Model of Management and Leadership Adopted in Britain and Nigeria Education - Term Paper Example

Model of management and leadership adopted in Britain and Nigeria Education Table of Content 0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….4 2.0 Literature review………………………………………………………………………….5 2.1 Theories of educational leadership and management…………………………….5 2.1.1 Formal model……………………………………………………………….6 2.1.2 Collegial model…………………………………………………………….6 2.1.3 Cultural model……………………………………………………………...7 2.2 Leadership styles…………………………………………………………………7 2.2.1 Coercive leadership style………………………………………………….7 2.2.2 Authoritative leadership style…………………………………………….8 2.2.3 Affiliative leadership style………………………………………………..8 2.2.4 Pace-setting leadership style……………………………………………...9 2.2.5 Democratic leadership style………………………………………………9 2.2.6 Coaching leadership style…………………………………………………9 2.2.7 Moral leadership…………………………………………………………..9 2.3 Managerialism in Education……………………………………………………10 3.0 Leadership within education in Nigeria…………………………………………………12 4.0 The leadership systems and managerialism in UK and Nigeria…………………………14 4.1 Comparison………………………………………………………………………14 4.2 Contrast…………………………………………………………………………..16 5.0 The extent to which managerialism has been adopted in educational Institutions in UK and Nigeria……………………………………………………………17 6.0 References …………………………………………………………………………………19 Abstract Management and leadership in education is becoming an important area in improving effectiveness and efficiency in institutions of learning. As a result of rapid changes on how institutions are being managed around the world, managerialism is gaining prominence as the new method of managing institutions of learning. This shift is influenced by the need to make institutions of learning to operate like for profit organisations. Examples of countries that have adopted managerialism in education include UK and Nigeria. Where managerialism is adopted in institutions of learning, equal attention is accorded to leadership and management. Persons charged with the management of educational institutions can rely on various theories of educational leadership and management to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, leadership styles also play an important role in leading others in an organisation or institution of learning. In institutions of learning, quality is also an important aspect of improving performance. This is evident in the establishment of quality assurance agencies that checks on the quality of education in institutions of learning around the world. In improving leadership and management capabilities in institutions of learning, investing resources in the education sector is necessary. This is evident when the education system in Britain is compared to Nigeria. In essence, managerialism in education is a new method that UK and Nigeria can use to improve management and leadership in learning institutions. 1.0 Introduction Leadership and management denote two different roles in the sense that leadership involves setting a path direction for others to follow. In this sense, the leader spearheads the new direction. Conversely, management entails controlling or directing people or resources within a group and in accordance with the established principles or values. As a leader, one should be in a position to identify gaps in a group and to help improve efficiency in a group. Further, a leader needs to take a proactive stance in terms of solving problems, looking ahead and not being static or satisfied with the prevailing situation in a group. A leader should be in a position to inspire and motivate others to achieve the desired goal of a group. In essence, leaders can inspire and motivate others by connecting their vision to the goals, aspirations and needs of others in a group setting (Bush2005, p. 10). Leadership further entails a search for leadership potential in-group members and involves nurturing leadership skills within group members. In relating leadership to management, the role of a leader should also involve managing the work intended to deliver the desired goals of a group or an organisation. Management deals essentially with controlling resources or people in a group or an organisation (Bush 2005, p. 11). Looking at leadership and management, the key factors that I believe can influence my leadership style include my personality, belief system, skills and experience, and organisational culture. These factors play an important role in determine how inspire and motivate others towards achieving a particular goal. Because of the rapid changes in leadership and management across institutions, a new managerialism is emerging to ensure institutions run effectively and efficiently. This paper explores the adoption of managerialism in educational institutions in Britain and Nigeria. 2.0 Literature review 2.1 Theories of educational leadership and management Different leadership theories look at leadership as involving a process or relationship, personality traits or behaviours. Leadership is also viewed as the ability to influence others towards a particular goal. Good leadership is derived from a collection of principles or practices associated with decision-making process. On the same note, educational leadership is not limited to policy implementation or maintaining the system. Educational leadership needs also to involve developing new strategies, processes and mind-set suitable for achieving success with an educational system. Further, leadership and management in education need to take into consideration of the environment at workplace and capacity to develop appropriate behaviour. Leadership and management in education also require evaluative techniques suitable for assessing the effectiveness of leaders and the people being led (Bush 2010, p.45). Southworth (2004, p.56) further explains that, the practices related to leadership also involves combining roles, the skills and actions taken by leaders in a attaining a particular goal in the school environment. Leadership development requires practice and several criteria exist in this line. These practices are important in nurturing for instance supervision, delegating duties and maintaining accurate records. On the other hand, the leadership practices that can assist school managers in implementing change include acting as a facilitator or process consultant. Drawing up ideas as a leader is also important in terms of improving group communication and practices at workplace. Leadership is an attribute that develops over time and can take different forms that deviates from the traditional leadership models. Northhouse (2009, p.203) notes that different leadership styles have been identified by researchers. Evidence deduced from research shows that one theory cannot be used in the same manner for all schools and in all situations or context. For example what is viewed as right in a given context, may be different in another context. On another note, while leadership and management tend to possess similar qualities, leadership to extent entails standing out. On the other hand, management tends to be bureaucratic in nature. The models associated with management in this respect include formal, collegial and cultural models. 2.1.1 Formal model This theory focuses on hierarchical systems where managers tend to be rational in achieving the desired goals of an organisation. Bush (2003, p. 37) notes that, school heads have a mandate to carry out by virtue of their formal position in institutions of learning. As such, they are responsible in ensuring that all activities within their jurisdiction are carried out. Further, the main features of formal model as used in educational management and leadership include treating institutions as a system. This model also focuses more on the official structures of an institution. The structures in a formal model are hierarchical in nature in the sense that, teachers report to their departmental heads and the departmental heads report to the school principal. A formal model further typify an institution as goal driven because, focus is on official purposes pursued by everyone in the school setting. 2.1.2 Collegial model This model assumes that the management of institutions focuses on consensus building to determine policies and decisions. In this model, power is a shared responsibility in fulfilling the aims of an institution. This model of management is beneficial for a school setting because, when teachers work together, they stand to gain rather than working as individuals. The main features of this model are that, it is normative in nature, and appropriate to apply in schools and colleges that have a higher population of professional staff. In this model, consensus plays a significant role in the decision making process (Bush 2003, p. 38). 2.1.3 Cultural model According to Bush (2003, p. 41), this model focuses on the institution’s informal aspects rather than the official roles. In this respect, emphasis is often on values, norms and the belief systems of individuals in an institution’s setting. Further, the values, norms and belief systems held by individuals play an important part in determining the behaviours of a group. A shared tradition is established and communicated in a group setting for purposes of achieving a particular goal. A main feature of this model is that it results in the establishment of a monoculture where meanings are shared among the teachers and students respectively. 2.2 Leadership styles Teachers to influence what happens in the classroom setting can use various leadership styles. In this sense, the notable leadership styles adopted by teachers in classroom include coercive, authoritative, affiliative, pace-setting, democratic, moral and coaching (Bush 2010, p. 67). 2.2.1 Coercive leadership style A coercive leader tends to take charge and does not rely on the opinion of others to lead. This type of leadership is common when trying to manage a crisis in an institution. However, where there is no crisis, this type of leadership can create problems for leaders in an institution. This is because; they will be seen as asserting their authority on other members (Bush 2010, p. 67). 2.2.2 Authoritative leadership style This type of leadership involves being assertive in terms of creating a clear direction for others to follow. In essence, this type of leadership is important for institutions that intend to introduce a new vision. However, a leader using this style should look at other alternatives prior to making final decision with regard to managing others in an institutional setting. An authoritative leader performs the function of mobilizing others within a group to achieve a particular goal. Among the qualities of an authoritative leader involves inspiring others towards a certain mission. This style, however; is not ideal where the leader is managing a team of skilled professionals (Bush 2010, p. 68). 2.2.3 Affiliative leadership style In this style of leadership, the leaders engage in establishing emotional bonds within members in an institution. This style of leadership plays a role in creating a sense of belonging among members of an institution. In essence, this leadership style gives more attention to member’s feelings and the style is appropriate to apply when a team need to rebuild for instance, trust. However, this style should not be applied exclusively in terms of praise and nurturing because in can lead to poor performance among members of an institution (Bush 2010, p. 68). 2.2.4 Pace-setting leadership style As a pace-setting leader, one is expected to model or encourage excellence and self-direction. This type of leadership style thrives where group members are motivated to work towards realising certain objectives and quick results are needed. However, when used extensively, this style tends to overwhelm group members and suppresses innovation (Bush 2010, p. 70). 2.2.5 Democratic leadership style A democratic leader focuses on building consensus through a participatory process. This style is applicable when a leader intends to include other members in the decision making process or coming up with a plan or goal. This type of leadership style, however; is not ideal in situation where immediate action needs to be taken (Bush 2010, p. 70) 2.2.6 Coaching leadership style This leadership style is ideal when working with people intending to take leadership positions in the future. Further, this style works best in situations where the leader assists other group members to improve on their personal strengths for overall success of an institution. However, this style is ineffective where other members are rebellious and not willing to learn or change (Bush 2010, p. 71). 2.2.7 Moral leadership This type of leadership involves leaders taking responsibility in terms of promoting culture and ensuring values and members uphold beliefs within an institution. In addition, this leadership model requires leaders to embrace the culture of the institutions that they work. However, the challenge with this type of leadership emanates from resistance to change of values, beliefs or attitudes by members (Rhode 2006, p.231). 2.3 Managerialism in Education Managerialism in schools denotes a shift in management where schools are embracing management styles synonymous with the private sector. In essence, managerialism brings devolve management in institutions of learning where the power has shifted from the local authorities. As such, schools are now having powers to implement their own budget, carryout appointments, taking charge of personnel and planning their own activities. When it comes to institutions of higher learning, managerialism introduces a new executive power. The academic leadership has shifted to academic management with more powers to run institutions compared to the previous administration of institutions of higher learning. For example, resource allocation that was a preserve of the national government is now the prerogative of the university. As such, institutions of learning are under pressure to raise funds, which has contributed to the adoption of a business model and establishment of quasi-markets (Deem & Brehony 2005, p.218). In order to foster entrepreneurship necessary to bridge the funding gap, institutions of learning are engaging in income generating projects. This helps to supplement the dwindling state funding, however; the state still views institutions of learning as taking a huge chunk of public expenditure. As a result, the state demands accountability and output measures from the institutions of learning. While managerialism gives institutions of learning some level of autonomy, bureaucratic control still exists from the part of the government. On the other hand, new managerialism in education has led to the change of roles and relationships in the school setting. For example, management in schools is now more hierarchical and participation by other staff members in decision-making process depends on the style of leadership by the school head teacher. Parents on their part, also have statutory powers to participate in the decision-making process and forces institutions of learning to engage more with all relevant stakeholders (Deem & Brehony 2005, p.221). According to Deem and Brehony (2005, p.225), accountability in institutions of learning has also changed because of managerialism in that; schools are accountable to parents and other stakeholders from the community. In addition, the population in schools determines the size of budget allocation. Consequently, schools engage in the quasi-market by competing with other schools to attracting students. In addition, a focus on school performance and measures related to output and resource management has affected traditional teamwork that existed in the education sector. The head teacher is now a manager than a teacher charged with leading a group of other teachers. In the new set up, head teachers are supposed to acquire other skills that include budgeting and financial skills. They also need to spend more time in improving the school’s outward image. Managerialism has also created a number of changes in the institutions of higher learning. For instance, there is a new power structure that has replaced the normal academic collegiality to rather independent positions, where vice-chancellors take the role of chief executives. Selective mechanisms in terms of participation have also been established in the sense that university senates or councils take a more peripheral role in management. There are also new systems of devolution created by new managerialism in institutions of learning. Devolution in this sense provides the executive with a centralised control. On the other hand, departments also have some level of autonomy in terms of looking for other channels to raise funds for their institutions. For example, admitting a number of fee-paying students to departments and in tandem with the framework of an institution’s financial targets (Deem & Brehony 2005, p.228). As a result of introducing entrepreneurship in institutions of higher learning, there are other expert areas that have emerged in terms of managing knowledge transfer, alumni associations and intellectual property. Further, research centres have been established for both short-term and long-term commercial prospects. The learning space has also widened to include the disadvantaged groups and the aged who want to take advantage of the available learning opportunities. Managerialism has also brought about changes with regard to delivery methods. For instance, distance learning is now common in most institutions of higher learning (Deem & Brehony 2005, p.231). 3.0 Leadership within education in Nigeria Leadership within education in Nigeria has not been effective in recent times as witnessed in the mass exodus of students seeking higher education abroad. In essence, leadership in Nigeria’s education sector lacks capacity to provide quality education to its citizens. This is contributed by lack of goodwill from the country’s political leadership tasked with determining a nation’s destiny. What is needed at the present to improve leadership within education in Nigeria include commitment, integrity, competence and fairness (Akiri 2014, p. 6). A few decades back, leaders emphasised the importance of education for Nigeria’s economic prosperity. This contributed to the establishment of excellent institutions of learning such as Ibadan University that produced the best in every sphere of human endeavor. However, since mid-1980s, political instability in the country resulted in mass exodus of well-educated Nigerians who could have provided leadership in the education sector. Today, the lack of leadership and poor state of the education system in Nigeria has driven most students to seek education in other countries such as South Africa, Ghana, UK and the United States (Akiri 2014, p. 8). It is clear that the crisis within the education sector in Nigeria is associated with the military rule that posed threat to knowledge and capacity development. For instance, the military was directly involved in destroying higher education in the country. The military leadership completely eroded quality education in the country’s institutions of learning. The old challenges created by the draconian rule of the military regimes in Nigeria still affect leadership in the education sector even today. This is evident in the continued mass exodus of Nigerians seeking quality education in foreign universities (Akiri 2014, p. 9). Consequently, the education sector continues to lack inflow of trained and skilled work force, and financial resources to improve quality of education. The leadership in the country has failed over time to channel resources in to the institutions where they are direly needed to propel economic growth and social transformation of citizens (Akiri 2014, p. 11). In the 80s effective leadership contributed to education within Nigeria being ranked among the best in the developing world. What went wrong after this period can be attributed to poor governance in successive administrations. In order to return the country’s education system to its glory days of 1980s, leadership is paramount. In this regard, the government of Nigeria needs to focus in creating a framework that encourages innovation and responsiveness to the current changes in the global knowledge economy. The areas that leadership is required to improve education in Nigeria involve investing on research and technology critical for the country’s development. Further, leadership is required to improve relevance and quality of learning in the country. Leadership is also necessary in establishing proper channels where students can access loans or scholarships to further their studies (Ofoegbu, Clark, & Osagie 2013, p.69). The education sector in Nigeria further needs to instil positive leadership within its internal organs by developing management capacities. Such capacities involve enhancing accountability, governance and proper utilisation of available resources. As a country, having gone through challenges that impacts negatively on the education sector, the country’s leadership needs to focus on a strategic vision. This vision should lead the establishment of new skills as the country adapts to changes in the global knowledge economy (Ofoegbu, Clark, & Osagie 2013, p.71). 4.0 The leadership systems and managerialism in UK and Nigeria 4.1 Comparison In both UK and Nigeria, the emergence of managerialism has resulted in the introduction of managerial techniques associated with for profit organisations into institutions of learning. For instance, in both countries, competition is emphasised between institutions of higher learning. In addition, there is a focus on marketing public institutions and monitoring activities of institutions for efficiency and effectiveness. Other features of managerialism in UK and Nigeria involve trying to make changes on organisational culture in the public sector to resemble that in the private sector. The reforms taking place in both UK and Nigeria have redefined purpose and outcomes associated with education (Teelken 2012, p.278). Today, both countries focus on the individual performance of a school or college. Because of the new managerialism in the education sector, institutions of learning in both countries are required to set targets related to pupil performance. In essence, effective management as viewed by both countries is essential to achieving policy goals. This means that, both systems engage in reframing the roles of those in leadership positions. The leadership system and management in both countries today hold leaders or principals responsible for performance improvement (Teelken 2012, p.281). In addition, UK and Nigeria are similar in their management strategy in the sense that, focus on effective leadership is seen to improve school management. In present times, the pressure in both countries in terms of incorporation for head teachers has turned them to some sorts of chief executives. Further, the work for individuals in senior positions in both countries appears to have changed and is more intense at the present (Tahar & Boutellier 2012, p.688). Consequently, the intensity seems to create tension between principals’ traditional functions as educational leaders responsible for curriculum development, teaching pupils and learning to assume the task of financial managers. In both countries, principals are focusing on organisation and financial management of the institutions they are in charge. This results in a less concern for curriculum development in schools by, the head teachers and other stakeholders such as school board of governors (Tahar & Boutellier 2012, p.691). A new managerialism in both countries that reinforces the functions of principals also brings about culture change. For example, managerialism has brought about the creation of senior management teams who now are a separate entity from other staff. This is evident in the division of values or functions between those in senior positions and individual teachers in the school. Today, it is evident in both countries that those in senior management positions do not share similar educational values with other staff members (Teelken 2012, p.286). As a result of separation of functions by the senior management, teachers in both countries no longer have direct influence in school policy making. On another note, in institutions of higher learning, ‘delayering’ is common as a means of creating accountability and a channel for financial savings. However, this endeavour also creates a distance between those in management positions and other staff members. In addition, the distance between staff members has interfered with face-to-face interaction. Technology has replaced face-to-face interaction between school managers and other staff members. As such, the management of institutions in UK and Nigeria is moving away from a participative process. Collaborative collegiality does not exist anymore because of a focus on “managed participation” (Teelken 2012, p.289). 4.2 Contrast While managerialism is evident in institutions of learning in the UK, this might not be the case for institutions of learning in Nigeria where the government stills takes a direct approach to management of public institutions. For example, the government is responsible for appointing heads of schools or vice chancellors in institutions of higher learning. On the other hand, managerialism in UK has given more power to other stakeholders in terms of determining how institutions of learning are managed. While managerialism has created liberalisation in the education sector, control measures need to be in place to ensure quality of education is maintained (Fullan 2007, p.96). In UK, control measures to ensure quality of education are evident in institutions of learning, however; Nigeria still need to improve the quality of their education amid the emergence of managerialism in a globalised knowledge economy. The government need to allocate resources to ensure the agency that checks on quality of education is fully operational. In Nigeria, managerialism has led to institutions of higher learning looking for support from foreign institutions in terms of increasing the number of subjects or courses being offered. This is normally conducted through virtual means such as online learning. Conversely, institutions in the UK have increased their competitive levels by attracting foreign students to their Universities or offering online courses such as MBA (Fullan 2007, p.101). 5.0 The extent to which managerialism has been adopted in educational institutions in UK and Nigeria In UK and Nigeria, managerialism has been used to transform public owned institutions to operate like for profit organisations. In this respect, the government in both countries requires their institutions to return ‘value for money’. For instance, the government in both countries expects the funds allocated to institutions of learning to be utilised for the intended purpose. In both countries, managerialism is an alternative to running public institutions because of limited resources. Initially, both countries viewed institutions of learning as communities that engaged in collegial activities such as teaching and research work. On the other hand, persons running institutions of learning were viewed as academic leaders and not managers or CEO’s (Deem & Brehony 2005, p.233). However, as a result of growth evident in the education sector in both countries, the heads of schools and colleges are required to justify how they are using public funds. Further, heads of schools and colleges are also required by their governments to show ‘value for money’. In this regard, the leaders in both countries are now ‘value’ driven and have shifted from academic leaders to overt managers. Managerialism in both countries has also enhanced the desire to improve standards of education, research and quality of teaching. Further, the policy makers in both countries require efficiency gain to be made by institutions of learning annually as a result of embracing managerialism. As a result of the requirements for efficiency gains by policy makers, institutions in both countries minimise resources used in teaching and research (Cameron & Green 2009, p.258). Managerialism has also brought about competition in terms of performance between institutions of learning. Competition also extends to funding for research in institutions of higher learning. Further, managerialism creates a situation where institutions in UK and Nigeria embrace marketization. Today, staff from institutions in UK and Nigeria is under pressure to do more activities or work in an environment with limited resources. The pressure experienced by workers in the teaching sector emanates both internally and externally. Internally, the challenges emanates from activities introduced on staff by academic managers. The activities manifests in terms of re-organisation, controls and establishing regulations for the work done by the academic staff. Externally, the pressure comes from the bodies providing funds and quality assurance agencies. The control comes in terms of resource allocation and ranking of institutions of learning depending on the performance and quality (Handy 2005, p.105). 6.0 References Akiri, A., 2014. ‘Utilisation of local inputs in the funding and administration of education in Nigeria,’ Research in Education, no. 91, pp. 1-11. Bush, T., 2003. Theories of Educational Leadership and Management (3rd Edition), Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Bush, T., 2005. Leadership and Management Development in Education, Los Angeles, CA:Sage Publications. Bush, T., 2010. Theories of Educational Leadership and Management (4th Edition), Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Cameron, E., & Green, M., 2009. Making Sense of Change management: A Complete Guide to the Models,Tools and Techniques of Organisational Change (2nd Edition), London: Kogan Page. Deem, R., & Brehony, K., 2005. ‘Management as ideology: the case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education’, Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), pp. 217-235., Fullan, M., 2007. The New Meaning of Educational Change, London: Routledge. Handy, C., 2005. Understanding Organisations (6th Edition), New York, NY. Penguin. Northhouse, P.G., 2009, Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th Edition), Los Angeles, CA:Sage Publications. Ofoegbu, F.I., Clark, A., & Osagie, R.O., 2013. ‘Leadership Theories and Practice: Charting a Path for Improved Nigerian Schools,’ International Studies in Educational Administration, 41(2), pp. 67-76. Rhode, D. L., 2006. Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment and Policy, JosseyBass, California. Southworth, G., 2004. How Leaders Influence What Happens In Classrooms, NCSL, Nottingham. Tahar, S., & Boutellier, R., 2012. ‘Resource allocation in higher education in the context of new public management,’ Public Management Review, 15(5), pp. 687-711. Teelken, C., 2012. ‘Compliance or pragmatism: how do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries’, Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), pp. 271-290. Read More