Section A
Higher education is considered the epitome of learning and research in the scholarly world. Therefore, leadership in higher education institution ought to be in maximum effectiveness at all times. Leaders at higher education institutions had better employ strategic leadership and management skills to ensure that such institutions attain the goals that define their existence. The current paper will analyze and comment on theories and research paradigms that have been presented in the integration and practice of leadership and management at higher institution centers. This section holds that although several theories, concepts and research paradigms have been presented, still there is a lack of consensus on what qualifies as the most effective and successful leadership and management practices at least from a higher education management and leadership perspective.
The issue of leadership in the higher education sector has remained under scholarly study for many years now. However, it is important to consider the fact that the established evidence in regard to the leadership theories be integrated to enhance the ability to solve the higher education challenges that have derailed development in the sector for many years. Apparently, the common place issues at higher education institutions stem out of the lack of effective leadership and managerial practices hence the need to ensure that research findings enhance the ability to solve them amicably. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks could be integrated into the solution of the leadership and managerial issues at higher education centers. Factually, higher education, in itself, is designed to enhance research and study on the issues that influence the educational niche. Therefore, the leadership and the managerial practices at such institutions should focus on the need to enhance the attainability of the specific goals that define higher education.
It is important that higher education takes up the shared, distributed and collective leadership that has been identified to be advantageous in the quest to meeting the goals of higher education. Such kinds of leadership enhance the feeling of shared visions and focus on the target of meeting the objectives of research as established in the functions of institution of higher learning. The theory and the conceptual framework of shared, distributed and collective leadership is that all those that are involved play a role in devising the strategies and policies that govern the practices of the involved centers of higher learning. It is also important to remember that higher education leadership is, in most cases, aimed at developing leadership strategies that will govern the entire educational sector of a specific country. Therefore, the integration of theory and conceptual principles should take a holistic approach so that it focuses on all the weaknesses and failings of current issues while also providing long lasting solution to the challenges of the future.
Although used interchangeably, managerial and leadership attributes should be differentiated. The managerial theories and research paradigms should be defined and their scope identified as far as higher education is concerned. Similarly, higher education leadership should be defined and its scope as well identified to prevent conflicting ideas as the two areas are unique during the development of effective higher education development strategies. The centers for higher education should encourage all its stakeholders to be well versed in the spectrums of both managerial and leadership scopes as explained herein. Higher education policy developers should be keen on creating and implementing managerial and leadership techniques that enhance the attainability of effective research and study practices that should at all times define the higher education sector.
Section B
Most scholars concede that the definition of an effective leader, from a higher education perspective, is largely misunderstood. Scholars have explained that there is still no consensus on who or what defines an effective leader in the higher education sector. Such a concession points out to the fact that most of the theories of leadership in the higher education niche are either unclear or ineffective, which makes it hard to develop a higher education sector capable of effectively meeting its objectives. There is no question that higher education requires maximum effectiveness and convenience given the prioritized roles that it plays in the society. The lack of effective leadership consensus means that there is a sense of disorganization, an aspect that leads to the questions of the real scope of the role of higher education in the modern society. Apparently, with the lack of a clear description of a leader in the higher education spectrum, the ideas on the roles of higher education centers are clearly confusing, which does not work out to the understanding of most people on the objectives of higher education.
Higher education provides the highest points for learning in the world of scholars. Effectively, it is expected that higher education institutions should develop leadership cultures that uphold the theoretical and conceptual principles of effective leadership and managerial practices. (Middlehurst, 2010) argue that higher education centers should be able to develop cultures within and outside themselves that uphold the principles of effective leadership. Clearly, higher education centers influence the way educational activities are undertaken in a specific country. In fact, the quality of leadership at the higher institutions of a country impacts directly the roles and the quality of education in all the other lower levels of education in that country. Therefore, the hope for a developed educational system of a country lies in the way higher educational leaders interact with the established principles of leadership. For the educational systems of a country to garner its desired qualities and levels of improvement, evident points out to the fact that the leadership at higher educational levels must have upheld a culture that must be understood to be promoting effective leadership ideals.
Grint (2005) holds that higher education leadership could be more effective if it undertook a transformative approach. Transformational leadership could be defined as a form of leadership under which creativity is harnessed and combined with sustainable strategies to develop effective leadership techniques. Consequently, the authors advocate for transformational leadership attributes that champion for activities that could enhance the culture of effective organization of the entire higher educational niche. Grint (2005) argue that higher education centers should be keen on developing mission and vision statements and commit to meeting the objectives that such statements pronounce. Convincingly, the authors give a record of the way institutions are bound to succeed if they employed transformational leadership techniques as compared to other leadership strategies. Apparently, transformational leadership should not only focus on developing the institution but also emphasize on encouraging the various stakeholders on the ways they could improve their leadership skills.
Higher education leadership strategies should incorporate the four main elements of any leadership undertaking: context, culture, change and relationship. The authors argue that the leadership technique to be adopted in higher education centers ought to focus on the context and the circumstances under which such a leadership exercise and undertaking is developed. Similarly, the institutions ought to look at the existing leadership culture at the time of developing a leadership exercise. If the existing culture is effective the way it is undertaken at the time, those in charge should look at way of maintaining and strengthening it. In the event that it lacks in some way, those responsible for the leadership tasks should seek way to improve it. Leadership is also more about change thus effort must be put into ensuring that the organization does not falter when changes are initiated onto the existing leadership structures. It is also important that leadership at the higher learning sector focusses on the collaboration of all the components and divisions that make up the entire systems. It is imperative that measures are undertaken to ensure that people share roles in a collaborative manner and that all the units of the higher learning institutions have roles delegated in a way that complements the strategies set to attain set objectives.
Section C: Theories of Leadership
Several theories have been presented to explain leadership in higher education. Consequently, the current section will examine the five major theories that have been subject to research and that have successfully implemented in various institutions of higher learning. The theories that will be analyzed in the current section will include: trait, behavioral, contingency, cultural, and power and influence theories.
The Trait Theory of Leadership
Most higher education institutions have popularly incorporated the trait theory of leadership in trying to close in the gap of leadership. Goleman (1995) describes the trait theory as the study of the attributes of an individual that portray them as able and effective leaders. Apparently, specific individual qualities and personalities lead to the portrayal that some people are effective leaders than others. From a higher learning perspective, both research and practice have exhibited that some traits are necessary for effective leadership. In fact, as Goleman reports, leaders ought to have some specific attributes that will enhance their abilities to draw and influence followers. From this context, no matter the correctness and effectiveness of the policies that a leader imposes in an institution of higher learning, without the required levels of influence through the traits that they possess, their leadership strategies could be threatened with failure. Therefore, effective leadership, from the context of the trait theory, largely depends on the traits of the leader rather than their strategies of leadership.
Behavioral Theories of Leadership
Behavioral theories have gained traction in recent years. Developed to counter the argument that leaders are born and not made, the behavioral theories hold that leadership skills could be attained through learning and experience after serving in various positions (Gosling et al., 2007). The behavioral set of theories emerged following the application of various military concepts in civilian settings. Apparently, various research undertakings aimed at advancing the ideas of behavioral theories focused on the roles of deans, departmental heads and presidents of various institutions of higher learning (Kezar et al., 2006). The authors found out that training and experience levels improved the leadership abilities of the individuals who served in the various positions of leadership in higher educational settings. The behavioral theories generally hold that leaders ought to balance relational and task orientation while also cooperating with all the members of the teams that they lead and being able to be influenced so that it is able to initiate and implement necessary changes.
Contingency Theories of Leadership
Developed and proclaimed by Fiedler (1997), contingency theories held that offered a fresh perspective on the way maximum leadership effectiveness could be attained specifically in the higher education setting. The contingency theories hold that various situations should dictate the leadership styles that should be employed to address a specific need. Additionally, the context of the prevailing situation largely dictates who becomes an effective leader. In this regard, contingency theories offer better and progressive ways of addressing leadership challenges in the higher education sector. Further research has pointed out to some weaknesses on these theories but have also established that leadership is a process and Pettigrew et al. (2001) were able to explain the process thus clarifying on the effectiveness of the contingency theory in the leadership issues of the higher education sector.
Cultural Theories of Leadership
The cultural theories of leadership focus on the development of an institution based on the common beliefs, cultures and objectives. The theories in this spectrum focus on leaders who are able to use available symbols to generate effective means of developing influence among the team that they lead. Kezar et al. (2006) held that cultural theories could help leaders in higher education institutions to use the available institutional cultures, archetype cultures in constituent institutions to develop the leadership process that was mentioned on the previous section of contingency theories. A major benefit of the cultural theories of leadership in higher learning centers is their ability to boost morale among the followers of the involved leader. Perhaps, the cultural theories of leadership are the easiest to implement and adjust as they rely on already established cultures of the involved institutions.
Power and Influence Theories
Power and influence theories in a higher learning context refer to the social exchange processes that come into play as leaders demonstrate their power in the implementation and undertaking of their duties. Kouzes and Posner (2002) narrate that the power and influence theories share five common attributes. For instance, they model the way for leadership to be undertaken in an institution, inspiring a shared vision in the institution, and enabling the rest of the team to act in an appropriate manner as per the leadership vision. Additionally, the power and influence theories enhance the ability to challenge the commonplace processes in an institution of higher learning and encouraging the heart of leadership in the entire higher learning sector.
Section D: Critique of the Contingency Theories of Leadership
As described above the contingency theories offer a flexible mechanism to addressing all arising issues in as far strategic leadership in the higher learning sector is concerned. Apparently, leadership is held as a process that transforms from one moment to the next and from one situation to the next. Clearly, every situation demands a set of specific principles to be applied to deal with the arising issues in an effective way. In this regard, contingent theories of leadership offer a more direct approach to dealing with leadership issues in the various institutions of higher learning. The current section outlines the views that various scholars have used to explain the various issues of leadership in the higher learning sector in the context of the contingent theory of leadership.
Ogbonna and Harris (2000) analyzed empirical data and found out that contingent leadership theories helped most of the United Kingdom companies that were studied to improve their performance. The authors write that such contingent theories enhance the ability to adjust policies as per the prevailing situations. Apparently, re-implementing contingent theories in higher educational settings could be beneficial as leaders will be able to adjust their leadership skills as per the prevailing situations. The other benefit that Ogbonna and Harris (2000) note is that contingent leadership theories enhanced the ability of companies to shield itself from adverse climates of operation in the market. On the same note, contingent leadership theories could help higher learning institutions to overcome the difficult operational situations that arise from time to time. Apparently, this can be attained by ensuring that different situations can be addressed by changes to existing policies or leaders because the contingent theories allow easy adjustments to established mechanisms to avoid various operational failures.
Contingent leadership theories combine well with other transformational leadership theories to ensure that an institution is up to date regarding it operations in its niche. It is possible to encourage the prospects of sustainable leadership strategies by employing contingent leadership strategies that also incorporate situational leadership theories (Bass, 2010). Bass further argues that consistent research findings revealed that contingent and situational leadership theories enhanced positive transformation in the various institution in which they were applied. Taking from the lessons that Bass passes across, it is clear that higher learning institutions stand to benefit from the adoption of contingent leadership theories.
Spinelli (2010) also points out that contingent theories, including transformational, transactional and Laissez-Faire leadership theories enhance the administrative performances in hospitals. Apparently, such leadership strategies enhance the ability of meeting administrative objectives, enhancing accountability in the leadership spectrum and that they offer realistic and effective ways of meeting administrative objectives in the institutions that apply them. Ostensibly, if implemented in higher learning institutions, it is clear that administrative issues that have for many years hindered the attainment of the goals of such institutions will be solved in significant way. Contingent theories offer a realistic approach to solving the many issues that have for many years overshadowed the progress that modern day higher learning centers have attained (Peus, Braun, & Frey, 2013). By so doing, leaders and higher learning stakeholders could direct their efforts into meeting research and other scholarly undertakings that define the sector.
Contingent theories of leadership have been found to be riddled with some failures in their implementation. For instance, given their situational nature of implementation, they tend to deny an institution the ability to build a strong cultural base that will identify it with specific traditions and practices. In as much as contingent leadership theories provide the freedom to adjust specific policies as per the prevailing conditions in the environment of operation, the fail to enforce the common culture that has consistently been revealed to enhancing the uniqueness that an institution should use to identify itself (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). Clearly, such an aspect could be negative to higher learning institutions that certainly require strong cultures to motivate all the stakeholders that they cooperate with in their operations. However, research has shown that the merits of the contingent theories of leadership in the higher education setting, and other niches, clearly outweigh the demerits that have been identified.
Section E: Issue for Research
Apparently, it is important that research efforts are directed into assessing the viability of contingent research theories and other situational and transformative leadership techniques on developing unique institutions. Clearly, every institution needs a set of traditions and practices that it should identify as part of its culture. Therefore, research should be conducted to identify the level of interference that contingent paradigms bring into the cultures of institutions.
References
Bass, B. (2010). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410
Fiedler, F. (1997). “Situational control and a dynamic theory of leadership. In Grint, K. (ed) (1997). Leadership: Classical, contemporary and critical approaches. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, Bantam Books
Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and Possibilities. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan
Kezar, A., Carducci, R. & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education: The Revolution of Research on Leadership. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 31 (6). Wiley Periodicals
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Middlehurst, R. (2010). Sustaining leadership in challenging times. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(3), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/hemp-22-5km39qskjmr7
Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766-788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075114
Pettigrew, A., Woodman, R., and Cameron, K. (2001). “Study of organisational change and development: Challenges for future research”. Academy of Management Journal. 44 (4), 697- 713A.
Peus, C., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Situation-based measurement of the full range of leadership model — Development and validation of a situational judgment test. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 777-795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.006
Spinelli, R. (2010). The Applicability of Bass's Model of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership in the Hospital Administrative Environment. Hospital Topics, 84(2), 11-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/htps.84.2.11-19
Thompson, G. & Vecchio, R. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014
