Structural system (bureaucratic expectations)

5.8.1.1 Compliance with bureaucratic expectations of mandated role

Colleges are bureaucratic organizations: rules, regulations, procedures, and a hierarchical structure are the main elements of a school structure (Hoy & Sweetland 2001).

The functioning of a college depends on regulated instructions that are issued by the DHET in the form of policies and circulars. Furthermore, even in strategic planning, colleges are provided with templates that are used towards planning for both short- term and long-term goals. This may be viewed as a way of compliance, reducing the need for developing a strategic plan for the institution.

Principal A indicated that:

And making sure that you achieve then the government’s mandate, making sure that, because from that you derive your college’s strategic goals and objectives, approved by council etcetera, after which you, as the principal and management of the college has to ensure that those are implemented on a day-to-day like basis, management of staff and the

157

resources to make sure that it is appropriately utilised to be able to be able to achieve

Principals and their management teams are subjected to compliance rather than affording them room for creativity in their functioning. Furthermore, college principals are subjected to an unclear reporting directive from the CET Act which is exploited by the councils.

Drawing from the participants’ responses regarding the bureaucratic expectations, it became apparent that this probability is directly related to a reporting structure which is associated with the organogram, delegating duties together with their responsibilities. Respondents emphasized the frustration regarding staffing – that is, capacity that is needed to perform the functions, and also the importance of developing capacity where it is lacking. Furthermore, there is a need for SMTs to be aware of the bureaucratic expectations that arise from their responsibility of planning, control, organizing and leading. Planning and organizing resources − human, financial, and material, as well as assigning people to specific roles, contribute toward principals’ and SMTs’ lack of creativity and focus on roles and responsibilities. Therefore, with such exectations, it is noted that the system create a narrow-thinking approach to achieve the council and council expectations.

In summarising this section, it could be argued that, even though principals are aware of the compliance with legislations and policies that are applicable in the TVET sector, the department still has a long way to go before offering full autonomy to management and college councils of TVET colleges. The autonomy of colleges like universities and international colleges is worth exploring as a suitable model that the college principals and the DHET can use to improve management and strategic leadership of the TVET colleges.

5.8.1.2 External political expectations of transformation from community of more involvement in decision-making

The theme relates to external political expectations of transformation from the community to be more involved in the decision-making of the college. Principals and their SMTs must consider the needs of the community in which they operate in their decision-making.

158 Principal D indicated that:

We seem to be making progress by all with their own expectations. Now, maybe more so with us; our students are politicised quite a lot. They are coming from communities that have got expectations, post revolution expectations. Now it’s not unusual for government to try as much as they can- if they do try- but to perceived not to be doing enough with at least some of the expectations

Mgijima (2014) indicates that colleges were given greater autonomy and more functions were devolved. According to Gewer (2010:24), “Today, many colleges are still struggling with the challenges associated with multi-campus management, with varying management capacity across campuses and unequal resources”.

According to JET (2016:24), while the sector initially followed a trend towards increased autonomy and market-led delivery, it was indisputable that such an approach would inevitably conflict with the government’s agenda of redress, access, and equity. As a result, government, at various points, sought to direct and drive transformation centrally in the absence of a longer-term strategy, and this created mixed messages as to the policy trajectory for colleges (Badenhorst & Radile, 2018). Furthermore, JET (2016:31) states that the promulgation of this Act implied a blanket move towards institutional autonomy, which was an important shift from the rhetoric in the FET White Paper. The White Paper had suggested a more developmental approach towards autonomy, based on the capacity and resources of the colleges.

It was noted in the literature review that, while the intention of the Act is to increase the autonomy of the colleges, the implementation of the Act further exposed the weak capacity of colleges to govern themselves. It was remarkable that majority of the respondents who took part in this study were aware of the need for a sound organogram that would support the autonomy of colleges.

Since employees at colleges are emloyees of the DHET, it is suggested that the DHET should generate an approved organisational structure to TVET college and leave college principals to decide who is placed where. A clear distinction of responsiblities will contribute the processes and practices that will ensure effective management and strategic leadership in the TVET sector. Futhermore, such a clear distinction of roles and responsibilities that the organogram outline will assist college principals to

159

successfully overcome challeges that are related to managing and strategic leadership odf the multi-campus.

5.8.1.3 Shared accountability

In this theme, only one deputy principal indicated the risk of a bureaucratic approach and the need to assign people to different roles.

Principal D highlighted the need provided by management teams:

But you’ve got to keep your head on all of those levers. You would have people for example that could be deputy principals, principals, campus managers, other people working, but you need to find a way of touching it all without offending these people. You must have a way where you touch it all without being seemed to be micro managing but if you don’t touch it all ...

According to Mgijima (2014), the principal and deputy principals constitute the college SMT. Therefore, when the SMT meets with campus and programme managers, including Heads of Departments, they form the Broad Management Team (BMT). Organizationally, therefore, management of college operations is a shared or distributed responsibility. However, the principal remains accountable for results regarding all business processes, including academic and financial administration, personnel, and asset management.

Senge (1990a) provides a conceptual framework for linking individuals to organizational learning, highlighting as the basis progression from the individual to group-oriented practices underpinned by a shared vision and team learning as the frame.

The views of the participants agreed with the literature review, however, they emphasised the role of the principal as the accounting officer who could not depart from rules and regulations of the mandate. The CET Act does not provide a clear description of the roles and responsibilities of college principlas as well as those of the deputy principal. As a result, all participants indicated that the day-to-day operations of colleges is they key responsibility of principals. However, the respondents as well as the CET Act does not emphasize the principals’ role as accounting officers.

160

It is noted that the roles and responbilities of deputy principals are in line with those of the principal. Deputy Principals are appointed due to a specific skills in order to assist principals to fullfill their responsibilities. It is worth mentioning that even though the responsibilities of deputy principals is delegated by the principlas due to their skills, the accountability to effectively provide management and strategic leadership remail of the principal.

5.8.1.4 Strengthening internal expectations of stakeholders

The purpose of this theme was to explore capacity required by the SMT of the TVET college to fulfil the mandate of the DHET.

According to the CET Act (RSA 2006a), colleges make the rules for colleges.

Deputy Principal C indicated that:

An additional challenge relates to implementation and monitoring of such policy implementation. The CET Act of 2006, the council is responsible for the development of policies at TVET colleges. It the perception of the respondents that there is a lack of monitorin of policy implementation.

Institutional polices provide a clear processes and practices for the TVET sector and therefore are deemed necessary for effective management and strategic leadership in the TVET sector. The strengthening of the internal exectations of stakeholders require clear rules and regulations. Principals are faced with multiple stakeholders that include trade unions and students formations, therefore requires a clear process and procedures so that there should consistency in the decision-making that relates to the day-to-day operations.