In 1982, Peters and Waterman examined several successful American businesses and produced an expose on effective leadership styles and methodologies in the companies they visited. Their research was helpful in the design of a road map for corporate success in America. Among the eight attributes that emerged to characterize these innovative companies, the most important was "being close to the customer." As stated by Peters and Waterman (1982):

These companies learn from the people they serve. They provide unparalleled quality, service, and reliability, things that work and last. Many of the innovative companies get their best product ideas from customers. That comes from listening, intently and regularly. (p. 14) In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education identified the United States as a "nation at risk" because of a perceived decline in the quality of education. The report challenged educators to seek alternatives that could restore a commitment to excellence in the nation's educational programs. The report called for cooperation among educational institutions, businesses, students, and parents. This educational challenge is even more appropriate today, as higher education faces a redefinition of faculty roles and responsibilities. A variety of factors are converging to cause a major paradigm shift in higher education and educators are increasingly being held accountable for the quality of their product. Contemporary scholars of higher education policy and trends foresee major shifts and reinventing of organizational structures in the academic world of the future (McDaniel, 1994; Heydinger, 1994). McDaniel (1994) points to external forces placing requirements on universities that demand reconsidering the way they think about the service they provide. He cites five contributing pressures found in certain social drives that current structures are ill-equipped to deal with: excellence, accountability, community, self-fulfillment, and information.

There are two major shifts which are simultaneously taking place in higher education: the changing professoriate profile and the new student profile. Each of these areas is examined in more detail below.

The structure of higher education's professoriate is changing and undergoing the following transformations:

1. The post World War 11 generation of scholars or "elder scholars" has held a substantial lock on higher education for years and is now moving into retirement (Highet, 1976).

2. A much narrower, middle group of academically trained scholars or "senior scholars" will soon move up into the leadership positions vacated by the "elder scholars" (Nuchims, 1995).

3. A group of "new scholars" is quickly filling the newly created vacancies (Wachs, 1993; Ring, 1994). This group is significantly populated by persons choosing academia as their second career, having arrived in higher education by way of the business community. In other words, this particular group differs from the elder and senior scholars in that they are practitioner-educators. It is significant to note that the wide band of "new scholars", which is presently a silent majority, will inevitably find their voice, and become a vocal majority (Edgerton, 1993).

Figure 1 graphically delineates the changing professoriate from the present to the future through a pyramid diagram.

Figure 1. Present and Future Professoriate Structure

Along with the change in the professoriate, a dramatic change is occurring in the trends of the student population in American colleges and universities. The characteristics for the new, "non-traditional" type of higher education students include the following:

1. Demographic trends -- By the year 2000, sixty percent of students on college campuses will be non-traditional students and these students will come from all walks of life, attending college in both rural and urban communities. As demographic trends bring about the aging of the general population and as demands for knowledge increase in society, the need for services to adult learners can only increase (Ellsworth, 1992).

2. Educational motivation -- The universal refrain from re-entry students when asked why they are interested in returning to school is, "This time I want it." Mid-life identity and professional crises are additional reasons cited for adult students returning to school, as is the economic impetus. In other words, these students are motivated by the bread-and-butter need to improve their financial situation. There are also adult learners in this category who are returning to sharpen their skills in their present profession (Lenz & Hansen, 1977). Adult students have a high level of motivation and a maturity and perspective that enhances the classroom discussions. In addition, their life and work experiences also help to make the college environment a more balanced community (Chudwin and Durrant, 198 1).

3. Educational expectations -- This group of non-traditional students is characterized by andragogy (learner-centered) rather than pedagogy (teacher-centered). Adults are more self-directed in their learning than youths because their self-concept has moved from a dependent personality to that of a self-directing human being, focusing on mutual respect, and mutual inquiry, and responsibility for one's own learning based on a shared diagnosis of need (Rossman & Rossman, 1990).

The familiar exclamation often made by college students when recommending a professor to another student is, "Take this professor. He is great." What is greatness in teaching as perceived by its "customers" or students? Do "great professors" share characteristics with "great leaders" that are timeless in their applicability, profound in their investment in integrity, and relentless in their insistence on personal and professional excellence? Students' demands for excellence in teaching coupled with the significant convergence of the changing professoriate and the emergence of non-traditional students suggest that change in higher education is inevitable. These changes will result in an unprecedented expectation of accountability, a demand for excellence in product, and a required "return on investment" that will irrevocably change faculty/student relationships.

The review of literature demonstrates that while studies have been conducted at the college and university level on exemplary professors, the information garnered has been largely generated from the teachers themselves or educational administrators, not from the "customers" or students. Community colleges stand alone in their attempts to include student perceptions in similar surveys (Baker, Roueche, & Gillet-Karam, 1990; Easton, 1984; Higlemann & Blodget, 1993). A recent study (Annor, 199 1) suggests that undergraduate students believe that excellence in education should be defined in terms of the quality of teaching. Annor recommends that the teaching factor should be central in future studies of higher education excellence.

Based on the review of literature, there is limited research on the characteristics of exemplary professors as perceived by students, especially in the university setting. There appears to be a need for such research, as higher education is preparing for a paradigm shift in the areas of the professoriate and the non-traditional student. Therefore, this study investigated the characteristics of exemplary professors at a major university institution by surveying their "customers" or students.

This study identified, described, and analyzed the characteristics of exemplary university professors as perceived by Master's in Business Administration (MBA) students in the College of Business Administration and master's Educational Leadership (EDL) students in the Center for Excellence in Education at Northern Arizona University.

Specifically, the study proposed to answer the following research questions:

1. How do MBA students in the College of Business Administration and master's EDL students in the Center for Excellence in Education independently rank, in order of importance, descriptors of exemplary professors?

2. Is there a significant difference between MBA students in the College of Business Administration and master's EDL students in the Center for Excellence in Education in their independent ranking of descriptors of exemplary professors?

3. What is the rank of each descriptor of exemplary professors when the results of the MBA students in the College of Business Administration and master's EDL students in the Center for Excellence in Education are combined?

4. Are there significant differences between the rankings of the top five descriptors of exemplary professors, using the combined results of the perceptions of MBA students in the College of Business Administration and master's EDL students in the Center for Excellence in Education?

5. How do MBA students in the College of Business Administration and master's EDL students in the Center for Excellence in Education independently rate, in order of importance, exemplary professors' leadership skills?

6. Is there a significant difference between MBA students in the College of Business Administration and master's EDL students in the Center for Excellence in Education in their overall rating of exemplary professors' leadership skills?

7. What are the characteristics of exemplary professors as defined by MBA students in the College of Business Administration and by master's students in Educational Leadership (EDL) in the Center for Excellence in Education?

8. What is the degree of agreement between the qualitative and quantitative measures of characteristics of exemplary professors as reported by both groups of master's degree students?

In order to avoid ambiguity in understanding critical terms frequently used in this study, the following terms are defined to provide a clear understanding:

Descriptors of Exemplary Professors: Descriptors of exemplary professors include the following 35 attributes: motivator, learner, achiever, persuasive, accessible, scholarly, helpful, organizer, confident, obliging, eloquent, successful, interesting, sympathetic, innovator, optimistic, intellectual, unselfish, dynamic, inspirational, creative, humorous, competent, honorable, enthusiastic, energetic, compassionate, leader, giving, positive, ethical, listener, committed, and forceful (Baker, Roueche & Gillett-Karam, 1990).

Education: The process of developing or acquiring knowledge, skill, understanding, or attitudes in a formal or informal way (Mungazi, 1977).

Exemplary: Serving as a model or example; worthy of imitating (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1970).

Leader: Characteristics of an effective leader include the following twelve skills: problem analysis, judgment, organizational ability, decisiveness, leadership, sensitivity, stress tolerance, oral communication, written communication, range of interest, personal motivation, and educational values (National Association of Secondary School Principals).

Multi-method: A deliberate, planned use of different research methodologies in order to improve social science knowledge (Ross, 1993).

Professoriate: The body of college and university teachers at an institution or society. (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977). A

Teacher/Professor: These terms are interchangeable.

CBA: College of Business Administration of Northern Arizona University

CEE: Center for Excellence in Education of Northern Arizona University

EDL: Educational Leadership

MBA: Master's in Business Administration of Northern Arizona University

NAU: Northern Arizona University

This section addresses the study's delimitations, limitations, and assumptions. These threats to the internal and external validity, along with the study's assumptions, must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Delimitations are potential threats to the external validity of the study. The potential threats to the external validity of this research design are related to the sample.

Sample. The generalizability of this study is limited by the procedures used for selecting participants. Only master's degree students enrolled in the College of Business Administration program and Center for Excellence in Education Educational Leadership program at Northern Arizona University were included in this study. Furthermore, the respondents had 12 or more hours of graduate credit prior to participating in this study.

Limitations are potential threats to the internal validity of the study. The potential threats to this research study are found in the following areas:

Accessible Respondents: The survey instrument taps only respondents who are accessible and cooperative (Isaac & Michael, 1987). Only those students who were enrolled and present in the targeted classes were accessible. To minimize the threat of cooperation, the researcher emphasized the importance of the survey during the oral and written directions.

Rating Bias. Since the survey makes use of a Likert-type scale, the results might be biased due to the tendency of some respondents to give consistently high or consistently low ratings (Isaac & Michael, 1987).

Biased Reaction. In the case of researcher-administered surveys, biased reactions can be elicited because of characteristics of the researcher or respondent, or combination, that elicits a pattern of favorable or unfavorable responses (Isaac & Michael, 1987). To minimize this threat, the researcher utilized a script each time the survey was administered. The script defined the purpose and scope of the survey and avoided a rambling and redundant approach. A copy of the script is found in Appendix E.

Instrumentation. The instrument was developed by the researcher. The findings and results of the study are limited to how well the instrument actually delineates exemplary characteristics of university professors. To minimize this threat, the questionnaire was modeled after existing research on effective professors and leaders in order to ensure that the data were as accurate and comprehensive as possible.

No Assurance. There is no assurance that the survey questions will be understood (Isaac & Michael, 1987). This threat was minimized by the use of a pilot test in order to create an instrument that was simple, clear, straightforward, and as comprehensive as possible. In addition, students included in the pilot study were representative of the population studied and the pretest was administered in conditions comparable to the final study.

Selection of Exemplary Professors. This study is limited to how well the students identify, through their perceptions, the best teacher of their academic career.

Uncontrollable Fluctuations. With a survey, there is no control over the respondents' emotional state at the particular time the instrument was given (Light & Willett, 1990).

It was assumed that due to the age and maturity of the respondents, the data collected from the surveys were accurate, with the respondents giving serious and thoughtful consideration to their responses.

In this era of accountability in corporate excellence, a questioning glance is being cast upon institutions of higher learning. There are eight areas which could benefit from the results of this study:

1. The results of this research project may have a positive and practical effect on young and elder scholars alike, as they prepare to meet the challenges of the next century.

2. This study may provide valuable information to offices of faculty development in their charter to enhance the quality of academic life for the professoriate.

3. This study may provide a forum for faculty dialogue which could result in promoting collaborative efforts for professional improvements.

4. This study may generate a "master mentoring" series of professional and collegial development.

5. This study may create an innovative faculty/student relationship and enable the university to take a visionary role in providing leadership for other institutions of higher learning.

6. This study has significance for the Arizona Board of Regents, state legislative and executive branches, and administrators and faculty of Arizona's three universities as they continue to review the selection, evaluation, and development of faculty excellence in Arizona.

7. This study may contribute to the on-going discussion among the members of the American Association of University Professors, in its earnest, relentless, and dedicated quest to delineate the parameters of the "postmodern university" (Lyons, 1994).

8. As a new scholar recently joining the academy from the business community, it is this researcher's earnest hope to learn how to be a great professor, and also that this treatise might serve as a resource for other "young scholars" (Highet, 1976) in designing their own strategy for excellence in teaching in higher education.

Chapter I introduced the purpose of the study, the specific questions to be answered and the significance of the study. In addition, it outlined the study's definitions, delimitations, limitations and assumptions. Chapter 2 presents a review of the related literature. Chapter 3 addresses the methodology, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis. The data are analyzed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, presents conclusions, and makes recommendations for further study.