Search for Academic Excellence in Public Universities through Multi-level Leadership Practices:

Lessons Learnt from East Asia

Presenter: Ngo Tuyet Mai, School of Education

University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Why University Leadership?

• “University leadership matters.” (e.g., Fullan, 2005; Hallinger, 2007; Millett, 1978; Mulford, 2010;

Ramsden, 1998).

• “Good leadership is conceivably the most practical and cost-effective strategy known to organizations … It can transform the commonplace and average into the remarkable and excellent…It creates an environment for better academic work.”

(Ramsden, 1998, p.363)“The changing landscape of higher education requires new thinking and updated leadership practices.” (ADB, 2012)

Why Leadership Actions?

National Government, universities and their sub-organizational

units (departments) are ‘corporate actors’ who can act and need

to act. He or she can act in a certain function or from a certain

‘corporate’ position.” (Binsbergen et al., 1994, p.223)

Why Leadership Actions?

- “Leadership is the particular actions of leaders…Leadership

resides in the eye of the beholder (subjectivist/interpretivist)

or in the actions of leaders (objectivist/functionalist)” (Middlehurst, 1993, p.19)

- “Organizations’ intelligence is seen in leaders’ actions” (Hanson, 2001, p.644).

“Leaders must be ‘people of actions’” (Ramsden, 1998, p.9).

Leaders’ Actions in University Contexts

Actions concerning PRIMARY processes

(academic tasks)

Actions concerning SECONDARY

processes (supportive tasks)

Why Incentives Promoting Actions?

• The function of university leadership is to provide [promote] incentives for academics to achieve academic excellence

(Kehm & Lazendorf (2007, p.171)

• “Any success of public actions depends on the adequacy of incentives that they offer to individual units”

(Varghese, 2004, p.30)

• “Successful reforms in higher education in the recent past were those with incentives to the academic staff”

(Zheng, 1997)

Why Multi-level Leadership?

MACRO DECISION LEVEL(Government/Ministry Leadership Actions

MESO IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL(Executive University Leadership Actions)

MICRO IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL(Departmental Leadership Actions )

A Multi-level Model Of

University Leadership

Presentation Focus

Multi-level University Leadership Actions of Promoting Incentives for Academic Excellence in Practice: Empirical Case Studies

Implications for Practice: East Asian Lessons for Vietnam

Concluding Remarks

Key Research Questions

WHAT do macro, meso and micro leaders in East Asian flagship public universities do in promoting incentives towards achieving universities’ academic excellence?

WHAT can Vietnam learn from other East Asian public university’s multi level leadership practices?

University Leadership In Practice: An Empirical Study (2012)EMPIRICAL STUDIES ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

Research Approach Cross-national comparative studies

Research Method Document AnalysisSemi-structured Interviews (in English & Vietnamese language)Questionnaire Survey

Research Site 4 Field trips to 4 flagship public universities in East Asia

Field Trip Time Frame

January 2012 (one week/site x 4 sites = 4 weeks long)

Research Participants Total: 18 Vice Chancellors, DVC in 4 public universities (3 in Vietnam , 5 in Hong Kong , 5 in Thailand , 5 in China )

Research Focus -Leaders’ incentive promoting ACTIONS towards achieving the common goal of academic excellence.

Research Purpose - Draw practical lessons for Public University Leaders in Vietnam

Explanatory Framework

- Institutional Theory (Scott, 2004) - Action –centered Leadership (Adair, 1968)

METHODOLOGY CHART

Data Collection and SourcesNational

DocumentsUniversity

Documents Interviews Questionnaire Survey

Qualitative Database Quantitative Database

Descriptive statistics

Scale Alpha Reliability

Thematic Analysis: Using Nvivo 9

Statistical Analysis: SPSS 20

Evidence of Micro Leaders’ Actions

Evidence of Macro

Leaders’ Actions

Evidence of Meso

Leaders’ Actions

A Multi-level Model of Leadership Actions

Research Sites in East Asia: 4 Flagship Public Universities

COUNTRY RANKING QS ASIAN RANKING WORLD RANKING

The University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

1st 3rd 151-200

Peking University (China)

1st 6th 151-200

The Mahidol University (Thailand)

1st 38th 151-200

Hanoi University (Vietnam)

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankingshttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html

Macro Leaders’ Actions: Analysis of Government Documents and Websites

# Assertions Evidence in National Case Study Macro Leader Representing Government

Cross-national Levels of

Government Control

Nature of Actions

1. Government Actions

Governments in TL, CN and HK has more specific and focused actions to place emphasis on academic excellence (performance based funding/rewards), promoting good governance, not micromanage

CHINA: Policies + Project 211, Project 988; Action Plan for Invigorating Education Towards 21st Century”

Ministry of Education

(MOE)Medium Low Command and

Control + Negotiation

HONG KONG: Policies + Consultation, Review Process with Recommendation to shape the future, funding incentives

University Grants

Committee(UGC)

Low Negotiation and Persuasion

THAILAND: Policies + Performance Agreement, strategic support activities, block grant from MOE and flexibility for universities to self-generate funds

Office of Higher Education

Commission (OHEC)

Low Negotiation and Persuasion

VIETNAM: HERA, policies + meeting + reporting

Prime Ministers and Ministry of Education and

Training (MOET)

High Purely command and control

Meso Leaders’ Actions: Analysis of Interviews with Executive Leaders# Assertions Evidence in National Case Study Levels of

Specificity

2. University Executive Leaders’ Actions

Top leaders in Public universities in TL, CN and HK takes more specific and consistent actions than their counterparts in VN

Actions are more individuals needs oriented in TL, CN, and HK

CHINA : faculty performance evaluation/assessment; set targets to fight for resources, promotion policies for high performing academics, “free treatment” programs for young teachers, teaching competition, support programs for under-performing teachers, special programs to help young researchers do research, invite university lecturers world wide to university campus

Medium

HONG KONG: set focused goals (VC), draft policy papers sent to university senate, post strategic plan and priorities on websites, staff development program, encourage staff to do things that are innovative, academic excellence awards, providing housing for staff, organize workshops, involve academics into decision making

High

THAILAND: VC pay visits to all 33 departments (2 departments/week, 15 weeks, Performance Agreement (PA) and PA review, Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle, Dean’s meetings every 2 weeks, topic-based two day retreat, Dean’s 15 minute video brief, publication rate negotiation with teachers, provide teachers with additional income opportunities, grants for young researchers

High

VIETNAM: Talking with Teachers “làm công tác tư tưởng với giáo viên”, Inspecting teaching time, Reporting, Set requirements (quantitative goals), Deans’ meeting (every semester), rectors, vice rector attending Department’s meeting once a year

Low

Cross-National Comparison: University Leaders Actions in Focus

CHINA HONG KONG

THAILAND VIETNAM0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

10 157

70

60 5567

18

Individual FocusTeam FocusTask Focus

Micro Leaders’ Readiness for Actions: Analysis of Questionnaire Survey

Case study

N Minimum

Maximum Mean Levels of Readiness

Assertion #

VIETNAM 81 2.0 3.6 2.87 Lowest 3. CN, HK, and TL’s

Departmental leaders are more ready for

leadership actions of promoting incentives

for academic excellence

CHINA 83 3.0 5.0 3.65 Medium

THAILAND 80 3.0 5.0 4.12 High

HONG KONG

86 3.0 5.0 4.44 Highest

Note: 5 point Likert Scale, 10 item measurement scale

Cross-National Departmental Leaders’ Readiness for Incentive Promoting Actions

Implication 1: Policy Initiatives and Leadership Actions

• Government Policy Initiatives: Regulations by Directives vs. Regulations by incentives

• University Policy Initiatives

PLUS

Specific, focused, strategic leadership actionsEstablish a database of effective multi-level university leadership practices

Implication 2 for Leadership Practice

Achieving the TASK

Developing the

INDIVIDUAL

Building and

maintaining the TEAM

Direct the job to be done (Task Structuring)

Support and review the individual people doing it

Coordinate and foster the work team as a whole

Implication 3: Financial Incentives and Social Incentives

• 'social incentives' (high appreciations/regards)• 'financial incentives' (money rewards)

(Kehm & Lazendorf, 2007, p.157)

“Incentives should be individualized to the greatest extent

possible given the nature of the education organization” (Windham, 1997, p.47)

Implication 4: Strategic Leadership Actions

- A single action can be multi-functional (Adair, 1988)

- “A single input by a leader can have multiple outcomes” (Mulford, 2010, p.187)

- Actions balancing 3 inter-connected needs (1) the task to be performed, (2) the team responsible for performing them, (3) the individuals in that team (Adair, 1988, p.1)

- Success, therefore, will depend on which elements and in what sequence the education leader chooses to spend time and attention on (Mulford, 2007, 2010).

Wrap-up: Practical Lessons Learnt From The Empirical Study

• INSTRUMENTS OF AUTHORITY:- Increasing Autonomy- Empower more, control less

• INSTRUMENTS OF DIRECT ACTIONS:- Individual needs focused- Focused Efforts on Academic Goals, - A System of Coordinated and Collective Leadership

Actions

Concluding Remarks

• “It may be a mistake to believe that all leadership actions must come from ‘leaders’”

(Birnbaum,1989, p.134)

• “The elements for successful university leadership involve being contextually “literate”,

organizationally “savvy” and leadership “smart”.”

(Bill Mulford, 2010, p.187)