Navigating the Complexities of Leadership, Management, and Governance in Higher Education: A Multidimensional Approach

1. Introduction and background

“A leader … is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.” – Long Walk to Freedom by Nelson Mandela (1995).

In this essay, the phenomenology of leadership, management, and governance in Higher education will be examined.

The demand for higher education leadership is for a clear vision of the future to be developed and for the creation of visionary strategies to make the changes required to achieve that vision. All the staff need to find the vision convincing; they must understand it and connect with it. Ultimately, they must be able to communicate it to all relevant role-players. At this stage, the leadership aims to align everyone's direction. According to Northouse (2016:162), a visionary leader communicates the vision and develops a shared culture and set of underlying values. This can lead the organisation or team to an ambitious, desired future.

Therefore, from this point of view, I consider the theoretical and philosophical side of leadership, management, and governance in a pragmatic way.

2. Conceptualisation of leadership, management, and governance in higher education?

The distinction between management and leadership is one of the first things one needs to understand. In a higher education setting the purposes and functions of management and leadership converge at some points but it is of value to begin with some idea about the most common definitions of these concepts. In the next sections I will look at the difference between leadership, management, and governance.

2.1. Leadership

According to Northouse (2016:6), there are nearly as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it. He states that notwithstanding the varied constructs of leadership, the following elements are fundamental to the concept: (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in groups and (d) leadership involves shared objectives.

Drawing on the different constructs of leadership, Northouse (ibid) argues that it can be defined as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Yukl stated as early as 1999 that although such dichotomies in the different constructs of defining leadership provide clarity, the different constructs also oversimplify a complicated concept and allow the stereotyping of leadership (Yukl, 1999:34).

Shiramizu and Singh (2007:139) argue that leadership is required at every level of management in any organisation; an organisation's success or failure depends on the quality of leadership, especially at the top management level. In this competitive era of globalisation, institutions of higher education not only compete economically based only on the competence of their academic staff and leaders but also for funding, reputation and international networks. Lecturers and other staff mostly depend on the quality of their organisations’ leadership.

2.2. Management

Northouse (2016:15) argues that while management and leadership are clearly two different constructs, they do indeed overlap. Managers are engaged in leadership when they influence a group to achieve an organization's objectives. Leaders are involved in management when they participate in planning, organising, staffing, and monitoring. Both processes (leading and managing) consist of motivating a group of people towards achieving their goals.

Van Dyk, Van der Westhuizen, and Jooste (2011:25) argue that management and leadership are not synonymous. Leaders are not necessarily good managers, and often leaders are not successful managers. However, a successful manager can learn leadership skills, and a successful leader can learn management skills. Northouse (2016:162) agrees that leadership is different from management. Whereas the study of leadership can be traced back to Aristotle, management emerged with the advent of our industrialised society around the turn of the 19th century. Management as an organisational element was created to reduce chaos in organisations and make them run more efficiently and effectively.

The primary management functions, first identified by Fayol in 1916, were planning, organising, staffing, and controlling (Northouse, 2016:162). These roles are still representative of management responsibilities. According to Van Dyk et al. (2011:25), it is believed that managers are the budgeters, the organisers, and the accountants, while leaders are the charismatic visionaries of the big picture, the people that change the world. Van Dyk et al. (ibid.) argue that many important managers are struggling with change and are failing to be eminent leaders, while an important leader may neglect to create a sense of stability inside an organisation and thus not qualify as a good manager.

According to Van Dyk et al. (2011:25), managers are people who do things right (carry out the policy), and leaders are people who do the right things (formulate policy). This leads to the notion of governance.

2.3. Governance

According to Peterson (1986:3, 4, cited in Fourie, 2009:352), governance cannot be contemplated or discussed in isolation from affiliated management and leadership functions. At the same time, governance, management and leadership are connected and distinguished by the notion of decision-making: governance necessitates both decision-making structures and processes, management relates to structures and processes for enforcing or fulfilling decisions taken by governance structures, and leadership relates to structures (position, office and formal roles).

According to Du Rand (2015:149), governance offers an overarching mechanism to support the strategic, functional and operational organisational objectives. It defines the rules, processes and organisational structures necessary for effective planning, decision-making, steering, and controlling the commitment of the organisation to meet the needs of the community.

It is the responsibility of the educational institution to ensure good practice and the Higher Education Act (Act 101 of 1997) guides governance structures and procedures.

In the realm of higher education, the concepts of governance and leadership, though interrelated, serve distinct roles within the institutional framework. Governance encompasses the overarching structures, policies, and procedures that dictate the management and control mechanisms of an educational institution. It is fundamentally concerned with the establishment of a vision and mission, the formulation and implementation of guiding policies, adherence to legal and regulatory compliance, financial oversight, and the management of institutional risks. This comprehensive approach ensures that the institution remains aligned with its objectives while operating within the confines of ethical, legal, and financial boundaries. The governance of an institution is typically vested in its board or governing body, which includes a blend of internal and external members tasked with strategic decision-making and oversight. This body ensures that leadership acts in accordance with established goals and complies with external regulations and internal policies.

On the other hand, leadership within higher education focuses on the human, motivational, and strategic execution aspects of managing the institution. It involves guiding and inspiring faculty, staff, and students towards the accomplishment of the institution's goals, cultivating a culture and values that resonate with the organization's mission, making operational decisions, and implementing strategies effectively. Leadership also entails navigating the institution through changes and challenges, requiring adaptability and a proactive approach to strategy modification. Leadership roles are typically embodied by individuals in executive positions, such as university presidents, chancellors, deans, and department heads, who operate within the governance framework to bring the strategic vision to fruition, manage daily operations, and lead their respective teams towards achieving institutional success.

The distinction between governance and leadership in higher education is thus marked by their respective scopes and focuses. Governance is concerned with the macro-level oversight, strategic direction, and compliance of the institution, establishing the parameters within which the institution operates. Leadership, conversely, operates at a more micro-level, dealing with the execution of strategies, the cultivation of institutional culture, and the direct management of individuals and resources towards achieving set objectives. While governance sets the stage for institutional operations, leadership brings dynamism and direction to these operations, ensuring that the institution not only remains compliant and financially sound but also vibrant, adaptive, and progressive in achieving its educational mission. Together, these elements form the backbone of effective institutional management, each playing a crucial role in the sustenance and advancement of higher education establishments.

The governance of educational institutions has a great impact on the success of students and lecturers through defining and regulating relationships both within higher education institutions and between Higher Education institutions and external governmental regulators on the outside. Institutional rules and policies define how educators teach and perform, and ultimately determine how students learn.

Fourie (2009:353) states that it can be inferred that while a distinction can be made between management and governance in institutions of higher education, it is never easy to do so, and the relationship between governance and management is one of uncertainty. This complexity is heightened when pressure increases on institutions or when institutions operate in a climate of change or uncertainty.

3. Leadership styles

“If you want the cooperation of humans around you, you must make them feel they are important – and you do that by being genuine and humble.” – Nelson Mandela in an interview with Oprah for O Magazine, April 2001 (Winfrey, 2001).

In the next section I will focus on the three different leadership theories, namely transformational, transformative, and distributed leadership.

3.1. Transformational leadership

According to Northouse (2016:162), the phrase ‘transformational leadership’ was first coined by Downton in 1973, but its popularity did not really come about until the publishing of James Burns's seminal work, Leadership (1978). According to his concept of transformational leadership, “[t]he transformational leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the follower's full person” (Burns, 1978:208). Northouse (2016:162) encapsulates transformational leadership as transforming people. He explains that it addresses the needs of followers by embracing emotions, values, ethics, standards and long-term goals; it motivates them to achieve more than expected and supports the treatment of followers as human beings.

Yukl (1999) and Northouse (2016:176) lists the following six criteria as the strengths of transformational leadership:

1. Inspirational Motivation: Transformational leaders have the ability to inspire and motivate followers by setting clear visions and demonstrating commitment to goals. They communicate high expectations and encourage followers to commit to the vision of the organization.
2. Intellectual Stimulation: They stimulate followers' creativity and innovation by challenging existing assumptions and encouraging exploration of new ideas. Transformational leaders foster an environment where followers feel empowered to think independently and seek innovative solutions.
3. Individualized Consideration: Transformational leaders pay attention to the needs of each follower, acting as mentors or coaches. They provide support, encouragement, and personalized feedback, helping followers to develop and grow in their roles.
4. Charismatic Influence: These leaders possess a magnetic personality that inspires trust, respect, and loyalty. Their charisma helps them to influence followers profoundly, enabling them to guide and shape the direction of the organization effectively.
5. Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture: Transformational leadership contributes to the development of a strong, positive culture within the organization. Leaders exemplify core values and norms, fostering an environment that promotes teamwork, ethical behavior, and a strong sense of purpose.
6. Enhanced Performance: Research has shown that transformational leadership is linked to higher levels of performance and satisfaction among followers. Leaders are able to motivate their teams to go above and beyond, achieving superior outcomes compared to traditional leadership styles.

More than three decades ago, Manasse (1985:152) argued that leadership involves determining an organisation’s direction (vision) and then leading the organisation (strategy) in that direction. It is the presence of vision, out of which strategy emerges, that distinguishes leadership from management, while some of the individual’s actual activities involve both management and leadership.

According to a study conducted in 1990 by Bass (1990:21), managers who behave like transformational leaders are more bound to be seen by their associates and employees as fulfilling and effective leaders than the individuals who act like transactional leaders.

Dilts (1996:206) describes transformational leadership along 'vision' and 'action' dimensions. 'Vision' is about creating images of the future objectives. 'Action' is about carrying out immediate behaviours. The general idea is that "vision without action is only a dream; and action without vision is boring and meaningless".

The next section will look at the ‘action’ leadership style which is transformative leadership.

3.2. Transformative leadership

Foster (1989:41, cited in Van Oord, 2013:422) defines transformative leadership as the ability to envision such a new social reality, and effectively convey it to others. Foster argues that the transformative leader “both inspires and transforms individual followers to develop a new level of concern about their human condition and, sometimes, overall human condition”. (reference?)

From the literature, it is clear that the transformative leader is the one that makes things happen. Transformational leaders are involved in changing things whereas transformative leaders make change happen. Jones, Harris and Santana (2008:67, cited in Caldwell, Dixon, Floyd, Chaudoin, Post & Cheokas (2012:176) argue that transformative leaders search for innovative approaches that allow people to reconsider their assumptions, instead of simply sticking to old approaches to new problems. Bennis and Nanus (2007:16, cited in Caldwell et al., 2012) suggest that transformative leadership involves the ability to turn and maintain purpose into practice.

In his seminal work on a critical perspective of leadership, Foster (1989:46, cited in Van Oord, 2013:423) sets out to detach leadership from the leader, believing that leadership "does not reside in an individual, but in the relationship between individuals". Van Oord (ibid) states that this is a fascinating approach to leadership, as it emphasises that the consistency of interpersonal relationships within an organisation is as crucial in evaluating good leadership as individual leaders' specific skills and traits.

The concept of transformative leadership, according to Van Oord (ibid), is a more recent theory in the field of leadership study. The term is not new; the ideas of transformational and transformative leadership have been used synonymously for several years. Recognising this intellectual confusion, scholars such as Shields (2010) have successfully endeavoured in recent years to identify and theorise transformative leadership as distinct from the transformational approach. His activist agenda and his overriding commitment to social justice, equality and democratic society characterise transformative leadership.

As far as education is concerned, Shields (2010:4) argues that consequently, transformative leadership inextricably links education and educational leadership with the broader social context within which it is embedded. Shields (ibid) further emphasises that transformative leadership and leadership for inclusive and socially just learning environments are inseparably related.

Shields (2010:4) lists the following underlying principles and traits of transformative leadership:

·?????? Admitting power and favour;

·?????? Enunciating both individualistic and collectivised intentions (public and private good);

·?????? Disentangling social-cultural knowledge frameworks that yield unfairness, and remodelling them;

·?????? Equilibrising criticism and hope;

·?????? Effectuating deep and even-handed change;

·?????? Influencing transformation: liberation, emancipation, democracy, fairness, and excellence;

·?????? Exhibiting ethical courageousness and activism.

Shields (2010:4) argues from a critical and transformative perspective that transformation, equity, and substantial social change are equally, if not more, important for the overarching goal of education. This goal is not solely about achieving academic excellence but also about arousing a sense of curiosity and a passion for intellectual excellence in every child. Shields highlights that such objectives cannot be adequately assessed by a standardized once-a-year test. Moreover, the author emphasizes the importance of educating students to become global citizens, capable of understanding their roles as loving, fulfilled, and contributing members of society. This dual focus on both academic achievement and the development of holistic, socially responsible individuals underscores the complexity and depth of the educational objectives that should be pursued.

Shields (ibid) further states that transformative leadership develops the idea of designed social authenticity and links with critical theories, cultural and social reproduction theories, and social equity initiative concepts to assist leaders with understanding how to create educational organisations that consolidate distinction with inclusion, justice and equity. Extending the concept of educational intent in such a way as to include political action and governmental organisation is central to the identification of social disparity and to the willingness of organisations to discuss (and seek to redress) inequities resulting from the unequal arena faced by students in their everyday lives.

3.3. Distributed leadership

Management's hardest step to make, according to Shiramizu and Singh (2007:139), is empowering workers, as that would mean relinquishing some authority. The clichéd position of management has always been to direct employees. The new wave of thinking, though, lies in empowerment of employees so they feel some ownership in their work. Ultimately, the resultant pride can lead to an increase in efficiency, because people want recognition. Shiramizu and Singh (2007:139) claim that well-run institutions with satisfied staff members are like this because the leadership is distributed. One may ask what is meant by the term ‘distributed’. It is certainly not about everyone leading at the same time, because that would probably cause mayhem. Neither is it about the unplanned sharing of tasks.

Harris (2008) states that distributed leadership involves a set of roles and behaviours that can be sequentially or simultaneously separated, exchanged, rotated and utilised. It basically means several leaders will exist in a team at any given time, with each leader playing a complementary role in leadership. Unlike leadership replacement strategies, where attempts are made to minimise or remove the need for a leader, the distributed leadership model emphasises the organisation's active cultivation and growth of leadership skills. The central assumption is that each member has the leadership skills the community may need at some level or point in time.

Lussier and Achua (2013:306) contend that in its purest form a self-managed team does not require a leader. These authors argue that self-managed team members are properly qualified to manage all their own duties including recruiting, supervision, firing, encouragement, assessment of success and training. Specific individuals take the lead as required by team demand. Lussier and Achua (ibid) refer to this as leadership distributed or shared. Multiple leaders in distributed leadership, depending on their area of expertise or interest, perform complementary rotational leadership positions within the same self-managed team. In other words, different self-managed team leaders perform different leadership positions as the circumstances and mission criteria warrant. This approach has been described by some as peer leadership.

Lussier and Achua (ibid) state that many organisations delegate the teams that are self-managed to a facilitator. If that is the case, the self-directed team reports to the facilitator. The objective of the facilitator is to specify the "all-encompassing parameters" for the self-managed team, clear up the course inside the higher education institution for the team, and render advice and guidance wherever required.

Lussier and Achua (ibid) argue that it is just as crucial that the self-managed team facilitator possesses the requisite skills and abilities to lead teams effectively as was the case with traditional teams. For this reason, Lussier and Achua (ibid) define the self-managed team facilitator as the external leader of a self-managed team whose function is to build optimal working environments so that team members take responsibility for productive work and solve complex issues themselves.

In the education setting, Harris (2008) lists some principles that are common to distributed leadership:

·?????? It is a wide-ranging leadership.

·?????? It demands manifold levels of engagement in decision-making.

·?????? It centres mainly on bettering classroom pedagogy.

·?????? It embraces both conventional and casual leaders.

·?????? It associates vertical and lateral leadership constructs.

·?????? It reaches students and promotes student representation.

·?????? It is adaptable and variable (non-permanent grouping).

·?????? It is changeable and exchangeable.

Harris (2008) argues that ultimately, distributed leadership is involved in enhancing the practice of leadership to affect pedagogy. This style of leadership is well in keeping with the ideas of democratic practice and building agreement. It also applies well to concepts related to mutual discourse and collective reflection, as collaborative leadership encourages both.

4. Conclusion

In any organisation, leadership always plays a major role. With their particular vision, leaders are individuals who want to change the world. Leaders ought to impart their vision to followers. When a leader will not share his or her dream with the followers, the organisation and, by extension, society will show no progress. Change is inescapable in human culture which is continuously changing, and a visionary leader plays a major role in this evolution. However, leadership needs to be strong and committed to implementing a successful quality process in an organisation. "Quality is not an act, it's a habit," Aristotle said. Organisations and people need to develop a propensity for delivering quality work, and successful leadership is the path to that success.

References

Bass, B. B. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3):19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S

Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership (Harper Perennial Political Classics). 1st edition. New York: Open Road Media.

Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J. & Cheokas, G. 2012. Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2):175-187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23259309 [Accessed 6 June 2020].

Dilts, R. B. 1996. Visionary leadership skills: Creating a world to which people want to belong. 1st edition. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications Inc. 206.

Du Rand, A. 2015. Executive leadership in a complex healthcare environment. In: Jooste, K. (ed.). Leadership in Health Services Management. 5th edition. Cape Town: Juta. 149.

Fourie, M. 2009. Institutional governance in SA higher education – For the common good or political power-play? In: Bitzer, E. (ed.) Higher Education in South Africa – A scholarly look behind the scenes. 1st edition. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA. 352-353. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/101826 [Accessed 6 June 2020].

Harris, A. 2008. Distributed school leadership. 1st edition. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. 2013. Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development. 5th edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. 306-307.

Manasse, A. L. 1985. Vision and leadership: Paying attention to intention. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(1):152. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1492633 [Accessed 6 June 2020].

Mandela, N. 1995. Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. 1st edition. New York: Back Bay Books.

Northouse, P. G. 2016. Leadership: Theory and practice. 7th edition. Michigan: SAGE Publications.

Shields, C. M. 2010. Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4):558-589. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X10375609

Shiramizu, S. & Singh, A. 2007. Leadership to improve quality within an organization. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 7(4):129-140. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2007)7:4(129)

South Africa. 1997. Higher Education Act 101 of 1997. Available at: https://www.gov.za/documents/higher-education-act [Accessed 6 June 2020].

Van Dyk, A., Van der Westhuizen, L. & Jooste, K. 2011. The fundamentals of leadership. In: Jooste, K. (ed.) Leadership in Health Services Management. 5th edition. Cape Town: Juta. 25-29.

Van Oord, L. 2013. Towards transformative leadership in education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(4):419-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2013.776116

Winfrey, O. 2001. Oprah.com. Oprah talks to Nelson Mandela. https://www.oprah.com/world/oprah-interviews-nelson-mandela/8 [Accessed 22 June 2020].

Yukl, G. 1999. An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1):33-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398429