Date of Award


Degree Name

EdD Doctor of Education

Dissertation Committee

Edward Kujawa Jr., PhD, Director; Patricia W. Anderson, PhD; William P. Foster, EdD


administration, behavioral practices, California, community colleges, higher education, Leadership studies, management, thought process


The present research addressed a concern of both urgent and profound dimensions in the modern world: the current and compelling need for a radically different kind of leadership to meet the challenge of turbulent change. This need has been crystallized by a new and emerging paradigm shift which at once reflects, confronts and shapes the realities experienced today. This study sought to set in relief the current thinking styles of nominated California community college leaders and to see if and how these correlated with their leadership behavioral practices. The Human Information Processing Survey (HIPS) and the Leadership Practices Inventory-Self (LPI-S) and Other (LPI-O) were the survey instruments used. Responses were seen by both sets of authors to have direct implications for effectively meeting the challenges of innovative and adaptive change. Four research questions and five research hypotheses were developed to focus and examine the topic. The research indicated that, unlike previous related educational and business studies where the dominant left or right mode prevailed, this population of nominated California community college leaders fell primarily in the mixed and integrated thinking styles. Both the HIPS composite and Tactic Profile scores reflected this with the former being predominantly mixed, and the latter mainly integrated. This demonstrates a facility for a large percent of the sample (74%) to use either the left or right modes separately or simultaneously. There is a substantial complementary interaction between both modes. According to the rationale presented, this whole-brain processing provides the most pregnant possibilities for both innovative and adaptive change. The largest number of respondents (51%) fell in the moderate usage range of the five LPI-S leadership practices. Thirty percent perceived themselves in the high range, and 19% in the low. Several possible reasons were preferred for this result, none conclusive. High ratings, as shown by the combined two top scorings' summary, related to the practices of "enabling others to act", "modeling the way", and "challenging the process". The sample means reflected the following ranking: "enabling others to act", "encouraging the heart", "challenging the process", "modeling the way", and "inspiring a shared vision". There were, however, no correlations of statistical significance (.05) found between the thinking styles and leadership behavioral practices nor for any of the research hypotheses. The composite LPI-O responses were comparable to those of the LPI-S; no differences of significance were noted.

Document Type

Dissertation: Open Access