Abstract
The environment universities face today is increasingly complex and characterized by decreasing public funding and increasing reliance on university-industry collaboration to generate funds for research and development activities. Universities are facing competing pressures to embrace a user-led focus in leading and managing their institutions. The increasing administrative and reporting accreditation requirements have made it increasingly difficult for universities to strike a balance between meeting the demands of both corporate and academic worlds. Building and maintaining academic rigor, while facing increasing internal and external regulations, is the most pressing challenge for universities today. Another connected challenge is making sure that universities are prepared to face the age-related attrition of human resources that is expected in the years to come. This paper reviews the practices relating to management and leadership of universities and analyzes various external influential factors that could possibly affect the succession planning in the universities. Some ways are also suggested to positively utilize the organizational complexity of the universities to achieve national objective of a positive and buoyant future.
TopBalancing Advancement Of Scholarship/Knowledge And Administrative/Reporting Requirements
The governance of universities today is no different from governance of corporate entities. The environments in which universities operate today poses risks and require a similar suite of governance and risk management required for corporate entities. The leadership of universities is accountable for their performance to university senate. These senates or councils, in turn, are subject to much stringent legislative frameworks of governance. According to Coaldrake and Stedman (1998) that universities operated under such risk levels that forced them to expand their activities into commercial field. However, these universities were bound by their practices that limited their flexibility to adapt the new environment. Coaldrake and Stedman, (1999) noted that by focusing on matters of output, accreditation and quality assessment, universities have moved closer to the position of a business enterprise. According to Cohen (2004), post-modernism turned universities into a full-fledged consumer enterprise rather than full-fledged learning institution. Meek and Wood (1997) and (Kaiser et al., 2014) agreed that higher education institution put efficiency and effectiveness on top of the list of their reform agenda. This shift implies increased accountability for every university activity and prompts university leadership for the critical importance of the ability to adapt and change.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Quality Leadership Profile (QLP): QLP is a leadership survey used in tertiary education institutions.
Employee Retention: Employee retention refers to the ability of an organization to retain its employees.
Governance: Governance can be defined as the rule of the rulers, typically within a given set of rules.
Organizational Values: These values may or may not be in written form but these are the values that guide the perspective of the organization as well as its actions.
Policy Framework: A policy framework is a logical structure that is established to organize policy documentation into groupings and categories. It provides a set of principles and long-term goals that form the basis of making rules and guidelines, and to give overall direction to planning and development of the organization.
Student Engagement: Student engagement refers to student’s willingness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in, and be successful in, the learning process.
Academic Leadership: Academic leadership is a broad capability and function across a higher education institution, reflected in leadership in governance, both corporate and academic, and in operations.