Leadership Development in Higher Education

The Journal of Higher Education ISSN: 0022-1546 (Print) 1538-4640 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhej20 Leadership Development in Higher Education Thomas R. Chibucos & Madeleine F. Green To cite this article: Thomas R. Chibucos & Madeleine F. Green (1989) Leadership Development in Higher Education, The Journal of Higher Education, 60:1, 21-42, DOI: 10.1080/00221546.1989.11778822 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1989.11778822 Published online: 01 Nov 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1 View related articles Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhej20 Thomas R. Chibucos Madeleine F. Green Leadership Development in Higher Education An Evaluation of the ACE Fellows Program An Assessment ofthe Ace Fellows Program: The First Eighteen Years Introduction The American Council on Education Fellows Program (AFP) was created in 1965to identify and prepare leaders for colleges and universities. The Fellows Program began operation with a $4.75 million grant from the Ford Foundation to support a five-year internship program in academic administration. It was founded in an era of rapid expansion of higher education: the community college movement was in full swing; teachers' colleges had become multipurpose institutions; and the emphasis on universal higher education created an atmosphere of unlimited growth and possibility. As the higher education enterprise grew, so did the number of administrative vacancies. Few, if any, efforts existed to identify and educate administrators to fill these new positions. Thus, the Fellows Program, as well as other programs designed to train administrators, were created. The American Council on Education also began the Institute for College and University Administrators in 1965, transplanted after a brief existence at Harvard. In 1970 Harvard initiated the Institute for Educational Management (IBM), then a six-week course for presidents and senior administrators. The mid-1970s saw the creation of the Claremont Women Administrators Program (no longer in existence), the Higher Education Management Institute (HEMI), which had about a seven-year life, and the Higher Education Resource Services (HERS)Bryn Mawr Institute for Women in Higher Education Administration, still in operation. Thomas R. Chibucos is associate professor of Family and Child Studies in the Department of Human and Family Resources at Northern Illinois University, and Madeleine F. Green is vice president and director ofthe Centerfor Leadership Development of the American Council on Education. Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 60, No.1 (January/February 1989) Copyright © 1989 by the Ohio State University Press 22 Journal of Higher Education Among the programs that have endured is the ACE Fellows Program, which continues to identify and train college and university administrators. Today it exists not in a climate of growth and demand for administrators that outstrips the supply of talent, but in a climate of .contraction, financial hardship, changing student populations, and abundant applicant pools for administrative positions. While the issues confronting higher education have changed constantly over the twenty-year life of the program, the higher education community continues to perceive the need to identify and prepare new leaders. The continuing support of the Fellows Program by institutional leaders attests to the acceptance of the idea that such leadership development efforts are necessary and to the perception that the Fellows Program is successfully accomplishing its goals. The outcomes of the Fellows Program have been periodically studied since its inception [1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,8,9]. The present study, undertaken at the twenty-year mark, draws on two sources of information: (1) the complete data set on the characteristics of the 747 Fellows who participated in the first eighteen classes of the AFP (1965-1982). ACE gathers these data as each class of Fellows enters the program. (2) a survey of Fellows from the first eighteen classes, conducted in late 1983 and early 1984. Of the 736 Fellows still living, 588 responded to this survey. In addition, a questionnaire similar to the one sent to Fellows was sent to 304 administrators who had served as Mentors to one or more Fellows between 1978 and 1982. Findings from 147 Mentors' responses are also interspersed in the present study to highlight certain observations. Evaluation Issues and Measures Several interpretive issues should be considered in relation to the outcomes and evaluation of the program. Primary among these is the temptation to think in terms of causality regarding the AFP and subsequent "outcomes." The basic difficulties are the self-selected nature of the Fellows group and the fact that no data were collected on a comparable non-Fellows group. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that the AFP experience per se produced either career advancement or effectiveness in subsequent administrative positions. Fellows might have attained these positions and enhanced their administrative skills without participating in the program. A related issue involves the use of data from the self-reports of the individuals who are likely to be highly invested in the program and in their own participation in it. Clearly, this issue is not unique to this study; it is relevant to education evalua- Leadership Development 23 tions in general. Nonetheless, the shortcomings of self-reported data should be kept in mind. Several characteristics of the study do, however, partially mitigate these interpretive concerns. First, a major strength is that the data come from eighteen years of participants in the AFP. Thus, the peculiarities or biases associated with the self-reports of anyone class of Fellows are not likely to dominate interpretation. Second, the Mentors' responses serve as a source of validation for the Fellows' responses and vice-versa. Third, a substantial portion of the study uses objective data on the composition of the Fellows' groups, their backgrounds, and their career paths. Several indicators serve as outcome measures in this study: the career advancement of the Fellows, Fellows' assessment of the skills and knowledge acquired through the program, and Fellows' assessment of the impact of the program on their professional lives. While each of the measures has limitations, taken together, they provide an accurate assessment of the Fellows Program. The first measure, career advancement, related to the objective of identifying individuals capable of assuming senior administrative positions. Thus, the movement of the graduates into these posts is regularly tracked. Over the years, the number of chief executive officers, vice presidents, and deans, for example, has been followed to determine the percentage of Fellows actually moving into administration and how this movement correlates with such variables as race and ethnicity, sex, institutional affiliation, or type of fellowship. But, as noted, tying career advancement to participation in the program may rest on false assumptions, for a cause-and-effect relationship between the fellowship and upward career mobility cannot be demonstrated. The Fellows Program, like other selective credentialing programs, is to some extent a self-fulfilling prophecy. Individuals who achieve the nomination and the support of their institutions are generally already leaders on their campuses, and may well be "on their way" with or without the added credential and training. Also, an avowed purpose of the program is to enable individuals to "test the waters" of administration before committing to an administrative position. Therefore, returning to the faculty or option not to pursue a senior administrative post is a reasonable outcome of the program, one that often reflects deliberate career choices and allows Fellows to exercise leadership on campus from different roles. The next two outcome measures - skills and knowledge acquired through the program and the AFP's impact on the Fellows' careers - 24 Journal of Higher Education rely on self-reported information, with the limitations of those data as mentioned earlier. Almost all training programs rely heavily on participant evaluation, including the Fellows Program, but it has the advantage of gathering information from its graduates both immediately upon completion of the program, as well as several years later. The study reported in this article queried Fellows who graduated between one and eighteen years earlier. Admittedly, participant evaluations only provide partial information and may be distorted by generally positive feelings about the opportunity to participate in the program, about participants' colleagues, or about the worth of the credential. Nonetheless, participant experiences are themselves important indicators of a program's success and outcomes. Furthermore, the perceived value of various aspects of the program provides not only summative evaluation of program outcomes, but also formative evaluation for ongoing revisions and improvement. In reporting on the specific training outcomes of the program, Fellows indicate that they learned a great deal about institutional administration through their internships and in the three seminars. Because their perceptions are validated by the Mentors, it is reasonable to assume that the Fellows are indeed correct in their assessment of what they learned. It is impossible to say with any certainty that this knowledge makes them any more effective as administrators, though this is their reported perception. The questionable relationship between the acquisition of skills and knowledge andjob performance is not unique to the Fellows Program but is an issue for all professional development programs. A third outcome measure is the Fellows' assessment of the program's impact on their professional lives. Fellows were asked to indicate the importance of the Fellows Program as preparation for their first administrative position after the Fellowship and as a career credential. Mentors were similarly queried and the responses of both groups were quite close. An Overview of the Fellows Program Although the Fellows Program has been modified in a number of ways since its inception, its basic structure has consistently been as follows: Fellows are nominated by the president or senior officers of their institutions and selected through a national competition. At various times, distinctions have been made between Fellows and Interns; however, for purposes of this study, all are counted similarly and designated as Fellows. Leadership Development 25 At the core of the program is the on-campus internship, a year-long experience under the supervision of senior administrators designated as Mentors. The internship can take place either at the Fellow's home or sponsoring institution, or at a host institution. Placements are arranged by the Fellows Program director in cooperation with the Fellow, the nominator, and the prospective Mentor. The percentage of a given class going to host campuses has varied since 1965but has generally been correlated with institutional ability to finance a year-long off-campus experience for the Fellow while continuing his or her salary. External funding to cover salary costs was available during the first year of the program, when it was liberally funded by the Ford Foundation. In 1984-85, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation awarded ACE a three-year grant to offer stipends to institutions sponsoring host Fellows in need of some financial assistance to cover the costs of replacing Fellows while off-campus. But with those exceptions, the Fellow's salary and benefits have been the responsibility of the nominating campus. An important feature of the Fellowship is the participation in three week-long seminars, intensive courses in higher education administration. In the early years of the program, two seminars a year were offered; in the mid-seventies, the number was increased to three. The format and content have been modified over the years, reflecting changing issues and institutional needs. Fellows also travel extensively to other campuses, to national higher education meetings, and to regional meetings they plan themselves. The travel provides a unique opportunity for Fellows to see the diversity of higher education and to meet key administrators at institutions of their choosing. Finally, Fellows read the literature of higher education and write a required analytical research paper. The paper enables Fellows to research the field and to conceptualize their work during the internship. The best papers have traditionally been published in ACE's journal, Educational Record. Additional background on the structure and evolution of the Fellows Program can be found in The A CE Fellows Program: The First Twenty Years. A Profile of the A CE Fellows: Nominees and Fellows The size and the composition of the candidate pool and the Fellows have changed considerably over the years. All candidates must be nominated by the president or senior officer of their institution and, with the exception of the first class of Fellows, supported financially by that 26 Journal of Higher Education institution. These requirements have ensured a highly qualified nominee group. But, as table 1 indicates, the number of nominees has ranged from a high of 218 in 1966-67 to a low of 60 in 1968-69. These fluctuations in the number of candidates reflect the general financial condition of higher education. The number of nominees has tended to drop in tight times and to rise again as economic conditions have become less stringent. Another variable affecting the number of nominees is program funding. At various points program participation became more costly to institutions, because program expenses formerly covered by grant monies had to be assumed by sponsoring institutions. The 1983 Survey In late 1983all Fellows who participated in the first eighteen classes (1965-66 through 1982-83) were surveyed by the Fellows Program staff. The purpose of the survey was to obtain information on the career paths of the Fellows and their evaluation of the program outcomes. A profile of each Fellow was developed including information on sex, race and ethnicity, type of fellowship, institutional affiliation, and highest position achieved. A series of multiple choice and free re- TABLE I Nominees and Fellows by Year Class Year 65-66 66-67 67-68 68-69 69-70 70-71 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 Total SOURCE: Data from ACE files No. of Nominees 128 218 161 60 85 68 94 94 133 No. of Fellows Selected 23 39 44 120 120 139 49 48 35 35 40 40 40 45 43 47 51 39 42 41 46 2407 747 136 199 156 165 198 133 Leadership Development 27 sponse questions was used to secure each Fellow's opinion of various aspects of the program. Fellows were queried extensively on the various learning outcomes of the program, as well as on their opinion of the seminars, internship, the ACE office, and other services. Seven hundred forty-seven questionnaires were sent to past Fellows. The overall return rate was 79 percent (588). For some of the analyses that follow the data are grouped by six-year intervals in order to assess changes in program characteristics. And, as might be expected, the return rate was significantly greater for the most recent six classes of Fellows, at 89 percent (or 237 of 266) for 1977-78 to 1982-83 classes. The return rates for the 1965-66 to 1970-71 and 1971-72to 1976-77 groups were 74 percent (176 of 238) and 72 percent (175 of 243), respectively. Thus, the data for the most recent six-year cohort are perhaps somewhat more representative. Characteristics of the Fellows During the first eighteen years of the program, 61 percent of the Fellows were from public four-year institutions, 32 percent from private two- and four-year institutions and 7 percent from community colleges. When examined by six-year intervals, the percentage of all Fellows from private institutions decreased from 37 percent to 30 percent to 28 percent. The decline in the percentage of Fellows from private institutions reflects a similar decline in the nominee group. A possible explanation for these changes is the increasing difficulty for small private institutions to support a Fellow as institutional finances worsened. The percentage of nominees and Fellows from community colleges was 12percent or below (with the exception of the 1985-86 class), reflecting their disproportionately low representation as members of the American Council on Education. Home] Host Fellowships The survey data indicate considerable change over eighteen years when one looks at where the Fellows spent their fellowship year: home (own institution), host (another institution), or home/host in some combination. Overall, 42 percent, 45 percent and 13percent did home, host and home/host fellowships, respectively. However, the percentage of home fellowships went from 30 percent to 48 percent and host fellowships went from 61 percent to 37 percent between 1965-70 and 1977-82. Figure I depicts these changes. It is clear that significant change has occurred in the location and thus (in all likelihood) the nature of the fellowships, given the 60 percent increase in home fellowships and a 40 percent decrease in host 28 Journal of Higher Education 70 ~ 60 50 40 6 1 % 45 % <1"/ 38% 30% 30 ~% Home 37% Host 17% 20 9%......./ 10 Percentages 0 , ,.--- ~ /---15% Home/Host ...J..._---L_ _.l..- 1%>'70 1971-76 _ 197~2 FIG. 1. Percentage of Fellows Doing Home, Host, and Home/ Host Fellowship by Six-Year Intervals. Six-Year Cohorts: n = 176 (1965-70); n = 169 (1971-76); n = 227 (1977-82). N = 572. NOTE: Although 588 Fellows responded, the number of useable responses for any given item varies as in most surveys. fellowships between 1965-70 and 1977-82. This change may reflect a funding pattern change in which institutions recommending people for fellowships have had to cover increasing proportions of the Fellows' expenses. The decrease in host fellowships has been reversed, however, in the most recent classes. In the 1984-85 and 1985-86 groups, the percentage of host Fellows was 74 and 61, respectively. Grants from the Mellon Foundation to help offset the salary costs incurred by sponsoring institutions may have contributed to this turnaround, as has renewed ACE insistence that the host option is far preferable. Sex and Race Distribution of Fellows An extremely encouraging trend has been the consistent and dramatic movement towards comparable participation rates by men and women. The development of women and minority leaders has been an explicit goal of the program since the mid 1970s, and its success has been considerable. Indeed, in recent years, the proportion of women and minorities selected is quite close to their representation in the nominee pool. Increasingly, institutiona11eaders are viewing the Fellows Program as a means to advance women and minorities. Overall, 207 of 747 (28 percent) Fellows were women. As seen in figure 2, the proportion of women Fellows has risen steadily over the life of the program with women represented in the six-year cohorts as follows: 10 percent, 27 percent, 45 percent. Women represented 7 percent, 23 percent and 36 percent of the nominee group by six-year cohort. Leadership Development 29 100 ~ 90 80 70 60 SO 40 90 '70 73% Male 55% , ,-45% , ,"Female 30 20 10 Percentages 0 ,, ,, ,,-'27% -' 10% .......... -J'_~ 1965--70 1971-76 _ 1977-82 FIG. 2. Percentage of Fellows by Sex and Six-Year Cohorts. Six-Year Cohorts: n = 238 (1965-70); n = 243 (1971-76); n = 266 (1977-82). N = 747. SOURCE: Data from ACE files An analogous change has occurred in the proportion of majority and minority (black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic) participation in the AFP. Overall, 137 or 19 percent of Fellows have been minority; however, the percentages for 1965-70, 1971-76, and 1977-82 were 7 percent, 22 percent and 26 percent respectively. The nominee pools for these respective cohorts were 5 percent, 16 percent, and 17 percent minority. Most of the minority Fellows are black (111), with Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans, only minimally represented with 15,· 10, and 1 Fellow in each of those groups. (Complete data on the percentage of women and minority Fellows are presented below in table 2.) Experience Two final characteristics of Fellows should be noted before proceeding to examine their career paths: the nature of the position held immediately prior to the fellowship and the Fellows' perceptions of the amount of administrative experience they had prior to the fellowship year. In general, the results in these areas are very consistent over the eighteen-year-period, so a breakdown by six-year groupings is not presented. Overall, 10percent of the respondents indicated they had no administrative experience, 40 percent indicated "substantial" or "quite a bit," and 50 percent indicated "some." On the more specific question of the nature of their immediately prior position, 28 percent were full- 30 Journal of Higher Education TABLE 2 Nomination and Participation Rates of Women and Minorities Class/Year Women as Percentage of Nominees Women as Percentage of Fellows Minorities as Percentage of Nominees Minorities as Percentage of Fellows 7 5 6 3 8 4 18 7 4 8 ? 13 13 17 7 15 27 31 32 26 35 30 34 38 37 43 6 22 32 48 3 6 17 2 4 15 12 17 3 9 14 0 6 26 15 20 15 27 26 23 29 18 19 24 32 65-66 6&-67 67-68 68-69 69-70 7(}-71 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 7&-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 8(}-81 81-82 82-83 SOURCE: 13 27 17 23 45 43 41 45 46 48 22 13 14 12 17 22 24 Data from ACE files time faculty members, 21 percent full-time administrators, and 48 percent part-time administrators. Therefore, the Fellows begin the program as a fairly seasoned group, with about 70 percent coming to the program from positions with active administrative involvement and a full 90 percent having had at least some administrative responsibilities. The vast majority acquired this experience as program and department heads or as assistant and associate deans. Given the nature of the selection process for the nominating campuses, this is not surprising; it confirms the fact that presidents and provosts nominate people who have already shown an interest in and commitment to academic administration. These data refute impressionistic observations that, in recent years, Fellows have come to the program with more administrative expenence. That many Fellows come to the program committed to administration is also supported by their responses to the questions of how certain they were, upon entering the program, that they wanted to pursue a career in administration. Forty-two percent were certain, 36 percent were "leaning," and only 22 percent were not sure that they wanted to go on in administration, a finding that is consistent from 1965to 1983. It should be noted that in recent years, a small but consistent number of Leadership Development 31 Fellows have been drawn from the administrative ranks, holding positions in such areas as financial aid or affirmative action. Evidently, these individuals are already launched on an administrative track and are likely to see the Fellows Program as a way of broadening their career options. Fellows drawn from the faculty ranks, on the other hand, are more likely to be deciding on whether to pursue a career in administration. Career Implications: Positions Although a direct linkage between participation in the Fellows program and career advancement cannot be established, it is nonetheless reasonable to use career progression as one significant criterion in evaluating a program which aims to train people for leadership positions. Therefore, information was sought on the highest postsecondary administrative position Fellows have held since the fellowship year. Table 3 depicts the relevant results and contains the number as well as percentage of Fellows from each six-year period and for all eighteen years combined who have held various administrative positions. For example, for the 1965-70 cohort, 25 percent (59 of 174) of the AFP alumni/ ae have held a presidency, while for all eighteen years 99 of 747 (13 percent) have attained this position. Several notable findings emerge from table 3: 1. Fewer of the Fellows in recent classes have attained presidencies TABLE 3 Highest Position Held since AFP 1971-76 1965-70 Position President! CEO Vice President Assoc.) Asst. V.P. Dean Assoc.) Asst. Dean Dept. Head) Dir. Program Head Asst. to Pres. Other! nonadm. pos. Total No. 59 43 13 42 17 25 0 Percentage* No. 25 18 5 18 7 27 43 29 31 29 II 39 5 0 39 16 238 100 Percentage 1977-82 No. Percentage 18 12 13 12 13 50 24 50 36 5 19 9 19 13 99 136 66 123 82 13 18 9 16 10 16 2 40 16 15 6 104 21 14 3 II No. Percentage 40 16 37 14 243 100 266 100 -- Total 116 16 747 99 -- -- *Percentages based on number of Fellows in each of the six-year cohorts: n = 238. 243 and 266. respectively. Percentages may not sum to 100%due to rounding errors. 32 Journal of Higher Education to date. Whereas 25 percent of the 1965-70 Fellows became presidents, only 5 percent ofthe 1977-82 group did. This finding is not surprising since Fellows would generally need to make several moves before assuming a presidency and more recent Fellows would still be "on the way." 2. The same findings do not hold true below the presidency. Fellows in the more recent two cohorts have moved more quickly into vice presidencies and deanships than Fellows in the earlier group. They are represented in equal proportion to their participation in the program in all three cohorts, with 18 percent, 18 percent, and 19 percent of each respective group assuming vice presidencies. 3. The position of dean or higher was achieved by 56 percent of all Fellows. These outcomes suggest several points. Perhaps the most obvious is that it takes longer to achieve the presidency. One cannot now predict if as many Fellows in the last two six-year cohorts will become presidents as in the first group, but considering their movement into vice presidencies and deanships, one can surmise that these Fellows are at least as upwardly mobile as the first cohort, if not more so. Clearly, the overwhelming percentage of Fellows has achieved administrative positions of some import. Although there is certainly self-selection at work (as indicated previously, some 90 percent of all Fellows had had some administrative experience), the Fellows' responses indicate that they see the program as being of major significance. Career Advancement: Sex, Race, and Ethnicity Before examining the particular elements and the learning outcomes of the program, it is of interest to review the relationship of sex, race and ethnicity to the outcome of position attained. That is, for the highest position attained since participation in the Fellows Program, what is the breakdown by sex, race, and ethnicity? Examining the data in table 4, one can say that Fellows of both sexes are attaining leadership positions roughly proportional to their participation in the program. Eleven percent of the women Fellows have become CEOs, compared to 14 percent of the men; 13 percent of women Fellows have become vice presidents, as have 20 percent of the men. An equal proportion of men and women are assistant or associate vice presidents, and a slightly higher proportion of women (18 percent) than men (16 percent) are deans. Black Fellows lag behind white Fellows in achieving the presidency (7 percent versus 15 percent). But a higher proportion are vice presidents (22 percent versus 18 percent), assistant or associate Leadership Development 33 TABLE 4 Highest Position Achieved by Sex and Race/ Ethnicity (Number and Percentage of Subgroup) Sex Race/ Ethnicity Caucasian No. Position Pres./CEO n = 99 V.P. n = 136 Assoc./ Asst. V.P. n = 66 Dean n = 123 Assoc./ Asst. Dean n = 82 Dept. Prog. Head/Dir. n = 104 Asst. to Pres. n = 21 Other/nonadm. pos. n = 116 Total n = 747 %. No. % No. % No. 15 8 7 0 0 2 20 0 0 110 18 24 22 2 13 0 0 0 0 54 9 11 10 7 0 0 0 0 16 18 10 13 100 16 21 19 0 0 2 20 0 0 60 10 17 15 3 20 2 20 0 0 72 32 13 15 86 14 13 12 3 20 2 20 0 0 12 9 2 4 15 2 2 2 2 13 2 20 0 0 81 15 96 16 15 14 4 27 0 0 100 111 101 15 100 10 100 100 76 23 110 26 47 19 14 11 20 13 9 9 M F M F 86 37 56 26 M F M F M F Native American Asian 89 M F M F M F M F Hispanic Black No. % No. % % 35 17 540 99 207 100 610 100 ·Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding errors. vice presidents (10 percent versus 9 percent), and deans (19 percent versus 16 percent). The sample of Hispanic (n = 15) and Asian (n = 10) Fellows is very small, so conclusions about these groups would be premature. The findings of this survey are more encouraging about the career advancement of women and minorities than the data from earlier studies. Green and Kellogg [7] found that women and minorities had not assumed senior administrative positions in proportion to their participation in the program. Both groups were disproportionately congregated in "assistant to" positions and were more likely than their male or majority counterparts to be associate deans or department chairs. Another recent study [6] examined the career paths of the 1978-82 classes. It showed that the Fellows in this cohort were progressing more rapidly than those in earlier groups: 39 (45 percent) had already achieved the rank of full dean or higher, compared to 56 percent of all Fellows. By 1984, seven Fellows in the 1978-82 classes had assumed presidencies; 15percent had become vice presidents, and 7 percent had 34 Journal of Higher Education become assistant or associate vice presidents. Put another way, 22 percent of the Fellows in these five classes were vice presidents or associate or assistant vice presidents, compared with 31 percent of all earlier graduates who held these positions by 1980. One can only speculate on the reasons for the rapid movement of recent graduates into higher-level administrative positions. Perhaps the Fellows are more ambitious, are making the first move sooner after their fellowships, or are more serious about pursuing administrative careers. Although the survey shows that Fellows in all three cohorts enter the program with about the same commitment to a career in administration, the more recent graduates seem to be taking the first higher-level administrative position earlier. This has happened in spite of the fact that opportunities were far greater in the earliest years of the program. And though progress has been very slow nationally to open positions at the dean's level and above to women and minorities, the women and minority Fellows have advanced almost as much as the majority men Fellows. Assessments by Fellows and Mentors Several questions in the survey dealt with how Fellows and Mentors perceive the Program's usefulness and its learning outcomes. In response to a question concerning the "helpfulness of the AFP in developing [their] ability to perform effectively in their first new administrative position," 32 percent of the Fellows indicated that AFP was "extremely" helpful, 36 percent "very" helpful, and 17 percent "somewhat" helpful. Only 2 percent answered "not helpful"; the remaining 13 percent indicated the question was not applicable to them. This finding is reinforced by the responses of Mentors to the same question, because 71 percent perceived that the AFP was "extremely" or "very" helpful in developing the Fellow's ability to perform in a first new administrative position. Mentors also overwhelmingly supported the general value of the AFP to the administrative development of Fellows, with 92 percent saying the AFP was extremely or very helpful. Along similar lines, 55 percent of the Fellows thought the AFP was extremely or very important as a career credential, 35 percent thought it was somewhat important and only 10 percent thought it not very important. There has been little change in this viewpoint over the eighteen year period except in the percentage who think that that AFP is extremely important. This percentage increased from 15 percent to 22 percent between 1965and 1982. Again, the findings from the Mentors survey is quite similar, with 51 percent indicating the AFP to be a Leadership Development 35 very or extremely important career credential and 35 percent saying it was somewhat important. Related to the issue of the AFP as a career credential, Fellows were asked how important the following have been in advancing their careers: • • • • • • primary Mentors secondary Mentors home institution colleagues Fellows from their own classes and from other classes people met at AFP seminars and regional meetings AFP directors and other ACE staff Fellows cited Mentors, home institution colleagues, and ACE personnel as having been most helpful in career advancement. Mentors, in particular, were judged "extremely" or "very" helpful. This is consistent with the Mentor's data: in response to the question of how active they were in advancing their Fellow's career, 48 percent said "very" or "extremely" and 35 percent said "somewhat." Fellows judged other Fellows from their own class and from other classes and people met at seminars to be the least helpful, with about 60 percent of Fellows judging each group to be "not very" or "not at all" important in career development. Regardless of their position achieved, sex, or race, Fellows almost unanimously believe that the AFP will prove to be very or extremely important to career advancement. Only 2 percent of each racial or ethnic group, for example, believe that the AFP will not assist in career advancement. Similarly, when asked whether it would have been possible to acquire the same understanding of issues and to develop relevant skills in some other way, 83 percent answered, "No, not as effectively or efficiently." This belief has solidified over the life of the program with 79 percent, 82 percent, and 85 percent answering "no" in the 1965-70, 1971-76, and 1977-82 cohorts, respectively. Thus, Fellows seem to have great faith that the AFP will lead to the reaping of personal career benefits. But the perceived benefits of the program go beyond personal ones. For, when asked if the AFP's investment of resources is defensible in these economic times, 67 percent said "yes" and less than 1 percent said "no" to this question, with the remainder qualifying their "yes" responses in a minor way. Fellows at all levels of position achieved, from presidents to department heads, agreed on the answer to this question. When asked specifically who benefited from the AFP, 54 percent said "the individual Fellow" and 45 36 Journal of Higher Education percent said "both the sponsoring institution and the Fellow," a result consistent from 1965-66 through 1982-83. Mentors took a somewhat, though not extremely, different view in both these areas, with 66 percent saying "the individual Fellows benefit most" and 34 percent saying "there is equal benefit to the Fellows and to the sponsoring institution. " Mentors also strongly supported the investment potential ofthe AFP. However, 55 percent thought the investment was defensible for all institutions, whereas the remaining 45 percent qualified a "yes" response in some minor way. This series of questions highlights the issue of the costs and benefits from professional development programs. Most formal programs focus on the development of the individual, with the underlying assumption that institutions ultimately benefit from the increased skills and knowledge acquired by the individual. The question of who benefits has been a particularly important one for the Fellows Program for two reasons. First, the investment in the individual is so substantial: institutions must support the Fellow for a year at full salary while he or she is interning on another campus and contributing to its administrative functioning rather than to the home campus. The second issue turns on the question of what happens to the Fellow after the fellowship year. Fellows are expected to return to their sponsoring institutions for at least a year, but nominators make no commitment to providing an administrative position after the Fellowship. If opportunities do not open up on the Fellow's nominating campus after his or her return, that individual will eventually have to go elsewhere to find a position for which he or she has prepared. Some Fellows, eager to put their Fellowships to use and to move along in their careers, find themselves frustrated by the lack of opportunities on their campuses. It is important to note that after the fellowship most Fellows assume their first new administrative position on their nominating campuses: data gathered in 1985 [1, p. 34] showed that 64 percent of the Fellows who assumed new administrative positions in the 1978-82 classes did so at their sponsoring institutions, including 50 percent of the presidents, 53 percent of the vice presidents, and 61 percent of the deans. The prospect of Fellows' unmet expectations is also a deterrent to nominators. Some presidents and senior administrators report that they will not nominate individuals to the program because they know that they cannot provide opportunities for career advancement at their institutions, and Fellows would have to face a frustrating return to the institution or leave to pursue a career in administration. Others are less concerned with the short-term prospects for the Fellow and the institu- Leadership Development 37 tion and see the program both as a reward for excellent performance and as an investment in the future of these able individuals as well as in the future of all of higher education. They can envision the long-term benefits and the possibility that their institution might profit from the experience and training of others who have been through the program. Training Outcomes In examining the AFP it is of particular interest to examine the Fellows' assessment of their learning - what administrative skills were enhanced and how helpful were the various components of the fellowship. To assess the latter, Fellows were asked to rate the degree of helpfulness to them of the four major features of their Fellowship: the on-eampus internship, the three one-week seminars, reading, and regional seminars (the last arranged by Fellows themselves on the basis of location, interests of the members of their class, and so on). Table 5 contains the results. TABLE 5 Fellows' Ratings of Major AFP Components Program Component Degree of Helpfulness Internship Week-Long Seminars Regional Seminars Readings Extremely Very Somwhat Not Very(Not at All Not Applicable 252(43% 208(35% 82(14% 34(06% 11(02% 221(38% 251(43% 91( 15% 11(02% 11(02% 86( 15% 179(31% 131(23% 44(08% 135(23% 139(24% 188(32% 205(35% 48(08% 5/01% 587/100% 585/100% 575/100% 585/100% Total It is clear that an overwhelming majority of the Fellows view the internship and the week-long seminars as the most helpful components of the AFP; 78 percent of the respondents indicated that the internship was "extremely" or "very" helpful and 81 percent chose these options for the seminars, whereas only 6 percent and 2 percent had a negative assessment of these activities. These results are consistent across the three six-year periods as well. Thus, the major components of the AFP are highly regarded and consistently so. Concerning the regional seminars and the reading done over the course of the AFP, the extent of helpfulness of these activities, though still judged quite favorably, was not rated as helpful as the internship and seminar experiences. For example, 46 percent and 56 percent of 38 Journal of Higher Education Fellows judged the regional seminars and reading (respectively) to be extremely or very helpful, with 23 percent and 35 percent indicating they were "somewhat" helpful. It is interesting to note that almost one quarter, 23 percent, chose "not applicable" in their response to this question for the regional seminars. This choice can be explained by the fact that in earlier years the regional seminars were a far less important program feature and were not so central to the AFP experience as they are now. The basic design of the Fellows Program has changed little over the life of the program. It combines a variety of learning approaches working with Mentors who guide the Fellows in learning about multiple aspects of institutional administration, three seminars on higher education administration, reading, and writing. Certainly, the times have changed dramatically in twenty years, and the requirements of leadership and definitions of leadership have changed as well. For example, the curriculum of the seminars has changed to reflect the increased technical complexity of higher education administration: for the last several years it has devoted substantial attention to management issues through case studies, simulations, and computer exercises. In spite of the changing face of higher education and expectations of leaders, the goals of the program have endured - to identify new leaders and to prepare them for significant administrative responsibility. In addition, the overall learning outcomes are relatively unchanged. Fellows develop a greater understanding of the complexity of institutional administration as well as a broader appreciation of the total higher education enterprise. Fellows report that although the specifics fade away, the program's overriding value is the opportunity to develop an integrated understanding of higher education. Specific Learning Outcomes Given the generally high regard for the various components of the AFP, Fellows were asked to identify how much they learned about the thirteen specific areas listed in table 6. This table makes it clear that Fellows think they learned "quite a bit" or a "great deal" about most of the areas specified. Indeed, the percentages responding "little" or "none" are quite small in all areas with three notable exceptions: Fellows reported not to have learned much about enrollment planning/ marketing/ retention, obtaining government grants, or fund raising. Only 23 percent, 9 percent and 14 percent said they learned quite a bit or a great deal in these three areas. Indeed, 42 percent, 66 percent and 61 percent said they learned little or nothing at all in these areas. TABLE 6: Fellows' Assessment of Learning Outcomes LearningAccomplished A Great Deal A Moderate Amount Quite a Bit None Little Total No. Resp. to Item N/A Content Areas No. %' No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % A. Board governance and its relationship to internal mgt. and adm. B. Top level adm. decisionmaking patterns and leadership styles C. Institutional long-range planning D. Budgeting & financial mgt. E. Faculty governance, evaluation and professional development F. Enrollment planning! marketing! retention G. Obtaining gov't grants H. Fund raising: obtaining private gifts I. Personnel issues J. Understanding of other campuses, types of insts. K. History of higher ed. issues in American Society L. Legal and ethical issues M. Higher ed. issues at federal and! or state levels 125 21 191 33 170 29 80 14 15 3.0 4 1.0 585 277 48 228 39 71 12 8 I 2 0.3 I 0.2 587 108 18 163 28 222 38 74 13 19 3.0 0 0.0 586 97 108 17 18 168 208 29 35 206 189 35 32 101 72 17 12 13 8 2.0 1.0 0 2 0.0 0.3 585 587 40 7 95 16 198 34 199 34 49 8.0 3 0.5 584 16 18 3 3 37 64 6 II 135 143 23 25 257 238 44 41 130 116 22.0 20.0 12 5 2.0 0.9 587 584 83 188 14 32 203 220 35 38 199 123 34 21 78 46 13 8 15 8 3.0 1.0 3 2 0.5 0.3 581 587 85 15 131 22 220 38 115 20 29 5.0 4 0.7 584 57 115 10 20 187 218 32 37 229 180 39 31 100 65 17 II 12 8 2.0 1.0 2 I 0.3 0.2 587 587 'Percentages may not alwayssum to 100% due to rounding errors. 40 Journal of Higher Education It is interesting to note that there were no major differences across the three six-year cohorts in the assessment oflearning outcomes. Fellows report having learned a great deal about top-level decision making, education issues, various types of institutions and so on. The same can be said about "administrative skill" development. Table 7 shows that the Fellows believe the program was very or extremely helpful in enhancing the development of a wide variety of administrative skills. For example, 65 percent of Fellows thought the AFP was very or extremely helpful in developing the ability to make administrative decisions. Indeed, in the domain of administrative skill development, the data in table 7 strongly reinforce the previously noted belief by a large majority of Fellows that the AFP is the most efficient and effective way to develop competence and understanding relevant to administration. Conclusion Given the major findings of this evaluation, it is reasonable to conclude that the Fellows Program has provided a mechanism for higher education to identify and train promising individuals for leadership positions. It has required a high level of institutional support as well as a commitment to the idea that an investment in the development of a cadre of well prepared administrators is worthwhile both for the individuals and for the institutions they will serve. Although the program has been modified during its history and has been subject to the vicissitudes of institutions' ability to support this costly and intensive form of leadership development, it appears to be filling a need in higher education. The precise measurement of the success or outcomes of a program such as the Fellows Program is difficult at best, but the various program indicators show that the AFP is succeeding in realizing its goals of training people in administration and in placing its graduates in influential administrative positions. Though the program must address important issues, such as closing some of the gaps in its curriculum and increasing the participation rates of several minority groups, the near-universal support of and belief in the AFP by Fellows and Mentors augurs well for its continued success and influence. References 1. The ACE Fellows Program: The First Twenty Years. Washington, D.C.: Ameri- can Council on Education, 1985. 2. The Academic Administration Internship Program: The First Four Years. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969. TABLE 7 Fellows' Ratings of Degree of Helpfulness of AFP in Administrative Skill Development Degree of Helpfulness Extremely Very Somewhat Not Very Not at All Total No. Resp. to Item N/A Skill No. %' No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % A. Identifying kinds of data needed for adm. decision-making analysis B. Researching, analyzing and writing adm. reports C. Managing adm. projects D. Preparing and recommending management actions E. Making administrative decisions F. Developing leadership skills with subordinates G. Improving collaborative skills with adm. peers H. Enhancing self-confidence in adm. abilities 119 20 266 45 167 28 29 5 5 0.9 I 0.2 587 68 12 177 30 254 43 71 12 13 2.0 3 0.5 586 79 109 14 19 227 234 39 40 197 189 34 32 69 42 12 7 8 8 1.0 1.0 3 3 0.5 0.5 583 585 139 24 239 41 149 26 39 7 9 2.0 4 0.7 579 100 17 190 32 205 35 64 II 22 4.0 6 1.0 587 147 25 252 43 149 25 32 6 4 0.7 2 0.3 586 225 38 247 42 89 15 18 3 5 0.8 2 0.3 586 'Percentages may not always sum to 100%due to rounding errors. 42 Journal of Higher Education 3. Astin, A. W. "Research Findings on the Academic Administration Internship Program." Educational Record, 47 (Spring 1966), 173-84. 4. Creager, J. A. "Goals and Achievements of the ACE Internship Program in Academic Administration." ACE Research Reports, Vol. 6, No.3, 1971. 5. Dobbins, C. G., and T. M. Stauffer "Academic Administrators - Born or Made?" Educational Record, 53 (Fall 1972), 293-99. 6. Green, M. F. "Women and Minority ACE Fellows in the Ascent Toward Administrative Posts." Educational Record, 65 (Summer 1984),46-49. 7. Green, M. F., and T. Kellogg "Careers in Academe: Confirming the Conventional Wisdom?" Educational Record, 63 (Spring 1982), 40-43. 8. Office of Leadership Development in Higher Education Summary Reports, 1974-77. 9. Stauffer, T. M. "Assessment of Outcomes from the Academic Administration Internship Program: 1965-75. " Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, June 1975. STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685) Publication: Journal of Higher Education Publication Number: 00221546 Filing Date: 9/26/88 Frequency of Issue: Bimonthly No. of Issues Published Annually: 6 Annual Subscription Price: $30.00 Office of Publication: 1070 Carmack Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1002 General Business Office: (same as above) Publisher: Ohio State University Press, 1070 Carmack Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1002 Editor: Robert J. Silverman, OSU Press, 1070 Carmack Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1002 Managing Editor: Margaret Starbuck, OSU Press, 1070 Carmack Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1002 Owner: Ohio State University Press, 1070 Carmack Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1002 Extent & Nature of Circulation Total No. Copies (Net Press Run) Sales Through Dealers, etc. Mail Subscription Total Paid Circulation Free Distribution Total Distribution Copies Not Distributed Return from News Agents Total Aver_Ie No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding Actual No. Copies of Single Issue Published 4703 4578 -04117 4117 170 4287 416 -04703 -04282 4282 170 4452 126 -04578 I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. Margaret Starbuck, Journals Manager