- 1 -

An Approach to Executive Education

in Cambodian Higher Education

2010

- 2 -

Introduction There can be no doubt that the leadership requirements of today’s emerging organisations are the subject of considerable change. It is likely that the years leading up to 2020 will see a substantial new agenda unfold for managers and executives who “will need to respond to major changes in their external environment globally and domestically, as well as changes in the workplace, changing expectations of their role and the way their performance is assessed” (Nicholson and Nairn, 2006:6). Organisations, it is concluded by D’Netto & Bakas (2005:32) will need to establish a much stronger link between the management learning and corporate strategy. This emerging organisational environment poses considerable challenges for the process of executive development, where alternative conceptual frameworks and practical solutions are required to support executive and organisational learning. Over the last decade globalisation, technological advances, mergers, acquisitions, downsizing, changing environments and the demand for quality have transformed the nature of organisations. As a consequence, executive development has had to become more responsive to this emerging environment. Complex organisations have become increasingly aware that, to be successful, they must adopt a broader outlook, become more open to external opportunities, and maintain a culture of continual learning. Raelin (2006:165) sums up the changing paradigm of executive education by observing that:

Formal management education programs in academia and corporate development initiatives are already transitioning to educational approaches that make use of actual business problems. Since organizational members are increasingly being encouraged to co-construct their own practice environments, it is reasonable that they be expected to co-construct their learning environments from the requirements of their local situation and not only from the mind-set of external authorities or academic experts.

Similarly, higher education is facing unprecedented challenges at the start of the 21st century, under the impact of globalization and the knowledge-based economic growth, as well as the information and communication revolution (Salmi, 2001). These momentous changes in the environment are stretching the traditional boundaries of higher education to include lifelong learning while new technologies are doing away with space barriers altogether. Leadership for Quality One of the significant challenges for organisations and their leaders is the ongoing requirements for enhanced quality in its many forms – which applies to higher education institutes as much as any other context. A recent World Bank mission recommended that considerable support be provided across a number of components of Cambodia’s higher education system in order to support the enhancement of quality. This aligns with an increasing interest, over the last two decades, in the enhancement of quality in higher education globally

- 3 -

(Atkinson, 1994; Enemark, 2000; Kaufman & Zahn, 1993; Sallis, 1993; Scott, 2001; Van Vught & Westerheijden, 1992). With a focus on quality in higher education, this paper evaluated an approach to executive education that focused on enhancing the leadership capacity of participating executives to lead quality initiatives within their organisations. The program was entitled Leadership for Quality to reflect the significance of leadership in the development of an organisation’s quality culture. The concept of quality In maintaining that ‘quality’ is a ‘slippery concept’ Pfeffer & Coote (1991:31) highlight the difficulty in reaching a common understanding or universal definition of this term. Murgatroyd (1991), for example, suggests that quality can be viewed in terms of (a) universally accepted absolute standards, (b) standards that are relative to a particular context according to specific circumstances, or (c) quality as 'fitness for purpose' as defined by the culture, clients or end user. The paradoxical nature of quality can be also explained in terms of quality representing (a) increasing consistency and reduction in process variation, (b) quality as change or improvement, (c) quality as a measurable, data driven process, or (d) quality as an organisation culture (Cuttance, 1995). Consequently, the complexity, purposes, political orientations, ethical basis and development needs of educational organisations present special challenges for the definition and understanding of quality in HEIs. A sound theoretical basis for quality management in education has only begun to emerge over the last decade and knowledge for decision making in relation to the management of quality is under-developed. The notions of quality management, quality systems and quality assurance, for example, are relatively new to higher education and there are no definite strategies which can be easily transferred to the educational context. However, the notion of the ‘quality system’ has emerged as one that is able to integrate the various concepts of quality into practical quality management strategies for organisations, including HEIs. Quality systems in higher education The belief of Hart & Shoolbred, (1993:16) that quality systems “generate a quality culture and this is what is at the heart of successful organisations” is fundamental to the concept of quality in organisations. A quality system describes the integrated approach adopted by an organisation for the establishment and maintenance of a quality culture. Quality culture In order for a culture of quality to exist, desired behaviours, values, beliefs, attitudes and expectations (Shein, 1985) associated with the achievement of quality processes and outcomes need to permeate the operation of the organisation. Within higher education the notion of a ‘quality culture’ is complex and could be explained in terms of the existence of agreed standards and shared understanding of, for example, academic performance, administrative service quality, information management systems, quality assurance of teaching / learning, quality of research achievements

- 4 -

and benchmarking against national quality requirements. Such a culture is increasingly important in the changing and increasingly competitive HEI environment. Quality management The processes undertaken to establish and maintain an effective quality system can be referred to a quality management (Acker-Hocevar, 1996; Liberatore, 1993). Quality management describes the actions that leaders take in building and sustaining a quality system that serves the interests of the organisation. Quality management ensures that the quality system establishes a culture of quality commensurate with the needs of the organisation, its clients and stakeholders. Within the Leadership for Quality program a number of quality management approaches, described below, will be considered as part of the development of underpinning knowledge of participating executives. Continuous Improvement: Continuous improvement (CI) refers to the use of a process improvement cycle, such as the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, for the visualisation and refinement of key business processes. Continuous improvement is sometimes referred to as ‘business process improvement’ and seeks efficiency and effectiveness though the continuous improvement of the operations of the organisation. Service Quality: Service Quality (SQ) refers to the focus on the expectations, needs and requirements of the customer or client as the prime driver of organisational processes. The measure of quality is the degree to which the organisation provides the products and services that meet, and exceed, customer expectations, requirements and satisfaction. Quality Assurance: Quality assurance (QA) refers to the consistent meeting of an organisation’s compliance requirements in relation to quality standards, legislation, regulation and policy. Regulatory bodies, stakeholders and clients need to be assured that the organisation is meeting these standards. Quality assurance provides evidence that the organisation has the documented systems in place to consistently do what it says it intends to do. Quality assurance usually incorporates industry, national or international quality standards and the certification process associated with such standards. Total Quality Management: Total Quality Management (TQM) refers to the tools and techniques utilised by quality improvement teams to identify, analyse and improve quality across all elements of an organisation. TQM is closely related to continuous improvement in that the tools and techniques focus on the planning, implementation and evaluation of quality initiatives and projects. Business Excellence: Business Excellence (BE) refers to development and external recognition of industry, national or international best practices in quality management against broadly accepted industry, national or international principles of organisational excellence. The achievement of Business Excellence recognition usually includes a process of organisational self-assessment and review against the establish business excellence criteria before external evaluation.

- 5 -

Executive leadership for quality There is clear evidence that executive leadership is a significant factor in the development of a culture of quality in organisations (Scholdes & Hacquebord, 1988; Senge, 1990; Tribus & Tsuda, 1987). Evidence suggests that one of the key functions of executive leadership is the establishment of a culture of quality across the organisation (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990, 1994). Quality management approaches indicate the need for top management to undertake quality management education, or for a quality committee or quality ‘champion’ to take the initiative in establishing quality processes (Jablonski, 1991). Such a role could include developing a vision for the future, setting specific quality objectives, establishing budgets and providing leadership. It is through the example and commitment to quality by senior management that the whole organisation is able to adopt a quality ethos. Senior management's commitment within the quality management framework could be demonstrated by the generation and communication of a quality policy, the allocation of resources to quality initiatives, attendance at quality team meetings, talking formally and informally to staff about quality issues, and insisting on clear quality requirements and documented procedures. In relation to leadership development in higher education, Scott, Coates and Anderson (2008:xvii) suggest that “current approaches to leadership development in higher education need to be radically conceptualised” and that leaders in such organisations prefer “role specific, practice-based, peer-supported and self-managed learning rather than the more usual one-off, formal and generic workshop-based types of professional learning”. Consequently, Leadership for Quality program is based on the transformation model of leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1987; Avolio et al.1991; Bass, 1985; Brandt, 1992; Roberts, 1985; Tichy & Devanna, 1986;). Within the transformation paradigm, leadership is broadly described as a process whereby the behaviours, values, beliefs and attitudes of members of a group, organisation or community are influenced in a way that promotes collaborative action towards the achievement of shared outcomes. In this sense leadership can be perceived as a form of social action that supports a shared vision for cultural change and improvement (Starratt, 1993). Within the Leadership for Quality program leadership is defined in terms of the executive’s capacity for strategic thinking and planning, effective verbal and written communication, change and innovation management, responsible action and decision making as well as having a positive influence on others. Approaches to executive education There are a number of approaches, informed by research, that constitute the emerging theoretical basis for executive education (Mellum, 2002; Reisma, 2001). The approach developed for this program draws from these studies. Management Development (MD) studies Management development includes approaches such as leadership development, management education and management training. Management development can be broadly defined as the strategic utilisation of a range of internal and external processes that seek to enhance management systems through the achievement of personal competencies, the facilitation of team learning and the improvement of organisational systems (AACSB International, 2005). Within this paradigm

- 6 -

management development may have multiple functions in order to serve individual, team and organisation learning – developing the capacity of the organisation to manage change and successfully navigate the challenges of an unpredictable future. (Buckley & Monks, 2007; Kirkbride, 2003; Mighty & Ashtom, 2002). Within this environment of change and complexity management development “must examine and solve the problem of providing effective continuing education for managers at different career and organisational levels” (Mailick, 1998:1). Top Management Team (TMT) studies One of the most significant bodies of research relating to executive leadership exists through top management team (TMT) studies. It is generally accepted that the TMT is a leadership structure designed to respond to the turbulence and complexities of the external environments that has complicated the task of executive leadership (Hambrick, 1981, 1984). These studies suggest that TMT effectiveness is contingent upon, for example, the degree to which team decisions enhance organisational performance, there is member commitment to implement team decisions, a willingness to work collaboratively in the future and the extent to which the team’s operational processes meet members’ growth and satisfaction needs (Young and Jordan, 2008). Studies indicate that TMTs need to comprehend and interpret a great deal of vague, ambiguous and often conflicting information from different sources (Thomas, 2005). They manage diverse external commitments for the Board of Directors to shareholders, analysts. Government officials and potential alliance partners. Furthermore, TMTs must decide which (of the many options) are the most critical tasks to perform and face ambiguous and ill structured problems (Yones, 2008). These studies incorporate upper echelons theory which, through exploring demographic variables within TMTs, suggests that top managers have a great impact on the decisions made in organisations and ultimately on the outcomes achieved and conclude that the characteristics of the TMT members are “determinants of strategic choices and, through these choices, of organizational performance’’ (Hambrick and Mason,1984:197). Priem, Lyon, and Dess (1999) also conclude that the upper echelons perspective has been empirically operationalized by researchers measuring demographic differences in the TMT as an explanation of organizational performance. Executive Coaching (EC) studies Executive coaching has increasingly matured as an approach to executive education. This approach is characterised by intensive knowledge and skill development through collaborative problem solving based on a close personal relationship between the coach and the counterpart (Paige, 2002). The advantages of this approach include the personalisation of the intervention and the ability to address key strategic issues of importance to the executive (Giglio, Diamante & Urban, 1998). In proposing an integrated, holistic approach to executive coaching Armstrong (et al., 2006:8), for example, define executive coaching as “the process of working with senior level executives in a solution-focused, collaborative relationship to help maximise their potential through self-directed learning and sustained behavioural change”. It is suggested that executive coaching is a comparatively recent approach to executive development, but one informed by an eclectic theoretical base (ibid: 4).

- 7 -

This basis includes, but is not limited to, mainstream psychology, adult learning, new age concepts, the human potential movement, hermeneutics, multiple intelligences, psychodynamic theory and experiential learning.

Executive Action Learning (EAL) studies Action learning is an approach to executive development that has increasingly become an accepted component of executive leadership programs. Action learning is an organisational change strategy employed to simultaneously enhance individual and organisational learning, while at the same time achieving practical outcomes within the workplace (Bennett, 1983; French & Bell, 1984; Rothwell, 1999; Zuber-Skerritt, 2002;). Revans (1982) defines action learning as a method to generate learning from human interaction occurring as learners engage together in real-time work problems. Learning arises not just from representations of conceptual material but from questioning among fellow learners as they tackle unfamiliar problems. Revans argues that learning occurs where programmed knowledge (eg traditional instruction) is questioned, reflected upon and critically analysed within an action context. Similarly, Raelin (2000:66) sees action learning as “an education strategy, used in a group setting, that seeks to generate learning from human interaction arising from engagement in the solution of real time (not simulated) work problems” and suggests, whatever the action learning model employed, it is imperative that:

• learning be acquired in the midst of action and dedicated to the task at hand

• knowledge creation and utilization be seen as collective activities wherein learning can become everyone’s job

• its users demonstrate a learning-to-learn aptitude which frees them to question the underlying assumptions of practice.

Zafar (2006: 7) describes action learning as “a pedagogical approach which allows people to use their jobs, the challenges identified within these jobs, and the support of their colleagues as a basis for learning”. Action Learning is the approach that links the world of learning with the world of action through a reflective process within small cooperative learning groups known as 'action learning sets' (McGill & Brockbank, 2004). The 'sets' meet regularly to work on individual members' real-life issues with the aim of learning with and from each other. There is evidence to suggest that action learning is an appropriate learning approach to support management development. For example Riley (2009:52) notes the increasing popularity of action learning in Australian management development programs. Thorpe, Taylor & Elliot (2005:147) see management development “occurring most effectively when managers learn on the job through experience, when the evaluation of a manager’s activities lies in practical results and supplementary learning is practice-linked”. Action learning focuses on existing real challenges facing an organisation as the catalyst for:

• individual learning through interaction with others in a problem solving environment

• team development through the use of action learning teams

- 8 -

• organisational learning through the resolution of problems and challenges and the improvement of processes.

As a management development strategy, action learning utilises cross functional or cross organisational teams, and the diversity of experience within these teams, as the basis for the learning and change process. In order for action learning to be successful “there must be top-level support for the program as well as those participating in the action learning groups” (Marquardt, 1999:216) and it “must be something participants can get their teeth into, will find a challenge, want to be able to resolve, and that is important to their organisation (Weinstein, 1999:88). Within the domain of executive development action learning is growing in popularity and is being deployed across a wide range of business applications, such as early career programs, new manager assimilation, skill development, high-potential development, team effectiveness, continuous improvement, knowledge management, and organizational transition (Delahoussaye, 200; Fulmer, Gibbs, & Goldsmith,2000; Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004; Martineau & Hannum, 2003; Vicere,1998;). Executive education in developing countries The role of executive and managers in resolving political issues, managing the expectations of diverse client groups, securing resource requirements and responding to critical events in NGOs has been investigated by Hashmat (2003:27) who compared management systems across three NGOs and concluded that “the adopting of different types of strategies was linked with the management competence of the leader and his/her team”. In a review of the status of NGO leadership development internationally, Hailey (2006:27) suggests that “we need to know more about NGO leaders, their roles and their personal needs, and how they can be identified and developed” because the limited body of existing applied knowledge “is focused on the experience of African and South Asian NGOs, and we need to know more about the role and character of NGO leadership in different contexts such as Latin America, South East Asia and Eastern Europe. Hailey (2006:20) argues that traditional short-term, one-off, classroom-based approaches to leadership capacity building in developing countries have had limited success and that an approach is needed that “builds on participants’ own experience, and provides feedback through mentoring and coaching sessions, 360-degree appraisals, learning sets, or team building exercises”. Management development within this context, which includes executive education, seems to exist in the form of NGO forums and seminars, short-term leadership development courses, inter-organisation visitations and study tours, and in-county or international conferences – not necessarily related to workplace challenges or longer-term capacity-building programs. Although there is limited knowledge about effective approaches to management education in less developed countries, there is an increasing understanding of the difficulties being faced by organisations in these countries in initiating and sustaining formal management education programs. For example in a research study relating to management development as capacity building in PNG (Berry, 2006) it was found that a number of organisations did not have well-established management

- 9 -

development programs, with key reasons being that there was a lack of commitment to management development by senior administrators, unexpected changes to personnel in senior roles or lack of clarity about responsibilities for management development. It is clear from these various studies that executive development needs to acknowledge the complexities of the executive role, respect client knowledge and experience, have an educational basis, build relevant knowledge, support effective organisational leadership and be credible in process and content. The pilot program The purpose of the Leadership for Quality pilot program was to both provide a leadership learning experience for participants as well as evaluate the degree to which program approach was successful in enabling participants to demonstrate enhanced leadership capacity. The pilot program involved fourteen (14) participants – ten (10) participants drawn from six (6) Cambodian higher public universities and four (4) participants from the Department of Scientific Research (DSR), a department within the Cambodian Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS). The representative universities were nominated by the Secretary of State for MoEYS. As shown in Figure 1 below, Individual participants from each university were nominated by the Rector of the respective universities. Participants from DSR were nominated by the Director DSR. All participants held a senior role within their university, faculty of department, with the majority being either the Deputy Head or Head of their department. Three participants held the more senior role of either Vice-Rector or Director.

Figure 1. Position levels of Leadership for Quality participants

Position level Participants numbers

Deputy Head 5

Head 4

Vice-Rector 2

Dean 2

Director 1 Total 14

Program components The three component of the program were described below. Workshops to build conceptual knowledge A series of three (3) one-day workshops facilitated by the Program Facilitator to build and extend participants’ knowledge of quality management. The workshop themes include leading and managing in the information era, leading strategy and planning, organisational leadership, leading service quality and leading quality systems. During these workshops participants experienced a range of presentations, discussions, a role play, a scenario and reflective activities aimed to surface, share and extend their knowledge of quality management in complex organisations. Action Learning A further key element of each of these workshops was action learning interventions where participants worked in cross university groups to assist one another to

- 10 -

investigate, understand and resolve issues associated with the planning and implementation of quality challenges they were facing. Action learning was utilised for executive leadership development because there was:

• an expressed interest by each organisation to learn about relevant approaches to executive development

• an interest in working on a quality management issue of importance to the organisation

• a small number of participants, enabling the action learning process to be effectively managed and trialed

• a belief that those participating in the action learning process will be able to implement change in the workplace

• enough diversity among the participant group to enable a range of experience, interests and knowledge

• a willingness by participants themselves to participate in action learning and to take responsible for fulfilling expectations.

It was established from the outset that participating executives had:

• a willingness to interact with others who may have differing view and experiences to themselves

• the authority to act on the outcomes of the action learning process

• the time and other resources to undertake the action learning process. Marquardt (2004) has identified six action learning elements, listed in Figure 2 below, that served as a philosophical basis for the approach adopted within this program.

Figure 2. Elements of the action learning model and associated program elements

Element of the action learning model Program Element

An important urgent problem: Ideal Quality Challenges are focused on the challenges of complex issues for which there are no known solutions and that requires creativity and innovation to solve. Managers or executive who serve as sponsors share their problem and vision on an organisational issue critical to the success of the agency and engage the team, provide resources and expect results.

Participants will select a current quality management challenge as a focus for action learning

A diverse group of four to eight people: Teams ideally comprise a group of interdisciplinary of inter-agency or intra-agency members with a diversity of skills and perspectives, and a commitment to meet together and take action until the work is completed. Teams are led by members who experiment with, and rotate into, differing roles in the team. Every member is asked to make team meetings a top priority.

A group of 14 executives from different HEIs participates in the program. Each member brought individual experiences and knowledge to the group dynamics.

Insightful questioning and reflective listening: The process requires that all statements in the groups be made only in response to questions. The action learning model helps to re-frame problems, challenging assumptions and share insights to promote a more introspective, self-aware and innovative learning environment.

Three sessions took place with participants working in mixed groups of 4-5 participants using a range of questions for facilitate lateral thinking.

Implement action on a problem: Some action on the project must be taken for real energy, innovation and learning to take place. Challenging real workplace issues that require the skills, knowledge and abilities of the team members can provide an opportunity to demonstrate accomplishments and promote practical learning on specific leadership competencies.

Each participant commences the workplace planning and implementation of a selected Quality Challenge with the requirement that the outcomes to date being presented at the conclusion of the program period.

Commitment to learn. Everyone on the team agrees to be a learner in order to promote equality, vulnerability and a willingness to develop as

Participants were required to make a commitment to both contribute to, and learn

- 11 -

individuals and as a group. This commitment to learning supports individual and agency development of leadership competencies through the action learning process.

from, all program activities

Presence of an action learning coach: A coach is assigned to every meeting, usually a member of the team but alternatively and external expert to the group. Coaches also have the power to ask key questions of the team at any point whenever they see an opportunity to learn or clarify the problem or goal, and the team must attempt to answer that question before moving foreword. The coach plays a critical role on the team to promote reflection and inquiry.

The Program Coordinator served as action learning coach, action learning group adviser and workshop facilitator.

Executive coaching to support Quality Challenge implementing The Program Facilitator served as the executive coach for each participant. All participants were involved in one coaching session which lasted between 2—4 hours. During this session the Program Facilitator sought to link the workshop content with each participant’s Quality Challenge, raise further questions about the implementation process, observe the participants in leadership capacity building activities, provide advice if required and encourage reflective practice. The Quality Challenge Each participant was invited to identify a workplace ‘quality challenge’ during the first workshop. The purpose of the workplace Quality Challenge component was to generate the action required for leadership capacity development. An five-phased approach to the workplace Quality Challenge was introduced to participants as an implementation guide to provide a structure for capacity building. These phase were:

• Review: Review the status of the organisation in relation to a number of attributes associated with a culture of quality to assist the participant to identify focus area for a short Quality Challenge

• Analysis: In collaboration with other participants, consider the outcomes of the review and identified options for quality improvement

• Decision: Make a decision on a quality challenge to be undertaken and provide an overview of the intended challenge to the program facilitator and fellow program participants, who will provide feedback and suggestions for an implementation plan.

• Action: Implement the chosen action plan, with support and advice being provided during the implementation process by fellow participants and the program facilitator. The implementation plan may be amended, in some cases, during this phase as unanticipated issues arise or new options for action emerge.

• Reflection: Assess the outcomes of the Quality Challenge and present this information to fellow program participants, the program facilitator and other interested parties.

Figure 3 below shows how the elements of the program are interconnected. Role for the Program Coordinator The Program Coordinator will serve a number of roles within the Quality Challenge including workshop facilitator, action learning advisor, executive coach and program evaluator. The Program Coordinator however, will take an objective stance to the

- 12 -

program having no affiliated with any participating HEI or the Higher education system generally. Raelin (2006:159) however, maintains that the facilitator does not act alone in suggesting that “the facilitator, though an important agent in action learning, is not responsible for all the learning in the team. Although a facilitator may be a coach to team members, he or she would not be the only coach. Each member of the team will have a personal responsibility to develop him or herself with the help of other team and organizational members as well as the facilitator”. Within the Leadership for Quality program participants were able to seek support from their fellow members of their executive team and from the Director, DSR as appropriate.

Figure 3. Components of the Leadership for Quality program

Leadership for Quality implementation steps The pilot program was run over a four (4) weeks, with a series of steps being taken prior to, during and after the program, as outlined in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. An overview of the Leadership for Quality implementation steps

Program step Responsibility Anticipated outcome

Pre-program steps

Liaison with DSR Program Coordinator

Agreement on the need for, and nature of, the program as an outcome of a previous assignment undertaken as a collaborative effort between the Department of Scientific Research (DSR) and the Australian Business Volunteers (ABV).

10/1/2010 10/1/2010 2323

Workshops to build

quality management knowledge

and engage participants in

collaborative planning and

information sharing

Workplace Quality Challenge

to generate action and provide a

focus for executive leadership

capacity building

Executive coaching to

support Quality Challenge

implementation

and reflective practice

Executive

Leadership

Capacity

Review

Analysis

Decision

Action

Reflection

- 13 -

Assignment application development

Director DSR Support from ABV to facilitate the program through an Assignment application submitted through the ABV Country Manager and then the ABV in Australia.

Submission of Secretary of State

Director DSR Support from the MOEYS Secretary of State on the importance of the program

Liaison with ABV Program Coordinator

Finalisation of details of the program delivery

Liaison with each HEI / participant

Director DSR HEI commitment to sponsor one executive to participant in the program

Program content preparation

Program Coordinator

Materials and processes to enable the program to take place

Expression of Interest for each HEI

HEI sponsor Written expression of interest using a standard template to verify commitment by each sponsor to support their participant and an understanding of each participant's organisation and participants

Identification of the Quality Challenge

Program participant

Each participant completes the Learning Organisation Review (LOR) to assist in the process of determining the Quality Challenge. The program participants, in collaboration with the rector and/or other members of the senior executive team, identify a quality challenge that will be addressed, or begun to be addressed, over the duration of the course of the program.

Program implementation steps

Initial workshop Program Coordinator

Participant understanding of the purpose and content of the program as well as participant expectations and introductions. Sessions on the notion of organisational change and organisational learning. Each participant completes the Executive Leadership Self-Assessment. First action learning discussion on intended Quality Challenge.

Coaching session 1 Program Coordinator

Follow up on Workshop One theme and its implications for the Quality Challenge and leadership capacity building

Workshop 2 Program Coordinator

Sessions on strategic thinking and planning. Seconds action learning discussion on initial stage of Quality Challenge implementation and anticipated challenges / issues.

Coaching session 2 Program Coordinator

Follow up on Workshop Two theme and its implications for the Quality Challenge and leadership capacity building

Workshop 3 Program Coordinator

Sessions on Team Leadership and individual leadership styles. Third action learning session on Quality Challenge implementation and leadership learning that has been taking place.

Coaching session 3 Program Coordinator

Follow up on Workshop Three theme and its implications for the Quality Challenge and leadership capacity building.

Workshop 4 Program Coordinator

Sessions on Service Quality. Fourth action learning session on the Quality Challenge implementation and leadership learning that has been taking place.

Coaching session 4 Program Coordinator

Follow up on Workshop Four theme and its implications for the Quality Challenge and leadership capacity building. Review of the outcomes of the coaching sessions through a semi-structured interview with each participant.

Workshop 5 Program Coordinator

Sessions on Quality Systems and evaluation of the workshop program. Fifth action learning session on Quality Challenge implementation and leadership learning that has been taking place.

Program evaluation Program Coordinator

Questionnaire to each participant, each sponsor and the Director DSR on the perceived outcomes of the program in terms of leadership capacity development.

Post program steps

ABV Program report

Program Coordinator; Director DSR

Formal report on the program using the ABV templates and criteria

Post program review

Program Coordinator

Follow up email questionnaire with each participant 3 month after the completion of the on-site program to gather perceptions of leadership capacity gained during the program

Continuing on-line coaching / support

Program Coordinator

Provision of further advice, suggestions and support for each participant on request until the Quality Challenge has been completed.

- 14 -

Identification of the host organisation The Department of Scientific Research (DSR) served as coordinating organisation for the program. Discussions between the Program Coordinator and the Director DSR established the parameters of the role of the host organisation which included:

• the identification of HEIs that would be likely to want to participate and who would benefit from having an executive representative participate in the program

• provision of technical support in relation to the delivery of the workshop component and travel between participating organisations.

Program implementation Eighteen participants representing four provincial public universities (Chea Sim University of Kamchaymear, Svay Rieng University, Meanchey University and Battambang University) and four city public universities (Royal University of Phnom Penh, Royal University of Law and Economics, National University of Management, and Institute of Technology of Cambodia), as well as four staff for the Department of Scientific Research (DSR), were initially registered to participate in the program. All participating institutions were identified by the Secretary of State and participants nominated by their universities. Workshops In total three (3) workshops were held, with the introductory workshop for half a day and the remaining two workshops for a full day. All workshops were held at the premises of the Department of Scientific Research. The first served as an introduction to the program as well as enabling the facilitator and the participants to negotiate a program timeframe for the whole of the program. The Director, Department of Scientific Research undertook the role of both participant and interpreter, and was able to clarify issues as they emerged, explain concepts that were not clear to the group and questions raised by participants. During this workshop participants were invited to indicate their expectations for their program participation. These expectations are summarised in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5. Participant expectations for the Leadership for Quality program

Project planning and management

Learn how manage a project and secure project funding (7)

Develop a project proposal (4)

Build planning capacity (2) Human research development

Improve the quality of students (2)

Build and retain human resources to revers the brain drain (2)

Human resource development

Build the capacity of lecturers

Research development Develop research skills

Improving / enhancing the quality of research (2)

Assist students and lecturers to build creative research skills

Understand research quality

- 15 -

How to improve the research program in the school

Facilitate research and development

Become part of the global research community

Develop a good research team

Develop research policy

Understand the benefit of research

Develop research knowledge in order to assist the university Leadership

To be a better leader and manager (2)

Be better able to lead people

Increase experience of leadership for quality

Understand the concept of leadership in education

Facilitate good management in education

Understanding what leadership for quality is

Be better able to take the lead

Provide strong leadership Curriculum

Modify the curriculum

The key elements of the program were introduced in the first workshop including:

• the focus on executive learning

• the function of the quality challenge

• the function of the workshop in extending participant's conceptual framework

• the function of the executive coaching process A range of learning activities was undertaken during workshops. An overview of these activities is provided in Figure 6 below:

Figure 6. Leadership for Quality program workshop activities

Activity type

Purpose Details Workshop Number

Slide presentation

To enable to participants to understand the purpose and nature of the program.

Program / session overview 1, 2, 3

Slide presentation

To introduce some of the global issues that impact on organizations

Learning requirements of the information era

2

Slide presentation

To introduce a number of alternation approached to organisational leadership

Understanding leadership 2

Slide presentation

To introduce the notion of a learning organisation and an approach to change management

Learning Organisations 2

Session review

The review content covered in previous workshops or sessions

Review of key concepts related to leadership and quality

2, 3

Group Discussion

To facilitate shared knowledge of key questions relating to the Cambodian higher education system

Group discussion of selected questions on the Cambodian Higher Education System

1

Scenario To enhance participants capacity to formulate questions to explore context and underpinning issues

KhayYam College scenario 2

Role Play To explore the importance of The Red Bead Game 3

- 16 -

understanding and working on the organisational system as a quality imperative

Action Learning

To engage participants in assisting one another to explore issues and find options for resolving identified quality challenges

Investigating on team member’s quality challenge

1, 2

Video Clip To provide an overview of the action learning process

Action Learning 2

Participants were also invited to nominate a quality challenge that could be the focus for their leadership development during the program. Coaching Visits Participants were invited to nominate times for up to two visits by the Program Coordinator for the purposes of executive coaching. Based on these preferred times, a final visit schedule was negotiated with each participant. Eventually one coaching session was negotiated with all participants, with the meetings with provincial participants being spread across a full day’s visit to their university. Prior to the coaching visits participants were invited to complete a Learning Organisation Review (LOR) to identify organisation-wide quality issues and an Executive Leadership Review (ELR) to assess personal leadership attributes. A Coaching Record, containing eleven questions associated with organisational and individual leadership, was utilised during the coaching session to guide to coaching questions. Altogether nine (9) participants hosted the coaching visits. Each visit was primarily to:

• enable the facilitator to better understand the context and environment in which participants worked

• gain a better understanding of each participating university’s history, future aspirations, programs, services, students, partnerships, resources, achievements and challenges.

• to get to know each participants better and establish a working relationship with them

• discuss issues relating to quality and leadership within their professional practice

• assist participants to prepare for their quality challenge presentation

• to meet with other staff members, including the Rector, to establish positive relationship with the university

• to gain informal feedback on the Leadership for Quality program Generally speaking, participation in all aspects of the program was high, with provincial participants making a considerable effort and commitment to travel considerable distances on at leats five occasions to attend program activities. Figure 7 below provides an overview of participant involvement in the workshop and coaching components of the program.

- 17 -

Figure 7. Participation record for the Leadership for Quality Program

Workshops Visits Presentation POSITION UNIVERSITY or DEPARTMENT W1 W2 W3

Director Department of Scientific Research

� � � � �

Deputy Head of Planning Office

Department of Scientific Research

� � � �

Deputy Head of Research Office

Department of Scientific Research

� �

Deputy Head of Administration Office

Department of Scientific Research

� � �

Vice-Rector Chea Sim University of Kamchaymear

� � � � �

Head of Department

Chea Sim University of Kamchaymear

� � � �

Vice-Rector Meanchey University � � � �

Dean of Agriculture Faculty

Meanchey University � � � � �

Head of Research Office

Royal University of Phnom Penh

�

Deputy Head of Research Office

Royal University of Phnom Penh

� � � � �

Head of Research Office

Royal University of Law and Economics

� � �

Head of Department Accounting and Management

Royal University of Law and Economics

� � �

Dean of Business Faculty

Svay Rieng University � � � � �

Head of Research Office

Svay Rieng University � � � �

Deputy Head Administration Office

University of Battambang � � � � �

Total 13 11 14 11 9

Findings A program evaluation was undertaken through systemic gathering of information (Owen & Rogers, 1999) about the planning, implementation and outcomes of the Leadership for Quality program in order to make judgements about the degree to which the program enhances the leadership capacities of participating executives (Schalock, 2001). Inman & Vernon (1997) suggest that measures to evaluate the impact of executive learning may incorporate informal and incidental learning that occurs within the workplace itself rather than in the classroom. Specifically, the research is “utilization-focused” evaluation (Patton, 1997) undertaken as a collaborative partnership with participating executives and program facilitator in order to facilitate ownership, commitment to executive education and self-directed organisational change. This evaluative approach was appropriate to the developmental needs of participants where capacity-building is a fundamental requirement for ownership and sustainability (Bost, 2006; Aguilar, 2007).

- 18 -

Workshop Evaluation Participants were invited to complete a questionnaire at the conclusion of the final (third) workshop relating to the value of the three workshops as a whole. Participants were invited to rate their degree of agreement with, on a Likert scale of 1-6, nine (9) statements relating to various aspects of the content and processes of the workshop program. They were also invited to provide written comments relating to the most important thing learned from the workshops and ways in which the workshops could be improved. Figure 8 below provide participant responses to the questionnaire. This evaluation confirmed that the workshops were valued as a shared learning activity, that they were relevant to the identification and management of quality challenges and that they were relevant to leadership development. However, there was an observation by some participants that the program needed to be more closely aligned with the real leadership and management issues being faced by university executives. Furthermore, a minority of participants indicated that the venue was inappropriate for extended workshop and that the workshop program was not long enough to consolidate the various concepts of leadership and quality presented during the program. Written responses, while strongly supporting the program in general, confirmed the issues of location and duration.

Figure 8. Leadership for Quality Workshop Evaluation

Leadership for Quality Workshop Evaluation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Relevant to leadership capacity

development

Relevant to Quality Challenge

implementation

Group sharing of knowledge

Adequate duration

Appropriate location

Relevant content

Relevant learning activities

Extended quality management knowledge

Appropriate particiant number

Evalu

ation C

rite

ria

Number of Participants

Very High

High

High medium

Low medium

Low

Very Low

- 19 -

Action Learning Evaluation Participants were invited to complete a questionnaire at the conclusion of the final (third) workshop regarding the value of the action learning activities which were a parts of the workshop program. Participants were invited to rate their degree of agreement with, on a Likert scale of 1-6, nine (9) statements relating to various aspects of the action learning process. They were also invited to provide written comments relating to the most important thing learned during the action learning activities and ways in which action learning could be improved. Figure 9 below provide participant responses to the questionnaire. It was clear from the evaluation that participants valued the opportunities to participate in problem solving activities with colleagues from other universities. The majority of participants believed the questioning and dialogue process did assist in generating options for the meeting quality challenges and that the process had enhanced their capacity to participate in the action learning process.

Figure 9. Leadership for Quality Action Learning Evaluation

Leadership for Quality Action Learning Evaluation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Clarified Quality Challenge issues

Generated alternative options for action

Enhanced questioning skills

Enhanced listening skills

Focused on the purpose

Appropriate number of group members

Meeting participation

Facilitator support

Spirit of mutual support

Evalu

atio

n C

rite

ria

Number of participants

Very High

High

High Medium

Low Medium

Low

Very Low

Coaching evaluation At the conclusion of the final presentation session participants were invited to reflect and comment of the visit made to their organization, and the potential of such visits to their leadership development. Questions posed to surface thoughts about this process were as follows:

- 20 -

• What do you believe was the purpose of the meeting with you?

• What did you gain from the visit to your organisation?

• What else could have been discussed during the visit?

• Did the visit assist you in preparing for your presentation?

• How did you do to prepare for the visit?

• How could the visit have been more productive? A semi-structured interview was also undertaken with the Director of Scientific Research. This participant had been involved in the coaching process with the Program Facilitator on a number of previous occasions spread over an eighteen month period prior to the Leadership for Quality program, and with other volunteer advisers over a longer period. This participant was able to confirm a range of benefits that had eventuated from this coaching process including the personal growth in leadership, management, communication and networking, as well as the acquisition of further resources to support the work of his department. It was clear that the value of coaching as a strategy for executive learning in Cambodian higher education could not be successfully evaluated during this program, given that a single visit only eventuated. Program evaluation A written questionnaire completed by each participant to assess the value of the program as a whole. Participants were invited to rate seventeen (17) elements of the program on a Likert Scale of 1-6, with “1” being the lowest vale and “6” being the highest. It was note that the majority of participants rated each of the statements about the program as “high” or “very high”, indicating considerable support for the value of the program. Generally, participants believed that the program had influenced their professional work by enhancing their knowledge of leadership and quality, and that they had benefited through the sharing of their knowledge and experience with other program participants. Comments provided by participants supported these questionnaire findings. For example, one participant noted “I really appreciated to workshop n this topic. As I am specialist in the field if Accounting and Finance, the workshop on Leadership for Quality brought me more experience”. Another stated “I need training with more practice to see the results of implementation of knowledge from this seminar”. One participant suggested that the program be directed towards policy implementation by noting “I really appreciated the program. However, it is a first start for all participants. It would be much better if there are more and more training about the research”. Another suggested the program include executives at a higher position level, by noting that the program “should be attended by the top managers / Presidents with their staff who are relevant to decision-making. If we all participate will know together how to face the challenge”. Issues that would need to be addressed in future programs include the need for better information prior to the commencement of the program, and more appropriate ways of addressing the language issue. Some participants indicated that having all intended content material provided beforehand would enable these to be translated into Khmer prior to the commencement of the program.

- 21 -

Figure 10 below provides the participant responses regarding the value of the program as a whole.

Figure 10. Leadership for Quality Program Evaluation

Leadership for Quality Program Evaluation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Program met expectations

Greater leadership capacity

Extended knowledge of executive leadership

Approach professional work differently

Extended knowledge of quality management

Relevant to executive role

Quality system improvement

Working with others beneficial

Continuing professional contact

Recommend the program

Conflict resolution

Language issues resolved

Program facilitator helpful

Professional presentation

Information prior to commencement

Greater confidence in executive role

Collegial support from staff

Ev

alu

ati

on

Cri

teri

a

Number of participants

Very High Agreeement

High Agreement

High medium agreement

Low Medium agreement

Low Agreement

Very Low agreement

Issues influencing the findings of the study There were a number of issues or limitations that may have impacted on the value of the program as a pilot study and the confidence that can be placed on these findings. These issues included:

- 22 -

• limited information provided to selected universities prior to the program to assist in selecting and briefing their participants about the nature of the program

• limited support for, or communication about, the program by the Department of Higher Education, except for “in principle” support from the Secretary of State and the nomination of eight universities to participants in the program

• the duration of the program being only four weeks which restricted the time for site visits and executive coaching

• limited knowledge of English by participants, and the difficulties of conceptual alignment related to the translation between English and Khmer, even though translation was available during the workshops and action learning activities

• limited number of universities, and participants, in the program

• lack of full attendance of all participate in all program activities

• no direct alignment between the program and any broader MoEYS leadership development strategy

• the workshop location not conducive to executive learning. Despite these limitations, the program did provide some indicators that need to be considered in the development and implementation of future executive development programs, resulting in the following recommendations for future executive development in Cambodian higher education. Conclusion It has been argued in this paper that, while there is a clear need to effective executive education in a variety of forms and to suit a variety of purposes, there is still limited understanding of how such executive education can lead to beneficial outcomes. The Leadership for Quality program was based on a number of executive education approaches that have emerged from this limited theoretical base. Consequently, the program had a strong evaluative component in order to both provide an executive leadership learning experience as well as contribute to the development of knowledge associated with executive education, especially as is occurs in South East Asian countries. The development of an approach to the intended Leadership for Quality program as described in this paper was, therefore, a crucial phase in relation to maximising the success of the program implementation. This phase has resulted in:

• a program approach that reflects current thinking in relation to executive education

• ‘in principle’ support from the Secretary of State for the program concept

• an understanding of the current in-country status of executive education

- 23 -

• a collaborative relationship with a host organisation

• an understanding cultural issues that might impact on executive education programs

• the identification of the existing theoretical and knowledge base for executive education to enable the program to contribute to further executive education knowledge

• commitment of participants and their sponsors to engage in the program

• the identification of critical success factors and proposed program evaluation methodologies.

Recommendations As a result of this pilot program it is recommended that:

1. the final outcomes of each participating university’s quality challenge be identified and documented during 2011 by program facilitator, as part of the program evaluation process

2. the program be run again in 2011 as part of the piloting process with a larger

group of universities with the results of the initial program built into the second program

3. that senior executives from the Ministry of Education, Youth & Sport be

informed about the outcomes of the pilot program

4. the Department of Scientific Research maintain its role as the coordinating body for any future executive development programs for public sector universities

5. the outcomes of the program be considered as an integral part of any decision

making regarding ongoing executive leadership development in Cambodian higher education

It is also recommended that during 2011:

6. the program be linked with a qualification at the Masters or Professional

Doctorate level in executive leadership

7. such a qualification be offered for up to 20 selected aspiring university leaders from the public and private higher education sectors through a university in Cambodia with the capacity to offer such a qualification

8. funding from the World Bank Higher Education Project currently being

implemented in Cambodian higher education be utilised to initiated this qualification

9. that a working party be established (led by the Department of Scientific

Research or a university nominated by the Department of Higher Education), composed of selected senior executive from at least one private university, at least one public university, the Department of Higher Education, the Australian

- 24 -

Business Volunteers and other interested parties, to write a submission for the development and implementation of the Doctoral program.

References AACSB International, (2005). Why management education matters – Its impact on

individuals, organisations and society. A Report from AACSB Task Force of the Committee on Issues in Management Education. Florida, USA: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

Acker-Hocevar, M., (1996). Conceptual models, choices, and benchmarks for

building quality work cultures, NASSP Bulletin, January, pp. 78-86. Aguilar, B. et al., (2007). Utilization-focused evaluation. Joint Capacity Building

program for partners and staff of Terres des Hommes Netherlands and Terres des Hommes Germany in South-East Asia, Jakarta, Indonesia: Terres des Hommes.

Armstrong, H., Matthews, J. and McFarlane C., (2006). Integral Coaching: a crucible

for change, Sydney: Institute of Executive Coaching. Atkinson, E. P., (1994). Developing an Educational Quality Assurance Framework.

Occasional paper No. 34. Jolimont, Victoria: Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria.

Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M., (1987). Transformational leadership, charisma and

beyond, in J. G. Hunt, et al. (eds), Emerging Leadership Vistas, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 29-49.

Avolio et al., (1991). Leading in the 1990’s: The fours I’s in Transformational

Leadership, Journal of European Industrial Training, 15 (4), pp. 9-16. Bass, B. M., (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond expectations, New York:

Free Press. Bennett, R., (1983). Management Research, Management Development Series 20,

Geneva: International Labour Office. Berry, G., (2006). An evaluation of a management development program to support

quality implementation in Papua New Guinea, Labour and Management in Development Journal, 7 (1), pp. 1-33.

Bost, J., (2006). Evaluation for Management and Development: a case study of an

Aid program in Papua New Guinea, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6 (1), pp. 13-26.

Brandt, R., (Ed.) (1992). Symposium on Transforming Leadership, Educational

Leadership, 49 (5). Buckley, F. & Monks, K., (2007). Connecting management learning with change

- 25 -

experiences: Revisiting HR manager education, Centre for Management Learning and Development, Ireland: Dublin University Business School.

Cuttance, P., (1995). A question of quality, Paper presented at the ACEA

International Conference, Sydney, 2-5 July. Delahoussaye, M., (2001). Leadership in the 21st century. Training, 38 (9), pp. 60–

67. D’Netto, B. & Bakas, F., (2005). The effectiveness of management development in

Australia, Melbourne: CEDA Chenhall, E. C. & Chermack, T. J., (2010). Models, definitions, and outcome

variables of action learning: A synthesis with implications for HRD, Journal of European Industrial Training, 34 (7), pp. 588-608.

Enemark, S., (2000). Creating a Quality Culture, in Towards Best Practice - Quality

Improvement in Nordic Higher Education Institutions, Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Ensley, M. D, Pearson, A, & Pearce, C. L., (2003). Top management team process,

shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda, Human Resource Management Review 13, pp. 329–346.

Finkelstein S. & Hambrick, D. C., (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and

their effects on organizations. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. French, W. L. & Bell, C. H., (1984). Organisational Development, Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fulmer, R. M., Gibbs, P. A., & Goldsmith, M., (2000). Developing leaders: How winning

companies keep on winning. Sloan Management Review, 42 Fall, pp. 49–59. Giglio, L., Diamante, T, & Urban, J.M. (1998). Coaching a leader: Leveraging change

at the top, Journal of Management Development, 17 (2), pp. 1-8. Hailey, J., (2006). NGO Leadership Development: A Review of the Literature - Praxis

Paper 10, Oxford, UK: International NGO Training and Research Centre. Hambrick D. C., (1981). Strategic awareness within top management teams.

Strategic Management Journal 2, pp. 263-280. Hambrick, D. C., (1994). Top management groups. a conceptual integration and

reconsideration of the `team' label. Research in Organizational Behavior 16, pp. 171-213.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: the organization as a

reflection of its top managers, Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), pp 193–206.

- 26 -

Hart, C. & Shoolbred, M., (1993). What’s in it for me? Organisational culture, rewards

and Quality, in M. Shaw & E. Roper, (eds.), Aspects of Education and Training technology, Volume XXV1-Quality in Education and Training, London: Kogan Page.

Hashmat, L., (2003). Challenges of growth and change in NGOs: Comparison of

leadership and management strategies, Labour and Management in Development, 3 (5), pp 3-30.

Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L., (2004). Leadership development: Past,

present, and future, Human Resource Planning, 27 (1), pp. 24–32. Jablonski, J. R., (1991). Implementing Total Quality Management: An Overview, San

Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company. Johnson, C., (1998). The Essential Principles of Action Learning, Journal of

Workplace Learning, 10 (6-7), pp. 296-300. Kaufman, R. and Zahn, D., (1993). Quality Management Plus: The continuous

improvement of education. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. Kirkbride, P. S., (2003). Management development: in search of a new role?, Journal of

Management Development, 22 (2), pp.171-80. Liberatore, R. L., (1993). The culture factor and quality, Quality Progress, December,

pp. 61-3. Mailick, S. A., (1998). Learning Theory in the Practice of Management Development:

Evolution and Applications, Westport: Quorum Books. Martineau, J. W., & Hannum, K. M., (2003). Evaluating the impact of leadership

development: A professional guide. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Marquardt, M., (1999). Action learning in action, Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. McGill, I & Brockbank, A, (2004). The Action Learning Handbook: Powerful

techniques for education, professional development and training (Revised Edition), UK: Routledge Falmer.

Mellum, M., (2002). Developing high performance leaders, Quality Management in

Health Care, 11 (1), pp. 55-68. Mighty, E. J. and Ashtom, W., (2002). Management development: hoax or hero?,

Journal of Management Development, 22 (1), pp.14-31. Murgatroyd, S., (1991). Strategy, structure and quality services: developing school-

wide quality improvement, School Organisation, 11 (1), pp. 1-19.

- 27 -

Nicholson, J. and Nairn, A., (2006). The manager of the 21st century – 2020 vision,

Sydney:The Boston Consulting Group. Owen, J. M and Rogers, P. J., (1999). Program Evaluation: forms and approaches

(2nd Edition), St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Paige, H., (2002). Examining the Effectiveness of Executive Coaching on Executives,

International Education Journal 3 (2), pp. 61-70 Patton, M., (1997). Utilization-focused Evaluation: the new century text, Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pfeffer, N. & Coote, A., (1991). Is Quality good for you?, Social Policy paper N. 5,

Institute of Public Policy Research. Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G., (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic

proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25, pp. 935–954.

Raelin, J., (2000). Work based learning, Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall. Raelin, J., (2006). Does action learning promote collaborative leadership. Academy

of Management Learning and education, 5 (2), pp. 252-168. Revans, R. W., (1982). The origin and growth of action learning. Brickley, UK:

Chartwell-Bratt. Revans, R., (1998). ABC of Action Learning, London: Lemon & Crane. Riley, C., (2009). Learning action learning: Action Learning in Australian MBA

programs, Gibaran Journal of Applied Management, 2, 34-61. Rothwell, W. J., (1999). The action learning guidebook: a real time strategy for

problem solving training design and employee development, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass / Pfeiffer.

Roberts, N., (1985). Transforming Leadership; A process of collective action, Human

Relations, 38, pp.1023-1046. Sallis, E., (1993). Total Quality Management in Education. London: Logan Page. Salmi, J., (2001). Tertiary Education in the 21st Century: Challenges and

Opportunities, Higher Education Management, Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management In Higher Education. 13 (2).

Schein, E., H., (1985). Organisational culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

- 28 -

Schalock, R. L., (2001). Outcome-based evaluation (2nd Edition), New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.

Scholdes, P. R, & Hacquebord, H., (1988). Six strategies for beginning the quality

transformation Part II, Quality Progress, pp. 44-88 Scott, G., (2001). The current quality agenda: Implications for the ATN, Paper

presented at the Australian Tertiary Network Conference, University of Adelaide.

Scott, G., Coates, H. & Anderson, M., (2008). Learning leaders in times of change:

Academic leadership for Australian Higher Education, Sydney: University of Western Sydney and the Australian Council for Educational Research.

Senge, P., (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organisations, Sloan

Management Review, 31 (1), pp. 7-23. Starratt, R. J., (1993). The Drama of Leadership, London: Falmer. Thomas, D. E., (2005). Top Management Team International Dominant Logic: A New

Linkage in the International Diversification-Performance Link, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2, pp. 54-63.

Thorpe, R., Taylor, M & Elliott, M., (1995). Action Learning in Academia, in M. Pedler,

Action Learning in Practice (3rd Ed.), London: Gower. Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, M. A., (1986). The Transformational Leader, New York:

Wiley. Tribus, M & Tsuda, Y., (1987). Creating the quality company, in Quality First:

Selectedpapers on Quality and Productivity, American Quality and productivity Institute and the National Society of Professional Engineers, pp. 51-66.

Van Vught, F. A & Westerheijden, D. F., (1992). Quality management and quality

assurance in European Higher education: Methods and mechanisms, Enschede, The Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente.

Vicere, A. A., (1998). Changes in practices, changes in perspectives: The 1997

International Study of Executive Development Trends, Journal of Management Development, 17 (7), pp. 526–543.

Weinstein, K., (1999). Action Learning: A practical guide (2nd Edition), Brookfield, Vt:

Gower. Yones, M., (2008). KASAC: A new paradigm for Executive Leadership, Nevada:

International Institute of Management. Young, R. and Jordan, E, (2008). Top Management support: Mantor or necessity,

International Journal of Project Management, 26 (7), pp.713-725.

- 29 -

Zafar, S., (2006). Action Learning Methodology in the SAMDI Accelerated

DevelopmentProgramme (ADP), Republic of South Africa: SA Management development Institute.

Zuber-Skerritt, O, (2002). The Concept of Action Learning, The Learning

Organisation, 9 (3), pp. 114-124.