leadership for open and flexible learning

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 09 October 2014, At: 20:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Open Learning: The Journal ofOpen, Distance and e-LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20

Leadership for Open and FlexibleLearningColin Latchem & Donald E. HannaPublished online: 19 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Colin Latchem & Donald E. Hanna (2002) Leadership for Open andFlexible Learning, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17:3,203-215

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051022000048219

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051022000048219

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Open Learning, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2002

Leadership for Open and FlexibleLearningCOLIN LATCHEMOpen and Distance Learning Consultant, Australia

DONALD E. HANNAProfessor, University of Wisconsin-Extension, USA

ABSTRACT Universities are responding to demands to be more inclusive, accountable,entrepreneurial and self-sustaining by seeking solutions in open and � exible learning andinformation and communications technology (ICT). Such applications are being trans-formed from equity-driven and marginal in a few universities to commercially-driven andmainstream across higher education systems. Open learning and ICT have the capacity tobe ‘disruptive technologies’, transforming the organisation, culture and practices of existinguniversities and leading to new forms of institution and learning networks. The authorsdiscuss these issues and draw upon their recent study into leadership in the � eld to argue fortransformation leadership at the institutional, departmental, and programme level andsuggest an action framework for those who would lead and manage.

Introduction

Higher education is experiencing a shift from ‘supply-driven’ to ‘demand-driven’,pressures for greater relevance and accountability, the impact of globalisation andinformation and communications technology (ICT), competition from newproviders, and the need to be more self-sustaining. Universities are increasinglyseeking solutions to these challenges in open and � exible learning (better known inNorth America as distributed learning) and ICT. Educational opportunity is beingextended across physical, political and socio-economic divides and millions oflearners around the globe now learn through these means. Open and � exiblelearning is increasing access, reducing costs, and taking the � rst steps to place thelearner at the centre of the educational transaction (Dhanarajan, 2001). It is itselfalso being transformed by these changes—into online or virtual learning, and fromequity-driven and marginal to commercially-oriented and mainstream.

There are both opportunities and dangers in these developments. In the move tointernationalise and commercialise open and � exible learning, the needs of thedisadvantaged and marginalised may be overlooked, and in the blurring of distinc-tion between on- and off-campus teaching and learning, the particular needs of thedistance learner disregarded. The markets can be � ckle, the competition � erce andthe stakes high. So more is needed than technologically-determined ‘quick � x’

ISSN 0268-0513 print; ISSN 1469-9958 online/02/030203–13 Ó 2002 The Open UniversityDOI: 10.1080/0268051022000048219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

204 C. Latchem & D. E. Hanna

solutions and a preoccupation with ‘digital products’. For open and � exible learningto be accepted, successful and sustainable, the infrastructure, programmes, servicedelivery and logistics must be of high quality, careful consideration given to workcultures and practices, and substantial investment made in the human as well astechnological resources.

Re� ecting upon these challenges, King (2001) observes that the literature ofdistance and open education continues to focus on the theory and practice at theoperational level rather than the broader context of educational change. He suggeststhat the constraints are now those of decision, rather than technology (King, 2000).In this article we seek to address this broader context and the issues of decision.

Disruptive Technology and Organisational Transformation

Christensen (1997) distinguishes between sustaining technology and disruptivetechnology. Sustaining technology enables established industries to improve existingproducts. Disruptive technology starts by offering markedly different bene� ts at lowercost, seeks out and serves new and emerging markets, improves with the growingdemand, achieves the quality expectations of the mainstream market, and � nallybrings revolutionary change to the industry, displacing the established providers andproducts. Armstrong (2000) argues that open learning technologies can be ‘sustain-ing’ in that they enable institutions to perform many of the university’s existingfunctions better, but are more likely to be ‘disruptive’.

Schlechty (1997) identi� es three primary forms of organisational change:

· procedural change: altering how organisational tasks are to be accomplished;· technological change: changing the means by which jobs are done; and· structural and cultural change: systemically changing the nature, orientation and

focus of the enterprise.

The � rst two of Schlechty’s forms are clearly sustaining in nature. The third will belooked upon as ‘disruptive’—from a primarily internal perspective that values andseeks to justify and preserve the existing institutional purposes, priorities andactivities—or transformational—from an external, service-oriented client perspectiveon the value of the institution’s programmes and services.

Distance learning has historically been disruptive to traditional educational sys-tems. The introduction of prepaid post (the Penny Black) in England in 1840 ledphonographer Isaac Pitman to see the commercial potential of correspondenceeducation to train the burgeoning numbers of of� ce workers in his StenographicSoundhand system (Rumble, 1997). By so doing, he rede� ned the mid-19th centuryeducational and training landscape, stimulating the rapid spread of correspondenceeducation and the university extension movement throughout the UK and across theworld. During the second half of the 20th century, the tools and techniques of massproduction, mass media and multimedia were employed by those universitiestransforming themselves into dual- or mixed-mode providers and by totally newinstitutions, the open universities, to provide academic, professional developmentand general programmes to a far wider public. Now the Internet and the web areleading to further transformations in institutional structures and practices, and new

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Leadership for Open Learning 205

alliances and virtual institutions targeting global markets. What began at the ‘lowend’ of the marketplace as correspondence education is becoming a dominant force.

Armstrong (2000) suggests that all institutions are being forced to respond to thedisruptive nature of open learning technologies. In a highly competitive environ-ment, increased investment in ICT by universities or colleges will improve theirchances of success in markets previously served by other institutions. The conse-quent defensive reaction by the previously preferred institutions is to start up theirown disruptive ICT-based programmes, thus ratcheting up the competition. Arm-strong warns that such escalation in expenditure in pursuit of competitive advantagecan ultimately lead to excessive and inef� cient investment.

Reviewing global developments in open and distance education, Farrell (1999)and Cunningham et al. (2000) concluded that there was more rhetoric than realityin the concept of virtual education. However, in a more recent study, Farrell (2001)concludes that ‘macro developments’ indicate that virtual and e-learning nowfeature in the planning scenarios and learning environments of most higher edu-cation institutions and increasingly add real value to traditional delivery models.

Hanna (2000) and Latchem and Hanna (2001) identify seven new or emergingorganisational models of higher education:

· Extended traditional universities—institutions moving from single-mode (on-cam-pus) to some mix of on- and off-campus provision.

· For-pro� t, adult-centred universities—for example, the online University of Phoenix(http://www.onl.uophx.edu) and America’s � rst accredited web-based university,Jones International University (http://jiu-web-a.jonesinternational.edu/).

· Distance education/technology-based universities—for example, the open universitiesand those institutions with enrolments of 100,000-plus that Daniel (1996) calls‘mega universities’, such as the UK Open University (http://www.open.ac.uk),India’s Indira Gandhi National Open University (http://www.ignou.edu) andAnadolu University, Turkey (http://www.anadolu.edu.tr).

· Corporate universities—extended human resource organisations as established, forexample, by American Express, Intel and Disney.

· University–industry strategic alliances—for example, Scotland’s 14 universities part-nering with News International plc to form the Scottish Knowledge consortium(http://www.scottishknowledge.com), and the University of Melbourne-led Uni-versitas21 international consortium which includes Thomson Learning (http://ww.universitas21.com).

· Degree/certi� cation competency-based universities—for example, Western Governors’University (http://www.wgu.edu) and Excelsior University in New York (http://www.excelsior.edu).

· Global multinational universities, the dimensions and characteristics of which arebecoming apparent in, for example, US for-pro� t universities such as the multi-site and online University of Phoenix (http://www.phoenix.edu/) and DeVryUniversity (http://www.devry.com). The development of transnational accredita-tion systems is critical to the further development of this model.

There are also ICT-linked networks of institutions established in preference to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


creating new institutions. These exemplify Tof� er’s (1980) concept of ‘third wave’organisations, being ‘messily open rather than neatly closed’, linked through some-times temporary alliances and con� gurations, internally and externally, and or-ganised around inter-organisational and in some cases international, infrastructure,teams and operations:

· The world’s latest ‘open university’, Universitas Terbuka Malaysia (Unitem), is aconsortium of 11 Malaysian public universities (Singh, 1999; Wotjas, 2001).

· The Korean government has encouraged 65 public universities and � ve compa-nies to collaborate in the Virtual University Trial Project.

· Universidad Virtual del Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Mon-terrey (http://www.itesm.mx), the virtual university of the Monterrey Institute ofTechnology, is an alliance of Mexican and international universities serving40,000 students a semester at 78 sites in Mexico, Latin America, USA andCanada.

· The UK University for Industry (UfI) (http://www.u� ltd.co.uk) is a public–privatenationwide training network designed to improve economic competitiveness, workperformance and employment prospects.

· The UHI Millennium Institute (http://www.uhi.ac.uk) is a decentralised feder-ation of 13 tertiary institutions, learning outreach centres, and public and privatedevelopment agencies delivering degree and other programmes across the vast,geographically disjointed, lowly populated and economically marginalised Scottishhighlands and islands (Hopper & Saint, 2000).

· The World Bank’s African Virtual University (http://www.avu.org), based inNairobi, is an international portal leveraging existing engineering, science, com-puter literacy and business management degree and diploma programs in anglo-phone and francophone sub-Sahara Africa by providing online access tospecialised teaching staff, library resources, and professional knowledge andexperience in the US and Europe (Aguti, 1999; Diagne, 2000; Light, 1999;Materi, 2001).

By ignoring institutional, geographic and political inhibitors to growth, harnessingtechnology, and providing � exible lifelong learning, such institutions and networksare fundamentally challenging the concept, culture and operations of the traditionaluniversity which, as Bates (1995) reminds us, was designed for industrial economiesthat are fast being overtaken by the new knowledge economy.

So what form will the university of the future take? Duderstadt (2000) usesmetaphors to describe the emergent missions and structures: the World University;the Diverse University; the Creative University; the Divisionless University; theCyberspace University; the Adult University; the Lifelong University; and theUbiquitous University.

McNay (1995) envisages the traditional universities moving along a continuumfrom a collegium/bureaucratic to an enterprise model. Jensen (2001) suggests thatjust as mergers, acquisitions, alliances and globalised benchmarks are leading to evergreater similarity in corporate enterprises, there will be fewer and fewer operationalmodels of universities, to the point where there may well be only two signi� cant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


types of university. The � rst of these, whether they be public or private, will operateas an internationally branded business providing programmes from and to anywhereacross the globe ef� ciently, conveniently, and consistently, if not creatively or withhigh quality (he characterises this as the ‘McLearn’ model). The second type will bemore traditional campus-based universities buttressed with technology to serveindividual learners through mediated and/or face-to-face interaction.

Graves (1997) suggests that future programmes will be based upon what he labels‘collabotition’ (collaboration and competition) that will result in fundamental policy,business and governance changes. The Association of Commonwealth Universitiesenvisages four possible scenarios for higher education: the invaders triumph (itbecomes a global big business dominated by a few players); the Trojan Horse(universities seek outside and international partners to offer international degrees);the community champions (universities provide a wide range of educational servicesthrough community hubs); and explorers international (the educational providersare a university/business hybrid) (Poole, 2000).

Dhanarajan (1998) predicts the emergence of a number of pan-global openlearning systems, not necessarily publicly funded, led by entrepreneurs with a visionof global development, a desire to reduce disparities among peoples and a willing-ness to strive for mutual respect, trust and bene� t. Chipman (1999) predicts that alluniversities will become universal or nearly so, entered and re-entered at multiplepoints in people’s lives, international in focus and delivery, and robust in qualitystandards. None will be publicly funded at even today’s levels. Some will be highcost, high price and high status providers, some will deliver a few unique orparticularly outstanding programmes globally, some will re-organise themselves toprovide convenience-focused delivery and be price-competitive, and some will formstrategic partnerships to shore up weaknesses in their programmes and services. Hefurther predicts that all will need to shed time-honoured assumptions and practicesand that none will be able to ignore the external imperatives, even those currentlyat the top of the pyramid. As Christensen (1997) warns, all organisations aresusceptible to failure and none are irreplaceable.

Change in the Universities

Achieving systemic and radical change in higher education is no easy matter.Universities comprise many disparate operations and cultures, some con� icting witheach other, and all underpinned by a strong tradition of academic autonomy. Cohenand March (1974) describe the typical university as ‘organised anarchy’ in whichalmost any idea can be justi� ed or attacked, thwarting internal change. The head ofan Australian university � exible learning centre, Bruce King (2001), observes thatstaff may resist new methods and technologies because they feel threatened by theshifting locus of power and control and challenge to their competence, or embracethe new without adequate re� ection on purpose or practice, or adopt what Bates(2000) calls a ‘lone ranger’ approach, resulting in duplication of programmes andservices, technological incompatibility and loss of quality control.

Privateer (1999) argues that higher education is now at a strategic crossroads,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


prevented from developing new kinds of learning by a tradition of ‘reproduction-based’ as opposed to ‘invention- and intelligence-driven’ technologies. He arguesthat reproduction technologies (the textbook, the lecturer as the authority, and thetest as the all-inclusive means of assessing the learning) are grounded in an 18thcentury way of knowing the world that is expressly empirical and representational.He suggests that it makes little strategic sense to be urging technological solutionsto the transfer of information, when what is needed is an organisational strategy thatstresses the development of knowledge, intelligence, metacritical reasoning andteam-based problem-solving.

The President and CEO of the Commonwealth of Learning, Dato’ GajarajDhanarajan (2001), expresses concern about the na õ ve faith in new technology, theloss of commitment to access and equity in the rush to embrace technology and themarket, the insensitive, brand-waving commercialisation of education, the shifting ofcosts from institutions to learners, the mismatch between the global market and thelocal curriculum, the alienation in the academic community over matters ofacademic freedom, job security, intellectual property rights and quality, the lackof investment in staff training—and the lack of leadership to manage thesechallenges.

Most university leaders come from conventional university backgrounds and moststaff are recruited for their research rather than their pedagogical skills. A study intothe work roles of 2609 Australian academics in 15 of the nation’s 39 universities(McInnis, 2000) reveals that 66% were engaged in developing ICT courseware,72% with computer-based learning, and 46% in distance education. Two-thirdsreported that this work accounted for half their working week and had a majorimpact on their other duties. Their motivations for this work were the availability ofthe technology, university policies and student expectations. Few had received anytraining and most wished to see teaching innovation rank equally with research fortenure and promotions. McInnis concludes that one of the greatest challenges facingAustralian higher education, as in other parts of the world, is the management ofacademic work and that there is need for a creative reassessment of academics’ rolesand expectations.

In the universities, lip service is paid to the trilogy of teaching, research and publicservice but in practice these are rarely equally merited in judging performance andpromotion. Hammer and Stanton (1995) suggest that telling staff to change, butthen holding them accountable by the old measures, places them in an untenablebind. As former US Chancellor Barry Munitz (1997) observes: ‘If you don’t meshthe recognition and incentives and reward structure to your stated programme andobjectives, faculty will go where the money is, not where the rhetoric is’.

The above observations show that the disruptive forces of open learning andtechnology and the need for transformation call for new capacities in leaders andstaff, multiple specialist collaboration and new visions, systems, learning environ-ments and programmes. Fullan (1993) argues that without a radical and system-wide institutional overhaul, all that will be achieved is a continual stream offragmented, ephemeral, surface, innovations. Canadian distance teaching universitypresident Ross Paul (1998) stresses that the real effectiveness of leaders is tested in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


the face of con� ict and that in the inevitable chaos of complex organisations such asuniversities, responsibility for open learning initiatives must rest at the top. King(2001) also argues that moves into open and � exible learning must be management-led, because the intelligence gathering, directions, resourcing and concern forreputation are, and must be, institutional rather than departmental.

Leadership and Management for Open and Flexible Learning

In developed and developing countries alike, the pressures and uncertainties facinguniversities call for leaders rather than managers. Schein (1992) suggests that thesigni� cant difference between these is that leaders create and change cultures whilemanagers learn to live with them and work for compromise. Zaleznik (1996)suggests that managers hold the view ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t � x it’, whereas leadersunderstand that ‘When it ain’t broke may be the only time to � x it’. It is for suchreasons that open and � exible learning requires transformational and entrepreneurialleadership.

Transformational and entrepreneurial leaders create visions of what they want toachieve, believe that they will succeed and ‘see’ the steps to realising their goals.They motivate and inspire others to think beyond their current frameworks to whatis desirable, necessary and possible. They create optimal environments for inno-vation, quality and enterprise and gain collaboration and commitment, even inenvironments where initially there is little trust and low morale. They rede� ne andreform organisations. They point the way ahead and also say: ‘This is not the wayto go’.

Leadership can be ‘top–down’ (by far-sighted senior and middle managers) and‘bottom–up’ (by far-sighted departments and staff). Ideally, these two sets of driveswill be complementary. However, Hammer and Stanton (1995) observe that wherethere is no top–down leadership or the leadership is nominal and lacking in realcommitment to change, failure may not occur straightaway—but is inevitable.

Privateer (1999) suggests that leaders need to look upon ICT as a tool forre-engineering and reinventing a curriculum based upon new pedagogical forms,learning that is collaborative, applications-driven and constructivist. For those thatadopt such a view, instructional technologies can play a vital role in creating a newfoundation for higher education. Graves (1997) suggests that the environment ofeducational free trade and competition will require the higher education counterpartto the North American Free Trade Agreement or European Union and that courageand leadership will be required to form the kind of partnership of competitiveconvenience that exist in the corporate sector.

Australian Vice-Chancellor Don Aitkin (1998) holds that university leadersshould leave the management to the managers, but acknowledges that there can becon� ict between the managerial levers to get things done and the languid feedbackloop of academic boards and committees which stops change taking place. Leadersof change must manage the ‘formal organisation’ (the of� cial internal and externalhierarchies) and the ‘informal organisation’ (the unof� cial lines of communication,gossip, innuendo, etc.). Aitkin also suggests that trying to impose new directions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


without taking into account the institutional ideologies, myths and icons is to inviteearly failure and that leaders should endeavour to reshape these to contemporarypurposes, weaving new responses into them by drawing upon prevailing ideas andideologies. However, James (1996) observes that some of these ideologies derivefrom self-interest, prejudice or stereotypes, particularly when people are anxiousabout change, and it is important to face up to those that no longer serve institu-tional visions.

It is impossible for institutional leaders to possess all of the knowledge, instincts,sensitivities, and judgmental capacities to be on top of every agenda in open and� exible learning. They must therefore seek out knowledgeable professionals withinor beyond their system or institution and demonstrate their leadership capacity byselecting and adding value to the teams of professionals who will assume ownershipof the new operations and nurturing ‘change activists’ who can lead, coach andempower others. They must work with people as equals, clarifying goals, being opento suggestions and achieving a working consensus on the rami� cations and means ofchange. At the same time, they need to avoid entrusting major decisions to otherswhere this may be interpreted as leadership lacking in direction or insight. They alsoneed to show consistency in the substance and tone of their policies and actions—asJames (1996) observes, the quality and consistency of leaders is best judged bycomparing their vision, values and goal statements with the structures, systems andprocedures they create or condone.

Aitkin (1998) also stresses that universities’ senior managers need to be publicintellectuals because their constituencies, the politicians and the academic com-munity, are well informed and well able to discuss the merits and demerits ofcontending ideas and ideologies. In advocating moves into open and � exible learn-ing, it is also important that leaders clarify whether the aim is to be responsive toaccess and equity and changing student demographics, political and economicpressures, the need to establish new markets and sources of income, or somecombination of these. How they then champion the means of implementationdepends upon their personal philosophies. Blanchard et al. (1987) argue that thereis no single optimal leadership style and that leadership is situational or task-speci� c.However, Robbins and Finley (1997) suggest that leaders need to recognise thatthere are seven unalterable rules of change:

· People do what they perceive to be in their best interest, thinking as rationally ascircumstances allow them to think.

· People are not inherently anti-change—most will, in fact, embrace new initiativesprovided the change has positive meaning for them.

· People thrive under creative challenge—but wilt under negative stress.· People are different—no single ‘elegant solution’ will address the entire breadth of

these differences.· People believe what they see—actions speak louder than words, and a history of

previous deception only increases suspicion.· The way to make effective long-term change is to � rst visualise what you want to

accomplish—and then inhabit this vision until it comes true.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


· Change is an act of the imagination—until the imagination is engaged, noimportant change can occur.

Where the initiatives for development are wholly top–down and outside the teachingdepartments, staff will be slow to embrace change so another important, immediateand challenging task is to build leadership capacity at all levels of the institution(Hanna, 2000). Sadler (1997) suggests that most so-called leadership trainingfocuses on management rather than leadership skills, and that by themselves suchprogrammes cannot develop leadership potential. Le Grew and Calvert (1998)suggest that nonformal development activities and problem-based programmes inwork settings have far greater value than short courses in enabling CEOs, plannersand decision-makers to develop and manage new paradigms and modes of edu-cation. Brown-Parker (1996) shows that this can be done through mentoring,shadowing, special projects, job exchanges, structured placements, networks andaction groups. Senior managers can also learn a great deal from their peers who areoften the only people to understand the issues well enough to discuss them in depth.Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel, says he spent little time studyingmanagement theory—he learned enough by studying his former bosses’ mistakes(Lenzinger, 1995)! Organisations get the leaders they deserve. The prevailingculture can nurture leadership behaviour—or stultify it.

Conclusion

Erlich (2000) observes that a major contemporary human problem is that the rateof evolution in science and technology is considerably greater than the pace ofchange in the social attitudes and institutions that might channel these new develop-ments in more bene� cial directions. Open learning and ICT are a disruptivetechnology that creates opportunities for new organisational models and strategies,and presents signi� cant challenges to the existing institutions. While there is a vastrange of knowledge on teaching and learning and tools to extend, enhance andenrich learning, there is still great need for transformations in our institutions andways of teaching, learning and providing greater educational opportunity. All ofwhich, as we argue in this article, can only occur through enlightened and transfor-mational leadership.

Our interviews with some outstanding leaders in open and � exible learning(Latchem & Hanna, 2001) enable us to link observations about leadership inpractice with leadership theory and to suggest (we hope not too prescriptively) thevalues, characteristics and strategies for educational leadership in today’s globalised,diverse, and dynamic environment.

We conclude that such leaders combine the roles of educator and social en-trepreneur. They believe that learning is the key to human progress and arecommitted to the principle that access to learning is a human right. They see andwork through ‘the big picture’, paying careful attention to form and process as wellas goals. They embody optimism and belief, but expect problems and challenges andview these as opportunities. They have a predilection for change and risk-taking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


They are passionate about what their institution does and what they do. Theybelieve more in ‘serving’ than ‘managing’ or ‘leading’. They accept the controversial-ity of leadership, af� rm the values of others, trust and respect co-workers, andunderstand the human potential for, and tolerance of, change. They select asmembers of their teams people with leadership characteristics and/or potential. Theyare effective and persuasive communicators who will stand up to political interfer-ence for the good of the organisation and know how to take advantage of, and buildon, success.

In creating new types of organisation, transforming existing institutions, andinitiating or improving programmes and services, the following leadership strategiesappear to be needed (these are presented in linear form but constantly interactthroughout the innovation or renewal process):

· Scan the environment—analyse and make judgements about priorities, needs andobligations and opportunities for innovation, change and improvement.

· Use this external/internal analysis and work with key ‘stakeholders’ to de� ne orre-con� rm the vision, mission, goals and priorities.

· Establish where there is need for strategic alliances to broaden the approach orinfrastructure and/or external and internal allies to support the innovation orchange.

· De� ne the key target groups for the programmes and services.· Identify those who will be accountable for implementing the innovation or

change.· Determine the major risks and countermeasures, costs and bene� ts, workload and

timeline factors.· Gain commitment by ‘walking and talking’ the plan, forming coalitions to lead the

innovation/change, establishing a sense of urgency and ensuring that all of themanagers, teams, lines of responsibility, funds, resources and support systems arein place for the tasks ahead.

· Consult with, and delegate responsibility to, those responsible for course andmaterials development and delivery, technology and logistics, intellectual propertyand copyright, staff development, � nance and administration, accreditation, part-nerships or alliances, etc.

· Anticipate any other elements likely to negatively or positively affect the processesand outcomes in the medium and long term.

· Ensure consistency and support from senior and middle management in regard towhat is to be accomplished, by whom, for whom, and to what timeline.

· Encourage the ‘risk-takers’, ‘early adopters’, and ‘change agents’.· Gain a total commitment to quality.· Achieve ‘short-term wins’ (visible and strategically important performance or

productivity gains), provide ‘risk’ funding for these, and document and publiciseall successes and lessons learnt (to gain ‘buy-in’ from the stakeholders, includingthose staff still likely to change).

· Change any systems, structures or practices that seriously undermine the visionand staff endeavours.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


· Encourage further innovation or change by supporting internal and externalnetworks and ‘communities of practice’ involved in similar ventures.

· Reinvigorate the system with new ideas and projects and use the increasedcredibility to change any outstanding systems, structures, and policies, particularlyin staf� ng, that do not � t the vision.

· Institutionalise the new approaches by standardising processes as they provesuccessful and acceptable and articulate the connections between these andoverall organisational success.

· And then, if all else fails: create a new organisation—for example, a commercial/entrepreneurial arm or new strategic alliance.

Transformation is a highly complicated process in which new values and beliefsabout what is right, what is important, and what is possible become part of people’shearts and minds. Leadership is needed to broaden the vision of what can beaccomplished, provide guidance through uncharted waters, gain commitment andcreate systems that are responsive, energising and sustainable.

Mr Colin Latchem is a consultant in open and distance learning. E-mail:[email protected]

Dr Donald E. Hanna is Professor of Educational Communications at the University ofWisconsin-Extension.

References

AGUTI, J. N. (1999) One year of virtual university experience at Makerere University in Uganda,in: Empowerment through Knowledge and Technology, proceedings of the 1st Pan-Common-wealth Forum on Open Learning, Brunei Darussalam, 1–5 March (Vancouver, Common-wealth of Learning); available online at: , http://www.col.org . .

AITKIN, D. (1998) What do vice-chancellors do? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Manage-ment, 20(2), pp. 161–173.

ARMSTRONG, L. (2000) Distance learning: an academic leader’s perspective on a disruptiveproduct, Change, 32(6), pp. 20–27.

BATES, A. W. (1995) Technology: open learning and distance education (London and New York,Routledge).

BATES, A. W. (2000) Managing Technological Change: strategies for college and university leaders (SanFrancisco, Jossey–Bass).

BLANCHARD, K., ZIGARMI, P. & ZIGARMI, D. (1987) Leadership and the One Minute Manager(London, Fontana Paperbacks).

BROWN-PARKER, J. (1996) Non-formal leadership and management development: making the practicere� ect the theory, (paper presented at the HERDSA conference, University of WesternAustralia, Perth).

CHIPMAN, L. (1999) Welcome to Lifetime Learning Inc., The Australian: Higher Education, 8September, p. 44 (edited extract from a paper ‘Visioning our future’ delivered to the CentralQueensland University Council).

CHRISTENSEN, C. M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: when new technologies cause great � rms to fail(Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press).

COHEN, M. D. & MARCH, J. D. (1994) Leadership and Ambiguity: the American university president(New York, McGraw–Hill).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


CUNNINGHAM, S., RYAN, Y., STEDMAN, L., TAPSALL, S., BAGDON, K., FLEW, T. & COALDRAKE, P.(2000) The Business of Borderless Education, Evaluations and Investigations Program, HigherEducation Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Canberra,ACT, Australian Government Publishing Service).

DANIEL, J. S. (1996) Mega-universities and Knowledge Media: technology strategies for higher education(London, Kogan Page).

DHANARAJAN, G. (1998) International and inter-institutional collaboration in distance education,in: J. M. BARKER (Ed.) Learning Together: collaborating in open learning (proceedings of theinternational conference hosted by the John Curtin International Institute, Curtin Univer-sity of Technology, 20–22 April, Perth, Australia).

DHANARAJAN, G. (2001) Distance education: promise, performance and potential, Open Learning,16(2), pp. 61–68.

DIAGNE, M. (2000) The African Virtual University: bridging the knowledge gaps for development,TechKnowLogia, January/February, available online at: , http://www.techknowlogia.org/ . .

DUDERSTADT, J. (2000) A choice of transformations for the 21st-century university, Chronicle ofHigher Education, 4 February, p. B6.

ERLICH, P. R. (2000) The tangled skeins of nature and nurture in human evolution, Chronicle ofHigher Education, 22 September, pp. B7–B11.

FARRELL, G. (Ed.) (1999) The Development of Virtual Education: a global perspective (Vancouver,BC, Commonwealth of Learning); available online at: , http://www.col.org/virtualed/in-dex.htm . .

FARRELL, G. (Ed.) (2001) The Changing Faces of Virtual Education (Vancouver, BC, Common-wealth of Learning); available online at: , http://www.col.org/virtualed2/index.htm . .

FULLAN, M. (1993) Change Forces: probing the depths of educational reform (London, FalmerPress).

GRAVES, W. (1997) ‘Free trade’ in higher education: the meta university, Journal of AsychronousLearning Networks, available online at: , http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue1/graves.htm . .

HAMMER, M. & STANTON, S. A. (1995) The Reengineering Revolution: a handbook (New York,HarperBusiness).

HANNA, D. E. (2000) Emerging organizational models: the extended traditional university, in: D.E. HANNA & ASSOCIATES (Eds) Higher Education in an Era of Digital Competition: choices andchallenges (Madison, WI, Atwood).

HOPPER, R. & SAINT, W. (2000) World university of the Highlands and the Islands: new paradigmor exceptional case? TechKnowLogia, January/February, available online at: , http://www.techknowlogia.org/ . .

JAMES, J. (1996) Thinking in the Future Tense: leadership skills for a new age (New York, Simon &Schuster).

JENSEN, B. (2001) The shocking future of education in an era of corporate cross-bordercompetition, available online at: , http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/000aaa/thefuture.htm . .

KING, B. (2000) Developments in distance education in Australia, paper presented at theWorkshop on Distance Education: Networking and Staff Development, UNESCO, Insti-tute for Information Technologies in Education, Moscow, Russian Federation, 25 March.

KING, B. (2001) Managing the changing nature of distance and open learning at the institutionallevel, Open Learning, 16(2), pp. 47–60.

LATCHEM, C. & HANNA, D. E. (2001) Leadership for 21st Century Learning: global perspectives fromleading innovators (London, Kogan Page).

LE GREW, D. & CALVERT, J. (1998) Leadership for open and � exible learning in higher education,in: C. LATCHEM & F. LOCKWOOD (Eds) Staff Development in Open and Flexible Learning(London and New York, Routledge).

LENZINGER, R. (1995) The reluctant entrepreneur, Forbes, 156(6), p. 159.LIGHT, D. (1999) Pioneering distance education in Africa, Harvard Business Review, 77(5), p. 26.MATERI, R. R. (2001) The African Virtual University: an overview, Ingenia Training and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Consulting International 1999–2001, available online at: , http://www.ingenia-training.com/African Virtual University.htm . .

MCINNIS, C. (2000) The Work Roles of Academics in Australian Universities, Evaluations andInvestigations Program, Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Trainingand Youth Affairs (Canberra, ACT, Australian Government Publishing Service); availableonline at: , www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00 5 . .

MCNAY, I. (1995) From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise: the changing cultures ofuniversities, in: T. SCHULLER (Ed.) The Changing University? (Buckingham, Society forResearch into Higher Education).

MUNITZ, B. (1997) New educational paradigm, videorecorded keynote address at the 18th ICDEWorld Conference, 2–6 June, Pennsylvania State University.

PAUL, R. (1998) Informing government and institutional leaders about the potentials and pitfallsof open learning, in: C. LATCHEM & F. LOCKWOOD (Eds) Staff Development in Open andFlexible Learning (London and New York, Routledge).

POOLE, M. (2000) Substance the key factor in new-style university, The Australian: HigherEducation, 17 May, p. 48.

PRIVATEER, P. M. (1999) Academic technology and the future of higher education: strategic pathstaken and not taken, Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), pp. 60–79.

ROBBINS, H. & FINLEY, M. (1997) Why Change Doesn’t Work (London, Orion Publishing Group).RUMBLE, G. (1997) The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning (London, Kogan

Page).SADLER, P. (1997) Leadership: styles—role models—qualities—behaviour (London, Kogan Page).SCHEIN, E. H. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco, Jossey–Bass).SCHLECHTY, P. C. (1997) Inventing Better Schools: an action plan for educational reform (1st ed.) (San

Francisco, Jossey-Bass).SINGH, S. (1999) Open University to begin with intake of 257, New Straits Times, 6 August,

available online at: , http://adtimes.nstp.com.my/jobstory/aug6.htm . .TOFFLER, A. (1980) The Third Wave (London, Pan Books).WOTJAS, O. (2001) Malaysian OU opts for Heriot–Watt expertise, The Times Higher, 3 August,

p. 12.ZALEZNIK, A. (1996) Managers and leaders: are they different?, in: J. CHAMPY & N. NOHRIA (Eds)

Fast Forward (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 2

0:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

leadership for open and flexible learning

Documents