Sourcing the leadership needs of the academic enterprise: the critical role of the department chair.

Robinson-Backmon, Ida ; Kiel, Mark ; Malone, Charles 等

ABSTRACT

This article reports the results of a survey of department chairpersons and describes its results in terms of the critical leadership needs facing academic departments. The survey results reveal that department chairs are heavily focused on traditional, internal responsibilities related to faculty, students and curriculum. These and other findings are discussed in light of critical success factors, suggesting that department chairs need to shift a portion of their attention to the demands of a broader set of stakeholders. The survey results also highlight the need to develop leadership skills among current faculty, who represent the most likely candidates to assume responsibility when current administrators are promoted, retire or return to faculty service. Strategies for engaging faculty in the administrative side of academic management are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The academic enterprise faces unprecedented challenges, with demands for institutional responsiveness coming from a variety of sources. Among public institutions, rapid enrollment growth often outpaces appropriations of state resources. Private institutions face an increasingly competitive and price-sensitive environment. Outcomes assessments, post-tenure review programs, and other accountability measures are forcing the academy to sharpen its focus on objective success criteria. Technological innovation, while offering exciting new possibilities for program delivery, strains financial resources and challenges faculty to update instructional approaches. The pace of globalization presents a similar challenge, threatening the relevance of programs that fail to adapt to new realities. These pressures cross the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines.

Crafting successful responses to these and similar issues depends heavily on the vision and skill of academic leaders. Researchers and observers of the academic enterprise frequently point to the critical role of the academic department and, implicitly, its leader the chairperson. Citing a policy paper of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Hecht, et al. offer a view of the academic department as "the principal agent for the purposeful recasting of American higher education" (1999, p. xiv). Bennett (1990) notes that the role department chairs play is essential to the success of deans and institutions. Phillips-Miller, et al. (2000) report that faculty look to administration to provide leadership and promote collaborative efforts. In short, department chairs are viewed by many as the front line of institutional management and the nexus of faculty, student, university and constituent relationships.

This article has two major objectives. First, we describe the characteristics and concerns of current department chairs relying on a broad-based survey of accounting department chairpersons. We then discuss findings in light of some of the critical leadership needs facing the academic enterprise. Our analysis suggests that current department chairs need to expand their focus to incorporate a wide range of critical issues. Likewise, academic departments must face the need to identify, attract and train visionary leaders to fill the void left by those approaching retirement or planning to return to faculty roles. The next sections review the details of the survey method, report results, and discuss strategies for developing effective departmental leadership.

SURVEY METHOD AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

In order to develop a profile of current leadership, a questionnaire was mailed to 700 administrators of accounting programs (departments, divisions, areas) in colleges and universities throughout the United States. Respondents to this survey are hereafter referred to as "chairs" or "chairpersons." Participants were randomly selected from the 1998-1999 Hasselback Accounting Faculty Directory (Hasselback, 1998). A total of 229 usable responses were received, representing a response rate of 32.7%. Comparison of the first and last 25% of responses indicated no significant differences, limiting concerns about the existence of possible non-response bias. Limiting the survey population to accounting department chairs imposes some limitations on the generalizability of findings. However, the issues addressed in the current research closely parallel the concerns expressed by department chairpersons and researchers in a variety of disciplines.

Forty five percent of respondents were between ages 50 and 59. Their average tenure as a chairperson was approximately six years. Fifty-seven percent of respondents were administrators at AACSB-accredited institutions, while 28% lead departments that have separate AACSB accounting accreditation. Nearly two-thirds of respondents worked at public institutions; over three-quarters were employed by schools that grant graduate degrees. The ratio of males to females was 77% to 23%, respectively, and respondents' academic units included an average of nine faculty members.

The remainder of the questionnaire asked respondents to respond to a variety of questions, primarily using five-point, Likert-type scales. These scales were labeled at the endpoints, 1=unimportant and 5=very important. Questions explored respondents' motivations for accepting an administrative position, their perceptions of key administrative responsibilities, their self-perceptions of job satisfaction and effectiveness, and their future plans, among others. Key findings are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and discussed in the next section of this paper.

CHARACTERISTICS AND CONCERNS OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS

The survey responses summarized in Table 1 are encouraging on a number of dimensions. Chief among these is the fact that the great majority of accounting chairpersons were motivated to accept their current position by the opportunity to provide leadership. Over three-quarters of respondents assigned a score of either 4 or 5 to this factor, and the mean rating was 3.95. Other factors, such as the desire for an administrative career, monetary compensation, and reduced teaching loads were dramatically less important to most respondents.

One area of concern was the minority of chairpersons who apparently accepted their position by default. In a follow up question, respondents were asked to describe the single most important factor in their decision to accept an administrative position. Of the 20 who elected to provide a response, ten stated either that "no one else would take the job" or that there were no acceptable alternative candidates.

Another positive finding is that accounting chairpersons apparently undertook their role with a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Comparing the perceived importance of various responsibilities before and after experiencing the job yielded virtually no differences in priorities. The top six responsibilities-relationships with faculty, faculty recruitment and selection, curriculum development, faculty development, relationships with students, and relationships with external stakeholders-were unchanged by experience.

Consistency, however, may or may not indicate the correct focus for dealing with the challenges facing the academy. Even a casual inspection of these responses makes clear that these chairpersons were heavily focused on traditional, internal responsibilities-faculty, students, and curriculum. Responsibilities related to external stakeholders, accreditation, budgets and fundraising were consistently toward the middle or bottom of the priority list. As in the case of the higher priority responsibilities, these perceptions were essentially unchanged by experience on the job.

Job satisfaction among chairpersons was positive, but not overwhelmingly so. Of 229 respondents, 144 (62.9%) rated their job satisfaction either 4 or 5, while only five (2.1%) indicated that they were very dissatisfied. Mean job satisfaction was 3.62. Over three-quarters of respondents indicated that their immediate supervisor appreciated the importance of their role. However, other administrators and faculty were perceived as placing less importance on the role of the chair. Respondents perceived that students and external stakeholders were least likely to value the role of the chairperson.

Self-perception of job effectiveness was somewhat higher, with a mean value of 3.92. Ratings of 4 or 5 for job effectiveness totaled 179 (78.2%) and were consistent with related measures. A strong majority of respondents indicated that they are able to influence curriculum development (80.3%) and faculty recruitment and selection (76.4%), two of the key responsibilities identified in earlier questions. Third on this list was relationships with external stakeholders (64.6%). Influence on student-related outcomes and resource issues was perceived to be much lower, with resource allocation/budgeting, student recruitment and placement, and fund raising finishing at the bottom.

A final series of questions shed light on the prospects for turnover in the ranks of department chairs. Over 60% of respondents indicated that they planned to remain in their position for three years or less. An overwhelming 90.7% of respondents indicated that they planned to remain in their position for seven years or less. While many expected to retire, 43.8% indicated that they would return to a faculty position. Who are their likely replacements? Responses indicated that 66.2% of department chairpersons were members of their current faculty prior to accepting the leadership role, suggesting that the most likely candidates are already among the faculty. The next section of this paper discusses these findings in light of the critical leadership needs faced by academia.

BENCHMARKS FOR EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENTAL LEADERSHIP

Albrecht (2002) identifies four things that successful business organizations do very well:

** They successfully articulate a vision that is shared by all stakeholders.

** They implement processes to transform that vision into reality.

** They assess and mitigate risks that inhibit the success of processes and vision.

** They communicate the vision, processes, and risks effectively to vested stakeholders and other interested parties (Albrecht, 2002, 44-45).

These same success factors can be applied to the academic enterprise and, by extension, to the leadership role of the department chair. Albrecht and Sack (2000) outline a prescription for restructuring accounting programs. Their prescription is, however, applicable to virtually any discipline-within or outside the business school-and can provide a reference point to assessing departmental leadership.

The first step in the proposed strategic planning process is to assess the environment faced by the program. Many of the questions posed concern the wants and needs of employers. Critics of higher education have long argued that the academy is out of sync with the modern reality of a technology-intensive global business community. The survey results reported in the previous section suggest that department chairpersons are strongly focused on internal stakeholders-faculty, students and university administrators-and traditional roles. Programs seeking to articulate a vision that is shared by all stakeholders, must attend to the wants and needs of employers and other external stakeholders. The willingness and ability of department chairs to devote more attention to external relationships is likely to be a key success factor. Fortunately, most respondents express confidence in their ability to build those relationships.

Careful consideration of degree offerings, course content and pedagogy are critical components of the prescription and correspond closely to the need to implement processes to transform a vision into reality. This responsibility fits well with the traditional role of a department chair and is consistent with the priorities expressed by survey respondents. The overwhelming majority of respondents identified curriculum development among their highest priorities and expressed strong confidence in their ability to influence outcomes in this area.

In terms of risk assessment and mitigation, department chairspersons' priorities may not fully correspond to the most pressing needs. Albrecht and Sack (2000) stress the importance of faculty development to the success of programmatic overhauls. Recruiting faculty, building relationships with them, and effecting faculty development were at the top of the administrators' priorities. Recruiting students and maintaining adequate resources are also critical success factors. However, few department chairs assigned high priority to these activities. Resource allocation/budgeting, student recruitment and placement, and fundraising were dead last in terms of perceived ability to exert influence.

Finally, the future plans of department chairpersons present both a challenge and an opportunity to business schools. The majority of survey respondents expected to leave their positions within three years, and the overwhelming majority within seven. If the current patterns persist, most of their replacements will come from the pool of existing faculty and many current department chairs will return to faculty positions. What types of initiatives are needed to help identify and develop their replacements?

BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE

Institutions have begun to recognize the value of training and support for department chairs. Fogg (2001) describes how accountability initiatives have motivated formal orientation and training sessions for department chairpersons. Such programs help chairs prepare to deal with legal issues, budgeting, promotion and tenure policies and interpersonal relations. While these initiatives make sense, they are directed at current chairpersons. Gmelch (1991) notes that most chairs, "... come to the position without leadership training; without prior administrative experience; without a clear understanding of the ambiguity and complexity of their role ... (p. 45).

Academic departments' needs for effective leadership are ongoing and well documented. Moreover, the faculty ranks are likely to remain the most fertile source of leadership talent at the departmental level. Accordingly, current administrators should make a concerted effort to exercise the administrative and leadership skills of faculty by involving them in the development and administration of departmental programs. Widespread faculty involvement in these roles can serve as a mechanism for identifying leadership talent and developing the skills and institutional knowledge needed to be an effective department chair.

Clearly, many faculty members will likely (and logically) resist extensive involvement in the implementation of departmental programs and processes. As Fogg (2001) notes, faculty members are accustomed to managing their own responsibilities, often working in isolation. For this reason, current chairs should seek to engage faculty gradually at the strategic and policymaking levels. This type of involvement should include leadership of standing committees charged with managing key departmental responsibilities and initiatives. Examples might include:

 Strategic planning

 Curriculum evaluation and development,

 Faculty recruitment and development,

 Student recruitment, retention and placement,

 Alumni and employer relations, and others.

Participation on these types of committees can help faculty to build an understanding and appreciation for the scope of the responsibilities assumed by the department chair. Just as importantly, committee leadership provides an opportunity to test and improve the interpersonal skills needed to lead small groups charged with mission-critical tasks.

Departments seeking to develop future leaders might also consider establishing an "executive committee" of the faculty. Members of an executive committee can serve as intermediaries between the department chair and the faculty while they gain an appreciation for the competing priorities that influence the operation of a successful department.

Whatever the structure, a comprehensive, systematic effort to build administrative and leadership skills should benefit the department in at least three ways. First, regular exposure to administrative responsibility should increase both the interest and ability of those most likely to assume departmental leadership in the future. Second, current administrators can take advantage of the opportunity to identify those best suited for leadership roles. Finally, even faculty who are unlikely to ever serve as chair can develop an appreciation for the responsibilities of the colleague described by Wilson (2001) as "Beggar, Psychologist, Mediator, Maid."

REFERENCES

Albrecht, W.S. (2002). Accounting education on the edge. BizEd (March/April): 41-45.

Albrecht, W.S. & R.J. Sack. (2000). Accounting Education: Charting the Course through a Perilous Future. American Accounting Association: Sarasota, FL.

Bennett, J.B. (1990). The dean and the department chair: toward greater collaboration. Educational Record (Winter): 24-26.

Fogg, P. (2001). Can department heads be trained to succeed? The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 19): A10-11.

Gmelch, W.H. (1991). Paying the price for academic leadership: department chair tradeoffs. Educational Record (Summer): 45-48.

Hasselback, J.R. (1998). Accounting Faculty Directory 1998-1999. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hecht, I.W.D., M.L. Higgerson, W.H. Gmelch & A. Tucker. (1999). The Department Chair As Academic Leader. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Phillips-Miller, D., B. Pitcher & P. Olson. (2000). Faculty morale: A qualitative study of influences and recommendations. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 4(2): 52-67.

Wilson, R. (2001). Beggar, psychologist, mediator, maid: the thankless job of a chairman. The Chronicle of Higher Education (March 2): A10-12.

Ida Robinson-Backmon, University of Baltimore

Mark Kiel, North Carolina A&T State University

Charles Malone, North Carolina A&T State University

R. David Mautz, Jr., North Carolina A&T State University

Table 1: Response Summaries for Selected Questions

Please rate the importance of the Frequency
following factors on your decision of 4 or 5 Mean
to accept your current position. ratings Percentage Rating

Opportunity to provide leadership 172 75.1 3.95
Other 57 24.9 4.48
Desire for an administrative career 56 24.5 2.37
Greater monetary compensation 54 23.6 2.51
Reduced teaching load 34 14.8 2.37
Geographic relocation 25 10.9 1.69
Job security 21 9.2 1.92

Prior to acceptance of your current
position how did you perceive the
importance of the following
responsibilities ...?

Relationships with faculty 196 85.6 4.30
Faculty recruitment and selection 183 79.9 4.16
Curriculum development 179 78.2 4.09
Faculty development 167 72.9 3.97
Relationships with students 167 72.9 4.03
Relationships with external 162 70.7 3.94
 stakeholders
Obtaining/maintaining accreditation 142 62.0 3.72
Resource allocation/budgeting 135 59.0 3.58
Student recruitment and placement 130 56.8 3.59
Relationships with other 121 52.8 3.55
 administrators

Please rate the importance of the
following factors on your decision
to accept your current position.

Student advisement 111 48.5 3.43
Fund raising 92 40.2 3.07

Based on your experience in this
position how do you currently
perceive the importance of the
following responsibilities ...?

Relationships with faculty 202 88.2 4.44
Faculty recruitment and selection 193 84.3 4.38
Curriculum development 192 83.8 4.30
Faculty development 185 80.8 4.25
Relationships with students 177 77.3 4.18
Relationships with external 175 76.4 4.11
 stakeholders
Student recruitment and placement 166 72.5 3.99
Obtaining/maintaining accreditation 154 67.2 3.92
Relationships with other 149 65.1 3.85
 administrators
Student advisement 143 62.4 3.75
Resource allocation/budgeting 139 60.7 3.67
Fund raising 121 52.8 3.40

Table 2: Response Summaries for Selected Questions (continued)

 Frequency
 of 4 or 5 Mean
 ratings Percentage Rating

Please rate your overall job 144 62.9 3.62
satisfaction (1 = Very
dissatisfied, 5 = Very
satisfied)
Please rate your overall job 179 78.2 3.92
effectiveness (1 = Not
effective, 5 = Very effective)

What is your perception of how
your role as an administrator
is viewed by: (1 = Unimportant,
5 = Very important)

 Immediate supervisor 178 77.7 4.12
 Peer administrators 146 63.8 3.78
 Faculty 145 63.3 3.85
 Students 132 57.6 3.60
 External stakeholders 131 57.2 3.68

What is your perception of your
influence over outcomes in each
of the following areas?

 Curriculum development 184 80.3 4.11

 Faculty recruitment and 175 76.4 4.04
 selection
 Relationships with external 148 64.6 3.78
 stakeholders
 Faculty development 135 59.0 3.60
 Student advisement 132 57.6 3.58
 Resource allocation/budgeting 109 47.6 3.31
 Student recruitment and 105 45.9 3.33
 placement
 Fund raising 92 40.2 3.19

How long do you intend to
remain in your current
position? (n = 225)

 Less than 1 year 30 13.3 13.3
 1-3 years 107 47.6 60.9
 4-7 years 67 29.8 90.7
 more than 7 years 21 9.3 100.0

 Frequency Cumulative
 of 4 or 5 Percentage
 ratings Percentage

Please indicate your area of
employment immediately before
your current position.
(n = 226)
 Faculty at current 151 66.2 66.2
 institution
 Faculty at another 42 18.4 84.6
 institution
 Other 35 15.4 100.0

Please indicate your immediate
career aspirations. (n = 226)

 Return to faculty position 99 43.8 43.8
 Remain in current position 79 35.0 78.8
 Higher academic 25 11.1 89.9
 administrative position
 Other 22 9.7 99.6
Administrative position outside 1
 academia