Evaluación por estudio de cohorte

By 2015 the changes in the economic environment for English universities that were discussed in the introductory chapter had reduced the student recruitment prospects for some though not all, mid-range post 1992 universities (Hefce Report 2014; Morgan and Newman, 2010; Newman, 2010; Newman, 2002). Consequently, for the post-1992 university business schools, which had enjoyed significant expansion in the latter part of the twentieth and early part of the twenty-first century, are now in a more competitive market for students and consequently need to re-evaluate what they can do to respond to the changed environment (Bennis and Toole, 2005).

This part of the literature review considers whether the theory of transformational leadership might be appropriate, or to what degree it is appropriate, to facilitate the transforming changes which are currently happening in the post-1992 university business schools.. Furthermore, if a transformational approach is required to meet the new and complex challenges, to what extent does the theory of transformational leadership serve the brave new world of reduced government funding post-2010 and greater competition for students from within and outside the UK higher education environment? For some commentators, the purpose of seeking leaders with transformational characteristics is because of their perception that leaders with transformational attributes have the: ‘potential to motivate the academic

community to respond effectively to change,’ (Morrill 2007, p13). Conversely, other studies

have argued that the characteristics of the current period of transformational change in universities may render the use of one general theory of leadership less compatible to present

needs than might have been the case in past times, when the ambient environment was comparatively tame (Bargh et al, 2000; Grint, 2008a). Furthermore, within an academic community there might be a theory / practice gap, that is to say, dissonances between what might be theoretically regarded as efficacious in transformational leadership theory and the felt experiences of respondents (Brookes, 2007; English, 2002).

The notion that organisations that are faced with major changes require a particular kind of leader has held popular currency for some decades. Indeed, the assumption that new dynamic leadership can transform organisations was part of the rationale for the privatisations of public organisations into private businesses during the 1980s and 1990s. This kind of thinking appears to have permeated into parts of the public sector and universities. For example, an advertisement was placed in the Times Higher Education on 2 April 2009, for the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds Metropolitan University. The prospective applicants for the position were required to demonstrate: ‘a record of delivering transformational change.’ If the ability to be a transformational leader, whatever that might mean, is believed to be, at least for some members of the higher education community, a prerequisite to academic leadership, then transformational leadership theory and its contextual application to post- 1992 universities is pertinent to this discussion.

In support of the relevance of transformational leadership, a substantial body of research argues for the place and value of the theory, and its application to a broad range of organisational contexts. Transformational leadership theory made its entrance into the

broader sphere of academic discussion with the work of Burns (1978; 2003). Since the 1970s, the notion that transformational leadership can change the fortunes of an organisation has retained some popular appeal in businesses and in parts of the academic community (Alimo- Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Bass and Avolio, 1990; Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bass, 1998; Bass, 1999; Boerner et al, 2007; Podsakoff et al, 1996; Turnbull and Edwards, 2005; Vecchio et al, 2008). The continuing popularity of transformational leadership theory also has resonances with the notion of heroic leaders, which concentrates upon the personal characteristics of the person who is a leader (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Bass, 1999; Posner and Kouzes, 1993). Conversely, the theory places less emphasis upon the responsibilities of other organisational members, other than where they are required to follow their transformational leaders. It is also possible that the longevity of transformational leadership as a theory resides in the popular aspiration that one new appointment to a senior position within an organisation can resolve all the organisational difficulties with a transformational change.

It is consequently relevant to review the characteristics of transformational leadership as defined by its exponents and then reflect upon other studies which have subsequently critically evaluated the theory and its application in organisational contexts. According to Bass and Riggio (2008, p.15) the ‘Four “I’s” of transformational leadership’ are: ‘Idealized

influence, Inspirational motivation, Intellectual stimulation and Individual consideration’.

These have been the core of transformational leadership theory and have been discussed by other authors who have studied the application of leadership.

For example, Vecchio (2007, p 304) argues that a transformational leader: ‘provides vision

and sense of mission, instils pride, gains respect and trust. Inspiration: communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts, expresses important purposes in simple way. Intellectual Stimulation: promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving. Individual Consideration: gives personal attention, treats each employee individually, coaches, advises.’ Accordingly, the methodology that is utilised by transformational

leadership supports the proposition that leadership characteristics can be measured. This approach is compatible with the positivistic approach of transformational leadership research, which focuses upon measuring an individual’s characteristics (Bass1999; Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bass and Avolio1990b).

The measurement tool utilised with transformational leadership is the multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1990a; 1990b; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). The designers of the MLQ test have asserted that they can measure the characteristics of a transformational leader. The MLQ test measure consists of four characteristic areas. These characteristics were generically labelled the ‘the Four “I’s” of transformational leadership’: Idealised influence, Inspirational motivation, Intellectual stimulation, and

Individual consideration (Vecchio 2007, p 304).

According to the theory of transformational leadership, those who display the characteristics of ‘Four “I’s”’ are able to foster better relationships with colleagues and encourage them to exert extra effort into their organisational endeavours (Bass cited in Vecchio, 2007, p. 304).

Furthermore, and in support of the value of transformational leadership, Boerner et al, (2007, p.15-26) have argued that: ‘transformational leaders boost follower performance by stimulating organizational citizenship behaviour.’ However, the assertion that

transformational leadership can be efficacious in all organisational contexts is worthy of some further critical evaluation, and in particular within the educational environments. There is also a question to be asked about the supposition that the multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) measurements can take account of the relationships in a complex environment such as a university, where people may interchange roles from leader to follower in different situations (Yukl, 1999).

The transformational leadership theory presupposes that in a world of complex oorganisations that a set of personality traits, can thereby transform the fortunes of the organisation. In this mode, authors such as Goleman et al, (2002) have offered the proposition that the art of leadership can be transformed into a science of results, which would support the scientific veracity of the questionnaire (MLQ) measurements of leadership. However, other academic studies have evidenced sufficient leadership failures to indicate that there are some gaps between the theory and practice of transformational leadership (Brookes, 2007; English, 2002). Furthermore, organisations can be less than predicable or rational, as observed by Albrow (1997, p105) who has criticised the tendency in some management literature to over emphasise rationality in organisational research: ‘…we

have to address the hypostatisation of rational action in so much of organisational literature which confuses rational models with empirical reality.’ This supports the possibility of a

theory-practice gap that could be evaluated through the case studied universities and the respondents’ interviews (Brookes, 2007; English, 2002).

It is can be argued that there are sufficient variances to indicate that what has been observed could be correlations rather than definitive causalities between character traits and leadership performance (Peck and Dickinson 2009, p. 16). Supporting this interpretation, the work of Mabey and Finch-Lees (2008, p. 30), found that: ‘…[the] specific behaviours representing

these styles [transformational / transactional leadership] may vary profoundly.’ If, as argued

by Mabey and Finch-Lees (2008) the variances are profound, then it is could be difficult to operationalise a selection process, even when guided by references to past performances, because a candidate may or may not be able to deliver a similar set of transforming outcomes in a different organisational context (Osborn et al, 2002; Pawar and Eastman, 1997; Porter

and Mclaughlin, 2006).

A counterbalance to the general efficacy of transformational leadership is to be found in a study which identified a link between transformational leadership behaviour and the generation of dysfunctional team conflict in an educational environment (Kotlyar and Karakowsky, 2007). For the purposes of this research, it will therefore be of interest to observe what academics in post-1992 university business schools might think of the notion, that one leader might transform their environment. The work of Peck and Dickinson (2009 p.60), provides a helpful insight into this matter by identifying what the writers described as

context, a leader might be tempted to gravitate towards actions which attract the approval of the senior internal and external stakeholders, such as the boards of governors, and quality standard awarding bodies. The difficulty here is that the wider community of their university’s academics may feel excluded from the decision-making processes and become alienated from the leader’s strategic vision, even if his / her plans are ostensibly constructive. Yet it is that wider community of people who collectively form the core of university activity, in programme management, researching and teaching. Without their active followership, a strategic plan remains an abstract that may not be translated into practice. In this respect it is more likely that leadership needs to be distributed more widely through the organisational community, (Grint, 2005b).

It is, however, perhaps understandable that in uncertain and turbulent times within the education sector the potential panacea of a heroic leader has, for some, become an attractive proposition (Currie et al, 2005). Yet there also appears to be a robust case for considering alternative approaches to leadership in higher education, with a re-evaluation of how leadership can serve an organisation (Mabey and Finch-Lees, 2008, p.32). This will be explored later in this chapter through the discussion of literature on followership and what it might mean to be a leader in times of change and complex problems.