Higher Education Leadership Research Paper

Higher education is continuously changing and in desperate need of a structural revolutionary redesign. According to Marx (2006) the 21st century is the age in desperate need of preparation and planning – a time for leader to look ahead towards the future. In the past, many educators failed in this week, not knowing how different higher education would be in the next fifty years, almost anticipating a stagnant growth. Instead, however, more students than ever before are enrolling in colleges and universities and graduating, although many are graduating with thousands of dollars of student loan debt while remaining unemployed. This is where Fullan and Scott’s (2009) phrase turnaround leadership comes to surface, an idea which offers today’s

generation a solution to a meet the obstacles of the environments currently affecting higher education.
That being said, one of the main issues surrounding higher education leaders are the ever-changing trends within society.

Many times a culture changes but leaders refuse to adapt to their surroundings and choose to pursue resistance; however, as Marx (2006) states, “creating a future is the essence of leadership,” especially regarding the field of education (p. 3). He suggestion, as a result of an ever-changing society, is implementing a type of living strategy within the higher education society - a plan which has no definitive ending and is always evolving.

This idea is supported by Fullan and Scott (2009) as well. As they note, certain steps will need to be taken and implemented within the higher education field if change can ever take place or a type of “turnaround leadership”. Furthermore, Fullan and Scott(2009) continue to describe the steps necessary to create turnaround leadership in higher education, steps which begin with the assessment of institutional culture, then transition to designing and applying a new criteria within colleges and universities. These assessments, therefore, would further emphasize continuous implementation of

improvements.

While this may seem like a smart idea initially, in the end, it will only frustrate one’s audience. Curriculum must continue to change and accommodate to the needs of a society. An idea that was once great thirty years ago may not be as successful when applied to today’s population because it fails to address their current needs. Therefore, curriculum and higher education must change and continue to evolve its standards and expectations for not only its students but its staff as well. Instructors must not only be seen as leaders, but servant leaders. And while the field of education hesitates in terms of change and modifications, instructors must acknowledge the fact they are leaders, leaders who must change with their evolving surroundings. Therefore, leaders at all levels of a university or college must change with the content and process of change.

Fullan and Scott (2009) further state that higher education leaders can face challenges through implementation of specific leadership capabilities and change-capable cultures in higher education.

Furthermore, it is essential that every single institution follow the same pattern so students are not confused by their future upon graduation. In other words, schools must match the trends and changes within society. Therefore, higher education must advocate for strong change, advocating for stimulating curriculum, which simultaneously integrates and encourages strong moral purpose and equally strong partnerships and relationships inside and outside a university (Drury,

2005).

While servant leadership may seem like an appropriate avenue to pursue, many individuals are unfamiliar with this particular phrase. A servant leader approach, therefore, is a mindset that enables teachers to re-direct energy toward collaborative inquiry ( ). IN other words, this type of step encourages instructors to help higher education to enhance competition within institutions by focusing on learning and teaching as a whole rather than some independent focus.
For example, in a recent study, instructors who were deemed the most favorite by college students were not popular because of their lectures, but rather, individuals who chose to work alongside their students, encouraging and motivating them to become hardworking and disciplined citizens of society, not just good students within their postsecondary institutions (Drury, 2005).
Therefore, faculty who continue to implement servant leadership will be more able to have a learning-focused classroom, and by implementing the above methods, may provide the link between student learning, instructor satisfaction, and overall performance of a course class (Drury, 2005).
While college and universities continue paying attention to the quality of teaching, many universities fail to foster teaching methods, which encourage servant leadership. For instance, college instructors are often hired because of their educational degrees, not because of their teaching ability. And as a result, new instructors and professors often teach they way in which they received their education – through lectures and a strict syllabi are generally unaware of how
students learn and unprepared for the challenge of motivating students in the classroom (Fullan and Scott, 2009). Therefore, a change force must occur in this area of higher education.
While students and instructors have previously received education through a research focus, students must also receive information with a focus in teachability Marx, 2006). In other words, students must learn new information in a way they can creatively teach it to other individuals. By teaching through a servant leadership perspective, therefore, interpersonal relationships can be developed while fostering an individual’s creative abilities and providing learning and growth opportunities for their followers (Drury, 2005).
Another change force entering the higher education field is the idea that servant leadership may take the place or combine with transformational leadership (a fairly popular teaching concept used today). While transformational leadership is both beneficial to higher education due to its focus on the individual, servant leadership offers its population focus upon its followers, and achievement of
an institution’s goals and purpose as well, while also motivating students to take the stance of what they learn should be important enough to share and serve to others (Drury, 2005.
In the end, higher education must change with society’s trends. Servant
leadership is beneficial to the way in which an individual will learn, and their ability to teach their skills to society at large while upholding a level of purpose. As Fullan and Scott (2009) state, great leaders of any field, all have the ability to leaders, to "listen, link, and lead" (p. 2481, [Kindle Edition]).