View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Leadership in Higher Educational Institutions Post 2020: Probing Effect of Pandemic and ICT

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Leadership in Higher Educational Institutions Post 2020: Probing Effect of Pandemic and ICT
Language: English
Authors: Prashant Sunil Borde (ORCID 0000-0001-7463-4901), Ridhi Arora (ORCID 0000-0002-4737-0637), Sanjeeb Kakoty
Source: European Journal of Education. 2024 59(3).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Leadership Styles, Principals, Participative Decision Making, COVID-19, Pandemics, Educational Technology, Technology Uses in Education, Higher Education, Teacher Attitudes, Student Attitudes, Leadership Responsibility, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: India
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12680
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Leadership engrosses multiple actors and unique contexts that unfold along different timescales. The purpose of this study is to review the literature on authentic leadership, principal leadership, and distributed leadership and examine the current trends due to the pandemic and the growth of information and communication technology in higher educational institutions (HEI). This qualitative study adopted a literature review and in-depth interviews of 10 educational faculty, 10 students, and 9 non-HEI organisational leaders in India, predominantly based on a semi-structured script. Our study used the approaches of purposive sampling and inductive analysis. Employing social cognitive theory, our study reports on participants' perceptions of existing leaders and discusses organisational behavioural attributes that need focus for leadership development. The hybrid multi-layered model of leadership styles is suggested as a practical approach in India. This study contributes to the educational leadership development literature by highlighting the expectations of students and non-HEI organisational leaders on the fundamental role of educational leaders and behavioural necessities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1434482
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGxBIPVJhpeYcT7q0ymR36SAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDImiFjVlnvnGbosieAIBEICBmg86OHlbij0MWz6Zg4p7CwrF1MzUpR6I25sH-vYliwgPwP4VUkq_BM0zKRYqRn4CQBWesWRl7pOY2Gxi1lEmpHo6Ek7sbXUynU-05jEdwAbUWIEq06bj3t2XMepCSOPa1ozCu1gzgDcSD0s9ymxd3K3SBjyH9hTppcyepxfCLJ0GjibDcttFpKwvFC7RdhAv4R1Muh_-rKg2HHY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178882274;eje01sep.24;2024Aug09.05:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178882274-1">Leadership in higher educational institutions post 2020: Probing effect of pandemic and ICT </title> <p>Leadership engrosses multiple actors and unique contexts that unfold along different timescales. The purpose of this study is to review the literature on authentic leadership, principal leadership, and distributed leadership and examine the current trends due to the pandemic and the growth of information and communication technology in higher educational institutions (HEI). This qualitative study adopted a literature review and in‐depth interviews of 10 educational faculty, 10 students, and 9 non‐HEI organisational leaders in India, predominantly based on a semi‐structured script. Our study used the approaches of purposive sampling and inductive analysis. Employing social cognitive theory, our study reports on participants' perceptions of existing leaders and discusses organisational behavioural attributes that need focus for leadership development. The hybrid multi‐layered model of leadership styles is suggested as a practical approach in India. This study contributes to the educational leadership development literature by highlighting the expectations of students and non‐HEI organisational leaders on the fundamental role of educational leaders and behavioural necessities.</p> <p>Keywords: authentic leadership; distributed leadership; higher educational institutions; principal leadership; social cognitive theory</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Leadership has a significant role in organisational dynamics in higher educational institutions (HEI). Consistent with this premise, numerous attributes such as psychological empowerment (Farrukh et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>]), academic achievement (Jambo & Hongde, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref2">32</reflink>]), and organisational innovation (Fu et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]) have been shown to depend on leadership behaviours significantly. Additionally, several studies have discussed how leadership considerably affects self‐efficacy, professional skill development (Shengnan & Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref4">54</reflink>]), and individual creativity (Ribeiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]). Likewise, leadership influences group dynamics, such as collaborative interactions (Scribner et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>]) and digital collaboration (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]). The literature on leadership has been comprehensively conducted in the past; however, leadership dynamics have been suggested to be investigated at multiple levels, actors, and contexts with bi‐directional influences along different timescales (Dinh et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]; Vogel et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref9">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the contemporary study, especially considering the augmented levels of complexity due to the pandemic and the growth of information and communication technology, we have focused on assessing the current impact of three crucial leadership styles, namely, authentic leadership (AL), principal leadership (PL), and distributed leadership (DL), that are crucial to HEI. Remarkably, these pertinent styles have been significantly associated with teachers' commitment (Akkakanjanasupar et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]; Al‐Mahdy et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; Hulpia & Devos, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]). The review of research indicated pertinent organisational attributes of these pertinent leadership styles, which are mentioned in Figure 1. Indeed, the analysis of these styles is necessary to research academia and leaders in HEI, as these have been highlighted as significantly associated with several crucial HEI outcomes such as student outcomes, organisational performance, and institutional culture (Beckmann, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]; Fu et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]; Semedo et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref15">52</reflink>]; Shatzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]; Soares & Lopes, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref17">57</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12680-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12680-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Organisational attributes." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Our first leadership style, AL, predominantly refers to authentic relational orientation, unbiased processing, and leaders' and followers' self‐awareness and self‐regulation. Primarily, these attributes facilitate building an inclusive, ethical, caring, and vigour‐based organisational climate (Gardner et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>]). Next, our second leadership style, PL, mainly refers to the well‐known theme that the individual 'Principal' is the centre of HEI (Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]) and is responsible for successful change, effectiveness, and performance in an organisation (Shatzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref20">53</reflink>]). This style is significantly centred on an individual leader's professional acumen, coordination, and empathy to address and solve institutional issues (Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref21">48</reflink>]). Lastly, our third leadership style, DL, appreciably refers to a leadership style with shared responsibility, conjoint agency, and decentralised structure in HEI (Lizier et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]). Notably, this style depends on collaboration, participation, and trust among its members (Beckmann, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref23">7</reflink>]; Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>The past two decades have witnessed a considerable debate in the research community over the effectiveness of these leadership styles and the conceptualisation of leaders' roles, structures, and practices in HEI (Fu et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]; Kim & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]). For instance, in his study, Cho ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]) emphasised the essence of AL for university social engagement and pointed out the limitations of the DL style concerning the ineffectiveness of participatory decision‐making and systematic mechanisms in HEI. Further, our study observed that Stoten ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref28">59</reflink>]) indicated that Principals, in reality, exhibited transactional behaviours far more than DL and AL behaviours. Diverging from these perspectives, Scribner et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref29">50</reflink>]) indicated a significant impact of levels of autonomy, structures, and social dynamics in DL on collaborative interactions in HEI. Somewhat analogous, Harris et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]) conveyed DL as a crucial determinant of productive collaboration in the virtual environment.</p> <p>Our study, in continuation with many leadership development strategies recommended in the past, focuses explicitly on the perspective of stakeholders and advances the dialogue on leadership development in HEI. In particular, we expect that the current trend of increased complexity due to pandemics and the emergence of information and communication technologies (ICT; Arora & Srinivasan, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]; Chitpin & Karoui, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]; Hartley, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]) have impacted the perspectives of stakeholders such as students, faculty, deans, and non‐HEI organisational leaders.</p> <p>In their study on the learning environment in education, Istance and Kools ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref34">31</reflink>]) have highlighted the importance of leaders' commitment to adopting ICT for institutions to become integral and sustain the change. However, contemporarily, several complex queries have surfaced in educational institutions. For instance, the in‐person classroom instructional education system has changed with ICT platforms and online distance education. Ensuring compulsory attendance in a virtual class, limitations on the conduct of laboratory assignments, and lack of ICT infrastructure with students from low socioeconomic classes were several challenges that unexpectedly rose in the last three years. Additionally, faculty faced several problems in changing educational pedagogy to be suitable for respective student populations and adapting to new methods of virtual education.</p> <p>Austin ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]) conveyed that the brunt of the pandemic was confronted most by students from underrepresented backgrounds. Significantly, parents' lack of access, affordability, and unemployment status impacted the learning for students from low socioeconomic status. The author highlighted the precarious situations of students, such as fear and helplessness, in highly dictatorial and paternalistic environments. Miller ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]), especially considering the pandemic circumstances, highlighted that several institutional leaders needed to formulate robust employment of shared governance in creating effective response strategies. In addition, numerous impromptu states of affairs, such as poor network issues and a lack of training and awareness of digital platforms (Arora & Srinivasan, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]), severely impacted educational discourse. In fact, the environment with these complexities has shown unprecedented anxiety and stress levels in students, faculty, and deans. Over time, several non‐HEI organisational leaders, anticipating the poor outcomes of HEI, worried about reduced educational results. Indeed, these new emerging concerns in HEI also impacted organisations and society.</p> <p>More straightforwardly, such first‐time trepidations have tempted us to review the existing leadership situation in HEI. Our literature review has revealed that the research methodologies adopted in the past, specifically on the leadership theme, had a significant empirical contribution. Simultaneously, our study noticed that an inadequate contribution had been made using qualitative methods with HEI stakeholders such as enrolled students, faculty of HEI, and leaders in various non‐HEI organisational domains.</p> <p> <emph>Social cognitive theory</emph> (SCT) is a dominant theoretical lens. This theory has been used previously to explain how leadership impacts organisations in pandemic environments (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]) and ICT (Lin et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref39">36</reflink>]). SCT persists that an individual's knowledge possession can be related to observing others from the perspective of social interactions and experiences (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]). More precisely, pandemics and the growth of ICT have severely impacted stakeholders' interactions and experiences in HEI. Building from SCT, this study aims to answer the following research questions to comprehend the diverse outlooks of participants from both the interior and exterior of the HEI frameworks.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>RQ1</emph>. Considering the post‐pandemic complexities and growth of ICT, how do students, faculty, and organisational leaders perceive current leadership styles in HEI?</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>RQ2</emph>. Which organisational behavioural attributes need focus for leadership development in HEI?</item> </ulist> <p>Our study contributes to leadership development literature in HEI in the Indian context. This article is structured in three sections. The first section reviews the existing literature on three leadership styles: AL, PL, and DL. Next, in the second section, we discuss the research methodology, findings, and discussion. In this, we will debate the relevant input received from semi‐structured interviews. The third section discusses the pathways for future researchers studying leadership behaviours in HEI.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-4">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178882274-5">Authentic leadership</hd> <p>AL notably has the vital attributes of moral perspective, development of leaders' and followers' self‐awareness and self‐regulation (Gardner et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref41">24</reflink>]). Furthermore, authentic leaders exhibit follower‐centric and follower‐development approaches (Avolio & Gardner, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]). Consistent with these premises, this style is oriented towards self‐abidance of rules and ethical principles, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Diddams & Chang, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]) and is primarily focused on organisational development (Oh et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>AL predominantly relies on ethics, honesty, and respect between a leader and subordinates, which helps to form trust between them (Walumbwa et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref45">62</reflink>]). This style also depends on the leaders' and subordinates' psychological connections, interactions, and communication. In return for the favourable treatment, followers exhibit a significant facilitative effect on social engagement, organisational performance (Cho, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]; Semedo et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref47">52</reflink>]), and organisational commitment (so, Borde et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]). Additionally, this style has been linked to organisational learning (Mousa et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref49">42</reflink>]), staff's feelings, and their intrinsic motivation in HEI. More recently, Soares and Lopes ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref50">57</reflink>]) have highlighted the positive impact of this style on students' perception of psychological safety regarding academic performance.</p> <p>Despite these affirmative results, several studies have argued contrary outcomes, such as the insignificant influence of this leadership style on knowledge sharing and organisational innovation (Elrehail et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref51">20</reflink>]). Next, Ngunjiri and Hernandez ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref52">43</reflink>]) have conveyed AL as a relational concept and shared their struggle as migrant blacks to lead authentically in an environment of sociocultural differences, diverse student climates, and marginalisation.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-6">Principal leadership</hd> <p>More specifically, in HEI contexts, the PL style has been established on the primary leitmotif that Principals/Deans are the <emph>centre of institutions</emph> (Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref53">26</reflink>]) and are responsible for <emph>successful change</emph>, <emph>effectiveness</emph>, and <emph>performance</emph>. Moreover, this style is centred on a leader's professional knowledge, empathy, and behaviour to address and solve institutional issues (Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref54">60</reflink>]). This individual‐centred decision‐making style concentrates on institutional planning, teachers' professional development, and self‐efficacy (Fackler & Malmberg, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Relying upon these principles, PL has been affirmatively linked to the preservation of coordination, trust with the organisational stakeholders (Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>]), and faculty job satisfaction and self‐efficacy (Duyar et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]). Moreover, this style, together with ethical orientations, has been seen as being in the best interest of students (Duyar et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>]) and has contributed to the growth of cultural, social, and human capital (Sebastian & Allensworth, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref59">51</reflink>]). Distinctively, with this style, the HEI is recognised broadly on the principal's mission, goals, and instructional focus (Hallinger, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Conversely, several past studies have critically highlighted this style's depressing effects. For instance, Geoff ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref61">25</reflink>]) has argued that because the PL is significantly complex, authoritative, and demanding, leaders require high competency, which may only be idyllically present in some principals. The author further stressed that PL might become prone to selfish behaviours and develop significant power distance within the institution, especially with high levels of centralised authority. Additionally, centralised, hierarchical elements (Marks & Printy, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref62">39</reflink>]) have been seen with considerable concerns related to cooperation and synergy, especially in HEI, which has a democratic organisational culture.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-7">Distributed leadership</hd> <p>DL style has been primarily established on the theme of <emph>collective responsibility</emph> and <emph>collective decision‐making</emph> of a group (Copland, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]; Spillane, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref64">58</reflink>]). Based on these grounds, it has been observed to have several advantages as being able to offer more learning initiatives, recognition, and self‐determination to the staff (Contractor et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]). On the analogous lines, Jones et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]) have stressed the necessity of <emph>reduced hierarchy</emph> in HEI. They have argued that this style promotes sense‐making, collaboration, and maximum participation. Likewise, this style has been linked with numerous constructive behaviours, such as promoting creativity, democracy, and innovation ambidexterity (Fu et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>]; Hartley, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref68">28</reflink>]). More recently, de Jong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>]) have highlighted teachers and principals generating a 'collaborative spirit' and improving education.</p> <p>This leadership style intensely depends on the institution's culture, trust, relationships, and people (Beckmann, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]). Additionally, this style promotes informal opportunities, especially in an integrated cross‐functional and cross‐disciplinary problem‐solving environment such as HEI. Furthermore, this style has significantly been associated with the multiplicity of information and optimum utilisation of strategic support staff (Mercer, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref71">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, DL has been criticised by several studies in the past. For instance, Bolden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]) have argued that this style seriously affects individualistic recognition of motivated and high‐performing faculty individuals who sincerely work for their institutions rather than waiting for group decisions in a heterogeneous environment. Moreover, this style has been linked with severely affecting the top‐down and bottom‐up processes and the predominance of delegating duties (Lizier et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-8">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178882274-9">Research design and data source</hd> <p>The primary purpose of this study is to scrutinise focal points for leadership development in HEI, considering the unprecedented dimensions of ICT and post‐pandemic complexities (Arora & Srinivasan, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 10 students, 10 faculty, and 9 organisational leaders in non‐HEI domains (Table 1) as stakeholders between January 2021 and May 2022, wherein we selected our participants using purposive sampling (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref75">45</reflink>]). The participants were identified through social and professional circles by the corresponding author. However, this study faced the limitation of not including a sufficient number of female organisational leaders. Participation was voluntary. The criteria included that they (a) had an awareness of the impacts of ICT and pandemic‐related complexities on HEI and (b) had a minimum of two years of experience in HEI.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic details of participants and interview approach.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="left">Gender</th><th align="left">Age</th><th align="left">Subject</th><th align="left">Category</th><th align="left">Interview method</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">S1</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">Humanities</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S2</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">24</td><td align="left">IT, Management</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S3</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">24</td><td align="left">Engineering</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S4</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">Management</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S5</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">39</td><td align="left">Social Work, Psychology</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S6</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">40</td><td align="left">Rural Development, Management</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S7</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">47</td><td align="left">Management</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S8</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">42</td><td align="left">History</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S9</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">32</td><td align="left">Human Resources</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">S10</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">27</td><td align="left">Rural Development</td><td align="left">Student</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F1</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">40</td><td align="left">Science</td><td align="left">Faculty</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F2</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">48</td><td align="left">Biotechnology, Management, Psychology</td><td align="left">Faculty</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F3</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">42</td><td align="left">Languages</td><td align="left">Faculty</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F4</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">43</td><td align="left">Information Technology</td><td align="left">Faculty</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F5</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">39</td><td align="left">Veterinary Management</td><td align="left">Faculty</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F6</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">Counselling Psychology</td><td align="left">Faculty</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F7</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">48</td><td align="left">Marketing</td><td align="left">Dean</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F8</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">Finance</td><td align="left">Dean</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F9</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">62</td><td align="left">IT</td><td align="left">Dean</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">F10</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">57</td><td align="left">Pharmacy</td><td align="left">Faculty</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL1</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">39</td><td align="left">Medicine, Administrative, Revenue</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL2</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">42</td><td align="left">Training, Leadership</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL3</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">40</td><td align="left">Computer Systems Architecture, Management</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL4</td><td align="left">F</td><td align="left">57</td><td align="left">Finance, Administration</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL5</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="left">Entrepreneurship, Stock Market</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL6</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">62</td><td align="left">Psychology, Administration, Security</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL7</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">42</td><td align="left">Management, Security</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL8</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">65</td><td align="left">Study Advisory, Industrial Training</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">Key Informant</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OL9</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">32</td><td align="left">Accounts</td><td align="left">Organisational leader</td><td align="left">In depth</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In particular, eight participants were interviewed employing the critical informant approach (Kumar et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref76">35</reflink>]) because they had sufficient knowledge about the issues under investigation, good leadership experience, and apex position in the hierarchy of their respective organisations. The balance of 21 participants was interviewed using an in‐depth interview approach (DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref77">16</reflink>]). Our study achieved subjective experiences and shared and interacting influences between persons, environments, and circumstances (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]), as well as the behaviour of respondents due to these approaches and the SCT framework.</p> <p>The participants' names were coded (Table 1). The study was restricted to Indian participants with a limited sample size (Huberman & Miles, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref79">29</reflink>]; Small, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref80">56</reflink>]) and achieved inductive thematic saturation (Saunders et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref81">49</reflink>]). Our study observed that respondent bias due to cultural factors and individual attitudinal perspectives towards HEI in rural/national contexts might not be completely ruled out. Furthermore, the possibility of bias due to voluntary participants' frank expression of opinions may not be ruled out.</p> <p>The semi‐structured interview format (Table 2) included questions comprising the interview protocol at the initial stage and three leadership styles. Also, the participants were briefed on aspects of these leadership styles to enable them to associate these attributes and share experiences about the educational leaders with whom they have interacted in the recent past. The responses were taken easily and comfortably, and the respondents at a time could reflect and share their frank opinions and their experiences. Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 90 min, depending on the convenience of the respondents, and was recorded. The notes were taken during the in‐depth interviews by the corresponding author based on a semi‐structured script and were subsequently analysed in detail by the co‐authors.</p> <p>2 TABLE Questionnaire format of semi‐structured interview.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Question</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Protocol questions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Name</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Present profession/status</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. HEI where studying/studied</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Favourite educational leader</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Leadership behaviours you liked/remember in this person</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Key questions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. How do you perceive the growth of information communication technology in HEI?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. How do you perceive post‐pandemic complexities in HEI?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. How do you perceive an educational leader with the authentic leadership style, i.e. (a) having follower‐centric and follower‐development approaches, (b) having self‐regulation and self‐awareness by the leader, and (c) having a focus on organisational development?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. How do you perceive an educational leader with the principal leadership style, i.e. (a) wherein, Principal/Dean acts as the centre of HEI, (b) the mission and goal of the principal is identified as that of HEI, and (c) the institutional performance is dependent on the instructional focus of Principal?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. How do you perceive an educational leader with distributed leadership style, i.e. (a) HEI having reduced hierarchy, (b) collective responsibility, and (c) collective decision‐making?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Probing questions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Your experiences and opinion on leadership styles in your personal capacity or as you would see in the society</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Closing questions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. What can be possible solutions to the current situation?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Please share any additional information or suggestion you may have.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178882274-10">Validation and trustworthiness</hd> <p>The study sought consent from each participant before conducting the interview. All participants voluntarily shared their opinions without any pressure or inhibitions. The notes prepared during the interview were checked and confirmed for interpretation and meaning by the participants. Follow‐up questions were asked whenever necessary, and the notes were refined. These notes were then coded manually, and the content analysis of line‐by‐line coding was done. The respondents corroborated the salient aspects and their interpretations. Furthermore, the literature review was conducted iteratively until the completion of a thorough analysis. The findings were streamlined after categorising the data into sections based on common themes in leadership styles.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-11">FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION</hd> <p>To a great degree, awareness of the importance of leadership in higher education has increased in India, mainly in the past three years. The study observed that the participants' viewpoints on the current HEI structures and educational administration were divided. While numerous participants considered leadership to be crucial for institutional and student development, others regarded it as essential for the sustainability of society. In addition, the study observed mixed perceptions of ICT, as some expressed its non‐availability in low socioeconomic populations as a matter of unfortunate destiny; others found it a luxury in HEI. Concerning post‐pandemic complexities, most respondents seemingly had a consensus and conveyed the whole episode as a 'tragedy' for HEI.</p> <p>Overall, the participants shared their mixed comments on AL, PL, and DL concerning post‐pandemic‐related complex issues and ICT in HEI. Distinguishably, the perspectives of SCT enabled the study to analyse critical theoretical frameworks and emerge with novel insights.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-12">Authentic leadership</hd> <p>The students expect their leaders to be authentic, i.e. selfless and righteous (S3 and SL3). These educational leaders should essentially be confident in their suggestions or lessons (S3). The faculty and dean need to be supportive and welfare‐oriented (F7). The present generation of students is ICT literate and attempts to find answers immediately. They need clarifications and perspectives of their faculty, not the textbook answers; hence, the faculty needs to be professionally authentic (F3) and oriented towards students (F8). Some leaders put authentic messages through Twitter, Facebook, and online social portals for their students. These approaches by educational leaders are promising, and students like it (F7).</p> <p>Evidently, several participants (S1, F3, and SL4) conveyed that the students expect their faculty and principal to be concerned for them. The students expressed that they perceived a small number of leaders as authentic, but not all. Outwardly, participants related this style to self‐regulation, personal responsibility, and capability. Furthermore, compassionate nature was considerably expected out of these leaders. Specifically, ICT has been observed to have enlarged the scope of leadership impact. Students and teachers liked receiving educational information and motivational messages through emails and WhatsApp. It helped create informal, healthy relationships between deans, faculty, and students. More specifically, the attention and personal touch helped reduce negative emotions arising from the pandemic and helped form a supportive climate. Unlike traditional group interactions and dyadic relationships, the ICT helped communicate the vision and affection of these leaders to students.</p> <p>However, teaching is often seen as merely a job; very few become authentic when dealing with their students (S5). Moreover, it is also possible that some faculty members may change their initial authentic approach to teaching due to their negative personal experiences and problems arising out of complexities (S3). Another problem with HEI is that the courses and syllabus often get outdated. This concern results in a significant loss to parents, students, and society. Especially amidst such changing environments and complexities, these leaders cannot do much even if they want to (F5). In addition, AL is more influenced by the capitalistic orientation of the individual Principal/faculty and the institution. They can benefit students; however, this may not always be possible in contexts with less compensation involved; they motivate people and share their experiences too, but such leaders barely continue in low economy HEIs (S3).</p> <p>The participants shared a mixed response on AL in HEI for all intents and purposes. One of the respondents (F5) explicitly spelt out the realities of the limits offered by the leaders with this style. On one side, educational leaders were appreciated for their righteousness and ethical and moral conduct; conversely, management understood them as significantly dominant. Moreover, educational leadership in a complex bureaucratic system was seen not as favouring students but as inclined towards personal materialistic goals. Primarily, the ever‐altering processes demand competitive leadership that can find strategic solutions to unknown and emerging problems. AL in such situations has been related to those who may not adapt quickly to changing environments, especially considering amplified reach due to ICT. Next, AL was perceived predominantly for selfless, effective, and humane behaviour. We also found that students predominantly perceived these AL behaviours as faculty‐individualistic‐ones.</p> <p>Is it an educational institution for a student, or vice versa? (S1) Educational leaders are modifying the courses, branding, and tailoring them by which they will be able to suck more money from students and poor parents. And the worst part is that everyone approves of them (F5).</p> <p>We generally received criticisms about educational leaders considerably associated with academic capitalism and commodification (so, Borde et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref82">10</reflink>]; Slaughter & Leslie, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref83">55</reflink>]). Several respondents conveyed diminishing education‐centric approaches and intensification of financial management methods in HEI. The participants hinted at the negative impact on marginalised and low socioeconomic student and faculty populations. Additionally, the participants conveyed that these leaders must balance their efforts with students from diverse sections of society.</p> <p>Small universities may not have good campus placements as most faculty are only interested in completing the syllabus and conducting examinations set by the government. What matters for students is jobs and vocational knowledge, which comes from alumni groups; hence alumni may be seen as authentic leaders in HEI (SL3).</p> <p>Notably, one respondent (SL3) brought up an insightful point that, especially in locations where educational infrastructure and knowledge levels are poor, the alumni exhibit these behaviours and can complement the existing leadership. In particular, alumni are perceived as educational leaders with high AL. Furthermore, their financial support and political advocacy (Weerts & Ronca, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]) are often admired and considered selfless service in HEI.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-13">Principal leadership</hd> <p>Especially in India, PL is followed and is a kind of one‐person show in HEI (F2). If the leader has a good vision and attitude, it suits the institution (SL2). As the one‐person show, grasping the different tasks is essential (SL3). The students can learn many leadership qualities, such as hard work, a sense of respect, and drive (F3) from such leaders. Seeing the requirements of markets, industries, and the economy, the younger generation and leaders must transform and bring constructive changes (S5) to the HEI. Such leaders should have foresight for identifying what is good for society in future, especially considering rising ICT and globalisation, and accordingly teach their students (S3). Principals should be able to praise the students when they are doing good and should visit the institution and see the staff and what everyone is doing (F1 & F3).</p> <p>PL was predominantly associated with the individual leader's charisma, goals, and vision. Participants mainly referred to principals as the 'apex authority' in the HEI. The principals are expected to be selfless, competent, and responsible for all the activities in the HEI. Especially two participants expressed that these principals are expected to be accountable and handle all kinds of concerns, decision‐making, and rules. The faculty and students anticipate encouraging and caring attitudes from these leaders. Apart from the responsibilities regarding educational administration, these leaders were expected to know the external complexities and plan for remedial measures. Furthermore, participants expressed that principals must leave their offices and attempt to be omnipresent on the institutional campus. In particular, faculties conveyed that a principal must be seen in their routine lives and utilise every opportunity to create a motivational environment in the institution.</p> <p>The driven force of leadership is often reasonable, but it is often highly debatable, especially considering the complexities and student diversities involved in the organisational context (F8, S4 and SL4). The problem with this style is that it is highly person‐centric. Sometimes, if the Principal is very narrow‐minded and strict, that complete batch gets seriously affected and demoralised. Also, the Principal may be very authoritative and may not listen to the demands of the staff (S3).</p> <p>The interviews revealed a mix of on‐the‐ground realities and expectations. On the one hand, participants demonstrated the necessity of conflict‐free, competent, and responsible behaviours. On the other hand, they expected these leaders to be affectionate, selfless, and humane. Specifically, the HEI's success in achieving the educational goals was perceived to be closely linked with the characteristics of these leaders. The participants conveyed severe concerns that if the traits of the principal were unethical, timid, or narcissistic, it might result in more significant damage to the institution. Furthermore, they expressed unease that with dishonest and uncaring attitudes, these principals may create crevices in their faculties, resulting in lower commitment levels.</p> <p>In India, the government often attempts to carry out personality‐specific transformations (SL2 and F5). In addition, some policies may have personal political capitalistic interests and are similar to the 'buy back' policy (F5). HEI rules are prone to the capitalistic interest of these few leaders and may not favour the students' overall development. If the Principal becomes a Baniya (a local trader) and extracts the last ounce of money from everyone in whatever capacities, then that institution no longer remains educational (SL2). Leaders are not looking for quality development but mainly quantity passing (SL3). Principals often think of profits from HEI. What will happen to the institution in case fewer profits are generated? (SL1)</p> <p>To a great degree, the participants criticised leaders at the apex levels for their inclination towards academic capitalism. Additionally, the discussion highlighted how the individual's ambitions and non‐academic decisions, controlled by complexities such as political parties and the external environment, could influence the educational environment in HEI. One respondent (F5) highlighted that in environments where considerable finances are involved, unethical activities such as meritless appointments, neglect of educational discourse, and comprehensive efforts to make profits, for a handful number of people, were highly possible. Peculiarly, policies are often altered to suit the needs of politicians and owners. Additionally, the individually adopted decisions, especially those made with a change in leader‐member or external environment, may not favour the larger good of the society. Also, such behaviours may lead to chaotic situations consecutively, with followers having no substantial faith in leadership. Necessarily, the individual Principal's mission must be in line with that of the HEI.</p> <p>Next, SL1 and SL4 stressed the need for leaders to consider the region's overall social development and reforms. They brought out the core necessity of understanding by leaders in HEI that the primary purpose of HEI is <emph>to‐society</emph> and not <emph>to‐institution</emph> approach. If the <emph>goals</emph> set in the HEI are pro‐social reforms and not pro‐profit earnings, many changes may occur in the region's overall development.</p> <p>At times, the Principals make the system so complicated that the students feel miserable and have to depend on whatever they make decisions. For instance, numerous educational institutions have enforced several compulsory activities and tests throughout the academic year on their students. In such cases, the students have no time for academic learning and cannot compete with the global HEI. And then, after exams, they have to depend on whatever is being ordered for them (F5). Various activities such as sports, cognitive development, and social harmony are diminishing due to these leaders' singularly made decisions (F5).</p> <p>During the interviews, three respondents (S3, F4, and SL2) discussed critically the centrality and authority offered to principals in HEI. They conveyed that entire batches were demoralised, owing to the leader's individualistic poor decision‐taking capability and not collaborating with the faculty. Individual leaders at the apex positions considerably lacked caring, humane behaviour, and competency. This apex‐controlled structure was primarily perceived as detrimental to the HEI. During interviews, respondents made pertinent remarks that only not many principals could meet their expectations when students sought academic performance and non‐academic learning.</p> <p>Further, the respondents called attention to cases where, despite the diversity in the socioeconomic backgrounds of students and faculty and their thought processes regarding education, the capitalistic demeanours of the principal as an individual were seen widely increasing in HEI across society. Moreover, they highlighted the necessity of maintaining institutional goals and ensuring the principal's behavioural integrity and capability whenever appointed. One respondent (F5) criticised that education's whole purpose diminishes due to the absolute powers entrusted to a single person. He conveyed that such a hierarchical system is prone to exploitation and bias.</p> <p>As a leader in HEI, singularly targeting achievement is quite a difficult task; it is better to take all members on board (S5) and work as a congruent team (F2 and SL3). The administrative control may still be with the Principal, but in this manner, the negative attributes of PL may be considerably diminished (S1).</p> <p>Probing questions helped this study comprehend the challenges faced by these leaders. Particularly, principals are expected to be omnipresent and omniscient. In real‐life situations, every individual has restrictions, and the same applies to principals. The principals' knowledge and decision‐making at certain events are limited based on their experiences, cognition, and education. Exceptionally, while handling unplanned complexities, there may need to be more appropriate decision‐making by a single person. The participants stressed the necessity of learning participatory and distributed leadership behaviours from the faculty. More directly, considering the complexities involved in HEI, they highlighted the necessity of the partial decentralisation of the authority vested with the principal and further sharing of responsibility among mid‐level leaders. This mixed approach is perceived to have higher competency and sharing of responsibility, which could be felt as needing more from a single leader. Specifically, the participants suggested that limited delegation would facilitate HEI competency, innovativeness, and transparency.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-14">Distributed leadership</hd> <p>The Principal can guide on the ground, but the faculty has to execute the work (F1). DL gives the faculty a sense of achievement and increases their participation, authority, and accountability in the group (S9). It enables faculty initiative (S5, S10, SL9). It is better if all the people have collective responsibility and power. There is the advantage of transparency and flexibility of ideas and decisions. Especially in the Indian population, it can be better seen as more democratic (F2). DL is comparatively a newer style, particularly in India, and is workable. The best part is that it is not limited to a one‐person show (S4). Every faculty has different behaviours (F3, SL9); with this style, people can adapt to each other (F2). Group cohesion thus increases the efforts towards maintaining organisational vision (S10, SL2) and tolerance amongst individuals. Compared to PL, the institutions with DL have a better chance of surviving even with high turnover (SL5). From the student's perspective, teaching in the institution is purely not what is in the academic book but outside that. They consciously and subconsciously learn different viewpoints, behaviours, and decision‐making from different faculties. This learning is essential to them for practical walks of life, and that prepares students to handle complex problems (F3).</p> <p>Predominantly, the respondents dictated diverse experiences with increased complexity and increased ICT in DL style. Additionally, the participants conveyed that the functional responsibilities for educational discourse and administration were distributed in the last two years due to the pandemic. Several respondents expressed the limitations of working alone, especially in the new level‐ICT educational world. Specifically, with participation being democratic in India, the participant faculties conveyed the need for a hearing by their Principals and peers to convey student requirements and decision‐making. They associated this style with the necessity of team formation and group cohesion for participatory procedures. Remarkably, these collaboration activities were appreciated as essential to gathering multiple perspectives for survival and development.</p> <p>This structure ensured prompt decision‐making and execution of technology adaptation and educational administration tasks. Furthermore, this style was recommended by students and faculty to have a one‐to‐one learning relationship, mainly when the leaders exhibited humane and responsible behaviours. The participation mechanism favoured democratisation to a certain extent, wherein the stakeholders felt a sense of responsibility and transparency in the HEI. Also, this enabled self‐regulatory checks on the educational leaders primarily neglected with PL. When taken in totality, collaboration has been generally positive towards faculty engagement, innovative climate, and institutional effectiveness (Postholm, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref85">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>It can be said that shared responsibility is nobody's responsibility, as there is no accountability (SL4). Also, if someone in the group is strong, cases of indiscipline, bullying and unwanted influence in organisational decisions cannot be completely ruled out (SL4). Moreover, to cover up their incompetence, the individual faculty may start manipulating individual students, and these problems may remain completely hidden. The troubles, particularly in such cases, can arise due to concerns of gender discrimination, different socioeconomic backgrounds, and capitalistic behaviours of individual faculty (S3). Moreover, the worst of all these is that the approach to raising concerns may get limited (F4).</p> <p>Despite the numerous advantages of the DL style, grey areas are associated with this style. During interviews, respondents conveyed that this style was comparatively preferred to PL. However, participants conveyed that the viable address of incompetence, non‐humane behaviours, and unauthentic attitudes by individual leaders in HEI has been considerably lacking in this DL model. The majority of the respondents conveyed the essence of a sense of responsibility, accountability, and adaptability in leaders. Furthermore, they conveyed that several educational leaders, such as principals, deans, and faculties, lacked these attributes. With more decentralised structures and increased power, the leaders manipulated the educational discourse for their selfish interests.</p> <p>The probing questions facilitated this study's comprehension of severe concerns about this leadership style. Several participants narrated instances of experiencing inhumane and unethical activities such as bullying and corruption in exchange for passing marks. Furthermore, they revealed the frequent occurrence of events such as falsifying the attendance of faculties and question paper leaks to cover for the incompetence of faculties. One student (S3) expressed the situation of peer students from low socioeconomic status whose families had taken out loans for education. He also communicated that these students did not mind getting exploited by whimsical faculties as much as they were terrified of getting failed by them. More specifically, the participants articulated that the absence of a central supervisory mechanism may lead to biased and unethical behaviours due to several faculties' selfish interests and authority. Moreover, incompetency among leaders may not get addressed at all.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-15">Implications and future recommendations</hd> <p>The main objective of this study was to scrutinise contemporary perspectives on leadership, considering pandemic‐related issues and the growth of ICT in HEI. Conspicuously, we sought to identify the organisation's behavioural attributes that need focus for leadership development in HEI. More precisely, the current study incorporated the frameworks of SCT on assessing perspectives of leadership styles. The present study contributes to the current literature in three key aspects.</p> <p>First, the current study offered a comparative analysis of roles played by individual leaders in PL and DL styles. Based on the results, both styles can be supplemented with leadership development training incorporating approaches of AL and humane attitudes to have significant affirmative effects on organisational performance variables. These revelations progress earlier studies on AL, PL, and DL (Arora & Srinivasan, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>]; Diddams & Chang, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>]; Elrehail et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref88">20</reflink>]). Furthermore, the observed attributes of AL, PL, and DL with these pertinent insights are depicted in Figure 2. The contemporary study furthers the literature on leadership development. It suggests exploring the following questions: <emph>What will influence the psychological capital of faculty if a hybrid model of AL, PL, and DL is followed in HEI? What will be the impact of this model on organisational commitment of faculty with this model? What will be the effect on students' performances with this model? What would be the impact on organisational learning if leaders follow this model?</emph> Additionally, future cross‐sectional and empirical studies on these themes are recommended to generalise the findings.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01sep24/ejed12680-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12680-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Observed attributes of authentic leadership, principal leadership, and distributed leadership." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Second, the findings suggest the hybrid model of multi‐layered AL, PL, and DL styles as a practical approach in India. In particular, our study suggests incorporating PL at the apex layer and DL at the subordinate layer with participatory mechanisms. Decision‐making through boardroom meetings, steering committees, and task‐specific groups for management and administration‐related activities can facilitate better faculty collaboration and commitment. The existing challenges in HEI and key recommendations on what will be essential to enhance organisational performance are illustrated in Table 3. In this table, our study discussed vital aspects such as quality assurance mechanisms, change adaptation, institutional culture, hierarchy, collaboration, leadership training, student‐centric efforts, and faculty empowerment. To a great extent, educational leaders must display authentic behaviours such as being moral, ethical, and humane. Notably, in the unparalleled intensification of ICT and increased complexity due to a pandemic, the multi‐layered AL, PL, and DL style model has considerable potential to enhance HEI parameters and perimeters. These findings advance the dialogue in research studies on the associations of DL with ICT (Hartley, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref89">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>3 TABLE Existing challenges and key recommendations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Aspects</th><th align="left">Existing challenges in HEI</th><th align="left">Recommendations for leaders</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Quality assurance mechanisms</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Limited knowledge of global education at the grassroots level</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Decentralised training and development programmes on international curriculum and teaching methods</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Inadequate attention to educational quality assurance mechanisms</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Authentic efforts to achieve higher accreditation rankings for a systemic change</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Regular supervision and assessment of targets achieved</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Change adaptation</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Traditional mindsets and practices</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Acceptance and reliance on shared knowledge</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lack of innovation and creativity when employing information and communication technology</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Reverse mentoring by students to educational leadership</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Periodical debates on problem‐solving</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Institutional culture</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Students depend on superiors unconditionally, leading to exploitation</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Enforce code of conduct</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Selfish interests of a few leaders</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Meritocracy</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Convenience‐based and biased implementation of rules and regulations</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Humanity</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hierarchy</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Limited to individual decision‐making at the apex level</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Mixed structures</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>High power distance</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Shared decision‐making for complex situations</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Collaboration</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lack of interpersonal trust between faculty</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Structure potential partnerships with students, non‐HEI organisational leaders, and alumni</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Excessive competition for individual survival</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Reciprocate honesty, dedication, and loyalty of others</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Limited time, knowledge, and resources at the individual level</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Mutual respect for authority and responsibility</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Leadership training</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Dependence on available leadership</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Formal workshops, new staff induction training programmes, conferences, debates on leadership development</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lack of training in leadership development</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Training through external experts</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Inadequate competency in handling complex concerns</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student‐centric efforts</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Interest restricted to research accessible in libraries and textbooks</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Research focus at the international, national, and grassroots level</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lack of dialogue on life lessons</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Holistic development encompassing spirituality, mindfulness, social development, and community participation</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Faculty empowerment</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Lack of recognition</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Fair opportunities and allocation of responsibilities</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Empowerment based on biases</p></list-item></list></td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Equity and equality</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Third, the contemporary study incorporating SCT frameworks suggests integrating the subjective experiences and knowledge of external respondents, such as organisational leaders, with internal stakeholders, such as students and faculty, to assess HEI's leadership perspectives. The non‐HEI stakeholders, distinguishably, can share their thoughts and experiences, considering the complexities and demands of corporate and public organisations. Future studies should consider analysing the impact of regional markets and industries on the organisational dynamics of HEI.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-17">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This study enables a closer look at how elements such as students, faculty, and organisational leaders in other domains perceive leadership in HEI, especially considering the post‐pandemic complexities and the growth of ICT. The study offered that AL, PL, and DL had mixed reactions from the respondents in India. Especially drawing from the SCT framework, the emergence of novel insights in our study on core components of leadership styles revealed the importance of developing several pertinent organisational behavioural attributes, such as humane behaviour, self‐efficacy, and balanced processing (Figure 2) by educational leaders. Furthermore, the study revealed on cruciality of collaborative and innovative thinking, technology adaptation, and moral perspective in educational leaders. Future research is essential for scrutinising associations between these attributes and organisational outcomes in HEI. Furthermore, the study identified existing challenges in HEI and offered pragmatic recommendations for leaders (Table 3). Notably, the discussion resulted in the prerequisite of appreciating the significance of institutional, systemic goal‐setting and dissatisfaction with escalating academic capitalism and commodification (so, Borde et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>]; Slaughter & Leslie, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref91">55</reflink>]). In addition, it was brought out that an individual leader needed self‐examination on authoritative and team‐handling behaviours.</p> <p>The study has three inherent limitations. First, the study involved single‐country participants. Hence, the bias due to social and organisational factors cannot be completely ruled out. Second, the results are purely based on a literature review and qualitative data synthesis. Furthermore, third, our study needed more participation from non‐HEI female organisational leaders. Conversely, our study employed an innovative approach of interviewing students, faculties, deans, and non‐HEI organisational leaders from diversified backgrounds to assess the impact of leadership in HEI. The findings of this study may facilitate academicians, educational leaders, and the researcher community for the formulation of training methodologies on leadership development in HEI.</p> <hd id="AN0178882274-18">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0178882274-19"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akkakanjanasupar, P., Leksansern, A., & Niramitchainont, P. (2022). Authentic leadership influences Bangkok metropolitan administration schools' learning organization through teachers' psychological capital and organizational commitment: A structural equation model. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 28 (1), 75 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Al‐Mahdy, Y. E. H., Emam, M. M., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Assessing the contribution of principal instructional leadership and collective teacher efficacy to teacher commitment in Oman. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 191 – 201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref31" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arora, A. K., & Srinivasan, R. (2020). Impact of pandemic COVID‐19 on the teaching–learning process: A study of higher education teachers. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 13 (4), 43 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Austin, K. (2021). Facing the pandemic: Considering partnerships for widening participation in higher education in Australia. European Journal of Education, 56, 98 – 101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref42" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 315 – 338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref40" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13 (2), 275 – 302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beckmann, E. A. (2017). Leadership through fellowship: Distributed leadership in a professional recognition scheme for university educators. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39 (2), 155 – 168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref72" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37 (2), 257 – 277.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref48" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Borde, P. S., Arora, R., & Kakoty, S. (2024). Linkages of organizational commitment and leadership styles: a systematic review. European Journal of Training and Development, 48 (1/2), 41 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borde, P. S., Arora, R., & Kakoty, S. (2022). Convergence of educational leadership behaviours and socio‐economic status of students amidst academic capitalism, consumerism and commodification. Society and Business Review, 17 (4), 574 – 593.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chitpin, S., & Karoui, O. (2022). Educational decision‐making during COVID‐19 in Ontario: Lessons for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3 (2), 122 – 142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, Y. H. (2017). Towards an engaged campus: Measuring and comparing definitive stakeholders' perceptions of university social engagement in South Korea. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18 (2), 185 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Contractor, N. S., DeChurch, L. A., Carson, J., Carter, D. R., & Keegan, B. (2012). The topology of collective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23 (6), 994 – 1011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (4), 375 – 395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Jong, W. A., de Kleijn, R. A. M., Lockhorst, D., Brouwer, J., Noordegraaf, M., & van Tartwijk, J. W. F. (2023). Collaborative spirit: Understanding distributed leadership practices in and around teacher teams. Teaching and Teacher Education, 123, 103977.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40 (4), 314 – 321.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diddams, M., & Chang, G. C. (2012). Only human: Exploring the nature of weakness in authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23 (3), 593 – 603.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25 (1), 36 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duyar, I., Gumus, S., & Sukru Bellibas, M. (2013). Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration. International Journal of Educational Management, 27 (7), 700 – 719.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elrehail, H., Emeagwali, O. L., Alsaad, A., & Alzghoul, A. (2018). The impact of transformational and authentic leadership on innovation in higher education: The contingent role of knowledge sharing. Telematics and Informatics, 35 (1), 55 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fackler, S., & Malmberg, L. E. (2016). Teachers' self‐efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 185 – 195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrukh, M., Lee, J. W. C., & Shahzad, I. A. (2019). Intrapreneurial behavior in higher education institutes of Pakistan: The role of leadership styles and psychological empowerment. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11 (2), 273 – 294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu, L., Liu, Z., & Liao, S. (2018). Is distributed leadership a driving factor of innovation ambidexterity? An empirical study with mediating and moderating effects. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39 (3), 388 – 405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). " Can you see the real me?" A self‐based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 343 – 372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geoff, S. (2002). Instructional Leadership in Schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22 (1), 73 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (3), 329 – 352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, A., Jones, M., & Baba, S. (2013). Distributed leadership and digital collaborative learning: A synergistic relationship? British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (6), 926 – 939.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartley, D. (2016). Economic crisis, technology and the management of education: The case of distributed leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44 (2), 173 – 183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huberman, A., & Miles, M. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428 – 444). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers' organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 565 – 575.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD work on technology and education: Innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48 (1), 43 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jambo, D., & Hongde, L. (2020). The effect of principal's distributed leadership practice on students' academic achievement: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Higher Education, 9 (1), 189 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34 (1), 67 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, T., & Lee, Y. (2020). Principal instructional leadership for teacher participation in professional development: Evidence from Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 261 – 278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6), 1633 – 1651.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, C. P., Chiu, C. K., & Liu, N. T. (2019). Developing virtual team performance: An integrated perspective of social exchange and social cognitive theories. Review of Managerial Science, 13, 671 – 688.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, C., Mi, X., & Gao, Y. (2023). How servant leadership influence employee service quality of fitness centers during COVID‐19: The interacting effects of self‐efficacy. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 801 – 815.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lizier, A., Brooks, F., & Bizo, L. (2022). Importance of clarity, hierarchy, and trust in implementing distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221105154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (3), 370 – 397.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mercer, J. (2009). Junior academic‐manager in higher education: An untold story? International Journal of Educational Management, 23 (4), 348 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, M. T. (2021). Do learning organizations learn? Higher education institutions and pandemic response strategies. The Learning Organization, 28 (1), 84 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mousa, M., Massoud, H. K., & Ayoubi, R. M. (2020). Organizational learning, authentic leadership and individual‐level resistance to change: A study of Egyptian academics. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 18 (1), 5 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ngunjiri, F. W., & Hernandez, K. A. C. (2017). Problematizing authentic leadership: A collaborative autoethnography of immigrant women of color leaders in higher education. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19 (4), 393 – 406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oh, J., Cho, D., & Lim, D. H. (2018). Authentic leadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of practicing core values. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 39 (2), 276 – 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. (1990). Purposeful sampling. In Qualitative evaluation and research methods (p. 183). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postholm, M. B. (2019). The school leader's role in school‐based development. Educational Research, 61 (4), 437 – 450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ribeiro, N., Duarte, A. P., Filipe, R., & Torres de Oliveira, R. (2020). How authentic leadership promotes individual creativity: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27 (2), 189 – 202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, V. M. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (1), 1 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893 – 1907.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43 (1), 67 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 (4), 626 – 663.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Semedo, A. S. D., Coelho, A. F. M., & Ribeiro, N. M. P. (2016). Effects of authentic leadership, affective commitment and job resourcefulness on employees' creativity and individual performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37 (8), 1038 – 1055.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2014). Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42 (4), 445 – 459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shengnan, L., & Hallinger, P. (2021). Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49 (2), 214 – 233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (2001). Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization, 8 (2), 154 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Small, M. L. (2009). How many cases do I need?' On science and the logic of case selection in field‐based research. Ethnography, 10 (1), 5 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soares, A. E., & Lopes, M. P. (2020). Are your students safe to learn? The role of lecturer's authentic leadership in the creation of psychologically safe environments and their impact on academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21 (1), 65 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum, 69 (2), 143 – 150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoten, W. D. (2014). Authentic leadership in English education: What do college teachers tell us? International Journal of Educational Management, 28 (5), 510 – 522.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, H., Wang, X., & Sharma, S. (2014). A study on effective principal leadership factors in China. International Journal of Educational Management, 28 (6), 716 – 727.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogel, B., Reichard, R. J., Batistič, S., & Černe, M. (2021). A bibliometric review of the leadership development field: How we got here, where we are, and where we are headed. The Leadership Quarterly, 32 (5), 101381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory‐based measure. Journal of Management, 34 (1), 89 – 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2008). Characteristics of alumni donors who volunteer at their alma mater. Research in Higher Education, 49, 274 – 292.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Prashant Sunil Borde; Ridhi Arora and Sanjeeb Kakoty</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref85"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1434482
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Leadership in Higher Educational Institutions Post 2020: Probing Effect of Pandemic and ICT
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Prashant+Sunil+Borde%22">Prashant Sunil Borde</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7463-4901">0000-0001-7463-4901</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ridhi+Arora%22">Ridhi Arora</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4737-0637">0000-0002-4737-0637</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sanjeeb+Kakoty%22">Sanjeeb Kakoty</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Styles%22">Leadership Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Principals%22">Principals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participative+Decision+Making%22">Participative Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Responsibility%22">Leadership Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22India%22">India</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12680
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Leadership engrosses multiple actors and unique contexts that unfold along different timescales. The purpose of this study is to review the literature on authentic leadership, principal leadership, and distributed leadership and examine the current trends due to the pandemic and the growth of information and communication technology in higher educational institutions (HEI). This qualitative study adopted a literature review and in-depth interviews of 10 educational faculty, 10 students, and 9 non-HEI organisational leaders in India, predominantly based on a semi-structured script. Our study used the approaches of purposive sampling and inductive analysis. Employing social cognitive theory, our study reports on participants' perceptions of existing leaders and discusses organisational behavioural attributes that need focus for leadership development. The hybrid multi-layered model of leadership styles is suggested as a practical approach in India. This study contributes to the educational leadership development literature by highlighting the expectations of students and non-HEI organisational leaders on the fundamental role of educational leaders and behavioural necessities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1434482
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1434482
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12680
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Principals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participative Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: India
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Leadership in Higher Educational Institutions Post 2020: Probing Effect of Pandemic and ICT
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Prashant Sunil Borde
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ridhi Arora
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sanjeeb Kakoty
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1