Top-down management: an effective tool in higher education?

The Authors

Yau Tsai, Fooyin University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Sue Beverton, Durham University, Durham, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the strengths and weaknesses of top-down management in a university that has embraced globalisation with a strong market-led ethos and to suggest the ways in which adjustments might be made to top-down management processes.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of top-down management by drawing upon relevant literature and further explores its related problems through a case study of a department in the universities of one country.

Findings – Several studies have concluded that top-down management through its exercise of direct power is still a preferable means of reducing the chaos resulting from teachers caught up in de-stabilising and confusing change processes. In the current globalisation context, it is also concluded that the success of top-down management is predicated upon a willingness or readiness of the faculty to allow it to exist.

Research limitations/implications – Although this paper explores the strengths and weaknesses simply through literature, it provides a case study to understand the problems with top-down management in higher education. The case study illustrates some of the issues that may or may not be proved by ensuing or larger-scale research to be generalisable, but for the specifics of this case the issues discussed would appear to be important.

Originality/value – This paper recognizes the importance of top-down management to higher education in the global society and sheds light on how to make top-down management more efficient in higher education.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Managerialism; Decentralized control.

Journal:

International Journal of Educational Management

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2007

pp:

6-16

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

0951-354X

Introduction

A feature of globalisation in recent decades has been that various changes are dramatic in scale and rapid in speed. This has been seen in such aspects as many countries' politics, economics, culture and technology. Education, as one of the major policy areas of most countries in the world, is therefore not immune from these global effects. In response to one particular global development, that of marketisation, universities all over the world in the twenty-first century have already faced unprecedented challenges and most of them in response are seeking to make some of major changes or reforms. Meanwhile, during this process of change, global developments of decentralisation and reduced managerialism have had an impact on management styles and systems in higher education.

Under those global developments, we may wonder how the faculty and staff of universities cope with various reforms in such a changing environment. This is especially acute where, as is the case in certain countries, universities have long experienced top-down management styles. Also, it is interesting to know if the traditional model of top-down management can still meet what the faculty and staff of universities in the twenty-first century need. As a result, the purpose of the study upon which this paper is based was mainly to explore the strengths and weaknesses of top-down management and to suggest ways of adjusting top-down management by drawing upon the literature. In order to give some illustration to the analysis of the problems with top-down management, a short outline of a case study based upon Taiwan's universities was included in the study.

This paper will discuss five key questions:

What have been the significant management changes in higher education in the global society?
What kinds of changes to management style are felt by the faculty to be necessary in higher education?
Does top-down management or bottom-up management appear to bring more beneficial changes in higher education?
What evidence is there of the strengths and weaknesses of top-down management?
What adjustments in top-down management might be advisable when changes in higher education are undertaken?

Contexts of changes in higher education

In tracing the contexts of changes in higher education, research into globalisation may shed some light. For example, Cerny (1996) considers globalisation as chiefly a political phenomenon. Thus globalisation may be seen, on the one hand, as producing a change in both the philosophy of governance and the way the public sector is managed (Baltodano, 1997; Flynn, 1997). On the other hand, globalisation may be viewed as a set of political and economic changes which can put pressure on policy-makers of higher education for changes or reforms (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Indeed, Clark (1998) asserts that globalisation has lead to the considerable increase in the number of universities and calls for strengthened entrepreneurial changes among all universities across the world.

According to Morrison's perspective (1998), freeing up the “supply” side of the education market to meet its “demand” side was a trend of higher education in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, the ideology of educational marketisation has led to more competitive environments for universities (Foskett, 1998). Reich (1993) maintains that the only true competitive advantage or “edge” for a university now lies in enhancing its students' professional skills and capacities. In addition, Ball (1995) emphasizes that both the quality of education and the training of the workforce have become the most important characteristics in determining the economic competitiveness of universities.

In recent years the global effect of managerialism has meanwhile had an impact on changing management practices in higher education while universities have been undertaking the very changes or reforms mentioned above. By definition, managerialism can be considered as a style of management through which a manager plays a crucial, determining and central role in implementing and measuring the necessary improvement of products (Reid, 1988; Pollitt, 1990). The emphasis of managerialism is more on controlling and financing but less on planning and establishing formal organizational structures (Pollitt, 1990). Keeling (1972) has pointed out that the most important element of managerialism is the search for the best use of resources in pursuit of objectives subject to changes. Clark (1998) asserts that the feature of managerialism is to search for newer, more effective and more efficient ways of management. Deem (2001) echoes the importance of managerialism to higher education and emphasizes that new forms of academic work require new ways of management. Yet, Tyler (1985) has argued that there are serious problems with the managerial approach to educational quality, especially when people take the human and political dimensions of organizational settings into account. According to Clark (1998), managerialism serves to conceptualise universities as income-generating units in local and global contexts. Yet, Bush (1989) has pointed out that regardless of its functions, managerial flexibility requires conceptual pluralism and depends on a realistic understanding of a range of possible management styles.

Changes in education

Generally speaking, changes in education can vary in many aspects. They include financing, curricula, governance and management (Taylor, 1997; Currie and Newson, 1998; Spring, 1998). Berends (1992) considers students' experiences, the professional life of teachers, governance and community co-ordination as critical components of changes in education. Fullan (1991) suggests that all educational changes of value should involve new forms of skills, behaviours, beliefs and even understandings. According to Souder (1987), changes in education require the organization to establish distinct departments to take responsibility of both the renewal of learning outcomes and the execution and co-ordination of teaching and administrative tasks. Whitaker (1993) points out that changes or reforms in education tend to focus on both the structure of schooling and the content of curricula. First-order changes include the renewal of curricula, resources and new versions of evaluation and training, while second-order changes involve the adjustment of goals, structures and problem-solving approaches (Cuban, 1990).

Although the trend of most changes in education seems not hard to identify, McLaughlin (1990) argues that the goals of changes are more elusive and should be shown typically in the skills, creative thinking and committed action of the faculty and staff, rather than in the written form of documents. Fullan (1993) emphasizes that the changes to teaching required for more effective learning are difficult and require major transformation in the culture of schools as well as the relationship between both schools and their related agencies. Stacey (1992) suggests that both developing multiple cultures and establishing flexible structures and teaching teams with clear degrees of freedom should be essential to changes or reforms in education. In addition, Nias et al. (1992) insist that the shared concerns of curriculum developers with other major change agents should be allied in teams or organizationally under the conditions known to promote continuous learning.

Top-down management vs bottom-up management

One of two linear decision-making processes, identified as “top-down” and “bottom-up” management, may exist in different education systems. Top-down management, which is often considered as “centralised”, essentially lies in the power of the top to execute tasks, while bottom-up management involves a “decentralised” approach to decision-making and often starts with pilot efforts at the bottom level, developing into institutional practice through osmosis and imitation (Heckscher et al., 1994). Harris et al. (1975) have asserted that top-down power-coercive strategies depend on access to political, administrative and economic resources. While discussing the strengths of top-down management, Heckscher et al. (1994) point out that top-down management uses the power of the top not only to create shared commitment but also to explain rationales and strategies for change. Most importantly, central planning and bureaucratic procedures of top-down management are often considered in parallel with market mechanisms (Hurwicz, 1973). Moreover, they are often recognized as the best way to promote the necessary equilibrium and efficiency of complex systems which are composed of numerous individuals and units (Milgrom and Robert, 1992). According to Vandenberghe (1999), most of the co-ordination of public education systems significantly relies on both central control and top-down decision-making procedures. In addition, the strength of top-down management in education particularly lies in the fact that upper management levels carry substantial responsibility for school affairs (Vandenberghe, 1999; Sayed, 2002).

Yet others, such as Marris (1975), have argued that those who have the power to manipulate changes only mandate and explain those matters about which they are concerned. According to Pascale (1990), the mechanism of top-down management promotes a strong inward-looking culture and can easily keep an organization away from external realities. Although teachers' professional development is central to the process of educational change, Davies (2002) asserts that the centralisation of curricula and policies definitely symbolizes a pressure and a strong control over teachers. In addition, the more an organization, such as a school, is subject to centrally- mandated changes, the more superficial the changes become (Pascale, 1990; Ungerlieider, 1992).

Compared to top-down management, bottom-up management seems to offer more effectiveness through its flexibility and approachability. For example, Fleurke et al. (1997) point out that decentralised administration is generally effective and efficient on the basis of the implementation of benefits and local choices. In education, bottom-up management symbolizes both the decentralisation of authority and the creation of various school committees or parent councils to share authority (Levin, 1997). Decentralisation is therefore seen as a power-sharing model which is essentially democratic in ethos (Davies, 2002). Stinette (1992) sees decentralisation as something designed to make the bottom-up decision-making process closer to teachers and students in the learning environment. Most importantly, Levin (1997) stresses that bottom-up management leads to better decisions about teaching and learning, more efficient use of resources, more effective practices and better learning outcomes.

Widden (1994), however, argues that in apparent decentralisation, central authority can easily be transferred to district officials and school committee leaders rather than to teachers. In considering the weaknesses of bottom-up management, Fullan (1991) points out that it easily results in chaos because different groups become preoccupied with governance. In addition, the interaction of school governing bodies in more than one municipality calls for a lot of time and energy (Vermeulen, 1997). Wallace (1991) further asserts that the developmental planning process in which head teachers may try to implement externally-imposed innovations may (or may not) be in line with the beliefs and values of their stakeholders but still not match the reality and complexity of the school system.

A case of top-down management

The case provided for discussion originates in a particular department established in Taiwan's universities that have adopted top-down management for years. As English has become an international language in the global society, the newly-established department DAFL (Department of Applied Foreign Languages) is definitely a product which the government in Taiwan endorses as a vehicle for preparing younger generations to improve their English proficiency in response to the needs of the job market. Under the global effect of marketisation, DAFLs have, understandably, flourished in Taiwan's education market in recent years (Huang, 2000; Su, 2003). According to the statistics provided by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, the number of DAFLs keeps increasing from 4 in 1996 to more than 100 in 2005 (Ministry of Education, 1996; Ministry of Education, 2005). Yet, studies show that there is still a debate about the title “applied foreign languages” among teachers and researchers (Tan, 2000; Wu and Liao, 2000; Su, 2003). For example, it is common to see that most of the English teachers in Taiwan's universities tend to call the title of the new department DFL (Department of Foreign Languages) rather than DAFL in English while attending national or international conferences.

From the albeit superficial definition in Chinese, people in Taiwan, as elsewhere, generally understand that the title “applied foreign languages” refers to the teaching and learning of spoken and written English necessary for engaging in different areas of professional practices. As a result, English learning in DAFLs should be more diverse and practical than the English learnt in the original DFLs that have existed in Taiwan's universities for many years. In fact, quite a few studies conclude that the new department should focus their curricula on ESP (English for Special Purposes) in order better to develop those who have both professional knowledge and English proficiency (Bok, 1986; Wu, 1998; Huang, 2000; Chen, 2005). Yet, studies have meanwhile found that the teaching approaches or curricula of DAFLs are usually similar to those of the original DFLs (She et al., 1988; Lin and Jiu, 2000; Su, 2003). Under these circumstances, most people are often confused about what can be learnt from DAFLs (Hong and Lo, 1998).

Discussion

In discussing these problems with the new departments, four specific problems that arose with the new department are found in most of Taiwan's universities. In outline they are:

the lack of consensus and shared vision;
limited faculty development;
implicit definition of curriculum contents; and
inadequate access to external resources.

The lack of consensus and shared vision

This problem may only appear to have manifested itself in resistance to the change in the name of the department. To be concerned with “applied” learning of foreign languages may, to some minds, indicate a move away from the traditional role of a foreign language department. As there is still a debate about the title “applied foreign languages” among teachers and researchers in Taiwan, the status of the new department inevitably becomes ambiguous in the realm of English teaching. As a result, we emphasize that adapting to the new department's role seems to require a major cultural shift on some of the faculty. In other words, this is where problems started. Thus, the first and root problem with the new department is the lack of consensus and shared vision over its aims, values and goals. Without these at least under constructive discussion if not actually in place, we consider it hard to expect all the teachers teaching in the new department to make changes in their teaching approaches and contents.

Limited faculty development

Since most teachers in the new department recognize ESP as the focus of curricula, we argue that there seem to be no reason for them to resist the teaching of ESP as part of their work. The problem is having insufficient numbers of English teachers who actually possess both the adequate knowledge of specific areas and the teaching approaches to ESP. As ESP involves the learning of English and different areas of professional knowledge, questions may be raised as to who is more suitable to teach ESP courses. In this case, the decisions about whether or not English teachers can be trained to be the ones teaching ESP should be made at the university's upper management levels. This entailed a change in the structure of the existing English teaching faculty. However, there seems to be inadequate support consequent upon this decision. We emphasize that limited faculty development is no doubt the key problem that university officials should address in these circumstances.

Implicit definition of curriculum contents

As DAFLs look similar to DFLs in most of the universities in Taiwan, we consider that the third problem with the new department lies in the lack of clearly defined curriculum contents. Yet, key content characteristics of curricula can, and indeed one may argue should, be created very effectively through brainstorming by faculty members. We emphasize that the fact that top management rarely takes steps in defining or giving a lead in defining the new curriculum contents may cause the situation that the faculty of the new department often find themselves in, that is, high levels of indifference and passive action when confronted with curriculum design issues.

Inadequate access to external resources

Although the new department focuses its teaching objectives on the application of English, we insist that the fourth problem with the new department should lie in the fact that the new department is unable to give students practical learning experiences outside the classroom. This problem is particularly reflected in the fact that the top management of universities rarely consider making external resources available to teachers and students for both off-campus and workplace-based teaching and practice.

Implications and suggestions

An analysis of the problems aimed at the case of Taiwan's universities finds that those problems of top-down management are interconnected and mostly related to the culture of the new department, linear decision-making procedures, teamwork and leadership. The solutions to those problems are suggested as follows:

Reshaping the culture of the new department

Culture by nature involves behaviours, attitudes and beliefs of a population or society (Ember and Ember, 1985). As culture symbolizes a set of values, norms and beliefs of an organization, we suggest that reshaping the culture of the new department should be the crucial task of the top officials of universities. Yet, when a leader designs the purposes and values of the cultural system, he should have kept in mind a paradoxical process (Fonseca, 2002). In addition, the design of cross-functional teams can be more effective in promoting the participation of the faculty members (Kanter, 1988). Most importantly, we suggest that the process of political negotiation should be essential to reshaping the culture of the new department.

Making the linear process flexible

It is a fact that there is still a debate about how the linear procedure of top-down management promotes participation, teamwork and collaboration (Heckscher et al., 1994). While dealing with the case of Taiwan's universities, we suggest that top officials should not always wait to make the final decision. In order to make good decisions, we insist that the top officials of universities should often involve themselves in the discussion of the faculty members so that they can understand more about how various changes are planned in the new department. The more detailed understandings top officials have, the better decisions they can make. In addition, we emphasize that the timing of decision-making procedures should become more flexible so as to match the real situations of the new department.

Building teaching teams of ESP

Teamwork implies the cooperation of specialists toward a common goal (Garraham and Stewart, 1992). Although teaching seems independent and does not need teamwork, we argue that building teaching teams through the power of top officials should be essential to the quality of teaching. In addition, the best function of teaching teams we suggest is to help the faculty members of the new department and other departments to share their teaching experiences and professional knowledge of ESP. Most importantly, we insist that the characteristics of the new department should be definitely explored through the brainstorming by teamwork.

Cultivating good leadership

Although power indeed plays a role in management, good leadership is sometimes even more powerful than power in persuading others into following the instructions of top officials in the process of top-down management. In fact, studies have concluded that leadership is essential to management (Belbin, 1981) and the most important factor of motivating employees and improving productivity (Fulop & Fulop and Linstead, 1999). Good leaders who inspire others usually possess extraordinary visions or commitments to high ideals (Fulop and Linstead, 1999) and constantly look for new information that can help them achieve their missions (Schrage, 1990). As the professional isolation of teachers allows conservatism and resistance to innovation in teaching (Lortie, 1975), we suggest that good leaders in universities should be more or less experienced in the related teaching, research or curriculum designs and have problem-solving abilities, communicative skills and the characteristic of open-mindedness. In dealing with the case of Taiwan's universities, we insist that good leadership should lead to a healthy culture and efficient teamwork of the new department.

Conclusion

Under the global effect of marketisation, it is true that changes or reforms in universities worldwide have been rapidly undergone within recent years. Yet, in the process of changes or reforms, most of the teachers in universities find themselves struggling with both the insistence on academic work and the cooperation with market mechanisms. Under the circumstance that teachers not only work independently but also think about their work in highly individualistic ways, changes or reforms in higher education become uneasy and uncertain. As Clark (1998) mentioned, universities are too bottom-heavy and too resistant for the model of bottom-up management to dominate. In order to make changes or reforms in higher education come true, we conclude that adopting top-down management for decision-making in academic communities definitely helps to introduce balance into a chaotic situation.

In fact, the key to deciding whether or not top-down management can work well in higher education should still depend on a good culture in which different members of the faculty and staff have similar beliefs and values about their work. As power is indeed important to negotiating and restructuring the culture of universities for changes or reforms in higher education, we suggest that a well-functioning and positive culture should be reshaped through a benevolent exercise of power. With a good culture, we emphasize that top-down management can definitely lead to changes or reforms in higher education. Yet, while shaping a good culture, we also suggest that both management and leadership should be hand in hand to be the focus of administrative work in pursuit of the development and growth of higher education in the years ahead.

References

Ball, C. (1995), "Developing the learning society", Presidential address to North of England Conference, York University, York, .