This qualitative research explores how college and university presidents engage in the process of developing formal institutional vision. The inquiry identifies roles presidents play in vision development, which is often undertaken as part of strategic-planning initiatives. Two constructs of leadership and institutional vision are used to examine key variables such as vision development and the college presidency.
In-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 10 presidents representing private and public institutions that have been or are being transformed. These interviews revealed 21 findings arrayed as: 1) seven organizing modalities, 2) five presidential roles, 3) seven role-based success factors and 4) two issues concerning balancing ownership of vision between presidents and stakeholders in shared-governance environments.
Many of the presidents developed formal institutional visions narrowly and on their own, but then undertook more inclusive processes to finalize their visions, socialize them through their organizations and integrate them into strategic planning. A related finding is that, despite pressures to engage in vision development with a broad spectrum of their communities, presidents are routinely asked to provide their visions to trustees and others during job recruitment.
Other findings include confirmation that visioning is generally part of strategic-planning exercises. Presidents often think in terms of what this study labels visionary intent, identified here as the combination of formal vision, objectives and strategies. Presidents also report relying on outside experts to play roles in visioning and strategic planning. Some presidents also spoke of balancing the need to encourage creativity and ambition among those engaged in the process with a responsibility to protect their institutions against misguided or even dangerous visions.
Numerous implications for both practice and theory emerged from this research. These include how essential it is for presidents to understand the cultural, political, historical, financial and operating contexts of their institutions prior to embarking on visioning. This includes awareness of the dynamics and visioning efforts of their immediate predecessors.
The presidents ultimately chose different courses of action to develop vision, though they all shared many best practices. In theoretical terms, this reflects an interesting Contingency Leadership approach to visioning in Complexity Leadership environments marked by the considerable Shared and Servant Leadership characteristics of shared governance.
|Commitee:||Cheever, Daniel, Ebersole, John, Marquardt, Michael|
|School:||The George Washington University|
|Department:||Executive Leadership in Human Resource Development|
|School Location:||United States -- District of Columbia|
|Source:||DAI-A 75/07(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Higher Education Administration, Educational leadership|
|Keywords:||College presidency, Strategic planning in higher education, Vision, Vision development|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be