CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Leadership theories and concepts sprung from the industrial age and have only come under closer scrutiny now in the twenty first century. According to Brungardt (1998), contrary to popular thought, the term “leadership” is a recent addition to the English language, its usage coming about only in the late 19th century. The birth and evolution of the idea of "leader-SHIP" have, from the industrial to the digital age, shifted from individual traits, behaviours, and characteristics, to a far more complex concept that reaches beyond the single leader as recent literature delved more into leader-follower relations and on the practice of leadership (Newton, 2016). Indeed, over the years literature regarding the subject has increased and in its wake gurus such as John Maxwell, Jack Welch, Warren Bennis, Lee Iacocca, Kouzes and Posner, and even incumbent American president Donald Trump has risen to fame. Nations, institutions, organizations, and our daily lives are affected by it. Leadership is very important (Blanchard, 2011). In his bestselling book Good to Great, Collins (2001) shows that one can truly appreciate how much leadership matters as one sees how quickly a poor leader can take a good organization down. Leaders are often in the news, are the subject of books, portrayed in movies, interviewed on television, and are always in the media. Nowadays, they live more intensely scrutinized ‘fishbowl’ lives with the advent of social media. Leaders are profiled, studied, criticized, quoted, blamed, fought over sometimes to death, and idolized. They hover about our consciousness day in and day out, as we intuit how much they- to a large degree - affect our lives. No wonder there is more information available now on the subject of leadership than there ever was, not to mention an increasing number of higher education institutions offering leadership courses, degrees, and programs to train and develop students as leaders (Brungardt,
1998). Nevertheless, as we learn about leaders and leadership, we realize how much more there is to study, discover, and think about.
The Context of the Problem
Most of the information on the subject of leadership – the books, journals, articles, researches, and available data, come from the West (House et. al., 2004). Through decades of leadership studies, scholarly writings on Filipino leadership are still scarce (Ilac, 2018; Cimene &
Aladano, 2013). One pioneering study, Anselmo Lupdag’s In Search of Filipino Leadership (1984), focuses on traits and characteristics of Filipino leaders. More recent works such as Defining Filipino Leadership, a festschrift for Ateneo’s former President Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, SJ (2011), are mostly a collection of narratives to celebrate the person and his achievements. Obviously, a developing nation like the Philippines does not have enough resources to pursue long-term, historical, and horizontal studies such as those conducted in the West. However, in the 21st century, where we are increasingly influenced by the advance of information and communication technologies, and where the impact of globalization is felt progressively leading to changes in ideologies, cultural values, and the general workings of a society, it has become even more beneficial to know and understand ourselves better as a nation. This includes where we are at the moment, the path we are following, and where it can possibly lead to. Perhaps when we do, we will function and adjust easier to the transformations taking place within us, both as a nation and as individuals, and allow us to reflect as to whether the destiny we are forging is where we resolutely want to be.
Educational institutions have always been thought of as necessary for any country’s progress and development, and in today’s knowledge economy this idea resonates louder than ever. Nelson
Mandela, former apartheid activist who became president of South Africa, had several famous quotes on the matter: “Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world”, and “No country can really develop unless its citizens are educated.” He also believed that “the power of education extends beyond the development of skills we need for economic success. It can contribute to nation-building and reconciliation”(Strauss, 2013).
George Counts (1978), noted American scholar and educator, but also a social and political activist, in his seminal book Dare the School Build a New Social Order? wrote: “We are convinced that education is the one unfailing remedy for every ill to which man is subject, whether it be vice, crime, war, poverty, riches, injustice, racketeering, political corruption, race hatred, class conflict or just plain original sin” (p.1). For its part, higher education is widely recognized as playing a very important role in any society, being an agency for social change and national development. Shai Reshef, founder and president of University of the People, the world’s first non-profit, tuition-free, accredited university, who made it his life’s mission to open the gates to higher education said: “When you educate one person you can change a life, when you educate many, you can change the world”
(uopeople.edu, n.d.). Whereas past educational reformers as John Dewey and Cardinal Newman viewed higher education as a place that promotes nation building and socialization, today the public and personal benefits of higher education has been shown in a large number of studies worldwide.
Individuals with college degrees often acquire benefits that extend beyond individuals to society and from the economic to social realms (Chan, 2016).
An Asian Development Bank (ADB) report in 2012 cited how investing in higher education is geared to help developing Asian countries build high-income economies with the innovation,
knowledge, and technology needed to thrive in an inter-connected, competitive world. The bank has gained considerable experience in providing support for improving educational systems in its developing member countries. ADB boosted their support for higher education in response to the growing needs of countries in the region with the fast-changing landscape of this sector requiring new thinking and updated practices. Central questions asked regarding the issue included: what the strategic and operational priorities in the region were, how support should be targeted to achieve a high sustainable impact, and how ADB can best assist developing member countries to substantially raise the quality of and expand access to higher education within a reasonable time frame. To gain insight into the kind of changes necessary and give valuable input for higher education reform across the region, ADB financed a major regional study which drew on the views of subject experts, HEI leaders, regional stakeholders and participants of an international conference on higher education in Asia, resulting to the report Higher Education in Dynamic Asia, the end goal of which is to assist in developing the full potential of peoples in the region (Lohani, 2012, vii). This report included challenges in administration and governance, and institutional governance and management of public HEIs which was summarized in a publication on administration and governance in higher education in Asia. Here it was underscored that despite regional differences, “countries in Asia share one common element, viz., the higher education sector is a strategic lever for long-term and sustainable development” adding that “it is commonly viewed in Asia that higher education is more than the provision of public good, but is also a strategic move toward greater growth and social solidarity”. It was found that “at the level of both national and institutional governance, governments and HEIs have had to adapt to counter the common problems of higher education including access, equity, and outdated governance systems (Sarvi, 2012, preface)”. As revealed in ADB’s study, these are the three problem areas that educational leaders in HEIs and governments in the region commonly face.
Aside from ADB, more recent news reports continue to highlight the increasing role of higher education in sustainable economic and social development, with this trend foreseen to persist over the next decades since it is a focal point of knowledge, including its application (QS Asia news network, 2018). HEIs greatly contribute to economic growth and development through fostering innovation and expanding higher skills, a way to improve quality of life and address major social and global changes (par.1). Further,
“Higher education is broadly defined as one of the key drivers of growth performance, prosperity, and competitiveness. UNESCO says its social role provides the link between the intellectual and educational role of universities on one hand and development of society on the other.
Raising skills holds the key to higher living standards and well-being.
Investing in knowledge creation and enabling its diffusion is the key to creating high wage employment and enhancing productivity growth, points out OECD” (Project 5-100, QS Asia news network, 2018, par 1).
This article also points out the three most important roles of higher education in today’s economy, namely: 1) creating a quality workforce; 2) supporting business and industry; and 3) carrying out research and promoting technologies. Looking at these various literature, we find more than ever, leaders in higher education institutions who are crucial decision-makers and partners with government. They formulate and implement strategic plans, policies, academic programs & curricula, including extra-curricular activities and projects that affect families, communities and ultimately the nation – thus, have become a very important voice to listen to.
In the Philippines, the unprecedented advancement in science and technology has observably brought significant changes to the landscape of higher education (as with the rest of Asia based on the earlier cited ADB report), so that to keep pace with these developments and challenges, higher education is looked upon as bearing a critical role to respond directly to these emerging realities
(Ricafort as cited in Colinares, 2010). Unfortunately, a former CHED (Commission in Higher Education of the Philippines) commissioner has admitted that: “For quite a long time, the higher education sector was not given much attention because of the overwhelmingly great concerns in basic education”, thus strong public concern for its improvement has actually led to the creation of this Commission (Defensor as cited in Colinares, 2010, p.95). Philippine HEIs including state universities and colleges (SUCs) have become an important component of megatrends in the 21st century, but we are not aggressively taking advantage of these megatrends according to Carlito Puno, former chairman of the CHED. He asserted that HEIs are not just for social development, and while education is “the greatest equalizer of all time, educational institutions can provide the spark that will ignite economic development in our country” (p.140) – a theme continuously found in literature, and one that resonates with educational leaders interviewed for the present study.
With all of the ongoing societal shifts and the consequent challenges that society including education faces, the phenomenon of leadership and role of leaders has become even more important.
Generally, we believe that leadership is an important matter (Nahavandi, 2000). Thus, ADB (2012) has highlighted the role of administration and governance, including its implications, in their commissioned study across Asian HEIs. How leaders think of, what they believe, their perceptions, conceptions, views, values, and beliefs about leadership surely affect how they enact or practice and live out leadership. A biblical proverb does say: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (King James Bible, n.d., Proverbs 23:7). Ken Blanchard (in Spears & Lawrence eds., 2002), well-known leadership author, in a foreword to a book on servant leadership in the 21st century, wrote: “…Not only are people looking for a deeper purpose and meaning when they must meet the challenges of today’s changing world; they are also looking for principles and philosophies that actually work”, and they
are looking for leadership that “works”. Moreover, he empathically claims that “unless we begin to lead at a higher level, our future is in danger” (foreword, xi), therefore implying that based on present- day scenarios and challenges – the perceptions, conceptions, views and expectations regarding leadership must also change. Bass (2008) declares that in fact, we should not be surprised that concepts and definitions of leadership have been continually evolving and expanding. House (1995 as cited in Bass, 2008) has also noted a progressive broadening of the definition of leadership to include “contributing to social order, introducing major change, giving meaning and purpose to work and to organizations, empowering followers, and infusing organizations with values and ideology”
(p.50). Thus, definitions and conceptualizations of leadership have been documented to evolve historically through the ages. It is about time then, within the Philippine context, to update ourselves with regard to how we think of and conceptualize leadership. In Lupdag’s dissertation study that he later published (in 1984), a review of related literature covering from 1957 to 1980 was included where he chose only studies done in the Philippine setting to minimize pre-conceived ideas as influenced by the West. He noted that leadership is a “culture-loaded concept” and foreign literature may color interpretation of the data (p.4). Based on his survey he found that theoretical frameworks in these studies were mostly based on western or western-oriented theories. He observed “the lack if not absence of studies aimed at a conceptualization of leadership in the Philippines as apparent in the theoretical frameworks used” and that “majority of the studies focused on the demographic characteristics of leaders; only a negligible few dealt with leadership dynamics” (p.5). He presented a summary of the literature on leadership in the Philippines in tabulated form and these mostly dealt with traits, roles and demographics as he mentioned. Ironically, his own study presented mainly traits and personality factors for effective leadership, partially using western standardized tests as well.
A later review of literature done in the University of the Philippines (UP) by Alfiler and Nicolas (1997) surveying 115 materials including articles, speeches, studies, readers and books, showed 13 leadership studies closely related to the present study as these focused mainly on leadership types and patterns, but most involved community and political leadership; there were also five books, but these were published anywhere between thirty to more than fifty years ago. Thus, due to: 1) the gap in literature and 2) the need to investigate whether we have evolved in our views on leadership and leaders, the researcher embarked on the present study regarding the conceptualization of Filipino leadership involving educational leaders from selected Philippine HEIs.
A Brief Background on Leadership and Leadership Concepts
In order to better understand the development of leadership theory, a short background is in order. It was only in 1300 A.D. when the word leader first appeared in the Oxford English dictionary.
In the 20th century, there is a visible and perceptible change in how a leader is defined (Bass &
Stodgill, 1990). Research studies regarding leadership define three eras or approaches to leadership theory: the trait era (late 1800’s to mid-1940’s), the behavior era (mid-1940’s to early 1970’s), and the contingency era (early 1970’s to present). Each era contributed to the knowledge and understanding of leadership, which still continues to influence how we think of leadership today.
The trait era was characterized by the belief that leaders are born, that innate qualities in personality determine leadership regardless of context. Results of large numbers of studies, however,
“do not support the suggestion that leadership is a combination of traits” (p.28). This failure to explain leadership by personality traits alone led to the study of leadership behaviors. Lewin and associates did a study that became classic as it grouped behaviors into three leadership styles: autocratic,
democratic, and laissez-faire (Chemers, 1997, p. 94). The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) became the most comprehensive study of leader behaviors. Through this rating scale it was found that there were two major clusters or factors of behavior: Consideration, which relates to personal warmth, concern for the feelings of subordinates, and the use of participative two-way communication, and Structure, which relates to directiveness, goal facilitation, and task- related feedback. The identification of these two reliable dimensions advanced the field of research in this area. It was found however, that these behavior patterns were not consistently related to important organizational outcomes such as group productivity and follower satisfaction (p.95).
Current theories include the Contingency approach, pioneered by Fred Fiedler (1967), on which quite extensive research has been done. The Contingency Model assumes that there is no one best way to make decisions, and that the most effective style will depend on the characteristics of the situation. There are other theories on the Contingency model such as the Path-Goal Theory (dealing primarily with the effects of specific leader behavior on subordinate motivation and satisfaction), the Transactional or Exchange Theory (addresses the relationship between leader and followers), and Cognitive Approaches (where perception and cognition play a major role in making interpersonal judgments related to leadership).
Purpose of the Study
The present study concerns itself with a Filipino theoretical concept of leadership, albeit limited to educational leaders in selected Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs). The researcher pursued a study on the conceptualization of leadership among these educational leaders as most of the literature on leadership in the Philippine setting were done with regard to leading enterprise
organizations, political leadership, or leadership within communities (Alfiler & Nicolas, 1997; Ilac, 2018). With the choice of a qualitative research design, the researcher purposed to arrive at a conceptual framework of Filipino leadership based on responses of academic leaders representing selected Philippine HEIs. The approach/ methodology used involved rigorous grounding processes applied to the gathered empirical data to emerge this conceptual framework.
Since some of the earliest studies of leadership in the Philippines relate it to the achievement of goals (de Borja, 1970, Yap-Diangco, 1970, Alphonsus, 1972, Nagtalon, 1972, Ledesma, 1979 cited in Lupdag, 1984), and these authors mentioned by Lupdag mostly based their studies from western leadership concepts and other authors who were cited in a literature review of Philippine leadership studies (Alfiler & Nicolas, 1997), mainly did studies in organizational, political/
administrative, and community settings – there was still a need to discover our own cultural understanding and concepts of leadership as well as to discover those that come from such an important sector as education. We need to understand what we, as a people, are looking for in a leader. What is an ideal leader for us Filipinos? If we want to achieve our goals as a nation and within our organizations, then this question begs for an answer, and it has been quite long in coming.
Lupdag’s published study focused on the responses of student leaders in HEIs. Lupdag (1984) himself stated that there is a need to further clarify the concept and a need for further investigation on the questions: 1) What is the concept of Filipinos on leadership and; 2) What are the characteristics of an effective Filipino leader? He also suggested that: 1) a multi-method be employed in data gathering;
2) a bigger sampling from various sectors be taken and; 3) to find a hierarchy of traits associated with effective leadership among Filipinos (p.45). Obviously, one type of respondents alone (student leaders, in Lupdag’s case) is not enough to provide us with the answers we are looking for. Also, his
study was done more than three decades ago. With societal shifts and cross-cultural influences over a generation past, his findings may not hold true at this time. With the pervasive influence of western thought in all levels and sectors of our society due to light speed transmission of information and communication, it is only timely to investigate this substantive area of study once again, but more so since Lupdag’s study dealt mostly with leadership personality traits and characteristics. A more in- depth and comprehensive understanding of how we conceptualize leadership in the 21st century, has come of time and this may yet be found in our collective psyche - to present a distinctly Filipino concept of what a leader and effective leadership is all about. In this study though, this conceptualization and resulting conceptual framework is limited to educational leaders in select Philippine HEIs.
As mentioned, a review of literature on leadership studies in the Philippines done some time later by Alfiler and Nicolas (1997), covering the period from 1949 to the time of their publication (nearly 50 years or half a century’s span) reveal two broad categories of these works and studies: 1) those done in formal/ organizational/ political/ administrative settings; and 2) in community settings as venue for leaders situated in basic sectors and in non-government organizations (NGOs). They found that leadership studies in formal settings tend to focus on “the basic elements of the Filipino concept of leadership including the socio-economic background of political and administrative leaders, case studies documenting the leadership styles of administrators, religious leadership in local sects, autobiography/political biography and memoirs” (abstract). On the other hand, community- based leadership studies mostly dealt with socio-ethnographic studies, formal and informal leaders, involvement of people’s organizations (POs) and NGOs in the re-democratization process and both these types of organizations as a reservoir of alternative leaders (p.93). A main goal of the review
was to discern the trends of leadership studies up till the time of their writing, as well as to suggest areas for research as part of the research agenda for leadership studies (p.94). In conclusion, the authors found that the wealth of studies are done in administrative (mostly political)/ organizational leadership and what future research agenda needs to focus on is leader-citizen relations; analysis of what opportunities, conditions, and circumstances give rise to effective leadership in organizational, political, and community settings; the roles of NGOs and POs in developing communities’
capabilities for producing effective, committed and accountable leaders; identifying what kind of leader-follower relationships can strengthen the foundations of Philippine democracy at the grassroots level; and developing an indigenous framework that can help explain the nature and character of the leader-follower relations based on indigenous values and practices (pp.116-117). Out of the 115 works Alfiler and Nicolas (1997) reviewed, only six (6) were studies done involving the educational sector, and of these three (3) were done in the 1980’s. Majority of the studies were on the leadership styles and performance/ behavior of the leaders. The only study mentioned that specified a Filipino conceptualization of leadership as its focus is again Anselmo Lupdag’s (1982) unpublished UP doctoral dissertation entitled: Towards a conceptualization of leadership among Filipinos, which was a quantitative study. This work must be the basis for Lupdag’s publication two years later entitled: In Search of Filipino Leadership (1984). His study though, as earlier mentioned, focused on personality traits and characteristics of leaders. Therefore, there is still much to be desired in terms of understanding Filipino leadership from a multi-dimensional viewpoint, not just leadership as personality traits. The present study then is not a replication of Lupdag’s study, rather it builds on his as it tackles leadership while taking into account other dimensions as revealed from interviews with educational leader participants using a more in-depth, rigorous qualitative method as grounded theory. Also, all of these past leadership studies were done in the 20th century, and a good amount of
time has now lapsed since we are well into two decades of the 21st at present. This renders it even more imperative to do another study since the present century, also known as the “Global Century”
(Cleveland, 1999), has brought with it many socio-cultural and geo-political transformations continually impacting people’s ways of life, perspectives, ideologies, and worldviews so that how people see leaders and leadership may have essentially changed.
F. Landa Jocano, a well-known writer on Philippine studies and former professor emeritus at the Asian Center of the University of the Philippines, still used a western (particularly American) definition of leadership, even at the turn of the century, when he discussed this in his book on Filipino corporate culture (1999). He cited Davis’ four types of managerial leadership (p.28). Why does a known Filipino anthropologist and writer of Philippine culture use an American definition in orienting his audience toward a Filipino corporate culture (as the purpose of his book is)? This is ironic. It then behooves one to think that it must be because there is just no Filipino definition to speak of.
According to Nahavandi (2000), leadership is a social and cultural phenomenon (p.7). Moreover, Project GLOBE, an extensive global study of culture and its significance to leadership in societies and organizations, has proven this empirically (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, 2004).
Hence, these recent studies on leadership and findings highlighting its nature of being culturally- contingent only gives a stronger rationale for and continues to support the need to generate a Filipino conceptualization of leadership. This is especially so among HEIs as institutions universally recognized to have impact and great bearing on countries’ continuing progress and development (Angara as cited in Colinares, 2010). In fact, Lupdag (1984) who specifically studied this exact same topic within HEIs, though employing a different methodological approach – using questionnaires,
standardized tests, and statistical analysis, was fully persuaded that “in the past and the present, the destiny of our people is very much in the hands of our leaders” (p.47).
Significance of the Study
An in-depth perusal of the body of research on leadership, particularly educational leadership in the Philippines, showed that most are based on western constructs of leadership. Many studies dwelt on perceived leadership behaviors and its relationship with such variables as teacher classroom interpersonal behaviors, type of school, organizational climate, program development, faculty morale, and decision-making processes, to name a few. These were based on western theoretical models and constructs of leadership, as House (1999) the senior researcher for Project GLOBE decried, thus initiating the global study to contribute to the emergence of less western-biased literature on leadership. In fact, he states (House et. al., 2004) that 90% of the organizational behavior literature at that time reflected U.S.-based research and theory (preface, xxv). It is questionable if the findings in earlier studies are valid across cultures since there is a large possibility for cultural biases. Judging or categorizing Filipino educational leaders’ behaviors based on mostly American models and studies of behavior means that the researchers assumed that traits, behaviors, values, and attitudes toward leadership of Filipinos are similar to, or are the same as the West. Interpreting data gathered in this fashion leaves room for doubt as to the validity of their conclusions. The assumption that we have similar concepts of leaders and leadership, which Project GLOBE later proved, is indeed found to be a false one. These studies do not portray a real and accurate picture of leadership in the Philippine context.
When the basis of the academic research is questionable, needless to say, we need to view the findings with a degree of doubt. Before generating more studies on the subject, it is necessary to identify and define leadership as we Filipinos see it - a Filipino conceptualization of leadership. A solid culturally- based understanding of leadership will be a more relevant and valid basis for judging ourselves and what we expect of leadership in our culture, what destiny we want to create as a nation, what we want to inculcate in our young, what societal changes we want to intentionally plan for, and how we want to develop and educate particularly those who are attempting to, or are aspiring to be leaders. The leadership process is not divorced from the broader situational context - the social, economic, and cultural characteristics of the society in which the organization is embedded are critical influences on the nature of leadership (Chemers, 1984; House, et.al, 2004).
There is a dearth of literature on Filipino concepts of leadership, although there are relatively more numerous local studies on leadership in relation to management, psychology, sociology, and public administration (Alfiler & Nicolas, 1997; Ilac, 2018), and increasingly now in education research studies. However, as mentioned before many previous studies are mostly premised on western concepts of leadership (Lupdag, 1984; Ilac, 2018). Over the years more of these books, articles, and studies have considered cultural biases, thus have presented more culturally-contingent views on leadership in the Philippine setting. These include: Lupdag’s study (1984) and some studies he cited in his literature review, Jocano’s books (1999, 2001) Andres’ (1981,1989), Alfiler and Nicolas’ review (1997), Cimene and Aladano (2013), Ellamil (2010), Ilac, (2018) – among the few found for the present study, including a number of graduate theses and dissertations. Most of these are included in the next chapter - the review of related literature.
Hopefully, this present study will provide an impetus for further research on the subject of leadership across various sectors in the Philippine setting. Moreover, since most research studies in education use quantitative methodologies or are experimental, this study will add to the body of research that is qualitative in nature. The emerged conceptual framework may also help in the design and implementation of programs, whether in the academe or in the business sector on leadership. The outcome of this study may be of help not only in the educational sector, but also in business, government, religion, and other sectors of society who deal with leaders, emerge leaders or provide programs for leadership development within their own fields. It may also be helpful as a frame of reference or starting point for conversations and discussions on how leadership and the courses/
programs pertaining to it may be made more culturally-appropriate or relevant to the time and fluid circumstances we Filipinos find ourselves at, in this global century.
Statement of the Problem
Glaser (1998) claims that:
“Discovering the problem is the beginning of the researcher’s use of his autonomy and empowerment, and excitement for the motivation to get to the end of the publication of
research. Beginning properly is highly important. Without having the participants’ problem clearly in focus, conceptual pick-up is minimal and grasp of understanding of the substantive area is also minimal in comparison (p.132).”
The problem in a grounded theory approach is emergent. Glaser in the statement above notes though, that the problem must be “clearly in focus”, otherwise there may be a lack of conceptual understanding of the substantive area and a chance the researcher misses substantive responses. He may have shallow receptivity, not able to engage in clear comparisons, and be unable to unify
divergent and voluminous amounts of data. Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2003) argue the need for defining “a relative explicit research question that supports and governs the data collection”, but should not be too restricted (p.3). Formulations of the question can be refined as the study progresses.
The researcher refines the specifics of the problem as he/ she comes across data and observations regarding the substantive area under study. Thus, there are only initial questions asked at the beginning of the study, and these questions regarding the problem evolved as analysis of the responses from participants clarified the phenomenon further. A key question that needs to be answered is:
“What is going on here?”(Strauss & Corbin,1998, p.119). In the methodology used in the present study, which is a modified GT approach - it is possible to have a well-defined substantive area of study. Goldkuhl & Cronholm (2003) assert that without this there is risk of being too unfocused in the data collection, and if the researcher is too open-minded then he will probably end up with a large and diverging amount of data. Thus, the need for defining an explicit research question as mentioned earlier. For this present study, the problem is to discover the conceptualization of leadership among Philippine higher education leaders – this includes both their concept of leadership in general and educational leadership in particular in the local context. In other words, how do Filipino higher education leaders conceptualize leadership in the context of Philippine higher education.
The following initial questions were posed to the leader-respondents in the present study and were formulated with reference to a similar study of Munson (2007) done with native American Indians for their conceptualization of leadership. These questions were tailored to elicit discussion and understand how participants view leadership in the Philippine context and specifically in Philippine HEIs:
1. How would you define leadership?
2. How would you define educational leadership?
3. How would you define leadership in a higher education institution (HEI)?
4. What makes a great educational leader in the context of Philippine Higher Education?
5. How would you define effective educational leadership in the Philippine setting?
These initial questions together with a list of further questions to refine understanding of participants’ responses are included in the Appendix. Based on the responses then, some follow- up questions were asked so participants can expound on the topic, and at times to describe further how leadership is applied and developed in their respective HEIs. The open-ended questions gave the respondents opportunity to explain and discuss their understanding and conceptualization of leadership within the Philippine setting. Theoretical sampling as central in the GT methodology was done, so that the researcher, after collecting, coding, and analyzing the initial data, had to choose whether to collect additional data in order to further refine and evolve the theory or develop the conceptual framework as purposed in this study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This process is also defined as the strategy of obtaining further selective data to refine and fill out initially emerged categories (Charmaz, 2014). Thus, after initial responses were analyzed and some categories were abstracted from these, more responses needed to refine and substantiate these categories were obtained from other educational leaders who held a variety of leadership positions within those Philippine HEIs, fulfilling the criteria set forth at the onset of the study.
The present study then aimed to develop a conceptual framework of Filipino leadership based on the responses of the educational leaders from selected Philippine HEIs (autonomous and deregulated ones) who were interviewed. A number of theses and dissertations on leadership within the local context were also included to gather more data for comparison. A review of published literature about leadership written by Filipinos on Filipino leadership within the Philippine context was done including any internationally published study that is relevant to address the stated problem.
As there is scarcity of literature on Filipino leadership that is premised on a Filipino cultural understanding of the concept based on initial research efforts, the problem is to develop a conceptual framework that may be a basis for future studies in the field, not just in Education but in other sectors/
disciplines as well. An essential goal is also to provide data for comparative study, where the same problem is posed to participants from other sectors of Philippine society and/ or other regions of the country.
Most of the past studies done were also on the ‘peripherals’ and ‘content’ of leadership, but not on the ‘essential nature’ of leadership such as its conceptualization. A Filipino viewpoint on effective leadership that fully represents our culture, which is composed of many sub-cultures, is highly unlikely to result from this study alone. It is about time though that a culturally predicated and contextualized understanding of leadership be brought to the fore. Future studies then will not be in vain, and instead be closer to reality, be culturally valid, and relevant.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
The research focused on constructing a conceptual framework of Filipino leadership based on the concepts articulated by educational leaders and stakeholders in selected Philippine HEI’s. Top ranked, autonomous, deregulated and globally well-ranked HEI’s were covered and the educational leaders -stakeholder respondents were profiled in the study. The respondents included college presidents and administrators (i.e. deans, associate deans, department chairpersons, etc..). Since archival research included only the literature in the past thirty years within the Philippine context, it is limited within this place and time frame.
Data analysis in qualitative research is subject to certain constraints and limitations (Miles &
Huberman, 1994 in Munson, 2007). One limitation is the difference in analysis of the data gathered from that done in quantitative approaches. Generating theory is not a step-by-step procedure based on the scientific method. Fractured bits of data are recombined into specific categories which are further analyzed and combined to form a theory. Researchers use chunks of words to try and determine meaning and then use a ‘chaotic variable structure to move along the abstraction ladder’
(p.10). In grounded theory, instead of measurement concepts (as in quantitative methodology) textual concepts are dealt with. Methodological rigor uses five concepts: congruence, responsiveness to social context, appropriateness, adequacy, and transparency. Interpretive rigor uses five evaluative criteria: authenticity, coherence, reciprocity, typicality, and permeability (p.11).
Generalizing the results of the present study is difficult due to the limited sample size.
Because of purposive sampling, as well as the limitations of time and resources, sample size is limited to respondents from selected autonomous and deregulated HEI’s with centers of excellence within Metro Manila. It is recommended that this study should be replicated to include other sectors in Philippine society: business, government, religious, etc. and include more samples from other regions in order to establish a more representative and generalized theory of Filipino leadership. Since this study pertains only to the education sector, the results may not be applicable to other sectors. Since the methodology used purposive sampling, the results will be particular to the specific group studied.
Similar to Munson’s formulation of a Native American tribal leadership theory, the primary goal of this research is to provide data for comparison to contribute to the building of a theorized conceptual framework on the Filipino concept of leadership. Findings of the present study can be compared to findings in future studies, which should include other sectors and regions in the Philippines, to
formulate a theory from a broader population base. The essential goal then, is to add to the body of knowledge toward a theory of the Filipino concept of leadership, grounded on constantly compared data.
Another limitation is that using grounded theory and a qualitative methodology for the study will not show causality. Since the study aimed to theorize a conceptual framework of leadership applicable to Filipinos, determining what caused the formation of such a culturally-contingent conceptual framework of leadership will not be included, although propositions were given.
Investigating this causality to discover factors that contribute to culturally distinct concepts of leadership (as findings show there are indeed), can be a follow up study, perhaps an ethnographic one. Additionally, another possible limitation is termed as “interpretive validity”. Since the study aimed for a theoretical conceptualization of leadership among Filipino educational leaders, and some respondents conversed partially in Tagalog (the native language), it was foreseen that raw data may include vernacular terms, but upon carrying out the interviews these were seen as negligible. The participants’ words were used as “in vivo codes” (words that respondents themselves use). It is a conscious choice to use English in the study so that it is useful universally. The researcher was aware that it is necessary not to compromise the results in terms of interpretive validity by documenting the data in whatever language respondents use and applying the interpretive rigor earlier mentioned.
However, as mentioned, this turned out to be unnecessary as all the participants were comfortable and fluent conversing in English.
A further limitation is that there was not found any recently published comprehensive review of literature on leadership studies done similar to that of Alfiler and Nicolas (1997) from the
University of the Philippines (UP), to give the researcher information on the number of additional studies/ literature relevant to leadership that has been produced from thence within Philippine HEIs.
Their review of leadership studies covered 115 materials including speeches, dissertations, journal articles, readers and books spanning nearly fifty years from 1949 to 1997. From a quick survey of available graduate theses and dissertations related to leadership in the university library, 35 were found from 2010 to the present and none of these dealt with the substantive area of this present study, nor used the current methodological approach. Thus, the related studies used herein such as Garcia- Marasigan’s (2000) and Lupdag’s (1984) were from earlier dates, but even these are not GT studies.
A list of the 35 studies found through the open access library system related to leadership as mentioned above is included in the Appendix.
This study is presented and organized according to the recommended format for dissertations so that the succeeding chapters are as follows: Chapter 2 will delve into existing literature and other studies mostly in the Philippine setting in order to contextualize the study and furnish information on what studies have already been done, investigate what gaps there may be in literature and explore which of these may be appropriate to use later in the rigorous grounding process of theoretical matching, where the emerged conceptual framework will be matched with pre-existing theories for validation. Chapter 3 explicates and discusses further the modified GT methodology used, showing in particular its differences with the classic GT approach as it addresses the issues usually levelled against GT, including the 3-tier grounding processes it entails. Chapter 4 is a six-part in- depth discussion of the findings of the study including the emergence of initial categories, a conceptual refinement of all categories, the theoretical grounding process with six extant theories and
the final grounding process involving an evaluation of internal cohesion. Conclusion and recommendations for further research and possible future studies are discussed in the final chapter.
