See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233121017

Using Q-methodology in competency development for CEOs in public

parks and recreation

Article in Managing Leisure · July 2005

DOI: 10.1080/13606710500239012

CITATIONS READS
11 390

3 authors, including:

Daniel Mclean Ryan Jensen

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
36 PUBLICATIONS 501 CITATIONS 151 PUBLICATIONS 1,900 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Mclean on 13 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Managing Leisure 10, 156 –165 (July 2005)

Using Q-methodology in competency

development for CEOs in public parks and
recreation
Daniel D. McLean, Amy R. Hurd and Ryan R. Jensen
Department of Recreation & Sport Management, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN
47809, USA; School of Kinesiology & Recreation, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5121,
Normal, IL 61790-5121, USA and Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology,
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USA

This study generated a systematic and comprehensive view of park and recreation CEO competen-
cies by examining how CEOs in public parks and recreation subjectively ranked various competen-
cies using Q-sorts and Q-methodology. Results found three different types of CEOs: the practical CEO,
the structured CEO, and the traditionalist CEO. The Practical CEO focused on employee involvement
in decision making thus making the work environment a more positive and reinforcing place. The
Structured CEO placed an emphasis on structure, organization, and skills. The Traditionalist CEO
placed emphasis on formal skill sets, task orientation, and external validation of skills. Understand-
ing that the importance of specific competencies is viewed from different perspectives allows a more
informed understanding of how CEOs in public parks and recreation perceive the importance of
competencies.

INTRODUCTION of the multitude of differences in agency

structures, a common laundry list of func-
Competencies have long been recognized as
tions is challenging to create. Regardless,
important attributes and skills for managers
and leaders to possess (Butler, 1949; Hjelte there are several functional areas that can
and Shivers, 1972; Kraus and Curtis, 1990). be outlined to describe the responsibilities
In recent years the emphasis upon compe- of this position.
tency identification has become more stri- Though little work has been done outlining
dent. The competency movement has seen the functions of public park and recreation
a strong emphasis placed upon identifi- CEOs, public administration has addressed
cation, measurement, and utilization in the it and attempted to determine what man-
selection and retention of managers and agers do. Arguably the best known mnemo-
leaders. nic in public administration, POSDCORB,
Smale and Frisby (1992) suggested then represents Gulick’s (1937) theory on the
that little was known about what public seven major functions of managers including
park and recreation managers did on the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coor-
job and what competencies were needed dinating, reporting, and budgeting. A major
for these jobs. Over a decade later still little criticism of POSDCORB is that it does not
is known about what public park and recrea- account for the public aspects in public
tion managers do at the CEO level. Because administration nor does it account for the
Managing Leisure ISSN 1360-6719 print/ISSN 1466-450X online # 2005 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13606710500239012
Using Q-Methodology in Competency Development
human aspects of management. Much of
the latter is due to its inception during the
rise of scientific management. As a response
to the criticisms of POSDCORB, Garson
and Overman (1983) suggested a new
acronym—PAFHRIER. These functions of
management include policy analysis, finan-
cial management, human resources manage-
ment, information management, and external
relations. These functions add a more social
and political context that is indicative of
public administration.
Since public park and recreation CEOs are
public managers, in essence these functions
are applicable to them. A better understand-
ing of what managers do provides a more
lucid picture of what skills, knowledge, and
abilities are needed to do the job success-
fully. Parks and recreation has lagged in the
identification of competencies for managers,
but such work has recently begun to emerge
in the literature (Hurd and McLean, 2004;
Hurd, 2004; Barcelona and Ross, 2004). The
work represents a strong emphasis towards
understanding what skills and attributes
managers desirably possess. Assumptions
about the implementation of competencies
broadly do create issues. A blind acceptance
of competencies ignores the political reali-
ties of an organization as well as the organiz-
ations culture, maturity, and competence. A
subjective view of competency importance
is as critical as an objective view. Such a sub-
jective view potentially provides organiz-
ations with a greater understanding of
competencies as they may fit their managers.
Competencies are skills, knowledge, and
characteristics needed to do a job effec-
tively. Competencies have been used for
such things as benchmarking skills, setting
hiring criteria, guiding professional develop-
ment, and establishing personnel evaluation
standards. Preliminary research on Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) competencies in
public parks and recreation established the
CEO Competency Framework that consists
of three levels of specificity including
157
general competency categories, primary com-
petencies, and specific competencies (Hurd
and McLean, 2004).
The purpose of the current study was to
explore the subjectivity of the established
public park and recreation CEO competen-
cies (Hurd, 2001; Hurd and McLean, 2004).
The complimentary study used the list of
competencies from the Framework and
asked respondents to rank order them. It is
well understood that individuals with differ-
ing backgrounds, experiences, education,
and operating in multiple political structures
may see the competencies from dissimilar
frames. Acknowledging that a single import-
ance ranking of competencies may not
best serve the profession, the researchers
asked, ‘will a subjective view of competen-
cies provide a clearer understanding of the
complexity of CEO competencies and subjec-
tivity?’ The outcome is a more systematic
and comprehensive view of the competen-
cies of CEOs.
METHODS
Q-methodology
The study used Q-methodology that merges
qualitative and quantitative methodologies
allowing a view of the data from a subjective
perspective. Operationally, Q-methodology
asks subjects to systematically force-sort a
set of statements based on how strongly
they agree or disagree with each state-
ment (Jacobson and Aaltio-Marjosola, 2001;
Brewer et al., 2000). The final sort will look
like a standard distribution and typically
uses 40 or more statements (see Figure 1).
It requires that participants evaluate each
statement in relation to every other state-
ment and reflects the person’s worldview of
the topic (Brewer et al., 2000). Q-methodology
is a way of ‘finding out about what people
make of a particular issue or topic—their
opinions, judgements, understandings and so
on—which is recognized as reflecting cultural,
158
Fig. 1. Distribution of statements
social, and historical contexts in which this
knowledge is constructed’ (Stainton-Rogers,
1998, p. 6). Traditional quantitative measures
look for objective measures that can be com-
pared across subjects, such as intelligence,
athletic ability, knowledge, and the like. The
Q-methodology, by contrast, deals with states
of mind where how the individual respondent
orders stimuli is more important than how
the respondent compares to others. It can be
used to study a single individual as is com-
monly done in psychology, education, and
sociology, or to examine collections of individ-
uals as is done in this article.
The completed rankings, or Q-sorts, are
correlated and factor analysed to identify
specific respondent groups (Brewer et al.,
2000). Outputs of Q-methodology are Q-
factors and ‘they represent complementary
states of subjectivity. . .’ (Brown, 1991).
Brown goes on to suggest the ‘Q-factors
that do emerge are themselves generaliz-
ations of attitudes held by persons defining
a given factor. As such, they permit direct
comparisons of attitudes as attitudes . . . irre-
spective of the number of people who
subscribe to them’ (McKeown and Thomas,
1988, p. 37). This enables researchers to
categorize respondents who share similar
attitudes and perspectives (Brewer et al.,
2000). Brown (1991) continues stating, ‘the
bottom line is that meanings are not to be
found solely in the categorical cogitations
of the observer, but as well (and even more
McLean et al.
importantly) in the reflections of the individ-
ual as he or she sorts the statements in the
context of a singular situation’ (p. 5). The
sorting process, as well as the statements
to be sorted become essential to the utiliz-
ation of Q-methodology. Statements for this
study were drawn from the work of Hurd
and McLean (2004). Q-methodology does
not limit itself to statements. Photographs
and drawings can also be utilized.
Q-sample and P-sample
Q-methodology requires the development of
the Q-sample and the P-sample. In Q-method-
ology the Q-sample is usually derived in two
ways. The first method is naturalistic. Here
statements are recorded from qualitative
interviews with study participants. The
statements are analysed and used as the
basis of the Q-sample. The second method,
and the one used for this study, is called
ready-made (McKeown and Thomas, 1988).
Ready made Q-samples come from sources
other than interviews. They may include
research literature, an existing scale (i.e.,
attitude scale), or standardized items. The
Q-sample consists of statements for evalu-
ation and were developed by Hurd and
McLean’s (2004) research on CEO competen-
cies. The sample size is determined by multi-
plying the Q-sample, or the number of
statements ranked (82) by the P-sample, or
the number of people (13) ranking them
Using Q-Methodology in Competency Development 159

(n ¼ 1066). Herein lies a difference in under- Table 1 Factor loadings

standing sample size. In most instances for
Q-sort 1 2 3
a factor analysis a large sample is required
and respondents are considered to be the 1 0.5602
0.2335 0.066
sample population. In Q-methodology the 2 0.1581 0.1461 0.8601

sample size is a combination of the two. 3 0.6291
0.1287 0.5301
The n of 1066 provides an adequate sample 4 0.0515 0.7437
0.2509
for factor analysis. If only one individual 5 0.1718 0.4078 0.7304

had been utilized the n would have been 6 0.8091
0.0747 0.1198
7 0.7070
0.1637 0.2718
82. The 13 respondents for this study
8 0.2221 0.7223
0.1249
(P-sample) were comprised of CEOs from 9 0.6563
0.2434 0.2901
the US who have a minimum of 5 years of 10 0.4103 0.5852
0.251
CEO experience. 11 0.1925 0.7394
0.2859
Participants were asked to rank 82 compe- 12 0.4698 0.3142 0.5442
tency statements from least important to 13 0.5606
0.5484 20.0926
most important using a Q sort board
(Figure 1). The data were then entered into Note:
indicates a defining sort.
PQMethod 2.11 and analysed using the
Q method factor analysis. Clarke (2002) viewed as an important CEO competency
states Q-methodology differs from R factor whereas a negative factor score indicates
analysis, ‘both are complex forms of there is disagreement that the competency
regression analysis and both are used to is important. The higher the score, in this
reveal latent similarities in data, or check study a maximum of +6 based on the distri-
perceived similarities’ (p. 73). For example, bution of statements (Figure 1), the more
R factor reduces data into traits such as strongly the competency is deemed import-
ethnic background, whereas Q-methodology ant or not important. The three model
identifies common patterns of self-refer- Q- sorts are depicted in Appendix A and the
enced traits. Q-methodology ‘enables the Q-sort statements are in Appendix B.
respondent to model his or her-viewpoints The statements comprising the three
on a matter of subjective importance. . .’ factors were reviewed with the highest
(McKeown and Thomas, 1988, p. 12). ‘loading’ on each factor, these three factors
were labelled: the ‘Practical CEO,’ the ‘Struc-
tured CEO,’ and the ‘Traditionalist CEO’.
Analysis
A principal component analysis was used to
factor analyse a 13 by 13 Q-sort matrix. The RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
factor loading of each Q-sort represents its
correlation with the factor (Table 1). Factor The Practical CEO
interpretation is derived from a model Individuals represented in this factor are
Q-sort for each factor. The model Q-sort is problem solvers (Table 2). They are involved
computed by merging individual sort load- in listening to their employees (15) and invol-
ings. As Brewer et al. (2000) states, ‘The mag- ving them in the decision process. The invol-
nitudes of significant loadings on a factor vement may be seen as a participatory
indicate that some Q-sorts are more closely management process. They are perceived
associated with the viewpoints of the to have good judgement (53) and decision-
factor’ (p. 258). Positive factor scores indi- making skills (50). They involve their
cate agreement with the statement is employees through listening, fair treatment
160 McLean et al.
Table 2 Practical CEO factor scores Table 3 Structured CEO factor scores

PR ST TR No. Statement ST PR TR No. Statement

6 5 6 62 Be current with professional 6 0 1 61 Evaluate programs and

trends services
6 6 5 69 To be honest and ethical 5 0 21 14 Effective written and
5 4 3 11 Ability to treat people fairly verbal communication
and with respect skills
5 3 5 50 Ability to make decisions 5 21 23 28 Knowledge of leadership
5 1 1 53 Ability to use good judgement principles
4 22 6 9 Ability to recruit, hire and train 5 21 22 38 Understand organizational
staff dynamics
4 3 1 15 Possess good listening skills 4 1 2 32 See the organization as a
4 1 1 46 Enthusiastic and have a team
positive attitude 4 23 22 40 Possess knowledge of
4 1 2 48 Have a sense of humor management principles
4 21 0 46 Have an understanding of
Note: PR ¼ Practical CEO; ST ¼ Structured CEO; the law
TR ¼ Traditionalist CEO.
Note: PR ¼ Practical CEO; ST ¼ Structured CEO;
TR ¼ Traditionalist CEO.
(11), their humour (48), and the enthusiastic
and positive attitude (46). This humanist
within the context of management literature
approach takes advantage of the skills of
the types of skills emphasized by these
employees and reinforces their importance
respondents suggests a stronger orientation
to the organization. It could be said the prac-
towards structure.
tical CEO is on the cutting edge of employee
Individuals in this factor appear to have a
involvement and commitment thus making
more pragmatic approach to management
the work environment a more positive and
as evidenced by high factor loading of
reinforcing place to be. In Table 2 rankings
competencies such as have an understand-
of selected statements illustrate a subjective
ing of the law (46) and the evaluation of pro-
orientation towards what is expressed in an
grams and services (61). These individuals
individual who could be labelled a ‘Practical
focused on processes that allowed the organ-
Chief Executive Officer’.
ization to achieve its goals such as knowl-
edge of leadership principles (28). They
The Structured CEO may lead by example and provide direction
The term ‘Structured’ was selected to rep- to the organization while focusing on com-
resent the focus of the manager as depicted munication skills that will allow input from
in Table 3. The individuals represented in all areas in the organization (14). They want
this factor placed an emphasis upon state- to evaluate (pragmatic), understand the law
ments reflecting structure, organization, (pragmatic), have effective verbal and
and skills. Evaluation (61), communication written skills (humanist) and utilize organiz-
skills (14), team organization (32), knowl- ational dynamics, leadership principles,
edge of management principles (40) and and team orientation (humanist) to accom-
understanding of the law (46) reflect a sub- plish the mission of the organization. Fur-
jective perception of structure. To suggest thermore, the individual was not concerned
the CEO is more or less structured than the about specific skills that are the responsibil-
other two factors may be a misnomer, but ity of content expert individuals.
Using Q-Methodology in Competency Development 161

The Traditionalist CEO absence of a larger number of shared data

Individuals in this factor placed a clear
emphasis on formal skill sets, task orien-
tation, and external validation of skills
(Table 4). There was a high park and recrea-
tion professional orientation represented in
this factor. This was evidenced by the high
ranking of a formal education (65), the need
to be a Certified Park and Recreation Pro-
fessional (81), and working with elected offi-
cials (55). Additional high loading factors
emphasize a focus on traditional manage-
ment approaches including recruitment,
hiring, and training of staff (9), effective
utilization of time management skills (43),
and delegation of responsibilities (39).
The Traditionalist CEO focuses on pro-
fessional organizations, emphasis on devel-
opment and understanding of park and
recreation management skills and utiliza-
tion of long held views of organizational
management.
Similarities and differences
There is value in looking at shared and dis-
similar competencies across the four
factors as it may help to understand what
competencies have a relationship in different
settings. There was some surprise at the
in the factors that were selected for review.
Table 5 depicts the shared competencies
among two or more factors.
Two competencies shared across the CEO
groups represent the importance of making
any organization functional and effective.
The competencies were focused on the
content specific need to be current with pro-
fessional trends (62) and the need to be
honest and ethical (69).
Of the 82 competencies only a few were
shared with high loading. CEOs are, in part,
a product of their environment and in part
a product of their training and experiences.
The range of practical, structured, and tradi-
tionalist may be a reflection of the environ-
ment they work in as well as personal
preference. The majority of the respondents
worked in a district setting which is charac-
terized by having a strong elected or
appointed board with policy setting capacity
and having independent taxing authority.
What influence this had on the respondents
is difficult to measure in the absence of
respondents from a strong mayor or city
manager type of system.
Differences in subjective importance of
competencies are important to the pro-
fession and to educators. In the presence of

Table 4 Traditionalist CEO factor scores Table 5 Shared factors among 2þ factors

TR PR ST No. Statement PR ST TR No. 3 Factors

6 4 22 9 Ability to recruit, hire and 6 5 6 62 Be current with

train staff professional trends
5 21 21 43 Utilize effective time 6 6 5 69 To be honest and ethical
management skills 2 Factors
5 26 25 81 CPRP certification
4 0 1 39 Effective delegate 4 22 6 9 Ability to recruit, hire and
responsibilities train staff
4 3 2 55 Work with elected 5 4 3 11 Ability to treat people
officials fairly and with respect
4 26 2 65 Have a formal education 5 3 5 50 Ability to make decisions

Note: PR ¼ Practical CEO; ST ¼ Structured CEO; Note: PR ¼ Practical CEO; ST ¼ Structured CEO;
TR ¼ Traditionalist CEO. TR ¼ Traditionalist CEO.
162
professional accreditation and professional
certification there was not an across the
board agreement on which competencies
were most important to the CEO. Rather,
as suggested, importance of competen-
cies may be a reflection of environment and
experience.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This research explored subjective percep-
tions of the importance of identified CEO
competencies. Competency ranking is
more complex than has been represented
in previous studies. This study reinforces
the concept that different groups of indi-
viduals will perceive competencies in
different ways. No single set of competen-
cies emerged as consistent across the
factors. While some shared competencies
were present, there were more unique
competencies within groups. It is sus-
pected that internal and external factors,
not measured as part of this research,
may impact upon locating competencies
in an identified group. External factors
might include political structure, agency
size, and budget, to name a few. Internal
factors might include gender, culture,
experience, personal orientation to man-
agement, and others.
The three factors represent alternative
perspectives of competencies. Understanding
that the importance of specific competencies
are viewed from different perspectives
allows a more informed understanding of
how CEOs in public parks and recreation
perceive the importance of competencies. It
impacts on leader and member culture, com-
munications, and performance. The study
suggests there is much more work to do in
this area, but that this study has made an
important contribution to our understanding
of how public park and recreation CEOs see
themselves and their competencies.
McLean et al.
Implications of Q-methodology
Q-methodology has begun to find standing in
the leisure research community. The utiliz-
ation of Q-methodology to look at individual
cases has the potential to strengthen our
understanding of leisure behaviour and
management behaviour. Q-methodology has
been around since 1935, but not extensively
used until qualitative methodologies began
to emerge as a more common research meth-
odology in the 1970s. The combining of quali-
tative and quantitative methodologies
enhances the strengths of each approach.
The weakness of the study of leisure has
been the tendency to ascribe perceptions
or attitudes to groups without measuring
the impact of the individual. Q-methodology
allows for the measuring of individual atti-
tudes. It takes into account gender, cultural,
socioeconomic influences and differences.
Well constructed Q-methodology studies
can reveal understandings that traditional
quantitative approaches have not allowed.
A knowledge and ability to develop qualitat-
ive studies is essential in Q-methodology.
The future of leisure behaviour research
lies in the utilization of methodologies that
allow for increased understanding. As we
better understand leisure behaviour we are
more apt to provide better services to
communities, organization, individuals, and
groups. Q-methodology offers the researcher
and practitioner a tested method of looking
at individuals within groups and allowing
for the analysis and response in a timely
and effective manner.
REFERENCES
Barcelona, B. and Ross, C. M. (2004) An analysis of
perceived competencies recreational sports
administrators, Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 22, 25– 42.
Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C. and Facer II, R. L. (2000)
Individual conceptions of public service
motivation, Public Administration Review, 60,
24 – 264.
Using Q-Methodology in Competency Development 163

Brown, S. R. (1991) Q-methodology, available
at: http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/
Primer1.html
Butler, G. D. (1949) Introduction to community
recreation, second edition, New York,
McGraw-Hill.
Clark, A. H. (2002) Understanding sustainable
development in the context of other emer-
gent environmental perspectives, Policy
Sciences, 35, 69 – 90.
Garson, D. G. and Overman, E. S. (1983) Public
management research in the United States,
New York, Praeger.
Gulick, L. (1937) Papers on the science of adminis-
tration, New York, Institute of Public
Administration.
Hjelt, G. and Shivers, J. S. (1972) Public adminis-
tration of recreational services, Philadelphia,
PA, Lea & Febiger.
Hurd, A. R. (2001) An analysis of the perceived
competencies of chief executive officers in
public parks and recreation agencies, unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Univer-
sity, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Hurd, A. R. (2004) Competency Development
for Board Members in Public Park and Recrea-
tion Agencies, Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 22, 43– 61.
Hurd, A. R. and McLean, D. D. (2004) An analysis of
perceived competencies of CEOs in public
parks and recreation agencies, Managing
Leisure, 9, 96 – 110.
Jacobson, S. W. and Aaltio-Marjosola, I. (2001)
‘Strong’ objectivity and the use of Q-Method-
ology in cross-cultural research, Journal of Man-
agement Inquiry, 10, 228–246.
Kraus, R. G. and Curtis, J. E. (1990) Creative
management in recreation, parks, and leisure
services, St. Louis, MO, Times Mirror/
Mosby.
McKeown, B. F. and Thomas, D. B. (1988) Q-Meth-
odology: Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences, Newbury Park, CA, Sage
Publications.
Smale, B. J. A. and Frisby, W. (1992) Managerial
work activities and perceived competencies
of municipal recreation managers, Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 10(4),
81 – 108.
Stainton-Rogers, W. (1998) Q Methodology, tex-
tuality, and tectonics, Operant Subjectivity,
21(1/2), 1– 18.

Appendix A Three-model Q-sort factor scores

Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor

Statement 1 2 3 Statement 1 2 3
1 0 0 22 16 0 21 23
2 22 24 25 17 22 22 23
3 2 23 22 18 1 0 21
4 1 21 1 19 1 0 21
5 2 22 2 20 3 1 0
6 22 23 25 21 2 23 0
7 0 23 21 22 3 2 1
8 21 22 0 23 1 1 3
9 4 22 6 24 2 2 22
10 21 21 26 25 1 21 0
11 5 4 3 26 1 0 0
12 22 0 21 27 0 1 1
13 1 1 0 28 21 5 23
14 0 5 21 29 21 3 0
15 4 3 1 30 2 23 2
164 McLean et al.

Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor

Statement 1 2 3 Statement 1 2 3
31 1 21 1 57 21 3 21
32 21 4 2 58 3 1 1
33 1 2 2 59 1 23 1
34 22 3 22 60 24 0 0
35 3 2 0 61 0 6 1
36 0 2 3 62 6 5 6
37 2 2 3 63 21 22 0
38 21 5 22 64 23 24 23
39 0 1 4 65 26 2 4
40 23 4 22 66 0 0 22
41 5 21 22 67 23 25 21
42 0 22 0 68 0 22 21
43 21 21 5 69 6 6 5
44 3 0 2 70 23 21 21
45 22 3 23 71 25 22 3
46 4 1 1 72 22 0 3
47 0 0 2 73 25 21 25
48 4 1 2 74 23 26 25
49 2 0 2 75 24 25 26
50 5 3 5 76 25 1 24
51 2 0 21 77 23 25 21
52 22 21 24 78 21 24 24
53 5 1 1 79 24 24 23
54 1 1 1 80 25 26 24
55 3 2 4 81 26 25 5
56 4 0 82 24 21 3

Appendix B Q-sort statements

1. Knowledge of business and adminis-
trative principles
2. Ability to effectively manage contracts
3. Ability to manage projects
4. Sound budgetary skills
5. Sound financial management skills
6. Ability to raise funds
7. Knowledge of human resources
management
8. Understanding of personnel law
9. Ability to recruit, hire and train knowl-
edgeable staff
10. Understand and maintain labour
relations
11. Ability to treat people fairly and with
respect
12. Knowledge of computers and technol-
ogy and their roles in the organization
13. Possess effective public speaking skills
14. Possess effective written and verbal
communication skills
15. Possess good listening skills
16. Ability to be an effective facilitator
17. Knowledge of marketing
18. Ability to work effectively with
the media
19. Possess an understanding of customer
service practices
 Using Q-Methodology in Competency Development 165

20. Establish positive public relations 50. Ability to make decisions

21. Ability to assess the needs of the 51. Ability to build consensus
community 52. Ability to be analytical
22. Ability to work with the public 53. Ability to use good judgement
23. Have an understanding of the commu- 54. Possess effective negotiation skills
nity and its cultural dynamics 55. Ability to work effectively with a
24. Ability to build partnerships and col- board/elected officials
laborations within the community 56. Have an understanding of the law, the
25. Be actively involved in the community legislative process, and governance
26. Ability to be accountable to the 57. Ability to set goals and objectives
public 58. Ability to operate according to the
27. Be open minded and receptive to new agency’s mission
ideas 59. Effective long range planning skills
28. Knowledge of leadership principles 60. Ability to establish priorities
29. Ability to lead by example 61. Ability to evaluate programs and
30. Ability to motivate employees services
31. Ability to recognize/reward employee 62. Be current with professional trends
achievements 63. Ability to create a vision or direction
32. Ability to see the organization and its for the agency
employees as a team 64. Have 5 þ years of experience
33. Be accessible to employees 65. Have a formal education
34. Willing to take risks 66. Have comprehensive knowledge of the
35. Ability to encourage creativity and parks & recreation profession
innovation 67. Knowledge of facility design, construc-
36. Ability to encourage high performance tion, and management
from employees 68. Knowledge of risk management
37. Enable staff to do their job 69. To be honest and ethical
38. Understand organizational dynamics 70. Be involved in professional organizations
39. Ability to effectively delegate responsi- 71. Be committed to the profession
bilities (NS) 72. Ability to network within and outside
40. Possess knowledge of management the profession
principles 73. Use contemporary trends analysis
41. Ability to manage multiple tasks technique
42. Ability to utilize effective organiz- 74. Ability to write grants
ational skills 75. Ability to analyse and perform research
43. Ability to utilize effective time manage- 76. Use the best practices of other organ-
ment skills izations as benchmarks
44. Be diplomatic in dealing with the 77. Have knowledge of facility
public and staff management
45. Embrace diversity 78. Have effective park planning skills
46. Be enthusiastic and have a positive 79. Knowledge of natural resources man-
attitude agement and protection
47. Be flexible and adaptable 80. Knowledge of turf management
48. Have a sense of humour 81. CPRP certification
49. Ability to resolve conflicts and solve 82. Be personally involved in parks and
problems recreation

View publication stats