The Impact of Leadership in Higher Education

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Leadership, Learning Climate, and Culture
Innovative Leadership and Institutional Success
Leadership and Human Resource in Institutions
Forms of Leadership and Academic Achievement
Leader’s Personal Intelligence and Progress of Learning Institutions
Planning Techniques and Institutional Progress
Conclusion and Recommendation
References

Abstract

Leadership is a complex concept of management that varies from one organization to another. In organizations such as learning institutions, leadership has significant influence on educational outcomes. As the demand for higher learning increases among aspiring students, the need to have efficient leadership within higher learning institutions is augmenting. The findings of this literature review reveal that leadership does not only influence the institutional workforce or faculty through rules and regulations, but it also influences developing relationships that are important in shaping the learning process among students.

Motivation of staff, effective planning of resources of resources, maintenance of a positive learning environment for students, and the creation of a favourable working environment for the faculty are aspects of leadership, which foster growth and development of learning institutions. As a recommendation, modern leaders should comprehend that higher learning institutions are the pinnacle of the learning process, where students need to gain theoretical knowledge and empirical experience in an advanced perspective. In this view, leaders must ensure that their learning institutions keep abreast with technological and innovative advancements.

Introduction

The global educational paradigm has been the foremost social institution, where students realize their talents, develop means of nurturing their skills, and enhance their professional development through a series of theoretical and empirical courses (Lewis & Murphy, 2008). Effective achievement of education among learners and progress of institutions, however, depends on several issues within the institutional settings. Gronn (2003), given their importance in generating human resources, institutions of higher learning require effective leadership.

Recent decades have witnessed an increase in the reservations regarding the performance of learners in the higher institutions since most institutions are constantly failing to provide students with adequate knowledge and skills that are essential for their professional practice (Smyth, 2008). Fundamentally, leadership is a critical component in higher learning institutions because a form of institutional leadership significantly determines or contributes to the performance of students.

As the demand for educational services in higher learning institutions have increased among students, who focus on enhancing their professional practices with the objective of improving organizations, pressure continues to mount on institutional leaders. Moreover, Smithee (2012) states that educational globalization has extended its efforts towards embracing new forms of administrative ideas, since institutions have remained characterized by multiculturalism in the society of learners and institutional instructors (Smyth, 2008).

With the rise of culturally blended higher institutions of learning, which possess learners and workers of different social backgrounds and nurtured with different cultural norms, the urge for leadership competence in these institutions is increasing. Although researchers have been focusing on the direct influence of lecturers on the performance of learners in higher institutions, knowledge about the impact of institutional leadership remains scarce (Smyth, 2008). Hence, this literature review investigates and discusses a continuum of issues that associate with leadership and shed more light on the perceived influence of leadership in higher learning institutions.

Leadership, Learning Climate, and Culture

A major notion regarding the influence of institutional leadership in higher institutions of learning is that varsity and college administrators are normally responsible for policy development and implementation (Macneil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). Most learning institutions have visions, missions and strategies that diverse forms of administration are responsible for formulating and implementing through influencing the teaching staff and the learners. Just as in corporate organizations, mission, vision, and strategies are normally part of the education culture, which is integral in the success of learning institutions (Smithee, 2012).

Leadership in higher institutions is influential through understanding of institutional culture, which subsequently influences the behaviours of administrators in their practice of implementing new ideas, and effective formulation and implementation of policies, laws, and regulations. Ngurruwutthun and Stewart (1996) argue that institutional leadership influences academic achievement and institutional progress since the administrators have the ability to encourage learners and staff to improve learning outcomes.

In a recent study, Macneil, Prater, and Busch (2009) sought to investigate the association between institutional culture and leadership and examine their contribution towards the effective progress of learning institutions. The study examined whether exemplary, recognized, and licenced learning institutions in their institutional culture and climate. The study sampled 29 learning institutions located within suburban districts and used results from 24,684 students, which teachers rated according to the ten dimensions of the Organizational Health Inventory (OHI) performance model (Macneil, Prater, & Busch, 2009).

The ten key dimensions of OHI consist of “goal focus, communication adequacy, optimal power equalization, resource utilization, cohesiveness, morale, innovativeness, autonomy, adaptation, and problem-solving adequacy” (Macneil, Prater, & Busch, 2009, p. 78). About 1727 teachers in each of the participating learning institutions, who completed the survey, rated the perceived organizational health of their teaching units based on the OHI dimensions.

In the OHI rating, exemplary and recognized learning institutions outperformed licenced institutions of higher learning in terms of the goal focus and adaptation dimensions (Macneil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). This implies that through proper administration and leadership, goal focus and adaptation towards change is relatively high in exemplary and recognized institutions compared to acceptable institutions. Most important is to understand that the direct influence of leadership in learning climate and culture becomes eminent when administrators demonstrate goal focus that encourages effective transformation and progress in institutions (Ngurruwutthun & Stewart, 1996). These findings suggest that goal focus and adaptation demonstrate the aspects of a favourable learning environment and supportive culture that are important to the academic achievement among students.

Innovative Leadership and Institutional Success

Just as in corporate organizations, innovation has become an important aspect of leadership in learning institutions, since administrators are directly responsible for the formulation of governance principles (Lewis & Murphy, 2008). In higher learning institutions, leadership is important in the decision making process as innovation assists in strategic institutional management that is integral in general educational progress. The process of decision making in higher learning institutions involves institutional trustees, administrators, deans, and other program directors.

According to Smithee (2012, p. 2), these groups of individuals are decision makers, who “have decision making power to initiate and advance ideas, and programs, make policies, and to allocate resources.” Innovative governance in higher learning institutions where students require ample learning resources, the demand for learning and social rights is important in student performance and staff satisfaction. According to Gronn (2003), the capacity of administrators to make informed decisions and integrate innovative ideas into the management system significantly influences the progress of institutions in terms of staff engagement and performance of learners.

People have always perceived higher education institutions as producers of new technologies and advanced knowledge that make them famous in nurturing competent graduates (Zhu & Engels, 2013). Today, some higher learning institutions have faced pressure to maintain such responsibilities and they have additionally faced expectations to remain platforms of nurturing innovations and improvements within societies. as leaders understand modernism and the global changes that influence social and economic lives of individuals, managing innovation and embracing transformative ideas is very important (MacBeath, 2007).

Innovative and transformative leaders or administrators tend to embrace and nurture talents in their institutions that subsequently spur innovation and modernization among learners. Apart from nurturing talents in learning institutions, innovative and transformative leadership is important since it assists in understanding the techniques of learning networks and teaching techniques that support professional development of lecturers and performance of students (Lewis & Murphy, 2008). Effective and innovative leadership is essential in transforming instructional planning and pedagogical arrangements in universities.

Researchers have started viewing institutional leadership from a broader dimension apart from simply managing institutional human resource and setting regulations for students to follow. Zhu and Engels (2013) carried out a recent educational management study that aimed at investigating the perceptions of instructors and students on organizational culture and instructional innovations within their universities. The study also investigated the perceptions of teachers and learners regarding student-centred learning and collaborative learning strategies and the impact of innovative educational technologies in universities (Zhu & Engels, 2013).

In the survey of 1051 Chinese students and teachers, the major findings indicate that the culture of the learning institutions affects how teachers and students perceive innovations, respond to innovations, and adopt new changes in the realm of education (Zhu & Engels, 2013). Institutional shared values, philosophies, and assumptions influence the attitudes and behaviours of teachers and students towards instructional innovation.

Innovation involves the creation, integration, and execution of ideas that are useful and novel to the institutional development. When institutional administrators embrace innovation and implement innovative ideas in the pedagogical or instructional delivery strategies, the performance of learners improves (Zhu & Engels, 2013). Within institutional culture, culture of innovation through the support of institutional leaders may occur when pedagogy and instructional delivery becomes efficient, for the betterment of academic progress in institutions of higher learning (Smithee, 2012).

According to Zhu and Engels (2013), “as educational institutions are the cradle of science and innovation, being innovative and responsive to innovation are critical strategies for an organization undergoing change (p. 4).” However, the manner in which learning institutions approach or respond to innovation and modern technologies is important for learning largely depends on the administrators and their policies towards transformation and changes. The innovation or idea implementation involves the physical or practical process where administrators play an integral role in determining the successful execution of a desired innovative plan.

Leadership and Human Resource in Institutions

Human resource is important to any modern organization since it has a direct impact on organizational achievement (Lewis & Murphy, 2008). The success of learners depends on a continuum of human resource factors that directly influence academic achievement. Lecturers, institutional instructors or college faculty members comprise a group of staff that directly engages with students and responsible for offering academic assistance to learners through their instructional planning and delivery techniques (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008).

The way administrators of institutions promote professional development, innovation, motivation, and harmonization of faculty members determines the progress and achievement of institutional goals and objectives. Instructors will remain focused towards embracing positive development, proper pedagogical planning and development, and effective instructional strategies.

Motivation comes in two forms known as extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is the use of tangible resources to commend, recognize, and compensate performers in a workplace, while intrinsic motivation is the use of social and physiological influence to build innate morale among the workforce. Universities that seek to motivate faculty extrinsically, use financial rewards, job promotions, recognition rewards, increased remunerations, and enhanced compensation packages (Randall, 2008).

Such treatments impel competition among faculty members and enhance professional motivation, which subsequently benefits learners through increased academic performance. In their study of the perception of 1051 students and teachers of the instructional innovations, collaborative learning, and organizational culture, Zhu and Engels (2014) brought significant discoveries. These researchers concluded that, “hierarchical structures, lack of encouragement and reward, lack of open communication, competition for resources, and workload are main restraining forces for change in some Chinese universities” (Zhu & Engels, 2008, p. 12). Such notions imply that the approach of institutional leadership towards motivation is crucial.

Intrinsic motivation is very important to the modern workforce that seems well networked and advanced in terms of social interaction and human rights (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). The main elements of intrinsic motivation that institutional leadership can offer to its committed and performing workforce are inspirational motivation, professional development opportunities, psychological guidance, ethical governance, and collective decision-making (Harrison, 2013).

Institutional administrators, who offer inspirational and intrinsic motivation to the institutional faculty members, give morale to the working staff in their professional practices, increase staff commitment towards maintaining organizational vision and targets, and improve staff wellness (Randall, 2008). The increased student motivation and improved performance are dependent on the support that administrators and directors of higher learning institutions provide. Randall (2008) believes that faculty members, who receive institutional support to engage in professional development, often demonstrate increased vitality, portray enhanced teaching innovations, offer updated pedagogy, and provide improved scholarly learning, all of which transform learning experience of learners.

The rapid change in human resource practices from the conformist management practices that dwelled on hierarchical control and authoritative leadership seem to change the perceptions of workforce towards the desired leadership (Randall, 2008). Motivation is an aspect that leaders must understand to be able to attract an experienced workforce and retain them effectively. The motivated instructors tend to replicate this treatment to the students and create an enabling environment with the culture of motivation.

Through replicated motivation of students, learning becomes enjoyable and fascinating, and subsequently increases educational outcomes among students. According to Harrison (2011), “instructors who display idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation can positively influence student behaviours, perceptions, and learning outcomes by providing support” (p. 95). Staff motivation is a modern practice that also plays an important role in maintaining modernity among the workforce.

As social control and support are part of human resource and management, proper understanding of the principles that relate to handling of social aspects of workforce and staff, principals, and administrators would effectively control the varsity staffs (Smyth, 2008). One undeniable element of successful organizations is teamwork and cooperation, which leaders have the direct responsibility to initiate and promote through their leadership techniques (Zhu & Engels, 2013).

The ability of institutional leaders to build a work environment that fosters open communication, cooperation, and teamwork, is important because the modern workforce seems to rely on social platforms and coordination to enhance their professional competence (Zhu & Engels, 2013). The responsibility of educational administrators is to create learning communities and nurture learners as a way of providing a favourable learning environment for support educational growth and development (Smyth, 2008). Social presence deems essential in learning and professional growth for students or faculties are capable of sharing knowledge that becomes important in student learning or professional enhancement in the faculty.

Forms of Leadership and Academic Achievement

The influence of leadership in higher learning institutions comes into play when the management behaviour and leadership style become imperative in determining the progress of faculty members and learning outcomes (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). There are different forms and styles of leadership that managers or administrators can use in their supervision. In examining the influence of leaders in the progress of higher learning institutions, researchers have focused on unveiling the impact of different forms of institutional leadership and their effectiveness in faculty performance and academic achievement (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008).

To validate such perceptions, the empirical research investigated the influence and association of transformational leadership of instructors on the student learning outcomes. Harrison (2011) used a multi-factor leadership questionnaire to examine the opinion of students regarding the impact of transformational and transactional leadership on student outcomes and cognitive learning.

Analysis of the relationship that exist between transformational and transactional using regression analysis model revealed important information about the role of educational achievement in leadership. According to Harrison (2011), “the primary research goal was to determine the nature of these relationships and which type of instructor behaviours serve as the most significant predictors of student educational outcomes” (p. 109). The study hypothesized that transformational leadership behaviour significantly has a great impact on the students’ grade, cognitive learning, affective learning, and social desirability.

In the findings, Harrison (2011) notes that instructor transformational leadership approach significantly influence learning and outcomes since such leadership behaviours determine cognitive abilities of students in online courses. The findings also proved to be consistent with the literature that established the relationship between transformational leadership behaviour and cognitive learning in traditional classrooms (Harrison, 2011). Such notions indicate that the form of leadership that instructors or administrators use has an influence on learning and student outcomes.

The study hypothesized that the transformational leadership correlates with the effectiveness of the learning process and the significance of learning outcomes (Harrison, 2011). The results seem positive on the opinion that transformational leadership consists of individualized consideration and emotional connection between learners and instructors, and therefore, affective learning occurs through such means (Schneider & Burton, 2008).

Transformational leadership is a form of leadership that has the potential to create effective relationships, which cause significant transformations (MacBeath, 2007). The findings of the study are consistent with the literature that relates to the influence of transformational leaders on affective learning in the customary class environments (Harrison, 2011). Such findings imply that leadership is a critical source and determinant of social relationships between learners and instructors, who play a central role in any learning environment.

The nature of leadership determines how learners perceive their respective instructors. According to Harrison (2011), the majority of learners believed that credible instructors must possess elements of transformational leadership. Transformational behaviours of instructors influence the perceptions of students regarding the credibility of the instructors. Concerning the influence of transformational leadership on learners’ perception in relation to the credibility of instructors, there was a little relationship between these variables (Harrison, 2011).

More importantly, the results are in tandem with documented empirical evidence regarding the impact of transformational leaders on the perceptions of learners about instructor credibility. In a broader perspective, it is eminent that a form of leadership that instructors demonstrate determines the learning attitudes and outcomes, as learners perceive transformational leadership to be considerate as it contains motivational communication (Lewis & Murphy, 2008). Therefore, leadership technique determines how instructors convey the vision and learning objectives in a certain course or learning program.

Leader’s Personal Intelligence and Progress of Learning Institutions

The concept of leadership is diverse and with complex issues within its paradigm. When theorists argue whether leaders are born or developed, what comes to the fore is the essence of acquired knowledge and innate attributes among leaders (Lewis & Murphy, 2008). A series of problem solving techniques that require personal approach have motivated researchers to enhance their efforts in investigating the influence of personal intelligence on leadership.

According to Lewis and Murphy (2008), the ability of institutional administrators to maintain a positive working environment is significant since it defines the intellectual aspect of leaders. Kruger (2007) argues that the diversity of institutional leaders must reflect gender balance. Rather than proving purely professional in the leadership, the modern and emerging models of leaderships continue to dwell on diversity, the process of thinking, and the manner in which leaders demonstrate their intellectual capacity in solving complicated problems (Rusch & Horsford, 2009). Management experts perceive intellectual leaders as people capable of running organizations effectively and maintaining good rapport between workers and the management.

As the community of learners are conscious and focus on the imperatives of their education in the future life, the demand for knowledge is increasing amongst institutional leaders (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). In their recent study, Schneider and Burton (2008) sought to investigate the influence of personal intelligence as an important facet in the leadership of people and resources within learning institutions. From their perspective, the scope of practice for since universities and colleges are requiring extra competence from these administrators.

Their study involved an analysis of four major pillars of an administration, which principals must have for them to understand their administrative practices. According to Schneider and Burton (2008), the four pillars that build educational administration are leadership, management, pedagogy, and personal intelligences. The two researchers distinguished leadership and management and the manner in which administrators should apply them in their learning institutions. Schneider and Burton (2008) also discussed pedagogy and personal intelligences and their association with administrative practices.

In explicit definitions of leadership and management, and differentiation of the two aspects of the concept of administration in institutions, Schneider and Burton (2008) defined leadership as a rigorous process of setting new directions or constructing new visions and developing plans of achieving the designed directions or visions. Concerning the management, Schneider and Burton (2008) defined management as a pragmatic process where leaders of institutions engage in making critical administrative decisions and designing problem-solving techniques.

On the other hand, pedagogy is the process of devising means of controlling the learning procedure, including the instructional techniques and planning (Schneider & Burton, 2008). Personal intelligences from the perspective of the two researchers, is the manner in which leaders demonstrate ethical leadership through approaching to critical issues in a strategic and systematic way. Schneider and Burton (2008) believe that personal intelligences comprise of three elements that include interpersonal intelligence, social intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to develop proper thinking techniques, define accurate standards, and create operating models.

Intrapersonal intelligence make leaders gain the cognitive capability to investigate, realize, and understand the environment of an institution and the corresponding needs of the faculty members and learners (Schneider & Burton, 2008). Hence, strong intrapersonal intelligence promotes self-esteem and motivates instructors and employees. On the other hand, interpersonal intelligence is the capacity of educations leaders to understand the need of communication and cooperation with others in an institutional setting.

Functionally, interpersonal intelligences enable leaders to understand the notion that different individuals in an organization have diverse social dynamics, which significantly helps them to foster effective interaction and cooperation (Kruger, 2007). Combined with social intelligences where institutional leaders are capable of understanding the need for people to harmonize and contribute to problem solving in a learning institution, the three concepts are crucial. According to Schneider and Burton (2008), the above intelligences are all-round necessities of effective leadership in institutions that promote the progress of higher learning institutions.

Planning Techniques and Institutional Progress

Learning institutions are organizations that have community of learners and instructors, who require proper planning, programming, direction, and arrangement of resources and people to run smoothly (Smithee, 2012). Institutional leadership becomes essential in making sure that planning of resources and workforce is efficient, so that achievement of learning goals and objectives becomes authentic. The manner in which institutional leaders plan for the educational resources and the learning processes significantly influences the achievement of learning goals and vision of the institution.

In the sustenance of the community of learners, Randall (2008) claims that effective leadership must involve strategies of infrastructural planning, differentiated faculty support and training, retention of skilled staff, situated learning and visionary planning. In the panorama of visionary planning, leaders have the responsibility to encourage other staff members towards understanding the need of focusing on achieving personal and institutional goals (Randall, 2008). Universities directly connect with employment institutions, and strategic plans make leaders understand the need to have visions.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Overall, leaders in higher learning institutions are directly responsible for setting the curriculum standards, creating core principles of practice among faculty members, and developing a code of professional conduct for lecturers (Macneil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). Leaders, who understand and uphold visionary planning, ensure that institutions remain updated with the new developments in the educational paradigm and their influence to the professional fields that learners aspire to engage (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008).

In the recommendation, modern institutional leaders must be able to comprehend that higher learning institutions are the pinnacle of the learning process, where students commence synthesizing theoretical and empirical knowledge in line with the real world. Possessing effective strategic planning skills enables leaders to assist learners to have a smooth transition process of their learning institutions in the professional fields (Harrison, 2011). Fundamentally, institutions need to support professional growth of their leaders and faculty to keep up with emerging innovations in the learning paradigm.

References

Harrison, J. (2011). Instructor Transformational Leadership and Student Outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 82-136.

Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? School Leadership and Management, 23(3), 267-291.

Kruger, M. (2007). School leadership, sex and gender: Welcome to difference. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(2), 155-168.

Lewis, P., & Murphy, R. (2008). New directions in school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(2), 127-146.

MacBeath, J. (2007). Leadership as a subversive activity. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(3), 242-264.

Macneil, A., Prater, D., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84. Web.

Ngurruwutthun, N., & Stewart, A. (1996). Learning to walk behind; learning to walk in front. Unicorn, 22(4), 5-23.

Randall, L. (2008). Rethinking Faculty Development: Toward Sustaining a Community of Learners. Senate Forum, 24(1), 18-24.

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Rusch, E., & Horsford, S. (2009). Changing hearts and minds: The quest for open talk about race in educational leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(4), 302-313.

Schneider, A., & Burton, N. (2008). Personal intelligences: The fourth pillar of school principalship? Management in Education, 22(4), 22-30.

Smithee, M. (2012). Finding leadership for the internationalization of U.S. higher education. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 2(1), 1-29.

Smyth, J. (2008). Australia’s great disengagement with public education and social justice in educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(3), 221-233.

Zhu, C., & Engels, N. (2013). Organizational culture and instructional innovations in higher education: Perceptions and reactions of teachers and students. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1(1), 1-23. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!