Abstract
Leadership and its development within higher education remain a black box for scholars and practitioners, as its implications are not sufficiently theorized in the literature. Building on that notion, this paper aims to offer a theoretically grounded framework to understand the constituents and transition of leadership development in an economy that aspires to be a knowledge-based economy. The work is ethnographic in nature, and its empirical findings are derived from semi-structured interviews with academic leaders and experts who help shape the policies in higher education and its impact. The paper has implications for practitioners and policymakers in trying to align the higher education sector with the overall economic objectives of the nation.
Keywords
“The most fundamental resource in the modern economy is knowledge and, accordingly, the most important process is learning” (Lundvall, 1992, p. 1)
Background
Higher education is characterized by numerous challenges, and universities are known for juggling complex and multiple goals. This calls for leadership within these contexts to be recognized as contested, distributed, and ambiguous. Various descriptors, ranging from ‘organized anarchies’ to ‘herding cats,’ have been used to depict universities and leadership within the scope of discussion (Cohen and March, 1974). The question that has perplexed practitioners, policymakers, and scholars revolves around the type of leadership required in an environment as dynamic and fluid as higher education during times of uncertainty. While leadership research outside academia has flourished, the notion remains a significant enigma for the higher education sector. The absence of a theoretical framework for leadership and its development within higher education has resulted in the application of models and frameworks from other sectors, which do not truly reflect the higher education context.
Addressing this gap, the aim of the paper is to present a grounded framework for understanding leadership and its constituents within the sector, drawing insights from leaders and experts in the field. The exploration of leadership and its development in this article is examined against the backdrop of the nuanced concept of a knowledge-based economy (KBE). While the literature is abundant with KBE commentary, its application and contextualized implications are limited to econometric or broader macro-level perspectives.
The concept of a KBE has been elusive for some time. While some scholars have delved into the metaphorical aspects of it, others have rhetorically agreed on the success of the concept (Sørensen et al., 2016; Bublyk et al., 2018). From leaders to policymakers, the notion of a KBE, introduced by evolutionary economists, has been scrutinized from different perspectives. Policymakers at the European Summit organized in March 2000 initially agreed on a new strategic goal for the European Union to strengthen employment, economic reform, and social cohesion as part of a KBE (Schleicher, 2006). As far back as 2008, during one of his campaign trails, Barack Obama stressed the importance of a KBE, highlighting how a long-term agenda requires a country to train and educate the workforce with skills to thrive in such an economy. He emphasized the need to focus on areas like science and technology that would shape the workforce of the 21st century and invest in the research and innovation necessary to create jobs and industries of the future in America (Darlington-Hammond, 2009).
The concept of a KBE was first introduced byForay and Lundvall (1996) at a workshop for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1994. A systematic exploration of the definition of a KBE leads to the OECD STI outlook series, where in 1996, OECD defined knowledge-based economies as “economies that are directly based on the production, distribution, and use of knowledge and information” (OECD, 1996g, p. 3). As the definition of a KBE began to appear in scholarly articles and policy documents, two associated concepts gained traction – “investment in knowledge” and “knowledge-based industries” (Kahn, 2001, p. 14; Webb, 2001). Since the initial conceptualization, OECD has continued to introduce a range of indicators to develop the notion of a KBE. These indicators were primarily identified to measure KBE represented by inputs, stocks, flows, outputs, networks, and learning (OECD, 1996g, p. 20). For some scholars, this set of indicators has given way to a new generation of indicators – mobility of human resources, patents, innovation capabilities, internationalization of industrial R&D, government support, and information technology (Godin, 2006).
Theoretical lens
Given the extensive work in developing a conceptual basis for understanding the KBE, it is noteworthy that, as an umbrella term, it has allowed policymakers to aggregate existing ideas and concepts around science and technology (Plosila, 2004). Despite considerable scholarly progress in this direction and parallel academic justifications around the discipline, newly industrializing, de-industrializing, and re-industrializing countries have rapidly moved towards fostering knowledge-based economic and social development (Henry and Leydesdorff, 1998).
The enhancement of innovation capacities through knowledge creation stands at the forefront of the agendas of policymakers and institutional think tanks. There has been a paradigm shift in the knowledge economy, with countries transitioning from industrialized and cost-based competition towards a more effective production, distribution, and use of knowledge for wealth generation (OECD, 1996g). Countries such as the USA, Japan, the United Kingdom, and some from Western Europe are regarded as ‘knowledge hubs’ concerning research and development (R&D) and innovation capacities. There is an urgency to be classified as a knowledge hub, with countries like China and India emerging as destinations for global firms seeking R&D (Zhou and Leydesdorff, 2006).
Despite considerable advancement in literature regarding the KBE, scholars have largely overlooked the impact of leadership within this context. It is widely acknowledged that existing leadership literature is extensive yet heavily fragmented. The aspects of the KBE highlight the role of higher education and leadership development for both policymakers and practitioners. However, discussions around both these dimensions remain limited concerning the KBE.
The argument presented in this paper is grounded in the theoretical mismatch observed in higher education leadership while aiming to provide new insights into the constituents of leadership development in an aspiring KBE.
Structural approach of higher education
According to Teichle (1989), the term ‘higher education system’ gained popularity in the second half of the 20th century, and the use of these terms exhibits an assumed structure to the system, irrespective of the country. Some scholars argue that each higher education system comprises internal and external boundaries that depict various aspects of the system in play. The mechanisms of government steering, policymaking, and management directly impact these structures of higher education. For example, the European higher education system is influenced by incentives and sanctions, often applied top-down. Some argue that such a mechanism contributes directly to the efficiency of the system. However, arguments against this approach point to intrinsic motivation, positing that excessive importance given to rewards and sanctions can undermine the entire system. As a result, some governments have instituted bottom-up initiatives leading to the diversification of higher education (Guri-Rosenblit et al., 2007).
This trend seems to have caught on, as we witness the flourishing of for-profit private establishments, extensions, and virtual universities. Proponents of such an approach highlight the widening of learning opportunities for citizens, the introduction of novel programs, diverse delivery methods, and the facilitation of positive competition in the sector, especially in developing countries. Despite the two arguments around the approach for higher education, developing countries are heavily impacted by structural higher education policies that come into effect through regional or national transformation programs (Dong et al., 2020).
For the purpose of this article, the dynamic environment of Saudi Arabia offers a theoretical case to investigate leadership in higher education. This approach has been adopted keeping in view the lack of a theoretical basis that explicates higher education structures through a contextual case and leadership.
Leadership development is the central to the arguments of KBE and national transformation programs such as the Vision 2030. However, despite the centrality of the argument, the literature has not offered a robust understanding of how and what constitutes leadership development in such a dynamic and turbulent environment. Therefore, the objective of this article is driven by two research questions (a) What are the leadership dimensions within academia that influence the transformation of a knowledge-based economy and (b) How are leadership practices shaped in higher education amidst national programs or policy changes?
Research method
This qualitative study has been informed by established work from with the field of leadership, international education, and business (Alexander and Manolchev, 2020; Lacoste et al., 2022). Having reviewed a range of studies from different disciplines, adopting qualitative research is ideal when studying regional and multidimensional approaches. As directed by the research aims and objectives of this paper, we aim to investigate the leadership attributes and dynamics related to transformational projects in academia. Within those contexts, it is strongly believed that amongst the range of qualitative methodologies, systematic combining is appropriately aligned to the outcomes of the research (Dubois and Gadde, 2014). According to Dubois and Gadde (2002), systematic combining is a process wherein “theoretical framework, empirical fieldwork, and case analysis evolve simultaneously, and it is particularly useful for development of new theories” (p. 554). Considering the focus of the study, the paper offers an opportunity to examine some of the critical leadership concepts within academia linked to triple helix and national transformational project in an emerging nation. The study delivers on the ever-developing role of universities within the local and regional context which impacts national institutions. The sub-context of the research underlines some of the leadership, external influences on development within the universities (Shahwan and Zaman, 2023). From the literature point of view, concepts linked to higher education leadership in emerging nations offer a broader framework for this paper to illustrate the theoretical template of the paper which has been enhanced by embracing grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 2017). Aligning grounded theory with our current study has allowed for the study to capture the richness of data so as to deliver on more nuanced conceptualisation of leadership development in higher education. The study has been designed to explore the key role in relation to conceptual understanding within academia discussed first through literature review using the context of Saudi Vision 2030 through a process of iterative coding of the empirical data.
Scholars such as Gioia et al. (2013) and Maznevski and Chudoba (2000) have argued for rigours of qualitative research practice which have included considering data and existing theory in tandem which essentially equates as fine balance of ‘knowing’ and ‘not knowing’ for the discovery of new knowledge. Adopting an inductive approach calls for working form previous theories, whilst being prepared to move away from those specified theories in order to establish new theories and framework. Aligned to that, the emergent theory from this paper offers a holistic view of higher education leadership within the context of renewed importance of institutions role in developing a KBE.
Research context and participant
Saudi Arabian context is particularly interesting from a literary point of view as it aims to change its identity from a predominantly oil-based to non-oil export. Given the scale of Vision 2030 and its economic value, the program offers an opportunity to investigate the renewed role of higher education in the country which often serves as a template to other countries in the region. “Vision 2030” in effect had rubber stamped a series of initiatives which was aimed at pushing the oil state out of its comfort zone. From national transformation program to human capital development plan, the charter boasts of some very interesting strategies in the interest of the nation. The most eye-catching aspect of the vision however relates to one of its impending goals, that is, focus on non-oil exports. The state has put in place the mechanism to increase its non-oil exports and the government is doing all it can to increase its share of non-oil exports from 16% to 50% in the long run. Given the fact that 85% of kingdom’s revenue is dependent on oil, moving away from such rich stream of revenue has been a long and arduous initiative. In an effort to diversify economy and reduce its dependencies on traditional oil sector, the council of ministers under the leadership of crown prince have unveiled this bold, yet definitive plans which is not only significant to the region but can also play a major role in international economy. The elaborate plans to move away from oil-based revenue is dependent heavily on kingdom’s ability to diverge its focus on sectors which can yield sustainable outcome in the long run. More generally though the government is instituting innovative streaks across sectors and as part of vision 2030, the state has established another major policy action, the National Science, Technology, and Innovation Plan (NSTIP). Theoretically, NSTIP has been constituted with recombination principles of existing ideas or the generation of new ideas into novel processes and products. NSTIP’s capacity to acquire, absorb, disseminate, and apply modern technologies can be explicated through the concept of National Innovation System (NIS) which has been used widely by researchers and decision makers at regional, national, and international levels (Edquist, 2010).
The research for this article can be considered as excerpts of multiple case study wherein it was conducted within one large economy comprising of multiple stakeholders and representatives of higher education institutes and industry leaders at the heart of policymaking and strategizing. Saudi Arabia as country is one the verge of transformation through its national transformation programmes and with Vision 2030, a real impetus has been captured at all levels of economy which intensifies the push towards identification as KBE. Given the focus of this article, that is, to offer novel insights pertaining the role and contribution of higher education leadership amidst the transformation programmes such as the Vision 2030, primary and secondary sources of data have included a wide array of participants from both within and outside the academia. More importantly though the objective has been to capture an overarching perspective of transformation programs and how it can impact the contribution from within the academia in an ambitious KBE.
List of participants.
In order to study and develop the theoretical dimensions linked to academic leadership, each of the interview were carried out in their respective campuses and university locations. It allowed for observation as well wherein interviewees were able to demonstrate some of their associated functions in their respective roles.
As part of the data collection, open ended questions were employed to start the interviews and following on from Romelaer’s (2005) approach, a semi-structured interview methodology was adopted. Such an approach allowed for interviewees to freely express themselves. The primary language of the original interview was Arabic and following transcription process, they were later translated in English which also offered the opportunity to anonymise the names, associated roles and affiliation of the respondents in accordance to research ethics. Given the language at certain point during the interviews, answers were paraphrased for accurate understanding of the discussion. Interview protocol was devised so as to ascertain that all topics has been addressed during the exchange. Adopting a probing approach, every interview involved discussion around the following – (a) training and development, (b) negotiating operational strategy (c) policy and practice of institutional leadership, (d) perspective on academic success, (e) resource allocation and talent recognition, (f) managing organisational efficiency, effectiveness and competition, (g) contribution through research and impact on the broader economy. Interviews lasted approximately 30–40 min and each interview was followed by discussion between the researcher and the interviewee. The interviewees were asked for their permission to record the interview. Following transcription of the interviews, they scripts were reviewed, compared against the recordings for accuracy and then fed into NVivo – qualitative data software for subsequent analysis.
Data analysis process
A total of 27 interviews were conducted which represented universities and institutions giving rise to a comprehensive set of data sources. Using template analysis allowed for balancing the open coding of data derived from grounded theory (Brooks and King, 2012). The conceptual structure, coding structure of the data was predetermined in the conceptualisation phase as indicated by Table (1). Adopting such an approach facilitated in flexible interplay between the empirics (data) and literature underpinning the research. Table (2) offers an insight into how some of the themes originated from the data as they were incorporated into the final data structure (Charmaz, 2006; Zaman et al., 2023). The first stage of the research - a huge number of informant codes and categories emerged which worked along the lines of open coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Given the emergence of a large number of coding, similarities and differences were sought among the categories using the notion of axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The focus at this stage was to develop tentative answers to research question through gestalt analysis often leading to the probing questions (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). It led the data into the realms of second order analysis as one began to explore the possibility of conforming within the emergent second order themes which together formed the basis for building the data structure (Figure 1). Resultant data structure.
In retracing the analytical steps to establish the data structure, the process leading to the depiction in Figure 1 is illustrated in Figure 2. Steps in Analysing the data.
Considering the reliability of the result, I worked on coding and engaged an independent researcher to agree on all the codes generated. As part of this process, the independent researcher was provided with the transcript of all the interviews and asked to code some of the interviews separately. These codes were than matched to what I had coded, and we found a match of 95% in what codes were generated by the independent researcher. In addition, triangulation of data also provided an added layer of confidence during collection and analysis of data. Besides engaging an independent researcher, interviews were conducted in respective premises which allowed for observations and additional notes for triangulation purposes. Secondary sources were also used to cross-check with some of information garnered during the interview process.
Findings
In a country which aspires to be a KBE, the influence of transformation programs on higher education institutes and academia in general is very stark. Building on such a notion, when considering the role of academia amidst the transformation program, leadership within the academia is a significant factor. The findings of this research shines light on some of the key aspects of leadership in academia which has been prevalent whilst shaping the ways in which leaders can help transform the role of universities in the greater economy. More specifically the aims of this paper can be reinforced through the following research questions (a) what are the leadership dimensions within academia that influence the transformation of a KBE (b) how are leadership practices shaped in higher education amidst national programs or policy changes? Using the aggregate dimensions which came about through the empirical data and analysis, the following section addresses the questions as above.
When addressing, the terms of Vision 2030, education reforms have been identified in clear forms and shape especially in relation to curriculum refining and efforts towards outcomes aligned for market needs. Another key aspect of Vision 2030 is the increasing role of private sector in education allowing for more space for such institutions to operate within the sector. It is precisely why the current paper is a timely intervention into the context of academic leadership under such a dynamic environment. In the event of traditional structural legacy, demands of globalised and market-driven higher education, there is increasing pressure on the need for effective and efficient use of academic resources (Davies et al., 2001). Leveraging the resources place leadership central and urgency to overhaul some of the traditional leadership approaches in higher education sector. The findings of this research as represented by the three aggregate dimensions offers a novel theory as well as transformation progression of leadership practices in academia. Each of the three agree dimensions – A) Evolution of leadership attributes, B) Symmetric leadership influence C) Collective leadership constituents in turn are informed by three respective second order finding which offers a glimpse of how new understanding around higher education leadership development occurs in a context where national transformation programs play a major role in redefining the role of universities.
Evolution of leadership attributes
Most of the informants contributing to our empirical investigation stressed on how leadership attributes are linked to the performance as explained by one of the participants (VC1), ‘I trained at King Saud University and got several courses in different fields as well as three leadership courses: executive leadership, leadership, and team leadership. But we have a weakness in development and polarization, both in the private sector and in the public sector, and there is no clear methodology, especially for academic department leaders. I feel that they are not preparing the work for the new managers when the real value of the leader is before the leader or director leaves the current University for whatever reason he/she should have developed the second line potential leaders. Leaders’ performance indicators also need to be futuristic.’ The interviewees across the board stressed on performance as one of constituents of leadership attributes. The performance of leadership is critical to how employees operate in an institution (Figure 3). Stage 1 of grounded leadership development framework.
The literature has plenty of evidence demonstrating leadership performance and leadership behaviour, but such a trend has largely been exhibited in industry as academia presents a different challenge. In an environment which is impacted by multiple causality, leadership attributes are also determined by a range of extrinsic factors. Another respondent (IE2) highlighted the viewpoint, “I emphasize that the success of an organization depends on the success of highly skilled and competent leaders to achieve the goals. The difficulty is not to achieve goals, but to find an efficient leader who can achieve goals. leadership is not science, but it is ethics above all.” Given the focus of this research, the attributes of leadership in academia are mediated by not only performance but culture too plays a significant role. Culture-leadership aspects has long been debated in the literature and when reviewing cross-cultural literature, there has been a strong link between the two. The empirical finding of this paper adds further contribution with culture being a major factor in determining the evolution of leadership across the institution. When considering culture – it comprises of traditional, religious, and behavioural pattern of individuals within the institution. These dimensions of culture can be differentiated at different levels and in line with the outcomes of this research, it is pertinent to bring into consideration the national environment within which the Vision 2030 is being applied. So, in effect culture in terms of leadership plays out at national level, organisational level and a much narrower – professional level within organisations (Shahin and Wright, 2004). To this another interviewee (VC2) highlighted relating to culture and leadership at a national level, “Our culture is weak in Saudi Arabia in general, both in the public and private sectors. As we have seen in the past 5 years in the principles of governance and many, but I have not seen anyone talk about the topic of leadership development. Culture is supposed to be based on a culture of leadership development, a culture of alternative development and identification of potential leaders.” Another evidence within the empirical finding of this paper relates to impact of culture for academic institutes wherein they identify the dynamics of leadership and culture at organisational level pointing to the competition in the sector. One of the interviewees (VC4) highlighted the same during the investigation, “Certainly, leadership creates a competitive advantage for the organization through a culture of loyalty. One of the most important leadership development programs is to develop loyalty to employees as well as to develop responsibility so that the employee feels responsible and is part of decision-making. This environment makes anyone coming from outside the organization that they also belong to the organization feel that this organization has a healthy environment.”
Systematic leadership influence
Leading higher education institutes especially amidst the national transformation programs pertains that leaders within academia adopt a strategic view. Some scholars have referred to higher education institutes as being a complex organisation and leaders of these entities are expected to develop strategies for being able to compete in the market (Mainardes et al., 2011). There has been a repeated call by policymakers to develop and find theories that support employees and leaders in universities to build enhanced strategies (Shahwan and Zaman, 2023). Some scholars have differentiated these strategies in terms of external and internal influences. Internal influences refer to new education establishments entering the sector and within Saudi Arabia, such a phenomenon relates to private bodies looking to offer alternatives to students. Last few decades have witnessed emergence of private higher education institutes and with Vision 2030 such has trend has been pushed even further. Vision 2030 ascertains that educational system in Saudi Arabia is not fulfilling the required skill gap which call for greater investment in private sector. External influences on the other hand relates to the changing population entering the market looking for quality education. One of the key performance indicators of Vision 2030 is to have five Saudi Universities in top 200 by 2030. With elite Saudis choosing to educate their child abroad, investment in private universities is aiming to alter that trend (Figure 4). Stage 2 of grounded leadership development framework.
Existing establishments are also tasked with improving the quality and environment which called for leadership with strategic intent. This was illustrated by one of the interviewees (RD3) who illustrated, “Further, providing the leader with the right environment and strategic resources where they can practice, and lead would definitely have a positive impact.” In such a dynamic environment, leaders of higher education institutions are saddled with huge expectations as evidenced in our empirical data to lead universities and devise the right kind of strategies. Academic leaders are tasked with creating learning environment which comprises of cultural awareness, strategic thinking and developing a sense of collective identity (Amey, 2006). Drawing further evidence from empirical data, academic leaders are viewed as facilitators who lead through partnerships and motivated teams. The finding suggests how leaders are expected to understand organisational culture and build relationships. This was evidenced in one of the interviewees (VC3), “The leadership development focuses on building the leadership capabilities critical to success at each career level. Designed to incorporate best practices in leadership development effectiveness such as action learning, simulation, coaching, post programmes follow-up, and knowledge transfer strategies. These programmes aim to maximize the positive impact for leaders.” Leaders in academic institutes are also called for nurturing expectations which ushers in responsiveness and accountability. Whilst leaders contribute to that, they also develop numerous relationships with others resulting in development of engaged leadership which according to Schaufeli (2015) is critical in fulfilling employee work engagement. These situations also bring into play other dimensions such as employee inspiration, strength, and sense of connectedness. The leadership behaviour in these contexts result in reinforcing other employees in organisation and their fulfilment of autonomy and competence.
Collective leadership and practices
The notion of autonomy as well as competence has duality attached to them as it brings into play a transformed type of leadership. Referring to it as collective leadership, the type offers an opportunity to share power and strategize integration within organisation. The interpretation of collective leadership can be interpreted through distribution and allocation of managing authority to concerned stakeholders with expertise, capability, and motivation. Collective leadership is mediated by the culture within which it shows its effect but in effect collective leadership facilitates a culture in which high-quality and competitive performance by other employees can be delivered (McCauley and Palus, 2021). For some scholars, collective leadership is an important element of contemporary organisation and with Vision 2030 looming over Saudi Universities, shared leadership has huge implications for employees and students alike. It can be viewed as template for leadership development which reinforces the concept of collaborative culture and environment (Konting, 2012; Hotho and Dowling, 2010). The respondents through our empirical finding justify that as one of the interviewee (IE) highlighted, “Our country has huge investment capabilities and one of the most important directives of the custodian of the two holy mosques where we ordered to plan to work meet all ambitions and achieve all wishes and when launching the vision of Saudi Arabia 2030 this vision leads the team armed with belonging and loyalty and achieving goals and at every moment the Kingdom proves the leadership of king and crown prince leadership and excellence in all occasions and positions and draw the attention of the world with admiration and appreciation. As for the development of leadership and its association with resources, I see from my point of view when we work to improve society, starting with individuals, when we do the process of building and leadership development (i.e., I think there is a lack of resources, and this is normal in the beginnings.” The notion of collective leadership in cases such as these hinges on a range of factors and as per the findings of this research such a leadership type emerges when there is a triumvirate of (a) collective practices and identities, (b) inclusive training regimes and (d) institution of novel skills and competencies (Figure 5). Stage 3 of grounded leadership development framework.
In the context of new policies and discussion around collective leadership, respondents were keen to highlight how practices within the universities required a collective effort – success heavily depended on such an approach irrespective of the leadership. It was highlighted by one of the interviewees (RC2), “Therefore, we believe that the most effective leadership programs are those that develop leadership behaviour. This is one of them, so there are practical applications, and with it we also support the idea that leadership is a process of influencing everyone around you, not only on the work team, so that it has credibility, authenticity, and reliability as well. Effectively, we make a measurement and analysis in the same meeting, and then we work on the strengths and weaknesses.” As a team and unit within different departments collective leadership approach requires for individual employees to come together and build that credibility around their performance. It is largely driven by the persona of the leadership but that alone cannot be the determining factor as identified by the respondents. Additionally, there is a need for leaders and management to institute new learning practices which captures a broader group of employees within the department as noted by another respondent (HoD3), “The most effective programmes are those that develop employees, for example, the training course for leaders at the first level I see that the training course is effective for them how the leader relates to subordinates as well as the training programme, the seven habits training programme is provided it by an external organization, it is effective so that it helps the employee and his development in his working life and educational. These training programs are effective (how to deal with people). Most training and development programmes are done for employees.” What comes out of it is extremely valuable for the institution themselves and the broader economy as new skills and competencies are identified and developed as result.
Discussion
Leadership spectrum of higher education in a knowledge-based economy
Based on the literature as above and the empirical finding – work can now be progressed into a framework through which leadership attributes and practices can be understood within the context of national transformation programs.
Delivering on research aims and objectives of this article, the framework plugs the literature gap and address the dearth of investigation around higher education leadership and its role within the larger economy especially pertinent in the context of major transformation programs. One can look at the grounded model (Figure 6) to ascertain what dimensions shape the constituents of leadership at a macro as well as a micro level. When discussing the macro level, it is critical to assume that higher education is a complex entity which has morphed into a marketplace not immune to changes which are global, digital and dynamics all at the same time (Pucciarelli and Kaplan, 2016). A consensus has evolved especially in the last few decades that future of higher education is likely to be complicated, uncertain, and driven by external influences (Blankenberger and Williams, 2020). It should also be noted that increasingly higher education is driven by business ethos and practices. Given the marketization of universities (identified by three basic mission – teaching, research, and public services), leadership remains a big black-box and calls for greater insight into how leaders should strategize the dynamic environment in and around them (Williamson et al., 2020; Li et al., 2018; Shiller, 2020). Universities in a KBE are made more accountable for their contribution through all aspects of their responsibilities (Frondizi et al., 2019). At macro-level, for leaders within higher education their respective attributes call for evolution in their approach. Scholars in this domain have looked at different leadership attributes but not enough attention has been given to how these attributes requires evolution in terms of how higher education shapes the national discourse around economy. For example, when putting a perspective around Vision 2030, traditional leadership attributes for higher education can be used as a solid foundation to negotiate greater stake and partnership with other stakeholders in the economic society. Another macro domain which matters when it comes to leadership in higher education is the influence under which leaders and management operate when faced with dynamic ever-changing policies around them. External influences in countries such as Saudi Arabia is incremental but can have radical effect on how policies within higher education are shaped (Anyon, 2014). Leaders therefore are expected to negate the challenges imposed by such changes. Finally, in a context where changes are largely driven externally, that is, through the transformation programs – collective leadership is critical if a nation aims to achieve its aspiration for a KBE. Internally and externally culture has huge implications for leadership within higher education. According to Hofstede, culture constitutes values, beliefs, and expectations that employees come to share. Culture also has been referred to as ‘collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another’ (1980; 25). When it comes to higher education, it is difficult to conceptualise culture, but it presents a major challenge for leaders when trying to implement novel policies for organisational outcomes. Grounded model of leadership development framework.
Recommendations and future implications
Leadership, as emphasised in this research, encompasses a multifaceted role where individuals are not only required to be forward-thinking and visionary but also exhibit a keen awareness of how their strategic decisions can positively impact the organization. The essence of effective leadership lies not only in pursuing actions that enhance organizational performance but also in recognizing the pivotal role internal systems and hierarchies play in shaping the trajectory of these improvements. Leaders are tasked with the responsibility of implementing a well-defined plan of action for in-house leadership development. This involves a proactive approach to identifying and nurturing talent within the organization, ensuring a continuous pipeline of capable individuals ready to assume leadership roles. The attributes and qualities of leaders are intricately linked to performance outcomes, which, in turn, manifest in both short-term and long-term actions. Understanding that these performances are closely tied to internal systems and procedures is crucial for crafting a leadership strategy that is deeply rooted in the organizational context. Furthermore, a focus on leadership development within the organizational framework ensures that there is a systematic and sustainable approach to grooming future leaders. This not only mitigates the risks associated with leadership gaps but also contributes to the overall resilience of the organization in the face of evolving challenges. The strategic alignment of leadership actions with internal systems promotes a cohesive and synergistic approach to decision-making, creating a more efficient and effective organizational structure.
Leadership influence within organizations is a well-recognized, and this research underscores that leaders wield their impact not only within the confines of their firms but also extend their influence both internally and externally, employing various mechanisms beyond just their individual personality traits. The empirical findings presented in the section above sheds light on how strategic initiatives can reverberate within the higher education sector, affecting both the internal dynamics of institutions and their external interactions. It is crucial to recognize that leaders, armed with adequate resources and support, possess the capacity to enhance opportunities for their employees within the institution. This extends beyond personal charisma and speaks to the strategic decisions and initiatives implemented by leaders. By fostering an environment that prioritizes employee development and well-being, leaders can contribute significantly to the internal growth and success of the organization. Simultaneously, leaders play a pivotal role in mitigating the competitive threats posed by external factors. In a dynamic sector such as higher education, where the macro-environment is in a constant state of flux, leaders must proactively secure and allocate resources to ensure the institution's resilience against external challenges. These challenges may include shifts in market demands, advancements in technology, or changes in regulatory landscapes. Effective leadership involves not only navigating these externalities but also strategically positioning the organization to thrive amidst such uncertainties. The research underlines the strategic role of leaders in dynamically managing resources to combat external threats. This is not merely a defensive strategy but an approach that enables institutions to capitalize on emerging opportunities. By understanding the interconnectedness of internal and external factors, leaders can craft and execute initiatives that not only shield the organization from external pressures but also position it to capitalize on emerging trends, thus contributing to sustained success in a rapidly evolving environment.
In the context of the higher education sector, an effective leadership model necessitates a distributed approach, signifying that leaders must identify and empower individuals within and around their sphere to execute strategic initiatives for the overall improvement of the institution. This distributed leadership framework entails a decentralization of authority, requiring leaders to adopt a collaborative and inclusive approach that allows for effective functioning while maintaining an open viewpoint regarding the ground-level realities. The essence of distributed leadership lies in its ability to create a network of empowered individuals who collectively contribute to the institution's success. Rather than a top-down hierarchy, this model emphasizes the sharing of authority and responsibilities among various stakeholders. By decentralizing decision-making processes, institutions can tap into the diverse expertise and perspectives of their workforce, fostering a more inclusive and dynamic leadership culture.
In such a collective leadership environment, the power of influence is shared among a broader group of individuals. This not only cultivates a sense of shared ownership and responsibility but also ensures that strategic initiatives align with the operational plan of the institution. The collaborative nature of distributed leadership encourages continuous communication, feedback, and adaptability, fostering a culture where everyone feels invested in the institution’s success. Furthermore, initiatives driven within the operational plan of the institution under a distributed leadership model are more likely to resonate with the day-to-day realities faced by staff and faculty. This grounded approach ensures that strategic decisions are not detached from the practicalities of implementation. Leaders, in collaboration with various contributors, can address challenges and seize opportunities in real-time, making the institution more agile and responsive to changing circumstances.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
