2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY
2.2.2 External organisational structure
The prosperity and survival of an organisation depends on the acquisition of necessary resources and adaptation to the environment (Yukl, 2013). Organisations are inextricably linked to their settings. HLIs need to adjust to changes in their external environment and work with external stakeholders through democratic principles to address societal needs and foster institutional growth (Hendrickson, Lane, Harris &
Dorman, 2013). “Higher education is, and has been, the central cultural institution of the modern system” (Meyer, Ramirez, Frank & Schofer, 2007:210). HLIs serve various external stakeholders such as governors, alumni trustees, professional associations, legislators, employers, parents and state boards (Bastedo, 2007). Each of these stakeholders has specific desires.
Additionally, higher education should accommodate numerous conflicting desires from their stakeholders, including improving efficiency, enhancing quality, lowering costs and expanding access to the higher education institutions (Gumport & Pusser, 1999).
This suggests that the external and internal organisational environment influences the task of HLI leaders. Therefore, to address the needs of stakeholders, leaders of HLIs need to work in collaboration with stakeholders. The next section presents the aspects of external organisational structure and environments, which are the legal framework, regulatory structures, governing bodies and suppliers.
2.2.2.1 Legal framework
The legal framework is the regulative and legislative aspect through which governments control or direct the function of an organisation. It comprises the government rules, acts, laws, regulations, proclamations and policies that influence and govern the organisational operation (Edelman & Suchman, 1997). According to Edelman and Suchman (1997), there are at least three discrete aspects of organisations’ legal environments. These are the facilitative environment, in which law inactively offers ground for organisational deed; the regulatory environment, in which
21
the law vigorously seeks to control organisational conduct; and the constitutive environment, in which law describes the fundamental pillars of organisational structures and inter-organisational relationships. In the context of HLIs, the legal framework might include the appointment of top-level leadership, student admission, proclamations, funding or budget allocation, policies on increasing access, quality- education-monitoring frameworks, licences and accreditation regulations.
2.2.2.2 Regulatory structures
Regulatory structures refer to regulatory organisations or agencies that evaluate and monitor other organisations’ performance. Those regulatory organisations have public authority to control, regulate, and ensure that organisational activities are performed according to given regulations, established rules, and laws. In the context of HLIs, regulatory agencies such as professional associations, quality assurance agencies, and other bodies entrusted by the government to perform monitoring, evaluation and audit of the academic activities of a higher education provider can be cited as an example of regulatory organisations (Woodhouse, 1999; Harvey & Williams, 2010). In order to realise their vision and goals, HLIs need to be supported by a well-organised, competent, and motivated legal agency or supervisory authority involved in monitoring their activities (Jaramillo et al., 2012). The regulatory organisations’ decisions and day- to-day activities can be independent of or dependent on the government.
Independence refers to the degree to which regulatory organisations perform their actions and make decisions without government interference.
2.2.2.3 Other external organisational factors
Other external factors that can influence HLIs’ leadership performance are 1) the government, which is the major supplier of material and financial resources mainly for public HLIs to perform their activities and produce the required outputs; 2) the industries which are the potential work places for providing internships for students; 3) international donors and HLIs which are potential providers of financial or material resources and scholarship opportunities; and 4) secondary or preparatory schools, which are the potential suppliers of students to the HLIs.
22 2.2.3 Internal organisational structure
The internal organisational structure includes some internal components and aspects of HLIs that may influence the task of the leadership in assuring the quality of education. HLIs vary in terms of governance, student profiles, academic staff characteristics, organisational complexity (location, size and age), and infrastructure.
These aspects are described in the following paragraphs.
2.2.3.1 Governance
Edwards (2000) defines governance as how the working environment, processes and structures of an organisation are setup to achieve the organisation’s goals.
Governance also deals with procedural relationships within organisations and with their key stakeholders. Good governance is a precondition for the success of any organisation. The key components for good governance are transparency, accountability, participation, and effectiveness (Shattock, 2006; Osborne, 1998;
Edwards, 2000). Governance is a means of achieving organisational objectives and should allow the organisation to react to the needs of the external environment by regulating its internal procedures accordingly (Salter & Tapper, 2002). Successful organisations have organised work cultures and governance structures that typically go beyond conformance to compliances. Governance assists the organisation’s efforts to enhance its performance (Salter & Tapper, 2002; Shattock, 2006).
Governance needs to be distinguished from interrelated terms such as administration, leadership and management. According to Gallagher (2001), governance is the structural arrangement that brings about authorised policies, organisational plans, coherence and decisions, responsiveness, cost-effectiveness and accountability for their integrity. Leadership is setting strategic directions based on opportunities and inspiring people to build up organisational values and purposes. Management is attaining intended results responsibly by allocating material and human resources and monitoring their effectiveness and efficiency. Administration is the execution of official processes and the implementation of systems to attain agreed outcomes. Therefore, governance can be considered as a relational concept that incorporates management, leadership and administration.
23
2.2.3.1.1 Governance in higher learning institutions
In an HLI, governance is the informal and formal exercise of authority under policies and laws that articulate the responsibilities and rights of various actors, including interrelated regulations (Hirsch & Weber, 2001). It focuses on the laws and systems by which multiple stakeholders influence decisions, and how and to whom they are held responsible (Eurydice, 2008). HLI governance is determined by the internal institutional principles of resource allocation systems, decision-making process, purposes and mission, the patterns of hierarchy and authority, and the relationship with external and internal stakeholders (Marginson & Considine, 2000). It refers to the process of macro-level decision-making and policymaking within higher education (Kezar, 2004). Therefore, governance in HLIs enables favourable conditions for teaching and learning, research and outreach activities.
Structures of governance in HLIs refer to all pertinent aspects of the way HLIs are administered. Some of these aspects are arrangements of informal and formal institutional decision-making processes and structures, responsibilities and activities of institutional governance bodies, and external stakeholder participation in institutional governance issues (Hendrickson et al., 2013). An HLI governance structure is considered a set of regulations regarding power and authority associated with the performance of the HLI’s activities focused on designated common goals (De Boer, 2002). It reflects the systems in which an organisation integrates and divides authority and responsibility. The regulations refer to instructions commonly applied and known by the members of an organisation to bring about an arranged set of cyclical and interdependent interactions within an organisation. External bodies greatly influence institutional governance, including the state governance arrangements, the establishment of legislation and reforms of the various regulatory frameworks (Rowlands, 2017; Reed, Meek & Jones, 2002). The procedures and results of academic governance affect the academic quality (Rowlands, 2012, 2013).
In many countries, the internal governance of HLI hierarchies is made up of legislative, executive and supervisory bodies (Rowlands, 2017; Reed et al., 2002). Within the academic governance of HLIs, the board is the top governing body. It may have significant roles in upholding academic standards, setting goals, appointing top leadership and defining the relationship with external stakeholders of the HLIs. In the
24
Ethiopian context, the top decision-making body of an HLI, particularly in public HLI, is the governing board. The main responsibilities of the board are to oversee the adoption and development of vital institutional policies and strategic plans; to monitor and review the overall performance of institutions, and to take ultimate accountability for the institution (FDRGE, 2019). Each Ethiopian public HLI has its own governing board accountable to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. The HLI’s board, the highest external governing body, comprises seven voting members selected from different organisations in a comprehensive application of the Higher Education Proclamation no. 1152/2019. Most private HLIs do not have a board; in most cases, the owner/s of the institution or management committee established by them are the top decision-makers.
2.2.3.1.2 Factors influencing the governance of higher learning institutions
The influence of global and local (social, economic and political) conditions in the world brings a continuous change of HLIs in the way they are governed, forcing them to adjust to the situation continuously. Owing to the current global and local conditions, HLIs compete for status, ranking, and funding from government or private sources (Federkeil, 2008). Hypothetically, there is a dynamic and continuous interaction between the HLI and its external environment; the leaders of HLIs are responsible for adjusting the institution’s governance system in response to the changes in the external environment (Austin, 2009).
The governance of an HLI is also considered one of the essential factors influencing the quality of its performance (Jaramillo et al., 2012). Currently, therefore, HLI governance has continuously been transformed in response to calls from organisations that go hand in hand with countries’ interests to improve their national productivity by improving their higher education system (El-Khawas, 2012).
The HLI authorities who also come from the global and local context, have a considerable influence on the negative or positive performance of HLIs (El-Khawas, 2012; Saint, 2009). If the authorities’ capacity is at an acceptable level, they would then help enhance the capability of HLI governance personnel through monitoring, guiding and supporting them. They would, for instance, contribute to the formation of accountability measures (monitoring and reporting systems), result-based
25
management, performance indicators, performance contracts, monitoring and evaluation reports, external and internal institutional audits, and quality assurance mechanisms (Varghese, 2013). Moreover, to realise their vision and goals, HLIs need to be supported by a well-organised, competent, and motivated legal agency or supervisory authority involved in elaborating and monitoring programmes and policies (Jaramillo et al., 2012).
2.2.3.1.3 Effective academic governance in higher learning institutions
Schuster, Smith, Corak and Yamada (1994) suggest that effectiveness is the value of attaining a quality decision based on competence. If the governance body comprises pertinent individuals with the required competence, the governance process and system become more efficient (Rowlands, 2017; Dill & Helm, 1988). Effective academic governance in HLIs results from the effective participation of internal stakeholders such as academic staff, students and administrative staff, and external stakeholders such as government, employers and funders (Rowlands, 2017). The participation of these stakeholders has an enormous influence on the academic governance of an HLI. The primary need of stakeholders is to witness the existence of transparent, open, free from bias and participatory decision-making processes.
Effective academic governance is characterised by a system through which internal and external stakeholders can participate and contribute to academic decision-making at various institutional levels (Rowlands, 2017).
Internal stakeholders include administrators, faculty members, and students, whereas external stakeholders are individuals or groups who are not members of the academy but have an interest in higher education (Amaral & Magalhaes, 2002). External stakeholders include influential members of the public, business sector individuals, the state, parents, and international organisations (Austin, 2009). De Boer, Enders and Schimank (2007) argue that stakeholders are important societal actors interested in tertiary education. According to Hénard and Mitterle (2010), their influence can range from governing boards or membership of supervisory to simple funding functions.
Internal stakeholders have to be formally represented in the academic decision- making bodies such as the senate, academic commissions, department councils or school councils. They must also be involved in activities regarding issues related to academic matters such as designing and developing academic programmes, selecting
26
academic staff for leadership positions and promotions (Jaramillo et al., 2012). At the same time, external stakeholders have to be represented in the academic decision- making process where they are assumed to be necessary.
Moreover, transparency or openness is essential for a truthfully deliberative approach to an HLI’s governance (Hénard & Mitterle, 2010). Stakeholders must have adequate information about the HLI’s activities in order to participate and contribute their share (Brennan & Shah, 2000; Hénard & Mitterle, 2010). Transparency refers to clearly understood procedures through which activities such as academic staff appraisal, appointment, promotion, programme initiation, approval and review of producers and other activities are performed as per the rules and regulations of the institution. It also refers to internal and external stakeholders having access to information on the basis of which decisions are made. If this is not happening, the institution’s governing body and its leadership will likely leave itself open to accusations of patronage and will be discredited by stakeholders.
2.2.3.2 Institutional complexity
According to Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly and Konopaske (2012), the complexity of an institution is a dimension of institutional structure that refers to the number and variety of units, jobs, and levels of authority within the institution. The more the structural differentiation, size, and age of an institution increases, the more complex it becomes. As a result, different interests of staff arise, more specialisation develops, more positions are required, and decision-making and execution processes become more difficult (Bass, 2008). Institutions vary structurally, and research on institutions indicates that institutional complexity mainly affects operations within the institution, structural conditions, and relations between the institution and its environs (Tolbert &
Hall, 2016).
Similarly, Gibson et al. (2012) and Tolbert and Hall (2016) observe that the nature and pace of bringing reforms are affected by institutional complexity. These authors emphasise that more complex institutions (vertically, horizontally, or geographically) have difficulty in integrating and implementing diverse activities and ideas generated from different members of the organisation. The complexity of the institution could be at different hierarchy levels. This implies that the task of leadership in HLIs in
27
implementing quality assurance mechanisms is influenced by institutional complexity.
Therefore, leaders of HLIs need to consider implementing the best leadership styles to bring change to such institutions. In this study, the complexity of the HLIs is explained in terms of their age, size and scope of activity. The size of HLIs can be demonstrated by the number of colleges, departments, units, campuses and academic programme diversifications. The scope of educational activities can be explained in terms of the mode of educational deliveries (regular, distance, extension, summer and cross-border), and the age is shown by the year of establishment.
2.2.3.3 Institutional size
Institutional size refers to the scope and degree of responsibilities of an institution (Kimberly, 1976) and is one of the most crucial elements affecting institutional processes and structure (Kimberly, 1976; Blau, 1970). Leaders of large institutions lead many subordinates, and they are likely to use less participative leadership because it is difficult to consult individually (Yukl, 2013). For this reason, providing individual coaching and instruction and maintaining an effective interpersonal relationship is less likely.
There are disadvantages and advantages related to large size institutions (Damanpour, 1996). While large institutions have more opportunities for promotion and development among their employees, more relaxed resources for new diversification and projects and more control over the external environment, they also are less flexible and more bureaucratic, tend to have impersonal work environments and are incapable of changing and adapting new working culture quickly (Hitt, Hoskisson & Ireland, 1990;
Whetten, 1987). According to Dewar and Dutton (1986), large institutions employ more professionals and skilled human resources and are at the forefront of technological improvement. In a study by Hitt et al. (1990), large size was found to hinder innovation because the managerial behaviour in large institutions is more standardised and typically more formalised. Conversely, small institutions are regarded as more innovative because they exhibit less difficulty accepting and realising change, have a greater ability to improve and adapt to the new working culture quickly, and are more flexible. Innovation needs the combination of various parts of an organisation, which can be attained more easily in smaller institutions than the bigger ones (Damanpour, 1996).
28 2.2.3.4 Institutional age
The effect of institutional age on institutional practices is debatable. Age is related to the capability and experience of institutions. Although there is no clear evidence concerning the correlation between age and leadership practice in HLIs, it can be assumed that age may provide capacity and experience for institutions. For example, in comparison to the newer institutions, the older Ethiopian HLIs have better teaching and learning resources, research activities, experienced faculty members, diverse academic programmes and more links with international higher learning and research institutions (HERQA, 2013–2020). Theorists from diverse viewpoints have argued that age affects the institutional capability to innovate, change, survive and grow. According to Sorensen and Stuart (2000), ageing has two conflicting consequences for institutional performance. On the one hand, the fit between institutional competencies and environmental demands declines with age in rapidly changing environments. On the other hand, experience with a set of institutional procedures leads to advanced competence in performance.
2.2.3.5 Academic staff and students’ profiles
Students and academic staff are key actors who directly influence the achievement of HLIs’ objectives (Astin, 1999). The academic staff and students are the main assets of HLIs. Their active participation helps to improve leadership responsiveness by challenging and assisting leaders to enhance the quality of the teaching and learning process (Rowley, 1996). Students and staff do this by providing feedback on the leadership system and on the existing challenges in assuring the quality of education based on their day-to-day experiences and by participating in the decision-making process. McCormick, Kinzie and Gonyea (2013) advocate that students’ participation and involvement in educational activities and experiences (informally outside of class and formally in the classroom) are essential to the success of HLIs. In earlier research, Astin (1999) found that the involvement of students in the institution’s activities is vital in improving the efficiency of any educational performance. Students learn from their institution experience by investing more effort and time in educationally focused tasks such as interacting with faculty and peers about substantive issues and applying what they learn to actual circumstances (Pace, 1998). Student–faculty interaction is
29
positively correlated with personal and intellectual development, attitudinal and personality outcomes, academic attainment, and career outcomes (Kim & Sax, 2017).
The quality of training, the relevance of research output and the provision of service to the wider community is directly related to the quality of the academic and support staff of the institution. The staff of HLIs are an indispensable resource in producing qualified professionals in various areas who are competent and responsive to the needs of their society. Therefore, in order to perform their duty efficiently, HLI staff members need to be appropriately qualified, sufficiently knowledgeable and adequately skilled. They also need to be present in sufficient numbers and should be well-matched to the courses they have to teach and the service they provide.
2.2.3.6 Physical facilities and infrastructure
The existence of sufficient physical facilities is the foundation for any HLI to perform its activities efficiently and achieve its goals. These are facilities related to teaching and learning, and to campus infrastructure such as libraries, laboratories, workshops, computer centres, access to ICT, classrooms, lecture halls, office accommodation, learning resources, recreational and sports facilities, and efficient student services.
Pace (1980) as cited in McCormick et al. (2013:51), verifies that exerting more effort on students to take advantage of the teaching–learning facilities of HLIs plays a vital role in students’ achievement.
2.2.3.7 Working guidelines
Working guidelines are rules that specify the role and responsibilities of each member of an institution and guiding principles of the institutional working conditions. Knowing the contents of each guideline is vital for leaders of HLIs to lead their institution effectively. Some of the main guidelines of HLIs are legislation, strategic plans, admission guidelines, staff recruitment and promotion guidelines, guidelines of teaching and learning, assessment, curriculum development and review, research and consultancy activities, human resource handbooks, administrative manuals, students’
handbooks, and service standards manuals.