LeADeRSHIP INFLUeNCe oN INStItUtIoNAL ... - IngentaConnect

LEADERSHIP INFLUENCE ON INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION IN THE POST-MERGER AND INCORPORATION ERA: THE CASE OF THE DURBAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY B. S. Ngcamu

Public Management Cape Peninsula University of Technology Cape Town, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]

D. Teferra

Higher Education Training and Development University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT This article reports on a study that investigated leadership features that have the potential to influence transformation in the post-merger and incorporation era

university of south africa

South African Journal of Higher Education Volume 29 | Number 5 | 2015 pp. 232–243

ISSN 1011-3487 © Unisa Press

232

Ngcamu and Teferra

Leadership influence on institutional transformation

of the Durban University of Technology (DUT). The post-merger era of higher education institutions (HEIs) in South Africa has been clouded by a multiplicity of challenges, including the university leaders’ lack of interpersonal skills. This study took a quantitative approach through a structured survey questionnaire administered to 191 university leaders. The questionnaires generated a high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and a reliability coefficient of 0.947, which indicates a high degree of acceptance and consistency of the results. There was only a 10 per cent difference between the research participants who concurred with and those who disputed that university leaders were prepared to listen. Almost half (48%) of the participants perceived that university leaders are proactive from the top. The study will contribute to the extant body of knowledge as there is a dearth of published information on leadership features that could drive transformation in the post-merger and incorporation era. The study will further assist human resources practitioners and higher education subject specialists in designing relevant leadership development programmes focusing on leadership capabilities that could assist to achieve both the institutional and national transformation agenda. Keywords: competencies, higher education, leadership, strategy alignment, South Africa, transformation

INTRODUCTION There are a multiplicity of leadership mishaps, including failure to listen, low levels of inclusivity, reactiveness, ineptitude, incapacity and failure to provide strategic solutions to transformational challenges in the merged and incorporated higher education institutional environment. Zide (2010, 199) avers that a management that does not create space and platforms for people to air their views openly is not promoting transformation; whereas there are a plethora of researchers who have mentioned interpersonal skills (Niemann 2010); active listening (Pastor and Mayo 2008; Spendlove 2007); and the process of being able to listen, link and lead (Fullan and Scott 2009) as being linked to effective leadership in higher education institutions (HEIs). The study conducted by Ambrose, Huston and Norman (2005) amongst academic staff at a United States (US) university found that one important set of factors in effective departmental leadership was that effective chairs treated people fairly, consistently, inclusively and responsively, and were encouraging. This study was guided by the arguments advanced by different researchers above, although it further investigated whether leadership factors influenced transformation in the post-merger and incorporation era at the Durban University of Technology (DUT). Transformation in HEIs has been treated outside the structures and operations of the university, with the result that such transformation has not been incorporated into institutional strategic plans. 233

Ngcamu and Teferra


Joubert and Martins (2013, 112) and Zide (2010, 120) contend that an institutional strategy sets the tone, vision, mission and direction that the institution is taking, hence, the transformation agenda has to be aligned to the strategy. Increasingly large and complex HEIs are demanding the application of professional management techniques, strategic vision, more proactive corporate management styles that address problems through innovation, and governance structures that facilitate institutional responsiveness to the wide range of university stakeholders (Saint, Hartnett and Strassner 2003, 23). The study was also in accordance with the alignment of transformation to university strategy, while it further investigated whether transformational issues that have emerged in the post-merger and incorporation era of DUT are aligned to the university strategy. The primary objective of the study was to investigate leadership factors that have the potential to influence transformation in the post-merger and incorporation era of DUT. The next section includes the literature review that covered almost all variables of the study, followed by the research methodology employed, presentation and analysis of the research findings, discussion and conclusions drawn.

LITERATURE REVIEW Listening and effectiveness in HEIs Successful HEIs are perceived to be led by effective leaders who listen to all stakeholders. Spendlove (2007, 412) mentions that the most common attributes cited for effective university leadership are: openness; honesty; the need to consult others; the ability to listen, negotiate and persuade; the ability to think broadly/strategically; and to engage with people. Pastor and Mayo (2008, 341) provide examples of transformational leaders as those perceived to be friendly and approachable, showing acceptance of individual differences, active listeners who delegate or involve members in challenging tasks in order to develop them. This is further corroborated by Fullan and Scott (2009) who investigated the inadequacy of university cultures, leadership and performance (such as the high percentages of undergraduates who fail to finish their programmes) and found that effective system leaders ‘listen, link and lead’, and ‘model, teach and learn’. Zide (2010) asserts that a true African leader is one who gives himself or herself time to listen to what people have to say and listen. While the study was aligned to the abovementioned arguments, it further investigated whether the university leaders influence transformation by being prepared to listen to other internal and external stakeholders including employees, students, government, politicians, business and civil society. The paradigm shifts in HEIs from traditional to managerial have been seen as centralistic, with key stakeholders not being consulted on and included in governance

234

Ngcamu and Teferra


issues. Shattock (2013, 321) argues that universities need to become more inclusive and governance, leadership and management will be more effective if they are open to bottom-up influence and to an influx of new ideas and initiatives. There is the need for ‘the ability to plan meetings to avoid domination and ensure inclusiveness’; and ‘learning how to value people’s discussion and be good at taking issues forward’ (Murphy and Curtis 2013, 43). The above passage indicates that studies conducted in universities tend to focus on recommending institutions to be inclusive in their operations while the current study explored whether the university leaders influence proactive transformation by being inclusive. The same passage indicates a plethora of researchers who have linked effectiveness and transformation to those leaders who are good listeners (which informed the current study) which further investigated the preparedness of the university leader’s (both academic and non-academic) listening capabilities in the post-merger and incorporation era of DUT.

Leadership through fear: A higher education perspective Leaders of HEIs that have merged and been incorporated tend to lead through fear, which has paralysed the culture of performance. Kennedy (2001) argues that culture shock deems to require a mature, accessible and credible team of leaders who are enabled to motivate employees to perform better and confidently by alleviating their fears. According to Zide (2010, 116), transformation will come to a cul de sac if a leader manages by fear, and thus instils fear in those who work for a particular institution. A study conducted amongst academic leaders emphasised that academic management suffered from tendencies towards centralisation, hierarchy, bureaucracy and uncertainty, but also tended to display a fear of innovation and creativity (Bikmoradi et al. 2010, 464). Sinplicio (2011) mentions two leadership styles that encourage leadership through fear which include the ‘Micro-manager: The autocratic model’, where the manager distrusts employees and fears personal failure; and the ‘Tyrant: The fear model’, where the manager rules through fear. This study was in accordance with arguments advanced by the different researchers above and extended them by determining whether leaders at DUT are leading without fear in the post-merger and incorporation era.

Institutional strategy alignment: A higher education perspective Cascading institutional strategic plans, initiatives and resolutions with compulsory participation by all key stakeholders in HEIs have been seen as the contributing factors to the realisation of the university transformation agenda. Zide (2010, 120) argues that a transformation agenda of any institution should be aligned with its institutional strategic planning process. The South African Ministerial Summit on Higher Education (2010) familiarised and exposed the university management community to the various facets of management roles in a practice-based learning, 235

Ngcamu and Teferra


including but not limited to strategic planning and management, performance monitoring, and financial management. According to Zide (2010, 120), failure to respond to this stifles every essence of transformation. The old strategic dictum that ‘structure follows strategy’ needs to be observed and embraced (Zide 2010, 120). Strategic planning creates alignment and structure. On the other hand, Taylor and Machado (2006, 145) contend that strategic thinking is a divergent process that serves to disrupt alignment. Thus, strategy ceases to be a fixed plan but rather a learning process that leads to continuous improvement in the alignment of the organisation to its environment (Schwartz 1991). These studies are also aligned with the above ideas and further these arguments by questioning whether transformation is aligned with the university strategy in the post-merger and incorporation era.

Leadership competencies: A higher education perspective Mapasela and Hay (2005) argue that the South African higher education fraternity, currently overwhelmed by mammoth change initiatives, is simultaneously faced with two processes, namely: transforming the socio-political state of the country; and transforming to respond to national higher education policy imperatives. Decisionmakers in higher education tend to focus mainly on the above processes and avoid key institutional transformational drivers, including the competencies of employees who will be driving the change and policy implementation. Shattock (2013, 217) mentions that the last decade has seen an acceleration of change in the way that British universities have been governed, led and managed. This has substantially been driven by the instability of the external environment, which has encouraged a greater centralisation of decision-making leading to less governance and more management, but it is also a consequence of the growing convergence of the governance and management models of the pre- and post-1992 universities (Shattock 2013, 217). The current study was also guided by capabilities to lead change, as mentioned above. That is why the study investigated whether transformation is set for success by competent university leaders who could effectively implement institutional policies. Although some are less amenable to being learned than others (Tubbs and Schultz 2005), defining particular competencies can guide strategic human resource management practices, such as recruitment and succession planning. Competencies offer a useful tool for leadership development (see, e.g., McDaniel 2002). Hollenbeck, McCall and Silzer (2006) suggest that an organisation might start by identifying five to ten of the most important leadership roles in that organisation and designing a leadership model for each role, specifying the mix and interactions of the competencies that are most likely to lead to success. Concerning the ways in which leadership competencies can be developed in HEIs, it is clear from the research that leadership development interventions need to begin far earlier in the

236

Ngcamu and Teferra


careers of those who work in academia, so that success is built from below, rather than from above (Spendlove 2007, 414). Zide (2010) is of the view that a leader who fails to affirm people and fails to let them grow and develop is an affront to the transformation agenda of an institution, let alone the transformation agenda of the country. Mabelebele (2013, 6) further mentions courage, good sense of judgment and definiteness of decision as personal attributes required for a leader to succeed in a leadership and management role of an HEI. Effective leaders are seen by their staff as providing helpful feedback on performance and affirming subordinates. Bryman (2007, 698) indicates that a leader is someone who regularly suggests issues and problem areas, but does not necessarily provide solutions to them. The current study differed by investigating whether leaders are listening to the feedback brought by their subordinates and whether it has any effect on influencing transformation post-mergers and incorporations of HEIs. The study was guided by the arguments presented above and further interrogated leadership competencies to ensure that transformation succeeds in the post-merger and incorporation era.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Quantitative approach A quantitative research method was employed with a structured questionnaire that surveyed a large number of employees in leadership positions (junior to middle levels). The quantitative survey adopted a stratified random sampling of 191 university leaders between Peromnes Grade 6 and 8 (junior and middle management) identified as the total population. A structured questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale was developed with a range from (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) undecided, (4) agree to (5) strongly agree. The data was collected over a threemonth period from May to July 2013. Of the total 191 questionnaires disseminated, 133 were completed, which represents a 70 per cent response rate. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values were high and a reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher was recorded. To maintain confidentiality, the questionnaires were distributed and collected by the researcher.

Data analysis The quantitative data collected from the respondents was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12 for data capturing, presentation, analysis and interpretation. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis and interpretation.

237

Ngcamu and Teferra


Researchers’ role and recording of data Permission was requested and granted from the DUT ethics committee to conduct the study, and consent was formally obtained from the participants. The confidentiality of participants was maintained at all times and participation was anonymous. The study undertook a pilot approach prior to engaging in the full-scale study.

Research findings Leadership influence in the realisation of the transformation agenda is another ambit that necessitates drastic improvement interventions of change that will address gaps identified by the research findings. A frequency analysis and cross-tabulations were conducted to expose areas that require major improvements in the study. The study findings revealed that the highest percentage (32%) of the research participants were between the ages of 35−44 followed by 23 per cent who were between 45−54 years. Furthermore, 19 per cent of the research participants were between the ages of 25−34; 13 per cent between 55−64; 11 per cent between 18−24; and 2 per cent who were 65 and above years of age. The study further reflected that the highest percentage (51%) of the participants were academic staff members followed by administration (28%), academic support (8%), technical services (8%) and other (5%). The structured questionnaire had ten leading statements regarding leadership factors influencing transformation at the university. These statements questioned whether leaders at the university were listening, being inclusive, being proactive from the top, managing without fear, affirming subordinates and finding solutions. These statements also sought to investigate whether leaders were aligning transformation to the university strategy, listening to the feedback from the subordinates, paying attention to capabilities to lead change and whether transformation was set for success by competent leaders. The study findings indicated that 45 per cent of the research participants were of the view that university leaders were prepared to listen. A total of 35 per cent of the research participants had the opposite view. The remaining 20 per cent were undecided regarding this statement. The significance value of the test on whether university leaders were prepared to listen to others with age was 0.008. Since this value is less than 0.05, it can be concluded that the relationship observed in the cross-tabulation is valid and not due to chance. While 53 per cent of the research participants who were between 18−24 years of age disagreed with this statement, 42 per cent of those between 35−44 years disagreed. The findings indicated that 53 per cent of the research participants who were between the ages of 45−54 years and 47 per cent aged between 18−24 years were in support of the statement. A total of 51 per cent of the administrative leaders agreed with this statement that leaders were prepared to listen as compared to 43 per cent of the academic leaders. However, 41

238

Ngcamu and Teferra


per cent of the administrative leaders were of the opposing view, followed by 32 per cent of the academic leadership. The majority of the research subjects (44%) indicated that leadership is inclusive in this university. Only 23 per cent had the opposite view, while 33 per cent indicated that they were undecided. The research findings revealed that a high percentage (48%) of the respondents believed that university leadership is proactive from the top. This percentage is much higher as compared to other variables of the study. Only 23 per cent had opposing views, while 29 per cent remained undecided. The total percentage of 43 per cent of the research subjects were of the perception that university leaders manage without fear. Only 20 per cent of the respondents had a differing view. The study findings showed that the highest percentage (46%) of the research participants agreed that the leaders affirm subordinates, while an overall 24 per cent had a different view regarding this sub-dimension. The study showed the significance value of the test between the variable of whether leaders affirm subordinates in this university and age at 0.005. Since this value is less than 0.05, it can be concluded that the relationship observed in the cross-tabulation is valid and not due to chance. While 67 per cent of the research participants aged between 18−24 years and 60 per cent of those aged between 45−54 years agreed that leaders in this university affirm subordinates, only 30 per cent of the respondents between 35−44 and 25−34 years of age were of the opposing opinion. A total of 43 per cent of the administrative leaders confirmed that the university leaders affirm subordinates, with only 29 per cent being of the opposing view. Thus, 37 per cent of the academic leadership disagreed with the statement, while 25 per cent agreed. The results indicated an approximate significance value of 0.031. Since this is less than 0.05, it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant relationship between perceptions of whether the university leaders affirm subordinates and job categories. The study findings depicted that a total of 38 per cent of the research participants were in agreement that leaders constantly find solutions in other people’s work, which is the lowest level of agreement as compared to the above findings. Only 28 per cent of the research participants had an opposing view on the latter statement and 34 per cent were undecided. The results further showed that a high percentage of the respondents believed that transformation is aligned to the university strategy and also equal to the statement that the university leaders are prepared to listen (45%). This research finding had the highest percentage (39%) of the research participants who were undecided regarding the latter statement as compared to other sub-dimensions of the study. Only 16 per cent of the respondents had a differing view regarding this variable, which was the lowest level of disagreement, as compared to other variables of the study. The study findings showed the lowest percentage (37%) as compared to other variables that university leaders are listening to the feedback from subordinates. Only 239

Ngcamu and Teferra


28 per cent held the opposing view and 35 per cent were undecided. A total of 40 per cent of the research participants were in agreement that leaders pay attention to the capabilities necessary to lead change. Only 26 per cent of the respondents had the opposite opinion on this statement. Lastly, the study revealed that the highest number (45%) of the research participants supported the statement that transformation is set for success by competent leaders. Similar findings have been observed above on the statement that leaders are prepared to listen and transformation is aligned to the strategy of the university. Only 21 per cent had the opposite view on the latter statement, while the remaining 34 per cent were undecided.

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS The major findings of the study were the small difference of 10 per cent between the research participants with positive and negative views regarding the statement that university leaders are prepared to listen. This was supported by junior leaders who were opposed to this statement. Furthermore, administrative leaders supported this finding as compared to the academic leaders. Another finding of interest was the highest percentage (48%) of the respondents that shared positive views that the university leaders are proactive from the top, as compared to the lower percentage advanced by other variables of the study. The largest percentage (45%) of the respondents who indicated that transformation is aligned to the university strategy had the largest percentage of the undecided (39%) as compared to other variables of the study. Furthermore, the latter finding had the lowest disagreements of 16 per cent, as compared to the other variables of the study. The last major highlight of the study was the lowest percentage (37%) of the respondents who agreed that leaders are listening to the feedback from their subordinates.

DISCUSSION The highest percentage of the respondents who were opposed to the statement that university leaders are prepared to listen were in disagreement with Spendlove (2007) who linked effective leadership to those who have listening abilities. Furthermore, this finding is not in accordance with researchers such as Pastor and Mayo (2008) and Zide (2010) who indicated that transformational leaders show active listening. Hence, the study was conducted in a university of technology located in a developing country which has its unique challenges. Younger research participants aged between 25−34 years were opposed to the statement that leaders affirm subordinates (30%) as compared to 60 per cent of those between 45−54 years of age. This finding was also affirmed by administrative leaders (43%) as compared to academic leadership. This finding is also disputed by Ramsden (1998, 86) that effective leaders support staff learning (encourage junior staff, support hard working achievers). Opposite views 240

Ngcamu and Teferra


held by academic leaders are in agreement with Wolverton et al. (2005) that it creates tensions as leaders attempt to deal with having to be administrators, faculty members and researchers. The large percentage of the research subjects were in disagreement that transformation was not aligned to the university strategy and were also in dispute with Martins and Joubert (2013, 112), Zide (2010) and Taylor and Machado (2006), who argue that transformation should be aligned to strategy. Though there were disagreements, their ideas were not grounded on empirical findings, as in the case of the current study.

CONCLUSION The article has observed that factors that could positively influence transformation are not practised by university leaders. The most common leadership attributes that were not encouraged by the university leaders include their failure to listen and not being proactive from the top. Evidence of the university leaders’ ability to listen and be inclusive has been supported by their failure to provide solutions to their work challenges often brought on by transformation. Furthermore, the ever changing working environment requires leaders who are mostly competent in providing solutions to other people’s work, which requires further investigation into the types of changes that require leaders’ solutions in the post-merger and incorporation of HEIs. The article further reveals that administrative leaders support leadership factors influencing transformation, with opposite views advanced by the academic leaders. Employees in administration tend to know more about transformation than their academic counterparts, due to the fact that transformation has been presented and executed as an administrative agenda. On the contrary, academics tend to be involved primarily in their teaching and research concerns, a possible reason why they may have overlooked the transformation agenda in HEIs. Thus, the study concludes that at DUT there is no management or leadership development programme aimed at capacitating younger leaders, mostly academics, who aspire to be junior managers or leaders. There is a paucity of published literature on leaders’ affirmation of their subordinates and whether the university leaders are able to find solutions to work challenges faced by their subordinates. The scant published material on the affirmation of the subordinates leaves a gap that needs further investigation as subordinates require affirmation regarding their jobs, benefits and rewards in order to keep them motivated. The dearth of knowledge on the feedback brought by the subordinates to their leaders is one of the major limitations which necessitates future studies to investigate whether feedback from the subordinates could drive transformation and to determine specifically what kind of feedback is needed in HEIs. The research findings have revealed that the highest percentage of the respondents were either undecided or disagreed that the university leaders are prepared to listen 241

Ngcamu and Teferra


and are inclusive, manage without fear and are proactive. However, certain principles, as recommended below, do indeed prevail: ●● The university leaders should open communication channels to all stakeholders with a clear mandate to listen to their unique and diverse transformation issues with an explicit and measurable implementation plan. ●● The university’s Marketing and Communication Department should design a change management communication strategy that will be understood and accepted by academic leaders in different age groups that will enable them to participate fully in the realisation of the transformation agenda. ●● Line managers should include all stakeholders in initiatives, projects, activities and decisions taken which will promote inclusiveness, sense of belonging and ownership. ●● The university leaders should be accessible by all stakeholders with clear reporting and delegating lines which will encourage managing without fear and thus retaining their office’s integrity. ●● To bolster trust amongst the subordinates, the university leadership should master and provide insight into the subordinates’ operational, tactical and strategic activities. ●● The university should develop a programme aimed at equipping academic employees who aspire to be junior managers or leaders with a clear development path. ●● The university should develop a performance evaluation tool that will enable subordinates to make and provide feedback on their leaders’ personal, interpersonal and cognitive capabilities.

REFERENCES Ambrose, S., T. Huston and M. Norman. 2005. A qualitative method for assessing faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education 46(7): 803−830. Bikmoradi, A., M. Brommels, A. Shoghli, D. Khorasani-Zavareh and I. Masiello. 2010. Medical Education 44(5): 459−467. Bryman, A. 2007. Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education 32(6): 693−710. Fullan, M. and G. Scott. 2009. Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley. Hollenbeck, G. P., W. M. McCall Jr. and R. F. Silzer. 2006. Leadership competency models. Leadership Quarterly 17(4): 398−413. Joubert, J. P. R. and N. Martins. 2013. Staff responsiveness to transformation initiatives and diversity at a South African university. Africa Education Review 10(1): 111−131. 242

Ngcamu and Teferra


Kennedy, M. 2001. The top ten issues impacting college administrators. American School and University 73(5): 24−29. Mabelebele, J. 2013. What are universities for? Lessons for the University of Venda. Public Lecture delivered at the University of Venda, University Senate Chambers, Thohoyandou, 20 August. Mapasela, M. and H. R. Hay. 2005. Through the magnifying glass: A descriptive theoretical analysis of possible impact of the South African higher education policies on academic staff and their job satisfaction. Higher Education 50: 111−128. McDaniel, E. A. 2002. Senior leadership in higher education: An outcomes approach. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9(2): 80−9. Murphy, M. and W. Curtis. 2013. The micro-politics of micro-leadership: exploring the role of programme leader in English universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35(1): 34−44. Niemann, D. 2010. Turn of the tide: New horizons in German education policymaking through IO influence. In Transformation of education policy, ed. K. Martens, A.-K. Nagel, M. Windzio and A. Weymann, 77−104. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Pastor, J. C. and M. Mayo. 2008. Transformational leadership among Spanish upper echelons: The role of managerial values and goal orientation. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 29(4): 340−358. Ramsden, P. 1998. Learning to lead in higher education. New York: Routledge. Saint, W., T. A. Hartnett and E. Strassner. 2003. Higher education in Nigeria: A status report. Higher Education Policy 16(3): 259−281. Schwartz, P. 1991. The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday. Shattock, M. 2013. University governance, leadership and management in a decade of diversification and uncertainty. Higher Education Quarterly 67(3): 217−233. Sinplicio, J. 2011. It all starts at the top: Divergent leadership styles and their impact upon a university. Education 132(1): 110−114. Spendlove, M. 2007. Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management 21(5): 407−417. Taylor, J. and M. D. L. Machado. 2006. Higher education leadership and management: From conflict to interdependence through strategic planning. Tertiary Education and Management 12(2): 137−160. Tubbs, S. and E. Schultz. 2005. Leadership competencies: Can they be learned? Cambridge Business Review 3(2): 7−13. Wolverton, M., R. Ackerman and S. Holt. 2005. Preparing for leadership: What academic department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27(2): 227−238. Zide, G. N. 2010. A diagnostic approach to organisational transformation: A higher education response. Vanderbijlpark: Vaal University of Technology.

243