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:

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011

184

Impact of Academic Leadership on Faculty’s Motivation, and Organizational

Effectiveness in Higher Education System

Miss Anam Siddique

MS Scholar

Faculty of Management Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

E-mail: [email protected]

Hassan Danial Aslam (Corresponding Author)

Senior Lecturer

Faulty of Management Sciences, The Islamia Unievrsity of Bahawalpur

E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Mannan Khan

Senior Lecturer

Faulty of Management Sciences, The Islamia Unievrsity of Bahawalpur

Miss Urooj Fatima

MS Scholar

Faculty of Management Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Purpose- The terms “Leadership”, “Motivation” and “Organizational Effectiveness”, has been widely

explored individually, but a conceptual framework linking these three concepts has not been formed up till

now. Author has tried to develop a conceptual framework linking these three variables especially in higher

education context. As the implication of these three variables are much different in service organization from

that of manufacturing organization. The conceptual framework developed in this paper has explored the link

among Academic Leadership, Motivation of Faculty Members, and Organizational Effectiveness in higher

education context. This model can be useful for the policy makers and management of higher education, so

that they can manage their staff in better way and to motivate them by using various motivators. Thus

management and faculty members can jointly contribute to increase university’s effectiveness. This model can

be fruitful for management, staff, students, and for the society as a whole.

Design / Methodology- The conceptual framework has been developed in this paper. First the terms as;

Academic Leadership, Motivation of Faculty Members and Organizational Effectiveness, have been explored

individually by exploring the work of previous researchers, and then the model has been developed instigating

linkage among these variables. The model describes that proper academic leadership is essential to lead the

academic organization in effective manner and if leaders and managers are using appropriate techniques to

motivate faculty members then they can augment to effectiveness of the organization. The model also explore

that administrative, educational or research oriented academic leadership can directly or indirectly stimulate

the faculty members, by using various extrinsic or intrinsic rewards, to work by putting extra efforts, and in

this way organization will become more effective, mainly in terms of students and faculty satisfaction.

Findings- The conceptual framework is useful for the management and leaders of higher education to make

the institute more effective and shows that how an effective institute can better serve their students, who are

primary customers to them, and it further explore that how an effective leadership strategies can keep the

highly qualified faculty intact. The model also describes that if proper academic leadership will not be in

place and leaders are not providing monetary and non monetary benefits to motivate their faculty members,

then they may physically or psychologically leave their organization which will produce adverse affects on

institution. Students’ academic, personal, and professional development depends on faculty’s sincere effort,

that’s why faculty motivation is lying in the center of this model.

Contribution- The conceptual framework explains various leadership functions that can lead to an effective

and successful academic organization. Many universities are facing hindrances in way of success and

prosperity because their most valuable faculty members are leaving the organization due to lack of financial

or non financial rewards, therefore this model can be helpful to make the faculty members well satisfied and

well engaged with their job and well committed to their organization as well.

© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

185

Also the students’ personal, professional and academic development is coupled with well motivated and

satisfied staff. Moreover, its practical implication can also play a critical role enhancing better image and

strong culture of the academic organization.

Keywords: Leadership, Academic Leadership, Faculty‟s Motivation, Organizational Effectiveness, Higher

Education System, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors of Motivation.

Introduction

The term “Leadership” has attracted increasing attention in practical and theoretical sphere since many years.

However leadership in higher education has been given less importance and is not explored widely. Beyond

boundaries of manufacturing organizations, leadership is becoming a necessary element in service

organizations too. Many researchers have also investigate “Motivation” of workers and “Organizational

Effectiveness” in different types and sizes of organizations and have developed various models and theories,

but academic institute has remained somehow neglected area especially in developing countries. As these

variables have been explored extensively by many researchers, but a link among them has not been developed

up till yet. So in this paper author has developed a conceptual framework linking these variables. The model

explains the impact of academic leadership on motivation of faculty members and there impact on

organizational effectiveness. The model identifies important academic leadership styles that can help in

motivating or satisfying the faculty members by providing various rewards, and in turn increasing the

organizational effectiveness as a whole. As academic institutes are much different from manufacturing and

other organizations (whether public or private) and they have also diverse management and leadership

requirements, therefore different motivational policies should be used to motivate their employees.

This paper will help to device valuable educational policies by policy makers. This paper enlightens the

importance of effective academic leadership and proposes such motivational policies that can be useful for the

leaders of higher education to retain, attract, and stimulate valuable faculty members. Effective leaders can

increase employees‟ job engagement and organizational commitment. Employees are valuable asset of every

organization, and their satisfaction is of prime importance for the organization. Higher education system has

different interests, goals, priorities, values, needs, and motivational instincts as compare to other business

organizations. Highly qualified and well motivated faculty members are like brain and blood for any academic

institute. They can develop the students both personally and professionally. If talented and competent staff

members are not motivated enough by their supervisors, and if they are not happy with their job, organization

and management, then they may leave the organization. Teachers are the makers of students. They are those

influencing personalities and role models, who refine their students‟ skills and polish their personalities and

make them responsible citizens and leaders for tomorrow. So leaders can use various intrinsic and extrinsic

motivating factors to motivate faculty members, so that they can put their extra efforts to produce bright and

successful students, good learning environment, strong culture, and good image of institute. Thus the

conceptual framework will be beneficial for all stakeholders of the academic institute and for the society as a

whole.

Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education

According to Rojas (2000), organizational effectiveness has been the widely researched topic by many

researchers. Whereas Cameron (1978) has described in his paper that various effectiveness approaches and

models have been developed but unfortunately little research has been done on organizational effectiveness in

higher education context. Similarly Karagöz and Öz, (2008) have described that very few work has been done

on organizational effectiveness in higher education context. Many researchers have explored several

indicators to measure organizational effectiveness. Few researchers believe that outcomes, results or

accomplishment of organizational goals can be a useful criterion to measure organizational effectiveness

(Georgopolous, Basil S., and Arnold S. Tannenbaum, 1957). This view is known as Goal Model. But however

many researchers later identified that goal accomplishment has some problems as a measure of organizational

effectiveness (Cameron 1978). An alternate to goal model is the System Resource Model or the Natural

System Approach, which describes that how an organization interacts with it‟s surrounding including its

internal and external environment and how effectively an organization utilizes and grabs scarce resources

from its environment (Yuchtman, Ephraim, and Stanley E. Seashore, 1967). Thus resources acquisition is

considered to be major criterion than achievements of goals. Whereas Steers, Richard M. (1977), have

described that organizational effectiveness should be measured in terms of processes carried out in an

organization than final results or outcomes. This approach is known as Internal Organizational Process.

Karagöz and Öz, (2008) described that study on organizational effectiveness has been started till 1930‟s, but

various contemporary approaches have developed in 1970‟s. The approach is contemporary not only for the

academic organizations but also for other organizations too.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011

186

As researches discussed above is primitive, so contemporary view has been given by researchers after 1970‟s.

Many researchers have explored different indicators to measure effectiveness and most of them have same

point of views. As according to Balcı, (2001, 17) effectiveness should be measured in terms of student‟s

development. Similarly Clark, Lotto and Astuto (1984) have identified features of an effective academic

institute as students‟ acquisition of important skills, students‟ success and development, learning targets,

strong culture, and influential academic leadership. Similarly Hoy and Ferguson (1985) have described the

effectiveness dimensions that are much similar to system model. He described that students‟ success, effective

management of teachers, school‟s satisfaction and the way in which academic leaders cope with environment,

are those dimensions that should be considered while measuring organizational effectiveness. Moreover Gun

and Holdaway (1986) have highlighted that the most important effectiveness indicator is teachers and

students‟ satisfaction, then academic development, parents‟ satisfaction, grooming of students as a responsible

citizens, employment of expert staff and finally preparing students for moving in markets and getting good

jobs, as building up their professional carriers.

All these indicators should be used measure institute effectiveness. Cheng and Wong (1996) have conducted a

research in Asian schools and have outlined few effectiveness dimensions as; support of internal and external

environment and professionalizing of teaching staff. Likewise Sisman (1996) has given features of an

effective institute in terms of useful and capable management, students, teachers, strong culture, parental

involvement etc. Girmen (2001) findings are similar to Sisman (1996), and he further described that according

to results of the study carried out by him, management of an academic institute is considered to be important

dimensions in students‟ and faculty‟s perception. Whereas Kleeman, G.L., Richardson, R.C. (1985) has also

elaborated effectiveness dimensions in their study as students programs, research and quality education,

research publications, regulating knowledge and information, sports, supporting environment , raising funds,

social responsibility as considering minorities and women.. Moreover, Chenhall (2006) pointed out that

employees are the important asset of any organization and they should be motivated depending upon the

varying context of the organization in which it operates. Cameron (1978) has made a great contribution in

higher education system. As he has given nine famous effectiveness dimensions, after carefully selecting the

criteria, constituencies, and institutions, and has selected a well thought-out level of analysis for his study.

The nine dimensions that he has described are students‟ educational satisfaction, their academic, personal and

professional development, faculty‟s job satisfaction, professional development of teachers, resource

acquisition, system clarity and organizational health. But later in his study conducted, he further elaborated

that varying environmental conditions has shown a strong impact on the effectiveness of academic institutes

(Cameron, 1986a). Many researchers have witnessed that organizational effectiveness has multiple

dimensions and all the underlying indicators should be considered while measuring it (Cameron, 1978). Most

of the underlying indicators have been discussed earlier. The effectiveness indicators that are present in more

or less in each study are; students‟ development, effective management and leadership of academic

organization, faculty satisfaction, quality of teaching, university culture, environmental impact, parental

involvement, acquisition of recourses and their efficient usage. Cameron (1978) has described that not a single

model can be used to measure organizational effectiveness, as it is multidimensional field, so one has to

measure all the underlying variables to measure it. Further the contextual factor should be considered before

selecting any organizational effectiveness criteria. As context vary across countries and even with in country,

so if one factor proves to be successful at one part of world may prove to be futile in other.

Motivation of Faculty Members

The term “Motivation” describes reason for action to be taken. It stimulates an organism to perform certain

action to achieve the desired goal (Tella, Ayeni, and Popoola. 2007). It also helps to stimulate, express and

continue a behavior. That behavior is in creed of achievement of any desired goal, which may results in

reward or punishment (Rowntree 1981). According to Tella et al. (2007) motivation is like other

psychological processes as perception, attitude, learning etc. He further described that motivation speaks for

relationship among “need”, “drive” and “incentive”. That is if there will be a felt need or deficiency of any

thing, then it will stimulate the organism to perform a specific action i.e. drive, and when the organism will

perform certain action then he may get desired reward i.e. incentive. Hertzberg, F., Mausner, B. and

Snyderman, B.B. (1959), discussed motivation in their research conducted on accountants and engineers.

They discussed about intrinsic and extrinsic factors of motivation. As motivators are intrinsic factors which

come from within the job. It includes job tasks, career advancement or promotions, increased responsibility on

job and recognition by peers or subordinates or management etc. Whereas extrinsic factors are hygiene factors

that come from the organization. These include salary, working conditions, relationships on work etc.

Effective leaders have to motivate their employees.

© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

187

As Tella et al (2007) described in there paper that well managed organizations value their human resources

more than other resources. They consider their employees as an important asset of the organization and

employees‟ job satisfaction and organizational commitment is of prime importance for the management of the

organization. Managers believe to motivate their employees well, so to achieve organizational goals and to

make their organization more effective. According to many researchers the faculty members of higher

education prefers on intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. As fascination of research work,

recognition, honor, autonomy, career development, and helping others to learn are important factors that can

motivate them (Campbell and Slaughter 1999; Hum, 2000; Peltz and Andrews, 1976; Slaughter and Leslie,

1997; Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Hollernan, M., and Morgan, E., 2002). It does not mean that financial

rewards are not important for the members. They also need monetary rewards that should be in balance with

the non monetary rewards. An effective and successful leader is one who must know the needs of his

subordinates and must try to motivate his subordinates in accordance to their needs. Money and titles are of

less importance for faculty members, non monetary rewards are rather more valuable for them.

According to research conducted by McKeachie (1997) teachers feel more satisfied and happy with their job

when they have opportunity to learn new skills and knowledge, showing helpfulness, sense of being

appreciated by subordinates and super ordinates and colleagues as well, and professional autonomy. All the

extrinsic and intrinsic factors must be made available according to individual needs and demands, so to make

them satisfied with their jobs According to Rowley (1996) salary, promotion or financial rewards are not of

much value for the faculty members because they are hired on a fixed salary scale and promotions occur after

long time of work experience. But few academic institutes provide several opportunities to their faculty

members to earn financial rewards as bonuses and incentives. Faculty members can be stimulated to perform

better if less work loads are placed on their shoulders and when they feel proud in developing their students

and are accepted by their students, peers and leaders. Research further explores that faculty members need

personal and professional autonomy in their work and decision making. Similarly Reed, A. J. S., Bergemann,

V. E. & Olson, M. W. (1998) have discussed that teachers want autonomy in making decisions.

If they are free to make their decision and given autonomy, then they feel more satisfied with their jobs and

put more efforts in accomplishing work related goals. Faculty members should be provided with proper

opportunities for personal development, as they should be provided with challenging and novel teaching

experiences, they should be motivated to do research and publications, workshops, seminars conferences

should be arranged for their knowledge and skill development, proper training and development activities

should be performed. Leaders should try to minimize dissatisfiers i.e. absence of extrinsic factors. Leaders

should also try to create friendly environment for their faculty members in which they feel accepted and being

valued by every one (Rowley 1996). As Hertzberg et al (1959) have discussed about satisfiers and dissatisfiers

in their study. Satisfiers are intrinsic factors which include work itself, recognition, responsibility, and

professional development. Whereas Dissatisfiers are hygiene factors or extrinsic factors that are external to

job, which include management policy, salary or wage system, working conditions and working relationships.

Absence of extrinsic factors can make employee unhappy as he will become dissatisfied, whereas if proper

intrinsic factors or motivators will be present then employee will be satisfied with his job. Thus effective

leaders should try to eliminate these dissatisfiers.

Tella et al (2007) further discussed that training is also one of the important motivating factors that helps staff

in polishing their present skills and also helps them to learn new ones. Information availability and

communication is also one of the motivating strategy used by management (Olajide 2000). Financial rewards

are important in such institutes where the appraisal policies are wholly dependent on financial rewards

(Nguyen 2001). If the faculty members are not compensated fairly then they will become de-motivated and

dissatisfied with their job. Salary wages and working condition stimulates employees to work effectively in an

organization (Tella, et al 2007). Money has motivating power and leaders can use it wisely to motivate their

followers and can shove them towards higher performances (Akintoye 2000). Similarly Sinclair, R.R., Tucker,

J.S., Cullen, J.C., & Wright, C. (2005) has demonstrated that money has the motivational power to attract and

retain employees and direct them toward higher performance. Therefore some mangers can use monetary

rewards to please their employees and their withdrawal as a punishment for them depending upon the power

of reward for employees.

Motivated faculty can earn good national and international image world wide. By making good reputation and

positive image academic institutes can attract brilliant students from all over the world, can attract funds and

can create a strong influencing culture, can adapt different useful teaching styles, can provide quality

education to students, can help students grow and can develop them professionally and personally. So

managers must work to motivate their staff members.

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011

188

As faculty members are at interface in between management and students. They are also important asset of

organization. Management should know the individual differences of their workers and should try to explore

their individual needs and motivate them accordingly, so that teachers could give their best at work and

remain well engaged with job and committed with organization as well.

Leadership in Higher Education

Leader is an inspirational person, a person who leads and directs his followers towards realization of some

specific goal or outcome. Leadership is an art to instigate and motivate followers so they can strive hard

toward attainment of specific objective. House (2004: 15) defined leadership as the ability to influence others

and to direct their efforts to achieve success. Leaders have different leadership styles through which they can

lead their subordinates, some are authoritarian, some might be democratic, some are achievement oriented,

and many other. Different organizations demands for different leaderships styles. Leadership styles may vary

from organization to organization and even within the organization. Also a leader does not posses any fixed

style throughout his life; he must have to change his style according to situations and contexts. That is why the

concept of situational leadership is becoming very popular.

Leadership that is required in higher education is referred to as Academic leadership. Academic leaders

should motivate, inspire, direct and lead the faculty members towards achievement of shared objective.

According to Gmelch, W. H. (2002) academic leader firstly has to group together all of his followers, and then

secondly he should give directions to each member about how to perform the work, and finally he should

empower them to do the required task so they could freely reach to given objectives. Academic leaders have

more challenges than the leaders of business organization. One important reason is the stakeholders, there are

various stakeholders in academia such as students, faculty members, etc so an academic leader must has to

look upon every one individually and use different policies to deal with them (Sathye 2004). Leader must

know what his objectives are, what he wants to achieve, and how he will put efforts to achieve the desired

goals with and through other people.

According to previous researchers employees of higher education system need autonomy; as they want

complete professional freedom to perform their job effectively. Many years ago researchers believe that there

is no need of a formal leader to lead employees but as world has become more complex and business has

become dynamic and uncertain so a formal leader is requited to lead people to the right directions. An

effective leader uses his motivational and influencing powers to make organizations adapt or adopt to various

changes that may arise inside or outside the organizations. Regarding this notion Neave (2002) has further

elaborated that due to such dynamic and complex changes in environment leaders have snatched autonomy of

employees. Now the organizations have become stakeholders‟ organizations. There is great pressure on

shoulders of leaders to look and fulfill stakeholders demand. For this purpose faculty members have to scarify

their professional autonomy. As Moore (2008, p.30) has described that academic institute are facing lot of

pressures now a days, as quality assurance, performance management, and continuous improvement are not

allowing employees to enjoy academic freedom and consequently it calls for a strong leadership.

However Bryman‟s (2007) described that an important leadership quality is to maintain professional and

personal autonomy of his employees. So to deal with such situation a strong and persuading leader is required

to lead faculty members. Leader must use various ways to motivate his employees and to drain best out of

them. As according to Hertzberg et al (1959) employee may become dissatisfied due to absence of extrinsic

factors and satisfaction can be achieved due to presence of proper intrinsic factors. So leader must try to

reduce dissatisfiers so that their employees can provide their best on the job. Not much of the research has

been done in field of leadership in higher education. The concept of Academic Leadership has been given by

Ramsden (1998) and he suggest that leadership in higher education have features as; leadership in teaching i.e.

introducing new ideas of teaching, adding excitement teaching, leadership in research i.e. leader must set his

own research examples and provide guidance for the staff, strategy vision and networking i.e. leader should

make clear goals and express those to every one, collaborative and motivational leadership i.e. leader should

inspire people to give their full and try to achieve difficult objectives also there should be openness and an

environment of trust and support, fair and efficient management i.e. delegating task and organize the tasks,

development and recognition of performance i.e. praise people work and provide them with feed back and

give them support, interpersonal skills i.e. look into other peoples interests.

Although Ramsden‟s study has fewer pit falls as his study does not show the impact of present changes as

withdrawal of professional authority of professional in educational setting. His model was unable to provide

critical results when tested. An academic leader should have a clear sense of values and should adapt to

internal and external changes in the organizations (Selznick 1984: 27).

© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

189

As academic environment are facing many challenges now a days. The academic leader should be

knowledgeable and competent enough to manage his subordinates effectively. So the question arise that what

leadership style should be used in higher education system to deal with employees? The answer is still

confusing. As Collinson and Collinson (2006) has given the view of Blended Leadership, whereas Bennett,

N., Wise, C., Woods, P. and Harvey, J.A (2003) have given the concept of Distributed Leadership that

leadership should not remain the property of only one person as this responsibility should be taken up by all

members. Many researchers have identified some leadership qualities as honorable, brave supportive, and

enthusiastic person, forming networking skills and relationship building, participative and consultative

management style, open discussion on teaching approaches, credibility of leader, building formal and informal

channels of communication for information transfer, sharing experiences and ideas, adaptation to internal and

external environment, encourage transformation and change, to have selflessness and awareness of things,

developing people and making collaborative partnerships with others, creating collegial working atmosphere,

and able to get necessary support from others. Thus every leader might not have all of these qualities but good

leadership demands for these qualities as leadership has become very challenging now a day.

Discussion

The purpose of this paper is to explore the link among the variables as academic leadership, motivation of

faculty members and organizational effectiveness. The link has been illustrated by the figure below.

As many researchers have identified features of an Academic leader as credibility, inspirational personality,

knowledge, skills, abilities and experience to lead others, eagerness to learn new things and adapt to changes,

awareness of environment, selflessness, flexibility, openness in sharing information and taking input of people

while making decisions when required, be supportive, fair in giving credits on their achievements, accepting,

valuing and recognizing the efforts of subordinates, providing developmental opportunities to subordinates,

and giving them professional autonomy. An effective leader may not have all of these qualities or may have

few of them but the important thing lies in using the right tool at the right time. A leader must look upon the

situation and should make right decision to exercise his powers. Suppose if employees are not happy with

their job, and their reduced satisfaction is leading to less productivity, then leader should make wise decisions

to make employee happy by providing him increased pay or promotion. The leader can motivate an unhappy

employee by providing him those rewards and benefits that are of great value to them.

As this model states that there are three types of leadership roles that an academic leader can perform as;

research leadership, educational leadership and administration leadership. Universities are the places of

conducting research. An academic leader should foster research culture in his organization, he should

motivate his colleagues, arrange funds for research, act as team builder and team leader to achieve mutually

coordinated goals, and provide proper resources to his followers.

Motivation of Faculty

Members

Academic Leadership

Organizational

Effectiveness in Higher

Education

Educational

Administration

Research Intrinsic

factors

Extrinsic

factors

Students

Faculty‟s

satisfaction

International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 8; May 2011

190

Being an educational leader he must be knowledgeable and skillful person, share information and should be

open and collaborative with his followers, lead and direct them, and providing them proper feedback. Last but

not the least an academic leader must have to administer his day to day activities and have to properly manage

the operations and people. Such an academic leader can motivate his employees by providing them with

different rewards and benefits. Leader can motivate employees to work and perform to the fullest, by

minimizing de-motivators. As he can provide his faculty members fair and equitable salary increase,

promotion, other fringe benefits, bonuses, flexi time, healthy working conditions, professional autonomy,

career developmental opportunities, recognition, building trust relationship building, proper training and

development etc. A good manager and leader job is to facilitate his high performing employees so that they

may not leave their job physically or psychologically. If an academic leader wisely provides these rewards,

knowing the reward power for the employees as well as individual differences, then the faculty members can

be motivated to perform their job and they will not only be satisfied with their job but also be committed to

their university. Motivated faculty members will offer their educational services with full determination.

Students will develop both professionally and personally and will advance academically as well.

When the staff will be happy with their job and enjoy while performing it, then the overall organization will

earn its benefits. Many of the researchers have also supported the idea that satisfied staff can add to

organizational effectiveness and that motivated staff can produce brilliant students, can develop them

professionally, academically, personally, can create a strong culture, can portray better image of institute, and

can attract other talented faculty members and students. They can use freely various effective teaching

methods and can imply them on students whose learning will increase. Also when they will produce good

students then parents will be happy and positive word of mouth of university will further add to its shining

image. As university is service oriented organization which provides educational services to students. The

primary product of university is student, so their personal, professional and academic development is

important and organizational effectiveness should be measured in terms of students‟ development.

Faculty satisfaction is also an indicator of effectiveness so if the faculty members are well motivated and

satisfied then the university will be effective. Faculty satisfaction is important for the management because

they want to retain and attract talented staff and value their loyalty and commitment. There are thousands of

educational institutes; if faculty members are not happy with the management of their institute then they could

easily switch to any other educational institute. In such a way university will not only loose its valuable

employee but also whole image of university will go down. Not only satisfaction of faculty members is the

challenging issue, but also there are many other internal and external pressures that may affect organizational

effectiveness and that need to be studied in detail. As the members feel that they are being valued by the

management and their work is also having meaningfulness then their internal motivation to work will

increase. Also the teaching staff is at an interface in between students and management of the university If a

wise leadership is in hand then it can really help a lot as it can make the faculty self satisfied which can

provide many fruitful results.

Conclusion

The model above clarifies a link among three variables. It tells the importance of leadership in higher

education its three types are discussed as research, educational and administration leadership. Different

indicators that were studied by previous researchers are grouped under these three types. As study of Ramsden

(1998), Hertzberg et al (1959), and (Cameron, 1978) are consistent with this model. Many of the leadership

dimensions that have been given by Ramsden (1998) are discussed here as well. The extrinsic and intrinsic

factors discussed in the model were discussed by Hertzberg et al (1959) too. (Cameron, 1978) has given nine

effectiveness dimensions and two dimensions that are discussed here are in consistent to his dimensions. More

literature review is require to explore the concepts in better way as due to time constrain this paper may not

have well explored the variables in question.. Another limitation of this research is that this model is created

with out considering various contextual factors so its applicability is limited Researchers can further refine

this study by conducting an empirical research on this model. Also they can look for contextual factors that

may impact on the application of the model.

References

Akintoye, I.R. (2000). The place of financial management in personnel psychology. A Paper Presented as Part of

Personnel Psychology Guest Lecture Series. Department of Guidance and Counselling, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Balcı, A. (2001). Effective School and Improving School: Theory, Application and Research (revisioned second

edition). Ankara: Pegem Publishing.

© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

191

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. and Harvey, J.A. (2003) Distributed Leadership. Nottingham: NCSL.

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (6), 693-710.

Cameron, (1978). “Measuring Organizational effectiveness In Institution Of Higher Education.” 604/ Administrative

Science Quarterly, Volume 23.

Cameron, K. (1986a). “A Study of Organizational Effectiveness and Its Predictors”. Management Science, 32(1), 87-112.

Campbell, T., & Slaughter, S. (1999). Faculty and administrators‟ attitude towards potential conflicts of interest,

commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. Journals Of Higher Education, 70(3), 309-352.

Cheng, K., Wong, K. (1996). “School Effectiveness in East Asia. Journal of Education Administration”, Vol. 34, No. 5, 32-49.

Chenhall, R. H. (2006). Theorising and Testing Fit in Contingency Research on Management: Monash University.

Clark, D.L., Lotto, L.S., Astuto, T.A. (1984). Effective School and School Improvement: A comparative Analysis of Two

Lines of Inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41-68.

Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006) „Blended Leadership‟: Employee Perspectives on Effective Leadership in the UK

FE sector. Lancaster: CEL.

Georgolopous, Basil S, and Arnold S. Tannenbaum (1957). “The study of organizational effectiveness.” American

Sociological Review, 22: 534-540

Girmen, P. (2001). The Levels to Meet the Effective School Properties of Intermediate Education Institution. Unpublished

Master Thesis. Institute of Social Sciences, Osmangazi University, Eskisehir.

Gmelch, W. H. (2002). “The call for department leaders”. New York: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Gun, J.A., Holdaway, E.A. (1986). Perceptions of Effectiveness, Influence and Satisfaction of Senior High Schools‟

Principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(2), 43-62.

Hertzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work. Wiley, New York,NY.

House, R. J. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Publications.

Hoy, W.K., Ferguson, J. (1985). A Theoretical Framework and Exploration of Organizational Effectiveness of Schools.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 117-134.

Hum, D. (2000). Reflections on commercializing university research. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 30(3), 113-26.

Karagöz, and Öz, (2008). “Organizational Effectiveness In Higher Education; Measures, Measurement And Evaluation”.

EABR & TLC Conferences Proceedings. Rothenburg, Germany.

Kleeman, G.L., Richardson, R.C. (1985). “Student Perceptions of University Effectiveness”. Chicago: The Paper presented

at 69. Annual Meeting of the Union of American Educational Researches.

McKeachie, W.J. (1997). Wanting to be a good teacher: What have we learned to date? In Bess, J.L (Ed.). Teaching Well

and Liking It. London: Johns Hopkins University.

Moore, T. (2008). “Three jeers for managerial jargon.” The Australian Higher Education Review. 30 April, 30.

Neave, G. (2002). “The Stakeholder Perspective Historically Explored”. In Enders, J. & Fulton, O. (eds.) Higher Education

in a Globalizing World. International Trends and Mutula Observations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Nguyen (2001). Appraisal policies to motivate teaching. - A case study in a Vietnamese university. Faculty of Education,

Volume 2,2

Olajide, A. (2000). Getting the best out of the employees in a developing economy. A Personnel Psychology Guest Lecture

Series. Department of Guidance and Counselling, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Peltz, D., & Andrews, F. (1976). Scientists in organizations. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London, Routledge.

Reed, A. J. S., Bergemann, V. E. & Olson, M. W. (1998) “In the Classroom: An Introduction to Education.” McGraw-Hill, New York.

Rojas, R.R (2000). “A review of models for measuring organizational effectiveness among for-profit and nonprofit

organizations.” Non profit management and leadership 11(1):97-104

Rowley (1996). Motivation and academic staff in higher education. MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883 Volume 4 ·

Number 3 · 1996 · pp. 11–16.

Rowntree, D. (1981). A Dictionary of Education. London: Harper & Row.

Sathye, M. (2004). Leadership in higher education: a qualitative study, Qualitative Social Research, 5(3), 1-11.

Selznick, P (1984). Leadership in Administration. A Sociological Interpretation. Berkley, Los Angeles, London:University

of California Press.

Sinclair, R.R., Tucker, J.S., Cullen, J.C., & Wright, C. (2005). Performance differences among four organizational

commitment profiles. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6), 1280-1287.

Sisman, M. (1996). Effective School Management. Eskisehir: Anadolu University Publications.

Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Hollernan, M., & Morgan, E. (2002). The “traffic” in graduate students: Graduate students as

tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology, Human Values, 27(2), 282-313.

Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneur university. Baltimore: the

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Steers, Richard M. (1977). “Organizational Effectiveness: A Behavioral View.” Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Tella, C.O. Ayeni S. O. Popoola (2007), “Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Organisational Commitment of Library

Personnel in Academic and Research Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria”. Library Philosophy and Practice

Yuchtman, Ephraim, and Stanley E. Seashore (1967). “A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness.”

American Sociological Review, 32: 891-903.