QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Drew, Glenys M. (2006) Balancing academic advancement with business effectiveness? The dual role for senior university leaders. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 6(4). pp. 117-125.

© Copyright 2006 (this paper), the author

© Copyright 2006 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Balancing Academic Advancement withBusiness Effectiveness?

Glenys Drew

VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT http://www.Management-Journal.com First published in 2006 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2006 (this paper), the author(s) © 2006 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. ISSN: 1447-9524 Publisher Site: http://www.Management-Journal.com The INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT is a peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee processes. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.

Balancing Academic Advancement with Business Effectiveness?The Dual Role for Senior University Leaders

Glenys Drew, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Australia

Abstract: Competing pressures have served to make universities increasingly complex organisations. Universities worldwidehave been required to rely less on a “knowledge for knowledge’s sake” ethos to embrace a more “applied” or “user led”focus in an environment of mass education, decreased government funding and greater reliance upon collaboration withindustry for funding of research and development. Concomitantly increasing administrative reporting and accreditationrequirements see universities globally caught between the worlds of “Academe” and “business”. The question is how douniversities build and maintain academic rigour while managing increasing internal and external accountabilities? Howwill the institution span its different “worlds” in the “unknown future” of the 21st century? Moreover, how are preparedare universities and education/knowledge organisations for the unprecedented age-related attrition which might be anticipatedover the next five to ten years? This paper reviews literature and some evidence from the practice relating to managementand leadership in university and knowledge environments. It scans external factors which might influence succession planningin leadership at a time when building leadership strength and safeguarding knowledge appears to be vital. The paper notesresearched trends from data on perceptions of the practice of leading and managing in university and education/knowledgeorganisations and suggests some ways to harness organisational complexity positively to plan for a buoyant future.

Keywords: Universities, Academic, Succession Leadership, Feedback

Background

OVER THE PAST decade, the effects ofglobalisation, wider access to highereducation and increased diversity in sourcesof knowledge have dramatically changed

the landscape of tertiary education. Ramsden (1998)writes, “Universities face an almost certain future ofrelentless variation in a more austere climate. Changein the environment – mass higher education,knowledge growth, reduced public funding, increasedemphasis on employment skills, pressure for moreaccountability have been reflected in fundamentalinternal changes” (p. 347). Serving new and differentmarkets, universities are seeing the lens of scrutinyturning on themselves. Greater interest ofgovernment and the public in the way universitiesoperate has seen the “spread of audit culture intoevery nook and cranny of academic life” (Cohen,2004) as government attempts to “steer the universityinto positive… engagement with its wider economicenvironment” (p. 9). As Ramsden (1998) notes: “Theimmense cost of mass higher education means thatthose who pay the piper – …mainly the taxpayers…- will want to call the tune”, while academics are“under daily monitoring from very public and oftencritical audiences” (p.349).

At the same time, given the centrality ofknowledge to contemporary economy, universitieshave perhaps an under-acknowledged role to preserve

and extend knowledge and to contribute to theapplication of knowledge at the intersecting bordersof their specialist domains. They are called upon toembrace new themes of vocational alignment, topartner in an environment less able to fundreplication, and to innovate continuously in order to“do more with less”. This paper examines theliterature and practice in response to the researchquestion: “What might be some of the strategicchallenges at the “transpersonal” (organisationaldevelopment) level for contemporary universitiespursuing effective leadership and management?”

The prefix “trans” meaning “across” or “beyond”,the term “transpersonal” reflects the inevitable“people” factor inherent in the way in whichorganisations operate across their various units andbeyond to the outside world. The paper draws fromliterature and practice and suggests from the analysissome implications for universities preparingthemselves and their leaders for success inincreasingly complex leadership roles.

Balancing Academic Leadership andBusiness EfficiencyUniversities today are vulnerable to risk and requirea similar suite of governance and risk managementstrategies to those of their corporate neighbours.Typically, today’s vice-chancellor or universitypresident is answerable for performance quality to

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4, 2006http://www.Management-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9524

© Common Ground, Glenys Drew, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

the university senate or council which in turn hasstringent responsibilities under legislation forgovernance. In the Australian setting, Coaldrake andStedman (1998) noted some six years ago:“Universities are exposed to risk to the extent thatthey wish to expand their activities into..commercialfields, yet remain bound by practices that inhibit theirflexibility” (pp. 56, 57). The Australian FederalGovernment, for example, expects that universitiesdemonstrate “more focus on matters of output,accreditation and quality assessment”, with the resultthat universities generally have “moved from aposition dominated by features of the collegium andbureaucracy to one closer to the corporation orenterprise” (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999, pp. 53,12). Cohen (2004) agrees that “post-modernismchanged universities forever – from quasi-autonomous institutions of learning to fully fledgedconsumer enterprises” (p. 9). Meek and Wood (1997)note that “Questions of efficiency and effectivenessare prominent on higher education reform agendaseverywhere along with the additional imperativesthat the higher education sector be more relevant tonational economic and social priorities” (p. 3). Theshift spawns vastly increased accountabilityprocesses for conduct of all facets of university work.Hence, the ability to adapt and change emerges as akey capability in university leadership.

Balancing the demands of constantly increasingadministrative and reporting requirements withadvancement of scholarship and knowledge,universities are caught between the two worlds of“academe” and “business”. The remit for theuniversity to maintain scholarship and operate as asuccessful corporation, presenting new challengesfor university leadership, is noted by Hanna (2003)who claims that “higher education institutions mustchange – and, indeed, are changing – to meet futureneeds”, and that they will need to address a numberof strategic challenges as they “transform themselvesto meet the demands of an increasingly complex anddynamic environment” (p. 26). As the clear bell ofthe ivory tower recedes, for some, to the sound ofan unfamiliar cacophony of competing interests, thenew milieu presents both a challenge and excitingopportunities. Amidst these challenges are ensuringa ready workforce for more changes ahead; one

which blends the best of longer standing experienceand corporate knowledge retention with new andyoung “blood” as a vigorous and complementaryorganisational life force.

Jacobzone, Cambois, Chaplain and Robine (1998)note that Australia, for example, has one of theworld’s most rapidly ageing populations and in thenext 50 years about a quarter of the country’spopulation will be aged 65 and over. The AustralianBureau of Statistics (ABS) predicts that within thenext ten years the population aged over 65 years willbe growing at an annual rate of 4 per cent,considerably faster than the total population growth.It is anticipated that by 2021 over 20 per cent of thepopulation will be older than 65 years. Hence, it istimely to re-think strategic organisationaldevelopment issues to prepare and reinvigorate theworkforce adequately for the increasingly complexacademic leadership role. What are the dimensionsof contemporary academic leadership challenges intypical academic leadership roles in order to steerdevelopment appropriately?

Development Needs Informed byResearch and PracticeResearch was carried out in the university sector inAustralia in the late 1990s to identify the key issuesin leading and managing in the tertiary educationcontext. The research, conducted at the QueenslandUniversity of Technology (QUT) in Australia, ledto the development of an item set and a 360 degreesurvey instrument tailored to leading and managingin university and other key knowledge organisations.The instrument, known as the Quality LeadershipProfile (QLP), was refined and developed intoaccessible on-line form in 2000. The QLP factorstructure (Drew and Kerr, 2003) identified four areas:staff motivation and involvement, operational andstrategic management, client focus and communityoutreach, and (for relevant senior academic positions)academic leadership (Figure 1).

The QLP has been used since 2000 by a growingnumber of universities and key knowledgeorganisations predominantly in Australia, and in NewZealand and the United Kingdom.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 6118

Figure 1: QLP Factors

Quality Leadership Profile (QLP)QLP areas comprising factor clusters

QLP FactorQLP AreaStaff DevelopmentStaff Motivation and InvolvementConsultative Management Building a Team Environment Implementing Systems and PocessesStrategic & Operational ManagementMaking Decisions Managing Change and Innovation Demonstrating a Client FocusClient Service and CommunityDemonstrating a Community Focus Academic LeadershipAcademic Leadership

Implications of the ComplexEnvironment for University AcademicLeadersEnquiry into the governance, structure andmanagement of higher education institutions acrossthe globe has stimulated change to the legislativeand policy frameworks within which universitiesoperate. Academic staff, upon winning seniorleadership roles in universities, typically on the basisof their academic achievements, may or may not bewell prepared for undertaking the diverseresponsibilities of the head of school/academicdepartment role. Moreover, if the highly experiencedacademic spends less and less time on his/herscholarly work and more on administration andmanaging, the organisation stands to lose in waysthat are rarely examined. The capabilities requiredsuccessfully to inspire excellence, secure fundingresources, handle people issues, communicate andconsult appropriately, manage budgets, undertakestrategic planning, navigate change with staff and tosupport staff in performance development areformidable. Paul Ramsden (1998, p. 16) observes,“if academic staff are stressed by the imposition ofexternal demands for accountability andperformance, they had better get used to it as quicklyas possible” (Coaldrake & Stedman 1999, p. 10).Falling to an overly litigious, overly bureaucraticculture in order to manage accountabilityrequirements, however, is unlikely to serveorganisational culture well. It is said that an overlyinstrumental pattern of management which fails torecognise the contribution of employees “cripplesthe workers by disabling them” (Kanungo, 1992, p.415). A number of commentators propound aleadership style that commits to personal learningamidst complexity, and which enables and empowersothers.

Marshall, Adams, Cameron and Sullivan (2000)discuss the complexities of the blended role ofacademic leadership and the critical “people” and“systems” dimensions of managing human resourceand administrative functions. They note that thesefunctions typically did not form part of theexperience of the academic leader. Ramsden (1998)suggests that heads of academic departments areexpected to be “all-rounders who combine aspectsof management and leadership in relation to bothpeople and tasks”, and that “at the heart of thecombination is the leader’s own capacity to learn”(pp. 365-7). Ramsden believes that providingsupportive development for those in senior academicleadership roles is vital and that these challenges“have important implications for the training offuture generations of academic managers at everylevel” (p. 367).

Barnett (2004) notes the inter-relating,contradictory and unforeseeable impacts ofcomplexity upon the world and hence universitiesand their leaders. Barnett captures the leader’s plightcharacterised by “competing claims on one’sattention, and an overload of entities” where anyeffort to satisfy one set of claims “may lead toindeterminable effects elsewhere”, leading to realstress (p. 249). The review of issues affectingorganisational leadership development in universityand key knowledge organisation settings suggests aseries of action strategies at “transpersonal” level.The following is proposed: Aligning formal andinformal systems with defined values and goals;Streamlining strategically coherent systems andprocesses; Building client-focused alliances forstrong internal and external partnerships; andDeveloping senior leaders in synergy with desiredorganisational culture and goals.

119GLENYS DREW

Aligning Formal and Informal Systemswith Defined Values and GoalsHanna (2003) notes that people and nations arerelying on colleges and universities to help shape apositive future; and suggests that “to capture theadvantage of this..central focus and role, highereducation institutions will need to transform theirstructures, missions, processes, and programs in orderto be both more flexible and more responsive tochanging societal needs” (p. 25). Integratingidentified organisational strategic goals within theorganisation is a significant challenge for universitiesseeking to match “action” with the ambitions of theirstrategic plans. In an environment which valuesacademic freedom and critical thinking, strategicsynergy will not happen by “demanding greateroutput and imposing unilateral inspection and controlon its staff” (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999, p. 13).However, “on the other hand, it is wishful thinkingto expect that some invisible hand will guide the pathof individual academics into a strategic direction, orthat effective change can only come about byacademic introspection and reflection” (Coaldrake& Stedman, 1999, p. 13). In other words, anorganisational culture of mutual respect and ethicalconduct is something to be created and nurtured. Itis not put in place by establishing a code of conductand informing organisational members of itsexistence. The question is, how is alignment achievedso that “action matches the rhetoric” inorganisations?

It might be agreed that culture will be createdeither purposely by consciously embedding desiredpractices at all levels, or it will occur in haphazard,capricious fashion based on behaviours which areexperienced within the organisation. Dunphy andStace (1995) suggest that culture consists of “valuesand artefacts that together express and reinforce aunity of spirit forged through those who share acommunity of fate” (p. 187). Behaviours that aremodelled “from the top” profoundly impactorganisational culture. Jordan (1999) offers thatsurrounding people with the right resources andmobilising talent and passion are critical, but it is thequality of the relationships between people asindividuals interact over the various systems andprocesses of the organisation that are the most telling.An equipped and strategically connected staffingbody is vital to a healthy “shadow” system markedby open communication and trust.

The importance of achieving coherent, well-understood values and goals for organisations isemphasised by Pratt, Margaritis and Coy (1999),Parcell and Bligh (2000), Carless (2001), Sauer(2002) and Drew and Bensley (2001). Further toseeking to embed desired behaviours within theorganisation, this entails ensuring that the systems

of the organisation align with and supportorganisational goals. For example, if the strategicintent of the university is to value partnering, thesystems associated with funding distribution shouldwork towards rather than against cross-facultycollaboration. If it is of strategic importance to theorganisation to be able to appoint an outstandingperson quickly, the organisation’s systems shouldaccommodate flexible recruitment strategies. Pratt,Margaritis and Coy (1999) note: “Management mayhave one view of the ‘required’ values but these mayor may not happen in practice. Management’sbehaviour may, in fact, reinforce an entirely differentset of beliefs from those they would wish to promote”(p. 46). A buoyant alignment matrix of appropriategovernance and structure – in short, being business-like - has perhaps never been more essential foruniversities than in the current tertiary educationenvironment. Moreover, in the universityenvironment characterised globally as time-poor(Kinman, 1998, Sapstead, 2004), “doing more withless” entails overhauling university systems, top-down, to ensure that processes are relevant andstreamlined.

Streamlining Strategically CoherentSystems and ProcessesAs Goethe once said, we should not sacrifice whatmatters most for what matters least. Research ofNohria, Joyce and Roberson (2003) into 200companies found that it mattered little whether theorganisation centralised or decentralised its business,as long as organisations paid attention to simplifyingthe way in which the business was structured andcarried out its work (Nohria et al., 2003, p. 43). Theresearch of Nohria et al. found that the key toachieving excellence for organisations…is “to beclear about what your strategy is and (to be)consistently communicating it” (pp. 45, 46). Thissuggests the value of identifying and communicatingthe “big picture” objectives and then devisingefficient systems to achieve those objectives ratherthan allowing available technology, a historicalstructure or embedded practice to driveorganisational activity. It behoves organisations,then, to align their systems with their strategic valuesand goals, and secondly to refine and streamlineorganisational processes so that each element of aprocess can be defended as adding value.

In an increasingly time-poor environment withever expanding workloads reported in universities,inefficient systems cause frustration and potentiallya divide between the organisation’s executive andthe faculties and divisions. Academic leaders focusedpredominantly on pursuing scholarly work resentadministrative processes which appear inefficient

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 6120

and repetitious; for example, calling for data forvarious kinds of reporting requirements in multipleforms. Listening to those responsible for particularservices may yield valuable input to systemimprovement while fostering an inclusive, respectfulculture. As Wick and Leon (1993) offer, acombination of strategic coherence and proceduralefficiency works best when “learning permeates theprocesses used throughout the organization” (p. 126).As systems and processes, goals and ambitions areabstractions aside from the involvement of people,developing effective people leadership is the essentialingredient in supporting strategic and operationalactivity in organisations. Fostering a culture offeedback - listening to colleagues, clients andstakeholders – is vital to organisations dealing inknowledge and services.

Drew and Kerr (2003) note aggregate data of theQuality Leadership Profile (QLP) derived from the

mean scores of self, staff, peer and supervisorrespondents for academic managers undertaking the360 degree feedback survey at one Australianuniversity since 2000. This data, reflected also innational averages on the same factors, found thatQLP Factors under the Area, “Staff Motivation andInvolvement”, which relate most to the quality ofinteractions between people, register higherdevelopment needs and yield slightly lower scoresnationally than factors under the other areas, being“Strategic and Operational Management”, “ClientService and Community Outreach” and “AcademicLeadership”

At 2003 the following data reflects nationalaverage scores (Drew & Kerr 2003) (Figure 2below):

Quality Leadership Profile AggregateFigures

Figure 2: QLP Aggregate Figures at 2003

Quality Leadership Profile (QLP) Aggregate Figures for Academic ManagersInstitution Average 2003QLP Factor3.47Staff Development3.65Consultative Management3.54Building a Team Environment3.76Implementing Systems and Processes3.89Making Decisions3.82Managing Change and Innovation3.84Demonstrating a Client Focus4.18Demonstrating a Community Focus3.91Academic Leadership

It is noteworthy that for academic managersundertaking the QLP survey, the factors under“Academic Leadership” yield second highestaggregate scores reflecting national aggregate results(Drew & Kerr, 2003). The comparatively high scoresin “Academic Leadership” would appear to reflectthat though academic managers may be “doing morewith less” they are not “doing less” in terms ofproviding academic leadership despite the increasedadministrative and reporting dimensions of theirroles. This would seem to reflect the commitmentthat academics typically demonstrate to theirdiscipline, in that despite increasing and conflictingdemands of their roles, the academic leadershipdimension tends not to be neglected. However, thecompeting demands give rise to issues of highworkload and difficulty achieving balance in thecurrent more complex environment for academicmanagers.

Building Client- andCommunity-Focused Alliances forStrong Internal and ExternalPartnershipsIt is interesting to note from aggregate QualityLeadership Profile (360 degree survey) data in 2003(Figure 2) that the highest aggregate scores (in otherwords, perceptions of strongest performance) foracademic managers nationally were reported underthe QLP area of “Community Outreach”. Reportedbelow (Figure 3) are the comparative figures for2006.

Quality Leadership Profile AggregateFigures

121GLENYS DREW

Figure 3: QLP Aggregate Figures at 2006

Quality Leadership Profile (QLP) Aggregate Figures for Academic ManagersInstitution Average 2006QLP Factor3.57Staff Development3.77Consultative Management3.71Building a Team Environment3.82Implementing Systems and Processes3.97Making Decisions3.92Managing Change and Innovation3.91Demonstrating a Client Focus4.28Demonstrating a Community Focus3.95Academic Leadership

The trend for “Community Outreach” to yield highestscores might reflect the increased attention thatuniversities are paying to partnering to link withindustry, commerce and the professions to obtainresearch funding and undertake “user-inspired”research. It might be agreed that mass highereducation alone has seen a re-positioning ofuniversities to broach somewhat experimentally newrelationships with business, the professions and thecommunity.

In an era of full fee paying students, changedexpectations regarding university access, and theeffect of market demands, the community becomesthe “client” for universities in unprecedented ways.Forming partnerships may seem to be the lifebloodof the contemporary university. However, thepatterns of academic work, ideals of academicautonomy and self-led career paths largely make forsolo work. It might be suggested that gaining adoctoral qualification, developing a research andpublication niche and pursuing academic promotionbased on solo achievement do not encourage apartnering ethos. Delahaye (2000) describesknowledge partnerships, ideally, as “managing theknowledge creation process of externalisation,combination, internalisation and socialisation” (pp.395). However, the challenges of collaborativeventures across organisational units andorganisational boundaries are real. Coaldrake andStedman (1999) observe that academic staff “feelburdened by the increasing weight of expectationsplaced upon them, in contrast to [academics’] idealof determining the parameters of their own workinglives” (p. 9). These authors note that “inevitably,..academic values, and the work practices theyreflect, have come into conflict with the demands ofan external world on which universities have becomemore reliant” (1999, p. 9). Coaldrake and Stedman(1999) observe that a trend towards moreentrepreneurial styles of university operation,

including increased collaboration, has significantimplications for university culture and policy,particularly for academic staffing policy. The keywould appear to be establishing shared understandingfor innovative partnering ventures and promotingfrank discussion on underlying values and competinginterests (Stiles 2004, p. 158).

Developing Senior Leaders in Synergywith Desired Culture and GoalsWriting of the “learning organisation”, Byrne (2001)argues, an organisation of motivated and loyalindividuals, devoted to principles of continuouslearning and the “reciprocity of knowledge-sharing”is the basis of the “knowledge organisation”.Developing leaders in keeping with desired cultureand goals is vital (Brown, 2001). Yet in universities,staff all too frequently arrive at senior positions onthe basis of their specialist expertise with littlesupport or familiarisation provided to prepare themfor demanding multi-faceted roles. Executiveleadership literature and practice suggest that aconcerted and integrated approach to leadershipdevelopment based on fostering effective partneringand communication of vision pays dividends.

Researching the development needs of NewZealand universities, Mead, Morgan and Heath(1999) report the work of one New Zealanduniversity which found that opportunities and threatsposed by a rapidly changing internal and externalenvironment required that the traditionalcharacteristics of a good Head of (academic)Department, namely scholarship and academicleadership, be augmented by additional attributessuch as vision, leadership, strategic planning, staffmanagement and organisational skills.

The principle that successful partnering occursthrough the vitality of genuinely shared goals andmutual benefit concurs with the findings of Healy,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 6122

Ehrich, Hansford and Stewart (2001) in a studyobserving a District Director of school principals inrural Queensland, Australia. The study observed thatthe successful leader placed emphasis on buildingstrong relationships with the school principals in herregion. The District Director valued the principalsnot only as professionals but also as persons. In sodoing, the leader created a partnership where honestfeedback and discussion promoted the conditions toeffect learning and growth, to the benefit of theprincipals and the staff and students in their schools.The study found that individual success, for theDistrict Director, also depended upon the extent towhich various principals availed themselves of theconducive conditions created by the leader.

Ramsden (1998) asks, “How can we improve theenvironment? Certainly not by protesting abut theintrusion of managerialism and lamenting the lossof a golden age…” (p. 362) Ramsden viewsknowledge-sharing and inspirational approaches toleadership as a solution: “We need new ways ofinspiring academics to work both independently andcollaboratively; and new ways to help them throughchange” by focusing on building “more effectiveleadership” (p. 362). Ramsden asserts: “Highereducation is about transforming what is here andnow into what will be. Tomorrow’s university willsurvive if it can establish an independent anddistinctive means of accomplishing this purpose”(pp. 368, 369). It is suggested this condition will notbe arrived at by accident. A specific and tailoredleadership development plan is required. Variousdevelopment program models noted in this studyrevealed that successful leadership ultimatelydepends on people exercising an array of personalqualities (Mead, Morgan & Heath, 1999) and that,to be successful, performance development initiativesmust enjoy the imprimatur of the organisation’sexecutive (Brown, 2001). It was noted that the bestleadership development models recognise theindependency of affective relationship-building skillsalongside functional capabilities linked to identifiedorganisational goals, and that sustainable benefit willoccur only as a learning attitude permeates the wholeorganisation. Learning is a process which deniescompletion, as, ongoing, “the learning experiencebenefits both the organization and the learner”(Fulmer, Gibbs & Goldsmith 2000, p. 54).

There is evidence in the university sector, as forthe corporate sector borne out in the literature andpractice, that given the pace of change, leaders mustbe adaptable, able to learn continuously, and to applythat learning for better solutions and outcomes(Hanna, 2003). Establishing a culture of seeking andresponding to feedback is vital to remaining in touchin an ever-changing scene, as it is to continuouslearning and growth at organisational and individual

levels. Investing in well-facilitated tools such as 360degree surveys promote reflection on leadershipbehaviours which tend to have a positive effect onon-job learning (Seibert, 1999; Tornow & London,1998). Also, by “learn[ing] how others perceivethem”, leaders may discover what specific skills theyneed to develop, or which behaviours that they mightadjust or modify in order to be more effective(Lepsinger & Lucia 1997, p. 22).

Universities are in the privileged position to bothinform and be informed by their global communities,demonstrating erudition, critical analysis andsynthesis, asking questions and creating knowledgeon new ways of thinking and working. Commitmentto developing the organisation as well as theorganisation’s environment becomes a reciprocalframework for learning and is the hallmark of the“learning organisation”, as defined by Pedler,Burgoyne and Boydell (1997) and others in the post-1990s literature. As Pedler et al. assert: “A LearningCompany is an organisation that facilitates thelearning of all its members and consciouslytransforms itself and its context” (p. 3).

This paper suggests that engaged individuals inan organisation allow the organisation to becomeadept at adapting as they interact with each other andthe organisation’s external community, and that thecommunity of the university will see a coherent facein the measure to which strategic vision and clientfocus is communicated for all staff. Currentexpectations for increased communication andtransparency by university stakeholders testultimately the credibility of the organisation,“blending…”core business” rigour with thecontemporary understandings attendant to commun-ication modes and contexts” (Drew & Bensley, 2001,pp. 61, 68). Finally it is argued from the literaturethat the interdependency of quality relationships andquality processes is critical. This is one which bringstogether the seemingly disparate efforts of the“legitimate” system (the part of the organisation thatis “operating close to certainty”) and the “shadow”system (the way in which day-to-day activities aremanaged) (Delahaye, 2000, p. 394) in order toproduce a congruent face to the university’s externalworld.

ConclusionSome key triggers for “transpersonal” effectiveness,in particular for universities, have been suggested inthis paper. This review has looked at someimplications for today’s universities which aretransferable to other knowledge settings. It hassuggested some key challenges from the literatureand from practice via aggregate results of 360 degreesurveying within the Australian tertiary and key

123GLENYS DREW

knowledge environment through the QualityLeadership Profile. Some key questions forcontemporary universities, arising from the review,are offered as a “checklist” for contemporaryuniversities or knowledge organisations seeking tobe well prepared in a constantly changingenvironment:

• Are systems and processes strategically alignedwith the organisation’s vision and objectives,and are those processes streamlined and effectivefor people in performing their roles?

• Is the organisation “listening” to its stakeholdersand key audiences or clients? Is it feedback-

oriented, investing in productive partnershipsinternally and externally?

• Is the university preparing itself for leadershipreadiness with succession planning and is itsystematically developing leadership talent inkeeping with increased role complexity forcontemporary academic leaders.

• Is the university complementing its scholarshipwith accountable, ethical governance? Is there ameans in place of assessing the degree ofalignment between that which is “espoused” and“practiced” in terms of desired organisationalculture, values and goals?

References

Atwater, L.E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F.J., & Fleenor, J.W. (1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel-Psychology, 51(3), 577-598.

Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 247-260.Brown, L.M. (2001). Leading leadership development in universities: A personal Story. Journal of Management Inquiry,

December, 312-323.Byrne, R. (2001). Employees: capital or commodity? The Learning Organisations, 8 (1), 44-50.Carless, S. (2001). Assessing the discriminant validity of the Leadership Practices Inventory. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 74, 233-239.Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. (1998). On the Brink: Australia ’s Universities Confronting their Future. St Lucia, Brisbane:

University of Queensland Press.Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. (1999). Academic work in the twenty-first century: changing roles and policies. Occasional

Papers Series (pp. 1-35). Canberra:Australian Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Cohen, P. (2004, April 21-27). The crisis of the university. Campus Review, pp. 9-12.Delahaye, B.L. (2000). Human resource development: principles and practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons Australia.Drew, G., & Bensley, L. (2001). Managerial effectiveness for a new millennium in the global higher education sector.

Higher Education in Europe, XXVI(1), 61-68.Drew, G., & Kerr, C. (2003). Learning partners in discovery and innovation Proceedings of the Women in Research

Conference, November, 2003 (pp. 1-16). Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland.Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1995). Under New Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Fulmer, R.M., Gibbs, P.A., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Developing leaders: How winning companies keep on winning. Sloan

Management Review, Fall, 49-59.Hanna, D.E. (2003). Building a leadership vision: Eleven strategic challenges for higher education. Educause, July-August,

25-34.Healy, L., Ehrich, L.C., Hansford, B. & Stewart, D. (2001). Conversations: A means of learning, growth and change. Journal

of Educational Administration, 39(4),332-345.Jacobzone, S., Cambois, E., Chaplain E. & Robine, J.M. (1998). The health of older persons in OECD countries: Is it

improving fast enough to compensate for population ageing? OECD Labour market and social policy OccasionalPapers No. 37, DEELSA/WD (98) (p. 8).

Jordan, J (1999). Work in Y2K? Management Today, July, 15-19.Kanungo, R.N. (1992). Alienation and empowerment: Some ethical imperatives in Business. Journal of Business Ethics,

11, 413-422.Kinman, G. (1998). Pressure points: A survey into the causes and consequences of occupational stress in UK academic and

related staff. AUT, London.Lepsinger, R. & Lucia, A.D. (1997). The Art and Science of 360 Feedback. Calif: Jossey-Bass.Marshall, S.J., Adams, M.J., Cameron, A. & Sullivan, G. (2000). Academics” perceptions of their professional development

needs related to leadership and management: What can we learn?”, The International Journal for AcademicDevelopment, 42-53.

Mead, P., Morgan, M. & Heath, C. (1999). Equipping leaders to capitalise on the outcomes of quality assessment in highereducation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(2), 147-156.

Meek, V.L. & Wood, F.Q. (1997). Higher education government and management:An Australian study. Evaluations andInvestigations Program, Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training and YouthAffairs. January. Retrieved 13 September, 2003, fromhttp://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip9701/front.htm

Moss Kanter, R. (1997). Frontiers of Management. USA: Harvard.Nohria, N., Joyce, W. & Roberson, B. (2003). What really works. Harvard Business Review, July, 43-52.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT, VOLUME 6124

Parcell, G. & Bligh, J. (2000). Encouraging educational leadership. Medical Education, 34, 199-200.Pedler, M.., Burgoyne, J. & Boydell, T. (1997). The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. London:

McGraw Hill.Pratt, M., Margaritis, D., & Coy, D. (1999). Developing a research culture in a University faculty. Journal of Higher

Education Policy and Management, 21(1), 43-55.Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the Effective University. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 347-370.Sapstead, D. (2004, August 18). Stress counselling for academics soars. The Telegraph website.Sauer, P. (2002). CEOs speak: Executive leadership. Chemical Market Reporter, June, 1-14.Seibert, K.W. (1999). Reflection-in-action: Tools for cultivating on-the–job learning Conditions. Organizational-Dynamics,

27(3), 54-65.Stiles, D.R.. (2004). Narcissus revisited: The values of management academics and their role in business school strategies

in the UK and Canada. British Journal of Management, 15, 157-175.Tornow, W.M. & London, M. (1998). Maximising the value of 360-degree feedback: a process for successful individual

and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Wick, C.W., & Leon, L.S. (1993). The learning edge: how smart managers and smart companies stay ahead. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

About the AuthorGlenys Drew-

125GLENYS DREW

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT EDITORS Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Verna Allee, Verna Allee Associates, California, USA. Zainal Ariffin, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. Robert Brooks, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Bruce Cronin, University of Greenwich, UK. Rod Dilnutt, William Bethway and Associates, Melbourne, Australia. Judith Ellis, Enterprise Knowledge, Melbourne, Australia. Andrea Fried, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany. David Gurteen, Gurteen Knowledge, UK. David Hakken, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Sabine Hoffmann, Macquarie University, Australia. Stavros Ioannides, Pantion University, Athens, Greece. Margaret Jackson, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Leslie Johnson, University of Greenwich, UK. Eleni Karantzola, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Gerasimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Greece. Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, USA. Martyn Laycock, University of Greenwich and managingtransitions.net, UK. David Lyon, Queens University, Ontario, Canada. Bill Martin, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Pumela Msweli-Mbanga, University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Gita Sankaran, Southern Cross University, Australia. Claudia Schmitz, Cenandu Learning Agency, Germany. Kirpal Singh, Singapore Management University, Singapore. Dave Snowden, Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity, UK. Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Management-Journal.com for further information:

- ABOUT the Journal including Scope and Concerns, Editors, Advisory Board, Associate Editors and Journal Profile

- FOR AUTHORS including Publishing Policy, Submission Guidelines, Peer Review Process and Publishing Agreement

SUBSCRIPTIONS The Journal offers individual and institutional subscriptions. For further information please visit http://ijm.cgpublisher.com/subscriptions.html. Inquiries can be directed to subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com INQUIRIES Email: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com