Assume you have been asked to speak to graduate students considering a career in higher education leadership. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation for your audience and be sure to address the following:

ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A “PARTICIPATIVE” PERSPECTIVE FROM ONE INSTITUTION Volume 8 Issue 1 Winter 2010

Posted On Tue, Sep 07 2010 13:57:51

Authors: M.P. Koen , E.M. Bitzer

Introduction

The context of the higher education leadership mantle is dynamic, complex and multidimensional (Filan and Seagren 2003, 21). The elusiveness of the leadership notion has enticed researchers to interpret, capture and analyse the essence of leadership in higher education from different perspectives. As Burns (1978, 2) noted thirty years ago, “Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth”. Although these studies identified leadership as a concrete and observable phenomenon, no consensus has as yet been reached on the exact characteristics of a successful leader in higher education (Buller 2006, 159). The concept leadership in higher education thus presents numerous opportunities for further investigation.

Recent studies not only highlight the diversity of universities, departments and leaders but also the constant change, adjustments and turbulent environment of higher education during the past few years (Hanna, 2003, 34). Lees (2006, 333) consequently asks: “Why would a sane, rational person even consider becoming a leader at a higher educational institution?” This article intends to answer why sane individuals at this university should consider becoming leaders by arguing that the type of leadership that enhances a culture of cohesiveness can indeed address and resolve critical issues collaboratively. In order to explore and interrogate this specific aspect of leadership, we cover three areas. First, we investigate the concept of leadership and transformational leadership in literature. Then, employing qualitative research, we examine how challenges of leadership can be better addressed at one institution in South Africa. We next explore possible solutions to these challenges by means of a leadership profile, and we ultimately draw a number of conclusions.

Conceptual framework

Although Wolverton, Gmelch, Montex and Nies (2001, 59) state that “... leadership is a matter of degree” and is therefore indefinable, we believe that an explanation of the concepts lead and leadership might serve as a useful heuristic in the investigation of leadership in higher education. McCaffery (2004, 59) explains that the word leader is derived from laed - a word common to all the Old North European languages - meaning path, road, course of a ship at sea or journey. Furthermore, the words lead or leader usually refer to the social influence of authority figures and can be defined as someone who accompanies, rules, guides or inspires others on their journey and steers them in the right direction (Taylor, Peplau and Sears 2006, 327). Leadership, on the other hand, is a recent addition to the English language, and which came into use only in the late 19th century (Brungardt 1998, 1). It seems that the concept leadership in higher education encompasses a much more complex meaning that reaches beyond a single authority figure and revolves around the needs, aspirations and expectations of both the leader who aspires to lead and those who choose to follow (Keith and Levin 2002, 19). In other words: leadership in higher education involves a relationship or, in the words of Morrill (2007, 9) a “followership”. Astin and Astin (2000, 9) concur by defining leadership as a “collaborative endeavour among group members.” We wish to suggest that the role and functions of leadership are today integrated in higher education where academic leaders need to lead, motivate or direct their units to accommodate transformation collaboratively.

Effective academic leadership can be viewed as being the biggest advantage a university can have in a resource-hungry, competitive higher education environment (Ramsden 1998, 4). Given the above, leaders can aptly be described as “the brokers of time and relationships” (Krahenbuhl 2004, 48). Taking into consideration the critical role of such brokers in the rapidly changing context of higher education, our empirical study was guided by the primary question: How can challenges of the 21st century in higher education be better addressed at this specific institution?

Higher education leadership today, particularly in South Africa, is confronted not only by transformation but also with the task of simultaneously moving universities forward. It seems therefore crucial to revisit the wisdom of previous research. Relevant theories uncover important clues about leaders and followers’ values, perceptions and leadership styles, which could provide current higher education leaders with valuable information when planning direction. It is however necessary to bear in mind the warning of Bargh, Bocock, Scott and Smith (2000, 26) that, owing both to its unique characteristics and the current period of profound transformation in higher education, general theories are not always compatible with the context in which it is practised.

Figure 1 demonstrates the revolution in leadership theories that occurred over centuries and varied from an individualistic, leader-centred focus to a distinctly process- centred one with recognition to mutual power and influence (Kezar, Carducci and Contreras-McGavin 2006, ix). It outlines but one perspective on the shift in focus from one of what leaders can do to or for others, to one of how leaders engage with others (Morrill 2007, 8). The circles in figure 1 highlight leadership in higher education as the glue that holds a university together, and this glue can direct, accommodate and inspire the entire university community.

Academic leaders, however should be aware of at least two paradigms - transactional and transformational leadership - that has dominated scholarly research on leadership since the 1960’s (Van Zyl 2008, 183-185; Kezar et al. 2006, 108; Wolverton et al. 2001, 41). Burns’s transactional theory (1978) offers a negotiated process in which the power bases of the leaders and the followers counterbalance each other. Consequently, the success of this leadership depends on the conviction that an individual can make a difference (Van Zyl 2008, 192; Filan and Seagren 2003, 26). Bass, a disciple of Burns, moved in a slightly different direction in focusing on collectively directed leadership, where any power exerted by leaders and followers mutually supports a common goal (Wolverton et al. 2001, 42). Our views in this article were influenced by the theory of transformational leadership, firstly because this leadership style acts as a bridge between old and new insights of leadership and secondly, because it focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers, an emerging idea significant in the university context (Kezar et al. 2006, 35).

Transformational leaders are self-confident and inspire, or display what Golemann (1998, 196) terms “emotional intelligence”. However, Morrill (2007, 13) emphasises that transformational leadership must not be seen as motives or rigid categories; the key factor must be the “potential to motivate the academic community to respond effectively to change”. We believe transformational leadership in higher education should tend to arouse, satisfy and engage individuals, while simultaneously becoming a source of inspiration to staff, administrators, and students (Barling and Turner 2005, 1; Filan and Seagren 2003, 26; Kelly 2003, 1; Astin and Astin 2000, 8-9). In the ensuing discussion of our empirical research it will become evident that, if leadership in higher education acknowledges and embraces followership, this situation might have a positive downward ripple effect to every member of this particular university community.

An empirical study

Our empirical study took an interpretivist stance with a qualitative approach whereby we interacted closely with academic leaders at one university. A qualitative case-study design employing semi-structured interviews allowed us to explore - through a variety of lenses - how academic leaders at this particular university deal with challenges (Baxter and Jack, 2008, 544). We followed a case-study approach because: a) the focus of the study was to answer “how” and “why” questions; b) we could not manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study; c) we believe that the contextual conditions (cultural diversity) are relevant to the phenomenon of leadership challenges at the particular university and, d) the boundaries between the phenomenon leadership and the context were not clear (Yin in Baxter and Jack, 2008, 545). For example, the study of how to deal with challenges at (say) University X sought to determine leaders’ perspectives on how to approach these challenges in the very specific context of University X. University X is a multicultural parallel-medium institution which was established in the early 1900’s. Its six faculties offer a full range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes to almost 25 000 students. Over the past few years leaders have been challenged enormously to function within the framework of an increasingly diverse university community.

Data were collected through systematic, open-ended interviews. Ten leaders were interviewed between July and December 2008. Purposive sampling was used to select ten academic leaders (seven male and three female) according to the following predetermined criteria for desirable participants (Henning, van Rensburg and Smit, 2004, 71):

· leaders at University X permanently appointed (top management, deans, directors or heads of departments);

· Professors, older than 45 years, from diverse cultural backgrounds and from a variety of disciplines.

The predetermined criteria allowed us to find key informants which could provide information rich data until theoretical saturation was reached. Participants gave informed

consent both to participate and that interviews may be recorded (McNiff and Whitehead 2006, 86-87; Bruckman 2002, 1). Qualitative content analysis was employed to make sense of the data. The data were coded and categorised manually to identify themes that could be used in the re-contextualisation of the data when these were integrated as a basis for arguments (Henning et al. 2004, 104-107). The trustworthiness of the study was enhanced by the following factors: openness and trust that all information will be kept confidential; data was supplemented by findings from the literature; data was described as accurately as possible; verification of raw data and raw data and notes of all the decisions taken was kept safe (Niewenhuis, 2007,111-113).

Aim and significance of the investigation

The aim of our qualitative interviews with academic leaders was to explore the different perspectives regarding leadership in the 21st century within the context of University X primarily, but also within a changing South African higher education dispensation. Utilising a qualitative approach, we attempted to use the rich descriptions of the participants to investigate and interpret dealing with challenges confronting leadership holistically.

The interviews re-orientated our current understanding of the complexity of dealing with challenges in higher education. We, like Chu (2006, 115), believed that a vision could serve as a tool to ensure a meaningful and lasting effect in addressing critical challenges. However, an additional perspective emerged during the interpretation of the data, namely one of followership. It seems that the key factor for leadership is “to take people along” (Participant G). Consequently, a vision can only be implemented if followers are active participants. Participant D stresses that “a leader today does not stand separate from his followers. I even want to say he does not merely walk in front. He walks in the front lines, with his arms around them .”

Social capital is so crucial today that there are critics who imply that the lack of this particular asset led to the downfall of South Africa’s former president, Thabo Mbeki. For example, the Associated Press (2008, 1) highlighted that “despite his nine years at the top, Mbeki never managed to win the hearts of the masses because of his aloof, academic manner, lacking … spontaneity”. It seems as if “leaders do not get extraordinary things done by themselves” (Kouzes and Posner 2007, 27). Participant H explains: “And the leader becomes like the conductor of a choir. And he will get people out. This is time for you to sing a solo, and then it is time for the two of you to do this. But in all the dynamics ultimately give an excellent result.”

It could be argued that leadership in this institution probably needs to embrace followers beyond the borders of vision. Leadership should excite followers with its vision in order to create a positive mood that can set a university on a new course towards excellence. By excellence we mean a visible, productive academic community where every individual will be the beneficiary for years to come (Leaming 2007, 128).

Critical leadership challenges

Higher education in South Africa has, since 1994, found itself in the midst of profound transformation and changes, confronted with a challenge “to embrace the new” (Pityana 2003,1). How universities address these issues, foster transformation and take advantage of challenges will determine their survival. It is vital that leadership should manage resistance to the new in a positive fashion, because “it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change” (Darwin in Marshall 2007, 1).

The next session discusses identified themes used as evidence in continuing arguments of how leadership and decision making systems in University X could create reciprocal commitment when addressing challenges (Henning et al. 2004, 107).

People orientated leadership

In higher education, the concepts leadership and management pose challenges requiring a complementary set of competencies. The symbiotic nature of the management/leadership relationship is highlighted by the fact that there is limited value if you do things right, while not knowing where you want to go, or equally importantly, it would not help to know where you are going if you “haven’t got the wherewithal to get there” (McCaffery 2004, 59). Equally importantly, Krahenbuhl (2004, 185) reminds us that “the dean may find it distasteful to think of him/herself as a manager, but a significant portion of the dean’s leadership task is effective management”. Leaders must nevertheless not regard themselves as “paper pushers”, because if they do, “that may be all they will accomplish” (Lucas 2000, 28). The focus of this article is not on a question of being one or the other, because in higher education leadership/management functions are closely integrated, as noted by Bennet (2003, 184) “in the academy, good management is a necessary condition for effective leadership, and vice versa.”

The bottom line is that higher education leaders in the 21st century need to be effective managers of what they have. Therefore this article argues that leadership/management in University X has “people.” Only if they manage/lead this social capital effectively, then they will lead their institution to greater achievements (Leaming 2007, 18; Chu 2006, 114). Table 1 reports how participants in this study understand social capital of people-orientated leaders.

The responses captured in Table 1 seem to confirm that leadership is being challenged to acknowledge competence and value in order to create a relationship of reciprocal respect, which would ultimately lead to an atmosphere conducive to transformation and change at this institution.

Transformation and change

Already in 500BC, Heraclitus comforted people that “there is nothing constant except change” (Farzaneh 2009, 1). Since transformation and change are conceptualised as a natural part of human development, higher education in South Africa, too, did not escape the throes of unsurpassed change or, put differently, “massive political and administrative surgery” (Ndeble 2004, 1; Walvoord, Carey, Smith, Soled, Way and Zorn 2000, ix). As a matter of fact, change in education is so significant as to be recognised as a respectable field for research (Jansen, Herman, Matentjie, Morake, Pillay, Sehoole and Weber 2007, 157). Therefore the challenge arises for higher education leadership to develop academics’ “adaptive capacity for tackling an ongoing stream of hard problems” (Heifetz 1994, 247).

Naturally strong leadership is required to inspire, direct and guide people by replacing the obstacles of change with opportunities of change, a deliberate action, thus, to enhance quality. This means that if academic leaders want to improve the quality of their academic output, it is inevitable that departments become dynamic, ever-changing units (Leaming 2007, 117). This notion is supported by the challenge of cultural diversity at the campus of University X.

Cultural diversity

South Africa’s university student body is becoming increasingly diverse and manifests its uniqueness in different ways. Each separate element (cultural, educational level, ability, age, part-time or full-time, place of study, individuality, and disability) raises different challenges and requires different solutions. A critical challenge for leadership at University X for instance is to establish an atmosphere fostering cultural diversity, especially when it seems that, historically, higher education in South Africa has a poor record in respect of embracing cultural diversity. Pandor claimed that although the new vision of 1994 was one of reshaping South African society, “14-years into the new democracy universities have not changed much” (CHE 2008, 1). Reddy (2004, 1) adds that in South Africa the state and the composition of its personnel has changed, but civil society (higher education institutions) has yet to adapt. The focus of this article is not to explore the problems of cultural diversity, but to highlight that if culture diversity is addressed collaboratively it does not necessarily have to be an obstacle. According to Pityana (2003, 4-5), it should actually be regarded as an “opportunity for intellectual dialogue”. In other words, diversity can be seen as varied perspectives and approaches that different identity groups offer (Thomas and Ely 2001, 36).

The question now arises as to when Institution X will reach the stage where its vision will reflect the contributions and interests of its culturally diverse constituency? We think that the challenge we face at this institution is to “begin at the beginning – back to the basics” (Pityana 2003, 8). Leadership at Institution X may commit itself to building and promoting a culture of tolerance and respect in order to contribute to the achievement of a multicultural campus (MacGregor 2008, 1). As Participant E emphasised: “It might be something we would not achieve during our lifetime but it is a path worth mapping out, so that we know what the direction which we were working towards, was. We may fail, but at least we will take solace in knowing that we failed, while trying.”

Potential solutions at the level of leadership

Theorists have identified a variety of solutions to the above-mentioned issues, arguing that leadership should create a diverse culture, develop a strategic planning process, consult others, learn to say no or be someone who cares, think strategically or apply self-directed leadership (Van Zyl 2008, 180; Leaming 2007, 1-18; Sorensen, Furst-Boe and Moen 2005, 17; McCaffery 2004, 76). Drucker (in ThinkExist 2009, 1) adds the idea of active involvement through collaboration through the following message:

“The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I’. And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I’. They don’t think ‘I’. They think ‘we; they think ‘team’. They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don’t sidestep it, but ‘we’ gets the credit....That is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.”

It can be argued that the leaders at University X need support, expertise and commitment from followers by means of an interwoven relationship.

Interwoven relationship

If only academic leaders could mould members of the university community to fulfil their wishes. Wolverton et al. (2001, 55) maintain that changing people’s perspectives is so difficult that almost the easiest way to deal with it would be to recruit and hire new people. Such an approach would not only be short sighted, but is unrealistic and unachievable (55). The second most logical way would be to incorporate followership. This reciprocal relationship is explained by Prentice (2005, 167) who sees leaders as a being orchestral conductors who must pose challenges, but also provide fulfilment.

Given the above realities, we interpret leadership at University X as an interwoven relationship in which my vision becomes our vision, i.e. the result of a collective process, open debate and collaborative commitment embodied in the values and skills of leadership. Few would deny that good communication and interpersonal skills are critical towards realising the above-mentioned vision. Lucas (2000, 7) explains the value of active listening skills when she reasons that “being president of a university is like being the caretaker of a cemetery; there are lots of people under you, but nobody is listening”.

Consequently, it is necessary to explore a leadership profile that would move people to listen, to admit mistakes, to participate actively, that would create a space where information is openly and trustfully discussed, where individuals have an opportunity to admit mistakes and are able to play a significant role in debates when decisions are finalised (Sorensen, Furst-Bowe and Moen 2005, 8).

The heart of leadership

The purpose of this paper is not to highlight the diverse characteristics of leaders in higher education, but to focus on those united strengths that acknowledge followership. We therefore attempt a higher education leadership profile (see Table 2) encompassing the vital attributes (identified by participants in our empirical study). We regard this set of attributes as being at the heart of dealing with challenges in this millennium. Not only do leaders have to understand themselves and the higher education environment in which they operate, but the followers need to be equally aware of the superman/woman-expectations demanded of leaders.

The profile outlined in Table 2 largely confirms the degree of diverse characteristics needed for effective leadership in higher education. Diversity therefore actually appears to be beneficial, since higher education needs to identify and combine the strengths of the different academic leaders in order to achieve excellence and change. Participant G affirmed this notion when he noted: “And one other thing is I have quite a lot of divisions that I am responsible for. And I give people space to operate. As a result, there is a lot of creativity in all of my divisions and I have the necessary support from the directors and the heads of my various divisions.”

Leadership in higher education institutions is indeed no easy task, and we do not want to ignore the significance of strategic governance, but we believe basic relationship skills can create a climate of trust and a sense of purpose. We thus suggest that leadership should create bonds of affiliation. When leaders treat followers as individuals and appeal to their hopes and desires, a snowball effect will develop. People will give more than expected, they will increase inputs and they will have fewer complaints. This may result in a cohesive endeavour in the direction of transition and innovation. Here the focus is on people with complementary skills, communicating a shared language and committed to a shared vision. Ultimately team members can become so integrated and cohesive in accomplishing the task at hand “that they may reach a level of synergy, in which the whole is greater than the sum of parts” (Little 2005, 33) and where the “rewards of active leadership are tremendous” (Leaming 2007, 125).

Conclusion

What did this study, admittedly limited to perspectives from ten academic leaders at one university, reveal about leadership in higher education? Firstly, it appears that the context of higher education in South Africa has been transformed, the roles of leaders are expanding as never before and leaders are facing tremendous challenges. Globalisation, the emergence of a knowledge economy, competition for resources, reduced staff components, contract employment, reduced government funding, new technologies for teaching and accreditation, all are forces that pressurise academic leaders in higher education. Secondly, since the overarching challenges of increasing quality and efficiency remain the same, it would furthermore be idle to think that things will become easier. Leadership is expected to promote excellence in all spheres of higher education and academic excellence in particular. Therefore, one important function remains to motivate staff towards scholarly productivity. An important finding of this study is that there is no agreed-upon recipe for successful academic leadership. We consequently have to acknowledge that leadership in higher education is a multidimensional concept and that its interpretation will legitimately differ among different observers and different institutions.

Thirdly, it is clear that no university can do without leadership that defines aims, goals and strategies and ensures that resources are in place to achieve them. In other words, “leadership does matter” (Marshall 2007, 16). Bargh et al. (2000, 65) inspire future leaders with their claim that “individuals really make a difference in universities” and that entire departments can be turned around within a period of two years.” It is therefore vital to leadership to overcome barriers to change and to transform challenges into extraordinary windows of opportunity.

Fourthly, t he critical reader may interpret the idea of a people-orientated leader as being a naive approach, but Jansen (in Kruger 2008,1) has recently emphasised the value of leader-followership relationships in the university context. He claims that the new rector of one South African university - where a great deal of distrust has developed - must be comfortable with different cultures and beliefs in order to restore trust between groups on that campus. Consequently, such a statement supports the idea of strategic leadership as a collaborative and interactive, - back-to-the-basics, back-to-relations-values-and–skills, process. In other words: the way to improve leadership in this era of higher education at this particular time and specifically in South Africa, is not only through intensive restructuring, but through attending to the culture of a particular university (Tierney 2004, 214). In an effort to capture a basis for a followership approach, leaders at University X can negotiate conflict by including people from all backgrounds and with diverse strengths in the leadership process. Perhaps a team approach can overcome critical barriers and transform diversity into unity.

This brings us to the final point: no-one should underestimate the importance of building relational bridges between leaders and those around them. We echo the old saying: To lead yourself, use your head; to lead others, use your heart. Always touch a person’s heart before you ask him for a hand” (Maxwell 2008, 38). Perhaps this basic, underlying value will ultimately shape the new face of academic leadership at University X and in South Africa in the years to come.

List of references

Astin, A. W. and H. S. Astin. 2000. Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Cree, Michigan: WK Kelllogg Foundation.

Atkins, M. W. and H. E. Singelton. n.d. The empathic leader: Union University Tennessee. Scholarship Power Point.

http//www.uu.edu/centers/edpractice/scholarship/ppt/TheEmpathicLeader-ASCD.ppt (accessed 27 September 2008).

Bargh, C., J. Bocock, P. Scott and D. Smith. 2000. University Leadership. The Role of the Chief Executive. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Barling, J. and N. Turner. 2005. Transformational leadership and moral reasoning: Social Responsibility Series by Canadian Business.

www.business.queensu.ca/alumni_and_donors/docs/inqS05_feature1.pdf ( accessed 21 August 2008).

Baxter, P. and S. Jack. 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report 13(4) December: 544-559.

Bennett, J. B. 2003. Academic life: Hospitality, ethics, and spirituality. Bolton: Anker.

Bruckman, A. 2002. Ethical guidelines for research online. Georgia Institute of Technology.www.cc.gatech.edu/~asb/ethics (accessed 11 October 2008).

Brungardt, C. L. 1998. The new face of leadership: Implications for Higher Education: University of Liverpool. www.nwlink.com/~Donclark/leader/lead_edu.html (a ccessed 7 August 2008).

Buller, J. L. 2006. The Essential Department Chair. A Practical Guide to College Administration. Bolton: Anker.

Burns, J. 1978. Leadership. New York: NY Harper & Row.

Chu, D. 2006. The Department Chair Primer. Leading and Managing Academic Departments. Bolton: Anker.

Conger, J. A. 2002. Foreword. Leading in the New Century: Storm Clouds and Silver Lining on the Horizon. In Leaders talk Leadership. Top Executives speak their minds, eds. M. D. Ashby and S. A. Miles, xxvii-xxix. New York: Oxford University Press.

Council for Higher Education South Africa (CHE). 2001. Developing African Higher Education: CHE. http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/documents/22.pdf (a ccessed 13 September 2008).

Council for Higher Education South Africa (CHE). 2008. Institutional cultures and Higher Education Leadership: Where are the women?: HESA–(Higher Education South Africa).

www.uct.ac.za/downloads/uct.ac.za/calendar/highered_conference.pdf (a ccessed 20 September 2008).

Covey, S. R. 2004. The 8th Habit. From effectiveness to greatness. Simon and Schuster: London.

Farzaneh, A. 2009. Heraclitus and the Philosophy of Becoming: Suite 101.Com. http://www.western.philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/ancient_greek_philosophy_and_heraclitus (accessed 17 April 2009).

Filan, G. L. and A. T. Seagren. 2003. Six critical issues for midlevel leadership in postsecondary settings. New Directions for Higher Education 124:21-31.

Friedman, S. D. 2008. Total Leadership. Be a Better Leader, Have a Richer Life. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Goleman, D. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.

Greenleaf, R. K. and L. C. Spears. 2002. Servant leadership. A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Mahwah: Paulist Press.

Hanna, D. E. 2003. Building a leadership vision. Eleven Strategic Challenges for Higher Education . Educause review July/August 2003.

Heifetz, R. 1994. Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Henning, E., W. van Rensburg and B. Smit. 2004. Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Hewison, A. 2004. Management for Nurses and health Professionals: Theory into Practice. Boston: Blackwell.

Homrig, M. A. 2001.Transformational leadership.

http://leadership.au.af.mil/documents/homrig.htm/ ( accessed 7 August 2008).

Jansen, J., C. Herman, T. Matentjie, R. Morake, V. Pillay, C. Sehoole and E. Weber. 2007. Tracing and explaining change in higher education - The South African Case: Change in Higher Education. http ://www.che.ac.za/documents/d000146/10-Review_HE_SA_2007.pdf (accessed 13 September 2008).

Johannsen, B. 2008. A short primer to transformational leadership: Leadership Resources. http://www.legacee.com/Info/Leadership?LeaderResources.html (a ccessed 7 August 2008).

Keith, A. and L. Levin. 2002. The five practices of exemplary leadership. In Leadership challenge, eds. J. M. Kouzes and B. Z. Posner , 3-20. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Kelly, M. L. 2003. Academic advisers as transformational leaders: The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal. http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/030101mk.htm (a ccessed 7 August 2008).

Kezar, A. J., R. Carducci and M. Contreras-McGavin. 2006. Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education. The Revolution of Research on Leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner. 2007. The Leadership Challenge. 4th ed. San Fransisco: Willey.

Krahenbuhl, G. S. 2004. Building the academic deanship. Strategies for success. Westport: Praeger.

Kruger, C. 2008. Kovsies kan bruin of swart rektor kry: Rapport, 13 September 2008: www.news24.com/Rapport/Nuus/0,,752-795_2392974,00.html (accessed 2 October 2008).

Leaming, D. R. 2007. Academic leadership: a practical guide to chairing the department. 2nd ed . Bolton: Anker.

Lees, N. D. 2006. Chairing Academic Departments. Traditional and Emerging Expectations. Bolton: Anker.

Little, L. 2005. Lessons in Leadership. Madison: Magna Publications.

Lucas, A. F. 2000. A Teamwork Approach to Change in the Academic Department. In Leading Academic Change. Essential Roles for Department Chairs, ed. A. F. Lucas, 7-32. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacGregor, K. 2008. South Africa: State, universities, probe racism: University World News. Africa Edition.

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2008040143830706 (a ccessed 15 September 2008).

Marshall, S. 2007. Leading and managing strategic change. In Strategic leadership and change in higher education, ed . S . Marshall, 1-16. London: Routledge.

Maxwell, J. C. 2008. The 4 pillars of leadership. Cape Town: Struik.

McCaffery, P. 2004. The higher education manager’s handbook. Effective leadership and management in universities and colleges. London: Routledge.

McLaughlin, J. B. 2004. Leadership, management and governance. New Directions for Higher Education 128:5-13.

McNiff, J. and J. Whitehead. 2006. All you need to know about action research. London: Sage.

Middlehurst, R. 1993. Leading academics. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Morrill, R. L. 2007. Strategic Leadership. Integrating Strategy and Leadership in Colleges and Universities. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Nair, P. 2002. Imperatives for change in higher education: Design Share: The International Forum for Innovative Schools.

http://www.designshare.com/Research/Nair/HigherEd/imperatives-highered.htm (accessed 13 September 2008).

Ndebele, N. 2004. Higher education and political transition: SAUVCA IZWI Voice of HE Leadership . www.chet.org.za/download/2734/issues-23o7o4.doc (a ccessed 15 September 2008).

Niewenhuis, J. 2007. Analysing qualitative data. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in research, (pp.99-117). Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Pitayana, N. B. 2003. Higher Education in South-Africa. Future Perspectives: Keynote address at Bill Venter/Altron Literary Awards 2003.

www.unisa.ac.za/contents/about/principle/docs/AltronAwardsspeech.doc (accessed 15 September 2008).

Prentice, W. C. H. 2005. Understanding Leadership: Harvard Business Review on the mind of the leader. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ramsden, P. 1998. Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.

Reddy, T. 2004. Higher Education and Social Transformation – South Africa Case Study: HEQC-Online Accreditation. www.che.ac.za/documents/d000066 (a ccessed 21 September 2008).

Sorensen, C. W., J. A. Furst-Bowe and D. M. Moen. 2005. Quality and Performance Excellence in Higher Education. Bolton: Anker.

Stromquist, N. 2007. Editorial . South African Journal of Higher Education 21(1):1-6.

Taylor, S. E., L. A. Peplau and D. O. Sears. 2006. Social Psychology. 12th ed. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.

The Associated Press. 2008. South African President Mbeki agrees to step down: Las Vegas Sun.

www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/20/south-african-president-mbeki-agrees-to-step-down ( accessed 28 September 2008).

Think.Exist.Com. 2009. Peter F Drucker Quotes. http:www//thinkexist.com/quotes/peter-f.-drucker/html (accessed 17 April 2009).

Thomas, D. A. and R. J. Ely. 2001. Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review on managing diversity . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Tierney, W. G. 2004. Improving Academic Governance. Utilising a Cultural Framework to Improve Organisational Performance. In Competing conceptions of Academic Governance. Negotiating the Perfect Storm, ed. W. G. Tierney, 202-215. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Van Zyl, E. 2008. South African leadership for the twenty-first century: a self-leadership approach. Acta Academica 40 (4): 183-185.

Walvoord, B. E., A. K. Carey, H. L. Smith, S. W. Soled, P. K. Way and D. Zorn. 2000. Academic Departments. How they work, How They Change. ASHE-ERIC Higher education Report 27(8). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Wergin, J. F. 2003. Departments that work. Building and Sustaining Cultures of Excellence in Academic Programs. Bolton: Anker.

Wolverton, M., W. H. Gmelch, J. Montez and C. T. Nies. 2001. The Changing Nature of Academic Deanship. ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(1). San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Women in Technology. 2008. Reach out. Reach up. Reach within. www.womenintechnology.co.uk/reachup (accessed 20 September 2008).

ISSN: 1533-7812

Copyright of Academic Leadership (15337812) is the property of AcademicLeadership.org and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.