The effects of leadership traits on transformation: A case study of a South African university

Abstract

This article investigated the effects of leadership traits on transformation in a merged and incorporated higher education institution in South Africa. Few studies have been conducted on leadership traits in universities, with none linking them to transformation. The study was guided by the traits theory, one of the systematic attempts to study the effect of leadership on transformation. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used, the former through a structured survey questionnaire and the latter through in-depth interviews. The questionnaire generated a high reliability rate of 0.947, indicating a high degree of internal consistency of the results, which reflected nearly 40% of the research participants who felt that the university creates a platform for open debates. However, 30% of them did not feel that independent thinking and freedom of speech are promoted, a finding partly corroborated by the qualitative findings. It was also found that business processes were inflexible, there was no reward for performance, unproductive change interventions were introduced and decision-making centralised, all seen as contrary to the transformation agenda and reflecting poor leadership traits. It is hoped that the study will assist university decision-makers under the current state of turmoil in the South African higher education landscape to exhibit leadership traits that will bring about transformation. The study also fills a void in the scant literature on the effects of leadership traits on transformation in South African universities, thus contributing to the body of knowledge.

A strategy tripod perspective on merger effectiveness in the higher education industry: the mediating role of future foresight

“…The positive and significant relationships between government support, competitive intensity, knowledge creation capability and the merger effectiveness is consistent with the theoretical assumptions of the strategy tripod. This study concluded that – under the institutional-based view – government support such as the right policies, financial and technical support and the simplification of bureaucratic procedures are of utmost importance to the effectiveness of the merger in higher education (Daquila and Haung, 2013; Ngcamu, 2017; Su et al , 2016). By contrast, the level of competitive intensity informs effective merger through swift decisions and innovative actions (Boling et al , 2017; Exter et al , 2013; Hammond, 2016; Harris, 2018).…”

“…Besides, the ineffective governmental laws can hinder the institution strategic activities (Su et al , 2016). This can be clearly modeled in the example of the South African universities' mergers that were led by the government in the 1990s (Hall et al , 2004; Ngcamu, 2017). Although the conditions at that time were mostly indicatives of a failed merger, the merger of the Durban Institute of Technology was successful and its success was mainly credited to the governmental support (Ngcamu, 2017).…”

“…The study provides practical implications for managers and decision makers in higher education. The higher education practitioners must understand the government support, such as simplified policies and procedures, that facilitate a successful merger (Daquila and Haung, 2013; Ngcamu, 2017). Also, government's financial support can create a backup layer for the higher education institution that protects it from draining or sinking itself financially.…”

“…These resources can be the company's employees, the technologies, the business knowledge, the processes or procedures, the equipment or machinery, the brand value or even the financial capital (Wernerfelt, 1984). Previous studies in the higher education industry suggested that the resources, such as internal structures, organizational culture, management designs and leadership styles, influence the success or failure of the higher education institutions and the mergers in this sector (Chipunza and Gwarinda, 2010; Kitchener, 2002; Maduro et al , 2018; Manona, 2015; Ngcamu, 2017). On the other hand, the rivalry levels and the intensified competition were the major forces behind the increasing rate of mergers, and many higher education institutions opt for participating in mergers as a way to establish a competitive advantage in the industry (Boling et al , 2017; Hammond, 2016; Johnes, 2014).…”

Leading in Times of Disruption: Reimagining Leadership and Repositioning Leaders

“…However, HEIs are acknowledging that they need to radically reinvent themselves or possibly cease to exist [3]. In a recent study by Prof. Bethuel Ngcamu (2017)-one of the leading scholars in the HE field leadership in South Africa-he identifies the following factors hampering the transformation agenda and suggesting inadequate leadership in universities, namely inflexible business processes; lack of reward for performance; inefficient change interventions and centralised decision making [4]. Another study by McGrath found that management styles in universities was either predominantly autocratic or democratic, with employees remarking that academic freedom has diminished significantly.…”