22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Higher Education Stakeholder views of Change and Leadership: A Comparative Study between The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.
Trevor McSharry1, Cristina Devecchi2
1Atlantic Technological University, Ireland; 2University of Northampton
Presenting Author: McSharry, Trevor
This presentation is a comparison between two projects associated with the topics of change and leadership in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Although the projects focused on different contexts of leadership and were conducted pre-Covid (UK) and during/post-Covid (IE), several key identical questions on stakeholders’ views of change and leadership were used to facilitate comparative analysis. The presentation will use the data from the two countries to draw comparisons on several diversity issues, such as gender, professional status (academic and/or professional services), and a changed higher education environment post-Covid. Both projects focused on the connections between leadership and change in the dynamic, complex and progressively more uncertain context of higher education.
The UK based project titled “Leading Change Together” (Authors, 2018) was a UK-wide exploration of how academic and professional services staff, university leaders and managers viewed and coped with change. The project took place in 2016 when the UK voted to leave the European Union and in the context of major changes determined by the increase in tuition fees, the increased use of accountability and performance regarding teaching, research and enterprise, and the diminishing authority of academic leadership in favour of a managerialist approach (Mansour, et al., 2015; Lumby, 2012, Deem and Brehony, 2007). The project aimed to develop an understanding of the dynamics of formal and informal leadership practices and strategies using change management and shared leadership theory.
The Irish Project is part of a Doctorate in Education (EdD) at Maynooth University and also focused on change and leadership within a similar context of change in the Higher Education (HE) sector, but, more specifically, in the context of the merger of three institutions into a single one to form a new Technological University (TU). Specifically for the Irish context, significant issues currently face Higher Educational Institute’s (HEIs) in Ireland. Similarly, to the UK context, issues include increased workload, reduced staff development opportunities and concerns over investment in information technology, which lead to inefficiencies (QQI 2016). Several key areas for development in Ireland’s HEIs have been identified and include quality culture and systems, resources and leadership development and technology (Higher Education Authority 2017). In the context of most Institutes of Technology (ITs) merging to become Technological Universities (TUs), the focus of this project was the change and leadership perceptions of staff to gain insights into the topics of change, culture, change management and change leadership. The primary research question is “What do stakeholders consider important for change leadership.”
Conceptually, both projects acknowledged that change is complex, and that current leadership research still lacks theorisation and a fuller understanding of the dynamics of leadership in HEIs since there still is a lack of literature, which explores the human and emotional aspects of change, and little on the dynamics of identity development in a workplace under conditions of change (Reissner 2010). As Trowler (1998: 150) argued, ‘a precondition for effective change in universities is to understand the multiple cultures within universities and to ‘conceptualise organisations as open systems and cultural configurations within them as multiple, complex and shifting.’ Complexity Theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens. Mason (2008) outlines that complexity theory looks at complex systems as open systems, which survive through evolution and adaptation. He believes that organisations are complex, with many connected elements or agents, which facilitate the sharing of knowledge through formal bureaucratic structures and informal social networks.
It is envisaged that through this comparative study between two countries in Europe, further HEI’s and researchers will engage with similar studies in other countries and provide a deeper insight across European higher educational landscape.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedBoth projects utilised a pragmatic mixed method approach to data collection to achieve both breadth of views and an in depth understanding of change and leadership using a variety of methods appropriate to the circumstances (Burke Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). The UK-based study applied a sequential 2-phase mixed method approach using focus groups (11 participants), a cross national survey (356 responses) and semi-structured interviews (11 participants). Visual aids were also used to elicit participants’ experience of the change process and as probes to elicit views on change leadership. To increase reaching a wider group of participants, the project also hosted a LTHE Tweetchat @LTHEchat which was attended by 168 participants.
Whereas the UK project had a national scope, the Irish project collected data only on the three colleges that were in the merging process, for a total of 2,215 members of staff, 53% on an academic contract. The overall scope of this doctoral research consisted for four sequential stages as follows:
Stage 1 of this research involved a qualitative review using NVIVO of the TU application document to assess the initial common voice of the emerging TU.
Stage 2 involved an online focus group with a representative sample of senior management (both academic and support staff) from each of the three merging organisations (18 participants).
Stage 3 involved a survey for all staff in the three organisations. Perceptions of change and leadership were gathered, and 371 participants successfully completed the survey resulting in confidence level of 95%. SPSS was utilised to analysis the quantitative data from the survey and the open question responses were coded in NVIVO also.
Stage 4 involved an interview with the TU president to discuss the preliminary findings from the previous stages, including the topics of change drivers and culture.
The data for this presentation is drawn primarily from the stage 3 survey data relating to two question areas that probed the participants to reflect on how change was impacting them and on how they viewed leadership and the role of the leader in managing change.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAnalysis to date indicates that there were broad similarities, and some differences in regard to both change and leadership. UK participants felt more empowered by contributing to change, felt their managers enabled them to take part in leading change, they were positive about the resources at their disposal, and held a more positive view about being part of a supportive team when compared to Irish participants. However, Irish participants felt better able to cope with change and felt their jobs were more secure than UK participants. No major difference was found regarding participants ability to make their voice heard.
Regarding leadership, there were more commonalities of views between the two countries in which most participants in the UK and Ireland believe leadership develops in a context, it can be found at all levels of an institution, leadership can be learned and makes change happen. However, a minority of participants in both countries believe that leaders are born that way and that everyone can be a leader.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. There is support for the contextual nature of leadership and a denial of ‘great man’ theories or theories, which espouse the notion that leadership is an innate feature. Rather, leadership can be learned, and anybody can become a leader given the right support. In addition, the data relating to change is more nuanced, as several factors contribute to its complex nature. However, adequate resources, effective management, supportive teams and having a voice all seem to contribute to how participants can cope with change.
Further research across European HEI’s is recommended to get a broader understanding of change and leadership perceptions post Covid and the influence of gender and role will also be investigated further.
ReferencesBurke Johnson, R, Onwuegbuzie A, 2004. ‘Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come,’ Educational Researcher, vol.33, no. 7, pp. 14-26.
Deem, R. and Brehony, K. J. 2007 Management as ideology: the case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31, 2. 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117827
Higher Education Authority 2017, Higher Education System Performance 2018-2020. Higher Education Authority, Available from: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/higher-education-system-performance-framework-2018-2020.pdf [Accessed on 27 Dec 2019].
Lumby, J. 2012 What do we know about leadership in Higher Education?. London: LFHE
Mansour, H.F., Heath, G. & Brannan, M.J., 2015 Exploring the Role of HR Practitioners in Pursuit of Organizational Effectiveness in Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Change Management, 15(3), pp.210–230. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14697017.2015.1045539 .
Mason, M. 2008, ‘Complexity theory and the philosophy of education’, Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 40(1), pp. 4-18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x.
QQI, 2016, Quality in an era of diminishing resources, Irish higher education 2008-15,’ QQI. Available from: https://www.qqi.ie/Publications/Publications/Quality%20in%20an%20Era%20of%20Diminishing%20Resources%20Report%20(FINAL%20March%202016).pdf
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
The Dark Side of Person-Organizational Fit and its Role in Merging Higher Education Institutions
Alexander Zibenberg, Irit Sasson
Tel-Hai Academic College, Israel
Presenting Author: Zibenberg, Alexander
While mergers and acquisitions are commonly thought of as belonging to the business world, they occur in educational contexts as well, and some research has considered the consequences of these mergers (e.g., Kohvakka 2021). Studies point to positive merger outcomes, such as improving teaching efficiency (Agasisti, Egorov, and Maximova 2021), becoming more competitive with other academic institutions, and generating new ideas and concepts (Deiaco, Gren, and Melin 2009). Numerous attempts have been made to merge higher education institutions (e.g., Estermann and Pruvot 2015; Harman and Harman 2003), but most adopt private sector strategies, and these have not been particularly helpful in the educational field (Kezar and Eckel 2002; Ribando and Evans 2015). In addition, little is known about the way merging affects faculty, administrative staff, or students (Ribando and Evans 2014; Slade et al. 2021).
We investigated the merging of academic organizations for two main reasons. First, the research on higher education mergers is limited compared to private sector mergers (Pinheiro, Geschwind, and Aarrevaara 2016), therefore, we sought to shed light on the effects of organizational mergers which are particularly relevant to the academic environment. Second, studies focusing on higher education institutions have consistently ignored the personal and emotional experiences of the staff (both academic and administrative), and students (Wollscheid and Røsdal 2021) and emphasized organizational goals (Johnes and Tsionas 2019). In light of current social and institutional changes, we believe it is critical to understand how merging impacts the people within the institution.
Given these underlying social factors, we chose to focus less on the organization and more on the human side of the merger process. More specifically, we argued that considering a diverse population (faculty, administrative staff, and students) within the academy would provide a new angle in this research field. Studies suggest the uncertainties and ambiguities involved in mergers evoke strong psychological reactions from employees (Bhal, Uday Bhaskar, and Venkata Ratnam 2009), including rising levels of stress (Cartwright and Cooper 1993), identity dissonance (Legendre and Bowen 2020), and fear (Sethi, Mishra, and Dash 2010). Following this line of research, we focused on threat appraisal, the psychological mechanism underlying adverse reactions to change (Arbona and Jimenez 2014). This mechanism is linked to well-being and psychological health (Kaltiainen et al. 2020), absenteeism, and quit intentions (Fugate, Prussia, and Kinicki 2012).
We have extended previous knowledge by examining personal and contextual factors related to an individual's threat appraisal. On the personal level, we explored the potential antecedent of dispositional resistance to change (RTC) (Oreg 2003) on threat appraisal of organizational mergers in the educational context. The dispositional resistance to change represents a meaningful concept for capturing individual differences in the personality-based inclination to resist change (Oreg and Sverdlik 2011). Studies agree that individuals high in RTC are less likely to accept changes and mostly see negative outcomes of the change (Oreg et al. 2009).
We also focused on a mechanism that represents a level of congruence between the attributes faculty, administrative staff, and students possess and those of their academic environment, commonly called the person-organizational fit (P-O fit) (Kristof 1996). P-O fit theory argues that individuals are attracted to and selected by organizations whose work environments reflect the individuals’ values and cultures (Kristof-Brown and Billsberry 2013). Given the controversial impact of the P-O fit during an organizational change (Caldwell 2013), we argued that it would be interesting to see the extent to which P-O fit interferes with the relationships between resistance to change and threat appraisal of organizational mergers.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data were collected from two higher education institutions that had recently merged. Following the types of mergers suggested by Harman and Harman (2003), this merger represented two partners (vs. multi-partner merger) and involved institutions from the same sector (single sector vs. different sectors). It was a ‘take-over’ merger, as a smaller college (Campus B) merged with a larger one (Campus A). The merger was imposed: it was initiated by the government, not by the institutions themselves (voluntary). Imposed mergers turn out to be less successful than voluntary ones (Skodvin 1999), giving us an additional reason to select these institutions for our study.
Participants and Procedure
The sample comprised 429 participants. The data were collected from both institutions' faculty, students, and administrative staff. Descriptive statistics of the categorical variables are presented in Table 1. Participants from Campus A comprised 78.6% of the sample. The average age for students from both institutions was 28.08 years (SD = 7.03).
The data were collected via an online survey using Qualtrics software. To recruit participants, we partnered with the administration of both institutions to increase the response rate, secure legitimacy, and select representative sampling. An email invitation was sent to the general population, including faculty, administrative staff, and students. All participants were asked to confirm informed consent to participate in the study. We ensured the complete confidentiality of data and the identity of the participants as part of the requirements of the Ethics Committee. The survey website was open for eight weeks.
Three reminder emails were sent in weeks 2, 4, and 6 of the survey. A total of 429 individuals responded to our survey with useable questionnaires. We address this point in the discussion.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs expected, our findings showed individuals’ attitudes toward organizational change were influenced by their dispositional inclination to resist change.
The findings showed a positive relationship between RTC and social cohesion threat was less relevant for individuals with a low level of P-O fit. Thus, the uncertainty associated with an organizational merger mainly threatened those who were strongly connected to their specific institution. They were likely also more worried about their place associated with the merger process. At the same time, those individuals with a weak or low P-O fit were likely less emotionally involved in the organizational change; therefore, the congruence between their and organizational values affected them less.
The impact of P-O fit is significant across organizations, including higher education institutions. A high degree of compatibility between the employee and the organization greatly benefits the organization and its composition. However, our research points to the phenomenon's dark side and raises several issues of concern.
First, a high fit seems to increase the risk that an employee will fully identify with the organization's values, and this may encourage conformity and compliance (Caldwell et al. 2009). A high fit level strengthens the attachment to the status quo, hindering readiness for new ideas and ways of doing things (Caldwell 2013) and perhaps decreasing critical thinking and objective judgment. It is likely that in some places, conformity and compliance will be welcomed by employers.
Second, the degree of employee caring and belonging to the organization during organizational change matters. Employees with high P-O fit are known to be involved in organizational life, including citizenship behavior and commitment (Vilela, González, and Ferrín 2008). However, based on our findings, it seems that a strong fit is more relevant to routine situations and less so in the context of organizational change, especially the merging process.
ReferencesCaldwell, Steven D. 2011. “Bidirectional Relationships Between Employee Fit and Organizational Change.” Journal of Change Management 11 (4): 401–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.590453.
Caldwell, Steven. 2013. “Change and Fit, Fit and Change.” In The Psychology of Organizational Change, edited by Shaul Oreg, Alexandra Michel, and Rune Todnem By, 1st ed., 255–74. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.017.
Caldwell, Steven D., David M. Herold, and Donald B. Fedor. 2004. “Toward an Understanding of the Relationships Among Organizational Change, Individual Differences, and Changes in Person-Environment Fit: A Cross-Level Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (5): 868–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.868.
Caldwell, Steven D., Cathy Roby-Williams, Kathy Rush, and Theresa Ricke-Kiely. 2009. “Influences of Context, Process and Individual Differences on Nurses’ Readiness for Change to Magnet Status.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 65 (7): 1412–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05012.x.
Estermann, Thomas, and Enora Bennetot Pruvot. 2015. “The Rise of University Mergers in Europe.” International Higher Education, no. 82 (September): 12–13. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.82.8867.
Evans, Linda. 2017. “The Worst of Times? A Tale of Two Higher Education Institutions in France: Their Merger and Its Impact on Staff Working Lives.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (9): 1699–1717. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1119107.
Kohvakka, Mikko. 2021. “Justification Work in a University Merger: The Case of the University of Eastern Finland.” European Journal of Higher Education 11 (2): 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1870517.
Kristof, Amy L. 1996. “PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW OF ITS CONCEPTUALIZATIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND IMPLICATIONS.” Personnel Psychology 49 (1): 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.
Kristof-Brown, Amy L., and Jon Billsberry, eds. 2013. Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions. Chichester, West Sussex ; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Ryan D. Zimmerman, and Erin C. Johnson. 2005. “CONSEQUENCES OF INDIVIDUALS’ FIT AT WORK: A META-ANALYSIS OF PERSON-JOB, PERSON-ORGANIZATION, PERSON-GROUP, AND PERSON-SUPERVISOR FIT.” Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.
Raaper, Rille. 2016. “Academic Perceptions of Higher Education Assessment Processes in Neoliberal Academia.” Critical Studies in Education 57 (2): 175–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.1019901.
Slade, Catherine P., Saundra Ribando, C. Kevin Fortner, and Kristin V. Walker. 2021. “Mergers in Higher Education: It’s Not Easy. Merger of Two Disparate Institutions and the Impact on Faculty Research Productivity.” Studies in Higher Education 47 (6): 1215–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1870948.
Wollscheid, Sabine, and Trude Røsdal. 2021. “The Impact of Mergers in Higher Education on Micro-Level Processes – a Literature Review.” Tertiary Education and Management 27 (3): 257–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-021-09074-4.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Contextual and Cultural Factors for Change at an Emerging Technological University
Trevor McSharry
Atlantic Technological University, Ireland
Presenting Author: McSharry, Trevor
This paper is part of a Doctorate in Education at Maynooth University in Ireland. The primary research question is “What do stakeholders consider important for change leadership in an emerging Technological University?” The sub-research question that is the focus of this paper is “What are the contextual and cultural factors for change?”
In addition to dramatic disruptions because of Covid 19, major issues exist in the Irish Higher Education, which include increased workload, reduced staff development opportunities and concerns over investment in information technology, which lead to inefficiencies (QQI 2016). A number of key areas for development in Ireland’s Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) have been identified and include quality culture and systems, resources and leadership development and technology (Higher Education Authority 2017). In the context of most Institutes of Technology (ITs) merging to become Technological Universities (TUs), change and leadership have never been so important.
Having carried out a systematic literature review on change and leadership in Higher Education (Author, 2022), the topic of change drivers was identified as a key theme. Change drivers included globalisation and an emerging technological revolution (Geraiden et al. 2018). Managerialism or New Public Management resulting in structural governance and institutional changes is also seen as a change driver where HEIs are becoming more decentralised from government with increased focus on efficiency (Howells et al. 2014). Other drivers are associated with making HEIs more responsive to market needs (Kohtamaki 2019), internationalisation (Said et al. 2015) as well as diversity, climate change and environmental sustainability (Dahlvig 2018). More recently, research is emerging in relation to how HEI’s have coped with the change driver of Covid-19 (Makaram et al, 2021) and how they are addressing gender balance (Gebretsadik 2021)
Contextual factors were identified as another key theme when researching change. One factor is the type of HEI model and its power structures (Tjeldvoll 2011) as well as its developmental stage (Dobi 2012). Cultural influences and traditions are also important for leadership and performance of higher education (Tjeldvoll 2011). Collins (2014) suggests that any effort to encourage or teach leadership will fail unless the distinctive challenges of higher education’s individualistic culture is considered.
Schein & Schein (2016) emphasise that leadership and culture formation are two sides of the same coin, and that the role of leadership changes with the growth and development of an organisation. In relation to assessing organisational culture, Schein and Schein (2016) believe the Cameron and Quinn’s Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) based on a competing values framework, represents an interesting culture model, which they believe makes sense and helps describe the human experience.
Complexity Theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens. Mason (2008) outlines that complexity theory looks at complex systems as open systems, which survive through evolution and adaptation. He believes that organisations are complex, with many connected elements or agents, which facilitate the sharing of knowledge through formal bureaucratic structures and informal social networks.
This paper will examine the contextual factors, including change drivers of an emerging technological university in Ireland that was formed through the merging of three Institutes of Technology. It will also assess the current and preferred culture of this new university, using the organisational leadership dimensions of the OCAI from Cameron and Quinn (2011). This research will build on existing literature and form a strong foundation for the exploration of change leadership, which is an underdeveloped area of research in higher education.
It is hoped that this research will be timely and relevant to other researchers and HEIs across Europe undergoing significant change and provide insights into key cultural and contextual factors that are important for consideration.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFrom a research design perspective, a mixed methods approach, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods was used in this study. A key feature of this mixed methods approach is its methodological pluralism, which frequently leads to superior results when compared to taking one method (Burke Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). This pluralist approach, generally seen as a pragmatic philosophical paradigm, avails of the strengths of both methods and will help identify actionable, practical solutions for the stakeholders to consider.
The overall scope of this doctoral research consisted for four stages as follows:
Stage 1 involved a qualitative review using NVIVO of the TU application document to assess the initial common voice of the emerging TU and assess word frequency and emerging themes.
Stage 2 builds on this context and involved an online focus group with a representative sample of senior management (both academic and support staff) from each of the three merging organisations (18 participants). A pre-focus group survey was conducted to gather demographic data of participants and initial insights into change leadership themes. In addition, each participant was asked to use the OCAI organisational leadership dimension and rate the four quadrants of collaborate, create, compete and control. The focus of this stage was on obtaining participant perceptions on change drivers, change and leadership as well as discuss and agree the culture of the organisation. The preferred culture was also identified for the emerging TU. Stage 2 focus groups were recorded and transcribed as well as coded and analysed using NVIVO.
Stage 3 involved an online survey for all staff in the three organisations. 371 participants successfully completed the survey resulting in confidence level of 95%. SPSS was utilised to analyse the quantitative data from the survey and the open question responses were coded in NVIVO also.
Stage 4 involved an interview with the new TU president to discuss the preliminary findings from the previous stages, including the topics of context, change drivers and culture. Note a pre-interview survey was completed by the President similar to Stage 2, which included the OCAI culture assessment. The qualitative data from this interview was transcribed and analysed using NVIVO as per Stage 2.
The primary source of data utilised to respond to this paper’s research question was from the Stage 2 focus groups. Findings from the other stages, particularly stage 3 and 4 were used to support these findings.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsMany external change drivers previously identified in literature were also identified in this research, including Covid, equality, diversity and inclusion. The topic of gender balance was prominent, especially for leadership positions. The regulatory environment of compliance was seen as a key external driver of change. Other external drivers included internationalisation, sustainability, industry engagement and technology. The TU merging process was also a big change driver. Internal change drivers were associated with the source of change, either from the top down or bottom up such as staff, trade unions and the leadership team.
From a contextual perspective, the TU was perceived as being complex and evolving. Tensions were identified between academic and support staff, where trust and respect may not be equally shared. In the context of an emerging TU, the organisational size and structures were seen as important factors as well as the potential to reduce duplication and improve efficiencies and invest in technology.
Out of the four OCAI culture quadrants of Collaborate (clan), Create (innovate), Compete (market) and Control (hierarchy). Control was identified across the three organisations as being the most dominant. Compete was the lowest aggregate score. In terms of preferred culture, the Collaborate culture was growing in importance, especially due to the TU merger and should be strengthened. Due to external regulatory and quality requirements, Control (hierarchal) culture was seen as a necessity but something that should be constrained. Overall, a balanced approach between the four quadrants was seen as desirable by the management staff and President.
It is hoped that this research has provided useful findings for researchers as well as HEI’s across Europe and that through ECER 2023, this research will act as a stimulus to carry out comparative cultural and contextual analysis internationally with other researchers to further develop this research area.
ReferencesBurke Johnson, R, Onwuegbuzie A, 2004. ‘Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come,’ Educational Researcher, vol.33, no. 7, pp. 14-26.
Cameron, K.S., Quinn R.E. 2011, “Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture,” Jossey-Bass, Third Edition.
Collins, J.P. 2014, "Leadership and Change in Twenty-First Century Higher Education", BioScience, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 561-562.
Dahlvig, J.E. 2018, "Flourishing for the Common Good: Positive Leadership in Christian Higher Education During Times of Change", Christian Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 1-2, pp. 97-109.
Dobi, T. 2012, "Major changes to leadership, management, and organizational structure: The case of the European University of Tirana", International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 107-119.
Gebretsadik DM., 2022,” An Exploration of Change Leadership at Public Higher Education Institutions in Ethiopia,” Sage Open, 1-11.
Gelaidan, H.M., Al-Swidi, A. & Mabkhot, H.A. 2018, "Employee Readiness for Change in Public Higher Education Institutions: Examining the Joint Effect of Leadership Behavior and Emotional Intelligence", International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 150-158.
Higher Education Authority. 2017, Higher Education System Performance 2018-2020. Higher Education Authority. Available from: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/higher-education-system-performance-framework-2018-2020.pdf [Accessed on 27 Dec 2019]
Howells, J.R.L., Karataş-Özkan, M., Yavuz, Ç. & Atiq, M. 2014, "University management and organisational change: A dynamic institutional perspective", Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 251-270.
Kohtamäki, V. 2019, "Academic leadership and university reform-guided management changes in Finland", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 70-85.
Mason, M 2008, ‘Complexity theory and the philosophy of education’, Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 40(1), pp. 4-18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x.
Mukaram AT., Mukaram Ali Khan KR., Danish RQ., Zubair SS., “Can adaptive–academic leadership duo make universities ready for change? Evidence from higher education institutions in Pakistan in the light of COVID-19,” Management Research Review, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1478-1498.
QQI, 2016, Quality in an era of diminishing resources, Irish higher education 2008-15,’ QQI. Available from: https://www.qqi.ie/Publications/Publications/Quality%20in%20an%20Era%20of%20Diminishing%20Resources%20Report%20(FINAL%20March%202016).pdf.
Said, H., Ahmad, I., Mustaffa, M.S. & Ghani, F.A. 2015, "Role of campus leadership in managing change and challenges of internationalization of higher education", Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4S1, pp. 82-88.
Tjeldvoll, A. 2011, "Change leadership in universities: The Confucian dimension", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 219-230.
|
