Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol14.Issue3.2000:

(1)

Evaluating higher education leadership: indicators of

trustees' effectiveness

Steve O. Michael

Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

Michael Schwartz

Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

Ludmila Cravcenco

Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

Introduction

Almost 30 years ago, Hartnett (1969) wrote:

. . .it is somewhat remarkable that so little is known about who trustees are, what they do in their roles as trustees, and how they feel about current issues in American higher education. Except for a now outdated and somewhat limited survey by Beck, a more recent survey by Duster, and a state-wide study in New York, practically nothing in the way of empirically gathered information has been accumulated for this rather elite group of people. Most of what has been written has dealt primarily, almost exclusively, with governing boards as groups or corporate entities, not as a collection of individuals. Consequently, the ``literature'' tells us much about the typical size of governing boards, how they are selected, the source and nature of board authority, and basic board functions but precious little about the people who form these boards (p. 12).

One wishes that Hartnett's statement above was no longer true today, but those who are familiar with the literature on higher education in America would attest to the paucity and seemingly dated coverage of the issues of trustees in scholarly literature. While a few scholarly works have been conducted on trusteeship since Hartnett's 1969 study, it is valid to state that the topic has never been an attractive, overwhelming preoccupation of higher education scholars. Aside of Chaitet al'swork, few works have specifically addressed the issue of trustee effectiveness. Even when trustee

effectiveness is studied, it is more likely for such a study to focus on the board's

effectiveness rather than individual trustee's effectiveness.

Be that as it may, the lay board of trustees has continued to occupy a strategic position in every higher education institution's landscape. Nason (1974) identified the

following specific roles and responsibilities of the lay board of trustees:

Selection, retention and termination of appointment of the president, financial support and management, maintenance and expansion of physical plant, public relations, clarification of purposes, assessment of performance, bridge between community and campus, preservation of institutional independence, court of final appeal, and self-evaluation (pp. 15-23).

Given the importance of these roles and responsibilities, only one who is unfamiliar with the affairs of higher education in the USA will belittle the critical function of trustees in influencing higher education direction and effectiveness. As the highest policy making body of higher education institutions, the board of trustees influences the direction, health, and effectiveness of the institution it governs. For over 3,000 higher education institutions in America, there are no standard stipulations for how these boards must operate. Some boards may choose to be conspicuously visible in the administration of their institutions, others may operate quietly behind the scenes. Some may choose to meddle in academic affairs, others may choose to delegate curriculum matters entirely to the faculty. All in all, the board of trustees is accountable to no one but to the standards members have set for themselves. In the public sector, the state governments that appoint trustees generally do not evaluate the effectiveness of these governing boards and neither is the board of trustees evaluated by the administration or the faculty that it governs. Given this scenario one must wonder how the board of trustees' effectiveness could be evaluated or determined.

Therefore, as a contribution to the topic of trustees' effectiveness, the study reported here, which is a part of a larger study, focuses on how trustees perceive that trustees' effectiveness should be viewed. In essence, the study attempts to answer the question: what do trustees consider to be indicators of The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

The International Journal of Educational Management 14/3 [2000] 107±119

#MCB University Press [ISSN 0951-354X]

Keywords

Higher education, Leadership, Educational administration

Abstract

(2)

effectiveness for themselves? Understanding the indicators of effectiveness for trustees provides two benefits. First, it enables non-trustees to catch a glimpse of the thought process of trustees regarding their roles and responsibilities. In discharging their responsibilities, trustees would be expected to place emphasis on those things they consider to be vital to the fulfillment of their roles. Second, for boards that are interested in evaluating their performance, indicators of effectiveness provide a basis for

developing relevant instruments. This becomes particularly important in light of the current controversy regarding the extent to which trustees should take charge of the administration of their institutions. Understanding indicators of effectiveness from the points of view of trustees enables us to appreciate how trustees themselves would want to be evaluated.

The study reported here also attempted to investigate the differences among sectors regarding perceived indicators of

effectiveness. The private higher education sector differs remarkably from the public sectors in the selection and utilization of lay boards. Even within the public higher education sectors, the community college sector differs from the public university sector; hence, the need to investigate indicators of trustees' effectiveness

sectorally. Although women still constitute a very small minority of trustees' membership, an attempt is also made to identify

differences that may exist based on the gender of trustees. In addition, trustees in the USA have varied educational backgrounds ranging from high school diploma to doctoral education. Consequently, differences in perceived indicators of effectiveness among trustees based on differences in their educational levels were examined.

Background information

In 1966, James A. Perkins, the Chairman of the Regents Advisory Committee on Educational Leadership, sent a letter on behalf of his committee to Chancellor Edgar W. Couper of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York. In this letter, a preface to their report on college and university trustees and trusteeship, Perkins (1966) stated that ``effective trustee leadership in higher education must be found and employed, if our colleges and universities are to expand and improve in the ways required by our times'' (iv). The report itself contained the following recommendation: ``Whatever method of election or appointment is used,

each board should find ways to replace less effective trustees with more effective ones'' (p. 2). The authors of the report went further by stating that ``since re-election to

trusteeship is often a matter of course, many boards find themselves with members who contribute little or nothing because they lack time or interest, or both. There should be a means by which to replace such members with more effective talent'' (p. 2). One may conclude from this report that individual trustee's effectiveness is important, but most of the works on trustee effectiveness, as mentioned earlier, have focused primarily on the whole board as opposed to the individual trustees themselves.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework illustrated by Figure 1 suggests three important areas that will determine individual trustee

effectiveness. The first of these is trustee's knowledge. Three aspects of the knowledge necessary for trustees to function effectively include the knowledge of higher education culture, the politics within their specific institutions, and the differences between the administration of higher education and that of the business organizations. Trustees' knowledge is critical to trustees' participation. Where trustees feel

inadequately informed about their role, the level of participation may be low and the temptation to govern higher education institutions like a business is greater for a trustee who cannot differentiate between the nature and culture of higher education and those of the business sector.

The second area that is considered to be important to a trustee's effectiveness relates to the trustee's contribution to the welfare of his or her institution. Trustee's contribution is described here, as influence on the institution may be direct or indirect. Indirect contribution that may be significant to an institution includes a trustee's level of influence on the public and with the politicians. Undoubtedly, trustees can use their influence within the public and with the politicians to the advantage of the institutions they govern. A more direct influence includes the level of visibility within the campus, of resources personally contributed, and of resources attracted to the institution. Trustees provide symbolic but powerful endorsement of institutional activities, such as attendance at

commencements, award ceremonies, etc. The level of resources personally contributed should not be seen solely as financial,

Steve O. Michael, Michael Schwartz and Ludmila Cravcenco

Evaluating higher education leadership: indicators of trustees' effectiveness

(3)

important as this may be. Attending meetings, participation in committees, studying reports, and appearing before external constituents on behalf of their institutions are important personal contributions to the welfare of the institution. In addition, a trustee's

contribution can also be viewed in terms of the extent to which a trustee is able to influence individuals and corporate organizations to direct their resources toward the institutions they represent.

While a trustee's knowledge and

contribution are critical elements within the overall picture of trustee effectiveness, trustee relationship provides the channel through which a trustee fulfills all his or her responsibilities. Important dimensions of this relationship include a trustee's relationship with the president, students, faculty, and other board members.

Methodology

A questionnaire developed by a team that consists of a professor of higher education and a president emeritus and trustees' professor was used to solicit data from participants. The questionnaire was

developed after extensive review of relevant literature and was pilot tested with five trustees and a president of a higher education institution. Within-items reliability test was done using Cronbach reliability correlational analysis. Sections of

the questionnaire yielded coefficients that ranged from 0.44 to 0.94 with the overall coefficient being 0.90.

Data sources

At the time of this study, there were 68 four-year private higher education institutions, 23 community and technical colleges, 13 four-year public universities, and three medical colleges (source: Ohio Board of Regents). As indicated in Table I, while all these

institutions were contacted to participate in this study, only ten (77 per cent) public universities, 22 (32 per cent) private higher education institutions, 15 (65 per cent) community and technical colleges, and three (100 per cent) medical colleges participated.

Two methods were used to contact the trustees of participating institutions. Questionnaires were directly mailed to trustees from institutions whose presidents released the names and addresses of their trustees and encouraged us to contact them. However, there were presidents (all from the private higher education institutions) who indicated that information about their trustees was confidential and encouraged us to mail a packet of questionnaires (with the exact number usually stipulated) to the president's office. The president's office distributed the questionnaires and collected completed questionnaires on behalf of the researchers.

Figure 1

Conceptual framework of trustee effectiveness

(4)

Profile of respondents

Out of the 686 questionnaires mailed out, a total of 489 (71 per cent) trustees participated in the study. As indicated on Table II, 387 (78 per cent) were male while 107 (22 per cent) were female participants. The proportion of female to male trustees was similar across the sectors with more female representation (26 per cent) at the community/technical sector and the small representation (6 per

cent) at the medical college sector. Years spent as trustees at the current institutions ranged from 4.83 (public university sector) to 8.41 (medical college sector) with a total average of all the sectors being 7.14 years. Given that some of the respondents would have served as trustees in other institutions prior to their current appointment, they were requested to provide information regarding their total years of experience as trustees. The average of total number of years served

Table I

List of participating higher education institutions

Private four-year institution Public four-year institutions

Public two-year

(com. and tech. institutions) Medical colleges

Allegheny Wesleyan College University of Cincinnati Cincinnati State Tech. and Com. College NEOUCOM Ashland University Bowling Green State University Clark State Community College Ohio College of Baldwin Wallace College Kent State University Hocking Technical College Podiatric Medicine Franciscan University at Steubenvile Wright State University Lakeland Community College Medical College of

Hiram College Ohio University Lorain County Community College Ohio at Toledo

Lourdes College University of Akron Muskingum Area Technical College Mount Vernon Nazarene College Shwanee State University North Central Technical College Oberlin College Youngstown State University Sinclair Community College Malone College University of Toledo Southern State Community College Ohio Wesleyan University Ohio State University Stark Technical College

Otterbein College Marion Technical College

Tiffin Univesity Cuyahoga Community College

Urbana College Jefferson Community College

Walsh University Northwest State Community College

College of Wooster Washington State Community College

Ursuline College Ohio Dominican College Defiance College Franklin University University of Findlay Antioch University University of Rio Grande

Table II

Profile of the respondents (trustees)

Public

Profile Private University

Com/tech

colleges Medical colleges Total

Gender

Male 292 (77) 32 (80) 43 (74.1) 15 (93.8) 382 (78)

Female 83 (23) 8 (20) 15 (25.9) 1 (6.2) 107 (22)

Years spent as trustees

At present institution 7.94 4.83 7.37 8.41 7.14

Overall 9.81 5.88 7.95 13.24 9.22

Highest degree

PhD and EdD 25 (8.7) 4 (10) 4 (7.1) 4 (25.1) 37 (9.27)

Master's 94 (32.8) 9 (22.5) 17 (29.8) 3 (18.8) 123 (31)

Bachelor's 98 (34.1) 15 (37.5) 25 (43.9) 2 (12.5) 140 (35.1)

Law degree 37 (12.9) 8 (20.5) 3 (5.3) 1 (6.3) 49 (12.28)

Medical degree 16 (5.6) 2 (5.1) 1 (1.8) 5 (31.3) 24 (6.02)

High school 17 (5.9) 1 (2.6) 7 (12.3) 1 (6.3) 26 (6.52)

Note:Percentages in parentheses

(5)

as trustees ranged from 5.88 years (public university sector) to 13.24 years (medical college sector) with the average of all the sectors being 9.22 years (see Table II).

Respondents' educational backgrounds varied considerably. About 9 per cent of all the respondents had doctoral degrees, 31 per cent had master's degrees, 35 per cent had bachelor's degrees, 12.28 per cent had law degrees, 6 per cent had medical degrees, and about 7 per cent had only high school diplomas. While the public university sector had the highest percentage of trustees with doctoral degrees (10 per cent), the private sector had the highest proportion of respondents with master's degrees (33 per cent). The community and technical sector had the highest percentage of trustees with bachelor's degrees (44 per cent) and also the highest percentage of trustees with high school diplomas (12 per cent). While the public university sector had the highest proportion of trustees with law degrees (21 per cent), the medical college sector had the highest percentage of trustees with medical degrees (31 per cent).

Data analysis

The goal of the study reported in this paper was to determine the extent to which trustees would rate the various indicators of

effectiveness presented to them.

Additionally, responses were analyzed to examine sectoral differences as well as differences based on levels of education. To accomplish this, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized. However, a t-test analysis was done to examine gender differences on all the items presented to the respondents. An alpha level of 0.05 was set for all the analyses. Given that respondents were encouraged and provided with an

opportunity to present narrative responses on each sector of the questionnaire, further analysis of narratives was conducted and some of these narratives were used to enhance the discussion of the findings.

Findings

Sectoral differences in trustees' indicators of effectiveness

Three areas of knowledge were deemed crucial to effective trustee performance. These areas are: the knowledge of the higher education institution, the knowledge of the politics within the institution on which a trustee presides, and the knowledge of the uniqueness of higher education institutions and their differences from other sectors, mainly the business sector (see Table III). On

the whole, respondents rated these items as highly important indicators of trustee effectiveness with the knowledge of higher education culture having the highest mean score of 3.86, followed by the knowledge of the differences between the higher education sector and other sectors (= 3.74), and the knowledge of institutional politics (= 3.56).

While slight differences were observable with respect to the mean scores of each sector, none of these differences were significant at the alpha level of 0.05.

With respect to trustee influence or contribution to their institutions, five items were presented to the respondents. As indicated on Table IV, the level of resources attracted to the institution (= 3.62) and the level of influence a trustee has on the public (= 3.55) were rated as highly important indicators of the trustee's effectiveness. Those rated as moderately important included the level of resources that a trustee personally contributed (= 3.21), the level of the trustee's visibility within the institution, (= 3.16), and the level of the trustee's

influence with politicians (= 2.82). Significant sectoral differences were observed on all the items but one: the level of trustee's visibility within the institution which was rated as moderately important. With a means score of 3.92, trustees from the community/technical college sector differ significantly from trustees from the medical college sector with respect to the importance of trustee's influence on the public. Both the private (= 2.46) and the medical college

(= 2.79) sectors differ from the public university (= 3.80) and the community/ technical (=3.72) sectors with respect to the

importance of trustee's influence with the politicians. In terms of the importance of trustee's personal material contribution to the institution, the private sector (=3.58) differs significantly from the other sectors that rated this item as only moderately important. Similarly, the private sector with a mean score of 3.87 differs significantly from the other sectors with respect to the

importance of resources that a trustee is able to attract, albeit indirectly, to the institution.

The third category of items relates to trustee's relationship as an indication of personal effectiveness. As shown in Table V, respondents on the whole considered each trustee's relationship with other trustees (= 4.25) and with the president of their institution (= 4.24) to be highly important indicators of trustee effectiveness. Trustee's relationship with the faculty (= 3.17) and with the students (= 2.97) were described as

only moderately important indicators of trustee effectiveness. No significant

(6)

differences were observed sectorally on all the items presented.

The fourth category of items relates to trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness. With regard to trustees' support to the office of the presidency of the institution, respondents considered this item to be very highly important a with a mean score of 4.59 (see Table VI). Similarly, trustee's role in developing and concern for a long-range plan for the institution was perceived to be a very highly important indicator of effectiveness,

with a mean score of 4.71. Trustee's personal attention to budget details and the budget approval process was considered to be a highly important indicator of effectiveness, with a mean score of 4.37.

With the exception of trustee's personal attention to budget and the budge approval process, there were no significant differences observed sectorally. On this item, however, the public university sector differs

significantly, with a mean score of 4.09 from the private higher education sector with a mean score of 4.43.

Table IV

Sectoral differences in trustees' influence as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

Public university N = 45

Private university N = 295

Community/ technical college

N = 70

Medical college N = 19

Total N = 429

effectiveness SD SD SD SD SD F-ratio *F-prob.

Level of influence on

the public 3.64 0.91 3.47 1.02 3.92 0.73 3.16 1.21 3.55 0.99 5.061 0.002

Level of influence

with politicians 3.80 0.88 2.46 1.21 3.72 0.90 2.79 1.47 2.82 1.28 34.583 0.000

Level of trustees' visibility within

the institution 3.11 1.17 3.16 1.10 3.28 1.00 2.84 1.50 3.16 1.11 0.822 0.482

Level of resources personally

contributed 2.49 1.01 3.58 1.03 2.27 1.09 2.42 1.07 3.21 1.18 42.957 0.000

Level of resources attracted to the

institution 3.11 0.81 3.87 0.96 2.97 1.25 3.21 1.18 3.62 1.08 20.334 0.000

Note:* significant at 0.05 alpha level

Table III

Sectoral differences in trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

N = 70

Total N = 429

Knowledge of higher

education culture 3.93 0.78 3.84 0.88 3.86 0.89 4.05 0.78 3.86 0.86 0.470 0.703

Knowledge of politics within the trustee's

institution 3.62 1.05 3.57 1.05 3.49 0.93 3.63 0.90 3.56 1.02 0.213 0.887

Knowledge of the differences between institutions of

higher education and other

organizations 3.73 0.87 3.72 0.94 3.79 0.85 3.95 0.91 3.74 0.92 0.406 0.749

(7)

Gender differences in indicators of

trustee effectiveness

Data obtained on trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness were analyzed to examine if gender differences existed among the respondents. As indicated in Table VII, significant gender differences were observed on all the items categorized under

knowledge. In terms of trustees' knowledge of higher education culture, female trustees with a mean score of 4.12 differ significantly from their male counterpart with a mean

score of 3.79. With the same alpha level of 0.05, female trustees with a mean score of 3.86 differ significantly from the male trustees with a mean score of 3.49 on trustee's knowledge of the politics within the institution as an indicator of trustee effectiveness. With respect to trustee's knowledge of the differences between higher education institutions and other sectors, the female trustees (= 3.98) also differ

significantly from the male trustees (= 3.68).

Table V

Sectoral differences in trustees' relationships as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

N = 70

Total N = 429

Trustee's relationship with the president of

the institution 4.33 0.90 4.22 0.80 4.30 0.86 4.16 1.26 4.24 0.84 0.405 0.750

Trustee's relationship with other trustees of

their institution 4.40 0.72 4.19 0.75 4.38 0.82 4.21 1.13 4.25 0.78 1.786 0.149

Trustee's relationship with the students of

the institution 3.25 1.08 2.93 1.02 2.94 1.07 3.00 1.45 2.97 1.07 1.176 0.319

Trustee's relationship with the faculty members in the

institution 3.23 0.91 3.16 0.99 3.08 1.08 3.58 1.22 3.17 1.01 1.277 0.282

Table VI

Sectoral differences in trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

N = 70

Total N = 429

Trustee's support for the president of

their institution 4.64 0.68 4.55 0.69 4.69 0.69 4.68 0.48 4.59 0.68 1.099 0.349

Trustee's role in developing and concern for a

long-range plan 4.69 0.56 4.69 0.54 4.83 0.38 4.63 0.76 4.71 0.53 1.535 0.205

Trustee's personal attention to budget details and approval process for their

institution 4.09 1.00 4.43 0.77 4.32 0.92 4.26 0.93 4.37 0.83 2.498 0.049

(8)

It is also interesting to note that female trustees differ significantly from their male counterparts on all the items (with the exception of one) describing trustee's influence and contributions as a measure of personal effectiveness. As shown in Table VIII, female trustees with a mean score of 3.82 differ significantly from male trustees (= 3.48) with respect to their perception of trustee's level of influence in the public as an indicator of trustee effectiveness. Similarly, female trustees with a mean score of 3.05 differ significantly from male trustees (= 2.76) with respect to their perception of trustee's level of influence with politicians.

The only exception where significant gender differences were not observed relates to trustee's level of visibility in the

institution. However, with respect to trustee's level of resources personally contributed to the institution, female trustees with a mean score of 3.47 were significantly different from male trustees with a mean score of 3.13. Also, female trustees (= 3.95)

differ significantly from their male

counterparts (= 3.52) at the alpha level of 0.05.

In terms of the variables associated with trustee's relationship as indicators of effectiveness, no significant differences were observed at the alpha level of 0.05 (see Table IX). However, the female trustees' mean scores were slightly higher than those of the male trustees.

As indicated on Table X, two out of the three items presented under management functions showed significant gender differences. With respect to trustee's

personal support for the office of presidency, the female trustees with a mean score of 4.70 differ significantly from the male trustees with a mean score of 4.56. Similarly, female trustees' mean score of 4.52 was significantly different from male trustees' mean score of 4.32 at the alpha level of 0.05. No significant difference was observed with respect to trustee's involvement in and concern for a long-range plan for the institution.

Table VIII

Gender differences: trustees' influence as indicators of effectiveness

Male N = 333

Female N = 93

Indicators of effectiveness SD SD T-value *2-tail. prob.

Trustee's level of influence on

the public 3.48 1.00 3.82 0.92 ±2.886 0.004

Trustee's level of influence

with politicians 2.76 1.28 3.05 1.23 ±1.968 0.040

Trustee's level of visibility in

their institution 3.12 1.13 3.35 1.02 ±1.741 0.082

Trustee's level of resources personally contributed to

the institution 3.13 1.19 3.47 1.13 ±2.460 0.014

Trustee's level of resources personally attracted to the

institution 3.52 1.10 3.95 0.95 ±3.411 0.001

Table VII

Gender differences: trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness

Male N = 333

Female N = 93

Trustee's knowledge of higher

education culture 3.79 0.87 4.12 0.81 ±3.254 0.001

Trustee's knowledge of the

politics within the institution 3.49 1.02 3.86 0.98 ±3.164 0.002

Trustee's knowledge of the differences between institutions of higher education

and other organizations 3.68 0.93 3.98 0.86 ±2.765 0.006

(9)

Educational differences in

indicators of trustee effectiveness

Differences in perceived indicators of trustee effectiveness based on educational

differences were observed with regard to trustee knowledge. In terms of trustee knowledge of higher education culture as an indicator of trustee effectiveness, trustees with high school diplomas with a mean score of 3.42 differ significantly from other

categories of trustees. Trustees with doctor of philosophy degrees had the highest mean score of 4.30 on this item (see Table XI). With respect to knowledge of politics within the trustee's institution as an indicator of effectiveness, trustees with high school diplomas (= 3.83) differ significantly from

trustees with other educational backgrounds. Trustees with Ed D (= 3.23) and bachelor's

(= 3.36) degrees had the lowest mean scores on this item. Similarly, trustees with high school diploma differ significantly on the alpha level of 0.05 with respect to knowledge of the differences between higher education and other sectors as an indicator of trustee effectiveness. Trustees with EdD (= 4.31)

and PhD (= 4.16) degrees had the highest mean scores on this item.

As indicated in Table XII, there were no statistically significant differences found among the five items presented under trustee's influence or contribution as an indicator of trustee effectiveness. These items are the level of trustee's visibility within the institution (rated as only

moderately important), the level of resources personally contributed to the institution (also rated as moderately important), and the level of resources attracted to the institution (rated as highly important).

Trustees with high school diplomas (=

4.52) differ significantly from other trustees in terms of how they perceived the

importance of trustee's personal influence in the public as a measure of trustee

effectiveness. The two categories of trustees with the lowest means on this item are those with law degrees (= 3.10) and those with

PhDs (= 3.45). With respect to the level of influence with politicians, two categories of trustees, those with high school diploma and those with law degrees, differ significantly from other categories of trustees. While those with high school diploma differ with a mean

Table X

Gender differences: trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness

Male N = 333

Female N = 93

Trustee's personal support for

the president of the institution 4.56 0.71 4.70 0.55 ±1.777 0.046

Trustee's involvement in and concern for a long-range plan

for the institution 4.70 0.51 4.74 0.57 ±0.602 0.548

Trustee's personal attention to budget details and approval

process of the institution 4.32 0.84 4.52 0.80 ±2.019 0.044

Table IX

Gender differences: trustees' relationships as indicators of effectiveness

Male N = 333

Female N = 93

Trustee's relationships with the

president of the institution 4.22 0.86 4.30 0.78 ±0.785 0.433

Trustee's relationship with other

trustees of the institution 4.22 0.79 4.35 0.70 ±1.521 0.129

Trustee's relationship with the

students of the institution 2.93 1.05 3.09 1.10 ±1.221 0.223

Trustee's relationship with the

faculty of the institution 3.13 1.01 3.30 0.98 ±1.364 0.173

(10)

score of 3.64, those with law degree differ with a mean score of 2.62.

There was no statistically significant differences observed at the 0.05 alpha level on all the items presented under trustee's relationships as indicators of effectiveness (see Table XIII). Respondents' relationships with the presidents of their institutions and with other trustees were rated as highly important irrespective of educational background. Also, respondents' relationships with the faculty and students from their institutions were rated as moderately important indicators of trustee effectiveness.

Although respondents considered trustee's personal support for the office of the

presidency as very highly important

indicator of trustee effectiveness, significant differences were observed among trustees categorized on the basis of their educational

backgrounds. Trustees with EdD. (= 4.85)

and master's (= 4.74) degrees differ

significantly from trustees with bachelor's (= 4.45) and law (= 4.45) degrees (see Table XIV). Significant differences were observed among the respondents on trustee's personal attention and concern for the long-range planning/plan as an indicator of effectiveness. On this item, trustees with high school diploma (= 4.77), EdD (= 4.85), and master's (= 4.81) degrees differ

significantly from trustees with law degrees (= 4.58). With respect to trustee's personal attention to and involvement in budget details and approval process as an indicator of trustee effectiveness, significant

differences were observed between trustees with high school diplomas (= 4.80) and

trustees with other educational backgrounds. Trustees with PhD (= 4.02) and EdD

Table XII

Educational differences in trustees' influence as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

PhD N = 50

EdD N = 13

Master's N = 126

Bachelor's N = 137

Law degree N = 46

Other d. N = 27

Others N = 24

effectiveness SD SD SD SD SD SD SD F-ratio *F-prob.

Level of influence on

the public 3.45 0.94 3.69 1.11 3.56 1.02 3.60 0.92 3.10 1.12 3.48 0.70 4.52 0.97 3.988 0.001

Level of influence with

politicians 2.90 1.29 3.23 1.24 2.62 1.21 2.90 1.28 2.47 1.28 2.78 1.05 3.64 1.44 3.286 0.004

Level of trustee's visibility within the

institution 3.06 1.10 3.23 1.30 3.20 1.00 3.23 1.20 3.00 1.03 3.00 1.24 3.16 1.25 0.452 0.844

Level of resources personally contributed to the

institution 3.10 1.28 2.62 1.66 3.25 1.14 3.27 1.18 3.04 1.11 3.41 0.97 3.16 1.25 0.990 0.432

Level of resources personally attracted

to the institution 3.48 1.16 2.92 1.61 3.69 1.09 3.65 0.97 3.43 1.12 3.74 1.10 3.83 0.96 1.616 0.141

Table XI

Educational differences in trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

PhD N = 50

EdD N = 13

Master's N = 126

Bachelor's N = 137

Law degree N = 46

Other d. N = 27

Others N = 24

Knowledge of higher

education culture 4.30 0.68 4.00 0.71 3.98 0.83 3.70 0.83 3.78 0.89 3.74 0.86 3.42 1.18 4.854 0.000

Knowledge of politics within the trustee's

institution 3.54 0.97 3.23 1.01 3.76 1.03 3.36 1.04 3.53 1.02 3.63 1.01 3.83 0.96 2.207 0.042

Knowledge of the differences between higher education institutions and

other organizations 4.16 0.82 4.31 0.63 3.83 0.93 3.51 0.89 3.66 0.98 3.81 0.90 3.58 0.93 4.517 0.000

(11)

(= 4.08) recorded the lowest mean scores on

this item.

Discussion

Chaitet al's (1996) work is a recent addition to the literature on trusteeship in higher education. These authors' works focused primarily on understanding and improving boards of trustees and thus, define effective boards of trustees as boards whose

``collective effort(s), through smooth and suitable processes, take actions that advance a shared purpose consistent with the institution's mission'' (p. 1). They, however, concluded that

. . .regrettably, most boards just drift with the tides. As a result, trustees are often little

more than high-powered, well-intentioned people engaged in low-level activities. The board dispatches an agenda of potpourri tied tangentially at best to the organization's strategic priorities and central challenges (p. 1).

Most of the studies on trustee effectiveness tend to focus, very much like Chaitet al.'s works, on the effectiveness of the board as a whole. While this area of work is, of course, crucial, one has reason to believe that a board may be effective while some individual trustee members within the board may not. Conversely, some individual trustee members may be effective in what they do while the board as a whole may not. To support this reasoning, Chaitet al.(1996) observed that ``most trustees are bright and earnest individuals_{. . .}[But] most trustees

Table XIV

Educational differences in trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

PhD N = 50

EdD N = 13

Master's N = 126

Bachelor's N = 137

Law degree N = 46

Other d. N = 27

Others N = 24

Trustee's personal support for the

president 4.59 0.64 4.85 0.38 4.74 0.49 4.45 0.75 4.45 0.90 4.56 0.85 4.68 0.56 2.758 0.012

Trustee's personal attention and concern for the

long-range planning/plan 4.69 0.51 4.85 0.38 4.81 0.40 4.61 0.65 4.58 0.61 4.77 0.53 4.92 0.28 2.974 0.007

Trustee's personal attention to and involvement in budget details and

approval process 4.02 1.04 4.08 1.04 4.52 0.68 4.32 0.87 4.30 0.83 4.35 0.85 4.80 0.41 3.673 0.001

Table XIII

Educational differences in trustees' relationships as indicators of effectiveness

Indicators of

PhD N = 50

EdD N = 13

Master's N = 126

Bachelor's N = 137

Law degree N = 46

Other d. N = 27

Others N = 24

Trustee's relationship with the president

of the institution 4.24 0.96 4.38 1.19 4.37 0.75 4.19 0.81 4.04 0.82 4.28 0.85 4.12 0.97 1.186 0.312

Trustee's relationship with other trustees

from their institution 4.31 0.77 4.38 0.96 4.29 0.70 4.15 0.78 4.21 0.82 4.41 0.89 4.20 0.91 0.721 0.633

Trustee's relationship with the students in

the institution 2.96 0.97 3.00 1.00 3.10 1.11 2.91 1.07 2.71 0.77 3.04 1.22 3.00 1.32 0.874 0.514

Trustee's relationship with the faculty members in the

institution 3.10 0.99 3.23 1.09 3.30 1.00 3.08 1.04 3.09 0.78 3.30 0.99 3.08 1.29 0.703 0.647

(12)

whom we encountered were quick to acknowledge dissatisfaction and disillusionment with their board's

performance'' (p. 1). This statement suggests that there may exist discrepancy between the board's performance and an individual trustee's performance.

Therefore, the work reported in this article focuses on effectiveness at the individual trustee's level. The primary purpose was to understand what trustees consider to be important indicators of their own personal effectiveness. Chaitet al's (1996) work identified several competencies of effective governing boards, which include contextual dimension, educational dimension,

interpersonal dimension, analytical

dimension, political dimension, and strategic dimension (pp. 7-8). However, while trustees may attribute these competencies to effective boards, the same competencies may not necessarily be attributed to their own personal performance. Hence, a different type of instrument was used, but as seen in this article, many of the indicators identified paralleled those dimensions contained in Chaitet al's work.

Fifteen items serving as indicators of individual trustee effectiveness were presented to the participants of this study. These 15 items were categorized under four main dimensions: trustee's knowledge, influence or contribution, relationships, and management functions.

What a trustee knows about his or her role should be an important element of

effectiveness. Chaitet al.(1996) remarked that ``despite the powerful connection between knowledge or expertise and effectiveness, remarkably few corporate or nonprofit boards make a concerted effort to acquire the scope of knowledge essential to govern intelligently'' (p. 84). According to this author's work, trustees studied scored the lowest on the educational dimension of trusteeship.

For the study reported in this article, three items were presented to the respondents to cover knowledge about higher education culture, institutional politics, and differences between higher education and other sectors. Trustees, irrespective of their higher education sectors, perceived level of

knowledge to be an important indicator of a trustee's personal effectiveness. It is

interesting to note that female trustees were more likely to value knowledge as an indicator of effectiveness than male trustees. Female trustees are in the minority and until recently, belonging to the ``old boy network'' might have been the most important criterion for appointing trustees. Therefore,

female trustees might be indicating their preference for a more objective criterion for selection of trustees by emphasizing

knowledge of the higher education culture, institutional politics, and the nature of higher education. One can also conclude that trustees' education background has some role to play in trustees' perception of knowledge as an indicator of effectiveness. Trustees with doctorate degrees indicated preference for knowledge of higher education culture and nature more than those with high school, bachelor's or master's degrees. However, trustees with high school diploma and bachelor's degrees indicated preference for knowledge of institutional politics more than those with advanced degrees.

Trustees who participated in this study indicated preference for the traditional roles of trustees. Most higher education

administrators are happy to have trustees who readily understand their role as resource generators. Participants in this study indicated that the level of resources attracted to the institution by each trustee was a very good measure of effectiveness. On this item, as well as the level of resources personally contributed by trustees, private sector trustees indicated higher mean scores than the public sector trustees. Therefore, there is no doubt in the minds of private sector trustees that their institutions look up to them for resources. However, the public sector trustees rated levels of influence in the public and with politicians higher than the private sector trustees. This is

understandable because public sector trustees are appointed by the governor on the recommendations of politicians. Thus, public sector trustees' clout within the political world is an important asset to their institutions.

On the whole, female trustees perceived trustees' influence as a more important indicator of effectiveness than the male trustees. Trustees with high school diploma and bachelor's degrees rated level of

influence higher than trustees with advanced degrees. The only exception was the level of trustee's visibility within the institution, which was perceived by all trustees to be a moderate indicator of effectiveness.

Relationships are important indicators of effectiveness for trustees. Most important relationships are those with other trustees within their institutions and with the president of their institutions. Relationship with students and faculty were not equally favored as important indicators of

effectiveness. Sectors did not differ significantly on these items. No gender differences were observed and neither did

(13)

responses differ based on educational backgrounds. Perhaps trustees do not think it is feasible for them to cultivate any meaningful relationships with students and faculty because of the sheer sizes of these groups. Also, as the final arbiter on faculty matters, respectable distance between trustees and faculty or students might be a healthy practice.

With the exception to attention to budget details, in which private sector trustees indicated a significantly higher mean score, sectoral differences on management

functions were not observed. Most trustees perceived support for the presidents and their role in developing long range plans to be important indicators of their

effectiveness. The same is also true with attention to budget details. One can only speculate that since private sector trustees indicated personal contribution of resources as an important indicator of their

effectiveness, it stands to reason that they would desire to pay greater attention to the budgetary details. With the exception of trustee's involvement in and concern for a long range plan, gender differences in levels of involvement in management functions were observed. The female trustees indicated higher preference for trustee's personal support for the president and trustee's attention to budget details than their male counterparts. Trustees with bachelor's degrees scored significantly less than others with respect to trustees' perceptions of the level of involvement in management functions as indicators of effectiveness.

In conclusion, participants indicated that level of knowledge, influence, quality of relationship, and level of involvement in management functions are valid indicators of individual trustee's effectiveness. The results of this study can be used to develop an orientation program for new trustees, and boards of trustees that are interested in enhancing their corporate performance may want to focus also individual trustee's performance. Insights derived from this study can be used to develop instruments that boards can use for periodical evaluation of individual trustee performance. Indeed, the board has a moral responsibility to improve the effectiveness of their

institutions and perhaps the first indicator of their seriousness should be an adoption of strategies to evaluate their own effectiveness.

References

Chait, R.P., Holland, T.P. and Taylor, B.E. (1996), Improving the Performance of Governing Boards, The American Council on Education and The Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ.

Hartnett, R.T. (1969),College and University Trustees: Their Backgrounds, Roles, and Educational Attitudes, Educational Testing Services, Princeton, NJ.

Nason, J.W. (1974),The Future of Trusteeship: A Report to the Commission on the Future of the Association of Governing Boards of

Universities and Colleges, Association of Governing Boards, Washington, DC. Perkins, J.A. (1966), ``The Regents Advisory

Committee on Educational Leadership'', College and University Trustees and Trusteeship: Recommendations.