Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol14.Issue3.2000:
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
Keywords
Higher education, Leadership,
Educational administration
Abstract
Comments on the lack of literature
on trustees in higher education.
Suggests three important areas
that determine individual trustee
effectiveness: the trustee's
knowledge, the trustee's contribution to his or her institution and
the trustee's relationships.
Insights derived from this study
can be used to develop instruments that boards can use for
periodical evaluation of individual
trustee effectiveness.
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0951-354X]
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 Except for a now outdated and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 Chait et al's work, 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
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
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 selfevaluation (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
[ 107 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
effectiveness for themselves? Understanding
the indicators of effectiveness for trustees
provides two benefits. First, it enables nontrustees 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,
[ 108 ]
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
Figure 1
Conceptual framework of trustee effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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 fouryear private higher education institutions, 23
community and technical colleges, 13 fouryear 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.
[ 109 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
Public two-year
(com. and tech. institutions)
Private four-year institution
Public four-year institutions
Allegheny Wesleyan College
Ashland University
Baldwin Wallace College
Franciscan University at Steubenvile
Hiram College
Lourdes College
Mount Vernon Nazarene College
Oberlin College
Malone College
Ohio Wesleyan University
Otterbein College
Tiffin Univesity
Urbana College
Walsh University
College of Wooster
Ursuline College
Ohio Dominican College
Defiance College
Franklin University
University of Findlay
Antioch University
University of Rio Grande
University of Cincinnati
Bowling Green State University
Kent State University
Wright State University
Ohio University
University of Akron
Shwanee State University
Youngstown State University
University of Toledo
Ohio State University
Medical colleges
Cincinnati State Tech. and Com. College
Clark State Community College
Hocking Technical College
Lakeland Community College
Lorain County Community College
Muskingum Area Technical College
North Central Technical College
Sinclair Community College
Southern State Community College
Stark Technical College
Marion Technical College
Cuyahoga Community College
Jefferson Community College
Northwest State Community College
Washington State Community College
NEOUCOM
Ohio College of
Podiatric Medicine
Medical College of
Ohio at Toledo
Table II
Profile of the respondents (trustees)
Profile
Gender
Male
Female
Years spent as
trustees
At present institution
Overall
Highest degree
PhD and EdD
Master's
Bachelor's
Law degree
Medical degree
High school
Private
University
292 (77)
83 (23)
32 (80)
8 (20)
43 (74.1)
15 (25.9)
15 (93.8)
1 (6.2)
382 (78)
107 (22)
7.94
9.81
4.83
5.88
7.37
7.95
8.41
13.24
7.14
9.22
25 (8.7)
94 (32.8)
98 (34.1)
37 (12.9)
16 (5.6)
17 (5.9)
4 (10)
9 (22.5)
15 (37.5)
8 (20.5)
2 (5.1)
1 (2.6)
4 (7.1)
17 (29.8)
25 (43.9)
3 (5.3)
1 (1.8)
7 (12.3)
Note: Percentages in parentheses
[ 110 ]
Public
Com/tech
colleges
Medical colleges
Total
4 (25.1) 37 (9.27)
3 (18.8) 123
(31)
2 (12.5) 140 (35.1)
1 (6.3) 49 (12.28)
5 (31.3)
24 (6.02)
1 (6.3)
26 (6.52)
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
[ 111 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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 III
Sectoral differences in trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Knowledge of higher
education culture
Knowledge of
politics within the
trustee's
institution
Knowledge of the
differences
between
institutions of
higher education
and other
organizations
Public university
N = 45
SD
Private university
N = 295
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
3.93
0.78
3.84
0.88
3.86
0.89
4.05
0.78
3.86
0.86
0.470
0.703
3.62
1.05
3.57
1.05
3.49
0.93
3.63
0.90
3.56
1.02
0.213
0.887
3.73
0.87
3.72
0.94
3.79
0.85
3.95
0.91
3.74
0.92
0.406
0.749
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table IV
Sectoral differences in trustees' influence as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Level of influence on
the public
Level of influence
with politicians
Level of trustees'
visibility within
the institution
Level of resources
personally
contributed
Level of resources
attracted to the
institution
Public university
N = 45
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
3.64
0.91
3.47
1.02
3.92
0.73
3.16
1.21
3.55
0.99
5.061
0.002
3.80
0.88
2.46
1.21
3.72
0.90
2.79
1.47
2.82
1.28
34.583
0.000
3.11
1.17
3.16
1.10
3.28
1.00
2.84
1.50
3.16
1.11
0.822
0.482
2.49
1.01
3.58
1.03
2.27
1.09
2.42
1.07
3.21
1.18
42.957
0.000
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
[ 112 ]
Private university
N = 295
SD
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
effectiveness
Trustee's
relationship with
the president of
the institution
Trustee's
relationship with
other trustees of
their institution
Trustee's
relationship with
the students of
the institution
Trustee's
relationship with
the faculty
members in the
institution
Public university
N = 45
SD
Private university
N = 295
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
4.33
0.90
4.22
0.80
4.30
0.86
4.16
1.26
4.24
0.84
0.405
0.750
4.40
0.72
4.19
0.75
4.38
0.82
4.21
1.13
4.25
0.78
1.786
0.149
3.25
1.08
2.93
1.02
2.94
1.07
3.00
1.45
2.97
1.07
1.176
0.319
3.23
0.91
3.16
0.99
3.08
1.08
3.58
1.22
3.17
1.01
1.277
0.282
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table VI
Sectoral differences in trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Trustee's support
for the president of
their institution
Trustee's role in
developing and
concern for a longrange plan
Trustee's personal
attention to budget
details and approval
process for their
institution
Public university
N = 45
SD
Private university
N = 295
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
4.64
0.68
4.55
0.69
4.69
0.69
4.68
0.48
4.59
0.68
1.099
0.349
4.69
0.56
4.69
0.54
4.83
0.38
4.63
0.76
4.71
0.53
1.535
0.205
4.09
1.00
4.43
0.77
4.32
0.92
4.26
0.93
4.37
0.83
2.498
0.049
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 113 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
Table VII
Gender differences: trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness
Female
N = 93
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's knowledge of higher
education culture
Trustee's knowledge of the
politics within the institution
Trustee's knowledge of the
differences between
institutions of higher education
and other organizations
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
3.79
0.87
4.12
0.81
±3.254
0.001
3.49
1.02
3.86
0.98
±3.164
0.002
3.68
0.93
3.98
0.86
±2.765
0.006
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
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
Female
N = 93
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's level of influence on
the public
Trustee's level of influence
with politicians
Trustee's level of visibility in
their institution
Trustee's level of resources
personally contributed to
the institution
Trustee's level of resources
personally attracted to the
institution
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
3.48
1.00
3.82
0.92
±2.886
0.004
2.76
1.28
3.05
1.23
±1.968
0.040
3.12
1.13
3.35
1.02
±1.741
0.082
3.13
1.19
3.47
1.13
±2.460
0.014
3.52
1.10
3.95
0.95
±3.411
0.001
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 114 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
Table IX
Gender differences: trustees' relationships as indicators of effectiveness
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's relationships with the
president of the institution
Trustee's relationship with other
trustees of the institution
Trustee's relationship with the
students of the institution
Trustee's relationship with the
faculty of the institution
Female
N = 93
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
4.22
0.86
4.30
0.78
±0.785
0.433
4.22
0.79
4.35
0.70
±1.521
0.129
2.93
1.05
3.09
1.10
±1.221
0.223
3.13
1.01
3.30
0.98
±1.364
0.173
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table X
Gender differences: trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness
Female
N = 93
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's personal support for
the president of the institution
Trustee's involvement in and
concern for a long-range plan
for the institution
Trustee's personal attention to
budget details and approval
process of the institution
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
4.56
0.71
4.70
0.55
±1.777
0.046
4.70
0.51
4.74
0.57
±0.602
0.548
4.32
0.84
4.52
0.80
±2.019
0.044
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
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
[ 115 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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 longrange 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 XI
Educational differences in trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Knowledge of higher
education culture
Knowledge of politics
within the trustee's
institution
Knowledge of the
differences between
higher education
institutions and
other organizations
PhD
N = 50
SD
EdD
N = 13
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
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
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
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
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table XII
Educational differences in trustees' influence as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Level of influence on
the public
Level of influence with
politicians
Level of trustee's
visibility within the
institution
Level of resources
personally
contributed to the
institution
Level of resources
personally attracted
to the institution
PhD
N = 50
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
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
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
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
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
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
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 116 ]
EdD
N = 13
SD
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
( = 4.08) recorded the lowest mean scores on
this item.
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).
Discussion
Chait et 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
Most of the studies on trustee effectiveness
tend to focus, very much like Chait et 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, Chait et al. (1996)
observed that ``most trustees are bright and
earnest individuals . . . [But] most trustees
Table XIII
Educational differences in trustees' relationships as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Trustee's relationship
with the president
of the institution
Trustee's relationship
with other trustees
from their institution
Trustee's relationship
with the students in
the institution
Trustee's relationship
with the faculty
members in the
institution
PhD
N = 50
SD
EdD
N = 13
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
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
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
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
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
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table XIV
Educational differences in trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
PhD
N = 50
SD
Trustee's personal
support for the
president
4.59
Trustee's personal
attention and
concern for the longrange planning/plan 4.69
Trustee's personal
attention to and
involvement in
budget details and
approval process
4.02
EdD
N = 13
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
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
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
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
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 117 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
[ 118 ]
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. Chait et 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
Chait et 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. Chait et 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
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
Trust
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
Keywords
Higher education, Leadership,
Educational administration
Abstract
Comments on the lack of literature
on trustees in higher education.
Suggests three important areas
that determine individual trustee
effectiveness: the trustee's
knowledge, the trustee's contribution to his or her institution and
the trustee's relationships.
Insights derived from this study
can be used to develop instruments that boards can use for
periodical evaluation of individual
trustee effectiveness.
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0951-354X]
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 Chait et al's work, 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
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
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 selfevaluation (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
[ 107 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
effectiveness for themselves? Understanding
the indicators of effectiveness for trustees
provides two benefits. First, it enables nontrustees 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,
[ 108 ]
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
Figure 1
Conceptual framework of trustee effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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 fouryear private higher education institutions, 23
community and technical colleges, 13 fouryear 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.
[ 109 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
Public two-year
(com. and tech. institutions)
Private four-year institution
Public four-year institutions
Allegheny Wesleyan College
Ashland University
Baldwin Wallace College
Franciscan University at Steubenvile
Hiram College
Lourdes College
Mount Vernon Nazarene College
Oberlin College
Malone College
Ohio Wesleyan University
Otterbein College
Tiffin Univesity
Urbana College
Walsh University
College of Wooster
Ursuline College
Ohio Dominican College
Defiance College
Franklin University
University of Findlay
Antioch University
University of Rio Grande
University of Cincinnati
Bowling Green State University
Kent State University
Wright State University
Ohio University
University of Akron
Shwanee State University
Youngstown State University
University of Toledo
Ohio State University
Medical colleges
Cincinnati State Tech. and Com. College
Clark State Community College
Hocking Technical College
Lakeland Community College
Lorain County Community College
Muskingum Area Technical College
North Central Technical College
Sinclair Community College
Southern State Community College
Stark Technical College
Marion Technical College
Cuyahoga Community College
Jefferson Community College
Northwest State Community College
Washington State Community College
NEOUCOM
Ohio College of
Podiatric Medicine
Medical College of
Ohio at Toledo
Table II
Profile of the respondents (trustees)
Profile
Gender
Male
Female
Years spent as
trustees
At present institution
Overall
Highest degree
PhD and EdD
Master's
Bachelor's
Law degree
Medical degree
High school
Private
University
292 (77)
83 (23)
32 (80)
8 (20)
43 (74.1)
15 (25.9)
15 (93.8)
1 (6.2)
382 (78)
107 (22)
7.94
9.81
4.83
5.88
7.37
7.95
8.41
13.24
7.14
9.22
25 (8.7)
94 (32.8)
98 (34.1)
37 (12.9)
16 (5.6)
17 (5.9)
4 (10)
9 (22.5)
15 (37.5)
8 (20.5)
2 (5.1)
1 (2.6)
4 (7.1)
17 (29.8)
25 (43.9)
3 (5.3)
1 (1.8)
7 (12.3)
Note: Percentages in parentheses
[ 110 ]
Public
Com/tech
colleges
Medical colleges
Total
4 (25.1) 37 (9.27)
3 (18.8) 123
(31)
2 (12.5) 140 (35.1)
1 (6.3) 49 (12.28)
5 (31.3)
24 (6.02)
1 (6.3)
26 (6.52)
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
[ 111 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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 III
Sectoral differences in trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Knowledge of higher
education culture
Knowledge of
politics within the
trustee's
institution
Knowledge of the
differences
between
institutions of
higher education
and other
organizations
Public university
N = 45
SD
Private university
N = 295
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
3.93
0.78
3.84
0.88
3.86
0.89
4.05
0.78
3.86
0.86
0.470
0.703
3.62
1.05
3.57
1.05
3.49
0.93
3.63
0.90
3.56
1.02
0.213
0.887
3.73
0.87
3.72
0.94
3.79
0.85
3.95
0.91
3.74
0.92
0.406
0.749
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table IV
Sectoral differences in trustees' influence as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Level of influence on
the public
Level of influence
with politicians
Level of trustees'
visibility within
the institution
Level of resources
personally
contributed
Level of resources
attracted to the
institution
Public university
N = 45
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
3.64
0.91
3.47
1.02
3.92
0.73
3.16
1.21
3.55
0.99
5.061
0.002
3.80
0.88
2.46
1.21
3.72
0.90
2.79
1.47
2.82
1.28
34.583
0.000
3.11
1.17
3.16
1.10
3.28
1.00
2.84
1.50
3.16
1.11
0.822
0.482
2.49
1.01
3.58
1.03
2.27
1.09
2.42
1.07
3.21
1.18
42.957
0.000
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
[ 112 ]
Private university
N = 295
SD
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
effectiveness
Trustee's
relationship with
the president of
the institution
Trustee's
relationship with
other trustees of
their institution
Trustee's
relationship with
the students of
the institution
Trustee's
relationship with
the faculty
members in the
institution
Public university
N = 45
SD
Private university
N = 295
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
4.33
0.90
4.22
0.80
4.30
0.86
4.16
1.26
4.24
0.84
0.405
0.750
4.40
0.72
4.19
0.75
4.38
0.82
4.21
1.13
4.25
0.78
1.786
0.149
3.25
1.08
2.93
1.02
2.94
1.07
3.00
1.45
2.97
1.07
1.176
0.319
3.23
0.91
3.16
0.99
3.08
1.08
3.58
1.22
3.17
1.01
1.277
0.282
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table VI
Sectoral differences in trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Trustee's support
for the president of
their institution
Trustee's role in
developing and
concern for a longrange plan
Trustee's personal
attention to budget
details and approval
process for their
institution
Public university
N = 45
SD
Private university
N = 295
SD
Community/
technical college
N = 70
SD
Medical college
N = 19
SD
Total
N = 429
SD
4.64
0.68
4.55
0.69
4.69
0.69
4.68
0.48
4.59
0.68
1.099
0.349
4.69
0.56
4.69
0.54
4.83
0.38
4.63
0.76
4.71
0.53
1.535
0.205
4.09
1.00
4.43
0.77
4.32
0.92
4.26
0.93
4.37
0.83
2.498
0.049
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 113 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
Table VII
Gender differences: trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness
Female
N = 93
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's knowledge of higher
education culture
Trustee's knowledge of the
politics within the institution
Trustee's knowledge of the
differences between
institutions of higher education
and other organizations
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
3.79
0.87
4.12
0.81
±3.254
0.001
3.49
1.02
3.86
0.98
±3.164
0.002
3.68
0.93
3.98
0.86
±2.765
0.006
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
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
Female
N = 93
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's level of influence on
the public
Trustee's level of influence
with politicians
Trustee's level of visibility in
their institution
Trustee's level of resources
personally contributed to
the institution
Trustee's level of resources
personally attracted to the
institution
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
3.48
1.00
3.82
0.92
±2.886
0.004
2.76
1.28
3.05
1.23
±1.968
0.040
3.12
1.13
3.35
1.02
±1.741
0.082
3.13
1.19
3.47
1.13
±2.460
0.014
3.52
1.10
3.95
0.95
±3.411
0.001
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 114 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
Table IX
Gender differences: trustees' relationships as indicators of effectiveness
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's relationships with the
president of the institution
Trustee's relationship with other
trustees of the institution
Trustee's relationship with the
students of the institution
Trustee's relationship with the
faculty of the institution
Female
N = 93
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
4.22
0.86
4.30
0.78
±0.785
0.433
4.22
0.79
4.35
0.70
±1.521
0.129
2.93
1.05
3.09
1.10
±1.221
0.223
3.13
1.01
3.30
0.98
±1.364
0.173
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table X
Gender differences: trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness
Female
N = 93
Male
N = 333
Indicators of effectiveness
Trustee's personal support for
the president of the institution
Trustee's involvement in and
concern for a long-range plan
for the institution
Trustee's personal attention to
budget details and approval
process of the institution
SD
SD
T-value
*2-tail. prob.
4.56
0.71
4.70
0.55
±1.777
0.046
4.70
0.51
4.74
0.57
±0.602
0.548
4.32
0.84
4.52
0.80
±2.019
0.044
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
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
[ 115 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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 longrange 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 XI
Educational differences in trustees' knowledge as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Knowledge of higher
education culture
Knowledge of politics
within the trustee's
institution
Knowledge of the
differences between
higher education
institutions and
other organizations
PhD
N = 50
SD
EdD
N = 13
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
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
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
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
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table XII
Educational differences in trustees' influence as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Level of influence on
the public
Level of influence with
politicians
Level of trustee's
visibility within the
institution
Level of resources
personally
contributed to the
institution
Level of resources
personally attracted
to the institution
PhD
N = 50
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
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
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
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
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
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
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 116 ]
EdD
N = 13
SD
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
( = 4.08) recorded the lowest mean scores on
this item.
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).
Discussion
Chait et 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
Most of the studies on trustee effectiveness
tend to focus, very much like Chait et 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, Chait et al. (1996)
observed that ``most trustees are bright and
earnest individuals . . . [But] most trustees
Table XIII
Educational differences in trustees' relationships as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
Trustee's relationship
with the president
of the institution
Trustee's relationship
with other trustees
from their institution
Trustee's relationship
with the students in
the institution
Trustee's relationship
with the faculty
members in the
institution
PhD
N = 50
SD
EdD
N = 13
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
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
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
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
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
Others
N = 24
SD
F-ratio
*F-prob.
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
Table XIV
Educational differences in trustees' management functions as indicators of effectiveness
Indicators of
effectiveness
PhD
N = 50
SD
Trustee's personal
support for the
president
4.59
Trustee's personal
attention and
concern for the longrange planning/plan 4.69
Trustee's personal
attention to and
involvement in
budget details and
approval process
4.02
EdD
N = 13
SD
Master's
N = 126
SD
Bachelor's
N = 137
SD
Law degree
N = 46
SD
Other d.
N = 27
SD
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
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
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
Note: * significant at 0.05 alpha level
[ 117 ]
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
[ 118 ]
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. Chait et 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
Chait et 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. Chait et 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
Steve O. Michael,
Michael Schwartz and
Ludmila Cravcenco
Evaluating higher education
leadership: indicators of
trustees' effectiveness
The International Journal of
Educational Management
14/3 [2000] 107±119
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
Trust