Presenter: Ngo Tuyet Mai, School of Education University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
description
Transcript of Presenter: Ngo Tuyet Mai, School of Education University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Search for Academic Excellence in Public Universities through Multi-level Leadership Practices:
Lessons Learnt from East Asia
Presenter: Ngo Tuyet Mai, School of Education
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Why University Leadership?
• “University leadership matters.” (e.g., Fullan, 2005; Hallinger, 2007; Millett, 1978; Mulford, 2010;
Ramsden, 1998).
• “Good leadership is conceivably the most practical and cost-effective strategy known to organizations … It can transform the commonplace and average into the remarkable and excellent…It creates an environment for better academic work.”
(Ramsden, 1998, p.363)“The changing landscape of higher education requires new thinking and updated leadership practices.” (ADB, 2012)
Why Leadership Actions?
National Government, universities and their sub-organizational
units (departments) are ‘corporate actors’ who can act and need
to act. He or she can act in a certain function or from a certain
‘corporate’ position.” (Binsbergen et al., 1994, p.223)
Why Leadership Actions?
- “Leadership is the particular actions of leaders…Leadership
resides in the eye of the beholder (subjectivist/interpretivist)
or in the actions of leaders (objectivist/functionalist)” (Middlehurst, 1993, p.19)
- “Organizations’ intelligence is seen in leaders’ actions” (Hanson, 2001, p.644).
“Leaders must be ‘people of actions’” (Ramsden, 1998, p.9).
Leaders’ Actions in University Contexts
Actions concerning PRIMARY processes
(academic tasks)
Actions concerning SECONDARY
processes (supportive tasks)
Why Incentives Promoting Actions?
• The function of university leadership is to provide [promote] incentives for academics to achieve academic excellence
(Kehm & Lazendorf (2007, p.171)
• “Any success of public actions depends on the adequacy of incentives that they offer to individual units”
(Varghese, 2004, p.30)
• “Successful reforms in higher education in the recent past were those with incentives to the academic staff”
(Zheng, 1997)
Why Multi-level Leadership?
MACRO DECISION LEVEL(Government/Ministry Leadership Actions
MESO IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL(Executive University Leadership Actions)
MICRO IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL(Departmental Leadership Actions )
A Multi-level Model Of
University Leadership
Presentation Focus
Multi-level University Leadership Actions of Promoting Incentives for Academic Excellence in Practice: Empirical Case Studies
Implications for Practice: East Asian Lessons for Vietnam
Concluding Remarks
Key Research Questions
WHAT do macro, meso and micro leaders in East Asian flagship public universities do in promoting incentives towards achieving universities’ academic excellence?
WHAT can Vietnam learn from other East Asian public university’s multi level leadership practices?
University Leadership In Practice: An Empirical Study (2012)EMPIRICAL STUDIES ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Research Approach Cross-national comparative studies
Research Method Document AnalysisSemi-structured Interviews (in English & Vietnamese language)Questionnaire Survey
Research Site 4 Field trips to 4 flagship public universities in East Asia
Field Trip Time Frame
January 2012 (one week/site x 4 sites = 4 weeks long)
Research Participants Total: 18 Vice Chancellors, DVC in 4 public universities (3 in Vietnam , 5 in Hong Kong , 5 in Thailand , 5 in China )
Research Focus -Leaders’ incentive promoting ACTIONS towards achieving the common goal of academic excellence.
Research Purpose - Draw practical lessons for Public University Leaders in Vietnam
Explanatory Framework
- Institutional Theory (Scott, 2004) - Action –centered Leadership (Adair, 1968)
METHODOLOGY CHART
Data Collection and SourcesNational
DocumentsUniversity
Documents Interviews Questionnaire Survey
Qualitative Database Quantitative Database
Descriptive statistics
Scale Alpha Reliability
Thematic Analysis: Using Nvivo 9
Statistical Analysis: SPSS 20
Evidence of Micro Leaders’ Actions
Evidence of Macro
Leaders’ Actions
Evidence of Meso
Leaders’ Actions
A Multi-level Model of Leadership Actions
Research Sites in East Asia: 4 Flagship Public Universities
COUNTRY RANKING QS ASIAN RANKING WORLD RANKING
The University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong)
1st 3rd 151-200
Peking University (China)
1st 6th 151-200
The Mahidol University (Thailand)
1st 38th 151-200
Hanoi University (Vietnam)
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankingshttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html
Macro Leaders’ Actions: Analysis of Government Documents and Websites
# Assertions Evidence in National Case Study Macro Leader Representing Government
Cross-national Levels of
Government Control
Nature of Actions
1. Government Actions
Governments in TL, CN and HK has more specific and focused actions to place emphasis on academic excellence (performance based funding/rewards), promoting good governance, not micromanage
CHINA: Policies + Project 211, Project 988; Action Plan for Invigorating Education Towards 21st Century”
Ministry of Education
(MOE)Medium Low Command and
Control + Negotiation
HONG KONG: Policies + Consultation, Review Process with Recommendation to shape the future, funding incentives
University Grants
Committee(UGC)
Low Negotiation and Persuasion
THAILAND: Policies + Performance Agreement, strategic support activities, block grant from MOE and flexibility for universities to self-generate funds
Office of Higher Education
Commission (OHEC)
Low Negotiation and Persuasion
VIETNAM: HERA, policies + meeting + reporting
Prime Ministers and Ministry of Education and
Training (MOET)
High Purely command and control
Meso Leaders’ Actions: Analysis of Interviews with Executive Leaders# Assertions Evidence in National Case Study Levels of
Specificity2. University Executive Leaders’ Actions
Top leaders in Public universities in TL, CN and HK takes more specific and consistent actions than their counterparts in VN
Actions are more individuals needs oriented in TL, CN, and HK
CHINA : faculty performance evaluation/assessment; set targets to fight for resources, promotion policies for high performing academics, “free treatment” programs for young teachers, teaching competition, support programs for under-performing teachers, special programs to help young researchers do research, invite university lecturers world wide to university campus
Medium
HONG KONG: set focused goals (VC), draft policy papers sent to university senate, post strategic plan and priorities on websites, staff development program, encourage staff to do things that are innovative, academic excellence awards, providing housing for staff, organize workshops, involve academics into decision making
High
THAILAND: VC pay visits to all 33 departments (2 departments/week, 15 weeks, Performance Agreement (PA) and PA review, Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle, Dean’s meetings every 2 weeks, topic-based two day retreat, Dean’s 15 minute video brief, publication rate negotiation with teachers, provide teachers with additional income opportunities, grants for young researchers
High
VIETNAM: Talking with Teachers “làm công tác tư tưởng với giáo viên”, Inspecting teaching time, Reporting, Set requirements (quantitative goals), Deans’ meeting (every semester), rectors, vice rector attending Department’s meeting once a year
Low
Cross-National Comparison: University Leaders Actions in Focus
CHINA HONG KONG
THAILAND VIETNAM0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10 157
70
60 5567
18
Individual FocusTeam FocusTask Focus
Micro Leaders’ Readiness for Actions: Analysis of Questionnaire Survey
Case study
N Minimum
Maximum Mean Levels of Readiness
Assertion #
VIETNAM 81 2.0 3.6 2.87 Lowest 3. CN, HK, and TL’s
Departmental leaders are more ready for
leadership actions of promoting incentives
for academic excellence
CHINA 83 3.0 5.0 3.65 Medium
THAILAND 80 3.0 5.0 4.12 High
HONG KONG
86 3.0 5.0 4.44 Highest
Note: 5 point Likert Scale, 10 item measurement scale
Cross-National Departmental Leaders’ Readiness for Incentive Promoting Actions
Implication 1: Policy Initiatives and Leadership Actions
• Government Policy Initiatives: Regulations by Directives vs. Regulations by incentives
• University Policy Initiatives
PLUS
Specific, focused, strategic leadership actionsEstablish a database of effective multi-level university leadership practices
Implication 2 for Leadership Practice
Achieving the TASK
Developing the
INDIVIDUAL
Building and maintaining the TEAM
Direct the job to be done (Task Structuring)
Support and review the individual people doing it
Coordinate and foster the work team as a whole
Implication 3: Financial Incentives and Social Incentives
• 'social incentives' (high appreciations/regards)• 'financial incentives' (money rewards)
(Kehm & Lazendorf, 2007, p.157)
“Incentives should be individualized to the greatest extent
possible given the nature of the education organization” (Windham, 1997, p.47)
Implication 4: Strategic Leadership Actions
- A single action can be multi-functional (Adair, 1988)
- “A single input by a leader can have multiple outcomes” (Mulford, 2010, p.187)
- Actions balancing 3 inter-connected needs (1) the task to be performed, (2) the team responsible for performing them, (3) the individuals in that team (Adair, 1988, p.1)
- Success, therefore, will depend on which elements and in what sequence the education leader chooses to spend time and attention on (Mulford, 2007, 2010).
Wrap-up: Practical Lessons Learnt From The Empirical Study
• INSTRUMENTS OF AUTHORITY:- Increasing Autonomy- Empower more, control less
• INSTRUMENTS OF DIRECT ACTIONS:- Individual needs focused- Focused Efforts on Academic Goals, - A System of Coordinated and Collective Leadership
Actions
Concluding Remarks
• “It may be a mistake to believe that all leadership actions must come from ‘leaders’”
(Birnbaum,1989, p.134)
• “The elements for successful university leadership involve being contextually “literate”,
organizationally “savvy” and leadership “smart”.” (Bill Mulford, 2010, p.187)