Market-responsive college leaders are challenged to navigate external relationships with business and industry, government officials, and community leaders, as well as the resulting pressures of multiple missions of the comprehensive community college. The leaders are faced with three predominant issues involving the market-responsive college and its relationship to the overall comprehensive college. These issues include: (a) its relationship to the transfer role, (b) difficulty of defining and measuring its success, and (c) its placement within the organization. Bolman and Deal’s (2013) leadership frames provide a model to understand how framing by market-responsive college leaders influences their organizations. A qualitative case study research method was used to explore how organizational frames used by market-responsive college leaders affect the market-responsive organization. The participants were five market-responsive college leaders from comprehensive community colleges in Mississippi. The findings suggest that market-responsive leaders, guided by their framework, affected their market-responsive college through reorganization, setting the tone of the relationship with academic transfer division, and establishing division priorities through the selection and recognition of measures for success. They used the structural frame to change the college structure to fit the task and environment, the political frame to set the agenda and create a power base, and the symbolic frame to create faith in the market-responsive college. This study provides aspiring and existing leaders of market-responsive colleges with possible lenses to view commonly experienced issues and to gain insight into the benefits of reframing and multiraming.

Welcome to the second edition of In Touch – a quarterly newsletter highlighting the latest news and developments at TUT.

Over the course of American history, the vice presidency has evolved into a meaningful and influential part of the executive branch, and running mates have become an important part of presidential elections. But scholars, pundits, and political professionals continue to discuss and evaluate vice presidential selection in an outdated framework that now borders on superstition. Now that presidential nominees have sole authority to choose their running mates and the resources to take care in the process, voters demand that they do so. The modern presidential nominee should undertake a serious and methodical research and decision-making process, and should choose a running mate who 1) demonstrates unassailable competence, and 2) bolsters the ticket – not balances it – by extending presidential nominee’s narrative into uncovered territory.

Over the last two decades, several studies have confirmed that there is a leadership crisis among the nation's community colleges. In response to this leadership crisis, the American Association of Community Colleges [AACC] commissioned the development of a leadership competency framework consisting of six leadership competency areas deemed "either `very' or `extremely' essential to the effective performance of community college leaders." Since the release of this framework, limited research has been conducted on the importance of and the preparation in the identified competencies. The majority of research that has been conducted has focused on the position of president, even though there are several leadership positions within community colleges that are facing a leadership crisis. One such position is that of academic affairs officer. This study had two purposes. The first was to extend the research that has been conducted on the AACC leadership competencies by examining how community college academic affairs officers perceived the importance of and their own level of professional preparation in the identified competencies. The second was to examine the leadership development experiences that academic affairs officers identified as the most beneficial to their professional development as academic affairs officers. This study was a quantitative, descriptive, correlational design and used a questionnaire to collect data. The population for this study was academic affairs officers at public community colleges in the United States. The academic affairs officers that were included in the population were identified from the membership directory of the AACC. The survey instrument used for this study was based on the AACC leadership competency framework, as modified by Duree, which included 45 leadership competencies summarized into six leadership competency areas: organizational strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration, community college advocacy, and professionalism. Using two four-point scales, academic affairs officers (n=102) were asked to rate the importance of and their own level of professional preparation in the identified competencies. The survey instrument also asked academic affairs officers to rank the top five leadership development experiences that they feel have been the most beneficial to their professional development as academic affairs officers. In general, academic affairs officers believe that the AACC leadership competency areas are important for effective leadership in leading academic affairs. The most important leadership competency area was communication, followed by organizational strategy, community college advocacy, collaboration, professionalism, and resource management. In addition, academic affairs officers perceive that they are moderately or very well-prepared to perform many but not all of the identified competencies. For those identified competencies that academic affairs officers did not feel as prepared to perform, several were rated as important for effective leadership. Academic affairs officers ranked progressive job responsibilities as the leadership development experience felt to be the most beneficial to their professional development as academic affairs officers. Academic affairs officers then ranked challenging job assignments; participation in institutional task forces, committees, and commissions; and networking as the second, third, and fourth most beneficial leadership development experiences, respectively. The fifth most beneficial leadership development experience was networking, followed by attendance at conferences and specialized workshops. Based upon frequency totals, university-based degree programs and mentoring (role as mentee, not mentor) were also considered beneficial leadership development experiences. The significance of this study is that it provides practical, relevant, and timely information for both current practicing academic affairs officers and those who aspire to lead public community colleges in the position of academic affairs officer. The results of this study have several implications for practice. These implications include: to inform those persons seeking academic affairs officer positions of the relative importance of the AACC leadership competencies and the leadership development experiences deemed to be the most beneficial by a sample of incumbents; to inform leaders of higher education and professional development programs of the leadership competencies that should perhaps be included in the curricula of their programs; and to provide resources to be used by search committees in formulating desired qualifications and, later, in interviewing candidates for the position of academic affairs officer.

The primary purpose of this investigation was to identify and describe the current role of the executive vice president in higher education. The subpurposes of the study were to determine (1) the duties of the executive vice president, (2) the decision-making responsibilities associated with the position, (3) the degree of agreement between presidents, executive vice presidents, and written documents regarding the duties of the office, and (4) the extent of numerical increase or decrease of the position. An analysis of the findings led to the following conclusions that (1) there is close agreement between presidents and executive vice presidents regarding the duties and requirements of the position of executive vice president; (2) there is little agreement between presidents of differing types and sizes of institutions and between vice presidents of such differing institutions; (3) a majority of institutions have written job descriptions for the position but few of these documents actually describe the position with detail; (4) this study also generated a composite job description; and (5) finally, demonstrates that the position of executive vice president has grown at a significant rate over the past decade.

No description available.

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.

The ongoing disregard for the American vice presidency, and for those who would and do hold the office, in conjunction with the scarcity of academic research devoted specifically to the development of the institution, warrants the following study. Indeed, this study is relatively novel to the existent body of political science research which ventures to evaluate the vice presidency. Generally, research and publications on the vice presidency have tended to focus on variables such as ticket-balancing and home-state advantage; critiques of individual vice presidents; and more recently, specific policy spheres where modern vice presidents have been involved. In contrast, this project is devoted exclusively to isolating the institutional markers that have increased the broad utility of the position of vice president of the United States and, in the process, have augmented the development of the vice-presidential institution. These institutional markers include augmentation by precedent, statute, and constitutional amendment; increases in the resources made available to the institution; the addition of institutional identifiers; and the gradual accumulation of policy portfolios and responsibilities assigned to vice presidents. Underscoring each of the preceding institutional markers has been the vital role specific presidents have played in facilitating the development of the vice-presidential institution; indeed, the form and the substance of the vice presidency today is almost entirely the product of presidential initiative. In total, this study represents an interpretive synthesis of the historical record of the American vice presidency and how that record reflects the development of the institution. In the end, salient institutional markers have led to the development of a modern, utilitarian institution, one that is now fully integrated into the executive government. Of equal import, the standing of the vice presidency today, legitimizes the individual serving in the office, and furthers the influence of the vice president in the executive government. And, in telling the story of the development of the vice presidency, it is readily apparent that a combination of anecdotal and empirical evidence support the thesis of a changed institution, closely integrated with, and dependent upon, the presidency.

The Biden-Harris administration’s discussion of climate change is analyzed during the transformative time of the administration’s first hundred days in office. The theoretical framework of the Copenhagen School of Security Studies (CS) is used to develop the coding frame to perform a qualitative content analysis of empirical material consisting of speeches and other documents of the administration. Several securitization moves have been identified and climate change has been presented as a security issue and an existential threat by the Biden- Harris administration. A wide range of referent objects are identified, which is the people and things presented to be threatened by climate change. The whole world, ecosystems, the American people and future generations are a few of the identified referent objects. International and national solutions are presented, though the solutions are not interpreted as extreme measures as discussed by the CS. Therefore, this study supports the critique of a too narrow definition of securitization by the CS.

No description available.