Mohamed A. Nur-Awaleh"
manuraw@ilstu.edu

Abstract

Introduction.

For America, governance in higher education has involved those in authority, power and influence (Hines 2000). Five themes have been extensively explored in studies done on governance: multiple claimants to authority; a continuum from participatory governance to a corporate style of governance; the significance of policy actors external to the campus; locus of authority and higher education as a major instrument of state policy (Hines 2000:105-106). Governance is a term which was coined by Corson in the 1960s to show separation of decisions about academic or faculty matters from issues of institutional concern. By the 1970s, faculty authority in American universities was established over curricula, faculty status, instruction, research and student performance (Duryea, 1973, Baldridge et al 1977). This was differentiated from institutional or communal authority for finance, public relations, physical plant, alumni and student affairs. Stewart (1976) labeled these as "associational or collegial" as differentiated from "executive or hierarchical". Corson had recommended that colleges and universities need restructuring to establish the sense of community that was lost in the 1950s and 1960s. It was argued that faculty’s primary authority needed reaffirming. The 1960s’ student uprisings resulted into student participation in campus governance. Power and influence of faculty also increased (Hodgkinson 1971). This was a significant change for the universities. Reasons that have been put forward for this change include the fact that trustees and governing board members relinquished some of their decision making prerogatives to faculty and campus administrators (McConnell 1970). There was also greater involvement in governance of agencies external to colleges and universities. In short, higher education governance in America has therefore increased levels of involvement by the stakeholders, has promoted a spirit of cooperation between governing boards and major participants and has given recognition to the fact that problems of higher education can be solved by collaborative initiatives and not by competition among stakeholders or centralization mechanism.

On the other hand, governance structures across Sub-Saharan Africa are derived from the institutional models established by former colonial administrators although they have been modified to suit the various cultural and political philosophies. In Anglophone Sub-Saharan countries like Malawi and Somalia, universities are statutory organizations created by an Act of Parliament. Responsibility for institutional policy decisions rests with a university council whose members are appointed by the Head of State. The university senate is responsible for academic affairs and teaching is organized through faculties, departments and specialized schools or institutes. The Head of State is also the chancellor (President) of the university. This was originally meant to emphasize the importance of the role of the university in national development. But, in reality, it has served to exacerbate tensions between universities and the state. State control has been rigid hence hindering developmental initiatives of the universities (Saint 1992:72). Centralized governance has also stifled and impinged on academic aspects like research and teaching. It has been argued in various literature (Banya and Elu, 1997, Neizer 1998, World Bank 1988, Court, 1991, Goma, 1989) that greater decentralization in higher education systems in Africa would bring more efficiency. However, effective decentralization requires an explicit definition of the roles of the constituencies at various levels and the effective exchange of information between them. Effective governance can provide the stability necessary for the institutional development of African universities (Saint 1992:72). This would also need a sound and effective leadership. It would require a vice chancellor/president who is willing to work with teams and collaborate with others; a vice chancellor/president who is prepared to listen and establish a pattern of cooperation between all stakeholders. It would need a transformational leader. African leadership in universities since their establishment in the 60s has mostly been transactional. This has been because of the pressure on the universities to produce immediate results. Politicians had urged universities to "teach, advance knowledge through research, have academic standards, help unify Africa, produce doctors, lawyers, teachers and so on. The university leaders and their followers were supposed to do all these within a short time as the expatriates were leaving Africa. It therefore became a matter of "rewards for work done or punishment if not done". Such transactional leadership styles have lived their lifespan African universities need to follow what some of the best institutions in the world has done in transforming their institutions, but they should also be conscious of their own environmental changes and needs. They should take into consideration the fact that certain aspects of shared governance may not work in Africa. The aim should be to develop universities that have their own African identity. For America, shared governance has been the trump card for its success story in the higher education in addition to other aspects like open success, autonomous control, wide collaboration and so on. The transparency, representative participation, information flow and shared responsibility would help Mzuzu and Amud universities as well

However, one must ask the question: What type of leadership model is suitable for a shared governance system in a university? Can such a model be suitable for Sub-Saharan African universities? Answers to these questions form the basis of this research study whose main purpose is: to examine the application of collegial/shared governance structure and transformational leadership in Sub-Saharan African Universities, specifically at Mzuzu university in Malawi and Amud University in Somaliland.

Conceptual Framework.

Two questions are being considered in this study:

1. To what extent is a high performance by academic faculty and administrative staff associated with governance structure and leadership?

2. What is the degree of association if any?

The above questions have been formed taking into consideration the theory that the effectiveness of a university depends on the specified outcomes in goal achievement. This in turn depends on the structure and leadership of the organization. Blake and Mouton’s Management Grid Theory is considered for adaptation to the Sub-Saharan African universities where outcomes are closely tied to national educational goals. Their achievement depends on the relationship of various variables affecting performance of individuals involved. These include: shared governance, change of organizational culture, vision of success, motivation, morale, elevated performance, job satisfaction, efficiency, productivity and goal achievement. The big picture being pursued in this study is therefore as follows:

Model for Effective Performance for Mzuzu and Amud Universities

• Shared Changed Efficiency

• Governance Culture

• Staff

• Motivation

• Transform. High staff Goal

• Leadership Morale Achievement.

• Job Satisfaction.

• Elevated Productivity

• Performance

• Methods

The study wase conducted in Malawi (Mzuzu University), and Somaliland (Amud University) as two of the universities in Africa South of Sahara. The instrument for the study consist of a 35 Likert item questionnaire designed to assess the dimensions of effective leadership, shared governance and effective performance.

i)Participants in the questionnaire:

200 subjects drawn randomly from various constituencies will be used as follows:

• Members of University Council

• Faculty

• Administrative staff

• Students

• Ministry of education officials N=200

ii) Secondary data analysis.

This will be from University records, Educational Statistics and National surveys. University records will include data on enrollments of students, examination results, staff retention/turnover, faculty promotions and student dropout rates. This will serve to show the effectiveness of the organization as it is currently run and if this is due to the style of leadership and governance structure.

Limitations to the study.

There are several limitations to this study one of which is the lack of literature on the subject from the African perspective. Most of the literature on higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa has concentrated on issues of quality, finance and relevance (Banya and Elu, 1997, Court, 1991, World Bank 1988, 1998, 2000). The study is also subject to the limitations associated with the problems of cross-national survey methodology that will be employed in collecting and analyzing the data. The study is also delimited to:

1. two universities (Mzuzu in Malawi, Amud in Somaliland) Africa, South of Sahara, which was selected for this study
2. the population of the study, Members of University Council Faculty Administrative staff , and Ministry of education officials

Significance of the Study.

This study contributes to the limited body of knowledge concerning higher education management and administration in Africa South of Sahara. While, there is an enormous amount of literature on the general subject of education in Africa, very little has been written about administration or leadership of higher education institutions, yet it is as a result of mismanagement and lack of shared governance that African countries face problems in their universities. This study will therefore help fill this void. It will also help higher education administrators in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in Malawi and Somaliland find ways of adopting policies that can work. There is a lot of mismanagement issues in these countries, especially in the education sector at all levels. This study should be able to guide policy makers, but also be a source for those studying to be administrators.

It is also hoped that this study will provide African universities who are faced with similar problems of shared governance with valuable data regarding governance and leadership, and perhaps contribute to the discussions on the measures of accountability, organizational culture, faculty autonomy, sound leadership, and provide information about the ways in which universities governance can be modified to increase the success of higher education institutions.