Perceptions Of Chief Student Affairs Officers Regarding The Amount Of Time Spent And The Importance Of Specific Duties That They Perform In Three Dimensions Of Professional Practice PDF Download

This study investigated leadership behaviors and characteristics of university chief student affairs officers (CSAOs). Using three forms of data collection, the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), a Q-sort exercise, and qualitative interviews, the overall purpose of this study was to develop a profile of the chief student affairs officer as an effective leader. The LPI, developed by Kouzes and Posner (1995), measures five leadership practices: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart. CSAOs completed the LPI-self, while their subordinates, peers, and supervisors completed the LPI-observer about the CSAO on their campus. The Q-sort exercise asked participants to rank twenty-seven stimulus statements about CSAO leadership behaviors and characteristics, from those perceived as most effective to least effective. Finally, interviews were conducted with each CSAO to gain insights of their thoughts on leadership, the leadership behaviors and characteristics they exhibited, and their specific experience as a chief student affairs officer. Findings provided leadership behaviors and characteristics of the CSAO perceived to be effective, measured by the LPI, and used to propose a profile of the CSAO as an effective leader. Conclusions included the following: (1) The role, visibility, and active involvement of CSAOs at the institutional level contributes to their ability to be effective leaders. (2) CSAOs do a good job of empowering employees, even within institutional settings that contradict such efforts. (3) CSAOs make efforts to collaborate with other institutional leaders, recognizing that such relationship building is important for them to be effective leaders. (4) CSAOs recognize the value of acknowledging employee contributions and they make efforts to praise outstanding performance. (5) CSAOs talk in generalities of their vision of student affairs and are not adept at clearly articulating specific and comprehensive details. Since others with whom they work place value in developing a shared vision for student affairs, CSAOs should consider enhancing this behavior. (6) CSAOs are hesitant to take risks. Institutional presidents placing a high priority in CSAOs responding to campus crisis situations, and little value in them being risk takers, may be a factor in this behavior.