A comparison of institutional stakeholders' perceptions of presidential effectiveness

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to extend the research of Michael, Schwartz, and Balraj pertaining to presidential effectiveness. Faculty senate chairpersons, academic deans, senior‐level institutional officers, and student leaders were surveyed in order to ascertain whether there was a relationship between stakeholders' perceptions and whether the findings support the original study conducted by Michael et al.

Design/methodology/approach

A descriptive, survey research methodology was utilized to survey 36 institutions of higher learning in the state of Ohio. Each participant was requested to complete a two‐page survey that included questions related to indicators of presidential effectiveness, factors associated with the president's role at their respective institution, and ways of improving presidential effectiveness. Analysis of the data included a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations; Spearman rho coefficient to obtain correlations of ranked data; and an Analysis of Variance to identify differences among each independent variable.

Findings

Analysis of the data showed that participants agreed that all of the indicators of effectiveness were important. Additionally, stakeholders and trustees agree more than they disagree on the indicators of effectiveness and the role of a president.

Practical implications

The implications of this research suggest that an assessment of the president should include institutional stakeholders in the process coupled with a detailed assessment of the institution. Strong oversight by the governing board is important to ensure integrity of the process, respect for individuals and the office of the president, and support for the professional development of a president.

Originality/value

This study extended the research of Michael et al. pertaining to presidential effectiveness.

Citation

McGoey, S.P. (2007), "A comparison of institutional stakeholders' perceptions of presidential effectiveness", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 86-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710729890