e n t i a l i n d i v i d u a l s who occupy r o l e s . These ro le s are on the one hand exc lus ive (e .g . board member, admin i s t ra tor , facu l ty ) but on the other hand interdependent . The board chairman i s viewed as a c t i v e and i n f l u e n t i a l , but her s p e c i f i c e f f ec t s are noted as dependent upon the pres ident (e .g . the time the pres ident spends with the board chairman; h i s use of the board chairman as advisor on personal matters) and upon the other board members who are w i l l i n g to l e t the board chairman work on t h e i r beha l f . "The chairman has an overpowering e f f e c t on board members and the pres ident" (Cedar A ) . The pres ident i s viewed as powerful and i n f l u e n t i a l , but i t i s c l e a r that the deans and the bursar are a c t i v e e i t h e r with or ins tead of the pres ident i n areas i n v o l v i n g board members. Board members are i n f l u e n t i a l , but t h e i r in f luence i s dependent upon the work of the pres ident and h i s admin i s t ra tors , upon the l eadersh ip r o l e of the board chairman, and upon the board's p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y with the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Another pervas ive theme involves the c o l l e g e ' s character , i t s b e l i e f system, i t s va lues , i t s se l f - image , and i t s t r a d i t i o n s . While the p e r s o n a l i t i e s who f i l l the r o l e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y pres ident , board chairman, and admin i s t ra tors , are 157 judged to be s trong , even powerful , the character of the co l l ege i s viewed as gu id ing these p e r s o n a l i t i e s and shaping behaviours . I n t e r n a l const i tuents and p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions of t h e i r co l l ege create what subjects r e f e r to as "elan" (Cedar B ) , "cul ture" (E), "personal i ty" (A), " t r a d i t i o n " (G), and "col lege philosophy" (B, E ) . While the ro le s are powerful forces i n the co l l ege and the p e r s o n a l i t i e s who f i l l those ro le s are viewed as i n f l u e n t i a l , the i n t a n g i b l e character (or persona) of the co l l ege i t s e l f i s a predominant shaper of behaviours and a c t i o n s . Board and pres ident act wi th in the boundaries or parameters of the c o l l e g e ' s "cul ture" , " t r a d i t i o n s " , and they are guided by the c o l l e g e ' s "philosophy". While i n d i v i d u a l s are respected and viewed as i n f l u e n t i a l p l a y e r s , they are subordinate to what D i l l ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Sche in (1985) , and others r e f e r to as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e . P e r c e i v e d D e t e r m i n a n t s A t The T h r e e C o l l e g e s : Summary At each c o l l e g e , determinants not only shape but a l s o , to a greater or l e s ser degree, c o n t r o l how board members and the pres ident work together . At Appletree C o l l e g e , perce ived determinants inc lude the p r e s i d e n t , the former pres ident , the board chairman, senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , the M i n i s t e r of Advanced Educat ion and Job T r a i n i n g , and the government. At Oak C o l l e g e , perce ived determinants inc lude group dynamics of co l l ege p a r t i c i p a n t s (such as board and p r e s i d e n t , sen ior adminis trators and the board, the board, the f a c u l t y and the board chairman and the president) and government. At Cedar C o l l e g e , numerous 158 determinants are noted. Two major patterns of determinants invo lve , f i r s t those who f i l l s p e c i f i c roles , at the co l l ege (e .g . pres ident , bursar , deans, board chairman) and who are i n f l u e n t i a l wi th in the co l l ege and second the c o l l e g e ' s b e l i e f system, i t s values , i t s se l f - image , and i t s t r a d i t i o n s . Perce ived E f f e c t s Of The Board-Pres ident R e l a t i o n s h i p This s ec t ion shows the perce ived e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p (Research quest ion #8, Table 2, Chapter Three) . The sec t ion i s s t r u c t u r e d so that the p a r t i e s ' percept ions of the e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p are reported and then i n t e r p r e t e d . The reported percept ions are drawn from interv iew data (Appendix E , Interview Summaries). The p a r t i e s ' statements are ca tegor ized (clustered) under general headings s p e c i f i c to each c o l l e g e ; the e s t a b l i s h e d categories are based upon the content of statements. For Appletree Co l l ege , categories inc lude the board, the pres ident , the c o l l e g e , the community, board and p r e s i d e n t . At Oak Co l l ege , categor ies inc lude board and pres ident , the c o l l e g e , and the community. At Cedar Col l ege , categor ies inc lude ac t ions , board and board members, the c o l l e g e ' s image, the c o l l e g e , and a t t i t u d e s . These can be seen i n Tables 15 to 17 (Appendix I ) . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the p a r t i e s ' percept ions can be seen as f ind ings drawn from the data . These i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s for i n d i v i d u a l co l l eges are brought together i n a summary at the end of t h i s s e c t i o n . 159 A p p l e t r e e C o l l e g e At Appletree Co l l ege , the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s perce ived by p a r t i c i p a n t s to have enhanced the c o l l e g e ' s image by r e p a i r i n g a p r e v i o u s l y t a r n i s h e d p u b l i c image, to have e s t a b l i s h e d harmony wi th in the c o l l e g e , and to have gained the support and approval of government for both the co l l ege and i t s management. At Appletree Co l l ege , seven out of a t o t a l of ten subjects r e f e r r e d to the board as an e f f e c t , s i x to the c o l l e g e ; four to both the community and the pres ident , and three r e f e r r e d to the board and the p r e s i d e n t . Table 15 (Appendix I) d i s p l a y s the a p p l i c a b l e data which were ex trac ted from interv iew data (Appendix E ) . P e r c e p t i o n s r e p o r t e d . E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the board inc lude board members' knowledge and experience, board members' o r i e n t a t i o n and r e a c t i o n s , and board and board members' power and i n f l u e n c e . Reported percept ions inc lude the f o l l o w i n g a s s e r t i o n s . Board members do not possess equal knowledge of the c o l l e g e ' s operat ions : some board members are not invo lved and f e e l neglected; some board members who lack experience are fo l lowers and do not contr ibute e f f e c t i v e l y to governance and management. Board members have accurate budget in format ion . Board members can p r e d i c t the act ions of the p r e s i d e n t . The board gives a uniform reac t ion to government. The board i s a t i g h t l y kn i t and guarded group. The board ensures that there are checks and balances i n the management of the c o l l e g e . Several board members, notably those with educat iona l backgrounds, have impact and inf luence on board and co l l ege d e c i s i o n s . 160 E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the pres ident inc lude the p r e s i d e n t ' s power and the p r e s i d e n t ' s ac t ions and behaviours . Reported percept ions inc lude the fo l lowing a s s e r t i o n s . The co l l ege sees the pres ident as i t s educat iona l l eader . The pres ident has r e p a i r e d a poor co l l ege p u b l i c image. The pres ident i s supported by the board. The pres ident i s caut ious , nonetheless . The pres ident ensures that the board chairman does not exerc i se too much power. Board members' o b j e c t i v i t y toward the pres ident diminishes from time to t ime. E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the co l l ege inc lude o p e r a t i o n a l benef i t s to the co l lege and good r e l a t i o n s e x t e r n a l l y and i n t e r n a l l y . Reported percept ions inc lude the f o l l o w i n g a s s e r t i o n s . There i s improved i n t e g r a t i o n of operat ions and personnel i n the i n s t i t u t i o n . F a c u l t y are invo lved i n educat iona l p lann ing . The c o l l e g e ' s miss ions and goals belong to a l l c o n s t i t u e n t s . The co l l ege operates i n a b u s i n e s s - l i k e manner. The co l l ege conforms to the expectat ions and the d i r e c t i v e s of the government m i n i s t r y . The government m i n i s t e r i s p e r s o n a l l y support ive of the c o l l e g e . There i s an improvement i n the f a c u l t y ' s percept ion of the board. E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the community inc lude the c o l l e g e ' s s e r v i c e to the community and the c o l l e g e ' s good image i n the community. E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the board and pres ident i n d i c a t e a un i t ed image of the board and pres ident , un i ted ac t ion of board and pres ident , and un i ted thought of board and p r e s i d e n t . Reported percept ions inc lude the f o l l o w i n g a s s e r t i o n s . Co l l ege employees see the board and the pres ident as a common f r o n t , even as a common enemy. The pres ident and the board have made a j o i n t d e c i s i o n to create 161 and to promote a college mission. The board and the president are able to reach consensus on budgets. There are no p o l i t i c a l conflicts between the board and the president. Percept ions i n t e r p r e t e d . 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 i t s 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 n e i t h e r f u l l y invo lved i n dec i s ions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s nor f u l l y s a t i s f i e d with processes and outcomes. There i s f r i c t i o n between the pres ident and the board chairman which appears to a f f e c t the p r e s i d e n t ' s behaviours . There i s as we l l a p o t e n t i a l f or board, p r e s i d e n t , and senior admin i s t ra t ion to be regarded by f a c u l t y as a common, mono l i th i c enemy i n that u n i t y and the appearance of a s i n g l e source for dec i s ions are conveyed by the two p a r t i e s . Furthermore, f a c u l t y oppos i t ion to government p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e can be t r a n s f e r r e d to board and pres ident because of the two p a r t i e s ' apparent conformity to government expectat ions and d i r e c t i v e s . Oak C o l l e g e At Oak C o l l e g e , the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s e f f e c t s are perce ived as p r i m a r i l y a f f e c t i v e : the f ee l ings and a t t i t u d e s of co l l ege personnel and of e x t e r n a l community members are viewed as the u l t imate e f f ec t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . S p e c i f i c observable e f f ec t s are not perce ived presumably because the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p emphasizes process matters such as communication and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . At Oak Co l l ege , subjects d i d not i d e n t i f y a long l i s t of e f f e c t s . F ive out of a t o t a l of nine subjects r e f e r r e d to the category of board and the pres ident ; three r e f e r r e d to the c o l l e g e ; and two r e f e r r e d to the community. Percept ions repor ted . E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the board and pres ident inc lude 163 board and pres ident behaviours and the ro le s of the two p a r t i e s . Reported behaviours of the p a r t i e s inc lude the freedom of the pres ident to express h i s opinions to the board? the increase i n the personal connection between the board and the pres ident , and the increase i n confidence by the board for the p r e s i d e n t . Reported ro le s inc lude the board as a c r i t i c , the board as eva luator of sen ior admin i s t ra tors , l eadersh ip p o s i t i o n s for two board members, and the pres ident as the p u b l i c representat ive of both co l l ege and the board. Roles and behaviours are not viewed as power s t r u g g l e s . E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the co l l ege inc lude the c o l l e g e ' s image, co l l ege personne l ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and the c o l l e g e ' s community focus . Reported percept ions inc lude the fo l lowing a s s e r t i o n s . The co l l ege has become more community-focussed. The co l l ege has developed a u n i f i e d front i n i t s approach to the p u b l i c . Col lege personnel p a r t i c i p a t e i n co l l ege governance and they f e e l they have "ownership" of co l l ege p o l i c i e s . E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the community i n d i c a t e d that the community p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the governance of the co l l ege and that the community i s support ive of the c o l l e g e . E f f e c t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p at Oak Col lege are not preva lent , nor i s there consensus among subjects on the s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s . In almost a l l responses, e f f ec t s were ne i ther s p e c i f i c nor concrete . Fee l ings and a t t i t u d e s , such as conf idence, support, lack of f r i c t i o n , u n i t y , and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , were the major noted e f f e c t s . 164 Percept ions i n t e r p r e t e d . P r e s i d e n t i a l and board ro le s and behaviours suggest comfort, ease, and openness, e s s e n t i a l l y a p e r s o n a l l y compatible a s s o c i a t i o n . •The p a r t i e s have extended t h e i r p o s i t i v e views about the co l l ege to the co l lege community and to the e x t e r n a l communities. The co l l ege i n i t s behaviours and ac t ions has brought i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l communities c l o s e r together so that there i s c o m p a t i b i l i t y . The community i s viewed as a source of support and as a source of in format ion . The c o l l e g e , not the e x t e r n a l community, however, i s viewed as the end g o a l . As such, the e x t e r n a l community i s i n t e g r a t e d in to the co l l ege ra ther than the co l l ege in t egra ted in to the community. While there are few i d e n t i f i e d , e x p l i c i t e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , and there i s no consensus on these e f f e c t s , the a f f e c t i v e domain appears to be most prevalent area for outcomes. How co l l ege p a r t i c i p a n t s and the p u b l i c f e e l about the co l l ege are the noted e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p . The pauc i ty of i d e n t i f i a b l e e f f e c t s , however, may suggest that process takes precedence over outcomes at Oak Col lege given the emphasis on process matters (e .g . communication, p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) noted e a r l i e r . Cedar Co l l ege At Cedar Co l l ege , numerous e f f ec t s are noted i n c l u d i n g , for example, the c o l l e g e ' s c o n t r o l over i t s operations and the p o s i t i v e and negative p u b l i c image. However, the dominant e f f e c t suggested by the expressed percept ions of p a r t i c i p a n t s i s that the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p helps to sus ta in the c o l l e g e ' s b e l i e f s and t r a d i t i o n s . By conforming to the phi losophy and values 165 of the c o l l e g e , board members and pres ident together r e i n f o r c e the c o l l e g e ' s phi losophy and va lues . A l l e ight subjects r e f e r r e d to a c t i o n s . Seven r e f e r r e d both to board and board members and to image. S ix r e f e r r e d to the c o l l e g e , and f i v e r e f e r r e d to a t t i t u d e s . Percept ions repor ted . E f f e c t s which r e f e r to act ions inc lude the p r e s i d e n t ' s i n f l u e n c e , the c o l l e g e ' s character , and the de l iberateness of a c t i o n s . The pres ident i s viewed as a f i gure of power with the a b i l i t y to manage e f f e c t i v e l y . He i n i t i a t e s a c t i o n , and he i s supported by the board. The c o l l e g e i s viewed as the determiner of i t s own c o n d i t i o n . The c o l l e g e ' s t r a d i t i o n s , not the ex terna l environment, govern co l l ege p a r t i c i p a n t s ' behaviours . Reported percept ions inc lude the fo l l owing a s s e r t i o n s . The board acts d e l i b e r a t e l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y . The co l l ege acts through consensus. Phi losophy and t r a d i t i o n s of the co l l ege l ead to d e l i b e r a t e and c o n t r o l l e d a c t i o n of the co l l ege and i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s . The board and the pres ident as representat ives of the co l l ege act i n accord with the c o l l e c t i v e dec i s ions of the c o l l e g e . Act ions l ead to p r e d i c t a b l e r e s u l t s . There are two e f f e c t s which are not cons is tent with other perce ived e f f ec t s but r e f e r to a c t i o n . They cons t i tu te the views of two subjec t s . The f i r s t i s that p lanning i s r e a c t i v e to government m i n i s t r y d i r e c t i v e s . The second i s that board members accept the p o s i t i o n s of the p o l i t i c a l par ty i n power. E f f e c t s which r e f e r to the board and board members inc lude the ru les 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' d i f f i c u l t i e s in working with academics. The board is directed and regulated by i t s 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 u s e f u l p o l i c i e s . P o l i c i e s are compatible with the c o l l e g e ' s c o l l e c t i v e v i s i o n . The status quo of the co l l ege i s maintained. There i s no "game p lay ing" i n the c o l l e g e . The co l l ege i s seen to be operat ing e f f e c t i v e l y . E f f e c t s which r e f e r to a t t i t u d e s inc lude the p a r t i e s ' f e e l i n g s and the commonality of a t t i t u d e s . Reported percept ions inc lude the f o l l o w i n g a s s e r t i o n s . Board members f e e l comfortable with co l l ege operat ions and behaviours . Board and pres ident f e e l p r i d e i n the i n s t i t u t i o n . The pres ident i s able to r e l a x . The pres ident appears d i s t a n t from some board members. Board members and the pres ident have a common cause. Board and the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n accept the r e s u l t s of p o l i c y . The board becomes more knowledgeable about the common view of the c o l l e g e . There i s a pervas ive "conscience" i n the c o l l e g e . Other e f f ec t s inc lude the p r e s i d e n t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the board and the r o l e and act ions of senior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Percept ions i n t e r p r e t e d . While s evera l e f f ec t s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p at Cedar Col lege can be i d e n t i f i e d , such as the c o l l e g e ' s c o n t r o l over i t s operat ions , the l i m i t a t i o n s and c o n s t r a i n t s on board members, the p o s i t i v e and negative p u b l i c image of the c o l l e g e , the l e v e l of comfort for board members and the pres ident , the p r e s i d e n t ' s p o s i t i o n of in f luence with board members, and the act ions and inf luence of sen ior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , a connect ing and pervas ive theme of conformity emerges i n these p a t t e r n s . Both conformity of a t t i t u d e s , behaviours, and act ions of co l l ege p a r t i c i p a n t s and the uniform percept ion of these p a r t i c i p a n t s , e s p e c i a l l y of the c o l l e g e ' s 168 character or image, are i n fac t conformity to the perce ived phi losophy, t r a d i t i o n s , and b e l i e f s of the c o l l e g e . A t t i t u d e s , behaviours , and act ions there fore r e i n f o r c e the phi losophy, t r a d i t i o n s , and b e l i e f s . The board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p can be seen to conform to t h i s p a t t e r n . The p r e s i d e n t ' s p o s i t i o n of in f luence and power i s r e i n f o r c e d because the pres ident operates wi th in and according to what he re fers to as " t r a d i t i o n s " . The c o l l e g e ' s ac t ions and p o s i t i o n s f a l l w i th in the boundaries of what i s expected by those who accept the c o l l e g e ' s phi losophy and fo l low i t s t r a d i t i o n s . A c t i o n s , t h e r e f o r e , are seen as d e l i b e r a t e because they r e f l e c t co l l ege values and b e l i e f s . The co l l ege sets i t s own d i r e c t i o n i n s p i t e of government c o n s t r a i n t s and c o n t r o l s ; and the co l l ege attempts to shape i t s communities to i t s image ra ther than adapting to the p u b l i c ' s w i l l . Board members are cons tra ined or l i m i t e d because they are not immersed on a d a i l y bas i s i n the c o l l e g e ' s b e l i e f system and behaviours . The board fo l lows the phi losophy and t r a d i t i o n s ; i t does not c o n t r o l or shape these . The board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p , then, contr ibutes to and susta ins the c o l l e g e ' s b e l i e f s and t r a d i t i o n s . Board and pres ident accomplish t h i s by conforming to the phi losophy and values of the c o l l e g e . In that the board h i r e s the pres ident and takes an ac t ive r o l e i n the h i r i n g of sen ior a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , the board with the pres ident i s respons ib le for the i n t e g r a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t i e s and ideo log ies which comprise the c o l l e g e . These p e r s o n a l i t i e s and ideo log ies develop and sus ta in what D i l l (1982), Schein (1985) and others r e f e r to as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e . 169 P e r c e i v e d E f f e c t s A t The T h r e e C o l l e g e s : Summary At each c o l l e g e , the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p (e i ther d e l i b e r a t e l y or inadver tent ly ) produces r e s u l t s , or i t inf luences people , or c o n d i t i o n s , or p e r c e p t i o n s . What board members and the pres ident do together , how they i n t e r a c t and perce ive each other , and how they and t h e i r act ions are perce ived both w i th in the i n s t i t u t i o n and i n the ex terna l world have consequences. At Appletree C o l l e g e , the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p i s perce ived by p a r t i c i p a n t s to have enhanced the c o l l e g e ' s image i n the community, to have e s t a b l i s h e d harmony wi th in the c o l l e g e , and to have gained support and approval from government for both the co l l ege and i t s management. At Oak Co l l ege , e f f ec t s are perce ived as p r i m a r i l y a f f e c t i v e i n v o l v i n g the f e e l i n g s and a t t i t u d e s of both co l l ege personnel and community members. The two p a r t i e s ' emphasis on communication and p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e i n f o r c e s these processes throughout the c o l l e g e . At Cedar Co l l ege , a perce ived dominant e f f e c t i s the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to the maintenance of the c o l l e g e ' s phi losophy and va lues . B o a r d A n d P r e s i d e n t W o r k i n g T o g e t h e r This study has examined the determinants, e f f e c t s , and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the board-pres ident r e l a t i o n s h i p at three B r i t i s h Columbia c o l l e g e s . Through t h i s examination, the researcher has presented observat ions and f indings which 170 move t h i s study toward the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of how boards and pres idents work together ( i . e . , how they govern and manage the academic i n s t i t u t i o n ) . In t h i s s e c t i o n , p o r t r a i t s of the three co l l eges provide d e s c r i p t i o n s of how board and pres ident work together , i n c l u d i n g explanat ion of behaviours and a c t i o n s . Fo l lowing these p o r t r a i t s , a more general d e s c r i p t i o n of how boards and pres idents work together i s o f f e r e d i n a summary comparison of the three c o l l e g e s . A p p l e t r e e C o l l e g e At Appletree Col lege how the p a r t i e s work together i s seen to be determined by the p r e s i d e n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y , the act ions of the former pres ident , the background and behaviours of the board chairman, the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' percept ions of t h e i r t a i n t e d past , by key board members, and by the government m i n i s t e r . D e s c r i p t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p at Appletree Col lege emphasize the personal character and e f f o r t s of the p r e s i d e n t . The managerial approach i s e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l , with the pres ident and h i s admini s trators as a c t i v i s t s , the board chairman as overseer, and the board as r e a c t o r s . Behaviours and act ions are h i g h l y p o l i t i c a l with the secur ing of a l l i e s , i n t e r n a l l y and e x t e r n a l l y , as an important o b j e c t i v e . Key board members, other than the board chairman, provide personal and p o l i t i c a l support for the p r e s i d e n t . In t h i s way, board and pres ident work to improve the c o l l e g e ' s reputa t ion , to promote the i n s t i t u t i o n both i n t e r n a l l y and e x t e r n a l l y , to ensure s u r v i v a l of the co l l ege , and to enhance the c o l l e g e ' s growth, p r i m a r i l y i n economic terms. 171 Personal p o l i t i c s are at the centre of how board and president work together. The president possesses power both from i n t e r n a l and external sources ( i . e . , from board members, administrators, f a c u l t y , s t a f f ; from l o c a l business, community orgainzations, and government i n c l u d i n g the government m i n i s t e r ) . The "president i s l i k e d by the M i n i s t e r and the M i n i s t r y " (Appletree A, Appendix E). Board members a l l y themselves with the president and with the other senior administrators. With the help of a board member "the president i s able to ensure that the board c h a i r does not change the college d e l i b e r a t e l y " (Appletree E, Appendix E). There are several board members who are active i n p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l government p o l i t i c s , and they use t h e i r influence from these bases. For example, the "board chairman...has important p o l i t i c a l connections" (Appletree I, Appendix E). And the p e r s o n a l i t y and personal a t t r i b u t e s of the president sustain and enhance the e f f o r t s to improve the college's image and to increase the f i n a n c i a l growth of the c o l l e g e . The character of the board-president r e l a t i o n s h i p was formed out of a past h i g h l i g h t e d by excessive p r e s i d e n t i a l c o n t r o l , f i n a n c i a l problems and a c r i s i s , and p u b l i c embarrassment. The "past president d i d cause problems" (Appletree G, Appendix E). Whereas the board i s r e p e l l e d by t h i s past and the accompanying events, the president i s 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 e n t i r e board" for the president i s seen as " l a r g e l y a r e s u l t of d i s t r u s t with the past chief executive o f f i c e r " (Appletree H, Appendi