BG Su 1276203234

UNDERSTANDING SUCCESSION PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT EFFORTS
AT MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITY:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY
Peter E. E. Mateso
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green

State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements of the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2010
Committee:
Judy A. Zimmerman, Advisor
Jennifer Gillespie,
Graduate Faculty Representative
Paul Longenecker
Patrick D. Pauken
Rachel Vannatta Reinhart

© 2010
Peter E. E. Mateso
All Rights Reserved

iii
ABSTRACT
Judy A. Zimmerman, Advisor
The purpose of this concurrent triangulation mixed methods study was to understand the
status of succession planning and management (SPM) efforts of the subject university as
perceived by the fulltime academic and fulltime administrative staff. Four research questions
guided this study: (1) how do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff generally
evaluate the status of the university’s SPM efforts? (2) How do fulltime academic staff and
fulltime administrative staff perceive eight SPM practices taking place at their respective
colleges and administrative units? (3) Do the perceived eight SPM practices differ by
occupational role, college, service years, and gender? (4) How do fulltime academic staff and
fulltime administrative staff evaluate some factors associated with SPM processes at the
university?
A survey was electronically administered to 1,530 participants, of whom 414 were
material respondents. Also, six participants were purposely selected and interviewed using a
semi-structured interview guide. Moreover, some policy documents of the studied university
were reviewed. Whereas quantitative methods were employed to analyze survey responses,
content analysis techniques were used to analyze qualitative data from interview transcripts,
open-ended survey responses, and documents reviewed.
Several findings emerge from this study. First, although the subject university seems to
informally implement a few SPM practices in certain administrative units and colleges, the status
of SPM efforts at the university is generally inadequate. Participants indicated the need for
improving SPM efforts through an urgent introduction of a systematic SPM program.

iv
Second, results suggest that the university does not adequately implement eight SPM
practices except for a few informal, individual-driven cases. Moreover, perception differences on
SPM practices were observed for some groups. For example, perception differences on some
practices were noted by groups representing occupational role, college, and service years.
Third, aside from findings related to three a priori factors—diversity consideration on
SPM, impact of current economic recession, and impact of government policies and laws—study
results suggest several additional factors affecting SPM efforts at the studied university. These
factors include unsuitable organizational culture for SPM, organizational leadership challenges,
hindering hiring and promotion policies and practices, as well as budget and financial
limitations. Moreover, the subject university is likely to lose about 25% of its fulltime academic
and administrative members within the next five years.
Consequently, this study proposes general recommendations to policy makers,
practitioners, and researchers. For instance, researchers are encouraged to use this study as a
springboard to carry out follow-up inquiries at the Midwestern University, investigate SPM
efforts in other academic institutions, and conduct additional studies for refining and enriching
theoretical frameworks needed in the SPM field. Also, to address the prevailing SPM and
leadership challenges at the subject university, the study offers several specific
recommendations. The subject university, for example, is recommended to review its policy
framework in order to give SPM a high priority. Also, the university is urged to conduct further
research in order to determine a suitable SPM strategy. Moreover, the subject university needs to
cultivate the institutional culture that promotes effective succession planning and management
efforts.
v
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my two beautiful children, Anneliese and Billyosh. In
their own way, they played a part in encouraging me to pursue a doctoral degree. Regardless of
what might happen in your life journey, please continue to make efforts towards achieving the
best you can in your lives. Always strive to remain truthful, courageous, teachable, loving, and
God fearing. Hard work, faith, and patience often pay. Moreover, continue to remember that: “It
is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way” (Proverbs 19: 2).
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work would have been impossible without the support from some people, who
assisted me in different ways such as through a word of encouragement, pieces of advice,
inspiration, technical support, sharing of insights and experiences, research skills, and reading
the drafts. To all of you, who in one way or another made this work a reality, I say thank you
very much. All your contributions will remain precious to me. Nonetheless, there are a few
people, who deserve to be mentioned here.
First of all, I feel deeply indebted to the members of my dissertation committee for their
profound support. My sincere gratitude should go to: The chair of the committee and my closest
advisor, Dr. Judy Zimmerman for her tireless effort in guiding and encouraging me in the whole
process; Dr. Rachel Vannatta Reinhart for her availability and support whenever requested; Dr.
Patrick Pauken for his gracious assistance in both dissertation and graduate program issues; Dr.
Jennifer Gillespie for her insightful comments; and Dr. Paul Longenecker for his generous help
throughout the dissertation work. I do not have enough words to thank them.
Also, I am grateful to many other individuals, who helped me in different stages of this
work. These include: Dr. William Knight, Dr. Hans Schmalzried, Dr. William Ingle, Jie Wu, and
Daniel Schellhas, to mention a few. Without their contribution, this work would have been
incredibly difficult to accomplish.
Moreover, my heartfelt thanks to all my cohort members, friends, and family members,
who constantly supported me in words and deeds, who remembered me in prayers and thoughts,
who provided ideas and critiques, and who kept my life warm through their frequent smiles.
Lastly but not the least, is my sincere thanks to almighty God, who has been the divine
source of my strength, joy, and hope amidst all life issues. To him be the glory and honor!!
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
The Research Problem .........................................................................................................1
Rationale for Study ..............................................................................................................4
Research Goal ......................................................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................7
Research Questions..............................................................................................................8
Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................9
The Background.......................................................................................................9
Description of the Conceptual Framework ............................................................13
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................18
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................20
Delimitations and Limitations............................................................................................22
Limitations .............................................................................................................22
Delimitations..........................................................................................................23
Organization of the Remaining Chapters...........................................................................24
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................25
Introduction........................................................................................................................25
The Topic ...............................................................................................................25
The Importance of the Topic..................................................................................25
Literature Search Strategies ...................................................................................27
Organization of the Rest of the Review.................................................................28

viii
Key Concepts of Succession Processes .............................................................................28
Continuum of Succession Processes......................................................................29
Succession Planning and Management..................................................................30
Replacement Planning ...........................................................................................31
Succession Planning...............................................................................................31
Succession Management........................................................................................32
Talent Management ...............................................................................................33
Theoretical Considerations ................................................................................................34
Relationship between Succession and other Variables..........................................36
Evolution of Succession Planning as a Field .....................................................................38
The Significance and Prevalence of Succession Planning.................................................40
The Aging Workforce, Retirements, and Succession Planning.........................................43
Succession Planning and Management versus Organizational Culture.............................44
Top Leadership Commitment to Succession Processes.....................................................45
Assessment of Organizational Leadership Needs..............................................................46
Talent Management Strategy in Succession Processes......................................................47
Application of Succession Plan Charts .............................................................................48
Identification and Development of High Potentials...........................................................48
Selection, Evaluation, and Rewarding the Groomed Candidates ......................................51
Prudent Replacement of the Outgoing Leaders .................................................................51
Internal Grooming versus External Sourcing ....................................................................53
CEO Succession and the Role of Governing Boards.........................................................54

ix
Succession Processes versus Internal Organizational Politics ..........................................55
Succession Management Approaches................................................................................56
Succession Planning and Diversity....................................................................................57
Status of Succession Planning in Higher Education ..........................................................58
The Challenge ........................................................................................................58
Academia Called to Do Something........................................................................60
Obstacles to Succession Planning......................................................................................62
Succession Practices at Midwestern University ................................................................63
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................63
Implications........................................................................................................................64
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................66
Introduction........................................................................................................................66
Research Design.................................................................................................................66
The Concurrent Triangulation Design ...................................................................67
Brief Description of the Two Research Components ............................................68
Justification for Concurrent Triangulation Design for this Study .........................70
Brief Description of the Site ..............................................................................................71
Participants.........................................................................................................................74
Survey Participants ................................................................................................74
Interview Participants ............................................................................................75
Instrumentation, Interview Protocols, and Documents......................................................75
The Quantitative Component.................................................................................75
The Qualitative Component...................................................................................83

x
Procedures for Collecting Data..........................................................................................86
Data Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................................87
Quantitative Data Analysis ....................................................................................89
Qualitative Data Analysis ......................................................................................92
Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings ............................................94
Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................................95
Assumptions...........................................................................................................95
Limitations .............................................................................................................95
Delimitations..........................................................................................................98
Ethical Issues .....................................................................................................................98
CHAPTER IV. SURVEY RESULTS.........................................................................................100
Introduction......................................................................................................................100
Sample’s Demographics and Response Rates .................................................................100
Demographics: Occupational Role, College, and Administrative Division ........100
Demographics: Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Education .....................................102
Demographics: Current Position Years, Service Years, Retirement, and Moving
Possibility.............................................................................................................103
Quantitative Findings According to Research Questions ................................................105
Research Question # 1 .........................................................................................105
Qualitative Results of Open-ended Survey Items............................................................127

xi
Emergent Sub-themes under a Priori Themes or Factors ....................................128
Emergent Additional Factors from Participants ..................................................135
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................138
CHAPTER V. QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...............................................................................141
Introduction......................................................................................................................141
Results of Interview Transcripts ......................................................................................141
Sampling Method.................................................................................................141
Case Study Analysis Approach............................................................................142
Findings from Within-case Analysis ...................................................................143
Brief profile and analysis of Ben .............................................................144
Brief profile and analysis of Susie ...........................................................147
Brief profile and analysis of Peggy..........................................................150
Brief profile and analysis of Ruth............................................................154
Brief profile and analysis of Richie .........................................................157
Brief profile and analysis of Daniel .........................................................160
Findings from Cross-case Analysis .....................................................................164
Understanding of succession planning.....................................................164
Evaluation of succession planning processes ..........................................164
Evaluation of the eight SPM practices.....................................................166
Other factors identified by interview participants ...................................169
Results of Document Review...........................................................................................169
Types of Documents Reviewed and Issues of Interest ........................................169
Findings from Document Review........................................................................171

xii
Qualitative Findings according to Research Questions ...................................................173
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................178
CHAPTER VI. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS..............................180
Introduction......................................................................................................................180
Integrated Summary of Results and Discussions.............................................................183
Imminent Loss of University Members ...............................................................183
Inadequate SPM efforts at the university.................................................184
A systematic SPM program important and urgently needed ...................186
Internal leadership grooming mostly preferred........................................187
Most SPM practices lacking ....................................................................188
Some SPM practices occurring informally ..............................................189
Perception differences by occupational role and by gender ....................190
Perception differences by college ............................................................191
Perception differences by years of service...............................................193
Diversity consideration in the SPM efforts..............................................194
Impact of the current economic recession ...............................................196

xiii
Impact of government policies and laws .................................................200
Additional factors affecting SPM efforts.................................................201
Implications and Recommendations ................................................................................213
Research Implications..........................................................................................213
Policy and Practice Implications..........................................................................219
Final Thoughts .....................................................................................................223
Concluding Remarks........................................................................................................225
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................227
APPENDIX A. A Questionnaire for Assessing SPM Efforts at a University ............................241
APPENDIX B. An Interview Protocol for Determining SPM Issues at a University ................246
APPENDIX C. The Expert Panel Review Form for Content Validation ...................................248
APPENDIX D. Research Consent Form (for the survey)...........................................................250
APPENDIX E. Research Consent Form (for the interview).......................................................252

xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 Conceptual Framework for Succession Planning and Management..........................................13
2 Triangulation Mixed Methods Design .......................................................................................67
3 Research Flow Diagram.............................................................................................................71

xv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1 Literature Support for the SPM Model Components/Practices ...............................................18
2 Continuum of Succession Processes........................................................................................29
3 The List of Items, Variables, and Measurements ....................................................................77
4 Literature Support for Survey Items ........................................................................................81
5 Documents Review Guide .......................................................................................................85
6 Research Questions, Analysis Methods, and Data Sources.....................................................91
7 Demographics: Occupational Role, College, and Administrative Division ..........................101
8 Demographics: Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Education ........................................................103
9 Demographics: Current Position Years, Service Years, Retirement Expectation, and
Moving Possibility ................................................................................................................104
10 Status of SPM Efforts at Midwestern University ..................................................................106
11 Participants’ Perception on Eight SPM Practices ...................................................................107
12 Academic and Administrative Staff Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices............109
13 Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices by Occupational Role..................................110
14 Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices by Gender....................................................111
15 College Differences in Perception of Assessment of Organizational Leadership Needs .......112
16 College Differences in Talent Management Processes...........................................................112
17 College Differences in Application of Succession Plan Charts..............................................113
18 College Differences in Identification and Development of Leadership Potentials.................114
19 College Differences in Selection, Evaluation, and Rewarding of Groomed Candidates........114

xvi
20 College Differences in Internal Recruitment and Replacement of Outgoing Leaders ...........115
21 College Differences in Top University Leadership Commitment to SPM .............................115
22 College Differences in Integration of SPM practices in the Organizational Culture .............116
23 Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices by Service Years .........................................117
24 Descriptive Statistics for the Three Factors ............................................................................119
25 Frequency Table: Consideration of Women in Leadership Promotion ..................................120
26 Crosstabs by Gender: Consideration of Women in Leadership Promotion............................120
27 Frequency Table: Consideration of People of Color in Leadership Promotion......................121
28 Crosstabs by Ethnicity: Consideration of People of Color in Leadership Promotion ............121
29 Frequency Table: Recession Impact on Individual Employment/Retirement Plans ..............122
30 Crosstabs by Occupational Role: Recession Impact on Individual Employment/Retirement
Plans.......................................................................................................................................123
31 Frequency Table: Recession Impact on Succession Practices at the College/Unit Level ......123
32 Crosstabs by College: Recession Impact on Succession Practices at the College Level........124
33 Crosstabs by Administrative Division: Recession Impact on Succession Practices at the
Administrative Division Level...............................................................................................125
34 Frequency Table: Impact of Federal Policies and Laws on Succession Practices..................126
35 Frequency Table: Impact of State Policies and Laws on Succession Practices......................126
36 List of Open-ended Questions and Response Rates ..............................................................128
37 Emergent Sub-themes for each a Priori Theme/Sub-factors ..................................................129
38 Summary of Demographic Background of the Interviewees..................................................142
39 Clustered Sub-themes from Six Interviewees ........................................................................165
40 Succession Planning Practices Mentioned in University Policy Documents .........................170

xvii
41 SPM Practices vs. Sub-themes Matrix ...................................................................................175
42 Additional Factors Affecting SPM Efforts .............................................................................202
43 Reorganized List of Additional Factors..................................................................................202
44 Four Possible SPM Organizational Formats in Academic Institutions .................................215
45 Eight SPM Administration Variants in Academic Institutions...............................................215

1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
The Research Problem
Higher education is on the verge of losing a critical number of its key officials because a
significant portion of the higher education workforce is close to retirement age (Rothwell, 2002).
This massive retirement will not only lead to a loss of key officials in higher education, but will
also contribute to a leadership crisis in academia. For instance, Weisman and Vaughan (2002)
report that 79% of all community college presidents are expected to retire between 2001 and
2010. Also, the proportion of college presidents, who are 61 years and older, has increased from
14% in 1986 to 49% in 2006 (American Council on Education, 2007). Moreover, Rothwell
(2002) contends that in the near future, presidents, provosts, deans, and other key university
officials will be retiring at a staggering rate. In fact, some studies predict a possibility of
leadership crisis in community colleges to happen as soon as 2011 (American Council on
Education, 2007; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002).
Retirement due to aging is a real and a critical issue in all kinds of organizations in the
United States. Academic institutions especially need to pay close attention to this subject because
of their role in fostering science and technology and development of human capital. Several
authors emphasize that the best way to address the retirement problem and impending leadership
crisis is to introduce effective succession planning programs in higher education (Heuer, 2003;
Hull, 2005; Mackey, 2008; Rothwell, 2002). Yet, most higher learning institutions do not give
succession planning a top priority (Bisbee, 2005; Rothwell, 2002).
Higher education is not the only sector that is vulnerable to succession challenges in the
nation. Several studies reveal that most public and private organizations face leadership
succession issues. For example, it is estimated that 85% of organizations lack proper succession
2
planning processes (Nink, Boyer, & Fogg, 2006). In fact, this crisis does not even spare the
federal government departments and agencies. The US federal government is faced with the
challenge of replacing about 80% of managers who will retire shortly (Nink et al., 2006).
Surprisingly, there exists no effort in developing future leaders or nurturing the talent in the
federal government departments (Kettl & Fesler, 2005), despite the fact that “… part of
government workforce is aging and many of the most experienced managers are nearing
retirement” (Kettl & Fesler, 2005, p. 197). The Federal Aviation Administration is an example of
the federal agency that may lose half of its air-traffic controllers by the year 2010; and yet it has
not developed a plan to cope with the situation (Kettl & Fesler, 2005). The health sector is
another area that does not seem to take succession planning seriously, despite the impending
retirement of most leaders of the industry in less than six years (Schmalzried & Fallon, 2007;
Stephens, 2006).
Furthermore, although the corporate world is doing relatively better in succession
processes, succession challenges are still notable in all kinds of businesses. For example, most
family firms do not have written succession plans, even when their CEOs are nearing departure
(Hutcheson, 2007). In the construction industry, many firms do not have adequate succession
plans that can cope with the large number of aging and retiring founders or executives (Rubin,
Powers, & Illia, 2007). These few examples depict how the business world is also confronted
with succession issues. Yet, it is known that the success of an organization is connected to the
adequacy of its leadership progression that stems from succession strategies such as talent
identification and internal leadership development (Sobol, Harkins, & Conley, 2007).
Returning to the education sector, studies indicate an impending leadership crisis that will
affect both the PreK-12 and the higher education systems; and yet succession planning processes
3
are not given due attention. For example, leadership succession predicaments exist in the school
systems (Fink & Brayman, 2006; Fink & Brayman, 2004; Hargreaves, 2005). Also, a few studies
conducted on higher education portray shortages of sound succession planning processes as a
major issue that needs adequate attention (Campbell, 2002; Heuer, 2003; Hull, 2005; Mackey,
2008; Shults, 2001; Weiss, 2005). Even the resource-rich, private universities (known as the
“Ivy-Plus” group) do not practice formal succession planning (Heuer, 2003). The fact that 80%
of junior college presidents are to retire between 2002 and 2012 and that over a quarter of
college and university presidents depart annually (Quinn, 2007) compounds the magnitude of the
problem in the higher education system. Moreover, the mass retirement of baby-boomers (those
who were born between 1946 and 1964) is not the only threat to organizational leadership
continuity. There are possibilities of unexpected emergencies that can also cause colleges and
universities to lose key officials, like the unfortunate terrorist attack that happened in September
11, 2001 or some other natural calamities (Rothwell, 2002).
Surprisingly, despite the looming massive retirement of key officials in the higher
education system, academia pays little attention in studying and addressing this problem (Bisbee,
2005; Rothwell, 2002). As it stands now, the precise impact of the looming talent and leadership
shortage on the education system is not clearly known due to the scarcity of research. However,
since higher education is the backbone for human capital development, it is vital to address the
question of leadership succession, because deficient succession planning efforts may subtly
weaken the academic quality. Therefore, efforts should be increased in studying implications of
the workforce and leadership retirement as well as in investigating succession planning and
management processes in higher education.

4
Rationale for Study
First of all, there is a limited body of research on the topic of succession planning. The
small body of literature available does not present sufficient coverage of all aspects of succession
processes and how different factors are interrelated. Only a few studies exist that indicate
connection between some factors. For example some association exists between succession
planning and lasting organizational performance and improvement (Huang, 1999; Hunte-Cox,
2004; Mandi, 2008, Rothwell, 2005). Also, a few studies shed light on certain leadership
succession themes such as CEO succession, the role of the board of directors, succession
process, external versus internal successors, and the politics related to succession issues (Berke,
2005; Giambatista, Rowe, & Riaz, 2005). Moreover, there is a small body of literature that
focuses on such issues as development of future leaders, high potentials and talent, and
succession system and design (Berke, 2005).
Another major challenge in this field of succession planning is the lack of a coherent
theoretical framework. According to Giambatista, Rowe, and Riaz (2005), the field of succession
planning is basically characterized by theoretical and methodological fragmentation that calls for
further research. For instance, several succession aspects are yet to be fully known, these
include: a variety of succession factors, how those factors are interrelated and how they impact
succession planning, as well as how succession planning affects the performance of public
organizations (Mandi, 2008). In brief, succession planning is a critical but neglected aspect of
organizational development (Barker, 2006).
Moreover, much of the succession studies in the United States were conducted in the
corporate world. There is a scarcity of research activities related to succession planning within
the public sectors, and particularly in higher education. According to Mandi (2008), whereas a
5
small body of literature that focuses on succession issues of the corporate world exists, there is a
limited research on succession matters in the public sector and especially on the public higher
education system. This scarcity of literature and studies on succession planning in American
higher education is an issue that should not be ignored. Hence, there is a need to increase
research activities on succession issues in academia.
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, universities in the United States are on the verge of
losing their key officials earlier than anticipated (Rothwell, 2002); yet, the concept of succession
planning is not familiar in higher education institutions. For instance, the University System of
Ohio seems to have given the subject of succession planning a low priority. This is evidenced by
the shortage of succession planning studies targeting academic institutions in that state and the
fact that leadership succession issues are not even mentioned in Ohio’s Strategic Plan for Higher
Education 2008-2017.
The present study is, therefore, one of the efforts to examine succession planning and
management at the institutional level in the Midwest. The interest to study this topic at the
Midwestern University (pseudonym) is in line with Rothwell’s (2002) call to address the
looming shortage of leaders in academia. The fear of losing organizations’ leaders through
unplanned ways and the inevitable aging of the current workforce constitute a part of the
rationale for the desire towards studying succession planning.
The situation, however, is that it is difficult to find any literature that reports succession
planning efforts taking place within the Midwestern University. The absence of such information
could prevent the university from realizing an opportunity to understand the staff retirement
pattern, and how that may impact the leadership succession at various institutional levels. More
to the point is lack of clarity about whether the university management is aware of and well
6
prepared to cope with the looming succession challenges. Parallel to that, the subject university
experienced a change of its President in 2008. This change was accomplished through a certain
leadership search and identification procedures. It is, however, not known whether leadership
succession processes are integrated in the organizational strategy or culture of the university.
Finally, researchers, scholars, practitioners, and government policy makers need to be
informed about the essence of succession processes in higher education. For that purpose, there
is a need for academic institutions to conduct evaluation of their succession planning and
management efforts in order to establish the actual situation. Such evaluative study could help
institutions take appropriate measure to address emerging succession issues. The challenge,
however, is the shortage of tested assessment instruments suitable for higher education. This
study, therefore, is expected to contribute to the knowledge portfolio for the field of succession
planning and management in higher education, because it introduced a conceptual framework
and the survey instrument that was first applied in this inquiry. Also, by replicating this study,
patterns of succession issues in academia can become apparent leading to adequate solutions for
the emergent succession issues in academia. Study replication can as well contribute to the
improvement of the theoretical framework and the research methodology for the field.
Research Goal
The research goal of this study was threefold. First, at the theoretical level, the study
aimed at applying the theoretical framework and its associated survey instrument that were
created by the researcher for evaluating succession planning efforts at a university level. Second,
at the practical level, the study sought to evaluate and understand succession planning and
management efforts of a particular university. Third, at the personal level, this study responded
7
to the passion of the researcher towards understanding the essence of succession planning and
management in educational institutions.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this concurrent triangulation mixed methods study was to understand the
status of the subject university’s succession planning and management (SPM) efforts as
perceived by the fulltime academic staff (faculty and faculty administrators) and fulltime
administrative staff (professional administrative staff and administrative leaders) by converging
both quantitative and qualitative data. Moreover, the study aimed at identifying perceived issues
related to SPM processes at the subject university. In this concurrent triangulation approach, a
questionnaire designed by the researcher, known as A Questionnaire for Assessing Succession
Planning and Management Efforts at a University, was used to examine the status of the SPM
efforts of the Midwestern University. The researcher administered the instrument to a target
sample of 1,530 university participants, a sample which was composed of the following sub-
groups: faculty, faculty administrators, professional administrative staff, and administrative
leaders.
At the same time, two qualitative methods, interview and document review, were
employed in this study. The aim of conducting qualitative methods was to gather more
information that would help the researcher to better understand succession planning issues.
Using semi-structured interview guide, data were collected from six participants including two
leaders representing the Human Resources Division (HRD), two leaders representing the
Academic Affairs Division (AAD), one participant representing the University Faculty Senate,
and one participant representing the Administrative Staff Council.

8
In addition to interviews, four types of documents were collected and analyzed: the
university charter, the administrative staff handbook, the strategic plan, and off-campus college
policies related to staff employment, retention, and development. Inclusion of college policies in
the review was to reflect the fact that colleges are more autonomous than other major units at the
university.
The reason for combining quantitative and qualitative methods was to better understand
the topic by converging both quantitative and qualitative data. The researcher believes that in this
kind of evaluative study, one form of data is not sufficient to comprehensively understand the
topic being investigated.
Research Questions
In order to have a broader picture of the SPM efforts at the subject university, this study
addressed four primary questions:
1. How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff generally evaluate
the status of the university’s succession planning and management (SPM) efforts?
2. How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff perceive eight
different SPM practices taking place at their respective colleges and administrative
units?
3. Do perceived eight SPM practices differ by the following groups?
o By occupational role:
 Fulltime academic staff vs. fulltime administrative staff
 Fulltime faculty vs. fulltime professional administrative staff vs.
Fulltime faculty administrators vs. fulltime administrative leaders
o By college
9
o By service years
o By gender
4. How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff evaluate some
factors associated with SPM processes at the university?
Theoretical Framework
The Background
The field of succession planning and management lacks one coherent theoretical and
methodological approach (Giambatista, Rowe, & Riaz, 2005). In fact, according to Giambatista
et al. (2005) different studies that examined relationships of various succession factors have
yielded mixed results. Nevertheless, some theoretical concepts have been advanced by different
authors on how succession planning and management efforts can be understood, established, and
evaluated in the organizations. For example, Rothwell (2005) posits that an effective succession
planning and management effort is that which is capable of building talent from within and
ensures leadership continuity. He contends that it is imperative for organizations to establish
formalized succession planning as part of organizational strategic and management tools. Based
on his research, Rothwell suggests that systemic succession planning and management can be
attained by following his seven-pointed star model that consists of the following steps: (1)
making commitment towards succession planning and management, (2) assessing present work
and people requirements, (3) appraising individual performance, (4) assessing future work and
people requirements, (5) assessing future individual potential, (6) closing the development gap,
and (7) evaluating the subsequent succession development program (p. 79).
Another way of understanding succession planning and management is by using the
concepts of Gandossy and Verma (2006), who advocate what they call five cornerstones for
10
executing succession management: (1) alignment of current and future staffing needs, (2)
commitment of leaders in being accountable to the identification and development of talents, (3)
assessment of critical positions based on long term organizational perspectives resulting in the
identification of a pool of talents, (4) long term development of leadership potential candidates
using various programs, and (5) measurement of effectiveness of development programs as well
as tracking the achievement of the individual candidates.
Moreover, according to the model of Rubin, Powers, and Illia (2007), there are six basic
steps of succession planning: (1) establish skills and competencies needed at each leadership
level, (2) identify a pool of candidates for various leadership positions, (3) assess candidates for
respective leadership positions, (4) implement individual development plans using various
methods such as coaching, mentoring, formal training, on the job training, special assignments,
leadership workshops, and so forth, (5) select leaders as positions become available, and (6)
implement transition between the predecessor and the successor.
A body of literature also mentions core competence modeling as an approach that is
linked to talent management, which is an integral component of succession planning and
management. According to Grigoryev (2006), some organizations, aiming at attaining
competitiveness, employ a core competence modeling approach for the selection and
development of new talents who can fill key positions. This approach not only fosters success in
hiring decisions, but also improves talent management processes. Moreover, the model serves as
a tool for building bench strength for certain positions for which candidates are prepared.
Grigoryev provides eight steps for core competence modeling: (1) outline the expected outcomes
of the specific positions in alignment with organizational goals, (2) determine the behaviors that
drive success in those outcomes, (3) develop the model of core competencies surrounding those
11
behaviors, (4) create a behaviorally-based customized interview protocol, (5) assess candidates
on the specific core competencies, (6) establish an on-boarding process and developmental plans
linked to the model, (7) institute a performance review system based on the model, and (8) build
bench strength around the position to develop and prepare successor candidates (pp. 17-18).
Furthermore, according to Harrison, McKinnon, and Terry (2006), effective succession
planning exhibits the following features: (1) identification of core leadership competencies, (2)
matching individual behaviors with organizational expectations, (3) assessment of the readiness
level of candidates, (4) employees’ willingness to carry responsibilities in the process, and (5)
evaluation of the succession planning progress. Other features include: (6) flexibility of
candidates’ development from early stages, (7) creating continuous leadership development and
succession plans, (8) passing both the authority and knowledge to successors, and (9) avoiding
practices that can create tensions among candidates (Murphy, 2006).
In addition, several authors suggest that succession planning, especially for large
organizations, cannot effectively operate in isolation. It has to be integrated into the overall
organizational strategy, strategic plan, or culture (Harmon, 2007; Rothwell, 2005; Stephens,
2006). For that matter, succession planning must always stick to an organization’s definition of
the critical leadership capability as well as be aligned to the necessary organizational behaviors
(Harrison, McKinnon, & Terry, 2006). Since most organizations strive to be perpetual,
succession planning should be an ongoing process that is constantly linked to organizational
learning capacity (Hunte-Cox, 2004). Once integrated into an organization, succession planning
will continuously guide the assessment of candidates’ competencies and guide the process of
developing each individual candidate. Since managing succession processes is a vast work, it is
advisable to have a competent person, committee, or section in an organization that will be

12
responsible for coordinating all succession endeavors (Huang, 1999, Hunte-Cox, 2004; Rothwell,
2005).
For small firms, however, leadership succession can be occasionally guided by competent
consultants so as to avoid the cost of establishing a unit in the firm. Nevertheless, the following
tips can help small private firms achieve successful leadership succession: (1) early starting, (2)
constant recruitment, (3) information sharing, (4) judicial assignment and delegation, (5)
feedback provision and accountability, (6) regular communication of interests and intentions, and
(7) continuous mentorship (Harmon, 2007).
In summary, different approaches to succession planning and management exist. Some
approaches exhibit common aspects, but others depict distinct aspects of succession planning and
management. Based on the analysis of several approaches described above, this study proposes a
new conceptual framework, as displayed in Figure 1, consisting of three main components: (1)
component A, leadership commitment and involvement in SPM, is at the core of this framework;
(2) component B entails six basic SPM practices, which are numbered 1-6 according to this
model; and (3) component C, the organizational culture or strategy, depicts the context within
which succession planning processes can be continually promoted. These components are
distinguishable, but they are not necessarily separable because some elements under different
components tend to overlap, which also indicates the interactive nature of the succession
processes. In fact, even the six practices outlined under component B are, to certain degree,
interactive. According to this framework, while component A expresses the role of leadership in
SPM, component B exhibits the mechanism and technicalities of the SPM process. Component
C, on the other hand, underscores the significance of SPM processes to be a part of the
organizational culture. The next section describes the model in detail.

13
5 6
B
4 A 1
3 2
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for succession planning and management.
Description of the Conceptual Framework
The first component (A) of the framework represents the need for commitment and
involvement of the top organizational leadership in succession processes. This component is
considered as the heart of any succession planning and management effort, which is why it is
placed at the center of the model. Top organizational leadership has to play a vital role in
succession matters (Gandossy & Verma, 2006; Rothwell, 2005). In fact, top leaders should
support managers who promote internal leadership growing, promote behaviors that encourage
attracting and retaining talent, devise and foster succession planning policies, and create a
position or a section that will administer succession management matters (Rothwell, 2005).
14
To underline the significance of the leadership role, component A is connected to the six
practices comprising component B. Calabrese (2002) underscores the importance of leadership in
creating and managing change. Succession planning and management is a significant and
continuous organizational change issue. Similarly, Kouzes and Posner (2007) stress the value of
exemplary leadership in causing extraordinary things to happen in organizations; and indeed,
effective management of succession processes requires exemplary leadership.
Component B comprises six different SPM practices. The first practice is the assessment
of current and future organizational leadership requirements. This practice entails the assessment
of both the current and the future requirements of work and competency of the key positions of
an entity (Grigoryev, 2006; Rothwell, 2005; Rubin, Powers, & Illia, 2007). The aim of this
practice is to identify existing gaps between the actual situation and the desired work and
competency needs for leadership positions (Rothwell, 2005). Actually, in order to know how to
prepare future leaders, skills and competencies for each leadership level and position need to be
identified (Rubin et al., 2007). Moreover, it is vital to compare the current and the expected
future performance of individual workers, because such assessment helps to uncover their hidden
potentials for future application in key positions (Rothwell, 2005).
The second practice under component B, establish or improve talent management
procedures for key positions, is about the identification of the talent from within or outside,
talent which is vital for different important positions in the organization (Gay & Sims, 2006;
Hughes & Rog, 2008; Loftus, 2007; Rothwell, 2005). Moreover, this practice depicts the need
for an organization to have continuous and explicit procedures for assessing individuals’ talent
for different future applications with the aim of executing retention schemes and developing each
talent (Gay & Sims, 2006; Rothwell, 2005). Eventually the organization has to create talent
15
pools, groups of workers who are prepared for horizontal or vertical career advancement
(Rothwell, 2005; Sobol et al., 2007).
The third practice comprises the actual exercise of establishing or reviewing succession
plan charts based on the available key positions and the available talent to be groomed into future
candidates. These charts consist of the name of the leadership position and the names of possible
candidates who can replace the incumbent (Sobol et al., 2007). The succession charts guide
responsible administrators in monitoring progresses made by the identified high potentials who
are being groomed for the anticipated leadership positions (Rothwell, 2005; Sobol et al., 2007). It
should be noted that two different terms are used to mean the same thing. Whereas Rothwell
(2005) calls them replacement charts, Sobol, Harkins, and Conley (2007) use a term succession
plan charts. Management meetings of an organization can be used for reviewing succession
charts and discussing the progress of the high potentials being groomed according to the charts
(Sobol et al., 2007). Most important is that the individual development plans of high potentials,
which are reflected in the succession charts, should be based on the individual development
needs (Rothwell, 2005).
The next practice entails the process of identifying and developing groups or pools of
high potentials in the organization. High potentials are individuals identified as capable of
becoming leaders for specific key positions (Rothwell, 2005). Identification and development of
high potentials or future leaders is the heart of succession planning (Berke, 2005; Rothwell,
2005). Due to variation of competency needs that each individual high potential might have,
capacity building should be customized to individual development plans (Krauss, 2007;
Rothwell, 2005). Krauss asserts that a combination of leadership development strategies can be
used. In fact, as a part of development strategy, incumbent leaders have to take part in mentoring
16
or coaching those who appear to be potential candidates (Groves, 2007; Rothwell, 2005; Sobol et
al., 2007). Identification and development of future leaders has to be guided by the philosophy of
promoting internal leadership growth (Rothwell, 2005).
Selection, evaluation, and adequate rewarding of groomed candidates constitute the fifth
practice of this component. Not all people in a pool of high potentials might be considered for
leadership candidacy. Thus, it is vital to conduct proper assessments of performance and
leadership readiness of the high potentials (Rothwell, 2005; Sobol et al., 2007). Eventually, a few
capable candidates have to be selected from the pool for further preparation that will enable them
take key positions when opportunities arise. However, potential candidates have to be adequately
motivated through adequate rewards and incentives so as to mitigate attrition (Krauss, 2007;
Towers & Perrin, 2005). Workers are more interested in instant rewards for job well done
(Rothwell, 2005).
The sixth practice is labeled as prudent recruitment of a new successor and replacement
of the outgoing leader. A number of points should be considered here. First, the successor’s
appointment process must be adequate enough to bring in a capable leader and minimize
unnecessary friction between the groomed candidates (Conger & Nadler, 2004). Second, once a
successor is carefully recruited out of a group of groomed candidates, an organization has to
consider providing ample time for the outgoing leader to mentor the new successor (Khumalo &
Harris, 2008; Vancil, 1987). This practice helps the incoming leader to become familiar with the
new internal and external leadership environments of his/her organization. Another issue to
consider in this component is the nature of the leadership transition. For the best interest of an
organization and its stakeholders, the leadership transition should be void of unnecessary friction
(Conger & Nadler) and take a relatively short period. In leadership transition times, a
17
management team or a governing board has to support a new successor so as to mitigate any
political disruptiveness that might affect the image or operations of an organization (Berke,
2005; Cannella & Shen, 2002).
The final and third component of this model, component C, is the integration of
succession planning and management processes in the overall organizational culture or strategy
(Rothwell, 2005; Stephens, 2006). This kind of integration is critical since it provides the context
within which succession processes will remain continuous (Cantor, 2005; Hunte-Cox, 2004;
Stephen, 2006). If an organization wants to maintain a lasting improvement and organizational
vitality, the practices of attracting, grooming internally, retaining talent, and growing leaders
from within should be embedded in its organizational policies and strategies (Rothwell, 2005).
In concluding this section, it is important to note that the proposed model (Figure 1) is
fairly different from others because it has incorporated elements from a variety of sources. Also,
the model accentuates two notions: (1) the role of the leadership that is placed at the core of the
model, and (2) the integration of succession processes into the organizational culture, which is
displayed as the surrounding or enabling context of the continual succession processes. Besides
these vital notions, this model attempts to merge succession planning and talent management
aspects, the two major concepts which are related to succession processes. Moreover, this model
incorporates the need to execute prudent recruitment and replacement of leaders to prevent
political abrasions connected to leadership changes in organizations. Although this conceptual
framework is open for improvement, this study did utilize it. The list of some sources of ideas
and concepts applied in this model is presented in Table 1.

18
Table 1
Literature Support for SPM Model Components/Practices
SPM Model Components & Practices

Authors
A B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C
Cannella & Shen (2002) X
Cantor (2005) X
Cunningham (2007) X
Eastman (1995) X X X
Fink & Brayman (2006) X
Gandossy & Verma (2006) X X X
Gay and Sims (2006) X X
Grigoryev (2006) X X X
Harrison, McKinnon, & Terry (2006) X X X
Hunte-Cox (2004) X
Huang (1999) X
Hughes &Rog 2008 X
Khumalo & Harris (2008) X
Krauss (2007) X X X
Lockwood (2006) X
Loftus (2007) X
Rothwell (2005) X X X X X X X
Rubin, Powers, & Illia (2007) X X X X
Shen & Cannella (2002) X
Sobol, Harkins, & Conley (2007) X
Stephens (2006) X
Towers & Perrin (2005) X
Vancil (1987) X
Wiersema (2002) X
Note. X indicates author’s ideas or concepts are included in the component/practice.
Significance of the Study
Several authors suggest the existence of a certain relationship between leadership
capacity and succession planning (Fink & Brayman, 2006; Hargreaves, 2005; Lambert, 2003,
2006). Also, studies indicate that effective succession planning and management requires the
commitment and the involvement of the top leadership of the organization (Rothwell, 2005).
Thus, this study will inform the subject university community, practitioners, and leaders about
the employees’ perception about the university’s succession planning and management efforts.
19
Eventually, the subject university leaders could choose to use this information to adjust their
leadership styles with regard to succession planning and management practices.
Moreover, this study may specifically help the subject university to move toward the
creation or adoption of appropriate strategies for timely identification, development, and
placement of leadership talents at various levels. Since it is important for any organization to
have its succession planning and management efforts integrated into the organizational strategy
(Rothwell, 2005; Sobol et al., 2007; Stephens, 2006), the university can take advantage of this
study to adjust its policies, current strategic plan, and human resource development initiatives.
Furthermore, the findings of this study can trigger the university to seek and implement best
succession planning and management approaches for the purpose of improving the university’s
performance and institutional image nationwide.
In addition, the findings of this study, although focused on one university, might shed
some light on the succession planning condition of other Midwestern academic institutions. The
results of this study may trigger similar studies that can eventually lead to some improvement in
academic institutions. Improving higher education was also underscored by the Governor of
Ohio, for instance, in his state of the state speech of 2007. But, it must be noted that the
improvement of the performance of colleges and universities cannot be divorced from the
imperatives of improving institutional leadership capacities through adequate succession
practices.
In brief, this study is considered to be significant due to the following reasons:
(1) Succession challenges in corporate and public organizations are too critical to be ignored;
(2) The body of literature indicates that succession planning as a discipline has a fragmented
theoretical framework; hence more research is encouraged;

20
(3) There is a deficiency of research activity devoted to succession issues in higher education,
hence this study will contribute to scholarly literature and provoke more similar studies;
(4) A leadership succession crisis is looming in academia, but very few higher education
policy makers seem to be aware of the situation, this study is thus expected to inform and
generate interest among policy makers both at the university and regional levels; and
(5) Especially at the subject university, this study may trigger strategies for introducing or
improving succession planning and management policy and practices.
Definition of Terms
This study used certain terms; these are defined in this section for the purpose of clarity.
Administrative staff – Is a group of workers who are basically employed for doing
administrative, non-faculty activities at the university. This study will involve two sub-groups
under this category: professional administrative staff—administrative staff with certain
professional portfolios; and administrative leaders—administrative staff with managerial roles.
Administrative unit – Is any entity or level within the structure of the administrative wing
of the university at which most employment, promotion, retention, and staff development
decisions for the administrative officials (non-faculty members) are usually made.
Academic staff – Constitute a group of workers who are basically implementing academic
activities within different colleges of the university. This study distinguishes two kinds of these:
faculty, are those academic staff engaged mainly in teaching and research activities; and faculty
administrators are those faculty members who have administrative roles.
High potentials - Comprises those individuals who, at different levels of their careers, are
considered as potential candidates for filling higher positions in the organization; they are de
facto viewed as potential successors of incumbent leaders (Berke, 2005).

21
Higher education - Comprises all educational institutions that provide postsecondary
degree education. They include universities and community colleges.
Leadership crisis - An anticipated phenomenon characterized by an acute shortage of
leaders in an organization mainly due to massive retirements of baby-boomers and the lack of an
adequate supply of candidates prepared to replace the retirees (Mackey, 2008).
Replacement planning - Any effort that “focuses on the identification of replacements of
the key positions, usually at the top two or three levels of an organization” (Berke, 2005, p. 1).
Often, this process does not deliberately develop and prepare candidates for the earmarked
positions (Berke, 2005). Replacement planning is the simplest form of the succession process
(Rothwell, 2005).
Succession plan chart- A tangible document, chart, or schedule that shows when leaders
are expected to retire and which, when, and how groups of candidates should be developed for
filling different key leadership positions (Sobol et al., 2007).
Succession planning and management (SPM) - “Any effort designed to ensure the
continued effective performance of an organization, division, department, or workgroup by
making provision for the development, replacement, and strategic application of key people over
time” (Rothwell, 2005, p. 10). SPM is, in essence, a combination of succession planning and
succession management. According to Rothwell (2005), the succession planning and
management effort can be a formal or an informal process.
Talent management - is the process of and strategies for recruiting, retaining, and
developing talent or high potentials, those employees who are viewed as strategically important
for the future of an organization (Rothwell, 2005).

22
Delimitations and Limitations
Limitations
Limitations constitute potential weaknesses that may threaten the internal validity of the
study (Creswell, 2009, Maxwell, 2005). This study employed a concurrent mixed method;
therefore, two types of limitations were foreseen. First, the quantitative component of the study
utilized a survey instrument. This data collection method tends to face limitations that normally
center on the construction and interpretation of the survey questions; and in most cases the
problem is about ambiguous questions (Creswell, 2009). To mitigate this problem, the survey
instrument underwent content validity procedures. Reliability test was, however, not conducted
due to a small number of items that formed composite variables.
Another validity threat for the quantitative component was the mortality. This could
happen due to participants’ dropping out during data collection phase thus endangering the
response rate. In order to mitigate this threat, the researcher recruited a large sample (Creswell,
2009) and served three more reminders to survey participants.
The second component of the study utilized semi-structured interview and document
review methods. The common limitations of the interview method are related to researcher’s
biases and reactivity. While bias denotes a researcher’s subjectivity in the form of individual
beliefs and perceptual lens, reactivity entails the influence of the researcher on the participants or
the setting of the study (Maxwell, 2005). Thus the researcher was careful in data collection and
analysis processes to avoid misrepresentations. Also, the researcher employed different methods
to enhance the trustworthiness and consistency of qualitative findings. The strategies included:
(1) respondent validation through member checking, (2) triangulation by comparing data from
23
different sources and methods, (3) peer reviewing, and (4) peer debriefing (Maxwell, 2005,
Creswell, 2009).
An additional limitation was that in this concurrent triangulation study, the sample size
for the qualitative component was small compared to that of quantitative component (Creswell &
Clark, 2007). This limitation is attributable to time and resource constraints for this dissertation
work. Nevertheless, results from these two groups validated each other. Furthermore, another
minor limitation is that these six interview participants were not excluded from the survey due to
the fear of reduced response rate. Hence, there is likelihood that some interviewees were biased
by the survey or vice versa (Creswell & Clark, 2007), if they decided to complete the survey as
well.
Besides exploring and evaluating the SPM at the institutional level, this study for the first
time applied the newly proposed conceptual framework and its associated survey instrument.
However, the results of this study do not guarantee a completeness of the proposed model and its
survey instrument. The researcher foresees room for improvement of both the model and the
survey instrument for the benefit of future inquiries.
Lastly, the timing of this study might have impacted participants’ responses and
subsequent findings. The inquiry took place during the critical period of the subject university
due to budgetary shrinkage linked to economic recession, a voluntary separation plan for
university employees, and the university’s top leadership transition.
Delimitations
The purpose of this study was to understand the status and issues of succession planning
and management efforts of one institution, the Midwestern University. Although the findings can
inform policy-makers, practitioners, researchers, and scholars in academia, they may not be used
24
for generalization to other populations, institutions, or the entirety of the higher education
systems in the Midwest.
Moreover, not all employees of the subject university were involved in this study. For
example, classified staff and part-time faculty were excluded from the study; hence, the findings
do not necessarily reflect perceptions of all university members.
Organization of the Remaining Chapters
The remaining five chapters in this inquiry are organized as follows: Chapter II:
Literature Review - includes the theoretical framework for the subject matter, the literature
review on the significance and various aspects of succession planning and management. Chapter
III: Methodology, discusses the research design, participants, instrumentation, and data analysis
of this study. The next chapter, Chapter IV—Survey Results, presents quantitative findings
supplemented by some qualitative findings from open-ended survey questions. This is followed
by Chapter V: Qualitative Results, which offers qualitative findings emerging from interviews
and document review. Finally, discussion, implications, and conclusions of the findings are
presented in Chapter VI.

25
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The Topic
This chapter presents a review of the literature related to succession planning and
management in higher education. Higher education is an important sector for human capital and
socio-economic development of any nation (Kubow & Fossum, 2007). The lasting success of
academia can be possible if the academic institutions engage competent and effective leaders at
all levels (Gaither, 2002). The future of academic institutions, however, depends on the ability of
the current executives to ensure adequate leadership continuity through constant identification
and building of talent from within (Rothwell, 2005). The need for academic institutions to seek
and acquire high quality leaders cannot be overemphasized. In fact, the future sustainability and
viability of any organization will depend on how it implements an effective succession planning
and management program (Mandi, 2008; Rothwell, 2005). This is why the topic of succession
planning and management is a vital one in academia as well.
The Importance of the Topic
The topic of succession planning and management is timely because organizations are
facing challenges on how to replace the baby boomer generation that has started to retire in big
numbers, while the college-educated workforce to replace them is not sufficient. In fact, the U.S.
Census Bureau (2008) indicates that about 55,440 people retire every week since 2006, a rate
that is expected to grow. It should be remembered that the first baby boomers turned 60 in 2006.
Moreover, it is estimated that over 60 million workers aged between 41 and 59 are currently
approaching retirement (Harrison & Hargrove, 2006). In addition to the boomers’ generation
size, which is 47 % of the entire workforce, the situation is exacerbated by the small size of the
26
generation that followed the boomers, Generation X (Harrison & Hargrove, 2006). This aging
factor will impact leaders as well. For instance, in the U.S., more than 50% of the senior
government officials and about 20% top leaders of Fortune 500 firms are eligible for retirement
(Rothwell, 2004). The changing demographic trend is one of major issues that affects today’s
workplaces (Stewart, 2007).
The aging factor affects higher learning institutions too. Today’s demographic challenges
and the looming scarcity of talent will contribute to a leadership crisis in higher education
(Heuer, 2003; Land, 2003; Rothwell, 2002). If no strategy is devised, it will soon become more
difficulty for academic institutions to get new talent from outside the academia, which will entail
difficulty for these institutions to find effective replacements for outgoing leaders in the next
years. Even if the current economic recession may force some retirees to extend their service on
a part-time or contractual basis, their roles might not be in organizational leadership positions;
hence the move cannot generate a long term solution (Khumalo & Harris, 2008).
In addition to retirements, Rothwell (2004) mentions a fear of possible emergencies such
as terrorist attacks as another reason for an intensified interest in succession planning. The
collapse of the World Trade Center in New York in 2001 unexpectedly took the lives of 172
Corporate Vice-Presidents (Rothwell, 2004). Thus the importance of succession planning and
management for the survival of organizations is paramount.
Furthermore, the succession situation in higher education is worsened by other factors as
well. For instance, the declining interest in the university teaching profession and budget
shortages tend to hasten the retirement of some faculty members who seek early retirement
benefits (Harrison & Hargrove 2006). Also, fewer faculty members are willingly applying for
departmental leadership than in the past (Hoppe, 2003). Moreover, the institutional culture of
27
higher education tends to discourage the young and new faculty from aspiring to leadership
positions (Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002). Although some managers have realized the importance
of succession planning as a strategy for developing high potentials, uncertainty about the
faculty’s lasting commitment as well as intricate academic and economic climates make
succession planning in higher education difficult (Greer & Virick, 2008).
In view of the above, succession planning is an important subject that deserves attention,
especially in academia. Certainly, the imperativeness of succession planning and management
for higher education institutions has been echoed by several authors (Heuer, 2003, Hull, 2005;
Mackey, 2008; Rothwell, 2002). Succession planning and management does not only facilitate
an orderly turnover of the executives, but also fosters the internal evaluation of human resource
needs, reduces workforce attrition, and enables the development of good performers to take
future leadership positions (Behn, Riley, & Yang, 2005). Since there is a scarcity of research that
focuses on this topic in higher education, this literature review will also draw from what is
written for the business world.
Literature Search Strategies
With the exception of information gleaned from a few books, most material for this
review was researched through electronic databases from the Bowling Green State University’s
main library. These electronic databases include: Academic Search Complete, Business Source
Complete, Chronicle of Higher Education, Education Research Complete, Electronic Journal
Center, Electronic Book Center, Electronic Theses and Dissertations (OhioLINK); Eric, Jstor,
Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Springerlink.
Several descriptors were used to search for the material. For obtaining material related to
a general understanding of succession issues, the following descriptors were used: succession
28
planning, CEO succession, leadership succession, leadership change, succession processes,
succession management, talent management, replacement planning, succession planning
challenges, and succession planning theories. Regarding succession planning in higher
education, the following descriptors were utilized: succession planning in higher education,
succession planning in academia, succession planning in universities, succession planning in
colleges, leadership change in higher education, leadership change in academia, University
presidents’ succession, college presidents’ succession, leadership crisis in higher education, and
leadership crisis in colleges.
The majority of the literature reviewed was from the 1990s to 2009. Generally, there is a
scarcity of literature on succession planning in the public sector such as higher education.
Consequently, aside from a few articles dedicated to higher education, K-12 education, and the
health industry, the largest part of the body of literature reviewed in this chapter includes articles
that report various studies conducted in the business world.
Organization of the Rest of the Review
This review covers the various aspects related to succession processes. Besides the
section of introduction presented above, this review includes discussions on the key concepts
applied in succession planning and management field, theoretical considerations for the field, the
significance of succession planning and management, the aging of the American workforce and
the impending massive retirements, discussion on succession planning and the organizational
culture, and the top leadership commitment and involvement in the succession processes.
Key Concepts for Succession Processes
Different authors provide different descriptions of succession planning and the associated
concepts. Sometimes, there is inexact usage of the terms as organizations and authors tend to use
29
them interchangeably (Berke, 2005). Five main concepts are often mentioned: replacement
planning, succession planning, succession management, talent management, and succession
planning and management. Among the five concepts, succession planning and management
seems to be an overarching concept (see Rothwell, 2005). The next section will provide
descriptions of these concepts starting with an explication of the differences between
replacement planning, succession planning, and succession management.
Continuum of Succession Processes
As Table 2 shows, succession processes can be viewed as a continuum (Berke, 2005).
Replacement planning, according to Berke (2005), is on the lower side of this continuum because
it identifies the successors of the leaders of the top two or three managerial levels, but it does not
conduct any purposeful development of the identified individuals. On the higher end of the
continuum is succession management, the process which entails an intentional identification and
development of successors for all managerial levels of an organization. In between these two
ends, lies succession planning, an effort which deliberately identifies and develops leaders for
the top two or three managerial levels (Berke, 2005).
Table 2
Continuum of Succession Processes
Replacement Succession Planning Succession

Planning Management
Identification of Yes Yes Yes
successors
Development of Little or None Yes Yes
successors
Managerial levels Top two or three Top two or three All
Source: Berke, 2005, p. 1

30
The current trend, though, is to encourage organizations to embrace succession
management because it does not only tackle successions of the organization’s key positions, but
it is also a proactive and robust approach that tends to generate “a pool of qualified candidates”
(Berke, 2005, p. 2). Some experts, underlining the emphasis of both concepts—succession
planning and succession management—prefer to use the concept of succession planning and
management (see Rothwell, 2005). Although succession planning and succession planning and
management tend to be used interchangeably, as noticed in the literature, it is important to
understand the distinction between the two concepts to avoid misrepresentation. The gist is that
succession planning and management is the most comprehensive approach within the succession
field; and it is considered more proactive than replacement planning, succession planning,
succession management, or talent management alone (Berke, 2005, Rothwell, 2005).
Succession Planning and Management
Defined as “any effort designed to ensure the continued effective performance of an
organization, division, department, or workgroup by making provision for the development,
replacement, and strategic application of key people over time” (Rothwell, 2005, p. 10);
Succession planning and management is an overarching concept in this field; it seems to be a
combination of succession planning and succession management. According to Rothwell (2005)
the succession planning and management effort can be a formal or an informal process. While
some organizations are trying to cope with succession challenges in a sporadic manner, the
number of organizations—especially in the business world—that are shifting from informal, ad
hoc, and unsystematic succession practices to more organized succession programs is increasing
(Rothwell, 2005).
31
According to Rothwell (2005), when the succession planning and management effort
entails well-thought and formalized practices, it is referred to as a succession planning and
management program; which is described as “a deliberate and systematic effort by an
organization to ensure leadership continuity in key positions, retain and develop intellectual and
knowledge capital for the future, and encourage individual advancement” (p. 10).
Replacement Planning
Replacement planning is another familiar concept related to succession processes. It is
understood as any effort that “focuses on the identification of replacements of the key positions,
usually at the top two or three levels of an organization” (Berke, 2005, p. 1). Often, replacement
planning does not deliberately develop and prepare candidates for the earmarked positions.
Sporadic coaching may happen during replacement planning; but, such action will rely on the
individual leader’s goodwill (Berke, 2005). In the continuum of succession processes ranging
from the simple to the complex, replacement planning is the simplest form of the succession
process (Berke, 2005); which simply aims at averting some leadership disaster that might be
caused by unexpected loss of key organizational leaders (Rothwell, 2005).
Succession Planning
Another important concept is succession planning. This is the most common concept in
the body of literature. Succession planning involves an “elaborate, integrated, and systematic
approach” for identifying and developing high potentials or talent pools intended for enabling the
organizations to have a list of adequately prepared candidates to fill key positions of the top two
or three management levels whenever vacancies occur (Berke, 2005).
The key feature of succession planning is that it should not be viewed as a one-shot
event, but rather a continuous process. Kimball (2005) defines succession planning as “a
32
dynamic, ongoing process of systematically identifying, assessing and developing leadership
talent; and assessing, developing and recognizing key contributors to meet future organizational
strategic and operational needs” (Nink et al., 2006, p. 34). Even though succession planning
targets two or three top leadership levels like replacement planning does, the former strategy
entails a constant identification and development of suitable candidates for the target leadership
positions (Berke, 2005).
It is apparent that several authors associate succession planning with words like
“proactive” and “systematic”. For example, Harrison et al., (2006) describe succession planning
as a systematic process of developing individuals to fill key organizational key roles.
Schmalzried and Fallon (2007) emphasize the pro-activeness of succession planning when they
state that “succession planning is a proactive attempt to ensure that leadership in an organization
will be continuous by identifying how these positions will be filled as both planned and
unplanned departures occur” (p. 169). According to Berke (2005), however, succession planning
is less proactive and less complex than succession management, since the former focuses only on
the top two or three leadership levels. As mentioned earlier, in the continuum of the succession
processes, succession planning is located between replacement planning and succession
management (Berke, 2005).
Succession Management
Succession management is another major concept related to succession processes. This is
a more proactive and complex process than replacement planning or succession planning (Berke,
2005). Succession management entails a more comprehensive approach for identifying and
developing a talent pool that enables an organization to have a list of adequately prepared
candidates for filling all leadership positions in an organization (Berke, 2005). As mentioned
33
earlier, succession management is on the upper end of the succession processes continuum. Since
it entails aspects of “recruitment, selection, and retention strategies”, it requires a supportive
organizational culture and adequate resources (Berke, 2005).
Talent Management
Another notable concept discussed in the literature is talent management. Sometimes, this
concept is confused with succession planning or succession management (Berke, 2005; Krauss,
2007). It seems that the notion of talent management overlaps between succession planning and
succession management. Often, the term ‘talent management’ is used to denote strategies for
“recruiting, on-boarding, and developing” talents who are viewed as strategically important for
the future of an organization (Rothwell, 2005, p. 16). Also, Berke (2005) posits that when
“recruitment, selection, and retention strategies” are added to succession management, the
resulting process can look like talent management (p. 1).
Lewis and Heckman (2006) assert that talent management “focuses on sourcing,
developing, and rewarding an employee talent” (Hughes & Rog, 2008, p. 744). According to a
survey by Deloitte (2005), human resource officials of numerous companies consider the ability
to attract and retain new talent as critical challenges of today’s organizations (Hughes & Rog,
2008). Especially in this age of talent competition that is known as a “war for talent”, talent
management is becoming an increasingly important human resource management philosophy
and practice (Hughes & Rog, 2008). However, it is necessary to clarify that the notion of talent is
intertwined with the concept of high potential employees. Hughes and Rog (2008) uphold that
high potentials are those considered to possess exceptional talent; in other words, they are
individuals with ability to make a difference in organizational performance.

34
Whether talent management focuses more on internal grooming, external recruiting, or
both, is a matter of debate. For instance, a description of talent management by certain authors
(e.g., Hughes & Rog, 2008; Rothwell, 2005) indicates that the strategy also focuses on attracting
competent people from outside and retaining them. However, there are authors who perceive
talent management as more of an inward looking strategy. Gay and Sims (2006), for example,
describe talent management as an effort for identifying, developing, and moving employees and
leaders upward to increase retention of the key talent. Likewise, Krauss (2007) indicates that,
unlike succession planning that combines both the harnessing of the internal talent and sourcing
it externally, talent management is mainly concerned with maintaining the internal competencies.
Despite these debatable differences, it is obvious that talent management is an important
component of succession planning or vice versa; and sometimes, the two concepts are used
interchangeably (Kraus, 2007), although they may technically differ. However, it is contended
here that when the two concepts are merged, a more comprehensive concept comes into view,
which is what Rothwell (2005) calls succession planning and management.
Theoretical Considerations
According to the critical review conducted by Giambatista et al., (2006), findings of past
studies are illuminating but mixed in nature. This review reveals that some articles reported some
kind of relationship between antecedent factors and succession. Also, some articles indicated
some dependent variables that were affected by succession. However, the reviewers found that
the theory in this field is characterized by fragmentation. Also, most quantitative methods
applied had some weaknesses such as a lack of transparency regarding methodology used and
insufficient highlights on the skewness and normality of the data collected. Moreover, most
designs employed were archival field studies; and rarely were qualitative methods used to clarify
35
gaps. Furthermore, the aspects of internal and external validity were not always adequately
explained, and not all internal validity threats were controlled (Giambatista et al., 2006).
In the early 1960s, succession planning was understood in terms of three “theories”
known as “common sense”, “vicious circle”, and “ritual scapegoating” (Giambatista et al., 2006;
Rowe, Cannella, Rankin, & Gorman, 2005). Whereas common sense contended that the wise
choice of a successor and replacement of a known failure could bring performance benefits, the
vicious circle suggested that decline could impel succession, which in turn could disrupt regular
procedures causing more decline and succession. Some researchers refuted the possibility of
attaining post-succession organizational improvement, and hence described succession planning
as a mere “ritual scapegoating process” (Giambatista et al., 2006, p. 964).
According to Giambatista et al., (2006), studies conducted before 1994 generated some
indicative relationships, albeit mixed. For instance, succession was noted to be related to
organizational size and leader-organization fit. Another finding was the connection between
external successor and the change agency for low-performing firms as well as the association
between poor performance and high succession rates. Also, researchers found that the
relationship between performance and choice of successors was moderated by social and
political factors. Other findings were that successions tended to prompt change; the relationship
between succession and performance was found to be mixed; and formal, planned successions
were associated with firms’ higher performances (Giambatista et al., 2006).
Moreover, Giambatista et al., (2006) believe that studies conducted between 1994 and
2004 were better than those before 1994 in terms of theorization and methodology, because the
newer studies have provided additional insights for practitioners and researchers of the field.
According to these reviewers, it is apparent that the leadership succession field has attained some
36
maturity, but still needs improvement in terms of theorization and methodology, hence the need
for more research.
According to Giambatista et al. (2006), the studies conducted between 1994 and 2004
have generated interesting but mixed results. They distinguished articles that treated succession
as an antecedent from those articles that treated succession as a consequence. Where succession
was an outcome, some of the antecedents examined were the board-related politics, company’s
performance, leader characteristics, company’s characteristics, and succession planning
variables. The consequences of succession studied include performance of sports organizations,
performance of the business organizations, and strategy, restructuring, and other outcomes.
Relationship between Succession and Other Variables
In examining independent variables related to boards’ politics, studies reported that,
under economic hardship, having more inside board members could trigger an increase in the
succession rate of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Also, powerful boards were linked to
successors’ “demographic similarity to the board”. Another intriguing finding was that during
the period of high performance, external board members supported heirs apparent to foil
incumbent CEOs from abusing power. Moreover, a positive relationship was found between the
amount of external directors and the likelihood of external CEO successors. In addition, the
number of non-candidate internal board members was positively related to internal successions
(Giambatista et al., 2006).
Concerning a firm’s performance as an independent variable, it was found to relate to
CEOs’ succession; lower profitability and lower growth were associated with selection of
external successors. Also, decrease in performance was found to trigger increased likelihood of
37
CEO departure. Another intriguing finding was the positive relationship between a firm’s
performance and internal relay succession (Giambatista et al., 2006).
Regarding leader characteristics and actions as antecedent, studies reported that the
internal struggle for power led to an increased rate of CEO succession. Also, power
institutionalization tended to decline the rate of CEO succession, and tenure increase decreased
the risk of succession. Moreover, the best matches of incumbent and successor CEOs happened
when insiders followed CEOs who quit, and when the outsiders replaced CEOs who were fired.
Furthermore, external successors with less industry-related skills triggered a greater variation of
post-succession performance. In addition, the presence of internal apparent candidates made
internal succession likely (Giambatista et al., 2006).
With regard to firm characteristics as independent variables, studies indicated that the
firm size was associated with external succession since smaller firms relied on external
successors. Also, CEO successors in businesses with a higher level of product differentiation
tended to have shorter office tenures and higher educational levels. Another observation was that
“higher industry growth rates” were related to “CEO successors having lower tenure and being
young”. Moreover, some studies found that the company’s prior strategic persistence was
positively related to the possibility of internal succession (Giambatista et al., 2006).
Furthermore, research on outcomes of the succession produced some findings such as: (1)
internal relay successors generated positive post-succession performance in firms, (2) but also
outside succession tended to yield better performance results in some cases, (3) investors reacted
positively to heir apparent promotions as well as to external successions, (4) CEO succession
was found to trigger organizational transformation, and (5) CEO succession did not significantly
influence organizational restructuring (Giambatista et al., 2006).

38
Rowe et al. (2005) confirmed the relationship between succession and performance. In
their study, these researchers found that leader succession does impact an organization’s
performance. Also, they noted that in order to maximize the lasting benefits of succession, both
the timing of succession execution and the duration of the successor’s organizational learning are
crucial. In fact, the longer the successor learns and institutionalizes knowledge and skills the
better the performance of the organization (Rowe et al., 2005).
To sum up, it has been noted that many results of the past studies were found to be
mixed, the methods and variable measurements were questionable, and the underlying theories
applied in research were fragmented. Also, some of the past succession research did not clarify
the question of internal and external validity of results. On top of all, the majority of those
studies focused on the manufacturing industry. In view of all these challenges, Giambatista et al.,
(2006) recommend more research to be done towards improving the theoretical frameworks,
research designs, methodologies, and settings. In brief, more research effort is needed in the field
of succession planning.
Evolution of the Succession Planning as a Field
The practices of succession planning have been in place in different cultures and in
different forms since the beginning of known history (Garman & Glawe, 2004). Royal families
have been identifying and grooming candidates who will inherit leadership positions, albeit
without using the term succession planning. In recent decades, however, there has been an
increasing move towards succession planning processes especially in larger corporate
organizations. CEO succession was the initial focus of the succession planning efforts (Kesner &
Sebora, 1994). It was in the 1980s when a shift occurred from the initially preferred CEO
replacement planning to a more expanded notion of succession planning (Berke, 2005). As the
39
leadership needs increased, the concept of succession planning was extended to include other
leadership levels of an organization. Despite this broadening of the topic, the theme of CEO
succession continued to interest researchers (Berke, 2005).
A body of literature before 1995 attempted to formulate the best practices applied in
succession planning. For instance, Eastman (1995) reports eleven practices accompanying
effective succession planning as expressed by 56 different sources, stating that an effective
succession plan: (1) receives a vivid support from top management, (2) is owned by
departmental leadership and supported by workers, (3) is straightforward and customized to
organizational needs, (4) connected to strategic plan of an organization but flexible, and (5)
emerges from staff evaluation processes. Moreover, an effective succession planning: (6) is
founded on the finely tuned competencies and purposeful evaluation of potential candidates, (7)
integrates ideas from workers, (8) is a component of a wider endeavor for management
development, (9) comprises job assignment plans for capacity building, (10) is intertwined with
other human resources systems, and (11) focuses on accountability and monitoring of plans (See
Eastman, 1995, pp. 50-66).
Moreover, Berke (2005) posits that from 1995 up to 2005, there were few changes in the
body of literature regarding the overall understanding of succession processes. For instance, one
outstanding aspect in that decade was the emphasis on succession management as a concept,
which is more systematic and comprehensive than a mere succession planning process. Also, the
notion of development of the high potentials, which was viewed as the heart of succession
processes, was expanded to include “action learning and cross application of assignments”
(Berke, 2005, p. 3). Moreover, this period was characterized by an increase in research on high
potentials and the role of high potentials’ learning agility.

40
According to Berke (2005), other contemporary topics in succession discipline include:
the role of the board members in the succession process, different kinds of succession processes,
internal versus external successors, political processes involved in succession processes,
development of the talent or high potentials, high potentials, and succession management
systems and their design. In addition, the subject of talent management is hotly discussed in the
corporate world today (Cunningham, 2007; Hughes & Rog, 2008); and actually, more
organizations, researchers, and scholars are increasingly being drawn into succession issues. But
the question is: How important is this emerging field of study?
The Significance and Prevalence of Succession Planning
It is important to understand the significance of this field before digging deeper in this
review. The importance of succession planning and management has been echoed by several
authors. In 2004, Rothwell (2005) conducted a study that involved over 500 Human Resources
Management (HRM) professionals of different organizations. All respondents (100%) agreed
that succession planning is important to their organizations. In another study, it was found that
organizations with formal succession planning were 80% prepared or extremely prepared to
immediately fill leadership positions (Fegley, 2006). Many authors affirm the worth of the
succession planning (see Garman & Glawe, 2004; Giambatista et al., 2006; Rothwell, 2005).
One reason why succession planning and management is imperative is that it addresses
the imminent leadership shortage. Several authors believe that succession planning is an answer
to the impending leadership crisis (Binard Carlson, 2007; Heuer, 2003; Hull, 2005, Mackey,
2008, Rothwell, 2002). Berke (2005) states that “the purpose of succession-related practices is to
ensure that there are ready replacements for key positions in an organization so that turnover will
not negatively affect the organization’s performance” (p. vii). But succession planning is not
41
only for immediate replacement of departing leaders, as it is also a very important strategy for
the long-term sustainability and viability of the organizations (Mandi, 2008).
Another reason why succession planning and management is important is that retirement
of senior officials drains the technical and cultural knowledge of the organization, because
whenever senior leaders retire, a loss of experience, expertise, cultural insights, and
organizational history occur (Merrill Lynch, 2006). Hence succession planning and management
is the strategy that can prevent loss of the organizational knowledge and culture. Realizing the
importance of this strategy, the American Council of Education (ACE), the American
Association of Community Colleges (AACC), and the League for Innovation have been calling
for “proactive measures” to be taken in order to tackle the impending leadership needs in
educational institutions (Mackey, 2008).
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, there exists a link between succession planning and
organizational performance (Rowe et al., 2005). In the business world, for instance, investors
tend to value firms that have a known heir when a CEO leaves (Behn, Riley, & Yang, 2005).
Despite the difficulty of measuring the return-on-investment for a succession planning and
management program in business, common sense indicates that the cost of the absence of a
succession program might be higher than the cost of putting one in place (Rothwell, 2005). In
addition to improved performance, companies with succession plans experience better leadership
transition than firms that do not have any (Khumalo & Harris, 2008).
In the K-12 school systems, researchers observed the connection between school
improvement and succession planning efforts. Hargreaves (2005) found that leadership
succession is one of the most important factors affecting school life and its improvement. In
fact, he found that planned leadership succession took place only in the most innovative schools.
42
Similarly, Lambert (2006, 2003) found a link between school leadership capacity and succession
practices. Thus, Fink and Brayman (2006) emphasize the need of incorporating succession
planning in the overall school plans as a measure to enable schools to tackle long term
succession challenges and enhance schools’ sustainability.
Another important benefit of succession planning and management is related to the
competitiveness of the organizations. The today’s world is so competitive that it is imperative for
organizations to find a means of attracting, developing, and retaining the workforce with
required abilities (Krauss, 2007). Those organizations that successfully use succession planning
and talent management for attracting and developing future leaders will be able to remain
competitive (Mackey, 2008). In order to attain a competitive edge in the dynamic market-driven
world, organizations must adopt well-designed succession plans (Krauss, 2007). Actually,
organizations can confidently face the future if they create their own talent factories (Krauss,
2007). But, it is vital to stress here that it is the formal succession planning, not the informal, that
enables entities to develop and monitor the performance of the high potentials (Fegley, 2006).
Additionally, succession planning and management is significant for several other
reasons. In brief, succession planning and management: is the basis for continued survival of the
organizations; ensures the pipeline of the future talent and candidates for key positions of the
organizations; encourages diversity and multiculturalism in workplaces; and augments career
paths, staff development plans, and other human resource mobility activities (Rothwell, 2005).
Despite the importance, however, succession planning practices have not yet permeated
all organizations. Studies on the prevalence of succession planning indicate an estimation of
40% to 65% of companies have adopted formal succession planning practices (Garman &
Glawe, 2004). Other experts estimate that 85% of the U. S. organizations have inadequate
43
succession planning or do not have it at all (Nink et al., 2006). What is not clear though is that
despite its benefits, some organizations and most academic institutions have not yet paid
adequate attention to succession planning and management strategies, even when faced with the
impact of an aging workforce.
The Aging Workforce, Retirements, and Succession Planning
The significance of succession planning today is exacerbated by the impending massive
retirements of the American workforce. The issue of an aging population is a critical one and has
been mentioned by several authors. For example, Rothwell (2001) predicted that about 20% of
famous American companies might lose 40% of their key executives due to age-related
retirements in a span of five years. Hull (2005) predicted that about a quarter of the top
administrative officials of the American community colleges would retire between 2005 and
2010. In another study, 35% of the organizations’ leaders indicated that their organizations will
face a “leadership void” as the existing stock of leaders retires (Criswell & Martin, 2007). Also,
projections indicate that by year 2010 the population size of workers aged 55 years and over will
swell by 47% (Britt, 2003). Moreover, there is a growing concern that a large number of CEOs
will retire in the near future. For instance, between 1995 and 2003 the turnover of CEOs
increased by 170% (Lucier, Schuyt, & Handa, 2004); and over 79% of all community college
presidents will retire between 2001 and 2010 (Vaughan, 2002).
The effect of massive retirements of the senior officials is enormous. Organizations
experience great loss in experience, knowledge, and organizational culture (Merril Lunch, 2006).
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the size of the generation Y group, who were born
between 1979 and 2000, is almost the same as that of the baby boomer generation; but the former
does not have sufficient experiences required to replace the latter (Campbell & Eggers, 2006;
44
Tucker, Kao, & Verma, 2005). Loss of industrial skills, institutional knowledge, history, and
culture is a major concern for most organizations (Sauer & Cicero, 2007). Besides demographic
trends, the current workforce is notably changing due to economic, socio-political, and
technological factors; hence the size of the workforce is decreasing and becoming less skilled,
but more global, highly virtual, increasingly diverse, as well as self-directed and empowered
(Tucker et al., 2005). Thus, employers need to rethink how they manage their talent.
Succession Planning and Management versus Organizational Culture
One important aspect of succession planning and management is that it must be an
integral part of the organizational culture (Rothwell, 2005). Effective succession planning cannot
occur in isolation; it has to be linked to organizational behaviors and be integrated into the
overall organizational strategic planning (Cantor, 2005; Lockwood, 2006; Rothwell, 2005;
Stephens, 2006). Accordingly, some suggest that planning for retirement of the CEO and his/her
subsequent replacement in a private and family business should start at least ten years before the
anticipated retirement date (Harmon, 2007). This long-term planning of succession is only
possible when succession planning is treated as a part of organizational culture. According to
Fulmer (2004), “Best-practice organizations make succession planning an integral corporate
process by exhibiting a link between succession planning and overall business strategy” (cited in
Rothwell, 2005, p. 31).
Once integrated into the organization, succession planning will continuously guide the
assessment of candidates’ competencies and guide the process of developing each individual
candidate. Actually, succession planning ought to be an ongoing process linked to organizational
learning capacity (Hunte-Cox, 2004). Since succession-related responsibilities are enormous,
there is a need for organizations to have a unit that can coordinate all succession activities. This
45
unit can be a committee, a section under a human resources department, or a competent official
(Huang, 1999; Rothwell, 2005). For small firms, however, leadership succession can be guided
by competent consultants so as to avoid the cost of establishing a unit in the firm. Nonetheless,
some tips can help small private firms achieve successful leadership succession, such as: (1)
starting succession process early, (2) hiring regularly, (3) sharing information, (4) assigning and
delegating prudently, (5) providing feedback and establishing accountability, (6) communicating
interests and intentions frequently, and (7) constant mentoring (Harmon, 2007). All these
behaviors require the full commitment of the top leadership.
Top Leadership Commitment to Succession Processes
Leadership is the heart of any organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). First of all, it is
important to mention that some studies have depicted some relationship between the leadership
capacity and succession planning. Fink and Brayman (2006), for example, posit that the absence
of succession planning in schools is due to inadequate autonomy given to principals, which leads
to insufficient leadership capacity to run school affairs. Moreover, Hargreaves (2005) outlines
how leadership problems impact leadership succession in American K-12 schools. Lambert
(2006, 2003) observes that it is those schools with high leadership capacity that have the ability
to prepare future leaders. Similarly, Thompsen and Smith (2006) observe a relationship between
development, deployment, and retaining of crucial talent and organizational capacity, which is
highly influenced by the leadership capacity of an organization.
On the other hand, the implementation of succession planning and management programs
is effective when it is activated and supported by the top leadership (Harrison et al., 2006;
Krauss, 2007, Roddy, 2004; Rothwell, 2005). In fact, succession programs require the
commitment and involvement of both the top executives and heads of human resource
46
departments (Krauss, 2007; Lockwood, 2006; Rothwell, 2005). The bottom line is: since
succession planning and talent management are strategic approaches, they need to be handled by
the strategic level of the organizational leadership. The next few sections will discuss succession
aspects on which the organizational leadership has to focus and be involved.
Assessment of Organizational Leadership Needs
According to Rothwell (2005), in order to implement a succession planning process,
organizations must asses both the present and future work, staff, and leadership requirements.
Since the aim is to align people with the organizational roles, both the appraisal of the current
performance and assessment of the future individual potential must take place in relation to the
organizational requirements (Rothwell, 2005). A careful assessment of individual employees
helps not only to identify those who are able and desiring to advance upwards, but also helps to
delineate their developmental gaps (Rothwell, 2005). The assessment procedure must be based
on a set of competencies that the organization has specified. For this purpose, some organizations
use core competence modeling as an approach for selection and development of new talents to
keep an organization competitive (Grigoryev, 2006). A competency model is a set of
competencies needed for excellent job performance within the framework of job roles and
responsibilities (Rothwell, 2005). Grigoryev (2006) provides several steps for core competence
modeling (see chapter 1). Also, in order to have a fair assessment, it is recommended to utilize a
qualified expert from outside the organization (Krauss, 2007; Rothwell, 2001, 2005).
Furthermore, individuals’ abilities for job change or upward movement have to be
evaluated through a systematic process of individual potential assessment (Rothwell, 2005). It is
through these kinds of evaluation processes that workers’ skills, values, strengths, interests,
behaviors, education, goals, and weaknesses can be uncovered (Gaffney, 2005). Moreover, an
47
appropriate evaluation of employees includes an assessment tool that benchmarks workers
against organizational requirements, expectations, and culture; this is crucial for the detection
and selection of the talent (Gay & Sims, 2006). Eventually, the identified talent and high
potentials have to be developed and retained in order to fill the future key/leadership positions as
vacancies are created. This is why a talent management strategy is an important component of
any succession planning and management process.
Talent Management Strategy in Succession Processes
Talent management entails efforts made by organizations to identify, develop, and move
employees and leaders upward to increase retention of the key talent (Gay & Sims, 2006;
Lockwood, 2006). Talent management is a key component in succession planning and
management. The study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management revealed
that 76% of the study participants considered talent management as a top priority of today’s
organizational strategies (Fegley, 2006).
Since employers will increasingly face shortages of talent and will find it hard to retain
the existing stock, they will need to adopt policies and procedures for earlier identification and
retention of high-potential talent (Rothwell, 2005). Massive retirements of the baby boomers,
potential workforce turnover due to various reasons, and competitive retention schemes by
different organizations will aggravate talent shortage, and hence compel employers to consider
ways of effectively retaining their own talent (Krauss, 2007). In addition, talent management is
driven by a desire to gain competitive advantage and as a strategy to address the looming global
skills shortage (Lockwood, 2006). The Mercer Snapshot Survey (2005) concluded that
cultivating talent from within should be a primary focus of organizations; and in fact most firms
are increasingly becoming engaged in this matter (Lockwood, 2006).

48
However, attracting and retaining the appropriate talent constitutes a big challenge for
most organizations (Krauss, 2007). According to Loftus (2007), successful talent management
strategies require four critical organizational capabilities: (1) aligning the workforce with the
organizational strategy, (2) attracting, developing, and retaining key talent, (3) minimizing the
loss of vital skills, and (4) challenging the process of the organization to enhance its flexibility.
Moreover, talent pools have to be organized for each key job position as each has specific
requirements (Rothwell, 2005), which underscores the fact that each leadership level or position
actually needs its own succession plan chart (Sobol et al., 2007).
Application of Succession Plan Charts
One of the central features of succession planning and management is that it targets every
leadership level of the organization (Berke, 2005, Rothwell, 2005). Thus, for each leadership
position, a succession plan chart has to be developed (Sobol et al., 2007; Rothwell, 2005).
Whereas Sobol et al. (2007) use the term succession plan chart, Rothwell (2005) calls it a
replacement chart. A limited body of literature is available that provides details on how to
prepare those succession plan charts needed for every leadership level. The bottom line, though,
is that while succession planning is the process, a succession plan chart is a kind of a blueprint or
a map that guides different tasks associated with the process of identifying, assessing,
developing, and selecting potential candidates for a given key position (Sobol et al., 2007;
Rothwell, 2005).
Identification and Development of High Potentials
Development of high potentials is the heart of any succession planning and management
strategy (Berke, 2005, Rothwell, 2005); but development cannot take place without adequate
identification of high potentials. A high potential is a current exemplary performer who is

49
capable of advancing some levels beyond the current position; and is highly rated for current and
future performance (Rothwell, 2005). Identifying and systematizing leadership high potentials as
well as enhancing their visibility constitute an integral part of leadership development and
succession planning (Groves, 2007). Identification and development of high potentials is the
basis for internal growth of leadership successors (Rothwell, 2005). Unfortunately, as the study
conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) in 2007 reveals, most organizations
suffer not only from an absence of explicit succession plans, but also from talent shortage and
lack of talent development strategies. Grooming leadership talents enables entities to obtain high
potentials that can be prepared to assume leadership responsibilities.
As mentioned earlier, a competency model is often used to identify the high potentials.
However, identifying a high potential is not an easy task, because IQ and past performance are
not always sufficient criteria (Berke, 2005). Besides the other criteria, the key distinction
between those who are high potentials and who are not lies in their learning agility (Lombardo &
Eichinger, 2000). Learning agility is the ability of a worker to learn from experience, exhibited
by individual’s capacity to gain new skills in new situations (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000).
As discussed earlier, assessment processes will reveal developmental gaps of each
identified talent or high potential. These gaps must be bridged through different types of
development programs that are adequately designed for equipping each selected potential with
requisite leadership and behavioral skills (Krauss, 2007, Rothwell, 2005). Since development of
the high potentials is the heart of the succession planning and management system (Berke, 2005),
organizations have to establish well-designed leadership development programs.
Besides specific programs, potential leaders can be groomed using a combination of
different strategies such as action learning, special training, mentoring, coaching, job rotation,
50
and application of a 360-degree staff appraisal system (Krauss, 2007; Rothwell, 2005).
Especially important is the role played by leaders in mentoring their direct subordinates (Groves,
2007). The caution, however, is that regardless of the grooming strategy utilized, it is vital for an
organization to develop and carry out an individual development plan (IDP) for each identified
high potential (Rothwell (2005). An IDP is a result of a comparative assessment of “individual
strengths and weaknesses on the current job and individual potential for advancement” to future
specific leadership positions (Rothwell, 2005, p. 235).
Moreover, some of these leadership training strategies can be carried out within the
workplace site as well as away from it. For example, mentoring and coaching offer the
workforce on-the-job training opportunities leading to professional and personal development
(Rothwell, 2001). These training methods are also effective for retention of employees, because
they are designed to focus on individuals (Krauss, 2007). Actually, organizations gain benefits
when they take care of their workers. One of the benefits is that workers tend to stay longer in
organizations if they obtain professional and personal development (Gaffney, 2005).
Yet, some companies avoid training their employees; instead, these companies rely on
sourcing workers from outside with a belief that it is easier to do so (Krauss, 2007). Depending
on out-sourcing might be problematic, because the pool of qualified workers outside
organizations is shrinking and may not be available in the near future as a result of the fight for
talent (Hughes & Rog, 2008). Therefore, organizations are advised to consider instituting a
formal succession planning and management effort not as an accidental event, but rather, as a
well informed long-term strategy (Le Breton-Miller, Miller, & Steier, 2004).
According to Rothwell (2005), a succession planning and management program is the
best strategy to promote the development and retention of organizational knowledge and talent
51
from within. Organizations have to learn that acquiring talent from outside is merely a short term
strategy, it is a kind of a quick fix; but what can pay off in long run is to grow talent from within
(Cunningham, 2007).
Selection, Evaluation, and Rewarding the Groomed Candidates
Out of the identified and trained high potentials, candidates for key positions have to be
selected based on evaluation results. These will serve as bench strength for the organizations’
key positions (Rothwell, 2005). Bench strength is described as “the organization’s ability to fill
vacancies from within” (Rothwell, 2005, p. 228). Adequate rewards, incentives, and suitable
working environments help groomed candidates to remain in their organizations. In her study,
Krauss (2007) found that most employees view their respective management as uncaring about
employees’ job satisfaction. Also, apart from 22% of the workforce that would depart within five
years due to age-related retirements, Krauss noted that even more workers would consider
changing their employer in search for advancement opportunities and for a better career path.
Moreover, most workers leave their jobs due to the feeling that their employers do not
provide adequate promotion opportunities within the organizations (Krauss, 2007). Actually,
Towers and Perrin (2005) found that not only good payment packages, but also career
development possibilities serve as incentives for attracting workers to remain with their
organizations. Hence succession planning and management emphasizes regular evaluation and
rewarding of the internally groomed candidates for leadership positions.
Prudent Replacement of the Outgoing Leaders
Replacement of departing leaders is not always easy. For instance, Moser (2008) reveals
how difficult it is to replace retiring community college presidents in California. According to
the author, the state of California has been struggling to recruit, retain, and fill the vacancies of
52
the outgoing college presidents. One of the reasons for this problem is the lack of leader training
from within, while the pool of external quality applicants has shrunk. California could be one of
several states facing similar challenges. Through succession planning and management
programs, organizations can identify and prepare a group of high potential candidates for each
leadership position of an institution.
To attain a smooth transition, some experts recommend that the heir have ample time to
work with the incumbent leader before the successor takes the office (Vancil, 1987). This kind of
practice is especially seen in a relay succession approach, which requires the incumbent, before
his/her departure, to work together with the incoming, internally groomed successor for a while
to enable the latter to build his/her corporate knowledge base and forthcoming working team
(Khumalo & Harris, 2008; Vancil, 1987). In some cases of the relay succession approach, as
soon as the new successor assumes office, a new heir is identified and a new process of
development begins (Berke, 2005; Vancil, 1987). Zhang and Rajagopalan (2004) found that
relay successions triggered better company performance than non-relay inside succession and
outside succession. This relatively better performance by a relay successor is mainly due enough
time the outgoing leader works with the successor. In brief, an entity practicing succession
planning tends to have more successful leadership transition than entities without succession
planning (Khumalo & Harris, 2008).
Moreover, Wiersema (2002) cautions governing boards to be careful with dismissing
CEOs without due preparations. Firing leaders without due preparation of the heirs is imprudent
and exhibits a lack of understanding of organizational strategic matters. Organizations’ boards
have to ensure that: (1) the leadership transition is smooth and void of sabotage or unhealthy
power struggles between the CEO and other senior executives, (2) the right successor is selected
53
to match the actual needs of the organization, and (3) the new CEO’s ability to handle the
organization’s content and context is well monitored (Conger & Nadler, 2004).
Internal Grooming versus External Sourcing
According to Zhang and Rajagopalan (2004), a well prepared internal candidate, that is a
relay successor, tends to have a more positive impact on the company’s performance than an
external one or the internal non-relay successor. This finding seems to favor the relay succession
rather than the horse race approach. A relay successor is an internally selected replacement who
has been an apparent-heir for at least two years (Giambatista et al., 2006); and a horse race is
based on a competition that yields one winner (Vancil, 1987).
Generally, most authors believe that grooming successors internally is more beneficial for
organizations than relying on externally grown successors (Hargreaves, 2005; Gandossy &
Verma, 2006; Harrison et al., 2006). Several reasons are provided for this position. First, it has
been demonstrated that home-grown CEOs generate 1.9% points higher of the annual
shareholder returns (Gandossy & Verma, 2006). Second, sourcing from within is considered
cheaper than recruiting from outside, in addition to the fact that 65% of leaders recruited
externally tend to fail within the first two years of their new positions (Berchelman, 2005). Third,
external sourcing of leaders makes internal talents become stagnant, which might lead to
attrition, hence watering down any effort to retain employees (Gandossy & Verma, 2006).
Fourth, although fear exists that grooming internal talents may also qualify them for external
markets, the benefit of internal succession is greater than that fear, because internal succession
minimizes distraction associated with leadership change, conserves institutional memory, and
utilizes talents within the institution (Wallin, 2007). Harrison et al., (2006) say, “…growing
talent from within organizations yields leaders who, through their historical knowledge and
54
experience in the organization, have earned the trust of the organization and are more likely to be
accepted as knowledgeable, capable leaders” (p. 22).
On the other hand, there are arguments that externally-bred leaders may generate and
manage change better than the internally-groomed. This is true, when a major change is required,
and especially where the organization is faced by inadequate organizational capacity and culture
(Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2004). However, leaders from outside are likely to lack organization-
specific knowledge and might have difficulty in gaining internal support from executives (Zhang
& Rajagopalan, 2004). Moreover, external successors tend to need more time for studying and
understanding their new organizations and are likely to come with unwanted foreign cultures
(Berke, 2005; Rothwell, 2005). In fact, an external successor might need a period of six months
to two years to learn a new organization and create a needed network (Berke, 2005).
CEO Succession and the Role of Governing Boards
Besides other things, selection of the CEO is an opportunity for the boards to identify and
address critical core organizational needs (Khurana, 2001). In order to decide prudently, boards
must have insight of the firms’ businesses and their contexts, be more interested in the
replacements’ suitability, and exercise adequate oversight over new CEOs (Wiersema, 2002).
Also, boards have to take responsibility for the succession processes, manage the exiting leaders
to ensure that they do not sabotage the new successors, ensure that the in-house talent pipeline is
being developed, use search firms adequately, carry out proper selections of either internal or
external successors who match the job requirements, and provide necessary support to the new
successors to do their jobs (Berke, 2005).
Moreover, selection of CEOs should consider the situation of the organizational context
versus content. Conger and Nadler (2004) describe the content as the core operations of the firm
55
and the context as the firm’s environment and the associated decisions. It is suggested that the
context-oriented CEO is a better choice, except when the company is undergoing a business
crisis, in which case the content-oriented CEO may be recruited (Conger & Nadler 2004).
Succession Processes versus Internal Organizational Politics
Succession processes can be marred by internal organizational politics. Nevertheless, in a
well designed model, a succession process will be a smooth undertaking which will enable the
incumbent leader to step down and allow the well groomed successor to take over the office
(Berke, 2005). According to Conger and Nadler (2004), organizations’ boards should ensure
succession processes are working properly and internal candidates are adequately developed in
order to avoid possible failures of the newly selected CEOs. However, the succession of leaders
can sometimes become political. For example, Cannella and Shen (2002) point out that it is not
necessarily true that the successor will always support the predecessor’s practices. Sometimes a
poor firm’s performance leads top executives to band together in order to defend themselves;
also, power struggle may arise between the top and senior executives (Shen & Cannella, 2002).
Moreover, being identified as an apparent candidate does not necessarily guarantee
obtaining the CEO’s position. The tendency is that when the firm is doing well and the CEO is
powerful, the named heirs are likely to leave as the CEO tends to cling to power; but when the
CEO is powerful while the firm is doing badly, candidates tend to remain (Cannella & Shen,
2002). Furthermore, it was found that when a company is doing badly, board members tend to
view internal candidates critically; and when a company is doing well, external directors tend to
encourage apparent candidates to stay with the company and push for candidate’s promotion
against the incumbent leader (Cannella & Shen, 2002).

56
Succession Management Approaches
Some authors have written about succession management system’s design. There are
some efforts in a body of literature that attempt to outline the best way of running succession
processes. For instance, the idea of succession processes has been shifting from a simple concept
of replacement planning to a more systematic and proactive strategy of succession planning that
focuses on future organizational leadership needs (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2000; Conger &
Fulmer, 2003; Guenther, 2004). Also, there have been some attempts to identify best practices
applicable in the field of succession planning (see Eastman, 1995; Gandossy & Verma, 2006;
Karaevli & Hall, 2003; Rothwell, 2005).
Moreover, while Kesler (2002) broadens the notion of succession planning by outlining
strategic and operational tips for designing and managing succession systems, Leibman, Bruer,
and Maki (1996) focus more on the organizational context, thus shifting the discussion towards a
more comprehensive concept of succession management instead of a narrow notion of
succession planning. Alarmed by the possible fight for talent, some authors promote the idea of
talent management in the succession processes (Pfeffer, 2002; The Corporate Leadership
Council, 2003). Furthermore, Rothwell (2005) provides comprehensive guidelines on various
aspects of succession planning and management efforts or programs. He does not only highlight
the outlines of best-practices in the field of succession planning and management, but also offers
a checklist against which an organization can measure its succession planning efforts. Besides
internal growing of leaders, alternative succession approaches exist as well; these include:
outsourcing the work, reorganizing the organizational structure, sourcing the services from
within, using consultants, collaborating with similar organizations, and recruiting globally
(Rothwell, 2005).
57
Succession Planning and Diversity
In some organizations, women and people of color, who are a significant portion of the
workforce, are still facing career advancement limitations due to stereotyping, lack of mentors,
personal networks, and other challenges (Kilian, Hukai, & McCarty, 2005). In higher education,
for example, discrimination against the advancement of female faculty members and
administrators is still prevalent (Eagly & Carli, 2004; Smith 2002). In the U.S., surprisingly,
women occupy only 15% of all chief academic officers working in academia; also, they
represent only 19.3% of presidents of academic institutions (Madsen, 2007). These
discriminative practices are unfounded since there is no significant difference between female
and male leadership capacity (Harris, 2007). In fact, some studies show that women leaders are
doing better in some leadership behaviors (Chow, 2005; Spurgeon & Cross; 2006; Waring,
2003).
Moreover, Dawley, Hoffman, and Smith (2004) did not find any difference between the
leadership performance of female and male successors. Although the study focused on a
population that was female-dominated by a ratio of 2:1, it was found that (1) female successors
do not perform worse than male successors in the short-term; (2) there is no significant
difference in long-term organizational performance between entities that hire female successors
and those that hire male successors; (3) the successor origin moderates the relationship between
gender and performance in such that a female successor benefits more, in terms of short-term
performance, by being an insider than a male leader; and (4) there is no difference in long-term
organizational performance between organizations that hire internally female successors and
those organizations that hire external female successors (Dawley, Hoffman, & Smith, 2004).
58
Regarding minority representation in higher education leadership, effort is needed to
improve the situation. According to Betts, Urias, Chavez, and Betts (2009), minorities represent
14% of college and university presidents; 19% of executive, managerial, and administrative staff;
22% of fulltime faculty members; 25% of part time faculty members; 22% of governing board
members at public colleges and universities; and 12% of governing board members at private
colleges and universities.
A good strategy to counter discrimination in leadership promotion is to implement a
succession planning and management program (Rothwell, 2005). Drawing from the responses of
study participants, Rothwell (2005) posits that succession planning and management
“encourages the advancement of diverse groups” because different employee groups at the
workplace will be given equal opportunity to develop, and the best successors will be groomed
irrespective of their identity. It is apparent that discriminative practices do not tally with the
philosophy behind the systematic succession planning and management approach. Consequently,
since diversity is increasingly becoming an organizational feature in today’s world, Betts et al.,
(2009) recommend higher education to increase recruitment of the minorities to fill key
positions.
Status of Succession Planning in Higher Education
The Challenge
The challenges ahead of higher education in terms of succession processes are enormous
due to several reasons. One of them is the impending leadership crisis, the phenomenon that is
commonly mentioned in the body of succession literature. This is an anticipated shortage of the
leaders and the key employees due to the aging workforce, especially those of the baby boomer
generation, accompanied with the diminishing stock of qualified workers in various sectors
59
(Mackey, 2008). Higher education is one of the sectors that will be affected by this crisis
(Rothwell, 2002). Within the community college system, for example, the problem of the aging
workforce and other turnover factors has been under discussion for a while now (Boggs, 2003;
Drumm, 2004; Hull, 2005; Mackey, 2008). Currently, several academic institutions are already
being impacted by the scarcity of leaders (Mackey, 2008). According to Betts et al., (2009), the
retirement of baby-boomers is pressurizing academia to: (1) search for competent administrators
to fill the increasing vacancies, (2) call for reexamination of the career paths to higher
administrative positions, (3) provide continuous professional development to administrators, (4)
increase commitment to succession planning, and (5) increase commitment to diversity.
The aging workforce is not the only challenge in academia. The great concern currently is
that higher education has limited systematic succession planning and management efforts. For
instance, the study by Binard Carlson (2007) revealed that most community colleges in Colorado
have neither succession plans nor leadership development programs. Also, the study by Heuer
(2003) revealed succession planning problems in the ivy-plus university colleges. Moreover,
Mackey (2008) found “limited formal succession planning and talent management efforts” in the
community colleges of the Maricopa District (p. 92). Concluding the study on the Maricopa
Community College District, Mackey asserts that succession planning and talent management
are useful measures for addressing the looming shortage of leaders. Actually, shortages of
succession planning strategies in academia have been echoed by several other authors (Heuer,
2003, Hull, 2005; Mackey, 2008; Rothwell, 2002).
Moreover, Weiss (2005) noted that lack of an organized approach to hiring, grooming,
and retaining potential leaders at all levels of the education system constitutes a serious
impediment to education improvement. Despite the alarming demographic situation, academic

60
institutions pay little attention to the grooming of the mid-level leaders such as department heads
(Wolverton, Ackerman, & Holt, 2005). In fact, Wolverton and Ackermen (2006) posit that
“academic departments spend precious little time selecting their leaders and even less time
preparing them for the duties they will assume” (p. 14).
In addition, lack of leadership preparedness can be observed among the college
presidents and board members. One study of the Chronicle of Higher Education observed that
many presidents feel unprepared when they take office; and that only 19% of presidents were
internally groomed (Bornstein, 2005). Even most (85%) governing board members of the
academic institutions are barely prepared when they join their respective board services (Selingo,
2007). In brief, colleges are lagging behind the corporate world in developing and retaining their
own talent (Lynch, 2007). This situation must be addressed since ill-prepared academic leaders
“run the risks of jeopardizing departmental and institutional effectiveness” (Wolverton &
Ackermen, 2006, p. 15).
Academia Called to Do Something
In order to cope with the looming leadership crisis both universities and community
colleges must adequately prepare their own future leaders. In fact, a number of studies have
recommended that community colleges grow their own leaders (Fulton-Calkins & Milling, 2005;
Hull, 2005). The emphasis should be internal grooming and selection of leaders, because internal
selection tends to produce successful college presidencies (Bornstein, 2005).
On the other hand, public academic institutions tend to cherish policies and civil service
regulations that inhibit employment of systemic succession planning approaches. As Barden
(2006) points out, stakeholders of academic institutions abhor uncertainty; yet, they forget that it
is succession planning and management efforts that can guarantee future stability of the
61
academic institutions. The result of academia’s inflexibility has often been a prolonged
transition period between the appearance of a vacancy and the appointment of the replacement
(Rothwell, 2005). In fact, Lynch (2007) stated well that if colleges want to be a part of the
solution of the forthcoming talent crisis, they have to reconsider their policies and culture.
Consequently, higher education has to find a suitable way of incorporating succession
planning and management processes in their institutions, even if those processes might not
necessarily be exactly the same as those needed in the business or non-profit sectors (Rothwell,
2005). Conversely, without formal succession strategies, filling the leadership positions with the
right candidates will increasingly become a burdensome issue as exemplified in the California
community colleges, which are struggling to recruit, retain, and fill vacant leadership positions
due to the absence of internal leadership development programs (Moser, 2008).
On the other hand, although higher education is currently facing leadership challenges
due to a shortage of succession strategies, some community colleges are doing relatively better
as they have started to work on the problem. Actually, 87% of the surveyed colleges believe in
the value of leadership development and 86% of the colleges have initiated some kind of
leadership development activity (Hull, 2005). What is not clear, though, is the amount of
succession planning benefits stemming from the newly introduced leadership programs in
colleges. Also, the extent to which universities prepare their leaders using their own regular
leadership training programs is not clearly known. These two areas need more research.
In view of the issues above, one thing is clear for academia: there is no other option
except to address the problem of impending leadership and talent shortage. Among the fifteen
predictions stated by Rothwell (2005), there is one which says that succession planning and
management needs will “become an issue in government agencies, academic institutions, and
62
non-profit organizations in a way never before seen” (p. 308). This prediction points to the need
for institutions of higher education to consider the six recommendations provided by Hull (2005)
that urge colleges to: (1) provide leadership development to all potential faculty and staff
members, (2) introduce formal succession planning efforts, (3) create more internal leadership
development programs, (4) increase mentoring of junior staff members by senior administrators,
and (5) research more about obstacles that prevent higher education officials from participating
in leadership development programs. In addition, Hull suggests the need to examine the amount
of succession planning being implemented by colleges. For instance, it is important to explore
how leadership training programs impact succession planning practices in the colleges. One
intriguing question is: Do leadership training programs operating in higher education cater for
the external market more than for grooming the internal leadership capacity?
Obstacles to Succession Planning
Succession planning suffers from a plethora of obstacles. Whereas the business world is
slightly ahead of other sectors, the succession situation in academia and in other public sectors is
generally pathetic. Higher education has many succession planning obstacles. Mackey (2008),
for instance, found the sampled community colleges having several succession planning barriers
just as reported by Heuer (2003), who studied a group of private universities five years earlier.
These barriers include cumbersome hiring processes, lack of resources for talent management,
external regulation and increased competition of talent globally, and unfavorable organizational
culture.
Many more obstacles to succession planning are observable in other sectors too. These
include the following: lack of clear organizational vision; lack of support from senior or top
executives; unsupportive organizational culture; ignorance about the importance of succession

63
planning; lack of knowledge, skills, and personnel; and fear about the succession planning
implications, such as adverse effects in finances, interpersonal frictions among workers, or loss
of identity. Other barriers are related to employee motivation or attitude such as uncontrolled
employee mobility; lack of interest in the leadership positions due to high workloads, inadequate
rewards, lack of confidence, competences and talents; and lack of work morale or motivation.
Moreover, succession planning is hampered by pitiable organizational practices such as being
used to quick fix practices; absence of formalized leadership development programs; distorted
image of some leadership positions; a deep sense that assets and resources belong to the firm
founders alone; and personal egocentric attitudes (Hargreaves, 2005; Huang, 1999; Hutcheson,
2007; Hutcheson & Zimmerman, 2007; Murphy, 2006).
Succession Practices at Midwestern University
So far no studies were found in the literature about the succession processes of the
subject university, Midwestern University, and this is the reason why this evaluative study was
proposed.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has provided a review of existing literature on succession planning and
management topic. The chapter started with introducing the topic, its importance, and a brief
overview of the key concepts. Then the review discussed the theoretical challenges within the
field, followed by a brief overview of the evolution of succession planning as a field of study,
and the significance of the succession planning and management efforts in today’s organizations.
Also, the review discussed several themes related to succession processes, including the impact
of the aging workforce on retirements, the need for succession planning to be integrated into the
64
organizational culture, the role played by the top leadership in succession processes, assessment
of the present and future organizational needs, and many others.
Also, the review provided the overview of the status of succession planning in higher
education. However, it is apparent that enormous challenges exist ahead of higher education in
terms of succession processes due to a variety of reasons. Currently, several academic
institutions are already facing a scarcity of leaders; yet, surprisingly, academic institutions pay
little attention to the internal grooming of all kinds of leaders. The bottom line is that succession
planning efforts are significantly lacking in academia. To deal with the impending shortage of
talent stemming from the baby boomer effect and other demographic reasons, academic
institutions must overcome inherent organizational barriers and establish well-thought succession
planning and management systems.
Implications
The topic of succession planning and management is timely because organizations are
bound to lose their key officials due to the looming unprecedented retirement of the baby boomer
generation. As key employees retire, they drain organizational experiences and skills. At the
same time there is a general shortage of talent within and outside organizations. The answer lies
in implementing well designed succession planning and management programs. Yet, succession
planning seems to be a neglected subject especially in academia.
According to this review, therefore, several actions need to be considered. First,
organizations and academia have to reckon with impending leadership shortage situation and
consider effective succession planning as the adequate answer to the problem (Krauss, 2007;
Rothwell, 2002; 2005). Second, succession planning as a field of study needs further
improvement in terms of theorization and research methodology (Giambatista et al., 2006). For
65
instance, new studies could aim at exploring the relationship between various succession
variables and replicating some previous studies that were conducted in the business world in the
public sector. Third, more efforts should be directed to study succession issues in the government
and research institutions (Romejko, 2008).
Finally, many authors suggest the need to address the impediments that hamper
succession planning in academia (Betts et al., 2009; Heuer, 2003; Hull, 2005; Mackey, 2008).
Indeed, it is disturbing to note that succession planning and management in academia has not
received adequate attention. Thus, the implication of this literature review for academia is
twofold. First, it is paramount for institutions to improve succession planning policies and
practices. Since the stakes are high, it is important for institutions to establish systematic
succession planning and management strategies to cope with the imminent shortage of talent
needed for replacing the retiring officials. Second, it is imperative to increase research activities
on the topic of succession planning and management in higher education (Hull, 2005; Mackey,
2008; Rothwell, 2002). Since much is not yet known in this field, researchers and scholars
should consider using different forms of research, such as explorative, explanatory, evaluative,
and action research.

66
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the research design, participants, data collection instruments,
variables, materials, as well as data collection and analysis procedures employed. To better
understand the research problem and adequately examine the research questions, this study has
employed a mixed methods design. Participants for this study were fulltime academic staff and
fulltime administrative staff of the studied university. The researcher collected data through an
online survey, semi-structured interviews, and policy document review. Data was analyzed using
both quantitative and qualitative methods.
Research Design
As mentioned earlier, this study employed a mixed methods approach. This approach is
relatively new as it dates back to the 1950s (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). According to Creswell
(2009), this approach was first used in the field of psychology by Campbell and Fiske (1959);
and, several years later, some researchers used it as a technique for triangulating data sources. In
recent years, the mixed methods approach has become a distinct methodology of research
(Creswell 2009; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008).
Mixed methods research combines qualitative and quantitative techniques in collecting
and analyzing data. The application of both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study
increases the overall strength of the study more than using either of the two methods alone
(Creswell, 2009; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). Moreover, utilization of this approach broadens the
understanding of the issue being studied, which partly explains why there has recently been an
increasing interest in the mixed methods research inquiry (Creswell, 2009).

67
The mixed methods approach consists of three main design categories: the exploratory
design, explanatory design, and the triangulation design (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). These are
further divided into six different strategies (Creswell, 2009): (1) sequential explanatory design,
(2) sequential exploratory design, (3) sequential transformative design, (4) concurrent
triangulation design, (5) concurrent embedded design, and (6) concurrent transformative design
(Creswell, 2009). This study utilized the concurrent triangulation design as explained below.
Quantitative Study
(Equal Priority)
Combine Results
and Interpret
Qualitative Study
(Equal Priority)
Figure 2. Triangulation mixed methods design.

Source: Fraenkel & Wallen (2008, p. 561).
The Concurrent Triangulation Design
The concurrent triangulation design belongs to the triangulation design category. As
Figure 2 shows, this design entails concurrent data collection, followed by data analysis and
integration of interpreted results (Creswell, 2009; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). Since in this study
both the quantitative and the qualitative methods were given the same priority and were used
concurrently, the design can be expressed by the procedural notation: QUANT + QUAL
(Creswell, 2009). In this design, although data were collected simultaneously, analysis was
conducted separately and the final results integrated into the last chapter, Chapter VI, where the
68
mixing was effected through the integration and discussion of the two sets of results stemming
from the two research method components (Creswell & Clark, 2007).
Brief Description of the Two Research Components
Quantitative component. The quantitative component entailed application of the survey
method to collect participants’ views about succession planning efforts at the Midwestern
University. The purpose of the survey method was to understand and describe the opinions of a
large group of people about the given topic according to different variables (Fraenkel & Wallen,
2008). Hence, the survey method was suitable in this study because opinions of participants were
needed to identify areas of strength and weakness in SPM efforts or practices at the subject
university. Different statistical methods were used to gain understanding and to compare the
opinions of different groups of participants regarding SPM practices at the subject university.
Also, qualitative analysis was used to analyze open-ended survey questions for supplementing
some multiple choice survey questions. Because of the nature of research questions being
addressed, quantitative findings are reported within the survey results chapter, Chapter IV.
Qualitative component. For the qualitative component, two data sources were utilized:
interview transcripts and policy documents. First of all, it is important to mention that this
qualitative component can be considered as a case study following a ‘single case with embedded
units’ design (Yin, 2003). As a case study, the present study investigated a specific topic—SPM
efforts—within one specific university, using six different interviewees (case units); it employed
multiple sources of data; and it was bound by place, topic, and definition of the topic (Creswell,
2003; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003).
Regarding the interview method, data were collected from six purposefully selected
participants (case units) through semi-structured interviews. The purpose of interviewing

69
participants was to discover topic-specific information, feelings, and experiences they have
accumulated (Fraekel & Wallen, 2008). The sample of participants included two leaders within
the Academic Affairs Division (AAD); two leaders within the Human Resources Division
(HRD); and two more participants representing two university constituencies—one was the
representative of the university’s Faculty Senate and another represented the university’s
Administrative Staff Council.
The second qualitative data collection method was policy documents review. This
method helped the researcher obtain information that complemented and substantiated data from
other sources. Another advantage of the documents review was that the researcher could
scrutinize the information without any researcher-participant mutual influences (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 2008). Also, documents review was logistically simple, economical, and easily
replicable than it was with interviews and surveys (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). However, this
method has one major disadvantage: it is only limited to recorded information (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 2008); that is why it was used in tandem with other methods.
In order to enhance comparability of views among six interviewees, the same semi-
structured interview guide with open-ended questions was employed for all six. The interview
guide constituted a priori broad themes to be covered in all interview sessions. This means that
the researcher decided in advance the outline, sequence, and wording of the questions or issues
to be used in the course of interview (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008).
There were several benefits of employing an interview guide. First, the researcher could
ask questions designed to elicit responses related to specific factors or variables that are of high
interest to the researcher; and second, this strategy allowed comparing and contrasting data from
different kinds of interview informants (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). Also, the interview guide
70
increased data richness around a priori variables or themes, made the interview discourse
systematic, enhanced the focus of both the interviewer and respondents, simplified data analysis;
and, actually it can allow review and replication of data collection (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008).
The weaknesses inherent in this approach, such as the reduced flexibility of the interview
discourse and the risk of omitting some information (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008), were considered
of little impact in this study when compared to the associated benefits. Additionally, this strategy
complemented other qualitative data collection strategies.
Justification for Concurrent Triangulation Design for this Study
The concurrent triangulation strategy design was beneficial for this study. One of the
benefits is that the approach enabled the researcher to triangulate the data. Triangulation is a
process of comparing data from various sources for “confirmation, disconfirmation, cross-
validation, or corroboration” (Creswell, 2009, p. 213). Also, multiplicity of data collection and
analysis methods tend to complement each other’s strengths and offset each other’s weaknesses
(Creswell, 2009; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008); which in turn heightens the validity of the results
and increases the rigor of the study. Another point is that since data collection took place
simultaneously, less time was used in this design than the time would be needed in sequential
approaches. In addition, this concurrent triangulation approach was considered adequate for an
evaluative study like this one.
Lastly, one can argue that, since quantitative methods are philosophically inclined
towards positivism and the qualitative methods point to postmodernism (Fraenkel & Wallen,
2008), it is the mixed methods approach, which is associated more with pragmatism, that can
suitably enable the researcher have a better understanding of the SPM issues. The assumption
made here is that since organizations look for solutions that work better, succession planning and
71
management fits well in the philosophical worldview of pragmatism and advocacy for constant
organizational improvement. It is difficult to imagine how succession researchers can subscribe
to either a pure positivism or a pure postmodernism view, because succession processes seek to
solve succession problems of organizations in the first place. Figure 3 presents graphically the
research flow diagram for the whole study.
Figure 3. Research flow diagram.
To sum up, although this approach entails more work and time than a quantitative or
qualitative approach alone, the associated benefits of obtaining the enriched, well-validated, and
substantiated data as well as enhancing the research rigor overshadowed the extra effort. In fact,
within the mixed methods framework, the concurrent triangulation strategy demands less time
than that required by sequential strategies (Creswell, 2009).
Brief Description of the Site
The subject university, given the pseudonym Midwestern University (MU), was
established in the early 1900s as a college for educating teachers. Since then, the institution has
grown into a multidisciplinary university, and has reached a capacity of being one of the biggest
72
teacher-producers in the country, ranked at 14th position. Currently, the university’s student body
of about 20,000 is represented by students from 49 different states and 75 countries (MU, 2009).
According to the Office of Human Resources, for the year 2009, the university had a total
number of 3,124 employees, out of which 659 were administrative staff, 918 classified staff,
1,268 faculty members, and 279 were other employees such as people working on post-docs,
intermittent contracts, and non student letter of appointment.
Pursuant to its vision statement, MU seeks to be the leading learning community in the
Midwestern State, and one of the best academic institutions in the United States. The university
intends to create an academic environment founded on intellectualism, rational discourse, and
civility. Moreover, MU adheres to five core values that are included in its new strategic plan.
These include respect for one another, collaboration, creative and innovation, intellectual and
personal growth, and pursuit of excellence (MU, 2010).
Since its establishment, MU has been led by ten presidents, three of which had the
longest tenure of thirteen years. The current one has been in office since 2008. This study was
conducted in times of university’s reorganization. For instance, during the study design and data
collection stages, MU had the nine-member cabinet. However, during the data analysis stage, the
size of the cabinet was slightly increased. So, the current university cabinet is headed by the
president who is assisted by twelve cabinet members. These cabinet members—who are
responsible for daily operations of the university—head different divisions including the Office
of the President, Human Resources, Academic Affairs, Governmental Affairs, University
Advancement, Finance and Administration, Student Affairs and Athletics, and the Secretary to
the Board of Trustees (MU, 2010).

73
Under the Academic Affairs Division, the university has eight colleges: Arts and
Sciences, Business Administration, Education and Human Development, Off-campus College
(pseudonym), Graduate College, Health and Human Services, Musical Arts, and Technology
(MU, 2009). Besides these eight colleges, two more units function under the Academic Affairs
Division. These are the University Libraries and the Continuing and Extended Education units.
But very recently, another unit has been added under the division of academic affairs—
Enrollment Management. This change occurred when this study was in progress.
It is important to note the university staffing fluctuation within the time of study. For
instance, when this study was being conceived in early 2009, the population target was 1,617, of
which 974 were fulltime academic staff—including 78 faculty administrators and 896 faculty
members—and fulltime administrative staff were 643—including 520 professional
administrative and 123 administrative leaders (MU, 2009).
However, at the end of 2009, the target population decreased to 1,547—including 924
fulltime academic staff and 623 administrative staff (MU Office of Institutional Research, 2010).
Among the fulltime faculty, 54.8% were men and 45.2% women. In terms of tenure status,
50.1% of all faculty members were tenured, 16% were in the tenure track and 33.4% non-
tenured. Caucasians comprised 82.6% of fulltime faculty, and 43% of all fulltime faculty
members were aged 50 years and above (MU Office of Institutional Research, 2010).
Regarding administrative staff, 17.8% of all administrative staff members were
executives and managers, 82.2% fell under the category of professional administrative staff. In
terms of gender, men occupied 46.8% and women occupied 53.2% of all administrative
positions. Caucasians constituted 89.3% of the administrative staff (MU Office of Institutional
Research, 2010).
74
Participants
Survey Participants
Since this study utilized a mixed method approach, two types of participants were
involved. For the quantitative component, a target population was 1,544. This population was
comprised of two main participant categories: 923 (59.8%) fulltime academic staff (854 faculty
and 69 faculty administrators) and 621 (40.2%) fulltime administrative staff (508 professional
administrative staff and 113 administrative leaders). In terms of gender, 52.1% of the target
participants were males and 47.9% females. Regarding ethnicity, 85.9% were Caucasians, 5.7%
Asian Americans, 5.3% African Americans, 2.7% Hispanics, and 0.4% others. Concerning the
age, 0.7% were under 26, 15.3% were 26-35, 27.7% were 36-45, 28.7% were 46-55, 23.3% were
56-65, and 4.2% were over 65. Out of 1,544 target participants, fourteen were eliminated
because they took part in the test survey; hence, 1,530 participants were invited to complete the
survey.
Since some participants played dual roles, like faculty administrators, survey participants
were given the guidance that any member who worked more than 50% of his/her time in a
certain occupational role would be deemed a member of that occupation. Thus, an item was
included in the questionnaire for participants to identify their major occupational roles. However,
it should be noted that not all university employees were asked to take part in this survey. In fact,
some categories were excluded such as clerical and secretarial staff, classified staff, and people
working on non student letters of appointment, intermittent contracts, and post-docs.
Utilization of a larger sample size was prompted by a desire to achieve a higher number
of respondents. Indeed, this strategy, together with follow-up efforts, resulted in a satisfactory
75
number of respondents that reached 414 after data screening. This represented 27.1% of all
participants who were invited to complete the survey.
Interview Participants
For the interview method, the researcher employed a purposeful, criterion sampling
method (Creswell, 2007). The study involved six purposefully selected participants. These were
two leaders representing the Human Resources Division, two leaders coming from Academic
Affairs Division, and two more participants—one from the university’s Faculty Senate and the
other from Administrative Staff Council. These four leaders were selected because of their
responsibilities in matters pertaining to administrative and academic staff recruitment,
development, promotion, and retention, as well as their probable familiarity with succession
processes. The other two interviewees were deemed to represent the voices of two major
constituencies representing the administrative and academic bodies respectively.
Other criteria considered in selecting interview participants were gender representation
and the number of years of service at the university. Inclusion of women participants intended to
bring voices from both gender groups. Therefore, in terms of gender, there were three females
and three males. Concerning the number of years of service, two participants have served the
university for about 23 years; three participants have worked for 12-16 years, and one participant
for 3 years.
Instrumentation, Interview Protocols, and Documents
The Quantitative Component
Survey instrument. The quantitative component employed a survey instrument known
as, A Questionnaire for Assessing Succession Planning and Management Efforts at a University.
This 24-item questionnaire was created by the researcher based on his proposed SPM conceptual
76
framework—illustrated in Figure 1—and literature review. The questionnaire comprises four
sections: (1) Section A: Demographics, is a 12-item (Q1-Q12) piece intended for collecting
demographic data; (2) Section B: Assessment of SPM Practices at the College/Administrative
Unit Level—is a portion with one major item (Q13) composed of 23 sub-items (a-w); (3) Section
C: Evaluation of the Overall University Status in some SPM Aspects—is a piece with four items
(Q14-Q17); and (4) Section D: Evaluation of some Factors Associated with SPM Processes—
this has seven items (Q18-Q24).
Every survey section was vital. Section A allowed the researcher to examine the
characteristics of the survey participants. For instance, this section helped to depict participants’
occupational roles, number of years of service at the university, their colleges/administrative
units, their highest education levels, gender, ethnicity, and age. Moreover, this section generated
data portraying the anticipated number of retirements to occur in the near future. Most
importantly, data from this section generated four categorical variables required for answering
research question number three.
Section B enabled the researcher to understand perceptions of participants regarding SPM
practices observable in their respective colleges or administrative units. Section C allowed the
researcher to examine the overall status of SPM efforts at the studied university; and, Section D
intended to explore some factors associated with SPM efforts at the university. Moreover,
dependent variables were derived from Sections B, C, and D; while independent variables were
drawn from Section A. Besides the multiple choice questions, Section D of the survey had seven
open-ended questions for obtaining qualitative data to supplement quantitative data. These open-
ended questions are items 18a, 19a, 20a, 21a, 22a, 23a, and 24 of the survey. The survey used in
this study is attached as Appendix A.

77
Variables and measurements. Since this was an evaluative study, many variables or
factors were examined as displayed in Table 3. For the first research question, the overall factor
evaluated was the status of SPM efforts at the MU. To understand this factor, four variables or
sub-factors, derived from Section C of the survey instrument, were examined: (1) overall
performance of SPM, (2) importance of a systematic SPM program, (3) urgency for establishing
or improving SPM program, and (4) SPM approach preference.
Table 3
The List of Items, Variables, and Measurements
Measurement
Item # Variable Name
Scale
A. Dependent Variables(for RQ # 2 & 3)
13 a, b, c Assessment of organizational leadership needs (1-4)
d, e, f Talent management processes (1-4)
g, h Application of succession plan charts (1-4)
i, j, k Identification and development of leadership potentials (1-4)
l, m, n Selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed (1-4)
candidates
o, p, q Internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders (1-4)
r, s, t Top university leadership commitment to SPM processes (1-4)
u, v, w Integration of SPM efforts into the organizational culture (1-4)
B. Dependent Variables (for RQ # 1)
Status of SPM at MU
14  Overall performance of SPM efforts (1-4)
15  Importance of a systematic SPM program (1-4)
16  Urgency of establishment /improving SPM program (1-4)
17 a-h  SPM approach preference (1-4)
C. Dependent Variables (for RQ # 4)
18, 19 Diversity consideration in SPM efforts (1-4)
20, 21 Impact of the current economic recession (1-4)
22, 23 Impact of government policies and laws on SPM (1-4)
practices
24 Other factors associated with SPM (RQ # 4) A list of factors
D. Independent Variables (for RQ #3)
1 Occupational role (2 groups and 4 groups) Nominal
2 College type (8 colleges) Nominal
6 Service years (3 groups) Nominal
11 Gender (2 groups) Nominal
78
A Likert scale (1-4), with 1 representing lowest score and 4 standing for highest score,
was used to measure participants’ opinions concerning the above-mentioned four variables. For
instance, for the variable overall performance of SPM, 1 represents very poorly and 4 stands for
very well. Regarding the level of importance of a systematic SPM program, 1 represents low and
4 stands for very high. As for the urgency for establishing or improving SPM program, 1
represents not needed at all and 4 stands for very urgently needed. And for SPM approach
preference, 1 signifies not suitable and 4 represents very suitable.
The second research question sought to descriptively evaluate eight variables or factors
drawn from Section B of the questionnaire. These were: (1) assessment of organizational
leadership needs; (2) talent management processes; (3) application of succession plan charts; (4)
identification and development of leadership potentials; (5) selection, evaluation, and rewarding
of groomed candidates; (6) internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders; (7) top
university leadership commitment to SPM processes; and (8) integration of SPM efforts in the
organizational culture.
These eight dependent variables represent eight SPM practices directly linked to the
conceptual framework of this study (see Figure 1). However, these variables were not stand-
alone. They were derived from groups of related sub-items (Q13a-w) as Table 3 shows. Eight
dependent variables, as depicted in Table 3, measured the participants’ degree of agreement or
disagreement to the occurrence of the SPM practices, whereby 1 represents strongly disagree and
4 represents strongly agree. Since the eight variables were composite, their respective scores
were mean values computed by using scores of constituent sub-items.
Since research question three applied inferential statistics, it employed both independent
(categorical) variables and dependent (quantitative) variables. Regarding the dependent

79
variables, the same eight mentioned in the paragraph above were used. Independent variables
consisted of occupational role, college, service years, and gender. Occupational role involved
two kinds of categories: the first category constituted two groups—fulltime academic staff and
fulltime administrative staff. The second category had four groups—fulltime faculty, fulltime
professional administrative staff, fulltime faculty administrators, and fulltime administrative
leaders. The college compared responses from eight MU colleges. For the service years
respondents were categorized into 4 groups—under 10 years of service, 10-19 years, 20-29
years, and 30 years or above. The last categorical variable, gender, compared female and male.
All categorical variables were drawn from Section A of the questionnaire and were measured by
nominal scales.
Research question # 4 applied three kinds of variables or factors drawn from Section D of
the questionnaire: (1) diversity consideration in SPM efforts, (2) impact of economic recession,
(3) impact of government policies and laws. However, these three variables were composite.
Diversity consideration in SPM efforts is composed of two items—consideration of women in
leadership promotion (Q18) and consideration of people of color in leadership promotion (Q19).
The impact of economic recession is derived from two items—impact of economic recession on
participants (Q20) and impact of economic recession on colleges and units (Q21). Also, two
items constituted the variable impact of government policies and laws—the impact of federal
policies and laws (Q22) and the impact of state policies and laws (Q23) respectively. Again, for
all these variables, a Likert scale (1-4) was used to measure participants’ views on the six
respective attributes with 1 representing lowest score and 4 highest score.
At this juncture, it is important to mention two points. First, under research question # 4,
a list of other factors identified by participants was drawn from the open-ended survey questions
80
to supplement quantitative responses for this question; hence, the variable, other factors, was
treated qualitatively. Second, for research question # 4, six dependent variables mentioned above
were also treated as categorical. This was necessary when the researcher utilized frequency
distribution and crosstabs analyses to gain a clearer picture of the descriptive statistics for this
research question.
For more details, the reader is referred to Table 3 that displays a list of all variables
applicable in this study, a list of items from which variables were derived, and variable
measurement scales. Also, the reader can see the questionnaire included in Appendix A. Readers
are informed that the researcher derived variables from different authors. Table 4 displays the list
of literature and research that support different survey items and sub-items for various variables.
Validity and reliability. Recognizing the need for utilizing validated and reliable SPM
evaluation instrument, the researcher initially made efforts to search for the existing, tested
survey instruments that could be suitable for this study. It was, however, not possible to obtain
one, except for a few instruments developed by Rothwell (2005). Three obstacles, however,
prevented the use of Rothwell’s instruments. First, the author of the instruments confirmed that
his questionnaires were not subjected to validity and reliability tests. Second, it was difficult to
match Rothwell’s instruments to the conceptual framework of this study. Third, in order to make
Rothwell’s instruments suitable for the context of a higher education institution, changes would
have been necessary, which would have significantly distorted the original form of those
instruments. Thus, Rothwell’s instruments were eventually dropped forcing the researcher to
create his own questionnaire. It is important to note, nevertheless, that Rothwell’s instruments
have been inspirational; and in fact, an introductory definition of the term succession planning
and management was drawn from one of his instruments.

81
Table 4
Literature Support for Survey Items
Item # Authors
13 a Gandossy & Verma (2006); Rothwell (2005); Rubin, Powers, & Illia, (2007)
13 b Gandossy & Verma (2006); Rothwell (2005); Rubin, Powers, & Illia, (2007)
13 c Grigoryev (2006); Harrison, McKinnon, & Terry (2006); Rothwell (2005)
13 d Gay & Sims (2006); Hughes & Rog (2008); Loftus, (2007); Rothwell (2005)
13 e Gay & Sims (2006); Hughes & Rog (2008); Loftus, (2007); Rothwell (2005)
13 f Gay & Sims (2006); Hughes & Rog (2008); Loftus, (2007); Rothwell (2005)
13 g Sobol, Harkins, & Conley (2007); Rothwell (2005)
13 h Sobol, Harkins, & Conley (2007); Rothwell (2005)
13 i Berke (2006); Groves (2007); Krauss (2007); Rothwell (2005)
13 j Hull (2005); Krauss (2007); Rothwell (2005); Sobol, Harkins, & Conley (2007)
13 k Bornstein (2005); Groves (2007); Hull (2005); Roddy (2004); Rothwell (2005)
13 l Rothwell (2005); Sobol, Harkins, & Conley (2007)
13 m Rothwell (2005); Sobol, Harkins, & Conley (2007)
13 n Krauss (2007); Rothwell (2005); Towers & Perrin (2005)
13 o Conger & Nadler (2004); Rothwell (2005); Sobol, Harkins, & Conley (2007)
13 p Rothwell (2005); Vancil (1987);
13 q Cannella & Shen (2002); Conger & Nadler (2004); Wiersema (2002)
13 r Gandossy & Verma (2006); Rothwell (2005); Rubin, Powers, & Illia, (2007)
13 s Gandossy & Verma (2006); Rothwell (2005); Rubin, Powers, & Illia, (2007)
13 t Harrison, McKinnon, & Terry (2006); Huang (1999); Rothwell (2005)
13 u Hunte-Cox (2004); Krauss (2007); Rothwell (2005)
13 v Cantor (2005); Hunte-Cox (2004); Rothwell (2005); Stephens (2006)
13 w Betts, Urias, Chavez, & Betts (2009); Gandossy & Verma (2006); Rothwell (2005)
14 Rothwell, 2005
15 Betts, Urias, Chavez, & Betts (2009); Heuer (2003); Hull (2005); Rothwell (2005)
16 Rothwell (2005)
17 Romejko (2008); Rothwell (2005)
18 Chow (2005); Eagly & Carli (2004); Harris (2007); Madsen, (2007); Waring
(2003)
19 Betts, Urias, Chavez, & Betts (2009); Rothwell (2005)
20 Khumalo & Harris (2008)
21 Khumalo & Harris (2008)
22 Heuer (2003)
23 Heuer (2003)
24 Not applicable
Since the survey instrument was created by the researcher for this specific study, there
was a need to establish validity and reliability. First, content validation was conducted by
82
subjecting the instrument through rigorous scrutiny, which entailed: (1) a review of the
instrument by some dissertation committee members, (2) a procedure for content validation
through a panel of three experts, (3) a field-testing of the survey involving a group of a few
volunteers, and (4) scrutiny by the institutional Human Subjects Review Board (HSRB).
Instrument validation through a panel of experts involved three panel members. The first
expert was the assistant professor of leadership studies in a certain Midwestern college. His
research interests include the area of succession planning. The second panel member served as
an associate professor in a Midwestern University. He has an interest in succession planning as
well. The third member was an experienced institutional researcher, and a high ranking leader in
a Midwestern University. The instrument was concurrently submitted to these expert panel
members for assessment and approval. To assist them in reviewing the instrument, a copy of
Chapter 1 of this study and an Expert Panel Review Form (see Appendix C) were sent to them as
well. Recommendations from the panel members helped the researcher to fine tune the survey
instrument.
After refining the instrument according to experts’ recommendations, the instrument was
changed into an online version using Snap Web Survey Software. The online survey was then
administered to 14 volunteers working in the same research site. Ten of these tested the
workability and the clarity of the online survey version. The 14 volunteers were excluded from
the main study. This mini-pilot survey helped the researcher to make a final revision of the
survey before it was submitted to HSRB for approval. Upon approval by the researcher’s
institutional HSRB, the survey instrument was administered to the study participants at the
subject university. Due to the small number of items used to create respective composite,
83
dependent variables, the Cronbach test of reliability (internal consistency) for these composite
variables of the instrument was not conducted.
Threats. A mortality threat related to the sample selection was minimized by recruiting
a larger sample size. Thus, the population of 1,530 fulltime academic and administrative staff
accessible through official database was used as the sample. Recruiting a large sample and
persistent follow-up really helped to lessen the problem of low response rate. Also, it minimized
the dropouts hence mitigating the mortality threat (Creswell, 2009). Interestingly, although three
raffle gifts of $100 each were introduced to motivate the response rate, only about 11.3% of all
respondents registered for the raffle draw, which indicates that participants were more probably
motivated by the subject matter rather than by the raffle.
The Qualitative Component
The interview protocol. An interview method was employed to collect qualitative data.
The interview protocol with five semi-structured questions guided the data collection process
from each of the six participants. These semi-structured questions sought five types of
information: (1) participant’s background or demographic information, (2) participant’s factual
knowledge about succession planning as a field and practice, (3) participant’s general assessment
of the university’s succession planning efforts, (4) participant’s views about eight SPM practices
at the university, and (5) participant’s views about factors related to succession planning
processes at the university.
Eight SPM practices examined under item 4 of the interview protocol were: (1) top
leadership commitment to SPM processes; (2) assessment of organizational leadership needs; (3)
talent management processes; (4) application of succession plan charts; (5) identification and
development of leadership potentials; (6) selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed

84
candidates; (7) internal recruitment and replacement of the outgoing leaders; and (8) integration
of SPM efforts into the organizational culture. These SPM practices were derived from the
conceptual framework (see Figure 1). The interview protocol is presented in Appendix B.
Documents and document review guide. Documents are any kind of written or printed
information available for private or public consumption (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). The present
study focused on three types of university-wide policy documents and four types of documents
of one college of the university. The university-wide documents reviewed included the
university academic charter, the administrative staff handbook, the strategic plan, whereas the
Off-Campus College documents entailed: (1) Governance Document Policy, (2) Faculty and
Staff Handbook, (3) Promotion and Tenure Review Procedures, and (4) Continuing Nontenure
Track Faculty Promotion Policies and Procedures.
These documents were significant because they consist of policies related to, among
other things, staff employment, retention, development, evaluation, promotion, and rewarding;
aspects which are linked to succession planning processes. College documents were included
because colleges enjoy a high degree of autonomy. However, the researcher decided to use the
policies of one particular college, Off-campus College, due to the following reasons. First,
policies of different colleges appeared to be similar as they were principally derived from the
same university academic charter. Second, most colleges did not have as many policy documents
uploaded in their websites as did the Off-campus College. The researcher used the documents
review guide provided in Table 5 to conduct document analysis by examining policy statements
related to eight SPM practices and succession planning in general. All of the above mentioned
documents were available for public consumption in the university’s website.

85
Table 5
Documents Review Guide
No SPM practices The Academic Admin. staff University’s Off-campus

Charter Handbook Strategic Plan College Policies*
Note. * = Four types of Off-campus College documents were involved in a review.
Trustworthiness and consistency. The trustworthiness and consistency of the
qualitative data was enhanced through a number of methods. These included checking the
accuracy of data through rechecking of transcripts, using member checking, and peer review
methods to determine the accuracy of transcripts and emergent findings (Creswell, 2009;
Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). Regarding member checking, all interview transcripts were presented
to participants for verification. Concerning peer review, one fellow doctoral student reviewed the
transcripts and another student reviewed the open-ended survey responses to identify sub-
themes. Most of the sub-themes identified were identical.
Since the study employed three methods of data collection, the findings’ trustworthiness
was also enhanced through a triangulation technique in the process of data analysis, integration,
and interpretation (Creswell, 2007; Creswell, 2009; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). In fact, several
views given by interview participants validated each other; and, the findings from the documents
reviewed and from open-ended survey responses corroborated most of the interview findings. On
top of that, one person, outside the committee, read the final report to enhance the accuracy of
the researcher’s account.
Trustworthiness and consistency threats. In this qualitative approach, the researcher
attempted to mitigate a few threats to trustworthiness. One of the threats is the researcher’s own
bias (Maxwell, 2005) regarding the general situation of succession planning in higher education.
86
With this in mind, then, the researcher was careful to ensure that participants were allowed to
explain their responses without intrusions. Also, the researcher attempted to ensure that the
atmosphere of the interview sessions was cordial, respectful, and natural. Probing questions were
rarely deemed necessary to seek some clarifications. Furthermore, so as to avoid
misrepresentation, the researcher did not only listen carefully to what interviewees had to say,
but he also recorded interviews using both digital and traditional audio recorders.
Other strategies that were used include providing enough clarification to participants
regarding the aims of the study, conducting interviews in suitable locations, and staying focused
during interviews to avoid being sidetracked by any other occurrences within the study settings
(Maxwell, 2005). Moreover, the researcher attempted to minimize the effects of the setting’s
culture by: (1) focusing on the conceptual thoughts and his interview questions; (2) selecting a
good mixture of informants; and (3) avoiding showing off that he knows the subject matter
(Cresswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2005). In order to minimize a threat of lack of consistency of the
information obtained from different participants, the same interview guide was used for all
participants, which also simplified the analysis and triangulation processes (Creswell, 2007;
Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008).
Procedures for Collecting Data
The dissertation committee approved the proposal of this study on October 5, 2009. In
October and November 2009, the instrument was reviewed by expert panel members to enhance
its content validity, and it was field-tested by 10 volunteers to verify its workability through the
online technology. In the third week of November 2009, the Institutional Human Subjects
Review Board approval was granted.

87
As required by the concurrent triangulation research design, qualitative and quantitative
data were collected independently but during the same timeframe (Creswell & Clark, 2007). The
survey instrument was administered to 1,530 participants via the online Snap Web Survey
Software. Through the help of Microsoft Outlook, each participant received a personalized e-
mail addressed directly to him/her without knowing other participants. The first group of e-mails
was sent on 24th November, 2009. This was followed by three reminders that took place on
December 7, 2009—first reminder, December 15, 2009—second reminder, and December 29,
2009—third and last reminder. The consent statement constituted a part of the e-mail to the
participants. By completing the survey, respondents signified their consent to take part in the
study. Online data collection continued until December 31, 2009, when it was closed.
Parallel to data collection through the survey, the researcher conducted six different
interviews in December 2009. The interviews were 15-30 minutes long in duration; and were
conducted in respondents’ own offices. Interviewees consented to be interviewed as required by
the informed consent form. An interview protocol with a set of semi-structured questions (see
Appendix B) was used to guide the interview processes. To enhance the accuracy of data
collection, digital and traditional tapes were utilized to record responses.
Besides interviews, the researcher sought and collected policy documents from the
Midwestern University website. Academic charter, administrative staff handbook, strategic plan,
and four more types of policy documents of the Off-campus College were downloaded from the
university’s website in December 2009.
Data Analysis Procedures
Given the purpose of this study as outlined in chapter one, the researcher sought to
answer the following four research questions:

88
units?
o By college
o By service years
o By gender
Data analysis was conducted on the basis of these four research questions. The process of
analyzing qualitative and quantitative data occurred between January and March, 2010. Since
this study employed the concurrent triangulation design, two stages of data analysis were
necessary (Creswell & Clark, 2007). The first stage involved separate QUAN and QUAL
analyses; and, the second stage entailed merging the two data sets and discussing (Creswell &
Clark, 2007).
89
Quantitative Data Analysis
Data screening. Data screening is an important task before conducting statistical
analyses, because it aims at enhancing data accuracy through identification of missing data,
outliers, and the fit of statistical assumptions like normality and linearity (Mertler & Vannatta,
2005).
Data from 416 cases were exported from the online Snap Software to SPSS. Before
conducting the analysis, data were screened. Data screening led to elimination of two cases; one
of which was a duplicate, and the other which was not member of the target population.
Therefore, the remaining number of cases for further analysis was 414. Moreover, through data
screening two data entries with obvious anomalies were rectified. In one entry, the number of
years in the current position was changed from 252 to 25. In another case, the number of years in
current position and number of service years were both changed from ‘5+’ to a computable
number ‘5’.
One important procedure before conducting descriptive and inferential statistics was to
create new, composite variables that were necessary for the analyses. These new variables were
computed by grouping several items together following the guideline provided in Table 3. Also,
one dependent variable, application of succession plan charts, was transformed by having two of
its outliers eliminated. The eliminated outliers involved two cases whose values were 4.0
whereas all other 398 cases had values between 1.0 and 2.0. The elimination procedure involved
generating a boxplot and a histogram for the variable, identification of two outliers using a
boxplot, and treating two outliers as missing cases in computing the variable’s new mean score.
Moreover, to enable conducting inferential statistics on group differences, two
independent variables were transformed from quantitative to categorical by grouping the number
90
of years into categories. These were the number of service years and the number of years in
current position. In order to do the transformation, the histogram of the quantitative data for a
variable service years was constructed. The range of years from 0 to 40 were transformed into
four categories, 0-9 years, 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and 30 years or above. The same procedure
was applicable for the variable years in current position.
Further data screening for all variables, including the new ones, was conducted by using
different SPSS procedures—running frequencies for categorical variables and running explore
and descriptive statistics for the quantitative variables—in order to examine outliers and missing
data for different variables as well as to verify the assumption of normality. Most of the
dependent variables seemed to have normal or close to normal frequency distributions.
Descriptive analysis. First of all, descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the
demographic characteristics of the respondents. The resulting descriptive statistics were
expressed in a form of summaries that reported the total sample size and percentage (%) for each
group of all independent or categorical variables. Thereafter, data were analyzed according to
research questions of this study whereby research questions # 1, 2, and 4 employed descriptive
statistics to determine the mean scores for different dependent variables. Also, for research
question # 4, frequency tables and crosstabs for some variables were also generated in order to
elucidate some findings.
Inferential analysis. Analysis for research question # 3 employed inferential statistics.
This question aimed at exploring group differences according to four categorical (independent)
variables: occupational role, college, service years, and gender. Employing eight quantitative
(dependent) variables, two kinds of data analysis were conducted for this question, the t-test of
independent samples and the one way ANOVA.

91
For the t-test, two group differences were analyzed. First, one pair was compared under
the categorical variable occupational role: fulltime academic staff vs. fulltime administrative
staff. Second, for the categorical variable gender, one pair—male vs. female—was compared.
For the one way ANOVA, several group differences were analyzed. This involved those cases
where comparison of more than two groups occurred. Three independent variables fell under this
classification: occupational role with four groups, college that entailed eight groups, and service
years that had four groups. Table 6 displays the summary of research questions, variables, and
analysis methods employed, and data sources.
Table 6
Research Questions, Analysis Methods, and Data Sources
R/Q# Dependent Variables Method of Analysis Data Source

#1 (1) Overall performance of SPM Descriptive statistics Survey responses
item Q14
Content analysis Interview transcripts
Document review Policy Documents
(2) Importance of a systematic SPM Descriptive statistics Item Q15
program.
(3) Urgency for establishing/ Descriptive statistics Item Q16
improving SPM program
(4) SPM approach preference Descriptive statistics Item Q17
#2 (1) Assessment of organizational

leadership needs,
(2) Talent management processes,
(3) Application of succession plan
charts, Descriptive statistics Survey responses
(4) Identification and development Items Q13a-w
of leadership potentials,
(5) Selection, evaluation, and Content analysis Interview transcripts
rewarding of groomed candidates,
(6) Internal recruitment and
replacement of outgoing leaders, Document review Policy Documents
(7) Top university leadership
commitment to SPM, and
(8) Integration of SPM practices in
the organizational culture
92
R/Q# Dependent Variables Method of Analysis Data Source

#3 (1) Assessment of organizational
leadership needs,
(2) Talent management processes,
t-test:
(3) Application of succession plan
- By occupational
charts,
role (2 groups)
(4) Identification and development
- By Gender
of leadership potentials,
Survey responses
(5) Selection, evaluation, and
ANOVA: Items Q13a-w
rewarding of groomed candidates,
- By occupational
(6) Internal recruitment and
role (4 groups)
replacement of outgoing leaders,
- By College type
(7) Top university leadership
- By service years
commitment to SPM, and
(8) Integration of SPM practices in
#4 (1) Diversity consideration in SPM Descriptive statistics Survey responses:
efforts, item Q18-23
(2) Impact of current economic
recession, Content analysis Open ended survey
(3) Impact of government policies items Q18a-Q23a
and laws,
Open- ended survey
(4) Other factors (create a list of Content analysis responses: item Q24
factors).
Content analysis Interview transcripts
Qualitative Data Analysis
All interviews were transcribed in January and February, 2010. Qualitative data analysis
occurred in February and March. Qualitative—content—analysis was applicable for the research
question # 1, 2, and 4. The aim of the content analysis approach was to generate sub-themes
under each major theme (variable) prescribed by the researcher through the interview protocol or
open-ended survey questions and to relate these sub-themes to the relevant research questions.
Different content analysis steps and techniques were used to analyze qualitative data from
interview and open-ended survey questions. Steps entailed data preparation or organization, data
exploration, data analysis, and display of results (Creswell & Clarks, 2007). Analysis techniques
93
included data coding, counting frequencies of codes, and clustering codes to generate sub-themes
for each a priori major theme (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Of all
the techniques, coding was especially vital, because it is not only the heart of the analysis of the
qualitative research, but it is analysis by itself (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Moreover, for the interview data, a ‘single case with embedded units’ approach was
employed. Therefore, the researcher applied within-case and cross-case data analysis methods of
the six interviewees (case units). Through within-case analysis, the researcher analyzed each case
unit, for each a priori theme, by identifying sub-themes and providing actual participants’ voices
that support the sub-themes. Thereafter, using cross-case analysis, comparison of emergent sub-
themes across six case units was made (Creswell, 2007) and findings displayed in a table.
Generally, data organization and coding were simplified by the fact that major a priori
themes were already provided by the researcher through the semi-structured interview protocol,
open-ended survey questions, and document review guide. The approach of using prescribed
themes as the basis for content analysis was used by other researchers as well (see Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Stemler, 2001). In fact, Miles and Huberman (1994) assert that “the analyst
may have some a priori ideas about items that derive from the same theory or relate to the same
overarching theme …” (p. 127).
Data display is a vital component of qualitative analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). For
the interview findings, using within-case and between-case description of interviewees, sub-
themes were eventually presented in the informant-by-variable matrix in a form of a table known
as “Conceptually Clustered Matrix” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 128). For the seven open-
ended survey questions (Q18a-Q23a, Q24), tables were used to summarize emerging sub-themes
94
and their frequencies. Likewise, a summary table was employed to display the findings from
cross-case analysis of the six interview participants as well as data from document review.
Readers are reminded that, while findings from Q18a-Q23a were used to support
descriptive statistics for survey items Q18-23 that are linked to research question 4, the open-
ended Q24 was designed to obtain emergent factors that participants believe affect succession
planning at Midwestern University.
For document analysis, three university-wide and four specific college-wide documents
were systematically reviewed. First of all, the mentioned documents were downloaded from the
subject university’s website. The researcher read through all the documents to gain general
understanding of their content and seek policy statements related to succession planning
approach. Thereafter, utilizing eight SPM practices as a priori theme, the researcher reviewed the
documents with the aim of identifying and highlighting any policy provision that speaks to SPM
practices. Key words or phrases related to SPM practices, such as talent, evaluation, selection,
recruitment, rewarding, promotion, and leadership development, were used as codes to locate
information of interest. Eventually, the table was created indicating level of presence of the SPM
practices in the documents. Notations Y, S, and N were used to indicate practices that were
explicitly observed, somewhat mentioned, and not mentioned in documents respectively.
Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
The concurrent triangulation mixed method tradition requires the mixing of the QUAN
and QUAL findings (Creswell & Clark, 2007). The mixing was effected by merging two data
sets and discussing them together (Creswell & Clark, 2007). For that purpose, the researcher
integrated and discussed together the summaries of QUAN or survey and QUAL findings in
Chapter VI. This mixing or integration enhanced the interpretation and richness of the study
95
results; at the same time, it strengthened the cross-validation of the findings through the inherent
triangulation property embedded within the triangulation mixed methods approach.
Assumptions and Limitations
Assumptions
This study was premised on two major assumptions. First, the researcher assumed that
every participant would understand the meaning of the questions and would respond honestly
and timely to most survey and interview questions. Another assumption was that participants
would be interested in the topic to elicit an adequate response rate and adequate information.
Limitations
Limitations constitute potential weaknesses that may threaten the internal validity of the
study (Creswell, 2009, Maxwell, 2005). This study employed a concurrent triangulation mixed
method; therefore, two types of limitations were foreseen, those related to quantitative and
qualitative methods respectively.
With regard to the quantitative component, the study employed a survey instrument for
data collection, Limitation of this method normally centers on the construction and interpretation
of the survey questions, especially the possibility of questions’ ambiguity (Creswell, 2009).
Although the survey instrument was subjected to different scrutiny procedures, there were some
participants who might have not understood some of the SPM terminology because SPM is a
relatively new field in higher education. In fact, a few respondents wrote back to the researcher
declining to take part in the study because of lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Moreover, there was one limitation that was permitted by the researcher. The
questionnaire calculatedly eliminated the options of Not Applicable or Don’t Know in the
multiple choice items. This was necessary, in the view of the researcher, to mitigate a tendency
96
of some respondents to avoid providing their actual opinions by checking those kinds of options.
Therefore, respondents had either to skip the item if they had no answer or select an answer that
was close to their opinions. Another rationale for excluding Not Applicable or Don’t know
options was that these options would have posed intricacy in computation of mean scores.
However, a few respondents decried the lack of those two options in the multiple choice items.
Furthermore, mortality presented itself as a kind of limitation. At Midwestern University,
the number of academic and administrative staff kept on changing due to retirements, job losses,
and moving away. Hence, it is possible that some potential survey participants dropped out
during the data collection phase. Others actually did not even respond to the survey e-mails
because they were on “end of the year” and Christmas holidays. That is why the researcher
recruited a large sample (Creswell, 2009) and kept on reminding participants for at least three
times before closing data collection. The researcher is nevertheless satisfied with the response
rate of 27.1% that is reportedly not usual in higher education.
In addition, this study utilized the newly proposed conceptual framework created by the
researcher based on different readings included in the literature review to generate a survey
instrument. However, the Cronbach test of reliability for the composite variables of the
instrument was not conducted due to the small number of items involved in creating the
variables. Thus, the results of this study might not guarantee a completeness of the proposed
model and its survey instrument. Nevertheless, the researcher foresees room for improving both
the model and the instrument for the benefit of future inquiries in higher education.
Concerning the qualitative component, this study utilized semi-structured interviews. The
common limitations of the interview method are related to researcher’s biases and reactivity.
While bias denotes a researcher’s subjectivity in the form of individual beliefs and perceptual
97
lens, reactivity entails the influence of the researcher on the participants or the setting of the
study (Maxwell, 2005). It is virtually impossible to completely eliminate researcher’s bias or
reactivity; but what is important is to be aware of them and avoid being misled (Maxwell, 2005).
Another limitation was that some leaders in the Academic Affairs Division, who were
originally considered for the interview due to their long term experiences and their positions, left
the organization before the research was conducted. Also, some positions were restructured or
eliminated. To cope with this situation, one academic dean with a long term experience and
another high ranking leader in the Academic Affairs Division were selected instead.
The final limitation is that the timing of this study might have affected the opinions of
participants. This study took place when the university was undergoing serious budgetary
limitations and top leadership transition. Also, during the study period, the university was in the
process of implementing a voluntary separation plan aimed at facilitating early retirement of its
employees. Thus, the researcher believes that many respondents were bold enough to express
their views because of the realities they were facing at the time. However, it is also possible that
some participants overreacted due to some frustrations at the time of the study.
In spite of these limitations, the trustworthiness and consistency of the qualitative
findings are deemed enhanced through application of several strategies such as: (1) verifying the
accuracy of transcripts, (2) respondent validation through member checking, (3) peer review of
the content analysis, (4) triangulation of data from different sources, and (5) peer debriefing of
the final report to enhance the accuracy of researcher’s account (Maxwell, 2005, Creswell,
2009).
98
Delimitations
The purpose of this study was to understand the status and issues of succession planning
and management efforts of one institution, the Midwestern University. Although the findings can
be informative to policy-makers, practitioners, researchers, and scholars in academia at large,
they may not be used for generalization to other populations, institutions, or the entirety of the
higher education system in the nation or region.
Moreover, not all kinds of the subject university employee groups were involved in this
study. As mentioned earlier, classified staff members and all part-time workers were excluded
from this study. The study rather focused on fulltime faculty, faculty administrators, fulltime
professional administrative staff, and fulltime administrative leaders. This means that the
opinions provided in this study do not represent all categories of workers at the university.
Despite all these delimitations, the findings of this study present a starting point for
further detailed study on the subject matter at the Midwestern University and at other academic
institutions in the Midwest or the USA in general.
Ethical Issues
Ethical behavior is that which conforms to the agreed moral values or standards given by
various professional bodies (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). For example, the Association for
Researchers has issued certain standards that researchers should observe while conducting
research. Actually, the federal law requires Institutional Review Boards to review all research
proposals that involve human subjects (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). Thus, the Human Subjects
Review Board (HSRB) of the researcher’s university scrutinized and approved this research
project and the subject university granted study permission and access to participants’ e-mail
database.
99
Moreover, efforts were made in this study to avoid unethical practices, such as: to force
participants to take part in the research; to lure or force people to sign consent forms; and to
delete or adjust some data. Furthermore, the researcher obtained permission from participants
through the written consent forms. Confidentiality of the participants’ information was ensured
by using pseudonyms, maintaining secure data storage and retrieving mechanism, and
maintaining a level of honesty with participants (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008; Creswell, 2009).
In brief, no ethical complications manifested in this study except where unforeseen
emergencies beyond the control of the researcher would have occurred. The researcher believes
that he carried out the study ethically and sensitively.

100
CHAPTER IV: SURVEY RESULTS
Introduction
Chapter IV provides survey results that represent the quantitative component of this
study. This chapter contains four main sections: introduction, the demographics of the survey
sample and the response rates, findings according to research questions (research question #1, 2,
3, and 4); qualitative results of open-ended survey items; and, lastly a chapter summary. Results
provided in this chapter are based on the survey responses from a sample of 414 respondents.
Sample’s Demographics and Response Rates
Thanks to the subject university’s database, a population of 1,544 fulltime academic staff
and fulltime administrative staff served as the target population, out of which 1530 were invited
to complete an online survey. The large sample of participants was involved in order to enhance
the number of respondents. The preliminary number of participants who responded to the survey
was 416; however, after data screening, two cases were eliminated because one case was a
duplicate and another was a participant who was not a member of the target population.
Therefore, the actual size of the sample employed in the analysis was 414, which is 27.1% of the
invited participants of the Midwestern University.
Demographics: Occupational Role, College, and Administrative Division
The composition of the target population of the university in terms of occupational role
was: fulltime faculty members - 55.3%, professional administrative staff - 32.9%, administrative
leaders - 7.3%, and faculty administrators - 4.5%. Regarding 414 respondents of the survey,
only one individual did not declare his occupational role. Thus, as Table 7 shows, out of 413
fulltime respondents who declared their occupational roles, the majority, 192 (46.5%), were
101
faculty members, followed by 115 (27.8%) administrative leaders, 74 (17.9%) professional
administrative staff, and 32 (7.7%) faculty administrators.
Table 7
Demographics: Occupational Role, College, and Administrative Division
Variable Category n %
Occupational Role Faculty administrator (FA) 32 7.7
Faculty (F) 192 46.5
Administrative leader (AL) 115 27.8
Professional administrative staff (PAS) 74 17.9
Total 413 100
Academic staff (FA+F) 224 54.2
Administrative staff (AL+PAS) 189 45.8
Total 413 100
College College of Arts & Sciencess 97 44.1
College of Business Administration 13 5.9
College of Education & Human 49 22.3
Development
College of Health & Human Services 12 5.5
College of Musical Arts 13 5.9
College of Technology 7 3.2
Graduate College - -
Off-campus College 15 6.8
University Libraries 14 6.4
Continuing & Extended Education - -
Total 220 100
Administrative Academic Affairs 55 30.6
Division Finance and Administration 27 15.0
Government Affairs - -
Human Resources 9 5.0
Office of the President 19 10.6
Student Affairs 62 34.4
University Advancement 8 4.4
Total 180 100
Regarding divisions or colleges within which respondents work, 220 (53.1%) reported
they work in the colleges, 180 (43.5%) respondents work in different university divisions, and 14
(3.4%) respondents did not disclose their division or college within which they work. Table 7
102
displays frequencies of respondents’ demographics in terms of their occupational role, colleges,
and administrative divisions where they work.
Demographics: Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Education
Table 8 shows distribution of respondents in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, and
education. Regarding gender, out of 410 who declared their gender identity, 216 (52.7%) were
female, and 194 (47.3%) male. In terms of age, out of a total of 412 who reported their age, those
between 36-45 years old was the largest group with 138 (33.5%), followed by 46-55 years with
110 (26.7%), 56-65 years with 88 (21.4%), 26-35 years with 59 (14.3%), those above 65 with 11
(2.7%), and under 26 years with 6 (1.5%).
Concerning ethnicity, out of 411 who disclosed their identity, Caucasians were the
majority with 358 (87.1%), African Americans were 17 (4.1%), Asian Americans - 15 (3.6%0,
others – 10 (2.4%), Hispanics – 9 (2.2%), and American Indians were 2 (.5%) only. A total of
412 respondents disclosed their education levels. Doctorate degree holders were the majority
with 195 (47.3%), followed by holders of masters degree – 145 (35.2%), bachelor degree – 60
(14.6%), professional degree holders with 9 (2.2%), and those with only a high school diploma
with 3 (.7%) only. For details see Table 8 that provides frequencies of respondents’
demographics for gender, age, ethnicity, and education.
The composition of the MU’s target population in terms of gender was 52.1% male and
47.9% female. Concerning age, 0.7% were under 26, 15.3% were 26-35, 27.7% were 36-45,
28.7% were 46-55, 23.3% were 56-65, and 4.2% were over 65. Regarding ethnicity, 85.9% were
Caucasians, 5.7% - Asian Americans, 5.3% - African Americans, 2.7% - Hispanics, and 0.4% -
others. It was not easy to determine the composition of the population based on education,
especially for the fulltime administrative staff.

103
Table 8
Demographics: Gender, Age, Ethnicity, and Education
Gender Female 216 52.7
Male 194 47.3
Total 410 100
Age Under 26 6 1.5
26-35 59 14.3
36-45 138 33.5
46-55 110 26.7
56-65 88 21.4
Above 65 11 2.7
Total 412 100
Ethnicity African American 17 4.1
Asian American 15 3.6
American Indian 2 0.5
Hispanic 9 2.2
Caucasian 358 87.1
Other 10 2.4
Total 411 100
Education High school diploma 3 0.7
Bachelor 60 14.6
Masters 145 35.2
Professional 9 2.2
Doctorate 195 47.3
Total 412 100
Demographics: Current Position Years, Service Years, Retirement Expectation, and
Moving Possibility
Table 9 depicts frequencies of respondents’ demographics in terms of current position
years, service years at the university, retirement expectation, and moving possibility. Out of 412
respondents, the majority, 296 (71.8%), were found to be holding their current positions for less
than 10 years. Those holding positions between 10-19 years were 75 (18.2%), 20-29 years were
29 (7.0%), 30 and above were 12 (2.9%).

104
Regarding the number of service years at the studied university, a total of 408
respondents reported. Those who served MU under 10 years were the majority – 196 (48.0%),
followed by 10-19 years that were 118 (28.9%), 20-29 were 69 (16.9%), and 30 and above were
25 (6.1%). The composition of the target population in this aspect was as follows: under 10 years
were 64.4%, 10-19 were 23.3%, 20-29 were 9.9%, and 30 years and above were 2.4%.
With reference to retirement expectations, all 414 respondents responded. Whereas the
majority, 222 (53.6%), indicated that they expect to retire in more than 15 years, a group of 74
(17.9%) expect to retire in the next 5 years. 60 (14.5%) expect to retire in the next 11-15 years,
and 58 (14%) expect to retire in the next 6-10 years.
Table 9
Demographics: Current Position Years, Service Years, Retirement Expectation, and Moving
Possibility
Current Position Under 10 years 296 71.8
Years 10-19 years 75 18.2
20-29 years 29 7.0
30 and above 12 2.9
Total 412 100
Service Years Under 10 years 196 48.0
10-19 years 118 28.9
20-29 years 69 16.9
30 and above 25 6.1
Total 408 100
Retirement In the next 0-5 years 74 17.9
Expectation In the next 6-10 years 58 14.0
In the next 11-15 years 60 14.5
In more than 15 years 222 53.6
Total 414 100
Moving Possibility Not at all 139 33.7
(within 5 years) Not sure 159 37.0
Possibly yes 92 22.3
Certainly yes 29 7.0
Total 413 100
105
Regarding the possibility of moving away within 5 years, a total of 413 participants
responded to this question. The majority, 159 (37.0%), were not sure about moving away; 139
(33.7%) indicated that they were not at all planning to move. On the other hand, 92 (22.3%)
indicated that they would probably move; and 29 (7.0%) were certainly sure that they would
move.
Quantitative Findings According to Research Questions
Research Question # 1
How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff generally evaluate the status of
the university’s succession planning and management (SPM) efforts?
This question examines how respondents perceive the status of the SPM efforts at the
university through evaluation of four different variables: (1) the overall SPM performance at the
university, (2) the importance of a systematic SPM program for the university, (3) the urgency of
establishing or improving a systematic SPM, and (4) the SPM approach preference. Table 10
summarizes the descriptive statistics for these variables. Response options ranged from 1 to 4,
with 1 representing lowest score and 4 highest score.
For the overall SPM performance, analysis of descriptive statistics indicates that the
university is inadequately conducting succession planning and management activities (M = 1.96,
SD = .66, n = 394) because a mean score of 1.96 is very close to 2, which represents a score for
inadequately. Concerning how participants rate the level of importance of a systematic SPM
program, descriptive statistics indicate that participants rate the level of importance somewhere
between moderate and high (M =2.35, SD = .96, n = 402). Regarding the urgency of establishing
or improving a systematic SPM program, descriptive statistics show that participants perceive a
106
systematic SPM program as urgently needed (M = 2.65, SD = .77, n = 398) because the mean of
2.65 is close 3, a score which represents urgently needed.
Finally, participants were requested to indicate the degree of suitability for each of eight
succession planning approaches so as to help the researcher determine the preference level of
those SPM approaches. A Likert scale was used with 1 = not suitable to 4 = very suitable. Out of
all eight suggested approaches, three received higher scores: internal leadership grooming (M =
2.67, SD = .96, n = 392), followed by external sourcing within USA (M = 2.57, SD = .79, n =
389), and retaining best graduate students (M = 2.34, SD = .93, n = 388). Three approaches with
lower scores include: searching talents from abroad (M = 1.96, SD = .82, n = 389), rehiring the
retired officials (M = 1.66, SD = .75, n = 387), and doing nothing (M = 1.36, SD = .68, n = 386).
Table 10 displays the details of the mean scores for all variables related to the status of the SPM
efforts at Midwestern University.
Table 10
Status of SPM Efforts at Midwestern University
Variable Items n M SD
Overall SPM performance 14 394 1.96 .66
Importance of a systematic SPM 15 402 2.35 .96
program
Urgency for establishing/improving a 16 398 2.65 .77
systematic SPM
SPM approach preference
1. Internal leadership grooming 17a 392 2.67 .96
2. External sourcing - within USA 17b 389 2.57 .79
3. Searching talents from abroad 17c 389 1.96 .82
4. Rehiring the retired officials 17d 387 1.66 .75
5. Forming strategic collaboration 17e 387 2.09 .85
6. Retaining best graduate students 17f 388 2.34 .93
7. Restructuring the organization 17g 388 2.31 .94
8. Doing nothing 17h 386 1.36 .68
107
How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff perceive eight different SPM
practices taking place at their respective colleges and administrative units?
Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree to the implementation
of each of the eight SPM practices in their respective colleges/units. A Likerts scale of 1 to 4 was
used whereby 1 depicts strongly disagree, 2 stands for disagree, 3 represents agree, and 4 stands
for strongly agree. Table 11 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and sample sizes for
each SPM practice. Statistics show that the mean scores for all eight SPM practices range from
1.81 to 2.33, indicating respondents’ perceptions are close to a score of 2 that represents
disagree. Two practices have higher scores even though they do not reach a score of 3
representing agree. These are talent management processes (M = 2.33, SD = .59, n = 405) and
assessment of organizational leadership needs (M = 2.32, SD = .69, n = 407). On the other hand,
application of succession plan charts has the lowest score (M = 1.81, SD = .67, n = 398).
Table11
Participants’ Perception on Eight SPM practices
SPM Practices Items n M SD

Assessment of Organizational Leadership 13a, b, c 407 2.32 .69
Needs
Talent Management Processes 13d, e, f 405 2.33 .59
Application of Succession Plan Charts 13g, h* 398 1.81 .67
Identification and development of 13i, j, k 402 2.16 .65
leadership potentials
Selection, evaluation, and rewarding of 13l, m, n 397 2.00 .62
groomed candidates
Internal Recruitment and Replacement of 13o, p, q 394 2.17 .58
Outgoing Leaders
Top University Leadership Commitment to 13r, s, t 386 2.11 .63
SPM
Integration of SPM practices in the 13u, v, w 396 2.11 .64
organizational culture
Note. * The variable was transformed by removing 2 outlier cases.
108
Do perceived eight SPM practices differ by the following groups?
o By gender
o By college
o By service years
Perception differences by occupational role. Analysis of perception differences by
occupational role was conducted utilizing two methods. The first method examined the
perception difference between fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff using a t-
test of independent samples. The second method examined the perception differences between
four groups of occupations—faculty administrators, faculty, administrative leaders, and
professional administrative staff—employing one way ANOVA. Readers are reminded that
fulltime academic staff is a group of fulltime faculty members and fulltime faculty
administrators. Likewise, fulltime administrative staff entails fulltime professional administrative
staff and fulltime administrative leaders.
For all dependent variables, t-tests of independent samples for examining perception
differences between fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff were conducted;
and, results of all t-test computations are displayed in Table 12.
Results indicate that there were significant perception differences in only two practices:
talent management processes t(402) = -2.26, p = .024 and internal recruitment and replacement
109
of outgoing leaders t(391) = 2.22, p = .027. For talent management process, fulltime
administrative staff scored higher (M = 2.40) than fulltime academic staff (M = 2.26). For the
internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders, fulltime academic staff scored higher
(M = 2.23) than the fulltime administrative staff (M = 2.10).
It is important to caution here that although, statistically, there are significant perception
differences between the fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff on those two
SPM practices, the mean scores of both practices and for both groups are close to 2 that
represents disagree. Moreover, as Table 12 displays, there were no statistically significant
perception differences in the remaining six practices.
Table 12
Academic and Administrative Staff Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices
Dependent Variable FT Academic Staff FT Admin. Staff

n M SD n M SD t p
Assessment of Organizational 218 2.35 .71 188 2.30 .66 .76 .450
Leadership Needs
Talent Management Processes 218 2.26 .62 186 2.40 .54 -2.26 .024*
Application of Succession Plan 213 1.87 .72 187 1.78 .66 1.30 .195
Charts
Identification and development of 214 2.11 .66 187 2.20 .63 -1.24 .215
Selection, evaluation, and 212 1.97 .63 184 2.02 .61 -.75 .456
rewarding of groomed candidates
Internal Recruitment and 206 2.23 .58 187 2.10 .58 2.22 .027*
Replacement of Outgoing Leaders
Top University Leadership 203 2.07 .63 182 2.16 .62 -1.44 .152
Commitment to SPM
Integration of SPM practices in the 209 2.10 .66 186 2.12 .61 -.28 .779
Note. FT = Fulltime; Asterisk (*) = represents significance (p<.05).
The second analysis utilized one way ANOVA to examine the perception difference by
occupational role between four groups: faculty administrators, faculty, administrative leaders,
and professional administrative staff. The results, as detailed in Table 13, demonstrate that there
110
were no statistically significant perception differences on the eight SPM practices between these
four occupational groups.
Table 13
Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices by Occupational Role
SPM Practices Faculty Faculty Admin. Prof. Adm.

Admin. Leader Staff F p
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Assessment of 2.47 .60 2.33 .73 2.28 .64 2.32 .70 .62 .601
Organizational
Leadership Needs
Talent Management 2.27 .47 2.26 .65 2.42 .52 2.36 .57 1.84 .140
Processes
Application of 1.86 .64 1.87 .74 1.83 .64 1.71 .68 1.03 .377
Succession Plan
Charts
Identification and 2.16 .65 2.11 .67 2.26 .58 2.11 .69 1.33 .264
development of
Selection, 1.83 .49 2.00 .65 2.04 .57 1.99 .68 .95 .416
evaluation, and
rewarding of
groomed candidates
Internal Recruitment 2.19 .50 2.24 .59 2.12 .56 2.07 .61 1.85 .138
and Replacement of
Outgoing Leaders
Top University 1.95 .62 2.09 .64 2.21 .57 2.08 .70 1.74 .158
Leadership
Commitment to
SPM
Integration of SPM 2.05 .64 2.11 .67 2.16 .55 2.06 .70 .43 .729
practices in the
organizational
culture
Perception differences by gender. To examine perception differences by gender, a t-
test of independent samples was conducted with each dependent variable. Results of these
computations are displayed in Table 14. Analysis shows that there were no significant gender
differences in perception for all eight SPM practices.

111
Table 14
Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices by Gender
Dependent Variable Female Male

n M SD n M SD t p
Assessment of Organizational 211 2.29 .70 192 2.36 .67 -.99 .323
Leadership Needs
Talent Management Processes 209 2.33 .57 192 2.33 .62 .05 .959
Application of Succession Plan 208 1.82 .69 189 1.85 .69 -.35 .726
Charts
Identification and development 208 2.17 .65 190 2.14 .65 .44 .662
of leadership potentials
Selection, evaluation, and 207 2.00 .61 186 2.00 .63 .09 .926
rewarding of groomed
candidates
Internal Recruitment and 204 2.15 .59 186 2.21 .56 -1.06 .288
Replacement of Outgoing
Leaders
Top University Leadership 202 2.15 .61 181 2.08 .65 1.19 .237
Commitment to SPM
Integration of SPM practices in 205 2.11 .60 187 2.13 .67 -.30 .764
Perception difference by colleges for each of eight SPM practices. The first practice
examined was assessment of organizational leadership needs. For this practice, as displayed in
Table 15, ANOVA results indicate that there were significant differences between colleges, F(7,
206) = 2.78, p = .009 with the College of Musical Arts having the highest mean score (M = 3.00)
and the College of Technology having the lowest score (M = 1.86). The intriguing thing here is
that the mean score of 3 for the College of Musical Arts indicates that participants agree that the
practice of assessment of organizational leadership needs is taking place in this college.

112
Table 15
College Differences in Perception of Assessment of Organizational Leadership Needs
College n M SD F p df
College of Arts & Sciences 93 2.36 .66
College of Business Administration 13 2.00 .73
College of Education & Human 48 2.29 .78
Development
College of Health & Human Services 12 2.31 .59 2.78 .009* 7, 206
College of Musical Arts 13 3.00 .61
College of Technology 7 1.86 .77
Off-campus College 14 2.4 .54
University Libraries 14 2.21 .71
Note. * = represents significance (p<.05).
The second practice was talent management processes. As Table 16 indicates, the
ANOVA results show that there were no significant perception differences between colleges in
the practice of talent management processes, F (7, 206) = 1.84, p = .082.
Table 16
College Differences in Talent Management Processes
Development
College of Health & Human Services 12 2.36 .69 1.84 .082 7, 206
However, even if there was no significant difference, the College of Musical Arts
obtained the highest mean score (M = 2.72) that is close to 3, while the score of the College of
Technology (M = 1.76) is the lowest.

113
Application of succession plan charts was the third practice to be examined. As Table 17
shows, ANOVA results indicate significant perception differences in the practice of application
of succession plan charts F(7, 201) = 3.45, p = .001. Again, the College of Musical Arts has the
highest score (M = 2.65), while the College of Technology has the lowest score (M = 1.43) on
this practice.
Table 17
College Differences in Application of Succession Plan Charts
College of Business Administration 13 1.77 1.13
Development
Post hoc tests were conducted to understand where the significant differences occurred.
Scheffe post hoc tests by colleges reveal that the College of Musical Arts differs significantly
from both the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Education and Human
Development.
Next to be examined was identification and development of leadership potentials.
ANOVA indicates that there were significant perception differences between colleges on this
SPM practice F(7, 202) = 3.38, p = .001. As Table 18 displays, the College of Technology has
the lowest mean score (M = 1.52), and the College of Musical Arts has the highest score (M =
2.80). Scheffe post hoc tests by colleges reveal that the College of Musical Arts significantly
differs from the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Technology.
114
Table 18
College Differences in Identification and Development of Leadership Potentials
Development
The fifth practice to be examined was selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed
candidates. As presented in Table 19, ANOVA indicates that there were significant perception
differences between colleges regarding this SPM practice F(7, 200) = 2.29, p = .029. Again, as it
is with other practices, the College of Musical Arts has the highest score (M = 2.54), while the
College of Technology (M = 1.52) lies at the bottom.
Table 19
College Differences in Selection, Evaluation, and Rewarding of Groomed Candidates
Development
Internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders was the sixth practice to be
examined. Table 20 displays the one way ANOVA results for this practice. Results suggest that
115
there were significant perception differences between colleges on this practice F(7, 194) = 2.87,
p = .007. For the College of Musical Arts, like with other practices, it has the highest mean score
(M = 2.74); and the College of Technology has the lowest mean score (M = 1.81).
Table 20
College Differences in Internal Recruitment and Replacement of Outgoing Leaders
Development
Practice number seven was top university leadership commitment to SPM. ANOVA
results indicate significant perception differences between colleges F(7, 191) = 3.45, p =.002. As
Table 21 depicts, the College of Technology trails with lowest mean score (M = 1.79), while the
College of Musical Arts has the highest mean score (M = 2.56). Participants of the College of
Table 21
College Differences in Top University Leadership Commitment to SPM
Development
116
Musical Arts have relatively more positive views of the top university leadership commitment to
the SPM efforts.
Lastly, integration of SPM practices in the organizational culture was examined.
According to ANOVA results presented in Table 22, there were significant perception
differences on this practice F(7, 197) = 3.47, p = .002. Again, the College of Musical Arts has
the highest mean score (M = 2.74), while the College of Technology is at the bottom of all
colleges (M = 1.67). It is interesting to note that only the participants of the College of Musical
Arts perceive the SPM practices as integrated in the institutional culture.
Table 22
College Differences in Integration of SPM Practices in the Organizational Culture
Development
Perception difference by years of service at MU. ANOVA results presented in Table
23 suggest that there were significant perception differences between four categories of service
years to MU for each of eight SPM practices. To avoid large text, the reader is asked to refer to
Table 23 for the statistical values for each of eight SPM practice.
117
Table 23
Perception Differences in Eight SPM Practices by Service Years
Dependent Variable Under 10 10-19 years 20-29 years 30 & above

M SD M SD M SD M SD F p
Assessment of 2.44 .69 2.16 .64 2.28 .68 2.18 .74 4.75 .003*
Organizational
Leadership Needs
Talent Management 2.38 .62 2.22 .60 2.28 .51 2.53 .52 2.90 .035*
Processes
Application of 1.94 .75 1.68 .62 1.73 .65 1.79 .62 3.98 .008*
Succession Plan
Charts
Identification and 2.27 .65 1.95 .61 2.15 .59 2.19 .69 6.17 .000*
development of
Selection, 2.10 .61 1.85 .60 1.90 .61 2.01 .70 4.44 .004*
evaluation, and
rewarding of
groomed candidates
Internal Recruitment 2.26 .56 2.11 .62 2.06 .58 2.06 .55 2.89 .035*
and Replacement of
Outgoing Leaders
Top University 2.25 .63 1.91 .55 2.05 .63 2.06 .77 7.28 .000*
Leadership
Commitment to
SPM
Integration of SPM 2.25 .66 1.93 .58 1.99 .57 2.14 .71 7.10 .000*
practices in the
organizational
culture
Moreover, Scheffe post hoc tests by service years reveal that the group under 10
significantly differs with the group with 10-19 years of service in six SPM practices: assessment
of organizational leadership needs (MD = .28, p = .006), application of succession plan charts
(MD = .26, p = .016) , identification and development of leadership potentials (MD = .32, p =
.000), selection evaluation and rewarding of groomed leaders (MD = .25, p = .009), top
leadership commitment to SPM (MD = .34, p = .000), and integration of SPM in the
118
organizational culture (MD = .32, p = .000). Also, significant difference exists between under
10 years and 20-29 years for integration of SPM practices in the organizational culture (MD =
.26, p = .032). See details in Table 23.
Moreover, ANOVA results offer several insights. First, those who served the university
for less than 10 years have the highest mean scores in all practices except for the practice of
talent management process, for which the group of 30 years and above has the highest mean
score (M = 2.53). Second, those who served the university for 10-19 years have the lowest mean
scores in all practices except for the practice of internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing
leaders. Third, two groups—20-29 years and 30 or above years—obtained the lowest mean
scores for internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders (M = 2.06).
Additionally, it is important to note that, with the exception of the talent management
processes for the veterans (30 years or above), all scores—for each practice and under each
service years group—are less than 2.5, which indicates that all groups who served the university
for less than 30 years tend to disagree with the occurrence of all SPM practices.
How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff evaluate some factors associated
with SPM processes at the university?
Three factors prescribed by the researcher were examined at the MU: the first factor was
the diversity consideration in the SPM efforts. This combined the consideration of women and
consideration of people of color in leadership promotions. The second factor was the impact of
the current economic recession, which was a combination of the impact of current economic
recession on individual employment and retirement plans and the impact of the current economic
recession on the succession practices at the colleges and administrative units. The third factor
119
was the impact of government policies and laws on SPM, which combined the impact of federal
policies and laws and the impact of state policies and laws on succession practices at the
university. All these three factors were examined by using descriptive statistics.
Diversity consideration in the SPM efforts. A Likert scale of 1 to 4 was used to
measure this variable; with 1 representing very poorly, 2 = inadequately, 3 = adequately, and 4 =
very well. As Table 24 displays, descriptive statistics suggest that consideration of diversity in
leadership promotion within units/colleges is generally adequate (M = 2.98, SD = .70, n = 408)
because a mean score of 2.98 is nearly 3 that stands for adequately.
Table 24
Descriptive Statistics for the Three Factors
Factors Items n M SD
Diversity Consideration in SPM Efforts 18, 19 408 2.98 .70
Impact of Current Economic Recession 20, 21 409 2.67 .83
Impact of Government Policies and laws 22, 23 370 2.12 .92
Table 25 shows that a total of 336 (83.3%) respondents selected very well and
adequately. Of 83.3%, about 47.1% suggest that women are adequately considered and 36.2%
believe that women are very well considered in leadership promotion. Both female and male
participants viewed this factor positively. Results of Crosstabs by gender, as presented in Table
26, indicate that 49.0 % of females and 44.4% of males selected adequately, while 26.2% of
females and 48.1% of males selected very well. However, among those who selected very poorly
and inadequately, majority were women (86.7% and 76.5% respectively).

120
Table 25
Frequency Table: Consideration of Women in Leadership Promotion
Response f %
1. Very poorly 15 3.7
2. Inadequately 52 12.9
3. Adequately 190 47.1
4. Very well 146 36.2
Total 403 100.0
Table 26
Crosstabs by Gender: Consideration of Women in Leadership Promotion
Gender
Response Total
Female Male
1. Very poorly 13 (86.7%) 2 (13.3%) 15 (100%)
% within Gender 6.2% 1.1% 3.8%
% of the Total 3.3% .5% 3.8%
2. Inadequately 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 51 (100%)
% within Gender 18.6% 6.3% 12.8%
% of the Total 9.8% 3.0% 12.8%
3. Adequately 103 (55.1%) 84 (44.9%) 187 (100%)
% within Gender 49.0% 44.4% 46.9%
% of the Total 25.8% 21.1% 46.9%
4. Very well 55 (37.7%) 91 (62.3%) 146 (100%)
% within Gender 26.2% 48.1% 36.6%
% of the Total 13.8% 22.8% 36.6%
Total count 210 (52.6%) 189 (47.4%) 399
% within Gender 100% 100% 100%
% of the Total 52.6% 47.4% 100%
Concerning people of color, Table 27 presents a frequency distribution of scores about
consideration of people of color in leadership promotion. Findings show that 275 (69.6%)
respondents selected adequately and very well. Of 275 (69.6%), 204 (51.6%) respondents
selected adequately and 71 (18%) selected very well.

121
Table 27
Frequency Table: Consideration of People of Color in Leadership Promotion
Response f %
1. Very poorly 39 9.9
2. Inadequately 81 20.5
3. Adequately 204 51.6
4. Very well 71 18.0
Total 395 100.0
Table 28
Crosstabs by Ethnicity: Consideration of People of Color in Leadership Promotion
Response Ethnicity Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 n (%)
1. Very poorly (%) 23.1 7.7 2.6 2.6 64.1 .0 39 (100%)
% within Ethnicity 52.9 20.0 50.0 11.1 7.4 .0 9.9
% of the Total 2.3 .8 .3 .3 6.4 .0 9.9
2. Inadequately (%) 4.9 6.2 .0 3.7 82.7 2.5 81 (100%)
% within Ethnicity 23.5 33.3 .0 33.3 19.7 20.0 20.6
% of the Total 1.0 1.3 .0 .8 17.0 .5 20.6
3. Adequately (%) 2.0 2.5 .5 2.5 90.1 2.5 202 (100%)
% within Ethnicity 23.5 33.3 50.0 55.6 53.5 50.0 51.4
% of the Total 1.0 1.3 .3 1.3 46.3 1.3 51.4
4. Very well (%) .0 2.8 .0 .0 93.0 4.2 71 (100%)
% within Ethnicity .0 13.3 .0 .0 19.4 30.0 18.1
% of the Total .0 .5 .0 .0 16.8 .8 18.1
Total count (numbers) 17 15 2 9 340 10 393 (100%)
% within Ethnicity 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
% of the Total 4.3 3.8 .5 2.3 86.5 2.5 100
Note. 1 = African American, 2 = Asian American, 3 = American Indian, 4 = Hispanic
5 = Caucasian, 6 = Other.
The crosstabs by ethnicity provided in Table 28 illuminate more about the diversity
factor. Majority of African Americans (76.4%) and Asian Americans (53.3%) selected very
poorly and inadequately in the consideration of people of color in leadership promotion, whereas
majority of Caucasians (72.9%) selected adequately and very well. Besides that, none of African
America, American Indian, and Hispanic selected very well.

122
Impact of economic recession. Descriptive statistics (see Table 24) indicate that
generally the level of impact of the economic recession on SPM at the Midwestern University is
between moderate and high (M = 2.67, SD = .83, n = 409). Since a score of 2.67 is close to 3, the
impact is inclined towards a score of high. In fact, data presented in the frequency table (Table
29) shows clearly that individual employment and retirement plans of most participants (81.9%)
are affected by the economic recession. Of 409 respondents, 207 (50.6%) indicated that they
experience a high and very high level of impact and 128 (31.3%) experience a moderate level of
impact stemming from the economic recession.
Table 29
Frequency Table: Recession Impact on Individual Employment/Retirement Plans
Response f %
1.Low 74 18.1
2. Moderate 128 31.3
3. High 101 24.7
4. Very High 106 25.9
Total 409 100.0
Further analysis using crosstabs (see Table 30) shows that employment and retirement
plans of 87.5% of the faculty administrators are affected moderately to very highly by economic
recession, whereas 76.2% of the faculty members are affected moderately to very highly. On the
other hand, the percentage of administrative leaders who are affected moderately to very highly
by the economic recession is 90.4%, and that of professional administrative staff is 80.8%. For
details see Table 30.

123
Table 30
Crosstabs by Professional Role: Recession Impact on Individual Employment/Retirement Plans
Response Professional Role Total

1 2 3 4 n %
1. Low (%) 5.4 60.8 14.9 18.9 74 100.0
% within pr. role 12.5 23.8 9.6 19.2 18.1
% of the Total 1.0 11.0 2.7 3.4 18.1
2. Moderate (%) 10.9 43.0 30.5 15.6 128 100.0
% within pr. role 43.8 29.1 33.9 27.4 31.3
% of the Total 3.4 13.4 9.5 4.9 31.3
3. High (%) 8.9 44.6 27.7 18.8 101 100.0
% within pr. role 28.1 23.8 24.3 26.0 24.7
% of the Total 2.2 11.0 6.8 4.6 24.7
4. Very high (%) 4.7 41.5 34.9 18.9 106 100.0
% within pr. role 15.6 23.3 32.2 27.4 25.9
% of the Total 1.2 10.8 9.0 4.9 25.9
Total count (n) 32 189 115 73 409
% within pr. role 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
% of the Total 7.8 46.2 28.1 17.8 100.0
Note. 1 = Faculty Administrator, 2 = Faculty, 3 = Administrative Leader, 4 = Professional
Administrative Staff.
Regarding impact of recession on the succession practices within different colleges and
administrative units, analysis of frequency distribution of scores (see Table 31) indicates that out
of 391 respondents, 328 (83.9%) selected moderate to very high level of impact.
Table 31
Frequency Table: Recession Impact on Succession Practices at the College/Unit Level
Response f %
1.Low 63 16.1
2. Moderate 81 20.7
3. High 133 34.0
4. Very High 114 29.2
Total 391 100.0
124
Table 32
Crosstabs by College: Recession Impact on Succession Practices at the College Level
Response College
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
1. Low (%) 45.7 5.7 14.3 14.3 2.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 100
% within college 18.4 15.4 11.1 41.7 7.7 28.6 13.3 14.3 17.0
% of the Total 7.8 1.0 2.4 2.4 .5 1.0 1.0 1.0 17.0
2. Moderate (%) 32.4 18.9 18.9 2.7 10.8 2.7 10.8 2.7 100
% within college 13.4 53.8 15.6 8.3 30.8 14.3 26.7 7.1 18.0
% of the Total 5.8 3.4 3.4 .5 1.9 .5 1.9 .5 18.0
3. High (%) 43.1 .0 25.0 5.6 9.7 1.4 9.7 5.6 100
% within college 35.6 .0 40.0 33.3 53.8 14.3 46.7 28.6 35.0
% of the Total 15.0 .0 8.7 1.9 3.4 .5 3.4 1.9 35.0
4. Very High (%) 45.2 6.5 24.2 3.2 1.6 4.8 3.2 11.3 100
% within college 32.2 30.8 33.3 16.7 7.7 42.9 13.3 50.0 30.1
% of the Total 13.6 1.9 7.3 1.0 .5 1.5 1.0 3.4 30.1
Total count (n) 87 13 45 12 13 7 15 14 206
% within college 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
% of the Total 42.2 6.3 21.8 5.8 6.3 3.4 7.3 6.8 100
Note. 1 = College of Arts & Sciences, 2 = College of Business Administration, 3 = College of
Education & Human Development, 4 = College Health & Human Services, 5 = College of
Musical Arts, 6 = College of Technology, 7 = Off-campus College, 8 = University Libraries.
Further analysis of crosstabs by college shows that, in general, 83.1% of college
respondents believe that their colleges are impacted moderately to very highly by the current
economic recession (Table 32); whereas 85% of administrative respondents indicated that their
administrative units are impacted moderately to very highly (see Table 33).
Moreover, as Table 32 shows, 92.3% of respondents from the College of Musical Arts
selected moderate to very high impact level. This is the biggest percentage, indicating that their
college is the most affected by the ongoing economic recession compared to the rest. This
college is closely followed by Off-campus College (86.7%), and University Libraries (85.7%).
College of Health and Human Services seems to be the least affected (58.3%).
On the administrative side, as Table 33 indicates, Student Affairs Division seems to
experience the biggest impact as the majority (91.9%) selected moderate to very high level of
125
impact. This is followed by Finance and Administration Division (86%), Office of the President
(82.4%), and Academic Affairs Division (81.1%). Two divisions, Human Resources Division
and University Advancement Division, have 75% of their respondents who suggest that the
impact of economic recession is moderate to vey high in their respective divisions.
Table 33
Crosstabs by Administrative Division: Recession Impact on Succession Practices at the
Administrative Division Level
Response Administrative Division

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
1. Low (%) 38.5 15.4 7.7 11.5 19.2 7.7 100.0
% within division 18.9 16.0 25.0 17.6 8.1 25.0 15.0
% of the Total 5.8 2.3 1.2 1.7 2.9 1.2 15.0
2. Moderate (%) 18.2 18.2 .0 18.2 40.9 4.5 100.0
% within division 15.1 32.0 .0 47.1 29.0 25.0 25.4
% of the Total 4.6 4.6 .0 4.6 10.4 1.2 25.4
3. High (%) 33.9 12.5 7.1 5.4 41.1 .0 100.0
% within division 35.8 28.0 50.0 17.6 37.1 .0 32.4
% of the Total 11.0 4.0 2.3 1.7 13.3 .0 32.4
4. Very High (%) 34 12.8 4.3 6.4 34.0 8.5 100.0
% within division 30.2 24.0 25.0 17.6 25.8 50.0 27.2
% of the Total 9.2 3.5 1.2 1.7 9.2 2.3 27.2
Total count (n) 53 25 8 17 62 8 173
% within division 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
% of the Total 30.6 14.5 4.6 9.8 35.8 4.6 100
Note. 1 = Academic Affairs, 2 = Finance & Administration, 3 = Human Resources, 4 = Office
of the President, 5 = Student Affairs, 6 = University Advancement.
Impact of government policies and laws on succession practices. Descriptive statistics
(See Table 24) indicate that respondents’ general perception of the level of impact of the
government policies and laws on succession practices at the university is moderate (M = 2.12,
SD = .92, n = 370). The mean score of 2.12 is very close to 2, which represents a moderate
impact level. In fact, the frequency distribution of the scores (see Table 34) reveal that out of 366
respondents, 140 (38.3%) believe that the level of impact of federal policies and laws is low and
126
136 (37.2%) consider the level of impact is moderate. Those who think the federal policies and
laws have high and very high impact on succession practices are 90 (24.6%).
Table 34
Frequency Table: Impact of Federal Policies and Laws on Succession Practices
Response f %
1.Low 140 38.3
3. High 57 15.6
4. Very High 33 9.0
Total 366 100.0
Regarding state policies and laws, Table 35 shows that of 368 respondents, 105 (28.5%)
think that the state policies and laws have a low impact on succession practices and 110 (29.9%)
believe that state policies and laws have moderate impact level. At the same time, 153 (41.6%)
of respondents consider the impact of state policies and laws as high to very high.
Table 35
Frequency Table: Impact of State Policies and Laws on Succession Practices
Response f %
1.Low 105 28.5
3. High 96 26.1
4. Very High 57 15.5
Total 368 100.0
These data show that a higher percentage of respondents (41.6%) selected high and very
high level of impact for state policies and laws than the percentage of respondents (24.6%) who
selected the same level of impact for federal policies and laws. Thus, state policies and laws tend
to have a bit more influence on succession practices than the federal policies and laws.
127
Qualitative Results of Open-ended Survey Items
There were seven open-ended survey items that were designed to seek supplementary
responses for research question # 4. Out of seven open-ended items, six (Q18a-Q23a) sought to
obtain supplementary views of the survey participants regarding three major a priori factors
(composite variables)—diversity consideration in the SPM efforts, impact of the current
economic recession, and impact of government policies and laws on SPM. The seventh item
(Q24) sought to obtain a list of additional factors that affect succession SPM efforts at the
Midwestern University. About 30-48% of respondents provided their views for the three a priori
factors. The response rate for all seven open-ended items is presented in Table 36.
As mentioned earlier, each of the three composite variables was derived from two other
variables; hence, six variables were involved in this piece of qualitative analysis (see Table 37).
These six variables served as a priori themes for this qualitative analysis (Miles & Huberman,
1994). For all variables, pattern coding was conducted, and sub-themes and their frequencies
identified. Pattern coding is often used when a researcher wants to summarize themes,
relationships, or theoretical constructs (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The frequency of codes
related to a given pattern or sub-theme was determined; and, emergent sub-themes that attracted
a high frequency were considered as valid concerns or issues to be included in the table of
findings (Stemler, 2001). Table 37 provides the summary of the emergent sub-themes for each a
priori category of theme or factor.

128
Table 36
List of Open-ended Questions and Response Rates (N = 414)
Item Question n %
18a In your college/administrative unit, how equitably are women 199 48.1
considered for leadership promotion? … Briefly explain why you
think so.
19a In your college/administrative unit, how equitably are people of 194 46.9
color (POC) considered for leadership promotion? … Briefly explain
why you think so.
20a What is the level of impact of the current economic recession on 187 45.2
your individual employment and/or retirement plans? … Briefly
explain why you think so.
21a What is the level of impact of the current economic recession on the 190 45.9
succession practices at your college/administrative unit? … Briefly
explain why you think so
22a What is the level of impact of federal policies and laws on the 127 30.7
succession practices at the university level? … Briefly explain why
you think so
23a What is the level of impact of state policies and laws on the 133 32.1
succession practices at the university level? … Briefly explain why
you think so
24 Mention other factors that you believe highly affect succession 158 38.2
practices at this university.
Emergent Sub-themes under Three a Priori Themes or Factors
Table 37 displays different sub-themes that emerged from participants’ perspectives on
three a priori factors—diversity consideration in SPM, impact of economic recession, and impact
of government policies and laws. Readers are reminded that these factors were also evaluated
through descriptive statistics using participants’ multiple choice responses. This section
describes qualitative findings of the same factors.

129
Table 37
Emerging Sub-themes for each of a priori Theme/Sub-factors
A priori Factor/Theme # 1: Diversity Consideration

Sub-factor 1a: Consideration of women f Sub-factor 1b: Consideration of POC for f
for leadership promotion (n = 199) leadership promotion (n = 194)
Women well represented in leadership 74 Racial diversity in leadership a challenge 102
Gender equality perceived 34 Racial equality in leadership exist 32
Women underrepresentation noted 33 Very few POC in leadership positions 29
Women-dominated colleges/units exist 14 Racial diversity observed 15
A priori Factor/Theme # 2: Impact of Current Economic Recession
Sub-factor 2a: Impact on individuals’ f Sub-factor 2b: Impact on the units’ f
employment/ retirement plans (n = 187) succession planning practices (n = 190)
Calmness of some respondents 48 Loss of positions, programs, jobs, & 49
experienced staff, & leaders
Individual employment plans/incomes 48 Difficult to replace the leaving or hire 33
affected the best talent externally
Retirement plans and funds affected 44 Increased understaffing and workloads 24
Uncertainty, frustration stress, and fear 35 Lack of proper planning for successors 20
and staffing
Concern over units’ performance 11 No formal succession planning, hence no 16
recession impact to observe
Quality of unit services to be affected 12
Limited room to mentor/groom/promote 11
Unit reorganization affecting successions 10
A priori Factor/Theme # 3: Impact of Government Policies and Laws
Sub-factor 3a: Impact of federal policies f Sub-factor 3b: Impact of state policies f
and laws on SP practices (n = 127) and laws on SP practices (n = 133)
Unaware/unsure of federal policies and 77 Unaware/unsure of the state policies and 53
laws that could affect succession laws that could affect succession
practices practices
Effects of federal policies and laws 21 Effects of state policies and laws through 41
through (a) federal funding, aid, or (a) state funding, freezing general and
grants tuition fees increase
(b) hiring practices (e.g. Federal (b) hiring, promotion, and retirement
Affirmative Action laws) practices
(c) adherence to requirements from
Board of Regents or other state programs
Emergent Sub-themes: List of Additional Factors from Respondents (n = 158)
Organizational leadership challenges 33 Misperception/fear about SP 17
Unsuitable for SP organizational culture 30 SP unknown or unnoticed by members 17
effects of non practicing of SP 29 Inadequate salary and incentives 13
Hindering hiring /promotion 27 Budget limitations 7
policies/practices
130
Diversity consideration in SPM. One major factor or theme is diversity consideration in
SPM. This factor was divided into two sub-factors: consideration of women for leadership
promotion and consideration of people of color for leadership promotion. With regard to
consideration of women for leadership promotion, three main sub-themes emerged: (1) well
representation of women in leadership, (2) gender equality, and (3) women underrepresentation.
Thus, the emerging picture is that while the majority of respondents considered women as well
represented in leadership positions and others perceived gender equality in their units, a section
of participants felt that women are still underrepresented.
The following comments exemplify the findings about consideration of women in
leadership promotion. First, regarding good women representation, one responded said, “A
majority of the leadership positions are held by women in our office.” Another posited, “Several
key positions within the division have been promotions or new hires of women.” A third person
revealed, “Nearly everyone in my college is a woman, and all our upper management are
women.”
Second, concerning gender equality, one participant expressed, “There is no gender bias
for or against women or men.” Another one asserted, “Everyone is given opportunity.
Discussions do not include gender rather competency.” One respondent posted, “within our
department there is a balance of woman to men ratio, which may be an exception to the rule.”
Lastly, with respect to women underrepresentation, the following statement by one
respondent serves as an example. “…women are not given as much money or resources for
research or development; men are recognized more for accomplishments and the
accomplishments of women are often downplayed….” Another respondent remarked, “Many
potential women are overlooked and outside candidates are brought in. The highest level in this
131
division is top heavy with men.” One of respondents also said, “All of men in the unit were
promoted to other better positions; women stayed in current positions or lost their jobs.”
Concerning consideration of people of color for leadership promotion, the emerging sub-
themes under this sub-factor are: (1) racial diversity challenges, (2) racial equality, and (3) a
small number of people of color in leadership. As an illustration, the voices of respondents are
provided. As for racial diversity challenges, one respondent pointed out, “There just aren't
many people of color from which to select.” One respondent also observed, “We have very few
people of color to begin with. They definitely don’t hold leadership positions in any great
percentage.” Another participant remarked,
If you are talking about promotion from within, we have difficulty recruiting and hiring
adequate numbers of entry level and mid-management people of color. If you are talking
about hiring, our last Dean but one was a woman of color.
With reference to racial equality, someone said, “They [people of color] are considered
equally with all candidates.” Another respondent posited, “We hire on a pure talent pool no
discrimination warranted. We hire minorities if the two candidates are equal.” The third
participant asserted, “Positions are usually advertised and applications solicited from qualified
candidates regardless of ethnicity.”
Regarding a small number of people of color in leadership, one respondent said, “Very
few in leadership positions—essentially ‘invisible’ to the larger university community.” Another
one commented, “We have very few people of color, not many in leadership roles. I don't know
if this is just because few qualified applicants apply.”
Impact of the current economic recession. The second major factor was impact of the
current economic recession. This major factor was also subdivided into two sub-factors. The first
sub-factor represented the impact of the economic recession on individuals’ employment and
132
retirement plans. In this regard, four main sub-themes emerged: (1) calmness of some
respondents; (2) individual employment plans and incomes affected; (3) retirement plans and
retirement funds affected; and (4) uncertainty, frustration, and fear due to recession effects.
As an example, the following voices of participants are provided. With respect to
calmness of some respondents, one person said, “I feel reasonably secure in my position and had
no plans to make any changes in the near future anyway.” Another one uttered, “I have many
years left before retirement, so it is not an immediate concern.” Another one disclosed, “My
position is one that assists in generating funds; therefore it is very unlikely that it would be
eliminated due to the current economic recession. I am not considering retirement as I am too
young.”
As for the impact on individual employment plans and incomes as well as retirement
plans and retirement funds, the following comments illustrate the point. “My retirement plan has
been significantly impacted by the current economic situation,” one respondent remarked. “I
will now have to work until I am 66 instead of 62,” another participant said. Another person
responded, “Loss of wages due to lack of salary increase could prompt a job search in another
state or at another institution.” One person revealed, “I've lost thousands of dollars and now have
all my income routed to safe but low interest bearing annuities. I will retire several years later
now.”
Another respondent commented,
Due to the lack of raises over the last two years and due to the lack of opportunities for
stipends or bonuses the easiest way to improve my economic [situation] is to find a new
position that offers a higher salary or provides opportunities to enhance income through
other means.
The second sub-factor was the impact of the economic recession on succession practices
within units/colleges, under which four main sub-themes emerged: (1) units and colleges
133
experiencing a considerable loss of positions, programs, and jobs—including line faculty,
experienced staff, and leaders; (2) difficulty for many units/colleges to replace those leaving or
hire the best talent externally; (3) colleges and units experiencing an increased level of
understaffing and workloads; and (4) lack of proper planning for successors and staffing. These
sub-themes indicate that units and colleges are undergoing a tough time.
In this sub-factor, participants’ words were as follows: “Many cutbacks have been made.
Offices have also been reorganized and changed to address these cutbacks,” one respondent
posted. “Positions have been lost with retirements, so there is a definite impact in trying to pick
up threads of practice,” observed another participant. “With each retirement/departure, we
recognize that getting a position filled is very iffy, so it makes it difficult to look ahead to decide
what we would like to do with such a position,” commented another respondent. One participant
noted that, “People in those upper level positions throughout the division have lost their jobs and
those positions are not being filled. No succession.” regarding an increasing workload for
remaining members, one participant revealed, “Since vacant positions are not being filled, there
is not staff available for succession planning. One person is already doing what was [a] formerly
2 people’s job.” Another noted, “We are running with 50% less staff than we had 3 years ago.”
Impact of the government policies and laws on succession practices. The third major
factor was the impact of the government policies and laws on succession practices. This
examined two sub-factors, the effect of federal and the state policies and laws respectively.
Concerning the impact of federal policies and laws, two sub-themes emerged: (1) unawareness
of federal policies and laws that could affect succession practices; (2) effects of federal policies
and laws on the university through (a) federal funding, aid, or grants; and (b) some hiring-related
policies and laws such as Federal Affirmative Action laws.

134
The following voices of participants exemplify the participants’ unawareness of federal
policies and laws that could affect succession practices. “I have no idea what federal laws or
policies may apply,” one participant said. Another one also stated, “I don't know of any federal
policies and laws that would be relevant.” Concerning the effects of federal policies and laws,
one respondent said, “Federal funding policies/plans for higher education would also impact
succession practices.” Another respondent posited, “As a public institution, policies and laws at
the federal level for hiring and recruiting practices impact this university.” One more respondent
offered, “Aside from federal affirmative action laws, which are correctly observed, I am not
aware of any such impact.”
With reference to impact of state policies and laws, two sub-themes emerged: (1)
unawareness of the state policies and laws that could affect succession practices; (2) effects of
state policies and laws on the university through, (a) state funding and freezing the increase of
general and tuition fees; (b) hiring, promotion, and retirement practices; and (c) complying with
some requirements from Board of Regents or other state programs.
Concerning unawareness of the role of state policies and laws, one respondent remarked,
“I am unaware of any state policies and laws that have affected the current practices of the
university.” another also, said, “I'm not aware of state policies or laws that impact succession
practices, but that may well be ignorance on my part.”
In regards to effects of the state policies and laws, one respondent posited, “We're very
dependent on state funding, so cautious projections for state budgets result in cautious
predictions for successions.” Another one explained, “Freezing General Fee increase has led to
reduced budgets, which has led to downsizing and redistributing job duties.” Yet, another
participant exposed that “Potential changes in the [State Public Employee Retirement System]…
135
policies over the next couple of years will tend to encourage retirement prior to those changes
becoming effective.”
Emergent Additional Factors from Participants
From this analysis, it is evident that many additional factors emerged as sub-themes from
survey participants through the open-ended survey item Q24. As Table 37 displays, there are
eight major factors that respondents believe may affect succession planning practices. These are
briefly described in the order of their frequency number (frequency in parentheses).
Organizational leadership challenges (33). The majority of respondents expressed
feelings that represent indications of some leadership problems. For instance, one respondent
posted that there is “lack of leadership development at lower levels, mentoring programs, or
access to external executive training below a certain level” Another respondent posited, “we are
not consciously building our leadership management expertise.” Another said, “Upper
administration does [not] value the employees, and seems to think that better people can be
found outside the campus, instead of looking to internal candidates.” Another participant
commented, “We have been in a state of leadership transition for the past two years, and it is
difficult to focus on succession practices while leadership transitioning is occurring.”
Unsuitable to succession planning organizational culture (30). Many respondents
decried the lack of adequate culture for succession planning. For example, one respondent said,
“There is absolutely no culture of succession planning at [Midwestern University]” another
stated, “…but there is little structure to groom potential future leaders …” Also, one more
respondent pointed out, “In my college, our "corporate culture" works against effective
succession planning.”
136
Effects of non-practicing of adequate succession planning (29). Some respondents’
views signified effects of the absence of systematic SPM approach at the studied university. For
instance, one participant remarked,
I will also be leaving due to the lack of opportunity for me to be promoted from within
here. I have been in the same position for almost a decade. My supervisors rave about
how great I am doing but no opportunities to be promoted...not even a title upgrade...even
though I have taken on many responsibilities that are way beyond my original position
description.
Another posited,
… Young faculty see no chance for promotion from within for endowed chairs or full
professors so they often leave after a year or two. I have a cohort of students who I want
to see graduate and then am not sure what will do as depressing place to work.
Another said, “… those who are hired in from the outside for leadership positions are
treated with mistrust and condescension.” This indicates that the current succession practices are
breeding mistrust between leaders and followers.
Hindering hiring and promotion policies and practices (27). Many participants
criticized the current hiring and promotion practices. For example, one participant said, “Some of
the internal practices we claim to have set as policies hinder the growth of internal employees
including those graduating.” Also, another posted, “It is difficult for individuals to move up and
across the University into other areas that could use these individuals' talents. Departments tend
to work in silos, and [do] not collaborate across the University.” One more respondent explained,
The hiring practices at this institution eliminate the potential for promotions, requiring all
positions to be posted …. People that could be groomed for succession are less likely to
go through the motions to be put in a position for advancement when they feel they are
likely to be overlooked through a hiring pool of applicants.
Misperception and fear about succession planning (17). Misperception and fear of
SPM seems to be an issue for some participants. For example, one respondent stated, “I believe
some administrators fear that suitably training others will make them less valuable.” Another
137
said, “There is strong resistance to discussing future vacancies and what could be done about
them—most people feel such planning infringes on their personal privacy, as it necessarily
involves discussing the plans of individuals.” One more participant posted, “The current
administration seems to believe that promoting internally is not good for the long-term health
and well-being of the University. There are no succession plans for administrative staff—just
exit plans.” Another person said, “One other thought is perhaps people are worried that the hiring
process might seem unfair if they hire from within.”
Unknown or unnoticed succession planning (17). Succession planning is unfamiliar for
some participants; and others indicated that SPM practices are hardly noticeable. For instance,
one respondent said, “I have never, ever heard this term ‘succession practices’ used before, but,
of course, there are practices related that don't have this moniker.” Another respondent said: “To
be honest, I know very little about succession practices at the university”. Another participant
commented, “We do not have [succession planning], especially in faculty ranks and academic
leadership. Leadership development for faculty would be wonderful to see.”
Inadequate salary and incentives (13). Several respondents decried the inadequacy of
salary and incentives. For example, one respondent commented, “… many people…do not wish
to advance to a higher level of management because we see the heavy toll taken by stress and
overwork on our supervisors and [department] chairs in return for very little financial gain.”
Another one said, “Administrative staff aren't paid competitively with the market, so the high
performing, "best" employees leave to pursue greater financial incentives.” Another example of
the comment by another respondent, “Sadly, faculty willing to take on leadership [positions]
within Colleges … are not rewarded adequately for making this sacrifice… Ultimately, this
situation will continue until those faculty qualified to take on leadership roles are appropriately
138
rewarded.” The last example of respondent’s voice follows, “Salary inequities and lack of
incentives for leadership positions are deterring factors for both internal and external quality
leadership candidates.”
Budget and financial limitations (7). The question of budget and funds was raised by
some participants. A few examples of participants’ voices follow. One participant, posited,
“Underfunding means lower quality talent for hiring deans and for bringing in high quality
endowed chairs and full profs.” Another said, “Horrible situation made worse by the bad
financial situation at the state.” One more respondent stated, “Talented leaders are trying to
leave this university … or are asked to because of budget cuts. They see no future here either
academically or financially.”
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented survey results composed of quantitative and qualitative findings
stemming from the survey administered to the population of 1,530 participants of the
Midwestern University. A total of 414 (27.1%) respondents represented the sample of the
participants invited to complete the survey. The aim of this summary is to delineate the main
findings as presented below.
 The Midwestern University is likely to lose about 24.9% of fulltime academic and
administrative staff expecting to retire or to move away within the next five years. This
translates into about 385 individuals if extrapolated to the target population of 1,544.
 According to participants’ responses, the general status of the SPM efforts at the MU is
characterized by inadequacy, which requires an urgent improvement by introducing a more
systematic SPM program. A systematic SPM program is considered fairly important by study
139
participants of the university; and especially the internal leadership grooming approach has
received the highest attention.
 Generally, all eight SPM practices are perceived as not working well at the university.
Nonetheless, the practice of talent management process and assessment of organizational
leadership needs obtained relatively higher scores than others.
 Comparison of eight SPM practices by different groups generated mixed results. For example
there was no significant group difference by gender; but, there were significant group
differences by occupational role in two practices—with talent management processes and
internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders.
 Comparison by colleges and service years generated cases of significant perception
differences. The College of Musical Arts seems to have relatively higher mean scores in most
SPM practices, whereas the College of Technology has the lowest. Likewise, those who have
served the university for less than 10 years are more inclined towards perceiving the SPM
practices happening in their units and colleges as they have relatively higher scores than the
veteran groups.
 Descriptive statistics indicate that, generally, diversity consideration with regard to
leadership promotion is adequately handled at the university. However, crosstabs analysis
shows that a big section of African Americans and some American Asians selected very
poorly and inadequately. Also, qualitative analysis reveals that, although a majority of
respondents confirm that women are generally well represented in leadership promotions,
there is a section of participants who observe women as being underrepresented. Moreover,
racial diversity in terms of leadership promotion is perceived as a challenge by most people
of color, although some participants think that racial equality exists.

140
 Descriptive statistics show that employment and retirement plans of participants are affected
moderately to very highly by the ongoing economic recession. Similarly, a most colleges and
administrative units are affected moderately to very highly by the current economic
recession. Administrative leaders seem to be relatively more affected than other occupational
groups, while faculty members appear to be relatively less affected. In the college side,
College of Musical Arts seems to be relatively more affected than others, while the college of
Health and Human Services is the least affected. With the administrative divisions, Student
Affairs Division appears to be relatively more affected than others, while Human Resources
Division and University Advancement Division are relatively least affected. Qualitative
analysis confirms that individual employment and retirement plans are affected, although
majority of participants expressed calmness over the situation.
 According to descriptive statistics, government policies seem to play a moderate role in
restraining or facilitating succession practices at the MU, even though state policies and laws
tend to have a relatively higher influence than the federal policies and laws. Qualitative data
indicate that the majority of participants are unaware of both federal and state policies and
laws that can affect succession practices, whereas others believe that federal policies and
laws can affect university through federal funding and certain hiring-related laws such as
Federal Affirmative Action laws. Also, some believe that state policies can impact university
via (1) state bursary and regulation of fees, (2) hiring, promotion, and retirement practices,
and (3) adherence to some state requirements (e.g., those of Board of Regents).
 Qualitative data reveals eight additional factors that impact succession practices at the
studied university. They include leadership challenges and institutional culture that does not
adequately support SPM efforts.

141
CHAPTER V: QUALITATIVE RESULTS
Introduction
Chapter V presents results from two separate data sets of the qualitative component of
this study. With this in mind, Chapter V is divided into four main sections. Section one is an
introduction. Section two presents results from the interview transcripts, while section three
provides results derived from document review. Section four addresses the research questions #
1, 2, and 4. The last section summarizes the whole chapter.
Results of Interview Transcripts
Sampling Method
Six interview participants were purposely selected using certain criteria as displayed in
Table 38. The first criterion was the line of work. Three participants represented the academic
affairs and three represented the administrative work category. Gender representation was also
considered; hence, three participants were females and three males. Another criterion was the
level of leadership. Two participants represented a high level of university leadership, two
participants represented a mid level, and two represented a low level. Number of years of service
at the university was another criterion that was applied. Two participants were those who served
the university over 20 years, three participants between 10-19 years, and one participant less than
10 years. Finally, the researcher considered participants who would also be representatives of
university main constituencies. The caveat here is that some participants represented two
constituencies. Thus, one participant represented the Faculty Senate, and another represented the
Administrative Staff Council. Also, whereas three of the six represented faculty administrators,
two represented professional administrative staff, and one represented administrative leaders.
Table 38 provides the summary of the attributes of all interview participants.

142
Table 38
Summary of Demographic Background of the Interviewees
Attributes Ben Susie Peggy Ruth Richie Dan Total

Gender Male x x x 3
Female x x x 3
Line of Work AAL x x x 3
ASL x x x 3
Current Top x x 2
Leadership Middle x x 2
Level Low x x 2
Years of 20 & over x (23) x (23) 2
Service (in 10 - 19 x (13) x(16) x(12) 3
parentheses: # x(3) 1
Under 10
of years)
Constituency F/Admin x x x 3
Representation A/Leaders x 1
PAS x x 2
F/ Senate x 1
ASC x 1
Note. AAL = Academic Affairs Line, ASL = Administrative Staff Line, F/Admin=Faculty
Administrators, A/Leaders=Administrative Leaders, PAS=Professional Administrative Staff,
F/Senate = Faculty Senate, and ASC = Administrative Staff Council.
Case Study Analysis Approach
Readers are reminded that this interview employed a case study approach; particularly it
utilized “a single case with embedded units” design (Creswell, 2007). For the qualitative strand
of this study, the case study tradition was considered appropriate for several reasons. For
example, this study was bounded by topic and a place of inquiry (Creswell, 2007). The study
investigated a given topic, SPM efforts, in a particular university, Midwestern University. Also,
it employed six case units (interviewees) to understand the topic being studied. Therefore, the
researcher applied within-case and cross-case data analysis methods with the six interviewees as
case units (Creswell, 2007). Through within-case analysis, the researcher analyzed voices of
each case unit under a priori major SPM themes. Then the researcher employed cross-case
analysis to generate and compare sub-themes across six case units (Creswell, 2007) using the
143
informant-by-variable matrix, which Miles and Huberman (1994) call a “Conceptually Clustered
Matrix”. From this matrix, further analysis resulted in a reduced, clustered table of key emergent
sub-themes for each a priori theme. In order to identify those sub-themes, data were organized
and coded under relevant a priori major themes provided by the researcher through the semi-
structured interview protocol (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Codes were clustered under common
sub-themes, whereby those sub-themes that were mentioned by at least two participants in the
matrix were included in the list of emergent sub-themes.
Findings from Within-case Analysis
The interview followed semi-structured questions; each interview question was treated
like a category of a broad a priori theme. Besides the item for background information, the
interview protocol included items for obtaining information in line with the following a priori
themes: (1) participant’s understanding of succession planning as a field of study and practice,
(2) participant’s evaluation of succession planning processes at the university, (3) participant’s
evaluation of the eight SPM practices at the university, and (4) participant’s views about any
other factor(s).
To remind the reader, the eight SPM practices examined were: (1) top leadership
commitment to SPM processes; (2) assessment of organizational leadership needs; (3) talent
management processes; (4) application of succession plan charts; (5) identification and
development of leadership potentials; (6) selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed
candidates; (7) internal recruitment and replacement of the outgoing leaders; and (8) integration
of SPM efforts into the organizational culture.
The reporting of within-case analysis starts with a brief description of the profile of the
interviewee followed by an analysis of each case unit in accordance with the above-mentioned
144
four a priori themes. To protect the identity of interviewees, pseudonyms are used; and, in some
cases, some information about the respondents is deliberately omitted.
Brief profile and analysis of Ben. The first participant, Ben, is a man who holds a
doctoral degree. Ben is currently occupying a senior administrative position in the Academic
Affairs Division of the Midwestern University. He actually heads one of the vital units of the
division. This participant has over 20 years of experience in his field; and, has been working at
Midwestern University for more than 13 years. Before joining Midwestern University, Ben
worked with two other universities in different states. He is also an associate professor in his area
of expertise. Ben’s views on four a priori SPM themes are presented below.
Understanding of succession planning. Ben appears to be unfamiliar with succession
planning as a field of study; but, he understands it as a practice. He posits,
As a practice, I presume … succession planning has to do with planning for

acknowledging the fact that both in leadership positions leave through retirement or a
new job and for whatever reason and it is a good practice to be mindful of having to
replace people and not simply start anew every time someone leaves their position or
changes their responsibility. I must say I’m not familiar with it as a field of study.
Evaluation of succession planning processes at the university. Regarding the evaluation
of the university’s succession planning processes, Ben assesses conducting of succession
planning as “poorly”. He admits that neither he nor his supervisors have been the product of
formal succession planning. Ben does not recall hearing any discussion regarding succession
planning at the higher level of the university’s administration. For example, Ben says,
Although I really am a fan of MU, I must say in this case I think it’s an area that MU has
done really poorly. I have had about four supervisors since I’ve been at MU to my
knowledge there has never been any succession planning whatsoever in terms of their
positions or frankly of my own.
145
Evaluation of the eight SPM practices. Concerning the practice of top leadership
commitment to succession planning processes, Ben believes that top leadership commitment is
“terrible” because leaders are simply unaware of the SPM approach. For instance, Ben states,
…I’m going to say that the university’s performance is probably, I’m sorry to say,
terrible …in terms of top leadership commitment and involvement…I don’t think it’s a
thing that anyone is fundamentally against; it’s just that - it’s an issue of awareness.”
With respect to assessment of organizational leadership needs, Ben feels that the top
university leaders do not even see the need for their own leadership development. For instance,
he posits, “There seems to be an assumption or a feeling at the university that when people are at
that level, they need no new development…. I think that’s really short-sighted.”
Concerning talent management processes, Ben believes that this practice is neither
systematized nor formalized; it takes place informally. Ben explains, “I think [talent
management] is done informally when a given leader, for whatever reason, recognizes someone
who reports to them as someone who has a lot of potential for growth….I don’t think it’s
systematic or organized in any way.”
Ben asserts that the practice of application of succession plan charts for leadership
positions is non-existent at the university. He states, “To my knowledge, this does not go on
anywhere in the university, that I’m aware of. I would rate the university’s performance as
nonexistent.”
Regarding the practice of identification and development of leadership potentials, Ben
posits that the practice occurs informally, on an individual basis, and in an ad hoc manner.
According to him, there is neither budget nor training for this practice. In his words, Ben states,
“I think it’s probably done informally on an ad hoc basis by individuals who recognize others
146
that they think have potential but again, it’s not systematic in anyway. There’s no budget for it,
there’s no training for it…”
Similar to the practice above, Ben suggests that the practice of selection, evaluation, and
rewarding of groomed candidates takes place in haphazard and non structured ways, depending
on efforts of individual managers. For instance, Ben says, “I think it’s very much what I’ve been
saying. I think it’s spotty, individualistic, and there’s no routine mechanism for doing it.”
According to Ben, internal recruitment to replace outgoing leaders occurs very rarely.
There is no “deliberate process” to recruit internally for replacing key leaders. According to Ben,
internal people often get interim positions, which often do not lead to their permanent
appointments. For example, Ben states, “I think it happens very seldom as I’ve looked at
different, let’s say members of the President’s cabinet, who have left the university over the
years.” Then he adds, “…it is not my perception that there really was a well thought of,
deliberate process or doing that sort of internal recruitment and replacement. I just don’t think,
generally speaking, it exists.”
Regarding the integration of succession planning into the organizational culture, Ben
posits that it is minimally taking place because succession planning at the subject university
largely depends on interests and experiences of individual leaders. According to him, succession
planning is currently not given a high priority by the top university leaders. For instance, he
asserts, “I think it’s minimal at this point. I think it really depends upon the interests and maybe
the experiences of individuals. I do think it’s very important.” He adds, “… I think really for this
to be successful, it has to be something that the President and Vice President to stand up and say
this is a priority; and currently, it is not.”

147
Other factors. For other factors, Ben mentions a few that he believes affect SPM at the
university. These include, lack of training for academic administrators as well as succession
planning not being a priority agenda and not being a part of institutional culture. For instance,
Ben states, “I think, very frankly, it’s a matter of most people, at least in academic
administration, not having training, very frankly, in management practices but having training in
the area of individual sole disciplines.” Also, he suggests,
If we could do something once a month, let’s say the topic in September is succession
planning and in October it’s, oh I don’t know, executive compensation, and November
it’s budgetary practices, and December it’s legal issues. I think we have the internal talent
in MU that we don’t even need to hire people and spend money for an outsider to do
these things.
Brief profile and analysis of Susie. The second participant, Susie, is a female
administrative staff member who is working in the Dean’s office of one of the colleges. Susie
has been working at the Midwestern University for about 16 years, 12 years of which she has
been serving as the assistant to the Dean. Susie holds a bachelors degree and she is currently
working on her master’s degree. Aside from her administrative work, Susie serves on the
Administrative Staff Council of the university. Susie’s views on four main a priori SPM themes
are described below.
Understanding of succession planning. Susie is not familiar with succession planning
as a field of study; but, she indicates understanding of it as a practice. For example, Susie says,
Um, I am not terribly familiar with it as a field of study. I haven’t done a lot of research
in that area; and, as a practice, I can apply it here at this institution. I’ve been here for a
long time. … I think that the efforts are made to make it happen…
Evaluation of succession planning processes at the university. Susie’s evaluation of the
university’s succession planning is a mix of positive and negative views. According to Susie,
succession planning depends on the type of individual supervisor one has. Some supervisors help
148
their followers to grow, while others do not. For example, Susie has personally experienced
grooming from her supervisors. This is an example of Susie’s words,
Well, I will tell you what I think it is dependent on—I feel that it is dependent on the
individual supervisor. And I think that’s across the board. I had—I’ve had supervisors
that supported me and gave me responsibility and opportunity and others who haven’t. I
mean, I’ve been here 16 years. So, you have a mix of that. And I think that is indicative
of the university as a whole.
Evaluation of the eight SPM practices. Regarding top leadership commitment to
succession planning, Susie perceives the practice as existent; though she points out that the top
leadership is often filled by people recruited externally. For example, Susie says, “I think the top
leadership commitment is there. Although …in top leadership positions…you don’t often see
them internally moving up that ladder. More often than not, they come from outside the
institution ….”
Concerning assessment of organizational leadership needs, Susie believes that now the
university is moving in this direction because of the transition the university is passing through.
Susie thinks the transition is likely to lead to putting the right people in the right positions. She
posits, “…I think, that from the top down … right now, probably, more than ever, I do think
they’re focusing on [assessment of organizational leadership needs]…Because they know we’re
in a transition period right now….”
With respect to talent management processes, Susie believes that the practice is not a
strong part of the university’s culture. She says, “In all honesty, I think that’s a really difficult - I
don’t think that happens - mentoring. I don’t think it happens enough here.”
Moreover, Susie indicates that she is not aware of the practice of application of
succession plan charts being used in succession processes. For example, she states, “I don’t have
149
any knowledge of - in my area - that happening…. I just don’t know that there’s a plan or
guideline. And that doesn’t mean it doesn’t, I’m just not aware of it.”
Concerning the practice of identification and development of leadership potentials, Susie
reveals that the practice occasionally happens at the university; but, it is dependent on the
manager. For instance, she states, “…I see both of those things occurring across campus. I see
both…so many times, it dependents on who’s around the employee…. There are places where
it’s happening but there are places we could do better.”
According to Susie, the practice of selection, evaluating and rewarding of groomed
candidates happens accidentally. She believes that more effort is needed to have this practice
become functional because people have potential. For example, Susie asserts, “Sometimes I feel
that it’s almost by accident. I almost feel that somebody’s talent or skill will accidentally
emerge.” She adds, “…I think it would be a wonderful thing for the university to try to make a
concerted effort to look at…say we really need to focus a little bit more on moving the
people….”
As for the practice of internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders, Susie
notes that being an internal candidate does not give one an edge at the studied university.
According to Susie, although occasionally internal candidates are considered, the tendency is to
recruit externally believing that unknown externals are better than the known internals. For
instance Susie posits,
I almost think sometimes, it’s skewed against the internal—not intentionally….Where the
person who’s been here for ten years—they may be doing a fine job, but the lure of, “my
goodness, we’ve got this person who sounds like a star over here,” rather than looking at
the proven performer who could go to the next level and raise their performance to meet
that.
150
Finally, concerning the practice of integration of SPM into the organizational culture;
Susie observes that succession planning is not yet firmly embedded in the institutional culture.
Nevertheless, she believes that the situation is now starting to change with the new strategic plan
that speaks to rewarding talent. Susie says, “…We just did a strategic planning document for the
university. And it talks about rewarding talent, so I mean I think we are making strides.” She
adds, however, “… I wouldn’t say that I feel that university-wide…the culture—that [SPM] is
firmly embedded; that we look at our internal people and try to find places for them to be
successful at the next level.”
Other factors. Susie identifies several factors affecting succession planning such as
finances. Other factors include budgetary constraints, increased workload of the people,
uncertainty about the future, and leadership transition at the studied university. For example,
Susie posits, “…I think is really critical right now and that’s finances…. Secondarily right now,
our budget and the issues that we’re facing economically as an institution….” Also, Susie
explains, “…we’re on a skeleton staff and we’re all trying to just—we’re like mice on the wheel
sometimes trying to get all of our work done and with less resources, meaning human capital….”
Moreover, she reveals, “…There are a lot of big issues that we’re facing right now; and again,
there is transition in our leadership.”
Brief profile and analysis of Peggy. The third participant, Peggy, is a female Dean of
one of the colleges (a different college from where Susie works). Peggy has been working at the
subject university for over 23 years, where she has climbed through the ranks from untenured
assistant professor to the Dean position in the same college. Her perspectives on four main a
priori SPM themes are presented below.

151
Understanding of succession planning. Peggy does not understand succession planning
as a field of study, except the definition. For example, she states,
I don’t understand it at all. I have no formal education in leadership, per say. I know the
definition of “succession planning” but I don’t know about it as a field of study, I haven’t
studied it myself, so definitely I don’t consider myself in an expert in that.
However, judging from how she responded to other questions, it seems she has some
informal experience of succession planning. For instance, she mentioned in one occasion that she
is a product of “succession planning.” In another incidence, she disclosed her participation in a
certain state succession planning program.
Evaluation of succession planning processes at the university. Peggy affirms that the
university does not have a formalized way of doing succession planning; nevertheless, she
acknowledges that she, personally, is the product of an informal succession planning within her
college. This is what she reports,
I don’t know that I can speak about the university’s “succession planning,” because I
don’t even really know if there really is one…. I’m the product of “succession planning”,
because that previous Dean had it in mind to give me various leadership experiences and
entice me into, at least, seeing myself in those roles…but in a systematic way, I don’t
know that the university does have a systematic plan of succession for their leaders….
Evaluation of the eight SPM practices. Regarding the practice of top leadership
commitment, Peggy believes that a certain level of commitment of top leadership to succession
planning exists because there are people who have climbed through the leadership ranks from
within. For, example, she posits, “I think the best evidence is by looking at the people who were
in positions. Again, I’m one of those individuals. We have other people in top positions that
have come up through the ranks…” Also, Peggy asserts, “…I believe the philosophy and practice
for advancement for individuals is here, alive and well at MU.”

152
As for the assessment of organizational leadership needs, Peggy believes that it is
conducted informally and without any deliberate planning. For instance, she says, “I really don’t
know how to respond to that. Again, that implies that the university has a systematic plan. I
don’t know that they do. I think it’s all informal and I think it’s ad hoc.”
Concerning talent management processes, Peggy reveals that it is an individualized
practice that occurs under some leaders. She posits, “I think it’s really individualized. So, you
have some individuals who are very conscientious and good about providing opportunities for
people to advance; and others never give it a thought.”
With respect to the application of succession plan charts, Peggy asserts that her college
does not employ written down succession plan charts. Nevertheless, she does informally practice
succession processes without any written charts. In fact, Peggy reveals that she personally, as the
Dean, knows well the ability levels of her subordinates and she knows how to utilize them albeit
without any formal plan. This is what she explains, “…I can speak for my college; I don’t have a
kind of a written plan. My college is small enough that I know every individual faculty and staff
member. I know what their talents are.” She adds, “I know exactly where my leaders are and if I
have a vacancy, I know how to tap into them; but do I have that written down? No.”
Concerning the practice of identification and development of leadership potentials, Peggy
posits that, especially now when many people are leaving, this practice takes place “out of
necessity.” However, she is not sure whether this practice is institutionally systematized. For
instance, she states, “Yes, it does out of necessity...particularly in today’s economic climate,
where we know if we lose individuals, it doesn’t necessarily mean you automatically have to hire
someone from without.”

153
In regards to the practice of selection, evaluation, and rewarding the groomed leadership
candidates, Peggy focused on the evaluation and rewarding. She maintains that the practice of
evaluation is systematized; it is formally conducted in line with the university’s charter and other
hiring requirements. Regarding rewards, Peggy explains that there are both intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards. The university offers leadership stipends, bonuses, and opportunities to attend
conferences. For example, she posits,
I mean, all of the individuals in the administrative roles, in leadership roles, have a formal
evaluation process. That’s directly governed by a process; if it is faculty, it is charter-
driven. And with administrative staff it’s related to HR hiring practices…. Some
individuals are better at evaluating than others. But there is a systematic evaluation
process…. There are some mechanisms on campus that will give special stipends or
bonuses for people who are in various positions. There are sometimes other opportunities
for attending leadership conferences….
Concerning internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders, Peggy asserts that
it happens widely by following hiring processes. The university has no rules forbidding hiring
from within, she insists. For instance, she posits, “I think it’s very prevalent. Again, we go
through our hiring processes that are required… there are no either spoken or unspoken rules that
say you cannot hire from within.”
Regarding integration of SPM in the organizational culture, Peggy does not explicitly
indicate whether succession planning is integrated in the organizational culture or not.
Nonetheless, she points to the Deans’ annual college planning process as a practice that is
somewhat embedded in the culture. She seems to suggest that Deans’ annual planning process
consists of a succession planning element. For example, she explains,
I would say at least that the Deans that when we do our annual plans, it’s always all about
what kind of resources do we need for the future, who’s leaving, who do we need to bring
in, and what do we need to request. So, I think that part is embedded in our process, just
by the very nature of how we secure resources…. So, anyone who is in a leadership
position needs to be going through that annual process to fill out positions.
154
Other Factors. Peggy perceives money as the main factor for succession planning. She
says “…when budgets are tight, that’s when people formally or informally really look at the
succession planning than at any other time.” Other factors identified by Peggy include the
imminent loss of a significant numbers of academic and administrative leaders due to
organizational changes taking place at the university. Peggy says, “…we are prone to lose a good
number of faculty and administrative in the big roles, and many of them in leadership roles. So
that’s going to force this [succession planning] even more.”
Brief profile and analysis of Ruth. Ruth, the fourth participant, is a woman holding one
of the top administrative positions at Midwestern University. She has been working at the
university for about 12 years in the same capacity but with varying titles. Ruth is familiar with
human resource management issues. Her views on four main a priori SPM themes follow.
Understanding of succession planning. Ruth does not understand succession planning
as a field of study; but, she has a good practical experience of it. In fact, she mentions that she
constantly ensures two of her subordinates are prepared for her position. She responds, “I
probably don’t understand it as a field of study as well as some others might. As a practice, it is
clearly the practice of planning for individual’s departure.”
Evaluation of succession planning processes at the university. Regarding the evaluation
of university’s SPM processes, Ruth reveals from her perspectives that the institution has no
structured, formal succession planning. The following statements illustrate her comments, “We
have absolutely no organized or formal succession planning. It’s done on an informal basis and it
really depends on the individual manager involved.” Ruth also posits, “…And, since we don’t
have a formal process, that doesn’t occur at all…. Therefore, that doesn’t happen well at all.”
Moreover, according to Ruth, the university is not good at identifying internal replacements. She
155
says, “…The thing I don’t think we do it all well here…is any kind of informal assessment of
who else outside of chains of command, might actually be eligible or able to do the job….”
Evaluation of the eight SPM practices. Ruth believes that there is some commitment of
the top university leadership to succession planning. For instance, she asserts, “It’s very
informal, but very strong. We have a President, and we have a Provost, a new one that really
believes in it from a process prospective. But again…we don’t have a formal process….” She
adds, “…top leadership of this institution is very supportive in an informal basis….”
Concerning assessment of the organizational leadership needs, Ruth mentions that the
practice is starting to take place. For example, she states, “I actually think that’s beginning to
happen here, informally…. Again, I think it’s happening very informally, not formally.”
Regarding the practice of talent management processes, Ruth says there is “a lot of room to
improve.” Also, she posits, “Again, it’s very decentralized. It’s very…individual manager
driven.” In relation to the application of succession plan charts for key positions, Ruth firmly
believes that this practice does not exist at the Midwestern University.
With regard to identification and development of leadership potentials, Ruth posits that it
occurs informally in certain units but based on individual efforts. Ruth suggests that a small
effort has started in fall 2009 with a group of 20 individuals being trained in leadership as a pilot
initiative. For instance, she narrates,
This is not formalized yet at this university. It is individual-driven and spotty. But new
efforts have started in the fall of 2009. We started an initiative of identifying and training
middle level managers—from classified and administrative staff line—who have
leadership potential or interests.
Regarding the practice of selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed leaders, Ruth
perceives that it does not happen well at the university. Also, she asserts that tenure track and
academic development are not tied to succession planning and the staff side tends to keep people
156
for a long period without advancement. For example, she says, “…it’s clearly you’re picking up
on where we’re not doing this well.” Ruth explains further,
So you go from assistant, to associate, to full. But, along that way, we don’t start to ask
and/or identify not only do you maybe want to study the life cycle of a flea, but you
know, would you want to grow up someday and be an administrator? We just don’t ask
it.
Regarding internal recruitment and replacement of the outgoing leaders, Ruth reveals that
the practice occurs at the lower leadership level (e.g., chairs). According to Ruth, about 60% of
the internal applicants from administrative staff line get jobs, whereas the rate could be higher on
the faculty side. However, for the higher leadership level (provost and above), the tendency is to
recruit outside. All these practices, according to Ruth, are taking place informally. Another issue
raised by Ruth is that those who are hired internally to take leadership positions are not well
prepared for that. For instance, Ruth asserts, “…but I don’t think we’ve done anything to train
people to take the positions.”
With regard to integration of SPM into the organizational culture, Ruth asserts that it is
yet to take place; it is just starting to be considered as a strategy. In fact, Ruth reveals that many
university members erroneously think internal grooming and recruiting is somewhat illegal. For
example, she explains,
It’s not in the culture and it’s just beginning to be talked about as a strategy. I think a lot
of that is actually, believe it or not, driven by individual’s perception than the law
discourages it. There is really this belief, ‘If I groom an internal candidate for a position,
I somewhere have violated the law.’ Which is not true by the way; but it is a perception
that is pervasive on this campus that we need to work on.
Other Factors. Ruth points out some factors that affect SPM at the university. They
include lack of understanding/misperception about hiring laws, SPM being not part of the
organizational priorities or culture, and expanded workload due to downsizing. Ruth alleges that
increased workload limits people’s time to think on succession issues. For instance, Ruth says,
157
People really have not made [succession planning] a priority, and therefore they do not
give it time. Unless they’re willing to have it as part of our culture and therefore part of a
priority, none of us will ever have enough time to have done everything that we need to
get done.
Also, Ruth adds, “…I think especially nowadays, when we continue to shrink in size but
continue to have our duties and responsibilities expanded, people only have so much energy.”
Brief profile and analysis of Richie. Participant number five, Richie, is a male
professor. Richie is currently serving as the Chair of one of Midwestern University’s academic
departments. He has been working at the university since 1986. Richie has climbed through the
ranks from untenured assistant professor to the position of the Chair in the same university.
Besides his faculty administrator responsibilities, Richie is also a representative on the Faculty
Senate of Midwestern University. His perceptions about the four a priori SPM themes are
presented below.
Understanding of succession planning. Richie indicates that he does not understand
succession planning as a specialty, whereas as a practice, Richie reveals that he has personally
experienced succession planning through being prepared by his previous supervisors to take their
leadership positions. For example, he states,
As a field of study, I am not familiar with it but I could understand how it would emerge
since I know some of the literature that in recent years is grouped under the heading of
Leadership Studies. As a practice …I can only cite what I’ve already said; in even as an
untenured assistant professor, I was given tasks to do as part of departmental service that
I see now prepared me for certain tasks.
Evaluation of succession planning processes at the university. Richie’s evaluation of
the university’s SPM efforts is not different from other interviewees. He asserts that there are no
formal mechanisms for succession planning at the university. Richie expresses,
I do know that the university annually begins each year with retreats for department
chairs and directors. It is not uncommon for issues of departmental governance to be part
of those workshops…I have not attended specifically devoted to succession planning but
158
I have been to workshops that deal with strategic planning…But beyond that, I don’t
know of any other formal mechanisms in place for that.
Evaluation of the eight SPM practices. In regards to top leadership commitment to
succession planning, Richie did not explicitly indicate his views. Instead, he asserts that there has
been no succession planning intervention from the top leadership in his departmental search
processes. For example, Richie states,
I am not aware, in my own experience, of any Provost level or above interventions for
succession planning in my department. I do know that I was interviewed by my Dean
before I began the process of running to be elected by faculty.
Regarding assessment of the organizational leadership needs, Richie has less to say. He
just wishes all interims be properly filled; while assuming that all top leadership changes follow
some kind of leadership needs assessment. For instance, he remarks,
I don’t know what to say to that. I mean, we have all key leadership positions as they are
currently configured, are filled…. I would like to see that those interim lines be reviewed,
the search would be done, and that pertinent people would be hired. Beyond that, I can’t
answer that question.
As for the practice of talent management processes, Richie is glad that this practice is
mentioned in the current university’s strategic plan as one of the anticipated institutional
endeavors. He notes, “I am pleased that the university’s new strategic plan…. I am pleased that
there is a section devoted specifically to talent…. I’m glad that the new strategic plan speaks
specifically to that.”
Concerning the application of succession charts, Richie believes that the practice takes
place informally at the departmental level. He narrates, “I know that on the department level, it’s
not uncommon for Chairs, like me, that have been here for awhile to talk openly within the
faculty about who would be interested in this in the future.” Richie usually talks with his
followers face-to-face about their possibility to take his chair position.

159
Regarding the practice of identification and development of leadership potentials, Richie
believes that it is one of his jobs to identify and develop leadership capacity of his followers.
Richie indicates that,
I view this as one of my job requirements as Chair. I think you have to give faculty
opportunities to identify leadership responsibilities that interest them and also give them
the opportunity to develop their individual leadership skills by doing assigned tasks….
That’s the way we work in this unit. I don’t know if that’s across the board; but I know
that’s how this department works.
With respect to the practice of selection, evaluation, and rewarding groomed candidates,
Richie decries rewarding people differently as a means of retaining future leadership potentials.
He supports the traditional merit-based rewards. He explains that those who play leadership roles
are asked to justify it for consideration in their merit rewards. According to him, no
differentiated rates should be applied in academic environment. For example, Richie asserts,
We ask individuals to talk about things that they do that others in the faculty may or may
not know about. And that is an opportunity for someone who has done a leadership role
behind the scenes somewhere to report out about that. And through that process, they
build a case for merit.
As for internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders, Richie believes that
there is a need to balance between internal and external recruitments. According to Richie,
however, the trend at the university is to hire externally for the upper level leaders and to hire
internally for the lower levels. Moreover, Richie reveals that external hiring occurs due to
different reasons, including the issue of status, mitigation of groupthink syndrome, and pressure
from the Board of Trustees. For instance, Richie comments,
I think internal candidates should be given equal consideration and status. Sometimes, I
think organizations need external hires to get us out of groupthink phenomenon.
However, I think sometimes you’re not, unfortunately, because you are internal, you’re
not valued as much…. Here, at MU, for all of the middle management…, I think, people
want to hire internally. That helps to perpetuate the culture that people work so hard to
build. However, I think at the very top levels, the idea is you need to hire from without
for a variety of reasons.
160
Regarding SPM integration into the culture, Richie believes it is a haphazard situation.
He points out that for some departments, it could be working well. For instance, Richie suggests,
“I think it’s hit-and-miss. I think when it works well is when departments, over a period of time,
have an environment that promotes the development of leadership skills across the members of
the faculty.” On the other hand, Richie asserts that with the current culture it is difficult for
faculty members to anticipate administrative positions when they are hired. He shares, “I think
any businesslike model where you’re hiring someone with expectation that this would happen, I
think it would be really hard in our current culture for that.”
Other Factors. Richie mentions a few factors that may affect succession planning. These
include knowing the right time to hire externally or internally; money—for sometimes it is
cheaper to hire internally; lack of university-wide discussion about succession planning, which
leaves people employing their own succession planning devices; decision-making mechanism;
and lack of succession planning guidelines from the top leadership level. For example, Richie
narrates,
So, I think timing is central to that…I don’t like to say this, but I also wonder if it’s
money. Can we get somebody cheaper if we hire internally? I know that if you hire a
search, it’s very expensive…Well, the fact that there is not a campus wide discussion for
the necessity for units to do succession planning tells me it happens hit-and-miss…I think
that the question of how are decisions made, hold back certain things… It might be
useful, if there was from a Provost some guidelines or suggestions. You know what I
mean?
Brief profile and analysis of Daniel. Finally, the sixth participant, Daniel, is a male
professional administrative staff member working in the Human Resource Division of the
Midwestern University. Daniel represents administrative staff serving as professionals in their
fields but with no managerial title. Daniel has been working at the Midwestern University for
only about three years. Before joining the university, he was working as the Director of a unit in
161
one of the Midwestern counties. Daniel’s views on the four a priori SPM themes are presented
below.
Understanding of succession planning. Daniel, like the other interviewees, does not
understand succession planning as the field of study; but, he understands it as a practice. He says,
The majority of my understanding of it is as a practice would be the business process of

grooming individuals as they come into companies on up to take over leadership roles in
the company. It can be done from bringing people in that you see as having a future to
take on those roles and it can also be done from identifying line level employees who
have demonstrated excellent leadership skills.
Evaluation of succession planning processes at the university. Daniel’s evaluation of
the university’s succession planning processes is a mixed one as he views some divisions doing
relatively better than others. However, Daniel believes that succession planning at the university
is informal, unstructured, and left to individual divisions to do it on their own ways. For
example, he reports,
I think they’ve really left it down to the individual divisions to do all their own methods
of it where some divisions you can see it strongly in place and other divisions, it seems to
be a much more casual process, which you know, it goes on behind the scenes but it
doesn’t seem to be a much structured, wrote out plan, method.
Evaluation of the eight SPM practices. First, Daniel perceives the practice of top
leadership commitment as a weak one due to constant leadership turnover and lack of prepared
replacements. For instance, he relates,
In my three years that I’ve been at the university, there’s actually been a fairly large
amount of top leadership turnover…. Most of the top leaders have come and gone. For
the most part, I think those were filled from outside people, which I would consider a
weakness in our leadership planning succession.
At the same time, Daniel sees new promising indications towards succession planning
from the new President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Daniel indicates that,
I think I’ve seen a lot from the President…as an internal person shows that she knew that
a big responsibility of her ‘presidentship’ was grooming some internal people…. But, I
162
have seen in the CFO’s area a more defined leadership succession now with the
establishment of assistant controllers and positions of that nature that are being groomed
for higher up roles.
Concerning the practice of assessment of organizational leadership needs, Daniel believes
it is in its early stage. For instance, he points out, “I think I’ve seen a big movement towards
[that] when new employees are being brought in…. I think they’re in the right track. They are in
their early stages of building a good succession plan.”
With respect to talent management processes, Daniel reveals that talent management is
less practiced at the studied university. Nonetheless, he points out that there is a group of
individuals attending a leadership training seminar, albeit without a proper follow-up
mechanism. Daniel says, “I would probably assess [talent management] a little lower than what
you see at a lot of companies. I haven’t really seen much like mentoring programs, stuff of that
nature on campus.”
Regarding the practice of application of succession plan charts, Daniel asserts that there
is little formal application of succession charts at the university as much of succession procedure,
especially at the department level, is done informally. For instance, he explains,
There is very little formal stuff out there. There’s a good deal of informal just through the
positions where an assistant, associate director, and they’ll move up through the charts
that way. At the higher levels, there is not. I see a lot of department levels that it’s fairly
known [that] when this director leaves, the associate director is going to be stepping
up….
With reference to identification and development of leadership potentials, Daniel notes
that the practice happens informally as efforts are driven by individual leaders. For example, He
says, “It is individual-driven initiative; it is not formalized process. Occasionally, supervisors
encourage workers to attend leadership training program at the [newly initiated] Leadership
Training Institute of the university.” Pertaining to selection, evaluation, and rewarding of

163
groomed candidates, Daniel believes that it is more dependent on the division. He points out that
those attending leadership seminar do not get any incentives for that. For instance, Daniel
reports,
…it’s kind of done … more on a division level than campus-wide. I know through the
leadership classes that they do that there is a nomination procedure…to become a part of
that group…there is no method to directly compensate the people that have gone through
those classes.
Concerning internal recruitment to replace outgoing leaders, Daniel rates it low; and he
asserts that in his three years service at the university, he has not seen any internally recruited
leader replacing the departing key leaders. He suggests, “In the time I’ve been here, out of all the
key leaders I’ve seen come and go, I have not seen any of them replaced by an internal
candidate. So I would kind of rate it low.”
As for the practice of integration of SPM in the organizational culture, Daniel suggests
that the integration process is in its infancy; and, that more is needed to be done at the university.
For instance, he indicates, “I think it’s growing now. Like I said, it’s in the early stages; I know
here in [Human Resource] we are implementing some things that will hopefully increase that.”
Daniel adds though that “…there’s a lot of ground to be gained.”
Other Factors. Daniel identifies several factors affecting succession planning at the
university. These issues include high turnover of key leadership, lack of succession planning
guidance from the top leadership, lack of a culture for seeking internal advancement, the current
economic situation in the Midwestern region, looking outside instead of internal vertical
movement, international competition for talent, the salary structure, and the prestige of the
university.
For example, Daniel posits, “I think one of the big factors that have affected it in the last
few years was the high turnover of key leadership; because succession planning, like long term
164
planning, really needs guidance from the top down.” Also, he adds, “Other, I guess it’s a very big
culture factor…. A lot of people just aren’t in the culture of looking, ‘How do I advance?’…. I
think the current economic status of This State and the Midwest….”
Findings from Cross-case Analysis
As Table 39 displays, a number of key sub-themes emerged from cross-case analysis.
These are briefly mentioned under each of the four a priori interview themes.
Understanding of succession planning as a field of study and as a practice. Two key
sub-themes emerged under this a priori theme. The first one is succession planning not being
familiar as a field of study and the other one is succession planning being familiar as a practice.
Cross-case analysis indicates that all six interviewees are not familiar with succession planning
as a field of study, though they recognize it as a practice. The stunning thing is that even those
participants who are dealing with human resources affairs are poorly informed about the field.
Evaluation of succession planning processes at the university. Under this a priori
theme, five sub-themes emerged that depict how interview participants view the performance of
succession planning at the university. These are informal processes, individual-driven, mixed
performance evaluation, unsystematic succession planning, and lack of succession planning
training or discussion. Apart from Ben, who assesses succession planning at the subject
university as poor, all other participants provide a somewhat mixed performance evaluation;
while characterizing the university’s succession planning processes as informal and individual-
driven. Also, some participants indicate that not only is the informal succession planning at the
subject university unsystematic, but also no training or discussion is taking place about the
subject matter.
165
Table 39
Clustered Sub-themes from Six Interviewees
A Priori Major Theme Emergent Sub-themes

Understanding of Succession Not familiar as a field of study
Planning (SP) as a field of
study and as a practice Familiar as a practice
Evaluation of succession Informal processes/efforts Unsystematic SP
planning processes at the Individual-driven No SP training/discussion
university Mixed performance evaluation
Top leadership Commitment Mixed performance evaluation
& involvement in SP  Inadequate commitment
 Visible commitment
Informal practice
Assessment of organizational Informal practice
leadership needs At infancy stage
Talent management Mixed performance evaluation Lack of institutional
processes  Not happening well support
 Happening
Informal practice
Individual-driven
Application of SP charts Non-existent (formal charts)
Informal practice (at unit level)
Identification and Informal practice New leadership training
development of leadership Individual-driven initiative started in 2009
Mixed performance evaluation
Selection, evaluation, & Mixed perception of formality Mixed performance
rewarding of groomed  Informal practice evaluation
leadership candidates  Formal (usual guidelines)  happening
Dependent on college/division  not happening well
Internal recruitment & Mixed performance evaluation Informal internal vs.
replacement of outgoing key  Seldom happening (at top external hiring pattern
leaders level)  Lower level - internal
 Happening (at lower level) hiring
 Top level - external
hiring
Integration of SPM into SPM not well integrated Important practice
organizational culture Integration at infancy stage Individual-driven efforts
(situation starting to change)
Any factors affecting Lack of training/discussion on SP Money and budgets
succession planning? SP not an institutional priority Increased workload of
SP not a part of the culture administrators
Lack of institutional guidance High leadership turnover /
transition
166
Evaluation of the eight SPM Practices. For this a priori theme, emergent sub-themes
are presented for each SPM practice. First of all, it is important to note a general trend that most
SPM practices were perceived as happening informally and driven by individual leader efforts.
Also, participants’ evaluation of the performance of the practices tended to be mixed. The
emergent sub-themes for each SPM practice are briefly presented below.
Top leadership commitment to succession planning. Two sub-themes emerged under
this practice, mixed performance evaluation and informal practice. Respondents indicated a
mixed performance evaluation in the sense that a section of participants perceive top leadership
commitment to succession planning as inadequate, while others believe the practice is visible but
informally occurring. For example, whereas Ben assesses it as having a “terrible performance”
and Daniel sees high turnover and constant replacement of top leadership by externals as a
weakness; Susie, Peggy, and Ruth believe that the top leadership commitment to succession
planning is noticeable, albeit informally. In fact, Susie and Peggy point to the existing practice of
recruiting internals for low and middle leadership as indicators of the existing support by top
leadership. Moreover, Daniel also believes that some top leaders, the new President and Chief
Finance Officer (CFO), are seeking to groom internals.
Assessment of organizational leadership needs. Two key sub-themes emerged under
this practice, informal practice and at the infancy stage. Whereas Peggy and Ruth believe that
the practice occurs informally, Susie and Daniel believe that the practice is starting to take shape
due to the current transition situation at the university; so the practice is at the infancy stage.
Talent management processes. Four sub-themes emerged under this practice. The first
one is mixed performance evaluation depicting two perceptions about the practice, not
happening well and happening. The second emergent sub-theme is informal practice depicting
167
that talent management processes occur informally in some units. The third sub-theme,
individual-driven, depicts that the practice depends on the individual-leader’s initiatives. For
example, two participants—Susie and Daniel—do not see this practice taking place well at the
university because talent is hardly noticed and no mentoring program exists. Ben asserts that
“there is no formal mechanism in place”, whereas Peggy and Ruth posit that talent management
is conducted informally; it is individual-driven. Moreover, the fourth sub-theme emerged from
comments made by Ben and Susie. Ben reveals that the practice of talent management processes
is not supported by the university. Similarly, Susie echoes the same point by asserting that the
practice is not a part of the institutional culture.
Application of succession planning charts for key leadership positions. There were two
sub-themes that emerged under this practice, non-existent and informal practice. Ben, Susie, and
Ruth perceive the practice of application of succession plan charts as non-existent; whereas
others posit that the practice occurs informally, especially at the department/chair level.
Identification and development of leadership potentials. This practice generated four
sub-themes: informal practice, individual-driven, mixed performance evaluation, and new
leadership training initiative. Peggy suggests that this practice happens now “out of necessity”;
Richie asserts that it is the chair’s job to identify and develop leadership skills across faculty
members; and Daniel reveals that some supervisors occasionally encourage workers to attend a
newly started leadership training seminar. Thus, these three participants show that the practice is
occurring, albeit informally. At the same time, four participants—Ben, Susie, Ruth, and Daniel—
indicate that the practice is mostly individual-driven. Susie and Richie, on the other hand,
perceive the practice as having a mixed performance evaluation, whereby some do it relatively
168
better than others. Moreover, Ruth and Daniel mention about the new leadership training
initiative that started in September 2009 for administrative and classified staff.
Selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed candidates. Under this practice, three
sub-themes were identified. These are, mixed perception of formality—informal practice and
formal practice, mixed performance evaluation—happening and not happening well, and
dependent on college/division. Regarding mixed perception of formality, Ben views this practice
occurring informally—without “routine mechanism” and in “spotty” manner. Susie seems to
support Ben as she asserts that the practice is taking place “almost by accident”. Conversely,
Peggy believes that evaluation and rewarding of groomed candidates happens formally through
existing traditional university charter guidelines; so does Richie, who spoke more about the
leadership rewards that they should continue to rely on using the existing merit processes.
Concerning mixed performance evaluation, Ruth and Daniel assert that the practice is not
happening well, whereas Peggy believes the occurrence of the practice varies with units as some
units are doing relatively better than others. In addition, Peggy and Daniel indicate that the
performance of this practice depends on individual units—colleges or divisions.
Internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing key leaders. This practice generated
two sub-themes. The first is the mixed performance evaluation that speaks to the fact that some
participants view the practice happening but at lower leadership level, while other participants
perceive the practice as seldom happening but at the top leadership level. This perspective is
closely linked to the second sub theme, informal internal vs. external hiring pattern. This
informal pattern reveals an interesting succession approach occurring at Midwestern
University—the lower leadership level tends to hire internally, while the top leadership level
169
tends to recruit externally. Ruth, however, points to a unique indication that the Dean’s level is
characterized by both the internal and external recruitment.
Integration of SPM into the organizational culture. Four sub-themes are observed
under this practice, SPM not well integrated, integration at infancy stage, individual-driven, and
important practice. Regarding SPM not well integrated, three participants, Susie and Ruth,
suggest that succession planning is not firmly embedded in the organizational culture of the
university. In fact, Daniel posits that there is “a lot of ground to be gained.” Richie, on the other
hand, perceives integration of succession planning as a hit-and-miss performance. Conversely,
Ruth, and Daniel believe that the situation is starting to change indicating that integration of
succession planning is at the infancy stage. All views notwithstanding, Ben and Peggy concede
that integration of succession planning into the institutional culture is an important practice;
hence it should be a priority of the university’s top leadership. Yet, according to participants,
integration of SPM into the culture is more represented in individual-driven efforts.
Other factors identified by interview participants. Seven sub-themes, or additional
factors, were identified under this a priori theme. These include (1) lack of training/discussion
about succession planning, (2) succession planning not being a priority, (3) succession planning
not being part of a culture, (4) lack of institutional guidance, (5) money and budgets, (6)
increased workload of administrators, and (7) high leadership turnover and transition.
Results of Document Review
Types of Documents Reviewed and Issues of Interest
As shown in Table 40, four types of policy documents were reviewed: The Academic
Charter, the Administrative Staff Handbook, the MU Strategic Plan, and a set of policies of one
selected college, Off-campus College. With reference to Off-campus College policies, the
170
researcher reviewed the following documents: (1) Governance Document Policy, (2) Faculty and
Staff Handbook, (3) Promotion and Tenure Review Procedures, and (4) Continuing Nontenure
Track Faculty Promotion Policies and Procedures.
Table 40
Succession Planning Practices Mentioned in the University Policy Documents
Succession Planning Type of Document

Practices Academic A/Staff College Strategic Plan
Charter Handbook Policies
Assessment of organ. N N N N
leadership needs
Talent management S S S Y
processes
Application of N N N N
Succession plan charts
Identification and N N N S
development of
Selection, evaluation, and Y Y Y S
rewarding of internally
groomed candidates
Internal recruitment and N N N N
replacement of outgoing
leaders
Top leadership N N N S
commitment to SPM
Integration of SPM in the N N N S
Note. Y=the practice mentioned, N=the practice not mentioned, S=the practice somewhat
mentioned.
In reviewing these documents, the researcher investigated the evidence of policy
statements linked to succession planning efforts in general and the eight SPM practices in
particular. These SPM practices, which represented broad a priori themes, include assessment of
organizational leadership needs; talent management processes; application of succession plan
charts; identification and development of leadership potentials; selection, evaluation, and
rewarding of internally groomed candidates; internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing

171
leaders; top leadership commitment to SPM; and integration of SPM into the organizational
culture. Table 40 summarizes the level of presence of the eight SPM practices in the policy
statements.
Findings from Document Review
In brief, for the most part, the documents reviewed do not mention succession planning
and management as a fundamental part of their policy statements. Neither is a policy for ensuring
a constant supply of internally groomed and qualified leaders evident. In fact, most of the SPM
practices are not incorporated in the reviewed university documents or the policy documents of
the Off-campus College.
A few policy statements that were observable are those related to the practice of
selection, evaluation, and rewarding of faculty and administrative staff, the practice which is
mentioned in all four categories of documents reviewed (see Table 40). Also, the practice of
talent management processes is evident in the university’s strategic plan. Moreover, professional
development (but not leadership development) is somewhat mentioned in university documents.
However, these policy statements are not tied to succession planning requirements since
succession planning as a concept is not recognized in these policies.
For instance, the Academic Charter and the Administrative Staff Handbook contain
stipulations about procedures for selection, evaluation, and rewarding academic and
administrative employees; but, without making any reference to the need of internal leadership
growing or talent grooming and retention for future application. Although these policy
provisions do not speak directly to succession planning, they testify to the fact that adequate
selection, evaluation, and rewarding play important role in the university’s succession processes.
One specific example is that the charter empowers the Vice President of Academic Affairs
172
(VPAA) to coordinate the appointment and evaluation of academic staff—including academic
administrators. There is one whole section of the charter that is dedicated to procedures for
selection, including recruitment, screening, and employment of candidates. It appears from the
charter that selection, for example, is quasi-decentralized at the subject university, whereby the
practice is left to the units upon position authorization by the VPAA.
Moreover, the policy documents from the Off-campus College do not offer any major
difference from the university documents. In fact, most college policy statements about
employment, selection, evaluation, rewarding, and promotion of academic workers reflect what
the university charter stipulates. To illustrate the point, the governance policy of the college
refers all procedures of evaluation and promotion to provisions of the Academic Charter.
Another document is the Administrative Staff Handbook. This provides a few policy
statements that somewhat speak to succession processes. These include a policy statement
regarding employee orientations as well as professional and educational development programs
aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the university assignments. However, the policy does not
underscore the need to facilitate training programs for improving managerial and leadership
skills and enhance administrative members’ advancement. Moreover, the Administrative Staff
Handbook offers guidelines for new hires, promotions, and salary increases. Also, it guides
position evaluation processes, job analyses, title revisions, and salary range adjustments.
Although all these policy elements are important to succession processes, they are not explicitly
linked to the imperativeness of a systematic succession planning at the subject university. More
findings from document review will be mentioned under description of results for research
questions # 1 and 2 of the following section.

173
Qualitative Findings According to Research Questions
The qualitative findings provided below are in accordance with the research questions
relevant to the qualitative component. With the exception of research question # 3 that was
wholly quantitatively addressed, research questions # 1 and 2 drew their qualitative findings
from two qualitative data sources, interview transcripts and document review, whereas research
question # 4 derived its findings from interview transcripts alone.
How do full-time academic staff and full-time administrative staff generally evaluate the status of
Findings from interview transcripts. Two main findings in response to research
question # 1 emerge from the qualitative component of this study. First, Succession planning is
understood as a practice but not well known as a field of study. Findings from interview
transcripts provide evidence that although interviewees have ideas about succession planning as
a practice, they are all unfamiliar with it as a field of study. For example, Ben stated, “I must say
I’m not familiar with it as a field of study.” Moreover, Susie responded, “Um—I am not terribly
familiar with it as a field of study. I haven’t done a lot of research in that area.”
Second, the university seems to have an informal, individual-driven succession planning
characterized with a mixed performance evaluation. According to interviewees, Midwestern
University does not have a systematic succession planning processes; but rather informal, which
depend on individual leader’s initiative. Moreover, participants provided a mixed evaluation of
SPM efforts at the university depicting some units as doing relatively better than others, albeit
informally. For instance, Ben remarked, “Although I really am a fan of MU, I must say in this
case I think it’s an area that MU has done really poorly.” Ruth explains, “We have absolutely no
174
organized or formal succession planning. It’s done on an informal basis and it really depends on
the individual manager involved. … Therefore, that doesn’t happen well at all.” Peggy remarks,
“I don’t know that I can speak about the university’s ‘succession planning’ because I don’t even
really know if there really is one. Now from my previous description … you can tell that I’m the
product of ‘succession planning’. Daniel posits “… some divisions you can see [succession
planning] strongly in place and other divisions, it seems to be a much more casual process…”
Findings from document review. The interview findings were corroborated by findings
from the policy documents that the researcher reviewed. Document review reveals that a
succession planning and management approach has yet to be given a due priority by the
university policy makers because there is absolutely no explicit policy statement that gives the
university a mandate to implement succession planning practices, except for: (1) a very few
talent management aspects that have been recently introduced in a new strategic plan, which is
not yet fully implemented; and (2) selection, evaluation, and rewarding practices that form a part
of traditional human resource processes that has nothing to do with a succession planning
approach.
Research Question #2
How do full-time academic staff and full-time administrative staff perceive eight different SPM
Findings from interview transcripts. According to cross-case analysis, mixed
performance evaluation, informal occurrence, and individual leader/unit drive seems to
characterize most SPM practices at the studied university. Participants perceived seven out of
eight SPM practices, for example, as happening informally. They also offered a mixed
performance evaluation for the five practices signifying that some units are doing relatively
175
better than others. Four practices were considered to be driven by units’ or individual leaders’
initiatives. For details see Table 41.
Table 41
SPM Practices vs. Sub-themes Matrix
SPM Practice Mixed Informal Individual

Performance Occurrence Leader or
Evaluation Unit Drive
Assessment of organ. leadership needs X
Talent management procedures X X X
Application of Succession plan charts X
Identification and development of leadership X X X
potentials
Selection, evaluation, and rewarding of internally X X X
groomed candidates
Internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing X X
leaders
Top leadership commitment to SPM X X
Integration of SPM in the organizational culture X
For example, as Table 41 shows, those practices considered as occurring informally are
top leadership commitment to succession planning; assessment of organizational leadership
needs; talent management processes; application of succession planning charts; identification and
development of leadership potentials; selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed leadership
candidates; and internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing key leaders.
The perception of a mixed performance evaluation was indicated in relation to five
practices, top leadership commitment to succession planning; talent management processes;
identification and development of leadership potentials; selection, evaluation, and rewarding of
groomed candidates; as well as internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing key leaders.
Four practices are said to take place thanks to units’ or individual-managers’ drive. These
include talent management processes; identification and development of leadership potentials;

176
selection, evaluation, and rewarding of groomed leadership candidates; and integration of SPM
in the organizational culture. According to participants’ perception, one practice—selection,
evaluation, and rewarding of groomed candidates—is greatly dependent on efforts of individual
divisions/colleges.
Moreover, data indicate that the practice of internal recruitment and replacement of
outgoing key leaders is signified by a unique informal pattern: lower level leadership tends to be
replaced internally; higher level leadership tends to be replaced externally; while the middle
(Deans) level is likely to be replaced either internally or externally. Finally, participants believe
that SPM at the studied university is not well integrated in the organizational culture, although
some efforts seem to have begun.
Findings from Document Review. The findings from documents reviewed seem to
validate what interviewees reported. The university policy statements do not at all speak to SPM
practices, except that they provide room for a traditional set of practices in form of selection,
evaluation, and rewarding of faculty and administrative members. The selection, evaluation and
rewarding stipulations provided in the Academic Charter and Administrative Staff Handbook are,
however, not linked to a formal SPM approach because such an approach is not part of the
current MU policy framework. However, certain aspects related to talent management have been
introduced in the newly adopted strategic plan of Midwestern University, although the
implementation mechanism of this strategy is not yet in place.
Research Question #4
How do full-time academic staff and full-time administrative staff evaluate some factors
associated with SPM processes at the university?

177
The findings for this question were derived from interview transcripts alone. The last
question in the interview protocol sought views from the six participants about any factor they
believe affect succession planning processes at the university. Cross-case analysis identifies
seven factors. For the benefit of readers, any factor that was mentioned by at least two of six
participants was considered by the researcher as valid. The list provided below is ranked
according to the frequency of mentioning (in parentheses is the number of participants with
similar views).
Succession planning not being part of the institutional culture (3). For example,
Daniel says, “…, I guess it’s a very big culture factor.” Also, Ruth points out, “They think it’s
discriminatory, and it’s not. But if you’ve got all of that also going on in the culture, that’s extra
barrier that you have to get over.”
Succession planning not being an institutional priority (2). For instance, Ruth
mentions, “I think a lot of it has to do with time. People really have not made it a priority, and
therefore they do not give it time. ... Succession planning has not been a high priority. It’s been
an individualized priority.”
Lack of training/discussion about succession planning (2). As an illustration, Ben
suggests, “I think, very frankly, it’s a matter of most people, at least in academic administration,
not having training, very frankly, in management practices but having training in the area of
individual sole disciplines.” Also, Richie notes, “So without an open conversation as to how is
the best way to do [succession planning], everyone is left through own devices.”
Money and budgets (2). For example, Susie posits, “…I think is really critical right now
and that’s finances. Whether you like it or not, sometimes it can—not always, but sometimes it
can be cheaper to bring somebody in from outside for a position than it is to have somebody
178
who’s been here for 15 years….” Also, Peggy explains, “…it’s all about budgets, everything is
driven by budgets. I think in a time when budgets are tight, that’s when people formally or
informally really look at the succession planning than at any other time.
Lack of succession planning guidelines from the top (2). For instance, Daniel points
out, “… succession planning, like long term planning, really needs guidance from the top down.
It really needs someone at the top that’s going to drive …” Also, Richie suggests, “It might be
useful, if there was from a Provost some guidelines or suggestions.”
Increased workload of administrators (2). One example comes from Ruth, who states,
“…I think especially nowadays, when we continue to shrink in size but continue to have our
duties and responsibilities expanded, people only have so much energy.”
High leadership turnover / transition (2). For example, Daniel points out, “… I think
one of the big factors that have affected it in the last few years was the high turnover of key
leadership….”
Chapter Summary
Chapter five presented qualitative results stemming from the interview data and
documents review. For the interview, within-case and cross-case analyses were employed based
on the questions raised in the interview protocol. Aside from the background information, the
protocol sought responses on four main questions, (1) how do participants understand succession
planning, (2) how do they evaluate succession planning processes at the subject university, (3)
what is their opinion about university’s performance in eight SPM practices, and (4) what other
factors affect succession planning at the university. Document review method examined four
types of policy documents with the aim of understanding whether the university’s SPM efforts
and eight SPM practices have any policy backing.

179
Based on research questions # 1, 2, and 4, the main findings are summarized as follows:
First, participants do not understand succession planning as a field of study, but as a practice.
Also, participants perceive the performance of the university’s SPM processes or efforts as
mixed, with some units doing relatively better than others; however, the efforts are characterized
as informal and individual-driven. Second, according to participants, the performance of the
majority of the eight SPM practices is mixed, with some units doing relatively better than others;
however, participants perceive most practices as occurring informally and being driven by
individual leader’s efforts. Third, participants suggest seven factors tend to impact succession
processes at the university; they include (1) succession planning not being a part of the
institutional culture, (2) succession planning not being an institutional priority, (3) lack of
training/discussion about succession planning, (4) money and budgets, (5) lack of succession
planning guidelines from the top leadership, (6) increased workload for administrators, and (7)
high leadership turnover and transition. Lastly, document review corroborates the interview
findings in the sense that SPM efforts and the eight SPM practices are not formally embedded in
the policy framework of Midwestern University.

180
CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
This chapter consists of four sections. It starts with a section of introduction, which
briefly provides an overview of the study. The second section, integrated summary of results and
discussions, presents and discusses key results from both data sources. Implications and
recommendations of this study are presented in the third section. The last section offers
concluding remarks for this study.
This dissertation sought to understand the status of SPM efforts at Midwestern University
by using a concurrent triangulation design of a mixed methods research approach. As
demonstrated in the earlier chapters, higher education in the United States is on the verge of
losing a critical number of its key academic and administrative staff due to ongoing and
impending retirement. This considerable retirement is contributing to a leadership crisis in
academia. In fact, according to Rothwell (2002), academic institutions could lose their key
officials earlier than expected; yet, succession planning is unknown in higher education.
The second chapter of this work demonstrated how SPM is an important subject
deserving close attention, especially in academia. Succession planning and management does not
only facilitate an orderly turnover of the leaders, but also fosters continuous evaluation of
organizational staffing and leadership needs for adequate deployment of the organizational
talents. Consequently, well-planned succession processes reduce staff attrition while providing
good performers opportunities to advance in higher leadership positions (Behn, Riley, & Yang,
2005). Moreover, organizations tend to benefit from adequate succession planning and
management efforts because, to a certain extent, an association exists between succession
planning and lasting improvement of organizational performance (Huang, 1999; Hunte-Cox,

181
2004; Mandi, 2008, Rothwell, 2005). Certainly, the importance of succession planning and
management for higher education institutions has been echoed by several authors (Heuer, 2003,
Hull, 2005; Mackey, 2008; Rothwell, 2002).
However, as mentioned in the literature review chapter, there is a scarcity of literature
and studies on succession planning in higher education. This study, therefore, sought to respond
to the need of increasing research activities on the subject matter in academia. Principally, the
study aimed at examining succession planning and management efforts of a specific university in
the Midwest. The need of studying this university was a result of not only the geographical
convenience for the researcher, but also the evidence indicating that no one has ever examined
institutional succession planning practices at this university. The basis of selecting this university
arose also from the assumption that the absence of evaluative information about the subject
matter could prevent the university from taking pertinent measures towards improving its vitality
and competitiveness.
The purpose of this concurrent triangulation mixed methods study, therefore, was to
understand the status of the subject university’s succession planning and management (SPM)
efforts as perceived by the fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff by integrating
findings from both quantitative and qualitative data sources. Eventually, the study, being
evaluative in nature, aimed at generating recommendations for the subject university to consider
in addressing emergent issues. For the quantitative component, a questionnaire designed by the
researcher was used; whereas the qualitative component employed interview and document
review methods. Moreover, the different content analysis techniques were used to examine
qualitative data.
182
This dissertation sought to answer four substantive questions posed by the researcher.
The next section of this chapter will briefly discuss the main results from both research
components, quantitative and qualitative. The integrated summary of the results and discussions
below serves also as a deliberate mixture of two sets of results emergent from both data sources.
Mixing results through discussions is one of the acceptable ways of doing the mixing as required
by the mixed methods research tradition (Creswell, Plano, & Clark, 2007).
To remind readers, the research questions whose findings will shortly be discussed are as
follows:
units?
fulltime faculty administrators vs. fulltime administrative leaders
o By college
o By service years
o By gender

183
Integrated Summary of Results and Discussions
First of all, readers are reminded that, whereas all four research questions employed
quantitative analysis methods, research questions # 1, 2, and 4 applied qualitative analysis
methods as well. The structure of research questions will guide the flow of discussions, and will
be preceded by a brief statement of the findings from both research strands. However, before
discussing the main findings, it is important to mention one finding that is indirectly related to
this study; and, to certain degree, has implication to the SPM efforts of the subject university.
This finding is the imminent loss of key university members.
Imminent Loss of University Members
Evidence from the descriptive statistics indicates that Midwestern University is likely to
lose a significant number of fulltime academic and administrative staff members who are
expecting to retire or to move away within the next five years. Their number is likely to reach
385, which is about 24.9% of fulltime academic and administrative staff. This figure was
extrapolated from the demographic findings. Although this insight does not directly speak to the
research questions, the researcher felt it is too important to ignore, because for the university that
has a total number of 1,544 fulltime academic and administrative staff, it is not a small issue to
lose 385 of its members within a period of 5 years. The possibility of increased departure of
academic and administrative staff from the subject university was also noticeable in the open-
ended survey responses.
If not curbed, this huge staff loss might not only exacerbate the working condition of the
colleges and units, which are already experiencing a rising level of understaffing and increased
workload; but might also trigger institutional and unit leadership crises as the literature predicts.
In fact, according to findings from open-ended survey responses, departure of academic and
184
administrative members—through both voluntary and involuntary means—has already started to
intensify. For instance, one survey respondent says, “our particular programming area has lost
60% of its administrative staff with no replacements.” The frequent departure of staff and leaders
affects the performance of administration as well. For example, one respondent reports, “We
have been in a state of leadership transition for the past two years, and it is difficult to focus on
succession practices while leadership transitioning is occurring.”
The leadership crisis or intricacy caused by retirement or departure of key and
experienced officials from academia was predicted by several authors (Hull, 2005; Rothwell,
2002; Vaughan, 2002). Also, Mackey (2008) mentions that currently, numerous academic
institutions are facing leadership scarcity. Judging from the comments of participants in the
current study, succession difficulty is already occurring at Midwestern University due to
budgetary complications, subsequent position and job cutting, and the increasing departure of
key people. Thus, the subject university should be aware, as the literature suggests, that it will
not be easy to readily obtain qualified academic leaders from outside to replace a big number of
the departing ones. That is why Rothwell (2002, 2005) emphasizes the need for organizations to
be prepared through ongoing systematic SPM. On the other hand, mass retirement should serve
as a warning indicator or a catalyst for an institution to increase commitment towards effective
succession planning (Betts, Urias, Chaves, & Betts, 2009).
How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff generally evaluate the status of
Inadequate SPM efforts at the university. Research question one sought to evaluate
the general status of SPM efforts at the Midwestern University through four variables. According
185
to descriptive statistics, this study found four important findings related to the status of SPM
efforts at the studied university. First, the mean score of overall SPM performance (M = 1.96, SD
= .66, n = 394) is very close to 2, which represents inadequately. This result means that the
university’s performance in SPM efforts is generally rated as inadequate by the study
participants.
Qualitative findings corroborated this quantitative result. According to the qualitative
results, (1) succession planning is unfamiliar to university members as a field of study except as
a practice; (2) the university’s succession planning is informal, individual-driven, and marred
with a mixed level of performance; and (3) the document review validated this finding by
revealing the lack of policy framework to promote systematic SPM approaches.
Indeed, qualitative data help to clarify and bring life to the inadequate SPM performance
rating suggested by quantitative data. For instance, as mentioned above, qualitative data show
that unfamiliarity of SPM is an issue observed in this study. People can hardly implement
activities or strategies they are not aware of; or at best, they will execute them haphazardly. Also,
according to qualitative data, SPM efforts seem to be inadequate in terms of their systematization
and formality, degree of institutionalization, and level of their performance. Qualitative data
show that there are some SPM efforts occurring in some units of the university. However, these
SPM efforts can be described as follows: in terms of modus operandi, they are unsystematic and
informal; regarding the driving force behind them, they are driven by individual leader interests,
motivations, and experiences; in terms of the level of their performance or occurrence, they are
not happening well in many units—that is why participants rated SPM efforts with a mixed
performance evaluation. This inadequacy of SPM efforts is understandable because people are
not well-informed of the SPM approach; and it is not yet integrated into the institutional culture.
186
Moreover, it appears that even those leaders who informally implement some SPM
practices use their minimal experiences gained from somewhere else. For example, Peggy
reveals, “…I myself have had no formal training in either leadership or succession planning.
However, right now I am involved in two leadership programs that speak to succession planning.
One is a national program and one is a state level.” Then she adds, “So, although I don’t have a
systematic university succession planning program, I live and breathe succession planning.”
Lack of adequate succession planning in educational institutions was echoed by other
researchers as well. For example, Binard Carlson (2008) found that succession planning was not
part of the Colorado community colleges; and, leadership development programs for grooming
future leaders were lacking. Also, Mackey (2008) found limited formal succession planning at
the Maricopa Community College District institutions. Moreover, academic institutions do not
even spend time selecting and preparing their leaders (Wolverton & Ackerman, 2006). Many
studies revealed deficiency of succession planning in higher education (see: Heuer, 2003; Hull,
2005; Rothwell, 2002).
A systematic SPM program important and urgently needed. Descriptive statistics
indicate the participants’ rating of the level of importance of a systematic SPM program is
somewhere between moderate and high (M =2.35, SD = .96, n = 402). This result probably
speaks of the level of appreciation the current study participants have for the systematic SPM
approach, which they believe is missing at the university. The result is reasonable, since the
university has inadequate SPM performance; participants seem to realize that a systematic SPM
program is important. Some interview participants expressed the same perspective as well.
Moreover, regarding the urgency of establishing or improving a systematic SPM program,
descriptive statistics generated a mean score that is close to 3 (M = 2.65, SD = .77, n = 398)
187
representing urgently needed. This result seems to demonstrate participants’ desire of seeing an
urgent change in the university SPM situation.
Internal leadership grooming mostly preferred. Lastly, of eight approaches to
succession planning, internal leadership grooming received the highest score (M = 2.67, SD =
.96, n = 392) signifying that study participants cherish the growing of internal leaders. In fact,
doing nothing obtained the lowest score of suitability (M = 1.36, SD = .68, n = 386), which
shows an outright rejection of the status quo by the study participants.
According to these results, it appears study participants of Midwestern University are
tired of the current condition regarding succession planning efforts. They seem to attach
importance to a systematic SPM program. Also, they seem to desire seeing a systematic SPM
program introduced urgently. Actually, of all eight SPM approaches suggested to them, internal
leadership grooming was selected as the most preferred. Readers should remember that internal
leadership grooming is a key to succession planning. Thus, these participants seem to emphasize
that, not only a systematic SPM program is important and urgently needed to rectify the
situation, but also that the internal leadership development has to be at the heart of the remedial
program.
These results are consistent with findings of other studies in higher education. For
example, Heuer (2003) found Ivy-Plus universities lacking formal succession planning “even
though their chief human resources officers found it an interesting and very important topic” (p.
36). Heuer further reports the fact that participants of his study appreciated the importance of
succession planning, but also admitted that it was not happening due to several impediments that
are mentioned in the second chapter of this study. Also, Mackey (2008) found limited succession
planning in Maricopa community colleges. Moreover, several studies have recommended that
188
academic institutions grow their own leaders (Binard Carlson, 2008; Fultons-Calkins & Milling,
2005; Heuer, 2003; Hull, 2005) just as participants of this study have responded.
How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff perceive eight different SPM
Most SPM practices lacking. The second research question sought to evaluate eight
SPM practices at the subject university. According to the theoretical framework proposed in this
study, the university ought to have the following practices in order to have an adequate
succession planning and management system: (1) assessment of organizational leadership needs,
(2) talent management processes, (3) application of succession plan charts, (4) identification and
development of leadership potentials, (5) selection, evaluation, and rewarding of internally
groomed candidates, (6) internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders, (7) top
university leadership commitment to SPM, and (8) integration of SPM practices in the
organizational culture.
Quantitative data indicate the mean scores for all eight SPM practices range from 1.81 to
2.33, indicating respondents’ perceptions are about a score of 2 representing disagree. This
implies that, generally, almost all eight practices are lacking at the university. Nevertheless, two
practices have relatively higher scores than others even though they do not reach a score of 3 that
stands for agree. These are talent management processes (M = 2.33, SD = .59, n = 405) and
assessment of organizational leadership needs (M = 2.32, SD = .69, n = 407). Application of
succession plan charts, on the other hand, has the lowest score (M = 1.81, SD = .67, n = 398).
Now since these are mean scores, it is likely that some units have some functioning SPM
practices, even if they happen informally, just as qualitative data suggest. Nevertheless, this
189
lacking of key SPM practices confirms that the SPM efforts at the subject university are
inadequate.
Some SPM practices occurring informally. Indeed, according to the qualitative data of
this study, some SPM practices seem to occur randomly, with some units doing relatively better
than others. According to the findings, these practices are happening informally and are driven
by individual efforts of leaders at unit and college levels. This is probably why some units
perform relatively better than others and why some practices are absent in some units. For
instance, application of succession plan charts is mentioned to be absent by most interviewees;
instead, some leaders use informal ways of effecting succession practices in their units.
Moreover, the policy framework of the studied university hardly talks about succession
planning practices, except for two cases; (1) a newly adopted university strategic plan has
included a strategy for talent management aspects and (2) the practice of selection, evaluation,
and rewarding of groomed candidates is stipulated in the university policy structure, albeit in
traditional human resource management policies that has nothing to do with SPM understanding.
The fact that some SPM practices occur informally and randomly is a further indication
that the university does not have adequate, systematic SPM efforts. The paucity of succession
planning and management approaches in academic institutions has been reported by several
authors (Heuer, 2003; Hull, 2005; Mackey, 2008; Mandi, 2008, Rothwell, 2002). Hence, this
study is a further validation, albeit at a single institutional level, of what other researchers have
concluded in the past. Moreover, this study indicates that when a university does not have a
formal, structured approach to succession planning, it is difficult for the individual units or the
university at large to effectively implement succession planning practices because leaders are left
to use their personal experiences and interests.

190
Research question three sought to examine perception differences between groups. As
discussed below, results for this question were drawn from a quantitative source only.
Perception differences by occupational role and by gender. There were no perception
differences by gender and by occupational role—faculty, faculty administrators, professional
administrative staff, and administrative leaders—regarding these eight SPM practices. Scores of
gender and four occupational groups indicated the same that these practices were rarely
occurring in their colleges or units. Nonetheless, significant perception differences by
occupational role (2 groups) were noted for: (1) talent management processes, t(402) = -2.26, p
= .024, whereby fulltime administrative staff scored significantly higher (M = 2.40) than fulltime
academic staff (M = 2.26); and (2) internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders,
t(391) = 2.22, p = .027, whereby fulltime academic staff scored significantly higher (M = 2.23)
than fulltime administrative staff (M = 2.10).
These results suggest that fulltime administrative members are relatively better in
conducting or perceiving the practice of talent management processes than fulltime academic
staff. Conversely, fulltime academic staff members are relatively better in conducting or
perceiving internal recruiting and replacement of outgoing leaders. These findings make sense
because in most cases, unlike faculty members, administrative members have gone through some
kind of management or administrative training before being employed. Probably their training is
helping them to understand the significance of talent management at workplaces. On the other
hand, faculty members are known for operating in a collegial spirit (Bess & Dee, 2008), while
they rarely participate in administrative or leadership training. Therefore, it is understandable if
they score low in talent management aspects.

191
Regarding the fact that academic staff members scored relatively higher in internal
recruitment to replace outgoing leaders than administrative staff members could be the matter of
the faculty collegiality tradition. Oftentimes chairs and school directors are selected from among
the faculty colleagues through collegial conversation and on rotational basis. Regarding this
aspect, Richie says, “I know that on the department level, it’s not uncommon for Chairs, like me,
that have been here for awhile to talk openly within the faculty about who would be interested in
this in the future.” Also, it is intriguing to note that Ruth, one of the key administrative leaders at
the university, provided a response to one of the interview questions saying that, for lower
leadership levels, about 60% of internal applicants within the administrative line get employed,
whereas the rate tends to be higher for the faculty side.
Perception differences by college. Significant perception differences were noted by
college for seven out of eight SPM practices. The ANOVA result portrays an intriguing trend,
which is that the College of Musical Arts (CMA) obtained the highest scores in most practices,
whereas the College of Technology (CT) obtained the lowest scores. These results suggest that
the CMA members perceive SPM practices in their units more positively than members of other
colleges. Because of space limitation, only a few will be discussed as an illustration. The first is
the practice of assessment of organizational leadership needs. There was a significance
difference in this practice F(7, 206) = 2.78, p = .009), whereby the CMA obtained the highest
score (M = 3.00) and the CT the lowest (M = 1.86). Probably, CMA has relatively more stable
and capable leadership, which often meets the promotion and growth needs of its faculty
members. Conversely, CT might be experiencing some kind of leadership challenges or
organizational anxiety. Also, musicians tend to be social and interactive in their tasks, the
working environment which is likely to build teamwork, mutual support, and a shared leadership.
192
In contrary, technologists tend to be isolationists, which can sometimes lead to social and growth
dissatisfaction stemming from lack of a mutual support system and the shared leadership. Kouzes
and Posner (2007) speak of the importance of supportive environment, collaboration, and
teamwork in organizations. Constant interactions, like in the musical ensembles, can facilitate
relationships, enhance the climate of trust, and strengthen teamwork; which are key ingredients
in effective leadership and organizational performance (Kouzes and Posner, 2007).
The second practice with significance difference was identification and development of
leadership potentials. There was a significant difference in this practice F(7, 202) = 3.38, p =
.001, with CMA having the highest mean score (M = 2.80) and CT the lowest (M = 1.52). Again
this indicates that CMA has relatively better efforts in identifying and developing leadership
abilities of its college members. CT is doing relatively worse in this practice. It is likely that
CMA has a better college leadership capacity; or the type of programs CMA provides involve
some shared leadership practices. Ability to identify and develop leadership potentials is at the
heart of SPM efforts (Rothwell, 2005); and, it is one of the exemplary leadership practices
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Another interesting ANOVA finding is that related to talent management processes. No
perception difference was observed by college F(7, 206) = 1.84, p = .082; indicating that all
colleges have relatively the same level of handling talent management issues. The reader should
remember, that according to t-test by occupational role, academic members scored also relatively
worse than the administrative staff in terms of talent management processes. One of the possible
explanations could be that the collegiality tradition exhibited by academicians through mutual
recruitment has no connection with talent management capabilities.

193
The last to be discussed in this section is the practice of integration of SPM practices in
the organizational culture. ANOVA indicated an intriguing result that the perception difference
was noted between colleges F(7, 197) = 3.47, p = .002; with CMA having the highest mean score
(M = 2.74) in the practice, whereas CT having the lowest (M = 1.67). This indicates that the
members of the CMA perceive SPM practices integrated in the institutional culture, whereas
members of other colleges do not. This variation could be explained as follows: Members of
CMA are probably very satisfied with the leadership and vertical growth practices in their
college; and, hence, they project their satisfaction onto the whole university. Projection of
feelings or traits from one person or group to the other is a common phenomenon. People project
anger, love, hate, and a sense of satisfaction, to mention a few.
Perception differences by years of service. Furthermore, perception differences were
noted between groups with differing years of service. In this case, comparison between the
groups indicated that those who have served the university for less than 10 years scored
relatively better than others for most SPM practices, meaning that this group was somehow more
likely to perceive the existence of several SPM practices in their units and colleges. One of the
reasons for this variation could be that members of this group (less than 10 years), unlike the
veteran members, are busy working hard to build their career and legitimize their positions at the
university. In contrast, veteran workers are likely to be more sensitive to long term, unfulfilled
professional and leadership growth needs, so that it becomes easier for them to notice gaps
related to SPM practices.
Moreover, those who served the university for 10-19 years have the lowest mean scores
in all practices except for the practice of internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing
leaders. This probably indicates that this group is likely to be enjoying more opportunities of
194
being internally promoted than other groups. It appears that the veteran members have less
likelihood of being promoted, that is why the two groups—20-29 years and 30 or above years—
obtained the lowest mean scores for internal recruitment and replacement of outgoing leaders
(M = 2.06).
How do fulltime academic staff and fulltime administrative staff evaluate some factors associated
with SPM processes at the university?
Through research question four, the researcher wanted to understand how different
factors influence succession planning at the subject university. To initiate a thought process, the
researcher advanced three factors related to SPM practices to be evaluated by study participants.
These were (1) the diversity consideration in the SPM efforts, (2) the impact of the current
economic recession, and (3) the impact of government policies and laws on SPM. The results for
these three factors are discussed one after the other.
Diversity consideration in the SPM efforts. Diversity consideration in leadership
promotion within units and colleges attracted the highest score (M = 2.98, SD = .70, n = 408)
compared to the scores of other two factors. This means that consideration of diversity at the
subject university is generally adequate. However, further analysis using frequency tables and
crosstabs reveals certain aspects that mean scores failed to capture. For instance, data suggest
that consideration of women in leadership promotion was viewed positively by both women and
men as 83.3% of respondents selected very well and adequately. In contrary, the perception of
consideration of people of color in leadership promotion was not uniform. Although 69.6% of all
respondents selected adequately and very well, most African Americans (76.4%) and Asian
Americans (53.3%) selected very poorly and inadequately compared to most Caucasians (72.9%)
195
who selected adequately and very well. These quantitative results speak to the need for the
university to understand the felt needs of the fulltime academic and administrative staff members
of different racial groups. It is evident that while the university is doing relatively better in
gender equity, it should closely examine the aspects of racial equity in leadership appointments
and promotion.
In addition, data from open-ended survey questions reinforce the notion that, although a
section of participants perceive racial equality as existing in leadership promotion, about half of
respondents consider racial diversity in terms of leadership promotion is still a challenge at the
university. This stance is exemplified by one respondent, “This is a tough one, because
representation of people of color in our staff is very low, so it seems like we do a poor job of
recruiting diversity in the first place, much less promoting people of color.” This entails that the
majority of respondents perceive racial diversity as a challenge in terms of leadership promotion;
although some respondents consider that a racial equality exists and some even noted that a small
number of people of color are occupying leadership positions at the studied university.
Even in the aspect of gender equity, open-ended survey data indicate clearly that a
section of participants perceive women as underrepresented in their work units. To serve as an
illustration, a few voices of underrepresented women are included here. One respondent
mentions, “They [women] are underrepresented in the highest ranks—better now than in the
recent past however.” Another respondent reflects,
While we do have female leaders, I have often been the only woman "at the table," and
this is increasingly true the more important the table. I have also felt like a "token" female
candidate in at least one administrative search.
Although discrimination against advancement of female faculty and administrators is still
pervasive in academia (Kilian et al., 2005), Midwestern University seems to be doing relatively
196
well in this respect. However, this university must find ways to improve its performance in terms
of racial representation in leadership positions and listen to the voices of those women who feel
underrepresented in vertical advancement. Rothwell (2005) mentions diversity as a factor to
reckon with in succession planning processes. In today’s world, diversity is increasingly
becoming an essential organizational feature (Betts et al., 2009; Rothwell, 2005). Hence the
subject university has to do more in advancing diversity in leadership promotions.
Impact of the current economic recession. Quantitative data indicate the level of
impact of the economic recession on SPM is between moderate and high (M = 2.67, SD = .83, n
= 409). Further analysis reveals that individual employment and retirement plans of 81.9% study
participants are affected by the economic recession. In fact, detailed data show that employment
and retirement plans of 90.4% of administrative leaders are affected moderately to very highly.
Administrative leaders represent the highest percentage of those affected. As for other groups,
the percentages of the affected are as follows: 87.5% - faculty administrators, 80.8% -
professional administrative staff, and 76.2% - faculty.
These results show that the fulltime administrative staff is relatively more affected than
the fulltime academic staff. Of all the four groups, the administrative leaders are most affected,
followed by faculty administrators and professional administrative staff. The faculty members
are relatively least affected. This result indicates that, at the subject university, the employment
and retirement plans of the faculty administrators and administrative leaders are more vulnerable
to economic recessions than those of the faculty and the professional administrative staff
members. At the Midwestern University, special attention should be paid to the administrative
leaders who seem to be the most susceptible to the ongoing economic recession.
197
One possible reason for administrative leaders to be more susceptible to economic
downturn than other occupational groups is the fact that administrative leaders do not have a job
security system like the tenure system that faculty members enjoy. Faculty members appear to
be relatively less affected, probably because of the tenure system that gives them a sense of job
security as some faculty members remarked in the open-ended survey question.
Interestingly data from open-ended survey responses support the quantitative findings.
According to qualitative findings, many participants indicated that their individual employment
plans and incomes as well as retirement plans and funds are affected. Also, several respondents
expressed a degree of uncertainty, frustration, stress, and fear of the economic recession
outcomes. Nevertheless, the majority of participants expressed a degree of calmness to the
situation. Most likely, these calm participants are faculty members who feel secure with their
jobs as quantitative data indicates. For example one faculty reveals, “As a tenured full professor
the economic recession does not impact my retirement plans.” Another faculty member
comments, “…I'm a tenured faculty member. I have a job…I'm a member of STRS so I am not
as worried [as] some of my colleagues. I will probably retire in the next 5 years independent of
the economic situation.”
On the other hand, open-ended survey data expose a section of respondents who affirm
the seriousness of impact of economic downturn. For instance, one states, “My retirement funds
plummeted with this recession. I'll be working for a long time to make that money back.” In
fact, due to the impact of economic recession, majority of survey respondents expressed a desire
to change their retirement plans by either extending or shortening the retirement date. Moreover,
many respondents seem to be frustrated and filled with uncertainty about their future. For
example, one respondent mentions, “Uncertainty is the biggest factor. No knowing, if there will
198
be budget cuts that will result in closing programs and cutting instructors' positions, is
frustrating.”
Other respondents observed that the economic recession has caused salary reduction,
facilitated staff departure, and made vertical advancement difficult. However, a few respondents
considered effects of recession as an opportunity for internal promotion and new external jobs as
well as a chance to reassess succession planning practices. These findings signify that the
economic recession tends to impact not only on individual employment and retirement plans, but
also on individual incomes. Also, it is apparent that the impact of economic recession was not
uniform across participants, with some being more affected than others.
Furthermore, the impact of economic recession on succession practices of colleges and
administrative units was also noted. According to this study, 83.9% of participants suggest
succession practices of their colleges or units are moderately to very highly affected by the
recession. Again, analysis by units shows that the administrative units are relatively more
affected (85%) than the academic units (83.1%). This is consistent with the result mentioned
above that indicate a group of administrative leaders as relatively more impacted by economic
recession than other groups.
Crosstabs by colleges indicate that College of Musical Arts registered the majority
(92.3%) of those who perceive the impact of the economic recession as moderate to very high,
whereas College of Human and Health Services is the least affected (58.3%). These variations
are intriguing. For instance, it is interesting to note that the College of Musical Arts has
demonstrated relatively higher scores in most SPM practices; and, yet the same college is most
affected by economic recession. Two explanations might be offered. First, as revealed by this
study, informal occurrences of SPM practices depend largely on the experiences and drive of the
199
individual leaders at the college; which has perhaps nothing to do with the financial capacity of
the college. However, the ability to withstand economic recessions probably depends largely on
the financial capacity of the college such that a college with stable fund sources tends to be less
affected by the economic downturn. Thus, since colleges differ in their capacity to acquire funds
through different sources, it is likely that the financial stability of CMA is questionable.
Moreover, it appears that colleges that run “economically unprofitable programs” are likely to
experience a bigger pressure to cut off some of those programs, positions, and jobs. Perhaps
CMA is one of those colleges that have lost or is likely to lose some programs and positions.
Economic impact differentiation was also noted in administrative units. For example,
Student Affairs Division seems to experience the biggest impact as the majority (91.9%) selected
moderate to very high level of impact. Conversely, Human Resource Division and University
Advancement Division have relatively the lowest impact (75%). These disparities can also mean
that different divisions are differently constructed in terms of leadership and financial capacity.
Student Affairs Division is one of the largest at the MU. Perhaps this division needs a lot of
operational resources, which makes it susceptible to any institutional economic woes.
Qualitative data support the quantitative results. In fact, according to qualitative findings,
it is apparent that units and colleges are experiencing an intricate combination of loss of
programs and jobs—including the loss of good performers, limited capacity to replace those
leaving, increased level of workloads, and lack of proper planning for successors. These
economic-related effects are likely to cause a huge restructuring of the university. Indeed, the
researcher noted several faculty unionization discussions during the period of data collection and
analysis. This move is probably due to the ongoing institutional challenges and the likelihood of
organizational change. The situation seems to be delicate at the studied university. It appears that
200
the financial and budget limitation has a considerable implication to the university because this
limitation is likely to trigger, among other things: (1) elimination of some programs, positions,
and jobs; (2) reduction of the capacity to replace departing employees; (3) an increase in
understaffing and workloads; and (4) limited ability to plan for future successors and staffing.
In brief, it is evident from this study that the subject university is undergoing a difficult
time attributable to financial downturn and leadership challenges; but, lack of systematic SPM
approaches seems to have aggravated the situation. It seems that the economic crisis, leadership
challenges, and absence of effective succession planning efforts reinforce each other. According
to Rothwell (2005), in the absence of systematic succession planning, it becomes very difficult to
handle the effects of economic crisis. This is currently apparent at the studied university.
Impact of government policies and laws on succession practices. Quantitative data
indicate the level of impact of the government policies and laws on succession practices as
moderate (M = 2.12, SD = .92, n = 370). This signifies that, generally, government policies or
laws play a moderate role in restraining or facilitating succession practices of Midwestern
University. Further analysis reveals that 24.6% of respondents consider the impact level of
federal policies and laws is high and very high, whereas 41.6% of respondents selected high and
very high for the impact level of state policies and laws. This seems to indicate that state policies
and laws have a relatively higher level of influence than federal policies and laws. This is
understandable, because higher education is a mandate of states. Federal government can have a
slight influence through grants. Thus, one can assert that, essentially, the level of occurrence of
succession planning practices is not determined by government laws, but rather by other factors
such as the leadership and culture of the academic institution.

201
This result means that Midwestern University’s lack of ability to practice adequate
succession planning cannot be attributed to the government laws and policies per se. Actually,
one survey respondent put it well: “We are not restrained by federal polices/laws from thinking
or planning for succession”; and another one said: “Plenty of other institutions have programs to
develop new leaders and to plan for succession, and they are under the same federal mandates.”
This position was also echoed by one interviewee representing HRD, who said that it is a clear
misperception to think that the law prohibits internal grooming and internal recruitment of
leaders. This study suggests that it is internal organizational culture rather than external
regulations that impedes succession planning at the subject university. This is consistent with
what the literature suggests; effective succession planning cannot occur in isolation, it has to be
integrated into the culture (Cantor, 2005; Lockwood, 2006; Rothwell, 2005).
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the majority of open-ended survey
respondents reveal that they are not aware of any federal and state policies and laws that could
somewhat affect employment or practices linked to succession planning processes such as hiring,
promotion, retention, or development of university academic and administrative members. This
unawareness of such policies and laws could be a contributing factor to the misperception of
succession planning. One top university administrative official asserted that the misperception
about recruitment laws and policies is a barrier to internal recruitment and grooming. According
to Ruth, employing authorities can recruit internally whenever they have a good rationale for
that; they can use a procedure known as “by invitation hire”.
Additional factors affecting SPM efforts. Using research question # 4, both survey/
quantitative and qualitative data generated several factors affecting SPM efforts of Midwestern
University. As Table 42 displays, Quantitative (survey) data produced eight extra factors and
202
qualitative data generated seven. Two factors—organizational culture and budget/money
limitations—appear in both lists; the resulting total number of additional factors is actually 13,
too many to make any meaningful discussion in this section. To simplify discussions, the
researcher suggests reorganizing the list because some factors are somehow related to each other.
For example, a closer examination of the two lists reveals that many additional factors are in
essence linked to the organizational culture, meaning that they can be discussed as sub-factors
under organizational culture. Therefore, the new list of factors for discussion is displayed in
Table 43. In fact, most factors can simultaneously be viewed as outcomes or causes of other
Table 42
Additional Factors Affecting SPM Efforts
From Open-ended Survey Data From Interview Data

Organizational leadership challenges SPM not a part of the institutional culture
Unsuitable to SPM organizational culture SPM not institutional priority
Effects of non-practicing of adequate SPM Lack of training/discussion about SPM
Hindering hiring/promotion policies/practices Money and budgets
Misperception/fear about SPM Lack of guidelines from the top leadership
Unknown or unnoticed succession planning Increased workload of administrators
Inadequate salary and incentives High leadership turnover/transition
Budget limitations
Table 43
Reorganized List of Additional Factors
Additional Factors (new list) Possible Sub-factors/outcomes

Unsuitable organizational culture SPM not institutional priority
Lack of training/discussion about SPM
Lack of guidelines from the top leadership
Misperception/fear about SPM
Organizational leadership challenges
Hindering hiring/promotion policies/practices
Budget and financial limitations Inadequate salary and incentives
Effects of inadequate SPM practices High leadership turnover/transition
Increased workload of administrators
Unknown or unnoticed succession planning
203
factors. In other words, these factors seem to reinforce each other.
Consequently, five main factors will be discussed in this section. These are (1) unsuitable
organizational culture, (2) organizational leadership challenges, (3) hindering hiring and
promotion policies and practices, (4) budget and financial limitations, and (5) effects of
inadequate SPM practices. The researcher’s assumption though is that unsuitable organizational
culture and organizational leadership challenges are the key reasons for deficient SPM efforts at
the studied university; whereas this deficiency in turn causes several side effects that will be
discussed under effects of inadequate SPM practices.
The first additional factor is Unsuitable Organizational Culture. Lack of suitable
organizational culture that supports SPM is apparent at Midwestern University. First, as the
qualitative data indicate, the university does not have any explicit policy for nurturing internal
leadership development and other succession planning practices. Also, as discussed in other
sections above, internal leadership recruitment and other SPM practices are not occurring
adequately. There are no plans for replacing key officials who are leaving. In fact, the general
tendency is to employ what Rothwell (2005) calls “crisis mode” succession processes, whereby
every leader uses his/her own goodwill or succession planning device when the need arises.
Moreover, as data suggest, several institutional behaviors seem to contribute to an
unsuitable institutional culture. For instance, as Table 43 displays, lack of a suitable culture is
manifested through: (1) SPM not being an institutional priority, (2) lack of training/discussion
about SPM, (3) lack of guidelines from the top leadership, and (4) misperception or fear about
SPM. Lack of suitable culture entails that, unless the university deliberately changes the
situation, it will be difficult for the institution to have a constant supply of well groomed leaders
from within. The university will have to continue relying on external recruitment for its key
204
senior leaders, which does not necessarily work very well, as also pointed out by some
respondents. Yet, it is known that external hiring of qualified leaders will increasingly become
difficult as external talent pools shrink (Mead-Fox, 2010; Moser, 2008).
Furthermore, lack of a supportive culture for SPM means that the university will continue
recruiting unprepared internal individuals for lower and middle level leadership positions.
Constant reliance on unprepared leaders, who are often asked to serve as interims for a long time,
is a risky venture for a 21st century organization. Powers and Maghroori (2006) call them
“accidental administrators” (p. C2). Academia is now expected to prepare its leaders to meet the
21st century requirements (Hargrove, 2003). Adequate leadership supply is vital in academia
today, because external accountability is taking over from internal accountability and hence the
legitimacy of academic institutions can no longer be taken for granted (Bess & Dee, 2008).
The importance of a supportive organizational culture for SPM is also echoed by several
authors (Cantor, 2005; Lockwood, 2006; Rothwell, 2005; Stephens, 2006). Organizations that
are successful in succession planning have integrated it in their organizational culture (Fulmer,
2004; Rothwell, 2005). Succession planning has to be an on-going process embedded in
organizational learning (Hunte-Cox, 2004). Sadly, as this study shows, the culture of the subject
university has not yet formally and broadly embraced SPM.
Lack of supportive organizational culture and unawareness about SPM seem to reinforce
each other. For example, because of this unsupportive organizational culture, as qualitative data
reveal, there is a substantial level of unawareness about succession planning among academic
and administrative staff. Lack of accurate awareness might easily breed SPM misperception that
can amount to resisting SPM altogether. At the Midwestern University, for instance, while some
respondents think SPM is merely an administrator’s issue, others view it as a means to

205
undemocratically force people into leadership positions or controlling others. Yet, others
consider succession planning as a kind of “an old-boys network”. Some respondents believe that
the size and structure of Midwestern University do not warrant utilization of succession
planning. There are even some notions that succession planning is not suitable for the faculty,
not good for the university, and hence a waste of time. This misperception can easily generate
fears about the whole SPM approach. For example, some respondents expressed fears that
succession planning could enhance a groupthink attitude, in-bred ideas, and create unfair hiring
practices. There are a few who think that grooming internally threatens those in power.
These views are consistent with findings from other studies. Heuer (2003), for example,
found that succession planning is an “alien concept” to many academicians (p. 40). Heuer, also,
mentions about succession planning being misconstrued in higher education. He explains that,
for others, succession planning may appear to create tensions, fear, and unrealistic expectations.
Some individuals even think succession planning is a mere tool for generating heirs apparent for
some positions. Probably, they do not understand that experts have replaced the heirs apparent
concept with a new notion, the bench strength, which means the pool of potential candidates
prepared for a given leadership position (Heuer, 2003; Rothwell, 2005).
Another vivid manifestation of lack of supportive organizational culture for SPM at MU
is that the topic is not given a high institutional priority by the top management. Although
interview data provide mixed results about the university’s top leadership commitment towards
SPM, the general trend is that the whole SPM activity is not given emphasis in terms of policy
and practice. In his study, Heuer (2003), also, found no formal succession planning practices in
the Ivy League universities. The same was echoed by Hull (2005), Krauss (2007), and Mackey
206
(2008). The role played by top leadership in supporting SPM and creating supportive culture is
vital (Krauss, 2007; Lockwood, 2006; Rothwell, 2005).
The second additional factor is Organizational Leadership Challenges. Qualitative
data indicate that the subject university experiences some leadership challenges in that it appears
that the university’s management is characterized by a frequent change of key leaders. Data
suggest that there is a high level of temporary leadership appointments or interims, a condition
that not only renders the administration unstable, but also hinders internal leadership grooming.
Some participants felt a sense of leadership void, a lack of a strong leadership team, insufficient
leadership/administration competence, and lack of a shared governance as barriers to succession
planning at the studied university.
Furthermore, the question of trust in leadership is very important. Some participants seem
to lose trust since they perceive the upper administration as less caring, lacking in trust, or not
valuing faculty and lower administration levels, and perhaps lacking the oversight capacity or
will. Though some of these sentiments are probably valid, some may stem from the pervasive
highly decentralized governance tradition commonly found in higher education institutions, the
tradition which thwarts the internal collaboration between units (Bess & Dee, 2008).
Top leadership commitment to succession planning is very crucial (Krauss, 2007;
Lockwood, 2006; Rothwell, 2005). However, persistent leadership challenges can decrease the
time and capacity of leaders to develop and implement succession planning strategies. Thompsen
and Smith (2006) observe a relationship between the ability to practice succession planning and
leadership capacity. The level of organizational commitment can be demonstrated through time
and funds allotted for an activity as well as through actions in supporting the subject matter.
Apparently then, Midwestern University has yet to formally commit itself to succession
207
planning. In fact, one respondent mentioned that the HR office is not playing a leadership role in
activating succession planning approaches; and, another respondent alleged that the MU Board
of Trustees was also responsible for succession planning problems.
Ability to develop other leaders is a vital part of organizational leadership capacity
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Rothwell, 2005). What is argued here is that leadership skills are
hardly developed in professional line schools like geography, psychology, or mathematics, to
mention a few. Being a good mathematician, an electronics engineer, or a biologist does not
necessarily make one a good leader. Being a good instructor or professor does not necessarily
make one an effective leader either. Leadership competencies have to be obtained through
deliberate leadership development programs. Indeed, the researcher believes that a proper
combination of instructional, professional, leadership and organizational development can make
a faculty member an outstanding academic administrator.
On the other hand, it is true that universities have been described as organized anarchies
because of their governance structure, multiplicity of goals, and politics (Bess & Dee, 2008;
Spendlove, 2007); but, this nature of universities, more than ever, requires a high level of
leadership skills. Yet, universities, as a whole, are slightly weak in the identification of
leadership talents and developing them systematically from within. According to Spendlove
(2007), a majority of universities do not have systematic ways to identify and develop leadership
skills for their staff members. Heads of departments receive no systematic administration
training (Stremmel, et al., 2007). The current study has found the same situation for Midwestern
University. No deliberate leadership development program is in place for the academic and
administrative leaders. In fact, although faculty and administrative staff are the main source of
208
the future leadership supply, there is no deliberate, systematic effort to tap this leadership
potential.
The following comments exemplify the situation: “… it has been my perception that
sometimes all it would take is to invest in the good people you already have within the
institution. Often the trusted, committed and successful staff members get over looked.” There is
“lack of leadership development at lower levels, no mentoring programs, or access to external
executive training below a certain level. We are not consciously building our leadership
management expertise.”
Another additional factor is hindering hiring/promotion policies/practices.
Participants mentioned several practices that seem to inhibit internal leadership recruiting. For
instance, unethical hiring and promotion practices such as favoritism, nepotism, corruption, and
internal politics were mentioned. Another issue mentioned is the reliance more on willingness
than on credentials in selecting faculty administrators. Also, some respondents indicated that the
emphasis on using consulting firms instead of a cheaper internal expertise is a waste of money
and tends to discourage internal candidates.
Also, it appears that lack of good hiring and promotion practices pushes decision-makers
to rely too much on external recruitment, which in turn further discourages internal good
performers as they see no room for upward movement. The tendency of viewing internal faculty
members and administrators as unqualified for promotion to upper leadership positions has
probably cemented the practice of recruiting externally. However, what is forgotten is that these
faculty and low level administrators, if properly groomed, can turn into powerful assets for units
and institutional leadership; but, if they are ignored or overlooked, they lose heart. For example,
one respondent reacted, “I will also be leaving due to the lack of opportunity for me to be
209
promoted from within here.” He/she also added: “My supervisors rave about how great I am
doing but no opportunities to be promoted...not even a title upgrade...even though I have taken
on many responsibilities that are way beyond my original position description.” Mead-Fox
(2010) also talks about the problem of higher education impeding internal recruitment of its own
members even though it is hard to hire externally.
Interestingly, the same low level administrators and faculty, who are ignored internally
by the subject university, are sometimes hired by other institutions. The frequent departures of
leaders testify to the fact that some of them are hired by other institutions. It seems, therefore,
that there is unplanned leadership exchange process taking place that needs to be critically
examined. First, higher MU positions are hired externally—by employing leaders that have been
groomed by other institutions as a substitute for growing own leaders. At the same time, good
middle and low level administrators, who are ignored internally at MU, are hired by other
institutions, which also practice external recruitment at the expense of their own internal talents.
This process could be reversed; but a study is required to find out the dynamics as well as
pros and cons of this exchange process. Theoretically, one can say: if institution ‘A’ hires its
senior leader from one of the middle level administrators of institution ‘B’ and vice versa, both
institution ‘A’ and ‘B’ win by getting what they presume good, but both lose money, time, and
energy in implementing costly external searches. So why not win by less expensively growing
leaders internally? It seems that many universities lose thousands of dollars per each external
search, which sometime end miserably by obtaining undesired persons or leading to inconclusive
results. For instance, one university spent about $200,000 for a 10-month search of the top leader
that failed to materialize (June, 2007).

210
The fourth additional factor emerging from qualitative data is budget and financial
limitations. One issue that is evident from this study is the severe budget cuts due to financial
shortages. This situation has partly contributed to the intricacy related to hiring and replacement
of departing members as well as to the difficulty in promoting the remaining employees. Salary
and incentives increase have been frozen as well; many people are likely to depart voluntarily or
unwillingly, the trend which is likely to continue in the next few years. For example, one
respondent expresses, “Talented leaders are trying to leave this university … or [they] are asked
to because of budget cuts. They see no future here either academically or financially.” Harrison
and Hargrove (2006) posit also that budget shortages hasten the retirement of academic staff.
As a result of budget and financial limitations, Midwestern University seemed to
encourage people to leave through a voluntary employee separation program implemented in late
2009. This program facilitated early departure or retirement of university employees, and several
employees took advantage of it. However, a massive departure within a short period might
compound the magnitude of the problem related to staffing and succession at the university. For
instance, replacement of some key, experienced workers in vital units might become a challenge
as echoed by one respondent: “Restructuring of departments and encouraged retirements has
negatively impacted this [university] by moving experienced staff out of any succession practice
that may have been in place.”
On the other hand, while it is true from the study that the economic recession has greatly
impacted the budgetary capacity of the university, it needs to be questioned further whether there
are any other significant reasons for the university’s dwindling financial capacity aside from
reduced government funds. One possible reason is the dwindling student enrollment for the past
few years. Also, perhaps the university does not attract a huge amount of donations, in which
211
case adequate attention is needed, because, according to Shieh (2009), some universities
continue to receive major donations despite the ongoing economic recession.
Moreover, this study reveals that not all faculty and the administrative staff members are
paid competitively as the market dictates; consequently, many good performers quit in search of
better financial packages. Adequate rewarding of the internally groomed leaders form a
constituent part of succession planning and management strategies (Krauss, 2007; Rothwell,
2005). There is a need to look for new incentives for leadership talent. For example, Towers and
Perrin (2005) found that not only good payment packages, but also career development
possibilities serve as incentives for attracting people to remain with their organizations. Smaller
salary and incentive packages discourage potential individuals from aspiring to leadership
positions. For instance, one respondent says: “…many people (myself included) do not wish to
advance to a higher level of management because we see the heavy toll taken by stress and
overwork on our supervisors and [department] chairs in return for very little financial gain.” The
question of salary and incentive packages for academic and administrative staff needs critical
consideration.
The final additional factor to be discussed in this section is effects of inadequate SPM
practices. It is important to note that the lack of adequate SPM approaches is affecting
Midwestern University in different ways. Regarding how the university is impacted by the lack
of systematic SPM program, an example can be drawn from statements of one respondent, who
posits, “[succession planning] seems to have been a low priority for many many years. I think it
has hurt the university, because potential leaders see no room for advancement here.”
Lack of succession planning policy hinders concerted efforts to implement SPM practices
discussed earlier in this work. For example, assessment of present and future organizational
212
leadership needs seldom takes place. Absence of such assessments is likely to hamper planning
for future leadership requirements, which in turn may impede the capacity to maintain effective
leadership continuity for the institutional units and the university at large. Moreover, poor
succession practices exacerbated by budget constraints can (1) result in tense relationship
between administrators and faculty, (2) create reluctance of people to assume leadership
positions, and (3) build mistrust between externally hired and the long-term stagnated folks.
These challenges can be minimized if the university will adopt systematic succession planning.
Furthermore, it seems the subject university has not invested in good performers
internally as much as it has recruited externally. While external recruitment is good sometimes, it
does not always guarantee a continued success in obtaining high quality, long-term, and
committed leaders as posited by one respondent: “Your leader always comes from afar, and by
the time that leader learns the university, it's time to leave.… The faculty has to stay in place and
reap the cost of their mistakes…” Moreover, sometimes external leaders are not easily trusted by
the internal members as one respondent points out, “… those who are hired in from the outside
for leadership positions are treated with mistrust and condescension.” Also, some external
recruits don’t even stay long enough before they decide to quit.
Data indicate that the university experiences a high top leadership turnover and transition.
This is probably due to operating without adequate SPM approaches. The comments here are
revealing: “We have been in a state of leadership transition for the past two years, and it is
difficult to focus on succession practices while leadership transitioning is occurring.” Also,
“Deans change too frequently to groom faculty for assistant dean positions…” Another
respondent comments, “Instability in administrative positions... President is new and will be
leaving. Provost is new this year... Four College Deans are on Interim appointments... The
213
University lacks the stability needed to carry out succession plans/practices…” It seems that all
this is happening largely because of the lacking of adequate SPM approaches as expressed by
one respondent: “Lack of leadership development at lower levels, no mentoring programs, or
access to external executive training below a certain level. We are not consciously building our
leadership management expertise.” High level of turnover and retirements without a group of
adequately prepared replacements amounts to a creation of accidental leaders. This situation
seems to be common in higher education. In fact, whereas Selingo (2007) reveal that most
leaders in academic institutions are not well prepared when they assume their responsibilities,
Powers and Maghroori (2006, p. C2) expose that academia is often run by “accidental
administrators”—faculty members who serve as interims without due administrative
preparedness.
On a positive note, perhaps realizing the situation at the subject university, the Student
Affairs Division initiated a leadership seminar to help its staff members. According to Ruth, that
initiative was adopted in fall 2009 as a pilot venture for providing leadership seminar for 20
classified and administrative members from different divisions under the name of “Leadership
Institute.” Though it is yet to receive institutional structured recognition, this initiative is a good
beginning that needs to be lauded, expanded, and systematized.
Implications and Recommendations
Research Implications
This study, although focused on a single case, has confirmed what other studies have
mostly concluded: Succession planning in higher education is deficient but an important subject.
Departure of key people from higher education, as exemplified in the subject university, is
imminent. Succession planning is not yet given a due priority in the university; and the university
214
is affected by this deficiency. However, this study suggests conducting more studies in order to:
(1) gain more understanding on how SPM approaches can best work in this Midwestern
University and in higher education in general, and (2) broaden and deepen the understanding of
succession planning issues and theoretical concepts applicable in academia. Therefore, follow-up
research at Midwestern University is vital. Also, replication of this study using other academic
institutions is recommended for two reasons. First, replication will serve as a platform for
evaluating SPM efforts of other similar institutions leading to depiction of their issues. Second,
replication will become an opportunity for testing and refining the concept framework employed
in this study. For the benefit of readers, several research agendas or questions inspired by this
study are outlined below for further research consideration.
1. What SPM administration variants can best suit MU and other universities?
From this study, it is clear that the most preferred SPM approach is an internal leadership
growing. Also, the subject university apparently has some succession planning practices
occurring minimally, informally, and driven by the goodwill of individual managers. Hence,
more studies may be required to investigate the effects of different combinations of these
succession planning approaches. For instance, the researcher recommends more studies on SPM
organizational formats and SPM administration variants suitable for MU and higher education
in general as described below.
Prompted by this dissertation work, the researcher of this study believes that an academic
institution can select one of the four possible SPM organizational formats: (1) formal and
centralized SPM, (2) centralized but informal SPM, (3) formal but decentralized SPM, and (4)
decentralized but informal SPM. These four are a result of the juxtaposing the two variables,
SPM governance type and the SPM formality type, in a 2x2 table as shown in Table 44.
215
Table 44
Four Possible SPM Organizational Formats in Academic Institutions
SPM Formality
Formal Informal
Centralized 1. Formal and 2. Centralized but
centralized SPM informal SPM
SPM governance
Decentralized 3. Formal but 4. Decentralized but
decentralized SPM informal SPM
As Table 45 shows, these four SPM organizational formats can either be institutionally
driven or individual-leader driven, in which case there will be eight variants of administering
Table 45
Eight SPM Administration Variants in Academic Institutions
SPM Driving Level

Institutionally driven Individual-leader driven
Formal and 1. SPM administered by 2. SPM administered
centralized one top level institutional separately by each
SPM office within a common university divisional leader
policy and operational (with each division leader
procedures for the whole designing and overseeing
institution (reporting his/her SPM policy)
required). (reporting required)
Centralized but 3. SPM coordinated by one 4. Each individual
informal SPM top level office using a divisional leader loosely
loose institutional policy coordinating SPM within
that is informally the division using leader-
SPM
implemented by all units driven informal initiatives
Governance
(reporting is optional) (reporting is optional)
Format
Formal but 5. Each unit given full 6. Each unit leader given
decentralized power to design and full and formal discretion to
SPM implement unit SPM single-handedly design and
policy without interference implement SPM as it deems
from above (reporting him/her fit above (reporting
required) required)
Decentralized 7. Units given mandate to 8. Unit leaders using their
but informal informally implement own discretion to decide
SPM whatever SPM approaches whether to practice or not to
they want (reporting practice SPM practices.
optional) (reporting optional)
216
SPM efforts in higher education, if the four formats and the two driving levels are juxtaposed.
The application of these eight SPM administration possibilities in Midwestern University or
other higher education institutions might need more refining. Therefore, more research is
recommended on these SPM administration variants to examine the best variants suitable for
different kinds of academic institutions.
2. How leadership programs and higher administration programs help to improve
internal leadership and succession planning capacity of universities that provide such
programs?
A move has begun in many community colleges (Hull, 2005) and in some universities to
establish leadership training programs. In fact, many universities have masters and doctoral
programs related to leadership studies or higher education administration. Midwestern University
is one of such. But it is not clear whether the providers themselves benefit from these programs.
Thus, studies are needed to examine the benefits of such programs for the providing universities.
Are these programs benefiting external markets more than meeting the needs of internal
leadership development?
3. What relationship exists between value in diversity and value in succession planning?
Rothwell (2005) suggests that succession planning can facilitate equity of identities in
organizations. In the subject university, however, the value placed in diversity does not tally with
the value in succession planning. It is, therefore, intriguing to examine the relationship existing
between these two important organizational notions. Parallel to research question 3 above are
two more possible research questions below.
4. How do gender and race impact succession planning practices in higher education?
217
5. How do gender and race impact the desire and availability in assuming leadership
responsibilities in higher education?
These two research question stem partly from the study findings. At the subject
university, there is a relatively fair balance between female and male leaders. However, people
of color appear dissatisfied with how they are considered in leadership promotions. At the same
time, the overall succession planning status is a bit flawed. One can examine whether gender and
race play any significant role in inhibiting or facilitating succession planning practices.
6. How does an unplanned exchange of leadership potentials taking place between
universities through pervasive external recruitments benefit or hurt these institutions?
As mentioned earlier, institutions are engaged in the unplanned exchange business of
leaders. Institution ‘A’ ignores internal talent and recruits externally from institution ‘B’, and
vice versa. One has to examine whether that traditional exchange is any longer justifiable in this
competitive age covered by war for talent. What are the real benefits and losses of such
transactions in today’s academia?
7. How much has the Midwestern University spent in the past years for searching
external leaders that could have been grown internally? And, how much would have been needed
to strategically prepare its own leaders?
This inquiry will help decision-makers get the actual amount spent on external search and
determine whether it is justifiable in comparison with grooming and recruiting internally.
8. How much and why do vertical promotions vs. horizontal movement occur in the
subject university compared to other academic institutions?
This can be a very interesting research question. In Midwestern University, both vertical
promotion and horizontal movement of talent are challenging. One needs to do research to
218
examine the dynamics of the staff internal movements and it can be even more intriguing if this
study is done in comparison to other similar institutions in size, location, or in any other criteria.
Understanding these kinds of movement provides insights of how succession planning can be
effected.
9. How do increasing workload and combinations of jobs impact the effectiveness of the
job holders in the subject university and in academia in general? And how prevalent is this
practice in academia?
Many members at the subject university are experiencing workload swell as a result of
internal organizational adjustments and loss of workers. Some are doing twice the volume of
their original tasks. It will be intriguing to examine the effects of these reorganizations and the
associated work volume surge on the effectiveness of the jobholders and the unit at large. These
kinds of studies can be done for individual universities or for a number of universities in a
certain region. Eventually the findings of these kinds of studies will further inform succession
planning scholars.
10. What makes some academic staff prefer leaving in order to seek growth elsewhere
while others remain to seek growth internally during crisis situations?
In this study, there were some people who expressed a desire to leave, while others
mentioned that they will remain regardless of the prevailing circumstance. Others were calm and
positive. It will be helpful to learn what factors people consider when making such big decisions,
to leave or to remain, especially in the time of crisis.
11. How does succession planning relate to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and
motivators in higher education?

219
Motivation is a key to pro-activeness of workers. Leaders cannot motivate followers but
can create an environment which enables followers to get motivated (Bess & Dee, 2008; DeBard,
2001). In this study, demoralization among participants was evident; demoralization can make
good performers lose motivation and thus affect succession planning practices. Perhaps, one
could examine how SPM is related to intrinsic and extrinsic motivations or motivators.
12. Why several perception differences on SPM practices between colleges, academic
and administrative groups, and years of experience exist at the Midwestern University?
This study reveals certain perception differences. For example, respondents of the
College of Musical Arts rated their unit relatively higher than other colleges in most SPM
practices. Conversely, the College of Technology obtained the lowest scores in most SPM
practices. These variations and others call for more studies to take place at this university.
13. What should the Midwestern University do to raise salary and incentive packages?
In case salary and incentives cannot be raised, what then should be done, instead, in order to
attract truly competitive talent?
This question is important because dissatisfaction due to salary packages and incentives
can degrade the quality of the workforce and leadership performance.
Policy and Practice Implications
General recommendations. This study may inform higher education policy makers and
practitioners involved with human resource management, faculty development, institutional
effectiveness, and organizational development. In fact, institutional policy and decision makers
at all levels can benefit from the results of this study. Above all, Midwestern University stands to
benefit from the results of this study; hence the following recommendations are specific for it.
220
Specific recommendations for Midwestern University. Midwestern University is
currently experiencing a combined effect of the budgetary downturn, the retirement of its
members due to baby boomer effect, and long term succession unpreparedness due to absence of
a systematic succession planning approach. The fact that most middle and senior positions are
filled with interim leaders exemplifies lack of internal leadership grooming and succession
unpreparedness. Unawareness about SPM, lack of emphasis from the top, and absence of
discussions about the succession planning processes leave some people either employing their
own means or fearing to adopt SPM practices altogether. The increased departure due to budget
cuts, lack of internal advancement chances, low salary and incentive levels, the impending
retrenchment program aggravated by economic woes of the region, and national/international
competition for talent make it difficult to consider practicing effective succession planning
modalities. This represents a complex situation for the university.
This situation should be improved. Several pieces of literature provide recommendations
to improve succession planning in academia because effective succession planning is the best
way to deal with impending leadership crisis and ensure organizational sustainability and vitality
(Binard Carlson, 2007; Mackey, 2008; Mandi, 2008; Rothwell, 2002, 2005). Improved
succession planning will prevent loss of people, organizational culture, knowledge, and expertise
(Merril Lynch, 2006); and it enhances performance of the institution (Rowe et al., 2005).
Moreover, Weiss (2005) asserts that educational improvement is hampered by lack of adequate
approaches to hiring, grooming, and retaining potential leaders.
In view of above, doing nothing would not be the best option for Midwestern University.
Even the study participants rejected the option of doing nothing. Lack of effective SPM will
likely continue to push people out of university in order to move up. Hence, the university should
221
pay attention to the voices of its own members and do something. Morale is likely to go down;
and data indicate that many academic and administrative staff will retire or move away from this
university. The university may lose hundreds of its academic and administrative staff including
key leaders. External recruitment has not been and will not be a full answer because new leaders
come and leave shortly as well.
Therefore, despite financial and leadership challenges, the university needs to act
strategically, by not only introducing appropriate succession planning approaches, but also
restoring the trust and confidence of the academic and administrative staff in the capacity of the
university to overcome budgetary, employment, and leadership promotion challenges.
Employment and vertical advancement constitute a part of individual needs that the organization
should be keen to meet. Succession planning not only ensures the supply of adequate leadership
to the organization, but also meets the needs of individual members who anticipate success
through personal, professional, and leadership development.
The university is, therefore, recommended to consider the following measures:
 Midwestern University should introduce a deliberate policy that would formalize
succession planning and ensure that the eight SPM practices are embedded in the
institutional culture. However, recognizing the governance intricacy in higher education,
more studies might be required to identify the most appropriate SPM administration
variant as indicated in Tables 44 and 45.
 The university should encourage internal recruitment, retention, and promotion of its
talent. Succession planning does not necessarily reject external hiring of leaders;
however, external hiring is mostly recommended when organizational change is
imperative through innovative ideas that are not likely internally. It should be
222
remembered also that persistence on external recruitment demoralizes internal good
performers, who feel ignored. Midwestern University should learn how to tap and release
the leadership energy from within. Hence, this calls for a review of hiring, evaluation,
retention, and promotion practices and policies.
 The university should introduce excellent leadership development programs or initiatives
based on the actual leadership needs. Internal leadership grooming through coaching,
mentoring, and group-based leadership training should be an ongoing process, because in
this competitive age marred by national and global fights for talent and unpredictable
economic crises and other emergencies, it is virtually impossible to have excellent
succession planning without internal leadership growing. In fact, the literature suggests
that internal development of leadership potentials is at the heart of any effective
succession planning and management endeavor (Berke, 2005, Rothwell, 2005). A key to
addressing 21st century challenges facing academia is to introduce a continuous
leadership development of its faculty members (Hargrove, 2003).
 A systematic succession planning and management program should be introduced at the
university that entails at least eight SPM practices discussed in this study. Top leadership
should model the way by demonstrating explicit support for SPM program and ensuring
that university members understand it well.
 The university should examine and address its leadership challenges quickly. Higher
education esteems shared governance (Bess & Dee, 2008), thus tackling leadership issues
requires adequate involvement of representatives of different university constituencies.
Without effective leadership, SPM efforts may not succeed.

223
 Midwestern University should involve all stakeholders to seek strategies for dealing with
financial shortages, soliciting more funds from whatever possible sources, as well as
addressing issues of salaries, incentives, staffing, and working environment.
 The university should use areas of diversity strengths as a stepping stone towards further
diversity improvement aiming at adequate racial and gender representation in leadership
promotions.
Final Thoughts
Academic institutions, like Midwestern University, possess certain advantages over other
organizations, advantages which can be employed to improve their succession practices. Aside
from the fact that they can attract external talent for grooming, retaining, and future usage,
academic institutions can also identify and retain the best graduate students who can be
developed into future leaders.
In addition, most academic institutions have doctoral programs focused in leadership and
higher education administration that can be optimally utilized to develop a supply of internal
leaders. Professional and leadership capacity embedded in universities and colleges make them
potential generators of leaders, if exchange and sharing of knowledge and experience between
departments and programs are encouraged. Also, academia has faculty and administrative staff
members who are, indeed, the main source of leadership supply for respective academic
institutions. What is needed now is to mobilize and plan for adequate development and
utilization of this huge human resource for internal leadership supply.
The researcher believes that MU should examine its organizational culture critically
because the context within which higher education is operating is continually changing. For
instance, the external pool of qualified leaders is shrinking (Moser, 2008); financing system for
224
higher education is shifting and external accountability is taking over from internal
accountability (Bess & Dee, 2008; DeBard, 2001). These new trends require constant supply of
adequately prepared leadership for all institutional levels. The author believes that a systemic
SPM associated with internal growing of leaders and SPM is the answer to the emerging new
dynamics.
Readers are reminded that benefits of SPM are well discussed in the second chapter; also,
at least eight benefits for internal leadership growing have been mentioned in the same chapter.
In brief, internal leadership succession: (1) tends to generate higher performance (Gandossy &
Verma, 2006); (2) is cheaper than recruiting externally (Berchelman, 2005); (3) conserves
institutional memory, technology, and culture (Wallin, 2007); (4) increases trust and
acceptability of the successor in the organization (Harrison et al., 2006); (5) requires shorter
period for the successor to understand internal and external organizational environment (Berke,
2005); (6) minimizes distraction linked to leadership transition (Wallin, 2007); (7) minimizes
stagnation, demoralization, and attrition of internal talent (Gandossy & Verma, 2006); and (8)
mitigates the likelihood of failures within the first two years that external successors tend to
experience (Berchelman, 2005).
On the other hand, the fear of grooming people in order to lose them may seem
legitimate. However, the researcher raises three arguments against this fear. First, the institution
will not lose all internally groomed people in the environment where internal grooming and
recruitment is cherished. A study might be necessary, though, to determine the actual retention
rate of the internally groomed that takes place in academia. Second, the fact that an institution
will have a new culture that esteems internal leadership growing and succession planning will
not only facilitate more retention of leadership talents, but will also attract outsiders including
225
the “runaways”. The third argument is that academic institutions do not stop enrolling students
for fear of dropouts, why then should they fear “dropouts” from the cohort of internally
developed leadership potentials?
However, as cautioned, studies to examine the retention rates of the internally groomed,
the attraction rate generated by succession planning culture, and the real monetary benefits or
costs for instituting an effective SPM in a college or university would be intriguing. The bottom
line is that Midwestern University has the capacity to provide training to its own academic and
administrative members, because it has two doctoral level programs related to educational
leadership and higher education administration, aside from a prestigious MBA program and
other administration related masters programs.
Before concluding, it is emphasized that SPM is the basis for the continued survival of
academic organizations like MU because SPM can ensure the pipeline of the future leadership
talent and candidates for all institutional positions. Moreover, SPM encourages diversity and
multiculturalism in workplaces; augments career paths, staff development, and other human
resource mobility (Rothwell, 2005). However, SPM ought to be an ongoing process linked to
organizational learning capacity (Hunte-Cox, 2004). If institutions, like MU, want to be a part of
the solution of the forthcoming talent crisis, they have to reconsider their policies and culture
(Lynch, 2007). Culture change is vital because ill-prepared academic leaders are likely to
endanger the effectiveness of units and the institution as a whole (Wolverton & Ackermen,
2006).
Concluding Remarks
This study has exposed the general status of SPM efforts at the subject university. The
SPM situation needs a substantial improvement through an introduction of appropriate

226
succession planning and management approaches. In reaching a decision, the university should
consider several dynamics such as external vs. internal recruitment of leaders, formal vs.
informal succession planning procedures, central vs. decentralized governance of SPM, and
institutional vs. individual driving force in administering SPM.
The recommendations provided in this chapter form a portion of a possible but not
exhaustive set of solutions to the situation. However, in some aspects, further research is needed
to ensure that the subject university embraces the right strategy. Both policy makers and
practitioners need to do their part for the benefit of the university’s vitality in this competitive
age. Policy and decision makers should remember that financial crisis, lack of SPM skills and
determination, as well as ignoring internal talent and reliance on external recruitment that often
fails can easily constitute a recipe for a chaotic leadership situation.
Midwestern University should, therefore, act quickly to restore confidence to its
members by addressing its financial and leadership challenges. Most importantly, the university
should consider introducing both short and long term interventions that will ensure a lasting
supply of effective leadership. This university is capable of revitalizing itself continuously. It has
within itself all the necessary ingredients, including expertise. What is needed now is an
increased level of commitment to change the culture and build mechanisms for adequate,
systematic SPM practices.
Finally, this study serves as another spring board to inspire other scholars to investigate
SPM efforts happening in other academic institutions as well as to design additional studies that
will refine and enrich theoretical frameworks badly needed in the field of succession planning
and management.
227
REFERENCES
American Council on Education (2007). The American college president 2007 edition: 20th
anniversary. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Amey, M. J., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). Career paths for community college leaders
(Research Brief AACC-RB-02-2). Washington, DC: American Association of
Commuinty Colleges.
Bisbee, D. C. (2005). Current practices of land grant universities for identifying and training
academic leaders. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, United States.
Retrieved Dissertation & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3201486).
Barden, D. (2006, March 17). The internal heir apparent. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(28),
C2-C3.
Barker, B. (2006). Rethinking leadership and change: A case study in leadership succession
and its impact on school transformation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2),
277-293
Berchelman, K. (2005, Fall). Succession planning. The Journal for Quality & Participation,
28(3), 11-12.
Berke, D. (2005, Jarnuary). Succession planning and management: A guide to organizational
systems and practices. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for
effective policy and practice. Sterling VA: Stylus.
Betts, K., Urias, D., Chavez, J., & Betts, K. (2009). Higher education and shifting U.S.
demographics: Need for visible administrative career paths, professional development,

228
succession planning & commitment to diversity. Academic Leadership, 7(2). Retrieved
from http://www.academicleadership.org
Binard Carlson, K. S. (2007). Succession planning: Identifying and preparing future leaders in
the Colorado community college system. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at
Denver, United States – Colorado. Retrieved from Dissertation & Theses: A&I database.
(Publication No. AAT 3293507).
Boggs, G. R. (2003). Leadership context for twenty-first century. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2003(123), 15. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Bornstein, R. (2005). The nature and nurture of presidents. Chronicle of Higher Education
52(11), B10.
Britt, J. (2003). It’s time to get serious about succession planning. HR Magazine, 48(11), 12.
Calabrese, R. L. (2002). The leadership assignment: Creating change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Campbell, D. F. (2002). The leadership gap: Model strategies for leadership development.
Washington DC: Community College Press—Association of Community Colleges.
Campbell III, R. N., & Eggers, W.D. (2006). States of transition. Delloite Development LLC.
Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/us/talentpov.
Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Shen, W. (2002). Revisiting the performance consequences of CEO
succession: The impacts of successor type, post succession senior executive turnover, and
departing CEO tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 717-734.
Cantor, P. (2005). Succession planning: Often requested, rarely delivered. Ivey Business Journal,
69(3), 1-10. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2000). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership-
powered company. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

229
Chow, I. H. (2005). Gender differences in perceived leadership effectiveness in Hongkong.
Women in Management Review, 20(4), 216-233.
Conger, J. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline. Harvard Business
Review, 81(12), 76-84.
Conger, J. A. & Nadler, D. A. (2004). When CEOs step up to fail. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 45(3), 50-56.
Corporate Leadership Council. (2003). High-impact succession management: From succession
planning to strategic executive talent management. Washington, DC: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak: CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting a mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Criswell, C. & Martin, A. (2007). 10 trends: A senior executives’ views on the future. Retrieved
from http://wwww.ccl.org/leadership/
Cunningham, I. (2007). Talent management: making it real. Development and Learning in
Organizations, 21(2), 4-6.
Dawley, D., Hoffman, J. J., & Smith, A. R. (2004). Leadership succession: Does gender matter?
The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25(8), 678-690.
DeBard, R. (2001). Getting Results: A guide to managing resources in student affairs. Horsham,
PA: LRP Publications
Drumm, K. (2004). What’s all the fuss about leadership? Community College Week, 16(26), 4-5.
230
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004). Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, R. J. Sternberg,
& A. T. Ciancolo (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 279-301). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Eastman, L. J. (1995), Succession planning: An annotated bibliography and summary of
commonly reported organizational practices. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Fegley, S. (2006, June). 2006 succession planning survey report. Society for Human Resource
Management. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from http://www.hrm.org/surveys.
Fingerhut, E. D. (2008). Strategic plan for higher education 2008-2017 (Ohio Board of
Regents). Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.uso.edu
/strategicplan/downloads/documents/strategicPlan/USOStrategicPlan.pdf
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62-89.
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2004). Principals’ succession and educational challenge. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42(4), 431-449.
Fraenkel J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fulmer, R. (2004). Choose tomorrow’s leaders today: Succession planning grooms firms for
success. Retrieved from http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/021/succession.html.
Fulton-Calkins, P., & Milling, C. (2005). Community-college leadership: An art to be practiced:
2010 and beyond. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 29(3), 233-250.
Gaffney, S. (2005, Fall). Career development as a retention and succession planning tool.
Journal for Quality and Participation, 28(3), 7-10.

231
Gaither, G. H. (2002, Spring). Developing leadership skills in academia. Academic Leadership,
the online journal. Retrieved from http://www.academicleadership.org.
Gandossy, R. P., & Verma, N. (2006). Passing the torch of leadership. Leader to Leader,
2006(40), 37-44.
Garman, A. N., & Glawe, J. (2004). Succession planning. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 56(2), 119-128.
Gay, M., & Sims, D. (2006). Building tomorrow’s talent: A practitioner’s guide to talent
management and succession planning. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Giambatista, R. C., Rowe, W. G., Riaz, S. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical
review of leader succession literature since 1994. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 963-
991.
Graham, S. (2002). University leaders are being developed for future positions. HR on Campus,
5(8), 7.
Greer, C., & Virick, M. (2008). Diverse succession planning: Lessons from the industry leaders.
Human Resource Management 47(2), 351-367.
Grigoryev, P. (2006). Hiring by competency models. Journal for Quality &
Participation, 29(4), 16-18
Groves, K. S. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best practices.
Journal of Management Development, 28(3), 239-260.
Guenther, R. L. (2004). Is it time to replace your replacement planning strategy? Harvard
Management Update, 9(4), 3-5.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Leadership succession. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 163 -173.
232
Hargrove, S. (2003). Developing faculty for academic leadership: Black Issues in Higher
Education, 19(24), 38. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.
Harmon, F. (2007, January). Succeeding at succession. Architectural Record, 195(1), 28-28.
Retrieved from Academic Search Complete.
Harris, S. (2007, Spring). Motivators and inhibitors for women superintendents. Advancing
Women in Leadership Journal, 23. from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/
spring2007/harris.htm
Harrison, H. D., & Hargrove, M. J. (2006). Aging faculty: Workforce challenges and issues
facing higher education. Business Perspectives 18(2): 20-25.
Harrison, M., McKinnon, T., & Terry, P. (2006). Effective succession planning.
T+D, 60(10), 22-23.
Heuer, J. J. (2003). Succession planning for key administrators at ivy-plus
universities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, United States.
Retrieved from Dissertation & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3084871).
Hoppe, S. O. (2003). Identifying and nurturing potential academic leaders. New Directions for
Higher Education, 124, 3-12
Huang, T. (1999). Who shall follow? Factors affecting the adoption of succession plans in
Taiwan. Long Range Planning, 32(6), 609-616.
Hughes, J. C., & Rog, E. (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving employee
recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 743-757.
Hull, J. R. (2005). The nature and status of leadership development in United States
233
community colleges. Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,
Illinois, United States. Retrieved from Dissertation & Theses: A&I database. (Publication
No. AAT 3195321).
Hunte-Cox, D. E. (2004). Executive succession planning and the organizational
learning capacity. Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington
D. C., United States. Abstract retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqweb?did=
765088291&Fmt=7&clientld=65345&RQT=309&VName=PQD
June, A. (2008). Higher education's career ladder may be broken, study finds. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/news/article/5200/higher-
educations-career-ladder-may-be-broken-study-finds
Kettl, D. F., & Fesler, J. W. (2005). The politics of the administrative process (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: CQ Press
Karaevli, A., & Hall, D. T. (2003). Growing leaders for turbulent times: Is succession planning
up to the challenge? Organizational Dynamics, 32(1), 62-79.
Kesler, G. C. (2002). Why the leadership bench never gets deeper: Ten insights about executive
talent development. Human Resource Planning, 25(1), 32-44.
Kesner, I. F., & Sebora, T. C. (1994). Executive Succession: Past, present, and future. Journal of
Management, 20, 237-372.
Khumalo, F., & Harris, M. (2008). Top level management succession plan strategies.
International Journal of Business Strategy, 8(3), 170-178.
Khurana, R. (2001). Finding the right CEO: Why boards often make poor choices. MIT Sloan
Review, 43(1), 91-95.

234
Kilian, C. M., Hukai, D., & McCarty, E. C. (2005). Building diversity in the pipeline to
corporate leadership. Journal of Management Development, 24(2), 155-168.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Krauss, J. A. (2007). Succession planning and talent management recommendations to reduce
workforce attrition and prepare for an aging population. Doctoral dissertation,
Wilmington University, Delaware, United States. Retrieved from Dissertation & Theses:
A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3292900).
Kubow, P. K., & Fossum, P. R. (2007). Comparative education: Exploring issues in
international context (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: NJ: Pearson
Lambert, L. (2006). Lasting leadership: A study of high leadership capacity schools.
The Educational Forum, 70(3), 238-254
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., & Steier, L. P. (2004, June). Toward an integrative model of
effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 305-328.
Leibman, M., Bruer, R. A., & Maki, B. R. (1996). Succession management: The next generation
of succession planning: Human Resource Planning, 19(3), 16-29.
Lockwood, N. R. (2006, June). Talent management: Driver for organizational success.
HRMagazine, 51(6), 1-11. Retrieved from Business Search Complete database.
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2002). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource
Management, 39, 321-329.

235
Lucier, C., Schuyt, R., & Handa, J. (2004, Summer). CEO succession 2003: The perils of good
governance. Strategy + Business, pp. 70-86.
Land, P.C. (2002). From the other side of the academy to academic leadership roles: Crossing
the great divide. New Directions for Higher Education, 124, 13-20.
Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human
Resources Management Review, 16, 139-154
Loftus, P. (2007, June). Tackle talent management to achieve high performance. Plant
Engineering, 29-30. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Lynch, D. (2007). Can higher education manage talent? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com.
Mackey, J. A. (2008). Community college leadership succession: Perceptions and plans of
community college leaders. Doctoral dissertation, North Arizona University, Arizona,
United States. Retrieved from Dissertation & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No.
AAT 3318486).
Madsen, R. S. (2007, Summer). Leadership styles and philosophies of women university
presidents. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 25. Retrieved from
http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/summer2007/madsen.htm
Mandi, A. R. (2008). A case study exploring succession planning: Supported by a quantitative
analysis of governmental organizations in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Doctoral
dissertation, The George Washington University, United States. Retrieved from
Dissertation Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3297443).
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousands Oak: CA: Sage.

236
Mcphail Naples, F. (2006). Aspirations of community college leadership: A study of talent
engagement and the barriers and motivations for faculty leadership development.
Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, United States. Retrieved
from Dissertation Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3251464).
Mead-Fox, D. (2010). It’s harder to find superior leaders. Chronicle of Higher Education.
56(17), D25-D26. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Merrill Lynch (2006, May). The 2006 Merill Lynch new retirement study: A perspective from
individuals and employers. Retrieved from http://www.merrilllynch.com
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak:
CA: Sage.
Moser, K. (2008). California’s community colleges struggle to recruit and retain president.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(13), B7.
[MU] (2010). Working framework. Retrieved from http://www.[mu].edu/downloads/
[mu]/files57397.pdf
[MU] Office of Institutional Research (2010). Faculty and staff information. Retrieved from
http://www.[mu].edu/offices/ir/page16170.html
[MU] (2009). Faculty and staff information. Retrieved from http://www.[mu].edu/offices/ir/
[MU] (2009). [MU] at a glance. Retrieved from http://go2.[mu].edu/choose/about/
Murphy, S. (2006). Executive development and succession planning: Qualitative evidence.
International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8(4), 253-265. Retrieved from
Academic Search Complete database.
Next in Line? The Succession Planning Debate (2006). Presidency, 9(3), 38-40. Retrieved
from Academic Search Complete database.

237
Nink, C., Boyer, D., & Fogg, J. (2006). Succession planning: Preparing future corrections
leaders -- now. Corrections Today, 68(5), 34-37.
Powers, C., & Maghroori, R. (2006). The accidental administrator. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 52(40), C2-C3. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Pfeffer, J. (2002, First Quarter). The talent war is a losing battle. Strategy + Business, 11-13
Quinn, P. S. (2007). Searching, hiring, and searching again: Stakeholder perceptions in higher
education presidential transition. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University, United
States – Indiana. Retrieved from Dissertation Theses: A&I database. (Publication No.
AAT 3259539).
Roddy, N. (2004). Leadership capacity building model: Developing tomorrow's
leadership in science and technology. Public Personnel Management, 33(4), 487-
496.
Rothwell, W. J. (2005). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and
building talent from within. (3rd ed.). New York: American Management Association.
Rothwell, W. J. (2004). What’s special about CEO succession?. Global CEO, 4(3), 15-20
Rothwell, W. J. (2002). Higher education may be losing its top officials sooner than expected.
HR on Campus, 5(8), 1-4.
Rothwell, W. (2002). Putting success into your succession planning. Journal of Business
Strategy, 23(3), 32.
Rowe, W. G., Cannella Jr., A. A., Rankin, D., & Gorman, G. (2005). Leader succession and
organizational performance: Integrating the common-sense, ritual scapegoating, and
vicious-circle succession theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 197-219.

238
Sauer, J. H., & Cicero, D. (2007). AARP Arizona poll of employers: Perceptions of an aging
workforce trend. Washington, DC.: AARP Knowledge management. Retrieved from
http://www.aarp.org/research/work/issues/aging_workforce_2007.html.
Shen, W., & Cannella, A., Jr. (2002). Power dynamics within top management and their impacts
on CEO dismissal followed by inside succession. Academy of Management Journal 45,
1195-1205.
Schmalzried, H., & Fallon, L. F. (2007). Succession planning for local health department
top executives: Reducing risk to communities. Journal of Community Health,
32(3), 169-180.
Selingo, J. (2007). Trustees: More willing than ready. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(36).
A11.
Shieh, D. (2009). Despite downturn, some colleges continue to receive major gifts. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 55(18), A16
Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college
leadership. AACC Research Brief. Leadership Series No. 1, AACC-RB-01-5,
Washington, DC.: American Association of Community Colleges
Sobol, M. R., Harkins, P., & Conley, T. (Eds.) (2007). Linkage Inc.’s best practices for
succession planning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer A. Willey Imprint.
Smith, R. A. (2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: Theory and research. Annual
Review of Sociology, 28, 509-542
Spurgeon, P., & Cross, V. (2005). Gender differences in management behaviour and leadership
style: Implications for organizational performance. International Journal of Diversity,
5(6), 221-231.
239
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
Stephens, J. H. (2006). Chief executive officers succession planning in United States
hospitals. Doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University, Michigan, United States.
Abstract retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=
1221731281&Fmt=7&clientld=6534&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Stewart, V. (2007). Becoming citizens of the world. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 8-14.
Stremmel, A. Arnold, M. Donavan, K. Mistry, V. & Helling, M. K. (2007). Assisting and
supporting new department heads: An academic leadership program. The Department
Chair 18(2), 20-22.
Towers and Perrin (2005). Riding the wave of growth and restructuring: Optimizing the deal for
today’s workforce. Retrieved from http://www.towersperrin.com.
Tucker, E., Kao, T., & Verma, N. (2005, July). Next generation talent management: Insights on
how workforce trends are changing the face of talent management. Business Credit,
107(7), 20-27.
Vancil, R. F. (1987). Passing the baton: Managing the process of CEO succession. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Wallin, D. (2007, January). Succession planning: Developing future leaders from within.
Academic Leader 23(1), 2-8. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Waring, A. L. (2003). African-American female college presidents: Self conceptions of
leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(3). 31-43.

240
Weisman, I. M., & Vaughan, G. B. (2002). The community college presidency 2001 (Research
Brief AACC-RB-02-1). Washington, DC: American Association of Commuinty
Colleges.
Weiss, S. (2005). District and school leadership: The progress of education reform (Education
Commission of the States Report Volume 6 No. 2). Abstract retrieved ERIC database
(Eric No. ED486434).
Wiersema, M. (2002). Holes at the top: Why CEO firings backfire. Harvard Business Review,
80(12), 70-77.
Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R., & Holt, S. (2005). Preparing for leadership: What academic
department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
27(2), 227-238.
Wolverton, M., & Ackerman, R. (2006, July). Cultivating possibilities: Prospective department
chair professional development and why it matters. Planning for Higher Education,
34(4), 14-23. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Wolverton, M., & Gmelsh, W. H. (2002). College deans. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.
Zhang, Y., Rajagopalan, N. (2004). When the known devil is better than the unknown god: An
empirical study of the antecedents and the consequences of relay CEO successions.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 483-500.

Appendix A: A Questionnaire for Assessing Succession Planning and Management (SPM) Efforts
at a University:
Dear Participant,
You are kindly requested to take part in this unique study. Your participation and your honest opinions will
be highly appreciated. The objective of this survey is to understand the status and issues of succession
planning and management efforts at your university.
Succession planning and management (SPM) may be understood as any effort intended to ensure the
continuous effective performance of an organization through deliberate identification, development,
replacement, and strategic application of leaders over time. It may be systematic or informal. In systematic
SPM, an organization’s leaders attempt to prepare successors for key/leadership positions; in informal
succession planning, no effort is made to prepare successors; and, as vacancies occur in key positions,
leaders respond to the crises at that time (Rothwell, 2005).
Please take 15 minutes to respond to all questions appearing below (Part A, B, C, and D). When you are
finished, please be sure to press “submit” at the end of this questionnaire. If you have questions, feel free to
call me (419 819 9282) or email me via pmateso@bgsu.edu . Remember that you can save and stop
responding at any point and resume completion later.
This questionnaire is intended to be anonymous to everyone except the researcher. All responses will be
confidential.
A: Demographics
Please complete the following items about your demographics.
Q1 What best describes your main occupation Q4 Which title best describes your
role (what takes more than 50% of your present position? (what takes more
working time) at this university? than 50% of your working time?)
1. Faculty administrator(e.g. school director, 1. Vice President
dean)[GO TO Q2] 2. Assistant Vice President
2. Faculty [GO TO Q2] 3. Associate Vice President
3. Administrative leader (e.g. manager, 4. Provost
director)[GO TO Q3] 5. Vice Provost
4. Professional administrative staff (e.g. 6. Associate Vice Provost
accountant, insurance officer) [GO TO Q3] 7. Dean
Q2 Select your college under which you work 8. Assistant Dean
1. College of Arts & Sciencess 9. Director
2. College of Business Administration 10. Assistant Director
3. College of Education & Human 11. Department Chair
Development 12. Coordinator
4. College of Health & Human Services 13. Faculty
5. College of Musical Arts 14. Manager
6. College of Technology 15. Head of administrative section
7. Graduate College 16. professional administrative staff
8. Off-campus College 17. Other[GO TO Q4a]
9. University Libraries
10.Continuing & Extended Education
Q3 Select your administrative division under Q4a Please specify the “other” for your
which you work title
1. Academic Affairs ………………………………………
2. Finance and Administration ………..
3. Governmental Affairs ………………………………………
242
4. Human Resources ………..

5. Office of the President
6. Student Affairs
7. University Advancement
Q5 How many years have you been in your Q9 Do you expect to change the place of
current position at this university? your employment within the next 5
…………………………… years?
1. Not at all
2. I am not sure
3. Possibly yes
4. Certainly yes
Q6 How many years have you been employed at Q10 Which of the following best describes
this university? your ethnicity/race?
…………………………….. 1. African American
2. Asian American
3. American Indian
4. Hispanic
5. Caucasian/White
6. Other (specify) [GO TO Q10a]
Q7 What is your highest degree earned? Q10a Please specify the “other” for your
1. High school diploma ethnicity/race
2. Bachelor …. ….. ….. …. ….. ……….
3. Masters ……………..
4. Professional
5. Doctorate Q11 Gender:
1. Female
2. Male
Q8 When do you expect to retire? Q12 Your age:

1. In the next 0-5 years 1) under 26
2. in the next 6-10 years 2) 26-35
3. in the next 11-15 years 3) 36-45
4. in more than 15 years 4) 46-55
5) 56-65
6) above 65
B: Assessment of SPM Practices at your College or Administrative Unit Level
Instructions: In this section, please respond about the practices that take place in your college (for faculty/
faculty administrators), or in your administrative unit (for professional administrative staff /administrative
leaders). Administrative unit is defined here as the level of the organization at which most decisions on
staff employment, development, and retention are made and within which you have frequent interaction.
For example, if you work within a single office with the mentioned features, respond at that level. If the
scope of your work spans an entire vice presidential division, please respond at that level.
Q13 How strongly do you agree with the following statements regarding SPM practices at your
college or administrative unit?
243
a The present work and competency 1 2 3 4

requirements of different leadership positions (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
are regularly assessed. Disagree) Agree)
b Systems exist to assess future requirements 1 2 3 4
for work and competency of different (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
leadership positions. Disagree) Agree)
c Individuals’ leadership potential for future 1 2 3 4
usage is regularly assessed. (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
d There is a deliberate effort to attract outside 1 2 3 4
talent for key faculty/administrative/ (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
leadership positions. Disagree) Agree)
e Efforts exist to internally identify talent from 1 2 3 4
existing faculty/administrative staff for (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
future leadership utilization. Disagree) Agree)
f There are incentive schemes for retaining the 1 2 3 4
existing faculty/administrative staff and (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
leaders with notable talent. Disagree) Agree)
g There exists some kind of succession plan 1 2 3 4
chart that guides the succession process for (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
each leadership position. Disagree) Agree)
h Faculty/administrative staff members are 1 2 3 4
involved in discussing/reviewing succession (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
plan charts. Disagree) Agree)
i There is a practice of identifying a pool of 1 2 3 4
individuals with high leadership potential for (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
each leadership position. Disagree) Agree)
j Identified potential leaders take part in 1 2 3 4
leadership development programs based on (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
their competency needs. Disagree) Agree)
k The current college/administrative unit 1 2 3 4
leaders are active in mentoring/coaching (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
their potential subordinates. Disagree) Agree)
l There is a practice of selecting successor 1 2 3 4
candidates out of a pool of groomed potential (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
leaders. Disagree) Agree)
m Internally groomed candidates are regularly 1 2 3 4
evaluated and given feedback. (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
n Internally groomed successor candidates 1 2 3 4
receive gratifying salary packages. (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
o Usually successors are recruited from a 1 2 3 4
group of internally groomed candidates. (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
p Before they leave, outgoing 1 2 3 4
administrators/leaders take time to (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
mentor/coach their internal successors. Disagree) Agree)
q The leadership transition periods are 1 2 3 4
normally short and calm. (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
244
r Top university leadership support 1 2 3 4

college/administrative unit leaders who (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
promote internal leadership grooming. Disagree) Agree)
s Top university leadership explicitly promotes 1 2 3 4
succession planning policies and strategies. (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
t At least one top university leader is actively 1 2 3 4
involved in succession planning issues. (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
u Grooming and promoting leaders from 1 2 3 4
within constitute a part of accepted (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
university policies/philosophy. Disagree) Agree)
v Succession planning activities form a 1 2 3 4

substantive component of the university (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
strategy/strategic plan. Disagree) Agree)
w Institutional culture encourages the practice 1 2 3 4
of recruiting, grooming, and retaining (Strongly (Disagree) (Agree) (Strongly
academic/administrative/leadership talent. Disagree) Agree)
C: Evaluation of Overall University status in some SPM Aspects
Instructions: In this section, please respond to the items taking into consideration of the whole university
as an organization.
Q14 How well is this university currently Q16 How urgently does this university need
conducting succession planning and to improve or establish a systematic
management processes? succession planning and management
1. Very poorly program?
2. Inadequately 1. Not needed at all
3. Adequately 2. Needed, but not urgently
4. Very well 3. Urgently needed
4. Very urgently needed
Q15 How do you rate the level of

importance of a systematic succession
planning and management program
for this university?
1. Low
2. Moderate
3. High
4. Very High
Q17 Select the degree of suitability of 1 2 3 4
the following approaches to Not suitable Fairly suitable suitable Very
succession planning for this suitable
university.
Q17a Internal leadership grooming and
retention program
Q17b External sourcing from within the
USA
245
Q17c Searching talents from abroad

Q17d Rehiring the retired officials
Q17e Forming strategic staffing
collaboration with other
universities
Q17f Retaining best graduate students
Q17g Restructuring the organization of
the university so as to minimize
staffing needs
Q17h Doing nothing (continue with
business as usual)
D: Evaluation of Factors Associated with SPM processes
Q18 In your college/administrative unit, how Q21 What is the level of impact of the current
equitably are women considered for economic recession on the succession
leadership promotion? practices at your college/administrative
1. Very poorly unit
2. Inadequately 1. Low
3. Adequately 2. Moderate
4. Very well 3. High
[Briefly explain why you think so] 4. Very High
……………………………………………… [Briefly explain why you think so]
…………… ……………………………….. …………………… ………………………..
Q19 In your college/administrative unit, how Q22 What is the level of impact of federal
equitably are people of color considered for policies and laws on the succession
leadership promotion? practices at the university level?
1. Very poorly 1. Low
2. Inadequately 2. Moderate
3. Adequately 3. High
4. Very well 4. Very High
[Briefly explain why you think so] [Briefly explain why you think so]
……………………………………………….. ……………………………………………..
Q20 What is the level of impact of the current Q23 What is the level of impact of state
economic recession on your individual policies and laws on the succession
employment and/or retirement plans? practices at the university level?
1. Low 1. Low
2. Moderate 2. Moderate
3. High 3. High
4. Very High 4. Very High
[Briefly explain why you think so] [Briefly explain why you think so]
……………………………………………….. …………………………………………….
Q24 Mention other factors that you believe
highly affect succession practices at this
university
…………………………………………………..
Thank You for Your Cooperation!

246
Appendix B: An Interview Protocol for Determining Succession Planning and Management

(SPM) Issues at a University
Place: ………….. Date: ……… Time of Interview: From…… To ……….
Directions: Use this interview guide to help you identify and understand SPM issues at the subject
university. (These questions will be posed to each of the six interview participants)
Questions Notes on Responses

1. Tell me briefly about your background (Expected data: participant’s
and your work in this background/demographic/ career info)
department/division/ university
2. How do you understand succession (Expected data: participant’s factual knowledge

planning (as a field of study and as a about succession planning)
practice)?
3. From your experience, how can you (Expected data: participant’s experiential
assess succession planning efforts at the assessment about the university’s succession
university in general? planning efforts in general)
4. What is your opinion about the (Expected data: participant’s views about 8
university’s performance in the SPM practices in terms of performance rating,
following 8 practices of succession successes, challenges, and possibilities)
planning and management? (rate the
performance and mention successes,
challenges, and future possibilities)
4.1 Top leadership commitment and

involvement in succession planning
processes
4.2 Assessment of the present and future

key organizational/leadership needs
of the university
247
4.3 Talent management processes at the

university
4.4 The application of succession plan

charts for each key leadership
position
4.5 Identification and development of

leadership potential individuals
(especially from faculty and
administrative members)
4.6 Selection, evaluation, and rewarding

of the groomed leadership
candidates
4.7 The practice of internal recruitment

and replacement of the outgoing key
leaders at the university
4.8 The integration of succession

planning and management into the
organizational culture or strategy of
the university
5. What factors do you believe affect (Expected data: a list of factors that affect SPM
succession planning and management processes at the university)
processes at this university?
THANK YOU
248
Appendix C: The Expert Panel Review Form for Content Validation
A: General Assessment of the Questionnaire Format

Please give your best opinion about the following features of the survey instrument. The survey
is attached to this form.
1. Alignment of the survey to the purpose of the study:

Comments ________________________________________________________________
2. Alignment of the survey to the conceptual framework:

Comments________________________________________________________________
3. Clarity of instructions to participants:

Comments________________________________________________________________
4. General format and appearance of the survey:

Comments _______________________________________________________________
B: Evaluation of Relevancy, Format, and Measurement of Survey Items.

Instructions: Please check “Yes” or “No” to indicate your opinion about the relevancy, format
adequacy, and measurement aptness of all variables and their respective items. Also, write a brief
comment about what should be done to improve the quality of the variable or item that you think
needs improvement. (Format entails language, clarity, and length of the item).
Description of Questions and Relevancy Format Measurement Recommendations

Sub-items to the study Adequacy aptness
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Q# /
Sub-
items#
C: Evaluation of Interview Protocol
Please give your opinion about the following features of the interview protocol/guide. The
interview protocol is attached to this form.
1. Alignment of the interview protocol to the purpose of the study:
Comments ________________________________________________________________
2. Alignment of the interview protocol to the conceptual framework:

Comments________________________________________________________________
3. Clarity of questions to participants:

Comments _______________________________________________________________
249
4. General format and appearance of the interview protocol:

Comments_______________________________________________________________
D. Statement of Approval/Disapproval
The content of the survey instrument and interview protocol of this study are hereby: approved
/approved with revisions/ not approved.
Final comments_______________________________________________________________
Name of the Expert Panel Member ______________________________________________

Title/Position ____________________________ Field of Work _______________________
Signature ________________________________________ Date ______________________
250
Appendix D: Research Consent Form (for the survey)

School of Leadership & Policy Studies
Educational Administration & Leadership Studies
550 Education Building
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
Phone: 419 372 7377
Fax: 419 372 8448
Bowling Green State University
Research Consent Form

September 30, 2009
Dear Research Participant:
You are kindly requested to participate in this study that is a part of the dissertation research. The
researcher, Mr. Peter Mateso, who is a doctoral student majoring in leadership studies at Bowling Green
State University, is responsible for this study. The study will examine succession planning and
management (SPM) efforts at your university. You have been identified as one of a number of resourceful
persons in this important study. You are first requested to read the information below; and if necessary,
you may ask questions for more clarification before deciding whether to take part or not. You must be at
least 18 years old to participate in this study.
The Purpose of the Study:

This study will evaluate succession planning and management efforts of your university based on
participants’ opinions. The main study will aim at:
 better understanding the perceived SPM performance at a your university in general,
 better understanding SPM practices in different colleges of your university,
 understanding factors associated with SPM at your university, and eventually
 identifying issues surrounding SPM processes at your university.
Procedures:
You will be requested to honestly complete this online survey and submit it by pressing the button
‘submit’ at the end of the survey. The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete; and you are
requested to complete it by December 30, 2009. You can access the survey through this link:
http://survey.bgsu.edu/surveys/edas/pmateso/spmassessment001.htm
Risks and Benefits:

There are no risks anticipated for your participation in this study besides those you normally encounter in
daily life or during performance of routine physical or psychological tests or examinations. Once I receive
251
your completed survey by December 30, 2009, I will e-mail you a letter of appreciation. Information
obtained from the survey will be used to understand issues that surround SPM practices at your university
and generate recommendations that will address those issues. Improved SPM processes will benefit your
university by enhancing its internal leadership capacity and continuity or succession planning, which will
eventually benefit all research participants and the university at large. Moreover, you can also benefit
through gaining ideas that you might use to consider SPM efforts at your administrative unit or college.
Another benefit to you is that I will e-mail you the summary of the findings after the completion of the
main study, if you so desire.
Privacy and confidentiality:

Information you will provide will remain confidential and your identity will not be revealed. I will protect
confidentiality and your responses throughout the study and publication of the report. Your university will
remain anonymous by using a pseudonym. You will also remain anonymous to all but the researcher, who
will have access to the data / information you provide. Moreover, your identity will not be revealed in any
published results unless by your written consent. I will store your information in a very secure manner by:
locking all research material in locked filing cabinet, using password protected computer database, and
presenting results in summary report form (without names of participants). However, since this is an
online survey, a 100% security might be difficulty to guarantee; therefore, you are advised to use your
home computer or the public computer, if you think your employer is likely to track your office computer
activities. In addition, if you will use a computer that can be accessed by other people, you might need to
clear all browsers cache and page history after submitting the survey.
Voluntary Participation:
You are free to decline to participate in this study, or you may withdraw your participation at any point
without penalty. Your decision whether or not to participate in this research study will have no influence
on your present or future status at your university.
Rights and Complaints:

If you are not satisfied with the way this study is performed, you may discuss your complaints with me,
Mr. Peter Mateso, using my telephone (419-819-9282) or through my e-mail (pmateso@bgsu.edu); or
write a letter addressed to Mr. Peter Mateso using above given address. In addition, you may reach the
office of Dr Judith Zimmerman, who is my advisor, using her telephone (419-372-9357) or e-mail
(judithz@bgsu.edu). Furthermore, you may contact the Chair, HSRB at BGSU for concerns about your
rights as a research participant through 419-372-7716, or hrsb@bgsu.edu .
Participant Certification:
By completing this survey and submitting it you are indicating your consent to participate in this study.
Remember that you have the right to refuse completing or submitting this survey.
There will be at least three raffle winners of $100 each from the participants who respond to this
survey by December 31, 2009. If you are interested in taking part in the raffle, please indicate by
providing your e-mail address after you have submitted the survey. The email address you provide
will be used for the raffle purpose only.
BGSU HSRB – APPROVED FOR USE

ID # H10D120GE7
EFFECTIVE 11.06.09
EXPIRES 11.02.10
252
Appendix E: Research Consent Form (for the interview)

School of Leadership & Policy Studies
Educational Administration & Leadership Studies
550 Education Building
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
Phone: 419 372 7377
Fax: 419 372 8448
Bowling Green State University
Research Consent Form

September 30, 2009
Dear Research Participant:
You are kindly requested to participate in this study that is a part of the dissertation research. The
researcher, Mr. Peter Mateso, who is a doctoral student majoring in leadership studies at Bowling Green
State University, is responsible for this study. The study will examine succession planning and
management (SPM) efforts at your university. You have been identified as one of a number of resourceful
persons in this important study. You are first requested to read the information below; and if necessary,
you may ask questions for more clarification before deciding whether to take part or not. You must be at
least 18 years old to participate in this study.
The Purpose of the Study:

This study will evaluate succession planning and management efforts of your university based on
participants’ opinions. The main study will aim at:
 better understanding the perceived SPM performance at a your university in general,
 better understanding SPM practices in different colleges of your university,
 understanding factors associated with SPM at your university, and eventually
 identifying issues surrounding SPM processes at your university.
Procedures:
You will be requested to honestly respond to the interview questions conducted by me as the researcher.
The interview session will at most take 45 minutes to complete; and it will take place in the location, date,
and time that we will mutually agreed within December, 2009. Also, you will later be asked to review the
transcripts and preliminary findings to make sure that your views are not misrepresented. Both of these
reviews will take less than 30 minutes.
Risks and Benefits:

There are no risks anticipated for your participation in this study besides those you normally encounter in
daily life or during performance of routine physical or psychological tests or examinations. Once I finish
my interview session with you, I will e-mail you a letter of appreciation. Information obtained from the
interview will be used to understand issues that surround SPM practices at your university and generate
recommendations that will address those issues. Improved SPM processes will benefit your university by
253
enhancing its internal leadership capacity and continuity or succession planning, which will eventually
benefit all research participants and the university at large. Moreover, you can also benefit through
gaining ideas that you might use to consider SPM efforts at your administrative unit or college. Another
benefit to you is that I will e-mail you the summary of the findings after the completion of the main study,
if you so desire.
Privacy and confidentiality:

Information you will provide will remain confidential and your identity will not be revealed. I will protect
confidentiality and your responses throughout the study and publication of the report. Your university will
remain anonymous by using a pseudonym. You will also remain anonymous to all but the researcher, who
will have access to the data / information you provide. Moreover, your identity will not be revealed in any
published results unless by your written consent. Your title will be mentioned in a generalized form. In
addition, I will store your information in a very secure manner by: locking all research material in locked
filing cabinet, using password protected computer database, and presenting results in summary report
form or using a pseudonym if I quote you directly.
Voluntary Participation:
You are free to decline to participate in this study, or you may withdraw your participation at any point
without penalty. Your decision whether or not to participate in this research study will have no influence
on your present or future status at your university.
Rights and Complaints:

If you are not satisfied with the way this study is performed, you may discuss your complaints with me,
Mr. Peter Mateso, using my telephone (419-819-9282) or through my e-mail (pmateso@bgsu.edu); or
write a letter addressed to Mr. Peter Mateso using above given address. In addition, you may reach the
office of Dr Judith Zimmerman, who is my advisor, using her telephone (419-372-9357) or e-mail
(judithz@bgsu.edu). Furthermore, you may contact the Chair, HSRB at BGSU for concerns about your
rights as a research participant through 419-372-7716, or hrsb@bgsu.edu.
Participant Certification:
By signing this form you are indicating your consent to participate in this study. Remember that you have
the right to refuse to continue with the interview at any point of the study.
Signature of the research participant _________________________________________
Date __________________________________________

BG Su 1276203234

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BG Su 1276203234

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UNDERSTANDING SUCCESSION PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT EFFORTS

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green

Judy A. Zimmerman, Advisor

Rachel Vannatta Reinhart

All Rights Reserved

Judy A. Zimmerman, Advisor

A survey was electronically administered to 1,530 participants, of whom 414 were

open-ended survey responses, and documents reviewed.

improving SPM efforts through an urgent introduction of a systematic SPM program.

Third, aside from findings related to three a priori factors—diversity consideration on

and administrative members within the next five years.

Consequently, this study proposes general recommendations to policy makers,

This dissertation is dedicated to my two beautiful children, Anneliese and Billyosh. In

assisted me in different ways such as through a word of encouragement, pieces of advice,

people, who deserve to be mentioned here.

incredibly difficult to accomplish.

The Research Problem .........................................................................................................1

Rationale for Study ..............................................................................................................4

Research Goal ......................................................................................................................6

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................7

Description of the Conceptual Framework ............................................................13

Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................18

Delimitations and Limitations............................................................................................22

Organization of the Remaining Chapters...........................................................................24

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................25

The Topic ...............................................................................................................25

The Importance of the Topic..................................................................................25

Literature Search Strategies ...................................................................................27

Organization of the Rest of the Review.................................................................28

Key Concepts of Succession Processes .............................................................................28

Continuum of Succession Processes......................................................................29

Succession Planning and Management..................................................................30

Replacement Planning ...........................................................................................31

Talent Management ...............................................................................................33

Theoretical Considerations ................................................................................................34

Relationship between Succession and other Variables..........................................36

Evolution of Succession Planning as a Field .....................................................................38

The Significance and Prevalence of Succession Planning.................................................40

The Aging Workforce, Retirements, and Succession Planning.........................................43

Succession Planning and Management versus Organizational Culture.............................44

Top Leadership Commitment to Succession Processes.....................................................45

Assessment of Organizational Leadership Needs..............................................................46

Talent Management Strategy in Succession Processes......................................................47

Application of Succession Plan Charts .............................................................................48

Identification and Development of High Potentials...........................................................48

Selection, Evaluation, and Rewarding the Groomed Candidates ......................................51

Prudent Replacement of the Outgoing Leaders .................................................................51

Internal Grooming versus External Sourcing ....................................................................53

CEO Succession and the Role of Governing Boards.........................................................54

Succession Processes versus Internal Organizational Politics ..........................................55

Succession Management Approaches................................................................................56

Succession Planning and Diversity....................................................................................57

Status of Succession Planning in Higher Education ..........................................................58

The Challenge ........................................................................................................58

Academia Called to Do Something........................................................................60

Obstacles to Succession Planning......................................................................................62

Succession Practices at Midwestern University ................................................................63

Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................63

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................66

The Concurrent Triangulation Design ...................................................................67

Brief Description of the Two Research Components ............................................68

Justification for Concurrent Triangulation Design for this Study .........................70

Brief Description of the Site ..............................................................................................71