FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN ONTARIO … · FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN ONTARIO...

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP

IN ONTARIO COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS

AND TECHNOLOGY

by

James Joseph Daku

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

© Copyright by James Joseph Daku 2014

ii

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP

IN ONTARIO COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS

AND TECHNOLOGY

James Joseph Daku, 2014

Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Department Leadership, Higher and Adult Education

University of Toronto

Abstract

Leadership and diversity are both important topics in research and are often investigated

separately. There is a long history of research in leadership, and diversity is a relatively

new area of research in comparison. Differences such as age, gender, race, ethnicity,

disability, and sexual orientation can be an advantage to some and a disadvantage to

others when considering success in school, work opportunities or income potential.

Rarely is research in leadership brought together with research in diversity, and both are

complex areas of study. This study investigates traditional and emerging

conceptualizations of leadership and differences in age, gender, race and ethnicity.

This study investigated leadership from the perspective of diverse followers, and

sought to understand the extent faculty perceptions of leadership differed based on age,

gender, race and ethnicity at two large colleges located in the Greater Toronto and

Hamilton Area. As well, this study investigated the ways in which faculty who differ

prefer to be led, and the ways in which faculty who differ wish to be included in

leadership. This study is important because research in leadership often overlooks the

impact of difference among followers. In this current economic climate, college leaders

iii

risk having disenfranchised faculty who do not support organizational goals because

leaders have not fully considered the significance of faculty diversity.

Results suggest on one hand that the extent of difference in perception is minimal,

but this does not mean the differences in perception are unimportant. As well, faculty

perceived leadership as being embodied in an individual; although, there was a strong

preference for shared leadership practice. Faculty considered their primary

leadership role as being in the classroom and minimal involvement in leadership outside

of that context.

Finally, the implications of these findings for leadership and leadership practice

are discussed. The findings presented will help to support conceptualizations o f

leadership in the colleges studied that model a shared leadership practice in order to meet

organizational goals.

iv

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the following people:

My committee Dr. Angela Hildyard who pushed me to do my best, Dr. Katharine

Janzen who helped me through many edits, Dr. Stephan Anderson for his

detailed feedback.

To many friends and colleagues in particular Dr. Safdar Muhammad, Professor

Stoney Kudel, Dr. Adrian Bond, and Dr. Elizabeth Speers who provided encouragement

and support in more ways than I can mention.

I cannot begin to express how deeply grateful I am to my dear friends Dr. Julie

Dixon and Dr. John Hart. Julie would never let me give up, and John who was always

there whenever I needed him.

My sons Michael, Joseph and Alexander never bothered Dad when he was busy,

and as they have started their own academic journeys I am immensely proud.

To my wife Angela, my best friend and mentor, your sacrifice was the greatest.

You did not give up on me, and would not let me give up when I felt most discouraged.

This would never have been possible with you.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................iv Chapter One Introduction and Purpose of the Study ...........................................................1

Background of the study ......................................................................................................2 Purpose of the study .............................................................................................................5 Research Questions ..............................................................................................................8

Context of the Study ............................................................................................................8 Overview of the Study .........................................................................................................9

Researcher’s Interest ..........................................................................................................10 The College System ...........................................................................................................11 The Case for Leadership in the College System ................................................................14

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................21 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................22

Chapter Two Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework .................................24

Leadership .....................................................................................................................25

Leadership and power.................................................................................................25 Theories of Leadership in Education.............................................................................27

Transactional and transformational leadership ...........................................................29 Distributed leadership.................................................................................................31 Situational leadership .................................................................................................32

Leading leaders...........................................................................................................33 Servant leadership ......................................................................................................35

Inclusive leadership ....................................................................................................37 Democratic leadership ................................................................................................38

Leadership and Management.........................................................................................40

Organizational Structure and Accountability ................................................................41 Human Resource Diversity............................................................................................44

History ...........................................................................................................................44 Diversity in Canada .......................................................................................................47 Diversity and Organizations ..........................................................................................48

Diversity Management ..................................................................................................49 Capabilities Approach ...................................................................................................50

Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................52 Chapter Summary ..........................................................................................................54

Chapter Three Research Design and Methodology ...........................................................56 Research questions .....................................................................................................56

Methodology..................................................................................................................57 Site selection...............................................................................................................60

Data Collection and Recording .....................................................................................60

Developmental Process of the Research Instruments ...................................................62 Survey questionnaire .................................................................................................67

v

Interview questions and structure ...............................................................................68 Ethical considerations.................................................................................................69

Data Analysis.................................................................................................................71 Analysis of quantitative data ......................................................................................72

Analysis of qualitative data ........................................................................................76 Limitations.....................................................................................................................77 Chapter Summary ..........................................................................................................80

Chapter Four Analysis and Interpretation of Survey and Interview Results .....................81 Response Rate and Participant Characteristics..............................................................82

Frequency distribution of participants by racial and cultural minority group ............84

Frequency distribution of participants by age ............................................................86 Frequency distribution of participants by gender .......................................................86

Analysis of Interview Participants.................................................................................87 Differences, Preferences and Involvement in Leadership .............................................88 Contingency Analysis and Differences in Perception of Leadership ............................90

Differences in responses by race and cultural minority group ...................................91 Differences in responses by age group .......................................................................95

Differences in responses by gender ............................................................................99 Participants’ Involvement or Inclusion in Leadership .................................................107 Differences in Perception, Experiences and Leadership .............................................111

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................114

Chapter Five Discussion and Implications .....................................................................119 Overview .....................................................................................................................122 The Extent of Difference and Leadership Practice in the Study CAATs ....................125

Percentage of racial and ethnic group faculty ..........................................................127 Faculty perceptions and implications for practice ...................................................128

College organizational structure ...............................................................................130 Thinking about leadership and faculty .....................................................................133 Changing leadership practice ..................................................................................135

Critically reflective leadership and leadership philosophy .....................................137 Involving faculty in leadership ................................................................................139

Answering the Research Questions .............................................................................141 Hidden barriers and leadership .................................................................................141

Implications for Theory Development ........................................................................144

Implications for Future Research ................................................................................146 Implications for College Leaders ................................................................................148

References ........................................................................................................................150

vi

List of Tables

Table 1 Survey Statements, Leadership and Leadership Practice .....................................65

Table 2 Frequency Distribution of Participants by Racial or Cultural Minority Group ....84 Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Participants by Age ....................................................87 Table 4 Survey Statements with Strong and Weak Agreement ........................................89

Table 5 Significant Differences and Racial or Cultural Minority Group ..........................92 Table 6 Significant Differences in Response and Age ......................................................97

Table 7 Contingency Analysis, Significant Differences in Responses by Gender ..........101 Table 8 Participant Perspective and Preference for Individual Leader............................104 Table 9 Differences in Perception by Participant Gender................................................106

Table 10 Preference for Participant Involvement in Leadership by Gender....................110 Table 11 Influences on Perception of Leadership by Gender ..........................................113

Table 12 Summary of Statistically Significant Associations...........................................115

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1.Conceptual framework ........................................................................................53 Figure 2.Convergence model .............................................................................................58

Figure 3.Validating quantitative data model......................................................................59 Figure 4.Models of organizational structure ....................................................................132

viii

List of Appendices

Appendix A Introductory Email ......................................................................................162 Appendix B Survey Instrument .......................................................................................163

Appendix C Informational/Consent Letter Union Presidents ..........................................167 Appendix D Informational/Consent Letter Interview Participants ..................................173 Appendix E Interview Questions .....................................................................................179

Appendix F Faculty Comments on Leadership ...............................................................180 Appendix G Intercorrelation of Survey Statements .........................................................183

Appendix H Percent of Faculty Responses on Perceptions of Leadership ......................187 Appendix I CAAT Pension Plan Data .............................................................................190 Appendix J Copyright Clearance Center .........................................................................191

Appendix K Copyright Clearance Center ........................................................................192

1

Chapter One: Introduction and Purpose of the Study

True leaders earn their leadership through the enthusiastic support of their

followers (Henry Mintzberg).

In this chapter, a brief discussion of leadership will raise important questions

about leadership and the expectations of diverse followers. Some researchers (Burns,

1978; Kouzes & Posner 2007) endorse a universal perception of effective leadership

regardless of follower differences such as race and ethnicity, whereas other researchers

(Kezar, 2002; Lumby & Coleman, 2007) believe perceptions of leadership vary greatly

when follower differences such as race and ethnicity are considered. The purpose of this

study will be presented along with my interest in this area as well as the particular higher

educational context where leadership and follower diversity will be explored. The chapter

will conclude following a description of the significance and the scope and limitations of

the study.

This study investigates the extent that faculty perceptions of leadership and

leadership practice differ based on faculty characteristics such as age, gender, race and

ethnicity because it has been suggested that there may be a relationship between age,

gender, race and ethnicity and differing perceptions of effective leadership (Kezar, 2000,

2002; Lumby & Coleman, 2007). It is important, therefore, that perceptions and

expectations of leadership be explored through this lens, and Lumby and Coleman go on

to say that individuals are often marginalized on the basis of age, gender, race and

ethnicity. It is important to understand if there is a relationship between faculty age,

gender, race and ethnicity and preferences for leadership practice that is inclusive, where

leadership is not conceptualized as being embodied in an individual, but rather

conceptualized by collective processes where many can assume leadership roles. It is also

2

important to understand in an ever changing work environment with respect to the

variables that are the focus of this study if there is a relationship between these variables,

and preferences for leadership practice based on traditional notions of leadership where

leadership is embodied in an individual in a position of authority. In addition, because

faculty are in many ways informal leaders in college educational contexts this study

investigates the relationship between faculty age, gender, race and ethnicity, and faculty

involvement or inclusion in leadership roles.

Background of the Study

I found an abundance of literature, generated through rigorous research or

personal experience in organizations, which endeavours to explain the complexities of

leadership, and how events or experiences shape leaders who are able to mobilize and

unify people to achieve seemingly impossible goals. Through the study of leaders and

leadership practice, in a variety of contexts and sometimes extreme circumstances,

researchers across a range of fields from political science to organizational and

behavioural management theory, hope to isolate common traits, skills and practices of

successful leaders. These common traits, skills and practices can then be categorized and

taught to others who may at some point be called upon to lead. The volume of formal and

informal research and literature generated through the efforts of many people

demonstrates that the interest in leadership continues, and this interest is driven by the

needs of private and public sector organizations facing the challenges of competition and

volatile market conditions in an ever changing globalized social-economic environment.

Under such challenging conditions it is not surprising that researchers should

investigate the common skills, traits and practices of leaders who led through similar

3

conditions in the past, yet it is also important to explore the role of followers and I found

that little attention has been paid to this important group. This oversight is unfortunate

considering the important role followers occupy in any formal or informal organization

where goals and objectives have to be met. What these goals and objectives are will

depend on the organization; formal or informal, private or public, nevertheless any

evaluation or measurement of leadership must not only include if goals and objectives

were achieved but how. While the perceptions of followers have not been entirely

ignored, it is potentially problematic that much leadership research initially focused on

leadership in large successful business organizations where the success was attributed to

the leader of the organization. Researchers studied the practises of leaders in these

business organizations and constructed theories about what leadership practices might be

transferrable to other non-business organizations. It should not be overlooked that by

focusing on leaders in large business organizations, the concepts and theories of

leadership that have been developed through the study of these leaders presents only one

possible perspective on the subject, yet conceptualizations of leadership remain

dominated by this perspective (Kezar, 2000, 2002; Lumby & Coleman, 2007).

Given the sometimes iconic image of some business leaders, researchers tended to

place great importance on the influence of leadership in the achievement of

organizational goals and pay little attention to the role of followers and differences in

follower perceptions of successful leadership, except to the extent those perceptions

supported the concepts that were being studied. Different perceptions on effective

leadership and the importance of those differences were considered negligible to any

proper understanding of the role of effective leaders whose task in building consensus is

4

to manage differences in pursuit of organizational goals. Yet, it would seem that greater

importance should be placed on the factors influencing differences in follower

perceptions and how leaders respond to these differences (Kezar, 2000, 2002; Yukl,

2013, p. 343). This is especially important in light of current social and economic

conditions where members of an organization must continually do better and more than

ever before. Many leaders continue to approach leadership based on established practices

that have proved successful in the past where it was enough to “manage” differences, that

is, diversity, by only selecting those differences they think mattered, and at times

discounting potential discord or plurality of response to initiatives, and consequently

overlooking the potential negative impact on those followers whose perceptions of

effective leadership differ (Kezar, 2000, 2002; Lumby & Coleman, 2007). Unfortunately,

some leaders underestimate the possibility of alienating individuals and overestimate

their consensus building abilities which may cause them to ignore the impact alienated

individuals may have on the achievement of organizational goals. Leaders, who to this

point, have based their leadership practice on literature or research developed through

years of study of leaders in one context may fail to recognize their over reliance on an

approach to leadership that may not adequately consider differences in follower

perceptions. Therefore, leaders may unwittingly disenfranchise those whose perceptions

on effective leadership differ and thereby waste the organization’s potential to mobilize

in response to threats and opportunities (Kezar, 2000, 2002; Lumby & Coleman, 2007).

Leaders in Ontario colleges, whose leadership abilities have been developed

through experience and through formal or informal education on the subject, may not

realize the possibility that their leadership practice might also be dominated by a

5

perspective where follower differences in perceptions need only be managed. In large

complex organizations such as colleges the risk in not recognizing or underestimating

follower perceptions of leadership may limit innovation in response to student needs,

create faculty and staff turnover, create poor attitudes, skepticism, and a disrespect for the

goals of the institution and those who are in the formal leadership roles (Aguirre &

Martinez, 2006; Kezar, 2000; Lumby & Coleman, 2007).

Purpose of the Study

College leaders are familiar with diversity in student populations, and the

challenges and opportunities this diversity creates for faculty and college leadership has

been found in other educational contexts (Aguirre & Martinez, 2006). College leaders

and faculty have responded to the challenges and opportunities of student diversity by

finding ways to improve outcomes and the overall experience of attending college. Such

outcomes may include improved grades or opportunities for further post-secondary

education, and improved experience might also be the creation of an inclusive learning

environment for students so that all students feel they belong. While more still needs to

be done for students from diverse backgrounds greater attention must also be paid to the

diversity of college faculty. College leaders should begin to consider the diversity of

faculty and the impact this will have on achieving the goals of the college and

outcomes for students as suggested by research in primary and secondary schools

(Lumby & Coleman, 2007).

In primary and secondary school settings, teacher diversity and leadership is

underexplored (Lumby & Coleman, 2007), and faculty diversity is underexplored in

many post-secondary institutions in the United States (Aguirre & Martinez, 2006). The

6

same is true in Ontario Colleges. A study done by Ryan, Pollock and Antonelli (2009)

found little teacher diversity in Canada, and in this study it was difficult to obtain any

data on the diversity of college faculty in Ontario. Not only is the diversity of college

faculty not well understood, but the extent that perceptions of leadership and leadership

practice may differ is also unclear. If the extent that perceptions of leadership and

leadership practice differ is not understood or ignored, then the effectiveness of

leadership and leadership practice may be at risk or worse as in some institutions in the

United States; not a priority requiring change (Aguirre & Martinez, 2006).

Leadership that has been conceptualized as being embodied in an individual

(Bass, 2008; Burns, 1978; Yukl 2013), assumes the “sameness” of followers (Lumby &

Coleman, 2007), and has been based on research conducted on a relatively homogenous

group (House, 2004; Kezar, 2000, 2002). As already suggested, early research

conceptualized through these studies, has the potential to marginalize some groups or

individuals if leaders assume their leadership practice is equally effective with all people

(Dorfman & House, 2004b; Kezar, 2000, 2002; Lumby & Coleman, 2007). While it is

not yet clear to what extent leadership is conceptualized differently across cultures,

differences in evaluative interpretations across cultures have been shown (House &

Javidan, 2004). For instance, Dorfman, Hanges, and Brodbeck, (2004a) noted 35

culturally contingent leader attributes that for some cultures would be considered as

enhancing leadership but for other cultures would be considered as impeding leadership.

Some of the descriptors described by Dorfman et al. (2004a) identifying these attributes

were (a) anticipatory, (b) ambitious, (c) cunning, (d) evasive, (e) formal, (f) risk taking,

and (g) worldly. Kezar believes leadership is uniquely interpreted by diverse groups of

7

people; others such as Kouzes and Posner (2007) argue these interpretations are not

conclusive, and that leadership and leadership practice is fundamentally the same

everywhere regardless of culture or other differences. Lumby and Coleman (2007) and

Aguirre and Martinez (2006) suggest otherwise and that working with diverse faculty and

teachers requires other approaches to leadership practice.

Aguirre and Martinez (2006) believe leadership must become transformational,

with a larger purpose and vision for professors to follow. Aguirre and Martinez further

believe that without new approaches, the efforts being made in higher education to

emphasize the value of diversity will be nothing more than “window dressing”. Lumby

and Coleman (2007) support notions of leadership that are democratic as described by

Woods (2005) or inclusive as described by Ryan (2006). Both Woods and Ryan

conceptualize leadership that is not necessarily embodied in an individual but rather is a

process where many can assume leadership roles according to the situation and

needs at the time.

According to Lumby and Coleman (2007) leadership that is democratic or

inclusive offers faculty from all backgrounds the opportunity to contribute to the goals of

the organization, through classroom practice or other initiatives outside the classroom, in

ways not offered by traditional approaches to leadership. For Lumby and Coleman

concepts of leadership developed through the study of large hierarchical business

organizations necessitate a clear separation between leader and follower and therefore

inclusivity cannot exist as described by Ryan (2003). Some college leaders may already

be adopting inclusive leadership practices while others may not be doing so, but on what

basis are college leaders altering or not altering their leadership practice? This study

8

seeks to ascertain the extent of difference in perceptions and expectations of leadership

and how this relates to faculty characteristics such as age, gender, race and ethnicity.

Research Questions

Data were gathered using a triangulation convergence research method as

described by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) to support three areas of investigation. The

purpose of this study is to determine:

1. To what extent do the perceptions and expectations of leadership and

leadership practice differ for participating faculty who vary with respect to

age, gender, race and ethnicity, in what ways?

2. What, if any, is the relationship between participating faculty age, gender,

race and ethnicity, and his or her preference for leadership and leadership

practice that is vested in an individual versus leadership and leadership

practice that involves collective processes where many can lead?

3. In what ways do participating faculty who vary with respect to age, gender,

race and ethnicity wish to be involved or included in leadership and leadership

practice?

Context of the Study

This study was conducted at a College of Applied Arts and Technology, and at an

Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning located in the Greater Toronto and

Hamilton Area (GTHA). These two institutions were selected because of the number of

full-time faculty they employ (N=788) who are all members of the Ontario Public Service

Employees Union (OPSEU). Both colleges in the study are actively engaged in d iversity

initiatives that promote, through various means, that diversity is respected and celebrated,

9

and that the diversity of individuals and ideas are valued. In addition, the size (N=788)

and diversity of faculty populations would provide the data needed to investigate the

research questions in the study.

Overview of the Study

To explore these questions faculty at these colleges were surveyed and

interviewed from October 2010 to December 2010. Faculty were sent an online survey in

which they were asked their age, gender, and if they identified themselves as belonging to

a racial or cultural minority group. It should be noted that “racial and cultural minority

group” terminology is used in order to be consistent with the question asked on the

survey, however, “race and ethnicity” is also used.

The survey presented a series of statements about leadership and leadership

practice. Faculty were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements using a

4-point Likert scale. Data from the survey were analyzed by calculating means, standard

deviations, frequency distributions, percentages, chi-squared, standardized residuals, odds

ratios and inter-correlations of survey statements. The survey instrument also solicited

additional comments from faculty and asked them to contact the researcher if they were

willing to participate in a semi-structured interview. Ten faculty volunteered to be

interviewed; eight from one institution and two from the other. During the interviews the

volunteers were asked to further explain and expand upon their perceptions of leadership

and leadership practice, as well as their views on being included in leadership and

leadership practice. With their consent, interviews were audio recorded and the

interviews transcribed. These records were later analyzed and recurring themes identified.

10

Researcher’s Interest

In my over 15 years working at large GTHA colleges, I have been provided with

little diversity training and as a college professor my knowledge of diversity came largely

through my own study, interest and experience. Now as an Academic Chair with

responsibility for over 25 full-time and 40 part-time faculty, I remain keenly aware that to

achieve the academic and other goals of the college my leadership practice must bring

together a diverse group of faculty. I fear my leadership practice may be based on

concepts and theories of leadership developed through focused studies that do not

adequately account for follower differences in perspective.

As a college leader I am aware of the diversity initiatives where I work, and I am

unsure if my leadership practice is effective with faculty from diverse backgrounds. Are

faculty differences in perception of leadership having an impact on developing the vision

for the organization, or impacting decisions regarding curricula and programming, the

achievement of organizational goals or changes in technology that affect classroom

practice? Do faculty feel perceptions of leadership matter, and am I using leadership

practices that are effective with diverse faculty and creating inclusion?

While I believe I take into account faculty diversity and understand their

perceptions of leadership, I am unsure as to the extent leadership and leadership practice

is perceived differently by faculty from diverse backgrounds, what leadership practices

do they prefer, and in what ways do faculty wish to be included or involved in

supporting the organizational goals within a complex and changing college system. I

suspect that other college leaders might have the same concerns and, therefore, a broader

analysis is needed.

11

The College System

Legislation to establish the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology in Ontario

was introduced on May 21, 1965 by the honourable William Davis, Minister of

Education. The first colleges were opened two years later. In his statement to the

Legislature, Davis noted that the major responsibilities of colleges were to provide,

“courses of types and levels beyond, or not suited to, the secondary school setting’ and

‘to meet the needs of graduates from any secondary school program, apart

from those wishing to attend university” (Skolnik, 2002, p. 5) and he went on

to say colleges were created, “to address a plethora of society’s economic, social and

cultural issues” (Skolnik, 2002, p. 5).

Colleges were designed to deliver applied learning to individuals who, because of

their academic ability or study interests were not likely to attend university, and who

were also not ready to join the workforce or were unable to find employment in the work

force upon completion of Secondary School (Gallagher & Dennison, 1995). In addition to

addressing society’s economic and social needs, colleges also provided much needed

enrolment capacity in higher education. The universities in Ontario at that time did not

have the capacity to handle the large number of students born between 1947 and 1966

commonly known as “Baby-Boomers” (Dennison & Levin, 1988; Foot, 1996; Gallagher

& Dennison, 1995), but colleges did much more than provide the needed capacity in

higher education alluded to by William Davis. The college system in Ontario offers

students smaller class sizes with a focus on applied learning. In addition, colleges have

been “more open, nonconventional learning systems, as student and client populations

have become more diverse over the years” (Gallagher & Dennison, 1995, p. 387).

12

Colleges continue to be a unique learning system, and even though some colleges

now offer baccalaureate degree programs in applied studies they maintain their traditional

certificate and diploma programs and adapt to the needs of the communities and the

students they serve. Colleges in Ontario continue to offer programming not found in

universities, such as culinary arts or dance. Skolnick (2002) points out colleges in Ontario

differ from Community Colleges in the United States. Colleges in Ontario are not funded

and governed by the community, but are part of a province wide system under the same

legislation and collective bargaining agreements. As well, they differ from their

American counterparts in that they were not designed as transfer institutions to

university. Currently colleges and universities in Ontario do collaborate and have many

joint programs and articulation agreements, but it has often been difficult for colleges and

universities to work together due to organizational differences (Boggs & Trick, 2009).

While more opportunities are now available for students to pursue university

degree studies upon completion of college, students have often found it difficult to

transfer credits from college to university (Pitman, 1994; Vision 2000, 1990). In

recognition of this impediment, better transfer agreements and program standards have

been introduced by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. For example, in

2011 the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) in Ontario committed

funding to the creation of multi- lateral college diploma to university degree transfer

agreements that will add to the number of articulation agreements that are currently in

place (Policy Statement for Ontario’s Credit Transfer System, 2011). This type of

initiative illustrates a core feature of colleges: namely their ability to adapt and respond to

the needs of society. It is estimated that Ontario will require between 53,000 and 86,000

13

more degree spaces by 2021 to meet student demand and colleges will likely provide

much of the needed space (Colleges Ontario, 2009).

As in many educational institutions, enrolment fluctuates and colleges pay close

attention to changing demographic conditions. For example, once the “Baby-Boomer”

generation had moved through the college system the group that followed (those born

between 1967 and 1979) and otherwise known as “Generation X” was much smaller

(Foot, 1996). This demographic shift was problematic for many organizations and for

colleges the decline in enrolment was particularly alarming because funding received by

colleges is dependent upon the number of students enrolled. Although colleges are now

experiencing increasing enrolment as immigrants enter the province, and as the “Echo”

generation or “Generation Y” who were born between 1979 and the early 1990s (Foot,

1996) moves through the post-secondary system, funding remains a challenge under the

current economic conditions.

To address funding issues faced by colleges in small communities, where

enrolment tends to be low, and to force efficiency in the system, in 2000 the Province of

Ontario introduced measures to increase competition. Prior to the year 2000, colleges

could only recruit students from specific geographic areas. Now colleges can recruit

students from outside their traditional recruitment areas (Post-secondary Education

Choice and Excellence Act, 2000). Declines in student-based funding combined with the

elimination of the geographic restrictions has added to the fiercely competitive

environment for colleges as they seek to secure other sources of revenue, including

expanding educational opportunities for international students who pay tuition fees that

are often at least three times that of domestic students.

14

In addition to the elimination of the geographic boundaries, the Post-Secondary

Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000 allowed five colleges (designated as

“Institutes of Technology and Applied Learning”) to offer up to 15% of programming as

applied four-year degrees. The other colleges (designated as “Colleges of Applied Arts

and Technology”) can apply to offer up to 5% of their programming as applied degrees.

The addition of degrees to college programming has added complexity to the college

system as colleges seek to redefine their role in higher education (Clark, Moran, Skolnick

& Trick, 2009).

In a college system that is constantly changing with more educational options for

students and more diverse student and faculty populations; college leaders face new and

complex challenges. Funding remains a concern as does an overall population decline in

the 18 - 24 age group in Ontario (Clark et al., 2009). To overcome these challenges and

maintain unique learning opportunities, college leaders must be able to respond and adapt

with leadership that ensures organizational goals and student needs are met. To do this,

college leaders must have all members of the college sharing in this effort. Faculty play a

key role in this regard especially in meeting the needs of students who are expecting

more than traditional approaches to learning. College leaders must not underestimate the

significance of difference and the danger of fragmenting faculty and the potential impact

on student classroom experience, by assuming that leaders need only espouse the value of

faculty diversity without considering leadership practice.

The Case for Leadership in the College System

For colleges in the GTHA, diversity in client populations has meant a broader

variation in student age, diversity in gender, race and ethnicity as well as other

15

differences in religion or faith, sexual orientation, and physical ability similar to other

school systems (Lumby & Coleman, 2007; Ryan, 2003). While diversity has certainly

increased in the student population it has not increased to the same extent in college

faculty and staff populations. Efforts promoting the value of diversity in organizations to

increase the diversity in faculty populations are currently underway in other jurisdictions

(Jackson & Phelps, 2004) and similarly colleges always state on job postings that they

support employment equity and encourage applications from women, persons with

disabilities, racial/visible minorities and aboriginal peoples.

Kezar (2000, 2002) suggested that it is critical for leaders to more than understand

that individuals or groups have unique perceptions on leadership that may differ in

substantive ways from other groups or individuals. Leadership practice must respond to

these differences otherwise some individuals or groups will be marginalized. For

example, Begley (1999) proposed that values play an important role in explaining

different group and individual perceptions of leadership, and that the actions of leaders

are also influenced by values. Therefore, if uniformities in values show a particular

cultural bias (Lumby & Coleman, 2007), leaders may find their leadership practice

ineffective with individuals or groups who have different values.

Values represent one possible means of explaining individual or group differences

in perspective and culture. In 1980 Hofstede first described how individuals construct

mental programs that are used to predict the behaviour of others in various situations.

These mental programs were categorized as universal, collective or individual (Hofstede,

2001). Universal mental programs would be shared by all humankind, whereas the

collective level of mental programming is shared by cultures or groups. The individual

16

level of mental programming is unique and therefore no two people are exactly alike. It is

the collective level of mental programming that is important to my study because at the

collective level, there are unique behaviours and perceptions that may or may not be

shared with other cultures and therefore leadership can be perceived differently by

different cultures. College leaders work in organizations with differing organizational

cultures. West-Moynes (2012) found organizational cultures in four colleges that would

be described as competing where internal competition influences behaviour, controlling

where there is a hierarchy influencing behaviour or collaborative where team behaviour is

demonstrated. College leaders also work with diverse faculty and may face a variety of

different mental models with respect to faculty views about leadership practice.

Hofstede (2001) further defined culture as, “the collective programming of the

mind which distinguishes the member of one human group from another” (p. 9), and

measured cultural differences in four areas: power-distance, uncertainty avoidance,

individualism and masculinity. Power-distance is the relationship between subordinates

and bosses and the way decisions are made; uncertainty avoidance is the way groups cope

with uncertainty in order to minimize anxiety; individualism is found in the way people

live together and the relationship between a person and the group; and masculinity is the

tendency to endorse goals that are more popular among men. Building on the work of

Hofstede, others such as House and Javidan (2004) described culture as shared

understandings that are evident in the way things get done and the way things should be

done. In the 62-country study of leadership and organizations, House and Javidan went

beyond the work of Hofstede and measured culture by considering other factors such as:

the extent individuals or groups engage in activities such as planning or investing, gender

17

equality, assertiveness, humane orientation such as compassion and generosity, in-group

collectivism, institutional collectivism, performance orientation, power-distance and

uncertainty avoidance. The work of Hofstede (2001) and later Dorfman et al. (2004a)

indicates that culture plays an important role in leadership, and some theories of

leadership assume common values across cultures as Burns noted as early as 1978.

Foti and Miner (2003) would argue the importance of culture and leadership

cannot be overlooked and support the notion that followers construct leader prototypes or

mental programs such as those described by Hoftsede (2001) and House and Javidan

(2004). In so doing, followers will accept leaders who most closely match their prototype.

The attribution theory of leadership supports this idea (Dashborough & Ashkanasy,

2004). People form beliefs or rules to understand their own behaviour or the behaviours

of others and people often attribute these behaviours to either the person or situation.

Followers use attributions to understand the intentions and values of leaders and

followers, such as faculty, and may use attributions to decide if leader behaviours are

sincere or manipulative (Martinko, Harvey & Dashborough, 2011). The significance is

that groups of followers can share prototypes and interpret attributions differently: where

one group might see a leader as sincere, another group may believe the leader as

manipulative. How attributions are interpreted depends on many things such as follower

mood or whether or not the followers perceive leaders as being “one of them”. For

example, if leader intentions are interpreted by one group of followers as not being

supportive, these followers may perceive the leader as manipulative and self-serving

(Dashborough and Ashkanasy, 2004; Yukl, 2013).

18

Lumby and Coleman (2007) explain that where there is diversity, different leader

prototypes will be found and this may explain who will be the leaders in an organization

and who will not. For example, Phillips (2008) found that, “leadership prototypes [are]

one potential explanation for racial bias in top leadership positions. That is, top

leadership positions are most frequently occupied by White leaders as opposed to racial

minority leaders” (p. 759). The frequency of White leaders in top positions suggests a

dominant prototype among followers but it is not understood what impact, if any, this has

on followers who do not share this prototype. In diverse educational organizations

leadership practice may require change and while Lumby and Coleman are concerned

with primary and secondary schools, other researchers such as Kezar (2000), and Aguirre

and Martinez (2006) call for changes to leadership practice in institutions of higher

education. Dashborough and Ashkanasy (2004) suggest follower interpretation of leader

intentions can positively or negatively impact the leader-follower relationship. In an

organization, follower interpretations of leader intentions may be based on a leader

prototype which is reflective of a dominant and advantaged group. Followers in that

organization that are not part of the dominant group, may misinterpret leader intentions

because they have a different leader prototype, and thus may not feel motivated, may

experience more conflict, and feel less commitment and satisfaction with an organization

resulting in greater job turnover (Dashborough & Ashkanasy, 2004).

In contexts, such as business, workplace diversity is often thought to be good for

an organization, yet research shows (Curtis & Dreachslin, 2008; O'Leary & Weathington,

2006) that a diverse workforce does not necessarily increase the talent in an organization.

A diverse workforce does not necessarily improve worker motivation and, diversity has

19

often been found to be a source of interpersonal conflict, reduced workgroup

cohesiveness and less interpersonal communication. For example, Tsui, Egan and

O’Reilly (1992) suggest that increased diversity in organizations may result in a lack of

commitment and increased employee turnover because workers do not feel that they

belong. In addition, research in higher education has identified that opportunities for

growth and advancement were limited for diverse individuals; consequently, job

satisfaction suffered and severe problems with faculty retention emerged (Seifert &

Umbach, 2007). As well, various legislative measures introduced in the United States

since the 1960s, that are often referred to as “affirmative action” (Brunner, 2007), have

resulted in quotas for minority group representation organizations. Though well

intentioned, the quota requirement has contributed to workplace tension because it is

sometimes perceived that the best qualified person for a job is not necessarily the one

hired for the job (Thomas, 2006). In 1993, The Province of Ontario passed the

“Employment Equity Act, 1993”. This legislation focused on removing barriers to

employment that may disadvantage some groups or individuals, rather than introducing

the strict quotas found in the United States, but the legislation was repealed in 1995 by

the Conservative Government of Mike Harris because of an “ideological backlash against

the principles of employment equity in general and against the move to provide

substantive workplace equality for four designated groups including visible minorities”

(Bakan & Kobayashi, 2003, p 4). Nevertheless organizations in Ontario are required by

law to ensure equal opportunities for prospective and current employees, but it should not

be overlooked that equal opportunity alone does not eliminate the potential of workplace

tension as found in some American organizations.

20

In response to the tensions that may arise, business leaders, for example, have

communicated the economic and moral importance of diversity, and introduced training

programs to resolve the challenges arising from a diverse workforce (O’Leary &

Weathington, 2006). Unfortunately, the efforts have often been ineffective. In American

business organizations it has been shown that policies and training programs are at times

ineffective because leadership and leadership practice are inadequate where diverse

workforces are concerned (Curtis & Dreachslin, 2008; O'Leary & Weathington, 2006;

Thomas, 2006). College leaders have likely followed the example of their business

counterparts by promoting a respect for diversity, internally and externally, using a

combination of communication and training strategies; and like other institutions of

higher education this respect for diversity has become a core organizational value as

found in research by Aguirre and Martinez (2006).

I would hope that college leaders believe in, value, and promote diversity in

colleges; however, as indicated, some research (O’Leary & Weathington, 2006) questions

the benefit of this diversity. It appears that valuing and respecting diversity is not enough,

and college leaders could learn from the experiences of leaders in multinational

organizations. Hofstede (2001) and House and Javidan (2004) found that business leaders

in multinational organizations who accepted positions in other countries were often

unsuccessful due to cultural differences and their inability to adapt their leadership

practice. College leaders may also be unsuccessful if they fail to adapt their leadership

practice in response to diversity. Choosing to manage diversity through training, and

creating departments charged with the task of responding to issues related to diversity,

may not be enough. While these efforts seem to be a good starting point, Aguirre and

21

Martinez (2006) express concern that institutions of higher education are currently using

co-opting leadership strategies where the interests and ideology of the dominant group

are promoted so that faculty from diverse backgrounds are made to fit the organizational

culture and support the interests of the dominant group. Therefore Aguirre and Martinez

believe that institutions of higher education need to do more than manage diversity; they

must transform leadership and leadership practice. They argue that this transformation

benefits the organization, faculty and students. The organization can achieve enrolment,

retention and student success goals through improved programming and innovative

classroom practice developed by faculty who are motivated and engaged. Faculty whose

perceptions of leadership may differ, benefit because they are not marginalized and their

perceptions matter, and students benefit the most by being part of an organization where

leaders are effective in motivating faculty to improve classroom practice and student

success (Aguirre & Martinez). It is apparent that college leaders need to consider the

implications of diversity and, if needed, adopt different approaches to leadership and

leadership practice that transforms and creates an inclusive environment for faculty.

Significance of the Study

Since the passing of the Employment Equity Act in 1986 by the Government of

Canada visible minorities have yet to fully realize equality in the workplace (Bakan &

Kobayashi, 2003). In colleges, women now represent 51.3% of college faculty (Canadian

Federation of Students, 2003). Colleges also encourage applicants for faculty positions

who are racially or culturally diverse, but considering evidence from American business

organizations and institutions of higher education, there is risk for college leaders if they

do not appreciate the significance of diversity and the potential new problems and

22

challenges (Aguirre & Martinez, 2006; O’Leary & Weathington, 2006). Post-secondary

education in Ontario is facing challenges of system inefficiency, funding constraints and

changing roles of colleges and universities not seen in recent decades (Clark et al., 2009).

Faculty diversity can either be a source of innovation to overcome these challenges or an

underutilized resource, or worse, an impediment.

College leaders should not underestimate the significance of faculty diversity in

light of the demands they are about to face over the next few decades. The quality of

education and the ability of colleges to innovate and adapt is at risk if faculty who differ

are co-opted to fit dominant group interests rather than be a force for change. Faculty

who differ may fragment with some supporting the goals of the organization and others

not. It cannot be assumed that a positive work environment can be created by

implementing policies and training programs aimed at communicating the value o f

diversity without considering the relationship between leadership practice and diversity;

and any potential changes in leadership practice must first be based on understanding the

perceptions of the followers.

Chapter Summary

This chapter explored the educational context in which colleges operate and the

changes that have occurred since their inception in the late 1960s. With this context in

place, the purpose of the study was described and an overview provided. Most important

are the implications of the study for college leaders and the understanding of the extent

faculty perceptions of leadership differ in a college environment. In colleges, leadership

and leadership practice are likely based on Western norms, but there are potentially

negative outcomes for college faculty, from diverse backgrounds, who may have

23

different perceptions of leadership. It is important for college leaders to understand these

differences in perception, and work towards leadership practice that is inclusive, thus

creating an environment for all college faculty to achieve their professional goals and be

motivated to contribute to the academic goals of the organization.

The following chapter will include a review of the literature on leadership, and

diversity relevant to this study, as well as the theoretical framework for this study.

Chapter three will describe the methodology used and explain in detail the selection and

rationale of the mixed method approach that I used.

Chapter four will provide the findings of this study with respect to the research

questions and Chapter five will offer an interpretation of the findings as well as

implications that have emerged and recommendations for future research.

24

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework

Although many conceptualizations of leadership have been put forth, I have not

been able to discover a unifying theory or definition of leadership. In 1978 Burns

suggested this was to be expected given the many perspectives from which the subject

has been approached. His view is no less valid today as the field continues to generate

research activity and researchers continue to introduce new paradigms. It is not difficult

to justify this interest. As Ryan (2003) points out, we look to leaders in times of crisis or

uncertainty, and so we are forced into broader theoretical awareness, compelled to

understand those capabilities we are looking for. Although not currently experiencing a

crisis, college leaders in Ontario are facing a multitude of emergent factors, uncertainty

and demands on their leadership, and pressures which may prove decisive to the future of

post-secondary education in the province. This study attempts to provide answers to the

new challenges, foremost among them is the diversity in faculty populations.

The challenges and opportunities associated with diversity inside and outside of

organizations attract considerable study and attention in social, business and educational

contexts. These fields also entertain many different understandings of diversity. The

study is complex; like leadership, it is constantly evolving and, according to Owen

(2009), the concept of diversity is often used without careful consideration as to what it

actually means. In the context of post-secondary education Owen believes diversity

awareness takes on two common functions. First it involves valuing difference and

second it can involve making higher education inclusive and equitable in

pursuit of social justice.

25

In this chapter the conceptual framework and a review of the literature will be

presented. In this study both leadership and diversity were investigated; to combine the

literature on leadership and diversity would be difficult given the complexity of both

subject areas. Therefore in this chapter leadership and diversity will be explored

separately, although some overlap will occur. The chapter provides a brief history in both

areas and then explores the most common understandings of leadership and diversity

relevant to this study. A review of literature on leadership will be presented first,

followed by a review of the literature on diversity which will cover the development of

the concept through social movements since the earlier 1960s. The conceptual framework

will blend the relevant theories of leadership and diversity.

Leadership

Bass (2008) argues that a study of history is a study of leadership. As we study

leadership we gain insight into past events. Through an examination of the motivations,

characteristics and actions of historical figures we can gain an understanding of the

leadership phenomenon. For example, early Egyptian writings describe the expected role

of the pharaoh, and we find concepts of leadership described in ancient Greek and Roman

texts. Many leaders consider the work of Machiavellii (as cited in Bass, 2008) to be just

as relevant today as when it was first written.

Leadership and power.

Early studies into leadership focused on power and the use of power. Power itself

has undergone many conceptualizations. Burns (1978) defined power as the ability to

control; an ability which depended on both motives and resources. Yukl (2013) sees

power as the “potential influence of one person (the ‘agent’) over the attitudes and

26

behavior of one or more other people (the ‘targets’)” (p. 207). Good leaders are those

who use power with discretion; poor leaders often use power to cause harm, a distinction

Burns (1978) used to differentiate between leaders and power wielders. The discussion of

power, particularly the way it is used, says something about what followers expect of

their leaders. Yukl (2013), for instance, found that effective leaders were careful in their

use of power, using it in a way that did not create resistance or resentment. The

relationship between leaders and followers is complex and power cannot be understood

simply in one vector. In the early 20th Century investigations into leadership expanded

towards the psychological development of leaders, the charismatic nature of leadership

and the unique characteristics leaders possess. Research through the period 1950 to 1985

focused on power, authority, influence and organizational hierarchy (Kezar, 2000) and

not on leader/follower relationships (Burns, 1978). By the mid-1970s a shift had occurred

from a study of individual leaders to a study of the ways leaders were influenced by the

situation or context in which they led, and ultimately both individual traits and the

situation emerged as important when considering the success of leaders.

Throughout the large body of research on leadership, I identified a multitude of

definitions that have emerged. In 1978, Burns indicated that there were at least 130

definitions of leadership. By 2001 Owens placed the number closer to 350. Historically,

leadership has been considered a universal human phenomenon even though no central

concept of leadership is recognized as authoritative (Bass, 2008). Bass and Burns track

the study through various lenses used by different disciplines focusing on unrelated

problems and questions. Yet, by 1991 research showed that for the most part the concept

of charismatic leadership was consistent across many cultures (House & Javidan, 2004).

27

On the other hand, Bass (2008) points out that although emerging understandings about

leadership maintain validity in strong cultures, such as the United States, these

understandings can change as cultures change; and the concept of charismatic leadership

may, at some point, no longer be consistent across cultures.

There are many perceptions on leadership to consider. For example leadership has

been explained from the perspective of an individual, the environment or social

processes. Leadership has been conceptualized as a specialized role where an individual

in a position of authority or power uses their authority or power to cause others to take

action that they otherwise would not have taken (Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2013). On the other

hand, Ryan (2003), contends more broadly that “many – but not all – who use the term

would probably agree that leadership refers to the ways in which processes of influence

work between and among individuals and groups” (p. 44).

Theories of Leadership in Education

The study of leadership in education is approached in a number of ways. While

some scholars outline general approaches, others offer more descriptive practices (Ryan,

2003). The literature essentially falls into four theoretical orientations as described by

Gunter (2001). In Gunter we find theories of leadership that are critical, humanistic,

instrumental and scientific. Critical studies are concerned with social justice while

humanistic studies construct theories from leaders’ experiences. An instrumental

orientation to leadership is concerned with identifying ways leaders can improve

organizations, and scientific leadership studies are concerned with measuring the impact

of leadership in an organization.

28

The theory of leadership and leadership practice in educational contexts draws on

categorizations of leadership found in other disciplines, and researchers in educational

leadership have used these categorizations to understand the nature of leadership in an

educational environment (Leithwood & Duke, 1998; Lumby & Coleman, 2007). In

education, leadership has been categorized in a number of ways, from transactional,

transformational, moral, and postmodern to democratic, distributed and inclusive.

A review of leadership research done by Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2008)

in educational organizations, identified core leadership practices that are effective in

educational contexts such as (a) building vision and setting direction, (b) understanding

and developing people, (c) redesigning the organization, and (d) managing resources, and

there are many additional components to this list. Similarly, Yukl (2013) identified many

of the same practices that are the basis of effective leadership (p. 421):

leadership creates alignment around a shared objective and general

strategies to attain it;

leadership increases enthusiasm and excitement about the importance of

the work and about maintaining optimism and confidence;

leadership is about helping people understand and appreciate each other

and helping them to learn how to confront and resolve differences in a

constructive way;

leadership helps people to find ways to coordinate activities and perform

them more efficiently;

leadership represents the interests of the group or organization, helping to

protect its reputation, helping to establish and maintain cooperation and

trust with external stakeholders, and helping to reconcile conflicts between

internal and external parties; and

29

leadership creates a unique identity and helps to resolve issues of

membership in a way that is consistent with this identity.

These leadership practices are widely used and are likely found in institutions of higher

education as well. Yet, it is assumed that these practices will be effective with all teachers

or faculty regardless of difference. Aguirre and Martinez (2006) take a stronger position

and believe the best way to lead diverse faculty is through transformational leadership.

This is an attractive approach because transformational leaders are typically

charismatic, inspirational and heroic figures to their followers in contrast to the

traditional transactional approaches that tend to dominate leadership in

higher education. (Kezar & Eckel, 2008).

Transactional and transformational leadership.

Burns (1978) first formulated his theories of transactional and transformational

leadership in political contexts. Transactional leadership requires some sort of exchange

of interests between leaders and followers which limits the efforts of followers to the

transaction (Salacuse, 2006), and nothing more is done than what was agreed to. It is this

type of leadership that is often found in higher education due to organizational structure s

that are based on shared governance (Kezar & Eckel, 2008). On the other hand,

transformational leadership causes followers to act beyond self- interest and to work for a

greater good. In 1985, Bass further refined the concepts of transactional and

transformational leadership and proposed that transformational leadership is an

augmentation of transactional leadership (Bass, 2008). In Bass’s view, even the most

transformational leader uses transactional leadership. While both of these theories of

leadership have been influential in the understanding of leadership, transformational

30

leadership has been particularly so, because transformational leadership involves a

change in the attitudes and beliefs of the followers and the concept of transformational

leaders as charismatic holds wide appeal. It is the type of leadership that is thought of

when studying individuals such as Ghandi or in an educational context - Paolo Freire.

When studying the leadership of individuals such as Ghandi or a Freire;

leadership is embodied in this special individual because of their perceived specialness.

The result of this special status creates a clear separation between leader and follower.

Lumby and Coleman (2007) believe transformational leadership represents an older

model of leadership, yet the potential of transformational leadership cannot be

overlooked as being an important element in creating a productive school culture,

regardless of the institutional type. Transformational leadership is also seen as being

critical in addressing the increasing diversity among students and faculty in higher

education (Aguirre & Martinez). On the other hand (Ryan 2003) believes that

transformational leadership can promote wide participation in decision making, but it

falls short in promoting leadership as a collective arrangement. It is this contrast between

leadership practice, such as transactional and transformational leadership, where

leadership is embodied in an individual, as opposed to collective, collaborative, shared or

democratic approaches to leadership, which is important in this study. Aguirre and

Martinez support a transformational model of leadership while Lumby and Coleman

support collective models of leadership as the best approach to leading diverse teachers

or faculty. Both believe faculty diversity requires leadership that involves a much wider

range of involvement and redistribution of responsibility and authority, but which

approach will work best is unclear.

31

Distributed leadership.

Distributed leadership plays an important role in educational settings and there is

evidence that positive outcomes can be achieved for schools using this approach (Harris

& Spillane, 2008). Harris and Spillane point to recent studies that show improved

organizational performance and outcomes. On the other hand, the concept of distributed

leadership overlaps with concepts of shared, collaborative and participative leadership

and the term is at risk of becoming synonymous with any leadership practice that seeks to

delegate responsibility (Harris & Spillane, 2008). As well, Spillane (2006) conceptualizes

distributed leadership as more than multiple individuals taking responsibility for

leadership. For him distributed leadership is also a framework for analysis. Within this

framework are those who hold the position of leader and those who are in the position of

follower within a situation or context in which the leaders and followers interact.

Distributed leadership practice where both leaders and followers influence each

other suggests difference can play a role but it is not clear how leadership is distributed or

to what extent difference matters. Lumby and Coleman (2007) argue that the distributed

model of leadership is fundamentally founded on the notion of “sameness” and so the

importance of difference tends to be minimized. In a distributed model of leadership,

diversity and difference can potentially by expressed through leadership practice;

however, leaders influence “sameness” through common values, a common

organizational culture and a sense of team. For example, one of the main functions of

leaders in a distributed model is to build a consensus around an organization’s vision and

direction, and to eliminate any dissenting views on the vision and direction. Woods

(2005) offers a similar observation in that distributed leadership on one hand empowers

32

individuals but on the other operates within a predetermined structure which limits what

an individual can do. For example, the exchange of influence and the distribution of

power creates an appearance of everyone being included in leadership; unfortunately it

remains unclear whether or not the influence is indeed shared and if it is shared equally.

For Spillane (2006) this is a critical question and points out that distributed leadership

does not mean that leadership is distributed democratically in other words the extent

leadership is shared may be determined by the formal leader in an organization; and for

some followers distributed leadership can simply mean having involvement in the

process of leadership (Harris & Spillane, 2008). While Spillane acknowledges the role of

the situation in a distributed model of leadership he does not see distributed leadership as

being interchangeable with situational leadership which will now be discussed.

Situational leadership.

Situational leadership was originally proposed by Hersey and Blanchard in 1972

(Hersey, Blanchard, & Natemeyer, 1979; Thompson & Vecchio, 2009; Bass, 2008). In

this model, leadership is embodied in an individual, but the function is context dependent.

The leader responds and adapts to the situation. A critical component of this model is the

ability of the leader to recognize and react to the situation or adapt to the maturity of the

followers. Situational leaders have both task (direction) and relationship (support)

behaviours with respect to followers. In this model followers fall into four categories: (a)

low maturity needing to be told what to do, (b) moderate maturity requiring guidance, (c)

moderate to high maturity requiring shared decision making and support and, (e) high

maturity where little direction or support is required (Hersey et al., 1979). Situational

leadership is a popular model of leadership in management training programs and as a

33

means of follower development, but situational leadership lacks empirical support

(Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). With a focus on follower development, attributes and

maturity, it is unclear what role diversity and difference play in situational leadership.

Yet, a goal of situational leadership is follower autonomy, and this implies difference

might be important to the extent it affects follower development and the way followers

can contribute once high maturity is achieved. High maturity followers may have the

autonomy to express their diversity and difference but this is not explicitly stated in the

situational leadership model.

Situational leadership does have something to offer with respect to mature

followers, such as college faculty who, in some cases, may not require much direction or

support and indeed are informal leaders themselves. High maturity followers, such as

college faculty, might benefit from a leadership approach that would allow them to be

self-directed, but there is a risk that self-directed individuals may or may not support

broader organizational objectives and goals. In an academic environment that purports to

support academic freedom with respect to classroom practice and curriculum, discourse

on organizational objectives and goals is an important part of the organizational culture.

In the situational leadership model, leader actions are dependent

on follower “readiness”. If faculty are “ready” and able to be self-directed or self- lead,

then the role of situational leaders would be to concentrate on strengthening the

relationship with their followers.

Leading leaders.

Building relationships as described above is consistent with the work of Salacuse

(2006) who emphasizes the importance of relationships between leaders and followers

34

especially when leaders must lead other leaders. Salacuse describes the challenges of

leading people who are also leaders. Some leaders find themselves in the situation of

leading people who may be smarter, more talented, wealthier or more powerful. Under

such circumstances, “the leader” is leading without the ability or authority to control “the

followers”. College leaders may find themselves in a similar situation as college faculty

are often leaders within their academic disciplines and informal leaders within their

academic institutions. Salacuse raises the question, “how, for example, should the

president of a university persuade tenured professors, who cannot be fired o r demoted or

who have distinguished international reputations and lucrative private consulting

practices, to support new programs and teach new courses that are in the best interest of

the university?” (p. 2). The answer, he believes, involves an approach where the leader

negotiates vision and direction, integrates talented people into a team, mediates conflicts

in the team, manages the education process in the organization, develops incentives that

address individual interests and needs, provides representation outside the organization in

a way that is expected by the followers, and builds trust by demonstrating that

organizational interests, leader interests and follower interests are the same. Salacuse

views leadership as embodied in a talented individual who can do the things necessary to

lead talented followers. Though not explicitly stated, diversity does play a role in this

approach. A diverse group of talented leaders/followers requires integration, and

integration as described by Salacuse means finding common interests that will support

diverse leaders/followers in effective collaboration while maintaining difference. For a

leader to effectively lead other leaders requires more than just an understanding of

follower interests and differences. It also requires expert skill in genuinely addressing

35

those differences in a way that maintains trust and common interests. Otherwise

leaders/followers will resist integration and here great skill in mediation is often required

to settle conflicts.

The approach offered by Salacuse (2006) is both transactional and

transformational and is consistent with organizations that display collaborative culture

where there is teamwork and rewards for team performance. Participation and consensus

are important but individuals can improve and are empowered to do so in the long-term

(West-Moynes, 2012). West-Moynes found this collaborative culture in two colleges in

Ontario, although it cannot be said how common this culture is in the college system.

Nevertheless, it appears to support the approach offered by Salacuse which could be used

in higher educational contexts such as colleges where faculty share much in common

with their university counterparts. It cannot be overlooked that much of this approach

depends on the unique skills of an individual leader. While leadership with respect to

college faculty may benefit from leadership practices outlined by Salacuse, other

approaches to leadership that are democratic or inclusive. (Lumby & Coleman, 2007;

Ryan, 2006; Woods, 2005) have the advantage of avoiding the risk of placing too much

emphasis on the skill of one individual. Nonetheless, the practices suggested by Salacuse

emphasize the value of relationships and the need to understand the unique needs of other

leaders. If we consider college faculty as leaders in their own right, then Salacuse has

something to offer in this regard.

Servant leadership.

A key function of leadership is to provide a vision for an organization and to

articulate that vision to followers. In 1990 Senge challenged this notion and suggested

36

that leaders must do more than articulate the vision for an organization, the vision must

be shared by all if it is to have any meaningful impact on how an organization functions.

For this to happen the vision cannot be determined solely by the leader but must and

should involve the followers. Follower involvement in developing an organizational

vision is difficult in models where leadership is embodied in a person, and where the

leader plays a critical role in determining the vision for the organization and clarifying

the vision for followers. Greenleaf (2002) would agree in part; he believes that leaders

must clarify or articulate a goal or vision when followers are unable to do so. As with

Senge, we find in Greenleaf’s conceptualization of leadership the vision must ultimately

originate with followers; and the leader need only clarify or articulate the goal or vision

when necessary. Greenleaf further believes the leader must first have been a servant to

the followers, and he contrasts the person who is a leader first with the person who is a

servant first. As a servant, the leader can be sure that the highest priority needs of the

followers can be met. Greenleaf sees the traditional hierarchical structure of organizations

as creating a natural separation between leader and follower in much the same way as

does Ryan (2003). According to Greenleaf leaders must see themselves first as servants.

Those who are leading are first among equals. In this position leaders must continually

and simultaneously serve and demonstrate their capability to lead. A difficulty arises, of

course, if there are dominant groups among the “equal” followers who might promote

priorities that do not serve everyone. A leader will require great skill to ensure all needs

are met without one group being heard or served over others. Though not explicit,

Greenleaf implies that leadership practice, and thus leading, must no longer be in the

hands of one individual, but rather in the hands of a group of skilled individuals who all

37

have the capability to lead and any group member can assume a leading role among the

group when the group requires an individual to lead.

Inclusive leadership.

Concepts of servant leadership pave the way for models of leadership in which

leadership does not belong to an individual but is a process where many can assume

leadership roles (Foster, 1986; Ryan, 2006; Woods, 2005). Leadership that is process

focused, and not embodied in an individual, has greater potential to be inclusive because

many people can participate in leadership. The process conceptualization of leadership

leads to notions of leadership that are democratic, ethically based, and inclusive, meaning

that everyone can be fairly represented and people can substantively contribute their

ideas, views, opinions, concerns, skills, abilities, or whatever else may be necessary. In

Ryan’s model of inclusive leadership (a) everyone influences leadership practices, (b) it

is a collective process that can be maintained even though individuals or groups may

depart and, (c) the goals are always inclusive, and every outcome of activity in the

process is inclusive. According to Lumby and Coleman, (2007) leadership that

is inclusive offers educational leaders the means to act so that they work both

for and with diversity.

Ryan (2006) points out that actually practising inclusive leadership is difficult.

Creating an inclusive work environment requires a re-distribution of responsibility or

influence and this is often met with resistance by faculty, staff members, and other

stakeholders. In addition, administrators need to develop the skills necessary to

understand the diversity of the work environment in a meaningful way and many do not

understand, “the complexity of diversity” (Ryan, 2003 p. 174). At the very least,

38

administrators must begin to build strong relationships with faculty (Salacuse, 2006) and

organize in a way where administrators are first among equals (Greenleaf, 2002).

Democratic leadership.

Democratic leadership requires the understanding that democracy is more than a

process for selecting representatives in government. While there are many models of

democracy, Woods (2005) suggests that “developmental democracy” is the best

framework for understanding democratic leadership. In developmental democracy, social

justice, the common good and giving people the opportunity to develop their full

potential are the main concepts. Developmental democracy in turn provides the basis for

a model of a democratic leadership practice. Woods believes that the practice of

democratic leadership involves four rationalities: (a) ethical rationality that requires

supporting and enabling truth, (b) discursive rationality that requires being engaged in

debate and dialogue, (c) decisional rationality emphasizes the right to collectively

participate in organizational decisions and, (d) therapeutic rationality

where creating social cohesion and positive feelings through participation and shared

leadership is necessary.

It is important to note that within these four rationalities, equality is an important

value while other notions of democracy emphasize equity (Kincheloe, 1999; Portelli &

Solomon, 2001; Ryan, 2006). Equity, that is, ensuring equal treatment or outcomes, is

emphasized because there is the potential for exclusionary leadership practices if equality

or simply treating everyone the same is the basis for the relationship with followers.

Leadership that emphasizes equality overlooks or ignores the fact that the common good

may not be good for everyone, and fails to address those situations where individuals can

39

be marginalized while being treated equally. Unlike Woods (2005) whose four

rationalities are based on equality, Ryan’s approach to leadership has inclusion as a

fundamental goal of leadership practice and therefore all can participate and be equitably

represented. The approaches to leadership and leadership practice described by Lumby

and Coleman (2007), Ryan and Woods have some common elements, such as:

leadership and leadership practice are critically conscious;

leadership and leadership practice advocate for inclusion;

leadership and leadership practice include the participation of community

and institution members;

leadership and leadership practice educate, and promote learning and

dialogue;

leadership and leadership practice encourage a diversity of opinions that

are determined independently;

decision making is a collective responsibility involving teachers, students

and the community; and

leadership and leadership practice are accepting of the expertise of others.

The process conceptualization of leadership presents new challenges in creating a

team environment where many can lead (Ryan, 2006). Even though research has shown

for some time that a cooperative team environment can improve school performance

(Johnson & Johnson, 1989), the problem, according to Johnson and Johnson is that

leadership is often confused with management. In addition the relationships in process

conceptualizations of leadership are broader than in approaches suggested by Salacuse

(2006), or Greenleaf (2002).

40

Leadership and Management

According to Foster (1986) there are differences between leadership and

management. It is often difficult to separate leadership behaviours from those that

represent management, an overlap which adds to the challenge of defining leadership.

Yukl (2005, 2013) suggests that a person can be a manager without being a leader, and

that a leader does not have to be a manager, and in large organizations the roles often

need to be integrated. Mintzberg (2008) claims that people do not want to be led by

someone who cannot manage and do not want to be managed by someone who cannot

lead. The two roles are inevitably linked, and Bennis and Nanus (1985) offer a simple

perspective on the matter; managers are concerned with how things get done, whereas

leaders are concerned with what gets done.

The overlap between management and leadership has certainly added to the

difficulty in defining leadership. Foster (1986) believes the difficulty in defining

leadership has occurred because the “language of leadership has been translated into the

needs of bureaucracy” (p. 45). Foster sees a larger role for leaders that is distinctly

different from the role of managers. Leadership he says, “is and must be socially critical,

it does not reside in an individual but in the relationship between individuals, and is

oriented towards social vision and change, not simply, or only, organizational goals”

(p.46). For college administrators their roles as manager and leader are ever present, and

they must remain conscious of organizational goals while at the same time be aware of

the larger issues in society that affect the environment in which they work. This is no

easy task for college leaders because of the fiscal pressures that demand efficiency while

maintaining academic effectiveness, and the expectation that more can be done with less.

41

Organizational Structure and Accountability

Followers expect that their needs and wants to be satisfied, and leaders often face

a moral dilemma with regard to satisfying these needs and wants. The dilemma relates to

how needs and wants are satisfied, whose needs and wants are most important and what

happens if a leader fails to satisfy needs and wants or satisfies the wrong needs and

wants. Followers may hold a leader accountable and leaders may be held accountable for

both what they have done and what they have not done. Oddly, accountability receives

little explicit attention in the literature on leadership, even though some, such as Burns

(1978) and Salacuse (2006) point out the consequences of failing to deliver when

leadership is largely transactional, in other words the leader has failed to deliver on what

was agreed in order to secure follower co-operation. In the transformational leadership

approaches suggested by Aguirre and Martinez (2006) or the inclusive or democratic

leadership approaches suggested by Lumby and Coleman (2007), no mention of

accountability is made perhaps because no transactions are being made and group

consensus determines goals and objectives. While Woods (2005) mentions holding

power-holders accountable and applying sanctions if necessary, he does not explain fully

how this is done in the context of shared and democratic leadership. Nevertheless, it is

reasonable to expect leaders to be accountable for their actions or to hold others

accountable as required and failure to do so will have the effect of undermining the trust

and the credibility of a leader. Accountability is important aspect of leadership that is

often overlooked, and it must be remembered that leaders and followers will accept

accountability only if they have both the power and control to succeed in whatever goal,

objective, target or outcome is desired (Fullan, 2006).

42

Institutions of higher education are typically bureaucratic hierarchies similar to

many other business or government organizations. Bureaucratic hierarchies operate such

that work, responsibility, authority, and compensation are allocated according to one’s

position in the hierarchy. Higher level positions also have subordinates and while this is a

simplistic view, it brings forth the notion that higher positions have greater responsibility

and the authority to make decisions. Typically, praise or financial rewards for a job well-

done or a good decision comes from above in the hierarchy, as do sanctions against poor

work and bad decisions. On the other hand, praise of good leadership can also come from

lower levels in the hierarch as well as criticism. In extreme cases of discontent, leaders

may face subordinate inaction, apathy or sabotage of work processes in retaliation to poor

leadership (Yukl, 2013).

Burns noted in 1978 that organizational structure has a significant effect on what

leaders are able to do or not do and Greenleaf (2002) noted serious flaws in the practice

of single leaders in hierarchical organizational structures. Some of the flaws noted by

Greenleaf include (a) a tendency for corruption, (b) images of omniscience, (c)

indecisiveness, and (d) disruption to the organization if the leader leaves. Therefore, it is

easy to imagine what effects a hierarchical organizational structure will have on people

positioned lower in the organization. As mentioned earlier, the solution offered by

Greenleaf is a different structure and concept of leadership. He envisions a flat

organizational structure where the principal leader is considered first among equals and

must prove his/her worth in order to lead. He argues that in spite of the success of this

type of organizational structure it is rarely found. Part of the reason for its rarity is that a

hierarchical structure has a long tradition. The other reason, he believes, is that if the

43

responsibility and accountability are shared, followers may not wish to commit to the

demands of this type of arrangement.

In the flat organizational structure proposed by Greenleaf (2002) leadership is not

conceptualized as process, as in the case of inclusive or democratic leadership, and he

points out the importance of the flat organizational structure in mitigating the flaws of an

organizational hierarchy. For Greenleaf, conceptualizing leadership as process would not

be enough if the organizational structure does not change as well. Those in lower

positions might feel that they are not compensated to be leaders of the organization. They

might also feel they are not compensated to make decisions beyond those required to do

their job and they might feel they are only accountable for themselves regardless of

inclusive or democratic leadership practice. In light of this, some college faculty may

narrowly see their role as being responsible for teaching and curriculum development -

not for leadership. This does not mean that faculty who see their role in this way are

ineffective at what they do; it does, result in limiting the resources available to college

administrators if faculty do not see leadership outside of the classroom as part of their

role. While Aguirre and Martinez. (2006) are not clear on accountability in a

transformational leadership practice, neither are Ryan (2006) or Lumby and Coleman

(2007) explicit on where responsibility and accountability are located in inclusive or

democratic forms of leadership, although it might be assumed that accountability and

responsibility are shared as Greenleaf (2002) proposes.

Human Resource Diversity

Human resource diversity has an as extensive and as complex body of literature as

does the literature on leadership, and much like leadership, human resource diversity is a

44

contested concept that has different meanings to different people (Lumby & Coleman,

2007; Owen, 2009; Noon, 2007; Thomas, 2006). The complexity arises because diversity

in a broad sense is about difference but it is often also about people being marginalized

because of difference. Owen (2009) points out there are two common meanings in higher

education. Diversity can mean “diversity of difference” which simply means that

differences are valued, and institutions of higher education do a good job promoting the

value of diversity (Aguirre & Martinez, 2006). Unfortunately some institutions of higher

education tend to fall short on the second meaning, which is “diversity for equity”.

Leaders in higher education who recognize the importance of “diversity for equity” will

consider the importance of difference, and actively question what structures, beliefs,

patterns or processes will be barriers for some and advantages for others.

History.

Much of the literature on diversity comes from the United States where diversity

has become synonymous with Affirmative Action. The belief that diversity has a positive

impact on society and organizations is often used as the moral basis for creating equal

opportunities for people who in the past may have been marginalized because of their

difference; and to ensure that people can develop their capabilities, their potential and to

live a life that they value. The discourse on diversity has developed over time and the

early equal opportunity discourse did not use the word diversity at all. Equal opportunity

was the language used in the 1960s and 1970s, the thrust of which was to ensure women

and minority racial or ethnic groups were not excluded from the job market by an

organization’s hiring practices (Liff & Wajcman, 1996). Equal opportunity was measured

in organizations by the level of representation from these groups; and measuring

45

representation of women and minority racial or ethnic groups uncovered another

problem, namely that representation was not equal at all levels in organizational

hierarchies, nor did equal representation ensure equal outcomes. Women and minority

racial or ethnic groups were, and still are, under-represented in the senior levels of many

organizations in spite of equal opportunity initiatives (Carli & Eagly; 2001, Rosette,

Phillip & Leonardelli, 2008).

Often the discourse on diversity concerns issues facing women and minority

racial or ethnic groups, yet Thomas (2006) suggests that the discourse has become too

narrowly focused on race and gender. There are many groups and differences to consider

as Thomas points out, for people differ in age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, and

level of ability. There is a broad range of differences to consider but many organizations

have failed to expand the notion of “diversity” beyond race and gender.

Diversity includes a wide range of differences resulting in many groupings

beyond just those based on race, ethnicity or gender, but it is doubtful that any set of

groupings can adequately account for all differences (Lumby & Coleman, 2007).

Therefore, the notion of diversity typically includes categories such as colour, gender,

ethnicity as well as other differences such as religion, sexual orientation, physical ability

and age (Lumby & Coleman, 2007; Ryan, 2003). In addition, we cannot overlook that

some groups have historically been advantaged and others not, and Owen (2009) points

out, “the current sociohistorical context in which we find ourselves...is one that is

fundamentally structured to systemically advantage Whites and men” (p. 188). Owen

further points out that White men are often ignorant of their own position of privilege

because they are culturally normed, meaning they are a standard to which others are

46

compared. King (1991) says, “uncritical ways of thinking about racial inequity accept

certain culturally sanctioned assumptions, myths, and beliefs that justify the

social and economic advantages White people have as a result of subordinating

diverse others” (p.135).

The issues of racism and sexism that have tended to dominate the discourse on

diversity have often been studied through the lenses of Radical Feminism and Critical

Race Theory (López, 2003). While Radical Feminism and Critical Race Theory may be

considered subsets of the discourse on diversity, the issues raised by applying these

lenses in research make them important in their own right. Radical Feminism and Critical

Race Theory proponents point out that “racism has never waned in society; it has merely

been manifested in different forms” (López, 2003; p. 69), and that discrimination towards

women continues, and racism still exists (Gillborn, 2005; López, 2003). It should also be

noted that these approaches advocate for broad societal changes (Lumby & Coleman,

2007). This study is not seeking the broad societal changes advocated for in Radical

Feminism or Critical Race Theory, and is merely a first step towards understanding the

extent that age, gender, race and ethnicity relate to perception of leadership in college

organizations where leadership and leadership practice likely

show a westernized orientation as found by Lumby and Coleman (2007) in American

school jurisdictions.

Diversity in Canada.

It is difficult to determine when diversity of faculty in Ontario college settings

became an area of focus for college administrators, but the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms (1982), the Canadian Human Rights Act (1985), and the Employment

47

Equity Act (1986) have certainly made a significant difference in how organizations

operate, especially with respect to hiring practices and compensation. These legislative

actions played an important role, and these social movements are often behind significant

legislative changes. In the U.S., for example, organizations were influenced by social

movements such as the Civil Rights Movement and the Feminist Movement (Lumby &

Coleman, 2007; Thomas, 2006). In the Canadian context governments respond to social

pressures as well. For example, in the early 1970s Canadian immigration policy was

changed to a point system to assess potential immigrants as opposed to older policies that

favoured immigration from Europe. This change allowed for increased immigration from

other areas of the world like South Asia, Asia and Africa resulting in greater diversity and

by extension a diverse student population especially in large urban centres such as the

Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Although the extent of diversity among college

faculty is not readily available, studies done by Ryan, Pollock and Antonelli (2009) of

diversity in schools in Canada suggest that teacher diversity are not reflective of student

diversity. It is not clear if increased college faculty diversity is an emerging issue in

Ontario colleges, and studies in other educational contexts have shown the importance of

teacher diversity and student success (Lee, 2010).

Diversity and Organizations.

As diversity increases in society, business organizations have responded by

making a business case for diversity of personnel that often results in a cost-benefit

analysis favouring equality initiatives (Noon, 2007). Business literature discusses the

benefits of increased diversity in organizations (Curtis & Dreaschslin, 2008) and although

the business case for diversity is convincing, O'Leary and Weathington (2006) suggest

48

diversity as a potential source of conflict that sometimes outweighs the benefits in an

organization. As Noon points out, “the benefits of a multi-ethnic workforce bringing

wider perceptions and ideas for new ways of working or product development might

be offset by managers’ fears of increased ethnic/racial tension or the loss of customers”

(p. 778). In light of this, organizations must continue to promote diversity. Interestingly,

in 2004 Carol Stephenson, Dean of the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of

Western Ontario made a business case for appointing more women to boards

(Stephenson, 2004). However, one has to wonder why a business case for women is

needed at all? Why do organizations need to continually promote diversity? The reason a

business case is needed is that dominant groups will only lessen their determination to

maintain influence over another groups if there is some super-ordinate goal that requires

cooperation (Lumby & Morrison, 2006; Thompson, 2000). The apparent concession does

not mean that the dominant group has necessarily given up power, influence or position.

The literature on diversity shows that racial and ethnic groups continue to be

marginalized by dominant groups in organizations. Inadequate leadership and leadership

practices, in spite of efforts to the contrary (Thompson), continue to have a negative

impact on some groups, and it is much easier for organizations to promote the value of

diversity than to deliver on equity (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Therefore many

organizations will choose, perhaps unwittingly, to manage diversity rather than take

substantive steps to promote equity. The efforts to promote the value of diversity in

higher education, as well as other organizations, can be found in whole departments,

headed by diversity officers (Owen, 2009) dedicated to promoting the value of diversity

while minimizing potential conflict through diversity management.

49

Diversity Management.

Diversity management initiatives in organizations are intended to manage the

tensions and stresses resulting from a diverse workforce. Diversity management assumes

that tensions and stresses are a natural outcome of human interaction especially where

there are differences; and these tensions and stresses do not always result in conflict

(Thomas, 2006). Organizational management of diversity is an internally driven effort

unlike earlier equal opportunity initiatives that were externally driven. Although dive rsity

management evolved out of the need for organizations to ensure equality of opportunity,

the fact that only those differences that have the greatest impact on the successful

achievement of organizational goals are managed, means that deep rooted tensions may

remain unaddressed. Decisions are made with respect to what differences matter and

which differences can be ignored and, therefore, some believe diversity management

initiatives have the effect of depoliticizing diversity because some differences a re not

addressed. Others would argue the issues associated with diversity are always political.

Also problematic is the fact that managers, not groups, in organizations are responsible

for managing diversity. While diversity management does not assume a deficit model,

many managers still interpret differences as deficiencies (Noon, 2007). Even though

diversity management is about creating inclusion at an individual level and celebrating

individual differences, the assumption that all differences are equal overlooks possible

groups differences affecting women, ethnic minorities or those who are disabled

(Maxwell, Blair, & McDougall, 2001).

50

Capabilities Approach.

Human resource diversity in organizations presents challenges for organizational

leaders, and diversity management is a good first step in promoting diversity as a core

organizational value, but falls short in acknowledging that some groups of people

continue to be privileged. Although there is more to be done, all individuals should have

an equal opportunity for higher positions in an organization, and those who promote

diversity, equal opportunities and value the dignity and freedom of individuals must be

careful not to overlook the fact that some groups, such as women, have fewer

opportunities regardless of equal opportunity initiatives (Nussbaum, 2008). Equal

opportunities are of little value if individuals do not have the capability to choose freely.

Creating equal opportunities in organizations must lead to real options for individuals and

therefore the capabilities approach focuses on dignity and substantive freedoms, not just

the importance of valuing freedoms (Vizard, Fukuda-Parr, & Elson, 2011). Through the

capabilities approach to human rights a broad range of issues can be addressed. For

example, issues of economic and social rights, adequate standards of living, and rights to

health and freedom from ill treatment are all addressed under a capabilities approach. The

capabilities approach also promotes the concept of obligations, such that there is an

obligation for society to substantively provide for this broad range of rights. In addition,

the capabilities approach requires that society examine what factors have an influence on

capabilities. What factors influence the promotion and protection of a broad range of

rights, and the ability of society to deliver on a broad range of rights?

According to Nussbaum (1999) individuals must have the capabilities to pursue

their potential, whether in a work environment or other endeavour, such that

51

opportunities are not limited and individuals have the freedom to act as they

wish. Individuals must have the capabilities to live the life they value, and as Gasper

(2007) states, “ ‘capability’ is the full set of attainable alternative lives that face a person”

(p. 336). Individuals must be capable in the sense that they are able to develop innate

talents, attitudes, and learned skills and abilities, and to use these capabilities as they see

fit in an environment that does not limit their use. Individuals do not necessarily have to

achieve the same outcomes in life and work, but they must have the freedom to choose a

different path; and it must be a path they choose, not one over which they have no or

little control. According to the capabilities approach, people should not be limited in

achieving their potential in their work environment, in educational institutions or in the

larger sense by society.

Capabilities approaches to equity have been critiqued mainly because of their

focus on individuals rather than groups that are disadvantaged. Capabilities approaches

have also been critiqued with respect to people with physical or cognitive disabilities. In

the case of people with physical or cognitive disabilities, the question is how much must

be done and at what cost so that people with challenges can achieve their potential? It is

beyond the scope of this review to explore this question. On the other hand, Nussbaum

(2009) believes the current discourse on capabilities reflects a minimum threshold and

that much more can be done especially in education at all levels. In this study, the

capabilities approach to human rights is not as important to college faculty who are

generally well educated and talented people except perhaps for faculty members who

have physical disabilities. This is a topic not being explored in this study, although

52

Lumby and Coleman (2007) identify physical disability as a difference causing people to

be marginalized.

Diversity is a difficult concept to define and is constantly evolving. Although

diversity in a broad sense can be conceptualized as valuing all difference, it is clear from

the literature that diversity has narrower definitions that consider age, gender, race and

ethnicity, and level of ability as most important because they represent characteristics that

cause some people to be marginalized.

Conceptual Framework

Among the many theories on leadership that inform this research two broad areas

are most important: traditional versus emerging perceptions (Gunter, 2001). The

emerging perceptions as identified by Woods (2005), Ryan (2006) and Lumby and

Coleman (2007) conceptualize leadership as a process involving relationships and many

individuals where many can lead. Leadership conceptualized as a process, is inclusive or

democratic and allows followers to assume leadership roles when needed, and to

influence other follower behaviours through relationships. Traditional perceptions as

described by Kouzes and Posner (2007), Bass (2008) and Yukl (2013) tend to

conceptualize leadership as being embodied in an individual who has a specialized role in

an organizational hierarchy. Leadership conceptualized in this way creates a separation

between leaders and followers and often use power as a means to influence follower

behaviour. Figure 1 below illustrates the conceptual framework and how full-time faculty

who differ by age, gender, race and ethnicity are situated with respect to critical and

traditional conceptualizations of leadership. How they are situated with respect to their

preference for the leadership practice of an individual versus shared or

53

collaborative practices; and how they wish to be involved in leadership, and the possible

impact on student success.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

The position that diverse groups or cultures have differing perceptions of

leadership (Kezar, 2002; Lumby & Coleman, 2007) and that groups develop mental

programs to aid in the understanding of behaviours and social situations (Hofstede, 2001)

also inform this study. These mental programs extend to the understanding of leadership

and leadership practice and because diverse groups may not share these understandings,

leadership and leadership practice cannot be universally applied. Social justice must be

Emerging

conceptualizations of leadership

(Many Leaders)

Faculty Member

Age

Traditional conceptualizations

of leadership

(Single Leader)

Faculty Involvement in

Leadership

Faculty Member Gender

Faculty Member

Race and Ethnicity

Perceptions of

Leadership

54

considered otherwise some individual or group will be marginalized through ineffective

leadership and leadership practice (Kezar).

A mixed methods approach is used in this study to investigate the ways in which

college faculty from diverse backgrounds perceive leadership and leadership practice as

defined by Leithwood et al. (2008) and Yukl (2013) and emerging perceptions as

described by Woods (2005), Ryan (2006) and Lumby and Coleman (2007).

Chapter Summary

Chapter two has provided a review of the literature supporting the conceptual

framework of this study on leadership and diversity. Connected to this framework are

conceptualizations of leadership and leadership practice that are embodied in an

individual and are transactional versus leadership and leadership practice that are

process-based and are shared.

The review of the literature on leadership considered historical perceptions,

emerging and current conceptualizations of leadership. There are substantive differences

in perceptions of leadership based on follower characteristics, and therefore leadership

practice might need to be altered.

The review of the literature on diversity also considered the historical

development of the concept and two main views of diversity in higher education. One

view is that diversity is about valuing difference and the other view is that diversity is

about creating equity. Institutions of higher education do well at valuing diversity, but

creating equity is still problematic.

The conceptual framework locates faculty perceptions of leadership in higher

education at the centre of competing conceptualizations of leadership and leadership

55

practice. Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the research methodology used

in this study.

56

Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology

The purpose of this study was to bring together two main overarching areas:

leadership and diversity, and to investigate the perceptions of leadership among a group

of full-time college faculty who differ in age, gender, race and ethnicity. This study

explores three areas: (a) the extent perceptions differ and in what ways, (b) whether or

not faculty prefer the leadership of a person in a position of authority and (c) what ways

do faculty wish to be involved or included in leadership. Ultimately, results

from this research may suggest ways that college leaders may need to adjust their

leadership practice.

Research questions

The three questions to be explored in this study of faculty working in colleges are:

1. To what extent do the perceptions and expectations of leadership and

leadership practice differ for participating faculty who vary with respect to

age, gender, race and ethnicity, in what ways?

2. What, if any, is the relationship between participating faculty’s age, gender,

race and ethnicity, and his or her preference for leadership and leadership

practice that is vested in an individual versus leadership and leadership

practice that involves collective processes where many can lead?

3. In what ways do participating faculty who vary with respect to age, gender,

race and ethnicity wish to be involved or included in leadership and leadership

practice?

57

Methodology

Research has often been undertaken using a quantitative design which is

perceived to be of free of researcher bias and maintains emotional distance. Qualitative

research on the other hand often meant the researcher was not detached from the research

subjects and therefore rich and descriptive observations could be made that recognized

the many layers of experience and insight. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggest a

third research approach where both methods are used thus minimizing the weaknesses

found in each method. (p. 15).

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) further describe mixed methods research as “a

research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry” (p. 5) and

they strongly suggest that the researcher avoid a simple connection and analysis of two

disparate types of research but rather mix both methodologies together in such a way that

they form a more complete picture of the problem than either would do alone (p. 7).

Creswell and Plano Clark describe mixed methods research as a new approach, and

researchers have blended quantitative and qualitative data for many years, but according

to Creswell and Plano Clark, combining quantitative and qualitative data as a distinct

research design or methodology is indeed “new” and an important aspect of the design is

that the two data sets are mixed and thus not reported separately. As suggested, Creswell

and Plano Clark caution researchers about the difficulty in combining two different sets

of data in a meaningful way.

Mixed methods research is not simply a task of gathering two types of data.

Thought must be given to the way in which data are collected, merged or converged,

connected, or embedded. Consideration must also be given to the analysis of the data.

58

Does data analysis occur separately or is the analysis of the data blended? Creswell and

Plano Clark (2007) have identified four major mixed methods designs that address these

questions. The four major types include the (a) triangulation design which collects

complementary data on the same topic, (b) the embedded design which uses a secondary

data set to support another data type, (c) the explanatory design which uses qualitative

data to explain quantitative data, and (d) the exploratory design which uses one

qualitative data to develop the next phase of quantitative research. There are a number of

variants of each type and for the triangulation design, the convergence model represents

the most common variant. Quantitative and qualitative data are collected separately and

then combined during interpretation as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Convergence model

Source: Adapted from Designing and conducting mixed methods research, (p. 63), by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007). See Appendix J.

Of the mixed methods research variants described by Creswell and Plano Clark

(2007) the convergence model (Figure 2) was primarily used because data are treated

Quantitative

data

collection

Qualitative

results

Qualitative

data analysis

Qualitative

data

collection

Quantitative

results

Quantitative

data analysis

Compare

and contrast

Interpretation

qualitative and

quantitative

59

equally and quantitative results are combined with qualitative findings to provide strong

evidence about a phenomenon. Qualitative data in this model can also be used to validate

or confirm quantitative results while minimizing the tendency to over generalize the

qualitative data. The research design in this study also included elements of a validating

quantitative data model (Figure 3). In this model open ended questions are added to the

end of the survey questionnaire and the answers are used to validate and expand on the

quantitative findings. The answers to open ended questions or additional comments do

not provide rigorous qualitative data but often provide useful quotes, and therefore a

comment section was added to the survey instrument. The validating quantitative model

in Figure 3 is similar to the convergence model, but qualitative data are only used to

support the quantitative data.

Figure 3. Validating Quantitative Data Model

Source: Adapted from Designing and conducting mixed methods research, (p. 63), by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007). See Appendix J.

Quantitative data

collection

Qualitative

results

Qualitative

data

analysis

Qualitative

data

collection

Quantitative

results

Quantitative data

analysis

Validate

quantitative data

Interpretation

quantitative and

qualitative

60

Site Selection

Two institutions were chosen for the research because of their location in the

GTHA where populations show diversity. As well these colleges where chosen because

of the number of full-time faculty they employ (N = 788), and would potentially provide

a sufficient number of responses for analysis. Both colleges have large student

populations in excess of 15,000 students each and offer a multitude of programs and

credentials. Program offerings include subject areas such as business, engineer ing, health

sciences, arts and design; and students can earn 1-year certificates, 2 and 3-year diplomas

and 4-year degrees. These colleges were also chosen because they are actively engaged in

diversity initiatives as described by Aguirre & Martinez, (2006). I do not currently work

with or have any current working relationships with the organizations from which the

faculty were recruited.

Data Collection and Recording

There are currently between 6,000 and 6,500 full-time faculty working in

Ontario’s college system. I have long-established relationships with colleagues in

administrative positions at the study colleges who were willing to help by providing a

written introduction to and description of the research that I was conducting to faculty.

Permission and ethics approval were received from the colleges and the union locals

(OPSEU) at these colleges. Many researchers must contend with the possibility of a poor

response rate to a survey by the target participants. The survey was distributed by email

in October 2010 to 788 full- time faculty at two Ontario colleges located in the GTHA.

The survey was administered in the October timeframe prior to the mid-semester break. It

was determined, in consultation with the faculty union presidents at these colleges, that

61

the timeframe would provide faculty with sufficient time to complete the survey given

their work commitments. The presidents of the faculty union locals at each college

introduced the purpose of the research through an email and encouraged

full-time faculty to access the weblink to the survey (see Appendix A for a copy of the

introductory email).

Respondents were made aware of the survey through an introductory email

(Appendix A) that included an online link to the survey instrument. The survey was

administered electronically using SurveyMonkey and since all college faculty are

members of OPSEU, the invitation to participate was distributed by the Ontario Public

Service Employees Union Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology-Academic (OPSEU

– Academic Agreement) in October 2010 to all faculty at each college in the study. I

decided that it was not necessary to sample the faculty at the two colleges because N=788

was not so large as to prevent giving every full- time faculty an opportunity to participate

in the survey. Faculty respondents volunteered to participate in the study and were given

the option to opt out of the survey if they wished to. The study did not intend to claim

representativeness or generalizability and no effort was made to control the number of

respondents in the categories of age, gender or race and ethnicity.

Additionally the survey (Appendix B) asked participants if they wished to

volunteer to participate in a semi-structured interview and if so they were asked to

contact the researcher through email. It was expected that between 15 and 20 survey

participants would volunteer to be interview participants. In all, ten people volunteered to

participate in interviews and prior to the interview, volunteers were contacted by email to

62

arrange a convenient time to meet and they were sent a copy of the letter

of consent (Appendix D).

Both colleges that were the site of this study are English language colleges so

study participants spoke English or English as a second language. No personal

information was solicited from the participants other than their age, gender, and whether

they considered themselves to be a member of a minority racial or cultural group.

Participants were asked for their personal perceptions of leadership and leadership

practice as it related to my study. I collected interview data following the survey during

the month of November 2010.

Developmental Process of the Research Instruments

The research process began with a pilot survey instrument and interview

questions developed based on themes identified in the literature review. It was not

possible to pilot test the survey instrument at the study colleges as they were only able to

provide resources necessary for distribution of the final survey instrument. The

instrument and interview questions were reviewed by three faculty colleagues who were

experienced in survey design and provided input on question structure and content. Input

received from faculty colleagues indicated that to ask participants to identify to which

racial or cultural minority group they belonged would likely lead to too few responses in

any one category which would have made data analysis meaningless. Therefore, I

decided to use a general grouping instead although this eliminated the possibility of

analyzing response patterns based on specific categories.

While all parts of this research design presented unique challenges, determining

the types of statements to present and how to measure the responses was particularly

63

difficult, and statements were designed to avoid bias but certain words could not be

avoided if the extent of differences in perception of leadership and preferences were to be

determined. Statements on leadership and leadership practice were based on the work of

Leithwood et al. (2008) as well as practices identified by Yukl (2013), Woods (2005),

Ryan (2006) and Lumby and Coleman (2007). It is important to remember, as pointed out

in the literature review, that there is a tendency for managerial practices to overlap and be

confused with leadership practices. Yukl listed managerial practices as involving:

planning and organizing;

problem solving;

clarifying roles and objectives;

informing;

monitoring;

motivating and inspiring;

consulting;

delegating;

supporting;

developing and mentoring;

managing conflict and team building;

networking;

recognizing; and

rewarding.

Designing survey statements that represented the vast array of perceptions on leadership,

while at the same overcoming the overlap with management practices, meant that tasks,

64

structures, or work objectives such as efficiency, delegating etc., would not be researched

as they aligned with management practices. Leadership practices included organizational

vision, long-term goals, decision making, social justice, educating, learning, and

dialogue, and it was also important to design statements that investigated if leadership

was perceived as a specialized role a process of where many can lead. According to Yukl

leadership practice involves influence over the following areas:

setting a vision, objectives, goals and strategy;

motivating followers to achieve goals;

building trust and cooperation;

influencing organization of work;

developing followers skills and confidence;

fulfilling resources requirement to achieve goals;

encouraging learning and sharing knowledge;

designing processes and organizational structure;

gaining outside support and assistance;

influencing group beliefs and values.

Ryan (2006) believed that leadership is a collective and relationship- process and Woods

(2005) believed social justice was important in leadership. Key leadership practices

investigated included:

practice that is critically conscious and seeks social justice;

practice that educates and promotes dialogue;

practice that develops follower potential and fulfills needs;

encouraging a diversity of opinions;

65

collective decision making;

accepting the expertise of others.

In addition to these practices, transformational and transactional leadership practices

(Aguirre & Martinez, 2006) and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002) were included in

the survey instrument as well as other statements regarding shared values, shared vision,

servant leadership and accountability. The complete survey instrument is shown in

Appendix B and Table 1 below shows the relationship between the statements and the

areas of influence described above. It was decided that the 25 statements would cover

these areas of influence in leadership practice.

Table 1

Survey Statements, Leadership and Leadership Practice

Statements Leadership and Leadership Practice

Leadership is a person in a position of authority who influences the actions of others to achieve organizational goals.

Leadership as a specialized role.

Leadership is a process involving

relationships that influences the actions of others to achieve organizational goals.

Leadership as a process.

The leader of an organization must be the one who determines the vision.

Leadership as a specialized role setting a vision.

It is preferable to have leaders who encourage collective decision making.

Leadership practice and collective decision making.

Shared leadership is the best way to satisfy the needs of people working in an

organization.

Leadership practice fulfilling needs.

An individual in a position of leadership can best model the behaviours required to achieve organizational goals.

Leadership as a specialized role, resource requirements and goals.

(continued)

66


It is preferable to have leaders who ensure members of an organization share the same

values.

Leadership as a specialized role influencing beliefs and values.

An individual in a position of leadership can best build a culture of collaboration.

Leadership as a specialized role building trust and collaboration.

Improving work processes is best achieved through shared leadership.

Democratic/inclusive leadership designing processes and organizational structure.

Members of an organization prefer leaders who think critically.

Democratic/inclusive leadership that is critically conscious.

It is preferable to have leaders who encourage independent action to achieve


Leadership as a specialized role and developing followers.

Members of an organization prefer leaders

who accept the expertise of others.

Leadership as a specialized roles gaining

outside support and assistance.

Leadership is primarily a transaction between leader and follower.

Transactional leadership practice.

Leadership is a transformational experience

between the leader and the follower.

Transformational leadership practice.

Leadership requires power to influence others to achieve organizational goals.

Leadership practice and the use of power.

Members of an organization prefer leadership that they are able to question.

Democratic/inclusive leadership and dialogue.

To be a leader a person must first be a servant.

Servant leadership.

It is preferable to have leaders who

encourage a diversity of opinions.

Leadership as a specialized role and

dialogue.

Learning is best achieved in an organization

that uses shared leadership.

Democratic/inclusive leadership and

practice that educates.

(continued)

67


The goals of an organization are best

developed through shared leadership practices.

Democratic/inclusive leadership and

setting objectives.

Members of an organization prefer leadership that is concerned with social justice.

Democratic/inclusive leadership.

Clear communication is best achieved in

organizations with a single leader.

Leadership as a specialized role and

communication

It is preferable to have leaders that accept

accountability for the actions of others.

Leadership practice and accountability

Members of an organization prefer a leader who is able to inspire them.

Leadership as a specialized role and follower motivation

Leadership is perceived differently by different groups of people.

Leadership and perceptions

Survey questionnaire.

The survey instrument used a 4-point Likert scale to measure the level of

agreement with 25 statements on leadership and leadership practice. It was not the

purpose of this study to investigate the full extent of faculty diversity (e.g., religion,

sexual orientation, etc.), but rather only the differences that most often cause people to be

marginalized or are readily detectable (You-Ta, Church, & Zikic, 2004). Therefore,

survey participants were asked to self- identify their (a) gender, (b) age (age groups as

described in the “Statistics Canada Population Projections, 2011”), and (c) minority racial

or cultural group (as described in the “Statistics Canada Ethnic Diversity Survey,” 2003).

The Likert response scale used to assess agreement/disagreement had four levels

ranging from 1 to 4. Black (2005) points out that scales should range from 3 to 7, while a

68

3-point scale might be too limiting in terms of addressing the perceptions of the survey

participants. At the same time Black (2005) points out that a seven-point scale, might be

overly detailed for participants, therefore a compromise scale of

four levels was chosen.

The 4-point scale was described using the words -“strongly agree”, “agree”,

“disagree”, and “strongly disagree”. There is much debate in the literature as to whether

or not a scale should contain a mid-point. Black (2005) points out, “there has been some

discussion in the literature as to the desirability of having a neutral point on a scale, with

the suggestion that respondents will tend to choose the centre…it will be the total score

for a set of questions that constitute the operational definition; therefore, it may not be

unreasonable for respondents to have a neutral view” (p. 228). I decided to use the 4-

point scale and this decision was fortunate as the analysis will later show that it was

necessary to combine response categories to overcome the low response rate to the

survey. A scale with a mid-point would have made this task more complex.

Survey participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with

statements related to the conceptualization of leadership and leadership practice as the

responsibility of an individual. Participants were also asked to indicate their level of

agreement with statements related to leadership and leadership practice perceived as a

process that includes many individuals.

Interview questions and structure.

The semi-structured interviews were conducted at a location convenient to the

participant and lasted approximately 45 minutes. The letter of consent indicated that the

interview would be recorded. The interview gave participants an opportunity to further

69

explain and discuss their perceptions of leadership, and if they felt there was a

relationship between their perceptions and their age, gender, race and ethnicity.

Examples of the questions asked are (see Appendix E):

How would you define or describe leadership?

Would most individuals provide similar definitions or descriptions of

leadership?

What might cause similarities or differences in how leadership is defined

or described?

All interview participants were asked the same questions, but the order

may have varied as themes emerged and were explored. For the complete list of

questions see Appendix E.

Ethical considerations.

The participants I recruited were full- time college faculty, working at one of the

two large colleges in the GTHA that were the sites of this study. It was assumed that

faculty working at these colleges would understand the importance of research, have an

interest in the topic and would be willing to participate in this study without

compensation. As previously described the local union offices contacted full- time faculty

by email (Appendix A) and provided the weblink to my survey. Participation in the

survey was voluntary. Full- time faculty were also required to acknowledge that they

wished to participate in the survey and later if they wished to volunteer for an interview

(Appendix B). As well, the presidents of the respective union locals were asked

for their consent to the distribution of the survey instrument (Appendix C).

70

There were possible pre-existing relationships as co-workers between myself and

some faculty who might volunteer to participate in the interview component of the

research. The findings and the names of the faculty who participated in the interviews

will not be shared with the colleges and pseudonyms where used. Findings would not be

disseminated through published research papers or as part of conference proceedings,

other than in aggregate form. The analysis section of this dissertation (Chapter 4) will be

made available to interview participants. As well, the union presidents at the two colleges

in this study will receive a copy of the analysis section of this study: I will offer to

present the study results to the appropriate management levels at the two study colle ges.

I anticipated that there would be nothing other than minimal risk incurred by

those who volunteered in the research project. The only potential risk was for those who

took part in the interviews was due to the possibility that the study might surface some

unpleasant past or current experiences with respect to leadership and leadership practices.

I clearly articulated to interview participants that the focus of the research was on

perceptions of ideal approaches to leadership and leadership practice and that interview

questions regarding past or current experiences did not have to be answered.

Survey recipients were given the option to opt out of the survey (Appendix B);

however, if recipients agreed to continue with the survey, but chose not to finish the

survey, they could stop the process at any time. Data gathered before the survey was

completed are included in the analysis. This was explained at the beginning of the survey

and there were no consequences for withdrawing from the survey before it was

completed. I explained there would be no consequences or explanation required for

withdrawing from the interviews. All participants chose to complete the interview.

71

Interview participants received a copy of the transcript of their interview. Any

section which the participant requested to have deleted from the transcript was done, and

only minor corrections to the transcripts were made due to misunderstanding of the

recorded words. The interview participants were free to withdraw from the study at any

time, and could request that the entire transcript of their interview be destroyed. This was

explained in the letter of consent (Appendix D) and prior to the interview as well. No

interviewee withdrew from the study.

Survey data and the interviews and transcripts were digitally recorded, and are

password protected. Hard copies of survey data and transcripts are stored under lock and

key at the home office of the researcher. The timing for the destruction of the tapes,

transcripts and/or the raw data is December 16, 2015 and only the researcher has access

to these data. Survey data will be deleted from all electronic storage devices (hard drives,

disks, etc.). Interview recordings will be erased, and transcripts will be deleted from all

electronic storage devices. Hard copies of survey data and transcripts will be shredded.

Data Analysis

I gathered data on the percentage of faculty represented in the age groups

described in the survey, the percentage of male and female faculty, and the percentage of

faculty self-reporting their race and ethnicity. My first concern was to understand the

extent the survey participants were representative of already established data. Existing

research revealed that in the college system 51.3% of full- time faculty are female

(Canadian Federation of Students, 2003). Data regarding the percentage of full- time

faculty in age groups described in the survey instrument (Appendix B) were obtained

72

from the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAAT) Pension Plan and are

described in Chapter 4.

Analysis of quantitative data.

I worked with a statistician to analyze the quantitative data. A number of

statistical values were calculated including, percentages, frequency distributions, chi-

squared, standard residuals, and odds-ratios which will now be further explained. The

initial analysis showed that further mathematical operations would be necessary to

contend with the lower than expected response rate to the survey. For example, because

this study was not intended to compare the response patterns of faculty at the colleges

studied, the Likert scale was simplified as a result of the low response rate so that

response options of strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree were combined

to agree and disagree. Likewise it was also necessary to combine age categories and

report participant ages as < 50 or ≥ 50.

Frequency distributions were created which show the total of the number of items,

individuals or responses that have a particular characteristic or fall in a particular

category. Frequency distributions and percentages were used in this study to analyze the

survey participants and to determine the number who reported being male or female, the

number who reported their age within the categories asked for in the survey and the

number who considered they were part of a racial or cultural minority group. This

analysis was used to determine to what extent the survey respondents were representative

of other known populations found through other data sources. In addition, frequency

distributions were used to analyze the response patterns to each survey statement to

determine the extent respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement (Appendix H).

73

Further analysis of the quantitative data was done through contingency analysis

that would provide insight into the extent perceptions of leadership differed and in what

ways. A contingency analysis generates tables that compare categories and response

frequencies. For example, tables compare the number of males who agreed or disagreed

with a survey statement to the number of females who agreed or disagreed with the same

survey statement. This table is called a 2 × 2 table with four cells and each cell has a

number of responses or “cell counts” in it. This analysis uses a chi-squared calculation

followed by a calculation of the absolute standardized residual.

Chi-squared is a mathematical calculation that compares absolute differences in

the frequency distribution of responses between two groups. In this study a chi-squared

analysis compared the frequency distribution (cell counts) of males or females,

individuals above or below the age of 50, and those who considered themselves to be

member a racial or cultural minority group to those who do not.

An estimated or expected frequency distribution (expected cell counts) assumes

that if there was a large enough number of responses to a survey statement it would

ultimately distribute in a certain way; and in this case a chi-squared frequency

distribution is assumed and this distribution forms a particular type of curve. When the

observed frequency distributions in response to the survey statements are compared to the

estimated frequency distribution, it must be decided if any difference from the estimated

frequency distribution is simply by chance or if there is a significant association which

means the difference is not by chance. To make this determination the probability that a

deviation or difference in the observed response frequency must be considered as well the

number of degrees of freedom (df).

74

Degrees of freedom are related to the number of characteristics or categories

under investigation. For simple groupings of data such as male and female; df = 1, but

degrees of freedom will increase with the number of characteristics or categories under

investigation. For example, consider the earlier example of gender. There are two

categories; female and male, this would result in df = 0 and the formula for degrees of

freedom is df = m – 1, where m is the number of categories or characteristics. Each

degree of freedom results in a different chi-squared frequency distribution so it is

important when attempting to compare observed frequency distributions to expected

frequency distributions to know how many degrees of freedom are under consideration.

Standard practice when df > 1 is to have at least 5 observed responses in any category or

in the case of large samples, no less than 20% (Black, 2005). This condition is necessary

to preserve statistical “power” which means the research correctly rejects the null-

hypothesis and any deviation or difference in observed frequency distribution from the

expected frequency distribution is considered not by chance alone. While only

probabilities of less than 5% (p < .05) were considered statistically significant when

comparing differences in the observed frequency distribution of a group from the

estimated frequency distribution for that group, it was also important to consider the

degrees of freedom and the number of responses in a category. It is important to

understand that statistical significance does not necessarily mean that a difference in

actual responses compared to estimated responses is important; it only means that the

difference did not occur by chance and that there is a significant association.

As suggested above, there are many considerations when conducting a

contingency analysis and decisions must be made as to whether or not data should be

75

combined if response rates are low, and what should be done when data are missing. It

has already been explained that categories were combined to overcome the problem of a

low response rate and in the case of missing data only valid cases where considered

which means that if a survey participant chose not to respond to a survey question their

response was not considered valid and was not included in the contingency analysis. A

loss of data due to a non-response is troublesome for any researcher and raises the

question as to why no response was given. In this study, survey respondents were

anonymous and therefore could not be contacted to determine why they did not respond.

What remains is to attempt to replace the missing data based on statistical manipulation

of the data or to eliminate the missing data from the analysis. The survey data were first

analyzed with no manipulation of the data and missing responses were simply ignored.

The analysis was repeated; and in this case missing data were replaced based on the

response pattern of the survey participant. Further analysis of this data yielded no

differences in the contingency analysis, therefore it was decided that missing data could

be ignored.

The chi-squared analysis generated 13 significant associations between faculty

age, gender, race and racial and cultural minority group and some survey statements. In 3

of these cases cells had counts of less than 5, which implies a loss of statistical power, but

these low cell counts represented less than 20% of the total and df ≤ 3 so the loss of

statistical power was considered minimal. Nevertheless, these low cell counts were found

for the age categories which would later be combined to eliminate the loss of statistical

power. The significant associations are reported in contingency tables found in Chapter 4.

76

Agresti (2002) notes, a contingency analysis using chi-squared alone does not

provide enough information about the strength or nature of significant associations that

may be found. For example, a 2 × 2 contingency table will have 4 cells, each with a

number of observations or cell counts. The question is whether or not these cell counts

deviate from what is predicted by the model, in this case a chi-square curve, by more than

just chance. In 2 × 2 contingency table statistically significant differences are easier to

observe as compared to more complex tables such as 2 × 3 or 2 × 4 tables. Calculating an

absolute standardized residual for each cell in complex contingency tables is a means to

determine which cell is the likely source of the significant association. An absolute

standardized residual is derived from the calculation of a standard deviation and is a

probability measure of the difference between an observed cell count and the predicted

cell count. An absolute standardized residual (sd) equal to or greater than two (sd ≥ 2) at

the p < .05 level indicates a lack of fit to the null hypothesis (variables are independent

and any difference is the result of chance) and thus provides insight into which cell in the

contingency table is most likely responsible for the statistically significant association.

Absolute standardized residuals of sd < 2 indicate p > .05 and therefore there is less

confidence that the difference found is by chance alone.

Analysis of qualitative data.

Each interview participant was assigned a pseudonym and the qualitative data

analysis involved transcribing the recorded interviews and comparing the transcripts to

the recordings to ensure accuracy. As well, each interview participant was provided with

a copy of his or her interview transcript and given the opportunity to make corrections as

deemed necessary. Only minor corrections were received. I reviewed the transcripts a

77

number of times and organized the responses to each question to aid in the analysis. I

then further refined the organization of the responses to reflect the age and gender of the

participants and examined the data for differentiated response patterns and themes. The

responses were further broken down in short sentences or paragraphs and labeled using

the exact words of the participants.

The data were gathered and analyzed separately and then mixed by comparing

and contrasting the qualitative and quantitative findings. In this approach the quantitative

data and qualitative data are collected at the same time, and the data have equal weight

with respect to the presentation of the results (Creswell et al. 2009). Therefore

quantitative and qualitative data will be presented separately and then later combined for

interpretation.

Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study is that, given the limited sample of only

two colleges and non-random sampling of the participants, I can make no claim that the

findings are generalizable to Ontario colleges in general or even to the two colleges that

were the focus of this study. This does not mean that the findings have no value; indeed

as discussed in chapter five, there were interesting and provocative insights gained that

may promote dialogue or lead to further research on this important topic.

This study is also limited by the participants who took part in the survey and

interviews. The participants were full-time faculty at two large colleges in the GTHA and

their perceptions of leadership could be influenced by their current work environments.

As it turned out, there was some homogeneity in the group with respect to age, and only

16 faculty reported belonging to a racial or ethnic group. As well, no faculty other than

78

white females and white males volunteered for interviews; they were predominantly in

their fifties, and this will have had an impact on the results of this study.

Another limitation in this study was the design of the survey instrument and the

use of the category “race or cultural minority group” (Chinese, South Asian, Black,

Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Arab, West Asian, Japanese, Korean, North

American Indian, Inuit, Métis

Combining participants under the broad grouping of race or cultural minority

group, as if they were an undifferentiated group, may appear contrary to the notion that

leadership and leadership practice is perceived differently by different groups of people.

Yet, Kezar (2002) contrasts Positionality and Standpoint theories as a means of

understanding differing perceptions of leadership. Positionality theory would consider

many individual differences together. For instance, it is a relatively holistic view in that

the position an individual occupies relative to leadership is a combination of their age,

gender, race or cultural minority group. In contrast, Standpoint theory considers

differences such as age, gender, race and cultural minority group as separate categories

that have some shared experience. Although, I made the assumption that, based on

Standpoint theory, the participants shared some common perspectives as discussed above,

the clustering of individuals from different minority groups did not allow for a

differentiated analysis based on different racial of cultural minority groups.

The survey instrument asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with

a series of statements related to leadership and leadership practice. Although the

instructions on the survey instrument directed participants to respond based on what they

believed to be ideal leadership practices and to remember that the study was not intended

79

as a commentary on the leadership at the organization where they worked, it was not

possible to control what experiences may have influenced the participants’ responses.

Nor did the survey identify the type of leaders, such as personal characteristics or

organizational responsibility; the respondents may have had in mind and which then

influenced their responses. In the interviews, faculty referred to their experiences and

interactions with formal college leaders such as Chairs, Associate Deans, Deans and

Vice-Presidents of Academic, rather than Presidents or Governors. It may well be that

this is the level of leadership respondents to the survey had in mind, but this is not

certain.

The quantitative data generated a sufficient number of participants; but the survey

instrument could not explore all possible conceptualizations of leadership. All interview

participants were volunteers who had already completed the survey and the number of

participants could not be controlled nor could the participants be selected on the basis of

their age, gender or race or cultural minority group. Only 10 survey participants

volunteered for interviews and I was unable to interview anyone who would identify

themselves as belonging to a racial or ethnic group. It is possible that the ten faculty who

volunteered may well have been those who felt strongly about the subject and this could

have skewed the findings. Nevertheless data were generated through the verbatim

analysis of the transcripts and all interview participants were asked the same questions

although the order may have changed as opportunities to explore their responses

emerged.

The results are provided along with my interpretations. Researcher bias is

certainly a possibility and I am aware that my position of privilege (White, male) and a

80

commitment to diversity and social justice raises questions about the role I play (Owen,

2009); therefore data are reported as collected thereby providing insight into the

questions being studied.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter I provided an overview of the study, the research questions and the

methodology used to address the complex nature of this study. A mixed methods

triangulation convergence model was best suited to this study where both

words and numbers were combined to give greater insight and meaning than could be

achieved separately.

This chapter described the methods and procedures I used as well as the

participant and site selection, ethical considerations, the data collection methods, the

approaches to data analysis, and the limitations to generalization of the findings. The next

chapter presents the results and interpretation of the data collected.

81

Chapter Four: Analysis and Interpretation of Survey and Interview Results

Greenleaf (2002) characterizes the servant- leader as one who ensures followers’

highest priority needs are satisfied first. To satisfy people’s highest priority needs, servant

leaders must understand the needs of people they lead and what they expect. Leaders who

do otherwise are often concerned with their own needs, such as consolidating power and

control, establishing authority or acquiring wealth.

This study does not attempt to fully understand the highest priority needs of

faculty, but it does attempt to understand the extent faculty perceptions of leadership

differ based on faculty characteristics such as age, gender, race and ethnicity. Also of

importance in this study is the relationship between faculty age, gender, race and

ethnicity and the preference for the leadership of a person in a position of authority or a

preference for shared leadership. The ways participants wish to be involved in leadership

was investigated as well. College leaders continually face challenges of limited financial

and human resources while facing increasing demands to deliver quality educational

programs and often must rely on faculty to take on leadership roles. Although this

research was not intended as a commentary on the formal leadership at the colleges

where study participants work, the experiences of participants played an important role in

shaping perceptions, and provided interesting insight and depth to this study.

The following sections provide an analysis of the responses to the survey

followed by an analysis of the interview data. The analysis combines quantitative and

qualitative data which are then interpreted according to the convergence model mixed

methods design described in Chapter 3.

82

The analysis of the quantitative data generated 13 statistically significant

differences in perception of leadership and leadership practice. These differences or

associations where found through the contingency analysis of the survey data and survey

participants’ age, gender, race and ethnicity

As described in Chapter 3, qualitative data were gathered in two ways. Survey

participants provided comments on leadership shown in Appendix F and qualitative data

were also gathered through in-depth interviews of 10 volunteer participants. The

quantitative data provided insight into the extent to which participants’ perceptions of

leadership differed; and qualitative data provided the greatest insight into individual

understanding of leadership and the ways participants wish to be involved in leadership.

Kezar (2002) notes leaders in education often have to act in ways consistent with

organizational expectations, but these actions are often not consistent with their core

beliefs about leadership and leadership practice and so understanding faculty perceptions

is important. The combined data, analysis and interpretation that follow highlight a

tapestry of similarities and differences in perceptions of leadership, conceptualizations of

individual leadership and leadership as process, and the ways participants wish to

participate in leadership.

Response Rate and Participant Characteristics

The weblink was accessed by 175 participants. Upon accessing the weblink,

participants were told the purpose of the study and what faculty would be expected to do

(see the survey instrument in Appendix B). Participants were given the option to decline

participation in the survey and 6 participants, or 3.4% of the total, declined to continue

with the survey; 169 or 96.6% agreed to continue and the response rate for the survey

83

was 21.4%. The overall response rate of 21.4% to the survey appears low for academic

organizations where response rates for internally conducted surveys range from 66% to

75% (Neuman, 2006).

To explain the response rate, the circumstances must be considered. Neuman

comments that response rates vary greatly and are affected by many factors. Foremost

among them is the fact that there is a growing decline in survey participation simply due

to the many surveys being conducted, including colleges where there are internal surveys

of employee satisfaction, student feedback and key performance indicators. Kaplowitz,

Hadlock and Levine (2004) further state that the response rate is influenced by

distribution mode. For web administered surveys (such as in this study) Kaplowitz et al.

reported response rates of 20.7% to 29.7%. More relevant may have been the perception

of the agents introducing the survey. Even though this survey was introduced by the

faculty union presidents some faculty are cautious when approached by their union, and

do not always support union initiatives. In addition, my position in administering the

survey was as a third party, so participation may have been perceived as far removed

from their work concerns and so of low priority. Yet, the response rate on this survey was

in fact on par with types surveying customers and the general public (Kaplowitz, Hadlock

& Levine, 2004).

The final section of the survey allowed participants the opportunity to express

their opinions of leadership and leadership practice by adding additional comments if

they wished to do so. Thirty individual participants took the opportunity to write

additional comments and express their opinions. These comments are shown in Appendix

F, and selected comments from Appendix F appear throughout this analysis.

84

Frequency distribution of participants by racial and cultural minority group.

The majority of participants (84.0%) responded “no” to the question “do you

consider yourself to be a member of a racial or cultural minority group (e.g., Chinese,

South Asian, Black, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Arab, West Asian,

Japanese, Korean, North American Indian, Inuit, Métis)?” Only 16 participants

(9.5%) responded “yes” to this survey question, while 4 participants (2.4%) chose not to

answer (Table 2).

Table 2

Frequency Distribution of Participants by Racial or Cultural Minority Group

Racial or

cultural

minority group

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative

Yes 16 9.5 9.8 9.8

No 142 84.0 87.7 97.5

No answer 4 2.4 2.5 100.0

Sub-total 162 95.9 100.0

Missing 7 4.1

Total 169 100.0

Note. n = 169.

It should be remembered that in this current discussion of responses “racial and

cultural minority group” terminology is used in order to be consistent with the question

asked on the survey. It is important to understand to what extent participants in this study

were part of a racial or cultural minority group and if the result was representative of the

overall percentages for study colleges. This is a difficult result to confirm because

85

colleges participating in this study do not release their data on staff diversity, and other

sources such as OPSEU or Colleges Ontario do not collect information on diversity.

Nevertheless, it is possible to compare the findings with other data sets. The University of

Toronto reports 16.0% visible minority representation among faculty (University of

Toronto, Employment Equity Report, 2012) and York University reports 16.9% visible

minority representation among faculty (York University, Annual Employment Equity

Report, 2011). The President’s Advisory Committee on Building an Inclusive

Community (PACBIC) at McMaster University notes a “lack of communication of

employment equity data, reports and policies” as an issue to be addressed by PACBIC

(PACBIC 2012 – 2013 Annual Report). According to Statistics Canada Census (2006)

data, “visible minority” population (Statistics Canada terminology that includes: South

Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, Southeast Asian, West Asian,

Korean, Japanese) range from 12.3% of the population in the western end of the GTHA

to 42.9% in the eastern part of the GTHA. It appears faculty from racial or minority

cultural groups may be under represented when compared to the general population and

other institutions of higher education. It must be remembered that the general population

will not all have the level of education and experience expected of college faculty, and so

a lower percentage might be expected.

Nevertheless, there are other sources of data to consider from other teaching

contexts such as elementary and secondary schools. Ryan, Pollack, & Antonelli (2009)

investigated teaching diversity in Canada and concluded that “the Canadian educator

workforce displays considerably less racial diversity than the current Canadian and

student population” (p. 609). Ryan et al. reported 9.5% “visible minority” (a term they

86

only used when referring to their Statistics Canada data) teachers in the elementary and

secondary school systems in Ontario. While the colleges in the GTHA cannot be

compared to elementary and secondary schools in Ontario, it does appear that the

percentage of participants from racial or ethnic groups may be representative of the racial

and ethnic group population at the colleges in this study. In addition, it is interesting to

note that Ryan et al. also had difficulty in retrieving data regarding the percentage of

racial and ethnic group teachers in Ontario.

Frequency distribution of participants by age.

Participants were asked to indicate their age group (Table 3). The most recent data

available (Appendix I) through the College of Applied Arts and Technology (CAAT)

Pension Plan shows 6.9% of college faculty are under the age of 40, whereas in this study

15.1% of participants reported being under the age of 40. Participants in the 40 to 49 age

group represented 20.9% of the total compared with 22.2% representation in the CAAT

Pension Plan data. Seventy five participants or 47.5% reported being in the age

group 50 to 59.

Frequency distribution of participants by gender.

Participants were also asked to report their gender. Female participants

represented 57.1% of the total while 42.9 % of the participants were male. This result was

higher than the 51.3% of female reported by the Canadian Federation of Students (2003)

and CAAT Pension Plan data which show 50.7% of college faculty are female.

87

Table 3

Frequency Distribution of Participants by Age

Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

< 40 24 14.2 15.1 15.1

40-49 33 19.5 20.9 36.0

50-59 75 44.4 47.5 83.5

≥60 26 15.4 16.5 100.0

Sub-total 158 93.5 100.0

Missing 11 6.5

Total 169 100.0

Note. n = 169.

Analysis of Interview Participants

At the end of the survey participants were asked if they wanted to volunteer for

the interview portion of the study. Ten participants volunteered and were equally divided

between female and male. The ages of the female interviewees varied. Two were from

the 30 to 39 age group, two from the 40 to 49 age group and one from the 50 to 59 age

group. The distribution of age among the male participants also varied, with one from the

40 to 49 age group, three from the 50 to 59 age group and one older than 59. None of the

interview participants identified themselves as belonging to a racial or ethnic group;

although, one female participant had strong understanding of First Nations culture. Eight

of the interview participants were from the same college. The teaching disciplines of the

interview participants included: (a) language training (4 participants); (b) health care (3

participants); (c) law and security (1 participant); (d) counseling (1 participant); and (e)

88

business (1 participant). Experience as full- time college faculty ranged from less than 2

years to over 20 years.

Differences, Preferences and Involvement in Leadership

An overall analysis of the survey (Appendix H) showed that 66.7% of participants

tended to agree with the statements, but in some cases stronger than average agreement

was evident while in other cases it was much weaker (Table 4). Participants showed

stronger than average agreement with the notion of leadership as a process as in statement

2 where 81.7% agreed. In contrast, there was less than average agreement (61.1%) with

statement 1 that “leadership is a person in a position of authority who influences the

actions of others to achieve organizational goals”. In statement 24, 79.4% of survey

participants agreed that “members of an organization prefer a leader who is able to

inspire them,” which relates to the charismatic nature of an individual leader, and in

statement 25, 80.6% of participants agreed that “leadership is perceived differently by

different groups of people”. There were survey statements where participants showed

weak agreement with the statement. For example, in statement 3 only 25.7% agreed that

“the leader of an organization must be the one who determines the vision”. This result

suggests that followers may also want to be involved in determining the vision for an

organization. For statement 13, only 29.8% of participants agreed that “leadership is

primarily a transaction between leader and follower,” suggesting that for the majority of

participants leadership is more than a transactional relationship.

89

Table 4

Survey Statements with Strong and Weak Agreement

Statement

Number

Statement Percent

Agree

2. Leadership is a process involving relationships that

influences the actions of others to achieve organizational goals. 81.7

25. Leadership is perceived differently by different groups of people. 80.6

18. It is preferable to have leaders who encourage a diversity of opinions. 79.4

24. Members of an organization prefer a leader who is able to inspire them. 79.4

4. It is preferable to have leaders that encourage collective decision making. 77.7

12. Members of an organization prefer leadership that accepts the expertise of others. 77.7

16. Members of an organization prefer leadership that they are able to question. 77.7

8. An individual in a position of leadership can best build a culture of collaboration. 69.7

9. Improving work processes is best achieved through shared leadership. 69.7

22. Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a single leader. 30.9

13. Leadership is primarily a transaction between leader and follower. 29.8

3. The leader of an organization must be the one who determines the vision. 25.7

90

Last in this analysis is statement 22, where 30.9 % of participants agreed that

“clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a single leader,” suggesting

that for the majority of participants other sources of communication are necessary. This

analysis cannot show if age, gender, race and ethnicity play a role in how leadership is

perceived or if there is a preference for leadership that is vested in an individual as

opposed to leadership that is a collective process. The contingency analysis that follows

provides further insight into these areas of this study.

Contingency Analysis and Differences in Perception of Leadership

Contingency analysis is used to determine if the distribution frequencies of a

group are significantly different from the estimated distribution frequencies for that

group. Only valid responses were considered in the contingency analysis as explained in

Chapter 3 and differences were analyzed considering the three characteristics under

investigation: age, gender, race and ethnicity. The contingency analysis calculates a chi-

squared value for each of the three characteristics and all 25 survey statements. In total 75

(3 × 25) contingency tables were generated through the analysis; and only those tables

where the result was at the p < .05 level were considered significant. Of the 75 tables

generated, 13 significant differences were found which represent 17% of the total number

of tables generated. This result is one measure of the extent faculty who differ by age,

gender, race and ethnicity, perceive leadership and leadership practice differently.

Another measure would be to consider the percent of participants in each grouping who

either agreed or disagreed with the statements where significant differences are found.

The contingency analysis that follows will further elaborate on these percentages.

91

Differences in responses by race and cultural minority group.

The contingency analysis of participant race and cultural minority group showed

that for these survey participants belonging to a racial or cultural minority group was

related to their perception of leadership and leadership practice. A difference was found

in response to the statement that “shared leadership is the best way to satisfy the needs of

people working in an organization” (Table 5). In Table 5, it can be seen that 100.0% of

the participants from a racial or cultural minority group agreed that shared leadership is

the best way to satisfy the needs of people working in an organization, whereas 78.9% of

participants who were not members of a racial or cultural minority group agreed.

Further contingency analysis of participants who indicated they were members of

racial or cultural minority group showed a statistically significant association at the p <

.05 with the statement that “to be a leader a person must first be a servant”. In this case,

91.7% of participants from a racial or cultural minority group agreed with the statement

compared to 59.3% of participants who are not members of a racial or cultural minority

group. This finding is suggestive. There is a possibility that participants’ racial or cultural

minority group is related to the notion that leadership is vested in an individual who has

served and therefore has a good understanding of follower needs.

The final statistically significant association generated through the contingency analysis

found at the p < .05 level was for participants who are members of a racial or cultural

minority group and the statement “clear communication is best achieved in organizations

with a single leader”.

Only one participant (0.07%) from a racial or cultural minority group agreed with

the statement as compared to 40.3 % agreement among those who are not members.

92

Table 5

Significant Differences and Racial or Cultural Minority Group

Statement Percent Agreement within Group (n) 2

Member of racial

or cultural

minority group

Not a member of

racial or cultural

minority group

Shared leadership is the

best way to satisfy the needs of people working

in an organization.

100.0 (15) 78.9 (97) 3.907*

To be a leader a person

must first be a servant. 91.7 (11) 59.3 (73) 4.858*

Clear communication is

best achieved in

organizations with a

single leader.

0.07 (1) 40.3 (50) 5.944*

Note.* p < .05

Given the weak level of agreement in this case, other sources of communication seem

necessary, and based on the wording of the statement those other sources of

communication may be other leaders in the organization. This may suggest a preference

for more than one leader in an organization or some form of shared leadership.

It is unfortunate that no survey participants from racial or cultural minority groups

volunteered to participate in an interview because it leaves primarily the survey data for

exploration of the research questions. Yet, one female survey participant over the age of

60 and who was a member of a racial or cultural minority wrote the following comment:

93

It is disturbing to faculty to have leaders who pay lip service to collaboration so

that on the surface it "seems" to be collaboration, but in reality it is not. The

leader’s ideas prevail, although a show has been made to make it seem that ideas

are coming from the group.

In addition to this comment, the contingency analysis is pointing to a preference for

shared leadership among those participants who identified that they belong to a racial or

cultural minority group although it may be difficult to find in practice as indicated by the

above comment. This finding is consistent with other studies that found differences in

perceptions of leadership, such as Dorfman et al. (2004a) who noted “it is likely that

individualistic values espoused in societies such as the United States would result in a

strongly shared belief that rugged individualists are effective leaders whereas more

group-oriented leaders should be viewed as effective in collectivist societies” (p. 671).

Misumi (as cited in Bass 2008), for example, indicated that the primary function of a

leader in Japan is to ensure group stability and certainly the satisfaction of needs would

be a contributing factor, but it is not possible to know to which racial or cultural minority

group the participants in this study belonged. Other researchers such as, Gelfand,

Bhawuk, Nishii and Bechtold (2008) and Hofstede (2001) noted people from countries

such as Japan, China, Pakistan and India as being more collectivist societies where group

needs supersede individual needs and future research should consider the cultural

minority groups to which participants belonged.

Participants who self-reported that they are members of a racial or cultural

minority group disagreed that clear communication is best achieved in an organization

with a single leader, and agreed that to be a leader a person must first be a servant. Kezar

(2002) noted at one institution in the United States that “almost all women and people of

94

color whom I interviewed mentioned that the institution’s servant leadership model was

close to the way they had always thought about leadership” (p. 568).

It is possible the study participants are from collectivist societies, but it is also

possible that Canadian cultural influences are emerging in the data. In his study of

cultural differences, Hofstede (2001) used a masculinity index as a measure of difference.

Masculine countries display goals consistent with masculine behavior. For example, high

masculinity index countries value independent decision making versus group decision

making; on the other hand, countries such as Canada, Belgium, India and Pakistan are in

the middle of the Hofstede masculinity index where a blend of masculine and feminine

traits would be found. Racial or ethnic participants could be displaying a preference for

group decision making and multiple sources of communication consistent with Canadian

culture, but race and ethnicity may also be important contributors to this result, and

additional data would be needed to make this determination.

Racial or ethnic participants showed a desire for leadership they can question

through their agreement with the notion of servant leadership, but this result may also

show the effect of Canadian culture. Hofstede (2001) believed reducing inequality is one

of the oldest concerns in human society and measured the relationship between leaders

and followers using a power-distance index. Hofstede as well as Carl, Gupta and Javidan

(2004) would categorize countries such as Canada and the United States as having low

power-distance indexes where followers tend to see themselves as more or less equal to

their leaders in an organization. While significant associations were found based on race

and ethnicity, the influence of Canadian culture cannot be overlooked. There could also

be a lack of understanding of the servant leadership model. Senge points out in the

95

afterword to the 25th anniversary addition to Servant Leadership that we have no idea the

level of commitment required to practice servant leadership and therefore the concept

remains on the periphery of leadership thinking.

Differences in responses by age group.

The contingency analysis of the survey statements and participants’ age group

also yielded three statistically significant associations. A statistically significant

association at the p < .05 level was found between participants’ age and the statement “an

individual in a position of leadership can best model the behaviours required to achieve

organizational goals” (Table 6). Those under the age of 50 showed stronger agreement

(87.8%) with the statement compared to those over the age of 50 where 68.9% agreed

with this statement. The latter result suggests that others can model the behaviours

necessary to achieve organizational goals even though they may not be in a position of

leadership. Although it cannot be said with certainty whether or not leadership is

distributed or shared, individuals over the age of 50 may be expressing a desire to

participate in leadership because their age and experience may allow them to do so, or as

earlier noted by the participant from a racial or cultural minority group; leaders

sometimes do not model the behaviours they expect so others have to take on that role.

Another significant relationship at the p < .05 level was evident between

participants’ age and the statement “it is preferable to have leaders who encourage a

diversity of opinions” Participants in the 50 and over age group where in 100.0%

agreement with the statement, whereas those under the age of 50 were 93.8% in

agreement. Given the strong response of both these groups, little importance can be

placed on this result even though it is statistically significant and it is apparent that

96

encouraging a diversity of opinions is a desirable leadership practice. Likewise a

relationship was found for the statement “members of an organization prefer leadership

that they are able to question” and participant age. A high degree of agreement in excess

of 87.8 %, was found for both age groups. While a statistically significant difference was

found, it appears to be of little importance yet other research and the responses of the

interview participants suggest otherwise.

Generational differences between Generation X and Baby Boomers have been

well documented. Generation X are tech savvy and independent; they do not like being

micro-managed, they question authority and work to live. Larry (an interview participant)

is in the Generation X age group and confirms this comment by describing a leader he

liked who “didn’t micromanage; he didn’t sit on everybody’s shoulder making sure that

things got done his way”. Generation X tend to be skeptical, and perhaps this explains

why participants under the age of 50 did not fully agree with some survey statements

where those over 50 did. This would belie the situational leadership as described in Yukl

(2013) which suggests Generation X participants may be less confident and require more

direction from leaders and therefore do not want to question leaders. Nevertheless being

able to question the leader is preferred by some, as one survey participant commented:

Effective leadership involves the ability to govern an organization with authority

while permitting input from the team. Strong leaders are willing to accept

constructive criticism and recognize strengths and weaknesses in their

organization. A good leader will encourage growth in the individual and give

credit where credit is due. Respected leaders will offer recognition when

applicable. (Male, < 30, Not a member of a Racial or Cultural Minority Group).

97

Table 6

Significant Differences in Response and Age


< 50 ≥50

An individual in a

position of leadership can best model the

behaviours required to achieve organizational goals.

87.8 (43) 68.9 (62) 6.112*

It is preferable to have

leaders who encourage a

diversity of opinions.

93.8 (45) 100.0 (89) 5.687*

Members of an

organization prefer

leadership that they are

able to question.

87.8 (43) 100.0 (88) 11.296*

Note.* p < .05

The significant associations found in this study with respect to participant age

indicate little difference in the extent perceptions of leadership differ. Yet, according to

Bass (2008) ageing leaders and ageing populations present new challenges for

organizations. As a workforce ages, it is increasingly likely that subordinates are older

than their leaders and this can be a source of tension due to generational differences. For

example, Bass (2008) says that “anecdotal evidence suggests that Gen Xers are expected

to show more job mobility than baby boomers, to work to live rather than live to work, as

the baby boomers do, and to prefer a relations-oriented rather than task-oriented work

98

environment” (p. 977). Older worker may face difficulties understanding younger leaders

as Yukl (2013) pints “followers use information about leaders actions, changes in

performance of the team or organization, and external conditions to reach

conclusions….followers make attributions about leader competence and intentions” (p.

231). Generational differences are not that clear in the significant associations found with

respect to participant age in this study, but one interview participant felt age played a role

in perception. When Bill was asked about differences in perception of leadership between

older and younger faculty (Bill is over the age of 60) he felt “older faculty would just

want certain kinds of support but the younger person would be interested in a whole new

way of doing business that the older person would definitely resist”. Bill went on to say

“I would expect the older person to sit back….then the leader’s saying something, and

they are sharing a certain body of knowledge that the older person just doesn’t get”.

O’Bannon (2001) observed that “older workers have not had an easy time adjusting to the

influx of young talent. Xers have new ways of approaching work and companies are

altering the workplace to match Xers’ unique view of how work and life should

intertwine” (p. 99). Laura who is much younger than Bill offered this statement:

I think it’s almost obvious in terms of age. People get more rigid as they age.

They have certain expectations and they’ve seen a lot….for them, leadership or

any type of change that might be coming down from a leader, they may have felt

like they have seen it before and they might not have as positive a view as

someone who is younger.

Some would find Laura’s view that older faculty are resistant to change problematic;

however, the possibility that older faculty are having difficulty relating to their younger

leaders could explain Laura’s statement.

99

Calvin is in the 50 to 59 age group and he is relatively new to teaching, but has a

great deal of leadership experience in a paramilitary organization. He believed that “if

you don’t have basically a fundamental attitude that people are worthy of respect a nd

have some brains themselves and have some commitment …if you don’t have that

attitude, you’re going to have a hard time leading”. This suggests a level of equality

between leader and follower. As well it shows that leaders must recognize people are

intelligent enough to act for themselves and perhaps even lead if necessary.

Larry, part of the Generation X age group, added:

For me ideal leadership is open to being critiqued. Leaders who don’t allow what

they do to be questioned….strikes me as that they’re insecure to begin with…they

feel themselves that they are not up to that type of scrutiny…they can’t justify or

can’t support what they’re doing—so they don’t want the questions raised.

Whitney in the 40 to 49 age group commented that “when you’re leading a group

and there is a lot of diversity, asking the questions and valuing all of the

answers is the way”. Not only is this evidence of a preference for leaders to seek a variety

of opinions and to value what they hear, but Hailey went further, adding:

[Good leadership] is this sense of confidence that they were able to give up their

power; that it wasn’t about domination, it was about ‘let’s work together, we’re a

team’….and the humility to realize that you don’t know everything and

you can’t know everything and to allow for other opinions, other expertise, other

sources of knowledge.

Differences in responses by gender.

The greatest number of statistically significant associations (7 in total) was found

when gender and the responses to the survey statements were considered. The first

100

difference or association at the p < .05 level is the response to the statement that

“leadership is a person in a position of authority who influences the actions of others to

achieve organizational goals” (Table 7). Both males and females tended to agree with the

statement “leadership is a person in a position of authority who influences the actions of

others to achieve organizational goals”; the majority (86.0%) of male participants agreed

with this statement compared with 66.7% of female participants. This suggests males

tend to see leadership as being vested in an individual and while females also agreed, the

response was not as strong. Although this result does not provide clear evidence that

females perceive leadership as a process, it does imply that leadership may involve more

than one individual. Interview participants offered additional insight into the question of

leadership as being embodied in an individual rather than leadership as a process in

which many can assume a leadership role although none were from a racial or cultural

minority group.

The majority of interview participants discussed the importance of a collaborative

relationship or sharing, but all still wished to have a single leader (Table 8). Dave said

“leadership can be the qualities in a person who can articulate a vision, indicate a

direction and a rationale for moving in that particular direction”. Barb adds, “I do think,

unfortunately, that it does come down to ind ividuals to guide people”. Larry too

commented that:

There are some people who are natural leaders or have winning personalities but

whether they can actually lead as in moving people from one situation into

another rather than just inspiring people and making everybody feel good – even

for someone who is that kind of born natural leader and have those innate talents

and abilities, there are skills that have to be acquired that are not innate.

101

Table 7

Contingency Analysis, Significant Differences in responses by Gender


Female Male

Leadership is a person in

a position of authority who influences the

actions of others to achieve organizational goals.

66.7 (52) 86.0 (49) 6.509*

The leader of an

organization must be the

one who determines the

vision.

24.0 (19) 44.6 (25) 6.325*


leaders who encourage

independent action to

achieve organizational

goals.

69.6 (55) 93.0 (53) 11.053*

Learning can best be

achieved in an

organization that uses

shared leadership.

91.0 (71) 72.2 (39) 8.123*

The goals of an

organization are best developed through shared

leadership practices.

93.0 (71) 76.4 (42) 7.833*

(continued)

102


Female Male

Clear communication is

best achieved in an

organization with a single

leader.

30.8 (24) 50.0 (28) 5.076*


leaders who accept

accountability for the

actions of others.

68.8 (53) 89.3 (50) 7.765*

Note.* p < .05

John also believed “it has to be an individual….there is one person that really is the

leader”. This is evidence of the perception that leadership is a person and this result is

consistent with other research.

A much stronger result supporting this notion was found in the response to the

statement “the leader of an organization must be the one who determines the vision”. In

this case, only 24% of females agreed compared to 44.6% of males (Table 7). Though

males in this study tended to perceive leadership as being vested in an individual it is

evident that the males in this study perceive limits to the authority of that individual;

females strongly perceive limits to the authority of an individual leader. Yet when asked

if “it is preferable to have leaders who encourage independent action to achieve

organizational goals”, 93% of males agreed compared to 69.6% of females. The strong

agreement of the male participants is consistent with the previous result and implies that

the male participants in this study may desire some independence, whereas the female

103

participants may prefer interdependence. Female participants have a preference for

shared leadership where over 90% of female participants agreed that “learning can best

be achieved in an organization that uses shared leadership”, and “the goals of an

organization are best developed through shared leadership practices”.

Lastly female participants in this study showed only weak agreement that “clear

communication is best achieved in an organization with a single leader”. The female

interview participants tended to support the ideas above and described leadership in terms

of being vested in an individual, yet collaboration, sharing and teamwork were also

evident (Table 8). Male participants tend to discuss leadership in terms of goals,

management and setting a vision.

Male survey participants showed strong agreement with the statement “it is

preferable to have leaders who accept accountability for the actions of others” where

89.3% of male participants agreed compared to 68.8% of female participants (Table 7).

Accountability in shared, or democratic, leadership practice is often at odds. In

educational settings accountability can often mean proof of performance is provided, and

students, teachers and administrators are accountable for that performance (Mullen,

2008). Democratic, or shared, leadership practice often implies choices, fairness and

equity that can be overshadowed by the need for leaders to be accountable. Bolden,

Petrov and Gosling (2009) found academic leaders were “happy to devolve

responsibilities, [but] several found it difficult to ‘let go’ of control, power and

responsibility – sometimes due to concerns about trust and accountability and other times

to protect colleagues from unnecessary distractions” (p. 265).

104

Table 8

Participant Perspective and Preference for Individual Leader

Age Female Male

< 40 I think my preference would

be….to have one particular person to look to….I think some leaders are born. …but you do have to go

through a process in order to fully get there.

(Laura)

40 to 49 I require a really strong leader…if

it’s going to be one single person….shared leadership has

been my best experiences. (Hailey)

I don’t think I’ve liked that kind of top-heavy being told what to do.

(Whitney) To a certain extent leadership is

embodied, but it can be shared….if it’s something that can be shared, it

would have to be a pretty strong group or team or group. (Tina)

There are some people who are natural

born leaders…I prefer the group type of leadership…rather than the

individual with their one clear vision which they draw people into. (Larry)

50 to 59 I’m used to going to one person; so that’s all I know…and it’s that for

me….I think we do need to have someone guide us and that is the ideal situation for human creatures,

I think. (Barb)

I appreciate individual leadership for leadership; I appreciate committees for

certain things. (John)

It has to be an individual…many years ago my brother told me I don’t follow

the army, I follow the general. (John)

I think it can be learned….I think there are some inborn qualities.

(Calvin) ≥ 60 I think the demands of our society are

so technological ….what you are

really talking about is a team. (Bill)

Note. n = 10.

105

Leaders must empower others and allow for risks to be taken, and the leader must ensure

there is accountability in the team. In one such situation Dave commented “he [the

leader] would have ultimately been accountable…he would have ultimately worn it; I

would have worn it as well – it would have been shared”. Larry provided this insight “we

took responsibility at that level but he was there to back us up so that if you accept

responsibility for something and something did go wrong on your watch and you took

responsibility for it, he would be there to back you up. If you tried to cover up or work

around it, you would be on your own”. Calvin also said:

Definitely have to have that [accountability] I think for fair play. I think a leader

has to be not only a coach but a referee….In my own experience, where people

have been fired, it’s not paying attention to things like accountability, making sure

everyone is doing what they’re supposed to be doing….your question about

accountability; I think where you do have a slug on a team, and it happens

sometimes, or a cancer, you have to deal with that or it can bring the

whole team down….The management part is important too. The accountability

piece [is important].

Whitney said this about a leader she had: “she is a true leader; she fully empowers her

team (Table 9). She always is looking for creative solutions to scheduling problems…and

there is nothing that doesn’t get shared.” Female participants showed a stronger

preference for shared leadership practices, and as Kouzes and Posner (2007) indicate

when people are given more choice, so too must there be a greater accountability and

acceptance of responsibility by those who now have more choice. Female participants

showed greater disagreement that a leader must be accountable for the actions of others

and this result is consistent with shared leadership preference of female participants.

106

Table 9

Differences in Perception by Participant Gender

Age Female Male

<40

Where a person can inspire a group to

move towards positive change. (Laura)

40 to 49 Leadership is the way that you express all of your knowledge and

experience. (Whitney)

It’s the ability to inspire others; it’s the ability to work collaboratively

with others. (Hailey)

Leadership and management go hand in hand….leadership management is

really managing an environment. (John)

50 to 59 The qualities of a leader in a leadership role…assertive, having

forward thought…something that people aspire to have. (Tina)

Leadership is any person who is able to see what needs to be

done…effectively bring about what needs to be done.

(Barb)

Articulate a vision…and a rationale. Quiet qualities of competence that

are worth admiring and following. (Dave)

Leadership is the ability….to achieve certain objectives and get things done.

(Larry)

Taking a group of people, forming them into a sort of a team…that has some kind of goal.

(Calvin)

≥ 60 A good leader is someone skilled in technology….I would give the nod to the person with the technological

skills. (Bill)

Note. n = 10.

107

Participants’ Involvement or Inclusion in Leadership

Participants may have perceived leadership as a positive role and something to aspire to,

but it was not a role that everyone wanted (Table 10). Bill, who has many years of

experience as a college faculty, said “I see the issue [leadership] as extremely difficult

and something I’ve dodged in my career simply because I don’t feel I have the social

skills.” Bill has dodged a role such as an administrative chair and he added “I’m looking

at leadership in terms of middle-management”. The study colleges are large and complex

organizations and faculty can be involved in leadership without taking on a formal role,

and participant perceptions on their involvement are shown in (Table 10), and it must be

first understood that faculty in colleges can choose their level of involvement because

faculty are unionized and part of a collective bargaining unit. To take on an

administrative role at the level of chair or associate dean would mean that a faculty would

have to leave the bargaining unit and this would certainly discourage some faculty due to

factors such as reduced flexibility, work load, reduced vacation time and the job security

that results from being part of a bargaining unit. On the other hand, there is another

possibility; once faculty assumes an administrative role outside the bargaining unit the

collective agreement prohibits them from teaching. Certainly the faculty who participated

in these interviews showed passion for their teaching practice; as Larry commented “the

engagement with the students is what we’re here for”.

Furthermore, it is possible that faculty do not want to assume a leadership role

outside of the bargaining unit because they will not be able to practice leadership as they

would like (Kezar, 2002). It is also possible faculty do not want to become part of a

group that they do not respect or trust or, as one survey participant noted, “it's too bad

108

that in politics and the college that we have such incompetent, inept leadership. Our

education system is being decimated by the type of leadership that we have in Ontario

and we are going to lose out to Asia”.

This may be an extreme view, but there is an apparent difference between what

faculty believes is important in these college environments and what is espoused by the

leadership. Calvin added “I honestly don’t read the corporate newsletter, I don’t really

bother – you know there’s all this stuff coming in on the web all the time about their

strategic plan and everything; I had a quick look through it but I don’t really feel that

most of the people are here and sort of engaged corporately; I think they are more

engaged doing their little piece with their students”. Whitney said “I think if we had a

different form of leadership here, particularly like I say in my area because that’s the

system that I’m quite familiar with, I think there wouldn’t be as much problem with

morale”. Laura had a similar comment: “there wasn’t enough consultation and there

wasn’t enough time for leaders to bring that down to the faculty; now you’ve got almost

an imbalance and that’s where it’s actually affecting faculty within the classroom”. Barb

also added “there is a lot of micro-managing, a lot of micro-managing and telling you,

you know, ‘now you’re going to use this type of book and you’re going to be sure you

use this book all the time’”. Bolden et al. (2009) would describe faculty at these colleges

as disengaged, noting when “staff avoid becoming involved in leadership and

management of the institution; leadership is seen as unappealing, unrewarding or

unnecessary” (p. 268).

Participants see themselves as leaders in the classroom and as informal leaders;

participants feel their leadership role is as important as the non-teaching college leaders

109

who hold higher positions in the organizational hierarchy. Faculty are not “troops” or just

“team members” but are also informal leaders in the college structure. Therefore as

Salacuse (2006) would point out, faculty, who are also informal leaders, are free to

choose the ways they wish to be included or involved in leadership. This ability to choose

is supported through the collective agreement that requires faculty and administrators to

discuss how faculty will apportion their time between teaching and other activities. More

importantly are the ways participants see their role as leaders. As leaders in the

classroom, faculty believe they are already doing their part, and as suggested by one of

the interview participants, the demands of teaching leave little time for anything else the

college may want them to do. Unfortunately it appears that some participants, who see

themselves as leaders in the classroom, do not always share the vision or organizational

objectives put forth by those non-teaching leaders in the college hierarchy.

Participants commented they feel disassociated from the organizational goals of

the college. Calvin commented that “I want to be a member of the team. I do not want to

run it. I don’t want to be the coordinator, I don’t want to be the academic advisor, and I

don’t want to be the associate dean”. Why is this? One explanation must certainly

consider the evidence that participants preferred shared leadership practices but often

experience something else. When asked if the relationship with college academic leaders

or poor leadership practices impacted on classroom practice, Larry made the point “not

really. That’s the part of the job that I think if you ask the vast majority of the

people, that’s the part that we’re here for….the engagement with the students is what

we’re here for”.

110

Table 10

Preference for Participant Involvement in Leadership by Gender

Age Female Male

< 40 I’m a team leader for the

communications group so I’d be willing to take on small projects…but any projects that

would involve the wider community too.

(Laura)

40 to 49 We are having little or no say….I

would really prefer they come and hear our concerns.

(Hailey)

I have been involved in leadership in a

number of ways…in professional type programs. I stand with a foot in both

camps within our professional field within the practice and within the educational field.

(Larry)

50 to 59 The problem is you’re just so busy with teaching…so, wow I don’t know.

(Barb) Our managers encourage us to

participate in the leadership role by being on committees and

councils…as well, being a teacher in a classroom. (Tina)

I do have leadership in directing

classes. (Whitney)

I’ve thrown them some ideas…so I wrote some stuff, for example, I pulled together some ideas. I figure if they

need more they can ask for it. (Calvin)

We are involved in leadership….we are leaders within the classroom.

(John) I’ve taken on a couple of short term

leadership positions where there were some difficulties….I was asked to be

the coordinator….I said I would do it for a year. (Dave)

≥ 60 Well, mentoring or on projects that have to do with very practical teaching

problems…because I’m a teacher, I am interested in teaching.(Bill)

Note. n = 10.

111

Larry also commented that he saw himself not only as a leader in education but as one in

his profession (related to his subject area) as well. Interestingly, participants do see

themselves as leaders. John summed this up best, commenting:

We are involved in leadership in the fact that we are leaders within the

classroom….we are managers, and I talk about management and leadership

developing people. As instructors that’s our primary responsibility; to develop the

students to be the best that they can possibly be. So from my point of view, we

play, perhaps, the most important leadership role that anybody can find.

Differences in Perception, Experiences and Leadership

During the semi-structured interviews it was evident that experiences inside and

outside the workplace were important in forming perceptions on leadership and perhaps

impacts on the ways faculty wish to be involved in leadership. Interview participant

education in the subject of leadership played an important role in forming perceptions of

leadership, and this too may have been influenced by the educational opportunities that

may have been available for females in contrast to males. For example, Calvin

commented “I did a two year Masters in leadership. So it’s an area that I’ve spent two

years thinking about and writing about”. Similarly Whitney said “I am working on my

Masters and there is a very collaborative way of doing all of the courses and the book that

we used really struck a chord with me”. Through experience and education the interview

participants developed strong perceptions of leadership and were able to articulate the

ways they perceived leadership.

Participants viewed positive qualities of leadership as respectful, inspirational,

trusting, and empowering. John felt that “top notch leaders, top notch managers, you can

count on one hand”. He went on to say that “they allowed you to really run with projects;

112

they allowed you to make mistakes….they certainly didn’t micromanage”. Barb believed

good leaders “did not have this attitude of smugness or power; they didn’t abuse their

power, because of course leaders have power, but they didn’t abuse it”. As well,

participants commented that good leaders must plan and organize resources. These

comments are supported by the findings in Table 11, and provide evidence that the study

participants show a preference for leadership practice that involves collective process

where many can lead; it does not, on the other hand, show that this preference is

dependent on age or gender. Similarly interview participants indicted that poor leaders

were seen as not being authentic; they micro-managed, abused power and did not build

trust. For Tina, a poor leadership experience occurred when “they were being too much

of a leader; they were being too much of a dictator instead of a leader”. Larry said of poor

leadership that “it’s the illusion of being consultative…. [leaders say] ‘yes, we hear what

you’re saying’ and pat you on the head and send you off and you wonder if you really

have been heard”. Many participants referred to bad leadership as an abuse of power, yet

Whitney felt “I don’t think it’s a position of power” and when Laura was asked if

leadership required power she commented “I don’t think so actually. I don’t think it does.

I think it depends on the level of change that you are trying to achieve”; and Barb pointed

out that “really you can only have that power if they [followers] grant it to you”. No

doubt, interview participants can identify the differences in good and bad leadership, but

it is also clear that the differences are dependent on personal experience that may or may

not have some relationship to interview participants’ age or gender. For example, it

cannot be overlooked that participant age may mean that some interview participants

have had a greater number of experiences that have allowed them to strengthen their

113

Table 11

Influences on Perception of Leadership by Gender

Age Females responses Male responses

< 40 The generation they come from and

their own personal experiences…work setting. (Laura)

40 to 49 Past experiences…working with

people in leadership roles…gender. (Tina)

I think some people are born leaders…but I think it can also be

learned. (Hailey)

The course that I took…I’m working on my Masters….and

excellent book our instructor was encouraging us to read. (Whitney)

Possibly culture….school experiences,

church experiences….who you feel like obedience is expected. (Larry)

50 to 59 Immediately I think of

church…situations at school…government. (Barb)

The one I can’t speak to is culture. I’ve

got my own culture which is the dominant one. Age? Probably. We’re all tainted by our experiences.

(Dave)

I did a two year Masters in leadership…it’s an area I spent two years thinking about.

(Calvin)

Good management would provide some sort of feedback. (John)

≥ 60 People who I have seen in action who

are good leaders….people that I have seen that I’m thinking of having been successful.

(Bill)

Note. n = 10.

114

perceptions of leadership, but the depth and commitment to their understanding of

leadership were not explored. The consistency in the responses regarding the factors that

have influenced perceptions of leadership yield no patterns that clearly show differences

that are related to age and gender.

Chapter Summary

This chapter explored the extent to which faculty perceptions differ based on

characteristics such as age, gender and racial or cultural group. A number of significant

associations were found based on the statements presented in the survey. A summary of

the statistically significant associations generated through the contingency analysis is

shown in Table 12.

When generalized across faculty at the two colleges studied, the extent of these

associations suggests attention needs to be paid to differing perceptions of leadership.

Interview participants were asked to define and describe leadership. The descriptions

were often similar, using words such as guide, inspire, vision, charisma, competence, and

goals. Whitney had a unique perspective and said this about leadership : “it’s something

that everybody has and I think that I’d even go further. Leadership isn’t a position; it’s

what you have and how you express all that you have in terms of your practice - whether

it’s collecting garbage or nursing, being a doctor, being an astronaut, whatever”. Dave

said, leaders “have quiet qualities of competence that are worth admiring and following

and emulating”, and Hailey made a similar comment, saying “it’s the ability to work

collaboratively with others; it’s the ability to be humble and have humility”. The analysis

of the interview data did provide some evidence that leadership was perceived differently

by participants who differed by age and the contingency analysis generated three

115

statistically significant associations in that regard. There was a greater tendency on the

part of the male interview participants to perceive leadership differently than female

interview participants and recall that the contingency analysis generated seven

statistically significant associations with respect to participant gender.

Male interview participants tended to describe leadership in terms of tasks,

management skills and the achievement of goals. On the other hand, female interview

participants tended to describe leadership in terms of inspiring people to move towards

Table 12

Summary of Statistically Significant Associations

Characteristic

Key Result Survey Statement

Racial or Cultural Minority

Group

100% Racial or Cultural Minority Group participants agreed

Shared leadership is the best way to satisfy the needs of people working in an organization.

91.7% Racial or Cultural

Minority Group participants agreed

To be a leader a person must first be a

servant.

0.07% Racial or Cultural Minority Group members

disagreed

Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a single leader.

Age 87.8% of participants under the age of 50 agreed

with the statement compared to 68.9% over

50

An individual in a position of leadership can best model the behaviours required to

achieve organizational goals.

93.8% of participants

under the age of 50 agreed with the statement

compared to 100% over 50

Members of an organization prefer

leadership that they are able to question.

(continued)

116

Characteristic

Key Result Survey Statement

87.8% of participants

under the age of 50 agreed with the statement compared to 100% over 50

It is preferable to have leaders who

encourage a diversity of opinions.

Gender 66.7% of female participants agreed

compared to 86.0% of male participants

Leadership is a person in a position of authority who influences the actions of

others to achieve organizational goals.

24.0% of female participants agreed


The leader of an organization must be the one who determines the vision.



It is preferable to have leaders that encourage independent action to achieve




Learning is best achieved in an organization that uses shared leadership.



The goals of an organization are best developed through shared leadership

practices.



Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a single leader.



It is preferable to have leaders that accept accountability for the actions of others.

117

a better future outcome or vision. These findings in conjunction with the contingency

analysis suggest that gender does play a role in how leadership is perceived and that there

are differences in the ways those perceptions differ, but because the interviews were

semi-structured other factors that influence perception were uncovered.

In addition to differences in perception of leadership practice, the ways faculty

wish to be involved or included in leadership were investigated. Faculty view themselves

as leaders in the classroom and will accept only limited involvement in leadership as

required to achieve specific goals. Strong evidence was gathered from the college faculty

participating in this study indicating a preference for shared leadership practices, but

female faculty showed a stronger preference in this regard. Faculty also tended to

perceive leadership as being embodied in an individual, but this tendency

was stronger in males.

The data provided insight into the research questions as well as a perceived gap in

the relationship between faculty and college leaders. Faculty showed little concern for the

goals of the college and tended to focus on their classroom practice. This focus on

classroom practice is worthwhile, but practice should also be current with respect to new

approaches to teaching and aligned with organizational goals that may, for example, be in

support of student centered practice or the use of technology to enhance student

outcomes. A gap in the relationship between faculty and formal college leaders is serious

in light of the challenges that both groups face, and this implies that new approaches to

leadership practice may be needed at the colleges in this study if the leaders hope to

broaden participation in leadership in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the

organization and to meet the needs of students.

118

The experiences of faculty influenced their perceptions. The differences found in

the contingency analysis and explored through the participant interviews suggest the

importance of these experiences which may be determined by age, gender, race and

ethnicity. Males may have had experiences that have not been available to females and

similarly females may have had experiences that would not have been available to males;

for example, it is well known that certain occupations were considered “female jobs’ or

“male jobs”. In the broader sense, the influence of experiences inside and outside the

workplace is consistent with the notion that different groups perceived leadership

differently but not because of the characteristic, but rather because of the experiences that

may be contingent on the characteristic.

119

Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications

I conducted this study to contribute to the body of research on leadership and

leadership practice in Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. I was interested

in the extent faculty perceptions of leadership differed and what, if any, was the

relationship to faculty differences, such as diversity in age, gender, race and ethnicity.

Few studies have investigated relationships between leadership and the diversity of

followers, and often leadership practice remains unaltered in light of the diversity of

followers. Although leaders espouse the value of diversity in organizations, they often

underestimate the potential discord that can result if they assume their role as leaders is to

build consensus through the management of diversity, rather than creating an

environment where other perceptions are considered equally important to the

achievement of organizational goals. By managing diversity, leaders assume “sameness”

among followers and thus differences such as age, gender, race and ethnicity have little or

no influence on their leadership practice (Kezar, 2002). As such, leaders may be unaware

that their efforts to build consensus may be having the opposite effect, and their

leadership practice may advantage some and disadvantage others.

Faculty in colleges are already diverse, at least with respect to gender, and

although diversity with respect to race and ethnicity may need additional efforts, diversity

with respect to age will certainly change as faculty are added due to growth or replaced as

a result of retirements. As colleges face volatile economic conditions, reduced funding,

and changing student demographics (Clark et al., 2009), greater interdependence and

collaboration will be required of all college members, and college leaders may have to

consider different approaches to leadership as suggested in other educational contexts

120

(Kezar, 2002). This is much more than an issue of organizational effectiveness and

efficiency. Lumby and Coleman (2007) believe leadership, diversity and equality in

education have larger social implications: “the battle for equality may never be fully

concluded, educational leaders at all levels of the educational system may be stirred to

contribute to moving society forward by a determined and mindful stand” (p. 122).

Colleges purport to pride themselves in the ways they promote and value

diversity, but what remains to be seen is whether they create inclusive environments for

all members of the organization including faculty. College leaders in this study are likely

well aware of faculty diversity in terms of age, gender, race and ethnicity; but there is

“the battle for equality” issue that college leaders may overlook, but which may need

consideration. Are faculty who differ in age, gender, race and ethnicity being unwittingly

marginalized through leadership practices that assume “sameness”? College leaders in

this study may face unexpected challenges if they fail to acknowledge this possibility and

not critically examine their leadership practice. As Begley (1999) says, “in an

increasingly pluralistic or global society, administrators must understand and reflect on

their motivations, biases, and actions as leaders” (p. 4).

As a starting point, this study attempted to understand the extent perceptions of

leadership and leadership practice differed according to faculty age, gender, race and

ethnicity. As well, this study investigated preferences for shared versus individual

leadership practice. The formal leaders the work most closely with faculty are Chairs,

Associate Deans or Dean, and these leaders at the colleges studied might wish to consider

other approaches to leadership such as inclusive or democratic leadership given the

pressures to improve student success. The data suggests that shared leadership is

121

preferred but with an individual in a leadership role, therefore the democratic leadership

model described by Woods (2005), which allows for an individual in a leadership role,

may be an approach to consider.

Increased efficiency is being sought in programs through the adoption of

technology that now includes social media, online learning, student supplied devices (cell

phones, tablets, laptop computers) and condensed delivery formats. Pathways are being

created between colleges, colleges to universities, and universities to colleges so that

students have academic options available that allow for greater mobility between

institutions and yet do not restrict the achievement of their academic goals or impact the

time to graduation or money spent. Faculty and leaders at the colleges studied may have

to work together to develop curricula and the pathways to meet the needs of students and

the organization. This cannot be achieved without faculty taking on leadership roles

outside the classroom and faculty must feel included rather than disengaged. In this study

the faculty who participated in the interview component gave some insight into feelings

of disengagement, but it cannot be said how broadly this feeling is among the faculty

population in the study colleges. This may be a localized phenomenon that depends on

the school in which the faculty work and their particular academic leaders. Nevertheless,

disengagement and differing perceptions of leadership in a few schools within any

college matter even if the extent perceptions difference appears small to some and not a

priority. As Dorfman, Hanges and Brodbeck (2004) point out:

It is not known whether all attributes in a person’s belief system are equally

important. Is it more important for a leader to exhibit behavior consistent with

culture-specific expectations, or for a leader to exhibit behavior consistent with

universally held leadership expectations? (p. 671)

122

Overview

The data collected during this research have resulted in better understanding the

extent to which perceptions of leadership and leadership practice differ, what leadership

practices are preferred and how faculty wish to be involved or included in leadership at

the two colleges in this study. Overall participants positively agreed with the survey

statements even though significant differences were found in comparison of responses

between faculty differing in age, gender and cultural affiliation. This presents a challenge

because on one hand the overall level of agreement suggests no difference in perception,

yet gender, race and ethnicity seemed to play a role in the strength of the response. A

further complication is that the contingency analysis yielded only 13 significant

associations out of 75 chi-squared calculations. The result implies that, at this point in

time, perceptions differ to a small extent, but this does not mean the result is unimportant.

A slight majority of participants believed that communication is clearer when more than a

single leader is responsible for the communication. One participant commented on the

survey that:

Shared leadership to me is understood to mean a hierarchical or branched system,

where some leaders are at a similar level of authority/responsibility and would

communicate laterally as well as up/down. Ultimately, however, even this system

would have as its head a single figure that is seen to represent the institution as a

whole. In this case, then, it is essential that said figure accepts input and expertise

from all those below him/her, through the hierarchical communication system.

This will not only drive the institution but should, ideally, ensure that the single-

figure "head" remains aware of the needs and concerns from those who do not

hold an equal authority. (Female, 30 – 39, Not a member of a Racial or Cultural

Minority Group).

123

Participants’ age and identification with a racial or ethnic group generated significant

associations (3 each); and the contingency analysis on participant gender generated the

greatest number of significant associations. Seven significant relationships were found

between gender and the survey statements. Laura commented “I think gender does play

into how someone might perceive leadership. Women tend to be a little bit more

collaborative”. On the other hand, Appelbaum, Audet and Miller (2002) comment that

“the argument that men and women are biologically different in terms of leadership being

difficult to support, researchers are investigating another direction: not only are men and

women similar, women may be equally effective” (p. 44). Andersen and Hansson (2010)

add “in short, the behavioural differences [between men and women in leadership] have

largely been overstated” (p. 430). Perhaps this explains the result that even though 53.1%

of college faculty are women, it was found that the majority of participants perceived

leadership as a person in a position of authority, a male dominant definition of leadership

(Appelbaum et al., 2002). It is also possible that female participants are being influenced

by the culture of the college. For example, Kezar (2002) who believes the institution

itself has an impact on the way leadership is conceptualized and at times institutional

objectives may contradict an individual’s definition of leadership. Appelbaum et al.

(2002) also commented that “women experience work environments in which they feel

less welcome, and somewhat threatened by what they perceive as self-serving

domineering cultures. Organizations typically favor stereotypical masculine values and

reward practices that conform to sex-based values” (p. 47).

Although organizations may favour masculine values, female participants

disagreed that only one person should be involved in determining the vis ion, and even

124

though male participants showed this preference as well, many more male participants

agreed that one person should determine the vision. In addition, male participants

strongly agreed that leadership is a person in a position of authority; therefore it is not

surprising that more male participants would also agree that a leader should determine the

vision than expected. One possible explanation is offered by Larry who pointed out

“good leadership really, I think, is about clarity. I’ve worked for….a very good leader

that let me talk about leadership with the vision thing. To me it’s more about clarity;

clarity of understanding of where we are and where we need to go”. This supports the

idea that for clarity of vision, one person – the leader – should be in control. Whitney felt

that “men probably don’t get into the kind of wanting to do the whole teamwork thing

and creative problem-solving as much. Maybe it’s more cut and dried; easier to be cut

and dried”.

The literature of gender differences in leadership is not so clear (Bass, 2008).

Both men and women leaders display caring and consideration for shared processes as

well as controlling and autocratic approaches (Appelbaum et al., 2002), yet in

this study male participants showed a strong preference for leaders who encourage

independent action.

Interview participants described their preferences for individual leadership versus

shared leadership. Laura, who is in her early thirties and has only been a college

professor for a few years, commented “I think my preference would be….for a group to

have one particular person to look to”. Larry, who is in his mid-forties and has many

years of teaching experience, disagreed and said: “I prefer the group type of

leadership…rather than the individual with their one clear vision which they draw people

125

into”. Laura’s comment is consistent with the work of Bolden et al. (2009) who found in

their study of distributed leadership in higher education that “despite widespread

recognition of a distributed approach to leadership, but the majority of interviewees still

expressed the need for formally recognized leaders who provide a clear vision and

direction and monitor progress” (p. 266).

In this chapter I will explore the implications of these perceptions for college

leaders and for leadership practice, and indicate what future research needs to be

undertaken in this area.

The Extent of Difference and Leadership Practice in the Study CAATs

The two colleges in this study were located in the GTHA where populations are

diverse. Although it was not possible in this study to investigate the extent of

diversity in the faculty populations at the two colleges represented, the survey

results suggest the area of concern indicated in studies in other educational contexts

(Ryan, Pollock & Antonelli, 2009).

The results of the survey showed the extent of diversity in the faculty populations

with respect to gender was consistent with the general population where these colleges

are located. Few faculty reported being under the age of 40 and fewer still considered

themselves as belonging to racial or ethnic groups. The general populations where these

colleges are located show greater numbers under the age of 40 and greater numbers of

people belonging to racial and ethnic groups. The colleges in this study showed a greater

percentage of full- time faculty under the age of 40 than in the college system as a whole,

an area that has become of concern considering the efforts made by all colleges to

promote diversity. Although, it must be remembered that colleges emphasize applied

126

learning and real world learning experiences. Faculty often hold multiple professional

credentials, and have many years of industry experience. Therefore faculty in the college

system are considered to be dual professionals with expertise in their subject area, gained

through years of on-the-job experience, and through education. For full-time faculty to

gain the credentials and experience necessary to be college professors will take time and

often full- time faculty have several years of part-time teaching experience before

obtaining a full- time faculty position. Therefore it is not surprising to find that full-time

college faculty tend to be older than the general working population. In addition, it must

also be considered that Colleges have been facing financial constraints for many years,

and it appears that under current economic conditions this will not change any time soon.

Therefore new full- time faculty positions are rare and colleges must rely heavily on part-

time faculty. The need for multiple professional credentials, industry experience, part-

time teaching experience and the current tough economic conditions suggests that it may

always be the case that full- time faculty in the colleges are older than the general working

population. This may change over the next ten years or so as the “baby-boomer”

generation of faculty reach retirement age. The number of full-time faculty who do retire,

of course, will depend on whether retirement is financially viable for individuals and if

there is a desire to retire. There are many people who wish to continue working even

though retirement is an option. As well, in the 2012 budget, the Government of Canada

introduced measures to increase age of pension eligibility from 65 to 67 (Government of

Canada Budget, 2012). Changes such as this may slow efforts on the part of college

leaders who might wish to increase the number of younger full- time faculty employed,

127

but what, if anything, should college leaders do with respect to the seemingly low percent

representation of full-time faculty from racial or ethnic groups?

Percentage of racial and ethnic group faculty.

Colleges in this study were chosen because they espouse diversity as a core

organization value, but the percent of faculty from racial or ethnic groups, inferred from

the survey sample, is not reflective of the diversity in the communities where they are

located, and the percent representation appears lower than those found in the University

of Toronto, Employment Equity Report, 2012 and the York University, Annual

Employment Equity Report, 2011. Although the percent of faculty from racial or ethnic

groups was not a focus of this study, it was problematic that the percentage of faculty

from racial or ethnic groups was not readily available. Even though the data in this study

are sparse it appears there are fewer full-time faculty who belong to racial or ethnic

groups. It is concerning, for example, that Colleges Ontario (2008) reported that in the

2006-2007 academic year, over 11,000 part-time faculty were employed in contrast to

almost 7,000 full- time faculty; yet, the number of faculty from minority racial or ethnic

groups or faculty age group were not reported.

As suggested, there are significant barriers to becoming a full- time faculty. For

example, since the mid-1990s, colleges have expected faculty to have more than work

experience in their subject area; academic credentials in some subject areas are required

as well. For most full-time faculty teaching in basic programs a Masters degree is

required, and for degree programs offered by colleges 50% of faculty must have a

doctoral level degree. While it is difficult to locate data on the attainment of graduate or

doctoral degrees of people from racial or ethnic groups, education level may not be a

128

barrier. In the communities where the colleges in this study are located, there is evidence

that the majority (61%) of immigrants in the GTHA have post-secondary education, but

not necessarily Canadian post-secondary education. The reliance on part-time faculty

coupled with the fact that there has not been a large number of full-time faculty retiring

may be the larger barrier for those seeking full- time faculty positions. In light of this, the

formal leaders who work with faculty (Chairs, Associate Deans and Deans) at the

colleges studied may wish to examine their diversity policies with respect to hiring

considering the apparently low percentage of faculty from racial or ethnic groups.

Faculty perceptions and implications for practice.

Thirteen significant associations were found where perceptions of leadership and

leadership practice differed on the basis of age, gender, race and ethnicity; and the three

significant associations related to faculty from racial or ethnic groups cannot be ignored.

Kezar (2000) suggests, “research focused on cultural diversity in organizations illustrates

that stifling or not acknowledging difference leads to inefficiency, lack of productivity,

reduced quality and the inability to meet organizational goals” (p. 723). This alone is a

concern; and the study colleges may be facing deeper problems such as those found in

universities. Samuel and Wane (2005) noted:

Minority faculty in Canadian universities claimed that there is little acceptance or

recognition of their background, history or presence on university

campuses….indeed many women of color express that in many situations they

have found marginalized respect and recognition that they were not able to assert

their full authority as university professors. (p. 79)

I have found differences in perceptions of leadership and leadership practice and a

gap between those in formal leadership positions in the colleges studied, and racial or

129

ethnic group faculty preferences for shared leadership. Colleges for the most part employ

hierarchical models of leadership and the independence of academic departments have

likely led to transactional leadership practices as found by Kezar (2002) in her study of

higher education in the United States; and the challenge with respect to how leadership

practice must change is complex. On one hand it is tempting to provide prescriptive

suggestions that college leaders could readily implement. These suggestions may not

work equally well at each college studied, as Ryan (2003) found in other educational

contexts. On the other hand it is tempting to create a broad framework that can be

adjusted by college leaders that would apply across a multitude of situations (Ryan).

Indeed this approach might appear to be the best because it would address all the

significant associations found for age, gender and race and ethnicity, although there

remains the potential danger of treating everyone the same. Therefore the challenge for

college leaders is to find a way to do more than acknowledge diversity. They must lead

for diversity. Leadership practice must address those perceptions that are common to all

and at the same time address those perceptions that are unique.

Aguirre and Martinez (2006) believe the solution to this contradictory problem is

leadership practice that is transformational, if diversity initiatives in higher education are

to be more than “window dressing”, but as pointed out by Lumby and Coleman (2007)

and Ryan (2003), in transformational leadership there remains a clear distinction between

leader and follower. Leaders may work to influence everyone’s actions to a higher level

of understanding but “sameness” is still assumed in the process. Inclusive or democratic

leadership practices are the solution to this difficulty. Ryan (2006) and Woods (2005)

would say that inclusive or democratic leadership practices might be best to address the

130

depth and nature of the problems described in this study, but they may be too difficult for

college leaders to enact given the current organizational structure of colleges and the long

tradition of transactional leadership practice. As well, Ryan (2003) explains

administrators encounter “barriers to inclusion. Some of these barriers are deeply

entrenched in powerful global and systemic patterns and structures” (p. 169) or in

leadership prototypes (Foti & Miner, 2003; Phillips, 2008). The formal leaders at the

study colleges should note that some faculty may feel disengaged and that leadership

practices which support inclusion may help to address faculty disengagement that could

hinder achievement of organizational goals that may relate to changes in curricula or the

adoption of new technology in the classroom. This means that some of the formal college

leaders at the study colleges may have to re-conceptualize leadership within the current

organizational structure.

College organizational structure.

The typical organizational structure of the Ontario colleges in this study is shown

in the upper portion of Figure 4. This is only a partial representation of the full

organizational structure for a college and it is important to understand that many other

departments are not represented. It is included here to demonstrate the relationship

between faculty and the formal college leadership. Certainly this structure would be

familiar to any student of organizational behaviour and as Greenleaf (2002) comments,

“nearly all institutions we know about ….have been organized this way so long that it is

rare for anyone to question the assumptions that underlie the model” (p.74). There is

another model that is just as old but less used and is founded in the notion of first among

equals or primus inter pares shown in the lower portion of Figure 4. The leader in this

131

model continually tests and proves their leadership among a group of able peers. Spillane

(2006) would add that, “from a distributed perspective, expertise is not simply a function

of a leader’s thought processes and mental schemata” (p.99), and “a distributed

leadership perspective suggests that the development of leadership practice needs to

involve careful attention to the situation-routines, tools and other aspects” (p.100).

Colleges in this study cannot easily change their current organizational structure,

yet West-Moynes (2012) found differing organizational cultures in colleges even though

the organizational structures were similar. Likewise leadership and leadership practice

can be conceptualized differently regardless of organizational structure, especially by

those leaders (Chairs and Associate Deans) who are usually directly responsible for

faculty. College leaders in this study can substantially change their relationship with

faculty if necessary; and they can begin to adopt more fluid perceptions of roles and

functions. The current hierarchical model Greenleaf (2002) would argue “weakens

informal links, dries up channels of honest reaction and feedback, and creates limiting

chief-subordinate relationships that, at the top, can seriously penalize the whole

organization” (p. 76).

132

Figure 4. Models of Organizational Stucture

Source: Adapted from Servant Leadership, (p. 75), by Greenleaf (2002). See Appendix K.

No doubt, primus inter pares would meet with resistance and skepticism: after all

what is wrong with the hierarchical model? According to Greenleaf it creates problems of

indecisiveness, self-protection, fear, and destruction of creativity and I would add

exclusion, disengagement and marginalization. Even if primus inter pares was adopted,

accountability remains a problem as in other shared or distributed leadership models.

Therefore, Greenleaf suggests, “primus inter pares serves best when it is predominantly

President

Vice-President

Vice-President

Dean

Associate Dean or Chair

Faculty

Vice-President

Faculty Faculty

Associate Dean

or Chair

Faculty Faculty

133

conceptual” (p. 80). Accordingly, primus inter pares is a matter of how leadership is

conceptualized, not a change in how leadership is structured in the organization. What

kind of leader then would be first among equals? Greenleaf would say a leader who is a

servant- first would be the type of leader who is first among equals. Senge (2006)

emphasizes the need for dialogue that begins with “seeing each other as

colleagues….thinking of each other as colleagues is important because thought is

participative” (p. 245). Collins (2001) believes exceptional leaders need to have personal

humility and professional will. For Collins this is the highest level of leadership and he

calls this “level 5” which of course evolves from lower levels. What is common in all of

these cases is that there is little if any separation between leaders and followers and that

relationships matter most.

Thinking about leadership and faculty.

Ryan (2006) believes that for inclusion we need to think about leadership

differently. His feeling is that the moment we begin to think about leadership as being

embodied in an individual there must be a separation with respect to followers (see

Figure 4). This naturally causes a separation between leader and follower and thus there

must be exclusion. Inclusive leadership as described by Ryan and democratic leadership

as described by Woods (2005) are the “newer” notions of leadership identified by Lumby

and Coleman (2007) that are needed where there is diversity in student and faculty

populations. Inclusive or democratic conceptualizations of leadership get at the heart of

what the language of diversity has a tendency to hide and this is the harsh reality that

people who differ in age, gender, race and ethnicity are often marginalized. To promote

the value of diversity, as many institutions of higher education do (colleges included), is

134

appropriate, but in so doing there is also the potential to overlook the sometimes subtle

barriers faced by people who differ – barriers that may be created through leadership.

The problems associated with difference can be hidden in often subtle and

unacknowledged barriers that exclude people based on difference. For instance, Ryan

(2003) says that school administrators “saw racism primarily in terms of individual

actions or isolated incidents” (p. 65). If these problems exist in other educational contexts

surely these problems may be faced by college faculty who differ even though their work

environment values diversity. In this study I did not ask or seek either to answer this

question or to explore if faculty who differ feel marginalized because they are different. I

did want to understand to what extent perceptions of leadership differed, how faculty

prefers to be led and how they wish to be involved in leadership. Faculty can be

marginalized if college leaders do not take into account these important differences. This

study suggests that faculty at the two colleges studied preferred leadership of an

individual but within a shared environment. Perhaps the critical notions of leadership

advocated by Lumby and Coleman (2007) and others are still too new and therefore we

must accept that the traditional notions of leadership are still relevant and influential to

the understanding of leadership and the effective and efficient functioning of many

organizations, yet people know what they expect of leaders regardless. Dorfman et al.

(2004a) would say, “lay people do not seem to struggle with this term [leadership] nearly

as much. Most individuals have their own ideas about leadership, and have little trouble

indicating who they believe are leaders in business, government or other domains and

why” (p. 677). For the time being, we must acknowledge that college faculty in this study

subscribe to the notion that leadership is embodied in an individual until the critical

135

notions gain wider acceptance. College leaders, therefore, need to work within more

traditional understandings of leadership even though other approaches could better

address the deeper problems that likely exist.

Changing leadership practice.

Apart from thinking about leadership and the organizational structure differently,

the data in this study suggest that the formal college leaders at the study colleges might

well be advised to think about their relationships with faculty. The study data indicate

that for some of the faculty at the colleges studied there is an “us versus them” attitude

between the college faculty and their formal college leaders. West-Moynes (2012) found

that the college administrators in her study all reported using collaborative management

styles even though the organizational cultures differed, but it should be remembered that

management and leadership are not the same although there can be overlap. It is possible

that the division between faculty and college leaders may be rooted in leadership

practices that appear to be shared but in reality are primarily transactional, or that college

leaders focus on collaborative management rather than shared leadership. Organizational

culture may also be influencing perceptions of leadership. As well, college leaders cannot

possibly satisfy everyone’s concerns or needs no matter how much sharing has taken

place and for those who are not satisfied this only adds to the notion that “management

does not listen”. Still, some of this d ivision may be rooted in the fact that faculty are part

of a collective bargaining unit which can strengthen the attitude of ‘us versus them’.

Importantly, the question remains as to how to bridge this gap or whether or not the gap

needs to be bridged at all.

136

The answer to the latter part of the question is certainly yes, given the potential

for faculty who differ to be marginalized. Therefore, one approach to bridging the gap

and answering the former part of the question is for college leaders to examine their

relationship with faculty. It would be hoped college leaders see faculty as intelligent and

talented people who also have power and influence as described by Salacuse (2006). If

so, faculty have options in the sense that faculty can find employment elsewhere that is

lucrative and meaningful. Many faculty have interests outside of the college, and many

operate independent businesses. Faculty bring unique skills to the college that can be

difficult to find, and many faculty’s first loyalty is to their discipline and not their

college. As well, faculty are often on the hiring committees for their leaders and therefore

college leaders are in some ways indebted to some faculty. Finally, as found in this study

faculty do not see themselves as followers but rather as informal leaders in the college

hierarchy. Therefore as informal leaders faculty may resist being led and may even ignore

or pay little attention to organizational directives as this study has shown, unless they

have been included in leadership.

Although this study uncovered differences in perspective, we must be careful not

to assume that all college leaders are on bad terms or in conflict with faculty. Leading in

a college is complex and college leaders must develop skills to lead other leaders. This

study shows that college faculty believe that leaders must be honest, fair, respectful and

focus on building relationships with faculty while paying close attention to understanding

what faculty want, and where the interests of college leaders and faculty are the same or

different. In this study some faculty believe their college leaders possess the skills to

build strong working relationships with faculty, and to an outsider this would be

137

indicative of a shared work environment. College leaders would be wise not to assume

their leadership practice is effective and that their leadership is not creating

disengagement. As indicated in this study, faculty appreciate meaningful and open

dialogue where organizational goals can be examined and options generated together.

The formal college leaders at the colleges studied also might consider that

differences related to age, gender, race and ethnicity that may divide faculty with respect

to organizational goals, or with respect to each other, and seek ways to overcome these

divisions. This study suggests that some leaders at the colleges studied might have to

work harder at creating a shared working environment, and at the same time pay special

attention to understanding needs and satisfying those needs of faculty with respect to age,

gender, race and ethnicity. To help some leaders develop these important skills and

attitudes I would suggest that for some formal college leaders, no matter where they are

in the current hierarchy or how skilled or experienced, it could be beneficial to engage in

critically reflective practice and to develop and maintain a portfolio of leadership

practice. A portfolio will provide these college leaders with a means to show evidence of

developing leadership practice that supports the goals of inclusion.

Critically reflective leadership and leadership philosophy.

There is no single answer to how the formal leaders at the colleges studied might

conceptualize their role and their relationships with faculty - it would depend on each

individual leader and his/her faculty. Some questions these college leaders may need to

ask themselves and reflect on are: (a) do they see themselves in a position of authority,

(b) do they see themselves as enablers or guides, (c) what do they believe about

leadership and, (d) is leadership a person or a process? The findings suggest a gap

138

between faculty perceptions and expectations of leaders and how leadership is practiced,

and as West-Moynes (2012) found, college leaders tend to view their management

practices as collaborative. As such, these questions might be useful in helping some of

the formal leaders at the study colleges who are attempting to articulate what they believe

about leadership and clearly articulate their role as leaders. What would be most

important in the articulation of a leadership philosophy would be to reflect on what

experiences have informed that philosophy and to reflect critically on the underlying

paradigms, assumptions or ideology in that philosophy. According to Brookfield (as cited

in Mezirow, 2000) ideological critique must be a component of reflection because,

“hegemony explains the way in which people are convinced to embrace dominant

ideologies as always being in their own best interests” (p.128) , and thus, “criticality in

this tradition is the understanding and challenging of dominant ideologies. Understanding

ideology means knowing how it’s embedded in the inclinations, biases, hunches, and

apparently intuitive ways of experiencing reality that we think are unique to us” (p. 129).

A westernized notion of leadership and leadership practice through hierarchical

organizational structures are examples, but ideologies are also “sets of values, beliefs,

myths, explanations, and justifications that appear self-evidently true and morally

desirable” (p. 129). Through the development of a leadership philosophy and critical

reflective leadership practice, college leaders may begin to bridge the gap that currently

exists in faculty perceptions of leadership practice, and the ways in which faculty wish to

be led.

139

Involving faculty in leadership.

Faculty who participated in interviews indicated they will involve themselves in

committees or projects and possibly as program coordinators. What more could be

expected of faculty in this regard and should more be expected? The current collective

agreement under which faculty in colleges work, places limits on the amount and type of

work faculty can do that is not directly related to teaching. It is expected that faculty will

spend the bulk of their time engaged in teaching activities. Therefore on one hand there is

a limit to what could be expected of faculty outside the work already mentioned, but are

these other activities leadership functions or merely supporting roles? Participating on a

committee or organizing a student event may require leadership, but there is a clear

beginning and end to activities such as these.

Leadership is continuous; therefore for faculty to become involved in leadership

and leadership practice requires more. Faculty will face the same challenges as those who

have the formal leadership roles in the college. Faculty too must abandon the hierarchical

conceptualization of leadership relationships as shown in Figure 4 where they are clearly

placed at the bottom. While a hierarchy is necessary for accountability, communication

and organizational direction, the hierarchy need not contribute to the “us versus them”

attitude found in this study; faculty must also begin to think differently about their place

in the organization. No matter how formal college leaders engage in greater shared or

distributed leadership practices one of two leadership approaches emerge.

Bolden et al. (2009) have found that in higher education leadership is either

devolved where leadership is formal and controlled from the top or emergent where

leadership is informal and operates outside the formal structure of the organization. In

140

emergent leadership processes Bolden et al. (2009) found that “a researcher, lecturer or

professor can exert considerable influence within an institution by virtue of their

academic reputation, enthusiasm and/or connections whether or not they are formally

recognized within the university management structure” (p. 271). College faculty could

similarly engage in this form of leadership activity. Some might argue that college faculty

may not have the same level of influence as their university counterparts and as Skolnik

(2011) offers, “despite several commonalities between university and community college

professors, the two remain distinct professional groups in some important ways” (p.39).

One of those ways has to do with the emphasis on teaching activities of college faculty

and research activities of university faculty. Skolnik goes on to say that “research has not

generally been expected of faculty in community colleges, and even those faculty who

want to conduct research have found that their

substantial teaching loads and lack of institutional support make it difficult for them to do

so” (p. 39).

The problem of institutional support is certainly an issue but other issues exist that

might affect female faculty in particular. Over 50% of college faculty are female, and

Lumby and Coleman (2007) point out that women in educational environments often face

ongoing challenges:

There is a widely held belief that society has changed sufficiently for women to

be ‘on a level playing field’ with men, able to cope as individuals in accessing

promotion working alongside men for the same goal of work- life balance….we

can still trace the beliefs about the natural place of women and men in society that

continue to form barriers in work and elsewhere. (p. 53)

141

The data in this study showed both male and female faculty occasionally experience

a lack of engagement; although there was no indication that female faculty

felt disadvantaged.

Answering the Research Questions

In this study I set out to investigate the extent perceptions of leadership and

leadership practice differed based on faculty characteristics such as age, gender, race and

ethnicity. As well, I set out to investigate the ways faculty who differed based on these

characteristics preferred to be led and finally in what ways faculty wished to be involved

or included in leadership.

My interest in the answers to these questions is fundamentally rooted in my

concern for social justice. I have observed and experienced situations in business

organizations and in academic organizations where individuals or groups have been

marginalized in sometimes overt ways based on differences such as age, gender, sexual

orientation, religion, colour, language proficiency and culture. Sometimes the barriers

faced by individuals or groups who differ would not seem to some to be barriers at all.

For instance, many support staff jobs in colleges require diplomas or university degrees,

but for many people earning a college diploma or university degree is difficult, yet they

would be fully capable of working in a support staff position. Individuals face many

hidden barriers and it must be considered that leadership and leadership practice could

also create hidden barriers.

Hidden barriers and leadership.

Leadership and leadership practice in Ontario’s colleges likely display a

westernized notion of leadership, but does a westernized notion of leadership work for all

142

individuals or groups? Some, such as Kouzer et al. (2007), contend that leadership is

conceptualized the same and although there may be some differences in the

conceptualizations, these differences are essentially unimportant. Others take the opposite

position. (Kezar, 2000; Lumby & Coleman, 2007).

Therefore this study sought to investigate which of these two extremes exist

among college faculty. But why study college faculty? On one hand college faculty

would appear to be some of the better off in our society; after all they are well educated,

well paid and have high job security. Unfortunately this does not mean that these

individuals do not experience barriers and may be marginalized in the workplace. Indeed,

evidence in other institutions of higher education shows faculty who differ do face these

problems. Although I am not a leader at the colleges in this study, I am a college leader

who has almost 75 faculty reporting to me at another college. I want to ensure that my

actions as a leader benefit faculty and do not marginalize them due to their age, gender,

race and ethnicity.

The data gathered in this study show there are differences in perceptions of

leadership and leadership practice; but the differences found were generally one of degree

of perception. In other words, one group might feel more strongly about the benefits of

shared leadership versus another group. The greatest number of faculty differences in

perception of leadership was found for faculty gender, although this may have been

anticipated given the almost equal numbers of female and male faculty at the colleges in

this study. Fewer differences were found for faculty who differed by race and ethnicity. It

should be noted that there were few faculty from racial or ethnic groups participating in

this study and faculty age tended to cluster around the fifties age group. Given that the

143

data cannot be generalized across the colleges studied, the extent faculty perceptions

differed is not known; and it is likely greatest with respect to faculty gender. Although

the extent perceptions differ is not as wide spread with respect to age, race and ethnicity,

these differences should not be ignored and they can only increase over time as college

faculty become more diverse.

College faculty in this study display a strong preference for shared leadership

practice but they still conceptualize leadership as being embodied in an individual, and in

some cases they felt strong leadership was necessary. In this study the college faculty

prefers shared leadership practice within a traditional conceptualization of leadership

being embodied in an individual. It is possible their experience with college leaders is

that they assume a traditional conceptualization of leadership and use transactional

practice. This may contribute to faculty feeling disengaged with respect to the goals and

objectives of the college. Although the faculty participants in this study maintained that

this did not affect them in the classroom other studies indicate there is an impact on

classroom practice.

The ways faculty participants wished to be involved or included in leadership and

leadership practice suggested they see themselves very much as leaders in the classroom,

and commented on their involvement in special projects and participation on committees.

Yet while faculty seem to prefer greater sharing in decisions they still wanted a strong

leader. The data indicated that male faculty felt a leader must be accountable whereas the

female faculty felt that accountability should be shared. It appears faculty does assume

accountability with respect to what happens in the classroom and student learning and

maybe they do not see that accountability extending beyond their classroom practice.

144

Nevertheless, both faculty and college leaders have an opportunity to re-conceptualize the

organization and to engage in leadership that will benefit students and the organization.

Implications for Theory Development

The theoretical assumptions underlying this study are conceptualizations of

leadership as being embodied in an individual or as a process where many can lead. As

well, there is the theory that leadership is not culturally specific; some scholars believe

leadership is essentially conceptualized the same regard less of a person’s background. In

this study there was some variability in perception based on age, gender, race and

ethnicity but individual experience seemed to have greater influence on perception than

the characteristics studied. As such, theories of leadership need to take into account

multiple variables at one time, overcoming limitations associated with a focus on single

variables and approaches to leadership that reduce to a few practices. Kezar (2002) used

positionality theory as a means to analyze follower perceptions of leadership and account

for the many variables that make any person different. Positionality theory would offer a

means to account for the multiple variables in leadership, but this is suggestive. Just as

follower perceptions of leadership differ because of diversity, so too might leader

perceptions of leadership. In other words, to what extent do leader perceptions of

leadership differ? This is important for leadership practice as diversity in leader roles will

likely increase in the future.

It was clear the faculty participants in this study have well developed

conceptualizations of leadership and leadership practice, developed though years of

experience and formal study. It would be reasonable to say that the study participants’

perceptions of leadership and leadership practice were that it is both process and person.

145

In other words, leadership is embodied in a person but also has elements of process. No

doubt, separating the two provides useful frameworks for analysis but in practical terms

there is no way to escape the human aspect of leadership. Leadership is certainly a

relationship, it involves process, it can be learned, context is important and some leaders

are better than others.

A great deal of research has been dedicated to understanding leadership and

leadership practice particularly in terms of what characteristics good leaders possess and

how they approach leadership. This study found many of the same themes already

articulated in earlier research; although it did not find the conceptualization of leadership

as process to be well understood or accepted other than the extent to which process is part

of leadership. Leadership as process has the distinct advantage of ensuring ongoing

change or improvement in an organization over time, because it is not dependent on an

individual who will ultimately leave the organization and take with them all the benefits

created. An organization may flourish under an individual leader and falter under another.

It appears that the deciding factor may well lie in leadership as process – it appears to

have an advantage with respect to diversity because it allows for multiple voices to be

heard and for meaningful contributions to be made. There is, on the other hand, an issue

with leadership as process due to the fact that it may become rigid and dominated by a

few strong voices while giving the appearance of openness. Woods (2005) recognizes the

challenge in democratic leadership:

However, rich the conception of democracy is underpinning democratic

leadership, lofty ideals cannot be allowed to avert the eyes from studied

recognition of the complexity, built- in tensions and flaws with their human

expression and social practice. There is no easy or assured path which overcomes

146

human fallibilities and the misuses of visible and invisible power. (p.133)

Implications for Future Research

The data generated by this study suggest college leaders may need to consider

differences in perception of leadership and leadership practice and faculty characteristics

of age, gender, race and ethnicity if they are not already doing so. The research needs to

be expanded to include other colleges outside the GTHA and expanded to include part-

time faculty to complete our understanding of the extent perceptions differ. If other

differences exist as the literature on diversity shows, we do not know the extent

perceptions differ based on other differences. As indicated earlier, the differences studied

were selected because people are most often marginalized based on these characteristics,

but diversity includes a broader range of difference; and includes many combinations of

difference. Differences in physical ability, sexual orientation, and other

conceptualizations of gender are a few examples of differences not explored in this study,

but as noted in the findings; experiences and difference are important in how leadership is

perceived. Further research into the extent perceptions of leadership vary based on a

wider range of difference is necessary.

In this study college faculty show a nearly equal distribution with respect to

gender, and the distribution of college faculty by age group is clear. More research is

required to gain a better understanding of the distribution of faculty race and ethnicity.

Colleges currently gather data on the distribution of employee race and ethnicity, but the

data are not available, although the data suggest the number of faculty belonging to a

racial or ethnic group appears low in comparison to the general population and other

institutions such as universities. A better understanding of the distribution of faculty

147

belonging to racial or ethnics groups would help colleges understand the impact of their

diversity efforts at both a college and system level; and potential challenges for

leadership. Any future research should include part-time faculty given the dependence on

this group to deliver courses and the diversity that likely exists within this group.

Further research should be done into faculty preferences for leadership that is

shared versus the leadership of a person in a position of authority and into those

culturally contingent dimensions of leadership as described by Dorfman et al. (2004b).

Thirty-five culturally contingent dimensions of leadership have been identified that need

to be explored in the context of full-time college faculty. In addition, the study done by

West-Moynes (2012) suggests college organizational culture may play an important role

in how leadership is perceived and this warrants further study in this area. It was also

found that faculty had limited knowledge of the emerging conceptualizations of

leadership and it is likely there is a similar deficiency among the formal college

leadership. This might suggest research into the extent emerging notions of leadership are

understood by and practiced by the formal college leaders is important especially as

diversity in the faculty population increases over the next few years. More important

would be to study the extent perceptions of leadership differ among the formal college

leaders and if there is a relationship between the diversity of formal college leaders and

how leadership is practiced.

I hope this study raises awareness in the minds of college leaders that there is the

possibility their leadership practices, although well intentioned, may be creating more of

a dysfunctional organization than a functional one. As well, while visions, goals and

objectives are being met they are not necessarily shared by faculty in the organization.

148

This is a substantive problem and in the case of faculty, visions, goals and objectives are

often met with skepticism and apathy rather than deep commitment.

Implications for College Leaders

There are three groups at the study colleges for whom these findings would be of

interest. One group is the formal college leaders who work most closely with faculty

(Chairs, Associate Deans and Deans); the next are the faculty and finally, there are the

faculty union leaders.

For the formal leaders at the study colleges, it is important to understand that

some faculty have differing perceptions of leadership and leadership practice and while

these difference are not extensive, they should not be ignored. Many faculty have had a

long association with their college, as was the case with some of the interview

participants, and so leaders might consider assigning faculty with long associations to

work that takes into account their experience (Salacuse, 2006). Faculty with a long

association, have seen change before and they have seen leaders come and go, and for

these faculty it will take time for new approaches to leadership to take hold or for them to

become involved in leadership. It is also important for the formal leaders to consider that

many faculty are committed to teaching and student success. This fact is positive and this

can form a basis for dialogue about leadership and is an opportunity to discuss how

organizational goals and student success align.

The findings in this study also have implications for the union leaders at the study

colleges. While there is the potential that the findings could be used as a means to point

out flaws in the organization and with the leadership in general, it would be unwise for

the union leaders to do so. As suggested, the findings can form the basis for meaningful

149

discussion as opposed to confrontation, and the union leaders could best use these

findings to gain an understanding of what some of their members think about leadership

and their roles. The faculty who were interviewed as part of this study indicated their

focus on student success, and it is possible that some faculty pay little attention to the

goals of the faculty union in the same way that some faculty pay little attention to the

goals of the college. The data in this study can help promote dialogue with the

union leaders.

The formal college leaders, the union leaders and faculty no doubt would agree

that everyone’s goal is student success. In considering these findings, student success

must be kept in mind and for faculty the findings may help reaffirm their purpose, namely

to engage students but also it might cause them to think about the value of participating in

leadership in support of student success.

150

References

Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley &

Sons.

Aguirre, A., & Martinez, R. O. (2006). Diversity leadership in higher education.

[Monograph]. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(3). 1-117. doi:

10.1002/aehe.3203

Andersen, J. A., & Hansson, P. H. (2011). At the end of the road? On differences

between women and men in leadership behaviour. Leadership and Organization

Development Journal. 32(5), 428-441. doi: 10.1108/01437731111146550

Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership

and gender? A journey through the landscape and theories. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 43-51.doi:

10.1108/0437730310457320

Bakan, A. B., & Kobayashi, A. (2003). Ontario: Lessons of the Rise and Fall of

employment Equity Legislations from the Perspective of Rights Advocacy.

Retrieved from http://www.crr.ca/divers-

files/en/pub/rep/ePubRepEmplEquitCase1.pdf

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. Theory, research & managerial

applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Begley, P. T. (Ed.). (1999). Values and educational leadership. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

151

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New

York, NY: Harper & Row.

Black, T. R. (2005). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Boggs, A., & Trick, D. (2009). Making college-university cooperation work: Ontario in a

national and international context. Toronto, ON: The Higher Education Quality

Council of Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.heqco.ca/en-

CA/Research/Research%20Publications/Pages/Home.aspx

Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education:

Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration and Leadership,

37(2), 257-277.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perceptions on a theory in

progress. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Brunner, B. (2007). Timeline of Affirmative Action Timeline. Retrieved from

www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Canadian Federation of Students, Equal Minds, Equal Education. (2003) The Wage Gap

and Women in Non-traditional Fields of Study. Retrieved from

http://studentunion.ca/cfs/2003/2003-05-factsheet-women.pdf

Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J.,

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V., (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and

organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. (pp. 513-563). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

152

Carli, C. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership: An introduction.

Journal of Social Issues, 57(4). 629-636.

Clark, I. D., Moran, G., Skolnik, M. L., & Trick, D. (2009). Academic transformation:

The forces reshaping higher education in Ontario. Montreal and Kingston:

Queen’s Policy Series, McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Collins, J. (2001) Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t.

New York, NY. HarperCollins.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curtis, E. F., & Dreachslin, J. L. (2008). Diversity management interventions and

organizational performance: A synthesis of current literature. Human Resource

Development Review, 7(1), 107-134. doi: 10.1177/1534484307311700

Colleges Ontario, (2009). A new vision for higher education in Ontario.

Dashborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2004). In Martinko, M. J. (Ed.). (2004).

Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: Theoretical and Empirical

Contributions. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Dennison, J. D., & Levin, J. S. (1988). Goals of community colleges in Canada: A 1987

perspective. Canadian journal of higher education, 18(1). 49-63.

Dorfman, P.W., Hanges, P.J., & Brodbeck, F.C. (2004a). Leadership and cultural

variation. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta,

V., (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62

societies. (pp. 669-719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

153

Dorfman, P.W., & House, R.J. (2004b). In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M.,

Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V., (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The

globe study of 62 societies. (pp. 51-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Employment Equity Act. (1993).Retrieved from http://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/repealedstatutes/english/elaws_rep_statutes_93e35_e.htm

Foot, D. K. (1996). Boom, bust & echo. Toronto, ON: Macfarlane Walter & Ross.

Foster, W. (1986). Towards a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical

perceptions on educational leadership. London, UK: Falmer.

Foti, R. J., & Miner, J. B. (2003). Individual differences and organizational forms in

leadership process. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 83-112. doi: 10.1016/S1048-

9843(02)00182-0

Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Gallagher, P., & Dennison, J. D. (1995). Canada's community college systems: A study

of diversity. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19, 381-393.

Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical

race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485-505.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

154

Gelfand, M.J., Bhawuk, D.P., Nishii, L., & Bechtold, D., J. (2004). Humane orientation

in societies, organizations, and leader attribures. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J.,


organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. (pp. 573-512). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publicantions, Inc.

Government of Canada Budget. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/home-accueil-eng.html

Gunter, H. (2001). Critical approaches to leadership in education. Journal of Educational

Enquiry, 2(2), 94-108.

Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.

Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34. Doi: 10.1177.0892020607085623

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership,

perception and the impact of power. Group and organization studies, 4(4), 418-

428.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequeces: International differences in work-related

values. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R.J. (2004). Illustrative examples of globe findings. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J.,


organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. (pp. 3-8). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

155

House, R. J. & Javidan, M., (2004). Overview of globe. In House, R. J., Hanges, P. J.,


organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. (pp. 9-28). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Jackson, J. F. L., & Phelps, L. A. (2004). Diversity in the tow-year college academic

workforce. New Directions for Community Colleges, 127, 79-88.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN:

Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, P. (2004). A comparison of web and mail

survey response rates. Public opinion Quarterly, 68(1) 94-101. doi:

10.1093/poq/nfh006

Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic Leadership. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(6), 722-

743.

Kezar, A. (2002). Expanding notions of leadership to capture pluralistic voices:

Positionality theory in practice. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4).

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: Examining

transactional and transformational presidential leadership styles. International

Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 379-405.

Kincheloe, J. L. (Ed.). (1999). Understanding democratic curriculum leadership. New

York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

156

King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Identity, and the miseducation of teachers.

Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133-146.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. (4th ed.) San

Francisco, CA. John Wiley & Sons.

Lee, J. A. (2010). Students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with faculty diversity. College

Student Journal, 44(2), 400-412.

Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. L. (1998). Mapping the conceptual terrain of leadership: A

critical point of departure for cross-cultural studies. Peabody Journal of

Education, 73(2), 31-50.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claim about successful

school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.

Liff, S., & Wajcman, J. (1996). 'Sameness' and 'difference' revisited: which way forward

for equal opportunity initiatives? Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 79-94.

López, G. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory

perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94. doi:

10.1177/0013161X02239761

Lumby, J., & Coleman, M. (2007). Leadership and diversity: Challenging theory and

practice in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lumby, J., & Morrison, M. (2006). Partnership, conflict and gaming. Journal of

Education Policy, 21(3), 323-341.

Maxwell, G. A., Blair, S., & McDougall, M. (2001). Edging towards managing diversity

in practice. Employee Relations, 23(5), 468-482.

157

Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., & Dashborough, M. T. (2011) Attribution theory in the

organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational

Behavior 32, 144–149.

McMaster University, PACBIC Annual Report (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.mcmaster.ca/pacbic/documents/PACBIC%20Reports/pacbic_plan_re

port2012_2013.pdf

Mintzberg, H. (2008, February 11, 2008). Mintzberg on leadership. Canadian HR

Reporter.

Mullen, C. A. (2008). Democratically accountable leader/ship: A social justice

perspective of educational quality and practice. Teacher Education Quarterly,

137-153.

Neuman, L.W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. New York, NY. Pearson Education

Noon, M. (2007). The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities.

Work, Employment and Society, 21(4), 773-784. doi: 10.1177/0950017007082886

Nussbaum, M. (1999). Women and human development: The Capabilities Approach.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2009). The capabilities of people with cognitive disabilities

Metaphilosophy, 40(3-4), 331-351.

O’Bannon, G. (2001). Managing our future: The generation x factor. Public Personnel

Management, 30(1), 95-109.

158

O'Leary, B. J., & Weathington, B. L. (2006). Beyond the business case for diversity.

Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 18 (4), 283-292.

Ontario Trillium Foundation (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.trilliumfoundation.org/en/knowledgeSharingCentre/div_ontario.asp

Owen, D. S. (2009). Priviledged social identities and diversity leadership in higher

education. The Review of Higher Education, 32(2), 185-207.

Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behaviour in education: Instructional leadership

and school reform. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Pitman, W. (1994). No dead ends: report of the task force on advanced training.

Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education and Training, Task Force on Advanced

Training

Portelli, J. P., & Solomon, P. R. (Eds.). (2001). The erosion of democracy in education.

Calgary, AB: Detselig.

Policy Statement for Ontario’s Credit Transfer System. Retrieved from

http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/document.html

Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act. (2000). Toronto, Ontario.

Rosette, A. S., Phillips, K. W., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2008). The white standard: Racial

bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 758-777.

Ryan, J. (2003). Leading diverse schools. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher diversity in Canada: Pipelines,

bottlenecks, and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 591-617.

159

Salacuse, J. W. (2006). Leading leaders. How to manage smart, talented, rich and

powerful people. New York, NY: AMACOM

Samuel, E., & Wane, N. (2005). “Unsettling relations”: Racism and sexism experienced

by faculty of color in a predominantly white Canadian university. The Journal of

Negro Education, 74(1), 76-87.

Seifert, T. A., & Umbach, P. D. (2007). The effects of faculty demographic

characteristics and disciplinary context on dimensions of job satisfaction.

Research in Higher Education, 49, 357-381.

Senge, P. M. (2006) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning

organization. (6th eds.) New York, NY. Doubleday.

Skolnik, M. L. (2002). Ontario community colleges and change: Is there and essence that

has remained constant? Does it matter? Paper presented at the ACCAATO

Conference 2002, London, Ontario. Retrieved from

http://cclp.mior.ca/Reference%20Shelf/Skolnik%20Paper%20Five.pdf

Skolnik, M. L., (2011). Re-conceptualizing the relationship between community colleges

and universities using a conceptual framework drawn from the study of

jurisdictional conflict between professions. Community College Review, 39(4),

352-375.

Statistics Canada Census (2006). Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/index-eng.cfmtml

160

Statistics Canada Ethnic Diversity Survey (2003). Retrieved from

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-

in/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=4508&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=

8&dis=2

Statistics Canada Population Projections (2009). Retrieved from

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm

Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Stephenson, C. (2004). Leveraging diversity to maximize advantage; The business case

for appointing more women to boards. Retrieved from

http://www.europeanpwn.net/files/leveraging_diversity.pdf

Thomas, R., R. (2006). Building on the promise of diversity: how we can move to the next

level in our workplaces, our communities, and our society. New York, NY:

American Management Association.

Thompson, C. (2000). White men and the denial of racism. In M. Adams, W.

Blumenfeld, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters & X. Zuninga (Eds.), Readings for

diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism,

heterosexism, ableism, and classism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three

versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 837-848.

Tsui, A., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and

organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.

161

University of Toronto, Employment Equity Report (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.hrandequity.utoronto.ca/about-hr-

equity/reports/employmentequityreport.htm

Vision 2000: Quality and opportunity: a review of the mandate of Ontario's colleges.

(1990). Toronto, Ontario. Retrieve from http://thecouncil.on.ca/download/10938

Vizard, P., Fukuda-Parr, S., & Elson, D. (2011). Introduction: The capability approach

and human rights. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12(1), 1-22.

doi: 10.1080/194528929.2010.541728

West-Moynes, M. H. (2012). A study of organizational culture in Ontario colleges with

high student satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/1807/32848

Woods, P. A. (2005). Democratic leadership in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

York University, Annual Employment Equity Report (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.yorku.ca/hr/documents/Employment_Equity_Report%20_2011.pdf

You-Ta, C., Church, R., & Zikic, J. (2004). Organizational culture, group diversity and

intra-group conflict. Team performance management, 10(1), 26-34.

Yukl, G. (2005). Why integrating the leading and managing roles is essential for

organizational effectiveness. Organizational dynamics, 34(4), 361-375.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice

Hall.

162

Appendix A

Introductory Email

Dear Colleagues:

I have been asked by a PhD student from OISE if I could help with his research on how

college faculty perceive leadership. The study investigates if there are significant

differences in perceptions of leadership based on characteristics such as age, gender and

racial or cultural group. I think this is a topic that many of us would find interesting and

important, as well both the college and the union will be provided with a presentation of

the research results.

Your participation in this research involves completing an online survey of 25 questions

(see survey link below). It is important to note that participation in this research is

voluntary and that the research has been approved by the Research Ethics Board at

(Institution name). If you have any questions you can contact the board directly at

(Telephone number).

Regards,

Name

Survey Link: (insert link)

163

Appendix B

Survey Instrument

A.

SURVEY INFORMATION

This survey is being conducted as part of the requirement for completion of PhD

studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.

This survey is being conducted as part of the requirement for completion of PhD

studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.

The study involves gathering both quantitative and qualitative data on how college faculty

perceive leadership and whether or not leadership is perceived differently based on age,

gender and racial or cultural background.

You will be given a series of statements regarding the nature of leadership and your

answers should reflect what you think are ideal leadership practices. The survey is not

intended to measure the quality or actions of leaders in your institution. All data gathered is

for the purpose of determining how different groups perceive leadership and not to judge or

rate these group perceptions.

ONLY THE RESEARCHER w ill ever have access to this raw data and the raw data will be

stored under lock and key at the researcher’s home off ice. The analysis of the data will be

used in the written dissertation and the presentation at the oral defense of the dissertation.

In addition a presentation, in aggregate form, will be made to The Ontario Public Service

Employees Union Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology-Academic at your College

and to the Leadership Team at your College.

The timing for the destruction of the raw data is June 10, 2015. The survey w ill take

approximately 30 minutes to complete and can be started only once. If you decide not

to complete the survey you may exit at any time, and data collected to that point w ill be

used in the analysis.

At the end of the survey, you will be asked if you wish to participate in the qualitative

component of the research. This involves participating in a 40 minute interview. This

component is voluntary and you are not required to participate.

Please indicate if you wish to continue with the survey. Yes No

164

B.

FACULTY INFORMATION

1. Do you consider yourself to be a member of a

racial or cultural minority group? (e.g., Chinese,

South Asian, Black, Filipino, Southeast Asian,

Latin American, Arab, West Asian, Japanese,

Korean, North American Indian, Inuit, Métis).

Yes No Do not wish to answer

2. Age

<29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60

3. Gender

M F

C. PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP

Please indicate your level of agreement with the

following statements.

Strongly

Agree

Agree Undecided Strongly

Disagree

1. Leadership is a person in a position of authority who

influences the actions of others to achieve


1 2 3 4

2. Leadership is a process involving relationships that

influences the actions of others to achieve


1 2 3 4

3. The leader of an organization must be the one who

determines the vision.

1 2 3 4

4. It is preferable to have leaders who encourage

collective decision making.

1 2 3 4

5. Shared leadership is the best way to satisfy the

needs of people working in an organization.

1 2 3 4

6. An individual in a position of leadership can best

model the behaviours required to achieve


1 2 3 4

7. It is preferable to have leaders who ensure members

of an organization share the same values.

1 2 3 4

8. An individual in a position of leadership can best build

a culture of collaboration.

1 2 3 4

165

9. Improving work processes is best achieved through

shared leadership.

1 2 3 4

10. Members of an organization prefer leaders who think

critically...

1 2 3 4

11. It is preferable to have leaders who encourage

independent action to achieve organizational goals.

1 2 3 4

12. Members of an organization prefer leaders who

accept the expertise of others.

1 2 3 4

13. Leadership is primarily a transaction between leader

and follower.

1 2 3 4

14. Leadership is a transformational experience between

the leader and the follower...

1 2 3 4

15. Leadership requires power to influence others to


1 2 3 4

16. Members of an organization prefer leadership that

they are able to question.

1 2 3 4

17. To be a leader a person must f irst be a servant. 1 2 3 4

18. It is preferable to have leaders who encourage a

diversity of opinions.

1 2 3 4

19. Learning is best achieved in an organization that

uses shared leadership.

1 2 3 4

20. The goals of an organization are best developed

through shared leadership practices

1 2 3 4

21. Members of an organization prefer leadership that is

concerned with social justice.

1 2 3 4

22. Clear communication is best achieved in

organizations w ith a single leader.

1 2 3 4

23. It is preferable to have leaders that accept

accountability for the actions of others.

1 2 3 4

24. Members of an organization prefer a leader who is able to inspire them.

1 2 3 4

25. Leadership is perceived differently by different groups of people.

1 2 3 4

166

D. Please add any additional comments below

E. Please indicate if you wish to participate in a face-to-face interview of approximately

45 minutes, if so you will be sent an Informational/Consent Letter that must be

completed and returned prior to the interview. Please indicate if you wish to

participate and email your contact information to [email protected]

Yes No

167

Appendix C

Informational/Consent Letter to Union Presidents assisting in the research

From: Jim Daku

(Date)

Dear (Name):

Thank you for agreeing to assist in my research project. As discussed, I am currently enrolled in PhD studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University

of Toronto. I am doing this research as part of the requirement for the completion of this program under the supervision of Professor Angela Hildyard. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information that you will need to understand what I am doing, and to

assist in distributing the survey instrument.

Because of administrative and ethical issues related to research done in universities and colleges, this letter is a form letter. At the end of the letter, you will find a place to indicate whether or not you wish to assist in the research. Please check the appropriate

box, sign, and provide the date. Return one signed copy to me and keep the other for your reference.

The name of this research project is: Faculty Diversity and Perceptions of Leadership in

a College of Applied Arts and Technology and an Institute of Technology and Advanced

Learning

The nature and purpose of this research is first to survey faculty in a College of Applied Arts and Technology or an Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning to determine to what extent there is a relationship between perceptions of leadership and leadership

practice and characteristics such as faculty age, gender and race or cultural group. The second part of the research is to further investigate, through interviews, perceptions of

leadership and leadership practice and the ways faculty wish to be involved or included in leadership. A review of the literature suggests that perceptions of leadership and leadership practice are not universal and may differ based on an individual’s age, gender

and race or cultural background. I am also interested in whether faculty favour leadership practices that are collaborative versus those that involve the actions of an individual. My

research is concerned with perceptions of leadership and leadership practices and not the practices of leaders at your institution.

Your part in the research is to distribute the weblink to my survey to the faculty at your institution. No potential risks to you by assisting in this research are anticipated.

168

Potential benefits you might derive from assisting are gained insight into perceptions of

and preferences for leadership and leadership practice and the ways faculty would like to be included or involved in leadership in this teaching context.

Attached to this letter you will find the following section or sections, which will give you more information. Please make a point of reading the section or sections carefully before

signing:

Section A. In addition to being able to contact me at the telephone number below, you may verify

the ethical approval of this study, or raise any concerns you might have by contacting the Director of Research at: (College and Contact Number)

You may also contact my supervisor, Professor Angela Hildyard, at 416-978-4865 ([email protected]).

Thank-you, Sincerely,

Jim Daku

169

Section A

This study involves you distributing a weblink to a survey instrument. The weblink will be sent to faculty at your institution through email.

The content of the email that you will send to faculty is shown below:

Dear Colleagues:

I have been asked by a PhD student from OISE if I could help with his research on how

college faculty perceives leadership. This student’s name is Jim Daku and he has taught at Sheridan and Humber and is currently working at George Brown College. The study

investigates if there are significant differences in perceptions of leadership based on characteristics such as age, gender and racial or cultural group. I think this is a topic that many of us would find interesting and important, as well both the college and the union

will be provided with a presentation of the research results.

Your participation in this research involves completing an online survey of 25 questions (see survey link below). It is important to note that participation in this research is

voluntary and that the research has been approved by the Research Ethics Board at (Institution name) If you have any questions you can contact the board directly at 905-575-1212 x3309 or Jim Daku at [email protected].

Regards,

(Name)

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WWKBXYR

170

ONLY I

Will ever have access to the survey data. In the dissertation, names and other identifying information about you or your organization will be systematically changed.

Identifying codes that could connect you or your organization with the changed names will also be kept under lock and key in my home office. The timing for the destruction of the survey data is December 16, 2015.

I will be sharing major aspects of my preliminary analysis with you and you will have the

opportunity to provide feedback. How I will be doing this is: If requested, a copy of the analysis of results section of the dissertation will be sent to

you.

Jim Daku

171

To Be Completed by the Union Local President

I have read this document and any enclosed documents. I understand what is being asked

and the accompanying conditions and promises. I understand the nature and limitations of the research.

I agree to assist in the ways described If I am making any exceptions or stipulations, these are

______________________ (Signature) ______________________ (Printed Name)

______________________ (Date)

172

To Be Completed by the Union Local President

I have read this document and any enclosed documents. I understand what is being asked and the accompanying conditions and promises. I understand the nature and limitations of

the research.

I agree to assist in the ways described

If I am making any exceptions or stipulations, these are

______________________ (Signature)

______________________ (Printed Name)

______________________ (Date)

173

Appendix D

Informational/Consent Letter to Participants being interviewed

From: Jim Daku

(Date)

Dear (Name):

Thank you for considering participating in, or contributing to, my research project. As I noted in the survey, I am currently enrolled in PhD studies at the Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. I am doing this research as part of the requirement for the completion of this program under the supervision of Professor Angela Hildyard. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information that you will need

to understand what I am doing, and to decide whether or not you choose to participate. Participation is completely voluntary, and should you decide to participate, you are free

to withdraw at any time without explanation or consequences. Because of administrative and ethical issues related to research done in universities and

colleges, this letter is a form letter. At the end of the letter, you will find a place to indicate whether or not you wish to participate. Please check the appropriate box, sign,

and provide the date. Return one signed copy to me and keep the other for your reference. The summary of the aggregate report will be shared with the Sheridan Community.

The name of this research project is: Faculty Diversity and Perceptions of Leadership in

a College of Applied Arts and Technology and an Institute of Technology and Advanced

Learning

The nature and purpose of this research is first to survey faculty in a College of Applied

Arts and Technology or an Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning to determine to what extent there is a relationship between perceptions of leadership and leadership

practice and characteristics such as faculty age, gender and race or cultural group. The second part of the research is to further investigate, through interviews, perceptions of leadership and leadership practice and the ways faculty wish to be involved or included in

leadership. A review of the literature suggests that perceptions of leadership and leadership practice are not universal and may differ based on an individual’s age, gender

and race or cultural background. I am also interested in whether faculty favour leadership practices that are collaborative versus those that involve the actions of an individual. My research is concerned with perceptions of leadership and leadership practices and not the

practices of leaders at your institution.

174

Your part in the research, if you agree, is to participate in an interview of approximately 45 minutes. The interview which can be conducted at the college or off site will be taped

and transcribed. You will be able to review the transcription before it is analysed so you can correct any errors or omissions. Both the tapes and the transcriptions will be securely

stored in a locked filing cabinet in my home office. No potential risks to you by participating in this research are anticipated. You may ask

that the interview be discontinued at any time without consequences or any explanation. If you withdraw your data will be destroyed and not used in the study.

Potential benefits you might derive from participating are gained insight into your perceptions of and preferences for leadership and leadership practice and the ways you

would like to be included or involved in leadership. In addition, once my dissertation is complete you will be able to review the findings and gain an understanding of the ways

leadership and leadership practices are perceived by faculty in this teaching context. Attached to this letter you will find the following section or sections, which will give you

more information. Please make a point of reading the section or sections carefully before signing:

Section A.

In addition to being able to contact me at the telephone number below, you may verify the ethical approval of this study, or raise any concerns you might have by contacting the

Director of Research at: (College and Contact Number) You may also contact my supervisor, Professor Angela Hildyard, at 416-978-4865

([email protected]).

Thank-you,

Sincerely,

Jim Daku

175

Section A

This study involves you participating in interviews with Jim Daku. The interview will be informal and will last approximately 45 minutes. We will be engaged in an open

interview or dialogue. Areas I hope touch on are, how you perceive leadership and leadership practices what

approaches to leadership you prefer and the ways you wish to be included in leadership.

Examples of questions that I have in mind include the following:

1. How would you define or describe leadership?

2. Would most individuals provide similar definitions or descriptions of leadership?

3. What might cause similarities or differences in how leadership is defined or

described?

4. What knowledge or experiences have influenced or informed your definition of

leadership?

5. Have you been in the position of a leader and if so, how would you describe your

approach to leadership?

6. Have you experienced good leadership and if so, what made the experience

good?

7. Have you experienced poor leadership and if so, what made the experience poor?

8. What are the responsibilities, actions or functions associated with leadership?

9. Are these responsibilities, actions or functions embodied in an individual or can

they be processes shared among many individuals?

10. Do you favour leadership where responsibilities, actions or functions are

embodied in an individual or do you favour leadership that is a process and

shared among many individuals and why?

11. Given your preference for leadership and leadership practices (either individual

or shared) describe the ways that you wish to be involved or included in

leadership?

176

ONLY I

Will ever have access your interview transcript. In the transcripts, names and other identifying information about you or your organization will be systematically

changed. Identifying codes that could connect you or your organization with the changed names will also be kept under lock and key in my home office. The timing for the destruction of the tapes and/or the transcripts is December 16, 2015.

As interviewee, you will receive a copy of the transcript of your interview(s). Any section

which you request to have deleted from the transcript(s) of you interview(s) will be deleted. You are free to withdraw from the study at any time, and you may request that the entire transcript of your interview be destroyed. I will be sharing major aspects of my

preliminary analysis with you and you have the opportunity to provide feedback. How I will be doing this is:

If requested, a copy of the analysis of results section of the dissertation will be sent to each interview participant.

___________________________________ ___________________________

Jim Daku Date

177

To Be Completed by the Participants

I have read this document and any enclosed documents. I understand that I am being asked to:

to participate in an taped interview of approximately 45 minutes

to meet at a location and at a time that is mutually agreed upon

to answer only those questions that I wish to answer (see exceptions or

stipulations below)

to review the transcription of the interview (hard copy or electronic per my

preference) before it is analyzed so I can correct any errors or omissions

to return the reviewed transcript either electronically or by mail (postage and

return envelope provided) I understand what is being asked and the accompanying conditions and promises. I

understand the nature and limitations of the research.

I understand that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time.

I agree to participate in the ways described If I am making any exceptions or stipulations, these are

I do not wish to participate in the research.

______________________ (Signature)

______________________ (Printed Name)

______________________ (Date)

178

To Be Completed by the Participants

I have read this document and any enclosed documents. I understand that I am being asked to:

to participate in an taped interview of approximately 45 minutes

to meet at a location and at a time that is mutually agreed upon

to answer only those questions that I wish to answer (see exceptions or

stipulations below)

to review the transcription of the interview (hard copy or electronic per my

preference) before it is analyzed so I can correct any errors or omissions

to return the reviewed transcript either electronically or by mail (postage and

return envelope provided) I understand what is being asked and the accompanying conditions and promises. I

understand the nature and limitations of the research.

I understand that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time.

I agree to participate in the ways described If I am making any exceptions or stipulations, these are

I do not wish to participate in the research.

______________________ (Signature)

______________________ (Printed Name)

______________________ (Date)

179

Appendix E

Interview Questions

1. How would you define or describe leadership?

2. Would most individuals provide similar definitions or descriptions of leadership?

3. What might cause similarities or differences in how leadership is defined or

described?

4. What knowledge or experiences have influenced or informed your definition of

leadership?

5. Have you been in the position of a leader and if so, how would you describe your

approach to leadership?

6. Have you experienced good leadership and if so, what made the experience good?

7. Have you experienced poor leadership and if so, what made the experience poor?

8. What are the responsibilities, actions or functions associated with leadership?

9. Are these responsibilities, actions or functions embodied in an individual or can

they be processes shared among many individuals?

10. Do you favour leadership where responsibilities, actions or functions are

embodied in an individual or do you favour leadership that is a process and shared

among many individuals and why?

11. Given your preference for leadership and leadership practices (either individual or

shared) describe the ways that you wish to be involved or included in leadership?

180

Appendix F

Faculty Comments on Leadership

1. Leadership is best done by example. Leadership and knowledge go hand in hand.

Leadership and passion go hand in hand. Leadership is a lot about doing and even

more about listening.

2. Leadership can come from anyone within an organization. It does not require

power or authority; it does require mutual trust and respect. Good leaders help

those they work with to grow and accomplish their goals. Good leaders recognize

talent. Good leaders don't ask anyone to do something they wouldn't do

themselves.

3. Leadership respects information from the bottom of the organization.

4. “Shared leadership" to me is understood to mean a hierarchical or branched

system, where some leaders are at a similar level of authority/responsibility and

would communicate laterally as well as up/down. Ultimately, however, even this

system would have as its head a single figure, who is seen to represent the

institution as a whole. In this case, then, it is essential that said figure accepts

input and expertise from all those below him/her, through the hierarchical

communication system. This will not only drive the institution but should, ideally,

ensure that the single-figure "head" remains aware of the needs and concerns from

those who do not hold an equal authority.

5. Leadership is not a pay grade, an employment position, nor a right; but rather, it is

a privilege earned by those who are inspiring, collaborative and humble.

181

6. Collaborative decision making, while maintaining the highest respect for

professional ethics, is the key to successfully setting and enacting organizational

goals. Collaborative decision making is a skill in itself and in an ideal world all

organizational members would receive appropriate training in the process.

7. Perhaps the most important quality for a leader is the ability to motivate others to

act. It requires honesty, integrity and a great deal of understanding on the part of

the leader. A leader must first of all gain trust in order to be able to lead an

organization and must keep that trust in order to achieve organizational goals.

New leaders need to respect the current and historic culture of an organization

rather than impose their value system on it in order to lead effectively.

8. It's too bad that in politics and the College that we have such incompetent, inept

leadership. Our education system is being decimated by the type of leadership that

we have in Ontario and we are going to lose out to Asia.

9. Leadership is built on integrity not hidden agendas or self-promotion.

10. I believe everyone perceives leadership and the qualities they feel a leader should

have differently. I also believe that depending on the situation, different styles of

leadership need to be practiced.

11. While motivational leadership is transformational, inspiring and collegial, I think

it must rest on a sound basis of transactional leadership such as competent

management and administration. I am not sure that all followers really need or

like a lot of consultative or participative leadership in a college setting. We work

independently in our classrooms with our students and so long as our leaders are

not negative or obstructionist, I am not sure they affect us all that much. I think

182

that we are attracted to this work partly because of this. It is very different from

other organizations where there is much more need for group alignment and team

creativity.

12. Effective leadership involves the ability to govern an organization with authority

while permitting input from the team. Strong leaders are willing to accept

constructive criticism and recognize strengths and weaknesses in their

organization. A good leader will encourage growth in the individual and give

credit where credit is due. Respected leaders will offer recognition when

applicable.

13. It is disturbing to faculty to have leaders who pay lip service to collaboration so

that on the surface it "seems" to be collaboration, but in reality it is not. The

leader’s ideas prevail, although a show has been made to make it seem that ideas

are coming from the group.

183

Appendix G

Intercorrelation of Survey Statements

Statement Statement r

S1. Leadership is a person in a position of authority who influences

the actions of others to achieve organizational goals.

S3. The leader of an organization must be the one who determines the

vision.

.26

S6. An individual in a position of

leadership can best model the behaviours required to achieve


.28

S7. It is preferable to have leaders

that ensure members of an organization share the same values.

.23

S15. Leadership requires power to influence others to achieve


.26

S3. The leader of an organization must

be the one who determines the vision.

S7. It is preferable to have leaders

that ensure members of an organization share the same values.

.32

S22. Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a

single leader.

.22

S23. It is preferable to have leaders that accept accountability for the actions of others.

.23

(continued)

184


S4. It is preferable to have leaders that

encourage collective decision making.

S5. Shared leadership is the best way

to satisfy the needs of people working in an organization.

.39

S9. Improving work processes is best achieved through shared leadership

.48

S19. Learning is best achieved in an organization that uses shared

leadership.

.35

S20. The goals of an organization are best developed through shared leadership practices.

.30

S5. Shared leadership is the best way

to satisfy the needs of people working in an organization.

S9. Improving work processes is best

achieved through shared leadership

.65

S10. Members of an organization

prefer leaders who think critically.

.24

S19. Learning is best achieved in an

organization that uses shared leadership.

.69

S20. The goals of an organization are best developed through shared

leadership practices.

.66

(continued)

185



leadership can best model the behaviours required to achieve organizational goals.


leadership can best build a culture of collaboration.

.30

S9. Improving work processes is best achieved through shared leadership

S19. Learning is best achieved in an organization that uses shared

leadership.

.65

S20. The goals of an organization are

best developed through shared leadership practices.

.65

S11. It is preferable to have leaders that encourage independent action to


S17. Improving work processes is best achieved through shared

leadership

.30

S13. Leadership is primarily a transaction between leader and follower.

S14. Leadership is a transformational experience between the leader and the follower.

.27

S15. Leadership requires power to influence others to achieve


.39

S22. Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a single leader.

.29

(continued)

186


S15. Leadership requires power to

influence others to achieve organizational goals.

S22. Clear communication is best

achieved in organizations with a single leader.

.33

S16. Members of an organization prefer leadership that they are able to

question.

S21. Members of an organization prefer leadership that is concerned

with social justice.

.28

S19. Learning is best achieved in an

organization that uses shared leadership.

S20. The goals of an organization are

best developed through shared leadership practices.

.82

S22. Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a

single leader.

-.22

S20. The goals of an organization are best developed through shared leadership practices.

S22. Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a single leader.

-.24

S22. Clear communication is best achieved in organizations with a single

leader.

S23. It is preferable to have leaders that accept accountability for the

actions of others.

.30

Note: p < .01. r ≥ .50 in boldface

187

Appendix H

Percent of Faculty Responses on Perceptions of Leadership

Statement Agree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Missing

(%)

Total

(%)

1. Leadership is a person in a position of authority who influences the actions of

others to achieve organizational goals.

107

(61.1)

37

(21.1)

31

(17.8)

175

(100.0)

2. Leadership is a process involving

relationships that influences the actions of others to achieve organizational

goals.

143

(81.7)

2

(1.1)

30

(17.2)

175

(100.0)

3. The leader of an organization must be

the one who determines the vision.

45

(25.7)

99

(56.6)

30

(17.7)

175

(100.0)

4. It is preferable to have leaders that encourage collective decision making.

136

(77.7)

9

(5.1)

30

(17.1)

175

(100.)

5. Shared leadership is the best way to satisfy the needs of people working in

an organization.

115

(65.7)

27

(15.4)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

6. An individual in a position of

leadership can best model the behaviours required to achieve organizational goals.

107

(61.1)

36

(20.6)

32

(18.3)

175

(100.00)

7. It is preferable to have leaders that

ensure members of an organization share the same values.

77

(44.0)

63

(36.0)

35

(20.0)

175

(100.0)

8. An individual in a position of leadership can best build a culture of

collaboration.

122

(69.7)

22

(12.6)

31

(17.7)

175

(100.0)

9. Improving work processes is best

achieved through shared leadership.

122

(69.7)

20

(11.4)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

(continued)

188

Statement Agree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Missing

(%)

Total

(%)

10. Members of an organization prefer leaders who think critically.

123

(70.3)

19

(10.9)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

11. It is preferable to have leaders that encourage independent action to


115

(65.8)

30

(17.1)

30

(17.1)

175

(100.0)

12. Members of an organization prefer

leaders who accept the expertise of others.

136

(77.7)

6

(3.4)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

13. Leadership is primarily a transaction between leader and follower.

52

(29.8)

86

(49.1)

37

(21.1)

175

(100.0) 14. Leadership is a transformational

experience between the leader and the follower.

95

(54.3)

44

(25.1)

36

(20.6)

175

(100.0)

15. Leadership requires power to influence others to achieve organizational goals.

84

(48.0)

59

(33.7)

36

(20.6)

175

(100.0)

16. Members of an organization prefer leadership that they are able to

question.

136

(77.7)

6

(3.4)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

17. To be a leader a person must first be a

servant.

88

(50.3)

52

(29.7)

35

(20.0)

175

(100.0)

18. It is preferable to have leaders who encourage a diversity of opinions.

139

(79.4)

3

(1.7)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

19 Learning is best achieved in an organization that uses shared

leadership.

117

(66.9)

24

(13.7)

34

(19.4)

175

(100.0)

20. The goals of an organization are best

developed through shared leadership practices.

118

(67.4)

21

(12.0)

36

(20.6)

175

(100.0)

(continued)

189

Statement Agree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Missing

(%)

Total

(%)

21. Members of an organization prefer leadership that is concerned with social justice.

117

(66.9)

24

(13.7)

34

(19.4)

175

(100.0)

22. Clear communication is best achieved

in organizations with a single leader.

54

(30.9)

88

(50.2)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

23. It is preferable to have leaders that

accept accountability for the actions of others.

109

(62.2)

33

(18.9)

33

(18.9)

175

(100.0)

24. Members of an organization prefer a leader who is able to inspire them

139

(79.4)

4

(2.3)

32

(18.3)

175

(100.0) 25. Leadership is perceived differently by

different groups of people.

141

(80.6)

2

(1.1)

32

(18.3)

175

(100.0)

190

Appendix I

CAAT Pension Plan Data

Frequency Distribution of Age

Age Frequency Percent Cumulative

20-29 41 0.8% 0.8%

30-39 319 6.1% 6.9%

40-49 1156 22.2% 29.2%

50-59 2388 45.9% 75.1%

60-69 1293 24.9% 100.0%

70+ 1 0.0% 100.0%

5198 100.0%

Note: CAAT Pension Plan October 26, 2012. Used with permission.

191

Appendix J

Confirmation Number: 11110374

Order Date: 07/27/2013

Print this page

Customer Information

Customer: James Daku

Account Number: 3000680248

Organization: James Daku

Email: [email protected] Phone: +1 (905) 639-5650

Payment Method: Invoice

Order Details

Designing and conducting mixed methods research

Billing Status:

N/A

Order detail ID: 63865253

ISBN: 978-1-4129-2792-5

Publication Type: Book

Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC

Author/Editor: CRESWELL,PLANO-CLARK

Permission Status: Granted

Permission type: Republish or display content

Type of use: Republish in a thesis/dissertation

Order License Id: 3197110039840

https://www.copyright.com/search.do?operation=detail&item=124107745

https://www.copyright.com/home.do

192

Appendix K

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN ONTARIO … · FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN ONTARIO...

Documents

Transcript of FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN ONTARIO … · FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN ONTARIO...