Leadership in universities can be executed at different levels such as at the project, departmental, faculty and even at the executive levels, amongst others. Most research on university leadership has focused on the executive level which was viewed as most important in providing organizational leadership. There is however growing recognition that executives can neither provide all the direction an organization needs nor can they entirely solve all organizational challenges (Floyd
& Wooldridge, 1996; Currie & Procter, 2005; Mintzberg, 1983). Leadership, especially in complex and collegial organizations such as universities, transcends the roles of executives and operates at other levels too. Universities, just like most other organizations, are made up of different management levels, including middle management, all of which work to give the organization its entity. These other levels are also grounds of leadership and contribute to the overall performance of the university.
One of the levels of leadership in the university is the faculty or school level which in most cases is led by the dean. This position is the focus of this study. In many contexts this position is viewed as part of middle management because deans operate between the executives and the other layers of the university. There is literature that concedes that those who “lead from the middle” such as deans, play a vital role in leadership, strategy formulation and execution, and in the implementation of successful change in organizations (Currie & Procter, 2005). They have a key and paradoxical role in process of organizational change as they are often simultaneously both the ‘victims’ (targets) and ‘carriers’ (agents) of change (Nonaka, 1988).
Research interest in deanship and middle management in universities has increased in recent years as universities continually face growing pressures both internal and external (Kotter & Schelesinger, 1997; De Boer & Goedegebuure, 2009; De Boer, Enders & Leisyte, 2007; Meek, Goedegebuure, Santiago & Carvalho, 2010). These pressures are continually being passed from the executives to other levels of management such as that of deans (Waugh, 2003). Due to the centrality of their position, deans are significant in overall university management and governance providing the link between the executive management, the core units and even the external environment. Deans are thus caught between implementing the edicts of the executive managers and protecting the interests of their academic colleagues (Amaral & Maassen, 2010). Their position enables universities to execute their core mandates of teaching, research and service. It is against these tasks that the success or failure of universities is pegged, making deans very central to the overall performance or effectiveness of universities (Meek, Goedegebuure & De Boer, 2010;
Kallenberg, 2007).
Though the traditional role of the dean was mainly academic, focusing on overseeing the teaching and research portfolios of their faculties, recent studies indicate that deans occupy well defined positions with well-defined roles and
considerable amounts of power at their jurisdiction (Boyco and Jones, 2010). They are widely being recognized as playing a central role in organizational processes including organizational performance and success (Kallenberg, 2007; Flyod &
Wooldridge, 1994; Kanter, 1983). There can be little argument against the fact that in recent years, more management responsibilities in universities fall in the purview of deans than ever before (De Boer, Goedegebuure & Meek, 2010). Most universities have devolved many academic and financial responsibilities to faculties placing deans in a pivotal leadership and management role. Enhanced expectations and greater role definition of deans as manager-academics are in clear contrast to earlier times when the position was perhaps considered a ‘good citizen’ chore.
In Kenya, due to recent transformations in the higher education sector, the mandates of deans have expanded giving them more responsibilities. In the formative years, the universities were more centralised with the executives having more managerial responsibilities. In the past ten years, most Kenyan universities have decentralised several responsibilities to the deans. This has expanded the leadership roles of deans which has also been compounded by the changing role of government especially in governance and funding as a result of the rapid expansion of the sector. Some universities have developed training programs for deans to prepare them for these new mandates (Ngethe & Mwiria, 2003; Wangenge-Ouma, 2012). For instance, due to funding constraints the government requires universities to generate extra funding from other sources to augment funding from the government. The deans are required to innovate new ways of generating alternative income (Wangenge-Ouma, 2012). Compared to the previous years, there is also demand for more accountability and enhanced performance from both internal and external stakeholders requiring university leaders to work towards predetermined objectives, outputs and results (Letangule & Letting, 2012).
The decentralization of most activities and responsibilities from central university management to the levels of the deans also meant the transfer of some decision
making authority to the deans (Dinku & Shitemi, 2011; Kamaara, 2011). In fact Dinku and Shitemi (2011:12) expound on how the role of the Kenyan dean has changed, the challenges deans encounter in managing their faculties and the essence of leadership development amongst deans. They point out the shift of the universities from being ivory towers to open and collaborating institutions where entrepreneurship is a basic goal in addition to appreciation of bench marks and shared experiences. These transformations in deanship in Kenyan universities make it even more necessary to understand how they manage their faculties and the impacts of their leadership on the performance of their universities. This is particularly within our working assumption that leadership impacts on staff commitment which in turn impacts on performance.