Transformation of University Organizations: Leadership and Managerial Implications

Year 2005, Volume: 6 Issue: 4, 75 - 94, 01.12.2005

Cemil Ulukan

Abstract

Technology and globalization are forcing higher education institutions to transform themselves. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding the leadership and managerial implications of recent developments for higher education. Reviewing unique characteristics and the fundamental changes shaping higher education, the paper examines the need for organizational transformation and the major managerial implications.

Keywords

Globalization, Technology, Educational Transformation, Management, e-Learning

References

• Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, (71) 4, pp. 431.
• Barney, J. (1996). Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley.
• Birnbaum, R. (2000). The life cycle of academic management fads. The Journal of Higher Education, (71) 1, pp. 1-16.
• Coates, J. (1998). The next twenty-five years of technology: opportunities and risks. In 21st
• Century Technologies: Promises and Perils of a Dynamic Future. OECD Publication. Collis, B. – Gommer E. M. (2001). Stretching the mold or a new economy? Part 1: Scenarios for the university in 2005. Educational Technology, XLI (3), pp.5-18.
• Collis, B. – Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations. London: Kogan Page.
• Collis, B. - Wende, M. (2002). Editorial: ICT and the internalization of higher education: models of change. Journal of Studies in International Education, (6) 2, pp.87-92.
• Cummings, T.G. – C. G. Worley (2001). Organization development and change. Australia:
• South-Western College Publishing. Daft, R. L. (1998). Essentials of Organization Theory and Design. Cincinnati, OH: South
• Western College Publishing. Daniel, S. J. (1996). Mega-universities and knowledge media: technology strategies for higher education. London: Kogan Page.
• Donaldson, J. F. (1990). Introduction. In M. G. Moore (Ed.) Contemporary issues in American distance education. New York: Pergamon Press.
• Dudley, J. (1998). Globalization and education policy in Australia. In J. Curie and J. Newson
• (Eds.) Universities and globalization: critical perspectives.Thousand Oaks: Sage. Farnham, D. (Ed.). (1999). Managing academic staff in changing university system: international trends and comparisons. London: SRHE and Open University Press.
• Gallaire, H. (1998) Faster, connected, smarter. In 21st century technologies: promises and perils of a dynamic future. OECD Publication.
• Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: a shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Open and Distance Learning,
• (1)1. Retrieved April 25 from http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?149.1.1.2. Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, pp.67-91.
• Hanna, D. E. (1998). Higher education in an era of digital competition: Emerging organizational models. Journal of Asynchronous Learning,(2)1, pp.66-95.
• Hanna, D. E. - Latchem, C. (2002). Beyond national borders: Transforming higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education,(6) 2, pp. 115-133.
• Inglis, A. – P. Ling – V. Joosten (1999). Delivering digitally: Managing the transition to the knowledge media. London: Kogan Page.
• Jaffe, D. (2001). Organization theory: Tension and change. New York, McGraw-Hill.
• Khan, B. H. (2001). A framework for Web-based learning” in B. H. Khan (Ed.) Web-based
• Training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Khan, B. H. - Ealy, D. A. (2001). A framework for a comprehensive Web-based authoring system” in B. H. Khan (Ed.) Web-based Training, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
• Technology Publications. King, B. (2001). Managing the changing nature of distance and open education at institutional level. Open Learning, (16) 1, pp. 47-60.
• Levine, A. (2001). The remaking of the American university. Innovative Higher Education (25) 4, pp. 253-267.
• Liu, S. S. - Dubinsky, A. J. (2000). Institutional entrepreneurship: A panacea for universities- in-transition. European Journal of Marketing (34)11/12, pp. 1315-1337.
• Latchem, C. & Hanna, D. E., (Eds.). (2001). Leadership for the 21st century learning: Global perspectives from educational innovators. London: Kogan Page.
• Middlehurst, R. (1995). Changing leadership in universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.) The Changing University?. London: SRHE and Open University Press.
• Mintzberg, H. (1980). The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
• Oblinger, D. (2001). Will e-business shape the future of open and distance learning? Open Learning,(16) 1, pp. 9-25.
• Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.
• Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to socioeconomic environments of US and European universities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Strati, A. (2000). Theory and method in organization studies. London: Sage Publications.
• Wasser, H. (2001). The twenty-first century university: Some reservations. Higher Education Review, (33) 3, pp. 47-55.
• Weller, J. M. (2000). Creating a large-scale, third generation distance education course. Open Learning,(15) 3, pp. 243-308. Table: 1
• Descriptive Statistics for SoC Scores in All Seven Stages in Raw Scores and Percentiles and Final Course Grades between Experimental (Online) and Control (Traditional) Groups N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum Awareness pretest raw score Awareness pretest percentile Informational pretest 53 005 3684 24011 00 00 21 442
• Informational pretest 1579 15828 00 00
• Personal pretest raw score Personal pretest percentile Management pretest 53 380 6316 11883 00 00 95 423 Management pretest 0000 57414 00 00 Consequence pretest raw score Consequence pretest percentile
• Collaboration pretest raw score Collaboration pretest percentile Refocusing pretest raw score Refocusing pretest 26 942 3684 27129 00 00 79 170 0000 00757 00 00 26 569 1053 13779 00 00