Search for Academic Excellence in Public Universities
through Multi-level Leadership Practices:
Lessons Learnt from East Asia
Presenter: Ngo Tuyet Mai,
School of Education
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Why University Leadership?
• “University leadership matters.”
(e.g., Fullan, 2005; Hallinger, 2007; Millett, 1978; Mulford, 2010;
Ramsden, 1998).
• “Good leadership is conceivably the most practical and costeffective strategy known to organizations … It can transform the
commonplace and average into the remarkable and excellent…It
creates an environment for better academic work.”
(Ramsden, 1998, p.363)
“The changing landscape of higher education requires new thinking
and updated leadership practices.” (ADB, 2012)
Why Leadership Actions?
National Government, universities and their sub-organizational
units (departments) are ‘corporate actors’ who can act and need
to act. He or she can act in a certain function or from a certain
‘corporate’ position.”
(Binsbergen et al., 1994, p.223)
Why Leadership Actions?
- “Leadership is the particular actions of leaders…Leadership
resides in the eye of the beholder (subjectivist/interpretivist)
or in the actions of leaders (objectivist/functionalist)”
(Middlehurst, 1993, p.19)
- “Organizations’ intelligence is seen in leaders’ actions”
(Hanson, 2001, p.644).
“Leaders must be ‘people of actions’”
(Ramsden, 1998, p.9).
Leaders’ Actions in University Contexts
Actions concerning
PRIMARY processes
(academic tasks)
Actions concerning
SECONDARY
processes
(supportive tasks)
Why Incentives Promoting Actions?
• The function of university leadership is to provide [promote]
incentives for academics to achieve academic excellence
(Kehm & Lazendorf (2007, p.171)
• “Any success of public actions depends on the adequacy of
incentives that they offer to individual units”
(Varghese, 2004, p.30)
•
“Successful reforms in higher education in the recent past
were those with incentives to the academic staff”
(Zheng, 1997)
Why Multi-level Leadership?
MACRO DECISION LEVEL
(Government/Ministry
Leadership Actions
MESO IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL
(Executive University Leadership
Actions)
MICRO IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL
(Departmental Leadership
Actions )
A Multi-level Model
Of
University Leadership
Presentation Focus
 Multi-level University Leadership Actions of Promoting
Incentives for Academic Excellence in Practice:
Empirical Case Studies
 Implications for Practice: East Asian Lessons for
Vietnam
 Concluding Remarks
Key Research Questions
WHAT do macro, meso and micro leaders in
East Asian flagship public universities do in
promoting incentives towards achieving
universities’ academic excellence?
 WHAT can Vietnam learn from other East
Asian public university’s multi level leadership
practices?
University Leadership In Practice: An Empirical Study (2012)
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Research Approach
Cross-national comparative studies
Research Method
Document Analysis
Semi-structured Interviews (in English & Vietnamese language)
Questionnaire Survey
Research Site
4 Field trips to 4 flagship public universities in East Asia
Field Trip Time
Frame
January 2012 (one week/site x 4 sites = 4 weeks long)
Research Participants
Total: 18 Vice Chancellors, DVC in 4 public universities
(3 in Vietnam , 5 in Hong Kong , 5 in Thailand , 5 in China )
Research Focus
-Leaders’ incentive promoting ACTIONS towards achieving the
common goal of academic excellence.
Research Purpose
- Draw practical lessons for Public University Leaders in Vietnam
Explanatory
Framework
- Institutional Theory (Scott, 2004)
- Action –centered Leadership (Adair, 1968)
METHODOLOGY CHART
Data Collection and Sources
National
Documents
University
Documents
Interviews
Qualitative Database
Quantitative Database
Thematic Analysis:
Using Nvivo 9
Evidence of
Macro
Leaders’
Actions
Evidence of
Meso
Leaders’
Actions
Questionnaire
Survey
Statistical Analysis:
SPSS 20
Descriptive
statistics
Scale Alpha
Reliability
Evidence of Micro Leaders’ Actions
A Multi-level Model of Leadership Actions
Research Sites in East Asia: 4 Flagship Public Universities
COUNTRY RANKING
QS ASIAN RANKING
WORLD RANKING
The University of
Hong Kong (Hong
Kong)
1st
3rd
151-200
Peking University
(China)
1st
6th
151-200
The Mahidol
University (Thailand)
1st
38th
151-200
Not applicable
Not applicable
Hanoi University
(Vietnam)
Not applicable
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top400.html
Macro Leaders’ Actions: Analysis of Government Documents and Websites
#
Assertions
1.
Govern
ment
Action
s
Governments
in TL, CN and
HK has more
specific and
focused
actions to
place
emphasis on
academic
excellence
(performance
based
funding/rewa
rds),
promoting
good
governance,
not
micromanage
Evidence in National Case Study
Macro Leader
Representing
Government
Cross-national
Levels of
Government
Control
Nature of
Actions
Medium Low
Command and
Control +
Negotiation
CHINA: Policies + Project 211,
Project 988; Action Plan for
Invigorating Education Towards
21st Century”
Ministry of
Education
(MOE)
HONG KONG: Policies +
Consultation, Review Process with
Recommendation to shape the
future, funding incentives
University
Grants
Committee
(UGC)
Low
Negotiation and
Persuasion
THAILAND: Policies +
Performance Agreement, strategic
support activities, block grant
from MOE and flexibility for
universities to self-generate funds
Office of Higher
Education
Commission
(OHEC)
Low
Negotiation and
Persuasion
VIETNAM: HERA, policies +
meeting + reporting
Prime Ministers
and Ministry of
Education and
Training
(MOET)
High
Purely command
and control
Meso Leaders’ Actions: Analysis of Interviews with Executive Leaders
#
Assertions
2.
Univer
sity
Executi
ve
Leader
s’
Action
s
Top leaders
in Public
universities
in TL, CN
and HK
takes more
specific and
consistent
actions
than their
counterpart
s in VN
Actions are
more
individuals
needs
oriented in
TL, CN, and
HK
Evidence in National Case Study
Levels of
Specificity
CHINA : faculty performance evaluation/assessment; set targets to fight for
resources, promotion policies for high performing academics, “free
treatment” programs for young teachers, teaching competition, support
programs for under-performing teachers, special programs to help young
researchers do research, invite university lecturers world wide to university
campus
Medium
HONG KONG: set focused goals (VC), draft policy papers sent to university
senate, post strategic plan and priorities on websites, staff development
program, encourage staff to do things that are innovative, academic
excellence awards, providing housing for staff, organize workshops, involve
academics into decision making
High
THAILAND: VC pay visits to all 33 departments (2 departments/week, 15
weeks, Performance Agreement (PA) and PA review, Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle,
Dean’s meetings every 2 weeks, topic-based two day retreat, Dean’s 15
minute video brief, publication rate negotiation with teachers, provide
teachers with additional income opportunities, grants for young researchers
High
VIETNAM: Talking with Teachers “làm công tác tư tưởng với giáo viên”,
Inspecting teaching time, Reporting, Set requirements (quantitative goals),
Deans’ meeting (every semester), rectors, vice rector attending
Department’s meeting once a year
Low
Cross-National Comparison:
University Leaders Actions in Focus
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
18
60
55
67
Individual Focus
70
Team Focus
Task Focus
10
15
7
Micro Leaders’ Readiness for Actions:
Analysis of Questionnaire Survey
Case
study
N
Minimu
m
Maximum
Mean
Levels of
Readiness
Assertion #
VIETNAM
81
2.0
3.6
2.87
Lowest
CHINA
83
3.0
5.0
3.65
Medium
THAILAND
80
3.0
5.0
4.12
High
HONG
KONG
86
3.0
5.0
4.44
Highest
3. CN, HK,
and TL’s
Department
al leaders
are more
ready for
leadership
actions of
promoting
incentives
for
academic
excellence
Note: 5 point Likert Scale, 10 item measurement scale
Cross-National Departmental Leaders’
Readiness for Incentive Promoting Actions
Implication 1: Policy Initiatives and
Leadership Actions
• Government Policy Initiatives: Regulations by
Directives vs. Regulations by incentives
• University Policy Initiatives
PLUS
Specific, focused, strategic leadership actions
Establish a database of effective multi-level
university leadership practices
Implication 2 for Leadership Practice
Achieving the
TASK
Coordinate
and foster the
work team as
a whole
Building
and
maintaining
the TEAM
Direct the job
to be done
(Task
Structuring)
Developing
the
INDIVIDUAL
Support and
review the
individual people
doing it
Implication 3: Financial Incentives and
Social Incentives
• 'social incentives' (high appreciations/regards)
• 'financial incentives' (money rewards)
(Kehm & Lazendorf, 2007, p.157)
“Incentives should be individualized to the greatest
extent possible given the nature of the education
organization”
(Windham, 1997, p.47)
Implication 4: Strategic Leadership
Actions
- A single action can be multi-functional (Adair, 1988)
- “A single input by a leader can have multiple outcomes” (Mulford,
2010, p.187)
- Actions balancing 3 inter-connected needs (1) the task to be
performed, (2) the team responsible for performing them, (3) the
individuals in that team (Adair, 1988, p.1)
- Success, therefore, will depend on which elements and in what
sequence the education leader chooses to spend time and
attention on (Mulford, 2007, 2010).
Wrap-up: Practical Lessons Learnt From
The Empirical Study
• INSTRUMENTS OF AUTHORITY:
- Increasing Autonomy
- Empower more, control less
•
-
INSTRUMENTS OF DIRECT ACTIONS:
Individual needs focused
Focused Efforts on Academic Goals,
A System of Coordinated and Collective Leadership
Actions
Concluding Remarks
• “It may be a mistake to believe that all
leadership actions must come from ‘leaders’”
(Birnbaum,1989, p.134)
• “The elements for successful university
leadership involve being contextually
“literate”, organizationally “savvy” and
leadership “smart”.”
(Bill Mulford, 2010, p.187)