THE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROJECT

Leadership, Institutional Innovation and Development

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

UGANDA, 2011

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

PART 14

CHALLENGES AND TRENDS IN UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

1.1INTRODUCTION

1.2CAPACITY BUILDING AND POLICY CAPACITY

PART 210

THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC THINKING AND PLANNING

2.1INTRODUCTION

2.2AN OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

2.3BASICS OF DEVELOPING MISSION, VISION AND VALUES STATEMENTS

2.4START THINKING ABOUT BEGINNING A STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

PART 317

LEADERSHIP

3.1LEADING AND MANAGING

3.2WHO ARE LEADERS?

3.3WHAT IS LEADERSHIP?

3.4LEADERS AND VISION

3.5TWO MODELS OF LEADERSHIP: TRANSFORMATIONAL & SERVANT LEADERSHIP

3.6UNDERSTANDING FOLLOWERSHIP

3.7 CULTIVATING EFFECTIVE AND EXEMPLARY FOLLOWERS

3.7SUMMING UP

PART 430

CHANGING UNIVERSITIES FOR THE BETTER

4.1ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

4.2TYPES OF CULTURES

4.3WHY IS AN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IMPROTANT TO AN ORGANIZATION?

4.4FORCES FOR CHANGE
4.5WHAT CAN CHANGE AGENTS CHANGE?
4.6RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
4.7OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
4.8THE POLITICS OF CHANGE
4.9HOW TO APPROACH ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
4.10STIMULATING ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION
4.11CREATING A DYNAMIC UNIVERSITY
4.12MANAGING CHANGE AND CULTURE

4.13A FEW FINAL TIPS FOR MANAGING CHANGE

PART 545

BUILDING WINNING TEAMS FOR UNIVERSITIES OF THE 21st CENTURY

5.1COMMUNICATION AND ACTIVE LISTENING.

5.2YOUNG AND PROMISING UNIVERSITIES

5.3PROMISING UNIVERSITIES AND BREAKTHROUGHS

5.4HOW TO EVALUATE UNIVERSITIES AND TO SEE IF THEY ARE WORLD CLASS INSTITUTIONS

5.5 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING

INTRODUCTION

This module covers the subject of leadership in universities viewed as a critical lever in moving the institutions forward to their desired destinations. It must be noted that universities operate in volatile environments today and, therefore, the ability of an institution to change and adapt is critical for its survival. Those that fail to change and adapt are bound to lose while those who do so are bound to occupy their high ground tomorrow. Thus, the issues of leadership have to be dealt with in the context of institutional planning and management at operational, tactical and strategic levels. The three levels must be attended to well to provide the framework for the identification of the role of the top management in universities.

In Part 1 of this module, we examine the challenges that affect universities in transformation. In Part 2 of the module, we discuss the role of strategic thinking and planning as well as leadership in a university. We will see how strategic planning can help to determine a university’s future. In this first section, we will see what is meant by strategic planning, and in the second part, we will show how a vice-chancellor, and the senior management team, can start to develop a strategic plan for their university. In Part 3 we will begin by considering, what is leadership; leaders and vision; power and leadership; leaders and managing. Next, we will turn to examine the notion of two current forms, or models, of leadership: ‘transformational leadership’ and ‘servant leadership’, as well as ways in which to cultivate ‘followers’.

The purpose of Part 4 of the module is to provide a broad overview of the concept of “change management.” This part provides, an understanding of ways in which universities can change themselves for the better.

The fifth, and final, part of this module on leadership, institutional innovation and development, provides guidelines for recognizing good and bad universities. Any senior management team, into building an empowered and self-reliant and committed group of staff, must seek ways to improve the way services are delivered, especially with regard to staff members. In this final part of the module, we will explore ways to create humane, caring and supportive organizational structure that can maintain the commitment of staff, challenge them, and enable them to fulfill their role in the university as effectively as possible.

AIM OF THE MODULE:

MODULE OBJECTIVES

By the end of the module, the module, you will be able to:

  • Discuss the challenges and trends in university management
  • Make a distinction between Management and Leadership of universities
  • Define and describe the role of organizational cultures in the managing change in universities
  • Explain the role of good and effective communication in building winning teams in universities
  • List the challenges and problems of managing university-community partnerships
  • Describe the attributes or qualities of a university of the 21st century.

PART 1

CHALLENGES AND TRENDS IN UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

Specific Objectives

By the end of Part 1, you will be able to:

  • Discussing the failures and successes at reforming a university, and
  • Analyze the critical role of a transformational leader in focusing the university to the future.

1.1

INTRODUCTION

The last 20 years have been difficult for many African universities, especially those in the public sector. We have seen too many reforms leading to too few results, too much rhetoric, and not enough wise leaders.

Over the last 20 years, new forces such as globalization, information technologies, and innovation have transformed the way we think about higher education, the role of universities, and the work done by those responsible for the management of such institutions. Both developed and developing countries have undertaken wide-ranging reforms in the higher education sector. Some have been remarkably successful; others not. We have seen progress on many fronts in different parts of the world, and we have also made enough mistakes that it should now be possible to look back and assess the lessons learned, as we turn our attention to the challenges ahead.

Some resounding reform successes are worth noting:

  • The construction of new universities and expansion of older ones is one of the greatest achievements of our time in building a higher education system based on progressive education principles, social transformation and the belief that knowledge-based societies are the way of the future.
  • The transition from an elitist view of higher education to a more egalitarian and open understanding has given hope to many who seek a university education; and the increased number of university graduates on the continent is testimony to that.
  • The successful transition, in many countries, from having only exclusively state-run universities to situations in which the private sector is encouraged to invest in university projects.

We have also seen the consequences of the failure to provide for good governance and management in universities. Many are still lacking:

  • Internal forums to arbitrate conflicting views and to bring about peaceful resolutions of conflicts,
  • Democratic accountability and transparency in the exercise of power and the use of university funds,

•Informed political oversight of public sector institutions;

•Policy making and policy enforcement capacities.

Serious mistakes were also made in terms of the way governments managed state-run universities. For a time, it seemed that in some parts of the world, governments lost sight of the importance of the role of the State in funding higher education as many decided to put their faith in the market’s unlimited ability to resolve problems and, hence, asked state-run universities to find their own funds.

As a consequence, a high price was paid in many countries. It damaged the sense of pride of the men and women who had dedicated their life to university teaching and convinced a number of young people that without private means they would be forever deprived of a university education.

Despite the diversity of experiences in the context of the rapid and deep societal changes of the last 20 years, universities are facing many common challenges. We must all explore how the university sector can work best and bring value-added to society in the future.

It has become customary to talk of:

•The transformation brought about by the forces of globalization,

•The impact of information and communication technologies and

•The emergence of knowledge-based societies and economies.

In order to understand the challenges of leading African universities in the 21st century, we should first ask ourselves for What will be the role of the State in the development of university education?How can we unleash the potential of the universities to be all they can become?; and How can universities keep up with a situation in which it is estimated that empirical knowledge is doubling every five years?

We will frame this overview by discussing three challenges:

1)Finding the right balance between the market and the State in a global context,

2)The need for transformational leadership within the university sector, and

3)The need to take on board new knowledge and innovation imperatives.

1) A Search For Balance

The role of the State, especially in relation to universities, began to be redefined during the last years of the 20th century. The two pre-eminent signs of this were: (i) the huge influx of private students into public universities; and (ii) the granting of permission to private institutions of higher learning to begin offering full degree programmes. The chief reasons for this shift was the growing inability of African governments to continue large-scale funding of university education; and the sharp rise in the demand for places in university.

Although it is recognized that the State still has a pre-eminent role in university education and university development, it became increasingly clear that African governments’ capacity to be the prime provider of university education was limited. Since the turn of the 21st century, it has become more commonplace to hear, amongst politicians and university administrators, the case for arguing that the State should adopt the role of a partner, catalyst and facilitator of university education.

Such a case rests on the premise that the market is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources and to ensure the pursuit of individual interests. For a well-performing economy and society to flourish, it is not about the dominance of the public sector over the private sector, (or vice versa); but rather, it is about a search for balance. Both are fallible, both have inherent weaknesses, but by working together, they compensate for each other and achieve the best results. That’s the theory.

In practice, these developments have impacted upon universities in several striking ways. The first is the way in which universities are funded. Instead of expecting governments to providing the lion’s share of cash needed to run a public-sector university, VCs - and their teams - are now expected to look for ways of raising cash through a myriad of different means. Entrepreneurial flair is now a quality much sought after when selecting a VC.

The second impact on university education has the transformation of the student body into clients and customers. This shift has altered the nature of the relationship between staff and students, as well as determining the selection of courses that a university offers. A crucial factor has become whether, or not, a course is ‘demand-driven’. The old adage that ‘education is an end in itself’ does not cut much muster with those who want to know if a course, or programme, is attracting sufficient students to make it economically worthwhile. It seems that the VC of the modern university needs not only entrepreneurial flair, in terms of being able to raise money, but also able to have a keen eye for what will sell, or not sell, in the market place.

Such developments, as we have said, have radically altered the profile of the kind of VC that university councils, and the like, want to recruit to lead their institutions. Instead of seeking out people, primarily renowned for their academic achievements and long years of service, candidates are being sought who can function as CEOs, successfully lead a management team, read a spreadsheet, and have above average marketing skills.

2) Transformational Leadership

From the streets of Damascus to the board rooms of London banks, there is a rallying call for a more accountable and transparent brand of leadership. People are demanding and deserve high quality service exempt from patronage or influence peddling. They expect access to information, and they expect services to be organized and delivered in accordance with their needs and circumstances, not at the convenience of those in power. They demand to be treated with respect by institutions and expect those in authority to be true to their mission of being the “servant” of the collective interest and the “keeper of a public trust”.

Universities are not immune to these calls for accountability and transparency. While the older ‘public service’ model governing the way state-run universities operate and the ‘industrial management’ style of many private-run ones, still continue to hold sway in many places, neither should blind us to the fact that university heads must make a firm commitment to leaving to future generations better institutions than the ones we inherited. The call is now for university leaders who exhibit not only exceptional planning and communication skills, but who are “transformational” and who can make those around them believe in the impossible. Such leader gains influence by demonstrating the importance of personal characteristics like self-confidence, dominance and strong conviction in the moral righteousness’ of ones belief.

The importance of having a leader who is ‘transformational’ is a crucial factor in attracting, and retaining, talented and gifted staff. The competition for talent has become increasingly fierce among universities and between the private and public sectors. The best staff will come to a university if they are given the chance to make a difference, and the opportunity to use their skills and reach their full potential. A university whose role is limited to repetitive and predictable tasks will attract a different kind of workforce.

3) The Knowledge and Innovation Imperatives

The last challenge we will mention pertains to the “knowledge and innovation imperatives” that are in so many ways characteristic of the era we live in. The bureaucratic organizational model characterized the organization of universities for most of the last century. It was built around clearly defined and predictable tasks. Similar tasks were grouped into units, units into departments, and departments into faculties. The organization relied on a strict division of labour with a clear ladder of ascendancy for those wishing to go to the top. The authority was delegated top down.

A profound transformation took shape in many institutions during the 70's, 80's and 90's as the knowledge-based economy started to take shape. Instead of a ‘top-down’ model, people began reinventing organizations into a series of concentric circles that overlap. The guiding principle underlying such a transformation was the Principle of subsidiarity. Essentially, it stated that the role of the leader was to help those he, or she, was immediately responsible for, (ie. department heads), was to help them to do their job well. The job of department heads was, in turn, to help their team members of do their job well. This development literally turned the older pyramidal understanding of organizations upside down and gave rise to the notion of the ‘servant leader’.

One of the chief factors in such a paradigm shift was the rapid growth in new knowledge and the demand for innovation that came in its wake. When the assets of an organization are intellectual, the old management model simply cannot cope with necessary changes and, to use the name of Chinua Achebe’s most famous novel, ‘things fall apart’. The alternative is to opt for becoming, what Peter Senge calls, “learning organisations”. In his view, learning organizations are dynamical systems in a state of continuous adaptation and improvement. (See his book, The Fifth Discipline, 1999).

It must be said that unlike other areas of life, the university sector has been slower to adapt, but it must, in order to provide value-added education, remain relevant to people’s needs, and continue to be a seedbed for new knowledge and ideas. This transformation will be critical to the ability of the universities to attract and retain its fair share of the best talent in the future.

One sign of the impact of the knowledge explosion upon universities is the way the notion of a university lecturer is changing and the increasingly use of part-time staff members who are involved in independent consulting and work outside of the university. Such a development requires new ways of thinking in universities, as there is a need to implement a “team” approach, supported by horizontal management, in order to effectively respond to the broad range of staff in a cohesive and coherent manner. The idea of a university relying almost exclusively on a cadre of full-time staff, whose aim it is to stay in one institution until they reach retiring age, does not hold sway anymore.

The structures of authority are changing. The power of the office must now co-exist with the power of ideas, the power to innovate, and the power to discover new and better ways to fulfil the mission. The creation of ‘schools’ within large universities would be an example of this development, as would be the election, by staff members, of university departments, of their own heads instead of the traditional way of simply appointing a head.