In the Malaysian context, the vice chancellor of a university is equivalent in position, stature and power to the president in an American college or university. The vice chancellor is the ―chief and almost the sole administrative officer of the university with an immense list of office duties‖ (Moodie & Eustace,
1974, p.128) . Simultaneously, the vice chancellor is also expected to act as the academic leader in the university.
Each new president / vice chancellor appointed by a university will lead differently, bringing his own experiences, training and expertise to the table. To be successful, the leader must be able to assess the organization and the situations he faces from multiple perspectives, so that he can get the real picture. He has to balance what he has been told with what his experiences tell him, and what he discovers with his beliefs and values to come to conclusions about the institution (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The literature on presidential leadership is deeper and more conceptually diverse than the literature describing the role of leaders. There exists numerous studies drawing upon a structural perspective - leaders setting institutional direction, creating the vision and developing and monitoring the change processes through resource allocation and evaluation (Fischer & Koch, 1996; Kerr & Gade, 1986).
The many studies on presidential leadership suggests the need for a more expansive understanding of the leadership strategies that focus on relationship building, meaning making and interpretation, as well as power and influence (Kezar, 2001).
Symbolic theories of leadership suggest the key role of leaders is creating shared meaning and embodying key institutional values through invoking symbols (Birnbaum, 2000). These are essential academic leadership strategies because the administrative/structural prerogatives of academic leaders are constrained (Birnbaum & Eckel, 2005) as compared to other types of organizations. Presidents should spend time and energy managing meaning,
listening and being influenced by others, and balancing conflicting ideas, and interpreting ambiguous situations (Birnbaum, 2000).
From a political perspective (Baldridge, 1971), academic leaders depend upon negotiated agreements with a variety of organizational actors to get things done because independently each is unable to exert adequate influence. Such negotiation is particularly important in academic organizations because they consist of a dual authority structures that reflect administrative and academic authority wielded by different sets of individuals (Birnbaum, 1988; Mintzberg, 1985). This diffused power suggests that presidents thus do not have adequate power simply based upon position to ‗‗flex administrative muscle‘‘ to get work done (Walker, 1979). Instead, they must continually negotiate with constantly changing coalitions both inside and out of the institution.
Birnbaum and Eckel (2005) states that the role of the president has always been a demanding one, which includes providing leadership, direction, coherence, and progress in an organization with conflicting authority structures, multiple social systems, and contested goals.
Viewing the university as comparable to a business firm, the president is also made responsible for increasing enrollment, capital, and reputation, while controlling costs. The popular view of the role may identify the president as a larger-than-life heroic leader, whose wise decisions and forceful administration solve problems and advance the institution‘s fortunes. Balancing the conflicting expectations of these roles has made it more and more difficult, making it virtually impossible for most presidents to provide the leadership that is expected.
According to Birnbaum (1988) presidents should understand the importance of both transactional and transformational leadership (p. 204). A
leader needs to regularly seek out perspectives and insights of others in the organization, gathering data from multiple sources, to provide support for the day-to-day operation of the institution, as well as allow the members to adapt to challenges and changes offered by new leadership and directions (Kezar, 2001).
Constraints within institutions arise due to involvement by faculties in academic and personal decisions, faculty collective bargaining, goal ambiguity, fractionation of the campus into interest groups, leading to a lack of consensus and community, greater involvement by board of trustees into campus operations, and increased bureaucracy and specialization among campus administrators.
There are problems assessing effectiveness of the president due to problematic goals, an unclear technology, and fluid participation in decision- making process. Birnbaum calls this process the ―garbage-can decision making.‖ Problems, solutions, and participants form steady streams, flowing through the organization as if they were poured into a large can. Since ―garbage‖ is in the eye of the beholder, it is possible for almost any two issues to be seen as connected and for any problem to become coupled to any decision.
The ambiguities of institutional life are intensified by the absence in universities of accepted and valid indicators of effectiveness. Successful presidents can have an impact on the institution if they focus on a few limited objectives and devote extraordinary energy to them. Presidents who try to do too many things, either on their own initiative or in response to perceived environmental demands, often end up accomplishing none of them (p. 337).
Birnbaum (1988) defines effective presidents as those that understand the culture of their institution and the symbolic aspects of their positions. Recognizing that effectiveness as leaders depend upon the willingness of highly trained professionals to be followers, they avoid actions that would violate culture and academic norms and thereby diminish their own status.
Birnbaum also insists that effective presidents should spend a great deal of time in understanding their institutional culture and climate. They should go out of their way to walk around their campuses to see and be seen, to confer with other campus leaders for opinions and advice, to learn institutional histories, and to understand the expectations others have of presidential behavior. They also recognize that as a symbolic leader they must consistently articulate the core values of the institution and relate them to all aspects on institutional life in order to sustain and reinvigorate the myths that create a common reality.
According to Birnbaum, effective presidents see the presidency role as one that can give primary attention to the needs of the institution rather than of themselves. This makes it possible for them to accept that, sometimes, the greatest service a president can perform is to leave office, because the survival of the president is not the goal. The leader is temporary and, if necessary, expendable in service to the potential value of the institution (p. 341).
Presidents who view their obligations as part of a role are able to enjoy the roller coaster of the presidency during its initial phases and then leave without regret. They are able to see themselves as an important but replaceable component in a large, cybernetic organization, and they are able to cope by perceiving exit as a symbolic, political act of a pluralistic democratic organization, not as a threat to managerial competence (Birnbaum, 1988).
Birnbaum concludes that effective presidents are able to come to terms with the impossible nature of their jobs. They are able to make peace with their positions by bringing to it an understanding of the peculiar nature of their organizations and of their roles within them. Their goal is a peaceful balance of institutional interests within which they can make marginal improvements in a limited number of areas (p. 341).
In summary, the vice chancellor‘s role in the university is such a diverse role that requires leadership strategies that focus on organizational structure, human relationships, power and influence, as well as meaning and interpretation. As such, there is a need to understand and utilize a multi-frame leadership style in order to lead the university forward.