Leaders (non-faculty) in higher education: A phenomenological study on understanding their role

Saravanan  Sathiyaseelan

doi:10.59400/fps.v2i1.1403

Saravanan Sathiyaseelan Singapore University of Social Sciences, School of Business, 463 Clementi Rd, Singapore 599494, Singapore

Article ID: 1403

58 Views, 29 PDF Downloads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/fps.v2i1.1403

Keywords: higher education leadership and management; role of higher education leadership; university leadership; phenomenology

Abstract

The higher education fraternity associates itself closely to academia; the environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research and education. Unsurprisingly, the faculty receive more attention in areas surrounding higher education. However, recent days are seeing vast evolutions in the higher education landscape, beginning with an escalating interest in a seamless and capable administration to support, strengthen and elevate both research and education goals to greater heights. This study used a qualitative phenomenological approach to examine fifteen leaders (non-faculty) working in mid-senior level positions in a university in Singapore to understand their role. The findings evidently proved that leaders (non-faculty) are facilitators and enablers who perform and complete their tasks by facilitating activities, processes, events, and interactions (to and for both students and faculty), and enabling an activity or implementing a policy. Furthermore, the findings reinforced the importance of such leadership within the higher education sector, especially at a time universities explore new strategies to diversify and gain competitive advantage in a challenging environment marked by globalization, technological disruptions, unpredictable demand, and changing student needs.

References

[1]Bolden, R., et al. (2009). Leadership in Higher Education: Facts, Fictions and Futures—Introduction to the Special Issue, SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.

[2]Knight, J. (2014). Is internationalization of higher education having an identity crisis? The forefront of international higher education, Springer: 75-87.

[3]Take, H. and A. Shoraku (2018). “Universities’ Expectations for Study-Abroad Programs Fostering Internationalization: Educational Policies.” Journal of Studies in International Education 22(1): 37-52.

[4]Al Shobaki, M. J. and S. S. Abu-Naser (2017). “The Role of the Practice of Excellence Strategies in Education to Achieve Sustainable Competitive Advantage to Institutions of Higher Education-Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology at Al-Azhar University in Gaza a Model.”

[5]McClure, K. R. (2016). “Building the Innovative and Entrepreneurial University: An Institutional Case Study of Administrative Academic Capitalism.” The Journal of Higher Education 87(4): 516-543.

[6]Perry, K. G. (2012). The art of leadership: A study of administrative practices in Florida's schools of the arts, Florida Atlantic University.

[7]Bensimon, E. M. (1989). Making sense of administrative leadership: The, ERIC.

[8]Bensimon, E. M. (2005). “Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective.” New Directions for Higher Education 2005(131): 99-111.

[9]Scott, R. A. (2018). How University Boards Work: A Guide for Trustees, Officers, and Leaders in Higher Education, JHU Press.

[10]Altbach, P. G., et al. (2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution, Brill.

[11]Gayle, D. J., et al. (2011). Governance in the twenty-first-century university: Approaches to effective leadership and strategic management: ASHE-ERIC higher education report, John Wiley & Sons.

[12]Ong, V. Y. S. (2012). “Complexities of multiple paradigms in higher education leadership today.” Journal of Global Management 4(1): 91-100.

[13]Vagle, M. D. (2018). Crafting phenomenological research, Routledge

[14]Creswell, J. W. and C. N. Poth (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Sage publications.

[15]Harraf, A., et al. (2015). “Organizational agility.” Journal of Applied Business Research 31(2): 675.

[16]Davis, H. (2014). Towards leadingful leadership literacies for higher education management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(4), 371-382.

[17]Martini, A., et al. (2013). “Continuous innovation: towards a paradoxical, ambidextrous combination of exploration and exploitation.” International Journal of Technology Management 61(1): 1-22.

[18]Kahn, K. B. (2018). “Understanding innovation.” Business Horizons 61(3): 453-460.

[19]Zacher, H., et al. (2016). “Ambidextrous leadership and employees' self‐reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 50(1): 24-46.