AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER IN PUBLIC COMMUNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGES IN KANSAS AND OKLAHOMA

Scope of Study. The purpose of this study was to define the role of the chief academic officer in the community/junior colleges in Kansas and Oklahoma. Role was partitioned by functions generated from the literature--i.e., academic staff development, academic staff selection, administrative interaction, budget planning and management, curriculum development, division/department activities, external liaison, routine administrative duties, staff interaction, and student interaction.;Findings and Conclusions. The first part of the findings were perceptions of role performance: (1) Chief academic officers perceived themselves to be performing in all functions at an overall level of three-fourths of the possible frequency and intensity. The highest means were in academic staff selection, curriculum development, administrative interaction, academic staff development, and routine administrative duties. The lowest were in external liaison and student interaction. (2) Chief academic officers preferred role performance to be increased in all dimensions in academic staff selection, budget planning and management, curriculum development, external liaison, and student interaction and reduced in division/department activities and routine administrative duties. (3) Superordinates perceived the officers to be performing in all functions at an overall level of two thirds of the possible frequency and intensity. The highest means were in academic staff development, administrative interaction, and curriculum development. The lowest were in external liaison and student interaction. (4) Superordinates preferred role performance to be increased in all dimensions in academic staff development, academic staff selection, and curriculum development and reduced in routine administrative duties. (5) Subordinates perceived the officers to be performing in all functions at an overall level of about two-thirds of the possible frequency and intensity with highest performance in all dimensions in academic staff selection, administrative interaction, curriculum development, routine administrative duties, and budget planning and management. The lowest means were in staff interaction and student interaction. (6) Subordinates preferred increased performance in academic staff development, budget planning and management, curriculum development, division/department activities, external liaison, and student interaction and reduced performance in routine administrative duties.;The second part of the findings was the relationship between the chief academic officers' responses for actual and preferred frequency, intensity, and proportion: (1) In the frequency dimension, coefficients of correlation were significant in all functions except routine administrative duties. (2) In intensity, coefficients were significant in all functions except budget planning and management and routine administrative duties. (3) In proportion, coefficients were significant in all functions.;The third part of the findings was differences among the types of respondents in their perceptions of actual performance and preferred performance: (1) In actual performance there were 12 separate differences in seven functions. (2) In preferred performance there were 12 separate differences in four functions.;Performance in the functions was quantified by the dimensions of frequency of participation, intensity of involvement, and proportion of the role allocated to each function. Chief academic officers, their superordinates, and their immediate subordinates were surveyed to determine their perceptions of actual role performance and of preferred role performance.