The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ext archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

QAE
13,2 Leadership best practices for
sustaining quality in UK higher
education from the perspective of
148
the EFQM Excellence Model
Augustus E. Osseo-Asare, David Longbottom and
William D. Murphy
Derbyshire Business School, University of Derby, Derby, UK

Abstract
Purpose – To deepen the understanding and to encourage further research on leadership best
practices for sustaining quality improvement in UK higher education institutions (HEIs).
Design/methodology/approach – The literature on leadership provides the theoretical context for
the survey of quality managers from 42 UK HEIs. A mix of questionnaires, interviews, and hypothesis
testing, was used to explore the critical factors for effective leadership and to obtain descriptive
accounts of leadership best practices, which led to the development of a conceptual framework for
effective leadership for academic quality.
Findings – Identifies and categorizes leadership practices into “weak”, “good”, “best”, and
“excellent” on the basis of efficiency and effectiveness of each practice in sustaining academic
quality improvement. It provides a conceptual framework for improving “weak” leadership practices.
Research limitations/implications – The exact nature of the association between “effective
leadership” and sustainable “levels of academic quality improvement” has not been explained. This
requires further research. International generalization of the findings would require the sample size of
42 UK HEIs to be extended to include institutions from other countries with similar education systems
– such as the USA and Australia.
Practical implications – Academic quality planners will become more aware of the need to
improve the tasks and activities constituting leadership processes. The emphasis on a structured
approach to self-assessment of leadership performance has the potential to reverse the ranking of
leadership second to processes in UK HEIs.
Originality/value – It provides explicit definitions of “weak”, “good”, “best” and “excellent”
leadership practices, which UK HEIs adopting the excellence model developed by the European
Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) may find useful in the assessment and improvement of
leadership performance towards academic excellence.
Keywords Leadership, Higher education, European Foundation for Quality Management,
United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper

Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 13 No. 2, 2005
pp. 148-170
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684880510594391
1. Introduction
The literature identifies “leadership” as one of the critical success factors for sustaining
continuous improvement in any organisation (Zairi, 1994; Taffinder, 1995, p. 37, 138).
The title of this article raises important and yet controversial issues relating to the
strategic role of “leadership” in sustaining quality and performance improvement in
publicly funded higher education institutions (HEIs). The philosophical/theoretical and
empirical/practical underpinnings of these issues relate to the “efficiency” and
“effectiveness” of alternative leadership approaches for improving the quality of
teaching and research in a holistic manner. It raises questions about the extent to Leadership best
which quality managers in leadership positions assess what they actually do at work practices
in relation to managing scarce resources in order to achieve predetermined
performance results. This article seeks to reinforce the notion of “deliberate
strategists”: that is, a strategic approach to quality is more beneficial than one based on
adhoc decisions (Bounds et al., 1994) by conducting a survey to investigate the nature
of leadership practices amongst quality managers in 42 UK HEIs. 149
1.1 The critical role of leadership
According to Kanji and Tambi (2002, p. 42) “leadership” is central in all TQM
implementations in HEIs and seems to be the most critical factor for its success.
Underpinning strategic quality management concepts and principles, and TQM-driven
models, such as the EFQM excellence model, is the premise that “leadership” through
“processes” is required if excellent “performance results” are to be delivered (Figure 1).
This premise is based on systems thinking, which identifies leadership as an “input”
into “processes”, and results as “output” from processes (Dunkin and Biddle, 1974; cited
in Biggs, 2003). Leadership commitment to sustaining quality improvement has been
significant for the success of TQM implementations at UK HEIs such as
Wolverhampton University (Doherty, 1993) and Aston University (Clayton, 1995).
The literature reveals that even though the leadership in most UK HEIs are not
themselves enthusiastic about TQM per se they are prepared to undergo further
education and training to grasp the required knowledge and skills in leadership to
sustain quality improvement (Kanji and Tambi, 1999; Osseo-Asare and Longbottom,
2002). This suggests that work is needed to understand the impact on the critical role of
leadership as a driver of quality and performance improvement, if those in leadership
positions do not update their knowledge and skills.
Thus this article uses the results of a questionnaire survey to investigate the
characteristics of leadership practices perceived by academic quality managers as
“weak” in terms of the degree of efficiency and degree of effectiveness of these practices
in sustaining academic quality improvement over a long-term period. Earlier work by
Osseo-Asare and Longbottom (2002) indicated that academic quality managers ranked
“processes” ahead of “leadership”. This ranking had been interpreted on reflecting the
institutions’ preoccupation with implementation of “process” models developed by

Figure 1.
The premise underpinning
strategic quality
management, TQM, and
the EFQM excellence
model
QAE the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Higher Education Funding Councils
13,2 (HEFCs). It is our view that a thorough understanding of what constitutes a “weak”
leadership practice might help explain the ranking of “leadership” second to “processes”.

1.2 The bases for effective leadership

Reference to the works of Adair (1986), Bass (1960), McGregor (1987), French and
150 Raven (1968) and Yukle (1994) show there are different bases for exercising “effective
leadership” in any organisation. Table I presents three different bases for exercising
leadership in an organisational setting, namely position-influence, influence-behaviour,
and power-influence with their associated leadership practices. Adair (1986) described
“position-influence” as a base for leadership practice derived from a formal/elected or
informal/unelected position of influence within an organisation.
The works of Bass (1960) and McGregor (1987) provide further insight into how
leadership influence impacts on staff behaviour, suggesting effective leadership
influence brings about intended staff behaviour and leads to desired team results.
Finally, the works of French and Raven (1968) and Yukle (1994) suggest leaders can
use their power to influence staff behaviour, by demonstrating an ability to reward
staff, coercion, legitimacy, respect, and expertise.
The survey also investigated the significance of these leadership bases and
practices in UK HEIs as far as quality management is concerned, in response to
changing trends in the literature on educational leadership (Kanji and Tambi, 1999).

2. Literature review
The works of Parker (1994) and Crainer (1995) on “leadership-staff relationship”
suggest that it is important for leaders and their subordinate staff to understand the

Different bases Different practices References

1 Position-influence
Formal Appointment, election Adair (1986)
Informal Imposed, chosen
2 Influence-behaviour
Attempted Influence, no behaviour change, Bass (1960) and McGregor (1987)
no results
Successful Influence, intended staff behaviour
and results
Effective Intended staff behaviour leads to
team results
3 Power-influence
Reward Ability to obtain resources and to French and Raven (1968);
allocate to staff Yukle (1994)
Coercive Fear, threats, misinformation,
manipulation
Table I. Legitimate Right to demand behaviour and to
Literature review of the authorise action
different bases for Referent Respect based on personal
developing an effective qualities or traits
leadership-staff Expert Intelligence, knowledge, expertise
relationship Source: Osseo-Asare (2003)
nature of the leadership-staff relationship, the critical success factors and associated Leadership best
best practices for sustaining quality improvement. Mullins (1999, pp. 233, 255) defined practices
“leadership” in terms of what managers are expected to do i.e., “doing right things
right”. This phrase may be split up into two “doing right things” and “doing things
right”. The first part relates to leadership “effectiveness” and the second part to
management “efficiency” suggesting there is a functional relationship between
effectiveness and efficiency. This functional relationship is confirmed by the EFQM 151
framework which, like Mullins (1999, p. 255), defines “leadership” in terms of what
managers do, that is, in terms of:
How leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision, develop values
required for long-term success and implement these via appropriate actions and behaviours,
and are personally involved in ensuring the organisation’s management system is developed
and implemented (British Quality Foundation, 2000; EFQM, 2003)
The writings of Novak (2002, pp. 1-20) suggest that, leadership in the context of higher
education may be defined as a personal and professional ethical relationship between
those in leadership positions and their subordinate staff, needed in order to appreciate
and call forth their full potential. From a strategic quality management perspective, it
is the responsibility of quality managers in leadership positions to “do right things”
and to “do things right”, i.e. to be both effective and efficient in what they do (Bennis
and Nannus, 1985, p. 21). Dale (1999, pp. 4-9) work on the evolutionary trajectory of
TQM provides evidence of a shift in leadership emphasis away from inspection-based
leadership towards prevention-based leadership, which combines efficiency and
effectiveness, and recognises people as a strategic resource (see Figure 2).
Formal and informal leadership structures determine the nature and effectiveness of
the leadership-staff relationship, which according to Bass (1960, p. 548), is one in which
intended behaviour and results bring about functional behaviour and achievement of
team objectives. The work of French and Raven (1968, pp. 259-69) and later McGregor
(1987, p. 182) suggests that effective leadership-staff relationships requires a dynamic
form of leadership behaviour based on the exercise of power to influence the behaviour
and actions of subordinate staff. Table II provides a summary of the different terms of
reference for the study of managerial leadership derived from the literature. Some
writers including Drucker (1989, p. 156) believe that leadership consists of certain
personality traits. However, research studies by Byrd (1940), Miles (1959), Jennings
(1991), Krech et al. (1962), Ghiselli (1963), Stogdill (1974), Adair (1983) and Kotter (1990)
suggest that, leadership skills can be learned, developed and perfected in order to make
leaders more effective at influencing staff behaviour and achievement of team goals.

Figure 2.
The stage of TQM
evolution and the shift in
leadership emphasis
QAE Framework Assumption Focus References
13,2
1 Person Leaders are born Person not job; selection not
training
Qualities Leaders influence staff Integration of person Drucker (1989)
behaviour specification
152 Behaviour Leaders influence staff Using position to influence staff Fleishman (1974)
behaviour behaviour
2 Job Leaders are made Job not person; training not
selection
Needs Satisfying needs-group Satisfying task, team and Miles (1959)
behaviour individual needs
Table II. 3 Situations Leaders may be born or made Person and job; selection and
Literature review of the training
different terms of Style Power influences group Shifting balance of power to Fieldler (1967)
reference for the study of behaviour influence group behaviour
managerial leadership Source: Osseo-Asare (2003)

Leadership studies carried out in the 1960s by the Bureau of Business Research at the Ohio
State University, and later by Likert (1961), Fleishman (1974), Blake and McCanse (1985),
suggest that, leadership resides in a “task or production” function and a “maintenance or
people” function, and not in personality traits. These two major functions of leadership are
consistent with McGregor (1987) Theory X and Theory Y respectively, and draw attention
to the effect of leadership styles on staff performance in a changing work situation. The
impact of changing work situations led to the development of contingency or situational
models of leadership by Fieldler (1967), Vroom and Yetton (1973), House and Dessler
(1974), and Hersey and Blanchard (1993) based on the assumption that there is no single
leadership style appropriate to all situations. Reference to the works of Likert (1961), Blake
and Mouton (1985), and Belbin (1993), suggest there is a need for greater understanding of
staff needs and expectations in a changing work situation. This need coupled with societal
pressure for power sharing, has led to increased adoption of team leadership style or a
participative democratic style of leadership, and created resistance against purely
authoritarian or solo leadership style.
Increasing organisational competitiveness and the need for the most effective use of
human resources have led writers and researchers including Burns (1978), Kreitner and
Kinicki (1995), Hunt (1992), Greenberg and Baron (1997), Yukle (1994), Nicholls (1988),
and Taffinder (1995) to study “Transformational Leadership”. They argued that this
style of leadership is both desirable and necessary in competitive environments, and
requires organisations to be capable of fast, radical change and those aspiring to be the
best must be able to lead change rather than just follow it (Mullins, 1999). In summary,
even though there are many alternative forms of management and leadership practices,
a human relation, people-oriented leadership style is more likely to lead to staff
satisfaction, group cohesiveness, and improved performance results.

3. Research methodology
Research methodologists including Tashakkori and Teddle (1998), Evers and
Lakomski (2001) and Cohen et al. (2003), conclude that there is always going to be a
debate about the merits and demerits of adopting mixed research designs, methods and
instruments for data collection and analysis. We do not think this is the appropriate Leadership best
forum for a passionate debate about these issues, and have therefore simply taken the practices
position of a “methodological pragmatist”. This means that we see any method of data
collection and analysis as a system of alternative strategies to be carefully evaluated in
terms of their suitability for specified research aims and objectives.
The research survey used questionnaires to explore the critical success factors for
effective leadership followed by semi-structured interviews to obtain descriptive 153
accounts of best practices associated with the critical success factors. Confidentiality
was a necessary precondition for the interviews to take place. The focus was on the
collection of empirical data, which reflects “what is” as opposed to “what ought to be”.
The overall aim of using mixed methods was to make the research findings more
reliable and valid, and to reduce the level of inherent bias by comparing sets of data,
i.e. “data triangulation”.

3.1 Data collection

The gaps in the literature, the concerns of experts and the results of initial exploratory
research led to the design of exploratory and descriptive research questions and to the
definition of research objectives in line with the aims and purpose of the research
survey. The EFQM excellence model “leadership” criterion and sub-criteria informed
the design of questions in the questionnaire, which covered areas such as: mission,
vision and values of individual institutions; internal and external communication
infrastructure; and staff empowerment and support. The links between leadership,
policy, and strategy were also investigated by asking questions in the following areas
of policy and strategy: stakeholder needs and expectations; processes; data,
information, intelligence and knowledge management.
Hundred and twelve questionnaires were hand delivered to quality managers
and/or senior academic staff responsible for teaching or research quality in 42 UK HEIs
comprising pre-1992 and post-1992 institutions. A reasonable response rate of
50 percent was obtained. This was followed by semi-structured expert interviews,
which were tape-recorded and transcribed prior to inductive analysis. Internal
documents collected from interviewees provided documentary evidence of good and
best management and leadership practices.

Figure 4.
Extent to which TQA and
RAE have brought about
effective quality
improvement policies and
strategies
QAE
13,2

154

Figure 3.
The extent to which TQA
and RAE have brought
about effective leadership

3.2 Data presentation and analysis

The responses to the questionnaire were presented and analysed using both Microsoft
Excel and the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 10 for Windows.
The opinions of interviewees were transcribed from tape recordings, and analysed
inductively selecting “a paragraph” as the unit of analysis. The internal documents
submitted as evidence of practice were also analysed.

4. Empirical data analysis

Figure 3, presents the responses to research questions aimed at determining the extent
to which the UK TQA and RAE have impacted on leadership practices. From the
Figure we can see that:
. Eighty eight percent respondents strongly disagree or disagree that TQA and
RAE exercises have brought about significant improvement in the effectiveness
of leadership practices. In other words the exercises have not brought about
significant improvement in leadership practices.
.
Five percent neither agree nor disagree that TQA and RAE exercises have
brought about significant improvement in the effectiveness of leadership
practices; and the remaining;
.
Seven percent strongly agree or agree that TQA and RAE exercises have
brought about significant improvement in the effectiveness of leadership
practices.
Figure 4 presents the responses to research questions aimed at determining the extent
to which the TQA and RAE exercises have impacted on management and leadership
practices relating to quality improvement policies and strategies. It shows that:
.
Eighty three percent respondents strongly disagree or disagree, that the TQA
and RAE exercises have had positive impact on the effectiveness of policy and
strategy in delivering sustained improvements in the quality of teaching and
research.
 .
Five percent neither agree nor disagree, that the TQA and RAE exercises have had Leadership best
positive impact on the effectiveness of policy and strategy in delivering sustained practices
improvements in the quality of teaching and research, and the remaining
.
Twelve percent strongly agree or agree that the TQA and RAE exercises have
had positive impact on the effectiveness of policy and strategy in delivering
sustained improvements in the quality of teaching and research.
155
Figure 5 presents the overall results of a comparative evaluation of quality
management practices relating to leadership, policy and strategy. The scaled response
axis shows that, on the whole, practices relating to policy/strategy obtained a higher
average score for relative importance and relative effectiveness than leadership
practices, i.e. importance: effectiveness ¼ 5:9 and 4:6, respectively.
The reason for this may be found in the individual scaled response scores for the
specific practices linked to leadership and policy/strategy in Figure 5. For instance,
the overall results for “leadership” practices were considered “weak” because they were
of “average” importance and “average” effectiveness, i.e. AA. From the scaled response
scores in Figure 5 we can trace the root cause(s) directly to weaknesses in three
leadership areas:
.
Communications [AL/weak]: average score (A) for degree of
importance/efficiency (4) and low score (L) for degree of effectiveness (2). It
suggests “weak” interpersonal communication skills.

Figure 5.
Evaluating the relative
importance and
effectiveness of leadership
and policy & Strategy
Practices
QAE .
Empowerment [LH/weak]: low score for degree of importance/efficiency (2) and
13,2 high score for degree of effectiveness (9). It suggests the ability of leaders to
empower staff is “weak”.
.
Support [LL/weak]: low score for degree of importance/efficiency (2) and low
score for degree of effectiveness (2)
156 Apart from “mission” which is judged to be a “best” practice, i.e. HH, the remaining
three leadership practices are all “weak” practices. However, the overall average
numerical score for the three practices linked to policy/strategy: stakeholders,
processes, and information, shows that these practices represent “good” practices for
being high in importance and of average effectiveness, i.e. HA. Figure 5 therefore
presents a useful conceptual framework for grouping management and leadership
practices into three categories by defining:
(1) A “Best Practice” as a practice judged to be “Highly important and Highly
effective”, and denoted as [HH].
(2) A “Good Practice” as a practice that is deemed “Highly important and
Averagely effective” i.e. [HA].
(3) A “Weak Practice” as a practice evaluated as been of “High Importance yet Less
effectiveness” i.e. [HL]. This includes practices that are “Average in Importance
and Low in Effectiveness ¼ [AL]” and practices that are “Less in Importance
and Less in Effectiveness ¼ [LL]”. On the basis of this definition.
In summary, Figure 5 shows there are more “weak” practices than “good” and “best”
management and leadership practices in the UK higher education institutions, which
participated in the research survey.
Figure 6 presents the response scores for the four leadership practices in a way,
which identifies the gap in the degree of importance and the degree of effectiveness.
The empirical data were then exposed to simple hypothesis testing, where the null
hypothesis ðHo : r ¼ 0Þ is that, there is no linear relationship between the degree of

Figure 6.
Evaluation of leadership
practices in terms of
relative importance and
effectiveness
importance and the degree of effectiveness. The alternative hypothesis ðH 1 : r – 0Þ is Leadership best
that there is a negative or positive linear relationship. practices
In this study, the statistical significance of the relationship between the degree of
importance and degree of effectiveness of a leadership practice is measured by the
product moment coefficient (r) and the coefficient of determination (r 2). For the purpose
of comparison a two-tail t-distribution with degrees of freedom ðn 2 2Þ is used; where
n ¼ 42 (representing the number of respondents) and the assumed level of significance 157
is 95 percent (representing the alpha value of 0.05). For an alpha value of 0.05 and degrees
of freedom ð42 2 2Þ ¼ 40; the t-distribution table shows that t-critical statistic of 2.0211
was greater than the t-calculated value of 1.9526. The null hypothesis was therefore
accepted. The assumed level of significance means that there is at least 95 percent
certainty that there is no linear relationship between the degree of importance and the
degree of effectiveness of the leadership practices under study. This is confirmed by the
near zero value for the product moment coefficient, i.e. r ¼ þ0:295; which suggests there
is a very small positive correlation between the two variables namely the degree of
importance and degree of effectiveness. Since an r value of 1.0 represents “best or
excellent” practice, the above results supports the empirical evidence that, on the whole,
leadership practices in the institutions under study are indeed “weak”.
In summary, the results of the empirical data analysis are presented as a checklist of
weak, good and best leadership practices in Appendix 1. We believe most quality
managers will appreciate a descriptive account of weak, good, best and excellent
management and leadership practices, which provides a link between strategic and
operational issues.

5. Discussion and interpretation of results

From Figures 3 and 4, we can see that, on average, over 85 percent respondents
thought that the QAA and HEFCE methodologies have not brought about significant
improvement in the effectiveness of leadership, policies and strategies for quality
improvement. The minority view, however, is that the methodologies have improved
the effectiveness of leadership, policy and strategy by forcing institutions to put in
place structures for assuring teaching and research quality improvement. This gives
credence to the suggestion that, in the absence of external pressure, some HEIs would
have demonstrated less or no commitment to improving quality. The majority view
appears to be based on the perception that obtaining a higher TQA and RAE score
over time has become more of “game-playing” than a serious attempt to bring about
real quality improvement, which is sustainable over a long-term period. These
respondents argued that external assessment is simply a political attempt to have a
rational basis for allocating funding for teaching and research. In this case the
assessment exercises represent a “stick-and-carrot” type relationship between
institutions and the governing authorities, where the assessment process serves as
the “stick” and the funding allocation as the “carrot”. In this scenario increasing
government demand for external accountability detracts leadership in HEIs from
genuine efforts at achieving real or significant improvements in the quality of teaching
and research.
The ranking of leadership second to policy, strategy, and processes as shown in
Figure 5 confirms the view held by most interviewees that to have in place the right
combination of policy and strategy for improving quality is more important and more
QAE effective than the style of leadership per se. This perception is underpinned by the fact
13,2 that most UK HEIs are still preoccupied with policy, strategy, and processes rather
than leadership as a separate concern. The majority of respondents and interviewees,
however, agreed on three things:
(1) First, that the implementation of policy, strategy, and core processes will be
more successful if closely coupled with leadership.
158 (2) Second, that the requirements of the QAA and HEFCE are best met if “policy
and strategy” is seen as an integral part of the key responsibilities of leadership
for quality at all levels of the institutions.
(3) Third, that leadership should not be separated from policy, strategy, and
process ownership as appears to be the case in the EFQM excellence model
(see Figure 1).
The perception gaps in Figure 6 are a result of the different best practice evaluation
scores. The gaps suggest, there is a perception that leadership practices in UK HEIs are
“weak” because they are less efficient and less effective in sustaining academic quality
improvement over a long-term period. These gaps appear to explain why over
50 percent respondents and interviewees from 42 UK HEIs, which participated in the
survey ranked “leadership” second to “policy/strategy”. They also suggest that there
are different bases for exercising leadership in UK HEIs.
This empirical evidence appears consistent with the different bases and different
practices identified in the literature. This view is eloquently expressed by an
interviewee in the following statement.
Quality managers who were informally chosen and imposed on staff were less effective, than
those who emerged naturally from the quality team, through the demands of the situation or
the wishes of the team and later formally appointed or elected. In addition, quality managers
who were judged to be effective leaders were those whose influence on staff stems from their
ability to use their legitimate position, personal qualities, and expert knowledge to reward
and sometimes exercise a reasonable level of coercion, in order to obtain intended staff
behaviour and results.
The above statement, which underpins the perception gaps in Figure 6 points to the fact
that UK HEIs have been very slow in response to the move away from a leadership
emphasis on obtaining results by close inspection towards getting results by sustaining
a culture for excellence through staff empowerment and support. The survey revealed
that leadership practices linked to mission, communications, empowerment and support
are not effectively integrated. This lack of integration confirms respondents’ claims that
their institutions are not deriving maximum benefit from synergies, evident by the
spiralling cost of maintaining quality improvement activities. This is characterised by
high staff turnover ratios, low staff morale, frustration, lack of motivation and initiative,
increasing workload, and high levels of staff dissatisfaction.

5.1 Mission, vision, values and principles

Figure 6 shows a very small perception gap for leadership practices linked to
“mission”, suggesting that these practices are “best” practices for being highly
important and highly effective in sustaining quality improvement. This is confirmed
by the fact that all the 42 institutions in this survey have explicitly stated their mission
and vision, which have been expanded into a set of principles and values. Even though Leadership best
“best” practices exist in this area, there is evidence that the right balance between practices
teaching and research has been difficult to achieve when it comes to the issue of public
funding allocations and staff recruitment. Some respondents and interviewees
suggested that institutions should concentrate on what they do best rather than waste
time and money trying to achieve both missions simultaneously. Others suggested that
because research enriches, teaching institutions should at least attempt to achieve a 159
balance between teaching and research in an integrated manner. This empirical
evidence has serious implications for sustaining teaching and research quality
improvement, in terms of the type and effectiveness of leadership in deciding the right
balance between teaching and research – as eloquently put by an interviewee.
Not the type of leaders who are informally chosen as leaders and imposed on staff but those
who emerge naturally from the Academic Quality Improvement Team or Group. The latter
type of leaders, should have many years experience, and chosen through the demands of the
situation or wishes of the Team and then formally appointed or elected. Such leaders have
the required dynamic form of behaviour to decide the teaching-research balance. They are
also able to influence staff positively by creating and sustaining a culture of excellence which
results in the achievement of quality improvement objectives which meet the needs and
expectations of students, the government and other stakeholders including staff.

5.2 Internal and external communications

Figure 6 shows a “wide” perception gap for leadership practices linked to
communication, suggesting that these practices are “weak” because, even though
they are highly important, they are less effective. The main reason offered by most
participants is that the idea that effective communication ought to be the responsibility
for all staff is simply rhetorical and not practical. The main cause of this is that the
demand for academic freedom and autonomy encourages transfer of data or
information on a “need to know” basis in order to maintain the balance of power, and
therefore, the status quo. Some quality managers and leaders have used their power
rather irresponsibly by becoming information gatekeepers and seeking to inspect and
control the activities of their subordinate staff rather than seeking to create an enabling
environment in which improvement flourishes. The increasing demand for
accountability means institutions are under enormous pressure to disclose relevant
and reliable information to internal and external stakeholders. Good internal and
external communication is therefore being valued within participating institutions as a
key process for consulting, interacting with, and informing staff, students and other
stakeholders about policy, strategy, values and direction of the institution. In this
respect most participating institutions agree that the major strength of the QAA and
HEFCE methodologies is that they support continuous improvement in information
and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure and actively encourage leadership
in these institutions to seek to maximise the use of ICT infrastructure.

5.3 Empowerment
Figure 6 also shows a “wide” perception gap for leadership practices linked to staff
empowerment, indicating they are weak practices. Most respondents and interviewees
acknowledge that staff empowerment is highly important. They, however, observed
that, in an environment where most academics resent a formal hierarchical style of
QAE leadership, coupled with a strong desire to maintain the status quo, means that
13,2 management and leadership practices meant to empower staff are simply not effective.
This accounts for the high levels of staff dissatisfaction and staff turnover, and low
morale. Some quality managers confirm they exercise leadership on the basis of what
Mullins (1999) described as “sapiential authority”, that is by wisdom, personal
knowledge, reputation or expertise of quality matters, simply because, it is a
160 leadership-staff relationship which they find is less problematic.

5.4 Support for staff

From Figure 6 we can see that the leadership practices linked to staff support were
judged to be of low importance and less effective in delivering quality improvement
results. The poor results for staff support is not surprising, considering that leadership
practices linked to internal communication and staff empowerment are all “weak”
practices – a view supported by most interviewees and expressed by an interviewee in
the following statement:
One obvious reason is that “weak” empowerment practices will inevitably lead to poor level
of staff support, accounting for high workloads, low staff morale, frustration, lack of
motivation and initiative, high staff dissatisfaction leading to high staff turnover ratios.
There is a need to strengthen the link between staff empowerment and staff support in order
to maintain an effective and therefore a productive leadership-staff relationship.
The fact that leadership practices linked to communication, empowerment and support
are all weak is an indication that the type of power quality managers and leaders
exercised over their subordinate staff has a weak base upon which to influence staff
behaviour. As a consequence, they resorted to a “reactive” rather than a “proactive”
leadership style in response to meeting staff needs and expectations. This is also
evident by the fact that they believe that they are perceived by their subordinate
staff as:
.
not having the ability and resources to increase staff pay or to promote staff who
comply with teaching and research quality improvement directives;
.
using fear, and deliberately withholding decisions on staff pay rises, promotion
or privileges; and
.
allocating staff with undesirable duties and constantly allocating and
rearranging work, and increasing the workload of staff.
This offers a rational explanation for the slow move from a leadership style, which
places emphasis on achieving results by inspection and control rather than by creating
and sustaining a culture, which empowers and supports staff in their effort to improve
teaching and research quality.

5.5 An alternative framework for academic quality leadership

The issues identified by all the leadership practices linked to mission, communication,
empowerment, and support have been put together into an explanatory framework for
effective managerial leadership for quality in UK Higher Education as illustrated in
Appendix 2. The framework shows the leadership for quality that chancellery,
deanery, heads of departments and programme leaders ought to think about:
 .
How to translate their mission or vision statements into easy to communicate Leadership best
policies, strategies, and SMART objectives and targets for teaching and/or practices
research.
.
How to ensure that it has a working structure with effective communication
systems which claims ownership of core processes.
.
How academic, administrative and support-service staff feel empowered, motivated
and receive timely feedback on their performance in key performance areas. 161
.
How to ensure that improvement decisions are based on relevant and reliable
data, information, intelligence and knowledge about the availability of funds and
other resources.
.
How available funds and other resources are efficiently allocated to staff who
have the ability to improve core processes for delivering excellent results for
students, government and other stakeholders including the institution itself.
.
How to ensure that all effort is directed at achieving a fine balance between
“autonomy” and “accountability” in order to sustain the level of staff
participation required to achieve excellence in teaching and research.
It is therefore vital for quality managers and leaders to co-ordinate best practices for
teaching and research, and to direct the efforts of academic and non-academic staff
towards achieving agreed improvement objectives and targets. This calls for a
leadership style with a mindset, which takes on board the above points. The
framework, if successfully implemented, will ensure that the premise that effective
“leadership” through “core processes” is required to deliver excellent “performance
results” is upheld through deliberate and sustainable effort from all staff at all levels in
the institution. Finally, Table III provides a scoring mechanism for evaluating
leadership performance in institutions in terms of the degree of importance and the
degree of effectiveness of leadership practices implemented. This is derived from the
framework in Appendix 2, and is underpinned by the RADAR principle (British
Quality Foundation, 2000), which requires leaders to:
.
first, decide the level of improvement they wish to achieve within a given
timeframe;
.
second, decide the mix of practices appropriate on the basis of their relative
importance in the light of realistic estimates of funding levels;
.
third, determine how effectively a practice can be deployed to achieve optimal
results; and
.
fourth, assess and review the above process and take corrective action based on
management by exception.
For instance, if an expected increase in TQA or RAE results did not materialise,
leadership should first identify the “gap” between the relative importance and
effectiveness for each leadership practice (see Figure 6 for practices linked to
communication). The “gap” in overall scaled response of eight points is not
satisfactory. The relative importance of ten points is “excellent” but not the two points
for relative effectiveness. The corrective action will be to bridge the “gap” in relative
effectiveness by adjusting the mix of practices under “communication” in order to raise
the level of effectiveness from two to an ideal level of ten points.
QAE Numerical and percentage Scores
13,2 Rank Main criterion and sub-criteria Importance Effectiveness

Leadership
1 Mission Low: scaled response ¼ 1-3 Low: scaled response ¼ 1-3
percentages ¼ 10-30 percent percentages ¼ 10-30 percent
1.1 Deciding the teaching-research
162 balance
1.2 Required sets of values and
principles
1.3 Required sets of policies,
strategies, objectives
1.4 Required data, information,
knowledge
2 Communication infrastructure Average: scaled response ¼ 4-7 Average: scaled response ¼ 4-7
percentages ¼ 40-70 percent percentages ¼ 40-70 percent
2.1 ICT infrastructure for
improvement activities
2.2 Cost effectiveness of
improvement activities
3 Empowerment High: scaled response ¼ 8-10 High: scaled response ¼ 8-10
percentages ¼ 80-100 percent percentages ¼ 80-100 percent
3.1 Level of staff involvement in
improvement process
3.2 Level of staff participation in
decision-making
3.3 Level of staff Job satisfaction
4 Support
4.1 Providing timely feed-back on
performance
Table III. 4.2 Sharing good and best practices
Osseo-Asare’s leadership 4.3 Efforts to reduce workloads
scoring mechanism Source: Osseo-Asare (2003)

Practically, it means leadership must transform the “weak” practices into “good” and
“best” practices by ensuring that they are personally and actively involved in:
.
maximising the use of ICT in the deployment and updating of teaching and
research quality improvement policies, strategies, objectives and targets; and
.
integrating internal and external reporting in a cost-effective manner.
The main justification for leadership involvement in the improvement process –
according to this study – stems from the fact that by improving on the degree of
efficiency and degree of effectiveness of leadership practices it is possible to transform
a “weak” practice into a “best” practice.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

Leadership is one of the critical success factors for sustaining quality and performance
improvement in UK higher education institutions, which according to this research
survey ought to be effectively integrated with policy and strategy, and deliberately
exercised through process ownership and improvement. The framework for effective
leadership presented in Appendix 2 integrates leadership practices in the areas of
mission, communication, staff empowerment and support in a holistic manner. It is
based on the recognition that linkages exist between the critical success factors in each Leadership best
area. This has led us to conclude that a dynamic form of leadership behaviour is practices
possible and feasible in higher education institutions if it embodies the following:
(1) the job specifications of the person performing the leadership role;
(2) the job specification of the staff responsible for teaching and research quality;
(3) the structure, policy and strategy, systems and processes in place; 163
(4) the quality improvement activities to be performed; and
(5) the data, information, intelligence and knowledge derived from the institutions’
micro, macro and internal environment.
This is based on the evidence that most of the quality managers surveyed performed a
leadership role when exercising authority as an attribute of their stated position in
a hierarchical structure as contained in their job descriptions. They were of the view that
most staff members do not see them as leaders but as managers because their formal
appointment has not been ratified in their hearts and minds, thus making the
performance of the prescribed leadership role less effective in yielding desired results. At
best, they are only able to elicit mechanical behaviour resulting from a
superior-subordinate relationship, which they felt is not sustainable because it is unreal.

6.1 A conceptual framework for sustaining quality improvement

From the discussions and interpretation of findings we conclude that a conceptual
framework for achieving and sustaining quality in UK higher education institutions
can be developed based on the following five sets of principles:
(1) The daily task carried out by a leadership for quality can be grouped together
into a set of activities, and the set of activities can then be grouped into a set of
practices under each key area under the leadership criterion;
(2) On institutional mission, vision and values, leadership at:
.
The chancellery, and deanery, must be personally and actively involved in
deciding whether or not the institution should focus its time and resources
on teaching or research or both in the foreseeable future.
.
The deanery and heads of department, must be personally and actively
involved in translating their mission or vision relating to teaching and/or
research into sets of values and principles of quality.
.
Heads of department and programme leaders must be personally and actively
involved in translating the values and principles of quality into teaching
and/or research policies, strategies, and SMART objectives and targets.
.
The chancellery, deanery, heads and programme leaders must make
decisions based on relevant and reliable data, information, intelligence and
knowledge of good and best practices.

(3) On internal and external communications, leadership at:

. The chancellery, deanery, and heads of departments must personally and
actively ensure that ICT infrastructure underpins academic and
non-academic quality improvement activities.
QAE .
The deanery, heads of departments and programme leaders must seek to
13,2 maximise the use of ICT in the deployment and updating of teaching and/or
research policy, strategy, objectives and targets.
.
The deanery, heads of departments and programme leaders must be
personally and actively involved in seeking areas of commonality and
differences in order to maximise the benefits of synergies derived from
164 implementing an integrated system for internal and external reporting.
.
The chancellery, deanery, heads and programme leaders must use feedback on
the “cost of carrying out an improvement activity” as a critical decision-point.
(4) On staff empowerment through participation and commitment, leadership at:
.
The chancellery, deanery, heads and programme leaders must personally
and actively seek to use the experiences, ideas, and suggestions put forward
by academic and non-academic staff to formulate policies and strategies and
to set improvement objectives and targets.
.
The deanery, heads of departments and programme leaders must allow
academic staff greater freedom, autonomy and self-control over teaching and
research methods, and greater responsibility for decision-making.
.
The chancellery, deanery, heads and at programme levels must personally
and actively prevent misalignment between staff responsibility and
authority for quality in order to minimise conflict of objectives.
(5) On staff support, leadership at:
.
The chancellery, deanery, heads and at programme levels must personally
and actively support those below them in providing timely feedback on
funding allocations and on the allocation of other resources.
.
The chancellery, deanery, heads and at programme levels must personally
and actively help staff eliminate or reduce instances of “weak” practices;
share good and best practice.
.
The chancellery, deanery, heads and at programme levels must personally
and actively help staff to evaluate alternative career routes which will bring
out the best in them.

The above principles suggest that effective “leadership” in higher education is about two
things. First, it is about “communication” of a clear statement “mission, vision, values
and principles”. Second, it is about successful implementation of “core processes” with
the help of empowered staff aided by timely data, information, intelligence and
knowledge of best practices, to deliver superior results for students and other
stakeholders and ultimately excellent “institutional performance results”. It ensures that
“leadership” “policy and strategy” and “core processes” are seen as a part of a whole,
rather than separate strategic and operational issues. It also encourages transformation
from “weak practices” to “good practices” and from “good practices” to “best practices”.

6.2 Leadership for quality based on deliberate strategies

This article confirms that, in an environment of uncertainty about levels of funding
allocation and scarcity of other teaching and research resources, effective leadership is
about adopting a deliberate approach to deciding the strategic direction of the Leadership best
institution. Quality managers in leadership positions should be personally and actively practices
involved in deciding the “teaching-research mix”; implementing an integrated system
of communication based on “fact” rather that “misinformation”; and employing the full
potential of academic and non-academic staff at all levels of the institution. This calls
for transformational leadership with the skill to transform “weak practices” into “best
practices”, thereby reducing staff turnover ratios, raising staff morale and motivation, 165
reducing frustration, workloads and staff dissatisfaction, in order to obtain excellent
results through a culture of empowerment. Effective leaders are therefore chancellors,
deans, heads of department, and programme leaders whose intended behaviour and
predicted results bring about desired staff behaviour and achievement of teaching
and research objectives and targets.
The principles outlined above makes it is imperative for all academic,
administrative and support-service staff whose responsibility it is to successfully
implement key “processes” for improving the quality of teaching and research to seek
to understand the nature of the leadership-staff relationship and the best practices for
sustaining its effectiveness. It is therefore vital for management and leadership at all
levels within the HEI to co-ordinate best practices for teaching and research, and to
direct the efforts of staff towards achieving agreed improvement objectives and
targets. This involves determining the right mix of “management” and “leadership”
practices relating to measures of “efficiency” and “effectiveness” respectively.

6.3 Areas for further research

We intend to obtain feedback on the framework for leadership in some of the
participating UK higher education institutions, as part of our efforts at validating
the concepts and principles underpinning the framework in Appendix 2. It will involve
carrying out a status check of leadership tasks, activities and practices. An outline of
what we intend to find out or do is provided below:
(1) Is current practice “important” and “effective”?
(2) Determine how “important” and how “effective”: HH¼ best; HA ¼ good;
HL ¼ weak
(3) Determine the extent to which current practice can deliver desired improvement
(4) Transform weak and/or good practices into best practices
(5) Monitor and control quality and performance activities
(6) Document practice for internal transfer of good and best practices
The fact that the test statistics suggest there is no linear relationship between the
degree of importance and the degree of effectiveness confirms that the association
between “leadership practices” and desired levels of “quality improvement” in UK
HEIs is loosely coupled. We attribute this, in part, to the fact that the association is not
well understood and unfortunately less researched, evident by the fact that “weak”
leadership practices still persist and are not being successfully transformed into “best”
or “excellent” leadership practices. For instance, there is uncertainty about whether or
not there is a causal relationship between the time spent by the chancellery and
deanery to decide the right teaching-research balance and a desired percentage
increase in funding allocations, i.e. does “more time spent” equate to “more funding”?
QAE Further research may be necessary to improve the validity of the findings and test the
13,2 emerging framework and critical success factors.

Glossary

166 EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management is the body managing the
European Quality Award (EQA) and is based in Brussels, Belgium. www.
efqm.org
HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England. There are also funding
councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
HEFCs Higher Education Funding Councils comprising the funding councils for
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
HEIs Higher Education Institutions in the United Kingdom comprise
universities, university colleges, and specialist institutions in England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
ICT Information and Communication Technology
QAA Quality Assurance Agency is the body in the UK responsible for
assuring higher quality of provision and standards of awards in higher
education.
RADAR Results (R), Approach (A), Deploy (D), Assess (A), Review (R) is a
principle for quality or performance improvement based on the Deming’s
Cycle, i.e. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Cycle
RAE Research Assessment Exercise in the UK is carried out by the QAA on
behalf of the HEFCE
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 10 for Microsoft
Windows
TQA Teaching Quality Assessment
TQM Total Quality Management is an approach to quality management based
on continuous improvement, and active involvement of everyone within
an organisation in the improvement process.
UK United Kingdom comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
USA United States of America

References
Adair, J. (1983), Effective Leadership, Pan Books, New York, NY.
Adair, J. (1986), Effective Teambuilding, Gower, Aldershot.
Bass, B.M. (1960), Leadership, Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, Harper & Row, Leadership best
New York, NY.
practices
Belbin, R.M. (1993), Team Roles at Work, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Bennis, W. and Nannus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Biggs, J.B. (2003), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 2nd ed.,
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham. 167
Blake, R.R. and McCanse, A.A. (1985), Leadership Dilemmas – Grid Solutions, Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, TX.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1985), The Managerial Grid III, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Adams, M. and Ranney, G. (1994), Beyond Total Quality Management:
Towards The Emerging Paradigm, McGraw-Hill International, London.
British Quality Foundation (2000), The Model in Practice: Using the EFQM Excellence Model to
Deliver Continuous Improvement, BQF, Ashford Colour Press, London.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Byrd, C. (1940), Social Psychology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY.
Clayton, M. (1995), “Encouraging the kaizen approach to quality in a university”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 6 Nos 5/6, pp. 593-601.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2003), Research Methods in Education, 5th ed., Routledge
Falmer, London.
Crainer, S. (1995), “Have the corporate superheroes had their day?”, Professional Manager,
March, pp. 8-12.
Dale, B.G. (1999), Managing Quality, 3rd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Doherty, G.D. (1993), “Towards total quality management in higher education: a case study of
the University of Wolverhampton”, Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 321-39.
Drucker, P.F. (1989), The Practice of Management, Heinemann Professional, London.
Dunkin, M. and Biddle, B. (1974), The Study of Teaching, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.
EFQM (2003), The Excellence Model, May, available at: www.efqm.org
Evers, C.W. and Lakomski, G. (2001), “Theory in educational administration: naturalistic
directions”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 39, pp. 499-520.
Fieldler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fleishman, E.A. (1974), “Leadership climate, human relations training and supervisory
behaviour”, in Fleishman, E.A. and Bass, A.R. (Eds), Studies in Personnel and Industrial
Psychology, 3rd ed., Dorsey, Homewood, IL.
French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1968), “The bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. and Zander,
A.F. (Eds), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 3rd ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Ghiselli, E.E. (1963), “Management talent”, American Psychologist, Vol. 18, pp. 631-42.
Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (1997), Behaviour in Organizations, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1993), Management of Organizational Behaviour: Utilizing
Human Resources, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
House, R.J. and Dessler, G. (1974), “The path-goal theory of leadership”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson,
L.L. (Eds), Contingency Approaches to Leadership, Southern Illinois University Press,
Carbondale, IL.
QAE Hunt, J.W. (1992), Managing People at Work, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
13,2 Jennings, E.E. (1991), “The anatomy of leadership”, Management of Personnel Quarterly, Vol. 1
No. 1, p. 2.
Kanji, G.K. and Tambi, A.M. (1999), “Total quality management in UK higher education
institutions”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 129-53.
Kanji, G.K. and Tambi, A.M. (2002), Business Excellence in Higher Education, Kingsham, Chichester.
168 Kotter, J.P. (1990), “What leaders really do”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, p. 103.
Krech, D., Crutchfield, R.S. and Ballachey, E.L. (1962), Individual in Society, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Kreitner, R. and Kinicki, A. (1995), Organizational Behaviour, 3rd ed., Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
McGregor, D. (1987), The Human Side of Enterprise, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Miles, M.B. (1959), Learning to Work in Groups, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Mullins, L.J. (1999), Management and Organisational Behaviour, 5th ed., Financial Times Pitman
Publishing, London.
Nicholls, J. (1988), “The transforming autocrat”, Management Today, March, pp. 114-8.
Novak, J.M. (2002), Inviting Educational Leadership: Fulfilling Potential & Applying an Ethical
Perspective to The Educational Process, School Leadership & Management Series, Pearson
Education, London.
Osseo-Asare, A.E. Jr (2003), “Sustaining quality improvement in UK higher education
institutions through effective management of best practices”, unpublished doctoral thesis.
Osseo-Asare, A.E. Jr and Longbottom, D. (2002), “The need for education and training in the use
of the EFQM model for quality management in UK higher education institutions”, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Parker, P. (1994), “The shape of leaders to come”, Management Today, July, p. 5.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of Leadership, Free Press, New York, NY.
Taffinder, P. (1995), The New Leaders: Achieving Corporate Transformation through Dynamic
Leadership, Kogan Page, London.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddle, C. (1998), Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches, Applied Social Research Methods Series 46, Sage, London.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973), Leadership and Decision-Making, University of Pittsburgh
Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Yukle, G. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall International, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Zairi, M. (1994), “Leadership in TQM implementation: some case examples”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 9-16.

Appendix 1. A list of best and weak leadership practices in UK HEIs (Source:

Osseo-Asare, 2003)

Best practices
.
Leadership for quality at chancellery and deanery, personally and actively involved in
deciding the teaching and research balance as basis for creating and sustaining a culture
for excellence – highly important, highly effective; considered a best practice
 .
Leadership for quality at chancellery, deanery, and heads of departments personally and Leadership best
actively involved in translating the teaching and research balance into sets of values and
principles for achieving and sustaining quality improvement – highly important, highly practices
effective; considered a best practice
.
Leadership for quality at deanery, heads of departments, and programme leaders, are
personally and actively involved in translating the teaching and research values and
principles into policies and alternative strategies for evaluation, selection and
implementation by frontline academic, administrative and support-service staff –
169
highly important, highly effective; considered a best practice

Weak practices
.
Leadership at all levels ensuring decisions made are based on relevant data, information,
intelligence and knowledge of good and best practices – highly important, less effective;
considered a weak practice
.
Leadership personally and actively ensure that ICT infrastructure underpins academic and
non-academic quality improvement activities in order to maximise its use in the deployment
and updating of teaching and research quality improvement policies, strategies, objectives
and targets – highly important, less effective; considered a weak practice
. Leadership personally and actively ensure an integrated system for internal and external
reporting is developed and successfully implemented as part of a strategy to meet the
requirements of both internal and external quality and performance audits cost effectively
– highly important, less effective; considered a weak practice
.
Leadership at deanery, heads of department, and programme levels, and research
managers actively making use of the experiences, ideas, and suggestions offered by junior
and senior academic staff, and research staff including research degree students to
improve the teaching quality assessment (TQA) scores and research assessment exercise
(RAE) results – highly important, less effective; considered a weak practice
.
Programme leaders and research leaders allowing teaching and research staff greater
freedom, autonomy and self-control over teaching methods and research methodology and
responsibility for decision-making – highly important, less effective; considered a weak
practice
.
Leadership at macro and micro level personally and actively involved in preventing
misalignments between staff responsibility and authority within the formal structure for
quality management in order to minimise conflict of objectives – highly important, less
effective; considered a weak practice
.
Leadership at all levels personally and actively support those below them including
subordinates in teaching and research by providing timely feedback on performance and
ensuring efficient allocation of available resources – highly important, less effective;
considered a weak practice
.
Leadership at all levels personally and actively involved in sharing good and best
practices and in efforts to eliminate weak practices in teaching and research through
effective documentation and communication of practices – less important, less effective;
considered a weak practice
.
Leadership at all levels personally and actively involved in reducing workloads by
aligning staff responsibilities with quality improvement policies and strategies and with
reward systems – less important, less effective; considered a weak practice

Note: No “excellent” and “good” leadership practices were identified during the period of study
QAE Appendix 2. Osseo-Asare’s framework for effective managerial leadership for
academic quality
13,2

170

Figure A1.