Running Head: ARTICLE ANALYSIS 1

Article Analysis 1 Janovick - 1 -

Vanessa Janovick

Article Analysis 1

CSA 575

December 18, 2008

University presidents at 4-year institutions get into the presidential position many ways. They may have little experience as student affairs years of experience as faculty or administration. On the contrary, university presidents may have experience in all levels of student affairs, butexperience as a faculty member. Are there differences between presidential candidates who come from these different backgrounds? If there are, these differences may contribute to the effectiveness of the president. The article “The extent to which four year college presidents who previously served as senior student affairs officers report having the characteristics of effective presidents” by Joanne Riscar (2004) looks at the path university presidents take to achieve their position. The article researches whether or not senior student affairs officers who become presidents have the same characteristics as current effective college presidents have.

In this article, 49 presidents at 4-year institutions were identified as previous senior student affairs officers. These 49 presidents were sent a research instrument, a replica of the Fischer/Tack Effective Leadership Inventory, through U.S. Mail. They were then returned to be analyzed using SPSS (statistical package for the social science software). A t-test compared the findings of this study to a similar study conducted by Fischer ET Al. (1988) that defined characteristics of effective presidents. Results from the presidents were then analyzed using t-tests. They were used to determine items based on the categories: “human relations index with significance at > .05”, “differences on index scores between presidents of institutions based on student headcount”, “analysis of differences on index scores based on institutional control”, and“individual questions with significance based on type of institution led.” Findings indicated that further analysis using ANOVA, and Bonferroni post-hoc test were needed for the t-test on “differences on index scores between presidents of institutions based on student headcount.”

For this particular project, three analyses were done. The results from the senior student affairs officer presidents were compared with the findings from Fischer ET. Al. It was found that that Fisher et al.'s effective presidents were less likely to agree with the questions on the Human Relations Index than were their representative group of presidents, and that the SSAO presidents showed even a higher level of disagreement with the questions on this Index. These were the only results that were significant, at p=.04. Next, the inventory results from the senior student affairs presidents were examined based on the size of the institution led. The results indicate that the nature and culture of the campus based on student headcount are identified as factors in the size of the institution led by the president. Finally, the inventory results from the senior student affairs officer presidents were examined based on whether the control of the institution led was public or private. This group was divided into 3 categories; public, private independent, and private religious. ANOVA was done, and there were no significant differences between the public and the private sectors.

Riscar makes the conclusion that senior student affairs officers who become university presidents are more likely to agree that they are warm and affable and that they are more likely to enjoy “stirring things up” than traditional effective presidents as defined by Fischer ET Al. Overall, this study documents senior student affairs officers as having the same characteristics as effective presidents to a very high degree.

This has implications for student affairs professionals who have aspirations of one day becoming a university president. Because of these results, many more senior student affairs officers may eventually be considered as a candidate for university president. Those who venture into the field of student affairs should keep their high aspirations. The more senior student affairs officers considered as candidates for university president there are, the more common this will become. Having a senior student affairs officer become president of a university presents many benefits, especially for those in student affairs. The president will know how to collaborate with faculty, staff, and the community, just like a senior student affairs officer would. They would also be able to encourage collaboration between all divisions on campus, namely between academic affairs and student affairs. This could create a whole new campus culture.

University presidents at 4-year institutions who were formally senior student affairs officers are just as effective of presidents as traditional university presidents are. They may even be able to enact unique policies that benefit the entire campus and create a new campus culture. Hiring committees should no longer question candidates for presidency who have previously held a position as a senior student affairs officer. There are no major differences between these two presidential candidates, therefore, both should be considered equally for the university presidency.

References

Riscar, J. (Spring 2004). The Extent to which FourYearCollege Presidents Who Previously Served as Senior Student Affairs Officers Report Having the Characteristics of Effective Presidents. NASPA Journal (Online) retrieved 12/15/2008. 41 nbr.3, 436-451.