TOP-DOWN MANAGEMENT: AN EFFECTIVE TOOL IN HIGHER EDUCATION? By: Yau Tsai , Fooyin University. Kaohsiang, Taiwan, and Sue Beverton, Durham University, Durham UK
The article was discussed about the education in globalisation era and how the education system tries to adapt to the changes. It focused mainly on the top-down management issues in universities and to propose ways for the improvement of the top-down management procedures. Some issues such as marketisation and managerialism in education which were affected by the globalisation also play some vital part in this article. When, decentralisation management is become the focus of most universities nowadays, the authors brought up back that top-down management with some added ideas as important for universities in order to be more effective in their management system. For my opinion, I would rather say that in Malaysia higher education system, the top-down management is still dominating where many decisions come from the top and people under just have to follow orders.
The article was discussed about the education in globalisation era and how the education system tries to adapt to the changes. It focused mainly on the top-down management issues in universities and to propose ways for the improvement of the top-down management procedures. Some issues such as marketisation and managerialism in education which were affected by the globalisation also play some vital part in this article. When, decentralisation management is become the focus of most universities nowadays, the authors brought up back that top-down management with some added ideas as important for universities in order to be more effective in their management system. For my opinion, I would rather say that in Malaysia higher education system, the top-down management is still dominating where many decisions come from the top and people under just have to follow orders.
It is true that globalisation is a factor that changes this world. It is just as fast as the spreading virus affecting the victims. Globalisation generally could be defined as the integration of economic, political and cultural systems across the globe (Laurence, 2003). If we go deeper, education and technologies are also not excluded from the aura of globalisation. Organisations and people could not run from the globalisation. It has both bad and good impacts on societies and systems. According to Laurence, 2003, “Globalization is neither good nor bad. Rather, certain aspects of the complex, and multi-faceted process of globalization have impacts that can be viewed in different ways depending on the values at stake”.
Education is important for once society to achieving improvements and being developed. However, how the management could take the positive remarks from the globalisation impacts? Reforms and changes are made by the higher education management in facing the global effects. The terms such as marketisation, manegerialism, reforms and changes, and decentralisation in education are popular issues discussed by many researches and academicians. The market in higher education is growing stronger by the demand of commercial interest and success. According to Barbara, 1999 who analyzes European higher education reforms, there are efforts to make higher institutions be more competitive, commercial, marketable, competent and efficient. Education which is in public sector in European countries, was restructured based on the New Public Management (NPM) to strengthen the system.
Quality, efficiency-drive, customer- awareness and effective leadership are types of reforms try to be achieved by many higher institutions. Moreover, managerialism can be described as the execution of the reforms. The global wave of managerialism has hastened the progress of higher education system towards the market, where can be described by the principles of “the market knows best” (Jose,2005). Marketisation is one type of the execution of reforms where higher education has becoming more entrepreneurial in their routine activities. For example, Russia government has encouraged privatization for state universities (Jose, 2005). Besides, Malaysia also has a large number of private institutions nowadays. These can develop competitiveness strike for public universities. Generally, changes in education are varied and can come in forms of humanistic aspects or institutional aspects. New decision-making is one of the NPM approaches to increase the quality of decision making of how universities could be more entrepreneurial, competitive and effective.
Top-down management is also levelled as “centralised”, whereas bottom-up management lies as “decentralised” approach, these two are types of decision-making system which were been argued in this paper. The paper has discussed advantages and disadvantages of both styles. The centralised structure is better in controlling where top person get pleasure from larger control over the organisation and the use of standardised actions ensuing in cost saving. Instead in decentralised structure, people at lower rank would have a better understanding in their own working situation hence their decision making is more reliable for their own community. Within academic organisations, the authority would be divided into two which are professional and administrative which administrative authority is based in the responsibilities of the position that resides in a bureaucratic hierarchy, while professional authority is based in specialist knowledge of individuals with accountability confident through self-regulation (Jose,2005 ;Larson, 1977; Freidson, 1970,1986, 1994).
A case of top-down management in Taiwan’s universities was studied by the authors where they have screened the problems such as the lack of agreement and shared vision; restricted faculty development; limited understanding of curriculum content; and insufficient way in to outdoor resources (Yau & Sue, 2007). In Malaysia, I think we have enough of faculty development and easy access to outdoor resources; nevertheless we are maybe lack of understanding in agreement and shared vision and also curriculum content from everybody in the institutions.
The authors came out with better suggestions to support the top-down management system. They suggested reshaping the culture of the new departments. However it is not an easy task for everyone inside especially to the top leader to run it. The process must be continuous so that success of the new culture is achievable. There is not easy for the top official of universities often involve in the universities’ programmes such as recommended by the authors, but at some point the leaders should know the progress of their down-line management. This is where the empowerment of staff should come in. Last suggestion from the authors that I’m completely agreed was by enlightening good leadership styles. Managing organisation and people with an appropriate leadership style will bring fortune and succeed; goals and objectives of institutions will be more achievable and will be accomplished with a much better way. I suggest transformational leadership is one of the best leadership styles to be implemented in managing the organisations.
Last but not least, I would like to say that I’m partially agreed with the idea of top-down management to be the management styles of decision making in higher education. Instead, I would like to recommend of using both management styles which are top-down/centralised management and bottom-up/decentralised management in the higher education systems. Both management styles will be more effective where top-down management is important to make sure that higher education is centralised in some conditions because it could give benefits to team as a whole. However, bottom-up should also be applied because it is encouraging empowerment to the staff which could bring more creativity into the higher education system and also could increase motivation, hence staff output also increases. I yet agree with the authors that management and leadership should be working together in order to achieve whatever goals and achievement that universities focused on. There is a quote about leadership stated, “The quality of leadership, more than any other single factor determine the success or failure of an organisation”- Fred Fiedler & Martin Chemers.
References:
i) Barbra Sporn. Convergence or Divergence in International Higher Education Policy : Lessons from Europe. Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0312s.pdf
ii) José Joaquín Brunner & Anthony Tillett (August 2005) . Marketization and Management in Higher Education. Santiago. Retrieved from http://mt.educarchile.cl/mt/jjbrunner/archives/DynamicReader_NOV2.htm
iii) Geoff Scott (2003). Effective Change Management in Higher Education. Educause Review, November/December 2003. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0363.pdf
iv) Patricia Gumport & Barbara Sporn(1999). Institutional Adaptation: Demands for Management Reform and University Administration. National Centre for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University. Retrieved from www.stanford.edu/~gumport/publications.html
v) Centralised and Decentralised Organisation. Retrieved from http://www.learnmanagement2.com/centraliseddecentralised.htm
vi) Jyothi M John. (February 10, 2008). Top Down Management vs Bottom Up Management. Retrieved from http://www.kenneyjacob.com/2008/02/10/top-down-management-vs-bottom-up-management/
vii) Laurence E. R. (2003) Globalization 101 : The Three Tensions of Globalization. Occasional Papers from the American Forum for Global Education.Issue 176. 2003. Retrieved from www.globaled.org/issues/176.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment