2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference (CBEC)
Sponsored by: Association for Business & Economics Research (ABER)
International Journal of Business & Economics
Oxford Journal
June 27-29, 2011
Cambridge University, UK
Submission Deadline: November 30th, 2010
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
1
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
A PILOT STUDY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIAN HIGHER
EDUCATION SECTOR THROUGH HAVING EXCELLENT ACADEMIC LEADERS
Norashfah Hanim Yaakop Yahaya Al-Haj, PhD
ABSTRACT
This pilot study focuses on fifty-three (53) Head of Departments and forty-four (44) Senior Lecturers
in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions from AKEPT’s (Higher Education Leadership Academy)
pioneering sustainable development programme 2010 to build excellent academic leaders in the
higher education sector. The rationale of the study is to ascertain the value of having excellent
academic leaders in building sustainable development in the higher education environment. As such
the leadership DNA, Learner centeredness, market focused and balancing the right academic
environment being considered to be essential variables for being excellent academic leaders based
on the grounded model of Building Excellent Academic Leader Model adapted from AKEPT
Leadership Competency Framework. The uniqueness of this study stands in its ability to gather data
from this pioneering programme, Building Excellent Academic Leader and its designed methodology
via the content analysis method for enriching the data gathered. The fact the number of participants
comes from the pool of head of departments and senior lecturers as the unit analysis to measure the
value of leadership competencies, this will better justify the reliability of the assessment for
sustainable development environment for higher education sector as they are being the key change
drivers in the sector. Hence, the overall objective of the study is to assess the status of excellent
academic leaders in Malaysian HEIs, to put sensible and meaningful targets for growth and
development and to express leader’s aspirations and expectations for the future with having to
include the identified essential variables for being excellent academic leaders.
INTRODUCTION
The education sector in Malaysia is rapidly developing high quality intellectual human capital and its
effort is seen as a crucial element for sustaining well-developed Malaysia essentially in achieving the
vision 2020, Malaysia as a developed nation. Hence, the role of academicians as the change drivers in
the sector, how they may, they must be qualified to be excellent academic leaders, be capable of
nurturing, inspiring in driving the nation’s human capital towards developing and sustaining the
nation’s competitive edge in the global marketplace. Having excellent academic leaders mean they
must possess some special leadership DNA thus, must be able to engage a solid foundation through
being learner centeredness, market focused and capable at balancing the right academic environment.
As the champion in the sector, the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) has always been committed
to its vision to transform Malaysia into a centre of excellence for higher education through having
excellent academic leaders. This vision in turn is to be realized through its mission as such questions
on who is to develop and put in place a higher education environment that encourages the growth of
premier knowledge centers and which individuals who are competent, innovative, and morally upright
in order to meet national and international needs? In order to achieve sustainable success having the
right policies and mechanisms is an important stance in order to lead those questions and to support
the above said excellent academic leaders who have been entrusted with the running of the Higher
Education Institutes. Consequently, the Ministry established two plans, the National Higher Education
Strategic Plan 2020 and Beyond and the National Higher Education Action Plan (2007-2010), both of
which play a pivotal role in the effort to produce excellent human capital and realizing its vision to
transform Malaysia. In addition of the latest, the announcement of the Tenth Malaysian Plan showed
the intense gravity to transform Malaysia through having excellent human capital with the increase of
21.8% of human capital development expenditure from the last year.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
2
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
In effect, the National Higher Education Strategic Plan is to cascade the MoHE’s vision for the
transformation of higher education in Malaysia from now to 2020 and beyond. It is comprehensively
designed to cover the higher education high-level plans encompassing both new initiatives as well as
existing programmes. The Ministry has road mapped its focus on seven strategic thrusts which are
strengthening HEI’s, fortifying research and innovation, intensifying internationalisation, widening of
access and increasing equity, improving the quality of teaching and learning, enculturation of life long
learning, and reinforcing the delivery systems of the ministry of higher education with 21-points
critical agenda for performing nation-wide initiatives. These initiatives are to actualize this agenda via
a holistic change through the establishment of initiatives like the Apex University, MyBrain15,
Lifelong Learning, Human Capital Development Fund, and the Student Development. Further, in
cascading the National Higher Education Strategic Plan, the Ministry in its National Higher Education
Action Plan emphasize on 5 institutional pillars, comprising governance, leadership, academia,
teaching and learning, and research and development are the core components of higher education
which need to be addressed, if the higher education sector is to guarantee the solid foundation
required to produce the type of human capital that this nation requires.
Meanwhile, Malaysia as a nation has experienced unprecedented economic growth over the last three
decades. However, Malaysia need to have in place the mechanisms to ensure its continued success
and this means the pre-requisition to invest in human capital in order to be able to sustain the growing
trend. So far, the government’s investment priority has been education, particularly higher education,
as proved by the spectacular increase in the number of Higher Education Institutions that have
mushroomed within the last 15 years. Even more in the recent Tenth Malaysian Plan, 40% of total
development expenditure (RM92b) is on human capital development programs (21.8% in 9MP).
Reflecting from the 60’s when Malaysia or Malaya, as it was known then, had only one university to
boast of, the University of Malaya. Now we have 20 public universities, 41 private universities and
university colleges not including the 485 private colleges. The figure 1 below indicates the
government’s interest at expanding higher education institutes and corresponding level of investment
in higher education from the year 1970 to 2009. It shows an upward trend on these two respective
statistics indicating the importance of education in developing Malaysia. In the meantime, the statistic
on the economic growth in figure 2 as proved to increase at a similar trend but at an incremental rate.
Plausibly, these statistics reveal the direct correlation between the level of investment in higher
education and the phenomenal economic growth experienced in Malaysia. As mentioned earlier, in
conjunction with the need to sustain economic progress in tandem with advancement in Higher
Education, there is a need to focus on producing excellent academic leaders who possess the right
blend of knowledge, skills, and attitude to drive the Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in the right
direction to support economic development needs. Thus, the ministry through AKEPT is developing
these excellent academic leaders to drive sustainable development in the sector.
Figure 1: Federal Governemnt Development Expenditure on Education from 1970 -2009
(Sources from Ministry of Finance)
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
3
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Figure 2: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at Current Prices, 1970 – 2009 (Sources from Department
of Statistic Malaysia)
In relation to this study, we virtue at identifying and recognizing the academic leader’s abilities and
experiences, while gaining a better understanding in leading learning and teaching in Malaysian HEIs
through data gathered from the Building Excellent Academic Leader programme championed by
AKEPT. The programme seeks to address the current status of leadership within an academic
institutional context and also to look at how possibly DNA change can take place not only at an
individual level but also at an institutional level. The good news is that the DNA Transformational or
DNA Change in terms of leadership development is possible unlike the human DNA which cannot be
changed because it is being inherited. The motivation is to create and systemized the process of
building world class higher education institutions. Hence, the pursuit is to have leaders that are
capable to lead the so-called environment of within a modern academic institution. This would mean
the excellent academic leaders at all sense of standards are the ones that are able to meet the
expectations of their stakeholders and will continue to do so confidently, reliably and in a dependable
or collaborative manner. Subsequently perhaps this is how we can define the future role of a world
class academic institution that enjoys excellence in terms of its leadership.
In the meantime, the rationale of this paper is to ascertain the value of having excellent academic
leaders in building sustainable development in higher education environment. As such the leadership
DNA, Learner centeredness, market focused and balancing the right academic environment being
considered to be essential variables for being excellent academic leaders based on the grounded model
of Building Excellent Academic Leader Model adapted from AKEPT Leadership Competency
Framework. The uniqueness of the study stands in its ability to gather data from this pioneering
programme, Building Excellent Academic Leader and its designed methodology via the content
analysis method for enriching the data gathered. The fact the number of participants comes from the
pool of head of departments and senior lecturers as the unit analysis to measure the value of
leadership competencies; this will better justify the reliability of the assessment for sustainable
development environment for higher education sector as they are being the key change drivers in the
sector. Hence, the overall objective of the study is to assess the status of excellent academic leaders in
Malaysian HEIs, to put sensible and meaningful targets for growth and development and to express
leader’s aspirations and expectations for the future with having to include the identified essential
variables for being excellent academic leaders.
LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Academic Leadership
Leadership is essential in all organizations including educational institutions, but the concept of
academic leadership is however unique in its conception. Arguably, the concern with academic
leadership extends beyond the organization into the wider world that higher education institutions
seek to serve (Rowley, 1997). In the study of Lees et al. 1994 argues that leadership in HEIs is an
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
4
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
influential relationship between the leader and the follower. The emphasis is being on empowering the
follower for personal and professional success rather than on exclusive mutual reciprocity. Here, good
leadership is also emphasized through the leader’s positive behaviours that inspired followers to
achieve specific organizational goals. The leader’s behaviour support also fostered shared ownership
in a common purpose for the institution. In an academic environment, typical leadership roles and/or
areas within an institution in which leadership might be exhibited might include:





Module Leadership – designing learning outcomes of a module and ensuring that those
outcomes are achieved,
Course Leadership – Operational management concerned with ensuring that courses are
delivered successfully on a day to day basis,
Research Project Leadership – identification of appropriate projects and framing of research
questions, selection of research methodologies, and appropriate directions for achieving
valuable contributions to knowledge,
Head of Department – tactical management concerned with the creation of vision concerning
excellence in relation to specific subject areas, and the allocation of resources to pursue each
of these individual agendas. Facilitation and interfacing with institutional systems,
Senior Management – includes vice chancellors, deputy vice chancellors/pro-vice chancellors,
deans, directorates etc. These basically operate at excellent academic leadership level.
Martin (1993) established that effective leaders’ in academic world were identifiable by five areas of
expertise:





They are cultural representatives of their colleges and universities,
As communicators they are continually striving for more efficient and more inclusive
communication structure, networks and processes,
They are skilled managers,
They are planners/analysts,
They are advocates of the institution and cultivate relationships with various groups and
individuals on campus.
Hoppe (2003) argues that identifying, nurturing and supporting potential leaders are critical
components in maintaining a pipeline for continuity and infusion of new pools in academia. HEIs that
prepare for the future will have an identification strategy and developmental plan that not only
provides for the next generation of leaders but also ensures that they have the experience and skills
necessary for success. Hoppe aptly sums up her feelings by quipping that;
“Selecting and nurturing academic leaders requires identifying effective leadership characteristics
and providing experiences for potential candidates that both test and develop them”
Sherry L. Hoppe
In addition to knowing what type of leadership universities must have, it is also important to
understand what are the key attributes of an effective leader in an academic environment? The
knowledge of how to develop an effective academic vision is an essentiality together with the
requirements of academic leaders in mentoring and creating effective team work environments,
motivating their colleagues and being passionate about academic excellence in its wider context.
Research shows excellence has to be achieved through visionary leadership and a continuous drive of
value of high quality standards and superior performance. The role of leadership in an academic
context is therefore not dissimilar to the one that takes place in the private sector or in other public
sector contexts on conceptual aspects. In addition, higher learning institutions need to focus on
identifying the critical factors that are required for developing a vision for excellence, driving it and
delivering its outcomes, they also need to create a continuum of leadership roles at various levels so
as to ensure a total engagement, a total alignment an a high impact visionary effort as per discussed in
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
5
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
the book entitled Total Transformational Thinking in Academic Leadership pp.4 para 1, published by
European Centre for Best Practice Management, 2009.
Usually, it is very hard for leaders to authenticate the notion of excellence for often excellence is a
moving target. Excellence in a modern context is the attainment of a relative state of excellence of
which could be appropriate and applicable to any organization. Or be it an operating means in any
sector of the economy and being at any state of competitiveness. Excellence could also mean being
able to fulfil the requirements of customers and stakeholders that are current, clearly defined and
predictable since they are representing ability of replenishing wealth factor. On other hand, excellence
could mean to do more of the same, reliable and dependability.
AKEPT Leadership Competency Framework
AKEPT is known as the Higher Education Leadership Academy, MoHE in Malaysia. It provides
quality leadership training and exposure to the higher learning community in shaping them to become
the drivers in identifying new opportunities and markets, and building creative bridges of networks
with both local and international institutions. Consequently, Building Excellent Academic Leaders
program is organized by AKEPT for the Head of Departments and Senior Lecturers from the higher
education sector Malaysia. The objectives of this programme are to develop the knowledge of how to
lead learning and teaching in higher education as an academic excellent leader, to achieved world
class benchmark by focusing on the fundamentals of education, the provision of models embracing a
visionary perspective, and to instill the qualities of excellence in academic leaders, thus creating
excellent academic leaders in HEIs. This effort coincides with the Ministry’s continuous endeavors at
achieving excellence in Malaysian HEIs.
AKEPT roles are created in line with the objectives of the National Higher Education Strategic Plan
to transform higher education in Malaysia, especially in the area of human capital development. In
order to be able to design a comprehensive programme of human capital development for academic
leadership, AKEPT Leadership Competency Framework as illustrated in figure 3 provides the guiding
principles. This framework is structured to encompass a broad spectrum of capabilities, which are
geared to work within particular subsets of competencies.
Figure 3: AKEPT Leadership Competency Framework
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
6
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
The inner compass forms the central core of the framework giving life to the three crucial leadership
capabilities which are Leading People, Leading Change, and Driving Results. These three capabilities
function in the manner of a set of interlocking gears, which drive Organisational Capabilities and
Scholastic Excellence & Business Sagacity. Organisational Capabilities and Scholastic Excellence are
the over-arching, broad-based, generic capabilities required of any leadership entrusted with the
running of higher education institutions. Academic leaders secure in their Commitment to Learning,
Professional Knowledge and Expertise, and Scholastic Leadership can be declared as possessing the
Scholastic Excellence required of excellent academic leadership.
Building the DNA to become a Leader in an Academic Environment
Leadership DNA is the practice that people use to motivate or de-motivate those they depend upon for
development of organization. Engagement drives evolution. As people engage with others through
conversation and actions either expand other’s potential or catalyze growth, or limit other’s
contributions and perpetuate stagnation (Glaser, 2006). The rate of organizational change has not
slowed in recent years, and may even be increasing. The rapid and continual innovation in technology
is driving changes to organizational systems and processes. Add to this the increased expectations of
employees as they move freely between organizations. And, of course, globalization has seen the
tearing down of previous international market barriers. It is no wonder that relentless change has
become a fact of organizational life. In spite of the importance and permanence of organizational
change, most initiatives fail to deliver the expected organizational benefits. This failure occurs for a
number of reasons. We might recognize one or more of these in our organization (Businessperform,
2008):







Absence of a change champion or one who is too junior in the organization
Poor executive sponsorship or senior management support
Poor project management skills
Hope rested on a one-dimensional solution
Political infighting and turf wars
Poorly defined organizational objectives
Change team diverted to other projects
Leadership is the consistency of quality performance and one secret of performance is developing the
unique gift which is the DNA in each organization that keeps them winning again and again.
Leadership DNA is the practice that leaders employ to inspire those they depend upon for continuous
growth of their organization. Thus, continuous engagement is crucial to drive progression. As leaders
engage with their subordinates through discussion and actions could assist at either nurture other’s
potential and support growth, or bound other’s contributions with unrealized outcomes.
To hear the unheard is necessary to be a good leader. Human beings have instincts that lead to
patterns behavior that enable the evolution of species. These instincts are hard-wired in leaders and
manifest themselves in how they relate to each other one-on-one and in expanded communities. In a
workplace, instinct can drive leaders toward territorial and protective behaviors, motivating leaders to
compete for resources, or it can trigger powerful and wonderfully collaborative behaviors that release
energy and a collective greatness that is unstoppable. Leaders, through their own behavior, can
reinforce the former, or inspire the latter (Zairi, 2009).
Building Excellent Academic Leader Model
Doing well cannot be accomplished at the expense of doing good. The moral high ground of modern
leadership is based on the ability to uphold the highest standard of integrity, to ensure that the
individuals concerned are not blinded by their emotional biases and to lead in a meaningful manner by
embracing change, inclusivity and through focusing on delivering value to key stakeholders in a
transparent manner (Higher Education Leadership Academy & Zairi Institute, 2010).
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
7
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
In the context of Building Excellent Academic Leader Program, the Building Excellent Academic
Leader Model as illustrated in figure 4 will enable Heads of Departments and Senior Lecturers
evaluate their current competence levels, to put sensible and meaningful targets for growth and
development through the Building Excellent Academic Leader Program and to express their
aspirations and expectations for the future.
The intention of the Building Excellent Academic Leader Program is to assist Heads of Departments
and Senior Lecturers with their competency building plans and strategies and to deliver net,
measurable and tangible growth and development. The enclosed tool will allows the participants
conduct a self-assessment exercises and to put individual meaningful targets for growth and
development.
Figure 4: “Building Excellent Academic Leader Model” sources from AKEPT Leadership
Competency Framework
How to Be Learner Centric, Market Focused and Create the Right Academic Environment?
The debate on how best to teach, how best to raise standards of education and how best to design
meaning academic programs will continue to create wonders. What is however important is that the
whole experience of providing high quality learning exposures requires a holistic perspective and a
fresh approach that can help universities aspire to be top-notch. Learner centricity can be defined as
transformation from teacher centred and content oriented conception to leaner centric. Rogers
(1983b:188) identified the important precondition for student-centred learning as the need for: ‘… a
leader or person who is perceived as an authority figure in the situation, is sufficiently secure within
herself (himself) and in her (his) relationship to others that she (he) experiences an essential trust in
the capacity of others to think for themselves, to learn for themselves’. Choice in the area of the
learning is emphasised by Burnard, as he interprets Rogers’ ideas of student–centredness as ‘students
might not only choose what to study, but how and why that topic might be an interesting one to study’
(1999:244). He also emphasises Rogers’ belief that students’ perceptions of the world were important,
that they were relevant and appropriate. This definition therefore emphasises the concept of students
having ‘choice’ in their learning.
Harden and Crosby (2000:335) describe teacher–centred learning strategies as the focus on the teacher
transmitting knowledge, from the expert to the novice. In contrast, they describe student– centred
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
8
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
learning as focusing on the students’ learning and ‘what students do to achieve this, rather than what
the teacher does’. This definition emphasises the concept of the student ‘doing’. Other authors
articulate broader, more comprehensive definitions. Lea et al. (2003:322) summarises some of the
literature on student–centred learning to include the followings tenets:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
‘the reliance on active rather than passive learning,
an emphasis on deep learning and understanding,
increased responsibility and accountability on the part of the student,
an increased sense of autonomy in the learner
an interdependence between teacher and learner,
mutual respect within the learner teacher relationship, and
a reflexive approach to the teaching and learning process on the part of both teacher and learner.’
Gibbs (1995) draws on similar concepts when he describes student–centred courses as those that
emphasise: learner activity rather than passivity; students’ experience on the course outside the
institution and prior to the course; process and competence, rather than content; where the key
decisions about learning are made by the student through negotiation with the teacher. Gibbs
elaborates in more detail on these key decisions to include: ‘What is to be learnt, how and when it is
to be learnt, with what outcome, what criteria and standards are to be used, how the judgements are
made and by whom these judgements are made’ (1995:1). In a similar vein in earlier literature, the
student– teacher relationship is particularly elaborated upon by Brandes and Ginnis (1986). In their
book for use in second level education (post–primary), entitled ‘A Guide to Student–Centred
Learning’, they present the main principles of student–centred learning as:






The learner has full responsibility for her/his learning
Involvement and participation are necessary for learning
The relationship between learners is more equal, promoting growth, development
The teacher becomes a facilitator and resource person
The learner experiences confluence in his education (affective and cognitive domains flow
The learner sees himself differently as a result of the learning experience.
Learner Centred Education (LCE) Maturity Audit Tool (MAT)
Learner Centred Education (LCE) Maturity Audit Tool (MAT) is to provide participants with the
opportunity to appreciate the comprehensiveness and requirements for a Learner Centric Educator. It
evaluate firsthand the degree of maturity of own institution against a typical list of key elements and
key critical factors. This tool evaluates whether all institutes are focussed on students as learners and
whether the education provision is based on fitness for the purpose. Moreover, it assists with
determining gaps in the establishing of a Learner Centric Culture and to develop suitable and
appropriate improvement process. It also evaluates the existing initiatives and efforts for Learner
Centricity and to use the MAT Model for further extending and enhancing own approaches (Faculty
Stakeholder Group, 2005).
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
9
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Figure 5: LCE MAT Model
As illustrated in figure 5, Learner-centred education places the student at the centre of education. LCE
begins with understanding the educational contexts from which a student comes. LCE continues with
the instructor evaluating the student's progress towards learning objectives. By helping the student
acquire the basic skills to learn, it ultimately provides a basis for learning throughout life. LCE places
the responsibility for learning on the student, while the instructor assumes responsibility for
facilitating the student’s education. LCE approach strives to be individualistic, flexible, competencybased, varied in methodology and not always constrained by time or place.
Instructional Delivery often leads to collaborative partnerships among university faculty,
administration, staff and the community at large. For service, it appropriately focused on counselling,
advising and tutoring services Assessment may take a variety of forms, such as: tests, demonstrations,
papers, portfolios, performances, individual reports, group reports, individual projects, group projects,
and electronic presentations.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & DESIGN
The primary and secondary data have been applied to fulfil the objectives of the study. In the primary
data section, participants are given two separate sets of survey questions related to the two dimensions
grounded in the Building Excellent Academic Leader Model as illustrated in figure 4 above. The first
assessment is on Building the DNA to Become a Leader in an Academic Environment focused on
current competency evaluation and competency development requirements. Participants being
conducted the self-assessment surveys in order to assess their individual achievements against the set
targets for growth and development from the leadership development evaluation and strategy
questionnaires based on Building Excellent Academic Leader Model of which correlates directly with
the inception of the original Leadership Development Model (LDM) Adapted from Commonwealth of
Australia, 2004 (APS Commission).
The second assessment is focused on how to Be Learner Centric, Market Focused and Create the
Right Academic Environment with the application of Learner Centred Education (LCE) Maturity
Audit Tool (MAT) as illustrated in figure 5 above. In each respective group, participants are asked to
evaluate the following points:
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
10
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
1. The relevance of LCE concept to your university
2. To gauge the level of maturity in building an LCE orientation with your university
3. To verify that the critical factors contained in LCE Audit tool are applicable to the Malaysian
Context.
Using an open discussion with group, participants are asked to exchange points of view on the
aforementioned and to prepare a summary report on their collective evaluation and possibly
recommend for the overall Higher Education context. Participants also required to accomplished score
for each of the criteria in the sections given and added the total score for each criteria, 1 being the
lowest score and 5 being the highest score.
Whilst, the secondary data are gathered from reading books, journals, magazines, annual reports of
various respected organizations and surfing the Internet. The point for the statistical techniques the
study employed descriptive and regression analysis. Correlation analysis is used in conjunction with
regression analysis to measure how well the regression line explains the variation of the dependent
variable. The most commonly use Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) has been
employed for data analysis.
THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK
Current Competency
Evaluation
DIMENSION 1:
Excellent Academic
Leader’s DNA
Excellent Academic
Leader’s Status
DIMENSION 2:
Learner Centric, Market
Focused, Creating the Right
Academic Environment
Figure 6: Theoretical Framework
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
11
Competency Development
Requirements
Inner Membrane:
 Learner-Centred
Education (LCE)
 Instructional Delivery
 Service
 Assessment
Outer Membrane:
 LCE Guiding Principles
 LCE Best Practice
Adoption
 Shared Responsibility
for Learning
 Collaborative Future in
Support of Learning
 Assessment Feedback
Review Improvement
(AFRI) Cycle
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
A theoretical framework is a conceptual model of how one theorizes or makes logical sense of the
relationship among the several factors that have been identified as important to the problem. A
variable is anything that can take on differing or varying values. The values can differ at various times
for the same object or person or at the same time for different objects or person. The dependent
variable is the variable of primary interest to the researcher. The researcher’s goal is to understand and
describe the dependent variable or to explain its variability or predict it (Uma Sekaran, 2003).
Referring to the literature review of this study in particular, excellent academic leader’s status
comprises of two dimensions which are Dimension 1; excellent academic leader’s DNA and
Dimension 2; Learner Centric, Market Focused, Creating the Right Academic Environment. The
independent variables that influence the dimension 1 have been identified through the Building
Excellent Academic Leader Model. The current competency evaluation and competency development
requirements assessments are used as the measure to the status of excellent academic leader’s DNA.
On the other hand, the independent variables that influence the dimension 2 have been identified
through LCE MAT Model of which involving the inner membrane and outer membrane.
Inner Membrane consists of these criterions:
 Learner-Centred Education (LCE)
 Instructional Delivery
 Service
 Assessment
Outer Membrane consists of these criterions:
 LCE Guiding Principles
 LCE Best Practice Adoption
 Shared Responsibility for Learning
 Collaborative Future in Support of Learning
 Assessment Feedback Review Improvement (AFRI) Cycle
DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
The findings are based on the answers in the survey questions given by the fifty-three (53) Head of
Departments and forty-four (44) Senior Lecturers in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions from
AKEPT pioneering sustainable development programme 2010 to build excellent academic leaders in
the sector. The information obtained will help to achieve the objective of the study conducted.
The findings were arranged into three sections. The first sections presented the number of participants
from various public universities who attended the Building excellent Academic Leaders programmes.
The second sections presented the current competency evaluation & competency development
requirements for Head of Departments, Deputy Deans and Senior Lecturers. The third sections
presented the findings on Learner Centric, Market Focused, Creating the Right Academic
Environment through inner membrane and outer membrane. Finally a brief summary of the findings
was presented. Highest participants for the programme entitled “Building Excellent Academic
Leaders for Sustainable Development Session 1” are participants from UPM which is 10 participants.
The lowest participants are from UTM, UNIMAP, UMT and UKM where only one participant
attended. Overall 15 public universities participated in this project.
Current Competency Evaluation
Developing people entails proper observation of their behaviours at university by their respective
leaders. Mapping these observations on the relevant competencies helps in evaluating current level of
head of departments, deputy deans and senior lecturers in each competency. This leads to the creation
of a 'Development Plan' for each participant. Current competency evaluation was developed based on
AKEPT Leadership Competency Framework as exemplified in figure 3. This framework is structured
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
12
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
to encompass a broad spectrum of capabilities, which are geared to work within particular subsets of
competencies.
INNER COMPASS
Inner Compass is an ongoing process and journey where leaders explore, nurture & internalize their
internal attributes, core values, morals & ethics
Integrity
Integrity is degree of trustworthiness and ethical behaviour of an individual characterized by honesty,
reliability, and fairness.
i) Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
Most participants have 75 percent degree of competence effectiveness for integrity. However,
competency development prioritization for integrity is still rated as top priority for most participants
because at the level of tactical implementation, Head of Departments have to use applicable
professional standards and establish procedures and policies when taking action and making
decisions. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area is crucial for Head
of Department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for integrity is 75% for most participants. Therefore,
competency development prioritization for integrity is rated as not required for them because most
participants have personal responsibility for own work including problems and issues. Thus,
continuous sustainable effort for development in this area is optional for senior lecturers and above.
Emotional Intelligence
A self-perceived ability to identify, access and manage the emotions of one’s own, others and groups.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for emotional intelligence is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for emotional intelligence is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of tactical implementation, Head of Departments should
have high level on motivation. Motivation consists of achievement drive to improve a standard of
excellence, commitment to align with the goals of organization, have initiative and optimism in
pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks. Therefore, emotional intelligent in this critical area is
important and can be of priority for Head of Departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for emotional intelligence is 75% for most participants.
Therefore, competency development prioritization for emotional intelligence is rated as desirable for
them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have high level on self
regulation which consists of self control; trustworthiness; conscientiousness or taking responsibility
for personal performance; adaptability or flexible in handling change; and innovation. Thus,
continuous sustainable effort for development in this area is important for senior lecturers and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
13
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Self Management
Reflecting on past experiences to manage and continuously improve personal performance.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for self management is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for integrity is still rated as high importance and
desirable for most participants as stated in table 7 because at the level of tactical implementation,
Head of Departments have to take responsibility and acknowledging personal responsibility for
outcomes. They have to take responsibility even when not all elements of situation are within direct
control but could have been personally managed. Therefore, continuous sustainable effort in this
critical area is important for Head of Departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for self management is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for self management is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to
analyze situations on an ongoing basis to improve own performance; designing a personal action plan
to address own issues constructively and decisively; and using analysis of previous situations to make
informed decisions and take action. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this
critical area is important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
Communication Skills
Clearly conveying and receiving messages to meet the needs of all. This may involve listening,
interpreting, formulating and delivering: verbal, non-verbal, written, and/or electronic messages.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of Competence Effectiveness for Communication Skills is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for communication skills is still rated as top
priority for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to listen
effectively in understanding underlying issues, unexpressed or poorly expressed thoughts, concerns
and feelings; reading body language, and other non-verbal cues accurately and using that
understanding to structure and give an appropriate response. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for
development in this critical area is crucial for head of department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for communication skills is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for communication skills is still rated as top
priority and high importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior
lecturers have to listen effectively in seeking to understand others’ frame of reference; understand
why people behave in a certain way in given situations; and using this information to better
understand an individual or determine immediate communication needs. Thus, continuous sustainable
effort for development in this critical area is crucial for senior lecturers and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
14
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
DRIVING RESULTS
Driving results is about the leader pursuing organizational goals with energy, drive and passion, with
a need to persist and follow through even in the face of resistance and/or setbacks.
Results Orientation
Knowing what results is important and focuses on resources to achieve them in alignment with the
goals of the organization.
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for result orientation is around 50% to 75% for most
participants. Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for integrity is still rated as high
importance for most participants because at the level of tactical implementation, Head of Departments
have to set and work in order to achieve new, unique or meet challenging objectives. Next, they need
to identify opportunities and roadblocks, and dealing with them so that goals can be accomplished.
So, continuous sustainable effort for development in result orientation is crucial for head of
department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for results orientation is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for results orientation is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to
improve performance beyond expectations of the role. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for
development in this critical area is important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
Accountability
Acts to ensure others perform in accordance with clear expectations and goals by being responsible,
answerable, explainable & detectable
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for accountability is 75% for most participants. However,
most participants rated competency development prioritization for accountability as top priority and
desirable for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to ensure
others perform in accordance with clear expectations and goals by being responsible, answerable,
explainable and detectable. As a result, continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical
area is important and can be of priority for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for accountability is 75% for most participants. Therefore,
competency development prioritization for accountability is rated as desirable for them because at the
level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to ensure others perform in accordance with
clear expectations and goals by being responsible, answerable, explainable & detectable. Thus,
continuous sustainable effort for development in this area is important for senior lecturers and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
15
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Decisiveness
Decisiveness is the ability to make decisions based on analysis of the information presented in the
face of ambiguous or conflicting situations, or when there is an associated risk.
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for decisiveness is 75% for most participants. Nonetheless,
competency development prioritization for integrity is still rated as high importance for them because
at the level of tactical implementation, Head of Departments have to make sound decision in risky
situation. It involves making and implementing operational decisions when faced with differing
stakeholder perspectives and/or unclear of information, based on the organization's needs and
objective; and recognizing conflicting situations as they arise and determining the appropriate
responses. Therefore, continuous sustainable effort for development in decisiveness is important and
can be of priority for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for decisiveness is 75% for most participants. Competency
development prioritization for decisiveness is rated as desirable for them because at the level of
operational implementation, senior lecturers have to make decisions based on analysis of the
information presented in the face of ambiguous or conflicting situations, or when there is an
associated risk. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this area is important for
senior lecturers and above.
LEADING PEOPLE
Leading People is the ability to lead people towards meeting the organisation's vision, mission, and
goals. The leader is able to create an inclusive workplace that fosters the development of others,
facilitates co-operation and teamwork, and supports constructive resolution of conflicts.
Teamwork
To work co-operatively and productively with others to achieve results.
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for teamwork is 75% for most participants. Nonetheless,
competency development prioritization for communication skills is still rated as top priority for them
because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments must involving other team
members in soliciting ideas and opinions to help form specific decisions or plans; contributing own
expertise to the team and able to give and receive constructive criticism; and willing to set aside
personal agenda to support the team consensus. Thus, constant sustainable effort for development in
this critical area is crucial for head of department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for teamwork is 75% for most participants. Nonetheless,
competency development prioritization for teamwork is rated as high importance and desirable for
them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to participate actively
in team in order to contribute positively, actively sharing information and listening, accepting others’
point of view, sharing the workload with others and maintain a positive outlook and shows flexibility
to new approaches and ideas. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area
is important for senior lecturers and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
16
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Developing Others
A desire to develop the long-term capability and competency of others.
i) Head of Departments
Most of participants rated the degree of competence effectiveness for developing others as 75%.
However, competency development prioritization for integrity is still rated as high importance for
them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to give specific and
constructive feedback for developmental purposes on a regular basis. They need to reassuring others
after a setback and reaching agreement on expectations for future performance. Hence, constant
sustainable effort for development in developing others is crucial for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for developing others is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for developing others is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to give
direction and offer support to others, provide resources to remove barriers to task accomplishment,
ask questions, having discussions or give clarifications to verify that others have understood the
explanations or directions. Senior lecturers also use the formal performance management process to
enhance feedback. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area is
important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
Leveraging Diversity
Respect, understand and value individual differences to achieve the vision and mission of the
organisation.
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for leveraging diversity is 75% for most participants.
However, competency development prioritization for leveraging diversity is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to
consider and respond appropriately to the needs, feelings, and capabilities of others. They also have to
seek information from others who have different personalities, backgrounds, and styles; willing to
explore critical differences in perspective to ensure mutually beneficial results. Thus, continuous
sustainable effort for development in this critical area is important and can be of priority for head of
department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for leveraging diversity is 50% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for leveraging diversity is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to
respect and collaborate successfully with others who have a diversity of cultural, experience and
demographic backgrounds. Hence continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area is
important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
17
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Impact & Influence
Influencing and motivating others to follow a course of action to create alignment with organizational
goals.
i) Head of Departments
Most participants have 75% degree of competence effectiveness for impact and influence. However,
competency development prioritization for impact and influence is still rated as high importance for
them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to calculate the impact
of own actions or words. It involves tailoring a presentation or discussion to appeal to the interest and
perspectives of others, determine and use the appropriate communication channel. Thus, continuous
sustainable effort for development in this critical area is important and can be of priority for head of
department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for impact and influence is 50% for most participants.
However, competency development prioritization for impact and influence is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to use
direct persuasion in a discussion or presentation by using two different arguments, concrete examples
or data, visual aids, demonstration, etc. Hence continuous sustainable effort for development in this
critical area is important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
LEADING CHANGE
Leading Change is the ability to bring about strategic change, both within and outside the
organisation, to meet organisational goals. The leader is able to establish an organisational vision and
to implement it in a continuously changing environment.
Strategic Thinking
Taking a broad scale, long term view, assessing options and implications for the university.
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for strategic thinking is 75% for most participants. However,
competency development prioritization for strategic thinking is still rated as high importance for them
because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to apply a longer term
perspective by consistently taking a broad-scale, long term view of challenges and opportunities.
Moreover, they need to understand a big picture, beyond one’s department and the needs of students
and stakeholders. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in strategic thinking is
important and can be of priority for head of department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for strategic thinking is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for strategic thinking is still rated as top priority
for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to analyze potential
for long term pay-offs or business outcomes, contribute to the development of priorities and strategies
to meet organisational goals. Hence continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical
area is crucial for senior lecturers and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
18
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Innovation
Making improvements and/or develop and initiating new approaches using original and creative
thinking.
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for innovation is 50% for most participants. Therefore,
competency development prioritization for strategic thinking is rated as high importance for them
because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to develop new approaches
to the department in order to improve activities and results beyond the work unit. Thus, continuous
sustainable effort for development in innovation is important and can be of priority for head of
department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for innovation is 50% for most participants. Nevertheless,
competency development prioritization for innovation is still rated as high importance for them
because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to develop new approaches
for job or area. They enhance job efficiency and objectives by doing something new to the work
unit/organization. Moreover, they looking for ways to improve activities and results, and contributing
to implementation, adapting existing processes or products to new situations, and applying new
technology on the job. Hence continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area is
important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
Creative Thinking
Looking at problems or situations from a fresh perspective that suggests unorthodox solutions.
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for creative thinking is 75% for most participants. However,
competency development prioritization for creative thinking is rated as top priority for them because
at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to introduce new approaches by
searching for ideas or solution that have worked in other environments and applying them to the
organisation. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in strategic thinking is crucial for
head of department and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for creative thinking is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for innovation is still rated as top priority for
them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to modify and adapt
current methods and approaches to better meet needs, analyze strengths and weaknesses of current
approaches, identify alternative solutions based on precedents, and identify an optimal solution after
weighing the advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches. Therefore continuous
sustainable effort for development in this critical area is crucial for senior lecturers and above.
Adaptability
Personal willingness and ability to effectively work in, and adapt to change.
i) Head of Departments
Most of participants rated the degree of competence effectiveness for adaptability as 75%. Thus,
competency development prioritization for adaptability is rated as desirable for them as shows in the
table 4.60 because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have work creatively
within standard procedures to fit a specific situation, keep one’s emotions under control, accept
change even when there is ambiguity and taking on new tasks. Hence, constant sustainable effort for
development in developing others is important for head of departments and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
19
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for adaptability is 75% for most participants. Nevertheless,
competency development prioritization for adaptability is still rated as top priority for them because at
the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to value need for adaptability which is
acknowledge that people are entitled to their opinions, accepting that they are different, open to do
things using a new way and stay positive when change is introduced. Therefore continuous
sustainable effort for development in this critical area is important and can be of priority for senior
lecturers and above.
Continuous Learning
Actively pursues learning and development in order to achieve results and to contribute to continuous
improvement
i) Head of Departments
The degree of competence effectiveness for continuous learning is 75% for most participants.
However, competency development prioritization for continuous learning is rated as high importance
for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to keep current
with trends and issues. They also need to find out what changes may impact the department / division
and its clients and assess what approaches, tools, methods and technologies will be needed to stay
current in a demanding and changing environment. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for
development in this area is important and can be crucial for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for continuous learning is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for continuous learning is still rated as high
importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to keep
current in own field of expertise which is they seeking out new approaches, tools, methods and
technologies in own field of expertise by reading, talking to others inside and outside the organisation,
and attending seminars/conferences. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this
critical area is important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
BUSINESS SAGACITY & SCHOLASTIC LEADERSHIP
The quality of being sagacious; quickness or acuteness of sense perceptions; keenness of discernment
or penetration with soundness of judgment; shrewdness. The commitment to diligent study, pursuing
personal scholarship & development of in-depth knowledge and expertise in a particular field of:
Scholastic Leadership
The ability to commit to diligent study, pursuing personal scholarship that exceeds the requirements
of a professor, course, or curriculum and develop in-depth knowledge and expertise in a particular
field of study
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for scholastic leadership is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for scholastic leadership is still rated as top
priority for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to
demonstrate general capabilities for future activities in their department. Thus, continuous sustainable
effort for development in this critical area is crucial for head of departments and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
20
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for scholastic leadership is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for scholastic leadership is still rated as top
priority for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to applies
complex scholastic capabilities such as assess of student knowledge, supervise projects and develop
student research skills, develop research objectives, join external networks to share information and
identify potential sources of funds, engage in continuous professional development and manage
resources in own research activity in collaboration with others. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for
development in this critical area is crucial for senior lecturers and above.
Organisational Awareness
Understands the structure and culture of the organization, which allows leaders to develop solutions
that fit with the organization and meet its needs.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for organisational awareness is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for organisational awareness is still rated as
high importance for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to
demonstrate general capabilities for future activities in their department. Thus, continuous sustainable
effort for development in this critical area is important and can be of priority for head of departments
and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for organisational awareness is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for organisational awareness is still rated as
high importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to
demonstrate understanding of the informal structure within own work group by understand the roles
of others, recognize the accepted and unspoken way of doing this and use this knowledge to get things
done. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area is important and can be
of priority for senior lecturers and above.
Customer Service Orientation
Understanding and meeting or exceeding client needs. Clients are those groups or individuals, internal
or external who use the organization's products and/or services.
i) Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for customer service orientation is 75% for most participants.
However, competency development prioritization for customer service orientation is still rated as high
importance and desirable for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of
departments have to establish effective client relationship. Head of departments need to understand
and respond to specific needs to the client’s satisfaction. In addition, they have to actively support the
interest of the client by making choices and setting priority to meet their needs. Thus, continuous
sustainable effort for development in this critical area is important for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for customer service orientation is 75% for most participants.
Nevertheless, competency development prioritization for customer service orientation is still rated as
high importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to
take personal responsibility by able to refer client appropriately, maintain clear communication with
clients regarding mutual expectations and monitors clients’ satisfaction, deliver a superior service,
correct problems promptly and in a non-defensive manner. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for
development in this critical area is important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
21
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Resource Management
Effectively managing internal and/or external resources to achieve organizational goals.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for resource management is 50% for most participants. Thus,
competency development prioritization for customer service orientation is rated as top priority and
high importance for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to
use internal and external resourcing approaches to ensure deliverables of all resources meet agreed-on
quality and timeframes. As a result, continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area
is important and can be of priority for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for resource management is 50% for most participants.
Therefore, competency development prioritization for resource management is rated as high
importance for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to
identify appropriate fiscal and human resources based on organisational strengths and weaknesses,
and position them to meet specific issues. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this
critical area is important and can be of priority for senior lecturers and above.
Partnering
Develops and strengthens internal and external partnerships that can provide information, assistance
and support to the university. Identifies and uses synergies across the university and with external
partners.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for partnering is 75% for most participants. However,
competency development prioritization for partnering is still rated as top priority and high importance
for them because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to encourage and
assist others in building networks. Therefore, continuous sustainable effort for development in this
critical area is crucial for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for partnering is 50% for most participants. Therefore,
competency development prioritization for resource management is rated as top priority for them
because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to build and maintain
mutually beneficial work relationships and alliance inside and outside the organisation. In addition,
senior lecturers also have to maintain an established network of contact for general information
sharing and keep on top of public, political and internal issues. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for
development in this critical area is crucial for senior
Concern for Political Impact
Aware of how ministerial issues, program policies, and decisions impact public interests/concerns. At
the same time, is sensitive to the differing needs/agendas of multiple stakeholders and works to ensure
that program policy is consistent with the strategic direction of university.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for concern for political impact is 50% for most participants.
Therefore, competency development prioritization for partnering is rated as high importance for them
because at the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to balance public interest
with stakeholders’ needs or agendas. Therefore, continuous sustainable effort for development in this
critical area is important and can be of priority for head of departments and above.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
22
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for concern for political impact is 50% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for concern for political impact is still rated as
desirable for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to align
action to support public interest by making decision and taking action to respond specific public
interest. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this area is required and can be of
important for senior lecturers and above.
Networking
Definition involves the ability to develop contacts and relationships internal and external to the
organization to facilitate work efforts or to gain support/cooperation.
i) Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
The degree of competence effectiveness for networking is 50% for most participants. Nevertheless,
competency development prioritization for networking is still rated as top priority for them because at
the level of tactical implementation, head of departments have to actively seek relationship-building
orientation with others in order to accomplish tasks and to improve or strengthen relationships with
others. Therefore, continuous sustainable effort for development in this critical area is important and
can be of priority for head of departments and above.
ii) Senior Lecturers
The degree of competence effectiveness for concern for networking is 75% for most participants.
Nonetheless, competency development prioritization for concern for networking is still rated as top
priority for them because at the level of operational implementation, senior lecturers have to identify
key stakeholder’s contact by looking for and seizing opportunities to expand one’s network of key
contacts and nurture the ones in place. Thus, continuous sustainable effort for development in this
area is crucial for senior lecturers and above.
Competency Development Requirements
The competency development helps leaders identify development activities that will assist them in
building their organizational competencies and are as summarised below which being exemplified in
the key competencies of the head of departments, deputy deans and senior lecturers are learning on
currently. Most of the participants choose integrity and teamwork as their key competencies that they
are learning currently.
The key competencies that head of How are the key competencies supporting their various
departments, deputy deans and senior roles and responsibility?
lecturers are learning on currently
1. Results Orientation
- provide KPI thru universities CSF and strategic
planning document
2. Developing people
- Each
individual
has
their
own
potential/capability/strength
3. Inner Compass
- Emotional and spiritual intelligence
- Core / foundation for accountability ,self management
ad contentious improvement
4. Teamwork
- working to achieve task / objective
“We” is more powerful than “I”. Developing others
encourage others to grow and comfortable in their
work.
- A new faculty with small numbers of lecturers carry the
same load of teaching hour.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
23
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
-
5. Continues Learning
-
6. Accountability
-
7. Adaptability
-
8. Integrity
-
-
-
10. Leveraging Diversity
-
11. Leading People
-
9. Leading Change
-
12. Creative Thinking
-
13. Networking
-
Team work also an important aspect which should be
stress. Working in large community, everybody should
put their effort to archive the specific goals agreed by
all members and it helps them to be focus.
Build good team with the common vision and values
thus, achieving the year’s target.
To self improve
The job / responsibilities given will be carried out until
the satisfied results obtained
Build good team with the common vision and values
thus, achieving the year’s target.
Build good team with the common vision and values
thus, achieving the year’s target.
Honest is the best policies. Always being honest to
myself and my all subordinate help me to clarify
difficulties. I also hope to get the same degree of honest
among my subordinate
Trust employees professionally and academically that
they can deliver the work with delight cost in effective
manner.
Integrity makes stakeholder’s respects and chosen the
organisation.
By having the integrity in leadership, the staff will see
the leader as a clean person who are doing job
professionally. Having this positive view, it will elevate
respect among the staff members.
Build good team with the common vision and values
thus, achieving the year’s target.
Good strategic thinking
More responsive working environment
Enhance critical idea
Combining my promise in science & management to
show my department members it help if you versatile.
Important in order to admire the faculty KPI on
research.
By the increasing the staff achievement in research and
publication: staff will be satisfied with their work and
the faculty will be the leading faculty research
performance.
Develop a new academic programme
Build good team with the common vision and values
thus, achieving the year’s target.
Table 1: The key competencies that head of departments, deputy deans and senior lecturers
are learning on currently and how are they supporting their various roles and responsibility?
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
24
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
The key competencies that Head of Departments, Deputy Deans & Senior Lecturers would like to
further develop for the future are as exemplified in table 2, these key competencies identified as
important competencies that could assist head of departments, deputy deans and senior lecturers in
becoming a better person, lecturer and leader, and help their own university to archive / realize the
MoHE’s vision.
The key competencies that Head of How will the key competencies assist them boosting their
Departments, Deputy Deans & performance and leadership role?
Senior Lecturers would like to
further develop for the future?
1. Business Sagacity & Scholastic
Leadership
o Customer Service
- Understand the expected outcomes and implement the
Orientation
appropriate approach to achieve the outcomes
- putting ourselves known among the peer by communicating
o Networking
2. Leading People
o Teamwork
- Need to improve teamwork and developing others towards
excellence.
- Develop the sustainability of department with sharing of effect
- Pursuing organisational goals with passion and energy and wise
in making decision.
- To retain staff members.
- Need to feel appreciate and rewarded in the sense of able to
o Developing Others
further/ enhance career within reasonable time and achieved
without the need to sacrifice personal life style
3. Leading Change
o
o
Strategic Thinking
Creative Thinking
-
4. Driving Results
5. Inner compass
o Self Management
o Communication Skills
o Emotional Intelligence
-
Top priority
The ability to have strategic thinking will help participants to
achieve vision as well mission that already developed.
When coupled with integrity it will boost performance and
leadership.
Participants would like to acquire skills in strategic thinking,
innovation and creative thinking.
Develop the innovation idea
Would be great advantages & edge in planning and anticipating
unstable or unpredictable policy.
Being innovative and creative thinking, problem can be solving
in different way which could be seem interesting. Besides that,
innovative and creative approach also avoid people doing
something routine. Variety of approach on handling problem
and matters would be something interesting to be explored.
Participants would like to enhance my skills in result oriented
Trust and confidence in job execution
-
This will help in controlling an emotion when ever complaint
came from the stakeholders in order to enhance the
competencies.
Table 2: The key competencies that Head of Departments, Deputy Deans & Senior Lecturers
would like to further develop for the future.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
25
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Additional Competencies
There are additional questions enquiring for other competencies which are important to create
sustainable development in the higher education sector. Of which these are additional
strengths/competencies identified as important by the participants to equip them at fulfilling their
current roles and responsibilities. From the survey, it was found that there are additional competencies
that are not listed which head of departments, deputy deans and senior lecturers would like to acquire.
The additional competencies are as listed below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Spiritual competencies- crucial as the ‘soul’ to inner compass
Spiritual intelligence
Negotiations skills
Stress management skills
Persuasive skills
Integrity and communication skills
Accountability
Impact and influences
Innovation and creative thinking
Networking
Generic skills
Managing conflict
Managing stress
Public relation and diplomacy
International relation such as managing international organisation organisations
Findings on How Learner Centric is Malaysian Universities
The primary purpose of Learner Centred Education (LCE) Maturity Audit Tool (MAT) is to
provide delegates with the opportunity to:
 Appreciate the comprehensiveness and requirements for a Learner Centric Educator

Evaluate firsthand the degree of maturity of own institution against a typical list of key
elements and key critical factors.

Evaluate whether all institutes are focussed on students as learners and whether the
education provision is based on fitness for the purpose.

Assist with determining gaps in the establishing of a Learner Centric Culture and to
develop suitable and appropriate improvement process.

Evaluate the existing initiatives and efforts for Learner Centricity and to use the MAT
Model for further extending and enhancing own approaches.
Inner Membrane
Inner Membrane consists of these criterions:
 Learner-Centred Education (LCE)
 Instructional Delivery
 Service
 Assessment
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
26
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
Learner-centred
Education
Instructional
Delivery
Service
Assessment
ISBN : 9780974211428
Participants
Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
26
1.67
5.00
3.9385
0.78913
26
1.40
4.88
3.6250
0.79201
26
26
1.25
1.50
5.00
5.00
3.2423
3.9512
0.90760
0.86724
Table 3: Overall Descriptive Statistics for Inner Membrane of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Table 3 above shows the descriptive statistics for Inner Membrane at the level of tactical
implementation for Head of Departments and Deputy Deans. The highest mean for inner membrane is
assessment which is 3.9512. Overall participants preferred assessment as the highest score because
learner-centred education must retain the rigor and standards that traditionally have characterized
higher education. Emphasis is on the student's competence and proficiency in specific areas of
academic and professional knowledge, skills and understanding. Competency-based assessment is an
integral part of learner-centred education. The learner is asked to achieve and demonstrate
competence in academic and professional disciplines. Assessment may take a variety of forms, such
as: tests, demonstrations, papers, portfolios, performances, individual reports, group reports,
individual projects, group projects, and electronic presentations. Moreover, competence in an
academic or professional area may be demonstrated by the learner’s application of knowledge in
solving real or simulated problems.
Learner-centred
Education
Instructional Delivery
Service
Assessment
Participants Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
42
1.30
5.00
3.7855
0.77887
42
42
42
1.40
0.25
1.50
4.87
5.00
5.00
3.5929
3.2190
3.9245
0.75680
0.97486
0.75568
Table 4: Overall Descriptive Statistics for Inner Membrane of Senior Lecturers
Table 4 above shows the descriptive statistics for Inner Membrane at the level of operational
implementation for senior lecturers. The highest mean for inner membrane is assessment which is
3.9245 of which similar to the statistics of the head of departments and deputy deans’ samples. The
reason for this is as the above-mentioned reasons due to the fact that because in a learner-centred
education must retain the rigor and standards that traditionally has characterized higher education.
Emphasis is on the student's competence and proficiency in specific areas of academic and
professional knowledge, skills and understanding. Competency-based assessment is an integral part
of learner-centred education. The learner is asked to achieve and demonstrate competence in
academic and professional disciplines. Assessment may take a variety of forms, such as: tests,
demonstrations, papers, portfolios, performances, individual reports, group reports, individual
projects, group projects, and electronic presentations. Moreover, the competence in an academic or
professional area may be demonstrated by the learner’s application of knowledge in solving real or
simulated problems.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
27
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Outer Membrane
Outer Membrane consists of these criterions:
 LCE Guiding Principles
 LCE Best Practice Adoption
 Shared Responsibility for Learning
 Collaborative Future in Support of Learning
 Assessment Feedback Review Improvement (AFRI) Cycle
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Participants Minimum Maximum Mean
Learner Centred Education (LCE)
26
Guiding Practices
Learner Centred Education (LCE)
26
Best Practice Adoption
Shared Responsibility for Learning 26
Collaborative Future in Support of
26
Learning
Assessment
Feedback
Review
26
Improvement (AFRI) Cycle
Std. Deviation
1.50
4.90
3.2538
0.94783
1.80
5.20
3.6908
0.84916
1.30
4.80
3.5000
0.96416
1.20
4.62
3.3023
0.87920
1.50
5.00
3.5612
0.84897
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Outer Membrane of Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
Table 5 above shows the descriptive statistics for Outer Membrane. The highest mean for Outer
Membrane is Learner Centred Education (LCE) Best Practice Adoption. The mean is 3.6908
compared to the other variables. Overall participants preferred LCE Best Practice Adoption as the
highest score because of these following reasons:
1. Student-Faculty Contact
Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student
motivation and involvement. Faculty concern helps students get through rough times and keep
on working. Knowing a few faculty members well enhances students' intellectual commitment
and encourages them to think about their own values and future plans.
2. Cooperation Among Students
Learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race. Good learning, like
good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. In addition, working with
others often increases involvement in learning. Sharing one's own ideas and responding to
others' reactions improves thinking and deepens understanding.
3. Active Learning
Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just sitting in classes listening to
teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk
about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their
daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
28
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
4. Prompt Feedback
Knowing what participants know and don't know focuses learning. Students need appropriate
feedback on performance to benefit from courses. In getting started, students need help in
assessing existing knowledge and competence. In classes, students need frequent opportunities
to perform and receive suggestions for improvement. At various points during college, and at
the end, students need chances to reflect on what they have learned, what they still need to
know, and how to assess themselves.
5. Time on Task
Time plus energy equals learning and there is no substitute for time on task. Learning to use
one's time well is critical for students and professionals alike. Students need help in learning
effective time management. Allocating realistic amounts of time means effective learning for
students and effective teaching for faculty. An institution defines time expectations for students,
faculty, administrators, and other professional staff can establish the basis for high performance
for all.
6. Communicating High Expectations
High expectations are important for everyone -- for the poorly prepared, for those unwilling to
exert themselves, and for the bright and well motivated. Expecting students to perform well
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when lecturers and institutions hold high expectations for
them and make extra efforts.
7. Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning
There are many roads to learning. People bring different talents and styles of learning to
college. Brilliant students in the seminar room may be all thumbs in the lab or art studio.
Students rich in hands-on experience may not do so well with theory. Students need the
opportunity to show their talents and learn in ways that work for them. Students can be pushed
to learning in new ways that do not come so easily.
ii.
Senior Lecturers
Participants Minimum Maximum Mean
Learner Centred Education (LCE)
42
Guiding Practices
Learner Centred Education (LCE)
42
Best Practice Adoption
Shared Responsibility for Learning 42
Collaborative Future in Support of
42
Learning
Assessment
Feedback
Review
42
Improvement (AFRI) Cycle
Std. Deviation
1.50
4.90
3.4262
0.86857
1.60
5.60
3.5774
0.91682
1.30
4.80
3.5500
0.93737
1.20
4.70
3.2979
0.78802
1.10
5.00
3.4605
0.87631
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Outer Membrane of Senior Lecturers
Table 6 above shows the descriptive statistics for Outer Membrane. The highest mean for Outer
Membrane is Learner Centred Education (LCE) Best Practice Adoption similar to the statistics of the
Head of Departments and Deputy Deans. The mean is 3.5774 compared to the other variables. At the
operational implementation level, senior lecturers are preferred LCE Best Practice Adoption as the
highest score because of these following reasons in tandem with the reasons as above-mentioned for
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
29
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
the Head of Departments and Deputy Deans. This is very likely as the public universities plausibly
will be working on the same fundamentals of strategic thrusts and vision under the MoHE.
Findings on Assessing Malaysia Universities on Academic Excellence
Figure 7: Academic Excellence Model
The academic excellence of Malaysian Universities in this study is assessed based on Academic
Excellence Model as figure 7 above. In Malaysian universities, for academic excellence 9
important criterions are identified as important based upon the world standards criterions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Knowledge Capability
Knowledge Growth
Pursuit of Lifelong Learning
Excellence In Teaching & Learning
Seamless K&L Development, Transfer Dissemination
Knowledge Wider Impact
Global Learning Experience Impact
Creating Opportunity Employability
Supporting Learning Experience
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
30
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
i.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Participants
Knowledge Capability
26
Knowledge Growth
26
Pursuit of Lifelong Learning
26
Excellence In Teaching & Learning 26
Seamless
K&L
Development,
26
Transfer Dissemination
Knowledge Wider Impact
26
Global Learning Experience Impact 26
Creating
Opportunity
26
Employability
Supporting Learning Experience
26
Minimum
0.31
0.33
0.30
0.16
Maximum
0.96
0.96
0.84
0.80
Mean
0.6452
0.6252
0.6212
0.5572
Std.
Deviation
0.14908
0.15463
0.16518
0.16559
0.08
0.81
0.5252
0.18744
0.25
0.23
0.96
0.82
0.6400
0.5252
0.16973
0.18664
0.20
0.79
0.5880
0.16626
0.20
0.93
0.6056
0.16723
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Assessing Malaysia Universities on Academic Excellence of Head
of Departments and Deputy Deans
Table 7 shows the findings on the descriptive statistics for assessing Malaysian universities on
academic excellence of head of departments and deputy deans. From the total of 53 head of
departments and deputy deans, only 29 participants answer this section. The highest mean is on
Knowledge Capability which is 0.6452 or 64.52% and the lowest is Seamless K&L Development,
Transfer Dissemination which is 0.5252 or 52.52%. The knowledge capability is the highest because
the participants want to foster learning through research-informed teaching and assessment of high
international standings. Participants also want to develop in each student a mastery of a coherent body
of knowledge through systematic, disciplined study. Therefore, the strategies below will be likely to
be adopted by participants of this group at their own university through:
1. Leading students to understand the major conceptual paradigms, frameworks and theories that
relate to the subject matter studied.
2. Providing students with a suitable knowledge of the subject content, developed through a
programme of study characterized by coherence, depth, and progression.
3. Developing in students an ability to practice the appropriate methods and practical techniques
associated with the subject being studied.
4. Instilling in students a sense of the limitations, provisional nature and the constraints of
knowledge gained within a particular sphere.
5. Equipping students with a sense of the interconnectedness between different fields of
knowledge, and with the ability to integrate and synthesize perspectives gained from a range
of fields
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
31
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
ii. Senior Lecturers
Participants Minimum Maximum Mean
Knowledge Capability
29
Knowledge Growth
29
Pursuit of Lifelong Learning
29
Excellence In Teaching & Learning 29
Seamless
K&L
Development,
29
Transfer Dissemination
Knowledge Wider Impact
29
Global Learning Experience Impact 29
Creating Opportunity Employability 29
Supporting Learning Experience
29
Std. Deviation
0.27
0.21
0.29
0.26
1.00
0.99
0.96
0.91
0.6534
0.5831
0.6266
0.5614
0.17851
0.18881
0.17648
0.16595
0.24
0.95
0.5738
0.18413
0.21
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.94
1.04
0.98
0.5552
0.5897
0.5672
0.5814
0.19240
0.20432
.23424
0.21198
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Assessing Malaysia Universities on Academic Excellence of Senior
Lecturers
Table 8 shows the findings on the descriptive statistics for assessing Malaysian universities on
academic excellence. From the total of 44 senior lecturers, only 29 participants answer this section.
The highest mean for this section is on Knowledge Capability which is 0.6534 or 65.34% and the
lowest is Knowledge Wider Impact which is 0.5252 or 52.52%. Differ in the lowest statistics with the
Head of Departments and Deputy Deans. This is possible as at operational level, senior lecturers may
have a more focused role on how they define Academic Excellence. The knowledge for wider impact
may be restricted by the policies of higher management level and above making it lowest in the rank
but not least important for the senior lecturers. Nonetheless, the Malaysian Universities are having on
average 56% of academic excellence based on this study.
Concluding Remarks
As mapped by the programme, the building excellent academic leader is a developmental process and
the paper assist at ascertaining the value of having excellent academic leaders in building sustainable
development in higher education environment. The overall objective of the study is to assess the
status of excellent academic leaders in Malaysian HEIs, to put sensible and meaningful targets for
growth and development and to express leader’s aspirations and expectations for the future with
having to include the identified essential variables for being excellent academic leaders of which has
been documented in the analysis and findings. The statistics so far shows that Malaysian Universities
is on average scored 56% in terms of their academic excellence. As such the uniqueness of this study
stands in its ability to gather data from this pioneering programme, Building Excellent Academic
Leader Programme for developing future academic excellence of Malaysian Universities. The study in
its designed methodology via the content analysis method assist at enriching the data gathered for
building grounds in future developed leadership programmes in the country. Future study extended
the current study by adding the dimension of brand leadership to gain dynamic competitive status at a
global marketplace. This dimension is believed to be of importance in elevating leaders’ status to
create value making organizations of the future.
APPENDIX
DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
32
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Attendance of Participants
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
UIAM
4
7.5
7.5
7.5
UITM
9
17.0
17.0
24.5
UKM
1
1.9
1.9
26.4
UM
8
15.1
15.1
41.5
UMK
2
3.8
3.8
45.3
UMP
2
3.8
3.8
49.1
UMT
1
1.9
1.9
50.9
UNIMAP
1
1.9
1.9
52.8
UPM
10
18.9
18.9
71.7
USIM
2
3.8
3.8
75.5
USM
6
11.3
11.3
86.8
UTEM
4
7.5
7.5
94.3
UTHM
2
3.8
3.8
98.1
UTM
1
1.9
1.9
100.0
Total
53
100.0
100.0
List of Attendance for Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
Highest Participants
Lowest Participants
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
33
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
UiTM
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
UKM
4
9.1
9.1
20.5
UM
8
18.2
18.2
38.6
UMK
1
2.3
2.3
40.9
UMP
2
4.5
4.5
45.5
UPM
9
20.5
20.5
65.9
UPSI
2
4.5
4.5
70.5
USIM
1
2.3
2.3
72.7
USM
5
11.4
11.4
84.1
UTEM
3
6.8
6.8
90.9
UTHM
3
6.8
6.8
97.7
UTM
1
2.3
2.3
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
List of Attendance for Senior Lecturers
Highest Participants
Lowest Participants
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
34
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Integrity
ii)
Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
.
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
75%
15
28.3
51.7
51.7
100%
14
26.4
48.3
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
Missing System
24
45.3
Total
53
100.0
Valid
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Integrity of Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
9
17.0
31.0
31.0
High Important
5
9.4
17.2
48.3
Desirable
8
15.1
27.6
75.9
Not Required
7
13.2
24.1
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Integrity of Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
35
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
50%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
75%
20
45.5
45.5
56.8
100%
19
43.2
43.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Integrity of Senior Lecturers
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
11
25.0
25.0
25.0
High Importance
4
9.1
9.1
34.1
Desirable
14
31.8
31.8
65.9
Not Required
15
34.1
34.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Valid
Competency Development Prioritization for Integrity of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
36
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Emotional Intelligence
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
50%
10
18.9
34.5
34.5
75%
12
22.6
41.4
75.9
100%
7
13.2
24.1
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Emotional Intelligence of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
6
11.3
20.7
20.7
High Important
11
20.8
37.9
58.6
Desirable
10
18.9
34.5
93.1
Not Required
2
3.8
6.9
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Emotional Intelligence of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
37
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
iii.
Valid
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
3
6.8
6.8
6.8
50%
11
25.0
25.0
31.8
75%
25
56.8
56.8
88.6
100%
5
11.4
11.4
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Emotional Intelligence of Senior Lecturers
iv.
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
13
29.5
29.5
29.5
High Importance
8
18.2
18.2
47.7
Desirable
18
40.9
40.9
88.6
Not Required
5
11.4
11.4
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Emotional Intelligence of Senior
Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
38
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Self Management
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
1
1.9
3.4
3.4
50%
4
7.5
13.8
17.2
75%
23
43.4
79.3
96.6
100%
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Self Management of Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
6
11.3
20.7
20.7
High Important
11
20.8
37.9
58.6
Desirable
11
20.8
37.9
96.6
Not Required
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
Valid
Missing
Total
53
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Self Management of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
39
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
50%
12
27.3
27.3
27.3
75%
26
59.1
59.1
86.4
100%
6
13.6
13.6
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Self Management of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
top priority
12
27.3
27.3
27.3
high importance
13
29.5
29.5
56.8
desirable
11
25.0
25.0
81.8
not required
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Self Management of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
40
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Communication Skills
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
1
1.9
3.4
3.4
50%
7
13.2
24.1
27.6
75%
17
32.1
58.6
86.2
100%
4
7.5
13.8
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Communication Skills of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
14
26.4
48.3
48.3
High Important
6
11.3
20.7
69.0
Desirable
7
13.2
24.1
93.1
Not Required
2
3.8
6.9
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Communication Skills of Head of Departments
and Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
41
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
50%
13
29.5
29.5
40.9
75%
18
40.9
40.9
81.8
100%
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Communication Skills of Senior Lecturers
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
14
31.8
31.8
31.8
High Importance
14
31.8
31.8
63.6
Desirable
12
27.3
27.3
90.9
Not Required
4
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Valid
Competency Development Prioritization for Communication Skills of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
42
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
DRIVING RESULTS
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
1
1.9
3.4
3.4
50%
12
22.6
41.4
44.8
75%
12
22.6
41.4
86.2
100%
4
7.5
13.8
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Result Orientation of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
9
17.0
31.0
31.0
High Important
12
22.6
41.4
72.4
Desirable
7
13.2
24.1
96.6
Not Required
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Result Orientation of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
43
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25%
1
2.3
2.3
2.3
50%
13
29.5
29.5
31.8
75%
22
50.0
50.0
81.8
100%
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Result Orientation of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
12
27.3
27.3
27.3
High Importance
15
34.1
34.1
61.4
Desirable
14
31.8
31.8
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Result Orientation of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
44
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Accountability
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
50%
4
7.5
13.8
13.8
75%
16
30.2
55.2
69.0
100%
9
17.0
31.0
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Accountability of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
10
18.9
34.5
34.5
High Important
6
11.3
20.7
55.2
Desirable
10
18.9
34.5
89.7
Not Required
3
5.7
10.3
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Accountability of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
45
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
50%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
75%
27
61.4
61.4
72.7
100%
12
27.3
27.3
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Accountability of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
11
25.0
25.0
25.0
High Importance
11
25.0
25.0
50.0
Desirable
14
31.8
31.8
81.8
Not Required
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Accountability of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
46
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Decisiveness
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
1
1.9
3.4
3.4
50%
11
20.8
37.9
41.4
75%
14
26.4
48.3
89.7
100%
3
5.7
10.3
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Decisiveness of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
6
11.3
20.7
20.7
High Important
14
26.4
48.3
69.0
Desirable
9
17.0
31.0
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Decisiveness of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
47
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
1
2.3
2.3
2.3
50%
15
34.1
34.1
36.4
75%
20
45.5
45.5
81.8
100%
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Decisiveness of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
10
22.7
22.7
22.7
High Importance
12
27.3
27.3
50.0
Desirable
21
47.7
47.7
97.7
Not Required
1
2.3
2.3
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Decisiveness of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
48
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
LEADING PEOPLE
Teamwork
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
2
3.8
6.9
6.9
50%
2
3.8
6.9
13.8
75%
14
26.4
48.3
62.1
100%
11
20.8
37.9
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Teamwork of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
10
18.9
34.5
34.5
High Important
8
15.1
27.6
62.1
Desirable
6
11.3
20.7
82.8
Not Required
5
9.4
17.2
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Teamwork of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
49
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25%
3
6.8
6.8
6.8
50%
5
11.4
11.4
18.2
75%
26
59.1
59.1
77.3
100%
10
22.7
22.7
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Teamwork of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
10
22.7
22.7
22.7
High Importance
15
34.1
34.1
56.8
Desirable
15
34.1
34.1
90.9
Not Required
4
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Teamwork of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
50
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Developing Others
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
3
5.7
10.3
10.3
50%
8
15.1
27.6
37.9
75%
11
20.8
37.9
75.9
100%
7
13.2
24.1
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Developing Others of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
9
17.0
31.0
31.0
High Important
12
22.6
41.4
72.4
Desirable
7
13.2
24.1
96.6
Not Required
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
Total
53
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Developing Others of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
51
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
50%
15
34.1
34.1
45.5
75%
16
36.4
36.4
81.8
100%
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Developing Others of Senior Lecturers
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
13
29.5
29.5
29.5
High Importance
18
40.9
40.9
70.5
Desirable
8
18.2
18.2
88.6
Not Required
5
11.4
11.4
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Valid
Competency Development Prioritization for Developing Others of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
52
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Leveraging Diversity
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
1
1.9
3.4
3.4
50%
11
20.8
37.9
41.4
75%
16
30.2
55.2
96.6
100%
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Leveraging Diversity of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
7
13.2
24.1
24.1
High Important
14
26.4
48.3
72.4
Desirable
8
15.1
27.6
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Leveraging Diversity of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
53
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25%
4
9.1
9.1
9.1
50%
16
36.4
36.4
45.5
75%
15
34.1
34.1
79.5
100%
9
20.5
20.5
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Leveraging Diversity of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
7
15.9
15.9
15.9
High Importance
20
45.5
45.5
61.4
Desirable
13
29.5
29.5
90.9
Not Required
4
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Leveraging Diversity of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
54
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Impact & Influence
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
25%
5
9.4
17.2
17.2
50%
9
17.0
31.0
48.3
75%
10
18.9
34.5
82.8
100%
5
9.4
17.2
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Impact & Influence of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
9
17.0
31.0
31.0
High Important
15
28.3
51.7
82.8
Desirable
5
9.4
17.2
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Impact & Influence of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
55
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
50%
17
38.6
38.6
50.0
75%
15
34.1
34.1
84.1
100%
7
15.9
15.9
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Impact & Influence of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
13
29.5
29.5
29.5
High Importance
16
36.4
36.4
65.9
Desirable
12
27.3
27.3
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Impact & Influence of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
56
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
LEADING CHANGE
STRATEGIC THINKING
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
3
5.7
10.3
10.3
50%
9
17.0
31.0
41.4
75%
10
18.9
34.5
75.9
100%
7
13.2
24.1
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Strategic Thinking of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
14
26.4
48.3
48.3
High Important
8
15.1
27.6
75.9
Desirable
7
13.2
24.1
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Strategic Thinking of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
57
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
7
15.9
15.9
15.9
50%
13
29.5
29.5
45.5
75%
21
47.7
47.7
93.2
100%
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Strategic Thinking of Senior Lecturers
iii.
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
19
43.2
43.2
43.2
High Importance
14
31.8
31.8
75.0
Desirable
8
18.2
18.2
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Strategic Thinking of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
58
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Innovation
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
3
5.7
10.3
10.3
50%
13
24.5
44.8
55.2
75%
9
17.0
31.0
86.2
100%
4
7.5
13.8
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Innovation of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
9
17.0
31.0
31.0
High Important
15
28.3
51.7
82.8
Desirable
4
7.5
13.8
96.6
Not Required
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Innovation of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
59
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
50%
17
38.6
38.6
50.0
75%
16
36.4
36.4
86.4
100%
6
13.6
13.6
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Innovation of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
14
31.8
31.8
31.8
High Importance
16
36.4
36.4
68.2
Desirable
11
25.0
25.0
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Innovation of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
60
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Creative Thinking
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
25%
4
7.5
13.8
13.8
50%
8
15.1
27.6
41.4
75%
12
22.6
41.4
82.8
100%
5
9.4
17.2
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Creative Thinking of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
14
26.4
48.3
48.3
High Important
8
15.1
27.6
75.9
Desirable
6
11.3
20.7
96.6
Not Required
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Creative Thinking of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
61
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
4
9.1
9.1
9.1
50%
15
34.1
34.1
43.2
75%
17
38.6
38.6
81.8
100%
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Creative Thinking of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
16
36.4
36.4
36.4
High Importance
13
29.5
29.5
65.9
Desirable
12
27.3
27.3
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Creative Thinking of Senior Lecturer
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
62
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Adaptability
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
50%
7
13.2
24.1
24.1
75%
14
26.4
48.3
72.4
100%
8
15.1
27.6
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Adaptability for Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
8
15.1
27.6
27.6
High Important
8
15.1
27.6
55.2
Desirable
9
17.0
31.0
86.2
Not Required
4
7.5
13.8
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Adaptability for Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
63
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
1
2.3
2.3
2.3
50%
10
22.7
22.7
25.0
75%
27
61.4
61.4
86.4
100%
6
13.6
13.6
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Adaptability of Senior Lecturers
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
7
15.9
15.9
15.9
v.
High Importance
19
43.2
43.2
59.1
vi.
Desirable
14
31.8
31.8
90.9
Not Required
4
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
iii.
iv. Valid
vii.
viii.
Competency Development Prioritization for Adaptability of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
64
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Continuous Learning
i.
Head of Departments
Frequency
Percent
25%
1
1.9
3.4
3.4
50%
2
3.8
6.9
10.3
75%
15
28.3
51.7
62.1
100%
11
20.8
37.9
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Continuous Learning of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
8
15.1
27.6
27.6
High Important
9
17.0
31.0
58.6
Desirable
7
13.2
24.1
82.8
Not Required
5
9.4
17.2
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Continuous Learning of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
65
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
50%
6
13.6
13.6
13.6
75%
22
50.0
50.0
63.6
100%
16
36.4
36.4
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Continuous Learning of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
8
18.2
18.2
18.2
High Importance
15
34.1
34.1
52.3
Desirable
11
25.0
25.0
77.3
Not Required
10
22.7
22.7
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Continuous Learning of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
66
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
BUSINESS SAGACITY & SCHOLASTIC LEADERSHIP
Scholastic Leadership
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
3
5.7
10.3
10.3
50%
8
15.1
27.6
37.9
75%
14
26.4
48.3
86.2
100%
4
7.5
13.8
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Scholastic Leadership of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
11
20.8
37.9
37.9
High Important
9
17.0
31.0
69.0
Desirable
8
15.1
27.6
96.6
Not Required
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Scholastic Leadership of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
67
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
3
6.8
6.8
6.8
50%
15
34.1
34.1
40.9
75%
19
43.2
43.2
84.1
100%
7
15.9
15.9
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Scholastic Leadership of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
17
38.6
38.6
38.6
High Importance
10
22.7
22.7
61.4
Desirable
14
31.8
31.8
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Scholastic Leadership of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
68
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Organisational Awareness
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
50%
11
20.8
37.9
37.9
75%
14
26.4
48.3
86.2
100%
4
7.5
13.8
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Organisational Awareness of Head of Departments
and Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
9
17.0
31.0
31.0
High Important
12
22.6
41.4
72.4
Desirable
8
15.1
27.6
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Organisational Awareness of Head of
Departments and Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
69
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
1
2.3
2.3
2.3
50%
17
38.6
38.6
40.9
75%
19
43.2
43.2
84.1
100%
7
15.9
15.9
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Organisational Awareness of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
10
22.7
22.7
22.7
High Importance
19
43.2
43.2
65.9
Desirable
11
25.0
25.0
90.9
Not Required
4
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Organisational Awareness of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
70
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Customer Service Orientation
i.
Head of Departments and Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
50%
6
11.3
20.7
20.7
75%
17
32.1
58.6
79.3
100%
6
11.3
20.7
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Customer Service Orientation of Head of
Departments and Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
9
17.0
31.0
31.0
High important
10
18.9
34.5
65.5
Desirable
10
18.9
34.5
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Customer Service Orientation of Head of
Departments and Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
71
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
4
9.1
9.1
9.1
50%
15
34.1
34.1
43.2
75%
19
43.2
43.2
86.4
100%
6
13.6
13.6
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Customer Service Orientation of Senior Lecturers
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Top Priority
10
22.7
22.7
22.7
High Priority
17
38.6
38.6
61.4
Desirable
12
27.3
27.3
88.6
Not Required
5
11.4
11.4
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Customer Service Orientation of Senior
Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
72
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Resource Management
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
25%
2
3.8
6.9
6.9
50%
14
26.4
48.3
55.2
75%
12
22.6
41.4
96.6
100%
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Resource Management of Head of Departments and
Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
12
22.6
41.4
41.4
High Important
12
22.6
41.4
82.8
Desirable
5
9.4
17.2
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Resource Management of Head of Departments
and Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
73
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
50%
18
40.9
40.9
52.3
75%
14
31.8
31.8
84.1
100%
7
15.9
15.9
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Resource Management of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
10
22.7
22.7
22.7
High Importance
21
47.7
47.7
70.5
Desirable
12
27.3
27.3
97.7
Not Required
1
2.3
2.3
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Resource Management of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
74
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Partnering
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
2
3.8
6.9
6.9
50%
10
18.9
34.5
41.4
75%
13
24.5
44.8
86.2
100%
4
7.5
13.8
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Partnering of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
14
26.4
48.3
48.3
High Important
7
13.2
24.1
72.4
Desirable
8
15.1
27.6
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Partnering of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
75
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25%
9
20.5
20.5
20.5
50%
17
38.6
38.6
59.1
75%
15
34.1
34.1
93.2
100%
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Partnering of Senior Lecturers
Frequency
Percent
Top Priority
16
36.4
36.4
36.4
High Importance
14
31.8
31.8
68.2
Desirable
11
25.0
25.0
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Valid
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Competency Development Prioritization for Partnering of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
76
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Concern for Political Impact
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
25%
4
7.5
13.8
13.8
50%
13
24.5
44.8
58.6
75%
10
18.9
34.5
93.1
100%
2
3.8
6.9
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Concern for Political Impact of Head of
Departments and Deputy Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Top Priority
6
11.3
20.7
20.7
High Important
13
24.5
44.8
65.5
Desirable
9
17.0
31.0
96.6
Not Required
1
1.9
3.4
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Concern for Political Impact of Head of
Departments and Deputy Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
77
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
5
11.4
11.4
11.4
50%
23
52.3
52.3
63.6
75%
12
27.3
27.3
90.9
100%
4
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Concern for Political Impact of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
8
18.2
18.2
18.2
High Importance
13
29.5
29.5
47.7
Desirable
19
43.2
43.2
90.9
Not Required
4
9.1
9.1
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Concern for Political Impact of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
78
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Networking
i.
Head of Departments & Deputy Deans
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
25%
1
1.9
3.4
3.4
50%
14
26.4
48.3
51.7
75%
7
13.2
24.1
75.9
100%
7
13.2
24.1
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Valid
Missing
Total
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Networking of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
13
24.5
44.8
44.8
High Important
7
13.2
24.1
69.0
Desirable
9
17.0
31.0
100.0
Total
29
54.7
100.0
System
24
45.3
53
100.0
Total
Competency Development Prioritization for Networking of Head of Departments and Deputy
Deans
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
79
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ii.
ISBN : 9780974211428
Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25%
9
20.5
20.5
20.5
50%
13
29.5
29.5
50.0
75%
14
31.8
31.8
81.8
100%
8
18.2
18.2
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Degree of Competence Effectiveness for Networking of Senior Lecturers
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Top Priority
16
36.4
36.4
36.4
High Importance
14
31.8
31.8
68.2
Desirable
11
25.0
25.0
93.2
Not Required
3
6.8
6.8
100.0
Total
44
100.0
100.0
Competency Development Prioritization for Networking of Senior Lecturers
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
80
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
REFERENCES
Brandes, D. and P. Ginnis (1986). A Guide to Student Centred Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenged in nursing and health
sciences.Nursing and Health Sciences 1, 241–247.
BusinessPerform (2008). http://www.businessperform.com-June
Commonwealth of Australia, APS Commission (2004). Senior Executive Leadership Capability
(SELC) Framework . www.apsc.gov.au/selc/
Faculty Stakeholder Group (2005). “The Primary Purpose for Restructuring Arizona’s Universities:
Preparing for Learner-Centred Education in 2020. A study on Learner-Centred Education,
January 2005
Gibbs, G. (1995). Assessing Student Centred Courses. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and
Development.
Glaser J.E. (2006). The DNA of Leadership: Leverage Your Instincts to Communicate-Differentiate
Innovate. http://books.google.com.my/books
Harden, R.M. and J. Crosby (2000). AMEE Guide No 20: The good teacher is more than a lecturer the
twelve roles of the teacher. Medical Teacher 22(4), 334–347.
Higher Education Leadership Academy & Zairi Institute (2010). Building Excellent Academic
Leaders for Sustainable Development Programme. Building the DNA to Become a Leader in an
Academic Environment , February 2010
Higher Education Leadership Academy & Zairi Institute (2010). Building Excellent Academic
Leaders for Sustainable Development Programme. How to be Learner Centric, Market Focused
and Create the Right Environment, April, 2010
Hoppe, S.L. (2003). “Identifying and Nurturing Potential Academic Leaders”. New Directions for
Higher Education, no.124 (Winter)
Lea, S. J. D. Stephenson, and J. Troy (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student Centred
Learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334.
Lees, K., Christian, J., and Smith, D. (1994). “Leadership in Schools and Higher Education:
Improving Organizational Structures, School Community Partnership”. Theoretical Leadership
Frameworks, Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Annual Meeting,
October 6-8th
Martin, J.L. (1993). “Academic Deans: An Analysis of Effective Academic Leadership at Research
Universities”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA, April
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (2010). Shaping Minds Building Leadership 2010
Programmes. Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKEPT)
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2007). The National Higher Education Action Plan 20072010. Triggering Higher Education Transformation August 27, 2007
Rogers, C. R. (1983b). The politics of education. In Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Company.
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
81
2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Rowley J. (1997). "Academic leaders: made or born?”. Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 29
Iss: 3, pp.78 – 84
Uma Sekaran (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach Fourth Edition.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. U.K
Zairi. M. (2009). Total Transformational Thinking in Academic Leadership. European Centre for
Best Practice Management, 2009 pp.4 para 1
June 27-28, 2011
Cambridge, UK
82