Advertisement

University Leaders Responsibilities in Carrying New Programs into Practice

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 594)

Abstract

Responsible leadership is a topic that is still under research. The complexity of the issue requires deeper involvement of researchers. Playing the role of a university leader imposes the duty of being responsible. Leaders should be responsible not only towards the stakeholders of the organization they manage, but also for the expected results of the actions predicted by the institution itself. It is noteworthy that there exists an empirically proved relationship between the quality of school leadership and student achievement. Building a professional community of teachers is the key to improve students’ achievements. Results of newly implemented programs should be duly assessed by universities. The conclusions should be then discussed and the feedback should influence future changes in programs. It means that every activity of a responsible university leader should be focused primarily on stakeholders’ needs. The article was based on an analysis of the literature.

Keywords

Leadership University Curriculum Social responsibility Management 

References

  1. 1.
    Pless, N.M., Maak, T.: Responsible leadership: pathways to the future. J. Bus. Ethics 98, 3–13 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pless, N.M., Maak, T., Waldman, D.A.: Different approaches toward doing the right thing: mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 26, 51–65 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pless, N.M., Maak, T., Stahl, G.K.: Promoting corporate social responsibility and sustainable development through management development: what can be learned from international service learning programs? Hum. Resour. Manage. 51(6), 873–904 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maak, T.: Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. J. Bus. Ethics 74, 329–343 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M.: The ties that lead: a social network approach to leadership. Leadersh. Q. 16, 941–961 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ayios, A., Jeurissen, R., Manning, P., Spence, L.J.: Social capital: a review from an ethics perspective. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 23(1), 108–124 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Painter-Morland, M.: Systemic leadership and the emergence of ethical responsiveness. J. Bus. Ethics 82, 509–524 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Wallace Foundation: The School Principal as Leader: Going Schools to Better Teaching and Learning, pp. 1–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazzeo, C.: Frameworks of state: assessment policy in historical perspective. Teach. College Rec. 103, 367–398 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman Jr., S., Kochan, F.: The role of assessment and accountability in higher education doctoral programs: a presidential perspective. Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Prep. 7(2), 1–13 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Razavi, S.M., Safari, H., Shafie, H.: Relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction and customer perceived value: evidence from Iran’s software industry. J. Manage. Strat. 3(3), 28–37 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J.: Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, 7th edn. New York, McGraw-Hill (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rayner, S., Fuller, M., McEwen, L., Roberts, H.: Managing leadership in the UK university: a case for researching the missing professoriate? Stud. High. Educ. 35(6), 617–631 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tight, M.: What does it mean to be a professor? High. Educ. Rev. 34, 15–31 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Želvys, R.: Švietimo organizacijų vadyba, p. 8. VU leidykla, Vilnius (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott, P.: The changing role of the university in the production of new knowledge. Tert. Educ. Manage. 3(1), 5–14 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown, F.W., Moshavi, D.: Herding academic cats: faculty reactions to transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. J. Leadersh. Stud. 8(3), 79–94 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cragg, W.: Business ethics and stakeholder theory. Bus. Ethics Q. 12(2), 113–142 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koehn, D., Ueng, J.: Evaluating the evaluators: should investors trust corporate governance metrics ratings? J. Manage. Gov. 9, 111–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huba, M.E., Freed, J.E.: Learning-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E.: The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20(1), 65–91 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spence, L.J., Coles, A.-M., Harris, L.: The forgotten stakeholder? Ethics and social responsibility in relation to competitors. Bus. Soc. Rev. 106(4), 331–352 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross, J., Winchell, W.O.: Production and Quality. American Society for Quality, Milwaukee (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crosby, P.B.: Quality is Free. Mentor/NewAmerican Library, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacques, M.L.: The call of quality: doing right things right. Qual. Prog. 32(9), 48–54 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petrick, J.A., Manning, G.E.: Paradigm shifts in quality management and ethics development. Bus. Forum 18(4), 15–17 (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nayebpour, M.R., Koehn, D.: The ethics of quality: problems and preconditions. J. Bus. Ethics 44(1), 37–48 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee, L.-S., Ko, H.-M., Wang, M.-T., Pan, Y.-J.: Assessing the quality of the business and management education in higher education. Bus. Econ. Res. 1–10 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adler, P.S., Kwon, S.-W.: Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manage. Rev. 27(1), 17–40 (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Portes, A.: Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 24, 1–24 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cannon, J.P., Perreault Jr., W.D.: Buyer–seller relationships in business markets. J. Mark. Res. 36, 439–460 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jap, S.D., Ganesan, S.: Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle: Implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. J. Mark. Res. 37, 227–245 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Levinson, H.: Wither academia? Psychol. Manage. J. 13(4), 210–222 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    Abidin, M.: Higher education quality: perception differences among internal and external stakeholders. Int. Educ. Stud. 8(12), 185–192 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boyle, A., Abdullah, A.: Factors influencing engagement with higher education pathway programs. J. Dev. Arts 49(5), 169–182 (2015). Special Issue on Kuala Lumpur Conference Held in August 2014Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    ACTA: American Council of Trustees and Alumni: Implementing Governance of NEW ERA. An Action Plan for Higher Education Trustees. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED553424.pdf
  38. 38.
    Freeman, S., Kochan, F.: The role of assessment and accountability in higher education doctoral programs: a presidential perspective. Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Prep. 7(2), 1–3 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wyzsza Szkoła Zarzadzania w Gdansku (Gdansk Management College)GdanskPoland

Personalised recommendations