Understanding leadership paradigms for improvement in higher education

Shannon Flumerfelt · Michael Banachowski

52 citations0/0 files storedQuality Assurance in Education

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Management Systems and Quality Improvement Healthcare Quality and Management Quality and Supply Management

Abstract

Purpose This research article is based on the Baldrige National Quality Program Education Criteria for Performance Excellence's conceptualization of improvement as a dual cycle/three element initiative of examining and bettering inputs, processes, and outputs as driven by measurement, analysis and knowledge management work. This study isolates a portion of one input element of leadership, higher education leadership paradigms of concern. These paradigms are analyzed and presented as points of improvement related to lean training for higher education. Design/methodology/approach This quantitative study utilized an online survey, prior to lean training, to identify leadership paradigms of concern by rank, and by significant paired association, using chi‐square tests and the Yates' correction for several higher education institutions. Findings The study identifies six highly ranked, and seven highly associated leadership paradigms of concern. The one paradigm that was most highly ranked and most highly associated is confronting ambiguity. The findings highlight that improving leadership paradigms is important. Research limitations/implications The study's implications are limited to the higher education respondents' organizations. However, the results of the study provide some insight into the impact of leadership paradigms on improvement work in these higher education settings, where an average of 5.6 paradigms of concern and 114 paired associations were selected. Originality/value Much has been written about the explicit elements of the improvement cycle, the processes and outputs of organizational systems. While the improvement elements of inputs are more tacit and harder to define, examining them via force field analysis can be extremely helpful in total quality management work and leadership development.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 52 citations exist upstream.

References

1973Higher education as a filter 1993Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance.1997Lean Thinking-Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation.1997Leadership Challenge : How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations 2010Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: an empirical study 2006The Emotional Intelligence of Transformational Leaders: A Field Study of Elected Officials 1993Developing the Leader Within You 2003Examination and comparison of the critical factors of total quality management (TQM) across countries

Cited by

2021Lean thinking in lean times for education

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.