Fluent Essays

Instructions Assume you have been asked to speak to graduate students considering a career in higher education leadership. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation for your audience and be sure to address the following: Use your readings and other scholarly resources to identify and explain the challenges of leadership in higher education. Explain how one’s knowledge of motivational theories can help guide leaders to implement best practices in higher education organizations. Analyze specific leadership behaviors needed in higher education organizations. Discuss how to navigate different influences of power within higher education organizations. Recommend which leadership style that might fit best with the challenges and opportunities, and provide a rationale for your selection. Incorporate appropriate animations, transitions, and graphics as well as speaker notes for each slide. The speaker notes may be comprised of brief paragraphs or bulleted lists. Support your presentation with at least five scholarly resources within the last 5 years in addition to these specified. Other appropriate scholarly resources may be included. Length: 12 slides (with a separate reference slide) Notes Length: 200 words for each slide Be sure to include citations for quotations and paraphrases with references in APA format and style where appropriate International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011 184 Impact of Academic Leadership on Faculty’s Motivation, and Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education System Miss Anam Siddique MS Scholar Faculty of Management Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur E-mail: [email protected] Hassan Danial Aslam (Corresponding Author) Senior Lecturer Faulty of Management Sciences, The Islamia Unievrsity of Bahawalpur E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Mannan Khan Senior Lecturer Faulty of Management Sciences, The Islamia Unievrsity of Bahawalpur Miss Urooj Fatima MS Scholar Faculty of Management Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Purpose- The terms “Leadership”, “Motivation” and “Organizational Effectiveness”, has been widely explored individually, but a conceptual framework linking these three concepts has not been formed up till now. Author has tried to develop a conceptual framework linking these three variables especially in higher education context. As the implication of these three variables are much different in service organization from that of manufacturing organization. The conceptual framework developed in this paper has explored the link among Academic Leadership, Motivation of Faculty Members, and Organizational Effectiveness in higher education context. This model can be useful for the policy makers and management of higher education, so that they can manage their staff in better way and to motivate them by using various motivators. Thus management and faculty members can jointly contribute to increase university’s effectiveness. This model can be fruitful for management, staff, students, and for the society as a whole. Design / Methodology- The conceptual framework has been developed in this paper. First the terms as; Academic Leadership, Motivation of Faculty Members and Organizational Effectiveness, have been explored individually by exploring the work of previous researchers, and then the model has been developed instigating linkage among these variables. The model describes that proper academic leadership is essential to lead the academic organization in effective manner and if leaders and managers are using appropriate techniques to motivate faculty members then they can augment to effectiveness of the organization. The model also explore that administrative, educational or research oriented academic leadership can directly or indirectly stimulate the faculty members, by using various extrinsic or intrinsic rewards, to work by putting extra efforts, and in this way organization will become more effective, mainly in terms of students and faculty satisfaction. Findings- The conceptual framework is useful for the management and leaders of higher education to make the institute more effective and shows that how an effective institute can better serve their students, who are primary customers to them, and it further explore that how an effective leadership strategies can keep the highly qualified faculty intact. The model also describes that if proper academic leadership will not be in place and leaders are not providing monetary and non monetary benefits to motivate their faculty members, then they may physically or psychologically leave their organization which will produce adverse affects on institution. Students’ academic, personal, and professional development depends on faculty’s sincere effort, that’s why faculty motivation is lying in the center of this model. Contribution- The conceptual framework explains various leadership functions that can lead to an effective and successful academic organization. Many universities are facing hindrances in way of success and prosperity because their most valuable faculty members are leaving the organization due to lack of financial or non financial rewards, therefore this model can be helpful to make the faculty members well satisfied and well engaged with their job and well committed to their organization as well. mailto:[email protected] © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com 185 Also the students’ personal, professional and academic development is coupled with well motivated and satisfied staff. Moreover, its practical implication can also play a critical role enhancing better image and strong culture of the academic organization. Keywords: Leadership, Academic Leadership, Faculty‟s Motivation, Organizational Effectiveness, Higher Education System, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors of Motivation. Introduction The term “Leadership” has attracted increasing attention in practical and theoretical sphere since many years. However leadership in higher education has been given less importance and is not explored widely. Beyond boundaries of manufacturing organizations, leadership is becoming a necessary element in service organizations too. Many researchers have also investigate “Motivation” of workers and “Organizational Effectiveness” in different types and sizes of organizations and have developed various models and theories, but academic institute has remained somehow neglected area especially in developing countries. As these variables have been explored extensively by many researchers, but a link among them has not been developed up till yet. So in this paper author has developed a conceptual framework linking these variables. The model explains the impact of academic leadership on motivation of faculty members and there impact on organizational effectiveness. The model identifies important academic leadership styles that can help in motivating or satisfying the faculty members by providing various rewards, and in turn increasing the organizational effectiveness as a whole. As academic institutes are much different from manufacturing and other organizations (whether public or private) and they have also diverse management and leadership requirements, therefore different motivational policies should be used to motivate their employees. This paper will help to device valuable educational policies by policy makers. This paper enlightens the importance of effective academic leadership and proposes such motivational policies that can be useful for the leaders of higher education to retain, attract, and stimulate valuable faculty members. Effective leaders can increase employees‟ job engagement and organizational commitment. Employees are valuable asset of every organization, and their satisfaction is of prime importance for the organization. Higher education system has different interests, goals, priorities, values, needs, and motivational instincts as compare to other business organizations. Highly qualified and well motivated faculty members are like brain and blood for any academic institute. They can develop the students both personally and professionally. If talented and competent staff members are not motivated enough by their supervisors, and if they are not happy with their job, organization and management, then they may leave the organization. Teachers are the makers of students. They are those influencing personalities and role models, who refine their students‟ skills and polish their personalities and make them responsible citizens and leaders for tomorrow. So leaders can use various intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors to motivate faculty members, so that they can put their extra efforts to produce bright and successful students, good learning environment, strong culture, and good image of institute. Thus the conceptual framework will be beneficial for all stakeholders of the academic institute and for the society as a whole. Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education According to Rojas (2000), organizational effectiveness has been the widely researched topic by many researchers. Whereas Cameron (1978) has described in his paper that various effectiveness approaches and models have been developed but unfortunately little research has been done on organizational effectiveness in higher education context. Similarly Karagöz and Öz, (2008) have described that very few work has been done on organizational effectiveness in higher education context. Many researchers have explored several indicators to measure organizational effectiveness. Few researchers believe that outcomes, results or accomplishment of organizational goals can be a useful criterion to measure organizational effectiveness (Georgopolous, Basil S., and Arnold S. Tannenbaum, 1957). This view is known as Goal Model. But however many researchers later identified that goal accomplishment has some problems as a measure of organizational effectiveness (Cameron 1978). An alternate to goal model is the System Resource Model or the Natural System Approach, which describes that how an organization interacts with it‟s surrounding including its internal and external environment and how effectively an organization utilizes and grabs scarce resources from its environment (Yuchtman, Ephraim, and Stanley E. Seashore, 1967). Thus resources acquisition is considered to be major criterion than achievements of goals. Whereas Steers, Richard M. (1977), have described that organizational effectiveness should be measured in terms of processes carried out in an organization than final results or outcomes. This approach is known as Internal Organizational Process. Karagöz and Öz, (2008) described that study on organizational effectiveness has been started till 1930‟s, but various contemporary approaches have developed in 1970‟s. The approach is contemporary not only for the academic organizations but also for other organizations too. International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011 186 As researches discussed above is primitive, so contemporary view has been given by researchers after 1970‟s. Many researchers have explored different indicators to measure effectiveness and most of them have same point of views. As according to Balcı, (2001, 17) effectiveness should be measured in terms of student‟s development. Similarly Clark, Lotto and Astuto (1984) have identified features of an effective academic institute as students‟ acquisition of important skills, students‟ success and development, learning targets, strong culture, and influential academic leadership. Similarly Hoy and Ferguson (1985) have described the effectiveness dimensions that are much similar to system model. He described that students‟ success, effective management of teachers, school‟s satisfaction and the way in which academic leaders cope with environment, are those dimensions that should be considered while measuring organizational effectiveness. Moreover Gun and Holdaway (1986) have highlighted that the most important effectiveness indicator is teachers and students‟ satisfaction, then academic development, parents‟ satisfaction, grooming of students as a responsible citizens, employment of expert staff and finally preparing students for moving in markets and getting good jobs, as building up their professional carriers. All these indicators should be used measure institute effectiveness. Cheng and Wong (1996) have conducted a research in Asian schools and have outlined few effectiveness dimensions as; support of internal and external environment and professionalizing of teaching staff. Likewise Sisman (1996) has given features of an effective institute in terms of useful and capable management, students, teachers, strong culture, parental involvement etc. Girmen (2001) findings are similar to Sisman (1996), and he further described that according to results of the study carried out by him, management of an academic institute is considered to be important dimensions in students‟ and faculty‟s perception. Whereas Kleeman, G.L., Richardson, R.C. (1985) has also elaborated effectiveness dimensions in their study as students programs, research and quality education, research publications, regulating knowledge and information, sports, supporting environment , raising funds, social responsibility as considering minorities and women.. Moreover, Chenhall (2006) pointed out that employees are the important asset of any organization and they should be motivated depending upon the varying context of the organization in which it operates. Cameron (1978) has made a great contribution in higher education system. As he has given nine famous effectiveness dimensions, after carefully selecting the criteria, constituencies, and institutions, and has selected a well thought-out level of analysis for his study. The nine dimensions that he has described are students‟ educational satisfaction, their academic, personal and professional development, faculty‟s job satisfaction, professional development of teachers, resource acquisition, system clarity and organizational health. But later in his study conducted, he further elaborated that varying environmental conditions has shown a strong impact on the effectiveness of academic institutes (Cameron, 1986a). Many researchers have witnessed that organizational effectiveness has multiple dimensions and all the underlying indicators should be considered while measuring it (Cameron, 1978). Most of the underlying indicators have been discussed earlier. The effectiveness indicators that are present in more or less in each study are; students‟ development, effective management and leadership of academic organization, faculty satisfaction, quality of teaching, university culture, environmental impact, parental involvement, acquisition of recourses and their efficient usage. Cameron (1978) has described that not a single model can be used to measure organizational effectiveness, as it is multidimensional field, so one has to measure all the underlying variables to measure it. Further the contextual factor should be considered before selecting any organizational effectiveness criteria. As context vary across countries and even with in country, so if one factor proves to be successful at one part of world may prove to be futile in other. Motivation of Faculty Members The term “Motivation” describes reason for action to be taken. It stimulates an organism to perform certain action to achieve the desired goal (Tella, Ayeni, and Popoola. 2007). It also helps to stimulate, express and continue a behavior. That behavior is in creed of achievement of any desired goal, which may results in reward or punishment (Rowntree 1981). According to Tella et al. (2007) motivation is like other psychological processes as perception, attitude, learning etc. He further described that motivation speaks for relationship among “need”, “drive” and “incentive”. That is if there will be a felt need or deficiency of any thing, then it will stimulate the organism to perform a specific action i.e. drive, and when the organism will perform certain action then he may get desired reward i.e. incentive. Hertzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), discussed motivation in their research conducted on accountants and engineers. They discussed about intrinsic and extrinsic factors of motivation. As motivators are intrinsic factors which come from within the job. It includes job tasks, career advancement or promotions, increased responsibility on job and recognition by peers or subordinates or management etc. Whereas extrinsic factors are hygiene factors that come from the organization. These include salary, working conditions, relationships on work etc. Effective leaders have to motivate their employees. © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com 187 As Tella et al (2007) described in there paper that well managed organizations value their human resources more than other resources. They consider their employees as an important asset of the organization and employees‟ job satisfaction and organizational commitment is of prime importance for the management of the organization. Managers believe to motivate their employees well, so to achieve organizational goals and to make their organization more effective. According to many researchers the faculty members of higher education prefers on intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. As fascination of research work, recognition, honor, autonomy, career development, and helping others to learn are important factors that can motivate them (Campbell and Slaughter 1999; Hum, 2000; Peltz and Andrews, 1976; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Hollernan, M., and Morgan, E., 2002). It does not mean that financial rewards are not important for the members. They also need monetary rewards that should be in balance with the non monetary rewards. An effective and successful leader is one who must know the needs of his subordinates and must try to motivate his subordinates in accordance to their needs. Money and titles are of less importance for faculty members, non monetary rewards are rather more valuable for them. According to research conducted by McKeachie (1997) teachers feel more satisfied and happy with their job when they have opportunity to learn new skills and knowledge, showing helpfulness, sense of being appreciated by subordinates and super ordinates and colleagues as well, and professional autonomy. All the extrinsic and intrinsic factors must be made available according to individual needs and demands, so to make them satisfied with their jobs According to Rowley (1996) salary, promotion or financial rewards are not of much value for the faculty members because they are hired on a fixed salary scale and promotions occur after long time of work experience. But few academic institutes provide several opportunities to their faculty members to earn financial rewards as bonuses and incentives. Faculty members can be stimulated to perform better if less work loads are placed on their shoulders and when they feel proud in developing their students and are accepted by their students, peers and leaders. Research further explores that faculty members need personal and professional autonomy in their work and decision making. Similarly Reed, A. J. S., Bergemann, V. E. & Olson, M. W. (1998) have discussed that teachers want autonomy in making decisions. If they are free to make their decision and given autonomy, then they feel more satisfied with their jobs and put more efforts in accomplishing work related goals. Faculty members should be provided with proper opportunities for personal development, as they should be provided with challenging and novel teaching experiences, they should be motivated to do research and publications, workshops, seminars conferences should be arranged for their knowledge and skill development, proper training and development activities should be performed. Leaders should try to minimize dissatisfiers i.e. absence of extrinsic factors. Leaders should also try to create friendly environment for their faculty members in which they feel accepted and being valued by every one (Rowley 1996). As Hertzberg et al (1959) have discussed about satisfiers and dissatisfiers in their study. Satisfiers are intrinsic factors which include work itself, recognition, responsibility, and professional development. Whereas Dissatisfiers are hygiene factors or extrinsic factors that are external to job, which include management policy, salary or wage system, working conditions and working relationships. Absence of extrinsic factors can make employee unhappy as he will become dissatisfied, whereas if proper intrinsic factors or motivators will be present then employee will be satisfied with his job. Thus effective leaders should try to eliminate these dissatisfiers. Tella et al (2007) further discussed that training is also one of the important motivating factors that helps staff in polishing their present skills and also helps them to learn new ones. Information availability and communication is also one of the motivating strategy used by management (Olajide 2000). Financial rewards are important in such institutes where the appraisal policies are wholly dependent on financial rewards (Nguyen 2001). If the faculty members are not compensated fairly then they will become de-motivated and dissatisfied with their job. Salary wages and working condition stimulates employees to work effectively in an organization (Tella, et al 2007). Money has motivating power and leaders can use it wisely to motivate their followers and can shove them towards higher performances (Akintoye 2000). Similarly Sinclair, R.R., Tucker, J.S., Cullen, J.C., & Wright, C. (2005) has demonstrated that money has the motivational power to attract and retain employees and direct them toward higher performance. Therefore some mangers can use monetary rewards to please their employees and their withdrawal as a punishment for them depending upon the power of reward for employees. Motivated faculty can earn good national and international image world wide. By making good reputation and positive image academic institutes can attract brilliant students from all over the world, can attract funds and can create a strong influencing culture, can adapt different useful teaching styles, can provide quality education to students, can help students grow and can develop them professionally and personally. So managers must work to motivate their staff members. International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011 188 As faculty members are at interface in between management and students. They are also important asset of organization. Management should know the individual differences of their workers and should try to explore their individual needs and motivate them accordingly, so that teachers could give their best at work and remain well engaged with job and committed with organization as well. Leadership in Higher Education Leader is an inspirational person, a person who leads and directs his followers towards realization of some specific goal or outcome. Leadership is an art to instigate and motivate followers so they can strive hard toward attainment of specific objective. House (2004: 15) defined leadership as the ability to influence others and to direct their efforts to achieve success. Leaders have different leadership styles through which they can lead their subordinates, some are authoritarian, some might be democratic, some are achievement oriented, and many other. Different organizations demands for different leaderships styles. Leadership styles may vary from organization to organization and even within the organization. Also a leader does not posses any fixed style throughout his life; he must have to change his style according to situations and contexts. That is why the concept of situational leadership is becoming very popular. Leadership that is required in higher education is referred to as Academic leadership. Academic leaders should motivate, inspire, direct and lead the faculty members towards achievement of shared objective. According to Gmelch, W. H. (2002) academic leader firstly has to group together all of his followers, and then secondly he should give directions to each member about how to perform the work, and finally he should empower them to do the required task so they could freely reach to given objectives. Academic leaders have more challenges than the leaders of business organization. One important reason is the stakeholders, there are various stakeholders in academia such as students, faculty members, etc so an academic leader must has to look upon every one individually and use different policies to deal with them (Sathye 2004). Leader must know what his objectives are, what he wants to achieve, and how he will put efforts to achieve the desired goals with and through other people. According to previous researchers employees of higher education system need autonomy; as they want complete professional freedom to perform their job effectively. Many years ago researchers believe that there is no need of a formal leader to lead employees but as world has become more complex and business has become dynamic and uncertain so a formal leader is requited to lead people to the right directions. An effective leader uses his motivational and influencing powers to make organizations adapt or adopt to various changes that may arise inside or outside the organizations. Regarding this notion Neave (2002) has further elaborated that due to such dynamic and complex changes in environment leaders have snatched autonomy of employees. Now the organizations have become stakeholders‟ organizations. There is great pressure on shoulders of leaders to look and fulfill stakeholders demand. For this purpose faculty members have to scarify their professional autonomy. As Moore (2008, p.30) has described that academic institute are facing lot of pressures now a days, as quality assurance, performance management, and continuous improvement are not allowing employees to enjoy academic freedom and consequently it calls for a strong leadership. However Bryman‟s (2007) described that an important leadership quality is to maintain professional and personal autonomy of his employees. So to deal with such situation a strong and persuading leader is required to lead faculty members. Leader must use various ways to motivate his employees and to drain best out of them. As according to Hertzberg et al (1959) employee may become dissatisfied due to absence of extrinsic factors and satisfaction can be achieved due to presence of proper intrinsic factors. So leader must try to reduce dissatisfiers so that their employees can provide their best on the job. Not much of the research has been done in field of leadership in higher education. The concept of Academic Leadership has been given by Ramsden (1998) and he suggest that leadership in higher education have features as; leadership in teaching i.e. introducing new ideas of teaching, adding excitement teaching, leadership in research i.e. leader must set his own research examples and provide guidance for the staff, strategy vision and networking i.e. leader should make clear goals and express those to every one, collaborative and motivational leadership i.e. leader should inspire people to give their full and try to achieve difficult objectives also there should be openness and an environment of trust and support, fair and efficient management i.e. delegating task and organize the tasks, development and recognition of performance i.e. praise people work and provide them with feed back and give them support, interpersonal skills i.e. look into other peoples interests. Although Ramsden‟s study has fewer pit falls as his study does not show the impact of present changes as withdrawal of professional authority of professional in educational setting. His model was unable to provide critical results when tested. An academic leader should have a clear sense of values and should adapt to internal and external changes in the organizations (Selznick 1984: 27). © Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com 189 As academic environment are facing many challenges now a days. The academic leader should be knowledgeable and competent enough to manage his subordinates effectively. So the question arise that what leadership style should be used in higher education system to deal with employees? The answer is still confusing. As Collinson and Collinson (2006) has given the view of Blended Leadership, whereas Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. and Harvey, J.A (2003) have given the concept of Distributed Leadership that leadership should not remain the property of only one person as this responsibility should be taken up by all members. Many researchers have identified some leadership qualities as honorable, brave supportive, and enthusiastic person, forming networking skills and relationship building, participative and consultative management style, open discussion on teaching approaches, credibility of leader, building formal and informal channels of communication for information transfer, sharing experiences and ideas, adaptation to internal and external environment, encourage transformation and change, to have selflessness and awareness of things, developing people and making collaborative partnerships with others, creating collegial working atmosphere, and able to get necessary support from others. Thus every leader might not have all of these qualities but good leadership demands for these qualities as leadership has become very … ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A “PARTICIPATIVE” PERSPECTIVE FROM ONE INSTITUTION Volume 8 Issue 1 Winter 2010 Posted On Tue, Sep 07 2010 13:57:51 Authors: M.P. Koen , E.M. Bitzer Introduction The context of the higher education leadership mantle is dynamic, complex and multidimensional (Filan and Seagren 2003, 21). The elusiveness of the leadership notion has enticed researchers to interpret, capture and analyse the essence of leadership in higher education from different perspectives. As Burns (1978, 2) noted thirty years ago, “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth”. Although these studies identified leadership as a concrete and observable phenomenon, no consensus has as yet been reached on the exact characteristics of a successful leader in higher education (Buller 2006, 159). The concept leadership in higher education thus presents numerous opportunities for further investigation. Recent studies not only highlight the diversity of universities, departments and leaders but also the constant change, adjustments and turbulent environment of higher education during the past few years (Hanna, 2003, 34). Lees (2006, 333) consequently asks: “Why would a sane, rational person even consider becoming a leader at a higher educational institution?” This article intends to answer why sane individuals at this university should consider becoming leaders by arguing that the type of leadership that enhances a culture of cohesiveness can indeed address and resolve critical issues collaboratively. In order to explore and interrogate this specific aspect of leadership, we cover three areas. First, we investigate the concept of leadership and transformational leadership in literature. Then, employing qualitative research, we examine how challenges of leadership can be better addressed at one institution in South Africa. We next explore possible solutions to these challenges by means of a leadership profile, and we ultimately draw a number of conclusions. Conceptual framework Although Wolverton, Gmelch, Montex and Nies (2001, 59) state that “... leadership is a matter of degree” and is therefore indefinable, we believe that an explanation of the concepts lead and leadership might serve as a useful heuristic in the investigation of leadership in higher education. McCaffery (2004, 59) explains that the word leader is derived from laed - a word common to all the Old North European languages - meaning path, road, course of a ship at sea or journey. Furthermore, the words lead or leader usually refer to the social influence of authority figures and can be defined as someone who accompanies, rules, guides or inspires others on their journey and steers them in the right direction (Taylor, Peplau and Sears 2006, 327). Leadership, on the other hand, is a recent addition to the English language, and which came into use only in the late 19th century (Brungardt 1998, 1). It seems that the concept leadership in higher education encompasses a much more complex meaning that reaches beyond a single authority figure and revolves around the needs, aspirations and expectations of both the leader who aspires to lead and those who choose to follow (Keith and Levin 2002, 19). In other words: leadership in higher education involves a relationship or, in the words of Morrill (2007, 9) a “followership”. Astin and Astin (2000, 9) concur by defining leadership as a “collaborative endeavour among group members.” We wish to suggest that the role and functions of leadership are today integrated in higher education where academic leaders need to lead, motivate or direct their units to accommodate transformation collaboratively. Effective academic leadership can be viewed as being the biggest advantage a university can have in a resource-hungry, competitive higher education environment (Ramsden 1998, 4). Given the above, leaders can aptly be described as “the brokers of time and relationships” (Krahenbuhl 2004, 48). Taking into consideration the critical role of such brokers in the rapidly changing context of higher education, our empirical study was guided by the primary question: How can challenges of the 21st century in higher education be better addressed at this specific institution? Higher education leadership today, particularly in South Africa, is confronted not only by transformation but also with the task of simultaneously moving universities forward. It seems therefore crucial to revisit the wisdom of previous research. Relevant theories uncover important clues about leaders and followers’ values, perceptions and leadership styles, which could provide current higher education leaders with valuable information when planning direction. It is however necessary to bear in mind the warning of Bargh, Bocock, Scott and Smith (2000, 26) that, owing both to its unique characteristics and the current period of profound transformation in higher education, general theories are not always compatible with the context in which it is practised. Figure 1 demonstrates the revolution in leadership theories that occurred over centuries and varied from an individualistic, leader-centred focus to a distinctly process- centred one with recognition to mutual power and influence (Kezar, Carducci and Contreras-McGavin 2006, ix). It outlines but one perspective on the shift in focus from one of what leaders can do to or for others, to one of how leaders engage with others (Morrill 2007, 8). The circles in figure 1 highlight leadership in higher education as the glue that holds a university together, and this glue can direct, accommodate and inspire the entire university community. http://acadorgtest.fhsu.edu/profile/1449/o http://acadorgtest.fhsu.edu/profile/1450/t Academic leaders, however should be aware of at least two paradigms - transactional and transformational leadership - that has dominated scholarly research on leadership since the 1960’s (Van Zyl 2008, 183-185; Kezar et al. 2006, 108; Wolverton et al. 2001, 41). Burns’s transactional theory (1978) offers a negotiated process in which the power bases of the leaders and the followers counterbalance each other. Consequently, the success of this leadership depends on the conviction that an individual can make a difference (Van Zyl 2008, 192; Filan and Seagren 2003, 26). Bass, a disciple of Burns, moved in a slightly different direction in focusing on collectively directed leadership, where any power exerted by leaders and followers mutually supports a common goal (Wolverton et al. 2001, 42). Our views in this article were influenced by the theory of transformational leadership, firstly because this leadership style acts as a bridge between old and new insights of leadership and secondly, because it focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers, an emerging idea significant in the university context (Kezar et al. 2006, 35). Transformational leaders are self-confident and inspire, or display what Golemann (1998, 196) terms “emotional intelligence”. However, Morrill (2007, 13) emphasises that transformational leadership must not be seen as motives or rigid categories; the key factor must be the “potential to motivate the academic community to respond effectively to change”. We believe transformational leadership in higher education should tend to arouse, satisfy and engage individuals, while simultaneously becoming a source of inspiration to staff, administrators, and students (Barling and Turner 2005, 1; Filan and Seagren 2003, 26; Kelly 2003, 1; Astin and Astin 2000, 8-9). In the ensuing discussion of our empirical research it will become evident that, if leadership in higher education acknowledges and embraces followership, this situation might have a positive downward ripple effect to every member of this particular university community. An empirical study Our empirical study took an interpretivist stance with a qualitative approach whereby we interacted closely with academic leaders at one university. A qualitative case-study design employing semi-structured interviews allowed us to explore - through a variety of lenses - how academic leaders at this particular university deal with challenges (Baxter and Jack, 2008, 544). We followed a case-study approach because: a) the focus of the study was to answer “how” and “why” questions; b) we could not manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study; c) we believe that the contextual conditions (cultural diversity) are relevant to the phenomenon of leadership challenges at the particular university and, d) the boundaries between the phenomenon leadership and the context were not clear (Yin in Baxter and Jack, 2008, 545). For example, the study of how to deal with challenges at (say) University X sought to determine leaders’ perspectives on how to approach these challenges in the very specific context of University X. University X is a multicultural parallel-medium institution which was established in the early 1900’s. Its six faculties offer a full range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes to almost 25 000 students. Over the past few years leaders have been challenged enormously to function within the framework of an increasingly diverse university community. Data were collected through systematic, open-ended interviews. Ten leaders were interviewed between July and December 2008. Purposive sampling was used to select ten academic leaders (seven male and three female) according to the following predetermined criteria for desirable participants (Henning, van Rensburg and Smit, 2004, 71): · leaders at University X permanently appointed (top management, deans, directors or heads of departments); · Professors, older than 45 years, from diverse cultural backgrounds and from a variety of disciplines. The predetermined criteria allowed us to find key informants which could provide information rich data until theoretical saturation was reached. Participants gave informed consent both to participate and that interviews may be recorded (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, 86-87; Bruckman 2002, 1). Qualitative content analysis was employed to make sense of the data. The data were coded and categorised manually to identify themes that could be used in the re-contextualisation of the data when these were integrated as a basis for arguments (Henning et al. 2004, 104-107). The trustworthiness of the study was enhanced by the following factors: openness and trust that all information will be kept confidential; data was supplemented by findings from the literature; data was described as accurately as possible; verification of raw data and raw data and notes of all the decisions taken was kept safe (Niewenhuis, 2007,111-113). Aim and significance of the investigation The aim of our qualitative interviews with academic leaders was to explore the different perspectives regarding leadership in the 21st century within the context of University X primarily, but also within a changing South African higher education dispensation. Utilising a qualitative approach, we attempted to use the rich descriptions of the participants to investigate and interpret dealing with challenges confronting leadership holistically. The interviews re-orientated our current understanding of the complexity of dealing with challenges in higher education. We, like Chu (2006, 115), believed that a vision could serve as a tool to ensure a meaningful and lasting effect in addressing critical challenges. However, an additional perspective emerged during the interpretation of the data, namely one of followership. It seems that the key factor for leadership is “to take people along” (Participant G). Consequently, a vision can only be implemented if followers are active participants. Participant D stresses that “a leader today does not stand separate from his followers. I even want to say he does not merely walk in front. He walks in the front lines, with his arms around them .” Social capital is so crucial today that there are critics who imply that the lack of this particular asset led to the downfall of South Africa’s former president, Thabo Mbeki. For example, the Associated Press (2008, 1) highlighted that “despite his nine years at the top, Mbeki never managed to win the hearts of the masses because of his aloof, academic manner, lacking … spontaneity”. It seems as if “leaders do not get extraordinary things done by themselves” (Kouzes and Posner 2007, 27). Participant H explains: “And the leader becomes like the conductor of a choir. And he will get people out. This is time for you to sing a solo, and then it is time for the two of you to do this. But in all the dynamics ultimately give an excellent result.” It could be argued that leadership in this institution probably needs to embrace followers beyond the borders of vision. Leadership should excite followers with its vision in order to create a positive mood that can set a university on a new course towards excellence. By excellence we mean a visible, productive academic community where every individual will be the beneficiary for years to come (Leaming 2007, 128). Critical leadership challenges Higher education in South Africa has, since 1994, found itself in the midst of profound transformation and changes, confronted with a challenge “to embrace the new” (Pityana 2003,1). How universities address these issues, foster transformation and take advantage of challenges will determine their survival. It is vital that leadership should manage resistance to the new in a positive fashion, because “it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change” (Darwin in Marshall 2007, 1). The next session discusses identified themes used as evidence in continuing arguments of how leadership and decision making systems in University X could create reciprocal commitment when addressing challenges (Henning et al. 2004, 107). People orientated leadership In higher education, the concepts leadership and management pose challenges requiring a complementary set of competencies. The symbiotic nature of the management/leadership relationship is highlighted by the fact that there is limited value if you do things right, while not knowing where you want to go, or equally importantly, it would not help to know where you are going if you “haven’t got the wherewithal to get there” (McCaffery 2004, 59). Equally importantly, Krahenbuhl (2004, 185) reminds us that “the dean may find it distasteful to think of him/herself as a manager, but a significant portion of the dean’s leadership task is effective management”. Leaders must nevertheless not regard themselves as “paper pushers”, because if they do, “that may be all they will accomplish” (Lucas 2000, 28). The focus of this article is not on a question of being one or the other, because in higher education leadership/management functions are closely integrated, as noted by Bennet (2003, 184) “in the academy, good management is a necessary condition for effective leadership, and vice versa.” The bottom line is that higher education leaders in the 21st century need to be effective managers of what they have. Therefore this article argues that leadership/management in University X has “people.” Only if they manage/lead this social capital effectively, then they will lead their institution to greater achievements (Leaming 2007, 18; Chu 2006, 114). Table 1 reports how participants in this study understand social capital of people-orientated leaders. The responses captured in Table 1 seem to confirm that leadership is being challenged to acknowledge competence and value in order to create a relationship of reciprocal respect, which would ultimately lead to an atmosphere conducive to transformation and change at this institution. Transformation and change Already in 500BC, Heraclitus comforted people that “there is nothing constant except change” (Farzaneh 2009, 1). Since transformation and change are conceptualised as a natural part of human development, higher education in South Africa, too, did not escape the throes of unsurpassed change or, put differently, “massive political and administrative surgery” (Ndeble 2004, 1; Walvoord, Carey, Smith, Soled, Way and Zorn 2000, ix). As a matter of fact, change in education is so significant as to be recognised as a respectable field for research (Jansen, Herman, Matentjie, Morake, Pillay, Sehoole and Weber 2007, 157). Therefore the challenge arises for higher education leadership to develop academics’ “adaptive capacity for tackling an ongoing stream of hard problems” (Heifetz 1994, 247). Naturally strong leadership is required to inspire, direct and guide people by replacing the obstacles of change with opportunities of change, a deliberate action, thus, to enhance quality. This means that if academic leaders want to improve the quality of their academic output, it is inevitable that departments become dynamic, ever-changing units (Leaming 2007, 117). This notion is supported by the challenge of cultural diversity at the campus of University X. Cultural diversity South Africa’s university student body is becoming increasingly diverse and manifests its uniqueness in different ways. Each separate element (cultural, educational level, ability, age, part-time or full-time, place of study, individuality, and disability) raises different challenges and requires different solutions. A critical challenge for leadership at University X for instance is to establish an atmosphere fostering cultural diversity, especially when it seems that, historically, higher education in South Africa has a poor record in respect of embracing cultural diversity. Pandor claimed that although the new vision of 1994 was one of reshaping South African society, “14-years into the new democracy universities have not changed much” (CHE 2008, 1). Reddy (2004, 1) adds that in South Africa the state and the composition of its personnel has changed, but civil society (higher education institutions) has yet to adapt. The focus of this article is not to explore the problems of cultural diversity, but to highlight that if culture diversity is addressed collaboratively it does not necessarily have to be an obstacle. According to Pityana (2003, 4-5), it should actually be regarded as an “opportunity for intellectual dialogue”. In other words, diversity can be seen as varied perspectives and approaches that different identity groups offer (Thomas and Ely 2001, 36). The question now arises as to when Institution X will reach the stage where its vision will reflect the contributions and interests of its culturally diverse constituency? We think that the challenge we face at this institution is to “begin at the beginning – back to the basics” (Pityana 2003, 8). Leadership at Institution X may commit itself to building and promoting a culture of tolerance and respect in order to contribute to the achievement of a multicultural campus (MacGregor 2008, 1). As Participant E emphasised: “It might be something we would not achieve during our lifetime but it is a path worth mapping out, so that we know what the direction which we were working towards, was. We may fail, but at least we will take solace in knowing that we failed, while trying.” Potential solutions at the level of leadership Theorists have identified a variety of solutions to the above-mentioned issues, arguing that leadership should create a diverse culture, develop a strategic planning process, consult others, learn to say no or be someone who cares, think strategically or apply self-directed leadership (Van Zyl 2008, 180; Leaming 2007, 1-18; Sorensen, Furst-Boe and Moen 2005, 17; McCaffery 2004, 76). Drucker (in ThinkExist 2009, 1) adds the idea of active involvement through collaboration through the following message: “The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I’. And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I’. They don’t think ‘I’. They think ‘we; they think ‘team’. They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don’t sidestep it, but ‘we’ gets the credit....That is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.” It can be argued that the leaders at University X need support, expertise and commitment from followers by means of an interwoven relationship. Interwoven relationship If only academic leaders could mould members of the university community to fulfil their wishes. Wolverton et al. (2001, 55) maintain that changing people’s perspectives is so difficult that almost the easiest way to deal with it would be to recruit and hire new people. Such an approach would not only be short sighted, but is unrealistic and unachievable (55). The second most logical way would be to incorporate followership. This reciprocal relationship is explained by Prentice (2005, 167) who sees leaders as a being orchestral conductors who must pose challenges, but also provide fulfilment. Given the above realities, we interpret leadership at University X as an interwoven relationship in which my vision becomes our vision, i.e. the result of a collective process, open debate and collaborative commitment embodied in the values and skills of leadership. Few would deny that good communication and interpersonal skills are critical towards realising the above-mentioned vision. Lucas (2000, 7) explains the value of active listening skills when she reasons that “being president of a university is like being the caretaker of a cemetery; there are lots of people under you, but nobody is listening”. Consequently, it is necessary to explore a leadership profile that would move people to listen, to admit mistakes, to participate actively, that would create a space where information is openly and trustfully discussed, where individuals have an opportunity to admit mistakes and are able to play a significant role in debates when decisions are finalised (Sorensen, Furst-Bowe and Moen 2005, 8). The heart of leadership The purpose of this paper is not to highlight the diverse characteristics of leaders in higher education, but to focus on those united strengths that acknowledge followership. We therefore attempt a higher education leadership profile (see Table 2) encompassing the vital attributes (identified by participants in our empirical study). We regard this set of attributes as being at the heart of dealing with challenges in this millennium. Not only do leaders have to understand themselves and the higher education environment in which they operate, but the followers need to be equally aware of the superman/woman-expectations demanded of leaders. The profile outlined in Table 2 largely confirms the degree of diverse characteristics needed for effective leadership in higher education. Diversity therefore actually appears to be beneficial, since higher education needs to identify and combine the strengths of the different academic leaders in order to achieve excellence and change. Participant G affirmed this notion when he noted: “And one other thing is I have quite a lot of divisions that I am responsible for. And I give people space to operate. As a result, there is a lot of creativity in all of my divisions and I have the necessary support from the directors and the heads of my various divisions.” Leadership in higher education institutions is indeed no easy task, and we do not want to ignore the significance of strategic governance, but we believe basic relationship skills can create a climate of trust and a sense of purpose. We thus suggest that leadership should create bonds of affiliation. When leaders treat followers as individuals and appeal to their hopes and desires, a snowball effect will develop. People will give more than expected, they will increase inputs and they will have fewer complaints. This may result in a cohesive endeavour in the direction of transition and innovation. Here the focus is on people with complementary skills, communicating a shared language and committed to a shared vision. Ultimately team members can become so integrated and cohesive in accomplishing the task at hand “that they may reach a level of synergy, in which the whole is greater than the sum of parts” (Little 2005, 33) and where the “rewards of active leadership are tremendous” (Leaming 2007, 125). Conclusion What did this study, admittedly limited to perspectives from ten academic leaders at one university, reveal about leadership in higher education? Firstly, it appears that the context of higher education in South Africa has been transformed, the roles of leaders are expanding as never before and leaders are facing tremendous challenges. Globalisation, the emergence of a knowledge economy, competition for resources, reduced staff components, contract employment, reduced government funding, new technologies for teaching and accreditation, all are forces that pressurise academic leaders in higher education. Secondly, since the overarching challenges of increasing quality and efficiency remain the same, it would furthermore be idle to think that things will become easier. Leadership is expected to promote excellence in all spheres of higher education and academic excellence in particular. Therefore, one important function remains to motivate staff towards scholarly productivity. An important finding of this study is that there is no agreed-upon recipe for successful academic leadership. We consequently have to acknowledge that leadership in higher education is a multidimensional concept and that its interpretation will legitimately differ among different observers and different institutions. Thirdly, it is clear that no university can do without leadership that defines aims, goals and strategies and ensures that resources are in place to achieve them. In other words, “leadership does matter” (Marshall 2007, 16). Bargh et al. (2000, 65) inspire future leaders with their claim that “individuals really make a difference in universities” and that entire departments can be turned around within a period of two years.” It is therefore vital to leadership to overcome barriers to change and to transform challenges into extraordinary windows of opportunity. Fourthly, t he critical reader may interpret the idea of a people-orientated leader as being a naive approach, but Jansen (in Kruger 2008,1) has recently emphasised the value of leader-followership relationships in the university context. He claims that the new rector of one South African university - where a great deal of distrust has developed - must be comfortable with different cultures and beliefs in order to restore trust between groups on that campus. Consequently, such a statement supports the idea of strategic leadership as a collaborative and interactive, - back-to-the-basics, back-to-relations-values-and–skills, process. In other words: the way to improve leadership in this era of higher education at this particular time and specifically in South Africa, is not only through intensive restructuring, but through attending to the culture of a particular university (Tierney 2004, 214). In an effort to capture a basis for a followership approach, leaders at University X can negotiate conflict by including people from all backgrounds and with diverse strengths in the leadership process. Perhaps a team approach can overcome critical barriers and transform diversity into unity. This brings us to the final point: no-one should underestimate the importance of building relational bridges between leaders and those around them. We echo the old saying: To lead yourself, use your head; to lead others, use your heart. Always touch a person’s heart before you ask him for a hand” (Maxwell 2008, 38). Perhaps this basic, underlying value will ultimately shape the new face of academic leadership at University X and in South Africa in the years to come. List of references Astin, A. W. and H. S. Astin. 2000. Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Cree, Michigan: WK Kelllogg Foundation. Atkins, M. W. and H. E. Singelton. n.d. The empathic leader: Union University Tennessee. Scholarship Power Point. http//www.uu.edu/centers/edpractice/scholarship/ppt/TheEmpathicLeader-ASCD.ppt (accessed 27 September 2008). Bargh, C., J. Bocock, P. Scott and D. Smith. 2000. University Leadership. The Role of the Chief Executive. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Barling, J. and N. Turner. 2005. Transformational leadership and moral reasoning: Social Responsibility Series by Canadian Business. www.business.queensu.ca/alumni_and_donors/docs/inqS05_feature1.pdf ( accessed 21 August 2008). Baxter, P. and S. Jack. 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report 13(4) December: 544-559. Bennett, J. B. 2003. Academic life: Hospitality, ethics, and spirituality. Bolton: Anker. Bruckman, A. 2002. Ethical guidelines for research online. Georgia Institute of Technology.www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/ethics (accessed 11 …