The Leadership of London Metropolitan University - Term Paper Example

LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE IN UNIVERSITIES By School Location Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Executive summary 3 Introduction 3 Findings 4 Leadership 4 Accountability 7 SWOT analysis of the University’s governance 10 Ethical issues in the case 14 Risk & Internal Control 15 Recommendation 16 Conclusion 17 References list 17 Attwood, R., 2009. Roper is to blame for fiasco, but London Met’s board bears responsibility. Accessed at: [Accesed13, November, 2014]. 17 HEFCE., 2009. HEFCEs dealings with London Metropolitan University (LMU). Accessed at: [Accesed13, November, 2014]. 18 Leitch, M., 2012. Intelligent Internal Control and Risk Management: Designing High-Performance Risk Control Systems. Farnham: Gower publishing Ltd. 19 Melanie, N., 2011. Nearly one third of London Mets class of 2006 failed to complete. Accessed at[online] [Accesed13, November, 2014]. 19 Morse, A., 2011. Regulating financial sustainability in higher education. National audit office. Session 2010- 2011. 19 Paradeisse, C., 2009. University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. 19 Shattock, M., 2013. HBOS and London Met: case studies in poor governance. [online] Available at: [Accesed13, November, 2014]. 20 Shattock, M., 2006. Managing good governance in higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill International. 20 Shepherd, J., 2009. Timeline: London Metropolitan University. [online] Accessed at: [ Accesed13, November, 2014]. 20 Executive summary The metropolitan London Metropolitan University is one of the universities in the United Kingdom that qualifies as a public Institution of Higher learning. As a result, the Institution requires to be allocated funds by the higher education funding council for England (HEFCE) as per the state requirements (Morse, 2011 pp. 9). However, in order for the HEFCE to facilitate the public funding of the universities it was essential for the University to provide accurate records of the number of students had enrolled for a full course. This would in return enable the remit funds for students who were meant to study for an entire course. However, between the year 202 and 2009 many students had dropped out of the university and the University had failed to acknowledge this in their records (Melanie, 2009). Thus, the HFCE had provided excess funds to the University at the expense of other universities in the country. Following the audit reports released for the period between 2002 and 2009 it was established that the university had falsified data in order to receive an amount of money that exceeded the required amount by £36.5 million. As a result, the money was clawed back and the amount of the University’s grants their grants lowered by £ 15 million. This eventually led the university to face huge financial risks hence leading to lack of sustainability on the operations of the University (Attwood, 2009). Since, the Metropolitan University was aware of the implications of falsifying data, it was evident that the claw back case was based on the university’s poor leadership and governance. Introduction Institutes of higher learning have evolved over the years their management approach due to the rapid development of the higher education sector. Therefore, the success of institutes of higher learning is becoming increasingly dependent on the approach applied by the leadership and governance of the respective institutes. Nevertheless, regardless of the apparent requirement of well defined leadership in the higher education sector, most universities are still slow on embracing new leadership and governance models. As a result, most of the internal and external activities of universities have yielded negative results due to lack of well defined leadership and governance structures. Moreover, the sustainability of universities has been under threat due to poor accountability and internal control policies. With regard to the London Metropolitan University claw back case the following report analyses the essence of good leadership and governance with regard to the sustainability of universities. Findings Leadership The leadership of the university was based on the Vice chancellor being at the core of the management team during the claw back Scandal. During the period, London metropolitan university was based on leadership drawn form a merger of London Guildhall and North London University in the year 2002 (Shepherd, 2009). The leaders formed a board which was chaired by the Vice chancellor. The nature of leadership in the university was a “centralized” form of leadership (Shattock, 2009). Centralized leadership involves a form of leadership that requires a central figure to make the most critical decisions. In addition, the centralized leadership also involves the unanimous implementation of decisions made by the overall leader (Shattock, 2009). In this case, the leader of the University during the 2009 case was the vice chancellor who made the most critical management decisions. In this case, it can be presumed that the claw back case was influenced by the leadership style applied in the Metropolitan University. Centralization in management has been identified to be ineffective in the implementation of major management decisions at national level. Moreover, centralization has been responsible for the over allocation of funds in certain management sectors (Dur & Roelfsema, 2005). Therefore, this situation also applied to the leadership policies of the metropolitan university. Thus due to the fact that the leadership of the university based their decisions on a centralized management framework it was difficult to question the leadership decisions in the organization (Shattock, 2013). In this case, based on the nature of the leadership in the university it was difficult to point out the major loopholes in the University’s policies. Therefore, in order to avoid similar circumstances in future the university required to come up with an effective leadership style. In most institutes of higher learning, the level of leadership has been evolving based on the requirement to handle increased student admission. Additionally, high rates of student enrollment also lead to cultural diversification within institutions. However, despite the fact that institutes of higher learning have been experiencing an increased demand of contemporary leadership styles the implementation has been slow. Thus, most universities have been experiencing little sustainability due to lack of implementation of contemporary leadership styles (Scott, 2011). Hence, in order to cater for these changes institutes of higher learning should come up with a leadership style that responds to these changing demands (Riaz et al, 2011 pp. 146). However, it can be established that despite the fact that the London metropolitan University had experienced an increase in the number of students the university had retained a rigid style of leadership. Moreover, due to the merger of the London Guildhall university and North London University to form the metropolitan university the metropolitan university had acquired a diversified student and staff population. Thus, the leadership of the university had failed with regards to responding to the students and employees changing needs. On the other hand, due to the merger between North London University and North London University, the metropolitan university had experienced a change in the relationship structure. This is because the demands for an efficient accountability and management framework in the university had expanded. In the contemporary higher education sector, most institutes of higher learning have been experiencing changes similar London to metropolitan university. Hence, in order to establish a working leadership framework for the university it would be essential to identify the leadership changes in every sector of growing universities. Due to the rate of university growth experienced globally, the leadership styles have evolved to cater for the sustainable in public universities. In this case, there has been increased demand for leadership that would be in a position to balance financial viability of the university’s projects in addition to retaining excellent education standards (Morril, 2013). Nevertheless based on the analysis on the level of leadership in universities, it has been established that the form of leadership found in public universities is less efficient than leadership found in Public universities (Bodla & Nawaz, 2010). In this case, Metropolitan University, which is also a state, funded university still faces challenges experienced by public universities. Therefore, whereas public universities struggle with coping with the sustainability demands of university growth, public universities also struggle with identifying efficient leadership frameworks. One of the major leadership issues in Universities has been based on the requirement to identify the role of the top leadership in the university. Since universities are institutions meant for academic purposes. Hence, the issues on leadership have been based on the question whether to base leadership on academic experience (Ediger, 2008). In order, to tackle these issues the most viable solution is to develop a leadership model that focuses on the structure of the university. In this case, the more the university grows the more the leadership model should focus on the change in the university’s structure based on the university’s growth. Therefore, the most viable solution with regard to developing effective leadership for a growing university is to develop an all inclusive leadership model. This would involve including students and staff members into a consultative leadership model within the university’s leadership models (Morril, 2013). Allowing participation of individuals at all levels of the university would in effect allow the leadership model to respond to the growing structural needs of a growing university. Through consultations at every level of a given university, it would be possible to analyze major issues affecting the university. It is evident that the chain of events that led to the London Metropolitan university scandal were largely contributed to the leadership structure that ignored the growing demands of the expanding university. Hence, the university ignored the requirements of having a consultative framework that would enable leaders to establish the major issues in the university. Moreover, the lack of inclusion in the leadership structure isolated the board of governors, the vice chancellor, and the chief executive from the real issues affecting the university. In any case, if the board of governors in the metropolitan university had allowed the participation of academic staff and the students in the leadership process it would have been easier to deal with the impending scandal. However, since the board of governors relied on a high handed style of leadership the mistakes made during their decision making process were propagated by their inability to seek assistance from other employees (Shepherd, 2009). Accountability Accountability refers to the requirement of an organization to be liable to a party of a higher authority based on the agreement between the parties involved (Lacobucci & Tuohy, 2005 pp. 214). In all cases, the terms of accountability require each party involved to honor the terms of accountability. In the event any of the party does not honor the terms of accountability there should be repercussions. The aim of accountability in institutes of higher learning lies on the demand to maintain sound management policies and also retain stable financial positions as required by the government. However, in the recent trends most institutes of higher learning have been basing their accountability on state institutions that fund the institutions due to the demand to maintain a sustainable financial position (Shattock, 2006 pp.30). However, with regard to the case involving Metropolitan University accountability involved a lot of stakeholders. In this case, the burden of accountability for the Metropolitan universities lay on the hands of the Vice chancellor and the board of directors. Because the incident involved the funds provided by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the board of the university had the mandate to be accountable to the HEFCE board. The University’s mandate towards being accountable to the HIEFE board involved submitting accurate records of student enrolment and records pertaining students’ completion of their sources. In return the HEFCE would provide the appropriate funds based on the data submitted by the University (HEFCE, 2009). However, for the period between 2002 and 2009 the university inflated the population of the students hence falsifying the data that would in effect prompt HEFCE to remit an inflated amount of university grants to the University (HEFCE, 2009). In this case, based on the HEFCE reports the University was accountable for falsifying data that led to distribution of an inflated amount of grants. However, based on the level of governance in the university parties responsible for falsifying data were the Vice chancellor and the board of governors of the University. This is because the vice chancellor and the board of governors of the University were fully aware of the situation as early as the year 2004 (Melville, 2009). Therefore, the vice chancellor of the University and the board of governors were to be held accountable for inflating the data of the students in order to receive huge amounts of grants from the HEFCE board. Additionally, whereas the University’s board of governors and the vice chancellor were the main culprits, the modification student of data and the propagation of inefficient management policies also depended on other employees. For instance, the secretary of the university was mandated to present issues affecting the university to the board of governors. In addition, the secretary of the university had the role of overseeing student data in the University (Melville, 2009). Therefore, the secretary would be perceived to have been negligent and ignorant because the secretary failed to highlight the extent of the issue to the board. Moreover, the secretary failed to raise an alarm on the need to rectify the students’ data. On the other hand, the director of finance had the responsibility to draft the university activities and match them with the financial requirements of the university. Additionally, the director of finance was aware of the implications of misallocation of funds for the university (Melville, 2009). Thus, the director of finance had the duty to harmonize the financial requirements of the university according to the accurate student records. The director of finance was also required to emphasize on the requirement to adhere to the financial rules of between the government and the state bodies. However, because the director of finance failed to highlight these issues in board meetings, the director of finance was also required to be held accountable for allowing the board to rely on inappropriate financial records. The vice chancellors in the university during the period between 2002 and 2005 were also to be held accountable. The vice chancellors were responsible with regard to managing the academic schedules and student enrollment during this period. Therefore, it was a requirement for them to keep the accurate records of the students’ based on the number of units registered and completed. As a result, because the HEFCE funding relied on these records the vice chancellors during the respective periods would be a reliable source of data. However, during this period the HEFCE funds were allocated based on inaccurate records. Because the number of units completed by the students in the university were inaccurate, the vice chancellors that served during the period between 2002 and 2009 were responsible. Based on the predicament that arose sue to the leadership style during the scandal it was evident that accountability was required. However, due to the ignorance of the university on the essence of accountability the management of the university played a big role in the scandal that faced the university. SWOT analysis of the University’s governance SWOT analysis provides a framework for analyzing organizations’ performance based on the strengths weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that face an organization with regard to the policies implemented by an organization (Bohm, 2009 pp. 2). The essence of SWOT analysis is to analyze the performance of an organization in relation to the performance of other organizations in the respective sector. Therefore, with regard to the SWOT analysis of the London Metropolitan University’s governance is aimed at establishing the efficiency of the University’s governance policy. In order to establish the inefficiency of the leadership model applied by the university, it is essential to compare the leadership model of the university with the major models applied in most universities. Prior to the rapid development of higher education sector in the 20th century, the role of governance in institutes of higher learning had been perceived to be the government’s responsibility (Paradeisse, 2009 pp. 3). However, in the modern higher education governance the role of governance has been based on the ability of the academics personnel in the institution to govern the institutions effectively with little help from the government. In addition, the role of governance has expanded to overseeing the relationships among the stakeholders within the institutions of higher learning (Paradeisse, 2009 pp. 3). Therefore the SWOT analysis will be aimed at establishing the performance of the University’s governance model in relation to the other universities. One of the most common leadership models used in university governance is the Governance through the academic personnel. This form of governance mainly involves the inclusion of academic staff members in the respective university’s board of governors (Trakman, 2008 pp. 66). The essence of this model in university is in order to exploit the academic skills of the staff members in order to foster the academic success of the respective university. However, the major weakness of this type of governance is the inability of the governing body to manage the financial resources of the university (Trakman, 2008 pp. 67). Hence, because the London Metropolitan University had poor financial management skills, the governing body had traits of academic governance. On the other hand, another government approach used in institutes of higher learning is the “corporate governance” (Trakman, 2008 pp. 69). Corporate governance involves integrating general decision-making skills and financial management skills in an institute of higher learning. This is aimed at ensuring the respective institute of higher learning provides a multi dimensional approach towards managing the institution (Trakman, 2008 pp. 69). Another form of governance that is predominantly used by contemporary institutions of higher learning is the Trustee governance. Trustee governance is not based on the level of representation in the governance but focuses on the nature of trustee beliefs towards the institutions (Trakman, 2008 pp. 69). Trustee governance is based on the beliefs of the members of the governing board referred as the trustees. In this case, the trustees believe that the beliefs, which are put forward, are in the best interest of the trustees and the institution in general (Trakman, 2008 pp. 69). However, whereas this type of governance is aimed at serving the interest of all the parties in the respective institution of higher learning, the deliverables of this form of governance are ambiguous (Trakman, 2008 pp. 69). This is because the beliefs and values in an institution of higher learning that may be perceived to serve the interests of all the parties involved may vary from one institution to another. Whilst trustee governance focuses on the beliefs and values that are applicable in the respective university, other forms of governance that emphasizes on the parties involved in the governance process. In this case one of the forms of governance that focuses on the relevant individuals within and outside the respective university is the stakeholder governance. Stakeholder governance is based on the inclusion of all the individuals that interact directly or indirectly with an institution in the governance structure. This also includes external parties such as sponsors (Trakman, 2008 pp. 72). Whereas the decision making process of this type of governance does not necessarily require the input of the external parties, decisions made may be structured to respond to their needs. Therefore, stakeholder governance in universities mainly focuses on inclusion of partners in the university’s plans. Nevertheless, the major limitations of stakeholder governance involve determining the parties who require inclusion into the governance set up of the university. Moreover, inclusion of various parties in the governance structure may prompt most of these parties to take up roles that they are not required to (Trakman, 2008 pp. 72). Subsequently, in order to ensure that there is efficiency in the style of governance in an institute of higher learning most institutes may attempt to integrate the most applicable governance approach they may perceive to be efficient. In this case, one of the styles that have been devised to provide a multi dimensional governance approach is the Amalgam governance approach (Trakman, 2008 pp. 72). The Amalgam governance approach involves an integration of: stakeholder governance, trustee governance, corporate governance and governance by academic employees. Thus, the amalgam governance model aims at deriving all the merits of the governance approaches above in order to develop a governance style that caters for all the governance demands in an institution. Therefore, whereas the nature of governance exhibited by the London Metropolitan University was similar to the academic governance, the University did not have a well defined form of governance. As a result, the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the university’s governance were based on the efficiency of the governance style applied in comparison with the other styles of governance. Therefore, the following SWOT analysis points out the level of efficiency of the University’s governance. Strength Close knit governance structure that may enhance fast decision making. Adequate knowledge of the university’s underlying issues. Adequate knowledge of the academic procedures in the university. Weakness Lack of proficient financial management skills in the University’s governance. Lack of consultation between the top level management and other members of the Universities staff. Inability to accommodate divergent views by the board of governance with regard to provide solutions for the University. Lack of adherence to the legal requirements relevant to the governance of the University. Opportunities Ability to identify the academic needs of a university. Ability to relate with the issues affecting the students and the faculty. Threats Mismanagement of the university’s funds. Sanctions by the government due to non conformance to the relevant legal requirements. Inefficiency with regard to responding to critical staff and students issues. Lack of well defined risk management policies in the university. Ethical issues in the case In the contemporary university framework, the issue of ethics in the university is diverse because many stakeholders are involved. Therefore, in some instances it might be difficult to determine the specific ethical responsibility of stakeholders (Bowen & Shapiro, 1998 pp. 159). However, the most common ethical responsibility in institutes of higher learning is the establishment of policies of good conduct. The policies of good conduct require institutions of higher learning to have a well-written set of rules that provide the precise data with regard to all the activities in the institutions. Moreover, stakeholders in an institution should provide an opportunity for further clarification of the data provided (Council of international schools, n.d pp. 3). However, the London metropolitan university ignored these rules with regard to principles of good conduct. In this case, the responsible individuals in the university not only presented falsified data but also withheld additional information that would clarify the situation in the University in order to enable internal regulation. Moreover, these practices were perpetrated by the top-level management of the university which avoided inclusion of other individuals in the decision making process. This was unethical since it was against the professional code of conduct, which requires all the individuals in an institution to accept different views within the institution (Council of international schools, n.d pp. 4). Additionally, ethical practices within institutes of higher learning require disclosure of any malpractice within the institution. Nevertheless, regardless of the fact that the top leadership of the university knew about the malpractices the leadership failed to highlight the issue. As a result, the claw back case in the London metropolitan university was due to the ignorance of the principles of ethics in institutes of higher learning. Risk & Internal Control Due to the nature of the scandal, it was evident that the risk and internal control measures of the university were not efficient. Therefore, it was a requirement for the university to develop reliable risk & internal control policies. The main reason of establishing risk and internal control procedures in any institution is to minimize incidences of financial mismanagement (Leitch, 2012 pp. 13). In addition, most institutes also encounter periodic risks, which require routine correctional measures. Thus, an efficient risk and internal control system relies on a sustainable framework that provides apt solutions for the risks facing an institution on a consistent timeline (Leitch, 2012 pp. 24). The major risks facing the university involve mismanagement of funds and irresponsibility towards the public (London Metropolitan University, 2012 pp. 19). In this case, the public refers to all the stakeholders of the university, which also includes the students who have enrolled in the university. In this case, the internal control system of the university is based on ensuring that the goals of university are met through avoidance of the risks involved. As a result, the internal control system of the university is conducted periodically through a series of risk management policies aimed at control the risks in the University. The London Metropolitan University relies on a statement of approached that identifies specific risks, rate of occurrence, and the possible remedies towards the identified risks. The board of governors evaluates the risks yearly in order to gauge the performance of the statement of approach concerning managing internal risks of the University (London Metropolitan University, 2012 pp. 19). Alternatively, as the board of governors evaluates the performance of the risk management framework of the University, the faculty also monitors the risks in the university. Each faculty in the university maintains a list of the potential risks in the relevant department. The most prevalent risks and the stakeholders involved in the relevant risk areas are identified in the list which is updated at any period of the year (London Metropolitan University, 2012 pp. 19). Based on the list of most prevalent risks in the University, the University’s executive group evaluates the list on a monthly basis and develops a detailed account for audit purposes. The audit process for the university provides a benchmark for the university’s risk and internal control management policies. Based on the benchmarks set by the audit team, the university implements the recommended risk control policies (London Metropolitan University, 2012 pp. 19). Recommendation Develop a leadership style that is consistent with the structural changes of a university: Based on the claw back scandal that dented the Metropolitan’s university reputation, it can be established that the scandal was propagated by the leadership and governance of the university. The governance of the university had failed to acknowledge the fact that every sector of the university required management in addition to the management of the academic funds of the university. Promote accountability in institutes of higher learning: Following the expose by the HEFCE, the major stakeholders in the University’s leadership were aware of these activities all along. However, if the leadership of the university was accountable from the beginning the claw back scandal would have been avoided. Conclusion The claw back scandal that faced the London metropolitan university could have been avoided if the university had implemented well-structured governance and leadership frameworks. In this case, the inconsistencies in the records would have been dealt with if the university had emphasized on internal risk management policies and accountability. Nevertheless, since the university had ignored the implications of ignoring the inconsistencies in the university data, the management of the university was liable for the scandal. Therefore, the London Metropolitan case highlighted the merits of having a reliable leadership and governance system in universities. References list Attwood, R., 2009. Roper is to blame for fiasco, but London Met’s board bears responsibility. Accessed at: [Accesed13, November, 2014]. Bodla, M.A. and Nawaz, M.M., 2010. Comparative Study of Full Range Leadership Model among Faculty Members in Public and Private Sector Higher Education Institutes and Universities. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), pp. 208-214. Bohm, A., 2009. The SWOT analysis. Munich: GRIN Verlag. Bowen, W., Shapiro, H. 1998. Universities and their leadership. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University press. Council of international schools. n.d. Code of ethics for higher education. Accessed at: < https://www.cois.org/uploaded/Documentation/For_Colleges_and_Universities/Code_of_Ethics_for_Higher_Education.pdf > [Accesed13, November, 2014] Dur, R. and Roelfsema, H., 2005. Why does centralization fail to internalize policy externalities? Public choice. 122. Pp 395- 416. Ediger, M., 2008. Leadership In The School Setting. Education, 129(1), pp. 17-20. Melville, D., 2009. London metropolitan university. Available at: [13, November, 2014]. HEFCE., 2009. HEFCEs dealings with London Metropolitan University (LMU). Accessed at: [Accesed13, November, 2014]. Lacobucci, F. and Tuohy, C., 2005. Taking public universities seriously. Toronto:University of Toronto Press. London Metropolitan University., 2012. Annual reports and accounts 2012-2013. [online] Available at < http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/media/london-metropolitan-university/london-met-documents/professional-service-departments/finance/annual-reports/annual_report_and_accounts_for_2012_13.pdf> [Accesed13, November, 2014]. Leitch, M., 2012. Intelligent Internal Control and Risk Management: Designing High-Performance Risk Control Systems. Farnham: Gower publishing Ltd. Melanie, N., 2011. Nearly one third of London Mets class of 2006 failed to complete. Accessed at[online] [Accesed13, November, 2014]. Morse, A., 2011. Regulating financial sustainability in higher education. National audit office. Session 2010- 2011. MORRILL, R., 2013. Collaborative Strategic Leadership and Planning in an Era of Structural Change: Highlighting the Role of the Governing Board. Peer Review, 15(1), pp. 12-16. Paradeisse, C., 2009. University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. Riaz, A.M., Asad, R.A., Soomro, H.J., Ikhtiar, A.G. snd Amanat, A.J., 2011. Leadership behavioral taxonomies in universities. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7), pp. 145. Scott, P. 2011. Leadership in universities. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services. 7 (3), pp. 229 – 234. Shattock, M., 2013. HBOS and London Met: case studies in poor governance. [online] Available at: [Accesed13, November, 2014]. Shattock, M., 2006. Managing good governance in higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Shepherd, J., 2009. Timeline: London Metropolitan University. [online] Accessed at: [ Accesed13, November, 2014]. Trakman, L., 2008. Modeling university governance. Higher education quarterly . 62 (2). pp. 63-83. Read More